[Read-Thru] Odyssey: The Complete Game Master's Guide to Campaign Management

I'm thinking of investing in one of those aluminum foil hats. You know, the kind that's supposed to prevent mind reading? Because I'm pretty sure the folks at Gnome Stew are scanning my brain for ideas. When Martin Ralya contacted me to find out if I wanted to do a pre-release review of the next Gnome Stew/Engine Publishing book, I was of course intrigued. Their last three entries were great, and I was pretty sure two of them were the result of reading my mind. Odyssey: The Complete Game Master's Guide to Campaign Management, by Phil Vecchione and Walt Ciechanowski, has me considering aluminum foil hats. The book has arrived as I'm feeling it's time to take starting and running a campaign seriously if I want to keep the buy-in of my group, who are all-too patient with my Game Mastering Multiple Personality Disorder (GMMPD). Odyssey should help me do just that.

The PDF is of the typical quality expected from Engine Publishing. That is to say it's bookmarked and hyperlinked, and it's just the right file size to make for a super-smooth read on my iPad Mini--or any tablet, I imagine. The font size should make for easy reading whether your tablet is 7" or 10". For fun, I put it on my wife's phone, which has a 4.75" screen, and I could read it just fine in landscape mode.

After the obligatory introduction material, which includes a foreword by the inimitable Kenneth Hite, the book is broken down into four sections. The first part is all about how the author views campaigns and why he thinks managing them properly is important. Given my current GMing situation, I didn't need much convincing, but I also identified with a lot of the explanation of when things work and when they don't, and why. If you want to give your GM (who clearly doesn't need any help--just ask him) a gentle nudge in the right direction, I'd recommend asking him to read this section before poo-pooing the book.

The main three sections of the book are Starting a Campaign, Managing a Campaign, and Ending a Campaign. Each section is broken down into steps, and each step provides questions you should ask, steps you should take, and examples of what happens when you do it right and if you don't do it so well. Throughout the book, Phil and Walt provide real life examples from their own campaigns. It was refreshing to read their mistakes as well as their successes. Also, there's a fictional gaming group that is used to help drive home each lesson in the book. I like that the group didn't seem fake. They were completely believable because I was able to see myself and other gaming friends in them.

After reading Odyssey, I came away feeling better about the mistakes I've made over the years, and feeling great about the things I know I've done well. I'm really excited to apply my newfound knowledge to future campaigns. This book will be a useful reference whenever I'm between sessions. Of course it's my hope I will spend more time in the middle of this book than in the other sections.

As I write this, it's my intention to do a "Play-Thru" of Odyssey. I'm about to start a new campaign. I may as well report on how each step works for me. The Starting a Campaign posts should come rather quickly. Perhaps Managing a Campaign posts would come as they apply. Hopefully, the Ending a Campaign posts will be farther into the future than might be usual for me.

So after writing this post, I've decided not to invest in an aluminum foil hat. If the guys at Gnome Stew really are scanning my brain for ideas, the information is clearly in good hands.

@ReverbGamers Master List Number 26

#26: Who or what was the most memorable NPC you've ever encountered? Why?

That'd be my version of "One-Eyed" Hank Ketchum. Again, I'm going back to my classic Deadlands campaign. He ended up being in Veronica's character, "Black Widow" Beth's, background as the guy who recruited her. I brought him in as a one-off to kick off the campaign. He was well-liked by the group, so I ended up making him recurring.

He wasn't one of those GM characters that stayed with the group or anything, but he did show up now and then to give the group a mission or nudge them in one direction or another. I never had him saving the day or anything--that's never fun for a group when a GM character has to bail them out all the time.

@ReverbGamers Master List Number 23

#23: Have you ever experienced Total Party Kill (TPK), or been close to it? What effect did that have on you personally? On your group of players? Have you ever used retroactive continuity (retcon) to save yourself? Why or why not?

I'm not counting convention/demo games or games where that was the point (tournament modules) because there's really no emotional investment in it for me. It's just a fun time where stuff happens. I've never been on the player side of a TPK. I've always been the GM when it comes up.

In the first instance it was during my long-running Deadlands classic campaign I've often discussed. The protagonists were going up against a Native American cult who were using artifacts to drain people of their blood for power. The party split up and ran smack dab into two different encounters, each of which were designed for all of them. I decided to try them out, as is. It was pretty epic, as I  was running two combats, simultaneously. I quickly figured out they weren't going to survive either one, so I ramped up the crazy. One player was left hanging upside down from a rafter, about to be drained. Another player had his arm ripped off and was beaten with it. Finally, as they were all in the process of dying, I used one of the characters killer hindrance combo of Heavy Sleeper and Night Terrors to keep the party alive. My last sentence of the night was, "And that, my friends, is why you don't split the party."

I don't actually believe that advice anymore, but it was still an epic moment in gaming. Once everyone realized their character wasn't dead, they started laughing and admitted to having a good time. It's still talked about, semi-regularly, to this day.

The rest of my TPKs have been related to a combination of overpowered enemies and bad party planning.

There was a Deadlands classic game where I underestimated the toughness of the walkin' dead. Shane Hensley takes his zombies very seriously.

Then in Savage Worlds, the first three times I ran it resulted in a TPK. This was mainly from the players not understanding tactics mattered in Savage Worlds. They weren't using cover well or ganging up, things like that. At one point, Veronica announced she'd never play Savage Worlds again. These days it's work getting her to play anything else.

As far as the effect of a TPK... it depends on the person. For me, I'm disappointed when it happens because I feel like I've done something wrong (and sometimes I have). Other players at my table react in different ways. Some get very emotionally invested in their characters and want to protect them; others couldn't care less because they like changing characters.

I've seen TPKs kill campaigns. One of the three Savage Worlds incidents killed an Evernight campaign we were starting--a campaign I never got to restart or go back to. These days, unless I'm running a tournament module or a crazy campaign game, I avoid them as a GM.

@ReverbGamers Master List Number 18

#18: Have you ever "cheated" on a die roll/random chance outcome, or looked up a quest solution on a fan site? Why or why not? If yes, was it worth it?

As a player, I'd love to say no, but it isn't technically true. When I was a teen, and into my early 20s, I did fudge the occasional die roll when the GM wasn't looking. I had a need to "win" at the time, as it was long before I understood the value of falling forward in a game or the growth that comes from failure. I also think it was at least partly a result of the "whiff factor" prevalent in so many games. It's hard to take when you're facing down the "big bad" only to roll a "2" on your d20. I don't do it any more. I let the dice fall where they may.

As a GM, I used to fudge rolls all the time, all in the name of "story." In recent years, I've taken a "roll in front of the screen" mentality. It's improved my games because my players know there's real danger when I roll the dice. That said, I don't typically let a die roll be the sole arbiter of character death--I always involve the player when that comes up.

Since I've learned failure can have more to do with intent than the listed action, I take some liberty with that, as well. Hanging off a cliff and botch your climb roll? Rather than fall to your death, I may beat you up a bit on your way down. And if you want to get to the top of that cliff, you won't be climbing there. Find another way. This beats the heck out of: "You die. Here's a new character sheet."

@ReverbGamers Master List Number 13

#13: Who's the best GM/storyteller/party leader you've ever had? What made him/her so great?

Jason Corley, the self-proclaimed best GM in Tucson, is the best GM/Storyteller I've had (don't tell him I said this--he's got a huge head). One thing that makes him so great is he's the first person I've met to be as good as me at improvisational GMing--and I'm pretty friggin' good. But Jason has more he brings to the table, particularly in the area of organization.

Jason doesn't organize his game like normal, human GMs, he does it by character. In his trusty GM book, Jason puts a page aside for each character. Whenever anything--anything--happens in game, he goes through the pages of characters and decides how the event effects them, and what their reactions are.

Jason runs a lot of public games throughout Tucson; look him up through the Tucson RPG Guild. I promise playing at his table will be a treat.

I should close by saying all the above may not be true. I might just be filling blog space. See that, Corley! You'll never really know!!

[Read-Thru] Masks: 1,000 Memorable NPCs for Any Roleplaying Game

Awhile back, I posted my thoughts about Eureka, a system-neutral, plot-assistance book for Game Masters by the fine folks at Gnome Stew. I was pretty excited about the book, as it was the most useful book of its type I'd come across in 25 years of GMing. UPDATE: I still use it. I used it a couple weeks ago. No one's changed my opinion of its status as the best RPG plot book ever.

The same group is back with a system-neutral NPC book, and, given my adoration for Eureka, I couldn't resist digging in. I should disclose, unlike with Eureka, I received a PDF of the new book, Masks: 1,000 Memorable NPCs for Any Roleplaying Game, free of charge, for review purposes. Further, while my opinion has been solicited, it has in no way been guided.

Masks starts out on familiar ground. Like Eureka there's an explanation of why the book exists and how to use it. The why is obvious, I hope--make it easier for a GM to provide awesome NPCs to her players. The how is much more detailed.

The NPC's are broken down (nearly) equally into three broad genres: fantasy, sci-fi, and modern. They are further organized into enemies, allies, and neutrals. Each character takes up a quarter page. The design goal was to provide enough information without being too much, so the entries were kept to a tight word count budget. This goal was definitely met.

Each numbered, character entry is written sparsely, but manages to provide everything you need to know about the character in question, including everything but stats.  The NPCs include an entry number, a name, a quote, and a two-word description, containing an adjective and a noun (the first entry is a "Possessed Cleric"). These are followed by tips on appearance, roleplaying, personality, and background. Like Eureka, each Masks entry includes traits, by which NPCs can be searched in the book.

The most important thing about the NPCs in the book is they're very well written. I haven't read all 1,000, but I can tell you I've read a lot of them. From the very start, the NPCs are interesting and thoughtfully designed, especially compared to what most GMs get when they truly have to make up an NPC on the fly. I found myself wanting to know more about these people--always a good sign.

One final thing about the uniformity of the NPC entries: the authors suggest the template they've created for these characters will help you write your own characters. I tend to agree. And I look forward to using the template myself.

The authors believe you can use these NPCs on-the-fly or with some planning, and I tend to agree. You can just grab a name; or the two-word descriptor and the traits maybe. You can read them all the way through if you have time. There is a simple list of names that starts at the beginning of the first NPC page and ends on the last. I'm terrible at taking notes during play, so I plan on grabbing a couple key words and jotting down the entry number so I can return later to flesh out my find.

On the advice front, there is a section on how to modify the NPCs to fit any roleplaying game, by giving a twist here or a quarter-turn there. For instance, all the NPCs are humans, as this is the easiest twist of all, since any race a game designer can create will have intrinsic human qualities. Simply focus in on those to find your race. A gruff carpenter? Dwarf. A beautiful sorceress? Elf. There are definitely more than 1,000 NPCs in this book when you consider these simple changes you can make.

The other advice in the Masks is a collection of excellent points on playing NPCs, from the GM's standpoint. This advice has been delivered elsewhere by many people, but I've never seen it all together in one convenient place in a book designed for roleplaying. Players should take note of this section, as it serves as a great set of tips for PCs as well.

Like Eureka, Masks is a super reference. There are indexes in the book to help you find characters by trait, by name, by author, and by group (think Tavern Staff or Bandit Gang), so as a GM, you have lots of ways to find what you're looking for. The pdf is superbly bookmarked. My only gripe is I believe the entry numbers should have been used in the bookmarks with the character names (yes, all 1,000 characters are bookmarked), as one more awesome way to reference this book.

I plan to have Masks close to me for every game I run, and if you're a GM, you should too.

[GM Tools] Eureka: 501 Adventure Plots to Inspire Game Masters

I mentioned briefly in my last post I consulted the awesome book, Eureka: 501 Adventure Plots to Inspire Game Masters. It's written by the fine folks at Gnome Stew--the best GM-centric blog on the Interwebs. I've been using this book for awhile now, and it's time to give it a real shout out.

Essentially Eureka gives away its purpose in its title, but only word of mouth will sing to its utility. There have been a ton of products on this subject over the years, and they've always fallen short for me. Not so with Eureka. I bought the Print+PDF bundle because it's always nice to have a paper book, but I knew I'd want it handy on my iPad.

In Eureka, there are 167 adventure plots, each in the broad categories of Fantasy, Science Fiction, and Horror. They're further broken down into themes. Then there is a list of genres the plot should be easily adapted to. Finally, each plot is tagged with keywords designed to give you some ideas as to what features a story may have, like dungeon crawls, intrigue, etc.

The book actually opens with detailed instructions on how to read and adapt the plots. The advice is great and is easily adaptable to just about any module or pre-written scenario. I've already used it outside the book, in fact. Even if your game's genre is not one of the listed "big three," this book is still very useful.

The book rounds out with four indexes, one each for genre, tag, title, and author. At first I thought the author index was a vanity thing, but then I realized I started to get a feel for each of the authors and began seeking authors out by their style. The book is super-easy to navigate, even if you have very specific needs when searching for a plot--the PDF more so, given its ample bookmarks.

Every GM who has an off-the-cuff style should have this book. Even if you're one of those heavy-prepping types, these plots are more than seeds, and many of them could actually serve as overarching campaign plots. I've personally used it in both modes, "quick, I need a plot" and "looking for inspiration."

As you can guess, this one's highly recommended.

Rolling Dice and Social Encounters

One of the most common arguments to be had in the roleplaying community is whether or not one should make skill checks for social encounters. This can range from interrogating a subject to the simple collection of information. Recently I've developed a new opinion on this subject--I used to be firmly in the camp of "just roleplay it out"--and it's one I'd like to share. I believe, in the interest of fairness, all encounters in a roleplaying game should be resolved in a similar way. This belief is based on two principles. The first is fairness. The second is anything important to a campaign can be a complex action.

Fairness is something often overlooked by roleplaying groups. It should be covered in a group's social contract (a subject for another time--for now, let Google be your guide), but most groups don't have them, at least not knowingly. In such circumstances, the rules of the group are usually governed by whomever is the Alpha--the leader. For instance, I've always argued in favor of "just roleplay it out." And do you know why? I'm good at it. I've been told I could sell Bill Gates an iMac. Is that really fair? Should I have an advantage over the other players because I'm good at social conflict in real life? I think not. Let's apply a pro "roleplay it out" stance to combat.

Let me introduce my friend Bill. Bill is skilled in at least four martial arts by my count. He's a hiker and a climber. Bill's in pretty good shape. And if you're reading this, it's more likely than not that Bill can kick your ass. So let's say you take "roleplay it out" as your method of resolving combat. Most people doing that at a table with Bill at it would be insane--suicidal or at least masochistic. Roleplaying games already know this, though. So it's not an issue. But is combat really more pivotal than social encounters? It depends of course.

The real question to be asked in a game is, "how pivotal is the action a character is taking?" The only honest answer is, "it depends." But when social encounters are supposed to be important, most game systems fall short. Some games have attacked the problem by having generic conflict mechanics, which can be applied to anything. Some game systems have full-on combat systems and give lip service to other complex actions by having a generic mechanic. One game system I have to applaud for their social-to-combat ratio is the one behind Green Ronin's A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying. The combat chapter is longer than the social conflict chapter, but the social conflict mechanics are every bit as deep and basically use the same system.

I believe comfort level is the real issue behind this. Most gamers are media consumers. In media it's easy to learn how to describe a fight. But couldn't the same be applied to the social? Not always, and with good reason. When you describe combat, you're using a tool other than your hands and feet to do it. When you describe a social conflict, that's not the case. The very mouth you use to communicate is the one the experts use when they're arguing. But honestly, some people aren't good at describing a good ass-kicking either. They get to roll the dice. Why shouldn't those taking social actions?

I think the answer is most gaming groups do it backwards. We say what our character will do, then we roll the dice. This is overlooked in combat. We're just used to describing a combat action and having it not pan out because of dice--it's the norm. (I think this is why diceless systems came into being.) But when we give impassioned speeches or make excellent arguments and roll a failure, it just feels wrong. Part of the reasoning is conditioning--for the first several years of roleplaying's existence, combat was king. So many groups have either dispensed with rolling for social actions completely or they roll and don't let the talented people (like myself) take the stage.

I think with a simple twist it's easy to start repairing this damage (as perceived by me) without abandoning our favorite, non-social game engines. Roll then describe. Need to persuade somebody? Make your rolls then act it out. The roll tells you how you need to do. Those who aren't comfortable with acting out social can skip all the details. Those who are comfy with it can go for it. There is a problem with this method. Getting people to act on failure can be tough. At least in combat, the overall outcome is uncertain. Would most gaming groups act out a combat scene knowing they couldn't win? I don't think so. It's still unfair to ask it of players in social situations, but I think its better than the alternative. Another option would be to derive mechanics from combat and apply them to other encounters yourself.

To Screen or Not to Screen?

In a fairly recent conversation on the Pinnacle Entertainment Group forums, I argued in favor of using a GM screen to, at least occasionally, hide rolls. The longer the conversation continued, it got me thinking about my philosophies regarding this. Then I read this post from Rob Donoghue's blog, and I had an epiphany. I'd already done some "roll then describe" stuff with my group, but I never applied it in as wide a scope as Rob's article suggests. I also held on to at least a few secret rolls prior to this read. I resolved to give it a try when next I ran a game, which happened to be my first run of Dragon Age last week.

I sat at the table, GM screen in front of me--I had created three additional panels of tables, to supplement the reference on the back of the GM's Guide, in an effort to minimize book flipping. I sat there, GM screen in front of me, and explained how roll then describe would work at our table. The players seemed game to give it a whirl, so we went for it.

When the first combat encounter began, I realized soon that I needed those tables, but I also felt like I was cut off from the rest of the players. The screen I was using was of the vertical style, and I've been using horizontal-style screens for years. I'm sure that extra height added to my discomfort. Since my screen was custom, I pulled the sheets out of the screen. My wife suggested I put them back-to-back in sheet protectors to save space, which I did. We made the quick adjustment and got on with our combat. I must say I have never felt so engaged with my players. I've gone sans screen before, using my hands to hide a roll, but I never actively paid attention to the difference in feel at the table until now.

I can honestly say I don't see myself ever using a GM screen again, outside of having it handy to check out a chart. And if I ever fall back on secret rolls (something I no longer intend to do, but who knows what a given system will require?), there is always my hand to hide them.

Play-Thru: Dragon Age

Last night I ran Dragon Age for the first time. I won't be posting "actual play" here because I'm running the included adventure in the GM's Guide. I'm not a fan of spoilers, either in the giving or the receiving. If I ever post true actual play, it won't be with a published adventure. In my previous post, I started talking about Dragon Age, but for completeness, I may repeat some of what I said there, here.

For those not in the know, Dragon Age is based on the video game of the same name. Chris Pramas of Green Ronin designed it with a new system called the Adventure Gaming Engine (AGE). I've played roughly 90 minutes of the video game, so I don't feel I have the knowledge to compare the two, so I will be ignoring any comparisons to canon.


My understanding is the pen and paper version of Dragon Age is meant to attract newcomers to the hobby, so it's written with novice players in mind. To that end, everything about the presentation of this game evokes "entry to the hobby." The player is primed for the setting, taught to make a character, then taught how to use it. All the while, excellent play advice is given. The GM's Guide gives tons of advice on running a game, which can most often be applied to any game. There's some additional rules info as well. A small bestiary is included, along with guidance on rewards. The book finishes off with an introductory adventure, which is designed to introduce the players and GM to the mechanics of the game. The GM is treated to inline advice on running the game, including reminders to remind the players of their options.

One final note on the books. This is "Set 1," and it only covers levels 1 to 5 (sound familiar?). Many have complained about this fact. I, on the other hand, applaud the choice. For one, I love the Red Box feel of that. For two, I think it allows this first set to really drill down on getting the players going. The message is clear: here's what you need today; now go play.

We played through the first three scenes of the game last night, and so far, I'm impressed. My only quibble with the books is the rules for Advanced Tests are only in the GM's Guide. Advanced Tests are AGE's way of dealing with extended actions and remind me of Skill Challenges from D&D 4E. This is great since Skill Challenges are one of the few positive takeaways I have from 4E (I reviewed 4E on TGTT awhile back, and it was mostly positive, but I soured on the game rather quickly). Before getting into the details of Advanced Tests, I should discuss the other mechanics of the game.

Character creation is mostly random, which turns out to be a good thing. First, it evokes old school, an obvious design goal of this game. Second, it makes creation easier for newcomers, another design goal--mission accomplished. I was initially turned off by the randomness, in part because the sample characters Green Ronin provides could not have been made unless all the players were extremely lucky or cheated on their rolls. I was going to use a point buy system but decided it was counter to the goals of the game. So I went with an old D&D house rule. Since abilities are derived by rolling 3d6, I had the players roll 3d6, but re-roll ones and twos. My instincts were dead on, as the characters the players came up with were pretty well in line with the samples.

Characters are made up of Abilities, Focuses, and Talents, essentially. Abilities are your basic stats; there are eight: Communication, Constitution, Cunning, Dexterity, Magic, Perception, Strength, and Willpower, and they start out ranging from 1 to 4. Those Abilities are derived from a 3d6 roll and a table reference. Average is considered a 1. Focuses are used instead of skills; they're attached to Abilities. If you have a Focus, you add two to your result. Focuses aren't required unless otherwise noted. Talents are similar to Feats or Edges. They give you little extra things you can do, like re-roll a failed result, use an action faster, etc.

After you roll up your Abilities, you'll choose your Background. Backgrounds add a layer to race and class. Basically, they give you Focuses, Ability raises, Languages, and Weapon Groups. They are also how you choose race, and they're the gateway to the three classes, Mage, Rogue, and Warrior. I had a concern about Dragon Age only having three classes, but Backgrounds make it much more interesting, alleviating my concern.

Like Backgrounds, classes give you access to Weapon Groups, but they round you out with Talents, Class Powers, and Starting Health. Mages will choose spells as well.

Gear is handled well. Characters have starting wealth, but they also receive automatic adventuring equipment in addition to their money. It sets you up with the basics, plus weapons and simple armor. Everything you need is in here, but I must say the first thing I looked for was a 10-foot pole and was disappointed (only on a nostalgic level).

OK. So you have a character; what's the system like? I have to say AGE is very cool. In other media, I might say awesome! Here's the gist of the system: roll 3d6 (one of which is a different color--the Dragon Die), add the Ability, and add +2 if you have the focus. Target Number (TN) is determined by the GM, with 11 being Average, and it goes up or down by twos.

In combat, a character must have the appropriate Weapon Group or suffer a -2 to their attack roll and half damage. Characters can still take a Focus later, to add the +2 as well. There is no listed botch mechanic (unless I'm forgetting), and the Stunt Points system takes the place of critical hits.

If you roll doubles when making an attack roll (or casting a spell), and you succeed, the number on the Dragon Die gives you Stunt Points, which must be spent immediately or lost. Stunts are effects that can be added in addition to normal damage. The obvious one is here, adding additional damage. All the other Stunts are most commonly found in other RPGs as maneuvers declared before an attack, and in those cases, they usually cause the innovative player to take penalties and often fail. For instance, if you want to knock a character prone in a given RPG, you'll often have to do some special maneuver that requires opposed rolls, penalties to your attack roll, or worse: both. In Dragon Age, this stuff happens after you roll. It also makes it more cinematic, and, in my opinion, more like fiction.

In fiction, the protagonist often gets the best of her opponent through providence--the character either sees an opening or has an epiphany. Stunts mimic that perfectly. You make an attack; you roll doubles and get Stunt Points. Here's how it could be narrated:

I melee attack the guard on my right, and when I strike my target, I see that he's off balance, so I follow through, knocking him prone. My momentum carries me through to attack my other opponent. I deal 14 damage to the prone guard; then I hit the second opponent for 11 damage. I then step past the downed guard, putting some distance between me and the standing one.

You can totally do that in AGE, if you get a 6 on your Dragon Die. What I like is the game rewards you for rolling the doubles rather than penalizing you for having interesting ideas.

The one drawback I expected to the Stunt Point system is the potential for analysis paralysis, and I was right. When doubles were rolled, it stopped the table cold. I expect the issue will improve in extended play. Here's the interesting part: it didn't hurt the game. Even with the extra time things took--we only got through the first three scenes of the adventure--everyone had a blast. And by the end of the one combat we did, veteran gamers were already flying through the stunts.

The Dragon Die has a couple other uses in the game. For one, it determines how well you succeed at a given task. So if a rogue is jumping between rooftops and gets a 1 on the die, he barely makes it or at least lands clumsily. If he gets a 6, he may look like an Olympic athlete. The included adventure also has tables for investigation bits, where the Dragon Die determines the level of detail found on success. I can conjure many uses for the Dragon Die, thanks to this little detail.

The final use of the Dragon Die is for Advanced Tests. Like I mentioned, this is when you are taking an extended action that requires detail and/or the measurement of time. Basically, you have the task TN, like a normal action, and you have a Threshold to reach to complete the task. When you succeed at a roll, the Dragon Die gives you a number of points toward meeting you Threshold. Each roll can be a measurement of time to say how long something takes, or it could be used for social encounters. An example for social could be to convince an angry crowd to not maul you to death, say TN 13, Threshold 10.

Health in the game is very straightforward. If you reach zero, you're dying. Your friends have rounds to save your bacon. There are numerous ways to heal to keep your character going. I like this, and it doesn't feel as forced as the way 4E does it, meaning it never feels like you clicked on something to heal--though I guess that feeling would be more appropriate in Dragon Age, given it's actually based on a video game IP.

The magic system in AGE is interesting. There are Stunts available, and they do everything from making spells cheaper to use to strengthen them to making them harder to resist. Spells cost Mana points to cast, and there's a skill roll. Many spells give opponents a chance to resist. The ability to resist is determined by the spell and the TN is determined through a Spellpower: Magic ability plus 10, with a +2 if you the mage has the appropriate Focus. One cool thing about mages is they all have an ability called Arcane Lance, which is a low-powered, ranged attack that doesn't use Mana points, so a mage is never completely useless in combat, regardless of Mana level.

I look forward to exploring the AGE system more. I sincerely hope this system is expanded out and used for other genres. Giving the system a separate name from the IP certainly paves the way for more genres and even licensing.

To be honest, it's hard not to gush about this system. It's an inspiring design, and I want more. I'm already coming up with multiple ideas on my own. I'm going to love tweaking this game. My only hope is that Green Ronin a) gets the other boxes out quickly and b) decides to use this system for other things and/or license it out.

Who is this for?

I'd say this is definitely meant as an entry level RPG, though the system has so much potential. It's also an excellent rules light system. Indie gamers looking for a crossover product should check this out as well.


Who should stay away?


If you like "crunchy" systems or a lot of attempts at realism, this is certainly not your game. If you are looking for a treatment on the Dragon Age setting, be warned: this is just a primer on a small section of the world.

Player-Facing Rolls

A lot of RPG rules are promoted as getting "out of the way" of the story. Many of them actually succeed. As a GM, one thing I've always looked for is, "what's in it for me?" One feature I'm a fan of is when a game allows (but doesn't require) the GM to make all rolls player-facing. What do I mean, you ask?

In the typical RPG model, players roll dice for antagonists, and GMs roll for everything else. Some systems have options in place to either reduce or remove the need for the GM to roll dice. If a PC attacks, the player rolls to hit; if a PC is attacked, the player rolls to defend. This is player facing. Two systems come to mind for this: Cinematic Unisystem and Ubiquity. They go about it in slightly different ways.

Cinematic Unisystem, the engine behind Eden Studios' licensed properties like Army of Darkness and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, breaks the game's stats down into three scores (by combining stats and adding an average die roll), which provide the check number and target number for anything affecting the NPC in question. To paraphrase my friend Thomas Deeny, the GM and the players are essentially playing two different games. The method Cinematic Unisystem uses could be adapted to a lot of games. In fact, D&D 4E and Star Wars Saga Edition use a similar philosophy to come to its Defense numbers (which replaced the original d20 Saving Throws)--attribute bonuses plus average die roll.

Ubiquity uses a dice pool system with very simple math behind it--each die has a 50% chance of success--so you know if your dice pool is 10, for instance, your average roll will bring five successes. Since the core mechanic is opposed rolls, it's easy to see how a GM would never have to roll. Even if there's an odd number of dice (in which case, Ubiquity rules you just roll one die to find out which way it goes), the GM can simply choose to round in a direction based on the situation--it's basically one more way a GM can set difficulty.

Not all systems can be made to work this way without extensive modification. For instance, no system with exploding dice could be modified to work this way easily. It would just make for too many wonky situations. Systems with no opposed roll mechanics--or at least target numbers derived from theoretical opposed rolls--are also off the table if one is looking for easy conversion to this resolution method.

I'm a fan of player-facing rolls because I find dice-rolling more enjoyable as a player than as a GM. Also, it really does help a system get out of the way of a story and gives the GM much more control over the pacing at the table. Few things slow a table down like waiting for the GM to roll for a bunch of attacks or defenses. And in the case of games with an opposed roll mechanic, it cuts the total number of dice rolls in half. Finally, games without the wild factor of GM rolls tend to be easier to prepare for.

If your system of choice lends itself to this type of change, or if you have a chance to try a new system, I recommend giving player-facing rolls a try.