Copying the review from Suvudu there:
____

Having said before that up-and-coming fantasy writers, and people interested in fantasy in general, should consider getting into role-playing games, I’d be remiss in not offering suggestions of where to start, wouldn’t I? (Actually, it doesn’t matter if I would, because I’m gonna.)

Anyone who’s read my prior columns, or knows anything about my history, knows that I’m a big fan of Dungeons & Dragons. It’s a great game, and I enjoy it a lot—but I’m not certain I’d recommend it to people who are new to RPGs in general. The rules can be complex, and even a little intimidating to people new to the hobby. Wizards of the Coast is putting out a rules set called Dungeons & Dragons Essentials, specifically designed to be newbie-friendly, later this year. I have very high hopes for that set, given what I’ve heard—but obviously, I can neither review it yet nor recommend it yet, what with it not being out yet.

Funny how that works.

But there is a fantasy RPG out there right now that was geared for beginners, and I’d like to offer a brief review of that here. I’m speaking of the Dragon Age RPG from Green Ronin Publishing.

Before I get into it, two caveats. (I seem to always have two caveats, don't I?) First, I'm not a computer gamer, so I've never played the Dragon Age online game on which this tabletop RPG is based. (Correction: The computer game on which this RPG is based is not an online game, but a single-player game. Mea culpa.) As such, I cannot and will not be reviewing the game in terms of how well it captures the feel of the online game. I'm reviewing it solely as a tabletop RPG and, specifically, one that serves as a starting point for beginners.

Second, while I had nothing to do with the Dragon Age RPG, I do need to note that I've done freelance work for Green Ronin in the past--once for their D&D-compatible Egyptian-inspired setting Hamunaptra, and again on Buccaneers of Freeport. I don't believe this prior relationship has influenced my view (or review) of Dragon Age in any way, but there it is.

On first look, and indeed on reading through it, Dragon Age--or DA, from here on out--appears to be classic fantasy in overall feel. You have your dark ages/middle ages cultures, your mighty warriors, sneaky rogues, mysterious mages, and fearsome monsters. The presence of these classic tropes is, in my view, a benefit, not a hindrance. While there are those who deride the prevalence of these common themes, they offer the game a wide appeal and, more importantly for my specific purposes, offer a comfortable starting point for newcomers to the game. Similarly, the presence of familiar fantasy races--not just humans, but elves and dwarves--makes the setting readily accessible, yet their presentation--the elves are a former slave race currently in the midst of a cultural diaspora--presents them in an altered and interesting light.

Despite the presence of those races, which I tend to associate more with epic fantasy, DA is a darker, more sword & sorcery-style fantasy, as compared to the more high magic/epic fantasy of D&D. I present this as neither a good nor a bad thing--I'm a fan of both types of fantasy, in their place--but simply as a part of the feel. Magic is rarer and less accepted than in many fantasies, and while the combat system of the game isn't horrifically lethal, it is more so than many other RPGs.

Although this is only the first set of four, and covers only levels 1 through 5 of 20 ("level" being a measure of character power and experience), it's playable as a complete game unto itself. You can sit down with just this one boxed set and play multiple game sessions of many hours each. On that score alone, DA rates higher than many other "beginner" games, which seem designed to allow for only a few hours of play. The boxed set even comes with the dice you'll need, a nice throwback to many of the older RPGs of days gone by. Honestly, all you'll need that doesn't come in the box is a pencil and some paper.

The first book in the boxed set, intended for players, does a wonderful job of conveying the feel of the assumed setting with a chapter that provides enough cultural background and history to satisfy, without overwhelming the reader with more detail than is necessary. The rules for choosing and creating characters are quick, easy to understand, and easy to follow. They have enough options to require interesting choices, without offering so many as to confuse newcomers.

I do have one small complaint about the character creation system: Specifically, it uses random rolls to determine a character's starting attributes (willpower, strength, cunning, etc.). While a random system of this sort is easier to learn and faster to play than a more methodical system of point allocation--and in that respect, it was a good choice for beginners--I cannot help but feel that people who are newcomers to role-playing should not be put in a position where their own character might be substantially less effective than their fellow players', or where their own character doesn't quite meet their expectations, purely because of bad luck during character creation. I tend to think that a point allocation system, even if more complex, would provide results that would make the actual play experience more satisfying for newcomers.

But honestly, that's a fairly minor complaint, and one based as much on personal taste as any "objective" problem. So while it's a mark against the system in my eye, it's a small one vastly outweighed by the positives.

The actual system of game play is equally simple and elegant, where success or failure in a given task is determined by a simple roll of three dice. In combat, if any of those two dice come up doubles, the character can perform a stunt--knocking an enemy prone, doing extra damage, making an extra move--allowing for both tactical and cinematic variety. And yet, because you don't choose in advance when you're going to use a stunt, it also keeps the unpredictable nature of actual battle. While it's not a system that I'd want to see in every fantasy RPG, I think it's a rather brilliant notion that I'd love to see further explored.

So where players are concerned, the game gets definite high marks. What about for the Game Master (or GM); that is, the person running the game and coming up with the stories/adventures?

Well, still overall positive, though I have a few more objections.

The GM's book is, for the most part, very good about providing rules and advice for the GM. It talks about how to set the difficulty for various tasks, how to adjudicate hazards and dangers, how to put together and design a campaign (series of adventures), and--vitally--how to combine role-playing and die-rolling when it comes to issues like social encounters. The book even talks about how to deal with problem players, or what to do if a game's not going well. And it provides a sample adventure that's both straightforward and educational.

So why do I feel a little more ambivalent about the GM book than the player book? First, there's an issue of presentation. The GM book puts all the problem-solving information, and all the talk about the GM's various duties, responsibilities, and extra effort, in the very first chapter. I think this was a mistake; it should have come later in the book, when the reader already has a grasp on the actual rules and mechanics of GMing. Putting all that stuff first was a little overwhelming to me, and I'm a very experienced role-player and GM; I think it might actually scare away a few newcomers.

The other issue is that there's no guidance given--none at all--about which monsters, or how many of them, to use in order to create an easy, average, or hard encounter. I don't want every fantasy RPG to have a system as rigid as D&D's hierarchy of monster levels, but there must be some guidance. A beginning DM can see that a black bear is a tougher opponent than, say, a genlock (more or less the orcs of this setting), but what does that mean? Does that mean that a black bear is a better challenge for a 4th-level party of three characters than a 2nd-level party of five? Or does it just mean the GM should use more genlocks to create the same sense of danger? There's nothing, and a beginning GM simply cannot be expected to eyeball this sort of thing with any degree of accuracy. Few things are as frustrating in an RPG as a combat that's horribly unfair, and a single really bad experience of that sort could potentially sour a newcomer on the entire game. It's an unfortunate omission in what is otherwise a very well constructed game.

In terms of overall appearance and presentation, the game is beautiful. The art is fantastic, the production values are top notch, and while I caught a decent-sized handful of typos, none of them were especially distracting or damaging to rules understanding.

So, final verdict? While the objections I called out above mean I can't unconditionally recommend Dragon Age, I can honestly say that the first set, at least, is well worth the price of admission. It looks like a wonderfully fun game to play, and--despite a few missteps--appears to be one of the best options for a "gateway" game on the market today. I'm definitely a fan, and I'm looking forward to seeing what else Green Ronin puts out for the line.

(I'll also take a quick aside, specifically because I was asked a related question in a recent interview, to say that if I had to model The Conqueror's Shadow in an RPG, DA would be my choice--at least in terms of mechanics, if not the actual setting itself. It's not a perfect fit by any means, but at least within the scope of these first five levels, it's closer than any other I've yet seen. I'll certainly be investigating further, as the more advanced sets come out, to see if that continues to be the case.)
____

I found two of the criticisms Ari raises interesting.

First, that the generation of starting abilities would be random is a bad thing, because it will result in some characters unfairly stronger than others. It made me laugh, especially coming from Ari Marmell, a guy with such an extensive background working on games such as Vampire, OGL games and now 4e. Not that it's somehow ironic or hypocritical. Not at all. Quite the contrary, actually. I just happen to find that point ridiculous, personally.

Second, that the talk about the DM's duties, responsibilities, roles in placed at the beginning of the GM book instead of the end actually is a bad thing. There, same thing, I had to smile, because my personal opinion would be exactly the opposite: that you need to talk about the GM's roles and responsabilities before you get to the mechanics of GMing, for the fledging GM to understand how these tools are supposed to be used and to which context they belong. EGG put it best in the Lejendary Rules for All Players a while back (rules which shared Dragon Age's aims as a gateway to RPGs, btw): the game itself is merely a platform upon which [the GM] builds a suitable adventure or campaign, and the players involve themselves in the adventure through the use of game characters. This hierarchy is elemental in nature to role-playing games. This book is intended to introduce the basic structures of the system, and a discussion of these three elements is necessary for understanding role playing games. Players need to understand how each part works in support of the others to engage in play fully. Long term satisfaction with play is also bolstered by understanding how the parts work, so an explanation of the process is provided.

Which is then followed in the Lejendary Rules by a description of The Game, followed by The Lejend Master [GM] and The Game Character. You need to explain these concepts and how they interact with each other, including the GM's duties, responsabilities and such, before you get to the tools that help the GM assume his roles at the game table. Putting it any other way is like putting the cart before the horses. It's nonsensical, to me.

Notice also how the criticism is followed by this interesting sentence: "Putting all that stuff first was a little overwhelming to me, and I'm a very experienced role-player and GM; I think it might actually scare away a few newcomers." Ari might be totally right here, I don't know, since I have not seen or read the Dragon Age RPG myself. The sentence just kind of jumped at me after discussing recently about the truth about fourth edition and the interview in which Andy Collins uses pretty much the same language.

Interesting.

A sign of different times and designs?

That's just the part that I noticed the most. If you want to discuss these particular points, or just discuss about the merits of the Dragon Age RPG as an introductory game to the hobby, or the review itself, and some other points that you noticed, go right ahead.

Quote from: Benoist;366463First, that the generation of starting abilities would be random is a bad thing, because it will result in some characters unfairly stronger than others. It made me laugh, especially coming from Ari Marmell, a guy with such an extensive background working on games such as Vampire, OGL games and now 4e. Not that it's somehow ironic or hypocritical. Not at all. Quite the contrary, actually. I just happen to find that point ridiculous, personally.

Heh. Yeah, point gen has all too many rabid followers who believe it essential to trufun*. But to be fair, DA does dial the random almost all the way back to OD&D levels.

*: Trufun = true fun, as in One True Way. Git it?

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;366496*: Trufun = true fun, as in One True Way. Git it?

I gitit. It's not like newbies to the game will be all up in arms because one guy has a higher Strength than the guy next to him, though. Remember Stormbringer's random generation for origin and profession? Nadsokor beggar vs. Melnibonéan sorcerer? OMG! That game suxxorz nao! Amirite or amarite?

I see randomly rolling the same way I see dice in Monopoly.  Some people might end up with better shit than you, but it's not like people just ragequit the first time someone buys Boardwalk.  It's just part of the game.

I also find the criticism of the presentation of GM duties odd, as well, since WoD usually puts exposition first, mechanics last.  "Here's what the Storyteller does" with all the bits and pieces floating around the end of the chapter.  Even for new players, WW books tend to go really in-depth explaining the process of "storytelling" before mentioning anything about system.

Yes, it's a good thing we didn't have random roll attributes in all those games in the first decade of roleplaying, roleplaying could never have taken off then, rolling badly or not getting the character you hoped for would have scared off all the newbies.

D&D, RuneQuest, Traveller, Cthulhu...

point buy is a degeneration

Damn right. The guy's an idiot.

RPGpundit

Anybody had a look at the Dragon Age RPG though? Seems pretty cool, actually.

As far as those two criticisms go, Benoist is right, the guy is a jackass.  Of course when D&D was published, the US led the world in primary and secondary education and our children could communicate in complete sentences. :rotfl:

I have Dragon Age, it's a really good introductory RPG, it's simple and easy to pick up.  GR seems to be riding the narrative wave in that like SIFRP, there is less focus on simulation and more on abstraction ruleswise, but DA looks like you could easily plug-in more detailed rules if you wanted, it seems designed that way.  It's like Hackmaster Basic in that it's definitely old-school, but benefits from modern design.  

It's a game I think that would appeal to both OD&Ders/BECMIers as well as BoLers.

SIFRP = Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying
BoL = Barbarians of Lemuria

Quote from: Benoist;366729Anybody had a look at the Dragon Age RPG though? Seems pretty cool, actually.

Well, seems like a pretty bad rip-off to me, actually.
The systems seems to be stale, lame-assy and really narrow and static.
Anyways, just my p.o.v.
I remember some guys who bought ranting about the thin "books" and the actual lack of info about the setting itself and the rules "lightness".

Quote from: Benoist;366729Anybody had a look at the Dragon Age RPG though? Seems pretty cool, actually.

I bought the box set. I quite enjoy the rules, but haven't had a chance to run it yet...I've been bandying about the idea of converting some of my roommates classic modules for the purposes of running the game.

I don't agree with randomly rolled attributes, though. They work fine for a quick pick up game, but if I'm going to play in something more long term then I want to play what I want to play...not what arbitrary dice roles assign to me.

To Ari Marmell's credit, he does concede that randomy rolled attributes are "easier to learn and faster to play than a more methodical system of point allocation--and in that respect, it was a good choice for beginners" and that his is "a fairly minor complaint, and one based as much on personal taste as any "objective" problem".

But yeah, the idea that random attributes will scare away the n00bs is fairly disingenuous at best. It might be just me, but I feel that point-based character creation (which seems to be the norm nowadays) often feels like a chore. Random character generation, on the other hand, is a game in and of itself.

Case in point. Creating a GURPS character sometimes feels like doing math homework. But creating a Traveller character always feels like gambling (Your character is already pretty awesome. But should you go for another term? This could get him crippled, or even killed in Classic, but another roll on that table is looking really good right now. Decisions, decisions, what to do?).

Quote from: The Butcher;366775To Ari Marmell's credit, he does concede that randomy rolled attributes are "easier to learn and faster to play than a more methodical system of point allocation--and in that respect, it was a good choice for beginners" and that his is "a fairly minor complaint, and one based as much on personal taste as any "objective" problem".

Granted.

Quote from: The Butcher;366775But yeah, the idea that random attributes will scare away the n00bs is fairly disingenuous at best. It might be just me, but I feel that point-based character creation (which seems to be the norm nowadays) often feels like a chore. Random character generation, on the other hand, is a game in and of itself.

Oh, it's definitely not just you. I love to see what the dice give me and make something vaguely resembling life out of the results. The point-buy approach feels like optimizing the returns on my taxes, to me. The only point-buy that makes sense in this regard to me is in WoD's dot system. It just makes sense, is super-easy to grasp, and fits perfectly with the game's design.

Quote from: RPGPundit;366722Damn right. The guy's an idiot.

RPGpundit

I don't think the guy's an idiot. He's just stating his preferences. I like point-buy and random roll equally. They can both be great for D&D and other games as well. There's no "OneTrueWay" here.

The Dragon Age GM's Kit was just released.  Kit is a misnomer, it's a GM screen with an adventure. The adventure though looks solid - nice plot that will keep the players guessing, lots of advice for new GM's, it doesn't toss out immersion (there is a lot of background infomation on how and why things are happening, actual honest-to-god maps of the area, and a breakdown of things into exploration encounters and roleplaying encounters as well as combat ones).  I'm liking the new GR release method.  Once they send it to printer, you can pre-order the physical product and download the pdf for free.