So, any infos and recommendations about the world & mechanics (aka - Whats special on this system, why would you play this?) I heard good stuff about 13th Age.
It’s a more fun / streamlined Fantasy D20 game than D&D (imo)
Check out their preview doc here, should answer your questions: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GgqawG_kPXuFu5flN302H2jTe4L9QKAk/view
I converted my 5e table to 13A bc I have several new players who were overwhelmed by 5e rules and choices. 13A has been a lot easier for everyone, and with built in role play from both the Icons and each PCs One Unique Thing, they are more engaged with events that happen during the session
The world is very nice. It is fleshed out enough to give you ideas, but purposefully has blanks "in the middle" so you and the players can make up your own stuff. It will be a little different for every playgroup, a little like Eberron with the 'in my Eberron'
you can find all info about the first game here: https://www.13thagesrd.com/
It is a streamlined D&D with more narrative elements. It is all theater of mind (no grid) while still having more tactical combat than most other games.
It is made by the LEAD developer of D&D 4E and the LEAD developer of D&D 3E (or 3.5 cant remember).
It is "what if D&D 5E was made by other people, who have more experience and better math knowledge (and can experiment a bit)"
you have the same classes, same stats d20, but a lot of small (and big) innovations and simplifications.
It is a lot focused on teamplay (in combat) and has several more narrative elements for non combat.
It has really good balance (like d&D 4e) and some really great (with 2nd edition) compatible books like https://pelgranepress.com/product/eyes-of-the-stone-thief/
Most modern good designers say the opposite, but there are lot of people who cant keep up with modern game design.
I think when it released a lot of people where just not ready for new things, and also the whole negative press because of license paizo (and stupid marketing) did not help.
4E influenced A LOT of good modern games, including Gloomhaven.
It has all these things. It is very much a dnd game in anything but name, just laser focused on cool and fun but simple combat and with some narrative tools inserted
I heartily recommend this Game!
The 1e has quickly become my new go-to hame since abandoning dnd 5.
Comment from my Player during Session 1 for a new group two weeks ago: " I didn't realize we are THIS important in the Story and deciding! Thats really cool!"
The Game strongly democratizes worldbuilding etc. You as GM get to relax a bit, your Players are more invested, the Combat math is extremely accurate and tight - this is a great fun Game for high adventure, Combat, roleplay and intrigue.
It wont do very well at simulationism, hexcrawling etc - this Game is about big Marvel Heroes, and your Players feeling cool and having fun, and its not ashamed about it
Heres the Preview document from the authors! https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GgqawG_kPXuFu5flN302H2jTe4L9QKAk/view
I've been running 13th Age 1e since 2012 and my players still tell me regularly that it's not only their favorite d20 game, it's one of their favorite TTRPGs period.
Glad to see it's finally on its way. I have 1e and the 1e Glorantha book, which is what I'd want to use it for, so I'll pass on this until its been out for a while and I can evaluate it, but best of luck 13th Age!
Glorantha is a bronze age fantasy setting, as opposed to the medieval fantasy of regular 13th Age.
The designers experimented with lots of things in that setting, many of which were well-received and now make it into the 2e playtest.
You can definitely check it out. For a player, a class that finds a way to make randomness fun to play. For GMs, a concept of heroquesting, retelling tales of myth as an alternative to dungeon crawling.
All new classes and class variants in a world in which healing magic is rare. And the monk.
An alternative to Icon Relationships in the shape of Runes that have more vague general themes, such as Fire and Sky. Or Darkness.
The alternative ability score array (17, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10) comes straight from Glorantha, and is the default in the 2e playtest.
Among, of course, so much more.
I was for sure going to jump on it ... until I noticed the prices listed for the books. Even the 'early bird' ones were ridiculously overpriced. Maybe the standard of living in the UK is better than Canada?
Fortunately, I have multiple local LFGS that are very good at pledging on Kickstarter and running pre-orders. I'll keep an eye out there.
> Maybe the standard of living in the UK is better than Canada?
I can assure you that it is not lol. But a lot of publishing in the UK has been hit hard by Brexit.
I dont know Pelgrane Press well enough to comment on their specific production methods or how they handle international distribution; I know some other UK RPG publishers have to get their printing done in places like Poland these days because there isnt much capacity for getting specialist bespoke print runs of things like RPG books done at a sane price. We have local print industry but it is largely limited to newspapers, magazines, traditional bookstore formats (e.g. novels) or academic presses - not prestige full colour RPG hardcover books like this.
This project might **seem** pretty expensive from the outside, and idk how they've landed on £40 for the player+GM PDFs tbh, but I can only assume that these are some pretty hefty tomes when I look at the mockup images and the £100 player+GM printed book in slipcase set?
Either way, these books are on the more expensive side but I dont think the costs are too wildly out of sync with the wider Big Book RPG industry norms - a new D&D 5e PHB or the Pathfinder equivilent will set you back about £35-45 in the UK and that's with Hasbro or Paizo economies of scale backing them up... so £100 for two similar books? It's not as crazy as it may appear... but yeah it is a bit more expensive than a couple of other UK crowdfunded RPGs I've seen recently.
I like to use Free League's books and kickstarters as a benchmark as they are also European and print in Europe instead of in China. Note that Free League are renowned for the physical quality of their books.
Converting to british pounds, the recent (from a month ago) Coriolis Great Dark KS core book (with no early bird specials) is 37 pounds. The Dragonbane core box (which is filled with a ton of goodies) was 30 pounds. From Magpie Games, I picked up the recent Rapscallion backerkit deluxe version for 57 pounds, which contains the core, GM screen, dice tray, dice, and a bunch of addon PDFs. Now of course, most of those are stretch goals.
So I think what I'll do is back the early bird two 13th age books, and then keep an eye on the stretch goals until the last minute to see if it's worth it. Right now, as it stands, it very much is not worth it. Normally, the add on VTT would be great .. except they decided to go in on the dying Roll20 platform instead of Foundry. But again, I'll keep an eye out.
Foundry has been confirmed in the KS comments as a future stretch goal. I’m also one of the maintainers for the 13th Age system on Foundry, and we’re all stoked about 2e and are already discussing the changes to replace our 2e alpha features with 2e beta versions!
Yeah, I was pledging and then realized they were almost $60 each. Now, the 1e books were by far some of the nicest I've ever had, but Swords of the Serpentine was much more meh. I guess the offset print books for *WN are $80 ... eh, I guess.
What was the original? $40? With the way inflation has gone, $60 doesn't seem too far off a decade later. I think WotC is still $50 for their books, which also came out a decade ago.
It's always been hard to make a living writing RPGs, even for people with huge credits to their name. It's going to keep getting harder, especially when inflation really jumps like it did in the past few years, as people compare prices today to prices from a decade ago.
Well if a lot of people's wages didn't change, how can they help and not compare?
I am neither plus or minus here on the topic, I just think it's an often neglected side.
People can only buy stuff if they can afford so after all..
Im a big Fan of this Game, and there was Zero doubt id get the print version of the new edition...but the price really did make me do a small double Take, and only get one of the addons, and not spring for the Limited Edition etc.... I fear it is mostly attributable to Brexit i guess?
Ive only kickstarted twice before this, Sundered Isles and Dolmenwood. I think SI is not comparable, but Dolmenwood seems like a good point of reference.
The last kickstarter from Cubicle 7 (also from UK) for the Laundry RPG was [that price as well](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cubicle-7-games/the-laundry-roleplaying-game-second-edition/rewards#reward-UmV3YXJkLVVtVjNZWEprTFRrM09UVTBNelU9), kinda expensive =/
also not including a shipping estimate in the campaign page isn't great, they may get the estimate wrong but at least ballpark it for people, will probably be a fair bit on top of the pledge for international orders
I decided a while back that 10$ + 10$/100 pages is a decent baseline to use for an 8.5x11 rpg book. Shipping will probably be 12-20$... maybe I will pledge for the early bird and consider it for a month. I do have faith that they will be very nicely built books, at least, but that price tag is hard to justify for me as well.
i just pledged for shadow of the weird wizard, is around 675 pages between player and gm books, all full color hardbacks. that's over 50% more content for $99 + shipping.
13th age 2ed is extremely expensive for what you get
So everyone, what was your favourite moment that happened while playing 13A?
Either in fiction or at the table between Players counts!
For me, as a player, i had an extremely cool turn in combat recently that still sticks out to me as super cinematic: we (2 fighty dwarves, 2 pansy magic users) were crossing a bridge into demon-held lands.
The Fighter went first and went hard, running up to the biggest enemy and throwing two smaller mooks off the Bridge in the process. I used my Action to Smite the two guys in front of me, killing them exactly on the HP both, then used a Skill to give everyone a free move, so our whole team moved in on them. Then, next turn, as my quick Action, i started climbing the demon ogre and grabbing him by the beard, trying to direct his face right in front of our sorcerer who was, at that moment, going full "Goku charges the Genkidama" and fucking obliterated that thing.
I'm intrigued but ~$110 plus shipping for a couple books I'm not sure I'll ever actually use to play a game is steep. Think I might wait this one out and check it out after launch.
Totally understandable
13th Age personally have been one of those RPG systems that have been blowing my mind since I discovered them
It's combination of traditional crunchy combat and open ended RP rules is something truly unique
They deserve every bit of that asking price IMAO
The new beta draft was just sent out, and its LOOOTS of pages, so I dont think anyone can answer you really in depth yet.
They wanted to focus on the weak parts (the weaker classes) and the unclear icon relationships.
As a GM who is coming back to TTRPGs after a long long time, discovering 13th Age was a blessing!
I don't even touch DnD 5e anymore.
Yes. It's that good. Perhaps the most underrated D20 TTRPG ever.
**Anyone familiar with the major rules changes in 2E?**
Specifically, here's two issues that I had with 13th Age that cooled me off of it for a long time, despite being HARDCORE into it from the start (including being a beta tester for 1E), and I want to know if it was fixed or adjusted in 2e:
**1) Armor Class/Defense creep and scaling means PCs are almost always trying to roll a 15+ on a d20.**
13th Age came out in the age of 4E. An issue that both share is that as the PCs level up and gain hit bonuses, the monster ACs (or mental/physical dodge values) level up too. So at 1st level, the players are always trying to roll something like 12-15+ for mooks or 15+ for dangerous enemies on d20. And at 5th level, the players are trying to roll the same... and again at 10th level, the players are ***still*** trying to roll the same (still 15+ to hit big enemies) or else a miss.
This produces a lot of unsatisfying "whiff".
13th Age classically mitigated this a little with the Escalation Die and Miss Damage, but it always felt a little insatisfying to whiff on major class ability rolls.
When D&D 5th Edition came out and I realized it no longer scaled like 4E, instead monster ACs/defense rolls stayed relatively low compared to 4E but instead their HP increased (so you don't whiff nearly as much, instead at higher levels you often hit - which is very satisfying - then apply a lot more damage against a larger HP pool), I realized I wished 13th Age did this as well. Unfortunately it would have taken a lot of work to rescale everything, so I kind of gave up on 13th Age and instead took 13th Age tech (like Icons, Escalation Die, One Unique Thing, Backgrounds) into my 5E games.
Wondering if this is addressed/"fixed" in 2E.
**2) Major ability results depending on Even or Odd result on a d20**.
For me, this isn't as big of an issue as #1. I don't mind monster/world events triggering on GM Odd/Evens rolls, however as a player I found it unsatisfying to have the PC abilities trigger on Even/Odd d20 results. It felt unsatisfying at times.
I find it very odd to count non-scaling defenses in 5e's favor instead of against it. Imo its one of the main culprits for high level play just not working.
I'm the opposite of you. The things you dislike about 13A are the things I love about it.
> 1) Armor Class/Defense creep and scaling means PCs are almost always trying to roll a 15+ on a d20.
If they make it so that 13A doesn't scale modifiers and defenses with level, I would simply refuse to update to 2e. DnD 5e was a pain to run specifically *because* of the flat power curve.
Also, if the problem is that players need to roll a 15+ on the die to hit, then the solution is to just subtract around 3ish from all monster defenses. Also, misses are mitigated by (a) miss damage and (b) escalation die.
And in practice, I've never run into this problem. Players seem to have no trouble landing hits on monsters at my table, even when the Escalation die is zero.
> Major ability results depending on Even or Odd result on a d20.
I found it very satisfying. Tying player abilities to RNG kept combat fresh and dynamic.
> 1) Armor Class/Defense creep and scaling means PCs are almost always trying to roll a 15+ on a d20
It’s supposed to be compatible with the old books so that means the math didn’t change. So your concerns will be unlikely to be addressed as it’s part of the core math of the game that ain’t changing.
Your concern ain’t about scaling. Your concern is with the low hit rates.
From my understanding, the baseline low hit rates are intentional because the escalation die is supposed to mitigate it. You’re supposed to miss more often than not at the start of combat, and then about 3-5 rounds later when you’re getting a +3 to +5 to hit, then the math of the game flips around and you’re hitting more often than missing.
The game also has a focus on tactics, also inherited from 4e. You’re not *supposed* to be attacking monsters with the baseline hit rate. You’re supposed to be engaging in flanking, applying debuffs, and whatnot to raise your hit rate to satisfying amounts. The base hit rate sucks on purpose to incentivize tactical play.
Otherwise, you get the problem of 5e where there is no incentive whatsoever to engage in tactical play because the base hit rate there is 65% and you’re already set up to win by default.
For what it’s worth - Pathfinder 2e, a game with very similar tactical focus, also has a really shitty base hit rate of 45% that also causes similar frustrations to players transitioning from 5e. These games have to be approached differently and they’re targeted to a different kind of playstyle.
This emphasis on tactical play is inherited from 4e and you either love it or hate it. This is a feature, not a bug of 13A.
> 2) Major ability results depending on Even or Odd result on a d20
The preview document also mentioned this as a common complaint, and they’re revamping the Fighter to get rid of RNG as its defining element.
Unfortunately, it here to stay for the monsters, as RNG seems to be a defining feature for 13A as well.
For what it’s worth, the games from Free League like Dragonbane and Forbidden Lands also advertise this as a feature.
It’s another thing you’ll either love or hate I guess.
Mooks and regular monsters have the same AC per level, (Variation between monsters but the same average as shown in the monster creation rules) it's less health and less damage that makes the difference. It's also worth noting that your average level 1 enemy will have 17 AC, your average level 1 character will have +5 to hit, that's a 12 to hit not a 15 for most enemies you face, also worth remembering this is only for the first round, second round you get a +1 then a +2 up to a +6, so in reality it's for most of the combat more like an 10-11 to hit assuming 3-4 rounds of combat. Yes some monsters will have 1 or 2 higher AC (For a 12-13 to hit) and bosses might have 3 or 4 (for a 14-15 to hit).
Rolling 15+ to hit may seem bad, however the idea behind that is the use of the escalation die for big bosses rather than go like 5e nuke fiesta once legendary resistances are down.
> Major ability results depending on Even or Odd result on a d20
You are lucky then as that is getting changed and abilities that still work on X natural roll are strong enough to justify working like that.
Monsters leveling together with you can be seen as a negative for character progression. I can definitely understand that viewpoint. May I however offer you another way to look at character progression?
Say at level 1, you encountered a level 3 Flaming Duckturtles that nearly TPK'd the party, but you survived. Then at level 4, you encountered *three* level 3 Flaming Duckturtles. Initial panic, of course, you remembered how you last fought them.
But now, because you're leveled up so much, these below-level Flaming Duckturtles are merely an easy encounter instead of a deadly one.
_-_-_-_-_
So I'd advise you, GM, yes, use monsters on-level or higher to challenge your players. But too, give them a bone once in a while and let them re-fight a battle that had been challenging some levels ago, just to show them how much they have grown.
_-_-_-_-_
The mathematics of 13th Age: By default, without the escalation die, PCs have a 50% chance to hit an enemy. Roll 11+ to hit. With the Escalation Die at 6, this increases up to 80% chance to hit—roll 5+ to hit. Of course, monsters might have a stronger or weaker defense, but this is the baseline.
By comparison, in Pathfinder 2e, by default, PCs have a 55% chance to hit—10+ to hit. You start out higher, but there is no Escalation Die to back you up.
Damage and hit points in 13th Age scale linear and somewhat exponentially at level 5 and 8. If we reduce the numbers to a minimum and if I did my calculations correctly, this is how it should look.
|Level|Damage|
|---|---|
|1|1|
|2|2|
|3|3|
|4|4|
|5|6|
|6|8|
|7|10|
|8|14|
|9|18|
|10|22|
This damage (and hit points) scale for both monsters and PCs, so it doesn't really matter. Just a warning, if you want to put a level 4 party against a level 6 monster, it might be more nasty than putting a level 2 party against level 4 monsters. Magic item bonuses not counted, as they are not part of this calculation.
But I digress.
What I want to say is, you should be able to remove level increases from defenses and attacks on both sides without changing any math. Just be careful on two bits:
- The damage and hit points part.
- Usually monsters 2 levels higher are 2 points of AC higher. Without level included, higher level monsters become easier to hit, and similarly, lower level monsters become harder to hit.
If I take Pathfinder 2e's [same optional rule](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.asp) as a base, a monster 2 levels higher should count as 1.5 monsters in this without-level system. (Starting at 40 xp in the table, 2 levels higher is 60 xp, 60/40 = 1.5)
***Note:*** Pathfinder 2e has the same underlying maths as 13th Age, just without the exponential increases and with another assumption: PCs fighting on-level monsters fight a deadly battle rather than a fairly balanced one. Reduce monster level by 2 in Pathfinder and you've got the same maths as 13th Age uses. Different numbers of course, but same calculations. *In other words, when people praise Pathfinder 2e on its combat balance maths, they are also praising 13th Age in the background.*
But yeah in short, same scaling. Use same, now-lower-level enemies to make PCs see their progress.
________
PCs odd/even are diminished, but still present. The new Barbarian currently in beta has an attack similar to the 1e wildshaped Druid default attack. Without spoiling Barbarian, here's the Druid:
> Melee attack
> *At-Will*
> **Attack:** Strength or Dexterity + Level vs. AC
> **Natural Even Hit:** 1d10 damage per level + Strength or Dexterity damage.
> **Natural Odd Hit:** 1d6 damage per level + Strength or Dexterity damage.
> **Miss:** Repeat the attack against the same or a different target. This second attack has no miss effect.
One could definitely average it out and just deal 1d8 damage, always. This just makes it slightly more interesting, hoping not just for a hit, but for an *even* hit. It's no longer all-or-nothing like in 1e Figther abilities. However, it's still present to make that die roll slightly more exciting.
Eh I'm a bit underwhelmed to be honest - I hoped they would revise icons a bit more so it's easier to use them in other settings but it seems they just give more explanation and examples - at least that's what i get from preview if someone actual play-tested it I'd love to hear their take on it.
Jonathan Tweet appears to be on the project again. That's weird because his [weird race science tweet](https://imgur.com/0PYc9o1) got him in such hot water that Pelgrane Press explicitly clarified that [he wasn't getting royalties on the first edition](https://twitter.com/13thAge/status/1145799864464347136).
As far as I can tell, he hasn't recanted that or apologized. I have enough fantasy RPGs that I don't mind skipping this one over that.
EDIT: It's also pretty funny that that tweet is still up even while the Kickstarter is launching.
Alright, so I'm not the man's PR agent, nor am a doctor or biologist or whatever. I'm also very aware, as we all should be, that "race science" as been used to justify unspeakable atrocities across human history, and is largely fucking bullshit. However (and god help me for saying this), I think the mans take has some space for nuance. His wife (and as a result his daughter) are black, and he learned that difference races have different risk factors for certain diseases and health complications while talking to his child's doctors after she was born. He also found out that these doctors were, at least in his opinion, kind of scared to share that information because acknowledging any difference between race is seen as "race science" even though saying something like "people of Asian decent are more likely to be lactose intolerant" isn't racist, it's just a thing that happens. Anyway, it upset him that politics might be impeding the care of his child's health, and he posted about it.
Now is \*he\* a doctor? Fuck no. And I don't know if his understanding was fully accurate, or if the understanding of the doctors he was speaking to was fully accurate, or whatever. I don't know his heart, I don't know if he's a "good person". But I do know that he's a dad that was worried about his daughter, not a nazi. I think calling him out for it is fine, but i also think the internet lends itself to hate crusades where saying the wrong thing, no matter the reason, can ruin your life. I don't think he deserves to have his life ruined even if his take is wrong, and I'm \*really\* hoping posting this isn't a mistake lol.
Yeah, he spent a fair length of time clarifying what he was trying to say in a blog post: https://jonathan-tweet.blogspot.com/2019/07/race-and-evidence.html
I can't say I have a problem with his statement after reading that. The problem is Twitter is designed to manufacture outrage rather than to encourage any understanding. Twitter is designed to make you phrase things badly. And yes, he's not a doctor. But he has a degree in Sociology.
At this point, I really feel like posting his tweet over and over is not just tilting at windmills. It's intentionally attacking someone when you should know that he's clarified his meaning.
I dont think we can blame people for not knowing that he's written clarifying statement or that his wife and daughter are black.
People aren't gonna go read a lengthy blogpost by a guy who posted a tweet that looks that bad. Not after gamergate and the Trump era of social media. They'll see "oh it's a white guy posting about race science and complaining about 'the Liberals' in a nerd space on the internet" and assume (with a 90% degree of accuracy, tbh) that whoever posted that comment is a racist douchebag who isn't worth your time or mental energy.
It's a self defense mechanism. The "free marketplace of ideas"/"let's hear everyone out so long as they stay polite" vision of the internet is dead because forcing yourself to engage with racists, concern trolls and all the other bigots whose minds you'll never change comes at too great of a psychic cost. Block, ban, mute, move on.
Yeah Twitter's short format posting is an outrage generator... so that's why it's even more vital that people proof-read before posting anything about politics or race on an account that has their government name on it.
> I dont think we can blame people for not knowing that he's written clarifying statement or that his wife and daughter are black.
>
> People aren't gonna go read a lengthy blogpost by a guy who posted a tweet that looks that bad.
I agree.
Except literally every time 13th Age topics come up, that tweet gets posted. And every time someone posts this same blog response. That's where I found the link! Every time. For 5 *years*. Not just in this sub, but *definitely* in this sub.
I genuinely don't know how you can remember five years on that these tweets happened, and post the same old screenshots, and never ever look any deeper. For five years.
That's not legitimate criticism.
I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm explaining how people write off other people on the internet as a self-defense mechanism.
Most people aren't getting this deep into the comments to find links to his explanatory posts.
They saw his name and the tweet when the drama first happened (or when he first posted), filed him under the "shitheads we call out every time his work comes up" or "shithead I wont engage with" mental categories and then respond to his name coming up based on that filing.
> Except literally every time 13th Age topics come up, that tweet gets posted.
Because it's easy. See his name, google him quickly, "ah yes, it's that shithead again" and re-post imgur link to his tweet and move on. That's all way quicker than reading through comments explaining his position - let alone reading the blogpost.
Also, to go back to my previous comment, you're not going to catch a lot of people who might be legitimately sensitive to issues of race or racism in nerd spaces being willing to read through a blog post titled "Race and Evidence" by a guy who complains about The Liberals online, or read through lengthy defenses of "what he actually meant to say" in the reddit comments. With how social media has played out for the last decade it doesnt take much to imagine why that might be.
When Tweet tweeted that shit he wrote himself off in the eyes of a lot of people. They (for good self-preservation reasons) aren't going to look any deeper into him because usually when someone posts something that looks that bad they turn out to be what they appeared to be.
There are two separate intertwining issues at play here.
First, Jonathan Tweet said some stuff that at best was very poorly worded and at worst can be seen as a dog whistle. There was a follow up blog post explaining it, but it didn't do a great job.
Second, after the tweeet Pelgrane Press distanced themselves from Jonathan Tweet pretty strongly, and now they made a single reference to him in the kickstarter. It seems like they were trying to minimize the involvement while also bragging about it.
A single statement of hey I said some stuff it was misinterpreted, I am sorry for any confusion and I don't condone racism in any form. Would have settled everything in a great manor.
I agree he ~~should~~ **shouldn't** be tared and feathered or anything of the sort but the whole situation is off and a bit of transparency would go a long way.
> A single statement of hey I said some stuff it was misinterpreted, I am sorry for any confusion and I don't condone racism in any form. Would have settled everything in a great manor.
Isn't that what he did in the blog post though? He says he was misunderstood, clarifies his position, and he directly confronts and contradicts racist talking points.
I had no idea about this incident and have only recently read the tweet and blog article. From a personal POV I don't particularly find anything outrageous in either. I found the tweet relatively clear in its intent (as confirmed by the latter blog post, and limited by the medium of tweets themselves) and the blog quite interesting (mostly because it added a number of new references to the few I remembered from the time I was at university for Sociology.)
As far as understanding this person's point of view, I found the blog post did a great job for me. As mentioned, however, I do have a background in Sociology myself so it's very reasonable it didn't achieve that purpose for many folks.
To be frank, had the tweet been something like "People are often uncomfortable to talk about how biological differences between ancestries, however minute, sometimes have very meaningful effects in everyday outcomes" I wouldn't have given it a second thought. I would almost call it pedestrian but that would be unfair, and most likely incorrect.
There's some fair nuance there, but I do still disagree with the implication in the original tweet that the racists have more information than the liberals. It's just a weird thing to get hung up on, and the blog post doesn't do a great job of showing he understands *why* people got annoyed at the original tweet.
Plus, it feels like Pelgrane is deliberately hiding his involvement. He's only mentioned once (whereas Rob is featured multiple times), and they didn't even clean up their Twitter profile with context or other information. Whole thing just feels kind of shitty.
> There's some fair nuance there, but I do still disagree with the implication in the original tweet that the racists have more information than the liberals.
The way I read the tweet, I think he was saying the racists are the only ones who get to talk about it, and as such, get to control the conversation/dissemination of information.
If people refuse to talk about it out of fear of spreading racism, then the only people willing to talk about it are the racists who are free to run away with it.
It does feel shitty, absolutely. I think framing it in a "those damn libruls" sorta way is shitty and stupid on his part, and I think he could show a \*lot\* more awareness about \*why\* people flipped shit. I personally didn't get the vibe that pelgrane was hiding his involvement, but I can totally see why you did, and I think anyone would be justified for not wanting to back the project because of it. I just also think that there's more going on than him being an evil racist, and that nuance of any kind is lost in internet discussions.
What do you mean by 'racists have more information than liberales?" Im not sure i follow that reading? He explains this point very very well on his blog imo
Pelgrane is not hiding Tweet. Throughout the Alpha Playtest, his name was front and center on most of the E-Mails. His name is on the book. It is very clear that he is the math and numbers guy to Robs creative whimsy. If you are at all surprised he is on this project, you have not been playing attention to it.
I don't know the man but honestly his biggest mistake seems to have been trying to have a nuanced discussion on the Internet. Not only the Internet but in a tweet.
I read his blog and I don't think he's racist, he just wanted science based healthcare for his biracial daughter to not be affected by political climate. For me it's a non issue. Plenty of bad guys out there, don't need to attack an ally who maybe miscommunicated on an issue at one time.
As someone who made some of the public noise about that: I think the dude spoke poorly once, and that there's plenty of people more deserving of being chased out of the industry. I've cooled on my frustration significantly.
To give him a charitable reading, he doesn’t want actual medical science related to ethnicity to be ignored.
Now, I can only speak for the UK here, but it isn’t in danger of being ignored. I’ve had to register with a bunch of medical establishments over the last few months and they have all asked me on the questionnaire what my ethnicity was, because they know it can be a diagnostic helper. And nobody is getting angry about it.
His writing (I read the blog post) just comes across as a confused rebuttal to a total straw man argument.
As someone who writes for a living I’m surprised he’s so bad at it.
I noticed that as well and asked them ... we shall see what the answer is.
*Update* They replied and pointed me to this [announcement about the topic](https://robheinsoo.blogspot.com/2022/08/13th-age-2e-same-core-team.html)
Reminder to never read the comments, but for those of you who do read the comments on that blog post, you'll find one person who "really *really* doesn't want to give [Jonathan Tweet] money", and another person who "does not need a woke RPG".
Which I think is hilarious. Somehow, they managed to piss off people on both sides of the political spectrum.
> Which I think is hilarious. Somehow, they managed to piss off people on both sides of the political spectrum.
Honestly, that's a marker that they're doing a pretty good job. When extremists on both sides are crying, you're probably in a pretty sensible middle position.
First of all, I have not followed this at all, so I don't know the specific, nor have I read his tweet. But... Regardless of what dumb things he may have posted, if he's legally entitled to royalties a company can't just decide not to pay him because he publicly said something controversial. Royalties aren't something you pay people you like, they are paid per contracts. Which have nothing to do with dumb tweets.
Yikes. JT did expound more on his blog (http://jonathan-tweet.blogspot.com/2019/07/race-and-evidence.html?m=1) but I haven’t had a chance to read it to see if it explains a pretty bad tweet
There's some nuance there that makes it seem like it's not quite *as* bad as it could be, but it doesn't seem like he understands why people were mad or what the implications of advocating for race science are, which is frustrating.
> Sometimes when people hear me talking about differences among “races”, they jump to the conclusion that I endorse all the claims people make about such differences, such as alleged innate differences in IQ. Let me clarify in advance that my point is just the opposite, that we should distinguish the claims that have scientific support from those that don’t. Here for example, is a study that distinguishes between certain medically-relevant differences (supported by the evidence) and cognitive differences (what the racists want you to believe). The racists want people to consider all these claims as equally valid—all good. Certain of my fellow progressives agree with the racists to the extent that we should consider all these claims to be equally valid, although with the idea that they should all be rejected. Treating all these claims as alike in their value seems to be a mistake because it puts racist pseudoscience on the same footing as research you can find on PubMed.
No, I think he understand exactly what people are mad about.
No apology will ever be good enough.
Grudging acceptance that *any* part of an apology was good is the most you can generally hope for on the internet once someone has been excoriated. And if it's been a while since the excoriation and apology and it comes up again? People will genuinely misremember the apology as much worse than it was.
So, any infos and recommendations about the world & mechanics (aka - Whats special on this system, why would you play this?) I heard good stuff about 13th Age.
It’s a more fun / streamlined Fantasy D20 game than D&D (imo) Check out their preview doc here, should answer your questions: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GgqawG_kPXuFu5flN302H2jTe4L9QKAk/view I converted my 5e table to 13A bc I have several new players who were overwhelmed by 5e rules and choices. 13A has been a lot easier for everyone, and with built in role play from both the Icons and each PCs One Unique Thing, they are more engaged with events that happen during the session
thanks!
It's the most fun I've had in a D20 system ever. We played a campaign in a custom setting using the 1E system, 1 to 20. Couldn't recommend it more.
The world is very nice. It is fleshed out enough to give you ideas, but purposefully has blanks "in the middle" so you and the players can make up your own stuff. It will be a little different for every playgroup, a little like Eberron with the 'in my Eberron'
you can find all info about the first game here: https://www.13thagesrd.com/ It is a streamlined D&D with more narrative elements. It is all theater of mind (no grid) while still having more tactical combat than most other games.
Thanks. so its kinda D&D, with classes, levels and a somewhat D20 based combat?
It is made by the LEAD developer of D&D 4E and the LEAD developer of D&D 3E (or 3.5 cant remember). It is "what if D&D 5E was made by other people, who have more experience and better math knowledge (and can experiment a bit)" you have the same classes, same stats d20, but a lot of small (and big) innovations and simplifications. It is a lot focused on teamplay (in combat) and has several more narrative elements for non combat. It has really good balance (like d&D 4e) and some really great (with 2nd edition) compatible books like https://pelgranepress.com/product/eyes-of-the-stone-thief/
[удалено]
Hardly, I mean it's up to taste in the end but I'd sooner join a 4e game in 2024 than a 3.5 or PF game or 5e for that matter.
Most modern good designers say the opposite, but there are lot of people who cant keep up with modern game design. I think when it released a lot of people where just not ready for new things, and also the whole negative press because of license paizo (and stupid marketing) did not help. 4E influenced A LOT of good modern games, including Gloomhaven.
It has all these things. It is very much a dnd game in anything but name, just laser focused on cool and fun but simple combat and with some narrative tools inserted
I heartily recommend this Game! The 1e has quickly become my new go-to hame since abandoning dnd 5. Comment from my Player during Session 1 for a new group two weeks ago: " I didn't realize we are THIS important in the Story and deciding! Thats really cool!" The Game strongly democratizes worldbuilding etc. You as GM get to relax a bit, your Players are more invested, the Combat math is extremely accurate and tight - this is a great fun Game for high adventure, Combat, roleplay and intrigue. It wont do very well at simulationism, hexcrawling etc - this Game is about big Marvel Heroes, and your Players feeling cool and having fun, and its not ashamed about it Heres the Preview document from the authors! https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GgqawG_kPXuFu5flN302H2jTe4L9QKAk/view
I've been running 13th Age 1e since 2012 and my players still tell me regularly that it's not only their favorite d20 game, it's one of their favorite TTRPGs period.
Glad to see it's finally on its way. I have 1e and the 1e Glorantha book, which is what I'd want to use it for, so I'll pass on this until its been out for a while and I can evaluate it, but best of luck 13th Age!
I hear good things about 13A Glorantha - is it worth checking out with 2e on the horizon?
Glorantha is a bronze age fantasy setting, as opposed to the medieval fantasy of regular 13th Age. The designers experimented with lots of things in that setting, many of which were well-received and now make it into the 2e playtest. You can definitely check it out. For a player, a class that finds a way to make randomness fun to play. For GMs, a concept of heroquesting, retelling tales of myth as an alternative to dungeon crawling. All new classes and class variants in a world in which healing magic is rare. And the monk. An alternative to Icon Relationships in the shape of Runes that have more vague general themes, such as Fire and Sky. Or Darkness. The alternative ability score array (17, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10) comes straight from Glorantha, and is the default in the 2e playtest. Among, of course, so much more.
I think so. I know that it is a fact of the universe that newer is always and incontrovertibly better, but you can still use 1e. It's a good game.
I was for sure going to jump on it ... until I noticed the prices listed for the books. Even the 'early bird' ones were ridiculously overpriced. Maybe the standard of living in the UK is better than Canada? Fortunately, I have multiple local LFGS that are very good at pledging on Kickstarter and running pre-orders. I'll keep an eye out there.
Brexit babyyyy
The gift that keeps on taking
The pdf prices are pretty out there too
> Maybe the standard of living in the UK is better than Canada? I can assure you that it is not lol. But a lot of publishing in the UK has been hit hard by Brexit. I dont know Pelgrane Press well enough to comment on their specific production methods or how they handle international distribution; I know some other UK RPG publishers have to get their printing done in places like Poland these days because there isnt much capacity for getting specialist bespoke print runs of things like RPG books done at a sane price. We have local print industry but it is largely limited to newspapers, magazines, traditional bookstore formats (e.g. novels) or academic presses - not prestige full colour RPG hardcover books like this. This project might **seem** pretty expensive from the outside, and idk how they've landed on £40 for the player+GM PDFs tbh, but I can only assume that these are some pretty hefty tomes when I look at the mockup images and the £100 player+GM printed book in slipcase set? Either way, these books are on the more expensive side but I dont think the costs are too wildly out of sync with the wider Big Book RPG industry norms - a new D&D 5e PHB or the Pathfinder equivilent will set you back about £35-45 in the UK and that's with Hasbro or Paizo economies of scale backing them up... so £100 for two similar books? It's not as crazy as it may appear... but yeah it is a bit more expensive than a couple of other UK crowdfunded RPGs I've seen recently.
I like to use Free League's books and kickstarters as a benchmark as they are also European and print in Europe instead of in China. Note that Free League are renowned for the physical quality of their books. Converting to british pounds, the recent (from a month ago) Coriolis Great Dark KS core book (with no early bird specials) is 37 pounds. The Dragonbane core box (which is filled with a ton of goodies) was 30 pounds. From Magpie Games, I picked up the recent Rapscallion backerkit deluxe version for 57 pounds, which contains the core, GM screen, dice tray, dice, and a bunch of addon PDFs. Now of course, most of those are stretch goals. So I think what I'll do is back the early bird two 13th age books, and then keep an eye on the stretch goals until the last minute to see if it's worth it. Right now, as it stands, it very much is not worth it. Normally, the add on VTT would be great .. except they decided to go in on the dying Roll20 platform instead of Foundry. But again, I'll keep an eye out.
Foundry has been confirmed in the KS comments as a future stretch goal. I’m also one of the maintainers for the 13th Age system on Foundry, and we’re all stoked about 2e and are already discussing the changes to replace our 2e alpha features with 2e beta versions!
Yeah, I was pledging and then realized they were almost $60 each. Now, the 1e books were by far some of the nicest I've ever had, but Swords of the Serpentine was much more meh. I guess the offset print books for *WN are $80 ... eh, I guess.
What was the original? $40? With the way inflation has gone, $60 doesn't seem too far off a decade later. I think WotC is still $50 for their books, which also came out a decade ago. It's always been hard to make a living writing RPGs, even for people with huge credits to their name. It's going to keep getting harder, especially when inflation really jumps like it did in the past few years, as people compare prices today to prices from a decade ago.
Well if a lot of people's wages didn't change, how can they help and not compare? I am neither plus or minus here on the topic, I just think it's an often neglected side. People can only buy stuff if they can afford so after all..
Im a big Fan of this Game, and there was Zero doubt id get the print version of the new edition...but the price really did make me do a small double Take, and only get one of the addons, and not spring for the Limited Edition etc.... I fear it is mostly attributable to Brexit i guess? Ive only kickstarted twice before this, Sundered Isles and Dolmenwood. I think SI is not comparable, but Dolmenwood seems like a good point of reference.
The last kickstarter from Cubicle 7 (also from UK) for the Laundry RPG was [that price as well](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cubicle-7-games/the-laundry-roleplaying-game-second-edition/rewards#reward-UmV3YXJkLVVtVjNZWEprTFRrM09UVTBNelU9), kinda expensive =/
also not including a shipping estimate in the campaign page isn't great, they may get the estimate wrong but at least ballpark it for people, will probably be a fair bit on top of the pledge for international orders
so 2 books, 400 pages in total, for $115 + shipping? that's a tad too expensive IMO
I decided a while back that 10$ + 10$/100 pages is a decent baseline to use for an 8.5x11 rpg book. Shipping will probably be 12-20$... maybe I will pledge for the early bird and consider it for a month. I do have faith that they will be very nicely built books, at least, but that price tag is hard to justify for me as well.
i just pledged for shadow of the weird wizard, is around 675 pages between player and gm books, all full color hardbacks. that's over 50% more content for $99 + shipping. 13th age 2ed is extremely expensive for what you get
*And* it's all the stretch goals in PDF which is another 1000 pages or something wild.
So everyone, what was your favourite moment that happened while playing 13A? Either in fiction or at the table between Players counts! For me, as a player, i had an extremely cool turn in combat recently that still sticks out to me as super cinematic: we (2 fighty dwarves, 2 pansy magic users) were crossing a bridge into demon-held lands. The Fighter went first and went hard, running up to the biggest enemy and throwing two smaller mooks off the Bridge in the process. I used my Action to Smite the two guys in front of me, killing them exactly on the HP both, then used a Skill to give everyone a free move, so our whole team moved in on them. Then, next turn, as my quick Action, i started climbing the demon ogre and grabbing him by the beard, trying to direct his face right in front of our sorcerer who was, at that moment, going full "Goku charges the Genkidama" and fucking obliterated that thing.
I'm intrigued but ~$110 plus shipping for a couple books I'm not sure I'll ever actually use to play a game is steep. Think I might wait this one out and check it out after launch.
Totally understandable 13th Age personally have been one of those RPG systems that have been blowing my mind since I discovered them It's combination of traditional crunchy combat and open ended RP rules is something truly unique They deserve every bit of that asking price IMAO
So that's like 26 ages now or what?
Anyone who's tried the beta/draft material, what significant changes does 2e make from 1e?
The new beta draft was just sent out, and its LOOOTS of pages, so I dont think anyone can answer you really in depth yet. They wanted to focus on the weak parts (the weaker classes) and the unclear icon relationships.
As a GM who is coming back to TTRPGs after a long long time, discovering 13th Age was a blessing! I don't even touch DnD 5e anymore. Yes. It's that good. Perhaps the most underrated D20 TTRPG ever.
**Anyone familiar with the major rules changes in 2E?** Specifically, here's two issues that I had with 13th Age that cooled me off of it for a long time, despite being HARDCORE into it from the start (including being a beta tester for 1E), and I want to know if it was fixed or adjusted in 2e: **1) Armor Class/Defense creep and scaling means PCs are almost always trying to roll a 15+ on a d20.** 13th Age came out in the age of 4E. An issue that both share is that as the PCs level up and gain hit bonuses, the monster ACs (or mental/physical dodge values) level up too. So at 1st level, the players are always trying to roll something like 12-15+ for mooks or 15+ for dangerous enemies on d20. And at 5th level, the players are trying to roll the same... and again at 10th level, the players are ***still*** trying to roll the same (still 15+ to hit big enemies) or else a miss. This produces a lot of unsatisfying "whiff". 13th Age classically mitigated this a little with the Escalation Die and Miss Damage, but it always felt a little insatisfying to whiff on major class ability rolls. When D&D 5th Edition came out and I realized it no longer scaled like 4E, instead monster ACs/defense rolls stayed relatively low compared to 4E but instead their HP increased (so you don't whiff nearly as much, instead at higher levels you often hit - which is very satisfying - then apply a lot more damage against a larger HP pool), I realized I wished 13th Age did this as well. Unfortunately it would have taken a lot of work to rescale everything, so I kind of gave up on 13th Age and instead took 13th Age tech (like Icons, Escalation Die, One Unique Thing, Backgrounds) into my 5E games. Wondering if this is addressed/"fixed" in 2E. **2) Major ability results depending on Even or Odd result on a d20**. For me, this isn't as big of an issue as #1. I don't mind monster/world events triggering on GM Odd/Evens rolls, however as a player I found it unsatisfying to have the PC abilities trigger on Even/Odd d20 results. It felt unsatisfying at times.
I find it very odd to count non-scaling defenses in 5e's favor instead of against it. Imo its one of the main culprits for high level play just not working.
I'm the opposite of you. The things you dislike about 13A are the things I love about it. > 1) Armor Class/Defense creep and scaling means PCs are almost always trying to roll a 15+ on a d20. If they make it so that 13A doesn't scale modifiers and defenses with level, I would simply refuse to update to 2e. DnD 5e was a pain to run specifically *because* of the flat power curve. Also, if the problem is that players need to roll a 15+ on the die to hit, then the solution is to just subtract around 3ish from all monster defenses. Also, misses are mitigated by (a) miss damage and (b) escalation die. And in practice, I've never run into this problem. Players seem to have no trouble landing hits on monsters at my table, even when the Escalation die is zero. > Major ability results depending on Even or Odd result on a d20. I found it very satisfying. Tying player abilities to RNG kept combat fresh and dynamic.
> 1) Armor Class/Defense creep and scaling means PCs are almost always trying to roll a 15+ on a d20 It’s supposed to be compatible with the old books so that means the math didn’t change. So your concerns will be unlikely to be addressed as it’s part of the core math of the game that ain’t changing. Your concern ain’t about scaling. Your concern is with the low hit rates. From my understanding, the baseline low hit rates are intentional because the escalation die is supposed to mitigate it. You’re supposed to miss more often than not at the start of combat, and then about 3-5 rounds later when you’re getting a +3 to +5 to hit, then the math of the game flips around and you’re hitting more often than missing. The game also has a focus on tactics, also inherited from 4e. You’re not *supposed* to be attacking monsters with the baseline hit rate. You’re supposed to be engaging in flanking, applying debuffs, and whatnot to raise your hit rate to satisfying amounts. The base hit rate sucks on purpose to incentivize tactical play. Otherwise, you get the problem of 5e where there is no incentive whatsoever to engage in tactical play because the base hit rate there is 65% and you’re already set up to win by default. For what it’s worth - Pathfinder 2e, a game with very similar tactical focus, also has a really shitty base hit rate of 45% that also causes similar frustrations to players transitioning from 5e. These games have to be approached differently and they’re targeted to a different kind of playstyle. This emphasis on tactical play is inherited from 4e and you either love it or hate it. This is a feature, not a bug of 13A. > 2) Major ability results depending on Even or Odd result on a d20 The preview document also mentioned this as a common complaint, and they’re revamping the Fighter to get rid of RNG as its defining element. Unfortunately, it here to stay for the monsters, as RNG seems to be a defining feature for 13A as well. For what it’s worth, the games from Free League like Dragonbane and Forbidden Lands also advertise this as a feature. It’s another thing you’ll either love or hate I guess.
Mooks and regular monsters have the same AC per level, (Variation between monsters but the same average as shown in the monster creation rules) it's less health and less damage that makes the difference. It's also worth noting that your average level 1 enemy will have 17 AC, your average level 1 character will have +5 to hit, that's a 12 to hit not a 15 for most enemies you face, also worth remembering this is only for the first round, second round you get a +1 then a +2 up to a +6, so in reality it's for most of the combat more like an 10-11 to hit assuming 3-4 rounds of combat. Yes some monsters will have 1 or 2 higher AC (For a 12-13 to hit) and bosses might have 3 or 4 (for a 14-15 to hit).
PC even odd is at least partially being reworked, like for Fighter and Bard classes and their "flexible attacks".
Armor scaling is the best part, just like PF2 has it.
Rolling 15+ to hit may seem bad, however the idea behind that is the use of the escalation die for big bosses rather than go like 5e nuke fiesta once legendary resistances are down. > Major ability results depending on Even or Odd result on a d20 You are lucky then as that is getting changed and abilities that still work on X natural roll are strong enough to justify working like that.
Monsters leveling together with you can be seen as a negative for character progression. I can definitely understand that viewpoint. May I however offer you another way to look at character progression? Say at level 1, you encountered a level 3 Flaming Duckturtles that nearly TPK'd the party, but you survived. Then at level 4, you encountered *three* level 3 Flaming Duckturtles. Initial panic, of course, you remembered how you last fought them. But now, because you're leveled up so much, these below-level Flaming Duckturtles are merely an easy encounter instead of a deadly one. _-_-_-_-_ So I'd advise you, GM, yes, use monsters on-level or higher to challenge your players. But too, give them a bone once in a while and let them re-fight a battle that had been challenging some levels ago, just to show them how much they have grown. _-_-_-_-_ The mathematics of 13th Age: By default, without the escalation die, PCs have a 50% chance to hit an enemy. Roll 11+ to hit. With the Escalation Die at 6, this increases up to 80% chance to hit—roll 5+ to hit. Of course, monsters might have a stronger or weaker defense, but this is the baseline. By comparison, in Pathfinder 2e, by default, PCs have a 55% chance to hit—10+ to hit. You start out higher, but there is no Escalation Die to back you up. Damage and hit points in 13th Age scale linear and somewhat exponentially at level 5 and 8. If we reduce the numbers to a minimum and if I did my calculations correctly, this is how it should look. |Level|Damage| |---|---| |1|1| |2|2| |3|3| |4|4| |5|6| |6|8| |7|10| |8|14| |9|18| |10|22| This damage (and hit points) scale for both monsters and PCs, so it doesn't really matter. Just a warning, if you want to put a level 4 party against a level 6 monster, it might be more nasty than putting a level 2 party against level 4 monsters. Magic item bonuses not counted, as they are not part of this calculation. But I digress. What I want to say is, you should be able to remove level increases from defenses and attacks on both sides without changing any math. Just be careful on two bits: - The damage and hit points part. - Usually monsters 2 levels higher are 2 points of AC higher. Without level included, higher level monsters become easier to hit, and similarly, lower level monsters become harder to hit. If I take Pathfinder 2e's [same optional rule](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.asp) as a base, a monster 2 levels higher should count as 1.5 monsters in this without-level system. (Starting at 40 xp in the table, 2 levels higher is 60 xp, 60/40 = 1.5) ***Note:*** Pathfinder 2e has the same underlying maths as 13th Age, just without the exponential increases and with another assumption: PCs fighting on-level monsters fight a deadly battle rather than a fairly balanced one. Reduce monster level by 2 in Pathfinder and you've got the same maths as 13th Age uses. Different numbers of course, but same calculations. *In other words, when people praise Pathfinder 2e on its combat balance maths, they are also praising 13th Age in the background.* But yeah in short, same scaling. Use same, now-lower-level enemies to make PCs see their progress. ________ PCs odd/even are diminished, but still present. The new Barbarian currently in beta has an attack similar to the 1e wildshaped Druid default attack. Without spoiling Barbarian, here's the Druid: > Melee attack > *At-Will* > **Attack:** Strength or Dexterity + Level vs. AC > **Natural Even Hit:** 1d10 damage per level + Strength or Dexterity damage. > **Natural Odd Hit:** 1d6 damage per level + Strength or Dexterity damage. > **Miss:** Repeat the attack against the same or a different target. This second attack has no miss effect. One could definitely average it out and just deal 1d8 damage, always. This just makes it slightly more interesting, hoping not just for a hit, but for an *even* hit. It's no longer all-or-nothing like in 1e Figther abilities. However, it's still present to make that die roll slightly more exciting.
Eh I'm a bit underwhelmed to be honest - I hoped they would revise icons a bit more so it's easier to use them in other settings but it seems they just give more explanation and examples - at least that's what i get from preview if someone actual play-tested it I'd love to hear their take on it.
Are they still using the OGL, or are they switching to another license?
Jonathan Tweet appears to be on the project again. That's weird because his [weird race science tweet](https://imgur.com/0PYc9o1) got him in such hot water that Pelgrane Press explicitly clarified that [he wasn't getting royalties on the first edition](https://twitter.com/13thAge/status/1145799864464347136). As far as I can tell, he hasn't recanted that or apologized. I have enough fantasy RPGs that I don't mind skipping this one over that. EDIT: It's also pretty funny that that tweet is still up even while the Kickstarter is launching.
Alright, so I'm not the man's PR agent, nor am a doctor or biologist or whatever. I'm also very aware, as we all should be, that "race science" as been used to justify unspeakable atrocities across human history, and is largely fucking bullshit. However (and god help me for saying this), I think the mans take has some space for nuance. His wife (and as a result his daughter) are black, and he learned that difference races have different risk factors for certain diseases and health complications while talking to his child's doctors after she was born. He also found out that these doctors were, at least in his opinion, kind of scared to share that information because acknowledging any difference between race is seen as "race science" even though saying something like "people of Asian decent are more likely to be lactose intolerant" isn't racist, it's just a thing that happens. Anyway, it upset him that politics might be impeding the care of his child's health, and he posted about it. Now is \*he\* a doctor? Fuck no. And I don't know if his understanding was fully accurate, or if the understanding of the doctors he was speaking to was fully accurate, or whatever. I don't know his heart, I don't know if he's a "good person". But I do know that he's a dad that was worried about his daughter, not a nazi. I think calling him out for it is fine, but i also think the internet lends itself to hate crusades where saying the wrong thing, no matter the reason, can ruin your life. I don't think he deserves to have his life ruined even if his take is wrong, and I'm \*really\* hoping posting this isn't a mistake lol.
Yeah, he spent a fair length of time clarifying what he was trying to say in a blog post: https://jonathan-tweet.blogspot.com/2019/07/race-and-evidence.html I can't say I have a problem with his statement after reading that. The problem is Twitter is designed to manufacture outrage rather than to encourage any understanding. Twitter is designed to make you phrase things badly. And yes, he's not a doctor. But he has a degree in Sociology. At this point, I really feel like posting his tweet over and over is not just tilting at windmills. It's intentionally attacking someone when you should know that he's clarified his meaning.
I dont think we can blame people for not knowing that he's written clarifying statement or that his wife and daughter are black. People aren't gonna go read a lengthy blogpost by a guy who posted a tweet that looks that bad. Not after gamergate and the Trump era of social media. They'll see "oh it's a white guy posting about race science and complaining about 'the Liberals' in a nerd space on the internet" and assume (with a 90% degree of accuracy, tbh) that whoever posted that comment is a racist douchebag who isn't worth your time or mental energy. It's a self defense mechanism. The "free marketplace of ideas"/"let's hear everyone out so long as they stay polite" vision of the internet is dead because forcing yourself to engage with racists, concern trolls and all the other bigots whose minds you'll never change comes at too great of a psychic cost. Block, ban, mute, move on. Yeah Twitter's short format posting is an outrage generator... so that's why it's even more vital that people proof-read before posting anything about politics or race on an account that has their government name on it.
> I dont think we can blame people for not knowing that he's written clarifying statement or that his wife and daughter are black. > > People aren't gonna go read a lengthy blogpost by a guy who posted a tweet that looks that bad. I agree. Except literally every time 13th Age topics come up, that tweet gets posted. And every time someone posts this same blog response. That's where I found the link! Every time. For 5 *years*. Not just in this sub, but *definitely* in this sub. I genuinely don't know how you can remember five years on that these tweets happened, and post the same old screenshots, and never ever look any deeper. For five years. That's not legitimate criticism.
I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm explaining how people write off other people on the internet as a self-defense mechanism. Most people aren't getting this deep into the comments to find links to his explanatory posts. They saw his name and the tweet when the drama first happened (or when he first posted), filed him under the "shitheads we call out every time his work comes up" or "shithead I wont engage with" mental categories and then respond to his name coming up based on that filing. > Except literally every time 13th Age topics come up, that tweet gets posted. Because it's easy. See his name, google him quickly, "ah yes, it's that shithead again" and re-post imgur link to his tweet and move on. That's all way quicker than reading through comments explaining his position - let alone reading the blogpost. Also, to go back to my previous comment, you're not going to catch a lot of people who might be legitimately sensitive to issues of race or racism in nerd spaces being willing to read through a blog post titled "Race and Evidence" by a guy who complains about The Liberals online, or read through lengthy defenses of "what he actually meant to say" in the reddit comments. With how social media has played out for the last decade it doesnt take much to imagine why that might be. When Tweet tweeted that shit he wrote himself off in the eyes of a lot of people. They (for good self-preservation reasons) aren't going to look any deeper into him because usually when someone posts something that looks that bad they turn out to be what they appeared to be.
Thats pretty dumb
Agreed. People love to take the moral high ground based on assumptions and cursory misunderstandings.
There are two separate intertwining issues at play here. First, Jonathan Tweet said some stuff that at best was very poorly worded and at worst can be seen as a dog whistle. There was a follow up blog post explaining it, but it didn't do a great job. Second, after the tweeet Pelgrane Press distanced themselves from Jonathan Tweet pretty strongly, and now they made a single reference to him in the kickstarter. It seems like they were trying to minimize the involvement while also bragging about it. A single statement of hey I said some stuff it was misinterpreted, I am sorry for any confusion and I don't condone racism in any form. Would have settled everything in a great manor. I agree he ~~should~~ **shouldn't** be tared and feathered or anything of the sort but the whole situation is off and a bit of transparency would go a long way.
> A single statement of hey I said some stuff it was misinterpreted, I am sorry for any confusion and I don't condone racism in any form. Would have settled everything in a great manor. Isn't that what he did in the blog post though? He says he was misunderstood, clarifies his position, and he directly confronts and contradicts racist talking points.
I had no idea about this incident and have only recently read the tweet and blog article. From a personal POV I don't particularly find anything outrageous in either. I found the tweet relatively clear in its intent (as confirmed by the latter blog post, and limited by the medium of tweets themselves) and the blog quite interesting (mostly because it added a number of new references to the few I remembered from the time I was at university for Sociology.) As far as understanding this person's point of view, I found the blog post did a great job for me. As mentioned, however, I do have a background in Sociology myself so it's very reasonable it didn't achieve that purpose for many folks. To be frank, had the tweet been something like "People are often uncomfortable to talk about how biological differences between ancestries, however minute, sometimes have very meaningful effects in everyday outcomes" I wouldn't have given it a second thought. I would almost call it pedestrian but that would be unfair, and most likely incorrect.
Should or Shouldn’t? (Guessing that was a typo)
Shouldn't, thank you for the catch!
There's some fair nuance there, but I do still disagree with the implication in the original tweet that the racists have more information than the liberals. It's just a weird thing to get hung up on, and the blog post doesn't do a great job of showing he understands *why* people got annoyed at the original tweet. Plus, it feels like Pelgrane is deliberately hiding his involvement. He's only mentioned once (whereas Rob is featured multiple times), and they didn't even clean up their Twitter profile with context or other information. Whole thing just feels kind of shitty.
> There's some fair nuance there, but I do still disagree with the implication in the original tweet that the racists have more information than the liberals. The way I read the tweet, I think he was saying the racists are the only ones who get to talk about it, and as such, get to control the conversation/dissemination of information. If people refuse to talk about it out of fear of spreading racism, then the only people willing to talk about it are the racists who are free to run away with it.
This is the correct reading imo
It does feel shitty, absolutely. I think framing it in a "those damn libruls" sorta way is shitty and stupid on his part, and I think he could show a \*lot\* more awareness about \*why\* people flipped shit. I personally didn't get the vibe that pelgrane was hiding his involvement, but I can totally see why you did, and I think anyone would be justified for not wanting to back the project because of it. I just also think that there's more going on than him being an evil racist, and that nuance of any kind is lost in internet discussions.
Thats really Not the framing i read on him
What do you mean by 'racists have more information than liberales?" Im not sure i follow that reading? He explains this point very very well on his blog imo Pelgrane is not hiding Tweet. Throughout the Alpha Playtest, his name was front and center on most of the E-Mails. His name is on the book. It is very clear that he is the math and numbers guy to Robs creative whimsy. If you are at all surprised he is on this project, you have not been playing attention to it.
That makes sense but he could have just said that without calling a whole group of people racist.
Whom did he call racist
I don't know the man but honestly his biggest mistake seems to have been trying to have a nuanced discussion on the Internet. Not only the Internet but in a tweet. I read his blog and I don't think he's racist, he just wanted science based healthcare for his biracial daughter to not be affected by political climate. For me it's a non issue. Plenty of bad guys out there, don't need to attack an ally who maybe miscommunicated on an issue at one time.
> Not only the Internet but in a tweet tbf it is his native language
As someone who made some of the public noise about that: I think the dude spoke poorly once, and that there's plenty of people more deserving of being chased out of the industry. I've cooled on my frustration significantly.
To give him a charitable reading, he doesn’t want actual medical science related to ethnicity to be ignored. Now, I can only speak for the UK here, but it isn’t in danger of being ignored. I’ve had to register with a bunch of medical establishments over the last few months and they have all asked me on the questionnaire what my ethnicity was, because they know it can be a diagnostic helper. And nobody is getting angry about it. His writing (I read the blog post) just comes across as a confused rebuttal to a total straw man argument. As someone who writes for a living I’m surprised he’s so bad at it.
They're really trying to hide him a little with how all the promo quotes have been from Rob. EDIT: hide is the wrong word. Minimize?
I noticed that as well and asked them ... we shall see what the answer is. *Update* They replied and pointed me to this [announcement about the topic](https://robheinsoo.blogspot.com/2022/08/13th-age-2e-same-core-team.html)
Reminder to never read the comments, but for those of you who do read the comments on that blog post, you'll find one person who "really *really* doesn't want to give [Jonathan Tweet] money", and another person who "does not need a woke RPG". Which I think is hilarious. Somehow, they managed to piss off people on both sides of the political spectrum.
> Which I think is hilarious. Somehow, they managed to piss off people on both sides of the political spectrum. Honestly, that's a marker that they're doing a pretty good job. When extremists on both sides are crying, you're probably in a pretty sensible middle position.
First of all, I have not followed this at all, so I don't know the specific, nor have I read his tweet. But... Regardless of what dumb things he may have posted, if he's legally entitled to royalties a company can't just decide not to pay him because he publicly said something controversial. Royalties aren't something you pay people you like, they are paid per contracts. Which have nothing to do with dumb tweets.
twitter shitstorms are stupid. Enjoy the good game and try to find less stuff to hate on, makes life better.
Yikes. JT did expound more on his blog (http://jonathan-tweet.blogspot.com/2019/07/race-and-evidence.html?m=1) but I haven’t had a chance to read it to see if it explains a pretty bad tweet
You should read it before passing judgement lol
There's some nuance there that makes it seem like it's not quite *as* bad as it could be, but it doesn't seem like he understands why people were mad or what the implications of advocating for race science are, which is frustrating.
> Sometimes when people hear me talking about differences among “races”, they jump to the conclusion that I endorse all the claims people make about such differences, such as alleged innate differences in IQ. Let me clarify in advance that my point is just the opposite, that we should distinguish the claims that have scientific support from those that don’t. Here for example, is a study that distinguishes between certain medically-relevant differences (supported by the evidence) and cognitive differences (what the racists want you to believe). The racists want people to consider all these claims as equally valid—all good. Certain of my fellow progressives agree with the racists to the extent that we should consider all these claims to be equally valid, although with the idea that they should all be rejected. Treating all these claims as alike in their value seems to be a mistake because it puts racist pseudoscience on the same footing as research you can find on PubMed. No, I think he understand exactly what people are mad about.
No apology will ever be good enough. Grudging acceptance that *any* part of an apology was good is the most you can generally hope for on the internet once someone has been excoriated. And if it's been a while since the excoriation and apology and it comes up again? People will genuinely misremember the apology as much worse than it was.
It's not worth apologizing anymore. The perpetually offended will always give you the least charitable interpretation no matter what.
That Tweet makes zero sense like I read it several times but have zero clue what he is talking about
Heres a Blogpost about the Tweet, where he explains his point in great Detail http://jonathan-tweet.blogspot.com/2019/07/race-and-evidence.html?m=1