Might just be kickstarter backers currently.I already have Prince Valiant in color. You guys dont?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Might just be kickstarter backers currently.I already have Prince Valiant in color. You guys dont?
I already have Prince Valiant in color. You guys dont?
Did you KS it? I only have it in PDF. [insert sad trumpet sound]
Also, this kinda sums up my feelings on the matter. Also, we owe him some of the best settings.Some of the best game systems and lines would not exist without Greg Stafford. A gaming Titan.
I think that (the final point) is the point though. Nobody has thought to make incremental changes to Pendragon, as they generally are done in most other games through multiple editions, because he got it so right at the first attempt.
We've got an ongoing thread here where someone is running Pendragon with Savage Worlds as the core system. It's even more common to find people who have converted it to a percentile version of BRP. You'll also people bristling at the passion rules tossing those out as well. And there were even people complaining at the time of 5th's release that the game had taken out the magic rules and looking to "fix" the game. People will house rule anything.Yes you could say that old school D&D players still play old editions of D&D, but I bet a whole bunch of them house rule it to bits. Certainly for me, Pendragon is one of the few 'old school' games where there has never been much temptation of houseruling at all.
They added things in the 4th, to provide more character options, but didn't change the underlying rules. Greg decided that the extra stuff was more worthy of supplements by the time of the 5th edition, and indeed wanted to reign in on the focus of the game, particularly with regards to The Great Pendragon Campaign.You are kind of ignoring 4th edition here, which added magic rules and more complex character generation and lost the focus of the game, drifting away from medieval Arthurian romance by putting out lots of books on various historical cultures. The purpose behind 5th edition was that Stafford felt he needed to step in an streamline things after 4th edition.
You can't account for people with pre-existing preferences wanting to adapt their favourite systems for everything.We've got an ongoing thread here where someone is running Pendragon with Savage Worlds as the core system. It's even more common to find people who have converted it to a percentile version of BRP. You'll also people bristling at the passion rules tossing those out as well. And there were even people complaining at the time of 5th's release that the game had taken out the magic rules and looking to "fix" the ga. People will house rule anything.
Good news! I found some more hairs we can split!
Good news! I found some more hairs we can split!
Where you chose to split hairs, I saw that.I know, I just saw your post about Pundit's Brand...
Where you chose to split hairs, I saw that.
Better splitting hairs than heirs.Good news! I found some more hairs we can split!
And you can't account for all the evidence of the Internet of people houseruling Pendragon, so you need to keep goalpost shifting.You can't account for people with pre-existing preferences wanting to adapt their favourite systems for everything.
The Kickstarter problem was under previous management. The current management kickstarted the Runequest Classic books, and recently just kickstarted this board game.Do you figure there is any chance of Chaosium reissuing Stafford's first game design, the boardgame set in Glorantha White Bear Red Moon which was later re-released as Dragon Pass? I think a KS for such a project would be pretty successful. Of course I think Chaosium are probably pretty gunshy of such projects after their past KS experiences.
Sorry to hear about your wife's troubles, but I've always liked the way you play the jester... not mean-spirited, just taking the hot air out of whatever topic/situation arises.Sorry I'm being more of an a-hole than usual today, I'm dealing with my wife's clinical depression while I have laryngitis and I'm not at my best.
Sorry I'm being more of an a-hole than usual today, I'm dealing with my wife's clinical depression while I have laryngitis and I'm not at my best.
What evidence? Where are the examples of this?And you can't account for all the evidence of the Internet of people houseruling Pendragon, so you need to keep goalpost shifting.
What evidence? Where are the examples of this?
You'll find both.And with these examples, are they houserules to adapt KAP towards different uses or because they find the rules flawed or inadequate.
Nope. I never argued that.I haven't shifted any goal posts. Are you arguing that KAP has changed it's rules in any significant way since 1st edition?
Who said it wasn't?I'm with T Trippy here. Regardless of internet evidence, it's clear Pendragon is among the most tight games ever designed, with little fat or incoherent parts. \
You omitted the important part: can you say the same about Shadowrun or AD&D ?Who said it wasn't?
I loves me some Pendragon, but are we really arguing whether a game that is up to edition 5.2 is perfect and has never been changed?
Seriously?
There is no perfect game, there’s only what YOU find perfect...at the time.
That was my argument, which you took issue with. So yes, you were arguing with that.Nope. I never argued that.
Fair enough, let me quote you again in full.You omitted the important part: can you say the same about Shadowrun or AD&D ?
My original point is that new editions rarely have anything do with flaws in a game. They are generally a business-driven decision. AD&D and Shadowrun enjoyed much larger popularity than Pendragon, even spawning video games. They are going to be rebooted and rebooted with shiny new editions forever. D&D and Shadowrun haven't had so many editions with major changes because they were flawed. They got them because they made a lot of money (by gaming standards) and in the business world, nothing needs fixing like something that is already working.I'm with T Trippy here. Regardless of internet evidence, it's clear Pendragon is among the most tight games ever designed, with little fat or incoherent parts. Contrast that with, say, AD&D or Shadowrun and it's easy to see that the later ones are much more prone to tinkering and houseruling.
I loves me some Pendragon, but are we really arguing whether a game that is up to edition 5.2 is perfect and has never been changed?
Seriously?
There is no perfect game, there’s only what YOU find perfect...at the time.
I'm not sure what would be considered a radical shift, in context, but in the case of CoC7E, the decision to make changes was largely driven by the expressed motivation of dealing with 'long standing problems' of the previous editions. Now, I don't personally accept that there were major problems with the rules of previous editions (neither did Sandy Peterson, going on some of his public responses) and I found some of the changes made to be heavy handed and a bit incongruous at times (without being so radical that they ever became entirely damning), but changes were made nevertheless.I have 5.2 and the original edition. They are essentially the same game.
But as Baulderstone says the real key to the few changes over the years is that Pendragon was the product of one man who never lost control of it. Chaosium has tended to not bother too much with messing with their systems in general, CoC was essentially the same game right up to 6e and 7e isn't nearly as radical a shift as many claim.
What was the controversy regarding Pendragon on it's release?
A good episode of Ken and Robin Talk About Stuff dedicated to Greg Stafford. It is touching to hear Laws choke up often throughout whenever he starts to talk about Stafford on a personal level.
In other words, entitled whining?Its Traits and Passions mechanics and requirement that you play knights and not wizards, etc. How dare he tell you how to RP. How dare he not allow players to play Merlin if they want.
I remember clearly the day he came to our table and slapped us around for attempting to play it any way we wanted, including disregarding traits and passions. I hate how game designers are given names and addresses of anyone who has a copy of their games so they can make sure we play them right.Its Traits and Passions mechanics and requirement that you play knights and not wizards, etc. How dare he tell you how to RP. How dare he not allow players to play Merlin if they want.
Its Traits and Passions mechanics and requirement that you play knights and not wizards, etc. How dare he tell you how to RP. How dare he not allow players to play Merlin if they want.
Funny that I didn't even know about the beef at the time. Maybe because I was too young for convention and not on usenet groups back then. I just went to the hobby shop and saw a King Arthur game and went home and played with my older brother and my friends.