13th Age

[Finarvyn]

I hesitate to post this, because 13th Age is sort of a "3E/4E simplified" rules system, but I had so much fun with it that I couldn't resist.

I got an e-mail a few weeks ago from my local game store. They were doing an "RPG Day" with a half dozen different games being run in the store. I read through the list and decided to gamble on a game I'd never heard of before -- 13th Age.

I've looked for a "4E lite" type game for years. I enjoy the simple rules of OD&D, but some of my players like games where they can do more. We've done some playtests of D&D Next and they have enjoyed them, so I thought I'd give 13th Age a try to see if it was better than Next.

I had a blast.

Enough so that I signed up for a two-part game a couple of weeks later. I've now played three sessions of 13th Age and decided to pre-order the game, which gave me access to the pre-order PDF. (The game was supposed to be out by now, but a disaster in layout moved the release to June.) It was that fun.

As with 4E, players can use some powers at-will, other powers once per encounter, others once per day. They have healing surges so you get lots of hit points at low levels. Damage is greater so you get to roll lots of dice when you hit something. There are feats, but they aren't miniatures-based and seem easier to figure out.

There are some "role" elements as well -- things that could be imported into another RPG but happen to be in 13th Age. You get to pick one thing that makes your character unique. You get to pick global backgrounds instead of picky skills. You get to align yourself with "icons" (bigshot NPCs like the great druid or queen of the elves) and this helps fit your character into the setting faster.

I was curious if anyone has heard of or played this game...

[Finarvyn]

Sad to see that no one else has any interest in this game. It's a nice rules set combined with a pretty nifty setting. I may move this thead to the 3E/4E/5E sub-board. In retrospect, it probably belongs there...

[waysoftheearth]

I haven't seen it Fin... might go looking on your recommendation thou

[scottenkainen]

Sounds like Chris Medders' Classic Fantasy Role Play (CFRP) game, which he labeled as a "neoclone". With it, he hoped to corner a non-existent market for players looking for a bridge between Old School and New School D&D. games.groups.yahoo.com/group/CFRPGOSR/

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper

[machpants]

I am in the kickstarter and have received the BETA rules as they have been released. It does look like a nice system but I haven't really got into it as of yet. I generally don't look at BETAs too much and wait for the final before I do a proper assessment.

It certainly is a mix of 3 and 4 E, previous edition bits and narrative elements all in one. It has a pretty busy G+ community.

[Deleted]

Apr 14, 2013 15:39:42 GMT -6 machpants said:

It certainly is a mix of 3 and 4 E, previous edition bits and narrative elements all in one. It has a pretty busy G+ community.

What do you mean by "narrative elements"?

[machpants]

In that the players can decide what the world is. They chose their PC's 'One Unique Thing' and that's it "I am the the last Wizard"; and that is true in the world. Narrative control.

My terminology maybe off and I may have misunderstood the OUT, but that is my understanding.

[Finarvyn]

Apr 15, 2013 13:32:09 GMT -6 machpants said:

In that the players can decide what the world is. They chose their PC's 'One Unique Thing' and that's it "I am the the last Wizard"; and that is true in the world. Narrative control.

Correct in essence, but I don't think I'd allow this one. Too restrictive for the GM.

The book gives some examples, but I'll relate one from my playtest. When my GM sprung this on me, the best I could think of was "last son of a noble house." I was playing a dark elf and was thinking a little of Elric.

In our second adventure we started new characters, although I continued using the same dark elf. This time I tried "emperor's hand", thinking of the Timothy Zahn Star Wars books where the Hand is an assassin and general gofur for the Emperor. Except that someone else had picked something similar, so I asked my GM if I could change sometime in the adventure. He said I could. Somewhere along the line we encountered a minion of the Gold Wyrm and this guy had gold eyes. I decided upon "only dark elf with golden eyes" as my one unique thing, and it really fit the story well.

The thing is, the one unique thing isn't supposed to have a big impact on combat and isn't supposed to give you a huge min/max advantage anywhere. It's designed to help the players build the campaign setting along with the GM, so picking one like "I am the last Wizard" could be a problem although "I am the last living apprentice of the Great and Powerful Oz" would be okay. It's all about the story.

[kesher]

"I am the last living apprentice of the Great and Powerful Oz"

Ooo! I'd play that character!

I've read a bit about this, and I'm sure it's going to be a great game. Myself, however, I'm suffering from a bit of system fatigue...

[Falconer]

Indeed. I feel that, if you have a great idea for new RPG rules, you can either,

1) Write/publish/Kickstart an all-new RPG, or
2) Get Jeff Rients to distill your idea into a single brilliant blog post

Please do the latter so I can simply plug it into my game. Thanks!

[Fearghus]

Hi, thought I'd resurrect an old one just to express the love for other editions. I have only had cursory experience with 13th age, but have played in several sessions of 4.0 and 5.0 (Next), and have played 3.X for years. Many have had good things to say about 13th Age and I am looking forward to trying it soon.

[doc]

Just adding my two cents. I'm loving 13th Age and am eagerly awaiting the supplements (two of which are on the horizon). My group loves the focus on creating unique characters and the way that damage scales with level. A fourth level character can mow through a gang of first level thugs much quicker that if he were first or second level. Shaves quite a bit of time off combat.

The only thing that is a little iffy is that characters need to be connected on some story-level to the icons; most players in my experience want to BE the movers and shakers, not just in their constellation. It does provide a neat solution as to what to do with high level characters, though. And the chance of becoming icons themselves some day is going to be very motivating for some players.

Doc

[Finarvyn]

Sept 5, 2013 18:48:49 GMT -6 doc said:

The only thing that is a little iffy is that characters need to be connected on some story-level to the icons; most players in my experience want to BE the movers and shakers, not just in their constellation.

My group had that same concern at first, but then realized that the two aren't really mutually exclusive.

Most campaign worlds have kings who are movers and shakers; Icons are a lot like that. In Lord of the Rings you don't need to play Elrond or Galadriel or Sauron in order to enjoy the experience, and those are likely to be the equivalent to 13th Age Icons. Legolas or Gimli aren't Icons, but they are really awesome characters. Or, think of the Icons as the gods. Zeus could be an icon, but Hercules is still a pretty great character.

Hey, and maybe their goal could be to eventually kill an Icon and take the role in his (or her) place. Maybe the new Great Druid is the guy who bumped off the old one.

[rabindranath72]

The book is quite explicit that at some point the characters WILL face (on or more) Icons, possibly replacing them.

[skars]

I picked up a copy at Pacificon over labor day weekend and I am definitely interested in giving it a try.

[kesher]

This is a pretty intriguing read on What 13th Age Is.

There's also a companion essay on What 13th Age Is Not.

Plus lots of other stuff about hacking it...

[Azafuse]

Pelgrane Press has made the 13th Age's SRD available on its site.

[jeffb]

Yeah, I have been reading bits here and there. I was always interested in this game, as I am 4e fan, and love narrative abstraction games like HeroWars/Heroquest. 13th Age seems to trip my trigger on a simplified, non tactical 4e style game level and yet still has enough of those D&Disms to keep it in the family, so to speak. I had done similar things with 4e, modifiying powers and such so that the game ran fairly smooth without the grid. Byt combat still could eat up big chunks of session time.

I think Pelgrane are likely to get a sale out of me now, having been able to delve a bit deeper into the ruleset.

[waysoftheearth]

Maybe I'm getting old.

It may be a great game, but I sincerely don't understand the trend toward "big numbers" in modern games. Why do 1st level characters need to be running around with 20-30 hit points? 6-10 I could understand, but 30 is around OD&D superhero level. Has the rest of the world decided that combat is actually pretty soft and all PCs should be superheroes from the get go?

I see in the 13th Age SRD a kobold warrior has 22 hit points, a gnoll 50. Storm giants have 650 hp, Balors 850 hit points, and huge red dragons 1200. I really wonder how this kind of thing is manageable at the table, let alone how it can add value to the game experience..?

[Finarvyn]

I think that many folks are frustrated by the "die with one hit" concept from low-level old school play. Beefing up hit points is a quick fix way to keep characters alive longer.

Look at it this way -- Gary Gygax posted some house rules where he liked to start characters off at 3rd level, but 4E and 13th Age take that amount of power and just rename it "first level". Is that really any different?

When I run 13th Age, it's almost always with 2nd level characters. When I run OD&D I like 4th level best. They aren't that different, really.

Just my two coppers.

[Deleted]

Oct 25, 2013 7:34:01 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Look at it this way -- Gary Gygax posted some house rules where he liked to start characters off at 3rd level, but 4E and 13th Age take that amount of power and just rename it "first level". Is that really any different?

When I asked Gary about that house-rule, he told me it was for one-off games. I'd say most referees run one-shot games a bit differently than a campaign, or if allowing a one-time "guest" player into an existing campaign. Granted, I didn't know him as well as a few other who post here, so they might be able to shed some more light, but that's what he told me.

So, for my part? Yes, I see it as different.

At any rate, how Gygax, Arneson, Barker, or anyone else played their game is of interest but certainly not the only way. Play the game in a way that is "fun" for you and your mates. If you're having fun, you're doing it right.

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 25, 2013 7:34:01 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I think that many folks are frustrated by the "die with one hit" concept from low-level old school play. Beefing up hit points is a quick fix way to keep characters alive longer.

I can appreciate that for sure, but the 6-10 hit point range would achieve that for 1st level PCs.
Too many hit points just leaches the risk element out of the game, adds unnecessary accounting, and make combat drag on and on.

YMMV, of course.

[jeffb]

OS D&D and modern games are just different playstyles. I love and hate both at times.


13th is quite a departure in that players and their characters have alot more investment in the campaign and helping to shape it along with the DM. Helping a bit with character survival, but not ensuring it, is a benefit in that style of game for everyone to have a good time.

[jakdethe]

Oct 25, 2013 7:20:37 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Maybe I'm getting old.

It may be a great game, but I sincerely don't understand the trend toward "big numbers" in modern games. Why do 1st level characters need to be running around with 20-30 hit points? 6-10 I could understand, but 30 is around OD&D superhero level. Has the rest of the world decided that combat is actually pretty soft and all PCs should be superheroes from the get go?

I see in the 13th Age SRD a kobold warrior has 22 hit points, a gnoll 50. Storm giants have 650 hp, Balors 850 hit points, and huge red dragons 1200. I really wonder how this kind of thing is manageable at the table, let alone how it can add value to the game experience..?

After my short foray into AD&D and 3E this is exactly why I went back to playing OD&D. For now I've come to the conclusion they new school and old school are just completely different games, to be enjoyed for their own merits each. However after playing 3E/Pathfinder I can definitely say number inflation detracts from the game greatly, and doesn't add anything to it for me.

[rabindranath72]

Oct 25, 2013 7:20:37 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

I see in the 13th Age SRD a kobold warrior has 22 hit points, a gnoll 50. Storm giants have 650 hp, Balors 850 hit points, and huge red dragons 1200. I really wonder how this kind of thing is manageable at the table, let alone how it can add value to the game experience..?

But PCs inflict damage multiplied by level, so a kobold with 22 hit points won't last for more than a round, typically.
What 13th Age achieved was "compression" of levels from a 1-30 scale to 1-10, so that each level is not an almost infinitesimal progression, but an actual gain in terms of character abilities. Since they wanted (had) to keep the usual dices involved in D&D stats (weapon damage, spell damage etc.,) the easiest way to substantially improve from level to level is represented by a sort of "multiplicative" model. And for the critters, you need to have hit points that scale that way.
Notice that the only thing that has so large scale are hit points and damage. All other scaling factors are kept to a minimum, for example magic items never give more than a +3, and that only at epic levels. For levels 1-4 (which roughly corresponds to AD&D's levels 1-10) the typical magic items give +1 bonuses.

[kesher]

Plus, it's FUN to deal 800 pts of damage!

[Falconer]

Oct 29, 2013 9:53:53 GMT -6 kesher said:

Plus, it's FUN to deal 800 pts of damage!

Unless you’ve got one of those character sheets where you have to tick off a box for each point.

[Ynas Midgard]

Oct 29, 2013 9:53:53 GMT -6 kesher said:

Plus, it's FUN to deal 800 pts of damage!

Hell yeah!

Oct 29, 2013 10:59:50 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Unless you’ve got one of those character sheets where you have to tick off a box for each point.

Hell no!

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 29, 2013 9:53:53 GMT -6 kesher said:

Plus, it's FUN to deal 800 pts of damage!

The "my numbers are bigger than your numbers!" game might be fun for the players, and that is valuable. But it's also a lot more work for the poor ref to work with dozens of players, retainers, and monsters with hundreds of hit points than the same group with (generally) <10 hit points apiece.

Escalation to larger numbers also changes the game's ability to handle players of mixed levels.

If (just as an example) 1st level PCs are dealing an average of 3 points of damage, 2nd level PCs 10 points, 3rd level PCs 30 points, 4th level PCs 100 points, then there is very little a new 1st level PC can contribute to an existing group of 4th level PCs. This, in turn, makes it so much more important that your 4th level PC doesn't die.

That's a style of game design that's effectively saying: "The PCs are special. They're designed to make it all the way, right from the get go." IMHO that style of game design is less exciting than the alternate style of game design, which is: not knowing if you PCs is going to make it to 2nd level, let alone "all the way".

Just my two coppers.

[rabindranath72]

Oct 29, 2013 16:24:13 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Oct 29, 2013 9:53:53 GMT -6 kesher said:

Plus, it's FUN to deal 800 pts of damage!

The "my numbers are bigger than your numbers!" game might be fun for the players, and that is valuable. But it's also a lot more work for the poor ref to work with dozens of players, retainers, and monsters with hundreds of hit points than the same group with (generally) <10 hit points apiece.

Escalation to larger numbers also changes the game's ability to handle players of mixed levels.

If (just as an example) 1st level PCs are dealing an average of 3 points of damage, 2nd level PCs 10 points, 3rd level PCs 30 points, 4th level PCs 100 points, then there is very little a new 1st level PC can contribute to an existing group of 4th level PCs. This, in turn, makes it so much more important that your 4th level PC doesn't die.

That's a style of game design that's effectively saying: "The PCs are special. They're designed to make it all the way, right from the get go." IMHO that style of game design is less exciting than the alternate style of game design, which is: not knowing if you PCs is going to make it to 2nd level, let alone "all the way".

Just my two coppers.

Nope, it simply doesn't work that way. For a starter, progression is a sort of continuous process, in that after each session you get "something" to improve your character, so when a level is gained, there is not a massive difference between characters of two adjacent different levels. And there are no XP tables, as advancement is completely dictated by the GM.

The PCs are definitely NOT designed to make it all the way; monsters for example are not "balanced" with respect to their special abilities; the authors recognise that it's a pretty futile exercise. The same philosophy is evident in some spell descriptions; the Resurrection spell for example:

Resurrection
Ranged spell
Special:
You can cast this spell only once per level, and a limited number of times in your
life. You must have most of the corpse available to cast the spell. There’s no time limit on
resurrecting a dead PC, so long as you have the corpse.
Effect:
You can bring a creature back to life in
more or less normal condition, with varying
levels of recovery.
Limited Casting:
The first time in your life that you use the spell, you can cast it with a single
standard action. Using the spell removes one of
your spell slots until you gain a level. (You
get one less spell per full heal-up.) The person
you are resurrecting comes back at roughly
half strength, e.g. expending half their recoveries, being dazed (save ends), and, for each
ability, having a 50% chance that it is expended.
The second time in your life you cast the spell,
it takes at least three or four rounds and costs
you roughly half your hit points and daily powers/spells. The person you are resurrecting
comes back at something like one-quarter strength.
The third time you cast the spell it has to be
as a ritual. The spell chews you up and leaves
you with only a few hit points, then gnaws at
the person you have resurrected, who takes
days to recover well enough to qualify as an adventurer or combatant.
The fourth time you cast the spell it nearly kills you. The resurrection succeeds but the
person you’ve resurrected is going to be a me
ss for a month or more, regardless of any other
magic you use.

I suggest you give a thorough read to the material, and try running a session to get a better feel for how it actually works and plays.