"Epic" and "Saga" roleplaying

[Valamir]

[ 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'm not sure why you think I suggested that at all, given that my conclusion in my very first post said that epic feeling game must:

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.

Figuring out how to do #2, without resorting to #1 is, IMO the key that is missing from most campaigns, and the reason they don't feel epic.

(I would also argue, as someone else already has, that Frodo and Samwise are intentionally representative of the ordinary person who becomes the hero.
--M. J. Young

I would argue that that is a complete illusion.  That Frodo and Samwise and the other hobbits are very specifically not ordinary.  They are, in fact, quite extraordinary, even more so because they are heroes from a most unlikely place.  But any thought that any random 4 hobbits could be substituted into the story I think is highly incorrect.  ONLY these specific 4 hobbits.  ONLY Bilbo could have kept the ring safe all those years without being tempted and corrupted.  ONLY Frodo and Sam could have made it to Mt. Doom.  They are quite extraordinary hobbits.  Thier "powers" if you will are just very very subtle.  But that's niether here nor there.

[taalyn]

(I would also argue, as someone else already has, that Frodo and Samwise are intentionally representative of the ordinary person who becomes the hero.
--M. J. Young

I would argue that that is a complete illusion. That Frodo and Samwise and the other hobbits are very specifically not ordinary. They are, in fact, quite extraordinary, even more so because they are heroes from a most unlikely place. But any thought that any random 4 hobbits could be substituted into the story I think is highly incorrect. ONLY these specific 4 hobbits. ONLY Bilbo could have kept the ring safe all those years without being tempted and corrupted. ONLY Frodo and Sam could have made it to Mt. Doom. They are quite extraordinary hobbits. Thier "powers" if you will are just very very subtle. But that's niether here nor there.

This makes no sense at all to me. ANY hobbit placed in Frodo, Bilbo, or Sam's position would be just as remarkable. If the tale was about Gurglefoot Humptyback the hobbit, it would still be an epic, as long as Gurglefoot did all the same things. An epic (even in a strict literary sense that I find inappropriate to the discussion) is not about specific names or people. It's about a hero, any hero, who undertakes specific actions. Achilles replaced by a Papa Smurf who took the same actions would be an epic. The names and personalities are almost secondary - epics are about heroic acts, not specific people.

Or maybe this is just my background in religious studies and comparative mythology speaking. I've done some lit crit, but comp myth is my strong point, and it's obvious they look at this issue from entirely different angles.

Aidan

[Valamir]

This makes no sense at all to me. ANY hobbit placed in Frodo, Bilbo, or Sam's position would be just as remarkable. If the tale was about Gurglefoot Humptyback the hobbit, it would still be an epic, as long as Gurglefoot did all the same things.

That's my whole point with that.  Gurglefoot would not have done the same things.  Gurglefoot would have failed.

Using the movie dialog because its fresher in my mind,
Frodo says "well it can't stay in the shire"
Gandaf "no it can not"
Frodo "what must I do".

That's defining heroic moment #1.

If Frodo hadn't said that, Middle Earth would be covered in darkness and Sauron would have won.

No matter if Gandalf went out and recruited Gurgly to do the job.  Gurgly would have failed.

We see this reinforced again in Moria when Frodo bemoans that wishes the ring had never come to him in Gandalf's reply.

Frodo is most certainly NOT an ordinary hobbit. He came from ordinary surroundings yes...but he is a classic hero as surely as Hercules and Ulysseus...he's just portraying the pinnacle of country English values rather than ancient Greek.

Sam...same thing.  No other hobbit ever born would have followed Frodo into Moria.  If Pippen or Merry had been on the shore they would have tried to stop him.  They may have run to get help.  But they absolutely would not have gone, or at least not have gone with the intention of following through.  They would have tried to talk him out of it and turn back, which would have ended in disastor.  Only Sam was capable of the selfless sacrifice out of duty.  Because Sam was being portrayed as the pinnacle of THOSE English values.  

No other hobbit, elf, or dward could have achieved what Frodo and Sam did.  That qualifies as powerz in my book.  Maybe not Kewl, but then this is an English Epic...the whole low key, stiff upper lip attitude is quite a part of the English value system at the time of the writing...Kewl would have been in appropriate.

Ordinary hobbits?  Sorry.  You'll never sell me on that one.

[Paganini]

Ralph, I think you're all wrong, and all right, at the same time. I'm absolutely certain that if you keep explaining it this way, most people are not going to agree with you. :)

The thing is, it has to do with the "Best Warrior" example I gave before.

Tolkien chose to write about heros. That makes it a given that his characters do heroic things. It's completely incidental that the heros were Frodo and Sam. It could have been Mungo or Lotho or any other hobbit. If Tolkien had picked them, *they* would have been the heros, by definition.

All this talk about what hobbit "could" have done these things is totally missing the point. It's not about "could," it's about "would." Any other hobbit that Tolkien picked would have done the exact same things. It's a necessary component of the work. The point is not that Frodo & co. are extraordinary characters with unique abilities that make them the one and only hope for the world. Gandalf didn't just happen to get lucky and pick the one hobbit who was right for the job. The point is that Frodo & co. are ordinary hobbits who do extraordinary things.

Your description is backwards. You have it that Frodo & co. accomplish feats and make heroic choices because they are extraordinary; it's the other way around! They're extraordinary *because* they accomplish feats and make heroic choices.

[taalyn]

Thank you Paganini! That's exactly what I've been trying to say all along.

A.

[MPOSullivan]

i would tend to agree with ralph on this.  Discounting the "meta" idea of tolkien choosing any hobbit and their character morphing to fit the desires of the story (which i think is a arguement of semantics), Ralph is talking about the characters and personalities of Frodo and Sam themselves.  their personalities make them Epic in nature, or at least heroic, simply because of their tenacity and morals.  while this doens't make them superhuman, they are more than others because of their personalities.  no other hobbit would have done what they did, given their own mind on the matter.  It's the reason we're reading about Frodo and Sam and not Gurglefoot, because Gurglefoot woudn't have done such things, given his own mind.  At least he wouldn't have as part of an epic.  

at the same time, i would lean towards agreeing with Pag, even though he's arguing aginst ralph.  Yes, the characters are extraordinary because of their accmplishments, but it's just an arguement about where you draw a line.  In either instance though, i think that the characters themselves are integral to the arguement.  i don't think any other character in the books would have made those decisions or accomplished such great feats.  

i also think that this idea of character importance best applies to RPGs as, even if a player creates just a "regular" character in their epic game, there will be something inherrently epic about them.  sure, they may not be able to kill twenty orcs with their bare hands, but they have such bravery or whatever that it sets them far above the rest.  the character is meant to represent the best in their cultures.  the NPCs in such a setting shouldn't be as "good" as the PCs, either in ability or character.  

maybe this would all flow a little more smoothly if we deicided on a universal language?  i mean, i know that's what we're working on here, but maybe a different tactic would work?  maybe we should all decide on what we know to be epic, not what we thought might be, and what decidedly isn't.  then maybe we could figure out a way to meet in the middle.  and should we just go with the classical example of what is epic, or the more evolved, modern standard?  i would, at least at first, say lets go with a more classical example of what is epic.

then we could bring this back around to applying it to gaming.  ;-)

[John Kim]

That's my whole point with that.  Gurglefoot would not have done the same things.  Gurglefoot would have failed.

Using the movie dialog because its fresher in my mind,
Frodo says "well it can't stay in the shire"
Gandaf "no it can not"
Frodo "what must I do".

That's defining heroic moment #1.

If Frodo hadn't said that, Middle Earth would be covered in darkness and Sauron would have won.

No matter if Gandalf went out and recruited Gurgly to do the job.  Gurgly would have failed.

Well, as I see it, arguing what would have happened in a book or film is always murky ground.  What does it even mean to say "what if" Frodo had turned down the quest?  On what basis do we project?  Are we saying, "What sort of other story might Tolkien have written, given his personality and life?"  Or are we saying, "What is the most likely occurence within the fictional world portrayed?"  (in which case the story as written might not be the most likely occurence)  Or are we suggesting something else entirely?  

On the one hand, there is a tendency to say that events had to go exactly as they were written -- i.e. any change means that no story would have happened.  But I think that's mixing issues.  Obviously, I would not presume to change Tolkien's story in the slightest for those who want to read it.  But once you ask "what if", I think it's valid to imagine very different ways that things could have played out within the fictional reality that is presented.  I don't really know.  So if Frodo had died from the Nazgul wound -- and, say, Pippin had taken the ring, would the quest have failed?  On what basis do we answer this?  

From my point of view, neither Tolkien as narrator nor Gandalf emphasize how different Frodo is from other hobbits.  Quite the opposite.  As Frodo and his companions do well, Gandalf tends to remark on the quality of hobbits as a people rather than Frodo's uniqueness as an individual different from other hobbits.  Other epics take care to establish the power of the protagonist (like Odysseus or Beowulf) from their very first description.  But Frodo is undistinguished in his country life before the quest.  So while Frodo and in particular Sam were exceptional, I don't think there is basis to say exactly how exceptional.  

No other hobbit, elf, or dward could have achieved what Frodo and Sam did.  That qualifies as powerz in my book.  Maybe not Kewl, but then this is an English Epic...the whole low key, stiff upper lip attitude is quite a part of the English value system at the time of the writing...Kewl would have been in appropriate.  

Getting back to the main point: what do these "kewl powers" in particular require in terms of system?  Suppose Frodo is the most incorruptible hobbit of all, vs being in the 95th percentile of incorruptibleness among hobbits.  Does that change the mechanical requirements for the game?  From my point of view, I don't think that it makes a big difference.  The system needs to be able to scale to handle the level of conflict, but I don't think that fundamental techniques need to change with power level.

[Ian Charvill]

It strikes me, that from a roleplaying perspective the thing we're talking about here is protagonism.  Frodo is the protagonist - that is all that is required for him to be special.

Rather than get caught up in bigendian discussions about whether Frodo is remarkable a priori or a postiori consider all that is necessary for players in a role playing game to have their characters achieve such things.  The simplest way, it seems to me, is merely to protect their protagonism.  If Samwise's player wishes him to swim to the boat - don't call for a Will Power check for him to enter the water he cannot swim through.  Sam's player has decided he will follow Mr Frodo and the player must have the right to do so unimpeded by the system.

From an RPG perspective, Sam can of course drown at this point: the sacrifice emphasising the cost of destroying the ring.

[contracycle]

I would lean toward a view that Epics and Saga are to a large extent national history; they provide some data about who we are, where we came from etc.  From that perspective the epicness of a given story revolves around how big it is.  Even the epic of Gilgamesh, which has a pretty selfish central agenda, is epic because of the larger than life characters and adventures of which it is composed, IMO.

I suppose the point I'm making is that these epics and sagas carry a certain gravitas by being such Important Events, populated by Important People.  They are, at least locally, world-defining events worthy of being remembered, recorded, and recounted, it seems to me.

[Vodrilus]

Epic. It seems to be a rather complicated term. I would define it as something largely important to a certain group or category of people. Ie. The American Civil War does not seem very epic to me, since I am Finnish. And vice versa: The Finnish Winter War holds an importance to the Finnish people. If the Finnish Defence Forces hadn't held the line, we would be speaking Russian...

Edit: Bah, I missed a page. That's what you get for being stupid.

Edit: Err... Yes, I'm making rough generalizations.

[Rexfelis]

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!)

The initial post in the thread seemed to be using "epic" in the "narrow," "lit crit" sense.

An rpg will never be an epic poem, but that is 100% irrelevant. The issue at hand seems to be whether an rpg can use the epic genre of literature as its inspiration/source material. Or, perhaps better said, whether an rpg can recreate the feel of an epic for those who play it. (A corollary question is, What techniques can be used to help create this feel?)

I agree with the sentiment that the rpg will probably have to be narrativist. You could have a Sim rpg that recreates the trappings of the epic genre, but my hunch is it wouldn't feel to the players that they were part of an unfolding epic.

Rexfelis

[taalyn]

On at least one occassion, my experience counters the idea that Sim gaming can't be epic. My players described the game as epic, and the story is still told as if it had epic significance.

I don't think GNS modes have any relevance to the epicness of a game. It's the choices and actions taken, together with story/drama/what-have-you, that does so. Gamist works in this regard too.

The real question here is how to support  the epic feel in a game. Since the game is highly unlikely to be culturally significant, and just as unlikely to be written down in poetry or prose, those arguments that define epic can't apply. They may provide insight into the kinds of issues or events an epic game would need to address, but they don't provide for the feel. For the feel, we have no choice but to turn to things commonly described as epic, and look for the emotions raised there, or the kinds of actions or choices that can be thrust before the players. They're going to be the people deciding whether a game is epic, and it's unlikely that they will of necessity will have backgrounds in lit crit.

[Rexfelis]

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.

Looks good to me. If I have any quibbles, they're not worth going into.  

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.

Great minds think alike. Or, rather, I've never had a single original idea in my life. In my "Dominion" threads in the Indie Game Design forum I was trying to address the same question. "Dominion" is the name of a particular sci-fi setting I've been working on, but in those threads I was clumsily trying to address the issue of how to create epic-style play. It eventually occurred to me that I didn't need to start from scratch--I could just start tweaking Sorcerer, as follows.

Every character has a Destiny (as in Sorcerer & Sword). He has Abilities (I chose Body, Mind, and Spirit), and each of these Abilities has 1+ Descriptors (more in my version than in standard Sorcerer). The Descriptor/s for the Spirit Ability represent the guiding passions of the character. Each character also has a Flaw, which would correspond to the "tragic flaw" of many famous epic characters (e.g. Odysseus' hubris). The rest of chargen is pretty much as in Sorcerer.

It likewise occurred to me that I could use TROS as a base, but since I don't own that game, and since my FLGS' distributor doesn't have a copy, I never bothered to follow through on that idea.

Hope this hasn't been a waste of your time,

Rexfelis

[Rexfelis]

On at least one occassion, my experience counters the idea that Sim gaming can't be epic. My players described the game as epic, and the story is still told as if it had epic significance.

I don't think GNS modes have any relevance to the epicness of a game. It's the choices and actions taken, together with story/drama/what-have-you, that does so. Gamist works in this regard too.

I guess we have to agree on a def. of epic before we can answer this question. However, I am not entirely convinced that you are wrong, even on the def. that I'm working with. Maybe that's because I'm unclear in my own mind what exactly constitutes the "feel" of works in the epic genre. There's a sense of adventure, of heroic/larger than life actions, but also of larger than life passions. Now, maybe this feel could be captured by play directed toward any of the 3 CAs, but I'm not sure. To try Gamism on for size: if the player is focused on the triumph of his character over his in-game foes, and if this is a mechanical matter of manipulaying passions stat's as pumps, then maybe we can have genuinely "epic" play via a Gamist vehicle.

Rexfelis

[Valamir]

I'm going to try this again, coming from a slightly different angle, because my last attempt got so badly sidetracked.

Epic stories are about limits.  Epic heroes are defined by the limits that don't apply to them, and the limits that do apply to them.  

Look at Achilles.  He is invulnerable.  The limits of injury and mortality that apply to others doesn't apply to him.  But that doesn't mean he has no limits.  His limits are in many ways self imposed.  He is limited by his own pride and petulance.  But these are ordinary levels of pride and petulance...these are epic levels of pride and petulance.

Cuchulainn is not limited by the mere laws of gravity and physics when it comes to his ability to drive his chariot.  Those limits are for mere mundane types.  But the obligations of Geas and clan duty limit him far greater than any laws of physics.

All of these epic heroes are defined by their limits but they generally aren't they same limits as apply to normal people.

That's why I don't think traditional RPGs do a good job of providing Epic feel (and I think what Rexfelis was trying to get at just now).  Traditional games are all about defining the limits of normal people.  And that isn't what epic heroes are about at all.