Dragon Age RPG

[Noedig]

In a similar vein with my last thread, is this any good?
I'm sort of looking for new interesting games to play, and I loved this game, so I wanted to ask if it was worth the time.

[The Rose Dragon]

They say it's good, and I believe them. However, it's, as of yet, incomplete. It is supposed to be 2 or 3 sets, and only one is published so far. I would wait for all of them to be published before buying any of them.

[Artemis97]

I've bought the first set. It lets you get up to level 5, and the starting adventure is really nice, I thought. The mechanics didn't seem that difficult to me, either. I'd give more details, but I left the thing at home while I'm at school. Give me a few days and I'll have my hands on it again. I have a (somewhat tenuous) plan to run a game in the near future.

[Samurai Jill]

In a similar vein with my last thread, is this any good?
I'm sort of looking for new interesting games to play, and I loved this game, so I wanted to ask if it was worth the time.

It's not terrible, but it has it's share of flaws.

There are no resurrection mechanics, so either (A) every combat is a pushover, (B) you retire the character before you die, (C) you eventually wind up dead or (D) the GM winds up regularly fudging results (which is really just a restatement of (A).) Warriors can only access a fraction of the tactical options available to spellcasters, and scenario-design is still married to this idea that the players aren't actually allowed to fail at anything important, lest the plot wind up being derailed (which also kills the challenge factor and usually mandates GM fudging.)

In theory, you could focus on the concept/relationships area of your character sheet and role-play Moral Choices(tm) instead of having watered-down hack'n'slash, but there's no metagame currency to expressly reward it, conflict-resolution or formalised personality mechanics, so you'd wind up relying heavily on the good will of the GM and like-minded players to make it work. (Plus, again, fixed-plotline-scenarios pretty well neuter any degree of significance to PC choices. In the words of Mr. Ford, "You can have any colour you like, as long as it's black.")

With all that said, it's still possible to enjoy the experience, essentially by not thinking about these things. How I wish, I wish, I wish I could do that.

[Knaight]

There are no resurrection mechanics, so either (A) every combat is a pushover, (B) you retire the character before you die, (C) you eventually wind up dead or (D) the GM winds up regularly fudging results (which is really just a restatement of (A).)

This sounds good, resurrection is usually obnoxious. B and C are just fine, particularly if there are ways to avoid death (metagame points for instance).

Warriors can only access a fraction of the tactical options available to spellcasters.

Assuming that they still have a lot of options and they are worth using this isn't an issue. That said, it is potientially worrying.

Scenario-design is still married to this idea that the players aren't actually allowed to fail at anything important, lest the plot wind up being derailed (which also kills the challenge factor and usually mandates GM fudging.)

This is completely obnoxious whenever it happens.

In theory, you could focus on the concept/relationships area of your character sheet and role-play Moral Choices(tm) instead of having watered-down hack'n'slash, but there's no metagame currency to expressly reward it, conflict-resolution or formalised personality mechanics.

The lack of formalized personality mechanics and inherent metagame currency is just fine. That said, is mechanical character growth structured around combat (a la D&D)? If so, there are problems.

[stainboy]

(Plus, again, fixed-plotline-scenarios pretty well neuter any degree of significance to PC choices. In the words of Mr. Ford, "You can have any colour you like, as long as it's black.")

Is there anything specific in the game to require fixed-plotline scenarios?

[Samurai Jill]

Is there anything specific in the game to require fixed-plotline scenarios?

Oh, not as such, no. I just feel it tends to suggest this as the default.

This sounds good, resurrection is usually obnoxious. B and C are just fine, particularly if there are ways to avoid death (metagame points for instance).

I incline to the view that lack of resurrection is fine if you want to focus on RP (because then deciding to fight actually says something about the character.) But the game doesn't provide particular RP-support in other respects, and again there's no metagame currency to save your bacon (I think?)

Assuming that they still have a lot of options and they are worth using this isn't an issue. That said, it is potientially worrying.

You can access 'stunts' (like dealing double damage vs. stun vs. etc.) by rolling a match for the red die, IIRC, which does put some options at the non-mage's disposal a small fraction of the time. But out the gate, at level 1, reliably? Nothin'. Regular 'ol THAC0 procedure.

The lack of formalized personality mechanics and inherent metagame currency is just fine.

If you want the game to be about personality, then... well... it won't actively get in the way, it just doesn't support it, especially.

It's not a bad game as such, it just doesn't know exactly what it wants to do.

[Knaight]

If you want the game to be about personality, then... well... it won't actively get in the way, it just doesn't support it, especially.

As a rule I find that mechanics to support personality, and to a lesser extent social interaction tend to get in the way. Really well designed personality and social interaction mechanics (see Synapse for this) are the exception, but usually I'd rather have nothing.

Of course, this is from the guy who usually opposes mental attributes on the basis that anything mental based that isn't a clear skill should be role played at all times, so my position is an extreme one.

On another note, I looked through the book briefly. Out of curiosity, are female pronouns ever used for either player or GM examples? It seems odd.

[Daftendirekt]

Warriors can only access a fraction of the tactical options available to spellcasters

Oh, so like 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons.

[Knaight]

Oh, so like 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons.

How large the fraction is is relevant in this case.

[stainboy]

I incline to the view that lack of resurrection is fine if you want to focus on RP (because then deciding to fight actually says something about the character.) But the game doesn't provide particular RP-support in other respects, and again there's no metagame currency to save your bacon (I think?)

You don't have to have resurrection mechanics to allow players to lose a fight without the game ending. Just having ways to reliably escape a losing fight would expand the game's options beyond victory or TPK. D&D is bad at this but that doesn't mean every tactical combat game has to be.