[RPG]: King Arthur Pendragon (5th edition), reviewed by Mikeythorn (4/5)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12018.phtml

Mike Thorn's Summary:

A \"genera\" game which focuses on one particular setting and does so exceptionally well. Arthurian Britain comes to life thanks to an elegant system emphasising character development.

Go to the full review for more information.

[buzz]

Mikeythorn, this review was a joy to read. Even though I thought there could have been more info about mechanics (I wanted to know more about combat and such), you did a very good job of presenting the feel of the game and its overall goals. Kudos!

[MysteryOfOse]

Mike, I think this review does an excellent job of painting a very clear picture of what this game is about. I've been meaning to pick this one up for a little while now, now that I actually have a group of players who would find this style of play interesting. I think I'm moving Pendragon up to the 'very next game to buy' position on my list.

[Bob the Fighter]

Definitely a good job for your first attempt.

Heck, a good job for a seasoned reviewer! Excellent! You definitely captured a strong sense of the game. Although it was slightly disappointing to not hear much about the skill system, in hindsight I see that as leaving the necessary blank space to get us jazzed up about the game without knowing every little thing about it.

I suppose one irksome point would be: is the passion/virtue system the only rules system I need to know to play? I'm assuming it's not, what with the risks involved in "checking" a virtue or passion to score a modifier; does the skill system correspond to the virtue rules? As in, roll (rating) or lower on d20; rolling exactly (rating) means a critical success? Are there pages of rules on armor and weapons and things?

But overall, you did a great job discussing the game's pride and joy, the thing that I've heard mentioned time and again in the context of what sets <i>Pendragon</i> apart.

[Mikeythorn]

Originally Posted by buzz

Mikeythorn, this review was a joy to read. Even though I thought there could have been more info about mechanics (I wanted to know more about combat and such), you did a very good job of presenting the feel of the game and its overall goals. Kudos!

Thanks for the kind words Buzz and Bob (and to you too MysteryOfOse while I am at it).

Most rolls are based on a d20 roll versus a particular skill or attribute. A roll under the target is a success, a roll over is a fail and rolling the target exactly is a critical.

Combat is based on an opposed resolution mechanic where both players roll theirs d20s simultaneously. If both players roll under their skill (ie succeed) then the one who rolled highest strikes the other. If both fail then both miss. If one criticals (ie rolls his or her skill exactly) then that players succeeds and does double damage. Swords are the most common weapons, but there are a range of others available and these have different effects - a flail reduces the effect of chainmail for example while a man on foot using a halberd negates the bonus a mounted opponent usually receives.

If a player is fighting multiple opponents he or she can choose to split the skill between opponents. Ie split a skill of 15 into a skill of 10 against one opponent and 5 against another.

Modifiers for wearing armour and for height mean that armoured men on horseback have a huge advantage over those without armour and/or on foot. Knights - as appropriate to the setting - are the tanks of the game.

Mass combat is much more complex and I don't think I have enough time to explain it! Leaders use a "battle" skill to gain a tactical advantage and this, the conditions of the field of combat and the current state of the battle impacts on rolls made by unit commanders and all this filters down to individual knights (rolls at the unit commander and individual level are only made if the unit involves PCs and then only for the PCs themselves). For PCs battles can be absolutely lethal, but they can also result in huge amounts of Glory (and booty). There are also a number of other aspects - for example PCs may become seperated from their units (big trouble!) and may have a chance to fight through bodyguards to reach an enemy hero or leader.

[Dan Davenport]

Great job, Mikeythorn! I definitely agree that you did an excellent job for a first attempt -- so much so that I wouldn't have known it was your first try if you hadn't mentioned it.

I'd just throw in a couple of comments about the mechanics: one positive, one negative.

First, the negative: as in its "parent" system, BRP, attributes and skills are almost totally disconnected.

Second, the positive: the system allows for attribute and skill scores higher than 20 by treating every point above 20 as a bonus to the roll; i.e., if your skill is 21, you add 1 to your die roll. The maximum roll is still 20, but every point above 20 increases the likelihood of a critical success and eliminates the chance of a fumble.

[Hogscape]

I wanted to be the first to congratulate you on this excellent review but it seems a whole bunch of people have beaten me to it!

Extremely well written and really got me interested in the new edition (I have previous editions). Two questions:

1. What gives with the terrible cover picture?
2. 50% of my players are female. In previous editions there hasn't been too much for a female character to do. Has that changed in the 5th edition?

Many thanks

[Mikeythorn]

Originally Posted by Hogscape

I wanted to be the first to congratulate you on this excellent review but it seems a whole bunch of people have beaten me to it!

Extremely well written and really got me interested in the new edition (I have previous editions). Two questions:

1. What gives with the terrible cover picture?
2. 50% of my players are female. In previous editions there hasn't been too much for a female character to do. Has that changed in the 5th edition?

Many thanks

Hi Hogscape. Thanks for the nice comments.

1. The cover picture is apparently Arthur fighting the Troit boar (a bit of Arthurian legend I can't remember personally). Because the campaign starts earlier in this edition (485 compared to 531 in 4th edition) I suspect the artist wanted to convey a more primitive, darker setting. I agree that it doesn't really work though.

2. As far as I can tell nothing has really changed vis a vis female characters. There is a little change because the setting has been moved back a few years so you no longer have the "not-a-ladies" suggestion for warrior women and instead have "Boudicca's daughters" or somesuch (I am writing this without access to my book so I might be wrong). I don't know what the Great Pendragon Campaign will offer, but in earlier editions I have always felt that the period after the enchantment of Britain is much more conducive to playing traditional female characters. What with all that courtly romance and weird interactions with the faerie and so on.