bluegargantua (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bluegargantua) wrote2007-03-21 04:47 pm
bluegargantua) wrote2007-03-21 04:47 pm
Entry tags:
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
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
no subject
I'd sign up for this game.
no subject
no subject
I'll try and remember to bring it to Burning Empires this weekend.
later
Tom
no subject
It's of course not the end of the world if you forget. (I'LL JUST HAVE TO CRY.)
no subject
Several things...
2. Make clear that Camelot is NOT a silly place, and move on from there.
3. For a really interesting game, also have each player create a 'historian' whose job it is in various centuries to elaborate and further develop the Arthurian myth. Each historian can add details and verisimilitude to the quests or adventures of other characters, for better or worse.
and so on.
4. is not important, but...
5. The question of uber-NPCs is. On the other hand, six of these uber-NPCs are land-locked: that is, they are so tightly wound into their own stories that they need not interfere with your PCs stories at all. Lance is stuck pining for Gwen. Percival is stuck in the Welsh Marches for most of his career except at Christmas, Easter and Pentecost. Pellinore is out after the Questing Beast. Galahad is the Warden of the North, meaning Yorkshire but not Scotland. Tristam is either in Ireland or Cornwall, usually deep in Cornwall or Ireland at that.
6. Set some conventions or covenants:
A. The big stories happen offscreen/offstage, like violence in an ancient Greek play.
B. Four great flaws of Arthur's reign will find their way, one way or another into the PCs' stories (you could use the historians for this, in fact): (a) love triangles will split loyalties, (b) vengeance ultimately takes precedence over the good of the realm; (c) no man can serve two masters; and (d) children are weapons-- either broken or used.
C. During Arthur's rise, players get happy endings. During the height of Arthur's reign, players get bittersweet endings. During the Grail quest, players get costly endings. During the lead-up to the battle with Mordred, players get sorrowful endings.
I'm happy to talk to you about this at any time. Feel free to give a call this weekend or some such, after I get home from Florida tomorrow.
Re: Several things...
"3. For a really interesting game, also have each player create a 'historian' whose job it is in various centuries to elaborate and further develop the Arthurian myth. Each historian can add details and verisimilitude to the quests or adventures of other characters, for better or worse."
Ohhhh, a "historian". A bit like the Lexicon thing. Huh, interesting. Maybe give everyone a stash of "color" tokens to spend on stuff like that as the game goes round. I seem to recall Pendragon adventures being a bit "point-to-point" and I don't know how quickly they'd adapt to sudden new twists (I feel like I, as a GM, could roll with it, but the system might be cranky).
To get around the Uber-NPC thing, I just had a thought -- King Arthur was the King of England, but there were other "sub-Kings" right? I'm thinking King Lot here, but I'm sure there are a few other guys who basically had Kingdoms under Arthur.
So we could just say that all the PCs are all working for one of these sub-Kings (probably just make a new one up) and that's where their estates are and stuff. The sub-King will throw in with Uther and then with Arthur as soon as he shows up so the sub-King gets a lot of leeway within his borders. This means that the uber-NPCs are busy in Camelot (or wherever) and won't be a big deal for the PCs.
The PCs have a whole sub-Kingdom to play around in. The sub-Kingdom can mirror Camelot in many respects and give the PCs the chance to take on and put their own spin to various Arthurian tropes. Everyone still wants to make it to the Round Table, but in the sub-Kingdom, you can maneuver to become King. So there's lots of opportunities to carve out your own niche.
later
Tom
no subject