King Arthur Pendragon RPG

[aramis erak]

I adore the system but I'm not all that interested in actually playing it.
For me the big 'problem' is that I prefer Ars Magica which can fill a similar niche but is way more flexible.

I like both of them... but AM is all about the wizards, in very much the same way that Pendragon is all about the knights.

They're not the same niche... but both are excellent.

 

[Jhaelen]

I like both of them... but AM is all about the wizards, in very much the same way that Pendragon is all about the knights.

They're not the same niche... but both are excellent.

Well, the thing is, and what I was trying to get at, is that Ars Magica doesn't _have_ to be all about the wizards.
When we played our saga, our group had fully adopted the troupe-playstyle, so every player had two main characters, a magus and a companion, and a couple of grogs (although the latter were more or less shared by the players).
We also had rotating storytellers, each focusing on a different aspect of the campaign. And since two players had knights as companion characters, we had quite a few sessions of stories that focused on them. In fact one of the players had designed his Magus as a Verditius that was more or less a court mage for his knight character, working in the background to enchant his equipment, and not really doing much else.

If you have the 'Lords of Men' supplement for Ars Magica 5th edition, you almost have everything you need for a campaign focused on chivalry.
Likewise you could play a campaign focused on the Church, or on Merchant Houses, or on the Supernatural, e.g. Faerie Courts.

So, comparing this to Pendragon, I'm not sure if the reverse would work as well: While Pendragon has some rules for playing Magus-type characters, I'm not sure if it would work to make them the focus of a campaign. I might be wrong, though, since I never bought as many supplements for it as I did for Ars Magica. But I had the impression it was pretty much expected that evrey campaign focused on the knights.

What I like about both games is that they have a scope that goes beyond a group of characters. Both have great downtime systems. In Pendragon, you care about raising a family to continue your legacy, and in Ars Magica, there's the Convenant where most of the characters live, that remains a constant as generations of Magi and their companions come and go.

 

[aramis erak]

So, comparing this to Pendragon, I'm not sure if the reverse would work as well: While Pendragon has some rules for playing Magus-type characters, I'm not sure if it would work to make them the focus of a campaign. I might be wrong, though, since I never bought as many supplements for it as I did for Ars Magica. But I had the impression it was pretty much expected that evrey campaign focused on the knights.

If one has 4E, one has a system that can easily support a full magical party. But realize that spellcasting in KAP4 is SLOW... A single spell can result in a month or more of sleep owed. And when you get two spellcasters, or more, it really does focus on them more than the knights - the knights are nearly interchangeable, but the casters aren't.

think of it this way... When watching Excalibur - whose story is being told? Merlin's, Arthur's, or Lancelot's? Or Guinevere's? In many ways, it's more Merlin's story than Arthur's - for Arthur is his big project... and his big failure. The film is built to show Merlin's Failure. When you add spellcasters to KAP, that's what happens... but a lot less happens per year than in AM.

In AM, I never got into 4th or later, tho' I got the 4E core. And through 4E, it's mechanically highly focused upon the wizards. 75% of the book being about magic. I agree it has great tools for non-wizard characters, but it's not a spectacular shining jewel for non-wizards; it's a big ol' sapphire from hell for wizards.

 

[Brandegoris]

Here's hoping this doesn't get me in trouble...

1) Different starting attribute values by culture and gender
2) Different starting skill values by culture and gender
3) picking a religious affiliation is mandatory, and often not actually a choice. (It's determined by homeland). And it has significant mechanical effect.
3.1) Atheism and Agnosticism are NOT options in the list... but Evil is. (At least, in the GM section)
3.2) actively pursuing the religious believes provides STRONG mechanical benefits.
4) A number of terms used in the rules have offended non-playing observers in the past. Including witches, Warrior Maidens, Cymru/Cymri, Pagan, Wotanic, Pictish, and Evil. It uses them in historically appropriate ways. Greg is a historian and medieval lit scholar by training...
5) several published adventures have tests to avoid participation in post battle rape and/or pillage.

I've never had a problem with my players being upset, but I've had BIG issues with bystanders. And I've had potential players quit upon finding out about points 1, 2 and 3.

When Greg Stafford wrote the game he decided that his guiding influence would be the Literature so the game is consistent with the literature. He realizes that there are issues with females, but also there are several ways to create a character other than rolling randomly. You can design a character using points and make the female however you like.
Its a semi-historical game so at the end of the day you must blame HISTORY for the way women were treated as the game follows that to some degree.

I would discourage someone from saying its Politically Incorrect in a "BIG" way. That makes it seem as though the designer has set out to offend, and he wouldn't do that.
In Fact in the next Edition of KAP the designer has big plans to even the playing field for Female knights to make them More accessible at the expense of realism ( historical Realism I mean).

Religion: You roll where you are from and then you are told what the predominant religion is in that region, BUT you can choose a different religion or none at all. Choosing NONE would simply mean that you don't get a "religious Bonus" and the 5 Skills associated with your religion may be weak ( though not Necessarily).

It is certainly a game that doesn't appeal to everyone. It is HEAVILY influenced by Le'Morte D'Arthur. That is the problem with having a historically based game. I can certainly see why a Female gamer might not like to participate but I would be careful in how we express the game in negative terms. Greg Stafford doesn't set out in ANY way to offend , he just presents the game world in a very realistic way ( for the Dark Ages) and the Dark ages weren't very PC.
Side note: His wife Suzanne plays all the time and loves the game so it can be done! :OL

I do respect your opinion however so please don't take ANY of this as some sort of reprimand.

 

[aramis erak]

[snip]

I do respect your opinion however so please don't take ANY of this as some sort of reprimand.

I'm not. I will note, however, that Greg's intent is utterly irrelevant to whether or not the resulting game is politically incorrect or not. And I know greg's intent wasn't to be PIC.

It's not like RaHoWa nor FATAL...

 

[Arnwolf666]

a

 

[S'mon]

he just presents the game world in a very realistic way ( for the Dark Ages) and the Dark ages weren't very PC.

Well the mores are high-Medieval Anglo-Norman, being derived from Mallory who wrote for a literate medieval-English audience, not Dark Ages Romano-British.

 

[aramis erak]

While Greg openly admited Mallory as the primary; having read Mallory and the Mabinogion, I see that there's at least as much Mabinogion and Nennius, and a heavy dose of the Prose Tristam. And Greg has openly referenced all of those in the rules.

He's also referenced White's Once and Future King (which is very far from Greg's rules) and M.Z. Bradley's Mists of Avalon.

KAP 3/4 and 5 are very much NOT dark ages - excepting if one uses the mods in Boy King! and Saxons!. It's really about 12-14th C. The chart in the back of Boy King equates phases to centuries, but the general tone is, overall, 12th to 14th. (AC Fox-Davies, once Garter King-of-Arms, puts personal heraldry at 12th century, and heritable 13th C... KAP assumes it exists almost throughout the standard phase 1-5 campaign.)

If one uses the pre-interregnum rules (Boy King, Saxons, Book of Uther), heraldry is suitably deephasized in the covered cultures...

True Dark Ages Pendragon is doable - eliminate the heraldry skill, make horsemanship rolls when you receive or inflict damage in excess of your size (no stirrups), and attacks from horse limited to lower of horsemanship or weapon skill... Also, reduce the pervasiveness of Christianity - most regions in 5th C Britain were mixed Pagan and Christian. Dump any points from heraldry into folklore. Restrict the price lists to phase 0 until about 575, then phase 1. Lance doesn't exist; it's spear.

 

[MGibster]

Pendragon really isn't a historical game though it certainly draws from history. At the beginning of the Great Pendragon Campaign you can expect characters to wear chain, carry kite shield, and there are no lances but by the time you get to the Battle of Camlann characters are wearing plate, may be armed with an arquebus, and there are cannons on the battlefield. It is not a game designed for the broadest possible audience as it was designed to emulate a fairly narrow interpretation of Arthurian legends.