Relics & Rituals: Excalibur -- Any thoughts?

[Psion]

I just got this book last night (along with the XPH... finally)

At first glance, it's really nice.

What it is not: Pendragon d20. It doesn't try to do any great fundamental retooling of the d20 system. What it does do is present game options and rules add-ons (in this case, an honor system) along with campaign suggestions for running a more Arthurian folklore feel d20 fantasy game.

When they said, Relics & Rituals, they meant, Relics & Rituals. It is pretty close to earlier S&SS books in style and approach. Mainly Relics & Rituals, but I can see a little Ravenloft d20 - like approach to races (i.e., they recast some d20 races to be more appropriate to the setting, much like Ravenloft did.)

Only one new core class, the Knight, and they don't go crazy with the class abilities. For most other things, they rely on prestige classes to do the work to give you a feel like various figures in Arthurian folklore and related literature. (Thank goodness they don't seem to be intimidated by the PrC whiners out there like some recent books seem to be. I think the classes are great, a perfect fit, and new magical core classes would have been too much.)

The honor system is similar to the points-for-actions sorts of systems you have seen in prior games. Feats tie right into that, with honor being used as a prerequisite or in other ways (frex, one feat gives you a choice of benefits if an opponent is acting dishonorable.)

There are new creatures from Arthurian stories, and most of them are a new creature type, the manifestation.

 

[Talmun]

I flipped through this at my FLGS. Overall, I thought it looked interesting, I did have one major gripe: No NPC stats, period.

I realize it's a 'Relics and Rituals' book, but still...how can you have an Arthurian book with no Arthur? or Merlin? or anyone else?

 

[Epametheus]

I flipped through this at my FLGS. Overall, I thought it looked interesting, I did have one major gripe: No NPC stats, period.

I realize it's a 'Relics and Rituals' book, but still...how can you have an Arthurian book with no Arthur? or Merlin? or anyone else?

If you stat them, the party can kill them.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

If you stat them, the party can kill them.

Yeah, but in an Arthurian setting that's not always a bad thing.

 

[Talmun]

If you stat them, the party can kill them.

No offence, but I've always hated this reasoning. Especially now, in 3.X when monsters are handled so much like PCs, it seems patently unfair to say "You can't attack Arthur, I don't care if you are 30th level, he's untouchable..."
If you want your NPCs not to be killed by the party members, fashion the story or the situation so that the party doesn't want too.

In addition to that, what if I want my players to fight and kill someone, say Mordred?

 

[Macbeth]

Hmmm. This really does sound interesting. Are you going to write up a formal review? At first this product really had no allure to me, but now it sounds much more interesting. I'd like to hear more.

 

[Barastrondo]

I flipped through this at my FLGS. Overall, I thought it looked interesting, I did have one major gripe: No NPC stats, period.

I realize it's a 'Relics and Rituals' book, but still...how can you have an Arthurian book with no Arthur? or Merlin? or anyone else?

Because we don't presume that Arthur or Merlin... hold up, rewind.

Because we don't presume that the High King, the Court Wizard, the Most Valiant Knight, the Purest Knight, or any of the other archetypes you favor are NPCs. Maybe they're PCs. Maybe you want to run a high-level game where one of the PCs is the High King, another is the Court Wizard (perhaps a tiefling or half-fiend) who advises him, a third is the Champion of the Realm, and so on.

Or maybe in this version of your game, the High King is a daoine sidhe, not a human. Maybe he's even a dwarf, and the "Camelot" (or Karak Kamelot, or whatever) is a wonder of architecture with great halls and mighty parapets that humans can only envy.

Maybe you want to set your game during the perilous times when the Realm is just being formed and unification is a real struggle (lower-level Arthur), or maybe you prefer the crumbling, tragic state just before the fall of Camelot (higher-level Arthur).

We strictly avoided the idea of setting down the characters out of legend because we didn't want to define the setting in such a way that it limited the player characters' options — or, in fact, that it limited the ability to tweak the setting better to your tastes. The way the book is designed, the default settings are not 100% accurate to myth; they're meant to be a mix of myth-accurate and familiar D&D tropes. Because of that design decision, it would be nightmarish to try coming up with a "definitive" Arthur — since he wouldn't be true to the original "no elves, no dwarves" legends, the best we could do is "our" Arthur; and honestly, I doubt "our" Arthur would be nearly as cool in the reader's mind as the reader's idea of Arthur.

It was our decision that the space in the book could be better used on stuff that helps provide more options. Statting out NPCs actually provides fewer options, as it sets more elements of the world in stone — for instance, if Merlin is a half-fiend (as appropriate to his origin story), that rules out a tiefling, human, elven or other sort of Merlin. And the more space given to NPC stat blocks (say, low-level human Arthur, high-level human Arthur, and mid-level dwarf Arthur), the less space for stuff that players can use. Even the artifacts of the setting have some wiggle room — the Sword in the Stone can be used for a variety of things, not just determining the Rightwise King of England. (The forthcoming Relics & Rituals: Olympus uses the same design principle; we don't stat out Jason and Heracles and Theseus, because it may be the PCs chasing the Fleece, accomplishing twelve labors and gutting the Minotaur in its labyrinth.)

It's an unusual design philosophy, sure; and one aimed at the more casual enthusiast. But that's part of why I think R&R: Excalibur is a product has a lot to offer for its own take on Arthurian gaming; it's a take on using the legend in games that just hasn't (to my knowledge) been seen before.

And I appreciate you mentioning that very thing, Psion (to say nothing of the kind words!). I don't really want people to pick up the book with the wrong set of expectations; but I really hope that people who decide this particular approach sounds kind of cool will give it a try.

But, of course, I would say that.

 

[Derulbaskul]

Personally, I never want major NPCs statted in game books. If they're going to be used in the game, I will stat them up.

Thanks for the review, Psion. I had a quick look at this at my FLGS last week and thought it looked interesting but, due to previous bad experiences with S&SS products, I thought I would wait for a few reviews before purchasing it.

 

[Olive]

Barastrondo, I like it! It makes sense, and as long as there are tools to stat the major NPCs as the DM envisages, then that's great.

I just looked at the preview PDF and it looks pretty interesting. Not sure if I'll get it, but if my campaign ends, this might be the new one? We'll see. Certainly, I'm interested in the fey/fae aspects of the book.

 

[Silveras]

I have had my copy for a couple of weeks now, and I like the approach. R&R:Excalibur is more a toolkit for running an Arthurian setting with D&D, or for adding Arthurian elements to a regular D&D game.

While other recent settings books are based on more solid history (Testament, Medieval Players Manual, etc.), this is based more on the "romances" of the middle ages (i.e., the fantasy novels of the times). The others are trying to be somewhat accurate to history - for them, presenting the NPCs statted out is more necessary (though still not absolutely required).

R&R:Excalibur is less a setting book than a "setting framework" book, in that sense. It merges the mythic elements with the D&D rules, but stops short of presenting a single vision in a ready-to-run scene.