"Epic" and "Saga" roleplaying

[MPOSullivan]

okay, over on the Actual Play board there's been a thead runnning discussing the use of a relationship map in Epic role-playing, and it just kinda started sprawling beyond that basic idea pretty quickly.  it seemed to me that perhaps the discussion would work better over here, with the theoretical peoples, so i'm going to do a little bit of excising and grab the topic for this fine forum.

basically, what we were discussing is:

1- what makes a Saga or Epic?
 what traits do you see as part of an Epic or Saga?  do you follow a more lit theory based convention when it comes to these ideas, or do you subsribe to something more else?  do you think that the Epic or Saga keystones and framework have changed along with the times?  

2- what are the best ways to emulate the Epic or Saga "feel" during gameplay?
 are there certain things that you feel a game needs to have in order to carry across the idea of being an Epic?  perhaps rules conventions or specific rules?  is it important for the game itself to have an Epic design from the outset, or can you make any game epic just by the way it is played?  Is there textual or inter-textual conventions that can more easily communicate the idea of "Epic" within the game text of an RPG or the conversational text of a game session?  Is Epic gaming inherently Simmulationist or Narrativist?  Can it be Gamist?

you can read a couple of contributers ideas on Epic gameplay at the thread i listed above, but i'd love to see the concept picked apart here.

[orbsmatt]

This is actually a difficult one, as it can be challenging to get that "epic" feeling into an RPG.  I tried it a couple times, so I'll share what I've learned.

First off, it is nearly impossible to have the epic feeling throughout the entire campaign.  It is important that there are moments where situations arise that aren't so epic.  Think of a great movie that is very epic (any one that you like).  There is the main "epic" storyline, but then there are little side-treks as well.  This helps maintain the fun in the game.

To get the epic feeling, there are two things that I suggest:

1. Be Very Dramatic

As a GM, you need to be very dramatic around your players.  Have some dialogues prepared where the players just sit back and listen to you for two or three minutes.  I don't prepare dialogues too often, but I've noticed that when I do, and then tell the players to close their eyes and just listen, that it adds a lot of depth to the game.

2. Inter-Session Correspondence and Story-Writing

What it boils down to is that the RPG session itself will not be the best place to develop the epic feeling.  Turn your campaign into a story by sending out emails with well-written stories that are happening.

In one of our campaigns, one of the characters was killed by a group of undead that were called Reapers.  The player mourned his loss.  But in between missions, they would receive emails called "The Dream Part ..." which would be a muddled dream that didn't make much sense.  It turns out that his character didn't die and that the dreams were actually reality.  This added a lot of depth and contributed to the saga feeling that the campaign was then going through.

I hope these suggestions help.

[Andrew Cooper]

I guess it would help to have a common definition of "epic" to work from.  I'm not going to try to give one.  I'm actually asking for one.  What does "epic feel" mean.  If it means one thing to me and another to you, then trying to give each other advice on how to generate that feeling is going to be counter-productive.  Perhaps there is another thread that defined these terms for us on this forum.  If there is, would someone please point it out for me so I can get on the same page as everyone?

[Valamir]

1)  Epic has to be larger than life.  That doesn't necessarily mean the scope has to be world wide, but the activities need to be beyond mere mortal accomplishment.

2) The beyond mere mortal accomplishment has to be done in a very matter of course manner.

When Samson kills 10,000 philistines with the jaw bone of a mule, the author doesn't gush for pages on how amazing and earth shattering this is...its just matter of fact, of course he did.

The feats of Hercules are clearly presented as something no mere mortal could hope to accomplish, but for a demi god, its becomes almost routine.

Cuchulainn can jump his chariot over the top of pine trees.

Gawain's strength waxes and wanes with the son



You can't take a D&D campaign, start at low level, and try to make it epic.

Even if you start everyone at 20th level, it isn't going to feel epic, because while a 20th level character may have epic power, its power that is carefully defined.  There are strict parameters around what each and every feat is capable of.

That's not Epic feeling.  Homer writing about the number of enemies Achilles killed wasn't concerned about whether he making a 5 foot step in between Great Cleaves.


For a game to give an Epic feel you need a system that empowers players to state "Dioclemedes strikes down 50 Persians with his right hand and 50 Persians with his left hand" and not: 1) worry about whether he should have suffered off hand penalties and only killed 35 Persians with the left hand, and 2) still deliver meaningful challenge to the characters.

That's a hard balancing act, but that's the heart of Epic play IMO.

[Paganini]

What Ralph said, except that he's talking specifically about epic *characters.* I think it's fine to have mundane characters involved in an epic story. The technique for this sort of thing is to make sure that the stakes and consequences are something world-shaking. See, Hero Quest is great for playing epic characters. But I think you can do epic with TROS too. The SAs can help reinforce epicness, but also the fact that the PCs who are trying to stop (or facilitate) the events at hand can be dropped by a skillfull swing adds a lot of drama and "overwhelming odds" feel to things.

[taalyn]

Epic story, to me, has very little to do with what the characters are, and only slight relevance to what they do. They key, in my mind, is that what they do has global/universal consequences.

The Hobbit is epic not because Frodo does hugely amazing things, but because what he does sets in place a whole cascade of world-changing events. That's what's epic.

I guess I agree with Paganini. I disagree with Valamir - things don't have to be larger than life (that would be Mythic in my mind, which is slightly different). But the consequences of the "things" would.

How to support that in play? The key is to have a plot that will have such consequences. The characters may only off some minor baddy, but then that baddy's boss gets involved, and suddenly a world war is threatened. That's epic.

[Andrew Cooper]

I cross posted with the previous two posts.... oops.

Thanks Valamir for that definition of Epic.  At least I have something to go on now.  This does lead me directly into another question though.  What exactly is "Saga"?  Are we talking about the same thing as Epic or is it something else?

However, back to the Epic issue.  Did you get that definition from somewhere or was something you came up with?  In either case, I have trouble with part 2 of the definition, at least as it applies to literature and RPGs.  In fact, I would say that the difficulty with which the feat is accomplished is irrelevant to Epic.  In some Epics the larger than life task is done as a matter of course and you gave examples of these.  However, in works such as Lord of the Rings, the larger than life task was only accomplished with great effort, struggle and suffering.  Perhaps you aren't defining LotR and Epic but something else?

[taalyn]

Just had another thought. Epic is expansive.

It starts out small, but it increases, keeping the character's motivated, to encompass the globe/universe/what have you.

Jason and the Argonauts explored the world - so did Odysseus. But Cu Chullain didn't - his story isn't epic (though it is mythic). The Hobbit and LoTR - both epic, because the story is essentially about moving from small town life to having global importance. Moses and the Exodus - epic, Samson - mythic, but not epic.

At least, IMHO.

[Valamir]

Not that there's any hard and fast definition for how it applies to roleplaying that's worth argueing over, but I don't agree with your distinction between Epic and Mythic, Aidan.  I especially don't agree with the need for Epic to be world sweeping events.  In fact, I tried to make the specific point in my first post that it didn't need to be.  I also find the idea of common man being the protagonist of an epic story to be rather backwards.


Dictionary definitions are not always the most useful thing.  But...

An extended narrative poem in elevated or dignified language, celebrating the feats of a legendary or traditional hero.

A literary or dramatic composition that resembles an extended narrative poem celebrating heroic feats.

Heroic and impressive in quality

It seems like the key component of epic as far as the dictionary is concerned, is the legendary and heroic feats of a hero.

That's the angle I was going for.  And I would challenge any notion that suggests that Frodo and Sam were anything other than extraordinary heroic hobbits.

[taalyn]

Hmmm...

I don't think we're disagreeing on the definition form the dictionary at all. According to the definition, the only change is that Samson and CuChulainn are epic, because they are heroes. The question at hand is how long is "extended"?

Personally, I think there's a qualitative difference between heroic, mythic, and epic. Epic can be heroic and mythic, but heroic does not automatically imply epic or mythic to me. And heroic does not necessarily mean mythic.

The expansiveness that I mention is, to me, a result of the "extension" of an epic. I guess this is getting into Derrida and Saussure, but the epic "stereotype" (I can't remember the terminology they used) seems to always involve world-changing effects, that the hero may or may not have a direct part in. Regardless, the hero is the one who initiates that change.

Because Moses' actions take a small tribe and have drastic effects on the "universe"  of the time, it's epic. Perhaps I didn't think the other examples through very well - I can see them being epic now; the issue is that I didn't consider the size of the "universe"  that the hero's actions affected. Nor did I consider the semi-divine nature of most Heroes.

There's still something in your definition (your 2 points) that doesn't sit right with me, but I need to think about it more.

A

[John Kim]

Dictionary definitions are not always the most useful thing.  But...

An extended narrative poem in elevated or dignified language, celebrating the feats of a legendary or traditional hero.

A literary or dramatic composition that resembles an extended narrative poem celebrating heroic feats.

Heroic and impressive in quality

It seems like the key component of epic as far as the dictionary is concerned, is the legendary and heroic feats of a hero.

Well, I think it might be better to work backwards from examples.  European epics start with The Iliad, The Odyssey, and Beowulf.  Going further, though, we have The Song of Roland, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the Tain Bo Cuailnge, the Poetic Edda and the Prose Edda, many Icelandic sagas (notably the Volsunga Saga, Njal's Saga, and the Laxdaela Saga), The Kalevala and The Kanteletar.

I would agree with Aiden that the key is the historical and social significance, not the personal power of the hero per se.  An epic is part of national identity -- the hero of the epic demonstrates the values of the culture.  For example, in The Song of Roland, Roland is an outstanding warrior and all-around great guy, but he doesn't have supernatural power.  He is killed by being swarmed by ordinary warriors.  

The power of the hero may vary, but the scope is always grand -- with historical significance -- and the qualities of the hero are celebrated as national culture.  I would concur that The Lord of the Rings is epic in this sense.  It is unusual to celebrate a hero who is short of stature, but really that's the point of the story -- to celebrate the heroism of the small.  Frodo is a legendary hero whose story is told in future generations through the epic tale of his quest.  

As such, I think I agree that a record is vital.  What makes it epic is the historical and cultural significance of the story to (in our case hypothetical) future generations.

[Valamir]

I agree with the individual points John, but I think your conclusion is backwards.

The scope is grand because the character is grand, not the other way around.

I absolutely agree that the hero demonstrates the values of the culture.  By definition he is the pinnacle, quintessential example of what that culture values.  In that sense, all heroes are "super heroic".  Whether this translates to supernatural powers depends on the values of the culture.

In Rolands case he is described as:

ROLAND had now come to the years of manhood. Among all the knights and warriors in Charlemagne's court he was accounted the best. Save only Ogier the Dane, he excelled them all in every deed and feat of arms, in knightly courtesy, in respect for authority, in kind consideration for the poor and friendless. And everyone, except Prince Charlot and Ganelon of Mayence, praised and loved him; for he was indeed a knight without fear and without reproach.

These traits may or may not have a supernatural origin...but they clearly place Roland head and shoulders above regular folk in ability.  Don't forget, that Ogrier the Dane a significant character in the Roland stories was blest at birth by fairies who granted him his powers.  Roland may not have been dipped in a magic river by a nymph to be given invulnerability...but he was written about in the same tone of awe and reverance as Achilles.  And while he may have been brought low by mortals, so too was Achilles brought low by a mere arrow.

I don't think you can find any piece of literature from any culture (western at least, I'm not all that familiar with eastern classics) which is widely considered "epic" in which the hero does not have abilities that place him above what a mere mortal might accomplish.

Its the endowment of the hero as being the avatar of cultureal pride that requires the hero to be greater than normal men.  And its this greatness that leads him to do great things.

All IMO, of course.  As I said, I know of no hard and fast definition for how these words should be applied.

Certainly in common parlance they are used all but interchangeably, and I don't really know that there is anything to be gained (other than an interesting semantic excersize) at trying to distinguish the precise difference between Epic and Mythic.

[taalyn]

Ralph,

 Is The Hobbit epic? What about LoTR? Others have said yes, but you haven't said. The reason I ask is because there you have a demonstration of the hero who is not "beyond mortal accomplishment".

 That's part of what is bugging me, I think. While it is certainly common that such powers are held by heroes, I don't think they're necessary for a story to be epic.

 Whether that is required or not will have a significant effect on how a game can be played epically.

 As examples of non-empowered epics, consider :
 - the Civil War
 - the Trail of Tears (and the events that led up to it)
 - most Westerns
 - the Space Race
 - the life and times of Napoleon

 Cultural hero does not automatically imply empowered. Mythic, on the other hand...  I think this is where the distinction is so important. Is the Hero empowered because he is a cultural hero, or because he is mythic? I would say the later, but you seem to feel its the former. In actuality, it may not be so easy to separate them.

Aidan

[John Kim]

Edited to add: Cross-posted with Aiden.  I think we agree, although I don't think historical events by themselves qualify as epics -- it is their depiction in written or oral verse.

I agree with the individual points John, but I think your conclusion is backwards.

The scope is grand because the character is grand, not the other way around.
[...]
Certainly in common parlance they are used all but interchangeably, and I don't really know that there is anything to be gained (other than an interesting semantic excersize) at trying to distinguish the precise difference between Epic and Mythic.

My point is that you can have stories about super-powerful characters which are not "epic", because they don't have historical importance, exemplification of culture, or length/scope.  For example, Euripides' "Madness of Heracles" has a superpowerful hero, but it isn't generally called an epic (I think).  The same goes for the romance of Arrow-Odd, say.  I'm not sure how Jason and the Argonauts is referred to in literary circles, but personally I would tend to call it an adventure story or romance like Arrow-Odd, and not an epic.  So I agree that the traditional epic hero is very powerful, but I don't think that is the primary distinguishing feature of what we call "epic".  

Apropos this thread, I think it helps to narrow what we are talking about to the sort of stories listed as examples, rather than more broadly talking about any story with superpowered PCs.  

These traits may or may not have a supernatural origin...but they clearly place Roland head and shoulders above regular folk in ability.  Don't forget, that Ogrier the Dane a significant character in the Roland stories was blest at birth by fairies who granted him his powers.  Roland may not have been dipped in a magic river by a nymph to be given invulnerability...but he was written about in the same tone of awe and reverance as Achilles.  

I agree with this.  Heck, I would talk about Roland with more reverence than whiny, cross-dressing Achilles.  Like I said, Roland is a great knight -- the finest mortal in the kingdom.  Where I differ with you is your suggestion that even a 20th level D&D character doesn't have enough powers to be considered "epic" -- that it has to be expansive, potentially do-anything power.  

I guess I have a bias here, because I think of my current campaign as being somewhat epic, and the PCs are powerful but still quite mortal RuneQuest characters.  Within their small kingdom (the Vinland Commonwealth), they are quite powerful and influential, and I think of their heroic saga as being an important cultural definition.  I am preparing to wind up this campaign, and I am thinking about painting the picture of the influence of this epic tale on the future of the Commonwealth.

[Valamir]

Ralph,

 Is The Hobbit epic? What about LoTR? Others have said yes, but you haven't said. The reason I ask is because there you have a demonstration of the hero who is not "beyond mortal accomplishment".

No?  What is the ring, but a vehicle for "beyond mortal accomplishment"?

Hercules got his power from his father.  Achilles from a magic bath.  Bilbo from a ring.  Now we're just munching on details.  

 

That's part of what is bugging me, I think. While it is certainly common that such powers are held by heroes, I don't think they're necessary for a story to be epic.

Well, the word Epic gets thrown around pretty freely.  I mean the movie "You've Got Mail" can be described as "The Epic story of finding love through the internet".  Lots of things get called epic.  College Basketball rivalries get called epic...lets not be distracted by casual uses of the term.  


 

As examples of non-empowered epics, consider :
 - the Civil War
 - the Trail of Tears (and the events that led up to it)
 - most Westerns
 - the Space Race
 - the life and times of Napoleon

How are any of these "epics"?  Epic as a term refers to a fairly accepted body of classical literature.  There may be some areas of disagreement, but I think the canon of Epic literature is fairly well established.

No, for the record...I don't think real history can be "Epic".  Epic History is the Trojan War.  Epic History is the founding of Rome as told in the Aenead.  Real history is real history.  Epic history may be based on real history but its liberally spiced with legend.

 

Cultural hero does not automatically imply empowered. Mythic, on the other hand...  I think this is where the distinction is so important. Is the Hero empowered because he is a cultural hero, or because he is mythic? I would say the later, but you seem to feel its the former. In actuality, it may not be so easy to separate them.

I would not only agree that its not easy to seperate them, I'd say its completely unnecessary to try.  I'm not seeing a real value added to trying to put "Epic" stories and heroes into this box, and "Mythic" stories and heroes into that box.

You seem to find this an important distinction and are searching for some bright line divisor.  I'm saying...why bother.  I'm seeing no advantage (and certainly none with regards to the topic of this thread) to trying to seperate them into discrete entities.