New Dragon Age discussion thread

[newc0253]

BG was based on a pen & paper games system where you had six-second rounds. So it's turn-based as in "it's your turn."

 

just to make matters more confusing, D&D also has (or at least had, i dunno what the latest deal is under 4e) units of time called turns. so 10 rounds = 1 turn.

 

also rounds could be broken down into segments, so 10 segments = 1 round, or 1 turn = 100 segments.

 

fun, huh?

Edited August 30, 2008 by newc0253

[Wrath of Dagon]

Naturally, I'm interested in "origin" of player characters. If I understand it correctly, it seems to be social, cultural and religious background settings assigned to each character upon character creation, which influence role-playing, means, NPC interactions in the world of Dragon Age. Is there enough room for players to assume variety of interpretation of stories and characters of Dragon Age? Or, is it going to end up with a story of good forces defeating a "villain" in the end? I know designers at Bioware have tried to make their villains interesting and three dimensional but, if the story begins from various view points, it would be rather odd if it were going to end up like other endings of Bioware products.

Origin is a background you pick at character creation, like a dwarven prince or a human mage, they haven't been very specific. Actually I believe it's a combination of background and class. Then you play through a prequel, which is unique to every origin. Once you're done with that, you join the main story, the beginning of which they seem to be demoing in trailers and videos. As far as the villain, defeating the Darkspawn (a locust like enemy) will be the main goal of the game, though there will be other twists and turns.

 

As for combat, I cannot connect massive battles involving many characters and the party battle with the 4 member limit. Is the former for massive multi-player online while the latter is for single player modules? Also, I'm expecting the combat is more like Baldur's Gate systems rather than more recent Bioware products. Is my expectation is going to be failed since Dragon Age is now multi-platform?

No multiplayer right now at all. 4 party limit, and I believe up to 20 enemies at a time. The big battles seem to be only in cutscenes.

[Kelverin]

So has much information been released about the bestiary, monsters of the game world? Attributes, powers, characteristics.......

I sure hope not, I am really looking forward to playing a fantasy game, where I don't know everything about every creature I encounter. Keep it a mystery, don't let me right click on them and know all their strengths and weaknesses.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Not yet, but they're planning to release a lot more info before the game comes out. Personally I think we already know enough, but they got to do the marketing.

[Wombat]

@Wrath of Dagon I've already gathered info you've given through searches as long as it is available on the net for everyone.

 

My question about origins is: if it has some depth and offers different viewpoints, then, how does it fit to Bioware's story formula of defeating dark forces, which is suitable to D&D settings with clear-cut good/evil powers?

 

No multiplayer right now at all. 4 party limit, and I believe up to 20 enemies at a time. The big battles seem to be only in cutscenes.

If I remember correctly, Bioware was planning massive combat gameplay in the early stage of Dragon Age, hence, the question.

 

I've already gathered these pieces of info publicized on the net, whether officially or unofficially. The reason I asked the questions above is that some factors don't seem to fit together.

 

Well, but if I cannot get the answer now, it would be reasonable for me to wait for some reviews.

[Kelverin]

"Dragon Age: Origins represents BioWare

Edited September 1, 2008 by Kelverin

[Wrath of Dagon]

My question about origins is: if it has some depth and offers different viewpoints, then, how does it fit to Bioware's story formula of defeating dark forces, which is suitable to D&D settings with clear-cut good/evil powers?

I'm not sure to what extent the origins include any kind of morality, but in general they promised more than clear cut good/evil choices. And this is not a D&D setting. Also you may have better luck asking on the official forum, the worst that can happen is they won't answer.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Hmmm, the toolset brings to mind an old question - with BG/BG2, modders were able to make modifications and improvements to the original campaign. In NWN, the toolset enabled them to create their own adventures from scratch, but I gather it was difficult to modify the OC (there was nothing like WeiDU to allow lots of mods to work together), which was a shame because the NWN OC could have done with a few tweaks here and there. So what's the situation with Dragon Age? Extensions to the OC or free-standing mods? It would be great if both were possible.

[Volourn]

"In NWN, the toolset enabled them to create their own adventures from scratch, but I gather it was difficult to modify the OC (there was nothing like WeiDU to allow lots of mods to work together)"

 

Um... actually, it was easy to mod the OC. It was as easy to mod/edit as any NWN module. And, mods were added to it included the improved AI, making combat more challenging, extended henchmen help, and what not.

 

It just seems like a waste of tiem to mod the OC when inspiring modders can just flat out create their own stuff.

 

But, it had nothing to do with engine/toolset limitations - just modder choice.

 

Why would you as SteveThaiBinh the Inspiring Modder bother to mod someone else's work when you can actually work on SteveThaiBinh's Mod?!?!

 

Like i said above, however, the OC was modded.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I stand corrected. Though personally I would rather add to the OC than try to create something from scratch - it seems less daunting? I guess the modders are braver souls than I.

[Kelverin]

I stand corrected. Though personally I would rather add to the OC than try to create something from scratch - it seems less daunting? I guess the modders are braver souls than I.

Currently running through the OC (chapter 2) and adding on would be a big mistake. Streamlining/editing/removing content is more like it.

[Volourn]

"I stand corrected. Though personally I would rather add to the OC than try to create something from scratch - it seems less daunting? I guess the modders are braver souls than I."

 

Well, I guess it's a matter of perspective actually (despite my 'rant' above).

 

 

"Currently running through the OC (chapter 2) and adding on would be a big mistake. Streamlining/editing/removing content is more like it."

 

I could see me doing both. For starters, I'd remove the teleport stone, respawning, and go with the actual NWN default death rules and not the OC rules. I'd add the ability to have 3 npcs in the group as well.

Edited September 1, 2008 by Volourn

[Dark_Raven]

6 npcs. Three is not enough.

[Volourn]

Wrong. It seems to have worked out in D&D for decades with parties of 4 being the typical. Though, parties as much as 6 is fine and dandy as is a party of 2-3.

[Monte Carlo]

Wrong. It seems to have worked out in D&D for decades with parties of 4 being the typical. Though, parties as much as 6 is fine and dandy as is a party of 2-3.

 

^ Even wronger. Where, ever, has a four person party been 'typical?'

 

Been playing since 1980. Seen one-player-one-DM games (rare), fifteen-handed dungeon raids (need a big garage and lots of pizza), three players each taking two player characters for a party of six and just about every other configuration inbetween. Funnily enough, the average size of the groups I've played in was six (including the DM).

Edited September 1, 2008 by Monte Carlo

[Monte Carlo]

Just read the press blurb about the tool set -

 

Create Original Adventures

[Wrath of Dagon]

Since there are only 3 base classes, a party of 4 should be enough to make a balanced or a specialized party.

[newc0253]

Even wronger. Where, ever, has a four person party been 'typical?'

 

[...] the average size of the groups I've played in was six (including the DM).

same here.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Since there are only 3 base classes, a party of 4 should be enough to make a balanced or a specialized party.

Have they said there are only 3 base classes in all, or only 3 available to the player?

[Wrath of Dagon]

You have fighter, mage, and rogue. Pretty sure the same skill trees are available to the entire party, although there could be some exceptions, like the dog.

Edited September 1, 2008 by Wrath of Dagon

[Volourn]

"Even wronger. Where, ever, has a four person party been 'typical?'"

 

Considiring pre amde campaigns are balanced usually for 4 players (sometimes 4-6); 4 is definitely the stereotypical party. Why do people think 'fighter-cleric-theif-mage' as your typical aprty? And, yeah, we all have variant party numbers. If anything it just proves that Dark Raven was silly when demanding 'six'. I stand by my statement that a party of 4 is typical. That doesn't mean it's the only number used.

 

P.S. The date you started playing doesn't impress me one iota.

[Morgoth]

Dragon Age toolset screenshot.

 

 

Doesn't look that familiar to another prominent toolset?

[Monte Carlo]

P.S. The date you started playing doesn't impress me one iota.

 

Gadzooks! How on earth could any of us impress you? You are magical Volo and we are merely your clueless puppets, here to amuse and entertain you. Mindless foils for your unique wit, wisdom and incisive conversational style.

Edited September 1, 2008 by Monte Carlo

[mkreku]

The first D&D game I ever played was Pool of Radiance. In it, you created a party of six, with two companions you could pick up later.

[Wombat]

I'm not sure to what extent the origins include any kind of morality, but in general they promised more than clear cut good/evil choices. And this is not a D&D setting. Also you may have better luck asking on the official forum, the worst that can happen is they won't answer.

If the character background settings have depth at all, probably they cover original backgrounds of classes and races as well as functions as party combat units. For example, if you are a mage, you will not be popular in the area where the influence and the belief of the Chantry is dominant. Of course, the story would be different if Dragon Age were just yet another D&D clone with already established notions of classes and races. However, as you wrote, the designers denied it. I wonder if this even goes further and different class/races have different beliefs and the world views, which would make DA world three dimensional and interesting to explore. Conflicts among different beliefs and thoughts would be a good source for role-playing. I'm wondering if DA allows us to role-play of this level. Rather than "evil forces," the dark forces, or the result of the Blight, may be rather a possible catastrophe upon various political and religious groups in Dragon Age, which would offer a good role-playing opportunity to convince/sabotage each group in the world. In this case, if each group has convincing background, belief and political agenda in their own ways, it will be interesting to interact with NPCs from each group. However, I need healthy amount of doubts.

 

As for the necessary number of party members for tactical choices, it totally depends on the system. The date counts as long as it indicates the different systems of (A)D&D. When it didn't have skills or 3rd ed. style multi-class system, it required more characters. Different system, different party composition.