13th Age is a different beast than other d20 games, and GMing it effectively can take some getting used to. What follows is a list of tips to help ease the transition. I don't claim to be a spectacular 13th Age GM by any stretch; indeed, a lot of the items on this list are things that I'd like to strive for myself.
Tip 1: Get comfortable with improvisation. But first thing's first - accept the fact that you'll have to improvise if you take advantage of the system's strengths.
Tip 2: Don't be afraid to lean on your players. 13th Age gives players a lot of narrative power, allowing them to shape the campaign into their own ideal playground. You're still in charge of the details, but if you're drawing a blank your players will probably have some suggestions.
Tip 3: Fail forward. Sure, a lot of games embrace this philosophy, but it just so happens that it's important to 13th Age as well. As an example from the last session I ran: the Cleric wanted to identify these glowing lichens and glowing mushrooms in a dungeon passage. After failing the Intelligence check, the player said "well, I guess I have no clue what they are." To which I responded "You don't know their specific properties, but they look a lot like something you've heard in the stories of drow. Drow avoid them." Failure, and my on-the-spot thinking, actually generated a more interesting answer than if he'd succeeded and I simply told him what the fungi were.
Tip 4: The Mephistophelean Bargain. This is one of Rob Heinsoo's trademarks. It's a variant of the "yes, and..." school of thought. When a player suggests something, you shouldn't just say "no" because that's not very interesting. Even if it's something outrageous, you should give them an option to go with that - but with a commensurate price! This can either be a gambler's bargain, where the rewards for success are great, but failure offers a very severe risk, or it can simply mean accepting consequences along with what is asked for.
Tip 5: Minis are very helpful. Yeah, this is a gridless game and you can easily play it theater of the mind style, but minis make it extremely easily to quickly resolve any logistical questions the players might have, and everyone's on the same page in terms of where everyone is.
Tip 6: Ask leading questions, particularly during character creation. My players have a tendency to start out with pretty generic backgrounds. I wish I'd pushed them more to be a bit more creative, but it's starting to get refined out in-play all the same. The more specific your players get with their narrative mechanics (Backgrounds, One Unique Thing, Icon Relationships), the richer the game experience will be.
Tip 7: Now that you've encouraged the players to give you a bunch of built-in hooks, use them! The simplest and most overt example of this is using Icon rolls, but make sure you're weaving in elements from the character's backgrounds and OUTs as well. If you're ever stuck for ideas, turn to the character details. Players like when the plot becomes personal, so you can turn a dead end into something interesting.
Tip 8: Be prepared to house rule. The game's math is extremely transparent, so take advantage of that fact! I've had players complain about their classes, and since this is a story-focused game the players need to be invested in their characters. If there's a change that can be made to improve the experience for them, try it out! For example, my group found the Barbarian to be too weak so I'm more than happy houseruling it. Likewise my Cleric is getting bored with having only 1 ranged at-will spell, so I've set him to work homebrewing a new one (pending my approval, of course). You can directly modify the class mechanics, adjust the experience with significant magic items, or even use story rewards (like 4E's grandmaster training or divine boons).
Tip 9: Keep monsters interesting by sending them in in waves, having them play differently when staggered, or giving them abilities tied to the Escalation Die.
Tip 10: Create interesting items for players to spend their gold on. Ok, so not all campaigns have a big gear focus, but even though I'm one who likes to gloss over gear I still find the consumables list lacking. Potions (2 kinds), oils, and runes will get old fast. I've made a larger list of potions, and I'm also going to start keeping my eye open for story-based ways to make the PCs' lives easier if they're willing to shell out some cash.
Tip 11: Keep the terrain fresh, and give players a lot of non-standard options during combat. 13th Age doesn't have a robust tactical engine in the sense that, say, D&D 4e did. The advantages of this is that it's faster, and more flexible. Use Talents like Swashbuckle, Terrain Stunt, and Vance's Polysyllabic Verbalizations for inspiration (but make sure these options come with a cost, so as not to make those talents obsolete!). Players won't take the bait despite your hints? Have the monsters pull some crazy stunts for a less subtle approach.
Tip 12: Steal! Steal ideas from books, movies, tv, whatever. This is something that Chris Perkins emphasizes all the time, and it's all the more appropriate in a more narrative-centric game like 13th Age (compared with D&D). The more engaging and rich your story is, the more satisfying all of those story-based player resources will be. Of course disguise anything your players might be familiar with in a fresh set of clothes. In other words, don't copy+paste, but use familiar media as a starting point that you can add to. It can add a lot to the experience if you have a character in mind whenever you're playing an NPC (or an Icon), if nothing else than for consistency in how you portray them.
Tip 13: Have fun! Ok, so I started running out of worthwhile ideas, but this list just BEGS to have 13 tips, and having fun is really important (albeit obvious).
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Monday, May 27, 2013
Further Thoughts on the 13th Age Barbarian
The final PDF of the 13th Age core book is here, and unfortunately there were no changes made to the Barbarian. I had my hopes up when they were releasing individual chapters with the completed layout and the Barbarian was the only class conspicuously absent from these "previews," but alas the Barbarian is still underpowered.
I've thought about how to fix this class a lot in the past. I wrote an article on some options for doing so in the 13th Age Homebrew blog. I've discussed the issue with others on the Pelgrane Press forums and in the Google+ community. There were a lot of thoughts on the issue, and I've come to some additional conclusions (subject to refinement, of course).
The Defense Issue
This one's the biggest problem. Barbarians have absolutely awful AC for a frontline melee fighter, only moderate HP, and will attract a lot of attention given their high damage. On top of that, a few of their best talents make them bigger targets (Slayer can draw opportunity attacks if used to maximum effect, and Whirlwind lowers their pathetic AC even more). My previous solution, from the 13th Age Homebrew article, was to introduce a Talent that generated temp. HP when Raging (Berskerk Vitality). Some commented that it made a simple class potentially too complex, and it admittedly did widen the gulf between a Raging and a non-Raging Barbarian.
One suggestion that I got was to increase the Barbarian's base HP to 9. I keep coming back to this idea when thinking about how to homebrew the class back into effectiveness, and I think it's probably the best solution. Rogues make up for their base 12 AC by having Momentum powers (crafty fighting); Barbarians should make up for it by simply shrugging off hits. While THP does accomplish this it's a little more roundabout than simply giving the guy more HP. No messing around with new talents, which don't solve the problem of making all Barbarians more survivable anyways. I'm not sure if the HP increase will be enough on its own, but I think it's a great place to start without diverting too far from the core rules by making up wholesale new mechanics.
Rage
This is the signature ability of the class, and the recharge mechanics are a little weird. You only get 1 recharge roll instead of 1 after each battle, reducing the likelihood of using it later on in the day. Even if you get to add your Con mod to the roll this is a bad deal. I still stand behind making it follow the general recharge rules and rolling after each battle (this'll also reduce the chances of players "saving" their Rage; that's not how a Barbarian should look at things!). This serves the double purpose of making the Rage feats a little less mandatory, since you'll be more likely to Rage in multiple battles per day anyways.
Another interesting mechanic can be drawn from the D&D Next playtest. Barbarians have the option of making a "Reckless Attack" when they're not Raging, which gives them the offensive punch of Rage but at a serious cost in defense. I'd LOVE to see this tacked onto the 13th Age Barbarian's Rage, though it might be a little "much" in combination with the Rage feats that already exist. This might actually be a good avenue to explore via a new Talent (again, trying to avoid messing with the core Rage rules as much as possible). Here's a draft:
Wild Swing
When you're not Raging you can make a basic melee attack as if you were in a Rage (that is, you'll roll 2d20 taking the better result and critting if both are 11+), but you take a -4 penalty to AC and PD until the start of your next turn. This action cannot be taken during the same turn that you use Whirlwind.
Adventurer Feat: Once per battle an enemy you hit with this attack is Vulnerable to your attacks until the end of your next turn.
Champion Feat: Once per battle if you hit with this attack the target is Dazed, in addition to being Vulnerable.
Daily Feat: Once per battle if the attack hits you can heal using a Recovery. This can be a different use of Wild Attack than the one that triggers the Adventurer/Champion feats.
Other Suggestions - More Damage
Another popular house rule I saw suggested was to give Barbarians a d12 damage die with big two-handed weapons. In combination with the other boosts I think this might start to be too much. Feedback I've heard from other groups indicated that Barbarians already deal a ton of damage. The reason that I never saw this in my group was because the Barbarian player kept rolling low (missing with both d20s even while Raging surprisingly often), and because he kept getting knocked out. With more typical dice rolling, rolling Rage recharges after each battle, and the boost to base HP 9 the Barbarian should be improved enough to be competitive. If you try these out and still find the class lacking, increasing the damage die is a really easy fix that doesn't introduce any additional complexity. For those that want more variety in Talent choice, Wild Swing or Berserk Vitality might be good options to tinker with.
Summary for Houseruling the Barbarian
Start with bumping his base HP up to 9. Additionally, let him make his Rage recharge after every battle (as per the general recharge rules).
If this doesn't sufficiently improve the class to parity, boost their 2-handed damage die to a d12. You might also offer players the option of taking the Wild Swing and/or Berserk Vitality homebrewed talents.
I've thought about how to fix this class a lot in the past. I wrote an article on some options for doing so in the 13th Age Homebrew blog. I've discussed the issue with others on the Pelgrane Press forums and in the Google+ community. There were a lot of thoughts on the issue, and I've come to some additional conclusions (subject to refinement, of course).
The Defense Issue
This one's the biggest problem. Barbarians have absolutely awful AC for a frontline melee fighter, only moderate HP, and will attract a lot of attention given their high damage. On top of that, a few of their best talents make them bigger targets (Slayer can draw opportunity attacks if used to maximum effect, and Whirlwind lowers their pathetic AC even more). My previous solution, from the 13th Age Homebrew article, was to introduce a Talent that generated temp. HP when Raging (Berskerk Vitality). Some commented that it made a simple class potentially too complex, and it admittedly did widen the gulf between a Raging and a non-Raging Barbarian.
One suggestion that I got was to increase the Barbarian's base HP to 9. I keep coming back to this idea when thinking about how to homebrew the class back into effectiveness, and I think it's probably the best solution. Rogues make up for their base 12 AC by having Momentum powers (crafty fighting); Barbarians should make up for it by simply shrugging off hits. While THP does accomplish this it's a little more roundabout than simply giving the guy more HP. No messing around with new talents, which don't solve the problem of making all Barbarians more survivable anyways. I'm not sure if the HP increase will be enough on its own, but I think it's a great place to start without diverting too far from the core rules by making up wholesale new mechanics.
Rage
This is the signature ability of the class, and the recharge mechanics are a little weird. You only get 1 recharge roll instead of 1 after each battle, reducing the likelihood of using it later on in the day. Even if you get to add your Con mod to the roll this is a bad deal. I still stand behind making it follow the general recharge rules and rolling after each battle (this'll also reduce the chances of players "saving" their Rage; that's not how a Barbarian should look at things!). This serves the double purpose of making the Rage feats a little less mandatory, since you'll be more likely to Rage in multiple battles per day anyways.
Another interesting mechanic can be drawn from the D&D Next playtest. Barbarians have the option of making a "Reckless Attack" when they're not Raging, which gives them the offensive punch of Rage but at a serious cost in defense. I'd LOVE to see this tacked onto the 13th Age Barbarian's Rage, though it might be a little "much" in combination with the Rage feats that already exist. This might actually be a good avenue to explore via a new Talent (again, trying to avoid messing with the core Rage rules as much as possible). Here's a draft:
Wild Swing
When you're not Raging you can make a basic melee attack as if you were in a Rage (that is, you'll roll 2d20 taking the better result and critting if both are 11+), but you take a -4 penalty to AC and PD until the start of your next turn. This action cannot be taken during the same turn that you use Whirlwind.
Adventurer Feat: Once per battle an enemy you hit with this attack is Vulnerable to your attacks until the end of your next turn.
Champion Feat: Once per battle if you hit with this attack the target is Dazed, in addition to being Vulnerable.
Daily Feat: Once per battle if the attack hits you can heal using a Recovery. This can be a different use of Wild Attack than the one that triggers the Adventurer/Champion feats.
Other Suggestions - More Damage
Another popular house rule I saw suggested was to give Barbarians a d12 damage die with big two-handed weapons. In combination with the other boosts I think this might start to be too much. Feedback I've heard from other groups indicated that Barbarians already deal a ton of damage. The reason that I never saw this in my group was because the Barbarian player kept rolling low (missing with both d20s even while Raging surprisingly often), and because he kept getting knocked out. With more typical dice rolling, rolling Rage recharges after each battle, and the boost to base HP 9 the Barbarian should be improved enough to be competitive. If you try these out and still find the class lacking, increasing the damage die is a really easy fix that doesn't introduce any additional complexity. For those that want more variety in Talent choice, Wild Swing or Berserk Vitality might be good options to tinker with.
Summary for Houseruling the Barbarian
Start with bumping his base HP up to 9. Additionally, let him make his Rage recharge after every battle (as per the general recharge rules).
If this doesn't sufficiently improve the class to parity, boost their 2-handed damage die to a d12. You might also offer players the option of taking the Wild Swing and/or Berserk Vitality homebrewed talents.
Expanding on 13th Age Backgrounds
This week's See Page XX was a really good one! In addition to the Age of Camelot setting we also get a superb article on the flexibility of 13th Age backgrounds! There's honestly not much I have to add to this other than simply linking to it. The beauty of it is that it can fit virtually any situation, and is going to be campaign and character specific by its very nature. I especially love how re-writing backgrounds highlights character development (both narratively and mechanically), and how negative temporary backgrounds can be used to inflict longer term conditions than the standard "save ends" or "last until the end of your next turn" stuff that already shows up in combat. It's also a more elegant "lasting wound" rule than the option suggested in the rules!
An Example of a 13 Age/Archmage Engine Setting
In the latest edition of See Page XX (the monthly newsletter of Pelgrane Press) there's an article detailing an overview of The 13th Age of Camelot. While I'm not terribly familiar with the details of the Arthurian Legend (outside of the general knowledge stuff), this setting looks absolutely amazing! (And I do have several Arthurian books on my to-read list, but it's a pretty long list).
I especially like the variation of the Icon system, which become Chivalric Aspects. What I DON'T like is how restrictive the class choices are (especially considering the heavy use of the Ranger class, which doesn't offer a whole lot of options). But that could probably be altered to suit a given group's needs.
On an unrelated note, I can't believe it's been over a month since I've posted here!!! I've been busier with work, and there hasn't been very much in the way of news (it's pretty much a waiting game for both 13th Age and Edge of the Empire, my two most "active" systems at the present time, to get printed).
The 13th Age campaign has been going well, though. I'm currently in something of a transition phase where the players are getting off of Crescent Isle to branch away from the Axtalrath setting a bit. They'll almost certainly be back, but the island's been pretty thoroughly explored, the main adversaries are either effectively neutralized (aside from some loose ends) or out of the PCs' league, and perhaps most importantly I've got a lot of ideas swimming around in my head that happen off of the island. Axtalrath is a cool setting, but I've recently found it somewhat constricting, especially in terms of utilizing Icon rolls effectively.
I especially like the variation of the Icon system, which become Chivalric Aspects. What I DON'T like is how restrictive the class choices are (especially considering the heavy use of the Ranger class, which doesn't offer a whole lot of options). But that could probably be altered to suit a given group's needs.
On an unrelated note, I can't believe it's been over a month since I've posted here!!! I've been busier with work, and there hasn't been very much in the way of news (it's pretty much a waiting game for both 13th Age and Edge of the Empire, my two most "active" systems at the present time, to get printed).
The 13th Age campaign has been going well, though. I'm currently in something of a transition phase where the players are getting off of Crescent Isle to branch away from the Axtalrath setting a bit. They'll almost certainly be back, but the island's been pretty thoroughly explored, the main adversaries are either effectively neutralized (aside from some loose ends) or out of the PCs' league, and perhaps most importantly I've got a lot of ideas swimming around in my head that happen off of the island. Axtalrath is a cool setting, but I've recently found it somewhat constricting, especially in terms of utilizing Icon rolls effectively.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Improvised Mass Combat in 13th Age
My 13th Age Campaign based on the Dungeon World Front "The Great Wyrm Axtalrath" has taken on a life of its own. Which is perhaps to be expected, given the GMing philosophies and story game slant of the two systems. A few sessions ago the PCs traveled back in time to the 8th Age, encountering a very different Crescent Isle (and a very different Midland Sea, pre Archmage enchantment; wild and untamed). Their experience in the 8th Age planted seeds for overcoming the problems they've been facing in the 13th Age, the importance of some of which haven't been revealed yet.
Given the differences between the two ages, there's a lot of unexplained history and perhaps some avenues of interest that would inevitably lead to dead ends if pursued. So how did I address this potential issue? The almighty flashback. This past session the players took control of new PCs from the 8th Age (80 years after when the main PCs time-traveled to), all part of a crew tasked by the then-Emperor to take control of Crescent Isle by force (the native sea and wood elves took issue with the Empire essentially using their island as a prison colony, so they began sinking Imperial ships). The big upside to this flashback was also that the players got to experiment with other classes.
Fast forward to the final encounter of the evening. The party, backed by a platoon of imperial soldiers and 3 ballistas, took on the wood elf capital, their victory explaining why there are no wood elves on the island in the 13th Age. Oddly enough, it wasn't until I was a round or two into this combat that I thought "shit, I didn't even THINK about how the system doesn't have any mass combat rules!" Here's what I came up with, a few rounds into the combat (before that I described everything narratively).
I kept track of different units or sections of the battlefield. The Ranger was fighting with the soldiers, but the Wizard and Rogue went off on their own to take out some Druids that were controlling magical blasting stones that were decimating the soldiers and damaging the ballistas. Archers on top of the city walls were raining death down from above, while Druids wild-shaped into bears and wolves were trying to kill all the soldiers in the vicinity of the ballistas to neutralize them. Soldiers were escorting companions carrying a battering ram, and later in the fight I had a second unit arrive with reinforcements.
Perhaps appropriately since the idea for the campaign came from Dungeon World, my dirt-simple, on-the-fly mass combat rules were also inspired by Dungeon World. The core mechanic in Dungeon World is roll 2D6+modifiers, with a 6 or less as a failure, 7-9 as success but..., and 10+ as full success. Ok, so technically you could argue that the core mechanic of Dungeon World is actually narrative description, but when the dice come out that's how they roll.
Using that as a base, I rolled a d6 for each unit and on a 1-2 bad things happened, on a 3-4 both sides had some success and it mostly evened out, and on a 5-6 good things happened. It worked well enough to give the impression that I wasn't just making up whatever I felt like, but it was still pretty simplistic and didn't account for relative unit strength. Clearly there's room for improvement.
Refining the Basic Concept
Still, I like the base of letting large-scale events hinge on the roll of a d6, with results being more than just binary success/failure (namely that those middle values are a partial success). The question, then, is how to assign value to units in the simplest way possible?
I'm thinking of using the strongest unit present at the outset as a baseline, and giving it a value of 10. All other units are assigned values as a percentage of the strongest (a unit half as strong would be given a value of 5). Unit strength is an abstraction, so a unit with fewer raw numbers but in a highly defensible position would be pretty strong. An eyeballed approximation of advantage. This is still meant to be quick and dirty, potentially even run on-the-fly.
A unit's value represents its "damage roll." A multiple of the unit's value (10?) would serve as its "HP." Rolling for just a single side (the player's side), a 1-2 would deal the enemy unit's damage to the player unit's HP and the player unit would deal half damage to the enemy, 3-4 both would deal their damage to each other, and 5-6 the player unit would deal damage to the enemy while the enemy only deals half damage. Just like a group of mooks, once a unit takes damage equal to the HP multiplier, its value is reduced by 1.
Once a unit's value is reduced to half of the opposing unit's strength, that unit would start making morale rolls. I'm thinking a d6 with 1-2 as a failure, with failure increasing by an additional 1 for each additional point below half. If PCs want to act as "commander" types they could make Cha checks (with any relevant leadership background) to provide a +1 bonus to morale checks. Or maybe even damage checks.
For the sake of simplicity, unit strength could be tracked using d10s. If you use a map, the d10 could even represent the center of the unit's position.
Anyways, this hasn't been playtested AT ALL, it's mostly just me throwing out an idea for simplifying mass combat as much as possible. It's also worth mentioning that the way I envision this, it probably isn't the main focus of the combat. The PCs are off fighting specific foes at critical locations using the normal combat rules, with the mass combat going on in the background. So anyways, give it a try, tweak it, and let me know how it goes.
Given the differences between the two ages, there's a lot of unexplained history and perhaps some avenues of interest that would inevitably lead to dead ends if pursued. So how did I address this potential issue? The almighty flashback. This past session the players took control of new PCs from the 8th Age (80 years after when the main PCs time-traveled to), all part of a crew tasked by the then-Emperor to take control of Crescent Isle by force (the native sea and wood elves took issue with the Empire essentially using their island as a prison colony, so they began sinking Imperial ships). The big upside to this flashback was also that the players got to experiment with other classes.
Fast forward to the final encounter of the evening. The party, backed by a platoon of imperial soldiers and 3 ballistas, took on the wood elf capital, their victory explaining why there are no wood elves on the island in the 13th Age. Oddly enough, it wasn't until I was a round or two into this combat that I thought "shit, I didn't even THINK about how the system doesn't have any mass combat rules!" Here's what I came up with, a few rounds into the combat (before that I described everything narratively).
I kept track of different units or sections of the battlefield. The Ranger was fighting with the soldiers, but the Wizard and Rogue went off on their own to take out some Druids that were controlling magical blasting stones that were decimating the soldiers and damaging the ballistas. Archers on top of the city walls were raining death down from above, while Druids wild-shaped into bears and wolves were trying to kill all the soldiers in the vicinity of the ballistas to neutralize them. Soldiers were escorting companions carrying a battering ram, and later in the fight I had a second unit arrive with reinforcements.
Perhaps appropriately since the idea for the campaign came from Dungeon World, my dirt-simple, on-the-fly mass combat rules were also inspired by Dungeon World. The core mechanic in Dungeon World is roll 2D6+modifiers, with a 6 or less as a failure, 7-9 as success but..., and 10+ as full success. Ok, so technically you could argue that the core mechanic of Dungeon World is actually narrative description, but when the dice come out that's how they roll.
Using that as a base, I rolled a d6 for each unit and on a 1-2 bad things happened, on a 3-4 both sides had some success and it mostly evened out, and on a 5-6 good things happened. It worked well enough to give the impression that I wasn't just making up whatever I felt like, but it was still pretty simplistic and didn't account for relative unit strength. Clearly there's room for improvement.
Refining the Basic Concept
Still, I like the base of letting large-scale events hinge on the roll of a d6, with results being more than just binary success/failure (namely that those middle values are a partial success). The question, then, is how to assign value to units in the simplest way possible?
I'm thinking of using the strongest unit present at the outset as a baseline, and giving it a value of 10. All other units are assigned values as a percentage of the strongest (a unit half as strong would be given a value of 5). Unit strength is an abstraction, so a unit with fewer raw numbers but in a highly defensible position would be pretty strong. An eyeballed approximation of advantage. This is still meant to be quick and dirty, potentially even run on-the-fly.
A unit's value represents its "damage roll." A multiple of the unit's value (10?) would serve as its "HP." Rolling for just a single side (the player's side), a 1-2 would deal the enemy unit's damage to the player unit's HP and the player unit would deal half damage to the enemy, 3-4 both would deal their damage to each other, and 5-6 the player unit would deal damage to the enemy while the enemy only deals half damage. Just like a group of mooks, once a unit takes damage equal to the HP multiplier, its value is reduced by 1.
Once a unit's value is reduced to half of the opposing unit's strength, that unit would start making morale rolls. I'm thinking a d6 with 1-2 as a failure, with failure increasing by an additional 1 for each additional point below half. If PCs want to act as "commander" types they could make Cha checks (with any relevant leadership background) to provide a +1 bonus to morale checks. Or maybe even damage checks.
For the sake of simplicity, unit strength could be tracked using d10s. If you use a map, the d10 could even represent the center of the unit's position.
Anyways, this hasn't been playtested AT ALL, it's mostly just me throwing out an idea for simplifying mass combat as much as possible. It's also worth mentioning that the way I envision this, it probably isn't the main focus of the combat. The PCs are off fighting specific foes at critical locations using the normal combat rules, with the mass combat going on in the background. So anyways, give it a try, tweak it, and let me know how it goes.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
13th Age Monk
The Monk is back! This is the first class to be opened for playtesting of 13 True Ways. As per the Introduction in the PDF I'm not going to discuss any specifics publicly. The rationale is that reading what others think will affect your own perceptions of the class, disproportionately perpetuating a single opinion. I happen to agree, and I think that can be seen by reading a lot of the D&D Next feedback.
All I will say is that I made a Monk, and I ran it through a "solitaire" playtest battle (along with a Bard and a Sorcerer), and submitted my initial feedback (much of which was informed by that encounter). It's a huge improvement on the versions in the Escalation Editions. It feels like a Monk. It has a non-traditional structure, and it makes me wonder how some of the other classes in 13 True Ways will be built.
All I will say is that I made a Monk, and I ran it through a "solitaire" playtest battle (along with a Bard and a Sorcerer), and submitted my initial feedback (much of which was informed by that encounter). It's a huge improvement on the versions in the Escalation Editions. It feels like a Monk. It has a non-traditional structure, and it makes me wonder how some of the other classes in 13 True Ways will be built.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
D&D Next March Playtest - Concluding Thoughts
I figured I'd end this series with what personal expectations I have for D&D Next, and whether or not the system is shaping up well enough to meet them. I have two groups that I game with in-person, on a regular to semi-regular basis. Currently I'm gaming once a week, with one of those groups, though I'm hoping to start something up with the second group again soon.
I also like to try a lot of games, at least recently. Since there are a LOT of options for fantasy gaming, D&D Next faces stiff competition.
It's also worth noting that I've had the good fortune to introduce groups completely new to tabletop roleplaying to the hobby. Mostly on a casual basis, often a one-time thing just so they can see what it's like.
I'm hoping that D&D Next fulfills the role of a good "introductory" game more than anything. It's got the D&D label, which is sometimes important to new players. It doesn't have the complexity (at least not the basic module) of 3.x or 4E. And it's a more attractive candidate than 0, 1, or 2E for a couple of reasons: the first being that I haven't played those editions and so am not terribly familiar with them, and the second being that what I've read has left me relatively cold. A lot of archaic mechanics that, while not too difficult if you put the effort into learning them, simply have more modern alternatives that I would constantly pine for if I actually played.
Will I look to Next for either of my regular groups? We'll probably give it a shot, but it's unlikely to be an ongoing thing. An initial introduction to the system, and perhaps the occasional one-shot (especially if it delivers on the play-an-adventure-in-an-hour front). I might also use it if I'm in the mood for a more Old School style of game. But for my staple, go-to fantasy roleplaying I'm more likely to use either 13th Age, or possibly 4E if I want a more tactical focus. Group 2 still has players that would be willing to RUN 4E, so I'll certainly keep PLAYING it even if I choose 13th Age when I'm in the GM's seat. Heck, I've been doing some research on Savage Worlds as well (I have the core book but haven't played), and if I end up really liking the system then a fantasy setting like Hellfrost would probably be higher on the list of games to run long-term than D&D Next. The caveat here is that if D&D Next really wows me with the more advanced modules then that could change things, but based on the direction it seems to be headed other games just simply cater to my wants better.
It's important to note, however, that I REALLY DO want D&D Next to succeed. The D&D brand is a rallying cry for tabletop gamers in general, and when it's doing well so will other games. It's the best way of bringing new blood into the hobby. And besides that, even if I don't play it regularly it'll still probably hold my interest from a game design standpoint. Just having the opportunity to participate in the playtest is a huge privilege as far as I'm concerned, and I'd like to think I'm playing my part in making the game better. Perhaps even helping it to align more with my preferences (as an optional module, if nothing else). But that's the key thing that I try to keep in mind - keeping separate the questions "is this game well-designed?" and "does this game meet the needs of my gaming preferences?" A lot of the negative reactions toward Next don't seem to make that distinction.
I also like to try a lot of games, at least recently. Since there are a LOT of options for fantasy gaming, D&D Next faces stiff competition.
It's also worth noting that I've had the good fortune to introduce groups completely new to tabletop roleplaying to the hobby. Mostly on a casual basis, often a one-time thing just so they can see what it's like.
I'm hoping that D&D Next fulfills the role of a good "introductory" game more than anything. It's got the D&D label, which is sometimes important to new players. It doesn't have the complexity (at least not the basic module) of 3.x or 4E. And it's a more attractive candidate than 0, 1, or 2E for a couple of reasons: the first being that I haven't played those editions and so am not terribly familiar with them, and the second being that what I've read has left me relatively cold. A lot of archaic mechanics that, while not too difficult if you put the effort into learning them, simply have more modern alternatives that I would constantly pine for if I actually played.
Will I look to Next for either of my regular groups? We'll probably give it a shot, but it's unlikely to be an ongoing thing. An initial introduction to the system, and perhaps the occasional one-shot (especially if it delivers on the play-an-adventure-in-an-hour front). I might also use it if I'm in the mood for a more Old School style of game. But for my staple, go-to fantasy roleplaying I'm more likely to use either 13th Age, or possibly 4E if I want a more tactical focus. Group 2 still has players that would be willing to RUN 4E, so I'll certainly keep PLAYING it even if I choose 13th Age when I'm in the GM's seat. Heck, I've been doing some research on Savage Worlds as well (I have the core book but haven't played), and if I end up really liking the system then a fantasy setting like Hellfrost would probably be higher on the list of games to run long-term than D&D Next. The caveat here is that if D&D Next really wows me with the more advanced modules then that could change things, but based on the direction it seems to be headed other games just simply cater to my wants better.
It's important to note, however, that I REALLY DO want D&D Next to succeed. The D&D brand is a rallying cry for tabletop gamers in general, and when it's doing well so will other games. It's the best way of bringing new blood into the hobby. And besides that, even if I don't play it regularly it'll still probably hold my interest from a game design standpoint. Just having the opportunity to participate in the playtest is a huge privilege as far as I'm concerned, and I'd like to think I'm playing my part in making the game better. Perhaps even helping it to align more with my preferences (as an optional module, if nothing else). But that's the key thing that I try to keep in mind - keeping separate the questions "is this game well-designed?" and "does this game meet the needs of my gaming preferences?" A lot of the negative reactions toward Next don't seem to make that distinction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)