Showing posts with label Dragon Age. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dragon Age. Show all posts

Thursday, July 09, 2015

TitansGrave, Fantasy AGE, and Stunt Dice -- Probabilties of Rolling Doubles on 3d6



Green Ronin's AGE game system is one of the more innovative role playing systems on the market and the company has begun a major marketing push to promote the system. As a part of their promotional campaign, or as a bit of wonderful serendipity, the AGE system was selected by Wil Wheaton as the role playing system that would be featured in his entertaining TitansGrave: The Ashes of Valkana webseries. I've begun reviewing the show episode by episode, and will continue to do so, but one thing struck me as I was watching the second episode that prompted me to do a post that wanders down Probability Lane in the middle of Statisticsville.

One of the things that really sets the AGE system apart from other systems is its "Stunt" system. This system allows for an increase in player agency at key moments during a game session. It's a mechanic that evolved from early Greg Gorden designs like James Bond 007 which had pools of points players could spend that would allow their characters to do special actions that were out of the realm of possibility for normal "non-player" characters. Some early games that were inspired/influenced by this mechanic include Marvel Superheroes (Karma) and DC Heroes (Hero Points). This mechanic has been very influential in the story game genre where player agency takes priority over game master storytelling. Modern games in this school include, but are not limited to, D&D 5th Edition (Inspiration), Through the Breach: The Malifaux RPG (Twist Decks), and Savage Worlds (Bennies).

While the "Stunt" system falls within this design school of modeling character heroics through the increase of player agency, the AGE take is relatively unique. Where most systems have a set pool of points, or have GMs give points to players, AGE allows probability to decide when players get points to spend. Additionally, and most importantly, many systems have either set effects like rerolls (Bennies) or allow for players to radically alter the elements of a scene (Hero Points and many story driven games). AGE takes a middle ground philosophically between these two extremes. While stunt points allow for more than "mere" rerolls, the Dragon AGE role playing game provides lists of effects that can be achieved by spending stunt points and assigns each a cost. For example, attacking two foes simultaneously might require 4 stunt points while adding a die to damage might only require 2. These are only two, of a large number, of effects that can be achieved. What is important here is that while AGE allows for increased player agency, it does so within constraints that are balanced to ensure players feel challenged.

So how does one acquire these extremely valuable stunt points?

In any AGE game when a player attempts to accomplish a task, that player rolls 3d6 and adds whatever attribute is relevant to that task. For example, when picking a lock a character might add her Dexterity score to the roll. This number is then compared to a Difficulty Number. If the roll plus bonus equals or exceeds that number, the action is successful. If lower, then the action fails. One of these die is of a different color and in Dragon AGE is called the "dragon die", but we'll call it the "stunt die." How successful a character was with the action is sometimes (in the case of extended actions) determined by the value of the stunt die.

If any two of the die come up doubles (or if all three come up as a triple), and the action is successful, the player acquires stunt points which may be spent to make that action special. Maybe the attack hit vulnerable spots or a lock is permanently disabled.  These things are determined by the expenditure of stunt points and a player acquires a number of these equal to the stunt die value. Note that this only occurs when a player rolls doubles (or triples) and is successful.

It's elegant and allows characters to feel extremely heroic in their actions, but this leaves open the question. How common are doubles on 3d6 and how do we even begin to think about these things. There are a couple of books that might be helpful. Chapter 3 of Reiner Knizia's classic Dice Games: Properly Explained is a good place to start, but I have found O'Reilly's Statistics in a Nutshell to be a wonderful resource to return to once the basic idea is understood.

The first way we can see how frequently doubles, or triples, turn up is to write out all the possible combinations.


In this case, it isn't too much work, but if more die had been rolled then it would have been far more time consuming and really we don't want to have to do this all the time. What we really need to understand is that this kind of problem is an example of an intersection of independent events. This means that it is an example where we are looking for matching results from things that are independent from on another. This is the case in all die rolls since what a die rolled on one roll does not effect what gets rolled on the next die roll. If you roll a six on a d6 and pick it up, you still have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a six the next time you roll the die. These are independent events.

When determining the probability of independent events, we need to know the total number of combinations possible. In this case, that's simple because we are rolling 3d6. This makes the total number of combinations as follows:


6 × 6 × 6 = 216 

 Now we need to know the probability of rolling doubles (or triples) on 3d6. This is equal to:

P(Rolling Doubles) = 1 - P(Not Rolling Doubles)

Since this is a case of an intersection of independent events, we will use the following equation and modify it as a chance of not rolling doubles and then subtract that probability from 1.

P(D1 ∩ D2 ∩ D3) = P(D1) × P(D2) × P(D3)

We know that the probability of rolling a number on 1d6 is 100%. The first number we roll doesn't matter, so that makes D1 = 1.

We know that there are 5 ways to not roll the number rolled on the first die and that leaves us with D2 = 5/6.

We know that the chance of not rolling a number on either of the first two die is 4/6 which makes D3 = 4/6.

This gives us the following equation:

P(D1 ∩ D2 ∩ D3) = P(1) × P(5/6) × P(4/6) = .66667

P(D1 ∩ D2 ∩ D3) = P(1) × P(5/6) × P(4/6)  = .55554

The odds of not rolling doubles is .66667. Thus the odds of rolling doubles is:

P(Doubles) = 1 - (.66667) = .44443

P(Doubles) = 1 - .55554 = .44446


This leaves us with a 44.44% chance of rolling doubles or triples. If you want to double check the equation, you can count the 16*6 combinations above and divide that by 216. Another way of looking at this intersection is using this Venn diagram. As you can see, there are 6 ways of rolling triples and 30 doubles combinations at each intersection of any two dice (making a total of 96).

As for calculating the odds of earning stunt points at any given Difficulty rating, that is beyond the scope of this conversation and I'd leave such analysis up for those much better versed in probability and statistics than I am.

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Titansgrave: Ashes of Valkana | Episode 1 Review



I was pretty skeptical when I first heard the news that Geek & Sundry would be running a Tabletop Roleplaying Game Let's Play with Wil Wheaton as the Game Master. I wasn't skeptical that Geek & Sundry would actually produce the show, rather I was skeptical that it would work as a piece of entertainment.

I've been a fan of playing RPGs since I was ten years old, but I've learned one thing from standing around watching RPGA sessions at various conventions. With the exception of the fictional world of the Gold web series, where roleplaying games are a spectator sport, it isn't often fun to watch other people play them. There are so many ways that the spectator experience can be fouled. The Game Master might not be willing to engage in theatrics. The Game Master may be bad at theatrics...although that can have its own short term entertainment value. The medium isn't very visual on its own and requires participants to fill in the "spectacle" of the tale. The players may not be evocative in their explanations of what their characters are doing. The game play might get caught up in the spiral of discussing things that aren't at all game related, and thus turn the experience into merely watching a conversation about which version of Highlander 2 is worth watching.

The answer is neither.

It's one thing for a roleplaying game session to be fun for the participants, which it can be with all the above failures, it's quite another for it to be fun to watch.

David Nett and his friends did a great job of creating an entertaining to watch roleplaying game experience with their second season of Gold entitled Night of the Zombie King, but they did so in an entirely scripted format where the roleplaying game session was merely the setting for a host of dramatic tensions. Being scripted, the session is also heavily edited and time compressed. The question is whether the entertainment value of a well-written and well acted "scripted simulation" of a roleplaying session can be recreated in a real gaming session where things are much looser.

If the first episode of TitansGrave: Ashes of Valkana is any indication, the answer is yes. I won't say that it is a "resounding yes," for reasons I'll articulate as the review goes along, but I will say that Geek & Sundry did manage to create an entertaining viewing experience.

WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT TITANSGRAVE

Before I comment on what I believe the show has done wrong, let me begin by praising what it got correct. A lot of work went into producing this web series, and it shows. Wil Wheaton has recruited a number of actors, of the tradition and voice varieties, to play the game with him. Before you assume that the "recruiting of actors" means the "recruiting of non-gamers/non-geeks," let me cue you in on a little secret. D&D is the secret language of Hollywood. There is an entire community of rpg geeks in tinseltown, and while not everyone games a lot do.

The show has also selected a game system, the AGE system from Green Ronin, that has a lot of improvisational narrative potential. All roleplaying games have at their root the potential for improvisational narrative, it is after all what really defines a roleplaying game, but given the tactical wargame roots of the hobby the game can sometimes descend into a series of "I roll a 13, I do 5 damage, You roll a 15, I take 3 damage" comments that are mindnumbing to watch. Roleplaying is best watched when "roles" are being "played" and that means that actions are being described rather than mere die rolls. AGE's "stunt point" system aids in making combat sequences more narrative, rather than quantitative, by mechanically encouraging players to create descriptions of their actions in return for benefits. Players respond to incentives, and if you incentivize narrative descriptions you tend to get more of them.

The show hired adventure writers from the game industry who worked with Wil Wheaton to bring about his world. It's one thing to hire talented writers, but it is another thing to hire people who can take a story and translate it into a game experience. Experienced adventure writers have a knack for it. It takes more than breaking a story down beat by beat and then creating stats to gamify a story. It takes an intuition regarding how players will respond to circumstances. You also need to be able to create a small enough segment of a story that it can be played (after being edited) in less than an hour and still have narrative movement. This includes taking into account the delay that mechanics will cause as actions are resolved. What separates roleplaying games from mere improvisational theater is the fact that actions are arbitrated by mechanics. This is something that not only is at the core of what makes roleplaying games "games," but is a key to ensuring that all players get an equal chance to participate/succeed.

Hiring Wes Otis for the sound effects and musical loops was wise. Otis has done good work as a sound professional, but he has also made some great effects for home play.

The show is well edited, which cuts down on the digressions that players are prone to making, and has incorporated sound effects and some minor animations to increase the visual appeal. The editing is key for this show, and they seem to know it. They have edited out the distracting digressions, while leaving some of the more entertaining ones in, which gives the session a nice play flow.

The cast does a good job of staying interesting without trying too hard. One of my person peeves when watching some episodes of Tabletop is that the players often seem to be trying too hard to entertain. They seem to have the sense that watching a board game isn't exciting in and of itself, and thus feel the need to spice it up. Wil Wheaton, Hank Green, Laura Bailey, Yuri Lowenthal, and Alison Haislip may be doing that a little in TitansGrave, but it is indistinguishable from the normal one-upsmanship I've witnessed in my playing experience.

WEAKNESSES

This show is not made for a wide audience. It's hard to tell if the show is meant to only appeal to those who are already gaming, or whether it is also meant to bring more people in. I say that because the first episode already has a couple of inside jokes that might appeal to long time gamers, but which will be missed by new viewers.  Additionally, the first story is "age confined" in that they had to bleep out profanity and that it's about drinking. This isn't a bad thing per se, and I found it quite entertaining, but it does limit your viewing audience.

Lack of use of voice actor talent. C'mon people! Let's get crazy! We've got funny people here, but they seem to be holding back a little in combat. This could partially be because they are still learning the AGE system, and don't feel comfortable with it, but I want more verbal sound effects from the players. Laura Bailey and Yuri Lowenthal are trending in this direction, but I want more as a viewer. You really can't "commit" too much for me. Think about it like a comedic role. You have to be willing to fully commit to the joke/process. That doesn't mean go over the top, but it does mean you have to immerse yourself in the play and lose the wall of "I'm being judged."

The show hasn't quite captured a way to make the depiction of combat visually interesting. I both like and dislike the battle display they are doing. I like that they aren't showing miniatures on the table, which can be good are bad for spectators, allowing the actors to free form act rather than move game pieces. What isn't working for me is how static the display is. If you are going to present a graphic virtual tabletop, have the images move about on the hologrid you've presented. I also noticed that Wil Wheaton began to fall into the "I roll an x and do y damage" drone. It's hard not to, and Wheaton was great most of the time, but it's something he'll need to fight.

The show isn't perfect, but it did entertain me. We'll see how the season progresses. One thing is certain, I will keep watching. I will also be buying the tabletop campaign supplement as soon as Green Ronin releases it.



Wednesday, April 03, 2013

Tim Kask: A Tale of Two Magazines


Back in July of 1981 Tim Kask launched the first issue of ADVENTURE GAMING magazine. It was a magazine dedicated to the entire gaming hobby. The magazine launched just as two of the largest "Industry Magazines" (DRAGON and WHITE DWARF) were beginning their slow migration from magazines that covered the entire hobby and into house magazines that covered primarily the products offered by the company publishing the magazine. Tim Kask had been the editor of DRAGON for the first 34 issues of the magazine, so if anyone was qualified to launch a new magazine for the growing hobby he was certainly on that list. Unlike the two previously mentioned magazines, and magazines like Space Gamer, Tim's new venture wouldn't limit what kinds of games it covered. To quote Tim from his "Off the Wall" editorial:

Do you really plan to cover it all? You betcha, Buffalo Bob! The lines that used to separate the types of gamers are becoming more blurred. The amount of crossover interest and participation has never been greater. There can be no disputing the fantasy phenomenon erased a number of those lines, as well as gave the industry an incredible boost in interest in sales. Fantasy remains the dominant force in the industry today, but all areas are showing increased interest and sales. We plan to accurately reflect the hobby whatever direction it may take.
 The words that Tim wrote in 1981 were true, but they weren't sufficiently true for him to launch a successful magazine that lasted years. ADVENTURE GAMING published only 13 issues. As a fan of the hobby as a whole, I find this to be a great loss. Magazines are one of the best ways for modern fans to learn the history of the hobby. They are the primary way we can cut through the "common knowledge" and assumptions about the history of the hobby we so often encounter in conversations across fandom. If you read the article in FIRE & MOVEMENT magazine about the TSR/SPI merger you get quite a different picture than what you hear from former SPI employees. That merger doesn't look to be a clean merger from either side, and one wonders if TSR's attempt to acquire IP while avoiding debt obligations that would have been demanded during bankruptcy wasn't poorly communicated. It certainly created bad blood, and TSR may have been being too "creative" for their own good. Add to that the state of nature-esque competitiveness of that growing market, and modern gaming historians are poorer for the fact that magazines like ADVENTURE GAMING, SPACE GAMER, and DIFFERENT WORLDS didn't do better outside their regional spheres of influence.

Let's just have a look at what ADVENTURE GAMING #1 had to offer:

  1. Scepter & Starship -- A Traveller Variant article. Note that Traveller recently had a very successful Kickstarter over 20 years after this issues publication.
  2. Starting Over: Some Points to Consider Concerning New FRPG Campaigns -- A good how to start a campaign article.
  3. The Joys of Napoleonic Wargaming -- Here you begin to see the breadth of the magazine's coverage.
  4. Reflections -- A "Gamer POV" article about the hobby.
  5. The Adventures of space Trader Vic -- One of the obligatory cartoons.
  6. Campanile -- A column by Kathleen Pettigrew that was a gamer opinion column.
  7. CIVILIZATION: A Game Review -- What it says.
  8. What Makes a Player Good? A DM's View -- An article that looks at a topic that is often under evaluated, that of what players can do to make a better game experience.
  9. Heroic Combat in DIVINE RIGHT -- A cool variant rules article by one of the designers of the game.
  10. Away to the Wars! -- A variant for the KNIGHTS OF CAMELOT game.
  11. Cangames 81 and Canadian Gaming by John Hill -- Yes, that John Hill of SQUAD LEADER fame.
  12. NPCs are People Too! -- An article on how to give more personality to NPCs.
  13. On Being a Gamemaster -- A GM advice column.
  14. Any News of the Questing Beast? -- An overview of KNIGHTS OF CAMELOT
  15. Whither Boardgames -- A column dedicated to the discussion of boardgaming and about how RPGs are hurting boardgame sales and how boardgaming still has value.
It's a pretty interesting lineup and one that would be fun to see in a modern publication. Speaking of modern publications, Tim Kask and his merry band of adventurers are at it again. Late last year/early this year saw the launch of GYGAX Magazine, a quarterly "adventure gaming" magazine. A magazine with a distinctly familiar mission:

We've go material that reaches back to some of the earliest role-playing games, and some of the absolutely newest. Virtual tabletops, fantasy miniatures rules for toddlers, complicated mathematical answers to simple questions, even a city in a swamp...we've got it all here. If there's one question that's come up more than any other while we were making this magazine, it's been "what are you going to write about?" From here on out, we would like to direct a similar question at our readers. What would you like to read? Drop us a line and let us know. With your help, we want to see tabletop gaming thrive and expand.
 While the wording is more "marketing" oriented than the older editorial, the message can be said to be very similar to the older quote, "We plan to accurately reflect the hobby whatever direction it may take." The first issue of GYGAX features the following:

  1. The Cosmology of Role-Playing Games -- An incomplete but interesting look at the role-playing game hobby as a cosmology. It has a lot of important games, but it misses a few games I would consider highly influential. Not to mention that it just ignores 4e completely.
  2. Still Playing After All These Years -- An editorial by Kask. A very good one.
  3. Leomunds Secure Shelter -- An article by Lenard Lakofka, of Bone Hill fame, that looks at the math of AD&D.
  4. The Ecology of the BANSHEE -- With the demise of Kobold Quarterly, it's nice to see an ecology article.
  5. Bridging Generations -- An article by Luke Gygax discussing the continuation of the hobby.
  6. Gaming with a Virtual Tabletop -- What it says.
  7. Keeping Magic Magical -- An article by Dennis Sustare the designer of SWORDBEARER a game that very much kept magic magical.
  8. Playing It the Science Ficiton Way -- A discussion of METAMORPHOSIS ALPHA and its origins.
  9. DMing for Your Toddler -- Cory Doctorow's less useful version of Highmoon Games RPG KIDS. Do yourself a favor and buy RPG Kids.
  10. Greate Power for ICONS -- Steve Kenson article for the supers RPG.
  11. The Future of Tabletop Gaming  by Ethan Gilsdorf -- The second "celebrity" article. It's a good article, but I'm wondering if Shannon Applecline couldn't have done a better job.
  12. The Gygax Family Storyteller -- What you might imagine, in the best possible way.
  13. Talents OFF the Front Line -- An article for GODLIKE by Dennis Detwiller.
  14. D&D past, now, and Next by Michael Tresca -- A good article that none the less falsely states that 4e is the "first edition to explicitly require an objective environment." No, that would be 3e and both Line of Sight rules and Flanking rules.
  15. Gnatdamp -- A city in a swamp. Good article.
  16. The Kobold's Cavern -- Wolfgang Baur!
  17. Magical Miscellany -- Support for Green Ronin's AGE.
  18. An AGE of Great Inventions -- More support for Green Ronin's AGE, which is a wondrous thing.
  19. Scaling Combat Feats for PATHFINDER -- A good article by someone who wants to address the "feat taxes" of 3.x and PATHFINDER. Insert my snarky remark about how PATHFINDER is already amped up, so why does it need to be turned up to 11. Answer with "because it's a game and there is no wrong way to play" response.
  20. Marvin the Mage -- Obligatory Cartoon.
  21. What's New -- Obligatory Cartoon.
  22. Order of the Stick -- Obligatory Cartoon.
As you can see, Tim is being more conservative in the new venture. There are no mentions of Napoleonic games here and the focus is on fantasy. The magazine still covers a wide swath of the hobby though. It has yet to be seen if there is a market for this publication. I'm certainly the target audience, and I've already got a one year subscription to print and digital, but who else will be is the vital question.

Will GYGAX be the next ADVENTURE GAMING or will it be the first of a new breed of hobby based magazines? Only time will tell. It wasn't for lack of quality that ADVENTURE GAMING failed.
  1.  

Friday, February 17, 2012

D&D Next: How About We Stop the Increasingly Granular Skill Rules?

I've been thinking a lot about what I want from the next edition of D&D lately.  Not just because of the recent announcement that there will be a new edition of the game, but that has contributed without a doubt.  Largely, I've been thinking about it because of the D&D Encounters group I play with every week.  I've been running encounters for over 2 years now, and I noticed a significant change in how the game played when Encounters adopted the "Essentials and Newest Book" only stance.

The game is smoother.  There's less analysis paralysis. The players role play more.  The players think of their characters in terms of personality more than as a list of powers.  The addition of themes has helped this, but so has the return to more archetypical character design and the clear articulation of the powers associated with a given thematic build.  Character builds in the post Essentials world have been more "thematically" oriented than the calculated and Hero System-esque min/max affairs I had been seeing before.  It's been a nice change, and it got me thinking how the addition of Feats and a scaling skill system have made D&D less creative.  In early D&D, if a character wanted to be a blacksmith, all the player had to say was that their character was a blacksmith.  If a player wanted a character to be a blacksmith, poet, wizard, tumbling acrobat, scientist, engineer, the DM might have told the player that was ridiculous...OR the DM might have said "sure, why not" it doesn't affect the mechanics of the game and might make for interesting stories.  In the post Hero/Gurps D&D era where skills are all articulated, if the player doesn't have a skill then that character is up Illithid Creek without a helmet.

Image by Jody Lindke


I'd like to see D&D Next return to an era where there is no scaling skill system and where characters can be good at a lot of things that are associated with their character's "core strengths" without needing to allocate skill points each level or without the ridiculous results of the 4e skill system where a 10th level character might have a higher DC to kick down the same door as a 1st level character.  If anything can be learned about how to implement a robust skill system -- inspired by the 3.x and 4e skill systems -- the Dragon*Age role playing game should be our guide.  The DCs for difficulty are fixed early.  They are a fixed point in space.  Difficult is difficult.  Challenging is Challenging.  An average task in that game can be achieved on an 11 or better on 3d6 -- an exactly average roll.  To that roll an ability bonus (+1 for average ability or +4 for amazing) and a "focus" bonus (if the character possesses a relevant focus) of +2 are added.  An average person, with a focus in a relevant area, would add +3 to the roll making the chance of success 8+ on 3d6 on an average difficulty task.  Rolling an 8+ on 3d6 is fairly easy -- with an 83% chance of success.

There's no need to create DCs that are impossible for 1st level characters, at least not if you want free-wheeling games where low level characters take huge risks, you can just make them supremely difficult.  All you need to do is make it so that the main difference is "trained" and "not trained."  Throw level out of the skill system -- except maybe to add some "focuses" that match a character concept as the character increases in level.

Let's just have a look at how the skill system in D&D has evolved to get a look at where we might want to go to mix the D&D legacy rules with what I think is a wonderfully innovative Dragon*Age skill system -- I might even recommend using Robin Laws'  Gumshoe system for mysteries, but that is an entirely different discussion.

In the White Box of D&D there are no skills.  Period.  There are abilities and they affect very little about game play except the rate which a character advances in level.  Eventually, with the addition of the Blackmoor and Greyhawk supplements, the ability scores have more mechanical effects, but there is still no skill system per se.

In Moldvay/Cook -- pre-Gazetteer/Compendium era -- edition of the rules added the "There's Always a Chance" rule on page B60 where you roll a d20 and compare it to a statistic (adding a -4 to +4 modifier to the roll based on difficulty) to account for all of the things a character could do outside of those abilities specifically granted by the character's class.  This rule might also be in the Holmes Basic, but I couldn't find it.  This is the root for what became the eventual early skill system of D&D.  The D&D Gazetteers, starting with Aaron Allston's Grand Duchy of Karameikos, gives characters a number of skills based on their level.  Success is determined by rolling equal to or less than an attribute on d20 -- modified for difficulty.  Players can spend an entire skill choice to gain +1 to an attribute for the purpose of a skill check.

The AD&D "non-weapon proficiency" system introduced in Oriental Adventures and implemented in both the Wilderness Survival Guide and the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide is very similar to the Allston system -- and pre-dates it.  This system comes after the broad AD&D "background skill" system in the Dungeon Masters Guide which gave characters background skills, but had no mechanical adjudication for those skills.

Until the 3rd edition, the Allston/Non-Weapon Proficiency system was the core skill system in D&D.  It always seemed a little wonky to me.  A character could use one choice to get a 55% chance to succeed at a skill (assuming an 11 stat), but had to spend an entire extra choice to get an additional 5%.  That never seemed quite right.  Additionally the difficulty of a task was entirely controlled by a character's full stat, rather than by the bonus, so an 18 in a stat meant a 90% chance of success for most tasks -- minus any modifiers.  It just seemed to make good characters too good.

The 3rd edition of the game learned from the 90% is too good example and tied skill checks to the stat bonuses -- which reflect the natural standard deviations of the attributes on a 3d6 curve -- and set them against difficulties.  A character with an 18 stat added +3 to a roll of a d20 and compared it to a difficulty -- a skill system similar to that of earlier DC based RPGs and wargames.  It works, but 3rd edition had scaling difficulties and opposed rolls and gave skill points every level which made it so characters had to make sure that they continued to spend precious skill points in ways that continued to be useful.  Finding a difficult clue at 10th level had a higher DC than finding a difficult clue at 1st level.  This needed to be so because the characters would have skill bonuses, but the higher DC also required the higher skill bonuses -- a kind of skill system moebius strip a never ending cycle of increase.

4th edition partly solved for the ever spending of skill points by having a system of "trained" and "not trained," but then muddied the mix with scaling DCs as the characters went up in level that was tied to ever increasing stats and magical bonuses.  Ironically, the 4e system is actually flat.  The increases are an illusion.  Yes a 10th level character can beat up a 1st level character, but a 10th level character has as hard a time solving a 10th level problem as a 1st level character has of solving a 1st level problem.  Amusingly, sometimes these problems might be the exact same thing.

I've always thought that scaling difficulties, skill points to demonstrate improvement toward scaling difficulties, and a system of granularly listed skills to detract rather than add from play.  In the early days of Mutants and Masterminds, Steve Kenson spent many a day on the forums trying to convince people that Batman would just have Super-Dex and Super-Intelligence along with "training" in those skills that are "trained only."  This would mean that he was good at all the skills, and that he didn't need to spend individual skill points.  Players who favored granular itemization of skills won out, and the M&M point buy system has never really recovered its balance since.  Thankfully it has guidelines based on power level for power effects so the fact that skill points and powers don't really matchup mechanically point for point doesn't matter too much, but it still affects that game and makes that game feel less "superheroic" and more GURPS-ish.

I've always preferred games where characters can have skills that were independent of the level of the character.  In Call of Cthulhu there are no character levels, just skill improvements through the use of skills.  In D&D, there are character levels but I'd love to see them separated from skill use.  There are tons of people who would be level 0 who would have tremendous skill at some science or artistic skill.  There is no need to create nerfed NPC classes -- as 3rd edition did -- or to create bizarre DC scaling tied to level -- as 4th edition does -- all that matters is "trained" and "untrained" with a possible "how well trained" and "do you practice" added for good measure.

I'd love to see D&D Next adopt a skill system with fixed DCs, like Dragon*Age, that allowed characters to take whatever knowledge/artist/artisan/profession skills they wanted without limit, and in which training in a class gave some small bonus.  For example, a thief might just be a better climber than a non-thief and have a slowly scaling bonus (say +1 to +4 at level 20) against that fixed DC.  There is no need to have a large section of the rule book filled with skills and their descriptions and submechanics.  Look at Dragon*Age, there is no set of three subskills for any of the focuses -- unlike 4e's Acrobatics or 3e's Tumble.  There is no need.

Keep it simple.  Stop becoming more granular and complex.  Sure, some players want D&D to have Advanced Squad Leader and GURPS levels of detail and granularity, but most want to sit around a table and have a good time.  Let's find some compromise between the non-weapon proficiency system and the 3.x system.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Dragon Age Pen and Paper RPG Set 2 in Open Beta


Green Ronin is following in the footsteps of Paizo Publishing and releasing the second boxed set in their Dragon Age pen and paper RPG in an open playtest. You can download the document here.

I am quite fond of the Dragon Age game (as I made clear in an earlier post) and am looking forward to playtesting the rules for higher level characters.

Kudos to Chris Pramas and crew.

I'll let you all know what I think of Set 2 shortly.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Kobold Quarterly #13: A Must Buy for Dragon Age RPG Fans


Longtime readers of this blog know that I am a big fan of Wolfgang Baur and his Open Design Project. I am also a big fan of his quarterly role playing game magazine Kobold Quarterly and have been a subscriber since day one. I have watched as this magazine went from a primarily pdf product, where one had to special order the staple bound black and white version of the first issue, to the full color slick paper state of the art product it is today. This quick transition is no surprise as Baur has extensive experience as a magazine editor.

Throughout the magazine's run, I have only had one small complaint -- and it is very small. I have been disappointed that the magazine limited its focus to d20 (and after the new edition's release 4E) articles. The magazine's subtitle has been "The Switzerland of the Edition Wars. The market lacks a non-house organ magazine, one that covers gaming products from a wide variety of publishers. Early in the gaming hobby, there were a number of magazines that covered the role playing hobby as a whole. TSR's Dragon magazine and Games Workshop's White Dwarf weren't always house organs that only provided content related to their respective companies, they covered the industry as a whole. Add to these magazines like The Space Gamer, White Wolf, Shadis, and Pyramid, and you have a long tradition of magazines covering the broader hobby.

This tradition largely died when Pyramid ceased print publication and became an online subscription. Fans were left with only one magazine that covered the field, Knights of the Dinner Table. While Knights contains articles that cover he hobby, it cannot be argued that the magazine's primary purpose is the comic strips it contains and the promotion of Kenzer Company related gaming products. Knights is a good magazine, that does have some broad coverage, but it is still primarily a house organ. There is also the small print run magazine Polymancer, but that product has yet to get wide enough distribution to fill the much needed hole in the market -- a hole made all the bigger when gamingreport.com ceased to be the news source for the gaming hobby.

Thankfully, Kobold Quarterly has begun to see some generic and non-D&D (retro, modern, post-modern versions) content filling its pages of late. Key among these offerings is in the Spring 2010 issue. In the issue, Chris Pramas -- lead designer on Green Ronin's excellent Dragon Age RPG -- has written an article that will allow fans of Green Ronin's flagship Freeport line of products to translate their tales to the AGE engine used by the Dragon Age RPG. It will also help to expand the gaming horizons of new gamers who were introduced to the hobby by the Dragon Age RPG. The article provides character creation rules for nine backgrounds based on Freeportian archetypes. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Green Ronin's Freeport, it is a setting that combines traditional fantasy elements with tropes from pirate stories and horror elements from the weird tales of H.P. Lovecraft. Imagine Elven pirates wielding fireballs while battling Eldritch Horrors who fire cannons from their tentacle beards and you have some sense of the setting -- make sure you don't forget the Serpent men and the Yellow Sign. It's a fun setting and it is nice to see Kobold Quarterly publish support material for an wonderful new role playing game. The fact that the material is based on content originally designed for d20 makes the publication of the article even more appealing. It demonstrates that Baur is willing to promote articles that seek to expand the gaming horizons of all of its readers.

This takes Kobold Quarterly beyond the status of "The Switzerland of the Edition Wars," and places it at the "Publication on a Hill Promoting All Aspects of the Hobby" status.

Kudos to Baur, and thanks to Chris Pramas for giving us Dragon Age RPG fans a background for Gnomes. The DM in me cringes at the incorporation of Gnomes, but one of the players in my group will certainly be grateful.

Thursday, February 04, 2010

An RPG Ahead of Its Time -- Flash Gordon & the Warriors of Mongo



In the nascent days of role playing game yore -- 1977 to be exact -- Fantasy Games Unlimited published one of the first Science Fiction role playing games to hit the market with Flash Gordon & the Warriors of Mongo. The first two science fiction role playing games were TSR's Metamorphosis Alpha (1976) and Ken St. Andre's Starfaring (1976). Flash Gordon was one of a couple of games Fantasy Games Unlimited published that was co-written by Lin Carter -- yes that Lin Carter, the one who is responsible for most of Appendix N being in print -- with another being Royal Armies of the Hyborean Age.

Where Royal Armies was a set of miniature warfare rules set in the Hyborian Age, the Flash Gordon role playing game was an attempt to create an entirely self contained role playing game complete with campaign setting and campaign in one 48 page volume. That's quite a thing to attempt and I have been surprised at how well Flash Gordon accomplishes its goal -- especially given the low esteem in which the RPG.net review holds the game.

The book has its flaws, but it also has its brilliance. The flaws lie within the underlying rules for the conflict resolution system. The brilliance lies within the freeform campaign implementation system, a system remarkably similar to the Plot Point and Encounter Generation system mastered by Pinnacle Entertainment Group in their Savage Worlds series of games. More on this later. It's time to look at Flash Gordon & the Warriors of Mongo.

System Mechanics

In a brief note at the beginning of the book Lin Carter sets out his chief objective in the drafting of Flash Gordon. "My own personal debt to Alex Raymond, and my enduring fondness and admiration for Flash Gordon made this set of rules a labor of love. I was dead set against Scott's [Scott Bizar] first idea of doing a book of wargame rules and held out for adventure-scenarios, instead."

Carter wanted a game that was able to capture the excitement of the old Flash Gordon serial through the use of a collection of adventure-scenarios bound by a single rules set. Rules that were intended to "provide a simple and schematic system for recreating the adventures of Flash Gordon on the planet Mongo." With regard to their goals, Carter and Bizar both succeeded extremely well and failed monumentally.

The system is simple...and confusing...at the same time.

Characters roll three "average" dice for the following four statistics -- Physical Skill & Stamina, Combat Skill, Charisma/Attractiveness, and Scientific Aptitude. It's an interesting grouping of statistics that demonstrated FGU's willingness to look beyond the "obligatory 6" statistics created by TSR. The inclusion of Combat Skill as a rated statistic is in and of itself an interesting choice.

At no point is it explained what an "average" die is. Is an "average" die a typical six-sided die that you can find in almost every board game ever published, or is it one of those obscure and hard to find "averaging" mentioned in the Dungeon Master's Guide? The rules aren't clear regarding this, but the fact that "rolls of over 12 indicate an extremely high ability in the specific category" [emphasis mine] hints that it is the "averaging" die to which they are referring -- later difficulty numbers hint that it might be the regular dice that are used. Not that it matters much, as you will soon see.

After rolling statistics, players choose from one of the following roles -- Warrior, Leader, and the Scientist. This leads one to wonder which group Dale Arden fits, but that is another conversation entirely. The primary effect of choosing a particular roll is to add one point to the statistic most related to the profession.

These attributes are later used to determine success based on a very simple mechanic. Stat + d6 > TN. For example, if the players are in the Domain of the Cliff Dwellers it is possible that they will encounter the deadly Dactyl-Bats.



If the players decide that they want to fight off the Dactyl-Bats the success or failure of the action will "depend upon the military skill of the most skilled member of your group. Roll one die and add the result to your military skill. A final total of fourteen or greater is needed to drive off the Dactyl-Bats." Failure indicates the character is wounded and that the party must rest. It's a simple resolution, but one that lacks any significant cinematic quality. It feels awkward, and other mechanical resolutions in the game are similarly weak. Typical punishment for failure on an action is a loss of a certain number of turns. These turns are valuable as players need to recruit enough allies to defeat Ming before he has time to become powerful enough to squash any rebellion. While the statistics of the game are firmly rooted in roleplaying concepts, the resolution and consequence system still echoes board game resolutions. This is a weakness in this game, as is the inconsistency of resolution techniques. Fighting a Snow Dragon is resolved in a different manner than the encounter just discussed.

I imagine one could build a good game conflict resolution system built around the statistics highlighted in Flash Gordon, but this book lacks that system. I think it might be interesting to try to use a modified version of the Dragon Age pen and paper rpg system as a substitute for the mechanics in the Flash Gordon rpg. They are simple enough that it wouldn't require a lot of work. One could also use the OctaNe system if one wants to stick to the "narrative" feel that Bizar and Carter seem to have been attempting here. OctaNe succeeds where this game fails mechanically -- and OctaNe's system is ridiculously easy to learn and use.

Game Campaign System

This is where Flash Gordon really shines. The game's basic structure is that of a "recruitment" campaign where the players must journey from land to land -- based on how they are connected on an abstract schematic and not based on actual geography though the schematic takes those into account -- where they encounter various challenges and face various foes. For example, let's say our stalwart heroes find themselves in the Fiery Desert of Mongo. If they are mounted on Gryphs he journey will be easier than if they are not. It is possible, though not guaranteed, that the players will encounter Gundar's Gandits who will attempt to capture the players and sell them into slavery. The players may also encounter a Tropican Desert Patrol made up of troops loyal to Ming. The end goal of the area is for the group to recruit Gundar and his men, but that requires role playing and/or defeating the Tropican Desert Patrol. The description of the Desert and the possible encounters are abstract enough that they could easily inspire several sessions of roleplaying -- with a robust system like Savage Worlds -- all it lacks is a nice random encounter generator like the one found in The Day After Ragnarok to fill in the holes.

In essence, the Flash Gordon role playing game includes one or more major encounters for each geographical region of Mongo. As they players wander from place to place, they can/will face these challenges. What is inspired, and ahead of its time, about this structure is that the encounters are "story plot points" that must be achieved but can be achieved in the order of the player's choosing. There is room for exploration of the world at the same time that the players are succeeding at mandatory plot points. It is a narrative campaign without the railroading. Pinnacle Entertainment Group uses a similar structure in their Rippers, Slipstream, and Necessary Evil campaigns. It is a system that allows for narratively meaningful and fun play without the need for extraordinary planning on the part of the Game Master. All it lacks is a method, like the random encounter generator I mentioned above that is used by most plot point campaign systems, to fill in the scenes between the set pieces. Though it should be noted that there is sufficient information within the Flash Gordon rpg to easily construct a set of encounter generators with very little work.

Conclusion

Criticisms regarding the underlying conflict mechanical system, or lack thereof, are spot on when it comes to Flash Gordon. Character generation and conflict resolution lack any feeling of consequence or depth. BUT...If you want a campaign road map to use with another game system, preferably a fast-furious-and-fun one or a "narrativist" one, then this product is a deep resource. It will save you from having to read pages and pages of the old Alex Raymond strip in order to get an understanding of all of the minor details necessary for the creation of a campaign. You should certainly read the Alex Raymond strips, they are wonderful, but reading them should never be made to feel anything remotely like work. Bizar and Carter have done the work in presenting the campaign setting, all you have to do is adapt it to your favorite quick and dirty rpg mechanical set.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Some Thoughts on a Dragon Age RPG House Rule



The new Dragon Age pen and paper role playing game has only been available since December 9, 2009, but I am already thinking about how this system can be applied to situations not specifically listed in the rules set. Creating "house rules" is one of the great obsessions of Game Masters, and some players, and I am not someone who is immune to the obsession. I am, however, one who understands that when coming up with house rules one should not think that a couple of readings through a rules set gives one a better understanding of underlying game balance than the designers have. The designers have spent months, if not years, creating, playing, and testing the rules to see how different effects affect the game play.

One of my maxims as a game tweaker is, "never create a house rule that eliminates meaningful choices from the system." What I mean by this is that no "innovation" I create should be so desirable as to create an effect that must be selected for characters to be successful in the world. Don't create a "super choice." It also means that a rule shouldn't prevent players from creatively solving problems, or from making foolish choices.

Games are about stories, whether the game itself tells the story or the story comes when the player is talking about the great time he or she had playing it, and the more choices the players have the more creative the stories can be. Any given system will already have eliminated some choices as a part of design, for example there are no machine guns in Dragon Age, my goal is to find ways that the existing structure allows choices that might be overlooked if they aren't pointed out with a house rule -- or that might have to be house ruled on the fly when a player asks if he or she can perform a certain action.

As you might have guessed, this doesn't mean that there aren't any choices that house rules should not eliminate. There often are. As stated in Will Hindmarch's and Jeff Tidball's book Things We Think About Games in statement 018, "all variations on gameplay stem from two core types of alterations: expanding choices and restricting choices." A house rule may be needed to create a restriction against using an "exploit" a player discovers within a system. What is interesting in such cases is that by restricting the use of a particular choice, the house rule might actually increase the number of other meaningful choices within the system. After all, what is an exploit other than a "super choice" -- a choice that makes all other choices undesirable? The key as a game tweaker is to determine what the meaningful choices are within a given milieu and to work to maximize those events for players while eliminating choices which might supersede these choices to the detriment of the game.

A second maxim is, "never create a house rule that makes it more likely that the players will fail." Players participate in role playing games because they want to imagine succeeding at things they, in the real world, would find difficult or impossible. They want to leave the workspace cubicle and become "heroes." Players hate failing and they hate it when their characters die. This is even true in slaughter house games like Call of Cthulhu, which is why the rule book for that game goes to great lengths to describe how to make death "meaningful."

This doesn't mean that tasks should be made easy. In fact, Raph Koster has an entire "theory of fun" based on a definition of fun in which enjoyment is equated with continuous challenge based learning. A game must challenge the player enough to be interesting, but be easy enough that they do not become bored. For role playing games, like video games, this means that the rules, adventures, and stories must scale in difficulty and complexity in a way that corresponds with player and character experience. You don't want to make a rule that makes it more likely that players will fail in any given course of action, because the game designers -- if they have done their job with any iota of skill -- have developed a game that has a "fun balance." More than likely, they have weighted their "fun scale" on the side of challenging rather than ease.

Okay, with those caveats, what new house rule have I come up with for Green Ronin's Dragon Age pen and paper game?

In this case, it isn't a "new rule." Rather it is an expanded application of an existing rule. In the Dragon Age RPG, the rules use three kinds of tests to determine the success or failure of a given action.

There are basic tests where the player rolls 3 six-sided die (3d6) and adds the appropriate ability and focus in the hopes of exceeding some target number. For example, a person trying to sneak through an alley would make a test rolling 3d6 + their Dexterity ability + 2 if they have the Dexterity(Stealth) focus. If the game master thinks this would be a Challenging task, then the result must equal or exceed a total of 13.

There are opposed tests, which are made when a character is attempting an action that is actively opposed by another character. This test works like the basic test except that both characters make a test roll and compare target numbers with the higher target number winning. There is a tie-breaking mechanic, but it is unimportant at present.

Finally, there are advanced tests. These tests are typically used to emulated tasks that take a lot of time and/or planning to complete. This might include forging a suit of armor or researching the history of Ferelden. Players make a test as normal, against a static difficulty, but they record the number of pips displayed on a particular die within the 3d6 roll (the Dragon Die). This value is then compared to a "Success Threshold." If the value of the Dragon Die equals or succeeds this number, the task succeeds. If not, the player must make another test which if successful will add the value of its Dragon Die to the existing sum of prior Dragon Dice values. This continues until the threshold is passed. Failed tests merely increase the length of time it takes to succeed. These tests aren't typically used to determine the success or failure of a given task where failure has dire consequences, rather they help determine the speed of success for tasks that will eventually be successful if enough time can be committed.

This is where my alternate rule comes in. The rules as written (RAW) state that if a character is aided by other characters when attempting an advanced test, then the difficulty of the test should be modified instead of both characters making tests and summing the Dragon Dice of the multiple participants. I think that is fine for some actions, but if we could also use the advanced test mechanic to simulate a test to succeed at something that would be impossible for one person to accomplish and where prolonged exertion may or may not affect success or failure?

For example, let us say that a group of 4 characters stand before the Temple of Riognaton -- one of the Old Gods. The temple's massive stone doors haven't been opened in millenia, but the characters need to enter the Temple. The GM has determined that it would be impossible for one character to move the doors and that the action will require at least 2 of the characters. One could rule that this is a basic test where additional characters add a modifier to a primary character's roll, but I don't find that quite satisfying.

I would like to propose using advanced tests in these circumstances. The GM could determine that the task is a "formidable" task (needing a Success Threshold of 25) for the group and requires a target number of 15. All of the players could roll against the target number, with only those who succeed adding their Dragon Die value to the Success Threshold. Obviously, there are multiple ways one could use the Dragon Age system to emulate the opening of the doors, but this method allows the individual players to see how much their character contributed to the ultimate goal. It also avoids the more mechanical seeming, each helper adds +2 to the roll or each successful helper adds +2 to the roll mechanic. It takes an often static choice, aiding a comrade, and makes it more interactive.

One of the wonderful things about the Dragon Age rules set is that it inspires these kinds of uses of existing systems. My house rule for opening ancient temple doors didn't require the creation of a "new rule," but it did use an existing rule in a way not previously highlighted by the creators of the game.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Green Ronin's Dragon Age RPG is Worth a Look


When Green Ronin announced they would be releasing a Dragon Age role playing game based on the BioWare computer and console game of the same name, I was initially skeptical about the endeavor. BioWare and Green Ronin are both held in high esteem by fans due to the consistent high quality of their products, but Dragon Age still seemed like less than a stellar idea by Green Ronin.

If there is one genre where the role playing game market is over saturated, it is in the Fantasy themed role playing game market. There isn't much room within the existing gaming marketplace for another Fantasy themed rpg, and the loyalty of consumers within the existing games' market share is pretty solid. Old school D&D players have games like Castles and Crusades and OSRIC. Mainstream Fantasy Gamers have the new Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder role playing games. Gamers who want things fast, furious, and fun have Savage Worlds and the excellent Hellfrost setting. Fantasy Flight Games introduced the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3rd Edition game this year to seduce board and card gamers into the rpg hobby.

That brief list only scratches the surface of products available for the Fantasy fan. In fact, it leaves out a game that Green Ronin released this past March. Their Song of Fire and Ice game is a Fantasy RPG based on the popular series of novels by George R.R. Martin. I found it truly surprising that Green Ronin would attempt to release two Fantasy themed RPGs in the same year. It should be noted that these are full role playing games, each with their own mechanics, and not campaign settings for existing gaming properties. If these were setting books, I would be much less surprised than I am by the release of two complete role playing games within the same year. This struck me as potentially counter productive, and that dividing the game design resources at Green Ronin might affect the game quality.

This was all true before I purchased the pdf from RPGNOW and GM'd a session with my gaming group this past weekend. I read through the rule books last week and prepared myself to run my group through the adventure. As I did so, I was struck by how simple -- yet robust -- the Dragon Age RPG system is. The basic mechanics are easy to teach and learn. All actions, for which there is a possibility of failure, are decided by a simple mechanic. The player rolls three six sided die (one of a different color than the others) and adds them together. The player then adds this total to one of their statistics (for example: Communication) which have ratings of -2 to +4, if the statistic has an applicable focus the player adds 2 more to this total. This number is compared to a difficulty rating ranging from 7 (routine) to 21 (nigh impossible). If the total is equal to or greater than the number, the action succeeds. If the action is successful, then the player looks at the different colored die -- called the Dragon Die. The higher the total of that die, the more successful the action.

I was impressed by a couple of things in this system. I am very fond of the fact that the game uses a simple roll of three six sided dice. Most people, even non-gamers, have three of these lying around their house. Second, the mechanic is easy to remember, yet has enough depth that it is useful in structuring narrative results without being completely dependent on the sum of the total. A character needing a total of 11 on a check, who rolls 11 can still be extremely successful if their Dragon Die result is a 6. This means that quality successes come more frequently than they might otherwise come if a normal die distribution were used to determine "level of success."

Let's see an example of an action and include the probability of success.

Torvald the Hunter is tracking a wild boar through the forest. It hasn't rained in a few days, so the ground is neither more or less receptive of tracks than on a normal day. Torvald is about an hour behind the boar, so the Game Master decides that this is a Challenging activity -- so it has a target number of 13. Torvald is no more perceptive than the average person (his Perception is +1), but he is trained in the art of Tracking (and will add +2 to this roll). Taking the Target Number of 13 and subtracting Torvald's bonuses, we see that he will need a 10 or better to succeed on this action. Looking at the chart below, we can see that this gives him a 62.50% chance of success.



Torvald's player rolls his three dice and gets one 2, one 2, and a 6 on his Dragon Die. His roll totals 10. Adding his bonuses for statistic and focus his total is 13, which is enough for a success. Rolling a six on his Dragon Die means that this is a remarkable success and the GM rules that Torvald is able to predict the boar's movements and move ahead of it making the hunt easier. Had one of the two's been the Dragon Die and the six a regular die, Torvald would still be successful in following the beast but that success wouldn't be as great.

Quick, easy, and it feeds a narrative spirit. The entire game is based on this simple mechanic, and in knowing just this much you could jump into a game easily. You would even be able to navigate the slightly more complex combat system.

The combat system works like any other task, except you need to keep track of when you roll doubles. If any two of your dice have the same value, and you succeeded at the action, you are allowed to spend a number of "stunt points" equal to your Dragon Die on creating interesting combat effects. These effects range from making a second attack to tripping your foe. I am in love with this mechanic. One of the difficulties in any system is getting your players to explain their character's attacks in an exciting and narrative style. Some players are naturally resistant to doing anything other than rolling and stating damage, but this isn't the real cause of the difficulty. The difficulty typically stems from a player describing an exciting action (for example: "Torvald trips Estvan with his Boar Spear") only to have that action fail when the result of the action is rolled. Most systems require attempts at tripping etc. -- the narrative effects -- to be described before the attempt, like visualization exercises. If the action fails, this can create narrative disappointments and lead to players giving up on trying to describe combat excitingly. By shifting the declaration of narrative effects (with real bonuses rather than being mere descriptors), the stunt mechanic makes combats more exciting than many other game systems.

The elegant mechanic design is obviously aimed at bringing gamers over from one medium, Console/PC gaming, into the medium of table top role playing, and I think it is an excellent attempt. Dungeons and Dragons and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay are attempting to appeal to the same market, but they are doing so by using design techniques from Console/PC/Card Game media. D&D and WFRP3 use "exception based" game design hoping that by emulating the style of other games, they will appeal to those gamers. I think that it will work, but I think what Green Ronin is doing will work as well -- and I think it will work for recruiting gamers who would otherwise be intimidated by the massive amount of rules most RPGs require players to learn.

Green Ronin's Dragon Age RPG is a "Red Box" for a new generation of gamers. The old D&D Red Box introduced an entire generation of gamers to a new hobby by simplifying and explaining a difficult game. Something that isn't attempted often enough in the current market. Chris Pramas remembers what it was about the Red Box that enticed the 80s generation of gamers, and he has brought those elements to a new generation of gamers with Dragon Age Set 1. It's a great Basic Set.



Thursday, March 12, 2009

Listen to the Geekerati Inteview with David Gaider


Last night, Eric and I had the pleasure of talking with BioWare's David Gaider about his new book Dragon Age: The Stolen Throne and the upcoming video game Dragon Age: Origins. The discussion provided some great insight regarding what we can expect from the next rpg from BioWare.

Given BioWare's excellent record when it comes to quality PC and console rpgs, David and his crew have a lot to live up to and it sounds like they are likely to exceed expectations. Dragon Age: The Stolen Throne takes place thirty years before the event that transpire in the game and makes a natural jumping in point for those who can't wait until the second half of the year for the video game experience.

In the past, many of BioWare's successful rpgs have been based on licensed products. But with recent games like the action-rpg Jade Empire and the deep play of Mass Effect, BioWare has shown an ability to develop immersive settings with compelling narratives.

David Gaider lives in Edmonton, Alberta, and is a Senior Writer at BioWare's Edmonton studio, where he has worked since 1999. He is currently the Lead Writer on Dragon Age: Origins, responsible for story and setting design, and prior to that worked on such titles as Baldur's Gate™ 2, Baldur's Gate™ 2: Throne of Bhaal, Star Wars®: Knights of the Old Republic™, Neverwinter Nights™ and its expansions.