Castles of Crystal, Wars of Genocide!

Bringing it back...

Someone recommended this thread as having some good suggestions for dealing with an epic-level campaign, and it does indeed have some.

One thing I noticed though, and that slightly disappointed me, was that SHARK's method of handling things basically seems to take what's already there, and stretch it across more levels. Like someone said, playing a 10th level character in SHARKworld is like playing a 2nd level character anywhere else. Maybe not in terms of absolute personal ability, but in terms of how you relate to the world around you. If everyone is 10th level, or 20th, or 40th, then it's no longer special. It's kind of interesting in a Final Fantasy, "this one goes up to eleven" way, but it's really just normal D&D with bigger numbers.

That brought me to an important realization: you can have an epic campaign at any level you want to. It's the stories that are epic, not the levels. Frodo and Sam would be what, first, maybe second level? Yet they're the central characters of one of the greatest epics written in the 20th century. (Sure, Aragorn and the others were higher level, but everything they did would have meant nothing if Frodo and Sam hadn't succeeded.)

Similarly, you can play a non-epic game at 40th level if you want, because you can be doing exactly the same thing as you did for the first 39 levels: go into a dungeon, beat up what's there, and take its stuff.

I think that much of the nervousness about running an "epic" campaign is just that: nerves. Really, the questions aren't that different from the ones you'd have to ask yourself at lower levels. "Where were all these 10th level guys when we had to save the town back at fifth level?" is the same question as "Where were all these 30th level guys when we had to save the world back at 15th level?" Once your PCs have saved the world, where do you go from there? It's the same question if you ask it at 5th level, 15th level, or 50th level.

So in a way, SHARK is right - you do have to plan your games if you want them to go epic. The planning you need to do, though, is more along the lines of planning what sort of story you want to tell, and matching your pacing with that plan.

J
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That hits the difference I have with Shark's way of handling things, especially spellcasters, on the head. I personally don't see the sense in allowing all those nifty spells in a campaign just to have all sorts of countermeasures making them (too) risky to use. I know that many like that sort of checks and balancvces, tactics and countertactics, but I don't play that way. I concentrate on the story and the NPCs, not the tricks and spells, when I design adventures, and my fights do not resolve around the perfectly timed use of crucial spells, feats and weapons, but around daring stunts and (crazy) ideas, so I aim to reduce the "overhead of magic control".

In the end, as drnuncheon said, it does not matter what level your PC is, it does matter what level the rest of the world is relatively to your PC.
 

Please don't consider this a flame, but based on most things I've read in this thread (including a player's own description of one of the combats), SHARK's game doesn't sound remotely epic to me.

If anything, it seems that a huge amount of effort is being expended to (In what a couple of people have repeatedly shown is an illogical manner, provided we're talking about playing a 3E D&D game.) keep things working in generally the same way at extremely high levels as they would under standard D&D rules, making the whole system, in effect, a non-epic exercise in number-crunching.

For a much more logically consistent look at the kind of world a logical application of D&D magic rules would lead to I'd reccommend doing a search for some of Nifft's posts... Not necessarily my ideal cup of tea, by any means, but definitely consistent with how the system works.
 

mmu1 said:
Please don't consider this a flame, but based on most things I've read in this thread (including a player's own description of one of the combats), SHARK's game doesn't sound remotely epic to me.
Well, ah, it's not epic. It's epic level, which is a game mechanic reference.
 

Greetings!

Well, good show! I think we were talking about *epic level campaigning* which includes *epic level characters* and certainly doesn't exclude *epic-themed campaigns*. For my own campaigns, of course, besides epic level characters, there are epic-themes throughout. If participating in a great siege as part of operations with millions of troops to save a good kingdom from hordes of monsters and undead isn't *epic*, well, then, I suppose we can agree to disagree.:) My players certainly enjoy epic campaigns.

I think there are different considerations for both working with epic-level characters, and in incorporating epic-themes in the overall campaign. I was merely offering my own insights and some examples from my own campaign. If such is not desired or enjoyed by those here, then I apologise. I thought people would enjoy discussing epic level campaigns.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
 

seasong said:
Well, ah, it's not epic. It's epic level, which is a game mechanic reference.

I suppose I should have said that, based on this thread, it seems neither Epic nor epic...

I'm not criticising SHARK's game (As little as that kind of thing appeals to me, if he and his players are having fun...), I just don't think this thread really shows how to run an epic game within the bounds and conventions of the D&D system. If anything, it seems to be about making a d20 version of the Warhammer Fantasy experience with more emphasis on hero characters.
 

mmu1 said:
I suppose I should have said that, based on this thread, it seems neither Epic nor epic...
Oh, it's certainly Epic. Whether or not it's epic is another question, but if you think epic only means that the PCs are better than just about anyone else around, that's not really how I'd define epic. As Dr. Nunch said earlier, Frodo and Sam are the central characters of the quintessential fantasy epic, and they would probably be considered low-level grunts in a game system.
 

By the same token, I don't define epic as "being grunts in a front line army". SHARK's campaign does not appear epic to me - epic, for me, means legendary (or traditional) heroes. That's big heroism, not big nations, big armies or big magic.

- "An epic" is a narrative tale about heroes.
- "Epic level" in D&D is about earth-shattering power.
- "SHARK's campaign" is about D&D taken to a logical extreme, with big nations, big armies and big magic.

Sam and Frodo would never be considered low-level grunts, because they aren't grunts. They're heroes.
 

you say PoTAYto... i say PoTAHto....
you say ToMAYto... i say ToMAHto..

PoTAYto... PoTAHto
ToMAYto.. ToMAHto

lets call the whole thing off! *ta dah* *thank you, thank you*

(now if you guys just had live webcams.... :) )


joe b.
 

...then I'd make for a very boring view :).

And I like SHARK's campaign. It's inspired me to think about D&D in a different way... but as an epic level campaign, not an epic one.
 

Remove ads

Top