Pros and Cons of Epic Level Play?

[Storminator]

Good lord [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], how can you have 10,000 posts with these sorts of essays?!

Also, I wish I could play in your games.

PS

 

[pemerton]

as the highest level character leveled up last session, some of the players were musing about whether the Champion could now survive the tsunami without actually running away. And I affirmed, that as maximum damage from just taking the tsunami to the face as it where was 9d6+15 damage, the Champion was now so beloved by Aravar that he just couldn't die in such a situation. Aravar would certainly protect him sufficiently that he'd end up with no more than just a few bruises and wet clothes.

I don't see how this is significantly different from the fact that the paladin of the Raven Queen in my game cannot be dominated, nor driven from the battlefield in fear, because his loyalty to his mistress, and her trust in him, shield him from such consequences. (Marshall of Letherna epic destiny, Level 21: Sworn to Duty - "you are immune to charm effects and fear effects".)

 

[pemerton]

Also, I wish I could play in your games.

Thanks, that's very kind of you to say so. I like the sound of your goblins game too!

I think I'm a reasonable GM, but there are plenty of other posters besides the two of us on these boards whose GMing I'm sure is top-notch. (And there's one - [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] - whose GMing I've experienced, via play-by-post.)

My reasonably forceful advocacy isn't because I think my GMing is wonderfully exemplary. Part of the motivation for my actual play posts is to foster discussion and give examples of 4e play. But an equally important motivation for me is that I get sick of reading posts that casually associate 4e-style play (or really any play approach that I associate with "modern" games like HeroWars/Quest, BW, MHRP, etc) with shallowness, videogamey-ness, consequence-free play, etc.

Sometimes it leads to over-long essays, I'll concede.

 

[Celebrim]

For some reason you don't believe me that my game is not like that.

You are of the mistaken opinion I think that my primary interest in this thread is proving something about your game. My primary interest is to explain what the pro's and con's of epic level play are. One of those 'pros' involves greater plausibility of the idea I've associated with epic play, that the PC's really have the means to meaningfully change the setting. I've also explained that I don't find any change that doesn't involve real mechanical changes particularly meaningful.

No I haven't. Describing one as a gorge and the other as a stream isn't a mechanical differentiation. It's purely a difference of flavour.

In one sense you are right. The description of the two things is flavor. But we would expect from the description that there is a mechanical difference between the two. For example, we wouldn't expect to be able to swim the gorge despite having a swim skill that permits swimming, proving that there is indeed an ingame reality behind the flavor and therefore mechanical differentiation. When that expectation is subverted, because the mechanics of interacting with the two things prove to be the same or the differences are handwaved away in order to maintain consistent mechanics, then we can say it truly is only a difference in flavor.

So when you say it is 'odd' that the mechanical process of play for resolving the mass combat between clashing armies should be different from the mechanical process of play for fording a stream, and imply that it is preferential that the two rely on the same subsystem, what I hear is that your fictional positioning is mere flavor with little or no meaningful mechanical differentiation. Indeed, what I hear further is in fact a system that is analogous not to the analog reality of a real place, but to the state based transitions used to simulate game states in a simplified computer model of a story. Now this is not to say you run a bad game or that you railroad, I've elsewhere suggested I think you run a good table. But it means I'd find your model of play very jarring, and frankly would have very low trust in your narrative based improvised process resolution.

This seems to explain some of the "accountancy" dimension to your conception of paragon play: if the PC is experiencing the stress of making the logistics of the army viable, then so must the player.

If the logistics aren't accounted for in some manner, then the don't exist. If a rule doesn't exist for forced marches, exhaustion from travel is only color. If a rule doesn't exist for taking damage from exposure, characters don't take damage from exposure. In general, a player's experience of color that isn't backed up mechanically is very weak. His PC isn't suffering, so you can color the suffering however you like, it isn't really real to the player. I've heard some creative attempts to resolve this problem - forcing the group to go outside and play in the rain and only agreeing to go back inside when they agreed their players would in fact look for shelter from the rain - but humorous though those stories are, they aren't universal solutions. For example, I don't want to actually hold a knife to a player's loved one to get them to agree that an NPC with a knife to their throat is actually threatened. I agree with you that in game reality and real world reality need to be kept strictly separate.

[the proxy is the thrill of gambling...

Your idea thrill of gambling reminds me very much more of playing roulette or slot machines (games I detest) than poker or blood bowl (games I adore). Pull levers, see what the results are. Even when the odds are rigged in my favor, as say at a company party featuring gaming tables, I prefer the poker to the roulette.

So I would also say that I don't think paragon or epic play in my preferred sense is easy in a short-term game, because it takes time to build up the intricacy of backstory that supports the proxy I have just outlined for the frustrations of rulership.

On that we can agree. Much more than heroic play, paragon and epic play depends on building up relationships to the rest of the game world.

 

[Manbearcat]

@N'raac and @Celebrim , in light of your acceptance of the above 3 premises, could you take a look at the below and tell me what you think?

1) At the end of the Heroic Tier (level 10) of my home game, my players failed to save a humble settlement of hard-working, noble frontier folk from a horde that swept over their land (the fallout of a failed Skill Challenge). The Fighter/Wizard player performed (and spent the requisite 100 g) a Binding "Magic Circle" Ritual with a high Arcana check. This Ritual created a permanent, impermeable circle that would forevermore keep tomb-robbers and other grave-defilers away from the remains of the cemetery where all of these folks were buried.

At level 27 (mid-late Epic Tier), this same group defeated the legendary sovereign of the greatest nation of their world; a proud, Paladin King who had once united many disparate states, taking them as protectorates in a war against Abyssal proxies. When this Paladin King eventually fell sway to dark methodology that made him ripe for possession, he lost his autonomy to the Abyssal Lord Juiblex. The PCs defeated him but did not kill him. The same Fighter/Wizard above performed a powerful (Adjure) Ritual (and spent the considerable cost to do so) in an attempt to bind the Demon Lord to his will and exorcise him from the Paladin, returning him to his noble status and restoring his place as (capable) ruler. This Ritual is a scaled Skill Challenge. The more successes, the greater the power you have over the entity. The Fighter/Wizard speaks Juiblex's truename by way of a successful Religion check. The Abyssal Lord answers by making the walls, the ceiling, and the floor begin to ooze and all manner of foul, Lovecraftian horrors, including the holy sepulcher the Ritual was taking place in, began to rise against the PCs. The other 2 PCs at this point had an extraordinarily tough fight on their hands while the Bladesinger attempted the Ritual

Exorcising a Demon Lord is an extraordinary feat. The Fighter/Wizard was not up to the task but he had won a minor, binding request from the Demon Lord Juiblex. Knowing that the Paladin King was about to die from Juiblex's possession, he demanded an immediate audience into his personal sanctum for a fight to the death. If Juiblex wins, he can use the PC's considerable power as a direct conduit to the mortal world and can slay the Paladin King at his discretion. If he loses, he is vanquished forevermore. He accepts. The PC steps through the portal and a Level + 6 fight (beyond deadly) with the Ooze Lord, his minions and his, very alive, lair commences. In the course of the fight, the PC is "slain", activating his Epic Destiny resurrection ability (for the 1st time), the spirit of an Ancient Wyrm, revealing to himself (and confirming suspicions from the campaigns outset due to various manifestations) that he is a reincarnated dragon who died heroically in the last age while vanquishing the immediately preceding demonic scourge. He is reborn anew every age to fight this Abyssal Plague. He slays the Abyssal Lord, freeing the Paladin but being lost in the Abyss simultaneously.


2) The Rogue/Ranger PC in my game was a dishonorably discharged naval commander. A certain portion of the Heroic Tier of play was devoted to uncovering the conspiracy against him that led to this. Through a long-term successful Complexity 5 Skill Challenge, he managed to get his crew back together to sail against the co-conspirators (another Skill Challenge), storm their stronghold, and claim the ledgers and documents that would clear his name.

Bringing those back to the mainland, he was able to expose the conspirators and convince the people of the city to demand an Ordeal By Combat (another Skill Challenge). He squared off against the primary conspirator in a duel and slew him, thus restoring his honors and his position if he wanted it.

Throughout the course of the campaign, due to his inclinations, he would be fraught with things to despair over, specifically the idea of multicameralism. He believed that the idea of checks and balances and separation of powers solely allowed the most corrupt to rule without expose themselves. He favored strong, coherent, just rule by a singular leader who could be deposed of, if necessary, through force. Thus the belief in the Legendary Sovereign (the Paladin King) and the deposing of him when his rule became insidious and then moved to overtly destructive. This character and the Fighter/Wizard had a severe confrontation about whether to restore the king and attempt to exorcise whatever demonic force was corrupting him. It wasn't truly settled when things finally went down as they did.

By level 21, this character has seen enough of the twisted intrigues and conspiratorial secrets of the physical world that unjustly binds so many mortals. He has risen in power enough to transcend to immortality and become a Darklord. The Shadowfell has manifested a realm suited to his accomplishments and failures, producing a darkly twisted realm that for him is both frightening and comforting, reflecting all that he has done as a mortal and laying the foundation for what he would do as an immortal. This is the PC's "home base" as he can freely take them to and from this locale with an Epic Destiny providing Planar Portal and Shadow Walk (no consumables required).

At the end of our current game, this character is making bargains with dark powers of the Shadowfell and gathering a shadowy network for reconnaissance (an Altnernate Advancement reward using his magic item budget) into the abyss (to locate the PC's lost companion) and an assault force (3 Swarm Companion Characters) to invade the Abyss. This has been performed through a series of Skill Challenges, some of which involved vignettes whereby he would send his network of shadowy spies out into the Shadowfell and into the upper layers of the Abyss, and play out/resolve their conflicts/objectives. One failed conflict brought immediate fallout upon the PC stuck in the Abyss.



These are just a couple of personal anecdotes and are straight usage of the mechanics for the system (which doesn't have a stand-alone, explicit domain management system). So. Is that a "contrived/vapid numbers treadmill", a legitimately different (and thematically evolving and stake-escalating) game from low level to epic, or something else? There is a an extreme amount of info that I've left out but I don't have the time, or urge, to type up a recap of the entirety of my campaign. I'm hopeful that those two are sufficient for a glimpse. I'm curious if you feel those anecdotes reinforce or are at odds with your accepted premises above.

 

[Manbearcat]

Sometimes it leads to over-long essays, I'll concede.

I can read extremely coherent, well-written and provocative essays regardless of length. I'm sure I'm not alone and I'm certain that your detractors enjoy reading your "over-long essays." I don't really like re-reading my own "over-long essays", but I like reading yours (and a few others on here).

I wish I could see other folks' endgame play firsthand. Its very hard for me to believe that, thematics-wise, we are all far apart with respect to content. The tropes that we amuse ourselves with cannot be all that dissimilar. Its surprising to me that this thread has brought about so much strife. I would have figured that this would be one of those things where we could all pretty much say "yup, I agree...that looks like my game and is sufficiently epic in scope."

 

[Ahnehnois]

I wish I could see other folks' endgame play firsthand. Its very hard for me to believe that, thematics-wise, we are all far apart with respect to content.

I hope not. Not as an indictment of anyone else, but because this is a creative hobby. If I'm doing something that's been done before, the way I see it, I'm doing it wrong. I try very hard to find new things to do.

 

[Manbearcat]

I hope not. Not as an indictment of anyone else, but because this is a creative hobby. If I'm doing something that's been done before, the way I see it, I'm doing it wrong. I try very hard to find new things to do.

I do as well, and I consider myself a creative person, but I guess I mostly subscribe to the Mark Twain school of thought on the subject -

"There is no such thing as a new idea. It is impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put them into a sort of mental kaleidoscope. We give them a turn and they make new and curious combinations. We keep on turning and making new combinations indefinitely; but they are the same old pieces of colored glass that have been in use through all the ages."

 

[pemerton]

You are of the mistaken opinion I think that my primary interest in this thread is proving something about your game.

Well, that's because you made assertions about "the fight with Torog", and about it being the same as a heroic-tier dungeon crawl, and the only poster in this thread who has posted an example of a fight with Torog is me.

For example, we wouldn't expect to be able to swim the gorge despite having a swim skill that permits swimming, proving that there is indeed an ingame reality behind the flavor and therefore mechanical differentiation. When that expectation is subverted, because the mechanics of interacting with the two things prove to be the same or the differences are handwaved away in order to maintain consistent mechanics, then we can say it truly is only a difference in flavor.

Who is the we? Not someone who was introduced to RPGing via HeroQuest, or Marvel Heroic RP, or even Runequest (roll under Swim score compared to roll under Climb score).

when you say it is 'odd' that the mechanical process of play for resolving the mass combat between clashing armies should be different from the mechanical process of play for fording a stream, and imply that it is preferential that the two rely on the same subsystem, what I hear is that your fictional positioning is mere flavor with little or no meaningful mechanical differentiation.

D&D doesn't mechanically differentiate between fighting with a dagger or with a spear. (Contrast Burning Wheel, which does.) It barely differentiates between fighting with a dagger and fighting with a bow.

Mechanical differentiation is not all that counts. The mechanics for resolving negotiations with a shopkeeper, and negotiations with a king, are no different in any pubished RPG of which I'm aware (including D&D, any edition). Yet I've never heard it suggested that the two are really the same experience.

Fictional positioning can matter to framing, to feasible action declaration, to choice of ability to deploy and/or resource to expend, to narration of consequences, to setting of DCs, etc. These are all significant things in RPG mechanics. You don't need to also change the basic resolution system to make fictional positioning matter.

 

[Celebrim]

These are just a couple of personal anecdotes and are straight usage of the mechanics for the system (which doesn't have a stand-alone, explicit domain management system). So. Is that a "contrived/vapid numbers treadmill", a legitimately different (and thematically evolving and stake-escalating) game from low level to epic, or something else? There is a an extreme amount of info that I've left out but I don't have the time, or urge, to type up a recap of the entirety of my campaign. I'm hopeful that those two are sufficient for a glimpse. I'm curious if you feel those anecdotes reinforce or are at odds with your accepted premises above.

So, let's just dispense with the idea that I think you are having badwrongfun, and my primary interest is in proving you are having badwrongfun. I haven't looked around at someone elses posts that closely, I'm pretty sure that "contrived", "vapid", and "treadmill" are you words, despite the fact that they are in quotes they don't even manage to be a decent paraphrase.

The short answer is that I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with maintaining a consistent tone of play when you level up to increasingly high levels. Enjoy what you like. It sounds like you have a memorable imaginative complex game going.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "themematicly evolving" or "stake escalating". Your campaign seems to have themes, and the situation in the story changes. So, "thematically evolving"? Stake escalation I associate with a particular game mechanic, where you can replace one outcome with a more severe one in-exchange for altering the chance of success or the availability of resources. In otherwords, wagering. There is an example of in game "stake escalation" in your story, the wager between the PC and the Demon Lord, and so yes "stake escalating" in a sense as well. But I'm not sure I associate these things with any particular tier of play in the sense that I see no reason why you couldn't have (and presumably did) have wagers, stakes, themes, and evolving story lines from the inception of play.

What is it exactly that you wanted me to see from those examples? I really didn't understand the thesis of example #1 or example #2. If you want me to say, "Sounds like fun.", ok, "Sounds like fun ". But they seemed really tangental to the discussion.