(Maybe this is just my bias speaking since I’m absolutely uninterested in the fiction of the game except in how it informs the mechanics. Stafford does the opposite, maybe because he’s worried about people having a different Arthurian image in mind? Each informs the other (the stories inform the rules, and the rules help create the stories), so it’s hard to know which to lead with!īut since most Americans are superficially familiar with King Arthur, I would’ve led with the rules. Of interest two me is that Stafford has two distinct things to teach: the rules of his game and this distinct stink he’s leaving on mytho-historical Britain. Maybe I’m just weirded out because not differentiating between history and fiction lets Stafford write a “history” that appeals to his views, and I don’t know him well enough to trust those views. Or alternately, “Here’s some awful shit I included because I want knights to overcome it” or whatever. I just want him to be like, “Here’s some cool fake shit I included ’cause I liked it!” I think this is something I keep thinking about because the book is delivered in a very Gygaxian faux academic tone, a sort of objectivity despite the inclusion of fiction. It’s a mix of history and fiction (as mentioned earlier), but again, it’s not always clear which is which or why Stafford chose fiction over history or vice versa. …is all about England at the time the game starts. I promise I’ll speed up! The rest of the first chapter provides a bit more context about Arthurian literature, pronunciation, how dice are referred to, etc. Wow, this is already so many tweets about, like, the first fuckin page. (Also, a sentence from the intro: “Playing Pendragon is simple.” Buddy, after reading this whole book, I do not agree.) But this is just saying, “These humans will always be baddies.” I’d understand saying, “Playing a Saxon is outside the scope of this book, but a later book will talk about it” or whatever. Third paragraph: oh, here’s why it’s important to me! Book is willing to fictionalize history, but expressly not when it comes to tribalism and nationalism. Note that there’s no “here’s why we do that” or “here’s how we make the choice between history or fiction.” This will become important (to me) later. Second paragraph attempts to make clear that this isn’t strictly historical but will draw beats from history and fiction, smashing them together. But in the same way I might watch movies or read books about rich and/or powerful people, I’m interested in games about creating that point of view. Lots of interesting stuff right off the bat.įor the first paragraph: I’m interested! Lots of games in my circle focus on or encourage the marginalized experience, and I’m very glad about that. Game starts with an intro that sets up the context I mentioned above along with a typical “what is an RPG?” section. Also, I have a degree in literature & history, focusing on English lit and Medieval European history, so I’ve read some of the source material. I’m mostly reading this because I want to hack it into a Surreal Sword Girl School game. It assumes the Gamemaster will be able to communicate that world and that players will play (likely male) knights interested in living in that context. Pendragon expressly seeks to recreate knightly stories as told in classic and revisionist chivalric tales, from De Troyes to Malory to TH White. It’s over 200 pages, though, so get ready. From my understanding, the editions aren’t THAT different, mostly indicating fixed typos and stuff. I’m reading editions 5 (digital) and 5.1 (physical). King Arthur Pendragon, mostly just called Pendragon, was first published in 1985. Was originally gonna tweet about this (thus the format), but it ended up being over 50 tweets. First up is King Arthur Pendragon by Greg Stafford. Finally devoting myself to fully reading my unread RPG books.
0 kommentar(er)
