Dragon Age RPG review

[migo]

Good review, I had pretty much similar sentiments on reading it. A couple quibbles about your quibbles though. Of course your points are valid, but if you dig a bit deeper you can find some reasonable solutions.

As far as random character creation goes, it does say no player should be forced to play a character he's unhappy with, and should be able to retire his character and create a new one at the same level. So basically, take the rolls you get to start, play, learn the game, then if it really doesn't suit you, make a new character. It even says make it at the same level - so get through to level 2, retire, make a new character and it comes in at level 2. You're not penalised for it at all.

About what a suitable encounter is, you're right it was absent, but you can draw that out of the sample adventure and how XP is awarded. An easy encounter is 100XP, an average one is 200XP and a hard one is 300XP - this is more based on the outcome, so if the players roll well then it might be just 100XP, and bad luck with a supposedly easy encounter would bring 300XP. That in itself gives the GM more flexibility for designing an appropriate encounter. There's also the thing from the adventure of having PCs + 1 adversaries or PCs x 2 adversaries. You scale it that way - and if it's a particularly easy or difficult encounter based on the adversaries chosen, you go back to the XP that's handed out. In the section of GMing styles, it also touches on this with the adversarial style in terms of giving the players the option to run if something is too dangerous.

I had to draw from 3 points in the book to offer a solution, so especially for new GMs that might be a real problem, but it's also likely that with some work and reading through they'd come up with a good solution.

I also felt having the discussion of responsibilities and dealing with problems up front was appropriate, although I also agree that it was a bit overwhelming. It's important for the GMs to read that. If they miss the rules section, but at least get the good advice up front things won't crash and burn. If on the other hand they half ass it and only read the rules because that's up front, it could be a lot more serious.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Combat does not always take up so large a space so I cannot agree with your any system theory.

Just rolling a die for interacting with other people is boring. Turning that into a series of complex rolls will just get more boring. I don't see that being dependent on the sex of the player at all.

As far as being creepy and inappropriate goes, there are no rules that mitigate this in any way. If there is a genuine creepy person at the table then he/she will find a way to make that known to others and will not need any rules to help with that.

I read somewhere an interesting definition, apparantly from Sid Meyer.
"A game is a series of interesting decisions"*.

And that's what a good complex combat systems provide. Sure, it also involves a lot of dice rolling, but each turn, you make important decisions that have an effect on the outcome. That's also why games with imbalances are often seen as problematic - the decisions become less interesting if there is a default answer, e.g. an answer that's always better. "Use the solve [problem]spell for [problem]".

So when we are talking about a decent social relationship mechanic, it is not just about dice rolling. It is about making interesting choices, and presenting them mechanically.

Roleplaying games have such even outside mechanics. Decisions like: "Do we deal with the orphanage first or focus on the orc raiders?" or "Do we try to find more allies or rather act now before it is too late"?


*This might only apply to a a subset of games, but I would say RPGs belongs to this subset.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I read somewhere an interesting definition, apparantly from Sid Meyer.
"A game is a series of interesting decisions"*.

And that's what a good complex combat systems provide. Sure, it also involves a lot of dice rolling, but each turn, you make important decisions that have an effect on the outcome. That's also why games with imbalances are often seen as problematic - the decisions become less interesting if there is a default answer, e.g. an answer that's always better. "Use the solve [problem]spell for [problem]".

So when we are talking about a decent social relationship mechanic, it is not just about dice rolling. It is about making interesting choices, and presenting them mechanically.

Roleplaying games have such even outside mechanics. Decisions like: "Do we deal with the orphanage first or focus on the orc raiders?" or "Do we try to find more allies or rather act now before it is too late"?


*This might only apply to a a subset of games, but I would say RPGs belongs to this subset.

Social interaction in an rpg is most satisfying (to me) when done through dialogue. I am not against a die roll here and there when trying to accomplish something specific but I would rather have the dice tacked on to the conversation than follow a precise dice ritual with the conversation tacked on, if that makes sense.

 

[Bluenose]

Social interaction in an rpg is most satisfying (to me) when done through dialogue. I am not against a die roll here and there when trying to accomplish something specific but I would rather have the dice tacked on to the conversation than follow a precise dice ritual with the conversation tacked on, if that makes sense.

I am of the opinion that if you're going to roll dice at all for a social interaction then you should roll them first and base the conversation on the result of that. If people get a good roll they can try and make a speech which goes for more than they originally thought they could get or give a normal steady speech. If they roll low they can either try for something awesome to persuade me anyway or give a speech where they can earn some xp by putting in something to ruin the chance of success but which amuses everyone. That last has led to some fairly spectacular moments and a couple of group catchphrases.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Social interaction in an rpg is most satisfying (to me) when done through dialogue. I am not against a die roll here and there when trying to accomplish something specific but I would rather have the dice tacked on to the conversation than follow a precise dice ritual with the conversation tacked on, if that makes sense.

Yes, it makes sense to me. I wouldn't take this as meaning it's impossible to create a mechanical framework for that, though.

Essentially, the players choice of topics to discuss with an NPC and maybe even his precise wording can allow you to determine a "fair" DC for any related check using the system. The system could also be used to manage and guide the development of the relationship. (Essentially, the simple X success before Y failures in 4E skill challenges do this).

The "horror" scenario for mechanical approaches to social conflicts is typically the: "I roll diplomacy". That is pretty much like saying "I roll attack." The latter doesn't really work. At a minimum, you have to state your target, and often stuff like positioning, weapon used, goal of the attack (injury, target zone, condition changes) or similar specifics are required. And so, you also need to provide specifics for a diplomacy attempt. The problem seems to be that people have a hard time "visualizing" this in a social scenario, while it's pretty easy in combat scenarios.

But I think we're moving far off-topic, though I think this might be an interesting topic for another thread.

 

[vagabundo]

I
Yet the world is filled with billions of individuals, and any particular gamer, male or female, will have varying tastes. I will propose that the tabletop RPG business has a pretty poor record of attracting females. The video game industry has done better over the last 15 years because they make a variety of games that many women find appealing. According to one article many women enjoy:

"Studies and sales data have shown that women are more likely to play hand-held casual games, such as the Nintendo DS, along with social oriented games such as "The Sims," where women make up more than 55 percent of players."

Wooing women gamers -- and game creators - CNN.com

!

I wouldn't use The Sim as a example of building social relationships, most women I've seen playing it usually end up torturing the poor simulated people to death. Just IME anyway.