"Low-Powered" Doesn't Have to be Boring

Something to think about; this is a 50 point character i just made with Tri-Stat dX (which is a quick, easy, and free point-buy, variable dice system).

Dryad [50]

Mind: 5
Body: 3

Less Capable: Running Speed (-1)

Soul: 7
ACV: 5
DCV: 3
HP: 50

Armor: 3 (30 damage reduction)
Plant Control: 5 (10 meters)
Special Defense: Hunger (2)
Special Movement (1): Plant Meld, trees only
Reincarnation 4 (easy to stop, takes 1 day)

Achilles Heel: Fire (-3; takes x2 damage)
Marked: Unusual color (-3; green hair, gray-brown skin)
Vulnerability: Electricity (-3; all attributes inaccessible)

Dragon Age RPG Player's Guide Review

I'm not a fan of video games, so i haven't played the console or PC version of Dragon Age, but with all the wonderful things i have heard about it by people who are and have, i thought the pen and paper version had to at least be worth reading.

The first thing that i found off-putting was that the books come in $30 boxed sets.  That might be ok in theory, except that the first set (Players Guide, Game Master's Guide, and a map of Ferelden) only gives you rules for character levels 1-5.  Apparently the next boxed set, due out in 6 months, will contain levels 6-10, the next will contain another 5 levels, etc.  It's going to get expensive to play a single character through much advancement.  Designer Chris Pramas claims it will be more digestible for new players, but personally, i would rather spend $50 for one 'intimidating' fat book that will allow me to play a basic character through max advancement, than $120 on "more digestible" chunks over time.  Though i do suppose there's no reason to buy future sets anyway for those of us that were underwhelmed by the first.

My next gripe is that the character choices are limited: elf, dwarf, human; warrior, mage, rogue.  That's it.  It could be that that's all the video game offers, but i require more diversity.  Basic character creation is thus: you get 8 abilities, determined by random rolls.  Skill checks are 3d6+ability (+/- bonuses/penalties).  You can customize your character with ability focuses, backgrounds (think 'city elf' or 'surface dwarf'), and talents (skills).  You gain class powers by level.

Combat: for some reason it took the writers five steps to tell us roll for initiative; winner goes first, etc. They hid the fact that you get both something called a 'major action' and something called a 'minor action' each turn in step 4.  By step 8 i realize the authors are still just telling us to take turns.  :|  Minor vs Major actions are what they sound like and make sense once listed (ie: aim and shoot).  Moving on.  What combat really involves is making an ability roll against your opponent's defense score.  Well that's disappointingly simple after more than a page on the process of determining an initiative order.  We add complication with something called stunt points.  There are also modifiers for riding a mount into combat.

There's a lot of fluff, which i promptly ignored.  It might be brilliant, but not what i'm looking for in a game, especially one that's heavily targeted at people who have played the video game and presumably know enough of the storyline to not really need extensive world info.  Keep in mind the book is only 66 pages long.  That space would be put to better use with more spells!
There's just not much to this pdf.  As awesome and action-packed as the video game allegedly is, i was expecting more fun stuff, maybe even enough to convince me to try the Xbox 360 version.  As it stands, my answer to that question is still "meh."

Good points: the art is pretty, and there are maps.

In conclusion, this game seems to be completely playable if you have no illusions of playing high or even mid-level characters.  It just doesn't do anything for me that other games don't already do better.

Character Archetypes (Or What You Require in a Character)

Some of the people i play lots of games with tend to play similar characters.  Some always want to be the pretty, smart girl, for example, or the biggest-toughest tank.  Still others might have characters that seem to have nothing in common at all, except that they all have extensive backstories rooted in a dark past or a volatile home life.

A lot of people will say 'i never play the same type of character twice' and be very wrong and/or lying about it, but i've probably played 50 different characters in less than three years, and i do think i've done pretty well at keeping them all new and fun. Of course there are some recurring patterns, but i like to think that even within the same archetype, they're each different enough to at least show i've made an effort.

 My personal requirements for any character, for any game, with any group of people are as follows: he or she must be able to survive the setting alone (through skills and/or fighting ability), but have a reason to work with the group anyway--and it can't just be something like 'they asked me to' or 'the same guy hired us.' There has to be some inner drive to work with someone else, even if there is reluctance involved. I don't think a GM should ever have to beg or coerce people to go along with a group--that's up to the players.

The male characters i play have the most in common: they are all tall, dark, and stoic. It doesn't matter if he's a werewolf, a ninja, a gunslinger, or a gigolo: he's going to be tough, confident, and to-the-point.  I surmise that this is probably because i'm a chick, and i want to play my ideal or whatever.  There might be some deeper psychological issues at work, but i think this theory is direct and logical enough, so let's move on.

The only thing my female characters seem to really share is a very deep, extreme, stubbornness. My women are definitely more varied than the men; they range from a 15-year-old Buffy-style Slayer who just-wants-to-kill-stuff-and-to-hell-with-the-consequences, to an immortal Japanese Samurai who feels she must atone for past indiscretions, as well as prepare her younger teammates for battles yet to come. I play women that are big, small, tough, meek, muscled, and deceptively frail. They're outspoken, shy, vengeful, peaceful, and everything in-between. I don't even mind playing ugly and/or fat chicks--i mention this only because it seems to be such a rare position on the matter.  I've seen people (men and women alike) cheat just to boost their attractiveness scores, and calling them out on it tends to be very...well...ugly.

So how about you?  Do you favor any particular archetype in your games?  What qualities do the majority of your characters have in common?