I would be more interested if they would do Dragon Age the same way they redid Freeport, putting out system-neutral source books with companion books for several different gaming systems. Then maybe we could have a Pathfinder Companion for the Dragon Age world. I also wonder how well a Pathfinder Companion for Freeport would sell, even though there already is a d20/3rd Era guide and there are not huge changes from 3.5 to PFRPG.
|
I would be more interested if they would do Dragon Age the same way they redid Freeport, putting out system-neutral source books with companion books for several different gaming systems. Then maybe we could have a Pathfinder Companion for the Dragon Age world. I also wonder how well a Pathfinder Companion for Freeport would sell, even though there already is a d20/3rd Era guide and there are not huge changes from 3.5 to PFRPG.
I think they might aim at a "new crowd" , at players who know roleplaying games only from their computers. I don't think that system neutral books would do much good to get them to play. I just hope they do it right, by presenting a system that shows the possibilities of a p&p roleplaying game that no computer can offer, rather then emulating the computer rpg experience with the p&p rules.
|
It's getting harder and harder for me to get interested in fantasy rpgs. With so many on the market right now Dragon Age would have to be pretty different and spectaculzr for me to purchase. It has to ffer other things that I cannot do with the current fantasy rpg. At the very least different clasaes and races. Not jut renaming the races and classess in D&D with different fluff text. I am also not sold on the skill mechanic either. Seems a little to wonky for my tastes. Not to mention what is the point of a designer blog if you already finished the game and it's awaiting apporval. If their is something that is needs to be changed in the game it will not be. I thought the whole point of telling fans about a game during the design process was to get feedback no it seems kind of pointless to me.
I would be more interested if they would do Dragon Age the same way they redid Freeport, putting out system-neutral source books with companion books for several different gaming systems. Then maybe we could have a Pathfinder Companion for the Dragon Age world. I also wonder how well a Pathfinder Companion for Freeport would sell, even though there already is a d20/3rd Era guide and there are not huge changes from 3.5 to PFRPG.I think they might aim at a "new crowd" , at players who know roleplaying games only from their computers. I don't think that system neutral books would do much good to get them to play. I just hope they do it right, by presenting a system that shows the possibilities of a p&p roleplaying game that no computer can offer, rather then emulating the computer rpg experience with the p&p rules.
That would be nice to see done. After all, if I wanted to play a p&p rpg that feels or plays like a video game or mmo, which I don't, then I will go and play D&D 4th Ed.
Man, people need to read up before they start complaining about making an "MMO tabletop game".
First, Dragon Age is single-player only. It's not even Multiplayer, let alone Massively Multiplayer.
Second, Dragon Age was designed specifically to take advantage of the fact that you can do some things on a computer that you can't do in a tabletop game. In other words, they already know you can't replicate a video game in a tabletop game.
That being said, that Level Of Success rule sounds ass-backwards. Mathematically, the better your bonus, the more likely you are to only marginally succeed, and the worse your bonus, the more likely you are to get a major success. That's just silly.
I think they might aim at a "new crowd" , at players who know roleplaying games only from their computers. I don't think that system neutral books would do much good to get them to play.
I agree with this line of thought; I think that they will make Dragon Age a 'one stop shopping' boxed set that will have everything the player needs in it. Depending on the success of the 'basic edition' there will be expansions. I don't see GR creating many source books for Dragon Age outside of an atlas.
But, what do I know?! =P
|
|
I think they might aim at a "new crowd" , at players who know roleplaying games only from their computers. I don't think that system neutral books would do much good to get them to play.I agree with this line of thought; I think that they will make Dragon Age a 'one stop shopping' boxed set that will have everything the player needs in it. Depending on the success of the 'basic edition' there will be expansions. I don't see GR creating many source books for Dragon Age outside of an atlas.
But, what do I know?! =P
I've read, that the initial box set will provide rules for beginning characters, and that an expert set will provide rules for higher level play, though I don't know if they still plan to do it this way.
My question: Is the pen 'n' paper version the same underlying engine as the video game (i.e. does the video game use the 3d6 + dragon die system)? And if not, then what's the point of releasing a mostly unrelated game system?
|
I still do not understand the point of a designers blog at this point. If the gmae is finshed and handed in nothing the fanbase say will alter anything. So what is the point? Almost seems like they wanted to hear no feedback until after the fact so to speak.
The design diary is to show how certain mechanics work and why they this way and not another.
The design diary is not to generate feedback in the way of an open playtest.
The skill system relies on foci off of attribute. A focus adds +2 to your roll. This is very similar to the Talents from Classic Marvel Superheroes where having a Talent increased your effective attribute by one step, possibly two steps if you specialized. That was the end of it.
I dislike this skill system for its very limited range of training. I dont think a skill system needs many levels (5 at the least), but it definitely needs more than untrained-trained that you get from the described Focus system.
Remember that this is a game to draw in New Gamers. Compared to D&D 3rd or PFRPG and even 4th the rules are very simple.
Also remember that this is the First of 3 or more boxes. We may well see additional "Expert" rule additions later on that allow for further specialisation.The level of success is based on the Dragon Die, which is one of the three d6 you roll. From the description it does not matter how much you beat your target number. The die total simply gives you pass/fail. The level of success is determined by the number on the single Dragon Die (1 is barely succeed and 6 is a phenomenal success).
I was the GM for playtesting Dragon Age. My group and me had a lot of fun, as this is a new twist to the old "skill check mechanic". It adds some uncertainty.
My issue with this is that it means that attribute and skill have minimal impact on the level of success you achieve. This is extremely counter-intuitive to me.
Remember that you still have to beat the target number of the test first. If the GM sets a high number, good attributes and skill focus will help much. Do the math: 3d6 = 10.5 on average. A good attribute, say a +3 and a skill focus +2 will add about 50% to your chance of success (15.5 on average).
It would be like rolling a total of 30 on a dice pool in West End Games D6 only to be told that since out of 8 dice your "Dragon Die" was a 1 that you barely succeded even though your target number 6. Meanwhile, someone with only 2 dice rolls a total of 7 but since their "Dragon Die" was a 6 they have a phenomenal success.
Remember it is only ever 3d6 you roll and the dragon die is one of these dice.
An example of ho it works:
So, if a Rogue with Dex +3 and Skill Focus +2 or a Fighter with Dex +0 and no skill focus try to sneak past a guard in an open room. Lets say both wear light armor.
They both have to first beat the target number.
Lets say it is a 16.
The Rogue will succeed at just about 1/2 of his tries while the Fighter only has a 1/6 chance.
Lets say both succeed.
The rogue has a 2 on his Dragon die and the Fighter has a 6.
Now comes the interpretation of the results:
The GM decides that the rogue sneaks skillfully past the guard without breaking into sweat. He did it countless times before anyway.
But for the Fighter it is something new and he uses all his cunning and dexterity to succeed. But he wants to do it fast, so he can move at full speed instead of 1/2 speed.
|
|
The design diary is to show how certain mechanics work and why they this way and not another.The design diary is not to generate feedback in the way of an open playtest.
Why not show it when they were writing up the gsme. I understand it's to showcase the game yet I somehow feel disspaointed. I guess Paizo open playtest may have spoiled me in that regard.
Remember that this is a game to draw in New Gamers. Compared to D&D 3rd or PFRPG and even 4th the rules are very simple.
Also remember that this is the First of 3 or more boxes. We may well see additional "Expert" rule additions later on that allow for further specialisation.
Interesting. I guess the days of complete games are slowly going away. With the 4E model looking like it's successful and with Warhammer Fantasy 3E following suit I wonder if more and more companies will do that with newer gamers and/or editions. I do wish them the best of luck though. Imo it's a very tough market for fantasy rpgs with newer gamers going for 4E more than anything else. I may get Dragon Age if it offers something new.
|
|
Why not show it when they were writing up the gsme. I understand it's to showcase the game yet I somehow feel disspaointed. I guess Paizo open playtest may have spoiled me in that regard.
Paizo did not create a new game, but used the OGL to modify an existing game.
GR created a new game. As it is rules-light, you could simply print out the playtest notes and need not buy the book.Lastly, and that is pure speculation, I think that GR has a much smaller sales estimation for Dragon Age than Paizo has for PFRPG.
[
Interesting. I guess the days of complete games are slowly going away. With the 4E model looking like it's successful and with Warhammer Fantasy 3E following suit I wonder if more and more companies will do that with newer gamers and/or editions. I do wish them the best of luck though. Imo it's a very tough market for fantasy rpgs with newer gamers going for 4E more than anything else. I may get Dragon Age if it offers something new.
This is the BECM business model.
The game in itself is complete with everything you need for the first few levels. The "Expert Set" or whatever it will be called, will update the game for following Levels. The "Companion" for even higher Levels etc.There are a few features that set Dragon Age apart from 4th edition
- It has much simpler rules. So it is much easier to break into the game even.
- It uses a default world that is defined through the computer game. So players of the Computer game will know what to expect.
I don't know if that is enough, but I wish GR a big success with it. The more new players we gte, the better.
This is the BECM business model.
Even though I buy everything for a game I like, I really don't like that model.
I prefer the Core book + accessory model, where the accessories may enhance play, but are not necessary.
Tharen, personally I dislike that the level of success is so varied by being based on a random die and not even really connected to the attribute-focus. That alone may be enough cause for me to not buy the game.
I wouldn't mind it, as long as (a) the video game works the same way and (b) the video game is fun.
I haven't bought either of the games yet, so I can't comment one way or another on that issue.
I wouldn't mind it, as long as (a) the video game works the same way
This makes no sense whatsoever. The video game was made explicitly to take advantage of the fact that computers can handle rules that you could never expect a flesh-and-blood DM to handle. Furthermore, what bearing does how the video game works have on whether you'd buy the tabletop game? I can certainly understand not buying the tabletop game because you don't like how the mechanics sound (that's what I'm doing ... or not doing ... or whatever), but Dragon Age: Origins has no bearing on that other than the brand recognition. It's the same reason I won't buy Rolemaster.
I wouldn't mind it, as long as (a) the video game works the same wayThis makes no sense whatsoever. The video game was made explicitly to take advantage of the fact that computers can handle rules that you could never expect a flesh-and-blood DM to handle.
That may well be true; where did you read that?
Note that it's not true for other BioWare games like Baldur's Gate or Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, so it's hardly a given.
Furthermore, what bearing does how the video game works have on whether you'd buy the tabletop game?
If I were buying a tabletop RPG based on Mass Effect (which I have played), I'd be disappointed if it were just a re-skinned version of Traveller. The Traveller rules are very different from the Mass Effect, and I doubt it would have the same "feel" to it. So what would be the point of buying a new RPG based on a well-liked video game if it didn't preserve the feel of the source material?
That may well be true; where did you read that?
Note that it's not true for other BioWare games like Baldur's Gate or Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, so it's hardly a given.
You know why Bioware sublicensed Knights of the Old Republic 2 to Obsidian and worked on Mass Effect instead? Same with NWN2 vs Dragon Age, for the record.
Because they were sick and tired of having to work within the framework of another company's IP and another company's rules set. It was an explicit, openly stated design goal with Jade Empire, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age to make their own intellectual property using rules that weren't handicapped by what a flesh-and-blood DM could handle. Even a small amount of research will show you many examples of Bioware designers stating this over and over again.
You've got a machine that can make millions of calculations a second, and you (generic you, not hogarth-you) want to limit it to rolling 3d6+x? That's silly. Bioware knew it was silly, and when they had the financial stability to strike off on their own and stop being silly, they leapt at the chance, and hit two homes runs in three at-bats with Mass Effect and Dragon Age: Origins.
So what would be the point of buying a new RPG based on a well-liked video game if it didn't preserve the feel of the source material?
The feel of the source material is a much different discussion than the rules. I'm sure the tabletop game uses the same basic rules the video game does (same attributes, same attack vs defense comparison, same "armor absorbs damage instead of avoiding it" mechanic, etc). But I'm equally sure that the video game doesn't roll 3d6+x for skill checks.
The feel of the source material is a much different discussion than the rules. I'm sure the tabletop game uses the same basic rules the video game does (same attributes, same attack vs defense comparison, same "armor absorbs damage instead of avoiding it" mechanic, etc).
And that's what I was asking about.
But I'm equally sure that the video game doesn't roll 3d6+x for skill checks.
But do 1/6 of all successes turn into critical successes (if I'm interpreting the "dragon die" correctly) in the video game?
The video game doesn't have level-of-success for its skills. The skills aren't a major part of the video game; they're basically binary "you can do this" switches. Each skill has four "levels" that progressively unlock more difficult options. The exception is the Combat Tactics skill, which isn't something that's even possible to translate to tabletop (it allows extra "tactics slots", which are how you set your characters' AI).
So, no, the way skills work doesn't sound the same.
|
|
Tharen, personally I dislike that the level of success is so varied by being based on a random die and not even really connected to the attribute-focus. That alone may be enough cause for me to not buy the game.
Fair enough. It was fun in playtest but we have not plyed a campaign over a longer period. It might get annoying with time.
To me, level of success is tied to how far you exceed the Target Number, not an extremely random 16.66% of anything ranging from 1 (barely made it) to 6(phenomenal).
It is easy to drop the Dragon Die rule and use the test result to get the dgrees of success.
Having very high Attribute-Focus total and the odds of rolling fantastic on 2 of the dice and then getting a 1 on the Dragon Die (getting a 13)would really tick off most of the people i play with. Same reason we switched from d20 with its "the die doesnt care if you have a +35 in that skill, you still have a 5% chance fo failing against DC10" to 2d10.
Accoring to 3rd edition rules, only an attack roll is always a failure at a natural 1. This rules does not apply to skill checks.
On a general note, i really dont think this is going to be very successful at all, either in terms of bringing in new players in general or bringing in a video game crowd (dynamics are so very very different). There is that undertone of "Why did I pay for an incomplete game" that a staged release like this often causes.
-Weylin
I do not have commercial interests in Dragon Age.
I just like the Green Ronin guys and gals and wish them success.I will buy the Box and hopefully playtest the later installments too. But I don't know if I will ever run a "regular" campaign for Dragon Age. It really depends on how the world will be fleshed out and if it will be suitably different from the "Warhammer feel".
|
|
But do 1/6 of all successes turn into critical successes (if I'm interpreting the "dragon die" correctly) in the video game?
Nope, your interpretation of the P&P rules is not correct.
For Skill Checks the "degrees of success" rule gives the GM much leeway of how to interpret them. It is up to him to interpret the result properly.So a 6 on the Dragon Die while climbing a wall can mean a lot of things, for example: - you climb it in half the time, -you get a big bonus next time you climb a wall -you do not leave any traces of your climbing - you are not only fat but also silent and nearly unspottalbe and get a bonus on your sneak and hide check etc.
For Combat and Spell-Casting the Dragon Die result has well defined rules and effects. They are triggered if you get defined results on all of your dice. I can not be more specific because of NDA, sorry.
|
|
-Math-
That only holds true if the PCs have average stats without bonuses and do not have any skill focuses.
If, for example, you integrate a +2 stat bonus and a +2 skill focus bonus in your calculation for the 18+ check, the results are different.
And again, a 6 on a Dragon die for pure skill checks has no spcified results. It is up to the GM to interpret it.
|
|
I love every other product I have seen from them. True20 (did not care for Blue Rose but that is an aesthetic thing, still a great system). Mutants and Masterminds. Song of Ice anf Fire (which I think is an amazing system and have considered adapting Castle Falkenstein to it). Mythic Vistas (Especially the Black Company Setting).
I think SOIF was their masterpiece. It is perfectly suited for everything Grim & Gritty with low to no magic.
I want to use the SOIF engine for a real world campaign based on the crusades. A noble and his entourage on their way to Jerusalem...
|
|
Tharen, I would love to see them rework the Black Company setting using the SOIF engine.
That won't happen. GR only had the rights for one book. This is why there was never an adventure or more setting material.
I think it would also be difficult to integrate the high level magics of the Taken into the system.Or a Conan-inspired setting. I think it would also be great for Lankhmar. Thieves World. Would also be good for the Tiger and Del series. Honestly, I think it works better than D20 for many fantasy settings. All you really need to add to it is a setting specific magical system or psionics (if you want to handle the Deryni Chronicles). So much of the older fantasy is a lot lower key than much of that comming out today.
If GR gets a lot of positive feedback regading the engine, they might update it and use if as a generic system. After all, that was what happened to Blue Rose - True20.
The die total simply gives you pass/fail. The level of success is determined by the number on the single Dragon Die (1 is barely succeed and 6 is a phenomenal success).
OMFG! This is like rolling one die for an attack and a completely unrelated die for damage.
…
Oh wait.
The die total simply gives you pass/fail. The level of success is determined by the number on the single Dragon Die (1 is barely succeed and 6 is a phenomenal success).OMFG! This is like rolling one die for an attack and a completely unrelated die for damage.
…
Oh wait.
From what I understand, it's not unrelated -- it's not 3d6 + dragon die for "damage", it's 3d6 (one of which is the dragon die).
In D&D terms, it's like using the same d20 roll for attacking and damage.
|
|
No, it holds true at all levels, because the only thing I'm measuring is the margin between success and failure. The harder a goal is relative to your ability to do it, the more likely a success will be overwhelming rather than marginal.
True that if you look at the absolute. I was comparing the relative success possibility of two different PCs with different abilities/ focuses.
If a low dragon die result meant that you did a better job, then things would make more sense.
Interesting idea and easily implemented.
|
|
Not as easily implemented as you say. You're going to have to deal with the flattening effect this has on outliers, especially tasks of very high difficulty. Does the system still work if a 14+ target means you can never get the highest tier of success? Does the system still work if very defenses tend to reduce damage as well as reduce chance to be hit?
Without more details, I don't know.
Yep, this should work.
This mechanic is only used for Skill checks.Tiers of success do not have a scripted outcome. There is no rule what happens if you got 6 degrees of success and how much better it is than 3 or 1 degree of success. This is all open to GM interpretation.
You can leave ot the degress of success rule for skill checks and only use the dragon die to break ties.
The Dragon Die works differently for Combat and Magic. For combat, he points generated by the Dragon Die are used for "stunts".But you do not simply pass the DC of armor and get to use the stunt points. There is a spcial "trigger" for that apart from successfully hitting your opponent. The same goes for Magic.