D&DN and Epic Fantasy ((Apologies, Long))

[Hussar]

I've just been listening to SF Signal's Podcast on Sword and Sorcery Episode 108 ((Note, episode 108 has author James Sutter of Pathfinder fame and 112 has Ari Marmell, the Vampiric Mouse of EN World fame)) and they were discussing the differences between S&S fantasy and Epic fantasy.

One of the big differences they talk about is scale - S&S focuses on the individual, local scale. It borrows from the tradition of the Western - the lone gunman comes to town, saves the town and rides off into the sunset, only with swords and a demon instead of a nasty sheriff. Epic fantasy, OTOH, deals with much broader vistas - it's a cast of thousands throwing down for the fate of the world. Now, that's obviously painting with a very broad brush, I realize that, but, it does tend to cover the bases.

Now, what does this have to do with D&D? Well, as is mentioned in the podcast, D&D leans much more heavily on S&S tropes because it doesn't, by and large, have any real support for doing Epic Fantasy. You don't have rules for managing kingdoms or empires (well, outside of Companion rules and some other material). You don't really have much in the way of rules for dealing with a cast of dozens or hundreds, a la Steven Erikson or George R. R. Martin. Heck, even Tolkien features lots of mass battles and organizing thousands of people on several stages. D&D has never really done this very well.

So, this is what I propose. Make Epic Fantasy what Epic levels are about. IMO, Epic D&D has always been something of a failure because all it really does is make the numbers bigger. Your 24th level fighter isn't really doing all that much different than your 4th level fighter. He's just killing something with an extra couple of zeros in the hit points. What if we changed that? What if, instead of making your character get more personally powerful in Epic Tier (to use the 4e term, that's not required), we siloed off character power and added a few new silos?

I'm not sure if you could do this in core to be honest. I think you could get the basic framework, but, I do think there's enough here to make it an entire book as well. Epic supplements, instead of featuring new feats and spells, would feature new areas of expansion for your character.

Here's a bullet list of the features I'd like to see in Epic Tier:

• Guidelines for creating large scale, macro level campaign elements - kingdoms, power players, organizations, etc. Something along the lines of Traveller's planet creation rules, only for fantasy. You need more than the local to do Epic Fantasy, so, the DM needs all the help he can get to get this off the ground as soon as possible.
• Guidelines for mass combat. I'd probably go cinematic, a la Heroes of Battle, just because you want the players to have as much screen time as possible.
• Guidelines for empire management.
• Guidelines for changing time scales. How long does it take to raise your army? If you want to send diplomats to a neighbouring kingdom, how long does that take, and how do we resolve that? That sort of thing.
• Guidelines for handing campaign level changes. When Empire A takes over Kingdom B, just how do we resolve that?

I'm sure there's more needed, but, that's got the basics, AFAIC. Epic gaming would be an effectively different game than Heroic gaming. The scale alone necessitates the change. Trying to stay focused on the four or five PC's the way you do in Heroic Tier gaming just doesn't capture Epic Fantasy.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't agree that's where Epic Tier MUST go, but it's certainly an area that I agree, is best suited for Epic Tier.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd rather rename "epic" tier than do that. I'd like the game to also support a more epic fantasy style organically--from level 1, day 1, all the way to the top. Because the very last thing I want to do is play Cugel the Clever up to the epic tier, and then suddenly start playing Lord of the Rings.

Rules good enough to support armies at 20th level are good enough to support armies at 1st. If they aren't, there is something wrong with the rules that being 20th level is masking. It may be true that we can get by with such rules, but I'd rather have good rules and not need to get by.

Moreover, there is a place for "epic" in the "local scale". The realms of myth are full of it. Even LotR is more about such things than armies for most of the story--the armies are a backdrop.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I certainly want to see more rules for kingdoms and really large casts of characters, but I don't really think you need to replace the kind of really high-powered play that defined 3E or 4E Epic play. Sword and Sorcery and Epic Fantasy are not the only two forms of fantasy, after all, and many others do call for the kind of really high power seen by traditional epic rules (though a better implementation of that concept is always welcome!). So, rather than talking about having one replace the other, I think it would be better to talk about how they can work alongside each other.

 

[BobTheNob]

You know, I WAS going to say "Thats a different game" or "Tried it, too hard"

But the more I think about it, the more you might be right. What is the real game difference in progressing tiers? Nothing, just bigger numbers, different powers. In retrospect, I would have been happier ending our 4e campaign in late paragon and not letting it proceed into epic.

Its almost like "..and thats the end of the campaign. Of course, now you are king and ruling members of your respective fiefdoms, what do you want to do now : continue on in that role or start a new campaign"

You know what I wouldnt mind...2 different source books
Epic 1 : Characters Continue on from high level to God-hood
Epic 2 : Characters change course and become rulers of kingdoms and planar spaces

and let groups decide which is appropriate for their game.

 

[Hussar]

See, TwinB, I'm really not sure they can play well together, mostly because of the focus. If you are in an Epic Fantasy story, but the focus is all about these four guys and what they do, then that's far closer to S&S fantasy. Glen Cook's Black Company stories are exactly this. We focus on one or two characters through the whole thing, despite this vast, world changing event that is sweeping the story.

But, D&D, traditionally, doesn't work that way. As your character advances in levels, his role in the world changes. He gains title, he becomes the leader of something or other, he's the world's greatest sorcerer, etc. And that's where the focus on the micro level falls down. It doesn't make sense for the emperor to go on adventures. It really doesn't make sense for the Emperor, the Grand High Priest and the head of the Medici Family to get together and assault Hell.

But, that's what we do in very high level D&D.

I'm saying that the Companion rules in Basic/Expert D&D probably had the right idea. Move the camera back a bit. Your character is still important. Of course he is. But, the focus is on more macro level events. Your character has the wherewithal to actually make these events happen. But, the rules mostly leave you hanging when trying to deal with this.

That's where I'd like to see Epic levels go.

 

[trancejeremy]

The thing is, I'm not sure that the scope of the game necessarily needs to be tied with the level of the characters.

Didn't that Pathfinder Kingmaker series start with them running a kingdom at a fairly low level?

Or say, Joan of Arc. Here's a low level peasant girl that suddenly becomes the leader of a whole army. Or Alexander the Great, he was pretty much a brilliant leader from day one (I mean, he died when he was 27, after conquering much of the known world)

Or even both - King Arthur (in myth) pretty much became king when he pulled the sword from the stone, but he had a number of adventures later on.

Elric started off a king, but gave it up to wander around (and do a lot of planar adventuring).

Now granted, it certainly makes sense that high level characters would become famous and able to gather warriors who will fight for their causes, but sometimes it's just circumstances

 

[TwinBahamut]

See, TwinB, I'm really not sure they can play well together, mostly because of the focus. If you are in an Epic Fantasy story, but the focus is all about these four guys and what they do, then that's far closer to S&S fantasy. Glen Cook's Black Company stories are exactly this. We focus on one or two characters through the whole thing, despite this vast, world changing event that is sweeping the story.

But, D&D, traditionally, doesn't work that way. As your character advances in levels, his role in the world changes. He gains title, he becomes the leader of something or other, he's the world's greatest sorcerer, etc. And that's where the focus on the micro level falls down. It doesn't make sense for the emperor to go on adventures. It really doesn't make sense for the Emperor, the Grand High Priest and the head of the Medici Family to get together and assault Hell.

But, that's what we do in very high level D&D.

I think you're using somewhat circular logic here... As I said, there are other forms of fantasy than S&S and Epic novels. A lot of myth, for example, is very high level (involving powerful figures engaged in battle against demon lords and evil gods). So you need those high-powered characters in order to play that kind of game. You can't just assume every character is going to settle down and be a king or other non-adventurer. That is part of why I argue against one replacing the other.

Of course, I'll just disagree with you that a bunch of emperors, kings, and high priests can't just go off and invade hell. That's fine too. After all, I'm certain any number of people here can name a fantasy story they liked where a king or other powerful political figure went off to fight a major battle through personal strength. I can certainly name a few.

I'll also agree with [MENTION=924]trancejeremy[/MENTION]'s statement that this kind of thing doesn't have to be tied to high level play of any sort. I think it would be perfectly fine for a group of low-level characters to be heavily involved in a thoroughly political game.

Still, I do think it is fine to want a game where a bunch of low-level characters fight through dungeons and other adventures until they gain enough power to become rulers and major political figures, at which point they distance themselves from their old adventuring habits. However, I think that should be a campaign playstyle choice, not the sole way to play through the game. Starting off as low-level political leaders and abandoning all of that to become high-level isolated adventurers should also be an option.

 

[Hussar]

I get what you're saying TwinB, but, here's the thing. I don't think too many groups would accept the idea that their third level PC's now control the majority of the planet (a la Alexander the Great). However, I also don't think too many problems would have a problem with their 23rd level party controlling large chunks of the planet.

We're talking about baseline presumptions here. Sure, you can do a political campaign at Heroic Tier (or say, 1-5th level in earlier editions) but, the support for that is completely absent. And, traditionally, I don't think too many campaigns moved in this direction. However, at the higher levels, there always was some presumption that you would start interacting with other things than just killing the next monster.

Whether its stuff like followers and keeps from AD&D, or the association rules from 3e's PHB 2, the higher level your character is, the more direct influence over the setting he should have.

I'm suggesting that we make the rules actually follow that presumption. Breaking the game into three "tiers" isn't a bad idea - Low/Middle/High - and at the higher levels, we shift from a micro level, to a much broader macro level. You could have extended diplomacy checks that take months to resolve as messengers travel back and forth and diplomats engage in all sorts of dealing.

 

[Mark CMG]

Of course, I'll just disagree with you that a bunch of emperors, kings, and high priests can't just go off and invade hell. That's fine too. After all, I'm certain any number of people here can name a fantasy story they liked where a king or other powerful political figure went off to fight a major battle through personal strength. I can certainly name a few.

Start here and work forward - Gilgamesh Summary