# My Review of 13th Age



## biotech66 (Aug 5, 2013)

Originally Posted on Throat Punch Games : New gaming idea every day!

Ring Side Report- 13 Age

TL;DR-13th age in a phenomenal RPG.  It combines the best of 4th, 3rd, and 1st edition Dungeons and Dragons all while creating its own soul.  A word to the wise, this system requires more audience and GM participation that most RPGs thought! 9.5/10

Basics-13th Age is a new RPG from Rob Heinsoo and Jonathan Tweet , some of the paragons from 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons.  After leaving Wizards, this creative group forged 13th Age alone with a few other projects.  This game focuses heavily on role-playing while not giving up on most of the crunchy bits that players of Dungeons and Dragons love.  The game is set in a world where 12 icons control the fate of the people there.  These icons represent things from races (Elf Queen and the Dwarf Lord) to aspects of nature and power (High Druid to Lich King).  The PCs all have a relationship to these icons and this relationship changes what occurs in every session.  In addition, each PC is unique for several reasons.  All PCs possess powers that most of their race to make it know right off the bat mechanically that the players are better than almost anyone.  In addition to this mechanical benefit, players also have a unique "thing."  This "thing" ranges from being the world's smartest Gnoll to a dwarf living in the wild wood in a treehouse in the tallest tree.  The uniqueness of the PCs really makes the game enjoyable, and in general keeps the game fresh.  There is a reason this game was on the most anticipated RPGs of summer 2013.
Mechanics or Medians, Means, and backgrounds oh my!-
            Basics-It's not hard to see DnD was the backbone of this system.  Roll a d20, add numbers, compare to other numbers.  Done.  It's worked since Gygax, and it still works.  Where fun enters is what numbers you add.  For starters, let's talk about the escalation die.  For this game, each round of combat after the first the GM places a die on the table.  This die is added to your d20 rolls for that round, and some powers trigger or are affected by it.  There are wizard powers that are not used up if used when the escalation die is even.  This brings combat to a head very quickly and ramps up the fun as combat gradually becomes more intense. 
            Powers/spells- Powers and spells how a strong 3.0 and 4th edition influence.  All characters have the basic melee and range attacks, but these look much closer to 4th edition powers then simple descriptions in the 3rd edition book.  For a layout point of view, this makes the game much easier to read.  I know some people flee at the slightly whisper of "powers" from 4th edition, but writing the spells and some combat abilities this way really makes the book more digestible.  Also, powers/spells have random refresh abilities.  Some powers and spell can be used again if after  use you roll a 11 or better on a d20.  While this makes the game more random, I will admit it makes the game more fun.  All the standard 3rd and 4th edition powers are in the game, so your favorites are there or coming quickly.
            Skills-This game has absolutely no skills, but replaces them with backgrounds.  At character creation you get eight points to place in your backgrounds.  Backgrounds are what ever you want.  There is no limit to this except your imagination.  Now your background could be as simple as "climber+4", but that's boring!  What if you were the "savage tree hermit+4"!  The second implies more about who you are the just a single ability.  When you want to do anything that failure would matter, the GM will ask for a roll.  You perform the standard 3rd edition math of d20+skill, but now you can look at the GM as a player and say "As a savage tree hermit, Im used to scaring travelers away from my home, can I add my savage tree hermit background to the roll to intimidate the guards?"  Odds are your GM will say yes in that case.  This makes what you were before the adventure that much more important.  The system is an AWESOME change to the standard gaming landscape of skill use and metagaming.
            Medians and Means-This game is not super numbers crunchy.  Don't expect a hard slog through a book full of different way to game the system. This game aims to put roleplaying center, but it doesn't forget its crunchy, rule heavy roots.  The game prefers to use standard damage for its monsters.  It also advices the players to do the same.  For defenses, the players use the middle of three abilities to find what defense they should use.  Again, this discourages metagaming and power-gaming as it forces the players to take into account how focusing on one ability will hurt their characters.  Characters can still power game, but this new method for defenses makes a person think a bit more in how they build their characters.
            Movement-Like many abstract games, this game uses abstract movement rules.  Basically characters are near, far, or engaged with other characters/enemies.  This style really makes the game move fast.  Honestly, I've had combat with six things running around end in less than 15 minutes!  In an average Pathfinder or DnD game, that's at LEAST an hour.  Spells are built to take this in account and it really helps the flow of game play.  I wish more games were designed like that!
            Icon Rolls-At the start of each game session, for each point of a relationship with an icon of the world, you roll a d6.  Getting a six means you get a boon from the icon.  Getting a 5 means you get a boon but with some strings attached.  All this is at GM's discretion, but it is fun.  Keeps the GM from planning too much and makes the world fresh.  I like it.
            Odds and Evens-A final note, dice rolls matter, but it tends to be more than just the total.  Some dice rolls look at if the die is even or odd.  Some powers refresh on an odd roll in combat. Some monsters get to add the escalation die if they get even or odd d20 rolls in combat.  Its more random, but its fun.  New mechanics to keep me on my toes.

Theme and Story-Here is where you will either absolutely LOVE the game like me or may possibly be turned away.  As a default, the world is very open.  Honestly, the world building section of the book is about 10 pages or less.  This is very much done on purpose and not a lazy move by the writers.  The writers of the book want each game to be its own thing.  You decide if dwarfs love scotch or apple martinis.  There are common elements such as the icons, but how a negative relationship with the icon plays out is up to you.  Its amazingly fun, but it could cause less creative groups to become paralyzed.  As a group, you build your world on the fly.  If you want a more developed world, then you may want to check out other games or worlds such as the Primal Thule kickstarter that just ended.  To use a food analogy, 13th Age by itself will assume that you're fine with short order cook work rather than already scheduled catering.

Writing in the Book-I want to bring some special attention to how the book was written.  This book has the same vibe that Shadowrun has.  Its much less a white washed, corporate generated book.  This book honestly feels like two guys telling you about some game idea they wrote as are handing you the word file via dropbox.  That's an AWESOME thing.  I like that I feel the authors talking to me via text.  Even more, the two main authors openly debate with one another across the text or give how the bend the rules of THEIR OWN GAME to make it their own!  One a page, you will see a symbol next to some text and it if accompanies by a small section of someone's thoughts.  Often this is countered by another author's symbol and their thoughts.  This whole process fills me with happies in my heart!

Summary-A great game.  Its got some flaws, but any book will.  It plays fast and makes the GM really make some choices for the world.  Dice mechanics are great and fresh.  Nothing feels stale.  Nothing is just rehashed 3.5.  Players matter and are the crème de la crème of the world.  Its about $50 bucks at http://www.pelgranepress.com/ with PDF as part of the deal.  To me PDF come standard with a book and Pelgrane Press seems to agree.  Go buy it. 9.5/10

Living Games-There is a Living game much like DnD encounters.  Want an adventure to test drive this game after you bought the book?  Crown of the Lich King is FREE!  Go to http://www.pelgranepress.com/ and ask nice and they will send you a link to Google docs where you can get the whole document for FREE!  Did I mention is FREE, even for home play?  Go NOW!


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 5, 2013)

Well, I think the review is a bit one-sided. I'm quite excited about the game myself, but I think a review should mention some of the flaws you're alluding to in the Summary.

One thing I don't like is the Skills (or the lack thereof). I think I'd just put all 8 points into 'Jack of all trades' and use it no matter what I'm supposed to do. Aren't there any guidelines about the limitations of backgrounds?


----------



## Baumi (Aug 5, 2013)

I heard that you cannot put more than 4 or 5 points into a background, so you cannot put all points into one background. But I don't know if there is any other limitation.

Anyway 13th Age sound really awesome, too bad that you cannot buy it (the PDF) yet.


----------



## biotech66 (Aug 5, 2013)

if you buy from http://www.pelgranepress.com/ they will give you the PDF for free and ship the book to you.  If you get your butts in gear, they might still do the Gencon deal and let you do pick up at the con.  As for your background of Jack-of-all-trades, you could do that, but any GM worth his salt will not let you.  This is a pretty trust heavy RPG.  Games like 4e DnD pretty much tie the GMs hands and dis-empower him/her.  This game give the GM A LOT more power to do as they will such as negate a PCs background at character generation.  Also, Jack-of-all-trades is pretty boring way to break the rules.  It doesn't really let you build the world when you don't have some crazy specifics built in.
I'll own up to my bit of fanboyism.  I honestly loved this book and think you should try it.  The living game is two hours of your time.  I promise it will be worth the time!


----------



## Baumi (Aug 5, 2013)

Just ordered it since the Shipping was surprisingly low (to Europe). And the Download Link was instantly here! 8D


----------



## Baumi (Aug 5, 2013)

Wow this looks awesome. 8D

There is only one thing so far that I dont like ... it has no bookmarks, which is really bad for tablet). Strangely enough, the Index and Contents are fully linked.

  [MENTION=46713]Jhaelen[/MENTION]: You can put 5 Points into a Background. There is a list of examples and also some advice on making a good backgrounds. It also warns about miss-using it and that the GM can just rule one out.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 5, 2013)

I'll slip it over to D&D/Pathfinder  for you! (That's where 13th Age stuff goes).

I also edited your post and hit the "remove formatting" button for you, since you had select dark grey type in a tiny font without paragraph breaks, which made it impossible for those using the Legacy (black) skin or Tapatalk to see the text.  That should help folks see your post.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 5, 2013)

Jhaelen said:


> One thing I don't like is the Skills (or the lack thereof). I think I'd just put all 8 points into 'Jack of all trades' and use it no matter what I'm supposed to do. Aren't there any guidelines about the limitations of backgrounds?



There _are_ guidelines and advice, but this is one area where I'm already considering house rules (before even running the game!)

I don't know if this is something about Rob Heinsoo, but the sort of inspired genius creations he seems to produce for combat moves (which are as good in 13A as in 4E) just seem to evaporate outside combat. I would love to see some inventive, elegant ways to stretch beyond Skill Challenges, but you won't find them here.

Still, the combat bits work well - and without a grid and quickly, to boot - and some of the ideas to tie the characters to their world (Icon relationships, One Unique Thing) are really flavourful and jog the imagination with ideas for hooks and incentives for adventure. Overall, a very worthwhile investment.

Oh - and I'm already thinking of stealing a few (slightly modified) ideas as 4E house rules, too...


----------



## Dragonblade (Aug 6, 2013)

The problem with "Jack of All Trades" isn't that its somehow broken, because it really isn't. Its that its BORING! Its also technically more of a trait, than a "background" per se.

As a GM, you should ask your player how they would have come to know a bit about everything. What did they do before the game starts that would begin to justify being a jack of all trades? Whatever they answer, THAT should be their background. For example, "I was the King's superspy, a veritable fantasy James Bond if you will!"

BAM! So you have 5 points in the King's Former Superspy Background. Done. And no it wouldn't necessarily apply to everything. Or maybe it can, but you should make the players justify it. Make them earn the right to use that bonus in a given scene through cool story.

"So tell me again why you know so much about ancient Draconic artifacts?"
"Well, I'm a superspy..."
"So? How did you learn that while being a superspy?"

At this point, either the player can't think of anything appropriate and they don't get the bonus. OR they think of something awesome: "Well, I was on this mission to steal a scroll from the horde of an ancient red Dragon, and the when I got there, it turns out the Dragon was blind, and dying, and he wanted to talk to someone before he passed, so I hung out with him and he taught me a lot of Draconic lore." (Yes, I stole that from Raymond Feist. )

Now if the player came up with something fun and cool like that, then they deserve the +5. They have added cool story and flavor to both the game and their PC, and potentially provided future story hooks for the GM. THAT is what 13th Age is all about! 

Its a completely different mindset than other versions of D&D. Its not about scrutinzing everything the players do, lest they somehow get away with something they aren't supposed to.

13th Age doesn't approach the game that way. Backgrounds are an enabler of story, not necessarily a limiter. Getting to use the bonus in a given situation is the player's reward for thinking of something cool that adds to their character and/or the world. If the players can justify, through cool story and worldbuilding, why they should get a +5 Background bonus in almost every situation, then GREAT! That's really what the game is all about.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 6, 2013)

I might try and run some kind of game with this background approach sometime and see how it plays.


----------



## Gundark (Aug 6, 2013)

Baumi said:


> Anyway 13th Age sound really awesome, too bad that you cannot buy it (the PDF) yet.



What?! I hate it when game companies do this


----------



## Dragonblade (Aug 6, 2013)

Gundark said:


> What?! I hate it when game companies do this




The PDF comes out in September. They wanted to give FLGS a chance to get the physical book in stock before the PDF hits the street. Plus if the retailer is a partner, or if you order from Pelgrane, I believe you get the PDF when you order the physical book.


----------



## Rakusia (Aug 6, 2013)

this game sounds awesome


----------



## pemerton (Aug 6, 2013)

Dragonblade said:


> if the player came up with something fun and cool like that, then they deserve the +5. They have added cool story and flavor to both the game and their PC, and potentially provided future story hooks for the GM. THAT is what 13th Age is all about!
> 
> Its a completely different mindset than other versions of D&D. Its not about scrutinzing everything the players do, lest they somehow get away with something they aren't supposed to.
> 
> 13th Age doesn't approach the game that way. Backgrounds are an enabler of story, not necessarily a limiter. Getting to use the bonus in a given situation is the player's reward for thinking of something cool that adds to their character and/or the world. If the players can justify, through cool story and worldbuilding, why they should get a +5 Background bonus in almost every situation, then GREAT! That's really what the game is all about.



I agree with you about the approach. I want to quibble that I don't think it's a completely different mindset from all other versions of D&D. I think plenty of people play 4e, at least, in this style (following advice in the DMG and DMG2), though drawing on race, class, theme etc rather than a mechanical background.


----------



## adamc (Aug 7, 2013)

Book came yesterday. Only skimmed it a little, but I'm not enthralled with the whole "icons" thing; I like to generate my own world and it feels intrusive.


----------



## Warbringer (Aug 7, 2013)

adamc said:


> Book came yesterday. Only skimmed it a little, but I'm not enthralled with the whole "icons" thing; I like to generate my own world and it feels intrusive.




Then refluff to your campaign (gods, powerful figures, countries, organizations).. its the narrative conversation that's in important


----------



## Gundark (Aug 7, 2013)

Dragonblade said:


> The PDF comes out in September. They wanted to give FLGS a chance to get the physical book in stock before the PDF hits the street. Plus if the retailer is a partner, or if you order from Pelgrane, I believe you get the PDF when you order the physical book.



I still think its dumb, is there any actual evidence that FLGS are actually hurt by pdf sales?


----------



## Balesir (Aug 7, 2013)

adamc said:


> Book came yesterday. Only skimmed it a little, but I'm not enthralled with the whole "icons" thing; I like to generate my own world and it feels intrusive.



The Icons in the book are essentially examples; different world settings will have different spins on them, or completely different Icons. In fact, you could say that 13th Age world building is largely creating and describing a set of Icons. I'm pretty sure, for example, that we'll see a different set of Icons for Primeval Thule.

Part of the idea of the Icons, though, is to get the *players* world building. The "gaps" in the world are filled in during play, rather than in advance, by the GM. This engages both characters and players with the world fiction. I think this is why they give a set of Icons in the core rules; the identities of the actual Icons themselves isn't "Core", but the existence of a set of cool and inspiring Icons _is_ Core, so how they might look and what they need to say has to be included in example so that GMs know how to set them up and why they exist.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 7, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Part of the idea of the Icons, though, is to get the *players* world building. The "gaps" in the world are filled in during play, rather than in advance, by the GM. This engages both characters and players with the world fiction. I think this is why they give a set of Icons in the core rules; the identities of the actual Icons themselves isn't "Core", but the existence of a set of cool and inspiring Icons _is_ Core



That sounds right to me.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 7, 2013)

Balesir said:


> The Icons in the book are essentially examples; different world settings will have different spins on them, or completely different Icons. In fact, you could say that 13th Age world building is largely creating and describing a set of Icons. I'm pretty sure, for example, that we'll see a different set of Icons for Primeval Thule.
> 
> Part of the idea of the Icons, though, is to get the *players* world building. The "gaps" in the world are filled in during play, rather than in advance, by the GM. This engages both characters and players with the world fiction. I think this is why they give a set of Icons in the core rules; the identities of the actual Icons themselves isn't "Core", but the existence of a set of cool and inspiring Icons _is_ Core, so how they might look and what they need to say has to be included in example so that GMs know how to set them up and why they exist.




I agree with the first part of your statement, that the Icons are examples only and that different settings will have different spins or even entirely different Icons.

that said, I'm not sure if I agree that the above is the point of the Icons, since their interaction with and influence over the PC's is, for the most part, determined by the DM. If anything I think the point of the Icons is to give the PC's an anchor in the campaign setting (whether the default world or a homebrew) through the relationships they buy with the Icons...  which in turn lets the DM know what type of stories or situations the PC's wish to be a part of. The Icon rolls then let the DM determine whose "stories" will be touched upon or take center stage in this particular adventure.

For example, if a player takes the Lich King as an adversary he/she probably wants to face, fight and thwart the machinations of the undead , while if he takes the Elf Queen as an ally he/she probably wants to explore artifacts, history, aid and be involved in the affairs of the elves.  While it's possible for the DM to let the player create content around his relationships with the Icons, the rules for Icons in the book don't really facilitate this.  Personally, I think "backgrounds", and "one unique thing"s are much better examples of what you are speaking too as far as players world building and filling in the gaps during play of 13th Age.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 7, 2013)

Dragonblade said:


> The problem with "Jack of All Trades" isn't that its somehow broken, because it really isn't. Its that its BORING! Its also technically more of a trait, than a "background" per se.
> 
> As a GM, you should ask your player how they would have come to know a bit about everything. What did they do before the game starts that would begin to justify being a jack of all trades? Whatever they answer, THAT should be their background. For example, "I was the King's superspy, a veritable fantasy James Bond if you will!"
> 
> ...




Yep, pretty much this.  IMO, 13th Age is less defined in this area than the recent editions of D&D.  Skills, backgrounds and themes, instead of being on a pre-defined list with designer determined fiction,  pre-determined mechanical importance to one's character as well as pre-determined applicability and influence (in a general sense with 4e/more specific sense with 3e)... they  are instead rolled up into one area (backgrounds) and left totally up to the player to define fiction wise as well as in mechanical importance to his character... But what I really like is that even though it gives much greater creative control over these things to the players than previous versions of D&D... 13th Age still succeeds (IMO) by leaving the power of adjudication, applicability and use in the hands of the DM.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 7, 2013)

Imaro said:


> 13th Age still succeeds (IMO) by leaving the power of adjudication, applicability and use in the hands of the DM.



But that's...it's..._Mother May I_. Which if I understand some people correctly is the source of all the world's ills.

Either that or it's just common sense gaming.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 7, 2013)

Imaro said:


> I'm not sure if I agree that the above is the point of the Icons, since their interaction with and influence over the PC's is, for the most part, determined by the DM. If anything I think the point of the Icons is to give the PC's an anchor in the campaign setting (whether the default world or a homebrew) through the relationships they buy with the Icons...  which in turn lets the DM know what type of stories or situations the PC's wish to be a part of. The Icon rolls then let the DM determine whose "stories" will be touched upon or take center stage in this particular adventure.



Yes, you're probably right that backgrounds and OUTs are more instrumental in having the players help define the fiction, but the Icon relationships give players more control over the focus of the story by influencing which Icons will be involved. Giving them more control over the themes and focus of the narrative in turn facilitates them contributing to the fiction (because the theme or focus of play is one that they are invested in).



Imaro said:


> IMO, 13th Age is less defined in this area than the recent editions of D&D.  Skills, backgrounds and themes, instead of being on a pre-defined list with designer determined fiction,  pre-determined mechanical importance to one's character as well as pre-determined applicability and influence (in a general sense with 4e/more specific sense with 3e)... they  are instead rolled up into one area (backgrounds) and left totally up to the player to define fiction wise as well as in mechanical importance to his character... But what I really like is that even though it gives much greater creative control over these things to the players than previous versions of D&D... 13th Age still succeeds (IMO) by leaving the power of adjudication, applicability and use in the hands of the DM.



Yeah, I would still like to see a bit more of a mechanical balance around this. I don't mean a rigid systematic exposition, but something more like what Primetime Adventures has - a simple limit on the number of times one background may be used, say, or a penalty for each use after the first in a scene. Something to encourage players to use their backgrounds in a varied and entertaining way, rather than always seeking some pretext for using their "5".

I may try the following: each time a background is used, it gains a cumulative -1 until the next long rest. Any background, of any value, may, however, be used to give an _ad hoc_ +1 to any roll to which it might apply _without_ counting as a "use" for the purposes of this rule.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 7, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> But that's...it's..._Mother May I_. Which if I understand some people correctly is the source of all the world's ills.
> 
> Either that or it's just common sense gaming.




Yep... there is definitely a subset of gamers who have issues with the whole DM trust thing... Luckily I am not one of them... so I'll go with "common sense gaming" and a healthy dose of DM trust in 13th Age for the win!!... but that's just me.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 7, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Yes, you're probably right that backgrounds and OUTs are more instrumental in having the players help define the fiction, but the Icon relationships give players more control over the focus of the story by influencing which Icons will be involved. Giving them more control over the themes and focus of the narrative in turn facilitates them contributing to the fiction (because the theme or focus of play is one that they are invested in).




I can see this at a very high level (and even then IMO it's a bit of a stretch and not really facilitated by the rules) since you choose how many relationship points you invest with each one... but it is still random rolls that actually determine which (if any) Icons appear in a particular adventure... and leaving it up to a random roll, even one you have some power to tilt in your favor, just doesn't strike me as the player having actual control over the focus of the story (they either roll high enough or don't)... especially since again the DM decides what form those rolls (if any) take in the course of the adventure, there are no rules set in place that allow the players to do this.  I think you are drawing conclusions that don't necessarily (thought they may) arise from certain actions.  Me choosing the Lich King so I can fight undead does not in any way mean I will contribute more to the fiction... since 

1.) It's possible I never roll high enough for him to be involved 
2.) Even if I roll high enough there is no mechanism in place to allow a player to define any of the fiction surrounding an Icon in the setting, If a        DM allows this, it is purely in the realm of playstyle or house rule and is not a function of the game.

In contrast when I create a one unique thing I can (though I don't necessarily have to) define something about the world.  As an example... "I am Korad the reincarnated hero who defeated the nine-headed dragon, Annihilation, during the 2nd Age"... My one unique thing just created history, and NPC and established that beings can be reincarnated in this version of the 13th Age setting. 



Balesir said:


> Yeah, I would still like to see a bit more of a mechanical balance around this. I don't mean a rigid systematic exposition, but something more like what Primetime Adventures has - a simple limit on the number of times one background may be used, say, or a penalty for each use after the first in a scene. Something to encourage players to use their backgrounds in a varied and entertaining way, rather than always seeking some pretext for using their "5".
> 
> I may try the following: each time a background is used, it gains a cumulative -1 until the next long rest. Any background, of any value, may, however, be used to give an _ad hoc_ +1 to any roll to which it might apply _without_ counting as a "use" for the purposes of this rule.




I think an easier way, at least for me, is just to make sure the situations are varied enough that they aren't able to call on their "+5" background all the time.  It keeps me interested and engaged with the adventure since I have to think of these things... Personally I don't think I'll mind if there is a particular skill they fall back on more than others, since I think this then also helps to define the character (I mean should I penalize the Rogue player if he uses his "Master Thief of the Shadow Guild" skill more than the others while doing rogue stuff?)... however I'll reserve actual judgement until I see how it plays out in a real game.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 7, 2013)

Imaro said:


> I can see this at a very high level (and even then IMO it's a bit of a stretch and not really facilitated by the rules) since you choose how many relationship points you invest with each one... but it is still random rolls that actually determine which (if any) Icons appear in a particular adventure...



Yeah, but it's not the choosing to put one or two (or even three) points in - it's choosing to put points in an Icon _at all_. You have three points: there are twelve Icons. There will be at least nine that you don't put points into at all. The selection of which you *do* put points into is thus a positive decision.

The chance of the Icons chosen by the players being a factor in a scenario is one in three per point invested, with three points invested per player (at level 1). With four players, the chance that _none_ of their Icon relationships will figure in any given scenario is slightly under 0.8%. If the GM has a preset, inviolable plan that isn't going to include focus on any but his or her chosen Icons, this simply isn't gonna work. What the players choose as "their Icons" simply *will* crop up as "factors". Thus their choices affect the theme and focus of play. They don't _determine_ the theme or focus - but that's not neccessary or even desirable, any more than the GM determining these things alone is desirable or required. They just have a set, mechanical influence that is stochastically applied (by rolling dice).


----------



## Imaro (Aug 7, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Yeah, but it's not the choosing to put one or two (or even three) points in - it's choosing to put points in an Icon _at all_. You have three points: there are twelve Icons. There will be at least nine that you don't put points into at all. The selection of which you *do* put points into is thus a positive decision.




I'm not talking about whether it is a positive decision... I'm not sure how that even ties back to your original statement which was...



Balesir said:


> Part of the idea of the Icons, though, is to get the *players* world building.




You still haven't spoken to how the players "worldbuild" through Icons.  I have shown how the rules for One Unique Thing's and backgrounds explicitly empower actual worldbuilding by the players... but I have yet to see an example, using the rules for Icons, that shows how they facilitate player worldbuilding... 



Balesir said:


> The chance of the Icons chosen by the players being a factor in a scenario is one in three per point invested, with three points invested per player (at level 1). With four players, the chance that _none_ of their Icon relationships will figure in any given scenario is slightly under 0.8%. If the GM has a preset, inviolable plan that isn't going to include focus on any but his or her chosen Icons, this simply isn't gonna work. What the players choose as "their Icons" simply *will* crop up as "factors". Thus their choices affect the theme and focus of play. They don't _determine_ the theme or focus - but that's not neccessary or even desirable, any more than the GM determining these things alone is desirable or required. They just have a set, mechanical influence that is stochastically applied (by rolling dice).




So basically you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the PC's could choose to explore a tomb of undead vs. bandit camp full of humanoids (and thus affect what they encounter as well as the themes and focus of play) and this is player worldbuilding?  Wait a minute, don't all player choices (unless they are being railroaded) affect the theme and focus of play?  Again I am speaking specifically to your claim that the Icons empowers player worldbuilding.  I'm not seeing it, and that's why I am asking for a concrete example.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 7, 2013)

Imaro said:


> You still haven't spoken to how the players "worldbuild" through Icons.  I have shown how the rules for One Unique Thing's and backgrounds explicitly empower actual worldbuilding by the players... but I have yet to see an example, using the rules for Icons, that shows how they facilitate player worldbuilding...



Well, since your post came over to me as something of an overreaction, I'm guessing that one of us is misreading the other. Taking a cue from your paragraph here, though, perhaps an example will help.

Suppose a player picks the hoary old (already!) One Unique Thing "I'm the bastard son of the Emperor".

Now, absent any other rules, this might mean nothing. It is, after all, sheer fluff, on its own. If the GM does not envisage a campaign where this factoid has any relevance or impact on play, that would be trivial to do.

Now take the situation where this player has put 2 or 3 points of Icon relationship into the Emperor. Every couple of adventures or so, the Emperor or his lackeys, functionaries or agents are going to come up on those relationship dice as factors in the plot. Could the GM have them be minor goons who either disregard or disbelieve the character's claims to be the son of the Emperor? Sure - but even *that* says _something_ about the world!

In the background or the OUT the player makes statements about the nature of the world, but the Icon relationships are a vector by which the rules can make sure that those statements are not ignored.

Another example: saying that "undead react strangely to me - they are repelled, not physically but my very existence repulses them, for some reason" (OUT) might not be anything more than an irrelevant footnote to the character if the party never or seldom meet undead. But if the same player takes 2-3 points of relationship (conflicted or negative, presumably) with the Lich King, the party _are going to meet_ undead.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 7, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Well, since your post came over to me as something of an overreaction, I'm guessing that one of us is misreading the other. Taking a cue from your paragraph here, though, perhaps an example will help.
> 
> Suppose a player picks the hoary old (already!) One Unique Thing "I'm the bastard son of the Emperor".
> 
> ...




But in these examples it's the DM doing the actual worldbuilding... which is exactly what I said.

EDIT: Again these choices are similar to the Tomb vs. Bandit Camp example I gave above... they influence play but are not in and of themselves allowing the players to declare or build anything in the world.

EDIT2: As too the DM ignoring a player's OUT... well he can do that with the Icon relationships as well, by simply using them in a broad and generic sense... so I'm not seeing how they guarantee anything.  the fact of the matter is that the OUT can, if worded correctly be used by a player to do explicit worldbuilding... Icon relationships, at least by the rules, just don't give that power to players.  Of course you as a DM are free to run them any way you want.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 7, 2013)

Imaro said:


> But in these examples it's the DM doing the actual worldbuilding... which is exactly what I said.



Huh? Yeah, if you like. You clearly have a different view of what "worldbuilding" means than me.

Edit (after your edit): OK, I see a bit more about where you are coming from, but:

- the GM (I assume) has placed the bandit camp and the tomb. S/he didn't have to place either; even a range of options is a design decision. The Icons, on the other hand, are a (deliberately, I think) wide selection of "world factors" to design around and interact with. In a homebrew they will be set by the GM, and that will make them similar, for sure. But even then, I would suggest that sharing Icon creation with the players would be a very good idea.

- World building, for me, does not need to happen outside play, or be done by any individual alone. Some of my favourite moments in RPGs are when something new about the game world comes out of a synergy created by the interactions of the players. The GM isn't doing the creating (in the sense of thinking about it alone and presenting a finished "thing"), and nor are the players. Instead, what happens in play, when elements decided by player A (who may be the GM - or not) encounter elements added by player B and all players discover something about the world they hadn't known before. This is "players participating in world building". They don't have to present a finished "thing" to be added to the game; they just have to decide what game elements are going to collide and, like a high energy physics experiment, we'll see what particles fly out from the collision!


----------



## Imaro (Aug 7, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Huh? Yeah, if you like. You clearly have a different view of what "worldbuilding" means than me.




Then by all means explain it to me.  I take worldbuilding to mean the constructing of a portion of the actual game world... Like the example OUT I used where I created history, an NPC and established that reincarnation was possible in the game world... what do you mean by worldbuilding?


----------



## Balesir (Aug 7, 2013)

Imaro said:


> Then by all means explain it to me.  I take worldbuilding to mean the constructing of a portion of the actual game world... Like the example OUT I used where I created history, an NPC and established that reincarnation was possible in the game world... what do you mean by worldbuilding?



Heh - now we're crossing over posts horribly. I just added some more to my last post (after your first edit) on this.

With your second edit, I think you're reaching a bit. The GM can ignore the Icon relationship rolls, but by the same token could ignore the OUT, the background details or even ignore the player completely. That's not realistically likely to happen, though.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 7, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Huh? Yeah, if you like. You clearly have a different view of what "worldbuilding" means than me.
> 
> Edit (after your edit): OK, I see a bit more about where you are coming from, but:
> 
> - the GM (I assume) has placed the bandit camp and the tomb. S/he didn't have to place either; even a range of options is a design decision. The Icons, on the other hand, are a (deliberately, I think) wide selection of "world factors" to design around and interact with. In a homebrew they will be set by the GM, and that will make them similar, for sure. *But even then, I would suggest that sharing Icon creation with the players would be a very good idea.*




The GM creates the Icons.  And I would also say that he doesn't have to create specific Icons, in the same way no set location is guaranteed to exist, when creating his own setting.

Emphasis Mine:  But this isn't a part of 13th Age.  If you run the game like that more power to you and if this was a part of the actual rules I wouldn't be disagreeing with you, but it's not.  It's something you've chosen due to your particular play style, which is cool but it's not a part of 13th Age. 



Balesir said:


> - World building, for me, does not need to happen outside play, or be done by any individual alone. Some of my favourite moments in RPGs are when something new about the game world comes out of a synergy created by the interactions of the players. The GM isn't doing the creating (in the sense of thinking about it alone and presenting a finished "thing"), and nor are the players. Instead, what happens in play, when elements decided by player A (who may be the GM - or not) encounter elements added by player B and all players discover something about the world they hadn't known before. This is "players participating in world building". They don't have to present a finished "thing" to be added to the game; they just have to decide what game elements are going to collide and, like a high energy physics experiment, we'll see what particles fly out from the collision!




Thank you for the definition, and while I agree with portions of the above my biggest point of disagreement is that IMO, simply making a decision and seeing what happens is not what I would classify as world building... interacting, yes... building, no.  I take this stance because if true then everything is wordbuilding... and the definition is so broad that it ultimately doesn't mean much.  

I mean taking your definition above as a guideline... 

Let's say the DM puts a trap with a poison needle in a dungeon, then a rogue tries to pick the lock and gets pricked resulting in his death...  Hey the rogue just participated in worldbuilding because he discovered that if there's a trapped lock(element A) and it goes off while he is picking it(element B)... he might die(revelation about the world).  Am I misunderstanding the definition here?  If not then what is the difference between building the world and interacting with it?


----------



## pemerton (Aug 8, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Icon relationships give players more control over the focus of the story by influencing which Icons will be involved. Giving them more control over the themes and focus of the narrative in turn facilitates them contributing to the fiction (because the theme or focus of play is one that they are invested in).





Balesir said:


> What the players choose as "their Icons" simply *will* crop up as "factors". Thus their choices affect the theme and focus of play. They don't _determine_ the theme or focus - but that's not neccessary or even desirable, any more than the GM determining these things alone is desirable or required. They just have a set, mechanical influence that is stochastically applied (by rolling dice).



This makes me think of relationships in Burning Wheel, except with determination of inclusion via dice, rather than a meta-level admonition to the GM to include Relationships in play.


----------



## adamc (Aug 8, 2013)

Thanks for the explanation. Haven't gotten much of a look at the book, as my teenaged daughter has been devouring it -- she really likes it, FWIW. So, from that point of view, I'm glad I got it.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 8, 2013)

Sorry for the "pregnant pause" - technical glitch...


Imaro said:


> Let's say the DM puts a trap with a poison needle in a dungeon, then a rogue tries to pick the lock and gets pricked resulting in his death...  Hey the rogue just participated in worldbuilding because he discovered that if there's a trapped lock(element A) and it goes off while he is picking it(element B)... he might die(revelation about the world).  Am I misunderstanding the definition here?  If not then what is the difference between building the world and interacting with it?



No, I don't think you're misunderstanding, but you are maybe seeing only a part of the picture.

If the above scenario happens, the players may, indeed, have discovered something about the world - that there are poison traps, and they kill! But the chances are good, in my experience, that this will not be new knowledge - it will already be known (or, in poor cases, merely assumed) by those playing. Often, they will be somehow implicit or explicit in the text of the rules. As with exploring the real universe, things can usually only be discovered once - at least by any one group of people - because the second and subsequent times they go there we don't call it "exploration" or "discovery".

Since game worlds are not real but imaginary, any "discovery" is actually "building". Thus, if the GM has decided/discovered/built something in advance, sharing it is not "building" since it's not "discovery" (the discovery had already been made). Likewise, if the player decides some "unique thing" or background for their character, it's "built" as soon as their decision is accepted into the world model - the timing of which relies on the authority allocation parts of the game rules. In 13th Age this is not 100% clear; do the players have _carte blanche_, or does the GM "vet" every element, and it only becomes "real" in the game world when the GM agrees? For me, it's _carte blanche_, and that's the basis on which I like 13th Age, but the rules text allow it to play either way.

When the player-defined elements of OUT and background come into contact with the GM's world elements, that is when in-play discoveries that are guided by both GM and player can arise. The role I see Icon relationships playing in this is to constrain the GM to actually include situations where those OUTs and backgrounds are going to come into focus, so that joint discovery about what they mean is possible. That's all. It's not a big deal, in the greater scheme of things, but it means that the player's desires concerning what aspects of the universe they want to prod and poke at to see what comes out have mechanical support (and, perhaps more to the point, mechanical memory prods) that the GM is directed to use.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 8, 2013)

Balesir said:


> If the above scenario happens, the players may, indeed, have discovered something about the world - that there are poison traps, and they kill! But the chances are good, in my experience, that this will not be new knowledge - it will already be known (or, in poor cases, merely assumed) by those playing. Often, they will be somehow implicit or explicit in the text of the rules. As with exploring the real universe, things can usually only be discovered once - at least by any one group of people - because the second and subsequent times they go there we don't call it "exploration" or "discovery".




The poison trap was just a simple example, the details of which (like whether this knowledge is assumed or not) aren't important when looking at the wider statement about world building.  I disagree with your classifying exploration with discovery. I agree something can (possibly) only be discovered once... but exploration of a particular thing can extend beyond the first time it is discovered.  




Balesir said:


> Since game worlds are not real but imaginary, any "discovery" is actually "building". Thus, if the GM has decided/discovered/built something in advance, sharing it is not "building" since it's not "discovery" (the discovery had already been made). Likewise, if the player decides some "unique thing" or background for their character, it's "built" as soon as their decision is accepted into the world model - the timing of which relies on the authority allocation parts of the game rules. In 13th Age this is not 100% clear; do the players have _carte blanche_, or does the GM "vet" every element, and it only becomes "real" in the game world when the GM agrees? For me, it's _carte blanche_, and that's the basis on which I like 13th Age, but the rules text allow it to play either way.




I pretty much agree with your statement here and feel like this supports my earlier statements about both backgrounds and OUT's. I also think that 13th Age encourages the DM to give the players _carte blanch _with OUT's (as long as the player doesn't expect a mechanical bonus or effect in the game because of it)... while leaning towards vet power in the case of backgrounds (IMO because they, unlike OUT's have concrete mechanical in-game effects).  I like the different approach to these two character components and it suits my preferred play style very well.



Balesir said:


> When the player-defined elements of OUT and background come into contact with the GM's world elements, that is when in-play discoveries that are guided by both GM and player can arise. The role I see Icon relationships playing in this is to constrain the GM to actually include situations where those OUTs and backgrounds are going to come into focus, so that joint discovery about what they mean is possible. That's all. It's not a big deal, in the greater scheme of things, but it means that the player's desires concerning what aspects of the universe they want to prod and poke at to see what comes out have mechanical support (and, perhaps more to the point, mechanical memory prods) that the GM is directed to use.




...and here is where I disagree.  I don't see the role of Icon relationships being meant to constrain the GM to actually include situations where the OUT's and backgrounds are going to come into focus.  IMO, they are totally separate game devices that have the potential to come into sync but were not purposefully built to do so.  

I feel like the problem with your view on Icons is that it pre-supposes that a player will select OUT's and backgrounds that are in some way related to the Icons... but that is an assumption that nothing in the actual 13th age game forces or even influences a player to do.   Can a players backgrounds/OUT be centered around an Icon... sure but they can just as easily have nothing to do with the Icons at all. 

 The Icon relationships, IMO, are a tool for a player to say hey I want situations and hooks that center around these things and a tool for the DM to fairly(randomly) determine whose favorite hooks or situations will get screen time in this particular adventure.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 8, 2013)

Imaro said:


> I agree something can (possibly) only be discovered once... but exploration of a particular thing can extend beyond the first time it is discovered.



Sure you can explore around something that has already been "discovered", but the fact of you exploring presupposes some expectation that you will discover something new that might be connected with the thing you are exploring around, doesn't it? I mean, the exchange

"What are you doing?"
"Exploring."
"Oh - are you expecting to find something new and exciting?"
"Nope. Just the same stuff I saw before."

Doesn't seem to make much sense, to me.



Imaro said:


> I feel like the problem with your view on Icons is that it pre-supposes that a player will select OUT's and backgrounds that are in some way related to the Icons... but that is an assumption that nothing in the actual 13th age game forces or even influences a player to do.   Can a players backgrounds/OUT be centered around an Icon... sure but they can just as easily have nothing to do with the Icons at all.



You're probably right, here - I was just projecting the way _I_ would use the system if I were playing the game - and the way I _hope_ the players will use the system when I run the game - as the intention of the designers.

You could certainly just create unconnected flavour as your OUT and Icon-neutral ties for your backgrounds. I would just interpret that as the player not wanting to commit to connections with the game world; a shying-away from engagement and involvement, essentially. Possibly that could be unfair, but it would be my feeling about the choices at a gut level.



Imaro said:


> The Icon relationships, IMO, are a tool for a player to say hey I want situations and hooks that center around these things and a tool for the DM to fairly(randomly) determine whose favorite hooks or situations will get screen time in this particular adventure.



And here you seem to make my argument for me in simpler, cleaner terms than I have managed.

Player chooses Icons for favourite hooks and situations to be involved in game play --> those hooks and situations being stochastically triggered in game play. If characters can choose - albeit in an indirect way - what fiction elements will (randomly) crop up in the adventures played, are they not having influence on the build of the campaign?

Maybe it's a difference of view about what the "game world" is. For me, it really only includes what is used in play. If the map has a place called the "Isle of Brass", but the characters never go there, and it's never mentioned in play, then as far as I'm concerned the "Isle of Brass" never really existed in that game world. Unless it enters the Shared Imagined Space, it's just vapourware. If it was brought up as a potential place to visit, but the visit never happened, then the Isle exists but has no real detail. This is the sense of "influence over world building" you metioned before.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 8, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Sure you can explore around something that has already been "discovered", but the fact of you exploring presupposes some expectation that you will discover something new that might be connected with the thing you are exploring around, doesn't it? I mean, the exchange
> 
> "What are you doing?"
> "Exploring."
> ...




It doesn't make sense to me either... however that's because it pre-supposes that discovering something precludes deeper exploration of that discovery.  Going back to the trap example, I have discovered a trap... but there are a multitude of things to explore within that discovery... What type of mechanism does it use? what type of poison is used? can I replicate either of those?  If not, where can I find someone who can?  An even easier example is a dungeon... does discovering a particular dungeon preclude exploration of it?  No, to claim otherwise is absurd.



Balesir said:


> You're probably right, here - I was just projecting the way _I_ would use the system if I were playing the game - and the way I _hope_ the players will use the system when I run the game - as the intention of the designers.




And the thing is I don't believe it is the intention of the designers.



Balesir said:


> You could certainly just create unconnected flavour as your OUT and Icon-neutral ties for your backgrounds. I would just interpret that as the player not wanting to commit to connections with the game world; a shying-away from engagement and involvement, essentially. Possibly that could be unfair, but it would be my feeling about the choices at a gut level.




I guess we would view this differently then...  In the module "Crown of the Lich King" the designer's state that having once been an animal was one of the most popular OUT's that playtesters chose.  See for me getting to pick a single unique thing about my PC and then having the DM force me to choose something connected to the Icons when it is my chance to actually add  something to the world (as opposed to derive my OUT from something that has already been established in the world) is being unnecessarily restrictive... it's akin to railroading me during part of character creation.  It also sets up a higher likely hood that my unique thing isn't all that unique since another player could favor one/some or all of the Icons I do.  Personally I don't think a character's One Unique Thing should be about tying him or her to the game world, it's an unnecessary restriction on the one thing they can use unbridled creativity to create...  Buy in to the world is what the Icon mechanics are for... that's what the relationship points a player chooses to distribute establishes... so yeah I think your assumptions are off.   



Balesir said:


> And here you seem to make my argument for me in simpler, cleaner terms than I have managed.
> 
> Player chooses Icons for favourite hooks and situations to be involved in game play --> those hooks and situations being stochastically triggered in game play. If characters can choose - albeit in an indirect way - what fiction elements will (randomly) crop up in the adventures played, are they not having influence on the build of the campaign?




He's not choosing the fiction elements... the player has no idea what the actual fiction elements will be.  He knows who amongst the Icons they will be related too (and even in this he has no idea of how or why they will relate to the Icons) but the player isn't choosing any specific fiction elements to be included.  I also note that the wording has changed from "world" to "campaign"... This is a totally different thing and if a choice like this is part of campaign building then so is the choice to go to one adventuring locale over another... or to interact with one NPC vs. another.  Again this seems so broad as to be, for all practical purposes, pointless. 



Balesir said:


> Maybe it's a difference of view about what the "game world" is. For me, it really only includes what is used in play. If the map has a place called the "Isle of Brass", but the characters never go there, and it's never mentioned in play, then as far as I'm concerned the "Isle of Brass" never really existed in that game world. Unless it enters the Shared Imagined Space, it's just vapourware. If it was brought up as a potential place to visit, but the visit never happened, then the Isle exists but has no real detail. This is the sense of "influence over world building" you metioned before.




I don't think this is where the disagreement is happening at all... as I stated above, the disagreement seems to be happening because you have adopted a definition of world building that is so broad that it is practically meaningless and encompasses nearly any decision the players could make in the course of the game.  According to your definition the players helped "world build" the "Isle of Brass" just by simply choosing to go there... regardless of the fact that the DM created every piece of fiction surrounding the place.  I see that definition of world building as meaningless for discussion and would hazard a guess that it's not what most people associate the term world building with.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Aug 9, 2013)

Seriously you two...get a room 

Thanks for the review. On reading the book through I too loved the idea of putting some of the story into the system (and to some extent the players' hands).

One thing that needs pointing out is that it seems most of the reaal crunchy stuff is on the players' hands. Classes have a multitude of different powers, stacks of different combos, ways to enhance and use those powers. And then the cool 'recharge' mechanics without having to roll another dice. Don't fret if you love the crunch of 3E & 4E PCs - the classes have this in multitude - it is just that other areas of your PC are more story-oriented. Something that I did notice, was the lack of racial powers. (1 4E-style power for each). I reckon I would at least provide a choice for some of my races, but at least it makes adding races VERY easy.

Mechanics on the DMs side have been simplified (a little too much in my mind). I still like seeing things like how strong, perceptive, smart monsters are. Of whether they have special perception powers or are skilled in specific areas. I guess it is easy to make on the spot calls here, but if I am to DM, I will be adding in (and looking to other editions) basic stats/skills/inate abilities. Like 4E though, the monster powers/attacks are ver good.

Anyway, it looks like a GREAT framework for your average DnD game...and it encourages you to borrow/adapt/steal to improve your game. Along with some ideas from DnDNext (such as Advantage/Disadvantage), it would be my choice of DnD...if I were playing any right now


----------



## Connorsrpg (Aug 9, 2013)

Ooh. And regarding the icons...if you want smaller scale styled games (I often do) I reckon that mechanic/idea would adapt well to local rulers and affiliations to organisations, religions, etc.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 9, 2013)

Balesir said:


> You could certainly just create unconnected flavour as your OUT and Icon-neutral ties for your backgrounds. I would just interpret that as the player not wanting to commit to connections with the game world; a shying-away from engagement and involvement, essentially. Possibly that could be unfair, but it would be my feeling about the choices at a gut level.



I can see the logic of that.



Imaro said:


> In the module "Crown of the Lich King" the designer's state that having once been an animal was one of the most popular OUT's that playtesters chose.  See for me getting to pick a single unique thing about my PC and then having the DM force me to choose something connected to the Icons when it is my chance to actually add  something to the world (as opposed to derive my OUT from something that has already been established in the world) is being unnecessarily restrictive... it's akin to railroading me during part of character creation.  It also sets up a higher likely hood that my unique thing isn't all that unique since another player could favor one/some or all of the Icons I do.  Personally I don't think a character's One Unique Thing should be about tying him or her to the game world, it's an unnecessary restriction on the one thing they can use unbridled creativity to create



I don't quite get this.

My understading is that the One Unique Thing is not characterised in mechanical terms - it's purely fiction. But if it doesn't tie a PC to the gameworld in some fashion, then what is the point of the fiction? It would seem like mere colour.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 9, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I don't quite get this.
> 
> My understading is that the One Unique Thing is not characterised in mechanical terms - it's purely fiction. But if it doesn't tie a PC to the gameworld in some fashion, then what is the point of the fiction? It would seem like mere colour.




It allows the PC's to generate facts (world build) around their PC's and/or the game world.  It *can* tie the PC to the gameworld, but my OUT could just as easily be something like... "I am a Man out of Time from the planet Earth"... this doesn't intrinsically tie me to the gameworld but it does set up some facts about the gameworld (Such as the fact that travel from earth to the Dragon Empire is possible).  The OUT doesn't have a defined mechanical effect upon the game, here's an excerpt on exactly what it is from the book...



13th Age Corebook said:


> ...The intent is not to create a new ability or power that will help you in combat; your character class already comes loaded with firepower and combat moves.  The intent is to hint at a unique story that you and the GM will take advantage of and learn more about in the course of the campaign...Good one unique things ("uniques") frequently provide clues to how your character engages with the people, places, and things of the game world...




The section then goes on to state that OUT's... 
1.) Give no combat bonuses and no combat powers
2.) Can have story effects (This is left up to the player and the GM to work together to create, but no mechanic forces the DM to bring it into his adventures)
3.) Can suggest hints of power (whether these hints are realized is again a thing to be worked out between player and DM)
4.) Provide campaign pivots (Of course which if any OUT's the campaign will pivot on is decided by the DM)
5.) Can grow (OUT's can change, evolve and/or dissappear)
6.) Are art not science (OUT's dance on the line between solid rules and improvisational storytelling).

Finally this is what the actual book has to say about OUT's and Icons...



13th Age Corebook said:


> Quite often your one unique thing will suggest backgrounds and icon relationships that you'll be choosing in the next stages of character creation.  That's fine. It makes perfect sense for a character whose unique is that they are a bastard child of the Emperor to have an icon relationship with the emperor and some sort of background related to their history around the Imperial Court or wherever they lived in exile. * But you don't have to work for this type of link, and don't force it if it's not what you want.*




So my view on OUT's is that they give players the ability to create a fact about their character and through that fact also truths about the game world itself... however there are no defined rules for the mechanical effect that a player's particular OUT will have, there is a limitation of it having no combat applicability but beyond that this is something which is supposed to be worked out between the player and the DM  (with it strongly implied that the DM is the final arbitrator as to actual effect).  It also explicitly states that OUT's do not have to be tied to an icon.

I hope this cleared up whatever it was you didn't understand, though I am getting the feeling that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] and (possibly)yourself are looking for a much less traditional relationship (in the area of OUT's) than 13th Age gives, in that you want mechanics for a player to be able to mechanically define his OUT and force the DM to bring his OUT into play.  I on the other hand don't want that. I enjoy this set up of negotiation between player and DM, with the DM having the final say, it is a much more traditional set up and is more conducive to my groups play style.  Now as Balesir suggested you could force every player to center his OUT around an icon and then use the icon dice to "force" the DM to bring them into play... but that's not how the game is actually set up to be run and is more akin to a houserule.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 9, 2013)

Connorsrpg said:


> Ooh. And regarding the icons...if you want smaller scale styled games (I often do) I reckon that mechanic/idea would adapt well to local rulers and affiliations to organisations, religions, etc.




I can't remember where it is now (I will search for it later and try to post a link)... but I remember seeing a write up that adapted the NPC's and organizations of the 4e Neverwinter Campaign book into icons for 13th Age, and they were all on a local city level (except, I believe, for the Lords of Waterdeep).  I think the icons are pretty mutable and really are a way for the DM to declare what the different areas are that he wishes to explore in whatever setting he is using and giving the players the opportunity to essentially "vote" for which they would like to explore most.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 9, 2013)

Imaro said:


> It allows the PC's to generate facts (world build) around their PC's and/or the game world.  It *can* tie the PC to the gameworld, but my OUT could just as easily be something like... "I am a Man out of Time from the planet Earth"... this doesn't intrinsically tie me to the gameworld but it does set up some facts about the gameworld (Such as the fact that travel from earth to the Dragon Empire is possible).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So my view on OUT's is that they give players the ability to create a fact about their character and through that fact also truths about the game world itself



For me, that pretty much _is_ tying the PC to the gameworld. We must mean different things by that phrase.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 9, 2013)

pemerton said:


> For me, that pretty much _is_ tying the PC to the gameworld. We must mean different things by that phrase.




I look at it as tying the PC to the campaign (if the DM chooses to bring the OUT into the picture, otherwise it doesn't tie them to anything) which I view in a different light from the actual game world proper which in my mind the default for 13th Age is the setting of the Dragon Empire...  I'm curious how you would say my previous example (I am a man out of time from the planet earth) actually ties them to the game world as opposed to the campaign (again if the DM decides to incorporate it in some way)?

I guess it's the difference in my mind of a campaign vs. a world, IMO these are different things.  IMO, a campaign is a linked series of adventures or episodes of game play... the game world is the imaginary physical setting that a campaign takes place on or in.  A PC can be linked to one and not the other.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 9, 2013)

Imaro said:


> Now as Balesir suggested you could force every player to center his OUT around an icon and then use the icon dice to "force" the DM to bring them into play... but that's not how the game is actually set up to be run and is more akin to a houserule.



I didn't mean to suggest (nor do I think I said) that players would or should be _forced_ to link OUTs to Icon relationships. I just said it's what I would tend to do as a player, and I would be disappointed if players I GM for didn't do the same. "I was once an animal" is very cute and fluffy (although it might also be leveraged into an attempt to gain kewl powers, like superhuman sense of smell, etc.), but it doesn't really say all that much about the character's aims and ambitions, nor about their place in the society of the world (except to say "outsider").



Imaro said:


> I'm curious how you would say my previous example (I am a man out of time from the planet earth) actually ties them to the game world as opposed to the campaign (again if the DM decides to incorporate it in some way)?



Well, it defines the character's relationship to the world pretty much as "the place I'm trapped and don't know much about".



Imaro said:


> I guess it's the difference in my mind of a campaign vs. a world, IMO these are different things.  IMO, a campaign is a linked series of adventures or episodes of game play... the game world is the imaginary physical setting that a campaign takes place on or in.  A PC can be linked to one and not the other.



Hmm. I don't really see the difference, I admit. The "game world" doesn't exist except in the minds of those playing. It and the campaign currently being played are pretty much interlinked, together with the players whose imaginations the world exists in. Sometimes this extends beyond a single game group; some p-Hârns (parallel versions of Hârn), for example, are shared online accross many people. But that seems to me to be just an example of an "uber-campaign".

Beyond this, all game worlds are p-worlds; each just one instance of all the possible p-worlds out there. Some are similar to each other, others aren't. Each is a fragile flower that lasts only so long as the players' imaginations are focussed on it.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 9, 2013)

Balesir said:


> I didn't mean to suggest (nor do I think I said) that players would or should be _forced_ to link OUTs to Icon relationships. I just said it's what I would tend to do as a player, and I would be disappointed if players I GM for didn't do the same. "I was once an animal" is very cute and fluffy (although it might also be leveraged into an attempt to gain kewl powers, like superhuman sense of smell, etc.), *but it doesn't really say all that much about the character's aims and ambitions, nor about their place in the society of the world (except to say "outsider").*




That's because it's not necessarily supposed to... however it does fit the definition of a "good" OUT in the book that I quoted... Here I'll quote it again...



			
				13th Age Corebook; said:
			
		

> _Good one unique things ("uniques") frequently provide clues to how your character engages with the people, places, and things of the game world..._



If you were a dog that became human this is definitely going to color how your character engages with the people, places and things of the game world.  You seem to have set up your own standard for what OUT's should do and be... but that standard isn't really supported by the book... which was my original point.



Balesir said:


> Well, it defines the character's relationship to the world pretty much as "the place I'm trapped and don't know much about".




Who said he was trapped?  And who said he doesn't know much about the 13th Age world (what if he read the role-playing game while on earth?   ).  You're assuming things that aren't implicit in the statement, these are the things that the player and DM are supposed to work together on through discussion and exploration in the campaign.



Balesir said:


> Hmm. I don't really see the difference, I admit. The "game world" doesn't exist except in the minds of those playing. It and the campaign currently being played are pretty much interlinked, together with the players whose imaginations the world exists in. Sometimes this extends beyond a single game group; some p-Hârns (parallel versions of Hârn), for example, are shared online accross many people. But that seems to me to be just an example of an "uber-campaign".




Okay first off, a game world can exist outside of the minds of those playing.  I may not be playing in a FR game but I know certain official facts about the current iteration of Toril.  Campaign and world are interlinked, but not the same thing. In my mind an example of an "uber-campaign" would be one where the play experiences, not just the game world setting are the same (or as similar as possible given the fact that it is still run by a human) and the outcomes influence everyone's game.  IMO, encounters is a prime example of this... various groups played through the same adventures each week which in turn led to the same outcomes (unless they failed). I would not say different groups playing different adventures in different parts of Golarion are playing in the same campaign or even in a connected campaign... only in the same world.  If you don't get the distinction I'm not sure how else to explain it though, and we may just have to chalk it up to a lost cause... especially since it is tangential at best to my original point about OUT's, backgrounds and Icons.



Balesir said:


> Beyond this, all game worlds are p-worlds; each just one instance of all the possible p-worlds out there. Some are similar to each other, others aren't. Each is a fragile flower that lasts only so long as the players' imaginations are focussed on it.




Uhm... again I disagree.  There are official versions of certain game worlds... and they exist in written form, as well as in a form that is experienced outside of gaming and it's participants imagination(through fiction).  There isn't a campaign that exists in this way since actually *playing* through a series of linked adventures is what defines a campaign.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 9, 2013)

Imaro said:


> That's because it's not necessarily supposed to... however it does fit the definition of a "good" OUT in the book that I quoted... Here I'll quote it again...



The book is written to be - I assume deliberately - flexible, and I think that's a good thing. But I note that seven out of ten example OUTs have explicit Icon links, and two of those that don't are specifically listed as "Seemingly Innocuous" uniques that might be chosen by those not yet comfortable with being ambitious with such attributes and letting their "unique flag fly free".



Imaro said:


> Who said he was trapped?



No one, but if he were free to leave at any time it would seem to be potentially rather disruptive to the game. Especially if he could come back - with or without technological gear.



Imaro said:


> And who said he doesn't know much about the 13th Age world (what if he read the role-playing game while on earth?   ).



Reading the RPG isn't going to tell the character anywhere near as much about the world as a character who has lived there all their life would know. Relatively speaking, he'll be ignorant, unless he arrived there as a child and grew up there.



Imaro said:


> You're assuming things that aren't implicit in the statement, these are the things that the player and DM are supposed to work together on through discussion and exploration in the campaign.



I don't think I'm assuming any more than follows logically, but I certainly agree that it's up for negotiation and discussion. And having it there for exploration is the point of it.



Imaro said:


> Okay first off, a game world can exist outside of the minds of those playing.  I may not be playing in a FR game but I know certain official facts about the current iteration of Toril.  Campaign and world are interlinked, but not the same thing.



Ah, OK - you are talking about sources of ideas and descriptions of game worlds. I view those as potential sources of inspiration, ideas and suggestions, and in the best cases they can be taken more-or-less whole cloth and used to communicate baseline proposals about the world. As such they can be very useful. But they are not the game world. That is the thing that gets generated when play happens.



Imaro said:


> In my mind an example of an "uber-campaign" would be one where the play experiences, not just the game world setting are the same (or as similar as possible given the fact that it is still run by a human) and the outcomes influence everyone's game.  IMO, encounters is a prime example of this... various groups played through the same adventures each week which in turn led to the same outcomes (unless they failed).



Hmm, kinda, but organised play makes a very strange "reality" for a campaign. A place where several people all interact with the same situation - not serially so that the later group encounter the results of the first group's interaction, but they actually interact with the exact same situation - is a very hard setting to make sense of in one's mind. Nevertheless, people do it.

I was rather thinking of online exchanges where world building and character play are used interchangeably to explore (i.e. build) a version of a game world as an ongoing shared fiction.



Imaro said:


> I would not say different groups playing different adventures in different parts of Golarion are playing in the same campaign or even in a connected campaign... only in the same world.



I definitely see those versions of Golarion as separate (but similar) worlds. They will almost certainly have different NPCs, different adventure sites and very likely a different history in the details. Take the example where a GM places a dungeon in a particular place. Immediately the worlds are different and, assuming the dungeon did not spring up overnight, they have a different history. They are similar worlds - you might call them "parallel worlds" - but they are not the _same_ world, in my book.



Imaro said:


> Uhm... again I disagree.  There are official versions of certain game worlds... and they exist in written form, as well as in a form that is experienced outside of gaming and it's participants imagination(through fiction).  There isn't a campaign that exists in this way since actually *playing* through a series of linked adventures is what defines a campaign.



Again, these are, to me, different worlds. Unless you are going to strictly enforce that every detail in every book happens exactly as written, with no deviation, at the same time and in the same place as the players characters are living (which I can't see as being easily practical, never mind anything else), then the written material is just as I said above - easily communicated source material, nothing more. The real 'life' of the world will happen when you actually take those shared starting assumptions and play the game. At which point the world stops being a potentiality and becomes a new, living world. Until play stops.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 9, 2013)

Balesir said:


> The book is written to be - I assume deliberately - flexible, and I think that's a good thing. But I note that seven out of ten example OUTs have explicit Icon links, and two of those that don't are specifically listed as "Seemingly Innocuous" uniques that might be chosen by those not yet comfortable with being ambitious with such attributes and letting their "unique flag fly free".




So we're in agreement... nothing in the book assumes or even implies that OUT's have to be connected to Icons, that is in fact something you prefer even though you stated it as if it were an assumption in the actual rule book... Cool, that was my point in the first place, not sure why it took numerous pages for you to admit that.

EDIT: As to the rest well I guess our definitions of campaign and world are just different and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## JeffB (Aug 9, 2013)

Geez. Book has not been out a week and we are already getting multiquote multipage arguments about rules and fluff.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 9, 2013)

JeffB said:


> Geez. Book has not been out a week and we are already getting multiquote multipage arguments about rules and fluff.




You say that like it's a bad thing.

The game that doesn't get multiquote multipage arguments about rules and fluff is the game that nobody cares about.


----------



## JeffB (Aug 10, 2013)

Morrus said:


> You say that like it's a bad thing.
> 
> The game that doesn't get multiquote multipage arguments about rules and fluff is the game that nobody cares about.





I understand your point Russ.

As I am very interested in the game but on the fence about the purchase,.seeing a review thread devolve into 2 posters arguing back and forth for a few pages about differing interpretations of something trivial, really ruins any enthusiasm or excitement I had coming into the thread.

I know it happens all the time on the internet,.and I have been part of such arguments before, and I should just suck it up, but it still annoys the crap out of me when everyone could be discussing the game in a more constructive way, that educates the people who are interested in this new product.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 10, 2013)

JeffB said:


> I understand your point Russ.
> 
> As I am very interested in the game but on the fence about the purchase,.seeing a review thread devolve into 2 posters arguing back and forth for a few pages about differing interpretations of something trivial, really ruins any enthusiasm or excitement I had coming into the thread.
> 
> I know it happens all the time on the internet,.and I have been part of such arguments before, and I should just suck it up, but it still annoys the crap out of me when everyone could be discussing the game in a more constructive way, that educates the people who are interested in this new product.




Hey JeffB, if you have any questions about the game I'd be happy to answer them but I haven't really seen anyone asking anything specific and well the back and forth was conversation where otherwise the thread wouldn't have had any... so I went with it.  As to whether the question was important or not, I think there's a divide in tastes of many rpg fans that tend to center around DM vs. player empowerment and the distribution of it by particular games.  I felt that mis-representing how the rules for the OUT, backgrounds and Icons were written in the book could potentially turn some people away (depending on where they sat on that divide) and wanted to clear it up.  Sorry if the argument went on for too long, but again anyone could have jumped in with discussion or questions about the game outside of the discussion I Balesir and pemerton were having.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 10, 2013)

Imaro said:


> So we're in agreement... nothing in the book assumes or even implies that OUT's have to be connected to Icons, that is in fact something you prefer even though you stated it as if it were an assumption in the actual rule book... Cool, that was my point in the first place, not sure why it took numerous pages for you to admit that.



Jumping Jehosaphat - if you want to get triumphalist about it, fine - I submit.

All I wrote initially was this:
"Part of the idea of the Icons, though, is to get the players world building. The "gaps" in the world are filled in during play, rather than in advance, by the GM. This engages both characters and players with the world fiction. I think this is why they give a set of Icons in the core rules; the identities of the actual Icons themselves isn't "Core", but the existence of a set of cool and inspiring Icons is Core, so how they might look and what they need to say has to be included in example so that GMs know how to set them up and why they exist."

If that's stating an overinflated and immoderate viewpoint, then _mea culpa_. Sheesh.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 10, 2013)

Balesir said:


> Jumping Jehosaphat - if you want to get triumphalist about it, fine - I submit.
> 
> All I wrote initially was this:
> "Part of the idea of the Icons, though, is to get the players world building. The "gaps" in the world are filled in during play, rather than in advance, by the GM. This engages both characters and players with the world fiction. I think this is why they give a set of Icons in the core rules; the identities of the actual Icons themselves isn't "Core", but the existence of a set of cool and inspiring Icons is Core, so how they might look and what they need to say has to be included in example so that GMs know how to set them up and why they exist."
> ...




It's not about getting "triumphalist about it"... it's about ending an argument which shouldn't have stretched over numerous pages because you couldn't just say hey...  "This is how I want to use icons in my game" instead of stating your opinion about how the rules around them were intended to be used as objective fact.  Even now you have to ascribe motivation to me in an effort to paint me in a certain light instead of just conceding the point gracefully, but whatever I'm done.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 10, 2013)

In an effort to be more productive (and less antagonistic) in this thread, In the vein of @_*Balesir*_ 's take on icons but also in the vein of my own preference to keep the OUT separate if desired... I was thinking why not have PC's work with the DM to write a short (one or two liner) explanation of what their relationship entails concerning the particular icons they select.  This can in turn be guided by whether they have a positive, negative or conflicted relationship along with the number of points.  this seems to get exactly what you want for the players (to world build and connect to the campaign/setting through the icon relationships without it imposing on the OUT).  In fact I think I may try this out with my first run of 13th Age...


----------



## Balesir (Aug 11, 2013)

Imaro said:


> In an effort to be more productive (and less antagonistic) in this thread, In the vein of @_*Balesir*_ 's take on icons but also in the vein of my own preference to keep the OUT separate if desired... I was thinking why not have PC's work with the DM to write a short (one or two liner) explanation of what their relationship entails concerning the particular icons they select.  This can in turn be guided by whether they have a positive, negative or conflicted relationship along with the number of points.  this seems to get exactly what you want for the players (to world build and connect to the campaign/setting through the icon relationships without it imposing on the OUT).  In fact I think I may try this out with my first run of 13th Age...



Having the Icon relationships fleshed out with a line or two of  explanation is certainly a good idea. I probably wouldn't insist on it from the very start, but, like OUTs, it should be firmed up within the first few runs. Some folks only really get a feel for "who their character is" after playing them for a bit, so a bit of leeway is probably helpful.

As an extension to this (in the spirit of being constructive and so on), I would recommend holding a session with all players present where the task is to decide why the characters form a "party". The GM _might_ have a plan for this to be enacted in the first session - in which case it may not be needed - but having up-front agreement to form a group can be helpful. All that is actually _needed_ is an agreed story/montage, but it could be fun to add in things like a shared background (with a minimum investment of 1 point out of 8, this shouldn't impinge on players' build freedom too much - and I might be tempted to give them all an extra point if they chose to go this way).

Another possibility would be shared Icon relationships, but I'd be careful, here. If *all* the characters have a relationship to one Icon, then that Icon is going to figure a lot in the relationship roll "hits". This will tend to make that Icon a big focus of the campaign; this should probably be discussed and agreed in advance by all the players (including the GM!)


----------



## Manbearcat (Aug 11, 2013)

Important stuff that is different from 4e and then a short review at the bottom:

- Icons and One Unique Thing take the place of Themes/Paragon paths, defining your place in the world/campaign/protagonism and provide players with some narrative authority (Background Traits in 5e have some similarity here as well).
- Theater of the Mind style combat with resources, control effects, and abstracted movement centered around that paradigm.  Due to the latter (and this is probably the major area of divergence between the two systems), forced movement (or at least with respect to the intensity and scope that it manifests in 4e) is basically gone.
- An Escalation Die is a focus of tactical play and ramps up the lethality of PCs and opens up their options as rounds accrue.
- The "encounter power" paradigm has been replaced with a recharge paradigm.
- Utility "powers" are much more scant or their payload is disseminated differently; eg - one Utility ability, such as Animal Companion, takes up most of the heft of your class's inherent scope of Utility.
- "Second Wind" (Rallying) can take place more than once per fight, pending the outcome of a check.  Outside of that, the Healing Surge system is pretty much ported over.  However, beyond Rallying, given the dearth (or lackthereof in some cases) of Utility "powers" present in some martial classes, the intra-combat opening up of their surges (Recovery) will be the primary domain of "Leader" role abilities.  That being said, there are some encounter/recharge options to add self-Recoveries (surges) as riders to a few classes' attacks.
- Rituals are no longer codified but are improvised, flavor/mechanical negotiated versions of spells you know. If you don't know spells, Ritual Casting is unavailable to you.
- Races are pretty much ported.
- Considerably less EoYNT.
- Considerably less "immediate actions".
- Less Conditions and the ones that are similarly named are different in a way, or completely so, and are generally less "fiddly".
- Lack of unified class mechanics and resource scheduling (eg momentum for the rogue).
- Level bonus to checks/rolls vs 1/2 level.
- 10 lvls instead of 30.
- Rather than selecting trained broad skills, a Background pool of points is spent on careers/exposure etc which create applicable "skill bases" to be leveraged in play.
- No Reflex Defense.
- Middle score of 3 for several passive modifiers rather than the highest of 2.
- No Warlords.
- No Dragonborn.  Errr.  Yes, there are - see optional races - Dragonspawn. 
- No Condition/Disease Track.
- No Swarms so no Swarm mechanics to use as a tool for various things.
- No Wealth/Level.
- No complex conflict resolution framework (eg no Skill Challenge).  HOWEVER...there are objective DCs for the math of the system that are expected to be used so porting over the Skill Challenge framework would be trivial.  

I think that is most of the important stuff. If you used Themes/Paragon Paths/Epic Destinies to thematically guide play in your 4e game and allowed your players narrative authority/assumptions that they could invoke/rely on/use as insurance, then OUT and Icons may not have an enormous difference on the functional play at the table.  If they were just PC build tools to facilitate combat, then this will be new.  Given that they do have acutely specified thematic focus (and Icon interaction has some mechanical heft), there will be some distinctions twixt the two table experiences.  The Escalation Die as a universal mechanic will quicken fights and bring some quality dynamism into play with its interactions with various class mechanics.  

From a combat perspective, the engine is more swingy than 4e, with less precision, granularity, and dynamism with respect to tactical movement (and forced movement as it basically doesn't exist).  However, the Escalation Die and its interactions with class mechanics will bring about some fun play and leveraging of trigger-based abilities.  The movement system is quite solid for TotM and has some functional tactical overhead embedded in it.  While tactically rich and effective, multiple SWs (contingent upon checks) doesn't make up for the lack of action economy leveraging HP restoration from Utility Powers, and other mitigatory deployments, I don't think.  Overall battlefield control will be notched down by a fair stretch as well and, although there are good tools for Defender "stickiness" (and Intercept allows some general Defending), the rich, tactical depth of tanking and dominating battlefields indirectly will be stepped back.  Monsters are very solid and roles are there but overall, they are not as rich as MM3/MV monsters and the fights they engender; but much of that is attributable to lack of forced movement.  Math is tight.  Encounter budgeting is good.  Guidance on encounter design is good.

Again, while Skill Challenges aren't actually in the system, the objective DCs/lvl are present so its just a matter of porting the framework.  Easily enough done.  In non-combat conflict resolution, players have a lot of "outs" or narrative authority due to the structure of the Background/skill system, OUT and possibly leveraging an ICON.  Good stuff.  Lack of Rituals for non-casters (save for one specific Ranger build) is troubling.  Obviously, free-form Ritual Casting will have a high potential to perturb the "spotlight propensity" toward casters in non-combat scenarios.  That is theorycraft at this point but I'm sure I'm not the only person who has that concern.  I should be able to port the Condition/Disease Track over and sort out how Swarm mechanics should work with this engine.

Overall, this is a great system and very lean and functional at what it is trying to achieve; a slightly swingier, less granular/fiddly (less robust tactically), slightly more narr-heavy 4e.  Tons of the material is portable to and from D&D systems (specifically 4e).  The expansion will bring more classes/races/feats/maneuvers/spells/powers etc but, just like 4e, the math is solid and intuitive and I could easily create well-balanced classes (etc) that are thematically and mechanically robust, immediately.  The best thing, I think, you can say about a TTRPG is that it knows what it is trying to do, it expresses plainly what it is trying to do and it then proceeds to do so.  13 Age hits on all 3.  Great game system and I'd expect nothing less from these creators.


----------



## Pog (Aug 11, 2013)

Cool review.  I do believe that dragon born are in the book, as an optional race called dragonspawn.


----------



## Manbearcat (Aug 11, 2013)

Pog said:


> Cool review.  I do believe that dragon born are in the book, as an optional race called dragonspawn.




You know, I knew that.  I have no idea why I forgot that when I wrote  that review.  Good catch.  I'll amend the above right quick.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 12, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> The best thing, I think, you can say about a TTRPG is that it knows what it is trying to do, it expresses plainly what it is trying to do and it then proceeds to do so.  13 Age hits on all 3.  Great game system and I'd expect nothing less from these creators.




Great review, MBC.  Re: rituals, I think Icon relationships and the OUT can be used to flesh out possible ritual "seeds" (which is really what spells provide in the 13A ritual system) for a non-spellcaster who really want to use the ritual system.  A rogue with 3 dice for the Price of Shadows should certainly be able to work some invisibility or divination rituals if he invests in the Ritual Caster feat.

Also, I think the Disease Track mechanism could be an excellent replacement for the "last gasp" save system, which I'm not particularly enamored with.  

Also, I think I really need the multiclass rules from 13 True Ways to feel truly comfortable with the classes.  I want just a little more granularity in the class builds to be able to customize the complexity level.  Barbarians or paladins with maneuvers, for example.  Something that isn't trivial to do like a talent swap currently is in the system.  That's what I need to see before 13th Age becomes my go-to system, although it's already very close.


----------



## Manbearcat (Aug 12, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> Great review, MBC. Re: rituals, I think Icon relationships and the OUT can be used to flesh out possible ritual "seeds" (which is really what spells provide in the 13A ritual system) for a non-spellcaster who really want to use the ritual system. A rogue with 3 dice for the Price of Shadows should certainly be able to work some invisibility or divination rituals if he invests in the Ritual Caster feat.
> 
> Also, I think the Disease Track mechanism could be an excellent replacement for the "last gasp" save system, which I'm not particularly enamored with.
> 
> Also, I think I really need the multiclass rules from 13 True Ways to feel truly comfortable with the classes. I want just a little more granularity in the class builds to be able to customize the complexity level. Barbarians or paladins with maneuvers, for example. Something that isn't trivial to do like a talent swap currently is in the system. That's what I need to see before 13th Age becomes my go-to system, although it's already very close.




Hey TwoSix.  Thank you.  I agree with all of your points here.  

However, as great of a system as it is , the inherent mobility of 4e combat + Forced Movement specifically coupled with the interraction of battlefield features/terrain/hazards + the ease of adjudication of stunting within that framework + the extraordinary depth and robust functionality of battlefield control is a very large draw for my group.  We love all of those "fiddly" bits and all of that tactical depth.  Its fun, it emulates how battlefields are dynamically mobile and, IME, martial forced movement is probably the single greatest element ever introduced to skirmish TTRPG combat (from both a genre and fun perspective).  My life has been spent in athletics and martial combat sports, IME martial forced movement does more to accurately simulate the dyanamics of the two than anything we've seen to date.  The full time loss of it would be hard to overcome so I'm uncertain at this point that 13th age could be a full time system for my particular group.
However, what I think we will likely end up doing is trying to have concurrent versions of the characters and their respective level in each system.  Depending on the week, we may choose one mirror or the other to play out the session.  Going between each system (and rendering character mirros) would be extremely easy IME.  I think on weeks where we want to play out a dynamic, climactic BBEG fight, we would always use the 4e mirror, while every other week we could just as easily use either/or.

Or, we may just try play out our current 4e game and start a new 13th Age game after it resolves itself.  I will likely playtest here and there and maybe grab some folks online (given that its fully TotM compatible) to play out a short campaign and estimate if there is enough crunch there for my home game players' tastes.

Regardless, great system and the 5e devs should be concerned about further segmenting of the pulp D&D userbase after its release.  I can see a whole lot of 4e folks and folks who liked 4e but didn't like its forced movements and "fiddly bits" flooding this system with praise, dollars, and all-in support.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 12, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> Great review, MBC.  Re: rituals, I think Icon relationships and the OUT can be used to flesh out possible ritual "seeds" (which is really what spells provide in the 13A ritual system) for a non-spellcaster who really want to use the ritual system.  A rogue with 3 dice for the Price of Shadows should certainly be able to work some invisibility or divination rituals if he invests in the Ritual Caster feat.




Cool idea, I like it... another possible solution would be to modify the ritual caster feat so that it provides a certain amount of spells "known" for the sole purpose of non-casters casting ritual magic.  Then maybe a second feat that allows a ritual caster to purchase a set number of spells as ritual seeds (in case he wanted to expand his known spells)... of course I'm not sure what would be correct from a balance perspective, and this might be a little too involved.  The other option is to use the suggestions above... but also open it up to casters as well so that they wouldn't be restricted only to ritual magic based on their spells.    



TwoSix said:


> Also, I think I really need the multiclass rules from 13 True Ways to feel truly comfortable with the classes.  I want just a little more granularity in the class builds to be able to customize the complexity level.  Barbarians or paladins with maneuvers, for example.  Something that isn't trivial to do like a talent swap currently is in the system.  That's what I need to see before 13th Age becomes my go-to system, although it's already very close.




I'm looking forward to 13 True Ways myself.  One solution which I think is even suggested in the book is to let some classes swap out class talents for those from other classes... maybe let the paladin or barbarian swap out with the fighter or ranger for more complexity... I guess I'd implement the swaps on a trial-basis and see how it works, with the DM being able to veto obviously overpowered combos.


----------



## NinjaPaladin (Aug 12, 2013)

I'm hoping we get some rules on multiclassing, just so people don't keep asking for things that are overpowered. Ranger dual-wielding, for example, is (I think) a ranger-specific ability for a reason. If you gave the ability to a fighter or a barbarian or a rogue, I would worry that it'd be overpowered.


----------



## Manbearcat (Aug 12, 2013)

Imaro said:


> Cool idea, I like it... another possible solution would be to modify the ritual caster feat so that it provides a certain amount of spells "known" for the sole purpose of non-casters casting ritual magic. Then maybe a second feat that allows a ritual caster to purchase a set number of spells as ritual seeds (in case he wanted to expand his known spells)... of course I'm not sure what would be correct from a balance perspective, and this might be a little too involved. The other option is to use the suggestions above... but also open it up to casters as well so that they wouldn't be restricted only to ritual magic based on their spells.
> 
> I'm looking forward to 13 True Ways myself. One solution which I think is even suggested in the book is to let some classes swap out class talents for those from other classes... maybe let the paladin or barbarian swap out with the fighter or ranger for more complexity... I guess I'd implement the swaps on a trial-basis and see how it works, with the DM being able to veto obviously overpowered combos.




Those are my thoughts on both of those as well.  You would really just want to make sure that the mundane character that invests in Ritual Casting has as much variety in the ways to "skin a cat" as the caster would when they invest in/use Ritual Casting.

It would be pretty simple to make a F/M Gish type just by doing the above with the Fighter/Wizard, finding a comfy mean for base stats and taking the Abjuration talent in the stead of a Fighter talent.  You could restrict armor to light, take the classic defense spells like Shield/Blur, etc and have a feat-line that lets you use an MBA as a Quick Action after casting a spell, initially on a Recharge schedule and then later feat investment would let you use it more often contingent upon to hit rolls (even numbers, etc) and the escalation die.  You could do the same with an Arcane Archer type.

Alternatively, for ease-of-use, you could just use the Ranger chassis but give them access to Wizardry instead of Sorcery or Divine spellcasting.  Change out some Features/talents/feats and you may be close.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 12, 2013)

NinjaPaladin said:


> I'm hoping we get some rules on multiclassing, just so people don't keep asking for things that are overpowered. Ranger dual-wielding, for example, is (I think) a ranger-specific ability for a reason. If you gave the ability to a fighter or a barbarian or a rogue, I would worry that it'd be overpowered.




Yeah I would like official rules as well.

I don't think the Ranger's dual wielding talent is really all that powerful as a singular ability since it drops the weapon damage to one die lower (so generally d6 as opposed to d8), and you only get to make the second attack if your first attack is a natural even number...  I think one of the important things to take note of is that many of the class features state that they can only be used with attacks from that class.  That said I would probably keep them silo-ed entirely until I was sure there would be no shenanigans in combining effects from 2 different sources.  So yes you can dual wield, but you can't use Paladin talents, feats, or powers on top of using that ability.  I think I would also limit the number of talents that could be swapped out to maybe one per tier... maybe even less than that.


----------



## NinjaPaladin (Aug 12, 2013)

Imaro said:


> Yeah I would like official rules as well.
> 
> I don't think the Ranger's dual wielding talent is really all that powerful as a singular ability since it drops the weapon damage to one die lower (so generally d6 as opposed to d8), and you only get to make the second attack if your first attack is a natural even number...  I think one of the important things to take note of is that many of the class features state that they can only be used with attacks from that class.  That said I would probably keep them silo-ed entirely until I was sure there would be no shenanigans in combining effects from 2 different sources.  So yes you can dual wield, but you can't use Paladin talents, feats, or powers on top of using that ability.  I think I would also limit the number of talents that could be swapped out to maybe one per tier... maybe even less than that.




That sounds reasonable. My concern would be letting a fighter make all his flexible attacks on top of a ranger's dual-wielding attacks. At that point, he's a better ranger than the ranger. Same for a raging barbarian. ("Hey, turns out that rage bonus applies to both primary and secondary attacks!")

I'd still be worried that it adds enough damage or core ability to another class to be stealing the coolest part of the ranger for a very low price, but I'm old now, and I don't care enough to go through average damage per round calculations. I also figure that this is a game to be played with friends, not competitively, and if someone came to me with an awesome character concept that required dual-wielding as a rogue or barbarian or whatever, I'd probably allow it.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 12, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> Alternatively, for ease-of-use, you could just use the Ranger chassis but give them access to Wizardry instead of Sorcery or Divine spellcasting.  Change out some Features/talents/feats and you may be close.




Looking over it now... I think I would go with this method.  I'd probably create a general feat for melee characters that worked like the Ranger's "Fey Queen's Enchantments" talent that allowed one to pick the spellcasting class but otherwise functioned in the same way.  I wonder if this is also meant to be the way that non-spellcasters get spells for rituals as well...


----------



## NinjaPaladin (Aug 12, 2013)

I had a character concept for a ranger with Fey Queen's Enchantment and Ritual Magic. I was going to have him use rituals to affect the weather -- a ritualized Lightning Fork to call down a thunderstorm and either hide the heroes' approach or ease a village's drought, for example.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 12, 2013)

NinjaPaladin said:


> That sounds reasonable. My concern would be letting a fighter make all his flexible attacks on top of a ranger's dual-wielding attacks. At that point, he's a better ranger than the ranger. Same for a raging barbarian. ("Hey, turns out that rage bonus applies to both primary and secondary attacks!")




Well the Barbarian Rage class feature specifically calls out that it only works for barbarian melee and ranged attacks, so I wouldn't let that work if the character was using a ranger feature, but yeah something like the fighter's maneuvers doesn't state one way or another (I may be wrong about this but I'm going off memory)so it would definitely be up to the DM to watch out for wonky combos... which of course is why my general rule (until I master the rules) would be to keep them silo-ed. 



NinjaPaladin said:


> I'd still be worried that it adds enough damage or core ability to another class to be stealing the coolest part of the ranger for a very low price, but I'm old now, and I don't care enough to go through average damage per round calculations. I also figure that this is a game to be played with friends, not competitively, and if someone came to me with an awesome character concept that required dual-wielding as a rogue or barbarian or whatever, I'd probably allow it.




Understandable, I guess my biggest issue is that the dual-weapon wielder is so iconic in fantasy and not necessarily as a ranger that I could see players wanting it for other melee characters (This was one of the issues I had with 4e basically making this a ranger only ability until the tempest fighter and whirling frenzy barbarian were released).  It really is one of those things I personally feel shouldn't necessarily be attached to one particular class.


----------



## Manbearcat (Aug 12, 2013)

Imaro said:


> I wonder if this is also meant to be the way that non-spellcasters get spells for rituals as well...




Yup, that is what I inferred from that.  I don't have the book in front of me but I don't recall any other martial/mundane class getting access to spells.


----------



## NinjaPaladin (Aug 12, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> Yup, that is what I inferred from that.  I don't have the book in front of me but I don't recall any other martial/mundane class getting access to spells.




The paladin has something almost identical that opens up access to cleric spells.


----------



## Manbearcat (Aug 12, 2013)

NinjaPaladin said:


> The paladin has something almost identical that opens up access to cleric spells.




Yup, quite true.  I wasn't including Paladin there as, although it has a martial pedigree, its primary source of power and theme is Divine-infusion.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 12, 2013)

One thing I haven't seen discussed yet, that I really enjoy is how 13th Age handles "true" magic items by default.  I think the game does alot to bring back the mystery and wonder of magic items that has been (IMO) missing in the D&D editions where they are for all practical purposes PC build tools.  I like that the default answer is that true magic items are not sold and that magic shops don't exist.  This is more in line with most fantasy fiction.  

The other thing I really like is that all true magic items are sentient and have both a personality and a quirk,  furthermore, while a hero is not outright banned from having more than his level in equal tier magic items (with epic tier item counting as 3 each unless the character is also epic tier)... taking more than this allows the DM to impose the quirks and personalities of the magic items upon the hero's actions and behavior, if he carries too many magic items.  I also like that the option for the DM to let the player manage it (not my preferred choice but still a viable option for different play styles) or a combination of the DM and the other players at the table handle it (I think this would be my preferred method as it takes some of the onus off the DM without the player whose affected having control) is presented.  While I could see the inspiration for these coming from Tolkien and the One ring... IMO, these rules are also very reminiscent of Moorcockian magic items and that definitely resonate with me.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 12, 2013)

Imaro said:


> One thing I haven't seen discussed yet, that I really enjoy is how 13th Age handles "true" magic items by default.  I think the game does alot to bring back the mystery and wonder of magic items that has been (IMO) missing in the D&D editions where they are for all practical purposes PC build tools.  I like that the default answer is that true magic items are not sold and that magic shops don't exist.  This is more in line with most fantasy fiction.



I like the way magic items work in 13A, too. I actually like the fact that a party (as opposed to character) build resource exists in 3/4E, but 13A isn't that big on "builds" so the lack fits well, here.

One aspect of 4E I like in this regard is the way Artifacts are split from magic items, with the latter being a "communal build resource" and the former more of a GM resource. 13th Age takes this further, it seems to me, with only consumables being party resources (and tactical/scenario resources, at that) and "true magic" being more of a GM maguffin/tool to dangle before the party.

I agree that the shared "policing" of the "magic overburden" between GM and (other) players would be the way I would probably go. Alternatively, I could stand to see some sort of dice system - similar to that used for Icon relationships - to help manage this. It could work similarly to the way Fiasco handles "bad scene outcomes". Roll dice for each item if you are "over the limit"; for each 5 or 6 (say), the player of the overburdened character must come up with some expression of that item's "quirk" that satisfies the rest of the table. This places the onus for coming up with acceptably inconvenient effects on the player who has chosen to overburden their character, while everybody else gets the fun of saying "No, dude - we're not buying it. You need to try harder!" <evil grin>

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 4


----------



## Imaro (Aug 12, 2013)

Balesir said:


> I like the way magic items work in 13A, too. I actually like the fact that a party (as opposed to character) build resource exists in 3/4E, but 13A isn't that big on "builds" so the lack fits well, here.




I really don't want to get into some pedantic argument here but how are magic items a "party" build item as opposed to a "character" build item?  If you are speaking about consumables... well 13th Age has those as well but if you're speaking to actual magic items in 4e and 3e I'm unclear as to why they are party build items...   



Balesir said:


> One aspect of 4E I like in this regard is the way Artifacts are split from magic items, with the latter being a "communal build resource" and the former more of a GM resource. 13th Age takes this further, it seems to me, with only consumables being party resources (and tactical/scenario resources, at that) and "true magic" being more of a GM maguffin/tool to dangle before the party.




Hmm, again with the caveat that I don't believe these items to be "communal" build resources... I didn't really favor this aspect of 4e that much because I have always felt that, for the most part, magic items should be under the purview of the person running the game (of course this doesn't stop a player from having his character do in-game info gathering and seeking to find an item he is interested in).  It's just my particular play style preference of course but I think even with artifacts, 4e went a step to far for me in placing magic items in the PHB and promoting a wish list and magic shop mentality (and no I am not claiming 3e didn't also promote some of this but you were speaking to 4e specifically).  

I also think you're mistaken in characterizing the "true" magic items as MacGuffins since the definition of a MacGuffin is only a plot device with no further purpose, but "true" magic items mechanically benefit characters that have them... in fact once the player has a true magic item the only reason for the DM (and possibly the other players) to get involved is when the character decides to carry more true magic items than his level. Until that point I would have no problem with a player role playing out the minor actions and indicators of his items quirks and personalities that may arise since he is still in control of himself and his items. However, IMO, when he chooses to go overboard on the magic stuff... then it's time for the  items to exert their quirks and personalities through the GM/other players on the PC's behavior and I like the sense of real loss of control that would come from others deciding the actions.



Balesir said:


> I agree that the shared "policing" of the "magic overburden" between GM and (other) players would be the way I would probably go. Alternatively, I could stand to see some sort of dice system - similar to that used for Icon relationships - to help manage this. It could work similarly to the way Fiasco handles "bad scene outcomes". Roll dice for each item if you are "over the limit"; for each 5 or 6 (say), the player of the overburdened character must come up with some expression of that item's "quirk" that satisfies the rest of the table. This places the onus for coming up with acceptably inconvenient effects on the player who has chosen to overburden their character, while everybody else gets the fun of saying "No, dude - we're not buying it. You need to try harder!" <evil grin>
> 
> Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 4




I can understand the desire for mechanical determination...and I might even consider using it, but I also feel like the player knew what he was getting into when he decided to take on so much power and that depending on the rolls he may not be inconvenienced often enough to make up for the added power of the extra magic item(s)...(I honestly don't know if this is or isn't the case but it's something I would be concerned about). 

The only reason I don't favor the player himself coming up with the effects is because I think most players will try to find an expression that inconveniences them the least, I mean they are the type of player who went for more magic items in the first place right?  IMO, it's too much of  a conflict of interest for me to feel comfortable leaving up to the player... especially because the extra magic item(s) are actually giving them increased power.  I also don't want to spend 15-20 mins of game time with back and forth between the DM/other players and the overburdened player to determine an appropriate action. I think it makes it more interesting and again more mysterious when part of the inherent danger of too many magic items is in not knowing what the exact effect will be once you put one too many on.  But that's just me and I could totally see a game where the players and DM are comfortable with the player deciding, I think whichever option you go with probably gives a different feel and play dynamic to magic items.


----------



## Pog (Aug 13, 2013)

Regarding dual wielding, any PC of any class can wield two melee weapons with no penalty and get a small bonus, they just can't make two hits (though their attack could certainly be narrated as one).  I go a lot with the option of re-fluffing weapons - just keep to the max dam as per chart for class.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 13, 2013)

Imaro said:


> I didn't really favor this aspect of 4e that much because I have always felt that, for the most part, magic items should be under the purview of the person running the game (of course this doesn't stop a player from having his character do in-game info gathering and seeking to find an item he is interested in).  It's just my particular play style preference of course but I think even with artifacts, 4e went a step to far for me in placing magic items in the PHB and promoting a wish list and magic shop mentality (and no I am not claiming 3e didn't also promote some of this but you were speaking to 4e specifically).



Sure - I was just expressing that I came to broadly similar views about 13th Age as you did despite us having quite disparate views on previous editions' systems. The other points about 4E items are getting really off topic so I'll take that elsewhere.



Imaro said:


> I also think you're mistaken in characterizing the "true" magic items as MacGuffins since the definition of a MacGuffin is only a plot device with no further purpose, but "true" magic items mechanically benefit characters that have them...



This is a valid point, but I did say maguffins/*tools*, and in the sense that they are a way for the GM to give the characters specific capabilities and "toys to play with" and see what their responses are, I would stand by this expanded description. To be clear, I don't regard it as any sort of bad thing to have such an artefact (as opposed to artifact!) in the game.



Imaro said:


> in fact once the player has a true magic item the only reason for the DM (and possibly the other players) to get involved is when the character decides to carry more true magic items than his level. Until that point I would have no problem with a player role playing out the minor actions and indicators of his items quirks and personalities that may arise since he is still in control of himself and his items.



Sure - I may not have been clear enough, but I assume that the player will be wholly responsible for expressing their character's items' quirks as long as they are within the "chakra limit" (horrible terminology, IMO, but I'll survive it  ).



Imaro said:


> I can understand the desire for mechanical determination...and I might even consider using it, but I also feel like the player knew what he was getting into when he decided to take on so much power and that depending on the rolls he may not be inconvenienced often enough to make up for the added power of the extra magic item(s)...(I honestly don't know if this is or isn't the case but it's something I would be concerned about).



Yeah, I can see this concern as totally reasonable. It would be something to find out through play, I think.



Imaro said:


> The only reason I don't favor the player himself coming up with the effects is because I think most players will try to find an expression that inconveniences them the least, I mean they are the type of player who went for more magic items in the first place right?  IMO, it's too much of  a conflict of interest for me to feel comfortable leaving up to the player... especially because the extra magic item(s) are actually giving them increased power.  I also don't want to spend 15-20 mins of game time with back and forth between the DM/other players and the overburdened player to determine an appropriate action.



My experience with Fiasco is that these determinations actually happen pretty quickly, but maybe that would work differently in 13th Age - I don't know. Fiasco has a similar system where a player leading the narration of a scene can have a "bad outcome" die imposed on them; they are then expected to lead the scene to a bad outcome for their character. If they offer an outcome that the other players, collectively, don't think is bad enough they just get an array of shaking heads/thumbs down to say "not bad enough, dude - make it worse!" If it worked that way with item influence in 13th Age I could see it working well and being fun; if for some reason it doesn't work out that way then I'd look for some other way to handle it.



Imaro said:


> I think it makes it more interesting and again more mysterious when part of the inherent danger of too many magic items is in not knowing what the exact effect will be once you put one too many on.  But that's just me and I could totally see a game where the players and DM are comfortable with the player deciding, I think whichever option you go with probably gives a different feel and play dynamic to magic items.



Well, I would think/hope that players overburdening their characters with magic items will be relatively uncommon, but I guess we'll see when we start playing in earnest!


----------



## Imaro (Aug 13, 2013)

Balesir said:


> This is a valid point, but I did say maguffins/*tools*, and in the sense that they are a way for the GM to give the characters specific capabilities and "toys to play with" and see what their responses are, I would stand by this expanded description. To be clear, I don't regard it as any sort of bad thing to have such an artefact (as opposed to artifact!) in the game.




Yeah now that you've gone into more detail I pretty much agree with what you are saying, it was just the use of the word Macguffin that threw me.



Balesir said:


> Yeah, I can see this concern as totally reasonable. It would be something to find out through play, I think.




The other thing I worry about with the die rolling method is that the random determiner leads to weird circumstances where either the items quirks and personality may be forced to come through even though the situation may not warrant it... or the reverse where the die says it won't happen in this adventure but then a perfect situation arises and it is ignored. 



Balesir said:


> My experience with Fiasco is that these determinations actually happen pretty quickly, but maybe that would work differently in 13th Age - I don't know. Fiasco has a similar system where a player leading the narration of a scene can have a "bad outcome" die imposed on them; they are then expected to lead the scene to a bad outcome for their character. If they offer an outcome that the other players, collectively, don't think is bad enough they just get an array of shaking heads/thumbs down to say "not bad enough, dude - make it worse!" If it worked that way with item influence in 13th Age I could see it working well and being fun; if for some reason it doesn't work out that way then I'd look for some other way to handle it.




I think this would definitely be one of those things where the personality of the player (as well as the dynamic of the player with the other individuals in the group) will affect the outcome greatly, another concern is what if some think his suggestion, for whatever reason is good enough but others don't... would it then fall on the GM to judge?   



Balesir said:


> Well, I would think/hope that players overburdening their characters with magic items will be relatively uncommon, but I guess we'll see when we start playing in earnest!




Well for the most part since the DM is controlling distribution, I don't think it will arise often.  The one scenario I think might happen (and still not often) is where one or more party members are killed and the others grab their magic weapons... but for the most part I agree with you... I don't think it will tend to be a common occurrence in the game unless the DM wants it to be.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 13, 2013)

Imaro said:


> I think this would definitely be one of those things where the personality of the player (as well as the dynamic of the player with the other individuals in the group) will affect the outcome greatly, another concern is what if some think his suggestion, for whatever reason is good enough but others don't... would it then fall on the GM to judge?



Assuming the players were happy with that, sure, it might. I don't see the GM deciding being inherently superior to the other possibilities, though - I have similar and about as many concerns with that as I have with the other possibilities. But, as with the other possibilities, there are definitely circumstances where it could be the best option to use.


----------



## Manbearcat (Aug 13, 2013)

Quick question for everyone.  I know 13 True Ways is coming out in a wee bit to give us Monk, Druid, Warlock, Battle Captain, Necro, Shaman.  Would people be interested in participating in a thread that serves as a theorycraft depo for the creation of other famed D&D archetypes that 13 True Ways isn't covering?  I've already composed a Fighter/Mage that one of my players will want to be playing but there are tons more and when we will officially see them remains to be seen.


----------



## Dragonblade (Aug 15, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> I know 13 True Ways is coming out in a wee bit to give us Monk, Druid, Warlock, Battle Captain, Necro, Shaman.  Would people be interested in participating in a thread that serves as a theorycraft depo for the creation of other famed D&D archetypes that 13 True Ways isn't covering?  I've already composed a Fighter/Mage that one of my players will want to be playing but there are tons more and when we will officially see them remains to be seen.




13 True Ways will have the Monk, Druid, Battle Captain, Necromancer, Occultist, Chaos Shaman. You mentioned "Warlock". Did you mean "Occultist"? Or was there a name change somewhere that I missed? 

Also, there is a Fighter/Mage "gish" class on the Pelgrane site called the Eldritch Knight. It was released by Pelgrane but written by a community member. Not by Heinsoo. Its a cool class, and I've already allowed it in my game, but I'm thinking of tweaking a few things.

For example, I'm generally not a big fan of class design that handicaps certain features of the class and then makes you buy off those limitations with feats and Talents. And this class has some of that.

For example, most of the sigils are "ranged" but target engaged opponents, meaning you draw OAs to cast the class's spells. Sure that makes sense for a wizard or sorcerer who isn't expected to be in melee, but for a warrior mage class? There is a talent you can take to buy off that limitation, but again, I don't like that sort of class design. I'd house rule it to "nearby" opponents instead of "engaged" opponents, or maybe even make all the sigils act as close quarter spells instead. I'd have to re-evaluate the entire class to make sure I'm not breaking anything by doing that, but that's my inclination.


----------



## Manbearcat (Aug 15, 2013)

Hey @*Dragonblade*.  Yup, I was referring to the Occultist as "Warlock" as the terms are often interchangable.  Whether it will be what we're used to as Warlock or strictly a demon-summoner/binder remains to be seen, but I was just speculating.  

I haven't seen the Eldritch Knight on their website.  I'll have to take a look.  To be honest though, I agree with you that the way it is constructed sounds problematic for play.  

A Fighter/Mage needs to have a few functional moving parts:

1 - It needs to have its "Fighteriness" and its "Maginess" manifest synergetically; conjoined such that the two work together as one rather than two incoherent parts siloed away from each other.

2 - The class needs to be a functional melee combatant; eg, it needs to be able to inflict martial damage and deploy spell damage while engaged in melee and it needs to be durable enough to stand up to the threat of melee foes.

If it fails on either of those grounds, then it hasn't passed its litmus test.  Given the mechanics already available in 13th age, creating such a class would be simple:

1)  The Sorceror already has a feature that (a) buffs AC/defense, (b) allows a "F/M" to cast spells while in melee without provoking OAs.

2)  The Ranger has a "dual strike" feature that lets it attack using its offhand on even rolls while stepping down the damage dice of main-hand/off-hand.  This feature is precisely what a functional F/M needs except sub stepped down main-hand and off-hand attack for stepped down main-hand attack and attack spell.  Easily enough done.  You can use that with the cycle based Wizard spells to create some fun play and dynamic interchanges with d20 rolls and the escalation die.

3)  Shield/Blur etc are all in the game to buff active defense in place of a Fighter's  stout, passive AC.

So.  If you take the Ranger chassis, bump down his AC by 2, give him the Sorceror Feature that bumps AC by 2 and prevents OAs for spellcasting, give him the Ranger dual strike feature but use Cycle spells as the offhand, give him a few Wizard spells like Shield/Blur, etc...you're there.  Maybe another feature that lets you teleport on recharge or with the escalation die maybe.  Just make sure the math works and you're in gish heaven.


----------



## Dragonblade (Aug 15, 2013)

Here a link to the Eldritch Knight class:

http://www.pelgranepress.com/?p=11922

Like I said, I like the foundation and the Sigil mechanic in general but I think it needs some tweaking.


----------



## NinjaPaladin (Aug 15, 2013)

Manbearcat:

The only caveat I would add is that it cannot be so good at either Fighteriness or Maginess that it obviates the need for a pure class.

I'd have to play around with the build you're describing, but my concern is that right now, it's too powerful. Rangers don't get access to Shield or Blur. Neither do Sorcerers -- even those with the Spell Fist talent. Shield and Blur are there as an "Oh, crap" feature for Wizards, not a means to make a viable close-quarters arcane combatant, and a Wizard putting Blur on a Fighter or Barbarian is making a VERY powerful person at the cost of spending one of his Dailies on buffing someone else.

I can see dropping the Ranger AC by 2, and then replacing one of the Ranger Talents with Spell Fist to make up for it, so you've got close-quarters casting (including Con for spell damage). I can see making a Talent that gives the Ranger access to a single sorcerer or wizard At-Will (Burning Hands, Chaos Bolt, Scorching Ray, Magic Missile, Ray of Frost, or Shocking Grasp). I can see also adding in that said at-will can be used with either Double Melee or Double Ranged. Add in the existing Fey Enchantment for a Daily, and you should be good to go.

1st Level Ranger: Can cast spells and use weapons reasonably well
Spell Fist
At-Will Spell
Fey Queen's Enchantment

1st Level Ranger: Less magical but with dual-wielding
Spell Fist
At-Will Spell
Double Melee Attack


Like I said, I would not add in teleporting or using the escalation die in any way beyond the existing benefits a ranger gets for it, nor would I add Shield/Blur. A Ranger who wants to be more defensively focused can give up the Fey Enchantment talent for the Ex Cathedra talent (and take Shield of Faith), and then add in Fey Enchantment at 5th level.

Like I said, I'd have to play around with it to see how it felt, though. YMMV.

EDIT: To be fair, a sorcerer with the talent that lets you get a same-level Wizard spell does give you access to Shield and Blur, among other things, and I could see a very specific build combining Spell Fist and the Arcane Heritage talent to make a close-combat sorcerer... but I still wouldn't give that to a Ranger.


----------



## Manbearcat (Aug 15, 2013)

Dragonblade said:


> Here a link to the Eldritch Knight class:
> 
> http://www.pelgranepress.com/?p=11922
> 
> Like I said, I like the foundation and the Sigil mechanic in general but I think it needs some tweaking.




Thanks Dragonblade.  Its a decent start with several of the flavor elements in play.  However, as happens a lot with attempts to put together a solid "hybrid" character, the mechanics are too fiddly and, quite frankly, the incoherency in the basic class structure is rife.  No Opportunity attacks for a melee wizard should be a fundamental class feature, not a buy-in option...it doesn't even provide any mechanical heft - it just lets the archetype play to its theme.  Without it, it would be akin to a straight melee character suffering OAs for doing its fundamental shtick; melee attacks.  Many of these builds silo away martial combat and spellcasting, thinking the breadth of options makes up for lack of focused potency.  It never does.  I think most of that comes from a process-based class design ethos rather than an outcome-based one.  I would point to the 4e Bladesinger for a great iteration of a functional, non-fiddly, F/M gish.  



NinjaPaladin said:


> Manbearcat:
> 
> The only caveat I would add is that it cannot be so good at either Fighteriness or Maginess that it obviates the need for a pure class.
> 
> I'd have to play around with the build you're describing, but my concern is that right now, it's too powerful. Rangers don't get access to Shield or Blur. Neither do Sorcerers -- even those with the Spell Fist talent. Shield and Blur are there as an "Oh, crap" feature for Wizards, not a means to make a viable close-quarters arcane combatant, and a Wizard putting Blur on a Fighter or Barbarian is making a VERY powerful person at the cost of spending one of his Dailies on buffing someone else.




Hey Ninjapaladin. While I, of course, agree that you don't want an F/M outdoing either base class, what you must accomplish is a functional melee combatant that adequately performs the role it sets out to fill while differentiating itself via its archetypical flavor.  If F and M each equal 4, you also want an F/M that equals 4 in a mechanically synergistic, thematically recognizable way.  Half an F and half an M never equals 4 in terms of what is mechanically actualized during play and it never conjures the coherent archetype of an arcane warrior dueling enemies while enacting wards and deploying blasts of force/fire, etc.  The same dysfunctional design ethos is what typically dooms the Monk to irrelevance.

Further, I'm not sure that just giving a Ranger access to a Daily of Blur and a recharge of Shield would be overpowered.  Consider, in its place, its stock feature of Animal Companion.  This one feature provides the Ranger (i) the utility of another creature to control for the considerations of positioning, melee control, damage absorption, (ii) 2 extra recoveries, and (iii) a secondary full suite of actions for his Animal Companion (sans quick....which is irrelevant in this case) on the Ranger's initiative.  This one feature turns the Ranger into a DPR, melee control, damage absorbing machine.   A 1st level Ranger with double attack (ranged or melee) and an Animal Companion will be a monster, I'm sure.  If you took that same Ranger (even with AC 14 as base), gave him Spell Fist, gave him a recharge attack spell in place of his second attack (for double attack) and gave him Blur as a Daily and Shield as a Recharge...he would be very, very, very, very hard pressed to compete with a Double Attacking Ranger with an Animal Companion.  He will get crushed in DPR (moreso in the aggregate as # of combats/day proliferates) and given the damage absorption and melee control of the Animal Companion, may only achieve parity in survivability/control.  At 1st level, sans feats, you're basically talking about a secondary pool of 27 HPs (with a good AC of 17), a 3rd melee attack every single round (with a solid rider to boot), and the melee control of being another creature engaging enemies...that scales well in all respects.  That is potent.


----------



## NinjaPaladin (Aug 15, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> Hey Ninjapaladin. While I, of course, agree that you don't want an F/M outdoing either base class, what you must accomplish is a functional melee combatant that adequately performs the role it sets out to fill while differentiating itself via its archetypical flavor.  If F and M each equal 4, you also want an F/M that equals 4 in a mechanically synergistic, thematically recognizable way.  Half an F and half an M never equals 4 in terms of what is mechanically actualized during play and it never conjures the coherent archetype of an arcane warrior dueling enemies while enacting wards and deploying blasts of force/fire, etc.  The same dysfunctional design ethos is what typically dooms the Monk to irrelevance.




Agreed in theory, although in 13th Age, having weapon damage scale up means that 2F and 2M is much closer to 4 at any given time. However, in the interest of fun for the player, I lean toward builds that are either 3F and 2M (existing Ranger with both Cleric and Sorcerer spell slots), or 2F and 3M (existing Sorcerer with Spell Fist, an elven race with the sword-using feat, and Good Dex/Con for a high AC).

But that's getting fiddly. Fundamentally, yes, you want something that can be ALMOST as good as some type of Sorcerer/Wizard in places where you want magic, and ALMOST as good as some type of Striker (specifically NOT saying a tank, although ability to not die immediately when fighting is nice) in places where you want melee damage.



> Further, I'm not sure that just giving a Ranger access to a Daily of Blur and a recharge of Shield would be overpowered.  Consider, in its place, its stock feature of Animal Companion.  This one feature provides the Ranger (i) the utility of another creature to control for the considerations of positioning, melee control, damage absorption, (ii) 2 extra recoveries, and (iii) a secondary full suite of actions for his Animal Companion (sans quick....which is irrelevant in this case) on the Ranger's initiative.




I'd be on the fence about a "Ranger ex Archmage" talent, given again that, much like Kobolds get to avoid Miss damage, but nobody else does, nobody else gets Blur, and if the designers thought it'd be balanced to let the Ranger have it, they'd have just made a single Ranger talent like the Bard's Spelljack. Shield is effectively "Add Halfling Racial Power to Whatever You Already Have" on top of that. 

But again, that's just me.



> This one feature turns the Ranger into a DPR, melee control, damage absorbing machine.   A 1st level Ranger with double attack (ranged or melee) and an Animal Companion will be a monster, I'm sure. If you took that same Ranger (even with AC 14 as base), gave him Spell Fist, gave him a recharge attack spell in place of his second attack (for double attack) and gave him Blur as a Daily and Shield as a Recharge...he would be very, very, very, very hard pressed to compete with a Double Attacking Ranger with an Animal Companion.  He will get crushed in DPR (moreso in the aggregate as # of combats/day proliferates) and given the damage absorption and melee control of the Animal Companion, may only achieve parity in survivability/control.  At 1st level, sans feats, you're basically talking about a secondary pool of 27 HPs (with a good AC of 17), a 3rd melee attack every single round (with a solid rider to boot), and the melee control of being another creature engaging enemies...that scales well in all respects.  That is potent.




Also bear in mind -- the comparison that you're making is with Animal Companion, which uses TWO talent slots.

Also also, I've run a game where one player had an animal companion, and while it was indeed useful, the lower to-hit bonus, lack of use of the escalation die, and low damage meant that it was good for crowd control, but not exactly a game changer. I think it's as useful as Double Melee Attack and Two-Weapon Mastery (to compare two talents to a talent that costs you two talents to get), but it's not overpowered.

As this is all hypothetical, I doubt we'll convince each other fully one way or the other, and I'm by no means certain you're wrong. I've just gone too far in the past toward making custom classes to make my players happy and accidentally made a class that was far cooler than either the fighter or the wizard, so I'm leery. 

Personally, I've made something that FEELS like a decent swordmage with the as-written bard. Battle Skald, Loremaster, and Spelljack (Wizard) give me some fun flexible attacks, as well as magical heavy-hitting when need be (Acid Arrow if I intended to stay back, Shield if I intended to wade into the fray, Battle Chant and either Soundburst or Befuddle as Bard spells). I don't even need to sing!


----------



## tomjscott (Aug 16, 2013)

Nice review. I'm glad that people are interested in 13th Age. I found this game when I was doing initial beta testing for D&D Next. I abandoned D&D Next and jumped on board the 13th Age bandwagon and have been riding it ever since.


----------



## Manbearcat (Aug 16, 2013)

NinjaPaladin said:


> I'd be on the fence about a "Ranger ex Archmage" talent, given again that, much like Kobolds get to avoid Miss damage, but nobody else does, nobody else gets Blur, and if the designers thought it'd be balanced to let the Ranger have it, they'd have just made a single Ranger talent like the Bard's Spelljack. Shield is effectively "Add Halfling Racial Power to Whatever You Already Have" on top of that.
> 
> But again, that's just me.




Well, I'm not sure they made the decision here based on power, but rather based on flavor as Sorceror and Cleric are much in line with the "natural", "organic" spellcasting one would expect to be part of a Ranger's traditional woodsman/survivalist archetype, rather than the studious wizard, locked in his tower, thumbing through pages of ancient tomes to learn obscure, arcane formulas.  

Further, I don't think an examination of the comparison from a balance perspective bears it out that Blur is an objectively more potent spell.

1st level Ranger with Cure Wounds Daily:

- Quick Action to cast so no loss in Action Economy with respect to deployment of their high damage with Double Attack.
- Assuming a + 2 Con (and thus a mean of ~ 7 Recovery value), you're actively mitigating 7 HP worth of HP ablation in one fight per day.
- This spell has the utility of being active in its payload; eg you are in control of when you deploy it rather than being at the mercy of a low % check.

1st level Ranger with Blur Daily:

- Action to cast so a net loss in Action Economy of 1 Double Attack to deploy this defensive spell.  For a 1st level elf (Heritage of the Sword feat and 18 dex), dual-wielding short swords, that would be a net loss of 6.6ish damage; or about 1/3 of a level 0 enemy's HP.
- A level 0 enemy does slightly more than 1/2 of a +2 Con Ranger's average Recovery (7) on a successful hit, or 4.  Blur negates 1 in every 5 succesful hits.  Therefore, it would take 10 successful hits against a Ranger for Blur to mitigate more HP ablation than Cure does; 8 versus 7.  A Light Armor, 1st level Ranger with + 2 middle attribute will have an AC of 17.  At + 5 to hit, level 0 enemies are only hitting 45 %, and thus checking against Blur's effect, of the time.  As such, its going to take an extremely large number of total attacks against that Ranger for the mitigatory effects of Blur to outdo the restorative effect of Cure Wounds.

Given the above, I'd say Cure Wounds is objectively a more effective spell than Blur across the board.  Ranger's currently have access to this spell.





NinjaPaladin said:


> Also bear in mind -- the comparison that you're making is with Animal Companion, which uses TWO talent slots.




For clarity's sake, the comparison I was making wasn't with respect to Animal Companion versus any other feature.  It was the comparative balance of two separate builds which was in dispute; one of which encapsulated Animal Companion + Double Melee Attack while the other encapsulated a variation on Double Attack with an attack spell in the stead of a melee offhand (perhaps with Magic Missile or Color Spray, which would probably only get deployed once per fight given the double check for even attack roll and even number on escalation dice, instead of the secondary attack) + Spell Fist (which in this scenario would really provide only a + 0 or + 1 AC benefit depending on where the default AC for Light Armor would be set) and Shield and Blur.  The Double Attack variation would basically be a wash (ish) so the question would be is + 1 AC (assuming the class starts at AC 13 so gets a default 15 with Spell Fist) and access to Shield and Blur as powerful as an Animal Companion.



NinjaPaladin said:


> Also also, I've run a game where one player had an animal companion, and while it was indeed useful, the lower to-hit bonus, lack of use of the escalation die, and low damage meant that it was good for crowd control, but not exactly a game changer. I think it's as useful as Double Melee Attack and Two-Weapon Mastery (to compare two talents to a talent that costs you two talents to get), but it's not overpowered.




Gotcha.  I'd have to see it in play but I've got a pretty good handle on extrapolating its effects I think.  

1)  Incidentally, I had the stats for a level 1 companion above, where it should be a level 0 companion for a level 1 Ranger.  This would basically be a net gain for the Ranger of (against level 0 monsters) (i) ~ 2.5 DPR with a nice rider (survivability or damage boost), (ii) a pool of 20 extra HPs to ablate, (iii) another PC for positioning and melee control, (iv) 2 extra Recoveries/day.  This creature is also healed when you Rally or spend a recovery while adjacent to it.

2)  We already know _about_ what Blur brings to the table.  Depending on the total number of enemy attacks against the Ranger in the combat where it is deployed, somewhere between .5 to 1.25 Recovery value in HPs 1/day at the cost of approximately 1/3 a level - 1 creatures HPs due to action economy loss.  So, for the 1st level Ranger, maybe 7ish "damage-in" mitigated daily at the cost of pretty close to that same 7 in "damage-out."

3)  Personally, I would say Shield is flat-out objectively the better spell between the two; its actively deployable (therefore on-demand) with no action economy loss and on an 11 + recharge schedule rather than Daily.  For that 1st level Ranger, you could probably safely average it out to turning 4 damage into 1.8 damage on a per encounter basis so a mean net mitigation of ~ 2.2 HP/encounter.

In terms of overall net gain in power and utility, is option # 1 better than, worse than or equal to # 2 + # 3 + a passive + 1 AC.  Take your pick I suppose.  I think a heady player with a tactical mind would get more mileage out of 1.



NinjaPaladin said:


> As this is all hypothetical, I doubt we'll convince each other fully one way or the other, and I'm by no means certain you're wrong. I've just gone too far in the past toward making custom classes to make my players happy and accidentally made a class that was far cooler than either the fighter or the wizard, so I'm leery.




Gotcha! 



NinjaPaladin said:


> Personally, I've made something that FEELS like a decent swordmage with the as-written bard. Battle Skald, Loremaster, and Spelljack (Wizard) give me some fun flexible attacks, as well as magical heavy-hitting when need be (Acid Arrow if I intended to stay back, Shield if I intended to wade into the fray, Battle Chant and either Soundburst or Befuddle as Bard spells). I don't even need to sing!




I'd be curious to see it!


----------

