DreamLyrics™ Play-by-Post Forums Hall of Fame - Latest Top 10 completed games HHE: The Haunted Helm OOC: Drizzle

Negative. Possibly best explained in an earlier post.

But to summarise, "Daily" means a power refreshes at a Full Heal-Up. In 13th Age, an adventure is usually one day long; you try to get in, out, and back to sanctuary by nightfall. So in a travelling adventure like HHE, it would be sometime before your next Full Heal-Up. When you get back to town most likely.

But the PCs can have an early Full Heal-Up, by taking most of a day dedicated to rest and recuperation. The downside is that they suffer a "campaign loss". This will usually mean that bad things happen.

I was just renaming the HHE7 game thread, and was reminded of MikeD's comment that Heilbutt's was a great asset.

Indeed he was literally an asset. If you recall, Owain rolled a 5 on his Icon roll for his positive relationship with the High Druid, back at the start of the game. So I awarded him a follower. Heilbutt. If we were gaming around a table, Owain would have been controlling and rolling for Heilbutt. On a 5, the boon isn't all gravy, so it becomes the GM's job to make sure the follower causes some trouble for the party.

I think if he'd survived, Heilbutt's crush on Seyja would have led to more awkward moments. As it is, he resides with his ancestors and may they long counsel him on the perils of mountain women!

Well, since Seyja is used to working with Nestaron since they cooperated in locating possible campsites, I think it would be only natural for the two of them to pair up for sentry duty.

I'm open to other possibilities, however.

Well D is up for a middle shift, since he used to being awake at night. Any partner is fine, he doesn't talk a ton.

Neither does weston <wink>

Well read this afterwards. So if Z rejects him, he will swap to Weston's shift.

Jex will go on any shift and will work on lyrics for the Ballad of Heilbutt the Brave and start practicing with his new angry blade. It won't be a quiet shift.

Tindarien will pair up with anyone, possibly the Sergeant might be a good choice?

So here's what I've got you down for. Half-watches of roughly 2 hours, with the idea that all of you stay up and active until about 9 o'clock-ish.

1st. Nestaron+Seyja
2nd. D+Zoltan
3rd. Jex+Weston
4th. Almador+Tindarian

Also, I've updated and uploaded your char sheets. Shouldn't be any errors.

So Jex lost the coin toss, eh? <g>

Or Weston did....

It's worth talking about magic items in 13th Age.

You'll notice that true magic items, those items with a permanent bonus, are very rare. Not only that, but you can only attune to one per level.

There are no +1 magic swords. All magic swords have a special ability, as well as the bonus, a personality quirk and thus a name. The quirk's worth mentioning, because it infects the PC. Use too many magic items, and you suffer a personality collapse as your body is taken over by rogue magic items.

So Jex will find himself wanting to blurt out obscenities when he gets angry. Zoltan will find himself thinking abstract thoughts when under stress. Etc.

The attuning process can sometimes result in direct communication with a magic item. (So yes, you can end up talking to your sword. I guess it depends how good a conversationalist it is.)

Sooooo ... business as usual for Jex once he 'attunes' <weg>

Thanks, FWIW, I really like the sounds of that ... but it does put the onus on the GM to create ... 'interesting' ... magic items <g>

Sounds right for Jex - he and the sword are going to get along well

Hey peeps, you may have noticed another slight slowdown in HHE this week.

Don't worry, it's nothing major here, just the fallout from two weeks of expo, then gas training, and then hosting an American colleague this week (all the way from the Beaver State).

But November will soon be upon us, and I'll be trying to burn what annual leave I have left too, so keep watching this space.

In the meantime, something I haven't really surveyed you on are 13th Age's Icons.

<Shows page from book>

Firstly, what do you think of the Icons as written? You are meant to build on them and make them your own, but do you think the foundation is solid?

Secondly, there are no default pantheons in 13th Age. Though there are meant to be a multitude of pantheons, none of them are more real than the others. The gods are distant and mysterious, and beyond mortal ken, if they exist at all. Factions are divided amongst the Icons then. What do you think of this?

Finally, what's your opinion on how the Icons are used, mechanically, based on what you've seen so far.

As a starting group of "movers and shakers" who are key players in shaping world events I think it's good. I have a slight issue with Paladins following non-deities (if a Paladin gets magical spells from the one he follows, how does a non-deity grant him magic?), but that could be preconceptions from other systems.

I created my own god (as you know), with his own Sphere's of control and areas of focus. I am playing Zoltan as following his god, and that his god grants him his powers. He then "works" for the GGW as a sort of independent contractor.

I agree with Zeim that the 'starting list' as provided gives a decent starting point for just about any sort of 'motivation' a character might have. The idea that you take those 'broad strokes' and try to focus in on specific aspects of those initial broad strokes is an interesting idea and, I think, offers some great RP opportunities.

Unlike Zeim, I am not as ... 'concerned' about the fact that they seem to ... 'ignore' the specifics of the deities. I have always had a problem with that sort of 'restriction' ... or 'focus' ... depending on your perception <g> that a Paladin can't do anything without considering his diety. While I 'get' the idea of 'religious fervor', I also have a problem with it dictating every act a paladin might take. Looking at the 'Crusades' as an example, the Bible say (way near the top) thou shalt not kill, but the Crusades were all about killing. That had always bothered me. But in terms of RPG Paladins, it seemed to suggest that as long as you can 'justify' what you do, you can do wha-cha want. It is just a matter of being sure that your justifications are acceptable to your order's goals.

What all that means is that I can imagine a paladin finding an 'Icon' that best represents =the paladin's= feelings about his god and how best to serve.

The bad news is that Icons are only as ... 'useful' as the GM can make them. But given the 'd r a w n o u t' nature of on-line play, I think you have been doing an great job of making the icons important to our character's choices. It will be fun finding out how that all affects play as we move forward <g>

There's a section at the back of the core rules about converting the Icons to deities, but by default they're meant to be political factions.

This is specifically to allow the PCs to interact with them more, on the same level. The Orc Lord is literally some kind of orc Hitler, encamped at the far northern border of the Empire. The High Druid is literally a treacherous Feyborn witch, living somewhere in the Wild Wood and fermenting rebellion in the Empire.

It's assumed one or two PCs might actually become Icons, through the course of play, either replacing an existing Icon (Zoltan becoming the new Crusader, for example), or becoming a new Icon, Weston becoming The Questor or something. And this event is meant to herald the 14th Age.

But as for gods, by default the idea is for players to do as Zeim has done, and create the gods to fit their characters, rather than the other way around found in standard D&D.

We can then tie those gods into the Icons. Who else follows Zoltan's Herald, perhaps the Herald is a crucial figure in the Crusader or the Great Gold Wyrm's religion? That would depend on whether the Herald was light (GGW) or dark (Crusader), or maybe like real world Shiva, the Herald simply has dual aspects?

Either way, the Herald is suddenly a lot more interesting and intergrated into our specific story than most D&D deities.

I like the idea of icons, of major players in the world and getting swept into some of their schemes. Kind of elevates the characters in a realistic way.

True. Because every PC must have an Icon relationship, it does tie them into the setting inextricably. In some ways the PCs then define the setting.

Who are these Aurenaur e Du? At first glance it seems the Elf Queen supported them, since she took in Tindarien, but is that the real reason? Maybe she took in Tindarien to keep a close eye on him and ensure he didn't follow the same path, neatly glossing over Aurenaur e Du's true motives?

Etc.

I personally like how the icons are more approachable than traditional deities. But I could go either way with how they are represented or making them more deity like.

I personally like not having strong pantheons because it makes the world more customizable than other premade worlds.

Oh and Neil, Go Ducks! Being from that neck of the woods now. incase you don't get the in joke. Beavers are one Oregon college team and Ducks are the other. When I first moved to the state I was asked what are you? Technically I am neither but it is fun to watch the rabid nature of the fans.

I like that depth in a game, even a short one!

Well, he looked at me funny, Pandemonium. Turns out he's moved to Oregon too, from Oklahoma.

I think 13th Age has a solid D&D-ish system behind it, but what's intrigued me most is this setting customisation aspect.

I've played heavily detailed campaign settings, Mystara, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and I've played generic systems, like GURPS, Savage Worlds where you're expected to supply your own fantasy setting.

But 13th Age is the first game I've played where the creators have consciously tried to give you a framework to build on. As a GM, it does give you a headstart and I like that, I also like how it assists you, through One Unique Things, Backgrounds and Icon Relationships , to start customising.

Put it this way, I was very reluctant to run 13th Age as a message game, because I was convinced it'd be a lot of work, all that content creation. Yet, I can say with 100% certainty, it's been far less work than TVS (D&D 3rd Ed, Greyhawk) or INS (Savage Worlds, Aliens).

With your guys help, the story's written itself.

Neil,

I think the thing with 13th Age did to get that 'vibe' is sort of 'junk' the past efforts and start from scratch with their idea in mind. There are some real benefits to that approach, but it can also leave people familiar with previous, more rigidly structured games floundering a bit <g>

That is different from the path that 5th ed D&D took ... but with a similar goal in mind ... Get the players =AND= the GM working =together= to develop the 'story' and the 'world'.

I =like= that goal. But I think that there will be those that take some time to 'adapt' <g>

I like it as well, although it does seem to me to still be a lot of work for the DM. I'll take your word for it, Neil, that TVS was more work.

I guess part of it is when I look at this from a DM's perspective I see all of the blank spots that need to be filled in. I am not the most creative person when it comes to starting from a blank slate. That is why when I run it is always pre-written modules.

It is similar as a player. That is why I like detailed systems that lay out all the rules and options. I find I am not so creative as to just make up lots of cool stuff from scratch.

On the flip side, my creativity runs much more to finding the hidden synergies within systems and in using the rules in new and unexpected ways to accomplish goals.

I believe 13th Age has enough rules for me to work with, and there is great benefit to the way it involves the players in defining the world .

Happy Hallowe'en! I have written a spooky GM's post for you.

Zeim. Like you, I wouldn't have credited it and thought 13th Age would be a lot more work, but as it happens, if next to nothing been's published about the campaign setting, there's nothing to research or copy up either.

So, setting-wise, I'm pretty much reading what's posted by the players and making up every GM's post as I go along. It's actually much less time-consuming for a message game.

But aye, it would be more difficult sat around a game table, because the GM can't call a 5 minute timeout to ponder every new development. I guess, you might say that flying by the seat of your pants is easy when you're flying very very slowly.

Nice comments on how the system and tabula rasa elements worked out. I was concerned that it would be more work. But I tend to run almost completely fly by the seat of my pants as a GM and I have no issues ignoring stuff that hasn't been defined for the moment. One doesn't need to know all the answers just to make the scenario work, it is a matter of focus. Not saying that I don't get off topic, boy howdy, yet, it can work.

My concern for the game and work also revolved around all the crunchy bits that the characters can do during combat. You have greatly helped that by handling the combat yourself. But it is a question that has to be dealt with. The mechanics are built to make combat more interesting than just take a five foot step and swing. But it takes quite a bit of interaction to make that happen. I can see how at a table it would work better in some ways, and yet worse too. I like how this game is playing out. More story based, less worry over the niggily bits.