[RPG]: The Great Pendragon Campaign, reviewed by Mr Jack (2/3)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13592.phtml

Mr Jack's Summary:

Huge, detailed, and critically flawed. The Great Pendragon Campaign is a great idea with a poor implementation.

Go to the full review for more information.

[HumAnoydd]

I am surprised at your brief review. Personally I truly enjoyed the GPC and can't imagine how you wouldn't realize that it consisted of a major Metaplot. In my experience the players can play major roles that impact the kingdom throughout and their influence can easily be increased through heroic actions as they recieve rewards for their valour.

In fact I am a little confused at your criticisms. You decry the Metaplot (in the "Problem of the Metaplot" section of your review) saying that it is too tight and railroads your players. One paragraph later (in the "You have to make it yours" section of your review) you castigate the book for not having enough detail and being too loosely structured. That is somewhat contradictory.

I am just curious but did you know you can get PDFs of the book's index as well as a listing of the main characters through the years? That might improve your stance on this (IMHO) amazing product.

[Mr Jack]

It's not the metaplot that is a problem; it's entirely expected. It's the book's failure to deal with that metaplot. Nor is being a loose structure a problem; it's the book's failure to support that structure that's the problem.

Railroading is always a problem, and it's not the metaplot that causes the problem but the way the written scenarios are written that causes the problem. For example (spoiler for anyone wishing to play the campaign):

When Arthur is stolen from Uther the book has the player knights act as part of those covering Merlin and then rams them through a long railroad of being tried and acquitted with no player input at all. Frankly, that's unforgivable. When I ran it, I simply switched the players round to be on the chasing side, which gave an exciting chase followed by some interesting intrigue and conflicted loyalties. Both deal with the same metaplot event; one rammed the players down a railroad; one left them with interesting and meaningful choices.

I didn't know there was a .pdf index for download (link please?) but, even so, it wouldn't change my review: the review is of the (large and expensive) product as sold.

[ShannonA]

Personally, I don't think I've ever read an RPGnet review that I disagreed with more.

As far as I'm concerned, The Great Pendragon Campaign (and its precursor, The Boy King) is the only metaplot ever in the roleplaying industry that actually worked for the gamemaster. It's as entirely innovative and brilliant now as it was when the first hints of it were released almost 25 years ago.

As for your complaints over a single adventure: it sounds like you're not that familiar with Malory. It's full of what I'd call railroading. That's pretty much the genre.

Honestly, if you don't like metaplot and you don't like Malory, I have no idea why you picked that book up.

[Mr Jack]

Have you run it? If I'd reviewed this as a capsule I'd have given it a glowing review, it wasn't until I started running it that the problems became clear. Thirty-three game years in I completely disagree with your assessment that it has metaplot that works for the gamesmaster.

As for there being "metaplot" in Mallory, so what? L'Morte d'Arthur is a book; Pendragon is a roleplaying game. What is acceptable in the book need not be acceptable in the game.

[Denys]

Originally Posted by Mr Jack

As for there being "metaplot" in Mallory, so what? L'Morte d'Arthur is a book; Pendragon is a roleplaying game. What is acceptable in the book need not be acceptable in the game.

I get what you're saying here and I would agree if this genre -- Arthurian knights -- wasn't so intimately tied to the fiction resources that inspired it. What you are complaining about is playing step by step through a product similar to an already told story such as The Lord of the Rings and being irked that the PCs play second fiddle to Frodo and Gandalf.

That is, your expectations for this product don't mesh with what the product is supposed to be. Something called the Great Pendragon Campaign doesn't mean you'll be playing Knights Who Fight Crime.

That said, I've read the Pendragon Campaign and it *is* quite straight-jacketing for the PCs; I wouldn't run it as is because I really don't care to do a story like that. I need the PCs to have lots more control and influence than the TGPC gives them. As a book of scenarios and ideas, though, it is AMAZING and I would totally recommend the book.

[Mr Jack]

Originally Posted by Ian Noble

I get what you're saying here and I would agree if this genre -- Arthurian knights -- wasn't so intimately tied to the fiction resources that inspired it. What you are complaining about is playing step by step through a product similar to an already told story such as The Lord of the Rings and being irked that the PCs play second fiddle to Frodo and Gandalf.

That's not my problem with it. I expected it to be Metaplotty in that way, it is as you say, kind of the point. What I did expect though was the product to deal with the inherent conflict between the freedom of roleplaying games and the need for metaplot in a helpful way. It doesn't.

Two ways it could have done this are:

1. Providing a more scripted game where each year has a set adventure for the player knights. Akin to the kind of Campaigns sold for D&D and other games.

2. Providing the GM with a good guide to what the metaplot does and when, what the important events are, how not to mess with them and what to do when that happens.

[Ineti]

Originally Posted by Mr Jack

2. Providing the GM with a good guide to what the metaplot does and when, what the important events are, how not to mess with them and what to do when that happens.

Um, what? Reading the book explains what happens when, what the important events are, and so on. Pretty much a no-brainer, unless the GM isn't reading ahead, which in that case would be shame on the GM.

[Mr Jack]

Originally Posted by Ineti

Um, what? Reading the book explains what happens when, what the important events are, and so on. Pretty much a no-brainer, unless the GM isn't reading ahead, which in that case would be shame on the GM.

It's a 429 page book. I can't hold all that in my head. Nor can it be easily scan read because it hides significant events in odd places, and doesn't clearly distinguish stuff for the players from stuff for the GM, for example:

We learn of the death of King Mark first in the News Section, then in the following year we learn of it in the Intrigue section. This actually happened. In the Gossip for 517 we hear of the death of Merlin, and then a year later we hear that didn't actually happen; completely separately and much further through the book we get some better details on what happened. This is very unhelpful for the GM.

I accept that, in principle, you could scour through the book and gather up the tit-bits relating to events but it's stuff that the Campaign book should be helping you with. It doesn't. It wouldn't take much to make this altogether more helpful: a one or two page table for each period, giving a couple of sentences of important happenings for each year, and a short guide for each character.

[bottg]

I also completely disagree with the review. What the book does is provide a framework to build the story of the characters around and within the metaplot.

It does railroad characters at certain points, but what published adventure doesn't do that? Still, the characters may take a completely contrary action and change their own futures, even if the metaplot proceeds mainly unchanged.

If used as a framework for a campaign it is awesome. If used as a D&D campaign were to be used, it is not. But then it is not D&D.