Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

After 'Faces of Thedas'?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • After 'Faces of Thedas'?

    I know the supplement hasn't been printed yet, but it's draft availability as a pdf means it's basically been released. My question is, therefore - what comes next for our beloved RPG? It seems to me that there are two options, either or both of which Green Ronin can consider:

    1. Dragon Age specific: The only future product that has ever been mooted is an Inquisition Companion. Presumably this would bring in stats and rules for foes and factions from the computer game, like the Venatori and Red Templars, as well as bits and pieces like rules for Red Lyrium. This would be all well and good, but rather out of date - the chances are that any such companion book would come out after the Dragon Age 4 computer game. The experiences of getting final approval from Bioware for Faces of Thedas must also have seared the soul of Green Ronin - going through the whole glacial process again would be almost masochistic.

    2. Fantasy Age compatable: Some of the rules for Fantasy Age are already wholly applicable to our DA game - things like the new specialisations, talents, backgrounds and minion rules from the recent FA Companion. It should be relatively simple to produce more material that can translate over to DA, without breaking any copyright or license agreement. I dare say the upcoming 'Lairs' supplement will be useable and adaptable for most of us - there is plenty more that can be done.

    My own preference would be for both routes to be pursued, though I think if Dragon Age specific material is written it would be wise to shy away from inventing or even discussing too much canon - I think this is a factor that may have delayed approval for 'Faces of Thedas'.

  • #2
    Re: After 'Faces of Thedas'?

    Faces is printed, and is on it's way to pre order customers.
    ALL HAIL THE SPAM-O-MATIC!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: After 'Faces of Thedas'?

      An Inquisition type of book would be nice if that is still in the future plans. For me I am looking mostly for the other Specializations to be done up and then the various monsters we have not seen yet. Maybe a few of the other Big Bads we've seen.
      The Untouchable, the Avenger.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: After 'Faces of Thedas'?

        Originally posted by Alurvelve View Post
        An Inquisition type of book would be nice if that is still in the future plans. For me I am looking mostly for the other Specializations to be done up and then the various monsters we have not seen yet. Maybe a few of the other Big Bads we've seen.
        We don't need an Inquisition sourcebook though for new specialisations - Alchemist and a 'Tempest' equivalent could easily be brought in to Fantasy Age, as well as many others, which we can then borrow. It will be a lot quicker that way...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: After 'Faces of Thedas'?

          I'm going to be a bit of a pessimist here: I really don't see anything further coming from GR in terms of the Dragon Age license. As much as I'd like to do so, I can't imagine that EA/Bioware are particularly thrilled at the overall profit margin on licensing their IP for an rpg, especially considering the lengthy development time. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see the license agreement just running out with little hubbub or fanfare.

          That said, I also wouldn't be surprised to see a Dragon Age 2e version, making the corebook compatible with Fantasy Age (or, perhaps, requiring the Fantasy Age corebook and instead focusing more on the setting info and the various threats in Thedas). While the DA-rpg stats mirror that of the video games, I imagine that GR will likely find it much easier (and strong for their brand) to move all of their IPs into the core AGE rules. I see this as much more likely if Dragon Age 4 comes with a 2020 release date; if DA4 runs into 2021 or beyond, I just don't see anything further being plated up on the GR slate.

          Comment


          • #6
            Aside from a potential Inquisition sourcebook, which if they delay long enough you could work into a "Inquisition & DA4 Source Book", I'd personally like to see a continuation of Faces of Thedas one character mini-books like Tallis & Varric got before the book's main release to cover the various characters they didn't include in the main book.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by FormerFiend View Post
              Aside from a potential Inquisition sourcebook, which if they delay long enough you could work into a "Inquisition & DA4 Source Book", I'd personally like to see a continuation of Faces of Thedas one character mini-books like Tallis & Varric got before the book's main release to cover the various characters they didn't include in the main book.
              I'd love to see more support for those characters that were cut. But I don't see a new book in the short time.
              We just finished Blood in Ferelden, I plan to run an entire campaign based on the Origins story (adapted for 4-5 players) so I don't really *need* more books now. I still have to play inquisition, and strongly believe I'll want to run something inspired in that game...
              ​​​​​​Being realistic I can only think in more adventures of GR is going to publish something

              Comment


              • #8
                I think downloadable pdf 'Faces of Thedas' on Shale and Fenris would address much of the criticism of the supplement. One could interview David Gaider for some insights (who no longer works for Bioware) in much the same way as the Tallis and Varric original pdfs included interviews with their creators.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Additional characters would certainly go a ways towards addressing the missed opportunities in Faces of Thedas, but it's not something that I see happening anytime soon.

                  Much as I'd like to see Shale or Fenris, I still think Vivienne may be the biggest miss in the book as a whole. Love her or hate her--I don't particularly "like" her, but I find the way she was written fascinating and very well executed--she's a well-connected courtier, one of Orlais' most notable mages, potentially either the head of the College of Enchanters or the Divine. She could be a quest-giver, a companion, a rival, an antagonist, a romance option, or anywhere in between; literally the ideal for GM's NPC. If anyone should have gotten the full four-page write-up in FoT, it should have been her. Simply not including her at all was a painfully missed opportunity.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by PlatinumWarlock View Post
                    Additional characters would certainly go a ways towards addressing the missed opportunities in Faces of Thedas, but it's not something that I see happening anytime soon.

                    Much as I'd like to see Shale or Fenris, I still think Vivienne may be the biggest miss in the book as a whole. Love her or hate her--I don't particularly "like" her, but I find the way she was written fascinating and very well executed--she's a well-connected courtier, one of Orlais' most notable mages, potentially either the head of the College of Enchanters or the Divine. She could be a quest-giver, a companion, a rival, an antagonist, a romance option, or anywhere in between; literally the ideal for GM's NPC. If anyone should have gotten the full four-page write-up in FoT, it should have been her. Simply not including her at all was a painfully missed opportunity.
                    Couldnít disagree more. Thereís not a terrible amount of differentiation between character builds. So creating individuals, barring having infinite space itís most important to:

                    1. Create characters of different build types ó eg, a STR fighter, DEX fighter, archer, magic fighter, etc. That allows the easiest modification and utility.

                    2. Create characters with unique effects ó Shale is a golem, Fenrisís tattoos, spirit possession, etc. Those arenít covered in core rules, but could be that players want to replicate.

                    making a character just doesnt take long enough that GR missing any character is really that big of a deal, with the exception of the inclusion of unique rules (pt 2)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by shonuff View Post

                      Couldnít disagree more. Thereís not a terrible amount of differentiation between character builds. So creating individuals, barring having infinite space itís most important to:

                      1. Create characters of different build types ó eg, a STR fighter, DEX fighter, archer, magic fighter, etc. That allows the easiest modification and utility.

                      2. Create characters with unique effects ó Shale is a golem, Fenrisís tattoos, spirit possession, etc. Those arenít covered in core rules, but could be that players want to replicate.

                      making a character just doesnt take long enough that GR missing any character is really that big of a deal, with the exception of the inclusion of unique rules (pt 2)
                      Interesting take; I can see your point, though I still disagree with you.

                      This also goes back to a fundamental question of what FoT is meant to be:

                      Is it meant to provide character options? If so, it's failed on its face--four backgrounds and a few pages on relationships do not make for a satisfactory amount of options in a 120-ish page book.

                      Is it meant to provide unique stats or effects? Not really. The only characters in the book that really break the mold are Cole and Anders, for obvious reasons. Cassandra and Alistair are both sword-and-shield warriors with the Templar mastery, as is Lord Seeker Lambert. There's no heavy differentiation in stats there. If the focus *was* on providing unique stats/effects or character options, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you, but that's not the way the book seems to be oriented.

                      Is the book meant to provide lore and character background for NPCs? Sort of. This varies from NPC to NPC, but the most substantial entries (the ones which get a 3-4 page write up, with distinct Background, Personality, Relationships, Playing XXXX and Advancement sections) tend to revolve around movers and shakers in the setting. That, coupled with the amount of overall space devoted to text vs. stat blocks (which is about a 3:1 ratio), leads me to believe that the book was meant to detail characters' backgrounds and how to implement them in a game, moreso than their mere stats.

                      Because of that, the question lies: which characters have the most to give, in terms of background and potential within the game setting? Fenris is undoubtedly an interesting character; same with Shale. But, in both cases, we see their arcs resolve within their expected games. We find out Shale's true identity and what caused her to become a golem. We confront Danarius, kill him, and resolve Fenris' family struggles in DA II.
                      With Vivienne? That's not the case. Even after Inquisition/Trespasser, there's a *ton* left to tell with her. She sits in a volatile position of power (whether Divine or Grand Enchanter), and can serve more easily, in more roles than either Fenris or Shale. There's just more there in terms of the elements that seem to comprise the 4-page entries included elsewhere in the book.

                      I'm not saying Fenris/Shale shouldn't have been included. They absolutely should have been, even though both characters would clearly take up more 'design space', between explaining lyrium tattoos or golem crystals and the like.

                      But, given the seeming focus of FoT of background over character options, Vivienne is still the more egregious result. She's not a hard character to replicate, you're right on that; but she's a much more impactful, campaign-usable NPC than either Fenris or Shale.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X