Some of my crew have been talking about 13th Age since getting back from GenCon. I followed the game development and what I read online about the alpha/beta didn't jazz me. I have not read the final product or played any demos. I would love to hear what gamers who have played the final product or GM'd it have to say about the game.

Thank you!

We played a couple sessions to play test it.

1) The storygame bits are not too prominent but still present. The "one unique thing" is something that will have to come into play over the long terms vs. anything immediately beneficial in a system way. The Icon relationships are fun, but can put some work on you as the GM.

Basically, everyone has 3 points they put into the iconic NPC relationships which act like demi-gods/organizations in the setting. You roll a d6 per point to determine if something regarding that relationship will appear in the coming adventure. A 5 indicates a boon that also includes a complication, while a 6 means a boon will come from it. The GM works it into the game. Our first session everyone rolled a 5 or 6 except one character. It was somewhat of a circus for me. :-) I LOVE the idea of having organizational ties in a game, but I think I prefer the Runequest approach vs. the 13th Age one. It's a cool idea, but the story game stuff doesn't mesh with my style.

2) Combat and character abilities are fun! I really like the escalation die (each round the PCs get +1 to hit until +6, use a 6 sided die...), and combat was fast. Damage and HP scale, only 10 levels, so things are focused. I like how feats make talents better, and how they are organized by class so it's easy to find your particular stuff. However, it's also super simple. You will need to fill in some blanks on stuff not covered.

There's no skills, you use backgrounds like free-form Traits with a bonus based on level, and it has the same issues that free-form story traits have (everyone figures out a way to bring the bonus in all the time...). However, it's flavorful.

All in all, the game is too simple for my tastes and the story game elements turn me off. For those who want a lighter D&D with some storygame elements, it should hit a sweet spot.

Quotebut I think I prefer the Runequest approach vs. the 13th Age one.

I met up with Rob Heinsoo at Gencon, and we traded games...

Sorry! Just had to name drop, given Trent's reference to RQ.

Quote from: Loz;686228I met up with Rob Heinsoo at Gencon, and we traded games...

Sorry! Just had to name drop, given Trent's reference to RQ.

You got the short end of the stick.

Quote from: CRKrueger;686241You got the short end of the stick.

Rather a short of end of a stick than a pointy end of a spear...

Quote from: Spinachcat;686195Some of my crew have been talking about 13th Age since getting back from GenCon. I followed the game development and what I read online about the alpha/beta didn't jazz me. I have not read the final product or played any demos. I would love to hear what gamers who have played the final product or GM'd it have to say about the game.

Thank you!

It's a solid game, blending 4e's attempt at giving each class something to do at each level with 3e's general style.  At a glance -- and I haven't run a full campaign from 1st through 10th -- it looks like it may dodge LFQW pretty well.  

It's not really rules light in the sense that classic D&D is.  At the same time, it handwaves a lot of the detail that 3e and 4e offer.  It's mostly an alternative for people who like 3.X and 4e but want a stripped down experience with lots of rewards over a short span of time -- things like incremental advances and the escalation die make sure that nothing is dragging, that you're constantly getting positive feedback for moving forward and engaging.

It doesn't replace Pathfinder or ACKS for me, but it does provide a third alternative with a different feel.  I think it's a perfect fit for my Lookouts/Daughters of the Eyrewood game inspired by Penny Arcade and the Night Watch from ASOIAF, but I wouldn't use it for, say, Ravenloft or something with an OSR feel.

Quote from: Loz;686228I met up with Rob Heinsoo at Gencon, and we traded games...

Sorry! Just had to name drop, given Trent's reference to RQ.

I hope you also got an RPG to be named later as part of the deal...

Seriously, though, I'm interested in where this thread goes, precisely, because I haven't played it. I've read through it (quickly), and it seemed like a very beautiful RPG, but some of the items (such as the aforementioned Traits, the Escalation dice, monsters doing fixed damage and the whole "One Unique Thing" portrayal) didn't do much for me. On the other hand, I like some of the special effects if you roll a 14 or higher, or an odd number, etc.

The folks in my group who at least tolerated 4e seemed to like it; Pathfinder and HackMaster folks didn't. The demos at Gen Con they were in were so-so at best. I also haven't been too enamored of the actual plays I've read thus far, so I'd be pleased to hear a couple more opinions to see if there's anything I've missed or is different.

Quote from: trechriron;686217We played a couple sessions to play test it.

1) The storygame bits are not too prominent but still present. The "one unique thing" is something that will have to come into play over the long terms vs. anything immediately beneficial in a system way. The Icon relationships are fun, but can put some work on you as the GM.

Basically, everyone has 3 points they put into the iconic NPC relationships which act like demi-gods/organizations in the setting. You roll a d6 per point to determine if something regarding that relationship will appear in the coming adventure. A 5 indicates a boon that also includes a complication, while a 6 means a boon will come from it. The GM works it into the game. Our first session everyone rolled a 5 or 6 except one character. It was somewhat of a circus for me. :-) I LOVE the idea of having organizational ties in a game, but I think I prefer the Runequest approach vs. the 13th Age one. It's a cool idea, but the story game stuff doesn't mesh with my style.

2) Combat and character abilities are fun! I really like the escalation die (each round the PCs get +1 to hit until +6, use a 6 sided die...), and combat was fast. Damage and HP scale, only 10 levels, so things are focused. I like how feats make talents better, and how they are organized by class so it's easy to find your particular stuff. However, it's also super simple. You will need to fill in some blanks on stuff not covered.

There's no skills, you use backgrounds like free-form Traits with a bonus based on level, and it has the same issues that free-form story traits have (everyone figures out a way to bring the bonus in all the time...). However, it's flavorful.

All in all, the game is too simple for my tastes and the story game elements turn me off. For those who want a lighter D&D with some storygame elements, it should hit a sweet spot.

Would it be easy to just add a skill list and allocate the '8 points' to specific skills instead of the default abstract backgrounds?

Quote from: Bill;686416Would it be easy to just add a skill list and allocate the '8 points' to specific skills instead of the default abstract backgrounds?

That would be fine, although backgrounds are also supposed to encompass things like contacts and the like, IIRC.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;686420That would be fine, although backgrounds are also supposed to encompass things like contacts and the like, IIRC.

Yeah, Backgrounds in 13th Age are essentially the love-child of Feng Shui skills and Barbarians of Lemuria careers: aptitude, contacts, and knowledge rolled up into one convenient package. The only real change the game works on its predecessors is the idea that your backgrounds should be linked to the setting: e.g., "Sailed the Iron Sea with Captain Redhook" instead of "Pirate."

I would keep the backgrounds for 'contacts and flavor', but probably not use them as a replacement for skills.


The reason I am not so keen on backgrounds as skills, is that players seem unable to polivce themselves, and tend to abuse the backgrounds to always get a bonus all the time.

I think backgrounds have plenty of potential, just not as replacement for skills.


I suppose I could just leave the backgrounds as written and be heavy handed when charcaters are created:

No. You can't have 'Born on Krypton' as a background

Ok, I prefer skills that are specific, like 'Climb' over skills such as 'Lord of the Jungle' where it might apply when you climb trees.


But, I wnat to give 13th age a fair chance without messing with the background/skill system.



So here is my big question:

Any advice on how to encourage players to pick somewhat specific and limited backgrounds?

When I played fate I really hated the 'I always get my biggest skill bonus with a contrived excuse' effect.


I think I can learn to like backgrounds replacing skills, but I have concerns.

Quote from: Bill;686428The reason I am not so keen on backgrounds as skills, is that players seem unable to polivce themselves, and tend to abuse the backgrounds to always get a bonus all the time.

I've used backgrounds as broad skill groups in D&D for many years and do not encounter that problem. I spend five minutes or so talking with the player about what their selected background will cover when they create the character. During the game, players tell me what their characters are trying to do in plain English (not in game-speak) and I tell what roll (if any) to make. In other words, the GM decides whether their background applies to what they are trying to do.

Quote from: RandallS;687045I've used backgrounds as broad skill groups in D&D for many years and do not encounter that problem. I spend five minutes or so talking with the player about what their selected background will cover when they create the character. During the game, players tell me what their characters are trying to do in plain English (not in game-speak) and I tell what roll (if any) to make. In other words, the GM decides whether their background applies to what they are trying to do.

Ok, so no player selects a background that can plausibly cover almost anything?

For example, "Jack of all Trades"  

Quote from: Bill;687046Ok, so no player selects a background that can plausibly cover almost anything?

For example, "Jack of all Trades"  

If a player insisted on something like that and had a good reason for it, I'd cap it at a low level -- remember, "Jack of All Trades, Master of None."

Even then, though, I'd try to pin it down -- is he an itinerant craftsman?  A wandering odd-jobs man?  You can nail it down a little further and manage to exclude some of the worst excesses a player can aspire to.