Jump to content

creativehum

Members
  • Content Count

    496
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

creativehum last won the day on November 7 2018

creativehum had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

219 Excellent

About creativehum

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    I was given a copy of D&D. I bought a copy of Traveller back in 1977. I wrote for FASA, TSR, Mayfair Games, West End Games.
  • Current games
    Running Classic Traveller, Lamentations of the Flame Princess
    Playing Forbidden Lands, Silent Titans
    (A weekly Monday Night Group; we switch out games every few months)
  • Location
    Los Angeles CA. USA
  • Blurb
    I'm a screenwriter and director.
    Creator and writer of "The Booth at the End"

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. One of the qualities I love about using Le More D'Arthur as a reference is that not only the language but the style of the telling bring me into a different frame of mind. It really helps me see how all the piece of the KAP rules fit together and how I want to GM this specific and, in many ways, unique and strange RPG. Yes, it can be hard to read -- especially at the start. But I find once I get going with it brings to me to the strange land of dreamlike nostalgia for a time and place that never existed -- and thus very much the style I want for my King Arthur Pendragon. As a side not: Malory has one "l", not two. (A mistake I make as well from time to time.)
  2. The thing is (and I'm with @Tizun Thane on this) you don't even need it from a narrative perspective. The PCs can wander around and stumble across a friend or foe's manor or castle anywhere without any of the justification of scattered holdings. Happens Malory all the time. For those who want justifications for randomly coming across manors and castles, scattered holdings make perfect sense. But for some of us they aren't needed at all and only clog up the works.
  3. One of the players in my Monday Night Group (Adam!) wrote it!
  4. I love Le Morte D'Arthur. It has a dream-like quality that I love bringing to King Arthur Pendragon when I run the game.
  5. Of course this is true. This is why King Arthur Pendragon has a bibliography of suggested reading. It is why the Great Pendragon Campaign contains this gloss on page 7. In both cases the books are telling you, "This will help your game." When I write "...using King Arthur Pendragon and the Great Pendragon Campaig"..." I mean taking the suggestions in those books seriously. And because I already believe this in every one of my posts above I have pointed big arrows at Le Morte D'Arthur. I mean, I keep referencing the importance of looking at the fictional sources for inspiration. Exactly at KAP and GPC do. I know it is possible to take one sentence of mine and ignore everything else I have typed, but I really don't get the value in it. _____________________ We resolved the matter of Cedric's invasion on the previous page of this thread with easy effort. I'm busy making handouts for my players. I'm glad the question was asked. I'm grateful for the answers.
  6. The portion of Atgxtg's post I quote is a terrific illustration of the points I made in my post. As far as I can tell we are agreeing... so... there we are. He and I disagree on a few things, of course. Mostly about personal preferences how each of us wants to approach the game. At least that's how I'm seeing it. I suggest that some people are more focused on the delight of historical research than other people. If I'm understanding his post correctly he is saying that distinction does not exist. But to be clear: My posts above are the people who might show up here and assume they need to be scholars of medieval lit and history to play King Arthur Pendragon. I'm not saying anyone is saying this. I'm saying one could show up and get the mistaken belief this is the case. To address this head on and unequivocally: one can, and should, be able to play the game with the core rules and maybe the Great Pendragon Campaign without having to open another text or do any research. If someone wants to dig deeper and add more details -- well, as I've said above, that is great. Clearly several people in the thread love doing that. And more power to them! But it is a distinct part of the possible KAP RPG hobby. It isn't required. It isn't for everyone. And playing the game can work fine without it. If anyone wants to contradict me on this, go ahead. Keep in mind: In no way have I stated anyone is wrong for wanting to make digging into the historical aspects of medieval Britain part of the KAP RPG experience In no way have I stated that KAP and GPC haven't already done this (in fact, I continually make the point it has been done) I literally don't know how anyone can contradict my point that some people are more invested in digging into history, and other people are not. I observe this difference of creative agendas on this site regularly. Given that, I'm not sure what else there is to say.
  7. This is great. thanks so much!
  8. Hey folks, I would never suggest not looking to history to help ground King Arthur Pendragon -- in both setting and play. As I've said across many threads even in Malory there is a tension between the grounded information Malory brings to the day-to-day business of combat and tack and bridles and such, and the fantastical elements of his tale. Moreover, the game draws from customs of actual historical times, and chooses to set itself within a framework of laws and customs that we can read about in history books. After all, KAP did not create its own setting! So clearly working from history -- when it makes sense for the setting and play -- is a good idea. My point was, in the specific case at hand, trying to work in new discoveries by historians about Cerdic that would flatly contradict details already established in the GPC wouldn't be worth incorporating. If I can use what is in the book with a couple of clarifications to address the matter of where Cerdic lands (which has already been taken care of upthread) rather than rummage around in notions that mean reworking lots of material, I'm going to take the easier path even if it is not historically accurate. This, first and foremost, was my point. Le Morte D'Arthur isn't historically accurate. Historia Regum Britanniae isn't historically accurate. These are the books King Arthur Pendragon primarily leans on, and I'm stating I'm fine with continuing with King Arthur Pendragon's tradition of drawing on historically inaccurate material and building historically fanciful tales. More broadly my point was an expansion of this notion: that first and foremost King Arthur Pendragon is a Romance, not a history, given that since the first edition it has been stated clearly that Le Morte D'Arthur is the primary source of the game. It's as plain as that. If I can add in "real history" at the expense of tearing up floorboards of work that already works for the game, I'll pass on that. That doesn't mean a dismissal of history as an aid to the game or the setting. (See the first part if this post). It's about the balance of the choice, which divining rod will I use. Clarity of structure, themes, and patterning for the tale being create will alway win out for me... and I know for a fact it is easier to do that with fictional details trumping history. Not a dismal of history, but a choice about what the design parameters will be. Phyllis Ann Karr begins her Forward to the second edition of The Arthurian Companion (originally published by Chaosium, later Green Knight) with these words: I would suggest KAP is the same. As is the GPC. Now, I don't think the divide in stark. (After all, again, I'm all for using history in KAP). But I do think people lean toward one form, or are more interested in one form or the other, or emphasize one over the other. But clearly I lean toward the romantic form. Other people lean differently. And that's fine. But clearly we're talking proportions here, since we can't be sure there even was an Arthur, and we certainly aren't expecting a game involving wizards, spells, Grail Quests, and men wearing full plate in the 6th century to be true.
  9. Absolutely. Yes. I know. I was one of the first people to respond to the OP, offering information found in the text of the GPC. Yes. I know. As noted in posts of mine above. And as I noted in the posts above I find this frustrating. I disagree this will produce the best solution. As jeffjerwin himself point out, adding more details from recent historical research throws a wrench in the situation, obscuring, contradicting, complicating the text of the GPC even further. The solution, in my view (which hardly seems a mystery from my posts), is to clarify, clean up, and square the material already present in the text rather than adding new info that contradicts what is already there which will result in a new round or two of clean up because of the new information. (Obviously some posters above have already dealt with the matter exactly this way.) The fact that information is historical does not necessarily make it more beneficial for clarity when working with an ahistorical RPG sourcebook based on fictional series of events. What matters is that the sourcebook is consistent within itself. History may, or may not, help in this regard. Introducing the notion that "Cerdic was never ruler of the Saxons around Hampshire" certainly is going to overcomplicate the question of "Where did Cerdic, leader of Saxon forced, land?" Yes? It certainly doesn't help clarify the question at all. That's why he refers to it as throwing a wrench into the works. (None of this is a knock on jeffjerwin, who is, as far as I can tell, only adding an interesting point. But for the interests of actually helping straighten out the details of the GPC it is, of course, a nonstarter.)
  10. Not a wrench to me, because I would put it back in the tool box and ignore it. Here's my brief foundational text for the "history" of the King Arthur Pendragon RPG and The Great Pendragon Campaign: A man who never existed, written about in the game's primary source material by a man writing about a time period a thousand years before he was born without the tools or concerns about getting history "right." For me, all other historical details are flexible and icing on the cake. Details of history that start making getting the game going more difficult, with no other value than they are "historical," are of little use to me. What I do need is the text, charts, and maps of a decidely and by definition ahistorical campaign setting to be consistent for ease of use. When they are not I need to poke around these forums. Luckily, these forum are here and we can sort this stuff out. I do understand that for some people the trying to square actual history with the ahistorical events of the Matter of Britain are part of the sport. And I wish them pleasure in their efforts! But for others, like me, not so much.
  11. I just took a look at the GPC, doing a word search in the PDF file. Did you have a chance to do that? I ask because when I type in Cerdic? I ask because he is referred to several times as "Cerdic of Wessex." The maps are a problem. The "496-500 Events Map" has a patch of land labeled "Cerdic" (I understand that it is actually naming the man leading the troops, but still.. one might be looking for the word Wessex.) And then the 505 Events Map has I think the label "Wessex" on it (for the Battle of Levcomagus) but the "x" is hard to make out. So... yeah. Finding it on the map is, while not impossible, is difficult.
  12. Indeed! The number of NPCs, the political factions. All of it is a bit much!
  13. I am curious about this. (And terrified of it too!) One of the things I have been advised is to read at least the full Period I am about to run ahead of time. Are you finding you might need to read at least two full Periods to feel like you've got a grasp on things?
×
×
  • Create New...