A new formula for "Epic" gaming

[gamecat]

To make a game "epic" I make the badguy evil. The setting is really, really dark. The BBEG is just the current locus of evil. His darkness inspires others to evil, ad infinitum.

If the heroes of the game can overcome these evils, that is an epic game. If the characters do it, knowing that they are doing this because they want to, not because they have to, that makes an epic game.

An epic game is over the top. Forlorn romance. Flaring hatred. Angst galore. Every character should be deeply emotional.

That is an epic game.

 

[seasong]

Eh? the literary term 'epic' means "a long narrative poem in a dignified style about the deeds of a traditional or historical hero or heroes". The word stems from the greek word for "word" or "song".

Outside of the literary term, the Myriam-Webster definition is "extending beyond the usual or ordinary especially in size or scope". The ELH can, by strict definition, be lumped into that... but it leaves me pretty unsatisfied in terms of narrative. Epic, to me, is not about having a +9 vorpal sword, or a skill rating in the low 50s.

The best parts of the ELH, for me:
1. Epic spell casting. If this was easier to use, it would be awesome.
2. The lists under each skill of cool things you can do with insane skill ranks.

But neither of those really help a campaign, a plot, achieve epic proportions except by the strictest of definitions.

 

[Psion]

The best parts of the ELH, for me:

For me, it was the monsters section. It's the only part of the book that goes beyond dry extrapolation of mechanics and presents some intriguing ideas.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Takyris - that is a brilliant idea! I love it, and if I thought I could pull it off, I would. In fact, I think it'd make a great start to a campaign - eg the preparations for the FINAL BATTLE!, and then the defeat, so that in 5000 years of game time you can bring the players in again just as their previous selves have been killed, and say:

"I've waited a long time for this. For 5000 years we have struggled against you. Now is the time for vengeance!"

...and the fight is on.

 

[ruleslawyer]

To move forward from Pcat's jumping-off point, it is worth keeping in mind that "epic-level play," in WotC terminology, is just shorthand for "above-20th-level play." IMHO, the ELH does exactly what it should: set forth a playable ruleset for characters above 20th level. The "dry extrapolation of mechanics" that Psion notes might in fact be just what this book's designers set out to accomplish. In my opinion, they did a relatively good job. In fact, I'd say that the mechanics in the ELH go a pretty good distance toward partially righting the nuke-fight phenomenon that characterizes high-level (15th-20th) play, and tends to detract from the epic quality of the game. Moreover, the suggestion to move the campaign beyond the PCs' homeworld and onto the multiversal stage is a sound, if obvious, one.

Making a campaign feel epic, though, is the responsibility of the DM, and moreover is his/her responsibility at all levels of play. FRPGs should feel epic long before the characters hit 20th level.

IOW, what jester47, Takyris, and Pcat said!

 

[Desdichado]

I dunno about some of the definitions of epic that I'm seeing around here. After all, the epics are often surprisingly small in scope. The Seige of Troy, for instance, wasn't necessarily an earth-shattering event (although my knowledge of the best guesses about what the war was really like may be coloring my opinion there.) Beowulf saved a little petty kingdom from one monster.

That's not even epic according to some of the folks on this thread. Epic has to be saving the entire world, not one Germanic king's hall, its surrounding village and farmland.

Scope is an interesting thing -- and in my opinion, epic can be about smaller scopes, although it takes a GM with a good sense of storytelling to give it the right tension and sense of overcoming impossible odds.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Perhaps a better way to say this is that any game can be "epic," whether low or high level. "Epic," in the definition used to describe the "epics," is a storytelling issue (a harassed high school Lit student would comment that it's shorthand for "long"). The question that Psion raises, if I understand correctly, is how to preserve an "epic" feel at high levels (IOW, to make high-level games feel more like the great sagas or JRRT's/Moorcock's/Eddings's work and less like Diablo II). My kneejerk response is that the word "epic" as used in the ELH just means "21st or higher level," and thus the mission of the ELH is to describe mechanics for those characters rather than to flesh out "epic" stories, something that the two books cited by Psion accomplish much better.

The Siege of Troy, BTW, is a bad example for you to use, Joshua. The Iliad and the Odyssey involve unique, powerful monsters, mighty storms of vengeance, powers such as invulnerability and unerring accuracy, and the personal involvement of gods. While historical Troy may have been a small city invaded by a miniscule (by our standards) force, legendary Troy, the Troy more of interest to literature scholars and RPGers, is anything but.

 

[rounser]

Doesn't epic usually imply some sort of extended struggle? Doesn't that imply that it's easier to do an epic story with a Frodo rather than a Gandalf? Gandalf gets put in check by the Balrog, and removed from the story regularly in other ways to keep the epic feel about it!

Perhaps taking a step back from the word is necessary. Just because you're playing D&D doesn't necessarily mean your campaign should contain dungeons, nor dragons. Likewise, an epic level game doesn't necessarily need to be epic.

Maybe the Forgotten Realms holds a hint. It has a bunch of goody and baddy ubercharacters wandering around, but their responsibilities are such that they can't address all the problems at once, and are left delegating and putting out only the biggest fires in person. They also don't confront each other head-on very much, because of the risk involved(?) That implies a different sort of campaign, though, one of political maneuvering and the responsibility shackles imposed by wielding great power, whereas some PCs will probably still want to bash heads in.

I'm not sure if a political, managerial, keep-the-plates-spinning-to-save-the-world campaign can even be considered epic, but it's another idea...

 

[Desdichado]

The Siege of Troy, BTW, is a bad example for you to use, Joshua. The Iliad and the Odyssey involve unique, powerful monsters, mighty storms of vengeance, powers such as invulnerability and unerring accuracy, and the personal involvement of gods. While historical Troy may have been a small city invaded by a miniscule (by our standards) force, legendary Troy, the Troy more of interest to literature scholars and RPGers, is anything but.

Yes, which is why I actually concentrated my argument more on Beowulf, which is also certainly considered epic, and which featured practically none of the earth-shattering scope that some here have said makes a game epic. The Geats were a minor "kingdom" -- a "king" with his little village and its surrounding farmland, and his hall (which was, of course, quite magnificent, though.)

I agree the Iliad is a rather bad example, in the sense that it's a massive battle in the mythological sense, and it had the personal involvement of the entire pantheon of Greek dieties. Still, it's not earth-shattering. There were no consequences of the battle except to the actual participants (and the civilians of Troy, of course) and there was no dire threat being averted -- it was two selfish and flawed spoiled brats fighting over their shared wife/mistress. I doubt most gamers would consider that an epic plot seed today.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Just off the top of my head, for an epic storyline/campaign we also need: A memorable villain.

The bad guy must be memorable. Sure evil works, but he should also have charisma, or panache, or style, or...something. Think of the books or movies you've most enjoyed - and how many of those had great the villains.
*Star Wars (Darth Vader)
*Silence of the Lambs (Hannibal Lecter)
*Robin Hood (the Sherriff)
*Die Hard (Hans)

Even the creatures/npc's the party defeat along the way should be different. As another poster mentioned, use "the" more often than "a" for significant encounters.

One of the reasons I didn't feel RttToEE was epic when I played through it was that it simply felt like a great big dungeon filled with just about every creature in the Monster Manual. Killing the next monster was just killing the next monster. The only really memorable moments were when we faced off with the same opponent more than once, having built a real hatred for some of the npc's (like the guy who disintegrated three of us). The Triad (?) were supposed to be the epic bad guys, but we never really developed an emotional connection with them - they were just monsters in npc clothing.

One last thing: the main villain does *not* have to be the highest-level, most powerful, etc. Think of Kingpin from the Daredevil comics. He's powerful, but it's his ability to manipulate others that makes him so formidable. An epic villain might be the depraved crown prince - untouchable unless the party can somehow isolate him politically.