[RPG]: Epic Role Playing (Rules Manual), reviewed by jamesh (4/4)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12008.phtml

James D. Hargrove's Summary:

The core of larger system, the Epic Rules Manual strikes a good balance between verisimilitude and playability, while remaining flexible enough to apply to a setting of your choice.

Go to the full review for more information.

[smascrns]

It happens often and it happens again in the present review. The reviwer starts commenting on how the game under consideration is different from "other game systems". It turns out that the expression actually refers to D&D and variants, relatives and similar games. The present review is no exception to this.

It's more of an anoying syndrome but I tend to dislike it a lot because most of the "other game systems" that I actually love don't are not subject to the issues raised by the reviewer when he used this expression. I would rather have the reviewer mentioning which game systems he has in mind than using a generic expression that is higly misleading.

And it's funny to notice that the reviewer pointed to the similarities between Epic and D&D. And to the places where Epic drifts away to D&D (yes, by referring to D&D by the infamous "other game systems" expression). It's funny because last week we had a review of SAS that had an issue with this and was subject to heavy criticism for paying too much attention to the linkage between that game and D&D...

[jamesh]

Originally Posted by smascrns

It happens often and it happens again in the present review. The reviwer starts commenting on how the game under consideration is different from "other game systems". It turns out that the expression actually refers to D&D and variants, relatives and similar games. The present review is no exception to this.

Well, I would have loved to produce a laundry list of speciifc game systems, but practical space constraints and intrusion upon readability prevent this (as they do in many reviews). As it stands, the context that I used "other game systems" in was (I think) very clear.

I would rather have the reviewer mentioning which game systems he has in mind than using a generic expression that is higly misleading.

See above. The expression was not presented without context as you suggest. To wit, you figured out what I was talking about with no trouble - something that you wouldn't have been able to do if the phrase had not been presented in the context that it was.

And it's funny to notice that the reviewer pointed to the similarities between Epic and D&D. And to the places where Epic drifts away to D&D (yes, by referring to D&D by the infamous "other game systems" expression). It's funny because last week we had a review of SAS that had an issue with this and was subject to heavy criticism for paying too much attention to the linkage between that game and D&D...

Well, to be fair, such a discussion is entirely appropriate here as certain elements of the system [Epic] bear striking mechanical similarities to the other system in question (which is not a bad thing, for reasons stated in the review). This is worth mentioning for several reasons (again, many of which are stated quite clearly in the review). I don't see anything 'funny' about it.

[Edit: And do note, I refer to D&D and the d20 System by name several times throughout the review. The "other game" references are specifically framed by examples of what I'm taking about where individual instances are concerned, but literally dozens of games subscribe to those conventions making it impractical to provide the laundry list of specific examples that you'd like to see.]

[smascrns]

I still think that the generalization "other games" has usually at the head of the list D&D, d20 and derivatives. I'm still to find the expression "other games" used in a context that does not apply to D&D first and foremost.

I don't have a problem with your references to D&D, express or implied. The issue is not with your review but with the people that read reviews.

In any case it was a fine review of Epic. It didn't sell me on the game but that's not your fault. On the contrary, it provided me enough information on the game for me to be able to consider that it should not go to the top priorities of my wish list because the game doesn't seem to justify it in terms of my personal and subjective preferences. If I'm able to reach this conclusion it's because you presented a good and compreensive understanting of Epic.

[jamesh]

Originally Posted by smascrns

I still think that the generalization "other games" has usually at the head of the list D&D, d20 and derivatives. I'm still to find the expression "other games" used in a context that does not apply to D&D first and foremost.

Ironically, when I didn't specifically mentiion D&D, I was usually thinking of Rolemaster (which I've played much more often than I have D&D). That said, I have dozens of games from the 1978 High Fantasy to the recent Blue Rose for whom most of these same comparisons hold true (in fact, having recently read High Fantasy, it stuck out in my mind when citing some of the examples in the review, as well).

I think that the correlation between my comments and D&D is less a product of the review itself than of how a vast many people perceive D&D (whether they admit it or not). That is, many of the design trends that I mention are commonly associated with D&D, simply because it the most visible example of such design trends in our hobby's history. It's a perception that weighs at the front of many a hobbyist's mind (again, whether they admit it or not).

It's also a perception that I don't have, largely due to my obsessive collection of RPG books in years past. I've owned an absurd amount of games that I read merely to chart design trends in our hobby's history, and I have seen dozens upon dozens of RPGs (not exclusively of the fantasy genre, either) that share most of D&D's basic system structure and organization in common (e.g., races and cultures codified as bundles of mechanical advantages, careers codified as ability sets, etc).

I don't have a problem with your references to D&D, express or implied. The issue is not with your review but with the people that read reviews.

I caught that after I re-read your post. I apologize for getting a bit snippy there, but I misinterpreted your intent when I intially read the last paragraph of your initial post. I'm coming off a three day bout of insomnia, so I probably shouldn't be responding to critcism on forums right now, anyhow. Again, apologies.

In any case it was a fine review of Epic. It didn't sell me on the game but that's not your fault. On the contrary, it provided me enough information on the game for me to be able to consider that it should not go to the top priorities of my wish list because the game doesn't seem to justify it in terms of my personal and subjective preferences. If I'm able to reach this conclusion it's because you presented a good and compreensive understanting of Epic.

Well, I've done my job, then - thanks for the compliment.

[Reimdall]

Hi Sergio - too bad ERP's not your cup of tea; maybe we'll come up with something that suits your tastes better in the future!

That said, kudos indeed to James for writing a review clear and concise enough for you to be able to make a definitive judgement.

I did check out your recent Stat Scales column and agree regarding large sets of personal statistics not being viable for roleplaying purposes. We attempted to address that idea, though not an earth-shattering revelation , by using a bell curve for our vital attributes (which run from 1 to 10, which seemed to be an easily grokkable number). On a percentile roll between 12 and 89, characters land squarely in the middle (from 4 to 7) between what seems similar to your "Below Average" and "Above Average," with the more rarified dwarfism and giantism folks becoming radically less common, with the outer edges of the scale - 1 and 10 - obtaining only with a 01 or 00 roll, respectively. I think it allows for a pretty wide range of normal human size, but allowing for those freaks of nature that add even more interest to story.

[smascrns]

Originally Posted by Reimdall

Hi Sergio - too bad ERP's not your cup of tea; maybe we'll come up with something that suits your tastes better in the future!

It's not exactly that it is not my cup of tea. I could not say that without reading Epic, a review is not enough. It's just that I have been consistently buying games and still I have a stack of games to acquire that just keeps growing. I suppose it is to be expected at the rate games are published these days. What I meant was that the info I got from the reviews of Epic was not enough to make me move it up the list. (Yes, the game is in the list as the last entrant.)

I did check out your recent Stat Scales column and agree regarding large sets of personal statistics not being viable for roleplaying purposes. We attempted to address that idea, though not an earth-shattering revelation , by using a bell curve for our vital attributes (which run from 1 to 10, which seemed to be an easily grokkable number). On a percentile roll between 12 and 89, characters land squarely in the middle (from 4 to 7) between what seems similar to your "Below Average" and "Above Average," with the more rarified dwarfism and giantism folks becoming radically less common, with the outer edges of the scale - 1 and 10 - obtaining only with a 01 or 00 roll, respectively. I think it allows for a pretty wide range of normal human size, but allowing for those freaks of nature that add even more interest to story.

Indeed. In any case, most games (yes, it's me using this expressioon, go get it) with large scales - and for me 3 to 18 is large - end converting those scales into smaller sets. That's what happens with D&D, RuneQuest and several more. The smaller sets end being the ones that actually matter while playing.

[Dan Davenport]

(I emailed the author this question, but I thought I'd give it a shot here as well while I wait.)

I got my copies of the game line yesterday and began my customary fresh-from-the-package skimming.

Am I correct in my reading that for the most part, physical attributes have no effect on skills? It looks as though Agility plays no factor in combat prowess, for example, but Willpower and Intuition (for melee and ranged combat, respectively) <u>do</u>.

If I <u>am</u> correct, what is the rationale for this?

[Reimdall]

Originally Posted by Dan Davenport

(I emailed the author this question, but I thought I'd give it a shot here as well while I wait.)

I got my copies of the game line yesterday and began my customary fresh-from-the-package skimming.

Am I correct in my reading that for the most part, physical attributes have no effect on skills? It looks as though Agility plays no factor in combat prowess, for example, but Willpower and Intuition (for melee and ranged combat, respectively) <u>do</u>.

If I <u>am</u> correct, what is the rationale for this?

Hi Dan!

The rationale comes from a desire to give physical attributes weight in tactical play, but differentiate them from skill. It's part of our desire to have characters (in this case, warriors) have many different avenues to choose from and also develop widely different combat styles. D'artagnan from The Three Musketeers - what made him good? Was it his agility? His acumen? His brain? It certainly wasn't his Conan-like thews. Where do you put the bonuses? Everywhere? We thought that physical attributes should have a raw effect on combat, but that skill was a little different. A huge farmboy, say, with a Might of 10, which gives him a +4 modifier to delivering damage but not his ability to strike someone, shouldn't be in the same class as a warrior with a melee arms skill of 4 - approaching mastery level. In Epic RPG, the warrior has a very large advantage with regard to his ability to connect strikes on the farmboy - as long as he doesn't take too many heavy-duty hits from Jethro, he should be just fine.

Regarding Agility: it does indeed modify combat, but in much the same way that Build or Might do - they grant a large raw advantage, especially to early, unskilled characters, which balances out to a smaller advantage over time as characters become more skilled.

Agility directly modifies two things:

1. The combat movement of a character, which hugely impacts tactical play, as it allows a more agile combatant to control the tempo of the engagement, the range at which the two combatants engage, and even whether or not they go into hand-to-hand at all.

2. Athletics skill is also directly modified by Agility, offering some swash and buckle to characters that wish to use it in combat for acrobatics and the like.

One of my favorite characters was a stripped down speed-freak with low armor, a stabbing spear (read, long range) and a small shield. He had a very high agility, and a correspondingly high combat move and athletics. He was not sturdy, but it was very difficult to close with him as he moved in, tapped you from a ways away, and then moved back out of his opponents' range. Sort of like the Red Viper of Dorn in Martin's Storm of Swords, if you've read those books.

Anyway, the advantages of high Build and Might are also more about raw ability (to absorb or deliver extra damage, for example). The actual ability to strike someone - sussing an opponent out, combinations, discovering weaknesses in defense, etc. - we do indeed leave to the more refined skills of melee arms, ranged arms and military arts.

Which leads me to:

Intuition and Will: These two attributes (and all the mental attributes in Epic RPG) do not directly modify combat skills in tactical play. They modify the character's ability to learn the skill that they govern. (Indeed, in Epic RPG, will governs melee arms and intuition governs ranged arms.)

For example, a player with a high will will be much more able to apply the lessons of experience necessary to grow in the melee arms skill, due in great part to her ability to stay in there and focus when pieces of leveraged metal come flying toward her head. It's correspondingly much more difficult for a character with a low will to learn melee arms, as he won't have the intestinal fortitude to accept the realities, focus and body sacrifice that a successful warrior needs.

Mechanically, this is accomplished by the character with a high will needing to spend much fewer experience to advance in melee arms skill than the one with a low will attribute.

We refer to this paradigm as Talent; it models the phenomenon that some people are just better at grokking statistics or carpentry or spatial relations or cooking (I have a very low Talent there ) than others. You can learn math or kicking people or metaphysics if you don't have a natural aptitude for it, it just take a much longer time.

[Dan Davenport]

Originally Posted by Reimdall

Hi Dan!

The rationale comes from a desire to give physical attributes weight in tactical play, but differentiate them from skill. It's part of our desire to have characters (in this case, warriors) have many different avenues to choose from and also develop widely different combat styles. D'artagnan from The Three Musketeers - what made him good? Was it his agility? His acumen? His brain? It certainly wasn't his Conan-like thews. Where do you put the bonuses? Everywhere? We thought that physical attributes should have a raw effect on combat, but that skill was a little different. A huge farmboy, say, with a Might of 10, which gives him a +4 modifier to delivering damage but not his ability to strike someone, shouldn't be in the same class as a warrior with a melee arms skill of 4 - approaching mastery level. In Epic RPG, the warrior has a very large advantage with regard to his ability to connect strikes on the farmboy - as long as he doesn't take too many heavy-duty hits from Jethro, he should be just fine.

Regarding Agility: it does indeed modify combat, but in much the same way that Build or Might do - they grant a large raw advantage, especially to early, unskilled characters, which balances out to a smaller advantage over time as characters become more skilled.

Agility directly modifies two things:

1. The combat movement of a character, which hugely impacts tactical play, as it allows a more agile combatant to control the tempo of the engagement, the range at which the two combatants engage, and even whether or not they go into hand-to-hand at all.

2. Athletics skill is also directly modified by Agility, offering some swash and buckle to characters that wish to use it in combat for acrobatics and the like.

One of my favorite characters was a stripped down speed-freak with low armor, a stabbing spear (read, long range) and a small shield. He had a very high agility, and a correspondingly high combat move and athletics. He was not sturdy, but it was very difficult to close with him as he moved in, tapped you from a ways away, and then moved back out of his opponents' range. Sort of like the Red Viper of Dorn in Martin's Storm of Swords, if you've read those books.

Anyway, the advantages of high Build and Might are also more about raw ability (to absorb or deliver extra damage, for example). The actual ability to strike someone - sussing an opponent out, combinations, discovering weaknesses in defense, etc. - we do indeed leave to the more refined skills of melee arms, ranged arms and military arts.

Which leads me to:

Intuition and Will: These two attributes (and all the mental attributes in Epic RPG) do not directly modify combat skills in tactical play. They modify the character's ability to learn the skill that they govern. (Indeed, in Epic RPG, will governs melee arms and intuition governs ranged arms.)

For example, a player with a high will will be much more able to apply the lessons of experience necessary to grow in the melee arms skill, due in great part to her ability to stay in there and focus when pieces of leveraged metal come flying toward her head. It's correspondingly much more difficult for a character with a low will to learn melee arms, as he won't have the intestinal fortitude to accept the realities, focus and body sacrifice that a successful warrior needs.

Mechanically, this is accomplished by the character with a high will needing to spend much fewer experience to advance in melee arms skill than the one with a low will attribute.

We refer to this paradigm as Talent; it models the phenomenon that some people are just better at grokking statistics or carpentry or spatial relations or cooking (I have a very low Talent there ) than others. You can learn math or kicking people or metaphysics if you don't have a natural aptitude for it, it just take a much longer time.

Hmmm... So does the system not reward characters with superior motor skills outside of combat maneuverability? For example, is the stereotypical dextrous elven archer out of luck?