Rule of Three finally addresses an important epic tier question!

[pemerton]

God-killing feels very S&S to me

Good point - but is that because, in S&S, "gods" aren't really gods in the D&D sense? I'm not sure.

 

[pemerton]

I'd place the Iliad somewhere in the middle of the Paragon tier.

It's a save/destroy the kingdom story, not a save/destroy the world story.

Maybe, although there's a sense, isn't there, that Greece is the world, and thus that the death of so many Greek heroes is a type of cataclysm (not unlike the deaths of the Elven heroes in the Silmarillion).

The characters are supremely skilled mortal warriors who engage in face to face duels with each other in between wiping out swarms of mooks. The gods have a rooting interest in the outcome, but they mostly stick to the background and let the mortals do their thing. (At least until the end).

I tend to think the Odyssey is more epic than the Iliad. The gods are more directly involved. Odysseus encounters more overtly supernatural threats. There's a literal journey Hades.

The Odyssey has more overtly supernatural threats, true, but I'm not sure the stakes are quite as epic. But maybe I'm not reading it properly - or, maybe (to relate back to Barastrondo's concern) it's an example of the personal epic quest.

 

[pemerton]

artifacts[/B]. Artifacts can exist at any level and represent a huge, largely undeveloped, potential, it seems to me. They already filled the slot that "Rare" items seem intended to fill - and filled it far better, since their mechanics were aimed specifically at a DM-controlled, not a player-controlled game element. If you don't believe me, try reading the DMG section on them in detail. It's good stuff. All we need now are a lot more of them (or, alternatively, powers for them and more extensive design guidelines).

Very good point.

 

[S'mon]

Good point - but is that because, in S&S, "gods" aren't really gods in the D&D sense? I'm not sure.

Conan kills some giant spider the Kushites worship as a god.

Elric/Corum kills some Chaos Lord who for all intents and purposes *is* a god.

I don't think D&D gods differ appreciably from high-end S&S 'gods'.

 

[delericho]

I find myself wondering how much experience the D&D designers have with playing/running in the Epic tier.

 

[Jhaelen]

Wait what one of the best designers in the edition is designing where only a few people can see it? That seems like a tremendous waste of work, especially since he's someone who should be able to get through the publishing barriers rather quickly.

I have a suspicion Rob Schwalb is actually a pseudonym used by a large group of ghostwriters.

No single person can write so much high quality material!

 

[Balesir]

Apologies for being unclear. Really, I was posting from the point of view that a character's motivations are generally going to be designed so that the player can do what he or she enjoys. If a character is an affable rogue with a skeptical disinterest in the divine, the player is probably interested in reinforcing that archetype.

Okay, I can certainly see that as a possible scenario. But I can also see alternatives. I have played at least one "affable rogue" in recent-ish history (tha character was a Bard, but he was definitely a "rogue" in the non-class sense!), and even though he was deeply invested in the "mundane" world as played, I can quite see making a conversion to be interested (as both character and player) in "epic" play. Given an evil god meddling in what he holds dear, and a realisation that "these 'divine' and 'immortal' types are no better than us!" combined with rage that "this upstart thinks he can destroy what I have worked for, just because he has some jumped up label of "god"??" I can easily see such a character drawn into epic quests. And, as a player, the thought of what an "affable, worldly rogue" might get up to when exposed to the planes beyond - now, that would be an adventure!

Now, in some cases you see characters who are designed with the explicit intention of evolving past an initial personality flaw. For instance, a character who starts out with a hardened heart, but the player is hoping for the character to eventually open up and have a strong romance. But at a total guess, this is probably not the majority.

Leaving aside that pretty much every story ever written has some element of evolving past a personality flaw, it seems to me that every D&D character (specifically D&D, as opposed to all RPGs) has to be built with a motivation to adventure. And I think that's all that is really needed to get into epic play - as long as the player is interested.

Oh, totally agreed. I'm only speaking up for the possibility that the reasons they might have can also include a disinterest in some of the core assumptions of epic play -- for instance, that every player would be interested in fighting demon lords or saving the world regardless of what character they're playing.

Understood - but the painting of the Epic tier as only being 'bashing demons to save the world' is a failure of marketing, in my view, on WotC's part. Especially when, as pemerton points out, they have products that show other possibilities to good effect.

I find myself wondering how much experience the D&D designers have with playing/running in the Epic tier.

A good question, indeed, I think. One of the problems one faces developing and testing a computer game is that it's much easier to test the early stages of the game than to do a truly realistic test (i.e. one run through from the start, not with some assumed start conditions part way through) on the later stages. I think they may well be having this issue; a desire to test all the neat stuff at low level means they never get to epic level with characters developed from level 1. If you start at level 20, how can you have a personal quest that has developed organically? Plus, it makes it much more viable to build over-focussed 'OptiMax' characters if you don't have to actually play them for the first 20 levels...

 

[Barastrondo]

I agree completely with your second paragraph. But I think that your first paragraph sells short what a fight with Orcus in the Abyss means - if it's just a very dangerous boss fight, in my view the GM has done something wrong.

This is true, but it's also true of most boss fights. To the original question of "what player wouldn't want to go to the Abyss and kill Orcus?", the answer I propose is "not everyone." Replacing "orc chieftain" with "Orcus" doesn't automatically speak to every player; yes, you can raise more interest in it by working hard at context, but you can do that for every enemy. Which is why epic power levels, when they aren't enough on their own, need some extra attention to be made appealing.

What I think is missing to an extent from WotC (although they hint at it in the campaign outlines that they sketch in Underdark and The Plane Above), is an account of how epic D&D can speak to the personal concerns of the players (as developed and expressed through their PCs actions in the gameworld) while at the same time connecting to the metaphysical and otherworldly aspects of the game.

Quite agreed, especially (as I see it) given that epic tier has several obstacles to overcome that other tiers don't, such as mechanical complexity, a reduced focus on the mortal world and mortal NPCs, and a "climax" that extends over ten levels.

Okay, I can certainly see that as a possible scenario. But I can also see alternatives. I have played at least one "affable rogue" in recent-ish history (tha character was a Bard, but he was definitely a "rogue" in the non-class sense!), and even though he was deeply invested in the "mundane" world as played, I can quite see making a conversion to be interested (as both character and player) in "epic" play. Given an evil god meddling in what he holds dear, and a realisation that "these 'divine' and 'immortal' types are no better than us!" combined with rage that "this upstart thinks he can destroy what I have worked for, just because he has some jumped up label of "god"??" I can easily see such a character drawn into epic quests. And, as a player, the thought of what an "affable, worldly rogue" might get up to when exposed to the planes beyond - now, that would be an adventure!

Sure. But the major obstacle that stops me is being told "Now you're going to spend an entire third of your character's gaming career with no significant interaction with that mortal world you hold dear." The focus on taking things extraplanar is a big stumbling block for many characters who enjoy this world; there are many Azzagrats, but only one Ladona. For some players, yeah, that's not a big obstacle. For others, it's close enough to insurmountable that I think it really needs addressing.

Leaving aside that pretty much every story ever written has some element of evolving past a personality flaw, it seems to me that every D&D character (specifically D&D, as opposed to all RPGs) has to be built with a motivation to adventure. And I think that's all that is really needed to get into epic play - as long as the player is interested.

I think you have to leave aside the literary example precisely because (a) most players don't build their characters in such a fashion and (b) well, just speaking for myself, my players who do also base their characters on literary examples that never go into the "epic" over the course of their stories. These are the players who see their stories as something to be resolved in the mortal world. And they're also the ones who refine their motivations to adventure more carefully, often tying them specifically to the world. If a player wants to become the head of his House over the course of his career, leaving it behind to go tool around in other planes for ten entire levels may not be as attractive as simply saying "Goal achieved" and retiring.

Understood - but the painting of the Epic tier as only being 'bashing demons to save the world' is a failure of marketing, in my view, on WotC's part. Especially when, as pemerton points out, they have products that show other possibilities to good effect.

Yes. It should be more. And if there is really to be a Field of Dreams effect of "if you build it, they will come", you need to address the players who aren't as interested in saving the world.

 

[Aegeri]

I find myself wondering how much experience the D&D designers have with playing/running in the Epic tier.

That is something I wonder as well, especially with how little epic support they have and how solos are often designed. They'll make fantastic solos, but then trip up at the last second without mechanics to avoid daze/dominate/stun spam. I mean sure, at this point any 4E GM worth his salt should just add them in the first place - but it does make me wonder if they realize just how their game plays in that tier.

At the same time they got it entirely right with the new maths and some of the ways the new monsters work.

 

[Tony Vargas]

While I understand the need to keep solos from being locked down (it sucks the drama right out of the encounter), doing so in a way that just flat out obviates such powers is also more than a little dissapointing.