New 13th Age 'Escalation Edition' Coming Next Year!

There's a new version of 13th Age coming! Pelgrane Press announced at Gen Con that the 13th Age 'Escalated Edition' will be coming to Kickstarter next year. It will be backwards compatible with the current game. They'll be starting a playtest program very soon, which they are inviting game groups to join. 13th Age was released in 2013, designed by Rob Heinsoo (D&D 4E) and Jonathan Tweet (D&D...

There's a new version of 13th Age coming! Pelgrane Press announced at Gen Con that the 13th Age 'Escalated Edition' will be coming to Kickstarter next year. It will be backwards compatible with the current game. They'll be starting a playtest program very soon, which they are inviting game groups to join.

13th Age was released in 2013, designed by Rob Heinsoo (D&D 4E) and Jonathan Tweet (D&D 3E), and is a 'variant' of D&D.

13a.jpeg
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Weiley31

Legend
So, if its backwards compatible, that means that it should be backwards compatible with all the books in the 13th Age line and 13th Age: Glorantha.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jer

Legend
Supporter
So, if its backwards compatible, that means that it should be backwards compatible with all the books in the 13th Age line and 13th Age: Glorantha.
Right - I suspect that nobody wants to say that all of the old books are useless or require a lot of work to revise to the new edition. Especially the bestiaries, which are probably the most mechanics heavy of the books outside of maybe 13 True Ways.

(Also I don't think the monsters in the bestiaries need to be changed much, though the ones in the core book could probably benefit from the nearly 10 years of design and development that have happened since they were published).
 

I'm torn. I'm a bid fan of the epic, a big believer that PCs should be the HEROES of the story, and lover of all the games that let this happen. 13th Age is a great example of this.

But... well... Rob Heinsoo was... awful to someone I know.... Someone who worked for him. He doesn't deserve my money.
They is really upsetting to hear. Is there more you want to share about that? I understand if not.
 

"New edition of 13th Age"

Perks up

"Backwards compatible"

Perks down
I feel this deserves elaboration.

I'm looking forward to this. I ran a lot of 13th Age at one point and love it, but I also have a medley of minor grievances which ultimately added up to why I don't run the game anymore....which boil down to the following:

Icons - the icon influence needs a cleaner approach that doesn't overwhelm the GM with loads of encumbering improv (maybe a sliding scale of "level of influence" the icons exhibit). The current system can lead to a table full of positive and negative consequences the GM has to deal with, especially overwhelming if you have a big table and lots of lucky die rolls from players. I think almost everyone I know has had to house rule this to keep it under control. (For those who don't know, each PC has a set of favored, neutral or opposed icons who have a stake in their future; at the start of each session you roll dice and see if there's a chance of a positive or negative interaction that may take place during the night's session. This can get messy, fast.)

Languages, Vision - the game de-emphasizes the need for rules on vision and variable languages, leaving this to the adjudication of the game table. However, this stuff is easier to include and then let people ignore it than it is to leave it out and force people to make stuff up and add it back in. For me, knowing how well a given character can see in the dark and what languages they know have always been pretty important to my games. Providing scaled levels of rules support would be welcome.

One Unique Thing - more guidance on this would be helpful; although I didn't generally ever see issue with it, it was not uncommon for players to find weird ways to abuse the concept.

Skills - The free-form skill system is fine, but its the kind of skill system made by someone who doesn't want skills in the game and I am not that person, so a bit more structure would be welcome. I suspect it won't change, though, but that's not a deal breaker; I'd just be happy even with a sample skill list for GMs who want narrative consistency or players who lack imagination/make poor choices.

Ability Descriptors - In the current edition a lot of powers have zero ability descriptors. Even D&D 4E, the spiritual predecessor to 13th Age, included some sort of descriptive text. I know the idea in 13th Age is for players to make it up, but I encountered many gamers at my table for whom that was a more difficult task than it needed to be, and even some modest descriptors of what an ability or spell might look like in use would have helped them out.

In terms of backwards compatibility I take that to mean that Pelgrane Press does not likely want to monkey with the core mechanical chassis of the game, and also does not want to invalidate all their unsold back catalog of books. This is fine, totally fine. It could be a new edition in the same way AD&D 1st edition upgraded to AD&D 2nd Edition while remaining backwards compatible, and I think that would be totally cool.
 


grankless

Adventurer
Not really sure how else I'm meant to read this besides "there is some merit to scientific racism but not too much of it". There's a reason there was so much backlash: because it looks insanely racist to say.

This doesn't even necessarily mean that he hates other races or that he's a bigot. It just means he's kind of a weirdo who has very unsettling opinions that are indicative of a broader mindset.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
Not really sure how else I'm meant to read this besides "there is some merit to scientific racism but not too much of it". There's a reason there was so much backlash: because it looks insanely racist to say.

This doesn't even necessarily mean that he hates other races or that he's a bigot. It just means he's kind of a weirdo who has very unsettling opinions that are indicative of a broader mindset.
Sigh. I posted the links above. You’re free to read them if you’re interested in anything more than knee-jerk hot takes of a tweet from a Tweet.

His “unsettling opinions” are literally him just reporting nuanced scientific facts.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
Not really sure how else I'm meant to read this besides "there is some merit to scientific racism but not too much of it". There's a reason there was so much backlash: because it looks insanely racist to say.

This doesn't even necessarily mean that he hates other races or that he's a bigot. It just means he's kind of a weirdo who has very unsettling opinions that are indicative of a broader mindset.
There is a difference between "race science" and "scientific racism". More importantly, the tweet you posted IS poorly worded, but not racist or supporting of racism. And, as @overgeeked points out, if you take the time to read a more detailed explanation of Tweet's views (heh, rather than his tweets), you'll find he's far from racist . . . just likes to be loud when proving how smart he is, and wording it terribly so as to gain an unfair reputation.
 


p_johnston

Adventurer
i'm sure there's a very interesting essay you can write about the different kinds of racism
Refusing to acknowledge new scientific facts and studies because they conflict with a pre existing worldview isn't how the way to make the world a better more inclusive place.
In fact if you would even browse the essay linked you'd see Tweet making the point that doing so actually gives more credence to racists because then when they claim that people are "lieing/not reporting the facts" they are partially correct which ends up giving more weight to their arguments.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top