Your best 13th Age thing

[Stalker0]

I'm surprised the escalation die got so few votes.

It got my vote, but I was also surprised.

Also no option for the "natural die roll' mechanics that are so commonplace in the system.

 

[pemerton]

I haven't read the rules - I've just followed various postings - but I voted for backgrounds, as ever since I saw [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] doing this in his 4e hack I've thought it's a natural way for D&D to go.

Fail forward is good, but I wouldn't call that out as distinctive to 13th Age. I personally think of it as a Burning Wheel thing, and I think it's been borrowed as a fairly key part of 4e (per the DMG and DMG2 for that edition).

 

[Balesir]

I haven't read the rules - I've just followed various postings - but I voted for backgrounds, as ever since I saw [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] doing this in his 4e hack I've thought it's a natural way for D&D to go.

Funnily enough I find backgrounds a case of "close, but no cigar". I find them mechanically flawed because the incentive is 100% to have one big one and then try to shoehorn it into every conceivable situation. This in turn necessitates GM policing of the use of backgrounds, which I find retrograde.

Primetime Adventures did this right, I think, but its solution doesn't fit 13A so well (in PTA you get up to 4 backgrounds that you can use as many times as your "screen presence" in a session - since everyone's screen presence varies from session (or episode) to session it all works out).

Making backgrounds once per session abilities might work - and make interesting distinctions between a few big plusses and lots of small ones. Or maybe once per level or once per tier. Basically, make a solid mechanical limit that allows enough freedom of movement and then leave the flavouring of how the background is used completely up to the player. Don't make the player come up with what amounts to an excuse and then have the GM judge it "beauty contest style".

 

[pemerton]

Funnily enough I find backgrounds a case of "close, but no cigar". I find them mechanically flawed because the incentive is 100% to have one big one and then try to shoehorn it into every conceivable situation. This in turn necessitates GM policing of the use of backgrounds, which I find retrograde.

Is there no rule like the "breadth of descriptor" rule in HeroWars/Quest - whereby broader descriptions (like Strong) suffer a penalty when deployed in contexts where another PC has a more narrow appicable descriptor (like Really Good at Heaving Rocks)? If not, that does sound like an issue.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Don't make the player come up with what amounts to an excuse and then have the GM judge it "beauty contest style".

Oddly enough, I think that pretty much sums up the process of playing an rpg. Player comes up with idea, DM judges its merit.

I am curious to see the details for how they define the scope and applicability of backgrounds, but the simplicity, open-endedness, and lack of restrictions on use are precisely what make it appealing to me.

 

[Imaro]

Oddly enough, I think that pretty much sums up the process of playing an rpg. Player comes up with idea, DM judges its merit.

I am curious to see the details for how they define the scope and applicability of backgrounds, but the simplicity, open-endedness, and lack of restrictions on use are precisely what make it appealing to me.

Ditto for me. I also think that by not enforcing how broad or how narrow the backgrounds should be, 13th Age leaves itself more open to either the GM or individual groups determining what is appropriate based on their particular campaign and play style. There may be a campaign where very broadly capable heroes are the norm... while in a different campaign the heroes are narrowly specialized experts. By not enforcing it's own take on which style is "correct" I think 13th Age stays a much more malleable and adaptable game.

 

[Morrus]

Don't make the player come up with what amounts to an excuse and then have the GM judge it "beauty contest style".

That's the process behind a lot of rules-lite or story-driven RPGs.

 

[Balesir]

Oddly enough, I think that pretty much sums up the process of playing an rpg. Player comes up with idea, DM judges its merit.

I am curious to see the details for how they define the scope and applicability of backgrounds, but the simplicity, open-endedness, and lack of restrictions on use are precisely what make it appealing to me.

That's the process behind a lot of rules-lite or story-driven RPGs.

I used to think this, too, but (apropos to another thread hereabouts) games I found through The Forge showed me that it's possible to have RPGs with simple rules that do not work this way. For me, this was both a revelation and an enormous relief.

 

[Morrus]

I used to think this, too, but (apropos to another thread hereabouts) games I found through The Forge showed me that it's possible to have RPGs with simple rules that do not work this way. For me, this was both a revelation and an enormous relief.

I think you're misunderstanding me. It's not that anyone is unaware that games don't have to work that way (obviously they don't); it's that they are perfectly OK with games that do work that way. I don't think anyone needs to be shown that it's possible to have simple rules that don't work that way; they know that.

 

[Balesir]

I think you're misunderstanding me. It's not that anyone is unaware that games don't have to work that way (obviously they don't); it's that they are perfectly OK with games that do work that way. I don't think anyone needs to be shown that it's possible to have simple rules that don't work that way; they know that.

Oh, I'm very well aware that some folk don't mind that modus operandi - and good luck to them; long may they enjoy it! That's why I said "For me" at the start of my last sentence.

On people being well aware that it's possible to have an RPG that works without the GM deciding what the rules are ad hoc, I'm not at all sure that's widespread. Folks here might have broadly become aware of it, but I see a lot of folk who argue that a game with simple rules that don't need constant expansion on the fly cannot be a "proper" roleplaying game.