Pros and Cons of Epic Level Play?

[N'raac]

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?

Sure. The storylines seem very similar, though, where your earlier post indicated they were not.

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.

Sure. I don't find Tolkein's works grow ever more epic, though. The return to the Shire is for much lower stakes, really. Much episodic fiction recognizes that the stakes cannot continually increase, and some tighter, more personal storylines break up the epics. They don't go from save the neighbourhood, to save the city, to save the nation, to save the world, to save the universe, growing all the way. Games tend to have a very "low power to high power" structure that the source material seldom emulates.

 

[pemerton]

Sure. The storylines seem very similar, though, where your earlier post indicated they were not.

I don't think the two posts that I linked to suggest story elements that are all that similar.

I don't find Tolkein's works grow ever more epic, though.

The Silmarillion is more epic in story scope than LotR, which is more epic than the Hobbit.

They don't go from save the neighbourhood, to save the city, to save the nation, to save the world, to save the universe, growing all the way.

I don't quite follow this. Where did "save the X" come from? That wasn't the story pattern that I described or was really talking about.

 

[N'raac]

I don't think the two posts that I linked to suggest story elements that are all that similar.

The Silmarillion is more epic in story scope than LotR, which is more epic than the Hobbit.

"Free the Shire" seems like quite a downgrade from the preceding activities of our Hobbit friends.

I don't quite follow this. Where did "save the X" come from? That wasn't the story pattern that I described or was really talking about.

While my comment carries more steps, your note moves from "Save the Barony" to "Save the World". Would it then move back to "Save the Shire", or only ever upwards? I find games tend to the latter, everything of greater scope than the events that preceded it, while fiction tends not to move recurring characters in that steady upward arc.

 

[Celebrim]

While my comment carries more steps, your note moves from "Save the Barony" to "Save the World".

My problem is different. I don't see any difference between 'Save the Barony' and 'Save the World', particularly if both principally involve defeating a powerful enemy in single combat. Fundamentally, I see no difference between combat with an Ogre and combat with Orcus.

In fact, you could give Orcus the stats of an Ogre Magi, and run the 'Save the World' adventure with 1st level characters.

Heck, DiTerlizzi's 'Spiderwick Chronicles' is a epic 'Save the World' story that involves an Ogre Magi and 1st level characters. Name the Ogre magi 'Orcus' and its the same story. You could run the basic outline of the plot in D&D with only minor changes in flavor and it would work - characters save the world by 2nd level, hoorah for a completed campaign!

If all you want is more of the same, the only reason Orcus has bigger numbers is so you can level up more times. And really, if epic just involves a tactical skirmish against a monster, there is no reason that the campaign need be particularly long because there won't be any reason to feel as if maybe the game needs more time for the processes of the story to play out.

 

[Alan Shutko]

"Free the Shire" seems like quite a downgrade from the preceding activities of our Hobbit friends.

It is, and I think that's why it's important, certainly in games.

As you comment, games usually increase in power monotonically. That can create the feeling of a grind, you're doing the same thing over and over, only the skins have changed. An event like "Free the Shire" can point out how much the heroes have changed. Something that once would have seemed of utmost importance can be handled as an afterthought.

 

[Aenghus]

For me epic play often implies a long campaign. At it's best this allows more in-depth treatment of the themes in the campaign, and the longer timespan can permit some variety within the campaign overall, analogous but different to the differences between short stories and novels ( and perhaps novels and epic novels).

Obviously this assumes everyone is finding the campaign as a whole and the individual sessions worthwhile. Campaigns where some of the participants don't enjoy the activities involved tend to see player turnover or just end.

Lots of levels in a long campaign provides a constant stream of "rewards" to those who value levelling up, which seems to be a lot of people. New levels provide players new abilities to play with, which a lot of people find attractive, and which can serves to reinvigorate the interest of these people.

A healthy campaign requires good communication and this goes double for epic D&D campaigns, which tend to be more focused on the individual PC than earlier tiers of D&D. When players have invested a lot of time into a campaign I find they are more inclined to seek solutions to issues arising with the content or themes of the campaign than just stop playing.

 

[pemerton]

"your note moves from "Save the Barony" to "Save the World".

That's not even a loose paraphrase.

I contrasted "freeing a baron from the influence of his evil advisor" with "freeing the world from the influence of the dark god Torog." The notion of salvation doesn't appear in either. Nor is there anything about a barony.

I don't see any difference between 'Save the Barony' and 'Save the World', particularly if both principally involve defeating a powerful enemy in single combat.

I don't even know where this is coming from.

The LotR is a story about (among other things) freeing the world from the influence of evil. You could, if you want, describe it as a story about saving the world. Graham Greene's The Quiet American is a story about (among other things) freeing Vietnam from foreign interference. You could, if you want, describe it as a story about saving the Vietnamese from the consequences of such interference. Each also involves, at its resolution, the downfall of the personified threat.

But about the only thing I can think of that these two novels have in common is that both authors were English Catholics.

The notion that we can categorise stories as similar or different based on whether or not they can be brought under such a generic schema as "Save an X" or "Free a Y from a Z" is pretty foreign for me. Nearly every story which involves some form of resolution of adversity will be able to be brought under one or both schema.

 

[N'raac]

That's not even a loose paraphrase.

I contrasted "freeing a baron from the influence of his evil advisor" with "freeing the world from the influence of the dark god Torog." The notion of salvation doesn't appear in either. Nor is there anything about a barony.

So does "freeing someone rom the influence of a bad guy" work better for you?

The notion that we can categorise stories as similar or different based on whether or not they can be brought under such a generic schema as "Save an X" or "Free a Y from a Z" is pretty foreign for me. Nearly every story which involves some form of resolution of adversity will be able to be brought under one or both schema.

To me, we are still dealing with similar structures. But the summaries are very basic. How do they differ in play? Celebrim suggests they seem very similar "particularly if both principally involve defeating a powerful enemy in single combat." That tends to be how D&D plays out, from apprentice to epic. Now, both examples of the written word you selected involve success that cannot be achieved by beating someone up in physical combat. There is never a physical confrontation with Sauron, nor can a nation be freed from foreign influence by a gladiatorial match between Nation X and Nation Y, or their representatives.

So perhaps the question comes down to how we resolve the challenges. As I recall, your players goaded the evil advisor into attacking them so they could justify defeating him in physical combat. How will the quest to free the world from the influence of the dark god ultimately be resolved?

I think Celebrim makes the strong point that, in D&D (as in most RPG's), we solve problems by direct application of violence. We don't, for example, educate the masses as to the evils of the ark god Torog and converting his worshippers to a more benevolent religion through peaceful means like missionary work or preaching to the masses. We beat the crap out of his cultists, high priests and ultimately the Dark God himself. Just like we previously beat the crap out of a steady stream of minions of the evil advisor until, finally, we were able to corner the evil advisor and had gained enough power ourselves to defeat him in physicial combat. The prospect of victory gained by anything but beating the bad guy in physical combat is pretty much a foreign concept in RPG's.

Knowledge skills? Those are to better locate the baddie so we can beat him up, and to know his abilities and weaknesses to beat him up more effectively. Diplomacy? That's for persuading people to tell us where the baddie is and how better to beat him up, maybe even to have an ally when we administer that beating. A victory because we resist the temptation of easy power and throw the One Ring into a volcano? What kind of crap game are you running here? I want to use the power of that Artifact and deliver death to the Evil Enemy!

 

[Nagol]

So does "freeing someone rom the influence of a bad guy" work better for you?



To me, we are still dealing with similar structures. But the summaries are very basic. How do they differ in play? Celebrim suggests they seem very similar "particularly if both principally involve defeating a powerful enemy in single combat." That tends to be how D&D plays out, from apprentice to epic. Now, both examples of the written word you selected involve success that cannot be achieved by beating someone up in physical combat. There is never a physical confrontation with Sauron, nor can a nation be freed from foreign influence by a gladiatorial match between Nation X and Nation Y, or their representatives.

So perhaps the question comes down to how we resolve the challenges. As I recall, your players goaded the evil advisor into attacking them so they could justify defeating him in physical combat. How will the quest to free the world from the influence of the dark god ultimately be resolved?

I think Celebrim makes the strong point that, in D&D (as in most RPG's), we solve problems by direct application of violence. We don't, for example, educate the masses as to the evils of the ark god Torog and converting his worshippers to a more benevolent religion through peaceful means like missionary work or preaching to the masses. We beat the crap out of his cultists, high priests and ultimately the Dark God himself. Just like we previously beat the crap out of a steady stream of minions of the evil advisor until, finally, we were able to corner the evil advisor and had gained enough power ourselves to defeat him in physicial combat. The prospect of victory gained by anything but beating the bad guy in physical combat is pretty much a foreign concept in RPG's.

Knowledge skills? Those are to better locate the baddie so we can beat him up, and to know his abilities and weaknesses to beat him up more effectively. Diplomacy? That's for persuading people to tell us where the baddie is and how better to beat him up, maybe even to have an ally when we administer that beating. A victory because we resist the temptation of easy power and throw the One Ring into a volcano? What kind of crap game are you running here? I want to use the power of that Artifact and deliver death to the Evil Enemy!

To be fair, that's a problem with adventure design more than a limitation of RPGs and is certainly not confined to maximal-tier levels.

I've run a lot of scenarios with other situations than "kill the BBEG at the end of a gauntlet" at all levels of play. Common ones would include "Let's get out of here before we're killed!", "The only way to win is to claim the McGuffin!", and "The opponent's strategy has a major flaw. If we do this it will allow a victory!"

Dumping the artefact in the volcano would the last one.

 

[N'raac]

I agree that adventures can be designed differently. I think many gamers often see a victory other than in that "Final BBEG Combat" as anticlimactic, but it doesn't have to be. The games - writers, GMs and players - need to be more open, and more creative, and we can have creative victory solutions. But negotiation, puzzle solving, moral choices or application of knowledge gained rarely, if ever, seems to be the focus of an adventure's climax, nor the suggested one, in my experience.