Tell me about Dragon Age

[MortonStromgal]

The RPG reminds me a lot of a lite version of True20 with 3d6 and making interesting mechanics with the 3d6 based on pairs. Its not very crunchy but very enjoyable, especially when GMs let you make up stunts.

 

[TheYeti1775]

I almost picked it up at the game store last night when I saw because I liked the Computer Game so much. I have DAI / DA:Orgins / DA2 on the XBOX360.

 

[deinol]

I ran a one-shot using the Freeport backgrounds supplied in Kobold Quarterly #13 (by Chris Pramas himself.) I ran a quick conversion of Death in Freeport, and it was very easy to do. I found it nice that only a few thugs could really threaten the group. The stunt mechanic lets you do a variety of cool things in combat. They are like a lesser critical hit that happens more often (I think someone calculated the odds to be around 20% of the time.)

If you are looking for a rules-light or introductory RPG, Dragon Age is pretty good. For its price it packs a lot in. I definitely recommend people check it out. Slightly less than 200 pages for $30 is a great deal. They stock it places like Borders so if you wait for a good coupon it can be even cheaper. I'm looking forward to Set 2's release.

 

[LeStryfe79]

I disagree. If you're looking for 3e or 4e rules heft, PnP DA is not the game for you.

If you're looking for something more similar to Basic D&D, Tunnels & Trolls, or Star Frontiers, PnP DA should be right up your alley.

As someone who has grown weary of games with 600+ pages of core rules, I found PnP DA to be a breath of fresh air.

How many games did you run? I wasn't talking about rules in my previous post, I'm instead referring to a lack of lore, creatures, races, spells, ect...

Also, there is something called ad&d which falls inbetween your examples.

 

[deinol]

How many games did you run? I wasn't talking about rules in my previous post, I'm instead referring to a lack of lore, creatures, races, spells, ect...

Also, there is something called ad&d which falls inbetween your examples.

I agree that Dragon Age RPG in the Dragon Age world is rather sparse. But, as a system, AGE can easily be adapted to other worlds. It is now my system of choice for Freeport adventures. I could easily see it used for Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk or any of the other game worlds that already have a lot of lore.

Open Design's new Midgard Campaign Setting project will have a Dragon Age appendix. It's still about a year away from the final public release, but patrons have already been busy converting existing monsters from previous Zobeck books into AGE.

 

[Glade Riven]

My wife and I didn't encounter any particular bugs in the PC version and she's played something like 20 characters all the way through.

My guess is that you have an intel processor. The first Dragon Age game had a lot of issues that seemed to be traced back to having an AMD processor as oppose to an Intel.

 

[Banshee16]

My guess is that you have an intel processor. The first Dragon Age game had a lot of issues that seemed to be traced back to having an AMD processor as oppose to an Intel.

I've got an AMD and played about five characters in the original game and never had any problems.

Banshee

 

[Upper_Krust]

I think the lack of variety in creatures is due to the single sourcing of the largest group of villians. That did not bother me as much. Map recycling did get a bit noticeable, though.

The Darkspawn in the first game somewhat outstayed their welcome, primarily because there were so few variations of them.

Genlock = Goblin
Hurlock = Orc
Shriek = Ettercap
Ogre = Minotaur

Lieutenant versions of each (Alpha's), Minion, Wizard (Emissaries) and Archer versions of the Genlock and Hurlock.

So the full list was something like:

Goblin Minion
Goblin
Goblin Assassin (shows up about twice in the game)
Goblin Leader
Goblin Wizard

Orc Minion
Orc
Orc Leader
Orc Wizard

Ettercap
Ettercap Leader

Ogre (shows up about 5-6 times in the game)
Ogre Leader (shows up once in the game)

Now the above 13 monsters would probably make for a half decent Dungeon. But the key factor is that the above monsters are used in approximately 200-250 encounters throughout the game. Fully 40-45% of the game is spent fighting the above monsters.

To make matters worse, the Genlocks and Hurlocks are only different cosmetically and they are the VAST majority of fights.

So in about 200 encounters you will face something like this:

4 Goblin/Orc Warriors
4 Goblin/Orc Archers
1 Goblin/Orc Leader (75%) OR Wizard (25%)

Can you imagine a D&D Adventure where you fight the same battle TWICE let alone 200 times!?

So when I say lack of variety MASSIVELY hurts Dragon Age its an understatement.

Incidently, anyone thinking Bioware learnt their lessons and improved variety in the sequel should cast that notion aside because I can report the sequel has FAR LESS variety than the first game! I kid you not. A game roundly criticised for variety and the developer's bright idea was to cut the monster variety by about 35%.

In the second game get ready for about 350 battles against groups of Human opponents! Thats right, they should have renamed it the Human Age, because you will face hours upon hours of battling the same human enemies in exactly the same drab brown (re-used) environments.

 

[Votan]

So when I say lack of variety MASSIVELY hurts Dragon Age its an understatement.

Incidently, anyone thinking Bioware learnt their lessons and improved variety in the sequel should cast that notion aside because I can report the sequel has FAR LESS variety than the first game! I kid you not. A game roundly criticised for variety and the developer's bright idea was to cut the monster variety by about 35%.

In the second game get ready for about 350 battles against groups of Human opponents! Thats right, they should have renamed it the Human Age, because you will face hours upon hours of battling the same human enemies in exactly the same drab brown (re-used) environments.

I will be honest and say that I did not mind the lack of variety in creatures in DA1 as I think they made up for it with atmosphere. Effects like the cool deep road maps and the great music did a lot to make the atmosphere work. The unique Fereldan cutlure (especially the dogs) and the celtic motif made the setting memorable (and the character being a Grey Warden made the opposition more reasonable).

So I am prepared to say that, given the nature of the game, that I was mostly okay with the variety. Plus it made the unusual monsters (like reverents, demons, or dragons really stand out). I can see how it could annoy some players but I liked it.

But you have DA2 dead to rights. If you are going to use atmosphere to make up for the lack of opponents (think of the cool Dwarven Thaigs and the way each location was different) that is one thing. But when they reduced the variety of enemies, made the locations a lot more generic and made the tough monsters (especially demons) weak and common . . .

Well, it was not a good design decision, in my opinion. Because it removed the part of the previous game that compensated for the lack of monster variety.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Votan!

I will be honest and say that I did not mind the lack of variety in creatures in DA1 as I think they made up for it with atmosphere. Effects like the cool deep road maps and the great music did a lot to make the atmosphere work. The unique Fereldan cutlure (especially the dogs) and the celtic motif made the setting memorable (and the character being a Grey Warden made the opposition more reasonable).

Certainly it was an interesting and engaging story/setting, but its enemies are noticeably samey and boring.

So I am prepared to say that, given the nature of the game, that I was mostly okay with the variety. Plus it made the unusual monsters (like reverents, demons, or dragons really stand out). I can see how it could annoy some players but I liked it.

For the most part though, even these monsters did exactly the same thing ALL the others did, with one or two exceptions.

But you have DA2 dead to rights. If you are going to use atmosphere to make up for the lack of opponents (think of the cool Dwarven Thaigs and the way each location was different) that is one thing. But when they reduced the variety of enemies, made the locations a lot more generic and made the tough monsters (especially demons) weak and common . . .

Certainly they made few changes for the better.

Graphically also the game just plain looks terrible. Even the design of the monsters they have is really poor. Last week I just happened to chance upon some Guild Wars 2 youtube clips and compared to Dragon Age 2 it looks a generation (as in a gaming platform generation of 5-6 years) ahead of it graphically, and the design of the creatures looks fantastic, whereas in Dragon Age most look pretty drab.

Well, it was not a good design decision, in my opinion. Because it removed the part of the previous game that compensated for the lack of monster variety.

Shouldn't have been a lack of monster variety to begin with, it just shows a lack of imagination. Even had a lot of the monsters been palette swopped versions of existing monsters then I might not have minded, but just far too samey.

I think Origins had maybe 25 non-humanoid enemies, some with variants in class (for humanoid enemies - which were themselves all basically the same).

By contrast a typical Final Fantasy game has about 75 different creature models with 3-4 variants of almost each monster.

Dragon Age 2 has 19 non-humanoid character models (and about 5-6 of those you only get to meet once!).