Why did they scrap Orcus?

[sabs]

Given that D&D comes from the DMing line of Gary Gygax?
Or that there are still many DM's that are the DM's of no, or oh shit, I didn't think of that, it breaks my stupid plot, no you can't do it.

I think that yes. Mother May I is a horrible /game system/
I mean, if I want to play Mother may I, the DM I play with the most is actually really good at it, and he uses basically his own internal system involving.. voodoo far as I can tell. I roll some dice, shit happens. I usually have a 'decent' idea what my character can do.

But I also play in a game where the DM basically fucks you, every chance he gets. In that system, Mother May I.. sucks.

[erik]

you need to provide guidelines for that kind of thing not to devolve into pure Mother May I.

Do most D&D players actually get bothered about that though?

Yes. It is crap. Not knowing what works and what doesn't is garbage. As sabs noted, knowing that nothing works also sucks.

A good rule system cannot stop a bad MC from running a bad game, and a good MC usually runs a good game regardless of the system. What you want from an RPG is a system that a mediocre MC can run to give a good game. That means guidelines enough so that the MC manages the things that require a human, and the rules streamline the things you want treated as a mini-game. If the MC has to take a hand in every single mini-game then the rules aren't worth anything.

[ModelCitizen]

you need to provide guidelines for that kind of thing not to devolve into pure Mother May I.

Do most D&D players actually get bothered about that though?

Erik was specifically talking about items, so yeah, they do. Some D&D groups want a complete accounting of every item you carry. Some houserule that you can carry a single Adventuring Gear or Quiver item and asspull arrows or pitons as needed, but that's still a pretty firm guideline. (Must be small inexpensive and listed in the PHB, plus if you get thrown in prison the guards can take your Adventuring Gear item away.) Few D&D players would be happy with erik's example where a player needs a ladder so he says there's one in the scene and suddenly there is.

I'd be particularly unhappy with a designer saying it "might" happen or "could" happen because that's what it takes to say the rules "might" or "could" work. If players have to be able to asspull items to make your rules work, then you need to firmly establish that asspulling items is part of your game by writing rules or at least strong guidelines for it. If you need to appeal to players who don't like asspulling items, then change your rules so it's not necessary. You can't have it both ways.

[waderockett]

As a person who hates 4E for this particular kind of thing I have to point out that you, wade, are dancing delightfully around answering the question. You responded to Red_rob by saying that the point of your system is to make up rules and add them to the game. I KNOW that I can do that with any system. Exactly what, in this system, makes this easier? You're going to have to at LEAST provide an example or something because your answers thus far are vague at best.

Poor sentence structure on my part.

There are two different questions here. The first is about how hard it would be to decide that lightning attacks always do X that is not stated in the rules for that damage type. 13th Age's damage type rules currently (the game is still in development) only consist of special effects and indications where various monsters are resistant/vulnerable to those types. Some classes also have resistances. It would not be hard to say that lightning always does X, and then in order not to make lightning the only damage type that has that type of attribute, go down the list and say that cold attacks always do A, fire attacks always do B, and so on. The relative rules-lightness of the game means you don't have to take a lot of factors into account when you do that.

The second question was about whether you could easily make a character that does lightning/thunder damage with each hit, and that's what I was saying 13th Age was good at, and I'll be more detailed here.

It's not easier in 13th Age to say, "every time this character hits with a weapon, the damage is defined as thunder or lightning type" because you could could do in most games with an impact on play that ranges from significant to zero depending on the system.

It's partially because it would not be a stretch in this example to use the class feature-swapping rules to trade one of your (for example) barbarian class talents for a modified version of the sorcerer's lightning fork spell, so that once per battle you have a chance to attack multiple enemies as your weapon's lightning/thunder strike sends energy leaping from enemy to enemy. Treating a spell as a class feature is not in the rules, but the feature-swapping rule gives me an existing framework for accomplishing what I want. (Note to self: suggest to the designers that there be a sidebar addressing treating spells as class features.)

What I meant to convey about 13th Age was that the game does well when you justify why your character does lightning/thunder damage with a weapon strike. Background, icon relationship, and unique feature rules come into play to add elements to the setting that spawn adventure hooks, and affect what you roll on in certain situations. Here's one way you could handle this:

I'll say that my character does thunder/lightning damage when he hits with any weapon because of my Unique Feature that I am the heir to a line of northern barbarian kings that was blessed by Thor with hereditary lightning/thunder strike powers.

Knowing that, I'm going to spend background points (which as mentioned before, are the basis for skills) on things like Royal Blood and Barbarian of the Northern Mountains.

My unique feature causes a number of strong icon relationship possibilities to come to mind. I'll say that my kingdom is allied with the Dwarf King, but my abandoning my responsibilities to go adventuring has strained that relationship; so I spend 1 point on a Conflicted with the Dwarf King. My line is favored by Thor, so I'll add 1 point Positive with the Priestess. Being up north will put my people into conflict with orcs, so I spend 1 point on a Negative relationship with the Orc Lord.

Now I've added a new kingdom to the map with a sketched-in history, alliances and enemies, and a connection to the representative of the gods on earth. In the future, dwarves are likely to help me but will give me shit, representatives of the priestess will help me, enemies of the Orc Lord will help me, and orcs everywhere will be receiving a memo that if they see me, I'm to be captured or killed immediately.

[Chamomile]

Okay, Wade, that's great. But what does any of it have to do with lightning and thunder damage? It seems like you're needlessly confusing the issue to draw focus on the one thing 13th Age is good at, rather than just giving a straight answer to the question.

[waderockett]

Okay, Wade, that's great. But what does any of it have to do with lightning and thunder damage? It seems like you're needlessly confusing the issue to draw focus on the one thing 13th Age is good at, rather than just giving a straight answer to the question.

I answered the question about doing lightning and thunder damage starting with the paragraph beginning, "The second question was". Sure, players can do the thing you're asking, and I outlined one way they could approach it using class talents as a jumping off point. If someone else who's played the game wants to chime in with another (maybe a better) way to handle that, it would be great.

That question was asked in the larger context of why someone would want to try 13th Age rather than using some other game to do their lighting/thunder damage dealing. My answer is that in this game, the way you define your character as someone who does lightning/thunder damage with a weapon expands the setting and generates story hooks through its three most important rules.

[Red_Rob]

Right, so what you're saying is that 13th Age is uniquely set up to be customisable, and that the idea is that the players and the GM will use the effects and abilities in the book as a jumping off point for creating their own powers?

So, to this end, does the game include a section on how to create your own powers, what effects are appropriate at various levels, when it's OK to get at-will flight and when it will break the game, what bonuses and stats the game assumes you have at various levels, and things like that? Because when starting 3e I often wished they had included something like that.

[fectin]

"13th Age is a framework, which needs some fleshing out" is not a kiss of death. If that's the case though, just saying that will save everyone time.

[Voss]

"13th Age is a framework, which needs some fleshing out" is not a kiss of death. If that's the case though, just saying that will save everyone time.

Well, not necessarily, but it is apparently Generic Fantasy RPG # 3,491 and traditionally those don't do well. Especially when you've got generic crap like 'the lich king' and ' the diabolist' rather than a strong IP that can actually pull people in and provide a hook for customers. That it also says 'well, make some stuff up' certainly isn't going to help. And trying to build off of the 4e market rather than something good is pretty much the last nail.

[Simon Rogers]

"13th Age is a framework, which needs some fleshing out" is not a kiss of death. If that's the case though, just saying that will save everyone time.

Well, not necessarily, but it is apparently Generic Fantasy RPG # 3,491 and traditionally those don't do well. Especially when you've got generic crap like 'the lich king' and ' the diabolist' rather than a strong IP that can actually pull people in and provide a hook for customers. That it also says 'well, make some stuff up' certainly isn't going to help. And trying to build off of the 4e market rather than something good is pretty much the last nail.

To be clear, 13th Age is a fully fleshed out game with elements which allow GMs and players to fashion their unique version of the world. No one has said or implied otherwise.

Each character's Unique Thing is surely "something you make up" but if that puts you off, then this game is really not for you. The fact that the background is not to your taste (not the same as "objectively bad") also make it a no-go for you. That's fine. The IP has, however, pulled people in and has inspired many actual players of the game to devise their own take on the game.

As for the game being a commercial success, it already is by Pelgrane's admittedly modest standards. I think the time for engaging with people to whom this game is clearly not of interest is coming to an end. I realise their are people here who are interested (and I thank you for engaging), but this thread is not the best venue to discuss it, amusing though it has been.

As I said, I will monitor this thread and pass on anything of interest to Rob, but I'm done here.

[Voss]

'Our IP is so appealing, the playtest fans have junked it and made up their own stuff.'

Sounds like a winner to me!


Commercial success is an interesting thing. And not at all what I meant by 'don't do well.' Lots of fly-by-night RPG companies were in the black for a year or two before folding and abandoning their projects. Sustained growth and interest is a whole 'nother thing.

[waderockett]

Yeah, at this point anyone who wants to get more information about the game can find plenty of detailed discussions online at EN World, Something Awful, Adam Dray's blog, and podcasts like Geek in Review -- which interviewed Jonathan Tweet in depth about the design of the game, and had a follow-up episode about what it's like to GM 13th Age.

If you're going to be at Gen Con, Rob and Jonathan will be doing an Introduction to 13th Age panel. At PAX Prime, Rob will be on a panel with Logan Bonner and the Dungeon World designers to talk about old school gaming and modern design. I'll be at both cons (at the Pelgrane booth and the 13th Age booth respectively) if you'd like to come by and talk.

In the meantime, if you want to post questions for the designers in this thread between now and Friday, Simon and I will send the 10 most-answerable to Rob and Jonathan.

There are still a few questions that I've been working on answering, so I'll wrap those up and then make my exit. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the game with a crowd that doesn't accept easy answers, so thanks for letting me post.

What problems of 4e does 13th age fix?

Are any ideas in 13th age from 'proto' 4e development? This thread was originally to discuss proto-4e ideas left on the cutting room floor

I asked Rob and he replied that 13th Age isn't being designed to fix problems in other games, so if there's something that's different in 13th Age, it's not because he and Jonathan think that mechanic is broken -- they just used a different approach.

He can't talk about Orcus, alas.

Let's say a PC wants to hire a company of mercenaries, buy a trained monster, or, raise some undead minions. How would 13th Age handle this?

One thing that I've learned about 13th Age by answering questions here is that when I'm telling people about the game, I really need to emphasize that this is what Rob and Jonathan play with their group on Wednesday nights. As a result, if Rob and Jonathan don't use a rule for something at their own table, 13th Age will not have a rule for it either.

So the current draft doesn't have specific rules for hiring mercenaries or buying a trained monster -- that would be role-played.

Raising undead minions is also not in the current draft. That may or may not end up being a spell or ritual, but until then, you would handle that using the guidelines for creating magic items: you announce that you want to raise undead minions, and the GM tells you all the dangerous shit you'll have to go through to acquire the necessary items and perform the ritual. The more ambitious you are ("I want an army of skeletons!") the harder it will be to pull off successfully.

So, to this end, does the game include a section on how to create your own powers, what effects are appropriate at various levels, when it's OK to get at-will flight and when it will break the game, what bonuses and stats the game assumes you have at various levels, and things like that? Because when starting 3e I often wished they had included something like that.

In 13th Age a first-level character could be able to fly at will by taking it as his unique feature, so when you're thinking about whether to make that a talent that's available at higher levels, the GM guidelines for "More Practical Unique Feature" on page 37 would serve you well. The game does tell you what bonuses and stats PCs have at various levels (which go from 1st through 10th and are divided into Adventurer, Champion and Epic tiers.)

I really hope you have a chance to look at the game so you can see for yourself whether you think more detailed guidelines for making new talents are necessary. The reports we've gotten from playtest groups is that, given its level of complexity, the only guidance they really need is to make it fun, have it make sense, and don't min-max.

[Maxus]

One thing that I've learned about 13th Age by answering questions here is that when I'm telling people about the game, I really need to emphasize that this is what Rob and Jonathan play with their group on Wednesday nights. As a result, if Rob and Jonathan don't use a rule for something at their own table, 13th Age will not have a rule for it either.

So the current draft doesn't have specific rules for hiring mercenaries or buying a trained monster -- that would be role-played.

I'm gonna pop into this discussion real quick.

They really ought to try to see what happens to the game when someone plays differently than they do.

By all accounts, D&D 3.5 suffered because the playtesting assumed that people were playing a four-man party--Fighter, Rogue, In-Combat Healing Cleric, and Evocation Wizard. You know, just like they did.

If I can extend the metaphor, what happens in 13th Age when a party has two fighters, or two rogues, or no wizard? What, in fact happens, when the wizard decides he's going out for illusions rather than fireballs? What happens when the cleric decides he's not going to heal in the middle of combat, he's going to hit the gym, call upon the favor of his god, and open up a can of consecrated whoopass on the enemies right besides the fighter and rogue?

These days, a tabletop game designer really would benefit by handing a copy of the current rules of the game to a group of power gamers and saying, "I will give you twenty-five dollars for every exploit, unbeatable build, and/or instant-death spell combo you find."

tl;dr: It's all very well that the designers enjoy playing their own game. In fact, that's vaguely reassuring to me. But what happens when someone plays does something different than they do?

[MGuy]

Gotta say this sounds like its going to be more of a "tool kit" thing than an actual fully functioning game.

[Aryxbez]

It also saddens me that the two posters have sought to kinda "cop-out" of the conversation, instead of seeking actual good advice that can be found here. Much like Maxus mentioned basically making an RPG that is the equivalent of "your custom RPG you play with friends", probably won't turn out so good as a product for people to spend money on. It's implied these designers will continue to make the same mistakes so many others have done so for years.

and that's just terrible (40 cakes and all).

So I wonder, what lesson(s) can be derived here, especially in the vein of RPG design here?

I guess don't try to honey your game in market speak? Be honest to the flaws of your system, even if you're a designer of the game, all the greater to improving the game that way. If you're going to get playtesters, make sure they're folk from the Optimization Boards or like, and have them do their best to do major stress tests, find loopholes in the rules, and otherwise flaws that somehow flew under the radar, so that they can be made obvious and fixed adequately.

As for the "tool kit" bit, does sound like one of their side defenses in regard to the game. Whole "if nothing else, can take stuff from this product to include it in your RPG sessions!". Although just sounds like it to be a given, similar with making stuff up in any RPG, unless of course the stuff ye can take into other games, is somehow easily enough compatible in it all.

[chaosfang]

One thing that I've learned about 13th Age by answering questions here is that when I'm telling people about the game, I really need to emphasize that this is what Rob and Jonathan play with their group on Wednesday nights. As a result, if Rob and Jonathan don't use a rule for something at their own table, 13th Age will not have a rule for it either.

So the current draft doesn't have specific rules for hiring mercenaries or buying a trained monster -- that would be role-played.

I'm gonna pop into this discussion real quick.

They really ought to try to see what happens to the game when someone plays differently than they do.

By all accounts, D&D 3.5 suffered because the playtesting assumed that people were playing a four-man party--Fighter, Rogue, In-Combat Healing Cleric, and Evocation Wizard. You know, just like they did.

If I can extend the metaphor, what happens in 13th Age when a party has two fighters, or two rogues, or no wizard? What, in fact happens, when the wizard decides he's going out for illusions rather than fireballs? What happens when the cleric decides he's not going to heal in the middle of combat, he's going to hit the gym, call upon the favor of his god, and open up a can of consecrated whoopass on the enemies right besides the fighter and rogue?

These days, a tabletop game designer really would benefit by handing a copy of the current rules of the game to a group of power gamers and saying, "I will give you twenty-five dollars for every exploit, unbeatable build, and/or instant-death spell combo you find."

tl;dr: It's all very well that the designers enjoy playing their own game. In fact, that's vaguely reassuring to me. But what happens when someone plays does something different than they do?

I actually run a 4E/13th Age hybrid game using publicly-available info on 13th Age + 4E rules for stuff I'm not able to cover because I don't have the full 13th Age rules yet. With a party comprised of Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, Warlock and Barbarian, so far no TPK has been recorded.

If I recall correctly, it's been mentioned somewhere that you're not limited to just 1/encounter Second Wind (but it's basically a 50% chance to happen after the first). When you think about it, the trade-off isn't so bad because of the Escalation Die -- you lose out on dealing damage a bit, but the comeback is more painful. Just restrict the abuse by consecutive use of Second Wind on pain of not benefiting from Escalation Die and offering the chance to flee.

From what I can tell about 13th Age, every character built is a collaborative effort of both players and DMs. If you are used to an antagonistic PvD approach to DMing, it certainly isn't going to end well for one side or another in any TRPG, so this system doesn't seem to cater to that sort of play.

Because seriously, if we were to crank stuff up to 11 in terms of abuse, RAW only with DM saying absolutely yes to any build, I could simply say "My unique feature is that I can never be harmed or killed. EVER." Or let's say, "I am Pun-Pun." Or if we were to go for a less extreme twisting of the system mechanics, go Rogue, take Ranger Two Weapon Fighting, and add Lightning Fork to the mix.

With 13th Age, not only do I have my already-in-use collaborative mapping, I now have collaborative character creation, storytelling and campaign creation.

it is easier to create let's say a powerful swordmage gish who creates lightning and thunder with every strike of his weapon, while using the Fighter class template, especially when you consider how only in particular cases would either lightning or thunder actually matter (even in 4E).

Does 13th Age's combat engine differentiate between thunder/lightning damage and non thunder/lightning damage?

Lightning and thunder are indeed damage types. chaosfang, I'd be interested in hearing more about how you might build that PC. Right off the bat my first thought is that they'd do their choice of thunder or lightning damage with each sword strike, and they'd have the Lightning Fork sorcerer spell as a class talent so once per battle they'd have a chance to do chain damage to other enemies. (Recharge 16+ after battle per the spell.)

I rarely build creatures that have specific weaknesses and resistances to damage types; instead, damage types determine how the spells and powers affect the world at large and vice versa.

So for instance, yes a fire-breathing dragon is immune to fire, but that doesn't stop him from having to breathe air or having innards that aren't immune to fire, so I basically have each fire damage miss as affecting parts of the dragon's body that's immune to fire, and each fire damage hit as affecting parts of the dragon's body that's not-so-immune to fire, or affecting it in such a way that it hampers his capability to fight (like hitting its eyes or any other sensitive spot).

So in my world, it's quite unbelievable that a fireball, robbed of air and space to be created in, would form underwater even with magic... but superheated compressed water ball being magically propelled then creating a large explosion when the caster releases the tension he created within the sphere *does* work and affect enemies with heat ("fire damage") as normal even in the absence of actual fire. Of course, the repercussions of such actions -- such as a forest fire, or unintentionally killing off the fish economy in a way not-so-different from dynamite fishing -- are also story-driven, even though sadly players will likely put that as an afterthought.

In my world, when a swordmage goes from enemy to enemy, using lightning and thunder to mow down enemies, it's essentially how the player describes his PC's actions: lightning shoots from his blade (can be a reflavored bow, requiring two minor actions to ready his "spell" and two minor actions to switch back to melee attacks), a peal of thunder booming as he swings through groups of enemies (Cleave or equivalent).

In fact, that's pretty much the jist of how the PC abilities of one player I DM via FB works.

EDIT: I am very well aware of how you have the possibilities of enemies catching fire or lightning causing static and paralysis or what not, but I'd rather have that as cinematic flair that, as a DM, I would have my monster do absolutely nothing the following round and I just say "he's been shocked by your spell and spends the remainder of the round recovering from the nastiness of that last attack". An optional add-on that I the DM am not required to implement regardless of situation, only when having such effects as story elements are appropriate.

[ Hmm, might I suggest that an additional sidebar be placed in the book regarding optional effects that go something like this:

"While we aren't going to go through the nuances of how each and every damage type works outside of the basic descriptions -- fire damage has flames erupting from one point, lightning crackles as it jumps from source to destination, thunder is an echoing boom that harms foes as the sonic wave travels in their direction, etc. -- the GM is free to create a variety of situational benefits and complications to play up the effects of these damage types, as long as both the GM and player are in total agreement on having the said benefits and possible complications on playing up the damage types.

For example, a thunder type damage that forces enemies to disengage from you (Thunderwave) could have a very strong echoing effect that disorients the enemy, causing them to move aimlessly during their next turn (especially in a cave wth very good acoustics). However, that same thundering echo could cause a miniature cave-in, which might not be to the benefit of the party.

Another example could have fire type damage burning crops or forests, or killing off schools of mundane fish (in the case of underwater fireball shockwaves).

However, for the benefit of those who want a more even playing field in their games, the default assumption is that these are typically best played up as part of casting spells in their ritual version, or as part of the Vancian style of play." ]

[ishy]

So am I correct in summarizing 13th age as:
a foundation for building your own rpg?

[chaosfang]

So am I correct in summarizing 13th age as:
a foundation for building your own rpg?

Personally, with what I've seen so far from 13th Age, that is one way to think of it. I'd rather think of it as follows:

"It's a system you can either run as is, or take a whole bunch of houserules from."

The funny part of the system, from what I can tell, is that most of what other systems would consider as houserules -- i.e. stuff not part of the original system, but DMs can modify because he's the DM -- are placed front and center here as part of the rules: Alternative rules, power/feature swapping, ignore EXP, theater of the mind play vs. grid play, etc. Then they took some ideas from other RPGs, added some stuff, and overall can inspire to either run it as is, or steal stuff from it to be used on the table.

While both 13th Age and D&D Next each has their issues, personally I like the direction 13th Age is going (in part because D&D Next doesn't seem to have THAT solid a direction at all... at least, not yet. Hopefully after GENCON the second playtest rules would be released and the rules changes would be more favorable in achieving the goals set by the devs**).

** Oh wait, Mike Mearls. Right. And to think, I had my hopes up for D&D Next.

AAAAAAAAAAAND it's gone.

[MGuy]

I never knew that the DM being able to switch things around was ever not a part of the rules. Are you saying that the rules explicitly state that the DM is "supposed" to make things up on his own instead of it being an option or are you saying that the game pushes that option harder in this system than others.

[...You Lost Me]

I think he's saying that the dumb things in D&D are explicitly being removed, instead of everyone houseruling them away on their own (i.e. experience points, retraining, and apparently abstract play?)

[chaosfang]

I never knew that the DM being able to switch things around was ever not a part of the rules. Are you saying that the rules explicitly state that the DM is "supposed" to make things up on his own instead of it being an option or are you saying that the game pushes that option harder in this system than others.

I think he's saying that the dumb things in D&D are explicitly being removed, instead of everyone houseruling them away on their own (i.e. experience points, retraining, and apparently abstract play?)

Part of what I'm saying is as mentioned by You Lost Me. Not only do you have stuff commonly ruled away to be officially away, but you are also officially given a variety of rules you can go for, depending on *YOUR* taste. For example, it was mentioned somewhere that when you crit, you can choose to either roll damage once and multiply it by 2, or double the number of damage dice rolled. I think it was also mentioned that if you had too many dice to roll, you can average out most of the dice, save for one or three (you could probably extrapolate that you could just do static damage throughout the game), so instead of 10+ dice you could be rolling just one die. You could also choose between rolling for recoveries or averaging out the recoveries.

In short, the game provides options for the group. Not "here's what I want, but I can't stop you from houseruling", just "here's how Rob handles stuff, here's how Heinsoo handles the same stuff in his own way; feel free to pick which method suits your game style best, or maybe just use what you know works".

[Voss]

In short, the game provides options for the group. Not "here's what I want, but I can't stop you from houseruling", just "here's how Rob handles stuff, here's how Heinsoo handles the same stuff in his own way; feel free to pick which method suits your game style best, or maybe just use what you know works".

So it is explicitly is a bunch of random houserules that Rob and Heinsoo wrote up in a pdf file and plan to charge actual money for?

[MGuy]

In short, the game provides options for the group. Not "here's what I want, but I can't stop you from houseruling", just "here's how Rob handles stuff, here's how Heinsoo handles the same stuff in his own way; feel free to pick which method suits your game style best, or maybe just use what you know works".

So it is explicitly is a bunch of random houserules that Rob and Heinsoo wrote up in a pdf file and plan to charge actual money for?

It more sounds like he's saying "Here are some common sense changes and here are some house rules we made up that you can use, or not use*, but feel free to pay us money for them".

*And by this they mean that it is "explicitly" instead of implicitly stated that you can toss the rules out... or keep them.

[Voss]

2nd edition AD&D had a bunch of shit listed in margins as 'Optional Rules.' This doesn't come across as that organized. This comes across as 'they couldn't resolve their bickering over preferences long enough to really design the game, so they just threw everything in there, and left it to individual groups to argue about for hours before a campaign can even be started.

[Wrathzog]

Voss, you're seriously stretching on trying to find things to hang this game on.