My Review of 13th Age

[Imaro]

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

Then by all means explain it to me. I take worldbuilding to mean the constructing of a portion of the actual game world... Like the example OUT I used where I created history, an NPC and established that reincarnation was possible in the game world... what do you mean by worldbuilding?

 

[Balesir]

Then by all means explain it to me. I take worldbuilding to mean the constructing of a portion of the actual game world... Like the example OUT I used where I created history, an NPC and established that reincarnation was possible in the game world... what do you mean by worldbuilding?

Heh - now we're crossing over posts horribly. I just added some more to my last post (after your first edit) on this.

With your second edit, I think you're reaching a bit. The GM can ignore the Icon relationship rolls, but by the same token could ignore the OUT, the background details or even ignore the player completely. That's not realistically likely to happen, though.

 

[Imaro]

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.

The GM creates the Icons. And I would also say that he doesn't have to create specific Icons, in the same way no set location is guaranteed to exist, when creating his own setting.

Emphasis Mine: But this isn't a part of 13th Age. If you run the game like that more power to you and if this was a part of the actual rules I wouldn't be disagreeing with you, but it's not. It's something you've chosen due to your particular play style, which is cool but it's not a part of 13th Age.

- 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!

Thank you for the definition, and while I agree with portions of the above my biggest point of disagreement is that IMO, simply making a decision and seeing what happens is not what I would classify as world building... interacting, yes... building, no. I take this stance because if true then everything is wordbuilding... and the definition is so broad that it ultimately doesn't mean much.

I mean taking your definition above as a guideline...

Let's say the DM puts a trap with a poison needle in a dungeon, then a rogue tries to pick the lock and gets pricked resulting in his death... Hey the rogue just participated in worldbuilding because he discovered that if there's a trapped lock(element A) and it goes off while he is picking it(element B)... he might die(revelation about the world). Am I misunderstanding the definition here? If not then what is the difference between building the world and interacting with it?

 

[pemerton]

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).

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).

This makes me think of relationships in Burning Wheel, except with determination of inclusion via dice, rather than a meta-level admonition to the GM to include Relationships in play.

 

[adamc]

Thanks for the explanation. Haven't gotten much of a look at the book, as my teenaged daughter has been devouring it -- she really likes it, FWIW. So, from that point of view, I'm glad I got it.

 

[Balesir]

Sorry for the "pregnant pause" - technical glitch...

Let's say the DM puts a trap with a poison needle in a dungeon, then a rogue tries to pick the lock and gets pricked resulting in his death... Hey the rogue just participated in worldbuilding because he discovered that if there's a trapped lock(element A) and it goes off while he is picking it(element B)... he might die(revelation about the world). Am I misunderstanding the definition here? If not then what is the difference between building the world and interacting with it?

No, I don't think you're misunderstanding, but you are maybe seeing only a part of the picture.

If the above scenario happens, the players may, indeed, have discovered something about the world - that there are poison traps, and they kill! But the chances are good, in my experience, that this will not be new knowledge - it will already be known (or, in poor cases, merely assumed) by those playing. Often, they will be somehow implicit or explicit in the text of the rules. As with exploring the real universe, things can usually only be discovered once - at least by any one group of people - because the second and subsequent times they go there we don't call it "exploration" or "discovery".

Since game worlds are not real but imaginary, any "discovery" is actually "building". Thus, if the GM has decided/discovered/built something in advance, sharing it is not "building" since it's not "discovery" (the discovery had already been made). Likewise, if the player decides some "unique thing" or background for their character, it's "built" as soon as their decision is accepted into the world model - the timing of which relies on the authority allocation parts of the game rules. In 13th Age this is not 100% clear; do the players have carte blanche, or does the GM "vet" every element, and it only becomes "real" in the game world when the GM agrees? For me, it's carte blanche, and that's the basis on which I like 13th Age, but the rules text allow it to play either way.

When the player-defined elements of OUT and background come into contact with the GM's world elements, that is when in-play discoveries that are guided by both GM and player can arise. The role I see Icon relationships playing in this is to constrain the GM to actually include situations where those OUTs and backgrounds are going to come into focus, so that joint discovery about what they mean is possible. That's all. It's not a big deal, in the greater scheme of things, but it means that the player's desires concerning what aspects of the universe they want to prod and poke at to see what comes out have mechanical support (and, perhaps more to the point, mechanical memory prods) that the GM is directed to use.

 

[Imaro]

If the above scenario happens, the players may, indeed, have discovered something about the world - that there are poison traps, and they kill! But the chances are good, in my experience, that this will not be new knowledge - it will already be known (or, in poor cases, merely assumed) by those playing. Often, they will be somehow implicit or explicit in the text of the rules. As with exploring the real universe, things can usually only be discovered once - at least by any one group of people - because the second and subsequent times they go there we don't call it "exploration" or "discovery".

The poison trap was just a simple example, the details of which (like whether this knowledge is assumed or not) aren't important when looking at the wider statement about world building. I disagree with your classifying exploration with discovery. I agree something can (possibly) only be discovered once... but exploration of a particular thing can extend beyond the first time it is discovered.

Since game worlds are not real but imaginary, any "discovery" is actually "building". Thus, if the GM has decided/discovered/built something in advance, sharing it is not "building" since it's not "discovery" (the discovery had already been made). Likewise, if the player decides some "unique thing" or background for their character, it's "built" as soon as their decision is accepted into the world model - the timing of which relies on the authority allocation parts of the game rules. In 13th Age this is not 100% clear; do the players have carte blanche, or does the GM "vet" every element, and it only becomes "real" in the game world when the GM agrees? For me, it's carte blanche, and that's the basis on which I like 13th Age, but the rules text allow it to play either way.

I pretty much agree with your statement here and feel like this supports my earlier statements about both backgrounds and OUT's. I also think that 13th Age encourages the DM to give the players carte blanch with OUT's (as long as the player doesn't expect a mechanical bonus or effect in the game because of it)... while leaning towards vet power in the case of backgrounds (IMO because they, unlike OUT's have concrete mechanical in-game effects). I like the different approach to these two character components and it suits my preferred play style very well.

When the player-defined elements of OUT and background come into contact with the GM's world elements, that is when in-play discoveries that are guided by both GM and player can arise. The role I see Icon relationships playing in this is to constrain the GM to actually include situations where those OUTs and backgrounds are going to come into focus, so that joint discovery about what they mean is possible. That's all. It's not a big deal, in the greater scheme of things, but it means that the player's desires concerning what aspects of the universe they want to prod and poke at to see what comes out have mechanical support (and, perhaps more to the point, mechanical memory prods) that the GM is directed to use.

...and here is where I disagree. I don't see the role of Icon relationships being meant to constrain the GM to actually include situations where the OUT's and backgrounds are going to come into focus. IMO, they are totally separate game devices that have the potential to come into sync but were not purposefully built to do so.

I feel like the problem with your view on Icons is that it pre-supposes that a player will select OUT's and backgrounds that are in some way related to the Icons... but that is an assumption that nothing in the actual 13th age game forces or even influences a player to do. Can a players backgrounds/OUT be centered around an Icon... sure but they can just as easily have nothing to do with the Icons at all.

The Icon relationships, IMO, are a tool for a player to say hey I want situations and hooks that center around these things and a tool for the DM to fairly(randomly) determine whose favorite hooks or situations will get screen time in this particular adventure.

 

[Balesir]

I agree something can (possibly) only be discovered once... but exploration of a particular thing can extend beyond the first time it is discovered.

Sure you can explore around something that has already been "discovered", but the fact of you exploring presupposes some expectation that you will discover something new that might be connected with the thing you are exploring around, doesn't it? I mean, the exchange

"What are you doing?"
"Exploring."
"Oh - are you expecting to find something new and exciting?"
"Nope. Just the same stuff I saw before."

Doesn't seem to make much sense, to me.

I feel like the problem with your view on Icons is that it pre-supposes that a player will select OUT's and backgrounds that are in some way related to the Icons... but that is an assumption that nothing in the actual 13th age game forces or even influences a player to do. Can a players backgrounds/OUT be centered around an Icon... sure but they can just as easily have nothing to do with the Icons at all.

You're probably right, here - I was just projecting the way I would use the system if I were playing the game - and the way I hope the players will use the system when I run the game - as the intention of the designers.

You could certainly just create unconnected flavour as your OUT and Icon-neutral ties for your backgrounds. I would just interpret that as the player not wanting to commit to connections with the game world; a shying-away from engagement and involvement, essentially. Possibly that could be unfair, but it would be my feeling about the choices at a gut level.

The Icon relationships, IMO, are a tool for a player to say hey I want situations and hooks that center around these things and a tool for the DM to fairly(randomly) determine whose favorite hooks or situations will get screen time in this particular adventure.

And here you seem to make my argument for me in simpler, cleaner terms than I have managed.

Player chooses Icons for favourite hooks and situations to be involved in game play --> those hooks and situations being stochastically triggered in game play. If characters can choose - albeit in an indirect way - what fiction elements will (randomly) crop up in the adventures played, are they not having influence on the build of the campaign?

Maybe it's a difference of view about what the "game world" is. For me, it really only includes what is used in play. If the map has a place called the "Isle of Brass", but the characters never go there, and it's never mentioned in play, then as far as I'm concerned the "Isle of Brass" never really existed in that game world. Unless it enters the Shared Imagined Space, it's just vapourware. If it was brought up as a potential place to visit, but the visit never happened, then the Isle exists but has no real detail. This is the sense of "influence over world building" you metioned before.

 

[Imaro]

Sure you can explore around something that has already been "discovered", but the fact of you exploring presupposes some expectation that you will discover something new that might be connected with the thing you are exploring around, doesn't it? I mean, the exchange

"What are you doing?"
"Exploring."
"Oh - are you expecting to find something new and exciting?"
"Nope. Just the same stuff I saw before."

Doesn't seem to make much sense, to me.

It doesn't make sense to me either... however that's because it pre-supposes that discovering something precludes deeper exploration of that discovery. Going back to the trap example, I have discovered a trap... but there are a multitude of things to explore within that discovery... What type of mechanism does it use? what type of poison is used? can I replicate either of those? If not, where can I find someone who can? An even easier example is a dungeon... does discovering a particular dungeon preclude exploration of it? No, to claim otherwise is absurd.

You're probably right, here - I was just projecting the way I would use the system if I were playing the game - and the way I hope the players will use the system when I run the game - as the intention of the designers.

And the thing is I don't believe it is the intention of the designers.

You could certainly just create unconnected flavour as your OUT and Icon-neutral ties for your backgrounds. I would just interpret that as the player not wanting to commit to connections with the game world; a shying-away from engagement and involvement, essentially. Possibly that could be unfair, but it would be my feeling about the choices at a gut level.

I guess we would view this differently then... In the module "Crown of the Lich King" the designer's state that having once been an animal was one of the most popular OUT's that playtesters chose. See for me getting to pick a single unique thing about my PC and then having the DM force me to choose something connected to the Icons when it is my chance to actually add something to the world (as opposed to derive my OUT from something that has already been established in the world) is being unnecessarily restrictive... it's akin to railroading me during part of character creation. It also sets up a higher likely hood that my unique thing isn't all that unique since another player could favor one/some or all of the Icons I do. Personally I don't think a character's One Unique Thing should be about tying him or her to the game world, it's an unnecessary restriction on the one thing they can use unbridled creativity to create... Buy in to the world is what the Icon mechanics are for... that's what the relationship points a player chooses to distribute establishes... so yeah I think your assumptions are off.

And here you seem to make my argument for me in simpler, cleaner terms than I have managed.

Player chooses Icons for favourite hooks and situations to be involved in game play --> those hooks and situations being stochastically triggered in game play. If characters can choose - albeit in an indirect way - what fiction elements will (randomly) crop up in the adventures played, are they not having influence on the build of the campaign?

He's not choosing the fiction elements... the player has no idea what the actual fiction elements will be. He knows who amongst the Icons they will be related too (and even in this he has no idea of how or why they will relate to the Icons) but the player isn't choosing any specific fiction elements to be included. I also note that the wording has changed from "world" to "campaign"... This is a totally different thing and if a choice like this is part of campaign building then so is the choice to go to one adventuring locale over another... or to interact with one NPC vs. another. Again this seems so broad as to be, for all practical purposes, pointless.

Maybe it's a difference of view about what the "game world" is. For me, it really only includes what is used in play. If the map has a place called the "Isle of Brass", but the characters never go there, and it's never mentioned in play, then as far as I'm concerned the "Isle of Brass" never really existed in that game world. Unless it enters the Shared Imagined Space, it's just vapourware. If it was brought up as a potential place to visit, but the visit never happened, then the Isle exists but has no real detail. This is the sense of "influence over world building" you metioned before.

I don't think this is where the disagreement is happening at all... as I stated above, the disagreement seems to be happening because you have adopted a definition of world building that is so broad that it is practically meaningless and encompasses nearly any decision the players could make in the course of the game. According to your definition the players helped "world build" the "Isle of Brass" just by simply choosing to go there... regardless of the fact that the DM created every piece of fiction surrounding the place. I see that definition of world building as meaningless for discussion and would hazard a guess that it's not what most people associate the term world building with.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Seriously you two...get a room

Thanks for the review. On reading the book through I too loved the idea of putting some of the story into the system (and to some extent the players' hands).

One thing that needs pointing out is that it seems most of the reaal crunchy stuff is on the players' hands. Classes have a multitude of different powers, stacks of different combos, ways to enhance and use those powers. And then the cool 'recharge' mechanics without having to roll another dice. Don't fret if you love the crunch of 3E & 4E PCs - the classes have this in multitude - it is just that other areas of your PC are more story-oriented. Something that I did notice, was the lack of racial powers. (1 4E-style power for each). I reckon I would at least provide a choice for some of my races, but at least it makes adding races VERY easy.

Mechanics on the DMs side have been simplified (a little too much in my mind). I still like seeing things like how strong, perceptive, smart monsters are. Of whether they have special perception powers or are skilled in specific areas. I guess it is easy to make on the spot calls here, but if I am to DM, I will be adding in (and looking to other editions) basic stats/skills/inate abilities. Like 4E though, the monster powers/attacks are ver good.

Anyway, it looks like a GREAT framework for your average DnD game...and it encourages you to borrow/adapt/steal to improve your game. Along with some ideas from DnDNext (such as Advantage/Disadvantage), it would be my choice of DnD...if I were playing any right now