My Review of 13th Age

[JeffB]

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

 

[Morrus]

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

You say that like it's a bad thing.

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

 

[JeffB]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

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

I understand your point Russ.

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

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

 

[Imaro]

I understand your point Russ.

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

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

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

 

[Balesir]

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

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

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

If that's stating an overinflated and immoderate viewpoint, then mea culpa. Sheesh.

 

[Imaro]

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

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

If that's stating an overinflated and immoderate viewpoint, then mea culpa. Sheesh.

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

 

[Imaro]

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

 

[Balesir]

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

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

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

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

 

[Manbearcat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pog]

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