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

[Tom Servo]

I'm definitely not saying anything is "universally" bad here. I am only talking about my own preferences.

I've played into the big levels, I see the appeal, just not my cup of tea is all. I absolutely wouldn't want epic play done away with. I know a lot of gamers who really love those levels. But I would love to see an option to play a very long campaign where your character can still advance and evolve yet never "outgrow" the world he/she started in.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm definitely not saying anything is "universally" bad here. I am only talking about my own preferences.

I've played into the big levels, I see the appeal, just not my cup of tea is all. I absolutely wouldn't want epic play done away with. I know a lot of gamers who really love those levels. But I would love to see an option to play a very long campaign where your character can still advance and evolve yet never "outgrow" the world he/she started in.

I completely agree. S&S should be able to continue all the way to the last level of the campaign, or alternatively, kingdom-growing should begin at some point.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The thing I wonder about, and it sounds like it dovetails along with what Hussar is talking about... is what exactly is the point of Paragon Tier or Epic Tier? Are they basically just two names arbitrarily assigned to a character who reaches a certain metagame character level "just because"... or is there supposed to be an actual in-game transition of what the game and the characters are supposed to be? Does being a paragon character actually mean something? Does being an epic adventurer MEAN something?

Are higher levels in the game there just purely as a carrot on a stick to gain higher numbers, additional abilities, and a mechanical feeling of "becoming more powerful"? Each level being nothing more than extra power for a PC to strive for... but which has no real form or function within the campaign itself? It's not actually meant to imply that they've reached a certain amount of personal power within the game world? If that's true, then why bother? If a PC's place in the story is not dictated by character level and instead by just where the story is set up to take them (like the "being kings and rulers at level 5" idea)... then why do you need higher levels then at all? You could just make the game truly just levels 1-10... and levels become nothing more than signposts of story progression. "The campaign story last 10 chapters, each time a PC gains a level is a metaphorical change in chapter."

Personally... I feel like if you're going to bother leveling a character from 1 to 30... there should be an actual transition to the stories the PCs are finding themselves in. Otherwise, you gain nothing more than just "more carrots" for each PC to eat under the misguided belief they are "evolving". When in actuality they could be doing the exact same story over 10 levels... and just not getting the carrot as often.

 

[Aenghus]

I find epic level play something that needs to be customised to the needs and tastes of each individual involved, players and referee alike.

Some players like playing SimEmpire in D&D, others want to continue to be wandering adventurers despite their great personal power. Some players enjoy changing to a pollitical and military style, others want to continue with standard adventures with higher stakes. While there is room for negotiation I don't think that forcing people into a particular style of play is valid.

What I find essential in epic play is upping the scale of the backdrop and the stakes and emphasising the power of the PCs to change things if they want, and deal with the consequences of their actions.

So I present opportunities and wonders to high level PCs and see what happens. Some want to continue business as usual, which means framing the world so that action hero solutions are possible. Others are willing to have their PCs gain social power and responsibilities and this makes for a different sort of game, and one that takes more work for the referee and players I think.

I generally prefer the PCs to keep with conventional adventuring, while indicating by the behavior of NPCs that their relationship to the setting really has changed. I don't like prison-type megadungeons precisely because they isolate the PCs from the setting and prevent the players from seeing the reaction of the setting to their actions and growing power.

I would like more support in the next edition for epic play, but for a variety of styles including conventional adventuring and high level wheeling and dealing.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Personally... I feel like if you're going to bother leveling a character from 1 to 30... there should be an actual transition to the stories the PCs are finding themselves in. Otherwise, you gain nothing more than just "more carrots" for each PC to eat under the misguided belief they are "evolving". When in actuality they could be doing the exact same story over 10 levels... and just not getting the carrot as often.

I'm fine with that in principle. What I object to is the reverse--a habit in D&D thinking--of attaching a bunch of things to levels that don't necessarily correlate in a given campaign--which artificially narrows what the game can do, and leads to all sorts of goofy adjustments trying to get around those limits instead of going back to the root of the problem. I'd like for leveling to mean one thing. They should fight it out, pick one, and go with it whole hog. (Or maybe pick a careful hybrid of two that has its own well-stated nature--these are only examples. If it can't be stated similar to below, in a short paragraph, then it is too disjointed.) Examples:

• Levels are raw, personal power--you can eventually survive 200 foot falls, battle giant fire-breathing lizards without breaking a sweat, and flip powerful magic off your fingertips that lesser beings can't even think about doing--because you are simply all that.
• Levels are early, raw talent welded to hard-won skill in the crucible of adventure. By high levels, you've got scars, but you should see the "other guy". You'll need to dig 'em up to see 'em.
• Levels are primarily your place in the world/universe. As you gain them, your spheres of influence expand. Sure, you are personally somewhat more powerful and/or skilled, but this is mainly a reflection of the options available to you.
• Levels are your narrative power to affect the story being told. When you started, you were largely at the mercy of events, trying to find a place to put a lever. By high levels, you are the fulcrum.
• Levels are your realization of the archetype/characterization you set out to achieve--the measure of the journey instead of the destination.

Trying to put all of that on one scale is, frankly, ludicrous illusionism. D&D maintains the illusion only by smoke and mirrors--and a bunch of wizards behind curtains all trying to get you to pull back the other guys' curtain.

 

[Alan Shutko]

I'm fine with that in principle. What I object to is the reverse--a habit in D&D thinking--of attaching a bunch of things to levels that don't necessarily correlate in a given campaign--which artificially narrows what the game can do, and leads to all sorts of goofy adjustments trying to get around those limits instead of going back to the root of the problem.

I think games do better when they have some focus and do narrow things. The "feel" of D&D comes about because of the weird amalgamation of genres, limitations, and decisions that it has made. I've never been a fan of trying to get one game to do everything. People who want something different should just play a different game for those styles.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think games do better when they have some focus and do narrow things. The "feel" of D&D comes about because of the weird amalgamation of genres, limitations, and decisions that it has made. I've never been a fan of trying to get one game to do everything. People who want something different should just play a different game for those styles.

Getting the game to do everything is not the point. Providing for a few different playstyles is important. While we may tend to pick vanilla when given 99 flavors, we don't ALWAYS pick vanilla. DDN may not need 101 flavors, but it'd be nice if they at least had vanilla, chocolate, and mint.

 

[Hussar]

It's been a truism for a long time that D&D undergoes fairly radical shifts every few levels. At least in large part due to the magic system, but, the level system does change the game for any class. At low level, say 1-3 for AD&D, 1-7 for 3e, Heroic Tier for 4e, your character really can't have any lasting impact on the setting. Not directly anyway. Sure, he might stop the rampaging dragon or end that slave ring, but, by and large, nothing your character can personally achieve at this level will blow up the setting.

At the other end of the scale though, your character does actually have the personal power to blow up the setting. The characters can directly challenge GODS. They could become gods. And, "having a lasting impact on the setting" is what Epic Fantasy is all about.

Think about LotR. Middle Earth is dramatically different by the end of the series. Sauron is gone, the elves leave, magic is going away. This is a setting that is very, very different than what it was at the start. Compare, say, Conan. By the end of the Conan stories, Conan goes off into the sunset and Hyboria is largely the same as it was before he came in. Nothing really changes. Life goes on.

This is one of the hallmark differences between S&S and Epic Fantasy.

So, I do disagree with the idea that this shouldn't be tied to level. Sure, your 5th level character could be king, but, Emperor? How long would he actually survive in that position? And, lets face it, every setting book out there pegs the movers and shakers of the setting at pretty high level. Could you imagine the head of The Harpers as a 3rd level bard? The Grand High Poobah of the Zhentarim as a 5th level wizard? A member of the Circle of Eight as a 6th level sorcerer?

The game already pushes high level play in this direction. The setting books follow the same pattern. So, why not have the mechanics to back it up?

To be fair though, I can see not doing this from a business standpoint. As I said, one of the hallmarks of Epic Fantasy is blowing up the setting. That makes for really, REALLY angry setting fans. Not sure if putting this in the rules would be like having a loaded gun in the drawer.

 

[Minigiant]

To be fair though, I can see not doing this from a business standpoint. As I said, one of the hallmarks of Epic Fantasy is blowing up the setting. That makes for really, REALLY angry setting fans. Not sure if putting this in the rules would be like having a loaded gun in the drawer.

I wouldn't say the goal is to blow up the setting. But I'd say the role of the hero evolve for Stagehand to Actor to Supporting Actor to Lead Role to Directer to Writer to Producer.

A low level king is merely a supporting actor. They may not be able to actively save the kingdom and leave that/hire stronger people to do it. But at epic, certain stuff just do not get done without you or another epic character allowing it.

If Epic Joe knows about a rescue attempt on Prince Mike and he does not want Prince Mike's brother Timmy and his first level friends saving him, he has a way to go in, clobber Timmy & Co, and have a snack. And only another Epic can stop him.

The Reverse can work. But there needs so many limitations to work, it might get boring fast.

 

[Hassassin]

I find epic level play something that needs to be customised to the needs and tastes of each individual involved, players and referee alike.

I find that true for all levels.