Re: Re: The Epic Lamentations of Mouseferatu
You specifically said, Raistalin, and Sauron cannot be player characters. Sauron wouldn't be a particularly interesting one, so I might even be inclined to give you that, except for the fact that I allow for the possiblity someone might be able to do what I don't concieve. Raistlin however, could clearly be a brilliant character, and was. The fact that some of his feats don't fit neatly into some rule book are beside the point. The published rules are a guideline not a coloring book.
Okay, first off, as I've already said, I made a mistake bringing fiction into this.
However, let me clarify. I see Raistlin as an NPC, not a PC, but it's not because of his powers, or at least not purely because of his powers. Raistlin was a plot point. That's purely a subjective interpretation, I realize that. I also admit that my view of Raistlin is probably colored by the fact that I'm not a huge Dragonlance fan. So I'll admit that my inclusion of him was probably in error, and we'll move on from that particular point, okay?
The ELC just more readily facilitates the integration of other literary ideas into the role-playing game. It just saves the DM the time of having to hammer something out. Making it even easier to play the novel, or play a new story worthy of being one. You're of the opinion, that these fantasy concepts from literature ruin adventures. Maybe what you think, but don't say, is they take the game out of role-playing game, which would be as silly as the things you've said.
Nothing I've said is "silly," if you read what I said and not what you assume I meant. But let's ignore that.
Here's the thing. Most fantasy novels I read don't involve the characters doing stuff that's equivalent to the epic-level book. They aren't tossing world-ending spells, or swimming up waterfalls. Yes, they often have great skill, or wield powerful magics, but those are easily encompassed by the levels up to 20th. The characters who do stuff equiavelent to what's in the ELH are from sources such as anime, ancient ballads, and myth.
That's not a bad thing. Those are enjoyable reads, and can make enjoyable games. But they don't feel the same as a "typical" fantasy novel. They're not better or worse. And if you go back, I never said epic-level games were better or worse. They're just different, IMO.
It's not even worthwhile to return to your assertion that hit points and ledgendary feats with ranged attacks are totally incompatible, particularly if there isn't even a hit location system. That just boils down, to "Describing combat on the fly is hard, it's much easier to throw out numbers." Fair enough. But you not wishing to do so, doesn't make it impossible. And epic feats, such as slaying an enemy with a single arrow, not through magical device, but supreme skill, are cool, can be *quite* dramatic, and, in the right setting, wholly appropriate. The rewards for a life well played shouldn't just fit into Ye Old Vault of Accumulated Magic in the basement of your players' keep guarded by proper amount and kinds of henchment as presecribed by their levels.
Gosh, it's nice to know you don't even have to be at one of my games to know how I DM. I
never just throw out the numbers. Every bit of action in combat, or anywhere else, is described visually first, and mechanically later, if at all.
I fully appreciate the value of dramatic instances. Single-shot kills are hard to achieve in a hit point system, though, which is why such things are less common in D&D than they are in novels. Never said they shouldn't exist. However, you're taking the approach that Bard was an epic-level character, whereas I'm not. That's purely a matter of interpretation.
And BTW, what part of "
" didn't you understand on my comment about hit point systems?
As to the how's. If you can picture it being cool in your campaign, experiment with it a little, and take it. If the players have something they think will be cool, but you have misgivings, have them convince you. If they get you to the point where you can take it or leave it, take it, and experiment.
I can very much picture epic-level stuff being cool. But I see it as fitting better into an environment designed for it than I do in a campaign world that never had epic-level stuff before, but now suddenly, *poof!*, it appears. Guess what else? My players agree with me. Every one of them would rather play an epic game in a separate world from our "standard" campaigns.
Once again, not better, not worse, but different.
You've said quite a bit about your campaigns. Your NPC's can have powers like Sauron, or Raistalin, your PC's can't, period. Nor can the PC's do fantastic feats like slaying a powerful beast with a single arrow, without the aid of a plot device like an arrow of X slaying. All this because you like a sense of reality with your high adventure involving mythological beasts and magic. Fair enough. But that does tell me a lot. It tells me that your's isn't a world with characters, it's a game with sides. I like consistancy, and continuity. The sense that there are certain truths all other things are derived from. Then I trust the NPC's I've created will have motivations that engage the players, and I trust the players to do what players do, and finally when all is said and done, a great story will seem to have written itself, no thanks to me. And that is a most spectacular feeling. (It's kind of like that feeling of epiphany, that same buzz, maybe a little more subdued, but this feeling is readily shared with others who are on exactly the same page with you.)
I've said nothing of the sort. I don't believe in "sides." Every one of my players will tell you that my greatest strength as a DM, far beyond my skills at role-playing or number crunching, is the creation of an interactive story that fully involves the PCs.
And if that means breaking the rules so an NPC can do something the PCs can't, my players are okay with that. Why? Because they know that I've always got my reasons, and they will always--
always--be given a chance to destroy or counteract the villain's power/magic/whatever by the end of the story.
Incidentally, most of my villains who can do this aren't human anyway. They're demons, or undead, or monsters of some sort. Most of my human villains very much follow the rules, unless they happen to have some powerful magic item (like an artifact) to allow them to do otherwise.
Oh, about opinions. If you don't wish to have yours interpreted, keep it to yourself. Hey, look at the bright side, maybe you're just so brilliant that what I consider foolish or non-sequitor arguments are extremely astute insights that are missing what you consider obvious intermediate steps. Of course I see no reason why anything that exists in literature, or movie, or whatever can't exist in a role-playing game.
I expect my opinions to be interpreted, yes. Based on what I've written, not on other people's ideas of what my campaigns must be like based on something I said about the ELH. And I expect them to be interpreted politely.
Now go back over what I said. I never said epic-level stuff shouldn't exist. I never said epic games were bad. I never said the ELH was a bad book.
I said that I enjoyed epic-level stuff more when it was set aside from other campaign settings, and I said that I felt the book didn't do enough at giving suggestions for epic-level campaigns, stories, and settings. That's
all I said. Anything else is supposition--and, from what I've seen, totally inaccurate.
