Dragon Age Forum News (Nov. 23, 05)

Remove all ads!

Here are today's Dragon Age forum highlights, taken from the Dragon Age Official Forum. Please take into account that these are only single parts of various threads and should not be taken out of context. Bear in mind also that the posts presented here are copied as-is, and that any bad spelling and grammar does not get corrected on our end.

David Gaider, Lead Writer

Character Backstories
I will say one thing, though: while the traveler set-up for the mysterious stranger does do the job of allowing the "catch-all" background, that only does half the job of what we intend the origin stories to do.

It introduces the player to the world, but does not give the player a stake in it as the other origin stories do. You have no roots, no sense of history, no place in the setting other than what you imagine for yourself.

I suppose some people might prefer this? But that's almost like saying "I don't want to be part of your world", in which case why are you playing? The reason we're doing the origin stories is to give the player something he doesn't get in other RPG's -- which invariably start the player off as that lone, background-less traveler in a bar or an amnesiac or any other variation on the background-less stranger because it's the easiest way to avoid dealing with giving the player an actual origin.

Why would you choose that willingly?

I think I know the answer, and it might have something to do with the urge amongst some players to play "their" character regardless of whether or not it fits in the setting -- gotta buck the system, right? Every time I've ever discussed an intended feature, there's always someone who wants a toggle. I just find it odd, though, that amongst a group of people that deride the tired RPG cliches they are actually asking for a convention that most RPG's use because there is usually no other option.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

More: 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.

More:

---

So if, for example, there was a Mage of Chronos class, and in the world of DA all magi of Chronos have to have studied at the Tower of Chronos, then that class-specific background may involve you finishing your training at the tower?

---

Correct.

---

If so, with this type of class would I be forced to take that background if I took the class, or could I be an elven Mage of Chronos and take an elven race background instead?

---

You would only be able to pick the Mage of Chronos background in that case. Being a Mage of Chronos, after all, entails feeling like one and being treated like one. And besides, wouldn't it be kind of cool to start play in the Tower of Chronos and then return there later in the adventure?

But, of course, that all would only apply if being a Mage of Chronos required exactly that.

---

(so you get two choices - that background or the "mysterious stranger").

---

The "mysterious stranger" catch-all background might not exist at all, actually. We're discussing it.

More:

---

In that vein, how about a backstory for a fighter (for example) who had studied at the Tower of Chronos but rejected its principles and decided to turn to the sword? The possibilities are endless... unfortunately, the computer is finite.

---

True. With the amount of story and gameplay associated to each of them, there's only so much variation we can offer with the backgrounds. That doesn't mean that inside those backgrounds you won't have any options at all, however.

Thinking about it, I also believe that there's not necessarily any contradiction per se of the kind of background you mention. Whenever possible, we try to keep the player's history before the background story's beginning a bit vague, allowing for the fact that his history is not extensive (he is a beginning character, after all) and that he could have gotten his skills from a variety of places. While you don't pick your family or your life situation, necessarily, you are free to determine who you are, how you feel about your life and where you want to go. I don't think that's unfair.

---

I was thinking of something along the lines of Darklands (a really good game from a long time ago), where character generation included some pretty involved choice making for previous training, social background, etc, most of which were stat-oriented. I like the idea, too, of such choices having some (limited) impact on story progression.

---

Except that what we're doing here is having you start play in your background. If all choosing a background did was involve a lot of stat variations and some dialogue options, then yes... the choices could be endless.

More:

---

EDIT: Just read Dave's comment that mysterious stranger may be going... if so I have to say I'll be very disappointed - it's a great catch all for those of us wanting to do our own thing. I may have to start up a "save the mysterious stranger campaign"

---

It's being debated. Part of the problem is that if the mysterious stranger allows you to essentially "skip" having a background, you're actually missing a huge chunk of gameplay. Including some important introductions to world concepts. So, what? Do we not allow you to pick "mysterious stranger" until you've played through the game at least once?

Or do we make it an actual background where the character is a stranger who arrives into town and do a whole story based around that -- a story which, by necessity, the player would need to follow. In that case, I'm not certain that it's doing what people who would edge towards that option would be looking for. Some, probably, as at least in this case we're not supplying any family or dictating a specific place of origin -- but, then, that's part of the fun.

But like I said, it's being discussed. Feel free to chime in with your thoughts.

More: It's not idiot-proofing, really. If "mysterious stranger" is provided as a valid background, then it should be valid, shouldn't it? And if that means that the player is not going to be introduced to all sorts of important world elements, then how can it be a valid place to start? And if it IS a full background story that introduces all those elements, does it supply a worthwhile option?

More:

---

Concerning the "no background" option, why don't you create an amnesic character ?

---

I think that well might be a bit dry, actually.

More: Hmmm. Actually, thank you... there's a few comments brought up here that I hadn't thought of before. I'll bring them up with the team.

More:

---

If I'm reading the "backgrounds" right they're not really about defining your player's past - they're about defining your entrance into the story with some detail of recent events.

---

They do define your past, to an extent-- some of the backgrounds set you up with family and perhaps even a home, give you roots in the world itself. But beyond that, yes, they're more about defining your entrance into the story and giving you an introduction to the world elements that your character should know about-- your culture, religion and so forth.

More:

---

As an alternative to the prisoner background, there's always just the traveler. Kind of like LadyS's idea; your character, a traveler, gets sucked into some event by an NPC or such. The background is more or less left up to you, since all that's given about the traveler is just that, well, he or she is just traveling around. It leaves it up to the player to decide why the PC is traveling: escaping the past, seeing the world, looking for adventure, etc.

---

"We don't get many folks wandering through these parts, I have to admit. Not that you look much like the regular sort of traveler."

A. I'm not the regular sort of traveler.
B. Do you always ask this many questions?
C. I like to go where the road takes me.
D. I'm looking for work, truth be known.

player picks A

"Oh? Mind if I ask where you hail from? Could be I've heard of it."

A. Lots of different places, actually.
B. I came across the mountains from [Land A].
C. I'm sure you have. I'm from [Big City B].
D. I doubt that.
E. I'd rather not discuss it right now.


...hmm. Yeah, I can see that.

More:

---

The more I think about it, the more I start to think the the mysterious stranger origin is a manifestation of the fear that we will hate all the possible background choices, and want some kind of safety net. Maybe we will have to let him go, and trust the designers to develop appealling and numerous (is 3-4 per race/class combination a big ask?) origin stories that we will want to play.

---

That's where I'm coming from. There's not many RPG's (not even our own) where you can have roots and a family and a background in the setting without being forced into a single pre-defined role. We give you options, and inside of the origin stories still provide you room to maneuver (we might provide you a home, for instance, but it's up to you to determine whether you like it or you just can't wait to get away from that one-horse town and adventure -- and the people around you will treat you as if you've always been that way), and we've never tried that before.

It was mentioned above that the mysterious stranger could be defined by his actions, but that's not the same thing at all. All RPG's do that. You start off faceless and then begin engaging in quests that define you from that point on.

Maybe it's a legitimate fear that people have, that the origins we provide (and there cannot be a great number of options, by virtue of the extent that each one goes to) will not be interesting to some of them. Or, like LdyShayna said, perhaps some people are just more engaged by being able to leave everything to their imagination. I suppose the question for us becomes whether or not it should be a legitimate way to approach the game and so whether or not we should accomodate it. I'd like to think that providing a place in our world to your character is a significant part of our game, and that electing to skip it is choosing to miss out on something you haven't even tried yet-- but at that point I have to be wary of the dreaded tendency for designers to think they know better than the players. Am I providing a needed option or neutralizing something that makes the game special? How much do you need to accomodate every playing style when this is a place we've already chosen to invest heavy zots into? Tricky territory.

More:

---

Well, as far as origin stories go, I have tried it - Arcanum did it, maybe TOEE (can't recall). It's all useless to me.

---

No, Arcanum and ToEE didn't do it. Arcanum you selected backgrounds that affected your stats. When you started the game, it was still at the same point as everyone else-- your backgrounds may have affected some dialogues after that point, but that's it.

ToEE, meanwhile, gave you a cutscene and a short snippet of play prior to arriving at Hommlet.

For DA, imagine taking that snippet in ToEE and expanding it to an entire section of the game with its own areas and plot and gameplay, introducing you to the world and your place in it prior to transitioning into the main story. That's more what we're talking about here.

---

Look once again at Narlen Darkwalk, my favorite NPC. Did I know where he came from or who his parents were? No, of course not, but yet he remains my favorite BioWare NPC ever.

---

Again with Narlen Darkwalk? There is a pretty significant difference between providing an interesting NPC and providing a connection between the player and the world. You say it's irrelevant, but I'm not sure you understand it.

And unlike what a couple of other people have implied, it's not something that we're setting up just to destroy later as a story mechanic. We don't tell you to care about it and try to use it as a kludge to motivate you. It provides context to what follows.

I do understand some of the reasons people have brought up for why they might want the catch-all origin. All I find interesting is that, as with many things, there's a pretty big gap between the message you think you're sending me and the one I'm actually seeing.

More:

---

Just out of curiosity, what message are you taking from the posts?

---

I'm not sure I want to clarify. Either way, it's as mixed a message as usual. There's merit to the idea, though, and the team is considering it... probably more strongly than we were before, so there you go.

More:

---

will the pre-set backgrounds be male only or based on male logic only?

---

Male only? Nope. As for male logic... two out of the four writers on Dragon Age are female, if that helps any.

More:

---

Thank you. These are joyous news! And the female characters will have female avatars too independently of the race?

---

I'm not quite certain what you're asking... If you're asking if the female party members will have a different appearance than other members of their race, the answer is 'Yes'.

More:

---

sure, the back stories is gonna have to still be vague 'nuff so that jon smith can be sinister or compassionate or athletic or brainy or magical or martial, but to even be of limited appeal and benefit, the biowarians is counting on you 80%ers.

---

So we're making the background stories not to give players a personal beginning to the story rooted in a world they don't know and thus need to be introduced to, and we thought this might be a unique way to do it... but rather because we feel that 80% of our player base has no imagination and will appreciate us providing them a generic and inevitably useless background story.

Well, alrighty. Good to know. Here I thought this might be an interesting feature, I had no idea it was so calculated and pointless. Thanks for setting us straight, Grom.

More: It's not a question of trying to motivate the player. Really, it's not that hard. Think of it this way:

Let's say you're an elf. Or a dwarf. Or you're a mage. Or some combination thereof, selected from options during character generation. We have two ways to proceed from there:

Option #1: have the story be the same regardless of which options you picked. There is very little to know about being an elf or a dwarf or a mage except for the stats and abilities it adds to your character sheet. You might get different dialogues from some NPC's. Information about the world in general can still be relayed to the player through NPC's that they encounter: want to learn about religion? Here's a priest NPC at the local temple who can tell you all about it. And so forth.

Option #2: have the beginning of the story center on that player's choice of race and/or class, with the world information relayed to the player in the context of that choice. If you're an elf, start where the elves are. Learn what it means to be an elf, what they're history is and what they think of the rest of the world. If you're a dwarf, start where the dwarves are. Learn about their religion and their history and their values. If you're a mage, start in a mage tower as an apprentice and learn details about magic that other backgrounds don't, learn about how the world views magic and how mages view the world. The options here are limited, but they center more on the possibilities that exist for that race and/or class in our world... it's not just about being the fantasy archetypes but about entering the setting through one of numerous starting points based on what interests the player. Once the player has been introduced to who and what they are, then they can be brought into the main plot-- and at that point they can continue to learn about the world from NPC's, just as they did in option #1.

We can do, and have done, option #1. Grom is right in that there is a limited amount of focus one can put on the protaganist. The more detail you provide about the protaganist, the more focused your story can be, but that's not really the point of what we're doing. We don't just want the player to play an elf or a dwarf or a mage... we want her to play a Dragon Age elf, or a Dragon Age dwarf or a Dragon Age mage. We want to give them a feel for what that is all about, and then keep that feeling consistent throughout the rest of the game. If you're an elf, you will know about elven history and it will be relevant to your later encounters, people will treat you as an elf and there will be portions of the game where you will have completely different options based on that.

And why would we spare the effort, then, to do option #2 if option #1 works well enough? Because we love the world we've created and we want to try to tell a better story without forcing the player down a single path that fits all comers. If that isn't a worthwhile goal, then I don't know. Perhaps it's easier to be cynical, but I was hoping that the benefit to storytelling would be self-evident.

More:

---

no doubt al thought the toee vignettes were wonderful too?

---

There is a world of difference between the origin stories that Dragon Age will have and the ToEE vignettes.

At any rate, I'm done debating the matter with gromnir. It's a given that not everyone is going to find value in a given feature, but I know what's involved here and I know how big the effort involved in and that it's not trivial in the slightest... and that for many people, it will be a huge deal.

But that's fine. This thread has hit the end limit and I'm cutting it off. If someone has something to add, please put it in a new thread.

Poll: What do You Want to see in DA?

---

Having explicit divine magic isn't required to play such a cleric.

---

Exactly. God forbid that clerics be charismatic proselytizers or scholars as opposed to magic-wielders. Really, if you were going to make a class out of it I'd think a cleric should have more in common with a Bard than a Wizard.

More:

---

Not to be pissy, but would actually seeing the game be too much to ask?

---

Yes.

Definition of a Dwarf

---

well atlantians had technology so why not dwarves. doesnt have to be all that advanced either just somethings would be nice i mean it isnt medieval europe its fantasy so why not lol.

---

Why not? Because we don't want to mix any tech into our fantasy, that's why not. It's fine for those who want their fantasy to be Final, I suppose, but meh. Gotta draw the line somewhere.

More:

---

If you live long enough and are commited, oyu cna learn practicly anything..

and why do you think a mage would be unable to fight well? Becoause he's a frial old man?
drop that concept out of the window.
Someome would be a frial, old mage if he done nothing else but vegetated infront of books.
somoene who is more active and allso studies magic would be in form.

someone who has lot's of time to not only learn magic but allos frolic around, workout and train in various other arts can very well be build like Arnie and be a mage, archer and fighter all in one..
Of course, those would be rare...

---

It depends on how magic is learned in the world. If it requires lots of time spent in front of books, then you literally are not going to have as much time spent "frolicing" and so forth. There might be such a concept that exists in the modern world of academics being able to keep themselves physically fit through concentrated exercise and sports and might even be able to learn how to fight if they concentrated on it -- but that's a concept of leisure time that would be pretty anachronistic in any era other than our own.

Not that you couldn't have a magic-using character have some fighting abilities even in DA. But such a character simply wouldn't have access to more advanced fighting skills, and while he needn't be a physical weakling from a character design perspective any talent you invest in him physically is going to have to come from somewhere else. Which is why, game-wise, the concept of the physically weak mage tends to be the predominant one... the very nature of a jack-of-all-trades is that he is good at everything but excels at nothing.

And, really, do you want it to be okay, system-wise, that a magic-using character also be a good fighter? For systems where the focus is on a single character perhaps, yes, but in a team role this type of character is often called a "tank mage" and it is extremely unbalancing, mainly because it excels at role usurpation. Indeed, the cleric class in 3rd edition D&D comes perilously close to this.

About Wilderness

---

I was wondering, if DA will be more of a dungeon/town crawl, or would it feature extensive outdoors adventuring part (ie BG1 type 9many-many-many forests and three cities) or BG2 (three forests and many-many-many cities))?

---

It's a mix, but on a scale that goes from "more of" to "less of" I would say it goes as follows:

wilderness --> urban areas --> underground/dungeons

Though now you've got me into an argument with the other designers as to whether there are more dungeon areas than urban areas and what constitutes a dungeon area... but we all agree that there is definitely more wilderness area overall.

---

For that matter, will there be the 'nature-bonded' classes, somewhat similar to either druids or rangers in D&D?

---

Hmmm. My qualified answer is that there are no classes that by design are tied specifically to nature like the D&D rangers and druids, no.

More:

---

Soooo...should I even try to pin you down on whether there will be wilderness specific character abilities (skills, feats, spells, whatever)?

---

Do you mean stuff that is wilderness-related, or stuff that only works in the wilderness?

More:

---

Wilderness related, I guess, because now that I sit and consider it most of the things I'm thinking of can be used outside of a wilderness environment too. Plant and animal related abilities including herbology (as it relates to healing and alchemy), the ability to handle encounters with (especially wild) critters without slaughtering them all, and such things don't really REQUIRE a wilderness setting, technically speaking. Neither would a tracking ability, nor (more obviously) the ability to set and disarm traps.

---

Then my answer is yes, based on your clarification.

More:

---

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.

More: 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.

More:

---

Well, obviously you'll just have to do that, then.

---

I don't know about that. Watching a massive misunderstanding in progress is vaguely amusing on at least several levels. I was on my opa's farm in Styria and watched a group of chickens fly into an outraged tizzy that reminded me very much of the same thing.

At any rate, I think I made my point. Or I hope I did, because it will have to do.

More:

---

Maybe restricted in the class description, but not in its functioning, really. Rangers don't drop that second katana the moment they step on the village street, and druids can summon a nature ally in the most urbanized dungeon.

D&D did not seem to restrict those nature classes, like for example making it essential for them to go 'recharge' into the wilderness, lest their powers fade and they start losing levels. Their spells are not more potent in the middle of the grove, than in the paved plaza.

Rangers fall when they deviate from goodness (I am guessing not even that in 3d edition), and the druids - from neutrality rather than the distance from the nearest wood.

---

I suppose you're right. My impression has always been that many of their spells/abilities just aren't useful untless they're in a wilderness environment. They need access to animals and/or plants or many of their abilities are less useful -- and while that's true for some other D&D spells and abilities, these are primary in the case of these classes. Certainly we felt the need to add functionality in the case of NWN in order to make these classes more distinctive.

I may be wrong, though. As I said, it's an arguable point. Either way, the DA classes allow for far more maneuver room inside of the class definitions.

More:

---

1] just how much will we have to give up in terms of opportunity cost to create a DA ranger or druid?

---

That really depends. Every choice you make to go down a certain path of development is made at the expense of something else. All good character development is going to be like that... I'm not sure what "opportunity" you expect to be losing.

---

2] will such characters be viable choices or will they have a terribly difficult time in the urban or dungeon areas because of their specialized skill/feat set?

---

You may become more specialized in certain situations, but I don't really think it would be possible to gimp yourself inadvertantly just because you were trying to go for a certain concept. That's what I was trying to say earlier is that all paths should be equally viable, from a design standpoint, even if the characters aren't going to be necessarily equal in all situations. Your ranger or druid might have the opportunity to really shine in the wilderness, for instance, but that doesn't mean he should be useless in an urban environment or that those same skills/spells shouldn't have (i)some[i/] application elsewhere.