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

[Minigiant]

I agree with the others that technically, you don't have to high level to high level to run kingdoms and have mass combat...

BUT

low level characters doing such would have a really hard time do to their low mortality and personal strength. 5th level kings would not have the abilities to prevent nighttime assassination as every officer is the same level and has access to 5th level assassins. 20th level kings know of the 10 or so 20th people who can sneak into his castle.


Personally I'd have different Epic modules/books that scale down. Rules that are made for high level but can work are lower levels with certain limitations.

Epic: Kings

• Rules for mass combat
• Rules for running nations, organizations, kingdoms, etc
• Information of the changes the would have on the campaign
• How to run low level organizations

Epic: Destined

• Rules for superpowered characters
• Rules for epic magic and mundane skill
• Information of the changes the would have on the campaign
• How to play low level superpowered characters

Epic: Contacts

• Rules for personal henchmen and cohorts
• Rules for epic favors that grant information, influence, or skills
• Information of the changes the would have on the campaign
• How to incorporate low level contacts

 

[Alzrius]

The issue here is that "epic" is a place where the fluff and the crunch of the game entwine very closely, because while the game's mechanics need to support the suppositions of the game's setting across the board, inconsistencies become more glaring at higher levels.

The question of PCs running kingdoms at "lower" levels (e.g. 9th level) isn't too much of a problem, because issues of power aren't necessarily front-and-center; even if they are, when most of the peasantry is reliably 1st and 2nd level, how much stronger than them you are is something of an academic issue.

When it comes to adversaries, especially when faced in personal combat, however, the problem can quickly become too big to ignore. If Hell can withstand an invasion of angels, your characters are going to need to be legitimately stronger than angels to let your invasion have any hope of success - if that's not true, then the established lore isn't backed up by the game stats, and the disconnect hurts the verisimilitude you're trying to evoke.

 

[kitsune9]

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?

Me too. I would love to see these things at higher levels too.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

Yes, but who's to say they WANT to? That's why both styles of play need to be available. Some people like becoming kings and leading armies, some people prefer more party-centric stories. Same stands for the DM, some DMs are fine with kingdoms, others aren't. Given that S&S and EF don't really have a defined "level range" in any established mythology, both are equally valid ways of gameplay.

Of course, we don't need to make things one way of the other, given that PCs are almost gods themselves in epic tier, they can easily have puppet-kings which are essentially alternate characters so they can both run kingdoms and fight gods. Especially given that battles between gods are often played out by their followers at the same time.

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.

Was there? Honestly there might have been in your games, but there never have been in mine. The Presumption GENERALLY has been to let high-level players decide their own course of action. This also depends on the scale of your world, if by 23rd level, you're the most powerful beings in the world, you're probably looking at a more god-fighting campaign. If by 23rd level, you're highly skilled, but there are at least a dozen people you can think of who are just as skilled, you're probably on a power plateau and will end up ruling kingdoms.

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.

Sure, but there are plenty of ways to influence the setting without beings kings and rulers. Many great kings have powerful beings at their disposal because a king is good at leading and their half-celestial knight is good at fighting.

Personally, I'd rather be a great and mighty warrior than a poor ruler(I'd be a dictator in a heartbeat, tru fax).

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.

Aside from not actually establishing that this is a presumption for anyone other than yourself, this still doesn't necessitate the mandatory nature of your proposal. Should there be rules for this kind of content? Sure. But there should also be rules for a more S&S, party-centric game as well.

 

[delericho]

I would certainly like to see 5e provide more by way of "epic fantasy" support - domain management, mas combat, and all that stuff seems ideal fodder for a module or two.

But...

It shouldn't be tied to character level. If the campaign I want to run is "Lord of the Rings", I shouldn't have to go through 20 levels of preparatory work to do it. And, conversely, if the campaign I want to run is "Fafhrd & The Grey Mouser", then I don't want it to suddenly shift to something else just because I've reached level X.

Sure, a 3rd level character probably shouldn't be emperor of the known world (or, if he is, is presumably the exiled or secret ruler of that empire, or something). But he might well be a Knight Errant commanding a retinue, or a mercenary sergeant in charge of a squad, or something like that.

 

[Tom Servo]

Some good ideas there Hussar. I really prefer political power/influence/reputation over raw personal power any day. For me it keeps the campaign more grounded (which, for me, is a good thing).

One problem I have with high level play is that the characters become like Doctor Manhattan. Their life becomes completely detached from the workaday world 99.9% of the setting's inhabitants have to live in.

I try to picture an epic character coming home for Spring Feast (or some such holiday).
Gramps: "Crops comin in slow dis year, could be 'nother bad one."
Da: "Aye, tomorrow we're sending young Willy to fetch a priest of the Harvest from the next town over."
Perrin the Magnificient: "Don't do that Dad, I'll bring up your concerns with the Goddess herself when I breakfast with her next week. If you want my opinion though, I'd just create a separate demi-plane for growing crops. They're really quite...uh, oh yeah..."
Everyone: "..."
Gramps: "Pass the gravy."
Da: "Aye."

Sure, Kings and Queens live very differently than the peasantry, but at least they are still playing in the same ballpark.

 

[Sunseeker]

One problem I have with high level play is that the characters become like Doctor Manhattan. Their life becomes completely detached from the workaday world 99.9% of the setting's inhabitants have to live in.

True, but at the same time they're engaging threats that are equally detached from the setting.

 

[Tom Servo]

True, but at the same time they're engaging threats that are equally detached from the setting.

Exactly.

 

[Mattachine]

I would really like to see rules for campaigns like these . . .

. . . but I don't think it should be epic play, or even, really, high-level play. When and if characters become rulers, politicians, or knights should depend on campaign and story, not level. Level is a metagame concept, that represents increased skill with combat, spells, skills, and faith. Rulers usually have their titles from heredity, military success, or political skill (or a combination thereof). Those things aren't level dependent.

In AD&D, a magic-user can set up a "wizard tower", collect taxes, and have student apprentices at level 11. Why not at level 9? Or even level 7? Who (in-game) is checking to make sure the wizard is really "11th level"?

Should a 21st level fighter become a ruler (or even a knight) if his adventuring career is confined to dungeons, fighting monsters in other planes, and helping a couple towns deal with a vampire or werewolf? Shouldn't the fighter only gain a title by interacting with the rulers, or usurping the rulers, or leading an army to glorious victory? Those things aren't level-dependent.

 

[Sunseeker]

Exactly.

That's not universally a bad thing. Besides, the setting often changes. Your deeds in the Elven Lands may be entirely unknown across the Desert Wastes in the Savage Forest. Or in the town down the road. In cases where your deeds have been heard far and wide, they've generally been heard by someone who decides to kill you, usually by either coming to get you or drawing you to his place by doing a lot of things you've been doing the opposite of.

So it's not all that surprising that when your PCs become very powerful, and your mortal foes no longer challenge you, that some great primordial being or diety catches wind of the good/evil deeds you've done and decides it's time to do something about that.