Which you prefer as a player, as a GM?
I tend to like non-epic games myself.
If by epic storylines you mean campaign-spanning world-changing events where the players are in the thick of things, then I'm all for them.
Quote from: AelfinnIf by epic storylines you mean campaign-spanning world-changing events where the players are in the thick of things, then I'm all for them.
Pretty much what I mean.
I tend to prefer non-epic ones. First of all, I'm not that much into high level play in any system - if you're individual contribution is that critical, you're usually pretty godlike. Epic plots also encourage high fantasy character types who are very altruistic - saving the world because that's just what they do. It's also hard to do good epic plots that aren't huge with tons of plot holes.
It can be done well but it usually isn't.
Quote from: VarajWhich you prefer as a player, as a GM?
I tend to like non-epic games myself.
What would be an example of one of your "non-epic" games?
A slight recanting. I'm alright with down to earth characters whose actions occasionally had epic motivations. Something along the lines of the Fafhrd and Gray Mouser, where they had human motivations but their plots sometimes affected the world.
Both, though I tend toward the epic. Even in a gritty game like AFMBE, I'll tend to let the PCs do something big rather than just survive.
Quote from: Ragnarok N RollWhat would be an example of one of your "non-epic" games?
An example of non-epic:
Lets take a fairly typical adventuring group. They get together to travel into to the big city to earn fame and fortune from small town. On route they pass through a small town that ask them to remove some bandits troubling the town. Que adventure.
After they travel some to big town. They decide they like working together and look for work/adventure.
Take a job to run a rich man to old keep to retrieve family jewels. Que adventure.
Sister of adventure kidnapped by slavers track down slaver break up ring.
Etc.
I like a mixture of the two. Start off with several small quests that don't seem in any way tied to each other, but as you progress, you start to uncover a deeper, darker story line.
Quote from: eCK0I like a mixture of the two. Start off with several small quests that don't seem in any way tied to each other, but as you progress, you start to uncover a deeper, darker story line.
That's always been a good way to do things, IMO
Quote from: eCK0I like a mixture of the two. Start off with several small quests that don't seem in any way tied to each other, but as you progress, you start to uncover a deeper, darker story line.
Do you run into a problem with when the epic storyline ends campaign can stumble and even end?
I understand and I prefer running games that way myself, but I also have a underlining story that goes along with that approach. That is they aquire property, followers, and other things that tie them to the setting. Those things also provide plot hooks for later campaigns.
Well, ideally it'll be planned out so that the characters are leveled to the point of where they wanted them. Sure, you could continue, but at that point there's really no point in continueing. I find it best to get a good idea of how leveled the players want their characters to be, then create a story around that.
Quote from: eCK0I like a mixture of the two. Start off with several small quests that don't seem in any way tied to each other, but as you progress, you start to uncover a deeper, darker story line.
I like recurring villians. The type that don't reappear for years "campaign time" that the players almost forgot about.
Agreed, a campaign that takes several years real time is always fun. A true campaign as opposed to an "adventure".
Quote from: Ragnarok N RollI understand and I prefer running games that way myself, but I also have a underlining story that goes along with that approach. That is they aquire property, followers, and other things that tie them to the setting. Those things also provide plot hooks for later campaigns.
Yup can easily add some underling story lines that avoid protect the world from evil god x or save the planet from demon army z. Nothing wrong with those type of things and enjoy playing them they just aren't my preferred style.
It all depends on how much you want to get into living in another world. If it's only a side game, then it'll most likely be a rather short adventure and you can create many different characters. If it's a major hobby, the only thing you do in your "spare time", then I'm sure one might prefer to have one character in a long lasting campaign.
I'm going to have to go with non-epic. Saving the world is a low level problem. It has to be sovled or nothing else is possible, its along the lines of having food and shelter. Its a survival level story. I prefer stories where the players don't have to do X for survival but decide they want to do Y because you made a bad guy that really pissed them off, or there character has always wanted to do Z.
Quote from: Xavier LangI'm going to have to go with non-epic. Saving the world is a low level problem. It has to be sovled or nothing else is possible, its along the lines of having food and shelter. Its a survival level story. I prefer stories where the players don't have to do X for survival but decide they want to do Y because you made a bad guy that really pissed them off, or there character has always wanted to do Z.
Well put. I think that sums up part of my dislike for epic. It always has a bit of railroading - if characters don't do X, their whole world ends. I like allowing characters more room to decide what the story is about.
Good points, again, I think that's where it's up to the players.
I usually have up to three different options for the players to take. That way they can take the fourth one. :rolleyes: ;)
I like epic games. But I think it's important to let everyone playing know that when the epic part is done, the campaign's ended.
I can do episodic with no problem, but I want to save the world now and again. :)
I agree with Eck0's point about having little things add up to global issues. I guess where I would put myself in the "non-epic" category has to do with power levels. I like lower power games where the players have to get the cooperation of other forces, play sides against each other, and in general don't have the ability to solve everything themselves.
Quote from: Harry JoyConsidering that I've played in two major campaigns in three years that started at level one, and had both crap out by folks moving around about the time we hit level 7, right when things are getting good and char development is really paying off, I'd give anything at this point to play from level 7 to about level 12, much less Epic level play.
The other players are already looking at me to DM a new game. That's the ultimate frustration AFAIC, since I have yet, in DnD 1.0 or 3.5 (I skipped 2.0 and 3.0) passed level 10.
Start at level 15. I think you'll enjoy yourself and its only 5 levels to 20 instead of 19.
Quote from: Harry Joy'Cept, I've never DMed before and my campaign is written on scraps of napkins.
(http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/newbie2.jpg)
Quote from: Harry JoyI have, however, been playing DnD for about twenty-five years.
In 25 years you've never hit the high levels? I'm gonna be sad if that's true.
I mean now dont get me wrong, high level play is not the end all be all of gaming. But for me, it's nice every now and then to say the only reason you're bothering to roll is to not get a "natural 1". Insanity at its finest.
I like epic stories, but I also like variation.
QuoteDo you run into a problem with when the epic storyline ends campaign can stumble and even end?
I don't see it so much as a problem as a feature. You've told your great epic story, what next? If you can/want, tell the next big adventure of the same characters. Otherwise, switch to a new set of characters.
Too often, D&D parties suffer the Hercule Poirot syndrome - why is everything always happening them, when they are around? I think it makes sense that when a group of characters have achieved their big goal it's often time to retire them.
Quote from: Dr_AvalancheToo often, D&D parties suffer the Hercule Poirot syndrome - why is everything always happening them, when they are around? I think it makes sense that when a group of characters have achieved their big goal it's often time to retire them.
Is that anything like the "Murder, She Wrote" syndrome? ;)
Quote from: BillyBeanbagIs that anything like the "Murder, She Wrote" syndrome? ;)
I do believe so, yes. :)
Quote from: BillyBeanbagIs that anything like the "Murder, She Wrote" syndrome? ;)
She killed all those folks herself and framed other people. It is the only way to explain that many murders happening around her.
Quote from: VarajShe killed all those folks herself and framed other people. It is the only way to explain that many murders happening around her.
And hypnotized them all into admitting it? I nearly died of glee when I saw an episode where the killer told the cops that he was waiting for his lawyer and that's all he had to say.
Quote from: Dr_AvalancheToo often, D&D parties suffer the Hercule Poirot syndrome - why is everything always happening them, when they are around? I think it makes sense that when a group of characters have achieved their big goal it's often time to retire them.
I agree completely. At some point, they've got to move on to something different or they get stale.
I like growing a character from non-epic to truly epic. It's the DM's responsibility to remove the cheesy "Hercules Poirot" syndrome you spoke of. Stories that grow in scale as the character's progress are good - but it's important to make sure that it's somewhat believable (at least for me)
For example, if the toughest thing in sight is a goblin when you have a 1st level character, then why suddenly when you're 15th level do you have random encounters with dragons? Where were they before? Well if you've been playing in the same locale forever it makes no sense without a really good story reason...
There does come a point, however, where it just makes sense to end the campaign/story. Retiring the characters allows them to become part of the backdrop of the game setting when you make new characters. I once played the offspring of previously-retired characters. It was cool :P
Quote from: VarajShe killed all those folks herself and framed other people. It is the only way to explain that many murders happening around her.
You know, that would make for a really cool horror game. The PCs travel around solving bizzare murders. Eventually they learn that they are actually cursed/haunted by some spirit that's causing all these murders to happen. :D
In the past, my camapigns were usually Epic in nature, with an overall story-arc, and a definite Beginning, Middle, and End. My next campaign (Castles & Crusades) will probably be more episodic in nature, however.