New edition coming up?

[TrippyHippy]

The game wasn’t dying - and the current edition only came out recently. I would be very skeptical of changes made post-humously, and beyond anything else - what is wrong with the rules right now?

Our group has started playing The Great Pendragon Campaign a few months ago. Although the campaign book could certainly be updated/reorganised in several ways, I don’t see how the rules are anything other than perfect. What is it that people propose should be changed. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by TrippyHippy

[IlluminatedSeraph]

Mainly, I'd like to see more Tournament, Grail Quest and Twilight support in the line. The Early Phase is in great shape and needs minor cleanup (detail consistency, etc) at most, with the possible exception of more detail on Salisbury, but the later stages of the GPC are not nearly as well supported. The core rules are solid as is (except the child and wife survival tables, ugh, talk to Morien about that), but there a lot of material from the early editions that could use updating and organizing, and there's also just a lot of room to give players and GMs more to work with in the later periods.

Edited March 2, 2020 by IlluminatedSeraph
Typo

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, TrippyHippy said:

If the rules get altered one iota, I’m out. It would be disrespectful to Greg Stafford. Updating/uplifting The Great Pendragon Campaign is fine. 

I think that's a bit extreme. The rules have been altered slightly with every new release, and it sounds like much of what is being done is stuff that Greg had already green lit. I'm taking a wait and see attitude towards it. If they clean up things, fix some of the errors, and make everything consist it wouldn't be all that bad, would it?

 

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, TrippyHippy said:

The game wasn’t dying - and the current edition only came out recently. I would be very skeptical of changes made post-humously, and beyond anything else - what is wrong with the rules right now?

Quite a bit.

For starters the game is called King Arthur Pendragon yet King Arthur doesn't appear in the game book. Everything is geared towards the time of Uther. 

Next is the fact that several of the rules have been updated in supplements and it would be nice if everything was consistent. For instance the rules for handling the manor or generating the skill of a NPC retainer shouldn't vary depending on which supplement you happen to own. 

Quote

Our group has started playing The Great Pendragon Campaign a few months ago. Although the campaign book could certainly be updated/reorganised in several ways, I don’t see how the rules are anything other than perfect. What is it that people propose should be changed. 

First off which edition of the rules are you playing with and which supplements are you using? Depending on what you are using I can think of several things that need fixing. Off the top of my head, some of the stuff I'd like to see:

• the glory awards for titles, incomes and ransoms adjusted to match the current awards and rules in the latter supplements.
• The stats for various types of armor being made consist throughout all the books. 
• The tiered chivalry bonus and similar bonuses that Greg had been working on
• Sword breaking non-swords be limited to natural ties. As it is an expert spearmen facing an expert swordsman has a better chance of getting his spear broken that a novice spear man would.
• APP actually being used for something in game other than distinct features and soaking aging losses-or, alternatively removed from the game. As it stands it is the ultimate dump stat.
• DEX made somewhat more useful.
• The DEX penalty from armor modified so that it i actually serves a purpose. As it stands the penalty just lowers the PKs DEX to the point where they don't even attempt a DEX roll. IMO a lower DEX penalty that also applied to, say, fatigue rolls, would be a plus. 
• A reason for players not to max out their SIZ for every player knight.
• The Hunting rules all contained in one section instead of being split between sections.
• The return of various stuff from previous editions that haven't made their way into the current edition, like the rules for fortification, prices for latter period gear, a description of the various Periods of the game, getting an audience at court, trained  mount.
• The return of some form of the double feint tactic.

 

Of course all that being said, it's easier to screw things up than improve them, but hopefully the person that Greg left in charge will see that the game is properly cared for. 

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Atgxtg

[TrippyHippy]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

I think that's a bit extreme. The rules have been altered slightly with every new release, and it sounds like much of what is being done is stuff that Greg had already green lit. I'm taking a wait and see attitude towards it. If they clean up things, fix some of the errors, and make everything consist it wouldn't be all that bad, would it?

 

Not really. The rules of 1st edition are pretty much in tact for what they are now. Greg Stafford, himself, pulled back on the rules towards how he wanted them to be in 5th edition. The changes since then have merely been in presentation. 

King Arthur, of course, appears in the game but, if you are playing the game as designed through multiple generations then the first generation begins with his father’s era. Just like in Mort D’Arthur, in fact. APP is critically important for wooing and the marrying at a high station - which again is part of the long term campaign of building family legacies. DEX is a lot more useful than what it is in other BRP games, and is used frequently. 

Regarding the rest of the rules changes you have started listing - this is precisely what I mean. If somebody who isn’t Greg Stafford comes in and starts ‘tweaking’ or altering Greg Stafford’’s work, I will not regard it as Greg’s game. In his commentary he was most proud of Pendragon because he designed it alone. He had 5.3 editions to make the edition he wanted - it’s his game I am interested in. Not yours or anybody else’s. 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by TrippyHippy

[TrippyHippy]

1 hour ago, IlluminatedSeraph said:

Mainly, I'd like to see more Tournament, Grail Quest and Twilight support in the line. The Early Phase is in great shape and needs minor cleanup (detail consistency, etc) at most, with the possible exception of more detail on Salisbury, but the later stages of the GPC are not nearly as well supported. The core rules are solid as is (except the child and wife survival tables, ugh, talk to Morien about that), but there a lot of material from the early editions that could use updating and organizing, and there's also just a lot of room to give players and GMs more to work with in the later periods.

Right. The GPC could certainly be worked on an expanded - that was entirely what Greg Stafford said he wanted and was planning for. Leave the core rules alone though. 

[jeffjerwin]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Of course all that being said, it's easier to screw things up than improve them, but hopefully the person that Greg left in charge will see that the game is properly cared for. 

 

Don't worry. It'll be good. I know the person you speak of.

[Atgxtg]

4 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

Not really. The rules of 1st edition are pretty much in tact for what they are now. Greg Stafford, himself, pulled back on the rules towards how he wanted them to be in 5th edition. The changes since then have merely been in presentation. 

Sorry, that's just not true. Here are some of the differences between the editions  and the game now:

• Attributes have changed from 3d6 to various other methods, with SIZ being the most changed between editions.
• Originally a critical success lost to a higher successful roll. 
• Originally someone who was critically inspired always doubled their skill, instead of double or +10.
• Culture and Custom skills have been removed.
• Characters who needed chirurgery did not get their healing rate when the chirurgeon failed. 
• Starting cultural skills have changed for the various cultures multiple times, and the culture special skills, luck tables and womens gifts have all been altered and replaced.
• Armor types, shield types, and their protection values have changed. For example there was not reinforced mail in first edition. Gothic Plate went from 16 points (KAP1) to 18 points (KAP5) to 21 points (Knights & Ladies).
• Several weapons have been altered over the editions.
• The method of determining glory awarded has changed considerably, as have the fame categories.
• Religious bonuses have been altered and new religions added.
• The battle system has been changed multiple times (in KAP1 you didn't even roll your weapons skill when fighting in a battle).
• The combat tactics were added to the game, and the two handed strike removed.
• Overall the power level of the characters has increased. Look at Arthurs stats between the editions.

 

 

4 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

King Arthur, of course, appears in the game but, if you are playing the game as designed through multiple generations then the first generation begins with his father’s era.Just like in Mort D’Arthur, in fact

But nothing about Arthur or his era is in the core 5.2 book. KAP3 started mid-campaing to give you the feel of king Arthurs reign. KAP 5.2 starts earlier and adjusts things to the time of Uther, but doesn't go into Arthur or the story much at all.

4 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

 APP is critically important for wooing and the marrying at a high station - which again is part of the long term campaign of building family legacies.

No AP isn't critically important at all. Glory, Courtesy, Flirting and other skills and traits are. APP doesn't factor into any of that. Marry up in station has more to do with impressing the girls father than the girl herself. And even impressing the girl is tied more to the skills and traits than to APP-which doesn't actually have a use or affect a single die roll. SIZ is more useful to a knight who wants to marry well that APP ever is. 

4 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

DEX is a lot more useful than what it is in other BRP games, and is used frequently. 

No it isn't. Can you give me some examples? The only thing that knights tend to use DEX for is to avoid being knocked down when they are afoot. Dex doesn't affect the invite order, as in other BRP games, and the armor worn by knights prevents them from doing most of the other things DEX is rolled  for. 

 

4 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

Regarding the rest of the rules changes you have started listing - this is precisely what I mean. If somebody who isn’t Greg Stafford comes in and starts ‘tweaking’ or altering Greg Stafford’’s work, I will not regard it as Greg’s game. In his commentary he was most proud of Pendragon because he designed it alone. He had 5.3 editions to make the edition he wanted - it’s his game I am interested in. Not yours or anybody else’s. 

Except he didn't design it alone. If you look at every edition after the first, Greg brought in other people to help with it. They did indeed make tweaks to the rules, and that's why the game has evolved over the years. At one time Greg contacted me to help with the Book of Castles. It's in someone elses hands now, but Greg wasn't writing the game alone. 

Even the core opposed roll mechanic came from someone else. Greg noted that he originally had a table to handle the rolls until some else came up with the "blackjack" method that Greg adopted.

 

[Atgxtg]

6 minutes ago, jeffjerwin said:

Don't worry. It'll be good. I know the person you speak of.

Oh, I'll worry, but I figure Greg left them in charge for a reason. This isn't like with MRQ when Greg leased out RQ and Glorantha, it's more a case of his picking a caretaker. So far no one's messed it up, and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. But I'll always be worried, since Greg isn't around to take care of Pendragon. Doubly so considering I'm not a fan of RQG-so the potential for KAP to go on in a direction I don't like is there. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Atgxtg

[TrippyHippy]

33 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Sorry, that's just not true. Here are some of the differences between the editions  and the game now:

• Attributes have changed from 3d6 to various other methods, with SIZ being the most changed between editions.
• Originally a critical success lost to a higher successful roll. 
• Originally someone who was critically inspired always doubled their skill, instead of double or +10.
• Culture and Custom skills have been removed.
• Characters who needed chirurgery did not get their healing rate when the chirurgeon failed. 
• Starting cultural skills have changed for the various cultures multiple times, and the culture special skills, luck tables and womens gifts have all been altered and replaced.
• Armor types, shield types, and their protection values have changed. For example there was not reinforced mail in first edition. Gothic Plate went from 16 points (KAP1) to 18 points (KAP5) to 21 points (Knights & Ladies).
• Several weapons have been altered over the editions.
• The method of determining glory awarded has changed considerably, as have the fame categories.
• Religious bonuses have been altered and new religions added.
• The battle system has been changed multiple times (in KAP1 you didn't even roll your weapons skill when fighting in a battle).
• The combat tactics were added to the game, and the two handed strike removed.
• Overall the power level of the characters has increased. Look at Arthurs stats between the editions.

 

 

But nothing about Arthur or his era is in the core 5.2 book. KAP3 started mid-campaing to give you the feel of king Arthurs reign. KAP 5.2 starts earlier and adjusts things to the time of Uther, but doesn't go into Arthur or the story much at all.

No AP isn't critically important at all. Glory, Courtesy, Flirting and other skills and traits are. APP doesn't factor into any of that. Marry up in station has more to do with impressing the girls father than the girl herself. And even impressing the girl is tied more to the skills and traits than to APP-which doesn't actually have a use or affect a single die roll. SIZ is more useful to a knight who wants to marry well that APP ever is. 

No it isn't. Can you give me some examples? The only thing that knights tend to use DEX for is to avoid being knocked down when they are afoot. Dex doesn't affect the invite order, as in other BRP games, and the armor worn by knights prevents them from doing most of the other things DEX is rolled  for. 

 

Except he didn't design it alone. If you look at every edition after the first, Greg brought in other people to help with it. They did indeed make tweaks to the rules, and that's why the game has evolved over the years. At one time Greg contacted me to help with the Book of Castles. It's in someone elses hands now, but Greg wasn't writing the game alone. 

Even the core opposed roll mechanic came from someone else. Greg noted that he originally had a table to handle the rolls until some else came up with the "blackjack" method that Greg adopted.

 

Firstly, you are incorrect about some of those rule changes. A failed Chirurgy roll still means you don’t heal naturally. You basically roll to avoid failure - which stops you getting your healing rate back - as it was. Secondly, whatever changes were made, were made by Greg Stafford for his game. You don’t seem to want to acknowledge this - it’s not an open game system. It’s a lasting legacy to Greg Stafford. 

DEX is how characters dodge and do anything athletically. There aren’t separate skills for these things - it’s continually useful for determining all sorts of physical movement. Climb, Sneak, Jump - all done with DEX rolls. 

King Arthur is detailed in the book (“Which Arthur is This”) but the main setting details, including stats for characters are found in The Great Pendragon Campaign or the extra supplement detailing Famous personalities. As stated the start of the campaign begins in the Uther period, but the main part of the campaign centers on the reign of King Arthur. Indeed, the game begins in 485 and Uther does in 495, leaving a timeline that carries on for another 70 years. The core rules don’t include stats for Uther or Merlin either, or anybody else, because it’s focussed on presenting the rules not the full campaign. 

I am really dismayed, right now that we are here picking at a game that has been almost uniformly praised, an edition that Kickstarters may have only received less than a year ago after waiting for nearly five years for it in some cases, and doesn’t need fixing. 

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by TrippyHippy

[SDLeary]

7 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yeah, that does seem pretty definitive. Seems like they will have sections for each period with the new stuff that gets added and such. This could be the reason for the lack of any releases , they might be bringing all the new stuff up to 6th edition rules. It could be epic if everything get's cleaned, up, clarified, and made consistent between books. 

 

 

As long as the Magic Book isn't delayed, or the stuff is integrated into the main book!

SDLeary

[Mugen]

7 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

The game wasn’t dying - and the current edition only came out recently. I would be very skeptical of changes made post-humously, and beyond anything else - what is wrong with the rules right now?

As I said, I guess it's just Pendragon coming back to Chaosium after 5.X editions having been published by Nocturnal.

I don't expect any major rules change.

EDIT: After a quick check, 5.2 was in fact published by Chaosium...

Well, ignore my comment above...

Edited March 2, 2020 by Mugen

[IlluminatedSeraph]

It was published by Chaosium but commissioned by Nocturnal, which is a weird situation but happened (as far as I've read) because of Nocturnal needing help with distribution and fulfillment, particularly after Stewart Wieck passed. So it's completely possible Chaosium would want to do their own edition fully in-house, especially since 5e's travels have carried it through a couple publishers at this point.

Edited March 2, 2020 by IlluminatedSeraph

[Grievous]

Things getting clarified and made uniform across the main rules and the many, many supplements with optional/contradictory rules would be very helpful.

[Greyblade]

At this stage we have no idea what this 6th edition will look like, but I think we are all in agreement regarding certain things:

-GPC expansion & finetuning is good

-Better, clearer setup of the rules (ex: Hunting) will be appreciated

-Rules should stay more or less consistent with previous iterations, and I doubt Chaosium will pull a D&D 4th ed on us

-More content for Arthurian eras

[Morien]

13 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

I would be very skeptical of changes made post-humously, and beyond anything else - what is wrong with the rules right now?

Just to ensure that people are not misinformed... (Disclaimer: I am not an employee of Chaosium, nor am I empowered to speak on their behalf. The following is based on personal communications with Greg.)

The talk of KAP 6 stretches back at least to 2013.

KAP 5.2 was explicitly a layout update with MINIMAL rule changes (mainly clarification on £10 manors and such, which unfortunately proved to be even more confusing), since Greg wanted to save any real changes for KAP 6. (While I won't comment on the content in detail, suffice it to say that Pendragon has evolved gradually so far and there is no need to worry that your adventure books would become unusable or anything like that.)

Greg was actively working on the KAP 6 manuscript at least as far back as 2015, with a bunch of us offering feedback.

This is not some attempt of Chaosium to do a cash-grab by altering the 'perfect KAP 5th edition' against Greg's wishes, but finishing the work that Greg started but unfortunately was not able to finish.

[Atgxtg]

11 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

Firstly, you are incorrect about some of those rule changes. A failed Chirurgy roll still means you don’t heal naturally. You basically roll to avoid failure - which stops you getting your healing rate back - as it was.

No. Per KAP 5.2 page 150

Natural healing occurs at noon every Sunday (within game time): At that point in time, the character regains a number of hit points equal to his Healing Rate.

 

and on page 151

Deterioration affects only unhealthy characters that do not receive a successful Chirurgery roll during the week. Deterioration causes the loss of 1d6 hit points per week (no wound is recorded, and First Aid cannot help). As with natural healing, this damage occurs on Sunday at noon. The net result of the two hit point adjustments may be a gain in hit points, a loss, or nil.

What other rule change do you want me to back up? The game has changed quite a bit over the years. It's just that Greg did so carefully and gradually, and kept most of the core elements. The differences between KAP1 and KAP 5.2 are not as radical as say, the differences between Original D&D and D&D 5E.   

 

I ran KAP1 and my players recall how much the game has changed. They remember having to spend a few years getting thier Loyaly (Lord) up so they could qualify for knighthood; they remeber when Valor rolls ususally left one or two knights facing a big monster; losing out with a crtical success to a higher roll; getting an income of £2 per year; defeating a knight and getting 1/10th his glory (and the rampart glory escation that came with that); having to make Custom and Langage rolls; rolling Battle instead of their much higher sword skill in a battle.

 

 

Quote

Secondly, whatever changes were made, were made by Greg Stafford for his game. You don’t seem to want to acknowledge this - it’s not an open game system. It’s a lasting legacy to Greg Stafford. 

Not according to Greg Stafford. He put a caretaker in charge of the game moving forward so the game could move forward. Greg didn't write all the supplements or come up with all the things that have been added to the system over the years. Just read the credits on the various editions and supplements. Greg did not zealously keep others from Pendragon, he encouraged them to try and improve the game as best they could and would gratefully accept anything that would improve the game, even if someone else came up with the idea. 

If you want to repsect Greg's legacy should you repsect his wishes? Greg wanted Pendragon to continue to live and grow as a game and for the various changes which he already had planned to include into he game be included.It was Greg who appointed David Larkins the creative director of the Pendragon line. Greg wouldn't have done that if he did expect David to create (thanks Morien )

 

Quote

DEX is how characters dodge and do anything athletically. There aren’t separate skills for these things

Yes ans all things that Knights, the primary characters of the game don't do. 

Quote

- it’s continually useful for determining all sorts of physical movement. Climb, Sneak, Jump - all done with DEX rolls. 

How often do the knights climb and sneak in your campaign? Mine almost never, especially in armor.

Quote

King Arthur is detailed in the book (“Which Arthur is This”) but the main setting details, including stats for characters are found in The Great Pendragon Campaign or the extra supplement detailing Famous personalities.

Yes, which means that to play in the time of King Arthur a GM needs to get the GPC. One of the things Jeff mentioned is that a GM won't have to go out and buy a 500 page supplmentto run the game. 

Quote

As stated the start of the campaign begins in the Uther period, but the main part of the campaign centers on the reign of King Arthur. Indeed, the game begins in 485 and Uther does in 495, leaving a timeline that carries on for another 70 years. The core rules don’t include stats for Uther or Merlin either, or anybody else, because it’s focussed on presenting the rules not the full campaign. 

Yes and that forces players to buy additional supplements to get the full campaign, and the full rules. If someone wants plate armor for late in the game, or stats for a horse type not listed in the core rules, he needs to buy a supplement. 

Keep in mind that most of the changes mentioned by fans here are changes that are already part of the game and Greg approved. The ecomonic system from the Book of the Estate and Book of Warlord went through GReg, as did the updated fortification rules, and the new magic system. So no one is  is advocating any changes that were not things that wouldn't have happend in Greg was still with us. 

Quote

I am really dismayed, right now that we are here picking at a game that has been almost uniformly praised, an edition that Kickstarters may have only received less than a year ago after waiting for nearly five years for it in some cases,

Well then I guess it's a good thing you didn't even converse with Greg. Greg always though Pendragon had room for improvement. Greg was always tinkering with the rules (and some times he mistepped, such as with the Book of the Manor). Most of the changes that you like in the latest edtion were thuings that came about after changes were made to the game in supplements. That's why the knight's manor went from £6 income to £10 in 5.2.

 

Quote

 and doesn’t need fixing. 

The random wife dowry and childbirth tables certainly do. Even Greg thought so (he approved a replacement for the former, which is in the Book of the Entrounage, and  posted  a variant of the latter). As written in the core rulebook, knights just marry, get a manor, kill the wife through childbirth, remarry get another manor, kill the new wife, wash, rinse, repeat until they are a barrette.

Now most of that was fixed in the supplements, but didn't make it into 5.2, which is mostly 5.1 with a facelift. (5.1 is mostly KAP 5 with tons of corrections to undue eroors that cropped up in it).

 

 

Look I guess where you're coming from. I think we all do. Nobody wants the game to be radically revamped and given the sort of overhaul that new editions of game seems to get these days. If Chaosium does a hack job with new trendy rules, throws out the default cutlure for something more acceptable to mainstream gamers, or something like that, I'll drop it as fast as you would. And be quite vocal about why. I dislike what I've seen of RQ4 and hate MRQ1, and have made that quite clear both here and on the Mongoose forums. If the new edtion "isn't Pendragon" I'll fight the good fight along side you. 

But so far, that's not what's being said. It's mostly incorporating changes that have already been approved of by Greg, and in many cases already implemented in existing supplements, and making things consist across all the books. For instance, currently cuirbouillil has a protection value of 6 in the core book, 8 in Knights & Ladies, the Book of Battle, and  and the Book of Armies all Greg books), and is implied to be back down to 6 points,  in the Book of Uther, by the Hauberk. Giving it the same value in all of the books wouldn't tarnish Greg's legacy, would it? 

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Atgxtg

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, Grievous said:

Things getting clarified and made uniform across the main rules and the many, many supplements with optional/contradictory rules would be very helpful.

Amen! KAP5s situation left it's supplements as sort of ad-hoc stuff, and stuff that got fixed (or messed up) in a supplement never made it way back to the rest of the line.

[Morien]

11 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Dave Larkins

Nitpick: David, actually.

14 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

The random wife dowry and childbirth tables certainly do.

And don't forget fixing child survival, which under KAP 5.2 rules sees only 20% or so children reaching adulthood. Book of the Estate's Family Survival fixed that.

[Atgxtg]

41 minutes ago, Morien said:

Nitpick: David, actually.

Apologies, to Mister David Larkins,  I'll edit the post.

 

41 minutes ago, Morien said:

And don't forget fixing child survival, which under KAP 5.2 rules sees only 20% or so children reaching adulthood. Book of the Estate's Family Survival fixed that.

 I didn't. But since none of that is in the core rules it causes a big discrepancy. The table in 5.2 harks back to KAP, and should be updated. At least as far as married manors not necessarily staying with the husband, and passing down to heirs. In the old days, I had PKs with half a  dozen manors.

Pendragon can be rather difficult for a GM just to work out where to find a given rule. Everything is spread out over multiple books that often contradict each other. Some sort of standardization and internal consistency would help. 

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Atgxtg

[The Hooded Claw]

So the new version is going to be PBtA then?

Edited March 2, 2020 by Addison

[TrippyHippy]

So now we are going to have a wonderful series of arguments about rule changes and pet peeves with the game. Let’s even change the name of the game too.  Joy of joys. 

You’ve just changed the goalposts on the Chirurgy rules. Yes, unhealthy characters get Deteriation, but the Chirurgy roll itself merely stops Natural Healing if you fail - as per the original game- as stated. 

You said DEX isn’t used, but it is used for every athletic movement - Pendragon doesn’t use skills for these things as other versions of BRP does, and depending on game circumstances, Knights don’t always wear armour anyway.
 

Im not going to itemise every other complaint, but just say that this very line of argument is why a new edition, at this stage, is such a turn off. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by TrippyHippy

[Grievous]

10 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

So now we are going to have a wonderful series of arguments about rule changes and pet peeves with the game. Let’s even change the name of the game too.  Joy of joys. 

You’ve just changed the goalposts on the Chirurgy rules. Yes, unhealthy characters get Deteriation, but the Chirurgy roll itself merely stops Natural Healing if you fail - as per the original game- as stated. 

You said DEX isn’t used, but it is used for every athletic movement - Pendragon doesn’t use skills for these things as other versions of BRP does, and depending on game circumstances, Knights don’t always wear armour anyway.
 

Im not going to itemise every other complaint, but just say that this very line of argument is why a new edition, at this stage, is such a turn off. 

Well we can argue about the rules on the forums until we're blue in the face (and people probably will), but ultimately it's gonna be done by Chaosium, the way they want to do it. We can then vote with our wallets. And since you seem to just want things to stay the same (pardon me if I'm wrong about that), it's not like you're losing out on anything since all the old stuff will still continue to exist. But you're not (easily, absent some weird new evidence) going to say Chaosium is somehow ruining Greg's legacy here. That is stretching it, and indeed seems contrary to the truth.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Grievous

[Morien]

19 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

You’ve just changed the goalposts on the Chirurgy rules. Yes, unhealthy characters get Deteriation, but the Chirurgy roll itself merely stops Natural Healing if you fail - as per the original game- as stated. 

Wrong. See KAP 5.2, p. 151: "Chirurgery is applied to unhealthy patients only. Chirurgery’s purpose is to halt deterioration: A successful roll means that deterioration does not occur for that week." and "If a failure is the result, the character suffers deterioration, but this effect is not apparent until the following Sunday."

Chirurgery roll only determines the deterioration (with double natural healing on a critical and extra damage plus deterioration on a fumble); you get the Natural Healing regardless of whether Chirurgery roll is a success, a failure, or even absent altogether.

 

[Atgxtg]

28 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

So now we are going to have a wonderful series of arguments about rule changes and pet peeves with the game. Let’s even change the name of the game too.  Joy of joys. 

Not unless you want to. Remember I just respnded to your claim that the game was perfect as is, and inquire as to what possible changes could be needed. Greg himself never considered Pendragon to be perfect, and always said there was room for improvement, and the he was planning for a new edition.

You seem to think that someone is going to run roughshod over Greg's game. In fact, everything that has been offically propsed is stuff that Greg himself had approved.

 

Quote

 

You’ve just changed the goalposts on the Chirurgy rules. Yes, unhealthy characters get Deteriation, but the Chirurgy roll itself merely stops Natural Healing if you fail - as per the original game- as stated. 

No, it's been that way since 3rd edition! Per KAP 3 page 104:

Deterioration: The result when an unhealthy character fails to receive successful chirurgery. 1d6 damage is inflicted from deterioration every week, at the same time as natural healing, on Sunday at noon. This is reinforced by the section on natural healing on Page 106, which has basically remained the same ever since. So if a character has a major wound, he still gets his natural healing. 

Really, look at the rules.

 

Quote

You said DEX isn’t used, but it is used for every athletic movement

Yes, and PKS don't make atheltic movements. Knights don't sneak around, they do go climbing that much, or jumping about.

Quote

- Pendragon doesn’t use skills for these things as other versions of BRP does, and depending on game circumstances, Knights don’t always wear armour anyway.

No they don't always wear armor. But they are not going to go around sneaking all that much either. Maybe a knight might have to climb and sneak during the romance peroid at times to see his armor, but that's hardly justification for DEX by itself.

 

Quote

Im not going to itemise every other complaint, but just say that this very line of argument is why a new edition, at this stage, is such a turn off. 

Implementing changes that Greg already worked on and approved of is a turn off?

Honestly you were turned off long before this stage, and don't even seem to want to address points such as Greg wanting a new edition and wanting to improve the game, and that everything coming down the line from official sources is all Greg approved changes.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Atgxtg