# 13th Age Discussion: A Love Letter to The Best Parts of D&D



## Isaac Chalk (Jun 12, 2012)

Finally, the NDA on the game I've been playtesting has been lifted and the evangelizing can begin.

Jonathan Tweet and Rob Heinsoo are two D&D designers who are working on their own independent fantasy game in the d20 tradition. What sets this game apart is what sets Heinsoo and Tweet apart - in addition to D&D, Heinsoo was co-editor of _Feng Shui,_ and Tweet has lent his talents to _Over the Edge_ and _Ars Magica._ These are non-D&D RPGs and, sadly, don't get a tenth of the audience D&D gets, even though they deserve it.

It's the world beyond D&D that Heinsoo and Tweet are bringing into *13th Age,* which has been featured on the front page a couple of times - but thanks to the NDA it's been playtested under, not a lot of details have slipped out. The NDA has been lifted, however, and the game goes on pre-order soon - so now is as good a time as any to start talking about it.

So - what IS *13th Age?* Here's what it is not:

- _It is not a retroclone._ The goal of a retroclone is to evoke the feeling of a particular RPG from Way Back When. My experiences with *13th Age* do not evoke this feeling - the game is far less based around what RPG.net calls the murderhobo lifestyle of homeless superhumans poking around in dungeons, beating up the people living there, and taking all their things.

It's a far more story-based game, lending itself just as well to intrigues in a world where an Empire grows stout and its enemies and allies grow wary. This is not to say that there aren't things to kill, or a robust combat system to do it with - but *13th Age* has many robust out-of-combat systems that you'll be using on those days when there just isn't a hobgoblin in sight.

- _It is not a Fantasy Heartbreaker._ The definition of a fantasy heartbreaker is a game clearly written by someone who's never played anything besides D&D, and it shows; the game they come up with is D&D with one or two great ideas, and those great ideas cause the heartbreak because they're in a system that is too much like other systems to get a fair chance.

*13th Age* is not a heartbreaker. All throughout the system, references to D&D abound - and so do references to _FATE, Burning Wheel, 7th Sea, Ars Magica, Over the Edge, Feng Shui_ and the like. *13th Age* draws upon this knowledge and casts an eye towards how D&D might serve its goal through alternate ends. It's so stuffed with great ideas it may as well be called "Every d20 Rule You Didn't Know You Always Wanted."

- _It's not the 4E version of Pathfinder._ There are a few commonalities with 4th Edition - healing surges, six ability scores, eight classes based around D&D classics, feats, and the like. But *13th Age* is less interested in giving you a version of a game you already own, tweaked slightly, and more interested in pushing the design space of D&D into new territory.

Combat can be on a grid, but by default is gridless. Each class has unique approaches, with only some following the AWED paradigm. There is a built-in mechanic that is specifically meant to discourage long combats. Skills are designed to bring out aspects of your character's life at the same time that they either succeed at a task, or fail in an interesting way. *13th Age* doesn't play like a game I already own, but like a game I _want_ to own.

So having gone into what *13th Age* isn't, what is *13th Age?* Well, as Tweet and Heinsoo described it,_ it's a love letter to D&D._

It's a love letter in that it recalls all the best parts of the object of affection, while ignoring or forgiving all of its shortcomings and flaws. Included in the letter is the time you clawed your way out of a sure defeat, of the time you undid the diabolical schemes of the King of All Liches, that moment of quiet joy when the imaginary person on the piece of paper did something you never expected them to do. 

Not included is that time you argued over whether or not you'd packed enough rope. (*13th Age* doesn't have a Fantasy Accountant subgame - you're presumed to be equipped for the job if you know it's coming.) It doesn't include that time you rolled poorly on a skill check and the game ground to a halt as the GM slowly realized that now you have no way forward. (*13th Age* skill checks always "fail forward" - if you flub the roll, you still advance, you'll just have some... complications.) It especially doesn't include that time you all argued what the One True Edition is, which is one of *13th Age's* biggest draws for me.

D&D has a long and rich history, but that history has a downside - in that there are certain expectations its players have, and they cry foul when those expectations are not met. It's expected that wizards cast spells _this_ way, or that the game be primarily geared towards the dungeon crawl, that we need to keep alignment around even though the first thing done by everyone I know is to pretend it isn't there. All these things are part of the 'brand,' and deviation from the brand is looked upon with suspicion. But deviation encourages innovation, and therefore, it's tough for D&D to truly innovate and still be D&D.

But *13th Age* doesn't have this problem. It can stake out any territory it wants. Tweet and Heinsoo can make the game uniquely their own, playing up whatever aspects of D&D they wish to while quietly ignoring the parts that don't work for them. Yet the game has enough familiarity that I'd gotten people interested in it that normally turn their nose up when I wave around my copy of _Strands of FATE._

That, more than anything, excites me. It certainly excites me more than going back to the Keep of the Borderlands again.


----------



## Isaac Chalk (Jun 12, 2012)

So what does *13th Age* have? Here's a list:

- _Icons:_ Each character gets a set number of dice to roll in relation with the setting's big movers and shakers. *13th Age* comes with its own set of icons, but they're the same sort of Movers and Shakers you'd find in any fantasy universe. Eberron, for example, could have Icons in each Dragonmarked house, each of the religions, each of the Five Nations, the Inspired, the Order of the Emerald Claw, the various druid sects... you get the idea.

Relationships can be positive, negative, or complicated - a positive relationship means you're allied with them, a negative one means you're opposed, a complicated one is just that. These relationships are the game's version of alignment - rather than alignment with abstract philosophical notions, they're alignment with actual organizations and people who have a complex web of relations with each other.

- _Backgrounds:_ There are no skills in *13th Age.*

Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration. There are skills - but they are very loosely defined, and they come out of your experiences in life. For example, if I was playing a thief-styled character, I would have five background points in Thief. I would roll this every time I needed to do thiefy things.

But if I want to open this up a little, I could say "Trained by the Silver Cloak order of thieves" at +5, which suggests a story or two and also potentially expands what the background can do. Maybe the Silver Cloaks have a specific grift they specialize in - or maybe this background can be applied to skill checks to persuade members of the Silver Cloaks.

Essentially, you create your own skills in *13th Age.*

- _The Escalation Die:_ One thing about D&D is that as fights go on, characters get weaker. They accumulate status conditions or run out of powers and the fight starts to drag. Not so with *13th Age* which has an escalation die - essentially, the biggest d6 you can find, laid squat in the center of the table, and each round beyond the first, you increment this die by 1, capping at 6. Player characters get this bonus to their attacks.

This represents characters figuring out the holes in the enemy's defenses, fatigue on the enemy's side, adrenaline, getting into the groove... whatever you wish to call it, this ensures that fights hit a point where monsters start dropping and dropping fast. Several class abilities are unlocked by the die - your fighter, for example, may start cleaving through entire squads of enemies once he's got their number, and clerics have a chance to retain spells when the die is over a certain number, to illustrate their gods giving them strength when it's most needed. 

- _Unique Ways To Fight:_ The common criticism of 4th Edition was that everyone had at-will/encounter/daily powers which were samey. I don't think they played the same, but with *13th Age* it's a moot point. Every class has unique features and ways to clobber those who have it coming.

The bard's songs come to a crescendo and a climax that grants a bonus in the round they end. The rogue's attacks build up a trait called momentum that unlocks more dangerous attacks, built up by attacking without being counter-attacked. The monk uses opening moves, follow-through attacks and finishing combos in the fight. The fighter calls upon a list of tactical maneuvers that allows them to switch up their style - they can be the classic defender, an archer in heavy armor, or a two-handed buttkicker. The sorcerer can super-charge spells by taking extra time to cast them. The wizard can get extra effects out of her spells if she comes up with an awesome, long-winded descriptor of what the spell does.

- _One Unique Thing:_ A feature every character has is something that sets them apart from the other PCs, that has no real combat applicability but allows them to do things that other people could not. This is entirely up to the GM and is one of the best customization options in the game, a catch-all that allows for concepts not explicitly anticipated by the designers.

In my playtest game, one character had Son of a Lich, which meant he traced his bloodline back to the game's Lich King, and he had special insight into their machinations, magical abilities and organization. Another had Star Born, which meant that his character was an avatar created by a far-off star, acting as a font of divine power. Another had Empathy, which meant that he'd catch emotional states and lies that others would miss.

One Unique Thing becomes a catch-all rule that can accomodate things that aren't explicit, and in turn, are a symbol of *13th Age's* design ethos, which encourages unique campaigns, unique characters, and for the players and GM to collaborate on the adventure they'll be sharing.

- _Truly Special Magic Items:_ There are two grades of magic items in *13th Age*: consumables, such as potions, runes and oils, and true magic items. Consumables can be bought fairly easily, but a true magic item is priceless.

There are no +1 swords. Every item has a unique history and a unique personality quirk. For example, the Sickle & Star would be a pair of weapons that would encourage teamwork and would occasionally give off the impression that the player character should consider more Five Year Plans and controlled economies. These urges can be ignored or indulged as the player wishes... 

... unless they wind up with more magic items than their level, at which point they are essentially taken over by the personalities of their items, and our friend up top with the Sickle and Star would start plotting the overthrow of the Dragon Emperor and planning a system where the workers shall control the means of production.

Magic items you choose to keep are going to be staying with you your entire career - no trading in Magic Sword for Even Better Magic Sword, an aspect of D&D I felt cheapened the magic of magic items.

- _Tone:_ Not a game feature, but a writing feature. Heinsoo and Tweet write this game as less a pair of scribes handing down the Holy Writ From On High, but as a couple of people who know you'll get jokes about gazebos. Their writing is from the GM and player's perspectives of "how does this actually work in a game?" They give advice, suggest alternative house rules, and talk about the design ethos of the game. It's refreshingly transparent.

- _What Else?_ A lot. Soon you'll be able to preorder it and find out yourself - or talk to other playtesters, myself included, who will be happy to talk about the game.

_Find out more about 13th Age here.

Their pre-order page is here as well, with advance PDFs of the rules available for download soon.

13th Age is on the Twitters here.

Adam Drey at Legendary.org goes over his experiences with the game here.

THIS is the proper size of escalation die. (Hat Tip to datainadequate)_


----------



## Aehrlon (Jun 12, 2012)

Nice posts; very informative.  Thanks for taking the time to type them up.  I am very much interested in this game and have some friends that are too.  Sounds like it will be a refreshing change from some of the elements of our D&D games that can get stale (same old, same old kind of thing).


----------



## SiderisAnon (Jun 12, 2012)

I will have to take a look at this game.  If it lives up to your review, it sounds awesome.


----------



## FreeXenon (Jun 12, 2012)

Thanks for the post. Definitely some neat mechanics and flavor here.


----------



## pauljathome (Jun 12, 2012)

Isaac Chalk said:


> So what does *13th Age* have? Here's a list:




I was also involved in the second Playtest. I pretty much support everything that Isaac said.

One thing that I'd add is that the game is deliberately designed so that it is quite straight forward to mix and match this with other games, especially other D20 games. It would be quite possible to use just the setting or to completely ignore the setting. While the game is most definitely playable just using the book it would also be of great value as a source of ideas to be incorporated into other worlds or other systems and/or as an interesting game world.

In fact, that is probably what I'll be doing. Take a modified version of the setting together with some modified rules.

One target market is definitely experienced players who are comfortable with making adjustments and house rules. While it is a complete game I'm not sure how good a fit it would be for brand new players. For example, the skills are very open ended and probably work a lot better with an experienced GM who is willing to say both yes and no where appropriate. In fairness, the playtest rules really didn't address brand new players while the final rules presumably will do so to a greater extent.

Personally, if I was introducing brand new players to the hobby I'd start with the Pathfinder beginner box and then move to 13th Age.


----------



## Kalontas (Jun 12, 2012)

It'd be all fine and dandy but the whole piece sounds too much like a marketing piece and not enough like a gamer honestly telling me what he thinks about the game. I don't usually come to ENWorld expecting promotional flyers. I want someone who really had it in his hands and can tell me how it played, not how it was directed for him to write down.

Also. No skills, eight traditional classes, lots of "robust systems" for non-combat stuff... Sounds like another game that worries itself too much with creating sub-systems for every little thing, instead of unifying all rules under an umbrella simple to understand for everyone. Good luck there.


----------



## Siberys (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm completely content to sit here and play with my 4e stuff, especially considering how DDN seems to be shaping up. Originally I was going to just pass up 13th Age, but this sounds /very good/. Where before I'd have just ignored it, now I am going to give it a serious look.

IOW, color me interested.


----------



## Hellcow (Jun 12, 2012)

Siberys said:


> IOW, color me interested.



I was involved in 13th Age at the start, and did some work with concepting & the Icons. It's definitely worth checking out.


----------



## Gorgoroth (Jun 12, 2012)

*I might play this*

until DDN comes out, or even beyond! sounds uber cool. hope the "surge" aspect isn't sucky, though, but that's a minor quibble if the rest of the rules as a neat-o as they appear in this preview.

me want to read this


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 12, 2012)

You had me at "escalation die."

The icons also sound awesome.

Some of the class mechanics sound a little lame, but we'll see -- absolutely wanting to pick this up.


----------



## Balesir (Jun 12, 2012)

Been following this for a while and I definitely intend to give it a go.


----------



## Isaac Chalk (Jun 12, 2012)

Kalontas said:


> It'd be all fine and dandy but the whole piece sounds too much like a marketing piece and not enough like a gamer honestly telling me what he thinks about the game. I don't usually come to ENWorld expecting promotional flyers. I want someone who really had it in his hands and can tell me how it played, not how it was directed for him to write down.




You're in luck, because "someone who had it in his hands and can tell you how it played" describes me perfectly. I even described part of my playtest under One Unique Thing. I don't work for 13th Age's designers or publisher and am not doing paid promotion for their company; I'm just a gamer who's had to keep quiet about his latest passion for a number of weeks and is eager to finally be able to talk about it.

What did you want to know?


----------



## Aehrlon (Jun 12, 2012)

I too am interested more in how it plays than anything else.  I can't help but make one observation, the timing.  Will this come out ahead of D&D Next?  Probably.  Will it steal some of the thunder for 5E D&D? Maybe a little if they're released within a few months of each other.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 12, 2012)

pauljathome said:


> One thing that I'd add is that the game is deliberately designed so that it is quite straight forward to mix and match this with other games, especially other D20 games. It would be quite possible to use just the setting or to completely ignore the setting. While the game is most definitely playable just using the book it would also be of great value as a source of ideas to be incorporated into other worlds or other systems and/or as an interesting game world.



I am highly inclined to use 13th Age and DCC as sourcebooks for my upcoming C&C campaign.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 12, 2012)

Do NPCs and monsters benefit from the escalation die, too?

Is the One Unique Thing explicitly non-combat-related? ("My unique thing is that I cut off heads more easily than other people.")

How much guidance is there in building new Icons?

How similar are the monsters to standard D20 monsters?

How convertible is existing D&D and D20 material to 13th Age, and vice-versa?


----------



## Someone (Jun 12, 2012)

As a fan of Ars Magica and Feng Shui, I'll checking out the game for sure. In the worst case sounds like there'll be many salvageable ideas there.


----------



## pauljathome (Jun 12, 2012)

Kalontas said:


> It'd be all fine and dandy but the whole piece sounds too much like a marketing piece and not enough like a gamer honestly telling me what he thinks about the game..




I have no association with the game or with Pelgrane Press other than as an external playtester. I assure you that what I'm saying is my honest opinion.


----------



## pauljathome (Jun 12, 2012)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Do NPCs and monsters benefit from the escalation die, too?



No



> Is the One Unique Thing explicitly non-combat-related? ("My unique thing is that I cut off heads more easily than other people.")



Non combat related



> How much guidance is there in building new Icons?



Some but not too much. But there well might be more in the final version. 



> How convertible is existing D&D and D20 material to 13th Age, and vice-versa?




If you mean campaigns and rules, very convertible.

If you mean existing adventures. then definitely less so.


----------



## pauljathome (Jun 12, 2012)

Aehrlon said:


> I too am interested more in how it plays than anything else.  I can't help but make one observation, the timing.  Will this come out ahead of D&D Next?  Probably.  Will it steal some of the thunder for 5E D&D? Maybe a little if they're released within a few months of each other.




The last I checked they were hoping to have it out for August (Gencon, presumably). Which I'd guess is at least a year ahead of DndNext.

They were working on it before DndNext was announced. And while there is definitely some overlap in goals and approaches it is a very different game with very different objectives.

If anything, it is DndNext that is stealing 13th Age's thunder. I imagine that, given the designers, there would be more buzz if people weren't paying so much attention to DndNext.


----------



## Kalontas (Jun 12, 2012)

Isaac Chalk said:


> You're in luck, because "someone who had it in his hands and can tell you how it played" describes me perfectly. I even described part of my playtest under One Unique Thing. I don't work for 13th Age's designers or publisher and am not doing paid promotion for their company; I'm just a gamer who's had to keep quiet about his latest passion for a number of weeks and is eager to finally be able to talk about it.
> 
> What did you want to know?




Then your styllistic choices were rather unfortunate. Not only I see little beyond praise, it all sounds very... synthetic. As it stands now, it certainly looks like a promotional material, regardless of actually being it.

Tell me what was bad. Tell me what you would change. Because I don't believe everything is good about it. I didn't see enough of that.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 12, 2012)

Kalontas said:


> Then your styllistic choices were rather unfortunate. Not only I see little beyond praise, it all sounds very... synthetic. As it stands now, it certainly looks like a promotional material, regardless of actually being it.



Want to dial it back a bit, Kalontas? You're being weirdly and unnecessarily hostile, IMO.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jun 12, 2012)

The 'One Unique Feature' examples you gave seem kind of... over-the-top? What is there for the group or DM who wants those features to be more gritty? i.e. not the daughter of a star or some such. Also, is it specific at all on how to make it not overlap with your background? Son of a Lich and Thief of the Guild seem very similar to me, they're both backgrounds.

Also, what are the rules behind this feature? Does it basically just function as required fluff for you character, with no mechanics? Or, 'Mother May I' approach for when it comes up?

To be honest, everything but this aspect of the game sounds right up my alley, but I think it might just be the examples I've heard for it. I realize this is fantasy land, but characters in my opinion don't need to stand out...genetically. Just in their actions should they stand out, most prominently.


----------



## Isaac Chalk (Jun 12, 2012)

Kalontas said:


> Then your stylistic choices were rather unfortunate. Not only I see little beyond praise, it all sounds very... synthetic. As it stands now, it certainly looks like a promotional material, regardless of actually being it.
> 
> Tell me what was bad. Tell me what you would change. Because I don't believe everything is good about it. I didn't see enough of that.




I would have thought that Communist magic items and the phrase 'murderhobo' would be clues enough that I was not a promotion-bot, but okay.

Stuff I didn't quite click with: the setting is okay, but merely okay. It's a medieval empire that may be about to enter a decline, and I've seen enough of those in gaming that this one didn't quite light my fire. Were I given carte blanche I would advance it to the Renaissance, since that's an era I'm keener on. Your mileage may vary.

At present, classes get varying number of background points, and while there is an 'official house rule' for equalizing all backgrounds, I would prefer that "all classes have just as much going on in their background" to be the default.

Ongoing damage stacks. It originally stacked in 4th Edition, and I can see why they took it out. A playtest on the Something Awful forums had someone enduring 60 ongoing a round. So much for the Bird Who Was An Elf (One Unique Thing.)

Layout wise, a consolidated list of "stuff that happens when you level" was mostly there - enough that the stuff not on it was easy to miss, such as upgrades and additions to iconic relationships.

Not a problem, but an interesting design choice: there's ten levels. Not twenty, not thirty: ten. I personally find it's a rare campaign that sees 20 levels, let alone thirty, but many of my friends made good points that the advancement may be a bit too jumpy.

Finally, the playtest just ended and according to this press release, the game will be ready for pre-order very soon and out in September 2012. Three months feels this side of short to go from final playtest to fully released ruleset, even for a two-person design team with little institutional inertia.


----------



## pauljathome (Jun 12, 2012)

fuzzlewump said:


> The 'One Unique Feature' examples you gave seem kind of... over-the-top? What is there for the group or DM who wants those features to be more gritty? i.e. not the daughter of a star or some such. Also, is it specific at all on how to make it not overlap with your background? Son of a Lich and Thief of the Guild seem very similar to me, they're both backgrounds.
> 
> Also, what are the rules behind this feature? Does it basically just function as required fluff for you character, with no mechanics? Or, 'Mother May I' approach for when it comes up?




Like so much of 13th Age a lot of this is very much up to the GM and the group. A significant portion of 13th Age is a rules light story telling game operating by a combination of group consensus and GM fiat. I hate the term "Mother may I" but it certainly has aspects of that.

As written, this is NOT a game for groups without a lot of trust between players and GM.

One example from the rulebook was "The only 1/2 ling paladin". The players and GM had no problem with that. Suddenly, in that particular campaign, 1/2lings just were not paladins and the character was unique in a very interesting way.

One of the characters in my playtest group was a stranded space traveller. Mechanically it rarely came up since he did NOT know how to create gun powder or the like. But it gave him a unique flavour and let his skill ("Space Ranger") apply sometimes to some other situations in a different way than "Ranger from the North" would have allowed.


----------



## Isaac Chalk (Jun 12, 2012)

fuzzlewump said:


> The 'One Unique Feature' examples you gave seem kind of... over-the-top? What is there for the group or DM who wants those features to be more gritty? i.e. not the daughter of a star or some such. Also, is it specific at all on how to make it not overlap with your background? Son of a Lich and Thief of the Guild seem very similar to me, they're both backgrounds.




It was a playtest, so strict adherence to campaign verisimilitude wasn't Priority One. I wanted to see how far we could push the system without snapping it. My conclusion was, "pretty far."

All unique schticks have to be GM approved, so they can be as minor or as major as you want, and can be social, mental, physical or mystical. Your unique feature could make you landed nobility, for example, or it could denote your status as a duotheistic priest holding two gods in your heart, or the last of a forgotten civilization's warriors, petrified for centuries and recently restored. It could even denote a character trait that the character is uniquely good at- Frodo, for example, would have A Good Heart as his unique thing, enabling him to bear the burden of the One Ring where others would fail.

The difference between a background and a unique schtick is that the backgrounds add to rolls you make, but the unique feature lets you make rolls you otherwise could not. There are many minions of the Lich King, but they walk in the world of the dead - only the Son of a Lich walks in both the world of the living and that of the dead.

Due to the looseness of the rule, very little else in the game ties into a character's one unique thing, so you could even delay picking it until you encounter something in the campaign that touches your character in a way that's unique.


----------



## wrightdjohn (Jun 12, 2012)

There was a lot to like and I think some people will find it's mechanics very satisfying.  I found some things interesting including the icon flavor.  I may buy the game since I buy games all the time.  I doubt though I will actually play the game.  I'll steal ideas but stick to my regular game.

I looked over the playtest and too many things didn't suit me.  But I recommend people check it out.  I think it will be good for many groups.


----------



## Skyscraper (Jun 12, 2012)

Thanks for taking the time to write this down, Isaac Chalk. I've read your posts with curiosity as I'm looking forward to hearing about this game a bit more. I just bought DCC myself and I'm happy to try new game systems.

This being said, here are a few comments on your posts, specifically (not on the game). Take them as you will, but they are meant constructively.

Your analysis of the game would be received by myself with more interest if it balanced the good and the bad a bit more as in a review of the game. As it stands, I read this more as a sales pitch than a review. Of course, you are free to compliment the game and skip the critisism; I'm just saying what I like to find in a game review.

Also, you've compared 13th Age to D&D a lot... One thing I didn't like about D&D 4E is how they opted to downgrade the previous versions of D&D after the announcement of 4E. Here, you're doing pretty much the same thing. You keep pointing at D&D's perceived failings to show your point about 13th Age. Apart from the occasional comparison to get your point through, I don't think it's necessary and I don't think it helps carry your point across. Again, that's just my personal preference, so take what you will from it.

If you wish to add to the description of the game, I'd love to hear more of how the Icons influence the game, examples of what they are, and what it does for the players and/or the story. In fact, more examples on just about anything would be good. I'll go read the links you point to now.

Peace,

Sky


----------



## kitsune9 (Jun 12, 2012)

Interesting concepts.


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Jun 12, 2012)

I heard that the game's rules for weapons and armour were dreadfully..._light_...

If that's the case, I think I'll give it a miss...


----------



## Isaac Chalk (Jun 12, 2012)

Skyscraper said:


> This being said, here are a few comments on your posts, specifically (not on the game). Take them as you will, but they are meant constructively.




I always try to listen to constructive criticism. It's only polite. (If I tried to _heed_ all the criticism I get, of course, I'd be in a rubber room.)

A proper "here's what's good, here's what's bad, this many stars out of five" review is difficult at present because the game only just left playtest and what I talk about may change dramatically by the time the game lands in three months. I can say that it's not perfect - no game, with the exception of PARANOIA, can be - but the "here's what's not perfect" list I have, I posted half of it here, and sent all of it to Pelgrane Press. If my comments were valid enough, then my complaints may not exist in short order.

Right now, what is set in stone, as stated in the playtest, is 13th Age's overall design ethos, mixing rules-light systems in combat and out of combat. It's that ethos I feel safest commenting on. I doubt that how they'll handle backgrounds or One Unique Thing will change that much, and these are concepts that excite me a great detail.

I wrote the first two posts the way I did because most of what I learnt about original posts (OPs) comes from Something Awful, where an exhaustively detailed opening post is the mark of a popular and informative thread. I'll be updating them in the days and weeks ahead as I gather up more writing on the playtest now that the NDA is lifted. Some of this will be criticism, even criticism I don't agree with.

As for my attitude towards D&D, I think the game invites comparison, by design. It's described as a love letter to D&D by its own design team. Whether or not my comparison is fair is up in the air, but I think it's a valid subject to broach. My perspective is that of a gamer who didn't come into gaming via D&D or its derivatives - my formative RPGs were Palladium (I was 12, shut up,) GURPS, Champions, Storyteller and Marvel Super Heroes. I only got into d20 during the inflation of the d20 bubble, so I don't have a lot of memories of filling in my 20 siders with crayons or poking every inch of a dungeon with a ten foot pole like I'm playing Ye Olde Minesweeper.

This might not be a perspective shared by that many people, especially on a D&D heavy site like ENWorld, but it's the only perspective I can bring, since it's all I've got. To me, D&D is a game - no more, no less. To me, D&D is a specific type of RPG, instead of RPGs being specific derivations of D&D. It's RPGs overall that are my hobby and my passion, and if an RPG comes along that interests me more than D&D, I'll play that without a moment's hesitation. 13th Age, from my experience, looks like that game.

As for Icons, I'll get into them once I'm back from the movie. (In this movie, Robert Pattinson shoots himself in the palm with a handgun. I think all movies should feature this, including the next _Cars_ sequel.) Like I said before, the setting didn't immediately grip me - but the Icon system itself did. I'll concoct examples to illustrate points.


----------



## Skyscraper (Jun 12, 2012)

Isaac Chalk said:


> I always try to listen to constructive criticism. It's only polite. (If I tried to _heed_ all the criticism I get, of course, I'd be in a rubber room.)
> 
> A proper "here's what's good, here's what's bad, this many stars out of five" review is difficult at present because the game only just left playtest and what I talk about may change dramatically by the time the game lands in three months. I can say that it's not perfect - no game, with the exception of PARANOIA, can be - but the "here's what's not perfect" list I have, I posted half of it here, and sent all of it to Pelgrane Press. If my comments were valid enough, then my complaints may not exist in short order.
> 
> ...




Thanks for your reply, points noted.


----------



## Phasmus (Jun 13, 2012)

Yo.  I'm one of Isaac's players (the Son of a Lich).  Just thought I ought to chime in here with a couple thoughts.  I agree/hope that most complaints we might mention stand to be fixed before the final game is released.  I'm mostly interested in the story-telling side of RPGs but the combat mechanics seemed competently designed and reasonably zippy.  I especially appreciated the clear mechanical distinction between classes and the ability to choose ability sets and feats to customize the class you select.

The game has feats but they feel a little different than in D&D.  The majority of the feats in the playtest applied to specific race or class features.  For example, wizards have access to several feats that only effect a single spell, making that one spell extra-cool in one way or another.  I wasn't sure what I thought of this idiom at first, but I've decided I like it.  Instead of giving a character an ability that could apply to any other character, feats now feel more character-specific.

Backgrounds are my favorite system in the game.  Writing 'Eavesdropper' or 'Perl diver' on a character sheet feels way better to me than putting a number next to listen/spot/athletics/etc.  I'm a little worried about how to avoid backgrounds that are too broad (adventurer!) or narrow (turkey farmer!), but I guess that's mostly up to the player and GM to work out.

I'll let Issac cover icons in detail, but I liked the idea.  To my eye they replace alignment with something more practical and give a tangible benefit to boot.  I like the way they tie characters into the setting.  I can see a couple potential issues that could arise depending on play style though.  

If a game is entirely kick-in-the-door, or if iconic forces in your setting are numerous and complex, the relevance of icons could be diminished.  On the other hand, with characters so closely tied to the setting background there is risk of White-Wolfism (An unfortunate condition where the setting, NPCs and meta-plot becomes more important than the characters and what they're doing).  Both of these extremes are left to the DM to avoid.  The default 13th Age setting seems to strike a good balance, with icons that are interesting and pervasive enough to come up in play on a regular basis without taking over.


----------



## Isaac Chalk (Jun 13, 2012)

On Icons.

The equivalent of the nine-panel alignment grid in *13th Age* is the Icon Grid, with "Positive Relationship," "Conflicted Relationship," and "Negative Relationship" along the x-axis, and "Heroic Icon," "Ambiguous Icon," and "Villainous Icon" along the bottom. Depending on which panel you select on this grid, you can spend 1, 2 or 3 of your Icon Points on a relationship.

(By default certain icons fall into certain catagories, but it's a snap to slide an icon over into another catagory if you think that, say, the Diabolist gets a bad rap.)

Let's say that Baron Von Evil is a Villainous Icon, and I want my character to have a negative relationship. I would pick the "Negative Relationship with Villainous Icon" section of the grid, which tells me I can spend up to two points on this particular enmity. I can do so, and still have points left over to define a relationship elsewhere on the grid with another icon - or if Baron Von Evil is secretly my uncle, I can spend those points on an ambiguous relationship instead, putting me in a more complicated situation but potentially wresting benefits. In 13th Age, there are - appropriately - 13 icons, which allows for quite a wide matrix of alliances.

Each point put into an alliance gives me a d6 to roll. In a situation where my relationship might come up - for example, if the group needs particular insight into the tactics and practices of Baron Von Evil - I suggest an Icon roll to the GM, who says yea or nay. Then I roll. I hope that a die comes up a 6, which is an unqualified success; I will also accept 5s, which is a qualified success, in that I may attract unwanted attention or wind up owing someone a favor. If you roll both 5s and 6s, you get circumstances that are extra-advantageous AND extra-interesting. (This is where the GM smiles, rolls dice behind the screen, and does their best Tex Richman impression. "Maniacal laugh. Maniacal lauuugh.")

The Icons in the current age of 13th Age are: 
- The Archmage, finest spellcaster in all the Empire, maintains extradimensional wards
- The Dragon Emperor, the head of the Empire and the most politically powerful human alive
- The Great Gold Wyrm, one of the mightiest dragons in history, who willingly sacrificed itself to seal a demonic rift - and even now, inspires its followers to take up arms against demonic menaces
- The Priestess, a sort of over-priest of the pantheon of the Gods of Light
- The Dwarf King, ruler of guess who?
- The Elf Queen, queen of all the I can't possible figure this out
- The Crusader, the tip of the Dark God's spear, who will crush the demonic menace no matter what gets in his way - nice ambiguous anti-hero
- The High Druid, who holds nature in higher regard than mortalkind - any threat to nature earns her wrath, be it demonic or mortal
- The Prince of Shadows, legendary thief, confidence man and scoundrel, if Han Solo and Tyrion Lannister had a baby who trained under John Constantine
- The Three, three of the oldest, wisest, most cunning dragons that ever lived, playing games with the lives of mortals on an unimaginable scale
- The Diabolist, demon summoning specialist who dabbles with things Mortalkind Was Not Meant To Know
- The Lich King, lord of the undead, master of the unliving, but most pointedly NOT the wielder of Frostmourne, so put the lawyers away, Blizzard
- The Orc Lord, the supreme royal chief head-smasher in charge of the orcish hordes, who - if he unifies his people - may smash entire countries under the thunder of green feet

Of course, these are easily tweaked, removed, or reversed for your favorite campaign. Nearly all fantasy universes have some "big men on campus" or related organizations. Examples might be the Red Wizards of Thay, the Sorcerer-Kings, the Church of the Silver Flame, the Dustmen, House Stark, the Ravenclaws, those _muey_ sexist creepy people with the slave collars in Robbie Jordan's Wheel O' Time, or just about any significant collection of people who'll play a part in the campaign.


----------



## Isaac Chalk (Jun 13, 2012)

ArmoredSaint said:


> I heard that the game's rules for weapons and armour were dreadfully..._light_...
> 
> If that's the case, I think I'll give it a miss...




Short answer, yes, they are.

Long answer, the game delineates weapon in broad strokes - a weapon falls into the d4-d6-d8-d10-so-forth category, with penalties for swinging around a weapon that's outside of your weight division. In the end, this prevents long discussions about what polearm is the best polearm and allows for some customization on the character's end. One fighter might love hoisting a warhammer that does d8 damage; the other a scimitar; both do 1d8/level plus stat bonus (depending on the level, double stat bonus perhaps) on a swing.

(This means that at higher levels, damage dice rolls sound like cluster bombs. If this is not your thang, I won't judge, and the game has several averaging methods for people who don't like the feel of nigh-on a dozen d8s landing.)

Armor is similarly broad, falling into Light and Heavy with no further breakdowns. So your barbarian can wear anything from practical boiled leather to fuzzy Conan diaper, while your paladin doesn't have to work out the precise differences between half-plate, full plate, articulated plate, and mithril plate. Some people will honestly hate the tradeoff in wide varieties of armor, and that's fine. But personally, I like the excision of the Fantasy Sharper Image catalog subgame, which triggered a lot of pointless arguments and left me dressing my characters in ways that didn't fit my mental image.


----------



## Alphastream (Jun 13, 2012)

This was a pretty fun game. Our group playtested for both playtest windows and we had a great time. The game has a great capacity for imaginative open play, but at the same time has a lot of fun crunch - I really enjoyed making a 7th level PC, and I took a lot of time doing so (though I didn't have to). 

We played through Temple of Elemental Evil and we had a great time. The rules for making monsters are pretty simple, and our DM was running a great game on the fly. We played gridless, though we easily could have used a grid. Overall, it was really strong.

Were there issues? Of course. We did our best to identify them clearly and provide context for our comments. Despite our group having a wide variety of interests, most of us will be buying the game, which I think speaks to the game's likely appeal.

Not enough can be said about the iconics. The cover price may just be worth the iconics alone... steal that and bring it into any campaign!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 13, 2012)

Sounds good. I really like how so many people seem to be doing new things with D&D these days, like Old School Hack, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, and DCC rpg.



			
				Isaac Chalk said:
			
		

> Several class abilities are unlocked by the die - your fighter, for example, may start cleaving through entire squads of enemies once he's got their number



I like this a lot. It could lead to being gamed, with the PCs fighting very defensively for the first few rounds, but that's no bad thing if the opposition also escalate, and reflects the 'caginess' at the start of real life fights.


----------



## gamerdad39 (Jun 13, 2012)

I joined in on the 2nd round of playtesting for 13th Age and basically believe I have found the game I will be running from here on out.

Let me give some perspective to that statement. I've been playing RPG's now for about 24 years. I started with the D&D red box set that I got in trade from a friend at school who really didn't know what to do with it. To be honest at the time I didn't really know what the heck to do with it either, but something in it caught my eye. So began a small game with a couple of other friends as we worked to figure this stuff out. By default I ran the game because the set was mine and when we sat down I had learned the most about it. So began my 24 year adventure, which still continues.

I "learned" how to play D&D and RPG's with only the books as guidance. So generally we made up a lot of stuff, didn't focus too much on mechanics and just had a great time. Some games were focused and well planned out, others were extremely free form and we played and let the story develop around us based on the PC's actions and my general direction. We never let the rules get in the way of what we wanted to do and we all loved playing that way. 

Eventually we upgraded to 2nd Edition but kept the same mindset in playing our games. Yes there were more rules and we used them but never allowed ourselves to get bogged down by them. It was still a very free form and very storied game. We (yes both the PC's and I) put the characters through hell and back and had a wonderful time doing it. My players were inventive and always looked for interesting ways to handle any given situation. The way the rules were presented I felt like I could easily handle those situations regardless if there was something covering it in the book.

Of course I dabbled in other systems but always found my way back to D&D. There were certainly other compelling systems out there but I just felt at home on my original stomping grounds and enjoy the game more than most others. I dove into 3rd edition D&D and enjoyed it as much as 2nd, though the mechanics did become a little more involved. My more recent group still allowed that "outside the box" feel to the game and we had a great time.

Now I'm about to get into an area that is touchy for a lot of people. Let me state that the following is my opinion. I have enough of a history with D&D and playing RPG's to come to my own conclusions. I trust people with different opinions have come to them through their own experiences and feelings. I'm fine with that. I'm not here to argue my views or condemn anyone's either. 

I've run 4th edition since it released.  Initially I was excited and loved the system, but hadn't really seen it in play and was anxious to run it. My players were excited about it too. Some of that "new system" vibe was running strong with me and my group. The first year was pretty good. We were getting adjusted to the system and the significant changes that were made. Uncommon to my gaming history I also got a good stretch were I was on the other side of the table as a player, and that is where my good will for the system started to break down. 

The mechanics felt like they became paramount in the game. Combat was a full on mini's game and while there was some fun and enjoyment on the tactics side of things, it felt like our  imaginations took a back seat. I stepped back a bit and really started looking at the system and realized I didn't like what I saw. It's not that I couldn't do the things that we did before, it's just not as comfortable to do things outside of the mechanics. Round after round of power use became stagnant and boring. The "roles" concepts and character classes seemed to be the same when they were broken down. Any class that fell into the same "role" as others felt the same aside from the fluff surrounding the powers. It just lacked the feel of the play I enjoy.

Another area I found difficult was creating my game. Before I would come up with the story and work the rules around my game. It seemed now I needed to take the rules into account when creating my story. Perhaps some of this is my fault. Either way, it just didn't work for me.

So then Next was announced and at this point I was excited and somewhat hesitant at the same time. I did not really want to invest another considerable amount of money on a new system and based on the conclusions I came to on 4th I wasn't sure I trusted where the game was going. Overall though I like the design discussions that I've seen and it looks like they are returning to a direction I've liked in the past. But my eyes were wandering and I caught a message board post about 13th Age and signed up for the playtest.

I've run four sessions in the second round of the playtest. While running the game I found that the "feel" of the game that was missing for me in 4th was back with a vengeance. My group and I played for 6+ hours in each of those sessions, at least one of them went 8 hours. We haven't played that long in years. We were all so taken up with the free form nature of the game that it just flowed right for us. 

Issac has already covered a lot of ground about the differences between the systems. All I want to comment on here is that 13th Age is the game for my game group. We loved it. Yes there are some areas where I felt it wasn't perfect and I outlined those in my feedback to the playtest. Spellcasters felt a little odd to us. While non spellcasters maintained parity with each other spellcasters seemed to fall behind on even levels, then would bounce back to parity on odd levels. It didn't feel completely right. Rangers seemed a bit odd as well. At first level you have pretty much picked everything your Ranger could do. Things like attack, hit points and damage increase level to level, but all the features were pretty much defined in level 1.

Those were just a couple of things, but nothing overwhelming really stood out to me as a negative or something that I couldn't adjust given some more time. I know this will not be the game for everyone. I can see why someone who loves 4th edition would be put off by this system. 13th Age suits my gaming style more than D&D at this point and I love it. I cannot wait to have the full book in hand and really dive in.

I know this was a long rant and my first post. I just haven't had anyone outside of my gaming group to chat with this about and felt I should give a little background to my statements. I can respond with some more detail regarding 13th Age itself if desired.


----------



## Isaac Chalk (Jun 13, 2012)

Now available to pre-order.

However, PDF downloads are not yet enabled, so if you're pre-ordering for that, you may wish to hold off for a while yet.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 13, 2012)

I follow Tweet on G+, so I've been following along with his development blog, but not too closely, as I was thinking, "No, not another game, I already am very interested in too many new games..."

But then he posted  art for the map.  That caught my attention big time, that is some fantastic art!  And the info Isaac posted here is now making me salivate.  Argh...too many games, not enough play time.

Might need to get the book and incorporate what I can into whatever we decide to play...


----------



## pauljathome (Jun 13, 2012)

Isaac Chalk said:


> Now available to pre-order.
> 
> However, PDF downloads are not yet enabled, so if you're pre-ordering for that, you may wish to hold off for a while yet.




Also note that, at first, the only pdf you'll get will be the Playtest pdf. The completed version and final version will come out later (you'll get them for free, of course, just there will be a delay).

At the risk of sounding like a corporate shill, I was impressed enough with the playtest that I've preordered. Despite the outrageous shipping charges to Canada .


----------



## Incenjucar (Jun 14, 2012)

The escalation die sounds fascinating, as do all the class abilities except "yammer at the DM until he gives you bonuses." Yammering should be its own reward.


----------



## wilbymilstone (Jun 14, 2012)

After reading this I am now very interested in 13th Age. It sound just like what my friends and I did with house rules for our D&D gaming!


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 14, 2012)

Sounds interesting, and the authors are very good designers...

Unfortunately there are dozens of other fantasy RPG that also sound just as interesting. For what fundamental reason should I prefer to try this specific one out?


----------



## Felon (Jun 14, 2012)

I played a single playtesting session that was essentially just a big fight. Nobody at the table seemed impressed. Takes aspects from FATE, takes daily/encounter/at-wills from 4e, has a bunch of fiat-based abilities a la Ars Magica. None of the mechanics for the characters were particularly fresh or gripping. 

I played the bard because they wanted feedback on it. But it couldn't really do much of anything, seemed to ostensibly be a support class, but was patently inferior. It also had that annoying 3e and 4e dissonance where martial characters seem to get the best of all worlds: excellent armor and damage adsorption, while still hitting as hard as any spellcaster. 

It also had that 1st edition feel where the softer characters felt like they were at the DM's mercy in regards to deploying ranged attacks, because there's no rules for cover and distances are completely abstracted. In such a system, should there be soft targets?

The escalation die is a step in the right direction, but it would be better be a resource characters (notably support characters) build up rather than just a handout that inevitably turns battles to their favor.

Like I said though, it was one shallow session, and I'd like to see future playtest revisions.


----------



## pauljathome (Jun 14, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> Sounds interesting, and the authors are very good designers...
> 
> Unfortunately there are dozens of other fantasy RPG that also sound just as interesting. For what fundamental reason should I prefer to try this specific one out?




Because it sounds interesting, and the authors are very good designers 

Given the authors and the fact that it actually WAS fairly widely playtested you can expect the authors to do (at the very least) a competent job of accomplishing what they set out to accomplish.

But absolutely no game is for everybody. 13th Age isn't even trying to be.

If, after reading threads like this, your reaction is "meh" then it is quite possible that this game is NOT for you.

If your reaction is "Sounds like some really cool ideas mixed in with stuff that I don't care for" then it may be worth checking out as a source for you to mine. That is pretty much my opinion and why I bought it.


----------



## Ry (Jun 14, 2012)

I played this game for one session, and I thought it was awesome.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 14, 2012)

I'll probably be getting it, but one hot button for me was mentioned:

healing surges.


  [MENTION=96952]Isaac Chalk[/MENTION] or anyone else who knows the answer, can you tell me more about how they're used?

I don't totally object to healing surges per se. I do object if they pull you ot of the narrative (e.g. If someone misses me I healing surge. or If an ally hits some dude, I healing surge.)


Did they integrate healing surges into the narrative flow well?


----------



## Windjammer (Jun 14, 2012)

I'll link to my own playtest report.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=548468&postcount=66

A monster cheat sheet I created to ease GM'ing 13A is available here (it was specific to my campaign, so it's very selective):

http://postimage.org/image/4f86cw3nn


----------



## Alphastream (Jun 14, 2012)

gamerdad39 said:


> I can see why someone who loves 4th edition would be put off by this system.



And yet, 4E is the favorite system of most of my playtest group. The biggest 4E fans actually were the biggest 13th Age fans. None of our gamers were playing 13th Age out of disenchantment. We like a variety of games and we like to playtest. 

We like how 13th Age spoke to 4E. Arguably, it does so more than D&D Next (at this time, I won't be surprised if that changes - especially with additional modules). 13th Age at-wills and powers often feel like 4E and the game attempts to have probably a 3E level of balance (as compared to earlier editions). The game has solid crunch, yet is clearly supporting imaginative open play. There is a lot for a fan of any/all editions to like.

I bought the book on pre-order already, as will probably 4 of 6 gamers in our group. 



Felon said:


> I played the bard because they wanted feedback on it. But it couldn't really do much of anything, seemed to ostensibly be a support class, but was patently inferior.




In contrast, I really liked the bard. One of my favorite classes is the arcane trickster from 3E (ok, it is really a prestige class, but...). In playtesting 13th Age I originally went with a rogue-wizard and I was disappointed with the results (13th Age has said they are aware of and fixing the multiclass issues). The next session I played the bard. It was part marshall/bard and part arcane trickster (without the sneak attack). I really liked the battlecries, which are basically additional effects you add to your basic attacks (which in 13th Age are pretty strong). Then there are the spells and songs, which are basically powers that inspire/heal. I felt absolutely as strong as any other PC (we playtested level 7) and I had fun both building and playing the PC. For feats, I liked how it was possible to poach a power from another class and to use a different ability score for all my powers. My final build used feats and backgrounds to be as good with traps as a thief, to have a wizard spell and cantrips, and to still do cool bard-specific stuff. Very cool.


----------



## Alphastream (Jun 14, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> Sounds interesting, and the authors are very good designers...
> 
> Unfortunately there are dozens of other fantasy RPG that also sound just as interesting. For what fundamental reason should I prefer to try this specific one out?




That is always a really personal question - gamers like different things.

For me, the icons are incredible. They guarantee sweet story/PC/campaign hooks. When I read that chapter on the icons I was ready to create a campaign. 

The ability of the edition to provide yummy crunch but support open imaginative play should be another strong selling point. 

I also like the blend of previous D&D editions. It does it differently than Next, and for some of our group this blend was really the main selling point. 

On the DM side, it was easy to have fun combats with monsters created on the fly by the DM. That could be really interesting to some. 

Cool 13th Age bits like the Escalation Die can really make a difference and be a strong selling point.

But, for me, I like that this game probably won't have 20 books. I could see it having a couple of supplements and I would love a campaign book. That keeps the cost manageable, allowing most gamers to enjoy D&D Next and 13th Age, for example.


----------



## Pour (Jun 14, 2012)

13th Age currently trumps my excitement for any of the other impending RPGs. Definitely keeping an eye on this, and only wish it could be released during the summer months I have time to really study it. I will be preordering right now, though.


----------



## Felon (Jun 14, 2012)

Alphastream said:


> I felt absolutely as strong as any other PC (we playtested level 7) and I had fun both building and playing the PC.



Then you must've been playing another versio of the playtest. Or maybe you played past 1st level, and it gets better at some point. But at level 1, it's a pretty sorry sight.

The battlecry benefits are pretty meager--usually meangingless--and the bard is not equipped with good enough defenses to be a melee class.

The bard gets fewer spells/songs than other classes, and none of them are at-will. It either has dailies, or a song that has a 50% chance of burning out every round, and then a 50% chance of burning after the battle.

Regarding that as being as strong as what a cleric gets is beyond even the most generous comparison. Quantifiably awful.


----------



## Felon (Jun 14, 2012)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I don't totally object to healing surges per se. I do object if they pull you ot of the narrative (e.g. If someone misses me I healing surge. or If an ally hits some dude, I healing surge.)
> 
> 
> Did they integrate healing surges into the narrative flow well?



Well, a healing surge in 4e can just as easily be an invigorating surge of spirit rather than instant healing. When some people see a loss of immersion, others cite an unwillingness to extrapolate. That can be a facile assessment, but in this case I don't see the big whoop against surges. 

In 13th Age, some abilities are extremely abstract, and often have a requirement that you win the DM over to let you do what you want. Others are rigidly mechanical. So somewhere between A and B you'll probably see fighters getting second-windish healing surges. But it's mostly spells right now.

In other words, they *are* currently trying to appease everyone. Perhaps they're choosing a path, or perhaps they'll try to have a little something for everyone. But right now, it's really not its own game. It just lifts from a lot of sources, and the result seems inconsistent.


----------



## gamerdad39 (Jun 14, 2012)

Alphastream said:


> And yet, 4E is the favorite system of most of my playtest group. The biggest 4E fans actually were the biggest 13th Age fans. None of our gamers were playing 13th Age out of disenchantment. We like a variety of games and we like to playtest.
> 
> We like how 13th Age spoke to 4E. Arguably, it does so more than D&D Next (at this time, I won't be surprised if that changes - especially with additional modules). 13th Age at-wills and powers often feel like 4E and the game attempts to have probably a 3E level of balance (as compared to earlier editions). The game has solid crunch, yet is clearly supporting imaginative open play. There is a lot for a fan of any/all editions to like.
> 
> I bought the book on pre-order already, as will probably 4 of 6 gamers in our group.




I think more of my meaning here was not with the mechanics, some of which do speak to 4E, but with the open style of the system. Many groups I played 4E with pretty much played with the sentiment-This is what my power says it does, so that's what it does. In 13th Age there was a lot more experimentation with the powers and in some cases the players did some things that weren't tied to their class powers directly. The game seems to encourage that, where it seemed not to in 4E.

I know I said it in my initial, rambling post but this may have just been a perspective thing in 4E. All your characters abilities seemed so tied up in the powers that the focus on what you could do was narrowed down to that list. Yes, in 13th Age there are powers, but they are more loosely presented and seems to leave enough opening to apply them differently. It's likely we could have done more of that in 4E, but it just didn't feel right.

Regardless of the reason behind it, I experienced a group of inspired players for the first time in a long time. As a GM I also felt the level of freedom that I had enjoyed in editions prior to 4E and the game at the table reflected that. I can't ask for more than that, which is why I will be picking up 13th Age and will likely be running it as my game of choice.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Jun 14, 2012)

Darn, I was interested until I saw "4e" and "healing surges".

Good luck with it though


----------



## IndyPendant (Jun 14, 2012)

I was in Isaac's playtest (empathy unique thing).  I thought I'd toss in my own quick synopsis of my impressions.

--I know nothing about the designers, and frankly don't care.  In the end, it's the quality of the product that matters, not who made it.

--13th Age has *incredible* potential.  There were a lot of aspects to the game that appealed to me immensely, and if it delivers on that promise, my next campaign will likely use the system.

--I particularly liked icons, backgrounds, one unique thing, and the overall tone of the writing.  Isaac described the writing as 'transparent', and that's the perfect word for it.  The classes did seem to be well individualized too.

--I'm somewhat neutral on the escalation die; I suspect it's a gimmick that shouldn't be needed most of the time with a good GM--but a reasonably good way of ending a battle if (as I have occasionally) the GM makes a mistake on a combat's fun or overall length.

--I'm neutral on how weapons and armour are basically flavour.  Weapons are dice tiers and armour is 'if you're wearing the appropriate category, your AC is (this)".  I've never been happy with Christmas Tree DND, so overall I like the idea, but I see this as one of the more controversial decisions.

--Not enough options in the current playtest.  I played a bard too for example, and could pick three class features...out of a total of eight, two pairs of which were designated mutually exclusive.  There were only two to four new bard spells to choose from each level.  That sort of theme seemed prevalent throughout the book, not just the bard class.  It was a playtest though, so hopefully the final version will have more options available.

--Based on what I saw from the playtest document, I'm frankly skeptical they'll be able to deliver on the many, many promising features of the system.  Great potential, but August/September doesn't seem to be enough time to develop them.  However, this is also my first playtest of a RPG still under design, so I may be being overly pessimistic.  --And I am basing this comment on my "too few options" point above; the fundamental concepts themselves are reasonably well finalized atm.

Bottom line, based on what I saw I will probably not preorder it.  I was very impressed with the game's potential however, and I will take a look at reviews of the final product and buy it if they do manage to deliver after all.  It may be that buying it to lift certain mechanics and concepts out to your favourite system might be the way to go.


----------



## nnms (Jun 14, 2012)

Isaac Chalk said:


> - The Escalation Die: One thing about D&D is that as fights go on, characters get weaker. They accumulate status conditions or run out of powers and the fight starts to drag. Not so with 13th Age which has an escalation die - essentially, the biggest d6 you can find, laid squat in the center of the table, and each round beyond the first, you increment this die by 1, capping at 6. Player characters get this bonus to their attacks.




This is pretty awesome.  4E should have add something like this from day 1.

Though it does show me that 13th Age might not be for me.  I'm getting less and less interested in games that have a hard game mode change when you enter combat and more and more interested in games where you never stop describing things back and forth between the participants.  Plunking down a giant die to announce the beginning of combat mode sounds about as jarring as clearing the table and laying down a battle mat.


----------



## gamerdad39 (Jun 14, 2012)

IndyPendant said:


> --Not enough options in the current playtest.  I played a bard too for example, and could pick three class features...out of a total of eight, two pairs of which were designated mutually exclusive.  There were only two to four new bard spells to choose from each level.  That sort of theme seemed prevalent throughout the book, not just the bard class.  It was a playtest though, so hopefully the final version will have more options available.
> 
> --Based on what I saw from the playtest document, I'm frankly skeptical they'll be able to deliver on the many, many promising features of the system.  Great potential, but August/September doesn't seem to be enough time to develop them.  However, this is also my first playtest of a RPG still under design, so I may be being overly pessimistic.  --And I am basing this comment on my "too few options" point above; the fundamental concepts themselves are reasonably well finalized atm.




These are two points that concern me as well and was included in my feedback on the playtest. The class features sections were extremely limited in my opinion. There needs to be more available there. 

I was hoping that it was held back due to just being a playtest copy of the rules system, but the fact that they are releasing that with the pre-order makes me think that there might not be anything else there at the moment. Somewhat concerning if the full version is coming out in August.

I'm still picking up the system though. To be honest even in the current state it provided me and my group more enjoyment than we have had around the table in long while.


----------



## Isaac Chalk (Jun 14, 2012)

On healing surges: they're called 'recoveries,' which is a much better term and a testament to how much a good name matters. ('Healing surge' is not a good name.)

Everyone gets eight recoveries, at least. They work broadly the way surges do in 4E, opening up healing in some ways but limiting it in others. (Healing that doesn't expend a recovery is rare, so you can only take so much punishment in a day.) Taking a recovery as a standard action works broadly like second wind, representing you taking the time to staunch the bleeding or get your head on straight (possibly literally.)

I was never bothered by healing surges (or recoveries, or whatever they're being called.) D&D and its derivatives are games where an experienced character can chug a vial of scorpion venom and fall 50 feet off a wall after having been shot a dozen times with crossbow bolts, and then stand up and walk away. The notion that, sure, you can endure all that, but patching yourself up quickly in a fight, why, that's just plain *silly?* I was never convinced by it.

That said, there is an aside by the designers that boils down to "we like this rule, but if you don't, feel free to drop it. Just make sure your players have access to some extra magical healing." If someone held a gun to my head and demanded I come up with such a rule, I'd give everyone a self-replenishing healing potion vial that works essentially the same way as recoveries - works a limited number of times a day, takes some time to drink it, might not always work. (Then I'd tell everyone where I was and to send the police since oh God oh God there's someone with a gun to my head.)


----------



## Isaac Chalk (Jun 15, 2012)

Related to healing, is how resting and healing up works. (Or, here is how 13th Age solves the 15 minute workday.)

Broadly similar to the short rest/extended rest system, with a difference.  An extended rest is only available penalty free after a set number of fights or otherwise challenging sequences. (Four by default, more for easy fights, fewer for harder ones.) An extended rest need not be eight hours - depending on how your GM rolls it could barely be a rest. 

Taking an extended rest prematurely is possible, but incurs a "campaign loss," as in, your failure to tough it out means that the antagonists get a leg up on you somehow, in a way that merely beating up more monsters won't quite fix. They beat you to the Tomb of the Most Exalted Sword King, for example, or the hostage dies.

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, it feels a bit "meta," in a way that other rules in the game don't quite feel. A little too on the nose. It precludes scenarios where the dungeon (or other hostile environment) is there to be explored at the PC's own pace.

But on the other hand, most game I'm in - including Indy's - function on this as an unwritten rule already, where we are only getting into meaningful fights when we are racing the clock somehow. It does do its best to encourage players to push on and take risks, if they're sufficiently invested in the story that setbacks in their role in it would hurt more than potentially losing a character would. It speaks more to the sensibilities of 13th Age - fewer open-world dungeon crawls and more story-based antagonism. (Or, to use a metaphor by way of comparison: less Bethesda RPG and more Bioware RPG.)

I happen to think that the solution to the 15 minute adventurer day will happen when we stop recharging critical PC resources on a daily-rest schedule. In other words, the problem is largely self-created. But solving it might be beyond the scope of 13th Age, and in the meantime, this rule does a well enough job.


----------



## Felon (Jun 16, 2012)

Isaac Chalk said:


> Taking an extended rest prematurely is possible, but incurs a "campaign loss," as in, your failure to tough it out means that the antagonists get a leg up on you somehow, in a way that merely beating up more monsters won't quite fix. They beat you to the Tomb of the Most Exalted Sword King, for example, or the hostage dies.
> 
> I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, it feels a bit "meta," in a way that other rules in the game don't quite feel. A little too on the nose. It precludes scenarios where the dungeon (or other hostile environment) is there to be explored at the PC's own pace.



Oh, it's mega-meta. They outright tell the DM that rests should be a pre-planned event. But I find there's quite a bit of that in the playtest document. There are class abilities that refer to the designers by name. 



> I happen to think that the solution to the 15 minute adventurer day will happen when we stop recharging critical PC resources on a daily-rest schedule. In other words, the problem is largely self-created. But solving it might be beyond the scope of 13th Age, and in the meantime, this rule does a well enough job.



IMO, I think the solution is for some types of attacks or actions to be "opening moves", which build up and unlock "finisher moves". That keeps players from going nova and shooting their wad in the first round. 

The existence of dailies is a big part of the escalation die. It's a very ham-fisted way of encouraging players to reserve their big guns for later rounds. Not because of their actions, but because they simply have an inevitable advantage gradually handed to them.


----------



## Alphastream (Jun 18, 2012)

Felon said:


> Then you must've been playing another versio of the playtest. Or maybe you played past 1st level, and it gets better at some point. But at level 1, it's a pretty sorry sight.
> 
> The battlecry benefits are pretty meager--usually meangingless--and the bard is not equipped with good enough defenses to be a melee class.
> 
> ...



I created my bard at 1st level, then at 5th level, then at 7th. I only playtested at 7th. I played a multiclass PC at level 1, and I was far happier with the bard at level 1 as a build. Based on my earlier playtests, it seemed reasonable. At 7th I felt competitive with the cleric. 

My level 7 bard could:

Basic attack based on D8, not too shabby
Due to feats and background, be skill-wise as good as or better than any rogue for traps/stealth (had a 6 due to feat)
Continue a song even while unconscious for a round (feat)
Use my Int instead of Int and poach a Wizard spell (Shield)
Get wizard cantrips due to a feat
1st battlecry: make basic attack, if I roll well myself and an ally gain significant (boosted by feat) temps
2nd battlecry when escalation die is high can give ally a recovery (pretty useful in long fights)
3rd battlecry: when I miss on even roll, grant attack bonus vs that target to an ally
4th battlecry: grant save on any even hit.
Daily song to grant a big amount of temps, sustainable with quick/minor action each round and grants an ally a recover when I fail.
Soundburst spell for big dammage and daze
Song of Thunder for medium damage to many foes, but sustainable so I can keep doing it each round.
Arrow of Verse recharge spell for big damage to one target that gets bigger with escalation die.
Song of Magic daily song to allow allies not to expend their spells, sustainable, and when song ends get attack bonus
Shield each encounter (wizard spell)
Song of Blood and Legends daily sustainable song to allow recoveries when allies hit a foe, when it ends grants an ally an attack and recovery

That's an impressive array of abilities, and meant for a player that likes a complex PC (which I generally do). The key to me was two factors: 1) Making basic attacks I can generate the battlecry effects as a basically free cool rider. By choosing carefully, you will get a battlecry more than half the time. 2) The songs are sustainable, meaning they keep on creating the cool effect. That's the edge that makes you competitive with other casters/buffers. I can grant temps every round or deal damage to 2d3 foes every round, etc. I have enough songs for a wide variety of approaches based on the type of combat. 

At level 1 I obviously had fewer options, but I was still generating a battlecry on any even hit, on any even roll, and on any roll of 16+. That's pretty often. Song of Heroes was a recharge attack boost , Soundburst good damage, and Melf's Acid Arrow was my wizard spell. And I had the cool skill side to my PC.


----------



## Alphastream (Jun 18, 2012)

IndyPendant said:


> --I'm somewhat neutral on the escalation die; I suspect it's a gimmick that shouldn't be needed most of the time with a good GM--but a reasonably good way of ending a battle if (as I have occasionally) the GM makes a mistake on a combat's fun or overall length.
> 
> --Not enough options in the current playtest.  I played a bard too for example, and could pick three class features...out of a total of eight, two pairs of which were designated mutually exclusive.  There were only two to four new bard spells to choose from each level.  That sort of theme seemed prevalent throughout the book, not just the bard class.  It was a playtest though, so hopefully the final version will have more options available.
> 
> --Based on what I saw from the playtest document, I'm frankly skeptical they'll be able to deliver on the many, many promising features of the system.  Great potential, but August/September doesn't seem to be enough time to develop them.



Those are good points. I liked the escalation die, though I felt monster defenses were overall too high. I wanted the escalation die to bring a quick end to the combat, not to enable hitting at reasonable rates.

The dearth of options was absolutely an issue. It was hard for some classes to avoid making certain choices because only those choices had feat support. In general spells weren't an issue for me because you could choose lower level spells at higher levels (scaled upwards), but I found the issue really prevalent with class features and feats (or feats based off of spells/combat options). 

But, those are correctable - they are tweaks rather than critical flaws. It can certainly be done by August if they choose to do so. They may also choose to add features later and just correct core math issues and balance issues. That may be the most sound choice. The game is fun and playable and a later book could round out the PC choices, introduce another class or two, etc.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 28, 2012)

Escalation Edition V1 is available for download for the pre-orders.

I like what I've had a chance to skim so far.  I'll have a closer look this weekend.


----------



## Isaac Chalk (Jul 5, 2012)

And back! Sorry, been away. 

I got my Escalation Edition pre-order as well. Going through it, I like most of the tweaks I've seen (though this thing is still not pretty by modern RPG standards, pure black text on white with no formatting.)

One thing I think I forgot to mention is the 13th Age solution to the "welp, you're dead, go play celphone games for a few hours while the combat goes on" problem - when you're down and out and can't make rolls, or you split the party because you ignored the WOTC marketing department, you can "fight in spirit."

What this means is that you can grant a benefit to your close friends and comrades as they remember how you'd have done it were you actually here (or actually alive.) What you do is describe the inspiration you'd provide - "Honeybottom the Ambiguously Gendered Halfling* would NEVER give up, so neither would I," or "as you see O'Brien the Barbarian fall, you feel yourself gripped by a tiny equivalent of his mighty berserker strength" - and if the GM agrees that this is awesome, then you grant a bonus to your friends.

I'm stealing this for any combat-intensive game I run because it's perfect. It lets the player stay involved in a fight rather than succumbing to the Twitter Sickness; it encourages role-playing in the midst of high-crunch activity like combat; and it's such a lovely "oh, it's ON" moment.

* This is a real character in 13th Age.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jul 6, 2012)

I have to admit Im intrigued, but is there any sort of "sampler" document available? I wouldnt mind having slightly more substantial information in order to be able to ascertain whether it is what Im looking for before I actually fork out the dollars.

I jsut couldnt see anything on the website other than to "buy" the pre-order.


----------



## fjw70 (Jul 9, 2012)

BobTheNob said:


> I have to admit Im intrigued, but is there any sort of "sampler" document available? I wouldnt mind having slightly more substantial information in order to be able to ascertain whether it is what Im looking for before I actually fork out the dollars.
> 
> I jsut couldnt see anything on the website other than to "buy" the pre-order.




Agreed. Some sort of quick start or preview document would be nice and may encourage a pre-order from me.

One question about backgrounds, is it like the Barbarians of Lemuria careers? In other words if I have 3 ranks in Barbarian then I get a plus 3 to any check that a Barbarian may be good at (I.e. tracking, survival, hunting, etc.).


----------



## SiderisAnon (Jul 10, 2012)

Yes, having a sampler or quickstart rules allows me to make an informed decision before plunking down my money.

The other big thing for me is being available in PDF format.  Due to vision problems, reading paper copies is difficult.  Anymore, I cannot run and RPG that doesn't come in PDF format (and not some low grade scan of the physical book).


----------



## Alphastream (Jul 16, 2012)

fjw70 said:


> One question about backgrounds, is it like the Barbarians of Lemuria careers? In other words if I have 3 ranks in Barbarian then I get a plus 3 to any check that a Barbarian may be good at (I.e. tracking, survival, hunting, etc.).



13th Age backgrounds are descriptive in nature and you would gain bonuses to anything you and the DM agree would qualify. The game encourages you to select backgrounds with minor DM oversight. You might go for Royal Cook, for example, and gain bonuses in a variety of situations. While some of this means it really shines with a good DM and players, that seems to be the intention of the game. It is written for generally experienced players and DMs. The upside ends up being a richer experience and more participation as you find in-character connections between your backstory and the campaign/setting/adventure. Overall, I like the 13th Age backgrounds (and similarly like the D&D Next ones).


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jul 17, 2012)

Isaac Chalk said:


> On healing surges: they're called 'recoveries,' which is a much better term and a testament to how much a good name matters. ('Healing surge' is not a good name.)




Do you get a free recovery after the first round, and one every 12 rounds later     (Hero joke).

From what I see I think I will enjoy reading it, and incorporated elements into my mishmash d20 game I play, but there do look to be some really cool ideas there.


----------



## Revinor (Jul 18, 2012)

First, few notes.
These are ‘armchair critic’ opinions - I haven’t got a chance to playtest 13th Age yet.
I will compare everything to D&D 4e - partially because this is what I’m playing and DMing at the moment, partially because it is the system 13th Age is most similar to.

13th Age gets one very important thing right - it separates combat and non-combat aspects of PC. One of the worst mistakes tactical/gamist RPG can do, in my opinion, is to force you to choose between being good in combat and being cool and/or resourceful outside combat. I think about 3 aspects here - combat stats, ‘fluff’ rpg layer and non-combat mechanics. 4e got a proper separation between them - you were almost never required to sacrifice ‘coolness’ for combat stats. Unfortunately, useful non-combat mechanics are almost non-existing. Skills are somewhere in the middle - but they are still presented mostly as combat-related stats. Unfortunately, skill challenges are not really hitting the spot for me.

In 13th age, we have Icons system, where you can relate to one of world superpowers - but it comes with big of narrativist mechanics, where you can use relations to influence campaign. Same goes for backgrounds - they are very clearly detached from combat or clearly defined challenges and provide some rules for extending non-combat gameplay. One Unique Thing is nice concept, but it is purely ‘fluff’.

And here comes the main point of this review - all above things, which I find quite interesting, are separate game in itself. This is a right thing to do (to avoid choices between being good in combat and non-combat stats), but this also means that they can be very easily transplanted on top of any other system - for example D&D 4e. Same goes for the world (which is very much tied to proposed Icons system). So for me, real question is - if I import the world, icons, backgrounds and One Unique Thing into my 4e D&D rules, what is the _real_ difference between 13th Age and 4e D&D, which makes it a separate system, rather than collection of few Dragon articles with optional extensions to 4e?

Combat. Monsters. Equipment. Classes. Balance.

There are few other superficial differences, like races, but you have to look really closely to find differences from 4e, so this part can be safely ignored.

Single biggest difference of all is lack of grid for combat. While using miniatures is suggested to help to indicate who is close to whom and possibly relations to terrain, there is no real forced movement, exact distances, formations etc. This allows for more free-form roleplay of combat, more creativity on player’s part, but comes with own set of problems. Potentially there can be a lot of discussions who is safe, who is protecting/blocking whom etc - but to estimate these I will need to wait for playtest. Currently, biggest issue I see is reduction on tactical/boardgame aspect of the game. There are less possibilities for mechanical effects of powers, given lack of real forced movement. Flanking is gone. Speed differences/effects are gone. This is a good chunk of variety from 4e gone because of that.
Second biggest difference  for combat is escalation die, which was already describe in this thread multiple times. It is interesting concept, especially in the way few monsters interact with it on meta level, but I’m a bit scared about the possible effect of slowing down PCs for first few rounds, to not ‘waste’ big abilities without having big to-hit bonus. Playtest will show.
And finally there are mooks, different solution for minions, which are possible because of the lack of the grid. I like the idea and will make sure that there are plenty of them for players to kill in cinematic ways 
Rest of combat is very similar to 4e - nothing really worth mentioning.

Monsters - are very uneven at the moment. This is pre-prerelease, so things might change, but:

 there are few instances where monster abilities are very interesting and I immediately feel the urge to put this monster in game
 many monsters are not really inspiring - feel like 3e monsters, where after first two rounds people were just throwing d20 over and over trying to go through pool of hps
 not many of them; I’m afraid this might stay this way, given the fact it is single book combining content of PHB, DMG, MM and world book.
 pictures; missing in current version, but will they as good as MM ones ?
 fluff text - not much of it atm, kind of 4e without tactics and lore sections (basically 2 sentences in most cases); again, maybe it will change

Equipment - very different approach to magic items. I like the idea of non-compulsory items, but this can be possibly fixed with intrinsic bonuses in 4e. Magic items feel more ‘epic’, but small part of me is going to miss the christmas tree approach of 4e... Unfortunately, choice of magic items is very limited at the moment, but this can be easily fixed either for release or in some kind of expansion/web enhancement.
Non-magic equipment on the other hand is a clear win in my opinion - just very broad weapon and armor types, with exact types of weapons left into ‘fluff’ domain, allowing players to look exactly how they want, without making tradeoffs for combat effectiveness.. While it reduces combat options variety slightly (no high crit, no reach, no brutal etc), I don’t think I will miss that.

Classes - there was considerable effort put into making sure that they are different from each other. I don’t necessarily like the gradation of classes from not complex to very complex - I’m sure that there are few people who would like to barbarian-style character with some more options thrown in. Still things look interesting, I like idea of feats being class specific, more like ‘upgrade points’ for abilities rather than all-encompassing abilities from 4e. Are classes more interesting that 4e ? Bit different yes and if you compare the set given in 13th Age versus set from PHB1, 13th Age wins for sure, but you have to compare against current state of 4e... In current form, I find 13 Age a bit lacking, but let’s wait for final release.

And I come to the final point - balance. Numbers are just wild. Everything is based on d20. 1st level character will deal 1d8+3 with long sword, epic level (8th) person will swing for 8d8+12 or so. You will start with 24 hp, but reach 160 or so around epic. Big differences - but at the same time, you can expect to have +4 to hit on first level and +11 to hit on epic level - difference of just +7, which is similar to effect of escalation die (+1 to +6). I cannot pinpoint exact issues here, for sure not without extensive playtesting, but

 I’m not sure if you can balance such game properly given limited resources for playtesting and corrections
 I’m not sure if this game math can be balanced at all (by balance I mostly mean PC versus monster balance, I can forgive some PC versus PC imbalances in combat effectiveness).

After this lengthy introduction, the core of the question: Does it make sense to throw away your 4e and start playing 13th Age, or is it better to fish some ideas out of it (including possibly entire campaign world with Icons etc) and leave the rest with 4e?

I think that deciding factor for me will be mostly grid combat. 13th Age is not really using grid, 4e cannot be played in proper way without grid. I would certainly chose 13th age over any of 3e variations, because of all the things I love in 4e - so if you were waiting with jumping on 4e wagon because you hate boardgames in your rpg, 13th Age is the answer.

Second factor might be monsters. Monster Manual series are really good in my opinions - interesting abilities, great pictures, big variety. I hope 13th Age will get proper pictures, or we will have to carry along 4e MM to show how monster looks like


----------



## Revinor (Jul 24, 2012)

*Feat advancement*

I have question regarding feats. Do I need to spend adventurer feat on given talent to be able to spend champion feat on it? If not, can I recover adventurer feat from it to spend on other ability (as higher level feats often supercede lower ones) ?


----------



## waderockett (Aug 25, 2012)

*13th Age at PAX Prime*

I just posted about what we're doing at PAX over at the Pelgrane Press site, and wanted to share it here. Anyone here going?

Rob Heinsoo, developer Rob Watkins, and a squadron of volunteer GMs will be running 13th Age in the Indie Tabletop RPGs on Demand Room throughout the show.

On Friday from 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM, Rob Heinsoo, Logan Bonner, Sage LaTorra and Adam Koebel will be discussing “13th Age, Dungeon World and More: Old School RPGs With Modern Design.” 

Stop by our table on the 2nd floor of the  Washington State Convention Center, just 12 feet away from Tabletop HQ. We’ll be easy to find: look for the big Archmage and Diabolist banners. You can play a very short demo of the game there, plus you can preview the 13th Age: Forge of Heroes Facebook game and sign up to be a beta tester. The table will be open 10 AM – 10 PM Friday and Saturday, and 10 AM – 5 PM on Sunday.

Artists Lee Moyer and Aaron McConnell will do signings at the table — we’ll post the schedule as soon as we have it. Their illustrations for 13th Age are in display in The Art of Roleplaying Games exhibition at Krab Jab studios. RSVP at the link for the Artist Mixer on August 30th.

You can pre-order 13th Age and download a fully playable copy of the game-in-progress. Also, check out 13 True Ways, the Kickstarter for its first expansion book.


----------

