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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

Valamir wrote: 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.

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.

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

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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

taalyn wrote: 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.

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.

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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

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:

Dictionary.com wrote: ep·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.]

Lin Carter in A Look Behind the Lord of the Rings wrote:
"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."

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

Paganini wrote: Taalyn 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.

Not 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).

komradebob wrote: 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.

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.

Sean wrote:
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.

Valamir wrote: Well, 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.

M. J. Young wrote: [ 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.

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.

(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 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.

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.

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

A.

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. ;-)

Valamir wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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.

taalyn wrote: 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!)

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.

Zathreyel wrote: 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.

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.

taalyn wrote: 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'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.

-Edit to fix quotes

taalyn wrote: 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[/m] 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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

@John Kim
the way I understood it, Ralph (Valamir) was talking about the fact that epic heroes are usually not defined by their limits in power, but by other, social, moral, personal constraints.
Most roleplaying games do however focus (mechanically) on the limits of powers (in a general sense) instead of limits arising from the human nature/condition of the hero.
Consequently, a good game for epics would be one, where the heroes have enough power to do virtually anything, but are constrained by social, moral and personal issues. A game designed for epic stories should therefore have no need for ability scores, success at mental or physical tasks should be left entirely to the player, but there should be all kinds of stats for the other constraints the epic hero has to deal with. (Conflict resolution mechanics should also deal reasonably well with this, because – given the understanding that there is no match for the hero in terms of abilities – a failure can be explained as the result of inner constraints (e.g. conscience) or the schemings of others.)

Markus: Yes.

John: Come on now...

montag wrote: Consequently, a good game for epics would be one, where the heroes have enough power to do virtually anything, but are constrained by social, moral and personal issues. A game designed for epic stories should therefore have no need for ability scores, success at mental or physical tasks should be left entirely to the player, but there should be all kinds of stats for the other constraints the epic hero has to deal with.

Rexfelis wrote: This seems too extreme. Not all epic heroes succeed all the time, nor are they equally good at everything. In the Odyssey, for example, Odysseus fails his "Will" save vs. the sirens. Similarly, in the Iliad, we know from the beginning that Achilles has the highest Fighting score of anyone there. In a strictly karma-based battle, Achilles will beat Hector every time. The heroes of Troy and Hellas can also be ranked in terms of raw strength, athletic ability, beauty, leadership, etc.

John Kim wrote: It's true that epic heroes are defined in dramatic terms by their personality and beliefs -- but the same is true for non-superpowered human characters. I don't see how Odysseus' longing for home is any different than Rick's love in Casablanca.

Zathreyel wrote:

John Kim wrote: It's true that epic heroes are defined in dramatic terms by their personality and beliefs -- but the same is true for non-superpowered human characters. I don't see how Odysseus' longing for home is any different than Rick's love in Casablanca.

...
It is for this reason that, while characters in these stories can have quantifiable "attributes" (using the actual word, not the RPG generic term), such as being incredibly strong, fast, resilient, beautiful, frightful, intelligent, etc., it really isn't as important as what the character believes in. The beliefs of the character will carry him, whether it is to the pinnacle or to the grave.

Zathreyel wrote: finally, and bringing it back to gaming, i think that, while it may be possible to have an epic-feeling game using Gamist or Simulationist game structures, you would really only get the full exploration value of an epic game without a Narrativist system. Hell, i've played DnD and Changeling games that felt really damned epic, but we had to work around the system in order to accomplish that feel, rather than the system working with us. and isn't that the point of all of this talk, to figure out what kind of system would best support Epic gameplay, not least get in the way?

John, pardon my insolence, but it sounds as if everyone here is simply saying "system does matter" and you keep going "but, but, but my game is ...".
It would be a pity if that were the case, since no-one here is saying you can't get an epic campaign using DnD (or Paranoia for that matter), we're just saying that you'd have to work a little harder if you want to do that and that _in general_ these games are not too well suited for epic campaigns. But, of course, you can do it, and your campaign certainly isn't any less epic because you're using RuneQuest.
Now, if you generally disagree with "System does matter", I'd be interested in hearing your arguments. If you think that "system doesn't matter for the epic-ness of a game" I'd ask you to rephrase your arguments, since I apparently didn't really get them. If you're saying that any game can in principle be used for epic campaigns, then I'd like to hear the people speak up, who think that there are games which under no circumstances can produce epic campaigns.
If it's none of the above, what are we arguing about?

Re. the "bigness" of epics: I wonder if "bigness" is a relative affair. That is, perhaps all epics do have the "feel" of bigness, but the actual scale of events varies considerably. The Iliad takes place in the midst of a major war; perhaps it represents a sort of limit case (though, from a larger perspective, this is still a regional conflict involving coalitions from two sides of the Aegean Sea). The Odyssey is one man's struggle to get home. Yet, Odysseus is a noble, a big man, and his exploits are all quite grand/glamorous. Well, lower on the scale we have Watership Down. Now, perhaps some of you won't consider this an epic, but if any work of modern literature fits the genre, it certainly does. For the rabbits involved, the events are taking place on an epic scale, but it's basically a feud between a couple of rabbit holes, if memory serves.

So, I'd like to submit that the events in an epic don't have to be world-shattering; they can occur on a very small scale and still have an epic feel to them. Perhaps this point was never really contested by anyone, but I thought it would at least be worthwhile to articulate it, because this realization could affect the design of an epic-emulation rpg.

I think the "feel" or "tone" of an epic is more important than the scale, all things considered.

The same is true, only moreso, of "sagas." Now, perhaps we really shouldn't try to cover both epics and sagas in the same thread, because they are different genres (though apparently related). But, for sagas, it seems even more obvious that they are not always on a world-shattering scale. Oftentimes, the events of a saga are more Hattfields vs. McCoys than Cosmic Order vs. Cosmic Darkness.

Rexfelis

Should we try to construct a list of "canonical epics"? The purpose of all this would be to have a concrete basis for discussion, and to help the process of differentiating epics from myths, legends, folk tales, fairy tales, et al.

I'm not going to be able to be of too much help here, since what I don't know about literature could fit into a 4-year bachelor's degree program. Let me reiterate a few of the works that have already been mentioned, and add a couple of obvious entries:

The Epic of Gilgamesh
The Iliad & The Odyssey
The Aeneid
Beowulf
The Nibelungenlied/Volsunga Saga
The Song of Roland
The Divine Comedy [it's in the epic form (right?), but is it an "epic"?]
The Faerie Queene [again, it's in the form, but is this a "real" epic?]
Paradise Lost

Mahabharata
Ramayana

If we do work on a list of canonical epics upon which to base our discussion of the characteristics of an epic, we should probably not aim to be comprehensive, but rather simply representative.

Rexfelis

montag wrote: John, pardon my insolence, but it sounds as if everyone here is simply saying "system does matter" and you keep going "but, but, but my game is ...".
It would be a pity if that were the case, since no-one here is saying you can't get an epic campaign using DnD (or Paranoia for that matter), we're just saying that you'd have to work a little harder if you want to do that and that _in general_ these games are not too well suited for epic campaigns. But, of course, you can do it, and your campaign certainly isn't any less epic because you're using RuneQuest.
Now, if you generally disagree with "System does matter", I'd be interested in hearing your arguments.

or the bizarre (IMO) suggestion that traditional systems can't handle superhuman powers because they're "all about the limits of normal people".

Hercules is more than a character with a really high strength score.
Achilles is more than a character with a really high natural armor class.
Odysseus is more than a character with a really high Wisdom.

I think I can solve the problem : )
Ralph, I believe you're paying too much attention to the numbers. See, if the normal human range is e.g. 1- 10, and Odysseus has a wisdom of e.g. 15, that's an epic scale by most means. IMHO very few people will be concerned, that such a character has a 1% chance of being outsmarted by someone with a wisdom of 10 (or whatever else that probability is in a particular system).
Come to think of it, that's something I've seen happening in a couple of games running for a long time, where it simply becomes a given, that a character is "the best" in his or her particular field. Provided of course, the rules provide at least moderate support for this notion in terms of "probability of success", that is, there is a reasonable mechanical difference between "the best" and "slightly above average". In such cases, I've found, that the effect of being "the best" in terms of the story being told are more or less independent of the actual numerical value assigned to being "the best". Every other character comes to think of character X as "the best in X", not as "someone with a value of Y in X". NPCs treat the character as "the best" and the stuff the character struggles with no longer is concerned with that particular ability, because, well, the character simply is "the best". That doesn't mean his expertise won't be required once in a while, but _challenges_ to the character shouldn't come from his area of expertise.
So, yes, you can model Achilles as a 20th level fighter, but if you continue to set up challenges for the character in terms of fights you probably won't get an epic feel.
Which in turn means, that all your stats which make the character that 20th level fighter are pretty much useless for most purposes, since he's going to win all but a tiny, tiny fraction of fights anyway. In addition, the system may be sending the wrong messages, as in e.g. the recent thread on rpg.net, which dealt with the question of how many lvl 1 fighters a lvl 20 fighter can kill. Turns out, he can take on an army on his own, which - to me – seems stupid and may make it harder to set up some non-combat challenges, since the character can essentially start and win a war on his own. However, given the understanding that an epic campaign is being played, most decent roleplayers could handle that, so it isn't really a concern.
Still, the pointless scores on the character sheet may distract the player and lead her or him to think about his character in terms of "can do Z amount of damage per round" instead of "best knight all around, but can't keep his hands off the kings wife".



That said, I still think the "representative of a certain culture" angle is a lot more relevant to the epic feel than the question of whether you're using hit points or not.

montag wrote: I think I can solve the problem : )
Ralph, I believe you're paying too much attention to the numbers. See, if the normal human range is e.g. 1- 10, and Odysseus has a wisdom of e.g. 15, that's an epic scale by most means. IMHO very few people will be concerned, that such a character has a 1% chance of being outsmarted by someone with a wisdom of 10 (or whatever else that probability is in a particular system).

Matt Wilson wrote: I could be wrong, though.

So, Ralph, your whole point was, that numbers on the character sheet do not an epic game make?
Come on, there must have been something more to it. ;)

I've split out the point about Stats for Epic Heroes as a separate thread.

Rexfelis wrote: I think the "feel" or "tone" of an epic is more important than the scale, all things considered.

Andreas/aplath wrote: So I think epic has to do with the stakes, that must be big inside a given context. Also it has to do with choices made and, as someone said, the values represented by this choices. And most of all, epic has to do with the tone of the story.

All this things, and this is my humble opinion, has little to do with system and much to do with the story and the commitment of all those involved in telling the story.

I have reached the conclusion that we are spinning our wheels.

We are arguing about how to make a game feel epic. We can't even agree as to what that means. Let me suggest that it means nothing that can be captured by system or setting or character or even by players, because it is not specific enough to identify.

• In The Last Starfighter, Navigator Grig says, "I've always wanted to fight a desperate battle against incredible odds", and then they do it.

There is something epic in that: fighting a desperate battle against incredible odds, being in the war you can't possibly win, and then somehow, by the skin of your teeth, winning.

It is the moment at which the armies of Middle Earth stand in front of Sauron's gate, and the ring falls into the crack of Mount Doom, and suddenly victory has landed within the grasp of the heroes.

It is in one sense a very gamist sense of what makes an epic feel--that notion that we should have lost, we were going to lose, we were this close to losing, and then, somehow, we pulled out of it, and we won.

To some people, that will always feel epic. There are a ton of epics in which that's not remotely part of the story, but we're talking about an epic feel, not an epic emulation.

• It's been observed that some epics cover great distances in space, some span vast lengths of time, and some bring people from many places together. Beowulf is a strange epic in some ways, because a great deal of it occurs in a dining hall, during which adventures are recounted--but those adventures told carry us to many places. Epics seem to have scope.

Star Wars for some has an epic feel, not because of the incredible victory, but because of the vast world painted by the creator. Lord of the Rings has that vastness also. For some people, Glorantha is itself epic in feel, not for what happens there, but for its sheer expanse. To feel like you were somewhere big, somewhere that was far from your little home town, that you visited the stars--maybe all of them--or traversed a continent, or delved the depths to the center of the earth. It doesn't so much matter what happens; it feels epic because it was so incredibly big.

This is perhaps a simulationist experience of epic. I can't believe we were really there, but it sure feels like we were.

• We keep hearing the narrativist version of epic again and again on this thread. To feel epic, it has to really deal with major issues that impact the world; the characters have to be able to make a difference to the premise in a big way. Sure, that would feel epic, to some people. To others, it would be boring.


So I don't think we're going to find the secret to making play feel epic for everyone. We're going to have to decide that there are several ways to make games feel epic, and that they work with greater or lesser degrees for different people. Then we can start to work on how do we make a narrativist game feel epic, or a gamist game, or a simulationist game, and stop trying to say that this way or that way doesn't work, because nothing works for everyone, and some of the things that have been rejected as unworkable generally would be quite workable as an approach to creating an epic feeling of a particular sort.

As to whether system matters, of course it does. It determines what kind of epic feeling you might reasonably hope to achieve.

--M. J. Young

I agree this thread is now useless. I'm still hung up on why War And Peace should not be an epic and, for some reason, only essentially mythical works are to be considered 'epic'. I think the term is too vague to be useful, any further, and that rather we should SELECT a meaning for epic that conveys what we want it to convey. Websters cites the following for Epic:

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).

When we say 'epic feel', I'm not sure anyone of us really know what the others means.

Saga is less ambiguous, but its formal definition is very different to any sense of significance:

Saga
1) A prose narrative usually written in Iceland between 1120 and 1400, dealing with the families that first settled Iceland and their descendants, with the histories of the kings of Norway, and with the myths and legends of early Germanic gods and heroes.
2) A modern prose narrative that resembles a saga.
3) A long detailed report: recounted the saga of their family problems.

The only thing that Saga and Epic have in common, significantly, are their role as historical sources, and length. There is no meaningful 'epic feel' - that is a product of the stylisation applied by the PERFORMERS of the epic or saga, which we encounter in one or other recorded format. Thats the 'elevated or dignified language' part.

John Kim wrote: But would you agree that the tone of the story is influenced (maybe even strongly influenced) by the system? i.e. A game run using Sorcerer & Sword will have a different tone than D&D which will have a different tone than, say, Toon. Right?

M. J. Young wrote: I have reached the conclusion that we are spinning our wheels.

We are arguing about how to make a game feel epic. We can't even agree as to what that means. Let me suggest that it means nothing that can be captured by system or setting or character or even by players, because it is not specific enough to identify.

It definitely is hard to define this idea, which makes it even harder to discuss, but I do feel it is possible, as I have tried to get that "feel" in my games when necessary (not always, just when necessary).

In all cases, I think some of the ideas shared here would work great to give the game a more dramatic, epic feel, IMO.

I'll just leave it at that for now.

<delurking>

I would say all of those (a) "skip the little stuff," and (b) "have a grandoise feel/poetry" comments are describing either the (a) Scene Framing or the (b) Mood and Style of common Epics

I would offer the following definitions:

Mythic: The PC's actions have larger-than-life effects. Example: Hercules diverts a river to clean out a stables.

Epic : The characters actions have a long-lasting effect on the society that they live in.

Example 1: All of Hercules' efforts didn't change the fact that he lived at a time "when the ancient gods were petty and cruel, and plaged mankind with suffering." (cf Sorbo.)
Not Epic, to me.

Example 2: Star Wars IV (alone) is heroic, and mythic, but not Epic. At the beginning of the story, there are Rebels and an Empire. At the end of the story, there are Rebels and an Empire.
Not Epic, to me.

Example 3: A game set in the Civil War, where the PCs play either Federalists or Southerners with an eye to the Post-Reconstructionist South could fit the requirements. Society changed in the South because of the War, and if the PCs have a direct effect on how they change, then the story could be epic.

Example 4: Star Wars 4-6, the Classic Trilogy, would be Epic, because by the end, the Empire is overthrown, and Luke and the Gang were primary movers in making that happen.

So something could be mythic AND epic, or only one or the other.

To use the LOTR / Hobbit, LOTR is Epic, since the Age of Man has begun and the Four Hobbits must Scour the Shire when they return, but "The Hobbit" is not, since Bilbo returns to the Shire which was unchanged by the adventure.

Suggestion: at this point, if someone wants to discuss design issues re. an "epic" rpg, he might as well just start his own thread and simply stipulate what he means by "epic." We could then have different threads addressing the several conceptions of "epic-ness."

It does seem as if this thread has devolved into quibbling over the proper meaning of the word "epic," and, since there seems to be no convergence on that score, little substantive work is being done (IMHO).

Rexfelis