The Forge Archives

I would disagree that The Hobbit is an epic tale. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not. Lord of the Rings is sort of epic-like, though.

In my nigh-on three decades of gaming I've played in exactly one adventure sequence I'd call epic that got finished, and ran exactly one that didn't get finished. Both were for early '80's post-D&D homebrews with skill systems, kewl powerz, magic spells, and all that. The one I played in was one of the best games I've been in, but I don't particularly connect that with it's 'epic-ness'. Many of the worst games I've been in were bad precisely because they were striving for that 'epic' feel and it wasn't what the game or the group wanted to (or had the ability to) make happen.

What made it epic?

- The great power and interest to us of the hero(ine).
- The fact that the heroine's connection to her world was part of the thematic content of the adventure.
- The great consequences of failure for that world.
- The fact that the heroine's previous actions had contributed directly to the potential calamity the world was facing.
- It was long and difficult and involved interaction with other heroes, demons, and divine beings.
- The 'grand style' type color dial was cranked way up.
- I was a teenager.
- I took it seriously.

Epic play is a somewhat dangerous goal for RPGs in general. Part of what charges an epic with its meaning is that epic tales are long and hard. Long, hard, single-direction RPG stories run afoul of real-life problems, difficulty maintaining interest, and other things. That said, a lot of people do seem to want this kind of fantasy gaming.

Ron's Heroquest adventure with Thed sounded sort of like an epic to me. Maybe this is another argument for Heroquest, that you can finish epic-scale adventures in something resembling a manageable real-life segment of time.

I do see an advantage to distinguishing between mythic and epic - you're right on that.

Mythic is much easier to establish in game than epic, in my experience. Powergaming (3476th level fighters in D&D, for example) is generally mythic. Whether its epic or not, that's what we're debating. Having kewl powers does not make a story epic to me, and essentially that's what I understand as empowered or beyond mortal accomplishment. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here, but throwing fire balls is certainly right in there, but that doesn't mean that any D&D game is epic, or that it could be even if the story is bigger than life.

We're talking about gaming here, not literature (not-so-deftly sidestepping the whole issue of what constitutes literature). Any gaming experience will have bigger than life storylines, and characters with power beyond mortal accomplishement. Most fantasy stories have the same. But are they epics?

I think those characteristics are irrelevant to the eipcality (to coin a word) of a game session or story arc. The thing that makes the stories epic (as indicated by Sean's post, I think, as well as my own experience) is how well it captures the imagination of the players. Just as epic literature grabs its originating culture by the short ones, a game that does the same could be considered epic. There are a multitude of factors which go into an epic piece (game or literature) - I think we're trying to argue which pieces are the important ones in terms of the game, and how to support them. I also think we may have been barkingup the wrong tree.

I guess I'm taking an Immersionistic approach to Epic gaming - what grabs the players and stays in their memory. The favorite tales told about their characters, and such like.

On the other hand, make another point, and I might change my mind yet again. =)

Well, I think - to pull this back to the original target - was how to capture an epic feel in an rpg session.

For that we have to first understand what an "epic feel" means, and for that I go to the body of generally accepted canon epic literature (which is where the literature part comes in).

The first step to modeling something is identifying what we're modeling.  

This is why I conclude that differentiation between Mythic and Epic here, isn't of much use, because any definition of Epic that includes Napoleon and the Civil War is going to direct us to pretty dramatically different source material than I think what is normally meant to come to mind when someone says "I want it to feel epic".

So regardless of whether The Trail of Tears is or isn't Epic by some definition, I think the issue at hand is "I want it to feel like Homer", or I want it to feel like the Sagas".

So my initial post was designed to highlight what I think are the universal elements of Homer and the Sagas that we would want to try and model for an RPG session designed to "feel epic".

For me those elements are larger than life heroes doing larger than life things in a world that takes for granted that they can do these things "because they're heroes"...whatever cultureal form that happens to take: paragon of knighly virtue, or son of a god.

I hold that being a larger than life hero is quite different and distinct from "kewl powers" in application, and its failing to acknowledge this distinctness that causes traditional fantasy RPGs to not feel epic.

How is it different and distinct?  For one its in the attitude.  Games which define Kewl Powers are all about "defining" the powers.  Parameters, and limitations, and balance, and rules.  Epic literature does not define the powers of its heroes, it describes them.

In the above example Roland is described as being above all others in deeds and feats of arms, courtesy, respect, and kindness.  As being without fear and without reproach.

That's an epic description.

As soon as you start to reduce this to +15 attack bonus, 3 attacks per round, and +5 to Saving Throws vs. Fear you've reduced Roland from an epic hero to a collection of Kewl Powers.  The very nature of Kewl Powers is to put those powers in a distinct, easily defined, discreet box...which is entirely at odds with the idea of providing an epic feel.

Descriptions are a starting point.  Definitions are a limiting point.

I don't know if I'm describing this well, but to me there is a HUGE difference between being a larger than life legendary hero and being a high level character with lots of feats.

Its in understanding that difference that one can try to obtain a true epic feel in a game.

That's what the goal of my 2 initial items were.


That's why I think D&D is entirely incompatable with Epic play.

As soon as you put the hero in a box, its no longer Epic.

Every page of D&D is 100% dedicated to defining the walls of the box that your character resides in.  They're completely antithetical.

I disagree on a couple of points: that empowered characters are required, and that system can prevent epic stories all together.

I find the Civil War, and particular parts thereof, just as much of an epic as Achilles. Robert E. Lee and all that. Trail of Tears, and Custer's last stand too. They are cultural heroes (depending on your exuberance for early American history) and are not possessed of superhuman powers. Johnny Appleseed - another cultural hero without amazing powers. Heroes come in all shapes and sizes, is the point I'm trying to make, and to isolate simply ancient and mythic tales as the only epics doesn't seem right to me.

On the other point - system only interferes with an epic if system distracts from the atmosphere of the game anyway. Quantification doesn't eliminate epicness, unless said quantification disturbs the player. Given the legendary descriptions of characters it's possible to get from certain kinds of players, I have to say that there ARE people out there who get an epic rush, even with crunchy bits.

I don't personally see how labeling/boxing/quantifying eliminates the potential for an epic story. I can see how it could go there, but I don't see that it has to.

This is why I disagree overall, I think. Though the Hero is the center of the tale, it's the tale that makes it an epic in my mind, not the fact that there's a hero with superpowers in it. That's why my idea focuses on the qualities of the tale itself, separate from the hero in it. Either way is a valid way to get to ideas about how to encourage epic play - it just depends on what qualifies as epic to you.

Hopefully, between us we've provided some ideas about how to do that, based on the directions from which we're approaching epic literature and folklore.

Quote from: ValamirIn the above example Roland is described as being above all others in deeds and feats of arms, courtesy, respect, and kindness.  As being without fear and without reproach.

That's an epic description.

As soon as you start to reduce this to +15 attack bonus, 3 attacks per round, and +5 to Saving Throws vs. Fear you've reduced Roland from an epic hero to a collection of Kewl Powers.  The very nature of Kewl Powers is to put those powers in a distinct, easily defined, discreet box...which is entirely at odds with the idea of providing an epic feel.  

I'm not entirely sure what the goal is here.  Do you want the hero to be loosely defined, so that the participants are never certain at a given point what he is capable of -- thus giving wider options for narration?  Or is it the flavor of those numbers?  Would having a word scale like Fudge or Marvel Superheroes be better (i.e. "*Incredible* Armed Combat"), because it lacks numbers?  Or would a single number (i.e. "Mighty Hero +20") be better?  

Just to compare -- personally, I don't mind numbers as long as they map to something that I can intuitively picture.  So "attacks per round" is a little screwy to me, but a "speed" stat is OK.  For me, D&D3 has a lot of bits that stand out as game artifacts rather than in-game-world qualities (i.e. like "Whirlwind Attack" or "Cleave").  On the other hand, I'm also not fond of "Mighty Hero +20" exactly because it is vague.  As a player I like to have a clear, concrete idea of my PC's abilities in advance.

wow, step away for twenty four hours and i come back to this.  excellent!  ;-)

great posts guys, you're all really chewing up the idea of what an Epic is.  and, to answer a question from before: a Saga is a cultural tale, similar to an Epic, that charts the life of a particular hero or heroic family, mapping out their life from birth to, normally, untimely demise.  Saga's originate in Norway and Iceland and, while not always populated by "superpowered" characters, describe their protagonists in much the same way as an Epic.

Now, since i started this whole ball rolling, let me chime in on what i think makes for an epic.  Let me first say that most of my experience with Epics is in reading the Greek stuff (Iliad, Oddysey, etc) and later Roman stuff.  Not much experience with the European Saga.

1- Cultural Signifigance- an epic is sometihng that grows out of the culture that is is born in, a representative of the ideals and hopes of the public.  It normally name-checks all of the morals of the society and makes a point of having the people that cling to those win.
2- Heroism- epics are, point blank, concerned with the trials and tribulations of Heroes. the main characters must represent at least one characteristic that is thought to be outstandingly good by the culture of origin of the Epic.  
3- Attention to Detail- This is the one that i think most people miss.  Every damned epic is just a huge store of information about the culture that it takes place in.  Gods are named, the relatives of just about every major character, the number of people killed in every battle and who killed them.  The Iliad, for example, lists the troupe formations of both armies, down to the man, and describes exactly where each is positioned.  This is something that can be seen way down through hellenistic culture for hundreds of years, the importance of armies and tactics in stories.  The biography of Alexander as written by Arryan lists the armies for every foe that Alexander faced along his path to conquering the known world.
4- Scope- An epic also normally covers a lot of ground.  this is part of what one of you guys was saying earlier, in that it seems most Epics travel a large part of the world.  It doeasn't have to be this way, but there is always something that just speaks of the "largeness" of the world in every Epic.  little keynotes can be things imported from other parts of the world, songs from other cutlures, etc.  I mean, there wasn't much travelling in the Iliad itself, but the presence of the myriad characters at the battle of Troy implies a hell of a lot of scope.
5- Length- Epics are normally really damned long as well.  i don't patch this in with scope because is see a slight difference in it.  Length to me is a result of the proper implementation of all of the above.  If you have a lot of detail, scope and exploratipon of culture, then normally your Epic will be damned long.

i also think that there could be a seperate definition of what makes a character epic.

1- Relationships  The stories in most Epics almost always grow out of the lives and relationships of the characters that are central to the story. I mean, everyone knew everyone in the Iliad, and it was these interrelationships that sparked off the war, as well as kept the fire burning for ten years strong.
2- Beliefs and Passions- These are the driving forces of the characters in play.  Achilles desire for immortality through glory drove him to face death.  Paris' own carnal desires and selfishness made him take Paris against his father's will.  Agamemnon's loyalty to his family and his sense of pride made him go to battle against Priam and Troy.  These beliefs also often include the Tragic Flaw, the passion of a character that will inevitably lead to his demise or undoing.  

now keep in mind, these are my own defenitions.  what do you guys think?  d they seem to fit the "hallmarks" of an Epic?  i don't expect everyone (or anyone) to agree with them.  

Now, i have a question to throw out here.  The cultural signifigance of a story has been named by a couple of you here as part of what makes an Epic what it is.  as such, can more modern tales be considered Epic, seeing as how they lack far-reaching cultural signifigance?  For example, could a comic book series, having all of the other trademarks of an Epic (empowered heroes, high morality tales, usually long-running plotlines), be considered an Epic?  Is the Claremont years on X-Men a Saga, or is it simply a long running super-powered soap opera?

Ralph, Aiden, John, all of you guys have posted some great ideas on how a system interracts with the tennents of an Epic story.  I do tend to agree with Ralph though, in that i think a system like DnD would handicap the ability to really have an epic feel in gameplay, though a really determined DM and play group copuld maybe pull it off.  I would tend to use more narrativist games structures to accomplish this, the most obvious being Heroquest, but perhaps Sorceror, with the Sorceror and Soword add-on, could achieve the same effects.   I also do feel that TRoS would be able to pull it off, simply because of the attention to detai and the often name-checked Spiritual Attributesl.  Just tweak the rules some so that characters fought against "gangs" of badguys instead of one-on-ones or something.

Edit: Jost to note that I crossposted this with like three other people.

Aaaargh, I feel the need to burst in and orate. Taalyn and all, the terminology use in this thread is inexact. Forgive me for bringing up more semantics, but this is important. "Epic" is a technical literary term. It's not some vague undefined mumbo-jumbo. It's not a feel-good word with personal meaning and significance. Movie guys like to say "epic" a lot because it sounds big and they hope it will sell tickets. Like Ralph said, definition drift is a dangerous thing.

"Epic" is a term applied to a specific body of literature. A work is included in that body by virtue of posessing specific literary properties, to wit:

Quote from: Dictionary.comep·ic
n.

  1. An extended narrative poem in elevated or dignified language, celebrating the feats of a legendary or traditional hero.
  2. A literary or dramatic composition that resembles an extended narrative poem celebrating heroic feats.
  3. A series of events considered appropriate to an epic: the epic of the Old West.


adj.

  1. Of, constituting, having to do with, or suggestive of a literary epic: an epic poem.
  2. Surpassing the usual or ordinary, particularly in scope or size: "A vast musical panorama... it requires an epic musical understanding to do it justice" (Tim Page).
  3. Heroic and impressive in quality: "Here in the courtroom... there was more of that epic atmosphere, the extra amperage of a special moment" (Scott Turow).


[From Latin epicus, from Greek epikos, from epos, word, song. See wekw- in Indo-European Roots.]

Quote from: Lin Carter in [i]A Look Behind the Lord of the Rings[/i]
"Epic" has been defined as a long, serious poem in an elevated style, relating a series of heroic achievements or events. . . .  The modern word comes from the Latin epicus which in turn was derived from the Greek epikos, which had its ultimate orgin in epos, "a speech, tale, or song."

These include the Odyssey and the Iliad, Gilgamesh, the Eddas, and so on, as John has already mentioned. The usual elements identified as being common to these works are:

Settings that are completely fictional, or at least contain large ammounts of imagined material, especially fantastic creatures and divine beings.

Heroic feats performed by characters who epresent the ideals of their originating cultures. Heros do sometimes have clearly defined supernatural powers, but more often the character is a "regular" human who happens (or rather, is designed) to epitomize some specific cultural value. Say, for example, that you're going to tell a story about the most skillfull warrior in the land. No mater who he is, the character will, by definition, be better than anyone else he meets. It will take an army to stop him, or a divine warrior, etc.

The split between good and evil / hero and villian is almost always clear-cut and obviously defined. Even when you encounter a grey-area character, it's usually pretty obvious when he's being "evil."

Conflicts are on a grand scale, with stakes and consequences that determine the fate of houses, lands, or the entire world, often decide by war, quest, gods and doom.

Just a note about fantasy. Epics aren't fantasy in a literary sense. Actual fantasy doesn't really appear until the medieval Romances (Song of Roland, Fairy Queen, Amadis of Gaul) which contain lots of actual magic, courtly love, chivalry, and so on, which are not elements of the Epic.

Just a quick note -

Epic may be a technical term in lit crit, but its use extends far beyond those circles.

Just because it has a very specific meaning in literature does not mean its other uses are suddenly invalid. I see your point about "epic" music and "epic" sports games and so on, I also find my use just as valid.

If my use is not valid, then the entire argument is not valid, as no episode of gaming can possibly hope to meet all the criteria.

Also, my use is listed below - see all of the adjective definitions. I will not that they apply to the uses of epic you and Ralph are railing against as well.

If it's not obvious, I'm a descriptivist, not a prescriptivist.

Aidan (with an A!)

I'm afraid to jump in on the discussion of the technical meanings of epic and saga. But I might jump in on the common venacular, gamer usage...

Sometimes epic gaming is best achieved by skipping the little stuff.

1)Skip the "trip to the mall"
Has anyone ever seen a movie or read a book with an epic adventure that spent a whole bunch of time going over who bought what for the journey? I haven't.

2) Skip random encounters.
If the pcs run into badguys, it should be important.  If you decide that some minor encounters are necessary to show something about the setting, keep it brief.

3) Magic items are not common or weak. Neither are powers.
Narsil/Anduril has a history and is a big deal. Even Sting is important, though on a lesser scale.

4) Characters don't spend a lot of time on petty issues.

Nobody is stopping off to break up the domestic dispute of the innkeeper and his wife unless it indicates something about the greater conflict, or it is needed as comic relief. The evil Overlord out to subjugate everyone is the priority.

5) Even in the case of pc groups, each of the pcs are unique.

Noone is simply a very good warrior, or decent wizard. They all have some quality or power that makes them stand out. Yes, even hobbit tweenagers. Think about this in connection with Samwise. Pretty much useless in tough guy terms. Just happens to be the only character in the LotR that can actually truly say No to the temptation of the Ring.

6) Big adventures need not affect the entire world, just the part of it the characters live in.

Seriously, epic gaming almost always has some tie-in to the greater community. Heroes in epic situations aren't just out to make a buck.


Those are my suggestions.
Bob

Quote from: PaganiniTaalyn and all, the terminology use in this thread is inexact. "Epic" is a technical literary term. It's not some vague undefined mumbo-jumbo. It's not a feel-good word with personal meaning and significance. Movie guys like to say "epic" a lot because it sounds big and they hope it will sell tickets. Like Ralph said, definition drift is a dangerous thing.

So let's get a handle on definition.  There is a definition of an "epic" from Aristotle.  There are some things which are clear: first of all, it has to be poetry -- prose doesn't cut it.  

(1) Taalyn/Aiden wants to include historical events such as "the Civil War".  Personally, I disagree with this.  A long poem about a hero of the Civil War could be an epic, but the Civil War itself is not.  Interestingly, there is a page discussing whether Ken Burns' Civil War documentary constitutes an "epic" ( http://www.regent.edu/acad/schcom/rojc/melton.html ).  It quotes Aristotle as saying:

QuoteNot surprisingly, Aristotle sheds some light on epic narrative in the Poetics:

It should have for its subject a single action, whole and complete, with a beginning, a middle, and an end. It will differ in structure from historical compositions, which of necessity present, not a single action, but a single period, and all that happened within that period to one person or to many, little connected together as the events may be. Here again.... the transcendent excellence of Homer is manifest. He never attempts to make the whole war of Troy the subject of his poem, though that war had a beginning and an end. It would have been too vast a theme, and not easily embraced in a single view. As it is, he detaches a single portion and admits as episodes many events from the general story of the war ... thus diversifying the poem. (105-106, italics mine)

Other requirements include, "the plot manifestly ought ... to be constructed on dramatic principles," and it should be "ethical" or "pathetic" (105, 107).

The author tries to conclude that Ken Burns' documentary is an epic by Aristotle's view.  But perhaps we should at least separate out "historical epic" from a "heroic epic".  

(2) On the other hand, Ralph seems to want to be inclusive of "myth" in general as being "epic" -- i.e. more broadly inclusvie of stories about super-powerful protagonists.  This I also disagree with.  I think it should be tales which specifically have noted historical, socia, and cultural significance.  For example, I suggested that "The Madness of Herakles" and the tale of Arrow-Odd weren't epics even though they had protagonists with mythic power.  

Quote from: komradebobSometimes epic gaming is best achieved by skipping the little stuff.
1)Skip the "trip to the mall"
Has anyone ever seen a movie or read a book with an epic adventure that spent a whole bunch of time going over who bought what for the journey? I haven't.

OK, here we've got definition drift.  As Zathreyel/Michael noted, the historical epics I cited are filled with "little stuff".  In a word, they're LOOOOOOONG.  They can be dull to the modern reader.  I certainly can't get through the unabridged Mahabharata, for example.  I can't think of any shopping lists per se, but it is common, say, for an epic poem to stop the action for many pages listing out the complete lineage of a new character (for example).    Now, epics will skip a lot of stuff, but they may include lots of stuff which isn't punchy action.

For what it's worth, Zathreyel, the game I was talking about scored 7/7 on your criteria. I don't know if we're talking about epics in the technical sense - and isn't the original reference to a mode of poetic composition? - but I think we're talking about the same thing, whatever that is.

I think the discussion about whether D&D or derivatives can support epic-style play is a stupid one and should be dropped. (My two cents and all that.) The good question in these kinds of cases is rather: how well does a system do this, and why? I happen to agree with Ralph that systems which quantify everything and put it in boxes are going to be worse at this kind of gaming on average, and I suspect that a system like Heroquest or Fate, or tRoS or Sorcery & Sword, would handle them better than a system like 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons, GURPS, or BRP.

But 'can't' is such a very strong word, especially when combined with 'D&D' unqualified by a system edition, since I, like a lot of old-time D&Ders, don't think of 3rd edition (or 2nd, for that matter) as D&D in any meaningful sense at all. That's not much of an argument for this thread or maybe even for the Forge generally, but the point is I think if we're going to talk about epic-facilitating vs. epic-frustrating system elements, we should (a) keep working on what we mean by 'epic' and (b) make sure to specify pretty clearly what we have in mind.

Hey Aidan,

I suggest that by broadening the definition of the word to include things like the civil war and Napoleon you defeat the usefullness of "Epic" as a term. You've removed the reference point (a body of literary work) and replaced it with some kind of vaguely defined emotional response. "Epic" becomes useless as a genre classification, the request for "role-playing with an Epic feel" becomes meaningless. You might as well have just been specific to begin with, since "Epic" is no longer any kind of shorthand for any specific reference.

John,

I don't actually have a problem with an epic not being poetry. I think its acceptable to apply it to other forms of media expression, give that the ancients weren't exposed to them for the reason that they hadn't been invented yet. :) I think this is OK because, for one thing, when poetry is translated into a different language it often becomes prose. Plus, the writers who came after Aristotle also evolved the epic form to include prose. Before anyone asks, I don't have a problem with natural historical formal evolution, and I don't think this contradicts what I said above about definition drift. :)

I don't buy the "making it meaningless" argument in this case, but I'm going to drop it, since I seem to be in the minority.

Quote from: Sean
I think the discussion about whether D&D or derivatives can support epic-style play is a stupid one and should be dropped. (My two cents and all that.) The good question in these kinds of cases is rather: how well does a system do this, and why? I happen to agree with Ralph that systems which quantify everything and put it in boxes are going to be worse at this kind of gaming on average, and I suspect that a system like Heroquest or Fate, or tRoS or Sorcery & Sword, would handle them better than a system like 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons, GURPS, or BRP.

I'm tempted to say that no simulationist game can handle the epics all that well simply because any address of the premise, the cultural ideals and the heros representation of them as Zathreyel said, will be incidental at best in sim systems and thats really the heart of the epics.  Epics are about those cultural hero's and the passions that drive them, the same thing as narrativist play.

However I then consider Mallorys epic La Morte D'Arthur and the rpg take on it Pendragon.  Now there are plenty of elements of Pendragon I loathe because they dont focus on that epicness; the different cultures, the time setting, managing lands, etc. but it does do the conflicting passions well.  Is it possible in Pendragon to get that epic feel?  I know I havent experienced it when I played the system but that may not be due to the system, rather it could have been the gm, who is an excellent gm but may not have been inclined towards that epic feel.

Quote from: ValamirWell, I think - to pull this back to the original target - was how to capture an epic feel in an rpg session....

Descriptions are a starting point.  Definitions are a limiting point....

As soon as you put the hero in a box, its no longer Epic.

There are a lot of quibbley points in this thread, but I think there's a critical question at stake here.

I can see what Ralph is after, to some degree; but I think that if we're talking about "epic feel" (as opposed to "epic meaning" or "epic structure") we suddenly have to take into account some degree of creative agenda questions.

That is, for my gamist players, something "feels epic" if they are in a major struggle against great evil and they might lose, but they don't.

To get that aspect that they might lose, the characters must have defined limits--otherwise the risk becomes a thinly veiled illusion, and success becomes a certainty which we pretend is uncertain.

Now, there are many ways to limit a character that may provide more consistent epic "feel" than the sorts of mechanical definitions against which Ralph rants; but the suggestion that an epic feel emerges from having characters who are not limited in what they can accomplish does not work for gamist epic feeling, at least.

At least, that's the way it appears to me.

(I would also argue, as someone else already has, that Frodo and Samwise are intentionally representative of the ordinary person who becomes the hero. The Ring is not the source of power for Frodo, but the enemy. For Bilbo, it may be a source of power--but it is no more powerful for him than Harry Potter's invisibility cloak, and although I like the Potter stories, I have yet to think of them as epic in any sense of the word. (Still, it would be unfair to make such a judgment before the series is finished, as it is certainly building on itself and may prove to be an epic saga, depending on whether in the end we have the feeling that the events have all culminated in the stuff of legends.))

--M. J. Young