Pros and Cons of Epic Level Play?

[pemerton]

the trouble with 4e Epic play is that it just doesn't tend to feel very, well, epic. Since the opposition's numbers scale with those of the PCs, and since there aren't much in the way of fundamental game-changing elements introduced at Epic tier, you're basically just doing exactly what you were doing at Paragon tier, except adding larger numbers to your dice rolls and changing the names of the opposition.

MarkB's comment is very accurate - do characters really feel epic (in other genres, SuperPowerful) when their opposition's power increases in lockstep with their own?

MarkB's comments don't describe my own experience with epic 4e. The PCs aren't doing basically the same as what they were doing at Paragon tier. (The mechanical procedures of play are very similar, but the story elements are not. At Paragon, the PCs in my game were freeing a baron from the influence of his evil advisor. Now that they are epic, they are freeing the world from the influence of the dark god Torog.)

I've heard it said that 4e epic is simply D&D with bigger numbers. You can certainly play it that way if that is what floats your boat. The game does not prevent the DM from doing that. But a failure to be epic is mostly a failure of thinking about what are the correct challenges on an epic level. The challenges at those levels need to be epic in story characteristics.

I dont think the higher numbers are what make epic play. The epic...ness has to be within the story - most significantly the scale and stakes/consequences of the story.

That said one of the defining aspects of epic play in 4th ed is also the PCs ability to avoid conditions (including death!) and more readily imposing conditions on the enemy.

I agree with these posts - the basic procedures of play don't change in epic 4e, but some of the details of the mechanical options do. PC death avoidance is probably the most striking.

But most important - and underpinning those changes in mechanical options - is the underlying story. The PCs are now demigods or some equivalent thereof. The stakes are more momentous. The fate of the world hangs upon their choices!

 

[N'raac]

(The mechanical procedures of play are very similar, but the story elements are not. At Paragon, the PCs in my game were freeing a baron from the influence of his evil advisor. Now that they are epic, they are freeing the world from the influence of the dark god Torog.)

While I don't disagree, I find it odd that you can first claim the story elements are dissimilar, then state both as "freeing [some NPC's] from the influence of [a bad guy]. So we and the enemy have bigger bonuses and a larger number of nameless, faceless NPC's are affected by our success or failure. Are we roll the same checks, with the same chances of success? Then, really, we could have plugged the same narrative into 3rd level characters for more or less the same gameplay. We probably have more toys (power, spells, items) though.

 

[Aenghus]

I prefer to play and run at mid to high level, including epic level.

Pros of epic level play for me

• The PCs can and should change the world
• The PCs are too powerful to ignore, and find it more practical to interact with the high and mighty
• By implication, the game has gone on for some time and the players are invested in it
• The game should present spectacular vistas and amazing places
• Most random NPCs should be in awe of the PCs

Cons

• Epic games are a lot of work
• A constant demand for creativity can be wearing
• Epic plotlines need consensus and buy-in due to to the long-term investment in the PCs
• Game mechanics can be fragile at their limits
• Enhanced freedom of action of players can multiply the amount of prep work the game needs
• Quick scene changes e.g. teleports can call for a lot of on-the-fly improvisation to fill in the details
• Epic play can split parties as the individual PCs prove to have incompatible long-term ambitions
• The participants can disagree on what constitutes "Epic" play, which can lead to problems
• Constant high-stakes play can burn out some or all of the players
• Some players don't want the playstyle to change to domain management, or epic politics etc etc

I find lots of foreshadowing can work well in games that go to epic. Going from random members of the crowd in front of the royal palace to honoured guests at that selfsame royal palace, to becoming owners of their own palace or kingdom can give the players a visceral sense of progression and accomplishment.

I find epic events at too low a level can be missing the point, as the PCs aren't powerful enough to interact with the event as anything other than desperate survivors, spectators or followers of a railroaded Dragonlance-type plot. Which is fine if everyone is happy with that sort of participation, but I for one have a limit to how much I can appreciate or put up with.

 

[pogre]

You know I would pass on epic play if it were not for Sepulchrave II's awesome tales about Wyre. My favorite story hour of all time here at ENWorld and almost completely an epic campaign on every level. I have run a couple of campaigns into the epic levels and it has been OK - I just want a campaign like Wyre!
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?58227-Tales-of-Wyre

 

[pemerton]

Epic play can split parties as the individual PCs prove to have incompatible long-term ambitions

I agree that managing "end-game" issues in a game so strongly built around party play as D&D is a challenge both for GMs and for players. It requires the players all to exercise a degree of forbearance, and for the GM to be creative in finding ways to integrate the PCs' disparate goals and allegiances.

Are we roll the same checks, with the same chances of success? Then, really, we could have plugged the same narrative into 3rd level characters for more or less the same gameplay.

I discussed this at some length upthread - including in the post to which you replied. As I said, 4e's mechanical procedures of play remain largely unchanged. It is the story that progresses. Although there are some mechanical developments in paragon and epic tiers - such as the increasing mechanical complexity of PCs, invisiblity and flight as readily-available powers, more complex conditions and condition avoidance, etc - 4e's principal mode of progression is in the story rather than in the procedures of play.

That is what makes the Neverwinter campaign supplement viable - it recalibrates the Heroic-to-Paragon arc into 10 rather than 20 levels, decoupling the standard 4e mechanical progression from the standard 4e story progression. This is more viable in 4e than in 3E because PCs become rather mechanically "fleshed out" around 3rd level, and very fleshed out by 10th level. As I stated upthread, a 3rd level 4e fighter can certainly feel like a weapon master in play, although if you use the default monsters (rather than recalibrated monsters along the lines of Neverwinter) then that mastery will be displayed in combat with goblins and hobgoblins rather than trolls, drow and giants.

I find it odd that you can first claim the story elements are dissimilar, then state both as "freeing [some NPC's] from the influence of [a bad guy]. So we and the enemy have bigger bonuses and a larger number of nameless, faceless NPC's are affected by our success or failure.

First, why is this odd? Freeing (parts of) the world from the influence of evil people is a fairly typical heroic plot line, isn't it?

The Hobbit involves freeing the people of the north from the influence of Smaug. LotR involves freeing Rohan from the influence of Saruman, then Gondor and (by implication) the rest of the world from the influence of Sauron, then the Shire from the influence of Saruman. A Wizard of Earthsea involves Ged freeing himself from the influence of his shadow. Then in Tombs of Atuan he frees Tenar from the influence of the Nameless Ones. Then in The Farthest Shore he frees the world from the influence of Cob.

Many stories fit this basic structure. That doesn't make them particularly similar. Ursula Le Guin's stories are not much like Tolkien's, for instance, except in the general sense of being fantasy adventures.

Also, what makes you say that the NPCs are nameless and faceless? I linked to a thread which indicated that the baron in question is neither nameless nor faceless. And I would have assumed that it goes without saying that the gameworld as a whole is not "nameless and faceless". Frankly this remark baffles me.

How do you envisage epic play differing from what I have described?

 

[Aenghus]

While epic play can mean switching from killing monsters for their stuff to killing demon lords, archdevils and godlings for their stuff, and that's fine, that's not the primary draw for me.

For me a larger backdrop requires a larger emotional investment into the setting. It's easier to portray a small village than a large city or any size country. It can be hard to care for faceless hordes of people, it's much easier to invest in individual NPCs. So one approach is to give names, faces, personalities to some of the horde of low level NPCs that depend on the PCs to protect them, not just the PC's peers and the high and mighty.

If the referee or players don't care about the stakes of play, of course it's likely to fall flat. This applies to every game ever, not just epic play.

A definition of epic play of "too big for the PCs to meaningfully affect" misses the point for me. The "too big" stuff are epic events, not "epic play", which needs to allow the PCs/players to interact with the epic stuff, not just run away (screaming optional).

 

[MasterTrancer]

For what's worth, for me the Epic-level play should be centered on the PCs leaving their mark on the world: building plane-spanning kingdoms, creating artifacts, studying the ultimate spell, forging their immortality (e.g.: an evil PC questing for lichdom) and so forth.

True, this removes the focus on the group as a whole, encouraging more the PCs on developing their personal agendas, and having the other companions as a...well, mere companions on their quests! But it should be the goal of a character, to try to fully develop himself; otherwise we'd go as in some campaigns, where the run-of-the-mill innkeeper is a retired 20th Fighter...

Of course, trying should definitely differ from accomplishing, but to die trying to attain immortality is much more fulfilling than to survive through endless hordes of enemies...up until what? PCs should develop their story, and this involves an end as well.

Probably having been formed on BECMI has fixed my view on the topic, but I can't imagine Epic-level PCs doing what they were doing as 1st levels, only on a bigger scale! Defies my logic, sorry...

 

[pemerton]

While epic play can mean switching from killing monsters for their stuff to killing demon lords, archdevils and godlings for their stuff, and that's fine, that's not the primary draw for me.

I tend to avoid "killing monsters for their stuff" as the basis for play at any tier of play. I don't find it all that engaging or satisfying.

I also tend to dislike "PCs as spectators" at any level. Whatever the backdrop of play (village or homestead at low level, town or kingdom at mid/paragon levels, world or multiverse at epic levels) I much prefer that the PCs be capable of making a meaningful difference. The gameworld should be something that the players, via their choices for their PCs, act upon. It is not just an object of observation.

for me the Epic-level play should be centered on the PCs leaving their mark on the world

<snip>

I can't imagine Epic-level PCs doing what they were doing as 1st levels, only on a bigger scale! Defies my logic, sorry...

I prefer all levels of play to be centred on the PCs leaving their mark on the gamewworld, as I just described. But within the fiction the stakes of epic-level play should be greater.

As to whether what the PCs are doing is the same, to me that depends upon how one describes it. If the description is "doing exciting, adventurous things" then yes, absolutely the PCs should be doing that at 1st and at epic levels - otherwise the game would be pretty boring. If the description is "dungeon-crawling" then I have an aversion to that at all levels.

 

[Manbearcat]

- The PCs aren't doing basically the same as what they were doing at Paragon tier. (The mechanical procedures of play are very similar, but the story elements are not.

- the basic procedures of play don't change in epic 4e, but some of the details of the mechanical options do; PC death avoidance is probably the most striking.

- It is the story that progresses.

- Although there are some mechanical developments in paragon and epic tiers - such as the increasing mechanical complexity of PCs, invisiblity and flight as readily-available powers, more complex conditions and condition avoidance, etc - 4e's principal mode of progression is in the story rather than in the procedures of play.
But most important - and underpinning those changes in mechanical options - is the underlying story.

- The PCs are now demigods or some equivalent thereof. The stakes are more momentous. The fate of the world hangs upon their choices!

The two posts that I drew these from are excellent and they fit my experience precisely.

- During Heroic and Paragon Tier play, a Druid is consulting natural beasts and mundane plants or the primal spirits of the earth and sky for their divinations with Speak With Nature or Commune with Nature. At Epic Tier they are invoking otherworldly ceremonies, passing beyond "The Gate of Dreams", eschewing their mortal form in order to enter the spirit realm and directly interact with the Elder Primal Spirits themselves.

- During Heroic and Paragon Tier play, a PC is dealing with memories of past lives of flying or wielding otherworldly power, dealing with strange complications and manifestations that stem from conflict fallout. At Epic Tier, the PC's dragon soul awakens, remembers what it was like to be a master of all it saw, and the majesty and terrible power fully manifests in form and understanding of its destiny incarnate (to be reborn and battle the same demonic incursion into the mortal realm every age).

- During Heroic and Paragon Tier play, a PC is binding lesser creatures with a curse and summoning demons. By Epic Tier, a PC is attempting to exorcise an Archfiend or a Demon Lord from a once great king.

- During Heroic and Paragon Tier play, a PC is working to uncover a shadowy conspiracy to besmirch his good name and reclaim the hard-earned legacy of his naval career. At Epic Tier, once he has come to terms with the futility of the (demi) human plight, this PC has withdrawn from the physical world and ascended (descended?) to the Shadowfell to claim a dominion free from the tyranny of mortal trappings and petty intrigue. There, with a shadowy network of agents at his call, no secret is beyond his reach. All mortal conspirators are easy to expose and punish. The God of secrets is now a peer rather than an unknowable adversary.

- PCs are transcending most or all mortal concerns. They are changing the moral paradigm of the civilized world or they are undoing its potential undoing...or they are outright challenging, or subverting, cosmological orthodox. Time, space, and death become nuisances to strategically circumvent.

4e embeds mechanically-backed thematic hooks that make the evolution of stakes, and the attendant conflicts that PCs should be addressing as they progress, more transparent and well signaled than ever before. Its difficult not to make a genre-coherent epic game in 4e.

 

[Minigiant]

To me, 3 things encompass epic play.

1) You lose some of the concerns of your earlier life. You don't fear death as much as you have an out or have allies who can usually bring you back. Travel to locations become trivial and distance isn't an issue.

2) You really get a specially that very few can challenge you nor replicate. Being epic is being known for something that will stand for a long time. Few people will ever get this thing and it isn't just because many won't get to your level.

3) The stakes are higher and everyone included is a major figure or associated to one.

Wait there is a fourth one.

4) Breaking the rules. If you don't bust a guideline or break a rule normal people are stuck dealing with, you aren't epic.

Epic tier play is about the PCs bringing a new aspect to the BIG GAME and how the world changes. There's is a war on the material plane and cold wars in 10 other places. Then a fighter who can take 100s of damage appears. Now the world swerved as it tries to figure out how YOU fit in it.