|
4 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 2:47PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
No preview options for 13th Age?
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 4:52PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
No preview options for 13th Age?
None yet. I've asked the question on their forum and got this answer.
Free RPG day is mid June anyway, but the game should be out in April.
Alternatively by preordering you get access to the final draft sent to print. I did and didn't regret.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 8:22PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
(Incidentally, right now, my 2nd favorite RPG is 13th Age. Go figure, it's very similar to 4e.)
Yeah, if only 13th Age was available in print, I'd have recommended it. Only a few more months to go, I think. It's a very rules-light and modern version of D&D fantasy, which sounds perfect for this group.
I just got to play 13th Age at DunDraCon, and it is pretty decent. It still needs some work, and, like 5e, seems more like its pulling back from 4e than evolving from it. I just can't reccomend it for the same reason I'd warn a new player from the 5e playtest, because it's not a finished system yet.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 23, 2013 - 1:04PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
I just got to play 13th Age at DunDraCon, and it is pretty decent. It still needs some work, and, like 5e, seems more like its pulling back from 4e than evolving from it. I just can't reccomend it for the same reason I'd warn a new player from the 5e playtest, because it's not a finished system yet.
It's interesting, for me 13th Age propagates radially from 4e: in some ways it moves backwards (deliberately) in other it moves forward. Overall as a game I still prefer original 4e, by an inch, but at the same time I prefer 13th Age to Essentials. Thanksfully hybriding 4e and 13th comes quite easily and organically.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 23, 2013 - 1:14PM
#35
|
|
|
(Incidentally, right now, my 2nd favorite RPG is 13th Age. Go figure, it's very similar to 4e.)
Yeah, if only 13th Age was available in print, I'd have recommended it. Only a few more months to go, I think. It's a very rules-light and modern version of D&D fantasy, which sounds perfect for this group.
Meh, I was in 13a playtest. I think its a decent game, but I think it lacks some of the better points of 4e. Certainly the rules for PCs abilities are a lot less transparent and easy to use than those in 4e. I mean a 13a Bard is using 4 different 'power' systems (I have the same criticism of DDN's Cleric amongst others). Both games have a nice intent of speeding up playing through encounters and allowing some more abstract play (though personally I like 4e's combat), but I think both games are missing the boat in other ways. It is definitely worth trying out 4e and learning how it plays in contrast to either of the newer games.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 23, 2013 - 3:48PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 2004
|
Well, if the OP had said "I want to play D&D, which version do you think I should go with" I would have said 4e. Instead, he said... We're going to be leaning more towards the casual side because we'll only play it occasionly. I think we'd be more into the actual roleplaying and having fun than worrying too much about numbers.
"Not worrying about numbers" sounds to me like not particularly caring about the tactical maneuvering that 4e excels at in combat, and 13th Age eschews.
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 23, 2013 - 7:14PM
#37
|
|
|
My preference is 4e, but I have always found that the game played by everybody else is the superior choice because you get to actually play the game. [You talk about a new group, but some of you will want to play in other groups at times, and you will find it easier to recruit players [which you will likely need to at some point] if you use the popular system.]
That probably argues for Pathfinder [D&D 3.7 or so].
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 25, 2013 - 9:34PM
#38
|
|
|
Well, if the OP had said "I want to play D&D, which version do you think I should go with" I would have said 4e. Instead, he said...
We're going to be leaning more towards the casual side because we'll only play it occasionly. I think we'd be more into the actual roleplaying and having fun than worrying too much about numbers.
"Not worrying about numbers" sounds to me like not particularly caring about the tactical maneuvering that 4e excels at in combat, and 13th Age eschews.
Yeah, I dunno. I think 4e is a good game not to worry about numbers in. You will have fine usable characters and you can just play. The DM can simply go crazy and add whatever nutty things they want to the game and it is very hard to break. Its also true that you can get quite wrapped up in numbers in 4e if you want, and some people will get sucked into that. You can also have a boring time building 1e-style heavily static crawl-type exploration games. DDN or 13a are more likely to avoid the problems with an exploration game. OTOH neither of them is as simple mechanically for the player. 13a also adds some more explicit narrative type elements to the game, which is interesting. I still want consistent class/monster mechanics, it was just simple. I also thought the crunching things down to 10 levels in 13a was a bit extreme.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 26, 2013 - 11:11AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2003
|
OTOH neither of them is as simple mechanically for the player. 13a also adds some more explicit narrative type elements to the game, which is interesting. I still want consistent class/monster mechanics, it was just simple.
Speaking as someone who has DM'd 4E since it came out in June of 2008 and as someone who has run 13A for four different groups (two playtest one-shots and two ongoing campaigns currently), I find these claims about 13A...... well, interesting, to say the least.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 26, 2013 - 11:53AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
OTOH neither of them is as simple mechanically for the player. 13a also adds some more explicit narrative type elements to the game, which is interesting. I still want consistent class/monster mechanics, it was just simple.
Speaking as someone who has DM'd 4E since it came out in June of 2008 and as someone who has run 13A for four different groups (two playtest one-shots and two ongoing campaigns currently), I find these claims about 13A...... well, interesting, to say the least.
13A definitely has some 'fuzzy' mechanics, and the way classes work is not as consistent as 4e. In that sense, it's not as simple as 4e, though that sense is not as easy to pick up & play, more than in the sense of not as complex. 13A definitely has strong narrative (narrativist?) elements, like Icons and Backgrounds. Icons are easily ignored if you don't feel the need for them - they remind me of Hero System "Watched" and "Hunted" disads.
Backgrounds, though, made me nervous: they're player-defined/DM-interpreted, so there's a lot of room for dissapointment and/or conflict over how often they work. 5e Backgrounds and 13A Backgrounds both determine your characters skills, but where 5e at least gives definitions of which skills and what each skill can be used for, 13A drops all that in the GM's lap. One player says "I'm a Locksmith" and another says "I'm a Thief," the GM lets them both add their background to lockpicking, but the Thief also adds his to sneaking around, picking pockets, running confidence games, and circumventing traps. Another GM might also let the locksmith make clocks, wheelock pistols, and traps (all things locksmiths /did/ at some point in history), and keep ledgers, deal with guild politics, and the like - but that's still not as much adventuring stuff as the traditional 'thief' might get. Too fuzzy. 5e at least avoids the worst of that with its take on Backgrounds.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
