Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Epic! Yes. Fail? Maybe.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mouseferatu" data-source="post: 5514656" data-attributes="member: 1288"><p><span style="font-size: 12px">In the March 28th installment of the "Rule of Three" column, Mike Mearls--known also as Eminem when he's outside the WotC offices, busting mad rhymes--had the following to say:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">Well, Mike--he lets me call him "Mike," because we've worked together a lot, and because of those photos I still have from GenCon 2004--I'm going to take a minute to address that a little. Now, I obviously don't have access to WotC's feedback, sales numbers, or other market research. So everything I'm about to say could be entirely off-base where the bulk of the market is concerned. But I know it's accurate for me, as a gamer, and for the majority of the people I know and/or game with. (And yes, we all know that anecdotal evidence ain't worth the paper it's printed on--especially online. Again, I'm not offering this as "proof" of anything, just as the basic of where I'm coming from, and the core of my theorizing.)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">So, Mike, my theory is that the reason there's not a huge amount of interest in epic-tier play is that we haven't given the players a good <em>reason</em> to want epic-tier play.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">Here's what I mean. For some people, the idea of having greater powers, and of fighting tougher beasties, is enough. And that's fine; more power to 'em. But for a lot of people, epic offers additional complexity--more powers, higher numbers--without offering a sufficiently new experience. The monsters may be bigger and have more famous names; the "dungeons" may be really cool environments in the Elemental Chaos; plots may threaten worlds rather than villages. But the game (as written) is still focused on adventure--go into a funky environment and kill what's there.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">(This--just to head off any edition warring--is not a problem unique to 4E. It was more or less the same with 3E. I don't recall enough about the 2E epic play expansion to say with certainty whether that edition also fell into the same trap.)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">Some of you have seen this refrain from me before, in a prior column, but I'm going to do a quick revisit for those who haven't: My belief is that, however they're defined--the three tiers of 4E, the "standard" vs. "epic" play of 3E, the name levels of 1E, whatever--the different divisions of play in D&D should potentially provide different experiences. Yes, they can just offer <em>more</em>--higher numbers, additional powers--for the people who want that. But they should also offer something <em>different</em>, for those who feel that the different levels of play should also also different styles of play.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">"More" vs. "different." Advancing a tier (or the equivalent) should offer the option of either or both, but at the moment, it really only offers the former.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">And for some people--apparently a <em>lot</em> of people--there's just no point in dealing with the added complexity for an experience that's not going to <em>feel</em> substantially different.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">Oh, the game makes some nods to it. Epic destinies are a start. In 3E, there were some aspects of the <em>Epic Level Handbook</em> that tried new stuff (such as the custom spells). But in both cases, they're just nods; they're not sufficient.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">So what would be? Where has the game succeeded at this in the past?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">Well, to an extent, in 1E. At "name" level, most of the classes were assumed to acquire a castle/keep/tower/other headquarters, some land, and followers. It wasn't a <em>major</em> part of the game, but it was a <em>core</em> part of it, and it was enough to very clearly tell the players "Hey, the style of play changes at this point, if you want it to."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">So what about ruling domains in 4E? There have been a few articles on it here and there, but it's certainly not a major aspect of the game. (I should also point out that, to me, this feels more like a paragon change than an epic change, but that's just a matter of detail and degree.)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">But again, that was just a gesture, even in 1E. You really have to go to BECMI to see a truly solid example. I'm referring of course, to the "I" in BECMI, the Immortals Set. It involved, for all practical purposes, PCs becoming gods.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">Well, okay, 4E has that, right? More than one epic destiny involves the transition to godhood. But it does so at the <em>end</em>. It doesn't actually allow the PCs to portray gods, to face the sorts of world-managing challenges gods would have to face.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">It doesn't, in other words, allow for an alteration in the <em>style</em> of gaming.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">Nor do the bulk of the examples we've seen. There have been several epic adventures published, but while they make some really cool use of epic magics, and have some nifty environments, they're still more or less straight combat-based adventures and/or dungeon crawls. Which, again, is fine for some people, but doesn't scratch the itch of anyone who feels that the epic tier should feel truly different from what came before.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">But here's the thing. The tweaks/changes don't even <em>have</em> to be mechanical. Where's the <em>advice</em>? Where are the in-depth features on how to run politics? Games of nations, and--well, thrones? Actually serving as gods, or at least agents thereof, not just to smite evil but to ensure the continued smooth operation of that god's responsibilities and domains? The clash of armies? The rise of new Churches?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">Look at what the epic destinies imply in their flavor text and their powers. PCs standing at the head of barbarian hordes or sprawling armies. Rising to godhood. Casually strolling back from the realms of the dead. Stealing a villain's voice or dreams, for Kord's sake! These are some truly inspiring images, some great ideas--but the game has fallen woefully short on helping DMs actually <em>do</em> anything with them.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">It doesn't really do the game, or the DM, or the players any good to say "It's possible to do Nifty Thing X" in the epic tier, without also giving them a means to <em>use</em> that tool. How do you write an adventure around stealing the king's unique eye color? What do the PCs do to right the natural balance of the world once they've killed Tiamat and left a gaping hole in the pantheon? Other than DM fiat and hand-waving, what can the PCs do with those nations that they're now strong enough to conquer on whim?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">What makes epic play <em>different</em> than earlier tiers, not just bigger? <em>Those</em> are the questions that need to be answered, the tools that need to be provided, if people are to be interested in and excited by the epic tier. And not just in the abstract, but in specific, concrete terms. It's okay for epic play to be a little harder on the DM; but it's not okay to give them just a few sentences of "This is what you can do" and leave them floundering. They need guidance, and they need <em>examples</em>. That means epic adventures that are light (or at least medium) on combat, and that address some of these epic-specific challenges. It means showing a different way to play D&D, and then providing the tools to support that way.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">And yes, that means there'll be a few products that are aimed at a playstyle that doesn't match the central core of what D&D is, and has (more or less) always been. But that's <em>okay</em>. (Or at least, it certainly is on a creative level; I can't speak to sales, of course.) The presence of the Immortals set didn't make the Basic and Expert sets any less pure, old-school D&D fantasy. The option of running a domain at name level in 1E didn't alter the core experience of the game; it just allowed a different way to go for people who wanted it.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">So why can't the epic tier of 4E do the same? Why does the game's "core experience" have to remain the same throughout all three tiers, from 1st to 30th level? Honestly, if it does, what's the point of having an epic tier at all?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><em>That</em>, Mike (and everyone else, because I know for a fact that everyone at WotC is just sitting around with baited breath, waiting to hear what "that freelancer who can't shut up" has to say about design theory) is why, I believe, there's been minimal interest in epic play. Give people a <em>reason</em>--not just higher numbers, not just bigger bad guys, but a truly <em>epic</em> experience that goes not just above but <em>beyond</em> what they've seen in prior tiers--and I can almost guarantee you that we'll see interest in epic play expand.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">At least for me and my group, if no one else.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mouseferatu, post: 5514656, member: 1288"] [SIZE="3"]In the March 28th installment of the "Rule of Three" column, Mike Mearls--known also as Eminem when he's outside the WotC offices, busting mad rhymes--had the following to say: Well, Mike--he lets me call him "Mike," because we've worked together a lot, and because of those photos I still have from GenCon 2004--I'm going to take a minute to address that a little. Now, I obviously don't have access to WotC's feedback, sales numbers, or other market research. So everything I'm about to say could be entirely off-base where the bulk of the market is concerned. But I know it's accurate for me, as a gamer, and for the majority of the people I know and/or game with. (And yes, we all know that anecdotal evidence ain't worth the paper it's printed on--especially online. Again, I'm not offering this as "proof" of anything, just as the basic of where I'm coming from, and the core of my theorizing.) So, Mike, my theory is that the reason there's not a huge amount of interest in epic-tier play is that we haven't given the players a good [I]reason[/I] to want epic-tier play. Here's what I mean. For some people, the idea of having greater powers, and of fighting tougher beasties, is enough. And that's fine; more power to 'em. But for a lot of people, epic offers additional complexity--more powers, higher numbers--without offering a sufficiently new experience. The monsters may be bigger and have more famous names; the "dungeons" may be really cool environments in the Elemental Chaos; plots may threaten worlds rather than villages. But the game (as written) is still focused on adventure--go into a funky environment and kill what's there. (This--just to head off any edition warring--is not a problem unique to 4E. It was more or less the same with 3E. I don't recall enough about the 2E epic play expansion to say with certainty whether that edition also fell into the same trap.) Some of you have seen this refrain from me before, in a prior column, but I'm going to do a quick revisit for those who haven't: My belief is that, however they're defined--the three tiers of 4E, the "standard" vs. "epic" play of 3E, the name levels of 1E, whatever--the different divisions of play in D&D should potentially provide different experiences. Yes, they can just offer [i]more[/i]--higher numbers, additional powers--for the people who want that. But they should also offer something [i]different[/i], for those who feel that the different levels of play should also also different styles of play. "More" vs. "different." Advancing a tier (or the equivalent) should offer the option of either or both, but at the moment, it really only offers the former. And for some people--apparently a [i]lot[/i] of people--there's just no point in dealing with the added complexity for an experience that's not going to [i]feel[/i] substantially different. Oh, the game makes some nods to it. Epic destinies are a start. In 3E, there were some aspects of the [i]Epic Level Handbook[/i] that tried new stuff (such as the custom spells). But in both cases, they're just nods; they're not sufficient. So what would be? Where has the game succeeded at this in the past? Well, to an extent, in 1E. At "name" level, most of the classes were assumed to acquire a castle/keep/tower/other headquarters, some land, and followers. It wasn't a [i]major[/i] part of the game, but it was a [i]core[/i] part of it, and it was enough to very clearly tell the players "Hey, the style of play changes at this point, if you want it to." So what about ruling domains in 4E? There have been a few articles on it here and there, but it's certainly not a major aspect of the game. (I should also point out that, to me, this feels more like a paragon change than an epic change, but that's just a matter of detail and degree.) But again, that was just a gesture, even in 1E. You really have to go to BECMI to see a truly solid example. I'm referring of course, to the "I" in BECMI, the Immortals Set. It involved, for all practical purposes, PCs becoming gods. Well, okay, 4E has that, right? More than one epic destiny involves the transition to godhood. But it does so at the [i]end[/i]. It doesn't actually allow the PCs to portray gods, to face the sorts of world-managing challenges gods would have to face. It doesn't, in other words, allow for an alteration in the [i]style[/i] of gaming. Nor do the bulk of the examples we've seen. There have been several epic adventures published, but while they make some really cool use of epic magics, and have some nifty environments, they're still more or less straight combat-based adventures and/or dungeon crawls. Which, again, is fine for some people, but doesn't scratch the itch of anyone who feels that the epic tier should feel truly different from what came before. But here's the thing. The tweaks/changes don't even [i]have[/i] to be mechanical. Where's the [i]advice[/i]? Where are the in-depth features on how to run politics? Games of nations, and--well, thrones? Actually serving as gods, or at least agents thereof, not just to smite evil but to ensure the continued smooth operation of that god's responsibilities and domains? The clash of armies? The rise of new Churches? Look at what the epic destinies imply in their flavor text and their powers. PCs standing at the head of barbarian hordes or sprawling armies. Rising to godhood. Casually strolling back from the realms of the dead. Stealing a villain's voice or dreams, for Kord's sake! These are some truly inspiring images, some great ideas--but the game has fallen woefully short on helping DMs actually [i]do[/i] anything with them. It doesn't really do the game, or the DM, or the players any good to say "It's possible to do Nifty Thing X" in the epic tier, without also giving them a means to [i]use[/i] that tool. How do you write an adventure around stealing the king's unique eye color? What do the PCs do to right the natural balance of the world once they've killed Tiamat and left a gaping hole in the pantheon? Other than DM fiat and hand-waving, what can the PCs do with those nations that they're now strong enough to conquer on whim? What makes epic play [i]different[/i] than earlier tiers, not just bigger? [i]Those[/i] are the questions that need to be answered, the tools that need to be provided, if people are to be interested in and excited by the epic tier. And not just in the abstract, but in specific, concrete terms. It's okay for epic play to be a little harder on the DM; but it's not okay to give them just a few sentences of "This is what you can do" and leave them floundering. They need guidance, and they need [i]examples[/i]. That means epic adventures that are light (or at least medium) on combat, and that address some of these epic-specific challenges. It means showing a different way to play D&D, and then providing the tools to support that way. And yes, that means there'll be a few products that are aimed at a playstyle that doesn't match the central core of what D&D is, and has (more or less) always been. But that's [i]okay[/i]. (Or at least, it certainly is on a creative level; I can't speak to sales, of course.) The presence of the Immortals set didn't make the Basic and Expert sets any less pure, old-school D&D fantasy. The option of running a domain at name level in 1E didn't alter the core experience of the game; it just allowed a different way to go for people who wanted it. So why can't the epic tier of 4E do the same? Why does the game's "core experience" have to remain the same throughout all three tiers, from 1st to 30th level? Honestly, if it does, what's the point of having an epic tier at all? [i]That[/i], Mike (and everyone else, because I know for a fact that everyone at WotC is just sitting around with baited breath, waiting to hear what "that freelancer who can't shut up" has to say about design theory) is why, I believe, there's been minimal interest in epic play. Give people a [i]reason[/i]--not just higher numbers, not just bigger bad guys, but a truly [i]epic[/i] experience that goes not just above but [i]beyond[/i] what they've seen in prior tiers--and I can almost guarantee you that we'll see interest in epic play expand. At least for me and my group, if no one else. [/SIZE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Epic! Yes. Fail? Maybe.
Top