My Review of 13th Age

[Connorsrpg]

Ooh. And regarding the icons...if you want smaller scale styled games (I often do) I reckon that mechanic/idea would adapt well to local rulers and affiliations to organisations, religions, etc.

 

[pemerton]

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 can see the logic of that.

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

I don't quite get this.

My understading is that the One Unique Thing is not characterised in mechanical terms - it's purely fiction. But if it doesn't tie a PC to the gameworld in some fashion, then what is the point of the fiction? It would seem like mere colour.

 

[Imaro]

I don't quite get this.

My understading is that the One Unique Thing is not characterised in mechanical terms - it's purely fiction. But if it doesn't tie a PC to the gameworld in some fashion, then what is the point of the fiction? It would seem like mere colour.

It allows the PC's to generate facts (world build) around their PC's and/or the game world. It can tie the PC to the gameworld, but my OUT could just as easily be something like... "I am a Man out of Time from the planet Earth"... this doesn't intrinsically tie me to the gameworld but it does set up some facts about the gameworld (Such as the fact that travel from earth to the Dragon Empire is possible). The OUT doesn't have a defined mechanical effect upon the game, here's an excerpt on exactly what it is from the book...

...The intent is not to create a new ability or power that will help you in combat; your character class already comes loaded with firepower and combat moves. The intent is to hint at a unique story that you and the GM will take advantage of and learn more about in the course of the campaign...Good one unique things ("uniques") frequently provide clues to how your character engages with the people, places, and things of the game world...

The section then goes on to state that OUT's...
1.) Give no combat bonuses and no combat powers
2.) Can have story effects (This is left up to the player and the GM to work together to create, but no mechanic forces the DM to bring it into his adventures)
3.) Can suggest hints of power (whether these hints are realized is again a thing to be worked out between player and DM)
4.) Provide campaign pivots (Of course which if any OUT's the campaign will pivot on is decided by the DM)
5.) Can grow (OUT's can change, evolve and/or dissappear)
6.) Are art not science (OUT's dance on the line between solid rules and improvisational storytelling).

Finally this is what the actual book has to say about OUT's and Icons...

Quite often your one unique thing will suggest backgrounds and icon relationships that you'll be choosing in the next stages of character creation. That's fine. It makes perfect sense for a character whose unique is that they are a bastard child of the Emperor to have an icon relationship with the emperor and some sort of background related to their history around the Imperial Court or wherever they lived in exile. But you don't have to work for this type of link, and don't force it if it's not what you want.

So my view on OUT's is that they give players the ability to create a fact about their character and through that fact also truths about the game world itself... however there are no defined rules for the mechanical effect that a player's particular OUT will have, there is a limitation of it having no combat applicability but beyond that this is something which is supposed to be worked out between the player and the DM (with it strongly implied that the DM is the final arbitrator as to actual effect). It also explicitly states that OUT's do not have to be tied to an icon.

I hope this cleared up whatever it was you didn't understand, though I am getting the feeling that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] and (possibly)yourself are looking for a much less traditional relationship (in the area of OUT's) than 13th Age gives, in that you want mechanics for a player to be able to mechanically define his OUT and force the DM to bring his OUT into play. I on the other hand don't want that. I enjoy this set up of negotiation between player and DM, with the DM having the final say, it is a much more traditional set up and is more conducive to my groups play style. Now as Balesir suggested you could force every player to center his OUT around an icon and then use the icon dice to "force" the DM to bring them into play... but that's not how the game is actually set up to be run and is more akin to a houserule.

 

[Imaro]

Ooh. And regarding the icons...if you want smaller scale styled games (I often do) I reckon that mechanic/idea would adapt well to local rulers and affiliations to organisations, religions, etc.

I can't remember where it is now (I will search for it later and try to post a link)... but I remember seeing a write up that adapted the NPC's and organizations of the 4e Neverwinter Campaign book into icons for 13th Age, and they were all on a local city level (except, I believe, for the Lords of Waterdeep). I think the icons are pretty mutable and really are a way for the DM to declare what the different areas are that he wishes to explore in whatever setting he is using and giving the players the opportunity to essentially "vote" for which they would like to explore most.

 

[pemerton]

It allows the PC's to generate facts (world build) around their PC's and/or the game world. It can tie the PC to the gameworld, but my OUT could just as easily be something like... "I am a Man out of Time from the planet Earth"... this doesn't intrinsically tie me to the gameworld but it does set up some facts about the gameworld (Such as the fact that travel from earth to the Dragon Empire is possible).

<snip>

So my view on OUT's is that they give players the ability to create a fact about their character and through that fact also truths about the game world itself

For me, that pretty much is tying the PC to the gameworld. We must mean different things by that phrase.

 

[Imaro]

For me, that pretty much is tying the PC to the gameworld. We must mean different things by that phrase.

I look at it as tying the PC to the campaign (if the DM chooses to bring the OUT into the picture, otherwise it doesn't tie them to anything) which I view in a different light from the actual game world proper which in my mind the default for 13th Age is the setting of the Dragon Empire... I'm curious how you would say my previous example (I am a man out of time from the planet earth) actually ties them to the game world as opposed to the campaign (again if the DM decides to incorporate it in some way)?

I guess it's the difference in my mind of a campaign vs. a world, IMO these are different things. IMO, a campaign is a linked series of adventures or episodes of game play... the game world is the imaginary physical setting that a campaign takes place on or in. A PC can be linked to one and not the other.

 

[Balesir]

Now as Balesir suggested you could force every player to center his OUT around an icon and then use the icon dice to "force" the DM to bring them into play... but that's not how the game is actually set up to be run and is more akin to a houserule.

I didn't mean to suggest (nor do I think I said) that players would or should be forced to link OUTs to Icon relationships. I just said it's what I would tend to do as a player, and I would be disappointed if players I GM for didn't do the same. "I was once an animal" is very cute and fluffy (although it might also be leveraged into an attempt to gain kewl powers, like superhuman sense of smell, etc.), but it doesn't really say all that much about the character's aims and ambitions, nor about their place in the society of the world (except to say "outsider").

I'm curious how you would say my previous example (I am a man out of time from the planet earth) actually ties them to the game world as opposed to the campaign (again if the DM decides to incorporate it in some way)?

Well, it defines the character's relationship to the world pretty much as "the place I'm trapped and don't know much about".

I guess it's the difference in my mind of a campaign vs. a world, IMO these are different things. IMO, a campaign is a linked series of adventures or episodes of game play... the game world is the imaginary physical setting that a campaign takes place on or in. A PC can be linked to one and not the other.

Hmm. I don't really see the difference, I admit. The "game world" doesn't exist except in the minds of those playing. It and the campaign currently being played are pretty much interlinked, together with the players whose imaginations the world exists in. Sometimes this extends beyond a single game group; some p-Hârns (parallel versions of Hârn), for example, are shared online accross many people. But that seems to me to be just an example of an "uber-campaign".

Beyond this, all game worlds are p-worlds; each just one instance of all the possible p-worlds out there. Some are similar to each other, others aren't. Each is a fragile flower that lasts only so long as the players' imaginations are focussed on it.

 

[Imaro]

I didn't mean to suggest (nor do I think I said) that players would or should be forced to link OUTs to Icon relationships. I just said it's what I would tend to do as a player, and I would be disappointed if players I GM for didn't do the same. "I was once an animal" is very cute and fluffy (although it might also be leveraged into an attempt to gain kewl powers, like superhuman sense of smell, etc.), but it doesn't really say all that much about the character's aims and ambitions, nor about their place in the society of the world (except to say "outsider").

That's because it's not necessarily supposed to... however it does fit the definition of a "good" OUT in the book that I quoted... Here I'll quote it again...

Good one unique things ("uniques") frequently provide clues to how your character engages with the people, places, and things of the game world...

If you were a dog that became human this is definitely going to color how your character engages with the people, places and things of the game world. You seem to have set up your own standard for what OUT's should do and be... but that standard isn't really supported by the book... which was my original point.

Well, it defines the character's relationship to the world pretty much as "the place I'm trapped and don't know much about".

Who said he was trapped? And who said he doesn't know much about the 13th Age world (what if he read the role-playing game while on earth? ). You're assuming things that aren't implicit in the statement, these are the things that the player and DM are supposed to work together on through discussion and exploration in the campaign.

Hmm. I don't really see the difference, I admit. The "game world" doesn't exist except in the minds of those playing. It and the campaign currently being played are pretty much interlinked, together with the players whose imaginations the world exists in. Sometimes this extends beyond a single game group; some p-Hârns (parallel versions of Hârn), for example, are shared online accross many people. But that seems to me to be just an example of an "uber-campaign".

Okay first off, a game world can exist outside of the minds of those playing. I may not be playing in a FR game but I know certain official facts about the current iteration of Toril. Campaign and world are interlinked, but not the same thing. In my mind an example of an "uber-campaign" would be one where the play experiences, not just the game world setting are the same (or as similar as possible given the fact that it is still run by a human) and the outcomes influence everyone's game. IMO, encounters is a prime example of this... various groups played through the same adventures each week which in turn led to the same outcomes (unless they failed). I would not say different groups playing different adventures in different parts of Golarion are playing in the same campaign or even in a connected campaign... only in the same world. If you don't get the distinction I'm not sure how else to explain it though, and we may just have to chalk it up to a lost cause... especially since it is tangential at best to my original point about OUT's, backgrounds and Icons.

Beyond this, all game worlds are p-worlds; each just one instance of all the possible p-worlds out there. Some are similar to each other, others aren't. Each is a fragile flower that lasts only so long as the players' imaginations are focussed on it.

Uhm... again I disagree. There are official versions of certain game worlds... and they exist in written form, as well as in a form that is experienced outside of gaming and it's participants imagination(through fiction). There isn't a campaign that exists in this way since actually playing through a series of linked adventures is what defines a campaign.

 

[Balesir]

That's because it's not necessarily supposed to... however it does fit the definition of a "good" OUT in the book that I quoted... Here I'll quote it again...

The book is written to be - I assume deliberately - flexible, and I think that's a good thing. But I note that seven out of ten example OUTs have explicit Icon links, and two of those that don't are specifically listed as "Seemingly Innocuous" uniques that might be chosen by those not yet comfortable with being ambitious with such attributes and letting their "unique flag fly free".

Who said he was trapped?

No one, but if he were free to leave at any time it would seem to be potentially rather disruptive to the game. Especially if he could come back - with or without technological gear.

And who said he doesn't know much about the 13th Age world (what if he read the role-playing game while on earth? ).

Reading the RPG isn't going to tell the character anywhere near as much about the world as a character who has lived there all their life would know. Relatively speaking, he'll be ignorant, unless he arrived there as a child and grew up there.

You're assuming things that aren't implicit in the statement, these are the things that the player and DM are supposed to work together on through discussion and exploration in the campaign.

I don't think I'm assuming any more than follows logically, but I certainly agree that it's up for negotiation and discussion. And having it there for exploration is the point of it.

Okay first off, a game world can exist outside of the minds of those playing. I may not be playing in a FR game but I know certain official facts about the current iteration of Toril. Campaign and world are interlinked, but not the same thing.

Ah, OK - you are talking about sources of ideas and descriptions of game worlds. I view those as potential sources of inspiration, ideas and suggestions, and in the best cases they can be taken more-or-less whole cloth and used to communicate baseline proposals about the world. As such they can be very useful. But they are not the game world. That is the thing that gets generated when play happens.

In my mind an example of an "uber-campaign" would be one where the play experiences, not just the game world setting are the same (or as similar as possible given the fact that it is still run by a human) and the outcomes influence everyone's game. IMO, encounters is a prime example of this... various groups played through the same adventures each week which in turn led to the same outcomes (unless they failed).

Hmm, kinda, but organised play makes a very strange "reality" for a campaign. A place where several people all interact with the same situation - not serially so that the later group encounter the results of the first group's interaction, but they actually interact with the exact same situation - is a very hard setting to make sense of in one's mind. Nevertheless, people do it.

I was rather thinking of online exchanges where world building and character play are used interchangeably to explore (i.e. build) a version of a game world as an ongoing shared fiction.

I would not say different groups playing different adventures in different parts of Golarion are playing in the same campaign or even in a connected campaign... only in the same world.

I definitely see those versions of Golarion as separate (but similar) worlds. They will almost certainly have different NPCs, different adventure sites and very likely a different history in the details. Take the example where a GM places a dungeon in a particular place. Immediately the worlds are different and, assuming the dungeon did not spring up overnight, they have a different history. They are similar worlds - you might call them "parallel worlds" - but they are not the same world, in my book.

Uhm... again I disagree. There are official versions of certain game worlds... and they exist in written form, as well as in a form that is experienced outside of gaming and it's participants imagination(through fiction). There isn't a campaign that exists in this way since actually playing through a series of linked adventures is what defines a campaign.

Again, these are, to me, different worlds. Unless you are going to strictly enforce that every detail in every book happens exactly as written, with no deviation, at the same time and in the same place as the players characters are living (which I can't see as being easily practical, never mind anything else), then the written material is just as I said above - easily communicated source material, nothing more. The real 'life' of the world will happen when you actually take those shared starting assumptions and play the game. At which point the world stops being a potentiality and becomes a new, living world. Until play stops.

 

[Imaro]

The book is written to be - I assume deliberately - flexible, and I think that's a good thing. But I note that seven out of ten example OUTs have explicit Icon links, and two of those that don't are specifically listed as "Seemingly Innocuous" uniques that might be chosen by those not yet comfortable with being ambitious with such attributes and letting their "unique flag fly free".

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.

EDIT: As to the rest well I guess our definitions of campaign and world are just different and I'll leave it at that.