Literary sources and the three-Tier campaign model
- Thread starter S'mon
- Start date
AeroDm
First Post
In general I agree with gusto. It strains the suspension of disbelief a bit to cross through that many tiers of power unless it also spans enough real world time. If you want to begin a campaign fighting off a pack of wolves from a stray herd of cattle at level one, it is an odd juxtaposition to later have powers that apply "Once/day when you die." Again, this is less true if the real world campaign spanned two or three years (and then it is probably even more satisfying).
In my experience, it progresses better if there is marked improvement but still within the same relative sphere of power. I think this is what you are getting at with your literary references. As a result, most of my campaigns tend to span 1st to ~12th level. High enough that the players can do some amazing things, but not completely divorced from their humble roots. This also correlates to a lot of the literature that I tend to enjoy.
On the other hand, I don't think we can discount the amount to which people generally enjoy getting new stuff. Gaining a level or getting a new item or whatever is a tangible reference to affirms that, yes, you did just succeed. That makes people feel good and I think Wizards was trying to recognize that to some extent by introducing more levels. So if you aim to focus a campaign to a single tier, you may have to identify more mechanisms for people to accrue power or otherwise gain validation.
In my experience, it progresses better if there is marked improvement but still within the same relative sphere of power. I think this is what you are getting at with your literary references. As a result, most of my campaigns tend to span 1st to ~12th level. High enough that the players can do some amazing things, but not completely divorced from their humble roots. This also correlates to a lot of the literature that I tend to enjoy.
On the other hand, I don't think we can discount the amount to which people generally enjoy getting new stuff. Gaining a level or getting a new item or whatever is a tangible reference to affirms that, yes, you did just succeed. That makes people feel good and I think Wizards was trying to recognize that to some extent by introducing more levels. So if you aim to focus a campaign to a single tier, you may have to identify more mechanisms for people to accrue power or otherwise gain validation.
People enjoy getting new stuff, but a 10 level campaign gives people new mechanical stuff at the same rate as a 30 level campaign - and it's easy to give 'plot fluff' stuff at a faster rate - the PC becomes King after 5 levels rather than after 15, for instance. And more importantly, my main point is that many campaigns don't last 30 levels, for practical reasons - it's actually too much stuff. If you've been running the campaign for 4 years, the PCs are 21st level, but none of the original players are left, it may be time to start over.
Dyir
First Post
Honestly, I think comic books are one of the few mediums that have ever managed to do Epic Tier justice. Unfortunately, they are also very stuck on maintaining status quo, meaning that power levels don't really increase like they do in D&D. However, if you actually consider from his original appearance to his most epic stories, Superman fits the bill: originally, his powers are week enough that he'd be considered "street level" by today's standards (which is basically the superhero equivalent to Heroic Tier) but he's since evolved to world-ending threats (Paragon Tier) to being the center-piece to reality-ending threats (Epic Tier). In some incarnations, he has personally undergone this evolution, growing from someone with barely any powers at adolescence to the walking plot device that he is regularly depicted as.
I think Moorcock's Eternal Champion stories work as a single-player Epic campaign.
Some of Marvel's Conan stories take him into Epic territory too, though I think that's inflation from the original REH concept.Any time your PC is fighting and beating a true deity in single combat, you can be fairly sure you're in Epic territory.
I can think of a few: Jacquline Carey's Kushiel series, some of the characters fromThieves' World, and assorted series by Barbara Hambly, Julian May, Gordon R. Dickson and Alan Dean Foster.
It could work pretty well...
But something my oldest game group has done with our 3 DM shared-world homebrew campaign over the past quarter century + is run multiple PCs of various levels in the world. Each player in the campaign has low-level, mid-level and high-level PCs- to put it in 4Ed terms, Heroic, Paragon and Epic- and when one of us announces we'e going to run an adventure, the first question is "What level?" We then figure out which particular PCs get taken out of the stable.
This lets us experience the campaign world and game system at all levels.
The funny thing is, much like the comic book example, the PCs actions have lasting results, but XP are rarely given. There is some movement between levels, but it is rare.
Last edited:
Dyir
First Post
While this is very true in D&D, this isn't always the case in literature and other mediums. I actually noticed this while playing God of War III the other day: while the gods that are being killed are powerful, many don't scream "epic" to me. And, going back to comic books, while Thor is definitely one of the heavy-hitters of the Marvel Universe, without the Odin Force I'd say he's actually closer to Paragon Tier than Epic.
I watched a bit of "Hulk vs Thor" this morning with my 4 year old; it looked pretty Epic to me!
Hmmm. Haven't read comics since 1996, but unless they've retconned him...
Without the "Odin Force", he IS an Asgardian god. He bench-presses in excess of 50 tons. Flies. Is impervious to most human weaponry. Can cross dimensions with Mjolnir, a throwing, returning hammer that can plow through multiple buildings. Calls lightning from the heavens.
How do YOU define Epic?
http://marvel.wikia.com/Thor_(Thor_Odinson)
Dyir
First Post
To the latter question, I prefer Upper Krust's definitions of Heroic, Paragon, and Epic to the ones typically described in the core rulebooks. There was a lengthy thread a few months ago about it, but it does somewhat deviate from the way "Epic Tier" has been presented by WOTC. By his definition, as I understood it, Heroic was local adventurers that ramped up to saving the kingdom, Paragon was kingdom-level adventures that ramped up to saving the world, and Epic was world-level threats that ramped up to reality-changing, god-destroying quests.
However, players with plane shifting, call lightning, controlling weather, and returning weapons are all abilities that wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for a Paragon Tier campaign. And, most Paragon Tier defenders are basically impervious to mortal weaponry by virtue of their armor and hit points.
Finally, comic book "versus contests" is fairly dependent upon the writer. However, I'm fairly confident that Thor, as described in the comics, is much, much weaker than pretty much any god as described in every edition of D&D. For awhile, the gods in D&D did not have stats, as they could do anything they wanted and were fundamentally equivalent to the Beyonder in terms of Marvel comics.
