The Slow Death of Epic Tier

[KidSnide]

Several people have mentioned concerns with the planar centric nature of epic level, as far as the monsters and the like. That it pulls away from the core campaign setting created over the last 20 levels.

I think there is a way around that if you wish...bring the extra planar home.

Instead of having the PCs journey to the planes, have extra planar creatures start coming into their yard and messing things up.

Oh, absolutely! For a long time, D&D has this strong "go into the abyss and kill Lolth/Orcus" mentality, and I suspect that is because that type of mission fits more easily into the dungeon delve design framework. But - to my mind - the demonic invasion of your homeland is the canonical epic level threat, at least for homebrew campaigns that have the advantage of really being built around the PCs.

But that's an example of the "final adventure" version of epic level play in which most of the campaign is about heroic and paragon style gaming and the last big hurrah is an an epic-style "up to 11"-fest. My issue is that, as epic destinies are designed in 4e, that can be a mechanically arc. And, if you have a host of epic level threats, it becomes a strange (and possibly undesirable) alteration to your gameworld.

-KS

 

[Barastrondo]

But what this requires is seeding that homeland with these connections to deeper mythical forces, and the other planes where they live and play out, from early in the game.

Right. Again, it's a matter of preparing for epic play from the moment you start a campaign, rather than having epic play appear as an option well into a world or a campaign's life. In my case, the latter happened with the advent of 3e: up until then, everything was designed with the idea that there would be more of a "name level" style of play as you got into the double-digit levels. And that's also what many characters were designed to take advantage of: it's why I see players who are interested in having their character arcs hit closure and move on to a new campaign somewhere around mid-to-late paragon instead of rolling on into epic.

Oh, absolutely! For a long time, D&D has this strong "go into the abyss and kill Lolth/Orcus" mentality, and I suspect that is because that type of mission fits more easily into the dungeon delve design framework. But - to my mind - the demonic invasion of your homeland is the canonical epic level threat, at least for homebrew campaigns that have the advantage of really being built around the PCs.

But that's an example of the "final adventure" version of epic level play in which most of the campaign is about heroic and paragon style gaming and the last big hurrah is an an epic-style "up to 11"-fest. My issue is that, as epic destinies are designed in 4e, that can be a mechanically arc. And, if you have a host of epic level threats, it becomes a strange (and possibly undesirable) alteration to your gameworld.

Right. And in the case of multiple gaming groups in the same world, you can easily run into the uncomfortable issue that the lower-level group must logically be dealing with fallout from the epic-level group's challenges, at least if the incursion is sufficiently epic. But if they're not interested in those goings-on -- if they're more interested in the lower-level things designed for their group -- then having to deal with the mess created to challenge the higher-level group isn't particularly entertaining or fun.

One solution is to make sure that the two groups never really cross paths or visit the same locales. Put them on different continents, maybe. But that undercuts part of the fun of the shared world in the first place: the ability to hear about the other group's exploits without necessarily being stuck with their problems.

 

[pemerton]

And in the case of multiple gaming groups in the same world, you can easily run into the uncomfortable issue that the lower-level group must logically be dealing with fallout from the epic-level group's challenges, at least if the incursion is sufficiently epic. But if they're not interested in those goings-on -- if they're more interested in the lower-level things designed for their group -- then having to deal with the mess created to challenge the higher-level group isn't particularly entertaining or fun.

One solution is to make sure that the two groups never really cross paths or visit the same locales. Put them on different continents, maybe. But that undercuts part of the fun of the shared world in the first place: the ability to hear about the other group's exploits without necessarily being stuck with their problems.

I agree that 4e - or at least the Epic part of it - is not very well suited to the sort of shared world you're describing here - although for me that's theory rather than experience talking.

For me, this is another part of 4e's departure from previous D&D assumptions that I like, because it removes any pressure to "leave the world intact". I also think its part of the inner logic of "points of light" that the world outside the immediate needs of the campaign is just a theme-heavy-but-details-light handwave. But if you're actually playing in a shared world, or hoping to, then I can see how this sort of approach wouldn't work for you!

(This discussion reminds me of some of the problems that emerge in superhero "crossover" special issues, when each series suddenly has to take account of the "reality" that has been worked out in relation to some other plotline for some other series.)

 

[Barastrondo]

I agree that 4e - or at least the Epic part of it - is not very well suited to the sort of shared world you're describing here - although for me that's theory rather than experience talking.

For me, this is another part of 4e's departure from previous D&D assumptions that I like, because it removes any pressure to "leave the world intact". I also think its part of the inner logic of "points of light" that the world outside the immediate needs of the campaign is just a theme-heavy-but-details-light handwave. But if you're actually playing in a shared world, or hoping to, then I can see how this sort of approach wouldn't work for you!

Yeah. See, I actually appreciate the design theory of building a world specifically for the needs of a single campaign, because that's very freeing: there is no obligation to multiple groups, just to the single group. That one group can do anything without having to take other players into account.

The obstacles that epic tier poses for me, I freely admit, are brought upon myself because it's not a good fit for the games I'm already running. But in a discussion of why epic tier seems to be neglected, and why fewer games seem to embrace it, I think the "existing multi-campaign world" reason should definitely be examined as something to address.

(This discussion reminds me of some of the problems that emerge in superhero "crossover" special issues, when each series suddenly has to take account of the "reality" that has been worked out in relation to some other plotline for some other series.)

It's not unlike that, yes.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree that 4e - or at least the Epic part of it - is not very well suited to the sort of shared world you're describing here - although for me that's theory rather than experience talking.

For me, this is another part of 4e's departure from previous D&D assumptions that I like, because it removes any pressure to "leave the world intact". I also think its part of the inner logic of "points of light" that the world outside the immediate needs of the campaign is just a theme-heavy-but-details-light handwave. But if you're actually playing in a shared world, or hoping to, then I can see how this sort of approach wouldn't work for you!

(This discussion reminds me of some of the problems that emerge in superhero "crossover" special issues, when each series suddenly has to take account of the "reality" that has been worked out in relation to some other plotline for some other series.)

I don't really see how 4e is designed any differently in terms of the relationship of the PCs to the rest of the world than any other edition. PCs start out a bit stronger, but that has little to do with how epic level play goes. Really any issue being discussed here WRT 4e is pretty much true of all earlier editions as well, with the exception of 4e having a level 30 cap.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey KidSnide!

In my game, the extra-planar nature of epic foes is problematic because my game is about the PCs and their interaction with their world and its institutions. Their objectives are to change the world in ways they want and prevent it from being changed in ways they hate. Because success and failure is all about the repercussions, the game wouldn't have much meaning if it took place in a place where they weren't invested.

The simple solution then (as others have mentioned) would be to bring the planes to your world. Perhaps some planar BBEG is behind the rise to power of a neighbouring kingdom. This 'outside threat' doesn't have to be the power behind the throne. It may only be allied to NPCs.

Just because some antagonist NPC can command a Balor, Angel or Starspawn doesn't mean all your world's NPCs become obsolete.

I don't think the Star Wars example applies here. In a Star Wars game, the galaxy is the game world. It's not about the planet -- it's about the scope of where the PCs have interests and connections.

But thats my point. The scale of the thing is epic. Swop multiple planets for multiple planes and you have the same sort of scope.

If you want to play a Planescape style game, the planar nature of epic foes isn't a problem at all. In fact epic foes are very nicely integrated into the Planescape gameworld (notwithstanding issues of edition conversion).

I never saw our campaign as planar in that sense. We had worldly kingdoms and empires operate in tandem with planar kingdoms and empires.

I don't think the epic tier is limited to the campaign ender for every game. I just think it's properly limited to the campaign ender for many games, and that's just because it's in the nature of the game. Your list of epic adventure themes is great, but it's a great list of a particular genre. If my game revolves around Court intrigue and the politics of a set list of nations, it's a major genre-busting curveball to introduce a giant alien trying to eat the planet.

If your campaign is primarily focused on court intrigue, then I fail to see how the lack of worldly epic monsters is a problem. Sounds more like NPCs play a much bigger role in your game than monsters.

To take a more specific example, I think it was a mistake (game design wise) for War of the Burning Sky to stretch from levels 1 to 30. I tend to think the foes at the end of that game are more appropriate for low-epic tier play, which makes sense if you consider that it was originally design to stretch from levels 1 to 20 in 3e. (Quick aside: WoBS isn't flawless, but it is fantastic.)

I don't have anything but peripheral knowledge of that specific adventure path, but I have often thought the idea of an adventure path or campaign adventure is a slightly flawed one in that there is a single overarching theme. That may be its greatest strength, but its also its greatest weakness.

Similarly, my 13-year campaign ended with a glorious time-travelling, demigod-fighting conclusion in which the PCs concluded the campaign by deciding to destroy their own planet. That's clearly epic play in my book, but it was only the last adventure. The existence of a single time-traveling, demi-god-making epic device had been the central focus of the campaign for almost a decade. It would have been totally bizarre to add a second or third epic threat on top of it.

It seems you are having the campaign world revolve around the PCs rather than say for instance, setting up a campaign world (or universe) and then letting events play out along a planned timeline with the PCs as the 'Butterfly Effect' within said timeline.

For example if you know the campaign world left unchecked is going to have half a dozen major events shape its history over the next year/decade/generation and only the PCs have the ability to affect the outcome of those events.

So, yes, I agree that there's no limit to the amount of epic gaming you can do. But there is often a limit to how much epic gaming makes sense for a given campaign, and I don't think the current epic rules do a very good job of supporting those scenarios.

Probably because you are running with a single theme over a long amount of time. Rather than planning several smaller themes...and I am not saying one approach is better than another (although the latter is easier to cater for).

For instance if a given campaign is primarily involving an Undead Empire for the whole of the epic tier, or a Demonic Invasion for the whole of the Epic Tier then you are limited as to various creatures you can draw upon. Its impossible for WotC to deliver a full campaign worth of same-theme creatures and please everyone (because different people might want to run different themed campaigns). Whats more likely, and what we actually have, is a scattering of different themes, no one of which is able to sustain a full campaign across an entire tier of play.

Whereas if you plan say, maybe half a dozen major events unfolding over the course of the epic tier, then you can almost certainly find enough monsters to make things interesting (with the proviso that you pick Demons, Devils, Dragons, Elementals and Undead as your themes...since there basically are no other themes explored in any depth whatsoever. Perhaps arguably Drow and Yuan-ti as of MM3.

Although I admit, the epic tier is still very light on monsters. By my own calculations you need at least 10 monsters per level to make things interesting enough. So over a 10 level stretch that is the epic tier, you would need about 100 monsters. A quick browse shows:

MM1 = 74
MM2 = 50
MM3 = 74

Over the course of these three books you have at best, about 20 Epic level Undead and less than that Demons, Dragons and so on. So it would be impossible to sustain an undead themed Adventure Path without creating a lot of new monsters (as shown by E1-3, which introduced lots of new monsters and variants of existing monsters).

Personally I am convinced that the way forward for 4E 'monster books' is to have more monsters of a given theme, but less themes.

So for instance in MM4 (if such a book were to come out) we have 30 themes, maybe averaging 10 monsters per theme (with a given theme spanning about 5-7 levels). So lets say we have 12 Heroic Tier Themes, 10 Paragon Tier themes and 8 Epic Tier Themes.

Each individual theme might not simply have monsters, but traps/hazards, NPCs, magic items and so forth.

What specific epic tier themes would people want I wonder?

- Asmodeus Realm and servants (Astral)
- A new primordial and its followers (Elemental)
- Something from the Far Realm and various Star-spawn (Far Realm)
- The Fomorian King or one of the Arch-Fey and its servants (Feywild)
- An undead theme (Shadowfell)
- Some new 'Earthly' threat (Earthly)
- An epic humanoid race...maybe time travellers (Temporal)
- A 'catch all' epic monsters theme (Various)

I'm sure everyone has various ideas and themes they'd like to see explored and flesh out.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't really see how 4e is designed any differently in terms of the relationship of the PCs to the rest of the world than any other edition. PCs start out a bit stronger, but that has little to do with how epic level play goes. Really any issue being discussed here WRT 4e is pretty much true of all earlier editions as well, with the exception of 4e having a level 30 cap.

Agreed. If you think 4E epic tier is bad, try running or playing in a 3E game past 15th level with at least one single-classed* arcane caster in the party. It's absolute insanity.

[size=-2]*Or using only PRCs that grant full caster level.[/size]

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I think there is a way around that if you wish...bring the extra planar home.

Instead of having the PCs journey to the planes, have extra planar creatures start coming into their yard and messing things up.

As I wrote somewhere upthread, read most any of the books by Raymond Feist. He uses this technique repeatedly.

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

Although I admit, the epic tier is still very light on monsters. By my own calculations you need at least 10 monsters per level to make things interesting enough. So over a 10 level stretch that is the epic tier, you would need about 100 monsters. A quick browse shows:

MM1 = 74
MM2 = 50
MM3 = 74

Over the course of these three books you have at best, about 20 Epic level Undead and less than that Demons, Dragons and so on. So it would be impossible to sustain an undead themed Adventure Path without creating a lot of new monsters (as shown by E1-3, which introduced lots of new monsters and variants of existing monsters).

Personally I am convinced that the way forward for 4E 'monster books' is to have more monsters of a given theme, but less themes.

So for instance in MM4 (if such a book were to come out) we have 30 themes, maybe averaging 10 monsters per theme (with a given theme spanning about 5-7 levels). So lets say we have 12 Heroic Tier Themes, 10 Paragon Tier themes and 8 Epic Tier Themes.

Each individual theme might not simply have monsters, but traps/hazards, NPCs, magic items and so forth.

What specific epic tier themes would people want I wonder?

- Asmodeus Realm and servants (Astral)
- A new primordial and its followers (Elemental)
- Something from the Far Realm and various Star-spawn (Far Realm)
- The Fomorian King or one of the Arch-Fey and its servants (Feywild)
- An undead theme (Shadowfell)
- Some new 'Earthly' threat (Earthly)
- An epic humanoid race...maybe time travellers (Temporal)
- A 'catch all' epic monsters theme (Various)

I'm sure everyone has various ideas and themes they'd like to see explored and flesh out.

I think that's actually what the MV: Threats of Nentir Vale book is going to be about. It's not an encyclopedia of monsters, but of groups of monsters (eg a Dragon and his minions).

However, they're probably still going to be focusing more on Heroic/Paragon tier stuff.

 

[Ryujin]

Upper Krust, two 'classic' themes can be used in order to make up for the dearth of Epic creatures, of a single theme. They are:

"Stuck in the Middle": The heroes have to save the world from being laid waste as the battleground for a war between "heaven" and "hell", neither of which really care about collateral damage.

"Evil Unites": Two normally warring factions of evil join forces, then caste their gaze toward the idea of subjugating the world. "Demons" and "Devils" put aside their past rivalries, in order to expand their empires. Of course they'll eventually fall to squabbling over the world's corpse, but until then....