+1
|
Sounds about right to me. But then, I've never been a fan of epic play either. I think it stems from my youth, when I saw the cover of the Immortals set for basic DnD. That just never jived with how I envisioned characters (for those who don't know it, the cover depicted a man in a loincloth flying through space and shooting a light beam from his hand).
Cibet, your post is quite well considered.
For your group, epic rules are of no great use. If I understand you correctly, your group still subscribes to the idea that at high levels your characters settle down with their followers or are given titles or whatnot. What then do you suggest for people that are intent on challenging demon lords and princes? What about the most powerful of dragons? The tarrasque? These are creatures that by their very nature break the CR system past the 20 limit. Even 20th level characters are going to be in trouble fighting these monstrosities. Dragons of extreme age are still threats, let alone the awakening of the tarrasque or the invasion of the world by a demon prince. Within the existing system, people who want to do these things have problems. They can be done, mind you, but not easily or well. Often, the monster can be reduced to a plot device, but how satisfying is it to defeat a plot device?
If a player has different goals than just settling down on a throne somewhere, how does your group accomodate them? For example, my current PC has no desire to settle down anywhere and feels that doing so would be counterproductive. In addition, she's searching for a means to immortality that doesn't involve undeath (and preferably avoids massive physical transformation). I'm building a legend, bit by bit, not a kingdom. How would this character fit into your campaign? In her backstory, she's been chosen by Death herself to await the demise of the earth goddess and take that goddess into the divine afterlife; I'm seeking immortality because I have no desire to kill the goddess (nor the power) and want to wait for her natural passing. Obviously, she's not going to have normal motivations.
That said, I agree that epic level rules don't currently work well. On the other hand, I trust the Paizo staff to come up with them, test them, and do them right or not do them at all.
For your group Epic rules seem unneeded but for all my groups we all aspire to get our characters to Epic levels and face Epic Challenges. We have some players in our group who have played since 1st ed. And these two guys that push the hardest to get to epic.
I think each group is different
In various places on the forums I regularly see requests for Epic level play. I have never understood the need for this style of play and am beginning to wonder if my group is in the minority on this or the silent majority.
I'll speak for my group: No, we have no desire or intention to take on epic level play.
If I want to do something like that, I'll break out Exalted. If the characters need to take on the Tarrasque, then they'll do it at level 20 with lots of good planning, not by the video-game mode of "let's keep killing things and taking their stuff."
But that's just us.
|
+1 to not needing epic level play.
To me, 20th level characters have pushed the boundaries of their mortal bodies well beyond their limits, and are already epic heroes of mythic prowess.
I support the idea that the mortal races have a limit at which they plateau out; a place where they reach the apex of that to which they are capable.
For your group Epic rules seem unneeded but for all my groups we all aspire to get our characters to Epic levels and face Epic Challenges. We have some players in our group who have played since 1st ed. And these two guys that push the hardest to get to epic.
End of Line.
I suggest Epic Level rules won't work in this game at all. Hopefully Paizo will develop a NEW game to support this and not attempt to add flying rooks to chess.
You may not enjoy Epic play, and that's your prerogative. Have fun with what you enjoy.
But other people do like it. And Paizo doesn't just cater to you and those who share your opinion, they also cater to people like Joey.
So if you don't like Epic play, just don't use it! It's that simple! And those like Joey's group who do enjoy it can play it when it becomes available, or use the 3.5 rules in the meanwhile.
As it is, your posts come off being just a shave short of insulting to anyone who does enjoy Epic play as you seem to be saying "YOU'RE PLAYING THE GAME WRONG." And frankly, if that IS what you're saying, you're the one who's wrong there as it's not your group, not your choice.
|
|
I suspect sarcasm ...+1
I hate epic play. I hate destinies. I hate elaborate backstories involving the gods and the creation of the world. I want to kick some ass, take some names, and maybe get killed by a wolf at 2nd level. That's D&D to me.
You might be right; there may be sarcasm there. But maybe not. To me (and that's all I claim to speak for), the possibility of being killed by a wolf at level 2 really is D&D. But then, I'm one of those weirdos who start to lose interest in characters once they start flying and teleporting and such.
What then do you suggest for people that are intent on challenging demon lords and princes? What about the most powerful of dragons? The tarrasque?I suggest they find a game that is suited for this kind of play. I suggest the D&D game is not.
And yet these creatures exist, some within the Bestiary. Some effort has already been made to accomodate the epic experience just by creating them.
What if I sat at your chess game and said I wanted my rook to fly across the board and immediately seize your king? You would say that is not how the game of chess works, I assume. You would not petition to have the game of chess altered to accommodate my style of play.
Actually, I would be willing to do that, if this weren't a case for sanctioned play.
I don't believe the CR system "breaks" I believe it was built to have a limit and the game should not run past this limit. The adversary's you mention I believe exist to make sure threats are present in the game that even apex characters would always fear and avoid otherwise face certain death.
I agree that the CR system has a limit built into it, that's 20. Unlike you, I feel the need for greater challenges that surpass that number and that I like the existing system enough to desire the extrapolation of the system beyond that, just to accomodate some of the challenges I previously listed.
Sounds like an interesting novel, good luck writing it. However I don't want the rules of the game altered to support the writing of it.
And they won't be. It's a goal I likely won't complete in the current game. It does happen to be the case that this is a well-known goal of many adventurous types, however. In existing 3.5 products various means of achieving this end have been found, some more far-fetched than others. I wouldn't want this character to be the head of a religious institution, but to make her a legend in the world? Definitely. Time will tell if I succeed.
PC goals can be whatever the player wants them to be. There is no limit to a PC fictional narrative. There is however a limit to the framework and matrices of the game. You can't put a framework and matrix around a fictional narrative and the game should not try to.
And again, I agree. To a point. In the end, I think every game is a fictional narrative, starring the PCs and whomever the GM creates as additional cast. The current campaign has nothing to do with my longterm goals, FYI. I'm in a party trying to keep the evil nation on our southern border from being ruled by an expansionist new ruler now that we've killed the last one. It's background, really.
I suggest Epic Level rules won't work in this game at all. Hopefully Paizo will develop a NEW game to support this and not attempt to add flying rooks to chess.
Out of curiosity, have you tried the epic rules? What problems did you have?
And to take your analogy one step further, all games evolve. Your flying rooks don't exist in chess now, but in a century, we may well have flying tanks. Is that a good thing? That's a personal value judgment. To some, yes, to others, no.
Part of the problem here is that the word "epic" has been terribly abused.
The party I GM for is at 9th level. Presently, they are capable of teleporting, diverting rivers, and vanquishing mythical demons.
Play beyond 20th level (which I refuse to call "epic" any longer) could be fun, I guess. Really, it's just more numbers of a piece of paper.
I rather agree with how Paizo's handled it. The get-you-by rules are enough to finish out any campaign, but not rules for playing indefinitely. If they release a book on playing beyond 20th, I hope it includes mainly rules on speeding up the incredibly kludgey process of high-level play.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I suspect sarcasm ...+1
I hate epic play. I hate destinies. I hate elaborate backstories involving the gods and the creation of the world. I want to kick some ass, take some names, and maybe get killed by a wolf at 2nd level. That's D&D to me.
Doh. Looks like I'm sarcastic too often and it's tainting my non-sarcasm.
I meant the above. I absolutely hate epic play. Hate it. I became involved in a campaign recently, and almost instantly regretted it because the DM started churning out emails about the gods (one of each race), and the region (involving one city per race), and our characters (who were also, one of each race, and pretty clearly full of epic-ness from the get-go).
I think a large part is because I like to make characters who are flawed or recovering from a prior failure. I tend to run alcoholic third sons with violent tempers, widowers taking up adventure because they would curl up and die if they didn't do something, or, in the case of this particular campaign, a dwarven mountain man who uses alchmey to brew moonshine and has a goat named Soupy that he's always threatening to eat.
A lot of DM's seem to love creating elaborate backstories, where the gods lived, loved, and fought. They build worlds regimented into alignment-based (or, worse, elemental-based) kingdoms/races/magic/etc. That's a red flag to me that I will not enjoy their campaign. I hate feeling like I must make a character to accomodate the epic events of the world, or that destiny will proceed irrespective of my choices.
One of D&D's virtues (to me) is that it lacks the universal cosmology of something like a White Wolf setting.
If you build it they will come ...
It basically boils down to certain players want the full experience, or may be bored with re-doing the lower levels, as everyone has a preference. I would imagine for most people, they never have a chance to reach epic level, as it is hard enough to level up through the teens, but for others, they may want to expirement and jump directly to it.
Whether there are enough people requesting epic levels adventures in relation to the current modules or storylines available is the real question. I expect any game developer would be able to answer it in relation to D&D.
cibet44, I agree with you on a PERSONAL level. I don't like epic-level play either. I have no desire to make my characters gods. Back in the days of BECMI, I never got the Master nor Immortal sets, because I found that even 18th level was too much for me. Not only were there too many options, but once the PCs were ruling their own kingdom, I didn't feel there was much more they could accomplish. In fact, one major reason I'm reading Kingmaker now is to see if Paizo can prove me wrong, and expand my horizons. But even if it does, I wouldn't dream of my characters becoming gods.
That said, back in the days of BECMI, I thought it was nice to know that some players COULD play it that way. I thought the idea was fascinating, although I didn't want to delve into it too deeply.
Conan slew many enemies but never came close to dispatching the Ancient Ones of Hyborea and ended his days on a throne. Aragorn united his people, lived for over 200 years, and destroyed Mordor, but eventually died in his bed. These examples to me are how D&D characters live and die and what the game is built to support.
Some people, like you and me, may regard Howard and Tolkein as the kinds of authors to emulate in D&D. But the game wouldn't be so popular if it were limited to that. Some people might have read Bram Stoker's Dracula, and gotten AD&D to play Ravenloft. Others might have prefered "Lost World" types of stories, and played adventures like Isle of Dread. And some people might have been fascinated with, say, Hercules, a warrior-hero-turned-god. Some players might not want a whole new system to play that.
To be honest, I've never actually played epic level characters. If I did play in an epic game or run one, it would likely be a one-shot deal. Take some characters out of retirement, have them band together out of great need to take on some great evil threatening the land, and have a final hurrah.
To continually have 20+ level characters grinding through the same adventuring lifestyle just seems wrong to me. Setting up demon lords and great wyrms to be knocked down by mortals that should probably be seeking godhood at this point or be busy ruling empires feels wrong. It takes me back to the days of 1st edition when people were looking at the stat blocks in Deities & Demigods, rubbing their hands in anticipation of being able to take out Elric and possess Stormbringer, so they could level again and then head to Valhalla, eliminate Thor, and add Mjolnir to the collection. That kind of stuff just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
It is interesting to look at the roots of the whole game and what the archetype adventurers in those stories did. If you look at Conan or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, there did seem to be a progression from fighting thugs and icky things to fighting more powerful icky things, to fighting the lower echelon of cosmic things (or thwarting the designs of really powerful cosmic things).
There was also kind of the progression from people making their names to being rulers or champions of a given area, and being famous and having responsibilities.
Of course, Elric kind of screws with this model, since he's killing gods and all of that, but then again, that's partially a function of having an uber artifact as your weapon, and partially a function of the stories getting a lot more trippy and less pulpy as they go on.
I think my main concern about epic rules is to keep the story of the world from changing to accommodate epic levels. As it stands, a group of the most powerful mortal heroes might be able to kill a demi-god at the end of their careers. This almost indicates that "demi-god" is the next step in the adventurer's career, if there is a next step.
If you introduce really powerful epic level threats for the PCs to fight, the problem them becomes, if you reference them in the setting books, for example, who keeps them in check until the PCs are that level? Are they all singular threats that have been locked away? If that's the case, then the adventure is only really challenging to the PCs when they finally get to the singular threat.
Plus, the feel of "this monster has never been killed and can't be except for the Hero (capital letters)" is much more at home with mythology than with pulp storytelling. Obviously myths have informed d20 Fantasy over the years, but its been more of a flavoring than the campaign structure for the heroes to follow.
Plus, in this case, it almost feels like the heroes follow the "pulp" hero progression up to 20th, then follow the "mythic" hero progression after that, but the "mythic" progression seems like it should encompass a character's entire career.
That was a lot of words to say that I can understand that there is a basis for wanting epic play, but I'm not sure of the best way to reconcile the two styles in one game or one campaign, and it almost feels as if you would need a separate campaign setting, or a separate, intentionally removed part of an existing one to pull this off without some retcons in how the universe works.
I don't think Pathfinder needs any work for epic level play. 10th level and up works just fine, even if the high end gets to be a mess of numbers.
Yeah, I was going to point out that the average 13th level party of PCs is WAY beyond anything a king, or even an entire kingdom, can do in any Conan story. An average party of 15th level characters could, using their game capabilities, hold the entire Hyborian Age for ransom and use it as a plaything.
When the rule set is structured so that no common warriors, no matter how large their numbers, will ever even be noticed by a 10th level PC (much less merit a threat), then the Conan stories cap out at like 9th. Which sucks, but there it is.
There are systems out there that allow lateral progression after 9th (more skills and feats), but not vertical progression (more raw power). Those work better for pulp games. For standard 3.5 or Pathfinder games, 13th - 20th level is "epic."
|
For standard 3.5 or Pathfinder games, 13th - 20th level is "epic."
*tags back in* Epic is also in how you play the game. I played in campaign that started at 15th and was around 30th when the DM had to quit. But it was still the same old 'run around fighting dudes' game. You can run a 10th+ campaign where the PCs challenge demon lords and the like. You just have to adjust your encounter style and scope of your story.
Or it can just be 'the 20th level orc and the 20th level pie'.
excellent post!
however, i think there will always be some demand for epic-level rules, as epic means more power, of which some gamers will never tire.
(btw, i'm one of them -- i loved the 3.0 epic-level handbook!)
|
|
Playing characters at "Epic levels" is not the point of D&D or the PFRPG.
I'm going to quote the Core Rulebook on this.
In closing, this game belongs to you and all the fans of fantasy gaming. I hope that you find this system to be fun and simple to use, while still providing the same sort of depth and variety of options you’ve come to expect from a fantasy roleplaying game.
The point of D&D is to have fun. Paizo doing a 21st+ supplement will not stop you from having fun. It may help someone else have fun. Paizo fitting in an Epic supplement will not ruin your D&D. So don't worry about people squawking on the forums. Your life will be much more pleasant.
So don't worry about people squawking on the forums. Your life will be much more pleasant.
True dat.
This thread really ought to be moved. Its not really gamer life so much as a discussion on Epic play in the context of the Pathfinder game.
A good discussion I'm sure but if I'm playing Exalted I have nothing to add to this.
]
The point of D&D is to have fun. Paizo doing a 21st+ supplement will not stop you from having fun. It may help someone else have fun. Paizo fitting in an Epic supplement will not ruin your D&D. So don't worry about people squawking on the forums. Your life will be much more pleasant.
I'm all for Paizo doing epic rules if they want to serve that portion of their audience. I'm just leery of what may be needed to be done to support the epic level game with the Golarion setting.
I'd hate to see some are where 30th level characters are common, and where we find out that everything we know is actually wrong, and uber powerful quasi deities are pulling the strings, etc.
While I liked a lot of the elements in these settings, it did rub me the wrong way when Spelljammer or Planescape suddenly started acting like people native to the established campaign settings were idiots for not knowing the real truths of the universe, because it also felt like it was a "screw you" to the DMs that based their campaign assumptions on what was presented in the settings themselves.
Maybe I'm still a little bit burned from brainstorming a 4E campaign with a friend and basing it on the Gods Good/Primordials Bad set up that was originally presented, only to find out Gods Not Much Better Than Primordials/Unknown Primal Spirits Better For Protecting Reality Between the Two paradigm was going to be introduced a year later.
I'm all for secret cosmic truths, just not for secret cosmic truths that invalidate cosmic truths that you've already been told are more or less the baseline assumption for the setting.
And to my way of thinking, its hard to play around a lot in the epic level of things without introducing a layer of heretofore unknown "cosmic truth," at least if Epic is going to be a journey and not a destination.
|
|
I'm all for Paizo doing epic rules if they want to serve that portion of their audience. I'm just leery of what may be needed to be done to support the epic level game with the Golarion setting.
I'd hate to see some are where 30th level characters are common, and where we find out that everything we know is actually wrong, and uber powerful quasi deities are pulling the strings, etc.
I understand those worries, but since Paizo has declared that 15th level characters are a rarity, I doubt you need to worry about 30th level. And I'm sure that whatever they do with an Epic book, it will be contained in the Epic book. Treat it like it doesn't exist in your game, and it doesn't.