Dragon Age RPG - How is It?

[Aus_Snow]

That's a great way to turn off beginners.

In theory, that appears to make some kind of sense. Or at least to sound reasonable.

But I have never observed such a phenomenon in real life. Quite to the contrary, as it happens.

Heh. Some will argue (and who knows, they might even be right) that such 'helpful' systems can act as a disincentive for GMs eyeballing system elements, such as monsters or other opposition, resulting in poorer GMs.


But regardless of whether that is true. . .

The "difficulty system" for a game needn't be rigid, and it needn't be detailed. But it must exist, if you want new DMs/GMs/WhateverMs to feel comfortable putting together encounters.

No. Again, I have observed that this is untrue, IRL. ymmv, natch.

But I firmly believe that for a game to completely lack such a guideline, even if only in the form of advice/pointers, is a mark against it, even if the game is otherwise fantastic in nearly all respects.

And I firmly believe that any RPG that is worthy of such a designation is so open-ended a game as to render such 'guidelines' all but useless. At best.

 

[dm4hire]

Having read both books and playing the CRPG I'd have to say the monsters are spot on. What people are missing is that the game is set up just like the CRPG in that characters from 1-5 could face any of those monsters in their adventure. I agree some balance would be nice, such as suggested number of each for a given encounter situation, but their inclusion in the 1-5 book is suppose to fill that purpose. Just as in the CRPG the game really stresses tactics versus just running in half cocked and expecting to overwhelm whatever you see there.

 

[S'mon]

"The "difficulty system" for a game needn't be rigid, and it needn't be detailed. But it must exist, if you want new DMs/GMs/WhateverMs to feel comfortable putting together encounters" can be disproved pretty easily by pointing at Call of Cthulu. But there are plenty of other games where you don't need one - Traveller comes to mind; also Cyberpunk 2020.

There is a subset of games where encounter design metrics are very useful. If the game is combat based - the PCs are expected to fight and kill things to advance (D&D, all editions). If the game is linear - the PCs must kill things to progress the adventure (the default 3e-4e design, not so much 0e-1e's approach, where avoidance was often the best tactic). If the game is non-simulationist, more Gamist games where packs of starving wolves decide to attack heavily armed adventurers need a metric more than games where combat only occurs as a natural result of the simulated world-matrix.

So, yes, Dragon Age looks like the kind of game where an encounter design matrix would be useful. Another game I've played a lot of that would have benefitted from this was Star Wars d6 - Star Wars characters are expected to get into, and survive, a lot of combats, as well as knowing when to run away. Other games that fit this mold include Savage Worlds, Dragon Warriors (which has a Rank system), and I think Boot Hill and other Western games where PCs are expected to act like cowboy gunslingers with an honor code derived from Celtic warrior traditions - a code that may require walking out to face a threat the player would rather avoid.

Conversely, games I've run/played where I don't think such is at all necessary include Traveller: The New Era and Call of Cthulu. Other strong candidates include Classic Traveller and Cyberpunk: 2020. In these games either combat is A Bad Idea (CoC), or the players/PCs are expected to use real-world threat assessment techniques and gain every possible advntage before entering into combat (Traveller, Cyberpunk). In both sorts of games the GM should not be hitting the PCs with implausible Random Encounters.

 

[Somebloke]

The idea of a Core set that covers a first quarter of a projected campaign series and fails to include the campaign's iconic hero class is a massive turnoff right there. While the setting intrigues me I think 4e D&D will work just as well.

 

[Nork]

Personally, I always find the general argument of: but if we included a difficulty rating system, it would just make people lose the ability to think for themselves, and rating systems are not perfect so you can't rely on them, to be an excuse.

I find it an excuse because I consider the following logic to be the same, and to be an excuse: We didn't proof-read our work, because if we proof-read our work, then players would just assume that great swords doing 20d20 damage is intended and won't question it when all the other two handed weapons do damage similar to a 1d20. We all know proof-readers make mistakes, and therefore those mistakes that slips through would have an air of officialness. The better solution is to not catch any mistakes and rely on the users to figure out what we really meant.

No product or work is totally perfect. No product or work ever will be. Any rating system will suffer from that imperfection, just like the rest of the work will suffer from it. The logical conclusion isn't to not even try.

Also, if you are assuming that your users are incompetent to the point that if they are presented with a rating system that they won't be able to use any common sense, then why on earth do you think these very same people would be capable of eyeballing a stat block and designing reasonable encounters? That makes no sense.


Now, I agree, if a system is such where combat is supposed to be a really bad and dangerous activity to engage in and should be avoided at all costs, then yes, not having a metric is acceptable enough. Although, I don't see how having some sort of rating system with an accompanying "combat is baaaad" guideline would hurt those systems either.

 

[Sadrik]

Most of the games outside of D&D have no metric, I don't have a problem. I have been playing RPGs for 20+ years though. Then again I cannot see a newbie GM thowing in 20 copies of the toughest monster in the book. If the newbie does... hopefully their players run away. I say who is to determine what is fun for newbies? I mean, when I first played we were killing gods at level 4. I say if the system is simple (and it sounds like it is) anyone should be able to eyeball it. If the fights are too tough, the party should run and regroup, if they become too easy the GM should ramp them up.

The major problem with metrics is that they do not and cannot take into acount the effectiveness of the party or the situation. Even a skilled GM can run into problems with this. Examples: one or more players role-plays their character inefficently, one or more players designed their character inefficiently, the party is missing essential elements, the party is under poor circumstances. There are a tremendous number of factors here. The designers eyeball monsters and assign them values for how tough, in many cases I agree but in some I think I could have dome a better job.

Bottom line is a metric is not necissary but can be helpful I suppose.

 

[Mouseferatu]

S'mon, you are correct that I should have clarified that I was referring to a specific subset/type of RPGs. Sure, Call of Cthulhu and the like--games where you aren't intended to fight most of the enemies straight up--don't require such a system.

But I stand by my assessment as regards the overall topic, since yeah, D&D and Dragon Age--heck, most fantasy RPGs--do fall into that category.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Having now read the section, it doesn't even say 'about one monster per PC should be a good challenge' or anything. there is literally no guidance. As one of the things Chris Pramas said he was oping to do was bring new players in (via the leverage of a great PC RPG); that is a bit poor. It has great sections on basic do's and dont's for new DMs, but NOTHING on how to make your own combat encounter.

IMO a combat focused game like this should have some guidance. Inexperienced DMs may feel lost, I am very experienced and I like to have some idea. Even if it is just a paragraph on it.

 

[arscott]

Every time I've GMed a Cthulhu adventure (though I use Trail of, rather than Call of), I've found myself wishing for a better threat assessment mechanic. It kinda sucks when I try to through my players against "will drive you insane and eat you, unless you flee now" monsters, only to see the party take them out with a rusty spoon.

 

[S'mon]

S'mon, you are correct that I should have clarified that I was referring to a specific subset/type of RPGs. Sure, Call of Cthulhu and the like--games where you aren't intended to fight most of the enemies straight up--don't require such a system.

But I stand by my assessment as regards the overall topic, since yeah, D&D and Dragon Age--heck, most fantasy RPGs--do fall into that category.

I think we're entirely in agreement then Ari.

Re another's comment above that even Combat is Bad Idea games should/could still have a metric, I do think there is a potential downside in that the GM may tend to ignore the admonition and turn the game into a combat game, a bit like what apparently happened in most Vampire: The Masquerade games. It's not the worst thing in the world if GMs ignore designer's intent; but from the designer's POV I can definitely see an upside to not include a level/rank/challenge metric in some games.