Peraion Graufalke
First Post
Stackpole's Age of Discovery series.
Rule of Three finally addresses an important epic tier question!
- Thread starter Aegeri
- Start date
Stackpole's Age of Discovery series.
I will say that there is nothing wrong with running campaigns that do not go into epic, and I do realize that not every campaign should go into epic. As a DM though, I do think that at the start of the campaign, you should give your players an idea as to how long you want the campaign to run. To me, this is part of the cooperative aspect of the game.
If the DM tells the players that he or she is preparing to run the game all the way to 30 (or 26 or whatever), then I do think that the players have a responsibility to create characters with the idea that they will go into epic. So while taking over the Thieve's Guild and reforming it into a force for good might be a perfectly acceptable goal for a heroic or paragon campaign, the player should come up with something that would motivate her character into epic tier. By the same token of course, if the DM says that his campaign will be ending at level 17, then the players should not be coming up with goals along the lines of "I want to replace the Raven Queen as the Goddess of the Dead", etc. since obviously, the character will not get to achieve that goal in an enjoyable manner in a paragon campaign.
As for are DM's scared to run epic? I'm not sure I would necessarily say scared, but uncomfortable might certainly apply. Lets face it, whether we like it or not, we, as DMs, acknowledge that we are largely responsible for ensuring that everyone at the table has a good time. Certainly, its not solely our responsibility, but most everything is going to flow from the DM. As has been noted, particularly with the way that Epic Destinies are described, epic tier brings a whole new kind of story to the table. Not only is there an emphasis on the characters (as there should be at any level), but there's a specific emphasis on player-defined quests for each of the characters. Granted, a player probably should work with his or her DM in designing their quest (which in a good group will help reduce much of the stress), but at the end of the day, it still comes down to each character choosing a quest that they want to complete.
Now granted, DMs are used to creating hooks for specific characters throughout the campaign, but usually it comes from a much more generic background and the DM kind of runs with it. This naturally makes it easier for DMs to weave everything together. Frex: A's brother is kidnapped by the criminal that B helped rescue and taken to the land from which C has been exiled and the criminal just so happens to be a cultist of Orcus which particularly offends D who is a cleric of the Raven Queen. Obviously, this is off the cuff, but you get the idea. Here you have one quest that all four characters can have interesting interactions with. In epic, you need 4 - 6 specific quests which may or may not appeal to each of the characters. Sometimes you can get lucky if there's enough overlap between some of the characters, but other times you'll just be out of luck.
So I don't think DMs are necessarily scared, but I think many are uncomfortable. We realize that we have these varying quests that need to be weaved into the overall story and weaved in such a way as to make them appealing to all of the players. Its definitely a different feel from the other tiers and its something with which many DMs (even experienced ones) do not have a whole lot of experience with. The fear (for lack of a better word) is that with it being this different, we'll fall flat on our face and the rest of the group will not have as much fun.
This is where support for epic tier can really come in handy, imo. Not just monsters (which would help a lot), but also advice on how to run it. How do you weave these quests into the overall story and keep all of the players interested. Nobody wants to spend two levels pursuing A's questline exclusively (well nobody but A), so how do you keep B, C, and D involved and advance their quests at the same time?
If the DM tells the players that he or she is preparing to run the game all the way to 30 (or 26 or whatever), then I do think that the players have a responsibility to create characters with the idea that they will go into epic. So while taking over the Thieve's Guild and reforming it into a force for good might be a perfectly acceptable goal for a heroic or paragon campaign, the player should come up with something that would motivate her character into epic tier. By the same token of course, if the DM says that his campaign will be ending at level 17, then the players should not be coming up with goals along the lines of "I want to replace the Raven Queen as the Goddess of the Dead", etc. since obviously, the character will not get to achieve that goal in an enjoyable manner in a paragon campaign.
As for are DM's scared to run epic? I'm not sure I would necessarily say scared, but uncomfortable might certainly apply. Lets face it, whether we like it or not, we, as DMs, acknowledge that we are largely responsible for ensuring that everyone at the table has a good time. Certainly, its not solely our responsibility, but most everything is going to flow from the DM. As has been noted, particularly with the way that Epic Destinies are described, epic tier brings a whole new kind of story to the table. Not only is there an emphasis on the characters (as there should be at any level), but there's a specific emphasis on player-defined quests for each of the characters. Granted, a player probably should work with his or her DM in designing their quest (which in a good group will help reduce much of the stress), but at the end of the day, it still comes down to each character choosing a quest that they want to complete.
Now granted, DMs are used to creating hooks for specific characters throughout the campaign, but usually it comes from a much more generic background and the DM kind of runs with it. This naturally makes it easier for DMs to weave everything together. Frex: A's brother is kidnapped by the criminal that B helped rescue and taken to the land from which C has been exiled and the criminal just so happens to be a cultist of Orcus which particularly offends D who is a cleric of the Raven Queen. Obviously, this is off the cuff, but you get the idea. Here you have one quest that all four characters can have interesting interactions with. In epic, you need 4 - 6 specific quests which may or may not appeal to each of the characters. Sometimes you can get lucky if there's enough overlap between some of the characters, but other times you'll just be out of luck.
So I don't think DMs are necessarily scared, but I think many are uncomfortable. We realize that we have these varying quests that need to be weaved into the overall story and weaved in such a way as to make them appealing to all of the players. Its definitely a different feel from the other tiers and its something with which many DMs (even experienced ones) do not have a whole lot of experience with. The fear (for lack of a better word) is that with it being this different, we'll fall flat on our face and the rest of the group will not have as much fun.
This is where support for epic tier can really come in handy, imo. Not just monsters (which would help a lot), but also advice on how to run it. How do you weave these quests into the overall story and keep all of the players interested. Nobody wants to spend two levels pursuing A's questline exclusively (well nobody but A), so how do you keep B, C, and D involved and advance their quests at the same time?
Zaran
Adventurer
Raymond Feist's series is definately in the Epic levels.
I gotta disagree. I'd place the Iliad somewhere in the middle of the Paragon tier.
It's a save/destroy the kingdom story, not a save/destroy the world story. The characters are supremely skilled mortal warriors who engage in face to face duels with each other in between wiping out swarms of mooks. The gods have a rooting interest in the outcome, but they mostly stick to the background and let the mortals do their thing. (At least until the end).
I tend to think the Odyssey is more epic than the Iliad. The gods are more directly involved. Odysseus encounters more overtly supernatural threats. There's a literal journey Hades.
Zelazny's Amber books are another example of epic tier play. The characters are among the dozen or so most powerful beings in the multiverse. Their feuds span the planes. They are battling over the cosmic forces that define the universe.
But therein lies the rub. Yes, I certainly agree a book or DMG that covers this would be handy... but are there enough people who think it is handy *enough* to actually put down money to buy it? Enough so that it would at barest minimum cover the cost to write and publish the thing?
What Wizards needs to do (he says only half-facetiously) is set up their own version of a Kickstarter campaign to see how many people would actually put up money to the production of an Epic Tier Handbook to discover whether there actually is enough support to make the writing of the book worthwhile.
Cross-posted from the WotC site:
There are two real problems with the way this article discussed "Epic" tier:
1. Epic teir is currently the same as paragon in design, which is the same as heroic in design.
There is little real modulation in how the game it played. I've come to realize that the attempt to create a "sweet spot" throughout the whole game has resulted in an assumption that you play the same way throughout the tiers.
There is no real depth of play experience beyond mastering the combat system. I do tend to run campaigns that are heavy on RP and intrigue and have found that 4e provides no real substantial tools with which to add depth to this facet of play.
2. The poll in the article is self-selecting and reflects the derth of substantial discussion in the books written for this edition of D&D. I want niether adventures, monsters, feats, nor more kinds of the same options I already have lots of. What we need are real essays on the subject, real rule systems, and better writing in my D&D products. This edition has wonderful breadth, but almost no depth.
The poll offers no option for anything other than breadth and therefore indicates a culture of design that focuses on the elements of the game least interesting to me. I don't mean "fluff" or "setting" I mean real engagement with the game, how it is played, and rules systems that differentiate paragon from epic and epic from paragon. What is meaningful about playing any tier beyond heroic?
There are two real problems with the way this article discussed "Epic" tier:
1. Epic teir is currently the same as paragon in design, which is the same as heroic in design.
There is little real modulation in how the game it played. I've come to realize that the attempt to create a "sweet spot" throughout the whole game has resulted in an assumption that you play the same way throughout the tiers.
There is no real depth of play experience beyond mastering the combat system. I do tend to run campaigns that are heavy on RP and intrigue and have found that 4e provides no real substantial tools with which to add depth to this facet of play.
2. The poll in the article is self-selecting and reflects the derth of substantial discussion in the books written for this edition of D&D. I want niether adventures, monsters, feats, nor more kinds of the same options I already have lots of. What we need are real essays on the subject, real rule systems, and better writing in my D&D products. This edition has wonderful breadth, but almost no depth.
The poll offers no option for anything other than breadth and therefore indicates a culture of design that focuses on the elements of the game least interesting to me. I don't mean "fluff" or "setting" I mean real engagement with the game, how it is played, and rules systems that differentiate paragon from epic and epic from paragon. What is meaningful about playing any tier beyond heroic?
Naturally, all we can do is speculate as we do not have access to WotC's numbers. That being said though, this is why I feel its better to put this information in a DMG 3 (or whatever they call it) that is modelled after the style as the DMG 2 was. DMG 2 is useful regardless of whether or not you want to run a paragon level campaign. The same would hold true for a DMG 3 if you follow the same style. Give general encounter/adventure/campaign advice. Print the new monster numbers. Discuss SC's again, showing what's been learned, etc. In other words, D&D is very much an organic game, particularly in the digital age where errata is relatively easy to incorporate.
I agree that the "Epic Level Handbook" would be a tougher sell as that clearly is going to be of very limited use to anybody who has no interest in running epic level games. Same holds for the Epic Monster Manual/Vault. If its nothing but Epic, I think you are right, the market shrinks drastically. If epic is included in a general monster manual/vault then it becomes useful to everyone again. I've yet to hear anybody complain that Orcus was in the Monster Manual for example (I've heard complaints about the specifics of the stat block, but that's a different issue). I have not heard a single person say "F-That! I'm not buying the Monster Manual. They put epic level creatures in it!" While certainly there are some people who would buy the Epic Level Handbook, etc., I think most, if not all, of us are simply looking for any support. We don't need an entire book, but something like the DMG 3 I think would sell quite well if done right, just as the DMG 2 is widely considered very useful regardless of whether or not you are running a paragon tier campaign.
Psikus
Explorer
I'd say the Silmarillion starts off as pretty Epic, though the later chapters feel more like Paragon to me. Unfortunately, I never found it particularly enjoyable.
Balesir
Adventurer
I think one of the problems, with 4e, of starting at higher than 1st level is that it opens up the field for narrowly focussed, extreme builds more. We are in Paragon now, and I don't recognise this issue - I suspect it is because the players all had to live with their character at levels 1-10, so taking something that only really motors at level 11 would have sucked for ages!
My own, personal, take on this is that 4e magic items are not what they were in earlier editions - at least, in the original design philosophy. 4e magic items are party/character elements that are points-bought (with gp). the 'items' that are thematic/story or scenario relevant and filled with "heart" are artifacts. Artifacts can exist at any level and represent a huge, largely undeveloped, potential, it seems to me. They already filled the slot that "Rare" items seem intended to fill - and filled it far better, since their mechanics were aimed specifically at a DM-controlled, not a player-controlled game element. If you don't believe me, try reading the DMG section on them in detail. It's good stuff. All we need now are a lot more of them (or, alternatively, powers for them and more extensive design guidelines).
Well, I would argue that the "you go to a very dangerous place and have a very dangerous boss fight" paradigm has elements in face-to-face play that it lacks in silicon-based play, and 4e takes advantage of these facets well. If I want more setting/situation theme as a focus - or even deliberately kicking theme for story - I use other systems than D&D. Some stuff I have read leads me to think D&D could maybe handle such play - but I still have to see it for myself.
I agree that the character's motivations should be in the player's control, but if the player has no interest in playing Epic tier, I think it's a cop out to blame the character's motivations. There are ways to engage this sort of character to 'Epic' play - e.g. having turned the Thieves' Guild to good, s/he finds that the old, evil god of thieves' cult is still working against that goal. After putting them down a few times, it becomes clear that the real source of the trouble lies beyong this world - but if the problem is that the player doesn't want to engage in Epic play, the charater motivations seem highly unlikely to be the real reasons.
Having said that, of course, the player has a perfect right to be uninterested in Epic play - but even so, the reasons might be worth examining.
Upper_Krust
Legend
Hey all,
I'm sure it sounds silly, but I sort of feel personally responsible for the dearth of Epic Tier material.
It was my goal to have several 4th Edition Epic Tier books out by this point and in truth I haven't managed a single one, and even though my first (4E) book is almost complete its not an epic tier book.
I'm basically sitting on some 40 or so epic tier book/supplement/adventure ideas that exist only at the prep/planning stage.
Including:
- An Epic (and Immortal) Tier Monster book for every plane.
- Immortal Tier rules for Levels 31-40.
- An Epic (and Immortal) Tier book for every Mythology.
- Ten Epic (and Immortal) Tier adventures.
I advertised for a bunch of additional writers last year with the understanding that we would work on smaller collaborative projects once I got my latest book (The Vampire Bestiary) finished. Its taken me almost a year longer than I imagined to finish (and doubled in size during that time in my defense). Hopefully once that is released, we can re-start the collaborative projects with those writers who haven't completely forsaken the idea due to my procrastination.
But even with that additional help I can't see how we could release more than 3-4 projects a year at absolute best. Meaning a lot of the ideas are probably just going to go to waste, sadly.
As regards Epic Tier material (or the lack thereof) from WotC. By not supporting it they really doom any hope for it. Less support means less interest, which leads to less support, which leads to less interest and so on and on, then before you know it they have stopped epic support altogether. *ahem*
The main problem for the Epic Tier (after the lack of support that is), as many of you have touched upon, seems to be the lack of understanding to what Epic Tier really means. What really differentiates Epic Tier from Paragon or Heroic except for the higher numbers? Not much to be honest. So at the moment the Epic Tier doesn't really have its own identity beyond slightly higher math.
Even in this thread, a lot of the discussion rests on what people consider "Epic Tier". With so few novels approaching the subject I think the alternative seems to be to look towards comics*, anime, videogames and to a small extent movies.
*Indeed Mike Shea raises this point in his excellent "Running Epic Tier D&D Games" supplement.
Personally I think the key to making the Epic tier unique is to dramatically up the scale in terms of...
1. The number of opponents (Armies of foes)
2. The size of the enemies (Godzilla and bigger)
3. The collateral damage involved (Disasters and Explosions)
...not for every encounter of course, but maybe once a session something ridiculously outrageous should happen.
Now the problem with the above suggestions is that D&D is heavily linked to its minatures/battlemat component, which means that you cannot represent armies of thousands or monsters significantly larger than gargantuan without transcending the minatures approach to some degree.
I'm sure it sounds silly, but I sort of feel personally responsible for the dearth of Epic Tier material.
It was my goal to have several 4th Edition Epic Tier books out by this point and in truth I haven't managed a single one, and even though my first (4E) book is almost complete its not an epic tier book.
I'm basically sitting on some 40 or so epic tier book/supplement/adventure ideas that exist only at the prep/planning stage.
Including:
- An Epic (and Immortal) Tier Monster book for every plane.
- Immortal Tier rules for Levels 31-40.
- An Epic (and Immortal) Tier book for every Mythology.
- Ten Epic (and Immortal) Tier adventures.
I advertised for a bunch of additional writers last year with the understanding that we would work on smaller collaborative projects once I got my latest book (The Vampire Bestiary) finished. Its taken me almost a year longer than I imagined to finish (and doubled in size during that time in my defense). Hopefully once that is released, we can re-start the collaborative projects with those writers who haven't completely forsaken the idea due to my procrastination.
But even with that additional help I can't see how we could release more than 3-4 projects a year at absolute best. Meaning a lot of the ideas are probably just going to go to waste, sadly.
As regards Epic Tier material (or the lack thereof) from WotC. By not supporting it they really doom any hope for it. Less support means less interest, which leads to less support, which leads to less interest and so on and on, then before you know it they have stopped epic support altogether. *ahem*
The main problem for the Epic Tier (after the lack of support that is), as many of you have touched upon, seems to be the lack of understanding to what Epic Tier really means. What really differentiates Epic Tier from Paragon or Heroic except for the higher numbers? Not much to be honest. So at the moment the Epic Tier doesn't really have its own identity beyond slightly higher math.
Even in this thread, a lot of the discussion rests on what people consider "Epic Tier". With so few novels approaching the subject I think the alternative seems to be to look towards comics*, anime, videogames and to a small extent movies.
*Indeed Mike Shea raises this point in his excellent "Running Epic Tier D&D Games" supplement.
Personally I think the key to making the Epic tier unique is to dramatically up the scale in terms of...
1. The number of opponents (Armies of foes)
2. The size of the enemies (Godzilla and bigger)
3. The collateral damage involved (Disasters and Explosions)
...not for every encounter of course, but maybe once a session something ridiculously outrageous should happen.
Now the problem with the above suggestions is that D&D is heavily linked to its minatures/battlemat component, which means that you cannot represent armies of thousands or monsters significantly larger than gargantuan without transcending the minatures approach to some degree.
