Dragon Age Central

Quote: Posted 12/01/05 12:18:11 (GMT) by Zelphi
For example, will our clerics (or equivolent) run around with clubs and hit undead

Well, there's no class like that so I can say no. As for those classes which are meant for melee, they're free to steer their development in a number of ways... as long as those ways conform to the general class -- that being the nature and purpose of having a class, after all.

Quote: or our Wizards stuck with sticks and no ability to take melee further?

It's not a melee class, so yes... they don't have access to melee skills.

Quote: Essentially, will our characters be rail-roaded towards a stereotype?

Rail-roaded is a pretty loaded term, as is stereotype. There are development paths available, as well as other classes -- though if what you're asking is whether or not wizards in DA get access to anything beyond basic melee skills, no they don't. Nor should they, really, in light of the fact that we're using a class system and the way that the DA wizard works in particular.

Skill-based systems aren't a new thing, and they are replete with their own drawbacks just as level-based systems are. It's an old argument, and making a choice between the two is pretty fundamental to whatever type of rules system you're developing.

We've chosen the level-based route. This doesn't mean it's D&D-style, though, as some believe -- there's quite a variety of level-based systems to choose from.

Quote: Posted 11/30/05 20:54:19 (GMT) by Kessoon Tai
The dwarf thread made me wonder if the designers are planning on implementing some classes restricted by race.

Not really, no. Some classes are more popular with or originated with a particular culture, but anyone can learn them.

There is an example of a class or two which some races cannot learn, however, but only by way of it being logical that they couldn't.

I'm not sure at what point this became a "submit your race idea" thing... all I asked for originally was for opinions on what you'd like to see/not see insofar as an additional race went. Not that some of these ideas aren't very interesting and all, but I don't want to give the impression that we are looking for submissions per se.

Quote: Posted 11/30/05 17:53:17 (GMT) by Jay, the Hero
Perhaps the answer lay not in trying to make a race different physically than humans (though cool looking models are always nice), but instead in the culture presented by the different race? Just a thought.

I think the feeling here is that culture should be the primary thing that differentiates a new race, yes. I'd rather see a race that had a radically different culture than one that was very different physically to the point of being practically alien.

I'd almost prefer to see new races proposed (if they are going to be proposed) from the perspective of how they differ as a people rather than how they differ physically and what abilities and resistances they might have.

Though, naturally, you're free to discuss whatever you'd like.

Quote: Posted 11/27/05 21:55:50 (GMT) by sly_1
A lot of people seem to echo this sentiment. The problem is, are you willing to sacrifice game balance in order for magic to be "special"?

Why must game balance be sacrificed? You seem to be making a lot of assumptions.

Quote: EVERY rpg ever made that features powerful weapons that are vastly more powerful than regular weapons has been imbalanced.

And why are magic items so vastly powerful? I said magic was powerful. I said magic has changed history -- not rolled across those non-magical losers in a display of uber-pwnage.

Actual enchanted items are rare, and most quality equipment is non-magical, but that neither means that what enchanted items exist are earth-shakingly powerful weapons nor that said weapons would automatically make their way into the hands of the players.

And if they did, and they unbalanced the game completely because said magical artifacts completely pwned everyone with their piddly non-magical stuff, you'd think we might notice.

But I suppose it's easier to fill in the blanks yourself, leap to a conclusion, and then demand a solution to this non-existant problem. I mean... you claim other RPG's have taken this route you describe. Certainly that's more than enough evidence to base your conclusion on, am I right?

Quote: Posted 11/25/05 21:03:43 (GMT) by SlipShadow
I am hoping for a low magic world, where magic is just that, magical.

Playing and Dming in FR for so many years you loose the sense of wonder when dealing with magic. It floods the world so much so that it becomes mundane, mearly a tool to be used, just like a hammer or saw.

I'm not sure quite what I would call the magic category where DA sits, as Low Magic settings can cover quite a lot of territory.

Magic in DA is Low Magic in the sense that it is rare -- your average commoner is unlikely to encounter anything truly magical in his entire lifetime, and actual magic items are the things of legend (most of our items upgrade via the materials they are made out of and the craftsmanship they are made with as opposed to actual, permanent enchantments).
But unlike a lot of Low Magic, DA's magic is very powerful and those who wield it have had a great impact on the world and on its history.

Hope that sets it up on the scale for you.

Yes, Orik is closer to what it is. The classes have access to an array of class-specific, role-specific and general purpose abilities that give you quite a bit more choice in what direction you want to specialize.

When asked a question like "will there be classes similar to rangers and druids?" the problem I have with the comparison is that, were I to say yes, there's a lot of baggage that comes with that -- in D&D, at least, my impression has always been that "wilderness-oriented" is almost akin to "wilderness restricted".

I suppose if all you're looking for is something more thematic, then the answer is yes -- with the caveat that inside of the theme offered by the class you have a fair amount of room for variation.

And that is really the best non-answer I can give without needing to go BLAAAAaahhh and explain the entire thing to avoid misunderstanding.

Quote: Posted 11/21/05 22:10:44 (GMT) by johnnyriot999
Considering those ideas of qualification, can "there are no classes that by design are tied specifically to ____" be said about other enviornments as well? Say for example, a social class (like a bard) that would thrive in towns and civilizations, or a sort of spy class that would succeed the same way in an urban city setting?

Mmm. Perhaps instead of "tied specifically to" I should have said "restricted solely to". D&D druids and (to a lesser extent) rangers are arguably less useful outside of their specialty environment, at least as I see it.

That's not to say that some DA abilities might not be more useful in particular circumstances, but the effort has been made not to handicap any of these classes in this way at the design level.

Quote: Posted 11/17/05 21:18:56 (GMT) by Melirinda
Will there be scenery NPCs like in BG1, who had nothing to do with the plot but had fun banter and created the atmosphere?

Don't most of our games have such ambient characters?

Quote: Also, like in BG1, will there be an opportunity to charm pretty much any named creature and get a 'secret' dialogue?

Who says there will be such a thing as an ability to charm someone? There won't, so no.

Quote: Posted 11/15/05 19:52:19 (GMT) by Melirinda
'nyways, my opinion is always do what you wish with the Dwarves, but please, please, keep the Elves in FR/Tolkien's tradition. Pwetty please?

If you mean that elves are supposed to be haughty, immortal, nature-loving super-beings who are superior to humans in every possible way -- then no, those won't be our elves. Not quite, anyhow. You'll see.

Quote: Posted 10/30/05 01:46:51 (GMT) by Maria Caliban
Will the party companions available to the PC be different for each background?

No. Party members are available to all players, though their relationship with you might be different based on your background.

Quote: Also, to what extent will regular NPCs reactions refer to backgrounds?

It varies. Sometimes it's very minor, sometimes you get entirely different dialogue and even different plots or different rewards. Essentially what we want is for the player to feel the recognition of their race/gender/background at least a little bit everywhere they go. In one area you might just have one or two characters that bring it up, in another it will be very different for everyone, but the idea is for it to be at least noticeable throughout.

The backgrounds are pretty detailed and story-oriented... they involve beginning the game in a unique area and have an entire section of gameplay devoted just to that background. They also affect many things in the rest of the game.

So being able to pick-and-choose various elements inside of that background would be difficult without changing the story completely (and thus requiring a new background entirely), unless the changes were fairly minor.

As it is, there's much more involved than the stat-affecting backgrounds in Arcanum. And I should add that the backgrounds are only class-specific when that class has special requirements -- otherwise the backgrounds are race-specific and involve having cultural options that would be available to someone of that race.

Quote: Posted 10/20/05 18:26:33 (GMT) by malthaussen
1) Elves with pointed ears.

Mmmm... nope, our elves definitely have pointy ears. If you're going to have elves, they might as well look like elves, I figure.

Quote: 2) All love interests (for males) being female elvish (or half-elvish) clerics.

Gee. That's rather BG2-centric of you.

Incidentally, the reason that the love interests in BG2 were all clerics was simple: we were working the odds. You couldn't know when you start the game which characters can become love interests, and you probably need at least one cleric in your party -- so chances are you'd have at least one available love interest if you were male.

At any rate, easily accomodated in DA. There's no elven female love interest and we have no cleric class. So there you go.

Quote: Posted 07/22/05 21:46:01 (GMT) by MightySword
That's the case, the player is always the center of the story. Which pretty carry the flavour of a special figure above all else. In some meaning, it's handled the same as if the player is star destiny or a spoken prophecies. I'm not saying anything more then that.

Well, the difference is whether the world setting treats the player as special or not. If the player has earned his notoriety in game, I would say that's a good thing.

Quote: 
As a heroes no less, and again, as a special figure head I reckon, one way or another. Prophecies or not is just one of many way to look at the same thing.

Err... no, it's quite different.

Quote: 
Indirectly. Since again, I believe up until now the only way to refer to Dragon Age directly is calling the name Dragon Age itself, more then that, probably not.

What?

Quote: Anyway, that quote came from BGII itself, TOB-Volurn (typo?), and it's one of my favorite line. It explained why most of games generally follow a single concept: without a world shaking prophecies then life would be boring. And I thought a writer would remember that line.

I've written 100,000 words already for DA and you want me to remember a single minor line from four years ago that I may not even have written?

Quote: I heard a rumour (can't remember it was official or non-official) that up until this point Bioware's writers and designers have been following a specific standard and script (like the game must go from this point, then develops to this point, and conclude at this point). Even if it was just a rumour it still has a point, taking sometime with a paper and pencil one can easily trace out the simalirity from most games from BG series to the latest Jade Empire.

I... what? A specific standard and script? You mean a formula? And this was a rumor?

Quote: However, the second part of the rumour also stated that this time, with Dragon Age, Bioware decides to use a new direction of developing the story and a new script to generate the events.

So this was a multi-part rumor. Ah, yes, it all becomes clear...

Quote: I wonder if this is the things that several Biowarians are refering to as a new change to Dragon Age (indirectly ofcourse).

What things? The rumor things? Was the rumor us referring to something or was it something we referred to in this thread? And are you talking about an indirect reference or an indirect change?

Quote: ---> that's my whole point in "length", rather then a single inquiry quote.

I... what?

Quote: In short, I was simply asking if this time Bioware decide to change the formular and approach in DA (thus cross out the prophecies and destiny), provided I thought you know/remember that quote, but it turned out you don't, sorry for not being clear on that.

But... wasn't that a quote from Throne of Bhaal? Made by a character in the game? Or am I missing something? I think I'm missing lots.

Quote: But as you can see, the quote is still in-context, ofcourse, I think right now we have to accept an indirect approach in our thinking, since we (the players) don't have a base for a direct approach ... yet.

I... I'm confused. Please stop hurting me.