[net.games.frp] Pendragon

barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (06/06/85)

Cheer up, Nigel, there's still room for your game.  Pendragon is rather
flawed.  Some of the problems:

1.  No magic rules whatsoever.  Magic is exclusively the right of the
    faeries (read NPCs).  What's worse, we're not told much about the
    faeries, so you're totally in the hands of the GM, who is given very
    little help by the rules in this matter.  Just one piece of data about
    the faeries seems applicable:  they can't touch iron.  Hmm, that would
    seem to rule out magic sworms like Excalibur.

2.  The culture is an uneasy mingling of Norman English feudalism (tinged
    with continental feudalism:  e.g. the Church is dominated by the papal
    bureaucracy uninfluenced by king; the kingdom belongs to the king
    uninfluenced y traditions of rebellious barons) -- and Roman England.
    A number of things have fallen through the cracks.  For instance, there's
    a detailed discussion of Heraldry--but no mention of blank shields,
    a detailed discussion of Courtly Love but no mention of wearing a
    lady's favor in a tournament (aside from a queen's).

3.  The Wotanist religion is portrayed as impious and atheistic.  The
    Teutonic gods (no goddesses need apply) are ovrsimplified to the
    point of grostesqueness.  (The true worship of a Wotanist is not to
    pray to his god but to boast to him (?!).) // The Druid religion is
    similarly oversimplified.  Druids have no nature or bardic lore.  //
    The Christian religion with its papal bureaucracy has no saints.
    Or holy hermits.

In short, I don't think I could use Pendragon to mock up most of the
Arthurian tales.

--Lee Gold

okamoto@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Doctor Who) (12/14/85)

In article <159@birtch.UUCP>, oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
> 
> In short, the game is yet another variant of RQ. The problem with the
> game is its limited time scope and... its realism!

First comment.  Pendragon is not JUST another variant of RQ.  The
personality traits are definitely something new.  There is no
percentile-based system like RQ, and combat is definitely different.

> 
> Time frame is the most restrictive I've encuntered since Salem Witch
> Hunt. You have on the order of a century, with things happening as
> they did in King Arthur mythos.Then again, if your character sets out
> at the age of 18-19, dies around 35 ( if you are THAT good and THAT
> lucky!) you have at least 5 characters to go through....
> 

Next comment.  If you play one game a week and at an average of, say,
2 years per game, then you have a one year campaign.  However, it
doesn't say anywhere that you have to follow the Arthurian timeline
to the letter.  Oh sure, you should keep the MAJOR events intact,
like the Battle of Camlann, or Guenever's kidnapping (it happens
3 times in all of the books!), but who knows when Gawaine (or a PC)
meets the Green Knight?  And as far as having only 6 characters or so,
what about said knight's children?  There's nothing to stop you playing
the two of them co-terminously.

>
> Realism is one of the major strives of the RQ-based systems. Internal
> logic and concistency are one of the main advantages (and
> DISadvatages) of this game (and most other Chaosium games). If your
> forte is killing dragons and giants and heal all wounds overnight
> (or, by spell, in 1 round ) stick to  D&D. In this game a broken leg
> will take you out ofcirculation for 3-4 weeks of gametime.
> 

Why is reality a disadvantage?  Oh sure it can be taken to great
excess, but if reality can be put into the game without greatly
or not-so-greatly disturbing balance, put it in!  As for being out
for 3-4 weeks, first, if you're with other PC's, it's likely that
they need 3-4 (or more) weeks.  So you have company in your misery.
If you should be the unlucky one, I would certainly let you heal
before the all of you went adventuring again (unless you made a
Generous roll and let them go :-).

>
> Same happens with magic. Just think of what kind of magic was used in
> Round Table stories. Uh-huh! Merlin, Morgan le Fay (sp?), and few
> other NPCs is all the magic you'll see. 
> 

While it's true that most players will never do any magic (unless
you're playing a woman with the gift of potion-making), this is
realistic.  Knights didn't get involved with magic on that personal
a level.  Since there will be no PC magicians, when explaining
the magic of Merlin, Morgan, Nimue, Vivian, etc, ad nauseum, just
explain it as the characters see it ("There is a great flash of
light and puff of smoke which blinds your eyes and stings your noses.
When your eyes clear, Merlin is standing before you, crotchety as
ever." rather than "Merlin Teleports right in front of you.")

>
> SUMMARY: A good game. Needs a REALLY GOOD Game Master who KNOWS the
> period and its mythos, and understands the inner logic of the system.
> Requires SERIOUS players. Seems to be a lot of fun when those
> conditions are satisfied. NOT a HEROIC fantasy, just FANTASY HEROES.
>

I agree that Pendragon needs a good GM.  As for players, I think that
they just have to want to play.  Stupid knights get killed quickly.

Look for the next Pendragon supplement, "The Nobles Book" to come out
in early (say March?) 1986, in which those PC's who have advanced to
become barons, earls, and dukes can now run their own fiefs, build
castles, lay and defend against sieges, etc.  Following this, look
for "Arthur, the Boy King", a collection of scenarios during Phase 2
of Arthur's reign.

The New Number Who,	okamoto@BERKELEY.EDU
Jeff Okamoto		..!ucbvax!okamoto