Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Fantasy AGE core book and other news...

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

  • New Fantasy AGE core book and other news...

    So, Annual Address is up: https://greenronin.com/blog/2020/01/...-2020-preview/

    Fantasy AGE Lairs nearing pre-order stage; Freeport AGE starter set at GenCon, with a new core Fantasy AGE book to follow.

    No mention of the Community Content Program, the setting Jack Norris and Jaym Gates were working on that was mentioned last year, and obviously Titansgrave is still tied up with Wil Wheaton and Geek and Sundry in court.

    Looking forward to Lairs and really pleased that Freeport AGE is finally on the horizon (and I'm intrigued to find out what will be in that boxed set). But I have to say, the thing the game needs, desperately, is the Community Content Program.

    Nick

    Last edited by NickMiddleton; 21st February 2020, 02:42 AM. Reason: Typo!

  • #2
    I don't know ... I guess I'm quite of over FantasyAGE by now. All of the stuff I had prepared for AGE is now in the publishing pipeline for another system. Apart from that, AGE as a system seems to move exactly in the opposite direction from where I would like it so see - every new game adds complexity instead of streamlining the system. By now, I have little faith that a new edition of F-AGE will do what I'd like to see, and I have zero interest in Freeport as a setting.
    Apart from that, it probably makes sense to marry F-AGE to Freeport - there's probably a lot of Freeport fans who are potential customers. I wish Green Ronin everything well with AGE, but for me personally, this news is more like the nail in the coffin of AGE.

    Comment


    • #3
      Really looking forward to this! The new FAGE Core Book will be an instant buy...and Freeport - I'll just add it to my collection of Freeport in other systems. Love the setting.

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm looking forward to the Freeport tie-in. Of course, I ran some Freeport based adventures with AGE when the 1st Dragon AGE set came out, so I'm a little biased.

        Comment


        • #5
          Very excited for all the things coming this year!

          Still sad to not hear about the AGE Community Content Program, but I will use this time to continue amassing a portfolio to release on the platform!
          If you enjoy the AGE system you might enjoy our podcast, The Adventure Game Engine Interest Series (The AGEIS)! Formerly known as the Wonders of Thedas, we talk about all iterations of the AGE system from Dragon Age to the Expanse! We do actual plays as well as discussion episodes where we take listener questions, feature fan creations, and share news about the AGE systems! Step through the portals to see the many worlds they hide!

          You can follow us on Facebook and Twitter, listen to us on Soundcloud, Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify, and other places you get podcasts! You can contact us through our social media, Soundcloud, or by emailing us at ageipodcast@gmail.com !

          Comment


          • #6
            Is this corebook going to be the same with just the inclusion of Freeport, or will there be significant changes?

            I'm only asking because I just ordered the core book today.
            Last edited by SaveVersus; 21st February 2020, 10:34 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SaveVersus View Post
              Is this corebook going to be the same with just the inclusion of Freeport, or will there be significant changes?
              I'm curious about this as well. What is changing apart from the addition of Freeport and likely errata.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Aldarc View Post
                I'm curious about this as well. What is changing apart from the addition of Freeport and likely errata.
                As this hasn't been answered yet, I'll ask it too. What is the plan for the new core book?

                A primary feature that drew me to FAGE was the clean, uncluttered nature of the core book. It would be sad to see that change. The FAGE companion included a few options I like, plus mountains of things that don't make sense in my setting. It's easy to tell a player "Sorry, they don't exist in this world", if the idea is from an optional supplement or setting book. If, however, the core book allows half-beast magical ranger-monks from the 6th dimension, it becomes harder to maintain a coherent setting. Players tend to feel entitled to whatever the core book allows. If I have to allow everything plus the kitchen sink, I may as well throw in the towel and play 5e. Please consider putting any new character options (including everything from the Companion) into a section that includes the word "optional" in its title. Do the same for any type of meta currency. Options are great, but keep your engine clean.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Vidgrip View Post


                  A primary feature that drew me to FAGE was the clean, uncluttered nature of the core book. It would be sad to see that change.
                  I know I've already ranted in this thread about how I don't like the route that AGE seems to be taking ... however, I need to second that. What would probably make me fall back in love with AGE would actually be an even cleaner, less cluttered version of the rules. The one thing I keep hoping for is one table with general stunts for all situations that can be used to reproduce the stunts as we see them now. Something along the lines of "Spend 2 points to force a contested roll, e.g. to disarm, to taunt someone, with the result of a success depending on your intention"; "spend 3 points for an additional action"; "spend 2 points (4 in combat) to have your action affect a second target"; and also, more stunts with variable costs to make it easier to use up your Stunt points (e.g. "spend 1-3 Stunt points to make a test easier for one of your fellows"; "spend 1-3 stunt points to either improve your defense for the rest of the round or make an opponents test harder." I think you can boil down most of the stunts down to five or six entries like these, with the caveat that, of course, the GM has the last say about which kind of stunt benefits are possible and make sense in which situations.

                  I've heard that something along that lines is already buried somewhere in the ModernAGE companion. If you're planning to have something similar for FantasyAGE, please don't bury it in some supplement, in a place that people like me will never find it because they have been scared away by three pages of rules for explosives ... it belongs right in front, maybe not as the default option, but at least as an option everyone playing the game should be aware of!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Vidgrip View Post

                    As this hasn't been answered yet, I'll ask it too. What is the plan for the new core book?

                    A primary feature that drew me to FAGE was the clean, uncluttered nature of the core book. It would be sad to see that change. The FAGE companion included a few options I like, plus mountains of things that don't make sense in my setting. It's easy to tell a player "Sorry, they don't exist in this world", if the idea is from an optional supplement or setting book. If, however, the core book allows half-beast magical ranger-monks from the 6th dimension, it becomes harder to maintain a coherent setting. Players tend to feel entitled to whatever the core book allows. If I have to allow everything plus the kitchen sink, I may as well throw in the towel and play 5e. Please consider putting any new character options (including everything from the Companion) into a section that includes the word "optional" in its title. Do the same for any type of meta currency. Options are great, but keep your engine clean.
                    The D&D 5e PHB draws distinction between core / common races (Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, Humans) and less common / exotic Dragonborn, Gnomes, Half-Orcs and Tieflings - FAGE effectively does the same with the Basic RB races (Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings, Humans, Orcs) and the Companion Races (Beast-folk, Blooded, Draak and Oreans).

                    Much else of what is in the Fantasy AGE Companion I would want in a revised core book - the new Focii, Talents, Specialisations and Arcana Talents / Spells usefully round out the barebones system from the Basic Rule book and I won't run Fantasy AGE without them now. Likewise, whilst I use them less often, the rules for mass combat, organisations, vehicles and chases are a welcome addition to my GMs tools for running long term games with AGE.

                    I think a revision of the Basic Rulebook as the rules element of the mooted Freeport Starter Set, and a judicious synthesis of the Basic Rule Book and Companion for the new complete core book is a good starting point. And putting a bunch of the companion options (e.g. for making things more dangerous etc) in a chapter in the GMs section of the book clearly marked as OPTIONAL is fine. But then, I've had no issue running D&D 5e with "No Clerics, Fighters, Rogues or Wizards," or rigidly defined race lists (e.g. no Elves or Dwarves).

                    As for Jakob Schmidt's "generic Stunts" - it is indeed in the Modern AGE Companion (page 56 - General Stunts) but I find it is a two edged sword. Part of the charm of AGE and the feature that engages players is the Stunt mechanic; part of what bogs down play at the table is decision paralysis parsing long specific stunt lists and / or interpreting woolly / abstract stunt descriptions for specific situations... I'd put picking default stunts from well defined default Combat / Exploration / Role Play lists as PC signature "moves" front and centre (helps define PC', reduces player decision paralysis) but then emphasise to the GM the idea of general stunts - e.g. 2SP to increase the effectiveness of output (+1D6 if output is measured in D6) - it is how I was running AGE before the Modern AGE Companion anyway, but then I've never treated any RPG rule set as a rigid algorithm / finite state automata we have to adhere to without deviation.

                    Cheers,

                    Nick

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by NickMiddleton View Post
                      Part of the charm of AGE and the feature that engages players is the Stunt mechanic; part of what bogs down play at the table is decision paralysis parsing long specific stunt lists and / or interpreting woolly / abstract stunt descriptions for specific situations... I'd put picking default stunts from well defined default Combat / Exploration / Role Play lists as PC signature "moves" front and centre (helps define PC', reduces player decision paralysis) but then emphasise to the GM the idea of general stunts - e.g. 2SP to increase the effectiveness of output (+1D6 if output is measured in D6) - it is how I was running AGE before the Modern AGE Companion anyway, but then I've never treated any RPG rule set as a rigid algorithm / finite state automata we have to adhere to without deviation.
                      I think that's a good approach - basically, provide both. My main problem has always been the players looking at the combat stunt list and saying "I can't be bothered to puzzle together some way to make use of my stunt points from this" or looking at the exploration/rp stunts and saying: "But none of this is of any use to me in this situation!" (frankly, I can't remember ever rolling a test where expenditure of resources was a major concern). So getting a list with very general stunts that I can suggest to my players - or that my players can work with themselves, preferrably with variable point values, would help a lot to speed up play and reduce frustration. While I have back-engineered something like this myself, anyway, it would certainly helped to have it baked into the RAW, already taking into account how it interacts with special abilities and things like that.

                      Signature moves are a nice thought, but never really worked for me, the main problem being the fixed stunt point cost - either you have too little stunt points to use a signature move, or you have points left, and then you're back at: "Well, I'll move my opponent one yard, doesn't help me in any way, but I would hate to see that SP got to waste." Do you happen to have implemented any house rules for signature moves? Like having each character pick one or two basic signature moves that they will be able to perform regardless of their rolled SP total?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X