Jonathan Tweet talks "13th Age"

AbdulAlhazred · May 19, 2012

pauljathome said:
The ICONS are definitely different from the traditional deities framework. They all represent actual individuals who live in the world, they all represent actual organizations that live in the world all of them being allied with and in conflict with others.

One certainly COULD create a traditional deities framework with similar features but most campaigns are NOT so structured. The big difference is that the 10 ICONS represent the most powerful active forces and organizations in the world. So, a campaign world where world spanning religions with clear agendas were far and away the most powerful AND active agents would be similar. Never played in that campaign.

Right. I don't think it is exactly like "just having gods and organizations." For one thing the whole relationships thing brings the focus much more onto how the PCs and the Icons DIRECTLY interrelate (even if at a distance for low level PCs most likely). You CAN certainly do that same thing and fluff it as 'gods' (or whatever else) instead of Iconic NPCs. The thing about the Icons is they represent kind of a flexible ground. They are NPCs, but they are all strong archetypes. Each one is very sharply drawn and distinct from the others. IME it is hard to get the same thing from the fairly nebulous organizations, epic NPCs, and generally kitchen-sink pantheons of most settings.

For one thing the setup will tend to draw in the PCs. They have these relationships, so they are going to use them (or be confronted with them by the DM). Since all the Icons interrelate with each other there's a lot of ground there for story interactions of all kinds. While it does impose a good bit of structure on the campaign, it also provides a lot of potential bang for that buck.

In any case it is an interesting and slightly idiosyncratic design feature. Games need that if they're going to stand out at all. While removing the Icons or recasting them as gods certainly wouldn't make 13a exactly 'generic' it would remove an interesting element and make the game somewhat less of an interesting contribution to the current stable of FRPGs.

Transformer · May 19, 2012

pauljathome said:
The ICONS are definitely different from the traditional deities framework. They all represent actual individuals who live in the world, they all represent actual organizations that live in the world all of them being allied with and in conflict with others.

One certainly COULD create a traditional deities framework with similar features but most campaigns are NOT so structured. The big difference is that the 10 ICONS represent the most powerful active forces and organizations in the world. So, a campaign world where world spanning religions with clear agendas were far and away the most powerful AND active agents would be similar. Never played in that campaign.

I'm still not seeing it. I got the distinct impression that you can't fight the Icons and that the system assumes you'll never actually meet one. So it's all the same to the players, really, whether they're actually gods or individual people in the material world or offices that are filled by different people at different times; either way, they're the indistinct justification for factions and alignments and world events and such that you never really meet or interact with directly. They're the vague background justification for why this group of dwarves the PCs just found are fighting that group of elves they met last week. A distinction without a difference, judging from the little I've read so far.

I also didn't get the impression that the 13 Icons represent 13 distinct extremely powerful organizations which control the world. That would be an interesting and unique setting (though, I think, a little artificial, and not at all conducive to the kind of radical group-to-group customization Tweet is aiming for). But no, I get the impression that all the standard nations and clans and guilds and such that you'd find in any fantasy organization are around, but most of them have some vague background connection to one of the Icons. So, e.g., the thieves' guild (which the party rogue is a member of) is ultimately somewhere in the chain of command of one of the Icons, and that serves as an arbitrary justification for stuff the DM wants the thieves' guild to do ("You say it doesn't really make sense that the thieves' guild would do that? Well, it's part of the mysterious plans of an Icon; of course the party doesn't understand"). Or maybe the party runs into a cult that worships the Lich King Icon as a god (even if he's not). But it makes little difference to the players; they would still have to recover the McGuffin from the undead cult whether it worshipped an Icon or a god or nobody at all.

In fact, the more I hear about Icons the less I like them, because they sound more and more like a hard codification of the annoying "all-powerful NPCs who control everything and who are the real movers and shakers and whose esoteric goals and plans can be used to justify absolutely anything the DM wants to happen." I don't like that. I like my D&D decentralized, with lots of smaller heroes and villains and rules, all with clearly-defined goals and actions, not vague NPC-gods who control everything and who don't have to have clear and logical motivations for what they do.

AbdulAlhazred · May 19, 2012

Transformer said:
I'm still not seeing it. I got the distinct impression that you can't fight the Icons and that the system assumes you'll never actually meet one. So it's all the same to the players, really, whether they're actually gods or individual people in the material world or offices that are filled by different people at different times; either way, they're the indistinct justification for factions and alignments and world events and such that you never really meet or interact with directly. They're the vague background justification for why this group of dwarves the PCs just found are fighting that group of elves they met last week. A distinction without a difference, judging from the little I've read so far.

I also didn't get the impression that the 13 Icons represent 13 distinct extremely powerful organizations which control the world. That would be an interesting and unique setting (though, I think, a little artificial, and not at all conducive to the kind of radical group-to-group customization Tweet is aiming for). But no, I get the impression that all the standard nations and clans and guilds and such that you'd find in any fantasy organization are around, but most of them have some vague background connection to one of the Icons. So, e.g., the thieves' guild (which the party rogue is a member of) is ultimately somewhere in the chain of command of one of the Icons, and that serves as an arbitrary justification for stuff the DM wants the thieves' guild to do ("You say it doesn't really make sense that the thieves' guild would do that? Well, it's part of the mysterious plans of an Icon; of course the party doesn't understand"). Or maybe the party runs into a cult that worships the Lich King Icon as a god (even if he's not). But it makes little difference to the players; they would still have to recover the McGuffin from the undead cult whether it worshipped an Icon or a god or nobody at all.

In fact, the more I hear about Icons the less I like them, because they sound more and more like a hard codification of the annoying "all-powerful NPCs who control everything and who are the real movers and shakers and whose esoteric goals and plans can be used to justify absolutely anything the DM wants to happen." I don't like that. I like my D&D decentralized, with lots of smaller heroes and villains and rules, all with clearly-defined goals and actions, not vague NPC-gods who control everything and who don't have to have clear and logical motivations for what they do.

From what I read of the PT material and a quick game I don't think the Icons are that strongly defined in terms of how they will fit into an individual game. I could see games where the Icons are distant figures that pull strings and supply plot hooks. I could see them as powerful figures that the PCs interact with, indirectly at first and then more directly, and I could see them as highly active "BBEGs" (or patrons) where defeating one (and even becoming one) might well be important parts of the story arc of a campaign. Things just aren't that tightly spelled out.

You could interpret the setting as one where the Icons are pretty much running the whole show and everything else in the world is tied to them, or one where they are just examplars of a type and important NPCs. It just isn't that nailed down (at least as I read it).

I'm pretty sure you could run a game where the Icons are pretty much irrelevant too. You'd have your relations with them, but you could use that almost more like alignment than anything else. Maybe once in a while the DM uses it to justify a plot hook. That would get you a setup that is pretty close to most D&D settings.

fjw70 · May 20, 2012

Matrix Sorcica said:
This thread on rpg.net goes into detail about the game and is well worth a read.

Thanks for the link.

It looks interesting. I will probably pick it up if the price isn't too steep.

Gold Roger · May 20, 2012

This doesn't sound like a game I'd ever want to play.

However, it also sounds like it has some neat ideas and inspirations. It also sounds like it is designed to be picked apart and canibalized for elements to port over and adapt.

That is something I'm very interested in.

Plane Sailing · May 20, 2012

Morrus said:
The relationships come into play as relationship dice, which players use to gain advantages in the game world. Relationship dice can get you helpful allies, secret intelligence, divine blessings, arcane knowledge, imperial authority, criminal assistance, and more. Each advantage you gain is something that exists in the game world, not as a bonus on a die roll or that sort of thing. It’s where role-playing meets roll-playing. Relationship dice also sometimes introduce complications into the plot.

This bit attracts my attention. It reminds me of the relationships which you can have in Heroquest, which had a mechanical influence on stuff which worked nicely.

In addition, it seems that the interrelationships between the icons may be drawn from the Runequest cults matrix which allowed for a rich web of interrelationships which could affect party dynamics nicely - rather than the simplistic good vs bad which most systems have run by.

Cheers

john112364 · May 20, 2012

Without seeing more of the actual rules I can't say for sure whether I would play it or not. I will say that I light the setting that I see so far. Even if I don't like the system there is plenty of material to be mined here.

Keefe the Thief · May 21, 2012

"It tries to recapture some of the hobby’s early freshness, when RPGs were less professional but perhaps more genuine."

Yeah, well... I admit i rolled my eyes when i read that. Not as much as at the constant "D&D 3e grid noo!", but still. Trying to recapture "genuine freshness" by taking stuff from earlier editions, 3e, 4e, Runequest, Everway and Indiegame Whose Name You Likely Forgot (TM) will be hard. And i admit that i don't know what a "genuine" RPG is, but shouldn't it be something totally new and innovative?

Still, will be interesting to watch how this develops.

Walker N. Waistz · May 21, 2012

Kzach said:
I almost feel insulted by it as if they're saying I'm not imaginative or creative if I like playing 4e

Actually, there is a lot of 4E in there. According to that thread Matrix Sorcica linked to, 13th Age''s playtest had healing surges, melee basic attacks, at-will/encounter/daily powers, standardized attack / defense scaling, level tiers, and dragonborn.

So I am pretty sure "let's fix D&D `cuz 4E sucks" is not the motivation here.

Alphastream · May 24, 2012

13th Age is a very cool game. Our group participated in the first playtest and we are now participating in the second round. Two of our group are part of the Going Last podcast and recorded an interview found here.

When playtesting I don't like to share details until a game is released, even when allowed to do so. Much can change.

At a very high level, the icons really are fantastic. I hope the finished product really speaks to that further. Really, reading the icons just filled me with "cool!" the way few RPG books have over the last twenty years. I wanted to play immediately.

Like any game in playtesting, there were things that needed to be worked through. 13th Age has even shared some of them (such as multiclassing), which speaks to how effective playtesting can be and also to the game being improved.

How much we liked 13th Age varied across our group. Some of us really dug what we saw and wanted to really play it a ton. Some of us saw it as being a cool side game we play from time to time. I think all of us would expect it to improve and based upon that would recommend its purchase.

The game really is well suited to story and RP heavier games, but it doesn't require that. While pulling from 4E, it doesn't seek to use a grid and using a battlemat is entirely optional. We didn't (our choice) when playtesting.

For certain, 13th Age has a nice blend of innovation, 4E, and previous editions. It doesn't feel like a clone of D&D Next at all (though I of course can't state the reasons). It has its own approach at blending editions and this may appeal to different gamers for different reasons.

Bottom line: I find tons to like with this game and I recommend that gamers check it out. This is likely to be a very cool game. Jonathan Tweet and Rob Heinsoo should be really proud of what they have done here.

Jonathan Tweet talks "13th Age"

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

Transformer

Explorer

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

fjw70

Adventurer

Gold Roger

First Post

Plane Sailing

Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!

john112364

First Post

Keefe the Thief

Adventurer

Walker N. Waistz

First Post

Alphastream

Adventurer

Similar Threads