I regularly introduce my co-workers to 13th Age through a bi-weekly game I run at work. I’ve had players with D&D experience from Basic to 3.5 to 4e to 5e and many, many players with no RPG experience as well. 13th Age is similar enough to 3.5, 4e, and 5e that I can speak to similarities and they pick it up quickly. It’s also simple enough that I can get a new player started quickly. That simplicity also appeals to old school players (although they may have to adjust their understanding of how robust their characters are compared to what they remember playing).

The thought that occurred to me is actually the tension in the core of the class. Just as we’ve seen the back-and-forth in the Druid between elementalist nature priest and shapeshifter (and to a lesser degree the Ranger’s monster hunter and wilderness warrior) over editions, so I’ve noted the Martial Artist versus Mystic tension over the development of different monks. 13th Age seems to almost entirely be a Martial Artist (compare to the height of Mystic in Basic and 2nd Edition, with some of the ‘problems’ of 3rd Edition being in trying to balance and include both equally). That’s a curious pattern across all these History of the Classes that I’ve grown to enjoy watching.

13th Age is definitely worth a deeper look, since the price is right (free as in beer, thanks to a robust SRD). I have my quibbles with it, but it’s got a lot of great ideas and a general get to the ACTION! approach that I have to love.

Thus far, I have a request for ACKS and Shadowrun. The former I can do, the latter… we’ll see. Oh, and an article surveying 3.x monk PrCs. Still accepting further requests. =)

I saw PUNCH, KICK, and thought a video game reference, too…though I doubt Parappa the Rapper would have fit thematically. I guess it’s all in the mind!

Waiting with bated breath for 5e monks, since I don’t have any actual play experience with them, yet (as player or DM)…though frankly, still wouldn’t object if you found more monks to review.

As far as teaching my players a new system, you made the comment about “people with a working knowledge of D&D” and also put a condition in there of “if they speak fluent 4E”.

Neither of these things are necessarily true…

I have one player that is absolutely brand-spanking new to tabletop RPGs (other than the about 4 months at my table). I have another player that had about 3 months of Pathfinder before coming to my table (almost 6 months ago). Another player that has played on-and-off at my D&D table since 3.5. And the last who played a lot of 3.x, and apparently some older version of a Star Wars RPG quite a bit.

But, I don’t actually mind. They all seem to be enjoying the game. And once in a while, someone will remember how a mechanic works, which is always nice.

One of the things that I’ve taken from these History articles is the sense of “flavour within the mechanics” that you often present. Or, in the case of some editions, the lack of flavour. I do like that 4E is well-suited for re-skinning things. And so if I get a sense of a theme from one of the articles, I definitely like to see how it fits into my campaign.

Thanks for your kind words on the article. I would suggest that of Fate (either), DW, or 13th Age, you’re going to find 13th Age an order of magnitude easier to teach people with a working knowledge of D&D, and all the more so if they speak fluent 4e. But I can’t say that I’ve found the time to fully commit to 13th Age either. =/

At minimum, I hope this article gives you a bunch of ideas on how to present monks in any D&D-related game as the coolest thing on two legs. =)

Given my limited knowledge of 13th Age as a system, I can’t speak to the mechanical aspects of this (other than with those mechanics that echo D&D-ish rules). But I do like what they seem to be going for overall. Abilities that progress along a theme, and that are expressed mechanically does feel like it would make a class that is fun to play at the table.

I very much enjoyed this article.