Pendragon

[luke]

We're playing Pendragon at BWHQ.

First thing everyone asks is "What edition?!" Why is that so important? Anyway, we're playing 5th Edition.

Thor's running. The rest of us knuckleheads are being complete assholes, er, completely chivalrous.

Here are some thoughts I shared with the crew about the game:

I like Pendragon because it's challenging in a way that's different from both its contemporaries and Burning Wheel.

I think the issue of mortality is part of a larger aspect of the game: Your character is a pawn. In order to play Pendragon effectively, you must have some dispassion, some remove, between you and your character. You can't care too much about any one thing your character does because:

• the randomness of the resolution and the lack of resource management to influence an outcome. You can really only roll and hope (even when you invoke Passions).
• the personality traits. Through them you can lose momentary control of your character.
• the failure results for passions. Roll a 20 and you can lose control of your character for more than just a moment!
• the scope of the game -- the time scale, the mortality, the generations. Eventually you're going to lose your character. It's practically inevitable.

I think this is brilliant. I can see echoes Call of Cthulhu in this game -- the sanity mechanics are a prototype for Personality Traits -- but this game is much more sophisticated. It is better grounded in its source material than CoC and it is just better developed as a system.

However, from a few sessions of play, I think I can see the counterpoint to this dispassion. If you really care -- if you ardently apply your performances to the rigorous definition of particular personality traits -- you can advance and become a paragon of one particular virtue. But to do this, you must never slip. You must never be cowardly, never be reckless, never be lazy, etc. Because in the way that the advancement system works, if you play your opposite trait, you are nearly certain to lose an edge in your prime virtue. If you've got a 16 in one trait, but you have an advancement in the other side, you're rolling to advance against 4. So you're almost certain to lose your 16. Thus I think this all circles back to the performance part of the game. You must be extremely vigilant about your character's behavior. Never compromise!

This system is going to be frustrating to die-hard Burning Wheel players. We're used to caring a lot about our characters. In fact, we can even care a lot about a single roll. And we're used to being rewarded for playing into our character's personality. We're not used to being punished for going against it. Yet, I see Thor very lightly using techniques from Burning Wheel in his GMing set up to goad us into nuanced behavior. And this is already having a strong pull on our characters. We're used to compromise and change, but in this game our response should be the opposite. When the nuanced situation presents itself, we should turn aside and hold fast to our character's traits. I'm not saying that we should fail to engage, but we need to take care that we don't approach those dangers from the perspective of Burning Wheel. Because failure really fucking hurts in this game!

And for the record, I've enjoyed all of the combats we've played so far. I've found them harrowing. I was convinced that young Idres was going to perish in the river at the hands of a nameless Saxon. The tactical choices were limited (and frankly boring) but the decisions of when to use passions and the moments when our personality traits came into play were very exciting. The balance between damage, armor and hit points seems to be very solid. I can feel every blow, and certainly don't feel invulnerable, but still rather tough!

And I'm not even going to touch on glory here, which I think is a lot more subtle than it appears.

[zabieru]

Hmm... I'd never compared Pendragon's traits to BW before. I think the source material makes a big difference. In BW, it's very easy to say "Okay, my big thing is I just stone hate idolators. You got a crucifix on, you're lucky if I only rip it off and slam you to the ground." Or, like, "I never break my word. Sometimes I lie, but I never break a promise." Then we play the game, and through that we find out two things: Do you still believe that? And, what exceptions will you make?

In Arthuriana, we're dealing with these very archetypal characters. Arthur is justice, is the strong protecting the weak, is right kingship. Galahad is purity. Lancelot is martial virtue. But we're also talking about questing and striving. So, first, you don't get to just step up and say "Okay, that's it. I'm courage." You have to earn it. But also, we're not really interested in breaking you down. This isn't personal tragedy here. To the (quite large) extent that the Matter of Britain is a tragedy, it's not about Arthur failing to be right kingship, or Lancelot failing to be martial virtue. (I'd say it's about humans failing to live up to the promise of justice, but I'll admit that's likely to be personal.) (Also, there are some versions where it is about sewing the wind and reaping the whirlwind, like the one where Merlin tells Arthur his killer's birthday and Arthur goes all Herod but misses Baby Mordred. But I don't think that ever shows up in Pendragon, and it'd be really, really hard to make a game about that, so we'll skip it.)

So, if you want to be courage, you always have to be courage. There's no "Well, usually I'm courage and occasionally I'm not, but when I am, damn! Deeds time, because that shit counts!" (Well, there is, of course: Galahad was courageous like that, so was Gawain. But if you want to be courage like Galahad was pure, it's not an option). But by the same token, it's not about testing you to the breaking point. It is, explicitly, possible to live in Arthurian Britain and to be the most courageous man alive, indefinitely. In BW, I think that's a death sentence. There's no endgame: you'll either back down or you'll die fighting. There's no state of being-the-most-courageous that you can achieve and maintain. (I think those are both good, just different.)

[Totally Guy]

I played in a Pendragon session at a convention last summer.

I didn't really enjoy it but I think the GM might have been rather inexperienced. It later became clear that he was under pressure to give away a free PDF download of the game to one player per session as a roleplay reward. That added something new to be confused about.

We had to kill a spirit in a tunnel and once I'd been blown to the back of the group by a magical wind spell when the bishop from the town who had given us the quest showed up and gave me the Holy Bone. He told me that that only the Holy Bone could defeat the evil up front.

Anyway I killed the baddie with the Holy Bone and shouted out the name of my lord at the same time.

The GM said this was worth 2 glass beads for good roleplaying (the measure by which he was accumulating points to determine who would win the PDF download). I wasn't the "best roleplayer" at the table, not by a long shot. But this award broke a 3 way tie at the table and put me in the lead.

I also remember; a church scene where we were rolling to pay attention, an argument about whether Pendragon had social conflict mechanics or not, and a joust with a knight who turned out to be a ghost wearing armour.

[luke]

Devin-
Right, there are similarities, but there is also this core difference to the quality of the challenge.
BW Guiding Light Belief: I must never show cowardice in the face of danger; I must face every danger with bravery.
Pendragon: Valor 16/Cowardly 4.

The situation can even be the same in both games: The GM throws some monsters of increasing difficulty at you (perhaps one with Aura of Fear if he really loves you), but he also provides you the opportunity to sneak into your enemy's bed chambers and knife him in his sleep.

In Burning Wheel: Each interaction in which you step up, gains you a fate point. The incident in the bed chamber could net you a fate point for playing or a persona point for going against. Either way, even if you break the Belief, you can remain brave and valorous (though continued play against type will net you a trait in the end).

In Pendragon: Your manor is on fire, but there's a monster to fight in the forest. Hell, maybe he caused the fire. My manor! Money! Glory! Wife! Agh. Must save manor. We'll get the monster later, right?! Nuh uh. GM calls for a test against Valor. If you succeed, you're going to fight the monster. Walking past your enemy's bed chambers, you see the door is ajar. He insulted you horribly at court and you were prevented from seeking satisfaction. Fuck it, you'll just knife him. Right? No one even knows you're still in the castle. Hell, you have an alibi. Not so fast, you have to test your Cowardly trait. If you pass, you do the deed. If you fail, you walk on. And if you pass, you're going to advance Cowardly at the expense of Valor.

That's the key bit there at the end. In Burning Wheel, if you play against type or fail, you're rewarded. In Pendragon, if you even THINK the wrong thoughts (and express them at the table), you could be forced invoke your traits and ultimately change your character by advancing a trait counterposed to your highest virtue. Thus in Pendragon, if you want your character to be a certain thing, you must pursue that trait with zeal and never stray from its warm embrace. How you perform at the table in Pendragon is supremely important. Performance in Burning Wheel is encouraged and rewarded, but it's not vital to the definition of your character.

It's worth mentioning that Beliefs plug directly into the reward system in BW and Personality Traits do not serve the same role in Pendragon. Personality Traits don't necessarily get you glory. Playing Beliefs gets you artha. Personality Traits dictate what type of action you can take. Beliefs encourage (and reward) you for acting in certain ways.

-L

PS Please don't parse out my example of using Personality Traits. I've only played a few sessions. I'm sure my definition of Valor and Cowardice don't match up with yours. But you understand what I'm trying to say.

[Thor]

In Arthuriana, we're dealing with these very archetypal characters. Arthur is justice, is the strong protecting the weak, is right kingship. Galahad is purity. Lancelot is martial virtue. But we're also talking about questing and striving. So, first, you don't get to just step up and say "Okay, that's it. I'm courage." You have to earn it. But also, we're not really interested in breaking you down. This isn't personal tragedy here. To the (quite large) extent that the Matter of Britain is a tragedy, it's not about Arthur failing to be right kingship, or Lancelot failing to be martial virtue. (I'd say it's about humans failing to live up to the promise of justice, but I'll admit that's likely to be personal.) (Also, there are some versions where it is about sewing the wind and reaping the whirlwind, like the one where Merlin tells Arthur his killer's birthday and Arthur goes all Herod but misses Baby Mordred. But I don't think that ever shows up in Pendragon, and it'd be really, really hard to make a game about that, so we'll skip it.)

Actually, the whole child murder thing is quite central. It's straight out of Malory, who makes it quite clear that it was Arthur, acting on his own, that orders the murder of all male children born on May 1 in the north. It was his response to a prophecy by Merlin that Arthur's sin of incest would undo all his works.

I won't comment on what happens in the campaign, except to say that Greg is pretty relentlessly faithful to Malory, while still leaving open interpretations based on other sources, like Chretien de Troyes.

So I would disagree that it isn't about personal tragedy and personal failings. It's pretty clear that Arthur's choices doom him and his works. Even wielding King David's sword, he is unable to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven because, messianic though he might be, he is still a mortal man.

These human failings destroy character after character in Le Morte d'Arthur. Arthur, Lancelot, Guenever, Merlin (who knows exactly the consequences of his human failings but still can't turn aside), etc. Gawaine is hemmed in by his ties of blood and loyalty to the point that his love for his friend Lancelot becomes hatred and blood vendetta, guiding him to plunge Arthur into war with Lancelot in France. And that act precipitates the end of Arthur's kingdom.

In Pendragon, you have to walk the knife's edge. If you want to be a pure, religious knight like Galahad or Percival, you have to get a bunch of traits (the exact ones depend on your religious orientation) to at least famous level (i.e., 16). That means you need to seek out opportunities to behave in those ways and you need to test and succeed. As Luke notes, it is very easy to fall away from that path. But if you don't test, you never advance those traits.

[luke]

But if you don't test, you never advance those traits.

I'm going to be pedantic here: I don't think that's true. I think you can get checks toward your Personality Traits simply by roleplaying. And I think you can advance one of them by spending some of your winter session resources.

-L

[Daniel H.]

I've never played Pendragon or even read a rulebook, but all of this is interesting to me. Can you guys give your impressions of the winter session stuff? I've heard estate management and whatnot is pretty extensive. Would transporting these rules into, say, Burning Wheel be possible?

[Thor]

I'm going to be pedantic here: I don't think that's true. I think you can get checks toward your Personality Traits simply by roleplaying. And I think you can advance one of them by spending some of your winter session resources.

-L

Yes, at my discretion as the GM, I am allowed to award you a check on a trait based on roleplay. It doesn't have to be the one you think it should be. And yes, you can choose to raise on or two traits by one point (if you invest both your raining and your Glory award) each Winter Phase. But a religious knight needs to raise 5 of his traits to famous level. You are highly unlikely to achieve that before your death if you take the slow and measured path. If you want to secure it, you need to test those traits and earn checks in them.

[luke]

Anything's possible, but you should just play Pendragon. It's much more rewarding than porting anything to BW.

Apparently, Mouse Guard owes a lot to Pendragon. I'd never read or played Pendragon before designing Mouse Guard. But Stafford, um, did it first -- way back in 1985.

[Daniel H.]

Cool. Really, what I want is to crossbreed D&D and Agricola to create a tabletop version of Rune Factory. Mouse Guard's seasons are an influence. We'll see anything ever comes of this.