Old Fezziwig
hell yes bro
I think there should be space for Greg Stafford for Pendragon alone.
Vincent Baker on narrativist RPGing, then and now
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
Ahem . . . perhaps you meant Prince Valiant?
Old Fezziwig
hell yes bro
Prince Valiant intrigues me, but I've not had a chance to play it yet -- missed the reprint crowdfunding and the prices on Noble Knight are prohibitively expensive (also, if I'm going to spend that money on a game, it'll be The Riddle of Steel). Also, I just adore Pendragon.
I think I'm the odd one out - not just between us, but across the whole RPGing community - in ranking Prince Valiant above Pendragon. But I am (reasonably) serious about it.
And as I continue to cultivate my interest in Mythic Bastionland, I think the likelihood of me ever spending time with Pendragon gets smaller and smaller.
I don't know if you've ever read this from Edwards, comparing Pendragon and Wuthering Heights <The Forge :: Wuthering Heights>:
It took me a bit to realize that the behavior-system is the same as the more familiar opposed-trait method from Pendragon, but I think that Wuthering Heights' version is more easily understood and more elegant, mathematically. Here's the idea.
Think of an opposed pair of behavioral categories, with a probabilistic range of numbers in between. Think of a "sliding toggle" that rates, based on its position, how much of the range on each side is represented or governed by each category. On each side, under each category, is a long list of possible player-character actions.
In Pendragon, you might have "Mercy" on one side and "Cruelty" on the other, each rated at 1-20, with the total always being 20. If you do something cruel or merciful, you receive a "check" on that side of the dichotomy, and between sessions, checks warrant a roll to see whether you lose a point on one side and gain a point on the other (as appropriate to the action). The more of the 20-point range you have on one side, the easier it is to keep racking it up.
In Wuthering Heights, it's the "toggle" that's named ("Rage") and numbered, not the sides, so you have one number to roll over or under on one range, not two to roll separately on interacting ranges. If you were to translate Rage in Wuthering Heights into Pendragon terms, you'd have Violence and Apathy on each side.
Aside from the frequency of instances (in WH, these rolls come a mile a minute), the math works out pretty much the same as in Pendragon and is easier for people to understand, based on the roll under-or-over thing method. And in WH, it is the ONLY resolution system for actions, not an add-on as in Pendragon and Unknown Armies.
Pendragon aficionados are familiar as well with the required "check," meaning that the GM may call for a test of one of the sides, the results of which dictate a response. This is equivalent in spirit to the Wuthering Heights effect of gaining/losing a lot, which also results in a required response. So we see a very similar mix of dice-dictated actions DERIVED from the scale, as well as player-voluntary actions that AFFECT the scale.
I think that the idea behind Wuthering Heights' resolution method should be developed and applied to a lot of RPGs, including those of more serious intent and content. It's tremendously easy to understand and apply, and it offers a good mix of "what the dice say" and player control. I see it as a perfect blend of Ghost Light (using the emotions AS the resolvers, letting the physical side of things simply reflect the emotional side) and Pendragon (shifting values and within-character conflicts, as reflected by time and events).
[In passing, I tip the hat to Call of Cthulhu, for introducing personality mechanics to role-playing games, and to Unknown Armies and Fading Suns, both of which provide methods evolved from Cthulhu and Pendragon. All of these represent a "family" of personality mechanics, which may be compared to the adjective-driven "family" begun by Champions and continued through most RPGs since then, like Vampire, L5R, and many others.]
Think of an opposed pair of behavioral categories, with a probabilistic range of numbers in between. Think of a "sliding toggle" that rates, based on its position, how much of the range on each side is represented or governed by each category. On each side, under each category, is a long list of possible player-character actions.
In Pendragon, you might have "Mercy" on one side and "Cruelty" on the other, each rated at 1-20, with the total always being 20. If you do something cruel or merciful, you receive a "check" on that side of the dichotomy, and between sessions, checks warrant a roll to see whether you lose a point on one side and gain a point on the other (as appropriate to the action). The more of the 20-point range you have on one side, the easier it is to keep racking it up.
In Wuthering Heights, it's the "toggle" that's named ("Rage") and numbered, not the sides, so you have one number to roll over or under on one range, not two to roll separately on interacting ranges. If you were to translate Rage in Wuthering Heights into Pendragon terms, you'd have Violence and Apathy on each side.
Aside from the frequency of instances (in WH, these rolls come a mile a minute), the math works out pretty much the same as in Pendragon and is easier for people to understand, based on the roll under-or-over thing method. And in WH, it is the ONLY resolution system for actions, not an add-on as in Pendragon and Unknown Armies.
Pendragon aficionados are familiar as well with the required "check," meaning that the GM may call for a test of one of the sides, the results of which dictate a response. This is equivalent in spirit to the Wuthering Heights effect of gaining/losing a lot, which also results in a required response. So we see a very similar mix of dice-dictated actions DERIVED from the scale, as well as player-voluntary actions that AFFECT the scale.
I think that the idea behind Wuthering Heights' resolution method should be developed and applied to a lot of RPGs, including those of more serious intent and content. It's tremendously easy to understand and apply, and it offers a good mix of "what the dice say" and player control. I see it as a perfect blend of Ghost Light (using the emotions AS the resolvers, letting the physical side of things simply reflect the emotional side) and Pendragon (shifting values and within-character conflicts, as reflected by time and events).
[In passing, I tip the hat to Call of Cthulhu, for introducing personality mechanics to role-playing games, and to Unknown Armies and Fading Suns, both of which provide methods evolved from Cthulhu and Pendragon. All of these represent a "family" of personality mechanics, which may be compared to the adjective-driven "family" begun by Champions and continued through most RPGs since then, like Vampire, L5R, and many others.]
None of this contradicts the attribution of revolutionary to Greg Stafford.
I think his most influential work, certainly. Most interesting? I’m not sure. I’m not entirely certain he’d consider Under Hollow Hills to be narrarivist, and it does something way more interesting - creating a game that shatters the chains of centering play in conflict while still introducing uncertainty and unexpected outcomes. The Bakers capsule games are incredible feats of design you can grab a book and a couple random strangers and get an amazing narrative out of.
In many ways, AW is far more conventional in stories it tells and conversational structure then those.
I guess, having just gone in to bat for Prince Valiant over Pendragon, that I can hardly quibble with someone else taking a position at odds with the received wisdom . . .
I think that somebody can do a seminal work in a field that changes things, and then continue to push forward in new directions and pursuing new interests that can be even more interesting in their own ways. We just said that above WRT DITV and AW.
(This is without getting into my opinion that AW starts the design conversion which results in the FITD ecosystem which has IMO generally resulted in something that works better for most tables thanks to its structure)
(This is without getting into my opinion that AW starts the design conversion which results in the FITD ecosystem which has IMO generally resulted in something that works better for most tables thanks to its structure)
Old Fezziwig
hell yes bro
I feel like there are other games I'd play before Pendragon, despite my love for it. But there's a 1e Pendragon game in me somewhere, if I have time (though I agree with Edwards about the Wuthering Heights mechanics being more elegant than Pendragon's -- I've found them a little clunky in play, though I haven't played enough to know if that was the GM or the game). And it's possible that I'd share your estimation for Prince Valiant if I read and played it. I've certainly enjoyed your write-ups of the games.
Enaknomolos
Explorer
Not entirely alone. I agree. I think 1e Pendragon is brilliant, but Prince Valiant still feels ahead of most 'cutting edge' game design even in 2026.
Similar Threads
Enchanted Trinkets Complete
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
December 9 2025 -
June 18 2026 -
October 1 2026
