What ideas from 13th Age are people using for dnd?
- Thread starter Pog
- Start date
Evenglare
Adventurer
No , its just a suggestion of saying something like if you fail a check the next encounters will be harder/more difficult in some way, of course you don't HAVE to use that rule. They just don't want you to ... say... fail a lock pick skill check then bring the game to a grinding halt figuring out how to get past a door. It's more of a "you try for a long time to pick the lock and the enemies beyond are alerted to your presence and are ready for you when you get through".
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
It's basically the idea that if the game will get derailed, or there's more drama to be had from a complication, than you say they "succeed" at their task (asking for help, unlocking the door, etc.), but something else happens to complicate things (to make the game progress, and make things more interesting). At least, from my understanding of it. As always, play what you like
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Yeah, personally I think a better way to play that is to not put bottlenecks in your adventures to begin with.
If the only way to progress the game is to make that check to get through that door,then you've already taken player choice too far out of the equation for me. What if I want to break down the door with an axe? What if I want to disintegrate it? What if I want to dump some of this acid our party alchemist made on it? What if I don't even want to go through the door? What if I want to go down the other passageway, or through a different dungeon, or maybe just goof off in a tavern for the night? Why am I even rolling if my character's skill is irrelevant to the plot? Why am I even here at the table if the story is going to be told regardless of what my character can do?
For me, taking choice like that out of the game makes it feel not enough like a GAME to me.
I think there's a place for it, but not really at my tables, personally.
If the only way to progress the game is to make that check to get through that door,then you've already taken player choice too far out of the equation for me. What if I want to break down the door with an axe? What if I want to disintegrate it? What if I want to dump some of this acid our party alchemist made on it? What if I don't even want to go through the door? What if I want to go down the other passageway, or through a different dungeon, or maybe just goof off in a tavern for the night? Why am I even rolling if my character's skill is irrelevant to the plot? Why am I even here at the table if the story is going to be told regardless of what my character can do?
For me, taking choice like that out of the game makes it feel not enough like a GAME to me.
I think there's a place for it, but not really at my tables, personally.
Dragonblade
Adventurer
Fail Forward doesn't mean you always succeed. Its basically a recommendation that for checks where a total failure of a check would be anti-climactic or dramatically inappropriate given the situation, the GM is encouraged to change the results of a check from a binary pass or fail, to a pass without complication vs. pass with complications. So the roll itself is still meaningful to the player and the game. While the actual check may not kill you, the complication introduced by it certainly could.
So far example, in the Fail Forward model, lets say Luke Skywalker failed his roll to swing across the cavern with the princess. Instead of falling to his death and pretty much derailing the whole adventure, the GM still rules he makes it across, but suddenly more storm troopers spill out of a side passage, or he drops his blaster on the way across. Something like that.
13th Age is all about cool story, and drama. If you are a diehard simulationist who believes PCs should literally live or die by random rolls of the dice, then 13th Age is not for you. DCC is probably more your style.
The Escalation Die similarly promotes drama and cinematic combat. Starting in round 2, every PC gains a cumulative plus one to hit, up to plus 6 in round 7, if the combat lasts that long. This bonus is represented by the die the DM keeps in the middle of the table for all the players to see. Some monster abilities and attacks also key off the die. The idea isn't that armor becomes worthless as a combat goes. The idea is that as the fight goes on, the PC's begin to see fatigue, weaknesses, and openings in their opponents that they can exploit. It also encourages PCs to save their bigger attacks and spells for later in the combat when its more dramatically appropriate to use them. As opposed to going nova in round 1 and then grinding out the rest of the fight with lesser attacks as frequently happens in D&D.
Personally, I love 13th Age. Its a freaking amazing game. For me, it feels like all the best of 1e, 3e, and 4e. But if you like rules as physics, and things like 4e nixing the double counting of diagonal squares (13th Age is gridless, but its very gamist in its combat rules), or monsters built differently than PCs gets your dander up, then 13th Age is probably not for you. You should stick with [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] for that kind of game.
So far example, in the Fail Forward model, lets say Luke Skywalker failed his roll to swing across the cavern with the princess. Instead of falling to his death and pretty much derailing the whole adventure, the GM still rules he makes it across, but suddenly more storm troopers spill out of a side passage, or he drops his blaster on the way across. Something like that.
13th Age is all about cool story, and drama. If you are a diehard simulationist who believes PCs should literally live or die by random rolls of the dice, then 13th Age is not for you. DCC is probably more your style.
The Escalation Die similarly promotes drama and cinematic combat. Starting in round 2, every PC gains a cumulative plus one to hit, up to plus 6 in round 7, if the combat lasts that long. This bonus is represented by the die the DM keeps in the middle of the table for all the players to see. Some monster abilities and attacks also key off the die. The idea isn't that armor becomes worthless as a combat goes. The idea is that as the fight goes on, the PC's begin to see fatigue, weaknesses, and openings in their opponents that they can exploit. It also encourages PCs to save their bigger attacks and spells for later in the combat when its more dramatically appropriate to use them. As opposed to going nova in round 1 and then grinding out the rest of the fight with lesser attacks as frequently happens in D&D.
Personally, I love 13th Age. Its a freaking amazing game. For me, it feels like all the best of 1e, 3e, and 4e. But if you like rules as physics, and things like 4e nixing the double counting of diagonal squares (13th Age is gridless, but its very gamist in its combat rules), or monsters built differently than PCs gets your dander up, then 13th Age is probably not for you. You should stick with [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] for that kind of game.
Last edited:
Dragonblade
Adventurer
To answer the OP's question, I use the Escalation Die and Fail Forward in my 4e/[notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] game, and both have worked out really well and been a huge hit with my players.
Cool; I think 13th Age is a great repository of ideas, whether or not people play the game as it or if they lift for their own favoured system. Icons are also quite cool, I'm trying out reflavouring mine using dnd names - Orcus, Tiamat etc
i also like making magic items super special
i also like making magic items super special
FireLance
Legend
I was using an escalation mechanic in my 4e games before 13th Age was even announced! 
Aldarc
Legend
Backgrounds: I decided to strip 3.5/PF classes of class skills and convinced my group about using 13th Age-style backgrounds instead. Despite their reluctance (mostly rooted in a fear of change), they also liked the narrative focus of backgrounds, which allowed them to sculpt their characters closer to their conceptions. The result has been some creative uses of backgrounds for "skill checks" and the group has had a blast with them.
Imaro
Legend
I'm not running a D&D 4e or Pathfinder game right now (playing a non-D&D game at the moment), and will probably be running 13th Age once I do start another d20 based campaign, but there are two things I would incorporate into my D&D/PF games.
The first would be the Icons, I think these (with personalization by the GM depending on the exact setting) are a great way of getting buy in to a setting without the players having to initially know alot about the setting. I think it also promotes more interest and a greater investment in the setting because the relationships they have with Icons have real mechanical in-game effects that are brought to the forefront if either of the options to roll relationship dice either right before the game session starts or right after it has finished are used by the GM.
The second thing would be the One Unique Thing. I think this is definitely a positive for a class based game since many times two members of the same class can be very similar, this allows players to immediately differentiate themselves from each other. It also helps connect the character to the fiction of the world (again helping with buy-in and investment) and I think the way 13th Age approaches this by being clear that these things do not give the character mechanical benefits and leaving the fiction based benefits to the GM is a good approach.
The first would be the Icons, I think these (with personalization by the GM depending on the exact setting) are a great way of getting buy in to a setting without the players having to initially know alot about the setting. I think it also promotes more interest and a greater investment in the setting because the relationships they have with Icons have real mechanical in-game effects that are brought to the forefront if either of the options to roll relationship dice either right before the game session starts or right after it has finished are used by the GM.
The second thing would be the One Unique Thing. I think this is definitely a positive for a class based game since many times two members of the same class can be very similar, this allows players to immediately differentiate themselves from each other. It also helps connect the character to the fiction of the world (again helping with buy-in and investment) and I think the way 13th Age approaches this by being clear that these things do not give the character mechanical benefits and leaving the fiction based benefits to the GM is a good approach.
Similar Threads
