The Sword and the Stone

Hi,

So, I'm contemplating what I'd really like to run after I finish up with the Burning Empires game (which will probably finish up in May or so at the rate we've been going). There's a lot of exciting stuff in my vaults that would be fun to play with (Spirit of the Century, Agon, Hero's Banner, Esoterrorists, Rhialto-level Dying Earth) and a few things on the horizon that look really slick (Scion, Beasthunter)

But you know what's really gnawing away at me right now?

Pendragon

Specifically, the new 5th addition and its massive Campaign Book that basically uses the Arthur cycle as a scaffold to run a multi-generational game. There's just something really cool about the idea of gaming "the Matter of Britain". Of course, there are a couple of flies in the ointment:

1.) Monty Python and the Holy Grail may make Pendragon an impossible game to play "straight". It'll take a lot of harsh self-censoring to stop it from sliding off the bridge.

2.) It's going to be a bit of a haul. If one session covers one year of game time (and the way that Pendragon is set up, that's entirely possible), it's still an 80-year campaign book. Is the game really going to hold that kind of interest?

3.) Ultimate NPCs -- one of the other big questions is if you're a knight in King Arthur's kingdom, it doesn't matter how good you are, Arthur's got a dozen guys who could clean your clock with one arm tied behind their back. The Arthur cycle revolves around Lancelot and Percival and Tristam and the like. How do PCs compete? In some respects, this is the problem that Amber has, but it's compounded in the fact that people know (or can easily look up) the story of Arthur and you know where things are headed.

Do we just have the PCs tell the forgotten or overlooked stories that didn't make it into Arthur? Do we open up the opportunity for PCs to take the places of major NPC figures? Do we just break open the scaffold of the Arthur cycle and let the PCs push and pull things as they feel? If the Grail or the downfall of Camelot tales veer sharply away what does that mean for an Arthurian game?

4.) So, the 4th edition of Pendragon was pretty loose about character types. You could be a knight. You could be a knight from several different tradtions (up to and including Moors, Saxons, and Roman Legionary). You could be a wizard. You could be a female version of any of the above.

The 5th edition goes back to brass tacks: You can be a British knight. That's it. No other warrior traditions, no wizards, just a knight. They offer up a token female knight option but it's clearly not an expected play style. But I kinda feel like there's actually an opening for something kind of cool in that:

At game start, everyone makes two PCs -- a Knight and a Lady. The Arthurian cycle has always been a Romance, so part of that multi-generational thing is that your PCs each wind up marrying a another player's PC. I figure that while Ladies won't necessarily be out on the field of battle or fighting off Trolls, the points not spent on warrior arts will go straight into things that give them a solid edge during political events like Court and economic pursuits like estate management. I'd probably also allow Ladies to pick up magical skills since a fair number of women in Arthurian tales had some magical or magic-like abilities.

I think it'd be a real challenge, but I also think it'd produce some really interesting experiences. Especially if it could go into the long haul and reach the second or third generation. The game will take on a family drama as the PCs' families start to intermarry and their offspring come into conflict with each other.

later
Tom

The Sword and the Stone

Hi,

So, I'm contemplating what I'd really like to run after I finish up with the Burning Empires game (which will probably finish up in May or so at the rate we've been going). There's a lot of exciting stuff in my vaults that would be fun to play with (Spirit of the Century, Agon, Hero's Banner, Esoterrorists, Rhialto-level Dying Earth) and a few things on the horizon that look really slick (Scion, Beasthunter)

But you know what's really gnawing away at me right now?

Pendragon

Specifically, the new 5th addition and its massive Campaign Book that basically uses the Arthur cycle as a scaffold to run a multi-generational game. There's just something really cool about the idea of gaming "the Matter of Britain". Of course, there are a couple of flies in the ointment:

1.) Monty Python and the Holy Grail may make Pendragon an impossible game to play "straight". It'll take a lot of harsh self-censoring to stop it from sliding off the bridge.

2.) It's going to be a bit of a haul. If one session covers one year of game time (and the way that Pendragon is set up, that's entirely possible), it's still an 80-year campaign book. Is the game really going to hold that kind of interest?

3.) Ultimate NPCs -- one of the other big questions is if you're a knight in King Arthur's kingdom, it doesn't matter how good you are, Arthur's got a dozen guys who could clean your clock with one arm tied behind their back. The Arthur cycle revolves around Lancelot and Percival and Tristam and the like. How do PCs compete? In some respects, this is the problem that Amber has, but it's compounded in the fact that people know (or can easily look up) the story of Arthur and you know where things are headed.

Do we just have the PCs tell the forgotten or overlooked stories that didn't make it into Arthur? Do we open up the opportunity for PCs to take the places of major NPC figures? Do we just break open the scaffold of the Arthur cycle and let the PCs push and pull things as they feel? If the Grail or the downfall of Camelot tales veer sharply away what does that mean for an Arthurian game?

4.) So, the 4th edition of Pendragon was pretty loose about character types. You could be a knight. You could be a knight from several different tradtions (up to and including Moors, Saxons, and Roman Legionary). You could be a wizard. You could be a female version of any of the above.

The 5th edition goes back to brass tacks: You can be a British knight. That's it. No other warrior traditions, no wizards, just a knight. They offer up a token female knight option but it's clearly not an expected play style. But I kinda feel like there's actually an opening for something kind of cool in that:

At game start, everyone makes two PCs -- a Knight and a Lady. The Arthurian cycle has always been a Romance, so part of that multi-generational thing is that your PCs each wind up marrying a another player's PC. I figure that while Ladies won't necessarily be out on the field of battle or fighting off Trolls, the points not spent on warrior arts will go straight into things that give them a solid edge during political events like Court and economic pursuits like estate management. I'd probably also allow Ladies to pick up magical skills since a fair number of women in Arthurian tales had some magical or magic-like abilities.

I think it'd be a real challenge, but I also think it'd produce some really interesting experiences. Especially if it could go into the long haul and reach the second or third generation. The game will take on a family drama as the PCs' families start to intermarry and their offspring come into conflict with each other.

later
Tom