Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 1495034" data-attributes="member: 3820">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.</blockquote>

Verification