My Review of 13th Age

[Imaro]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ahnehnois]

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

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

Either that or it's just common sense gaming.

 

[Balesir]

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

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

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

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

I may try the following: each time a background is used, it gains a cumulative -1 until the next long rest. Any background, of any value, may, however, be used to give an ad hoc +1 to any roll to which it might apply without counting as a "use" for the purposes of this rule.

 

[Imaro]

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

Either that or it's just common sense gaming.

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

 

[Imaro]

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

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

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

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

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

I may try the following: each time a background is used, it gains a cumulative -1 until the next long rest. Any background, of any value, may, however, be used to give an ad hoc +1 to any roll to which it might apply without counting as a "use" for the purposes of this rule.

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

 

[Balesir]

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

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

The chance of the Icons chosen by the players being a factor in a scenario is one in three per point invested, with three points invested per player (at level 1). With four players, the chance that none of their Icon relationships will figure in any given scenario is slightly under 0.8%. If the GM has a preset, inviolable plan that isn't going to include focus on any but his or her chosen Icons, this simply isn't gonna work. What the players choose as "their Icons" simply will crop up as "factors". Thus their choices affect the theme and focus of play. They don't determine the theme or focus - but that's not neccessary or even desirable, any more than the GM determining these things alone is desirable or required. They just have a set, mechanical influence that is stochastically applied (by rolling dice).

 

[Imaro]

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

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

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

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

The chance of the Icons chosen by the players being a factor in a scenario is one in three per point invested, with three points invested per player (at level 1). With four players, the chance that none of their Icon relationships will figure in any given scenario is slightly under 0.8%. If the GM has a preset, inviolable plan that isn't going to include focus on any but his or her chosen Icons, this simply isn't gonna work. What the players choose as "their Icons" simply will crop up as "factors". Thus their choices affect the theme and focus of play. They don't determine the theme or focus - but that's not neccessary or even desirable, any more than the GM determining these things alone is desirable or required. They just have a set, mechanical influence that is stochastically applied (by rolling dice).

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

 

[Balesir]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Imaro]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Balesir]

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

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

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

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

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