What ideas from 13th Age are people using for dnd?

[Pog]

[lang=en]I'm quite impressed by 13th Age at the moment. Is anyone using some of their ideas, like escalation or fail forwards, for their dnd games?[/lang]

 

[Wednesday Boy]

What are escalation and fail forwards? (Thanks!)

 

[Pog]

[lang=en]In 13th Age combat there is an escalation die, which is simply an incremental global addition to hit. So starting at turn 2 all PCs get +1 to hit. Then turn 3 another +1 etc. Some abilities also key off this number. This mechanic creates a climactic momentum in combat, and helps stop combat grind. I like it!

Fail forwards is just that when PCs fail a skill check or something rather than the result being a blanket No/total fail, which tends to bring progress to a halt, the DM interprets the check fail result as a success but with complications - like you pick the lock but set off a trap or make a load noise or break your picks or something. Again, this is an idea I really like!

13th Age seems to have many cool ideas ... [/lang]

 

[braro]

For "simple" games, like 5e wants to be, I have used their background load out of skills.

For "Complex" games, like 4e, I sometimes use their movement/engaged rules if I don't want to graph it out.

 

[Derren]

[lang=en]In 13th Age combat there is an escalation die, which is simply an incremental global addition to hit. So starting at turn 2 all PCs get +1 to hit. Then turn 3 another +1 etc. Some abilities also key off this number. This mechanic creates a climactic momentum in combat, and helps stop combat grind. I like it!

Fail forwards is just that when PCs fail a skill check or something rather than the result being a blanket No/total fail, which tends to bring progress to a halt, the DM interprets the check fail result as a success but with complications - like you pick the lock but set off a trap or make a load noise or break your picks or something. Again, this is an idea I really like!

13th Age seems to have many cool ideas ... [/lang]

So armor becomes less and less useful as longer as you stay in combat and the PCs can never fail to do something?
Not my cup of tea.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Both ideas are very heavy on the thrust of "narrative," so they aren't for everyone. They're golden for games that are very much about story, though!

Escalation I like pretty much without reservation for my own home games. It's an idea not entirely different from Marvel's pool-of-problems. It paces the danger nicely, and ends combats early. Always nice.

Fail forward I have some reservations about, because I don't think it's grounded in entirely sensible game psychology. In a story, this kind of thing generally makes sense. In a game, it's less important to "succeed, but with problems," and more important to fail in a fun way. If everyone in the room dies catastrophically, but all the players are laughing and smiling, you've done something RIGHT in your game design. Failing forward makes the game kind of play like a predictable serial TV show. Okay, you KNOW, from a meta-standpoint, that Our Heroes will save the day...fail forward makes it interesting to note how you get there. I prefer a game in which you don't necessarily know that the heroes will save the day. The possibility for ultimate and catastrophic failure is part of the fun in my games.

 

[Evenglare]

[MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] :Actually monster armor is slightly bumped to offset this. Obviously you haven't played with this system, because it works out great. By the time the die gets to any appreciable height the fight should be over one way or the other. The dice just helps make the end of the battle go quicker. I use the escalation system with 4th edition because it makes battle go much quicker. Also if you don't like the escalation dice , NEVER play dungeon world, you auto hit all the time. It's a fantastic game.

 

[Starfox]

What is 13th Age?

I gathered from another tread it wasn't published yet, how do you know so much about it?

 

[Morrus]

What is 13th Age?

I gathered from another tread it wasn't published yet, how do you know so much about it?

Kickstarter backers have the PDF. Plus there's a 2-hour demo you can download (see the news page for today).

 

[JamesonCourage]

Fail forwards is just that when PCs fail a skill check or something rather than the result being a blanket No/total fail, which tends to bring progress to a halt, the DM interprets the check fail result as a success but with complications - like you pick the lock but set off a trap or make a load noise or break your picks or something. Again, this is an idea I really like!

13th Age seems to have many cool ideas ...

This idea isn't new with 13th Age, and it seems popular with certain indie games.

While I have no problem with other people using it, I think it can work well when mixed with a standard "fail, no progress" approach. Take, for example, the 4e skill challenge system. You're trying to convince someone to help sneak you into a city, but they're hesitant to help. Okay, you start to roll checks. I think it makes the unfolding narrative more interesting if you're successes = success or fail forward, and failures = failure.

So, for example, you make a check and it's successful, helping you know something about him (success = success). Next, you fail a check, and don't convince him to smuggle your weapons in, too (failure = failure). Next, you convince him to agree to help you, but since the skill challenge isn't over, you make it fail forward (success = fail forward): he'd like to help you, but there's another problem! And so on.

But, that's my preference for "fail forward." I like it, but not for every failed check. As always, play what you like