Stay tuned in the coming days for a major announcement about the King Arthur Pendragon RPG

[Shawn Carpenter]

A. It's a game. Games are supposed to be fun.

B. It's the product of a game company.

C. Game companies like to make sales.

D. At least half of the RPG market is now female.

E. Like men, many women like the option of playing characters of their own gender.

F. The game now puts slightly more emphasis on female PCs.

G. If this bothers you because you feel that it is historically inaccurate, discredits the source material, or in some other way runs afoul of your vision of Pendragon, refer back to A.

Edited October 20, 2020 by Shawn Carpenter
Typo.

[Atgxtg]

 

1 hour ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

A. It's a game. Games are supposed to be fun.

Yes, yet in all games people have to accpet the rules and setting that they exist in. 

1 hour ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

B. It's the product of a game company.

Yup.

1 hour ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

C. Game companies like to make sales.

Indeed, and that includes keeping existing customers. 

1 hour ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

D. At least half of the RPG market is now female.

Yup, and if they aren't interested in Pendragon already what makes you think they will be if you add female knights?

1 hour ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

E. Like men, many women like the option of playing characters of their own gender.

And many are just fine with playing male characters in a male dominated setting. 

1 hour ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

F. The game now puts slightly more emphasis on female PCs.

That's yet to be confirmed by the rules., and slightly more emphasis isn't a problem. It the increasing push turn the game into modern day with swords.  

1 hour ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

G. If this bothers you because you feel that it is historically inaccurate, discredits the source material, or in some other way runs afoul of your vision of Pendragon, refer back to A.

No, all the existing Pendragon gamer who don't like the change can just go back to playing a previous edition of the game. Unlike other forms of entertainment, RPGers do not have to continue on with the new version to continue enjoying new adventures. 

Now maybe a version of Pendragon where half the knights are female and there are of LGBTQ+ characters around will sell to enough people to offset the potential losses, but judging from how that trend has worked out for other media, I doubt it. 

 

[Atgxtg]

18 hours ago, DerKrieger said:

I think what Atgxtg is worried about isnt the option for your game to be more open but the default game changing to be more egalitarian instead of one that is fairly rooted to the fantastical setting of the de Troyes stories

Exactly! Take a look at D&D. It pretty much modern day society in a low tech setting, and there are problems with that. It doesn't fit with the setting, and it wouldn't work economically or logistically. 

There are a lot of things that we can do today because technology allows us to that couldn't be dome in years past and which played a factor in how pr-industrial societies were structured. Things like the location and size of of cities, and crop yields really dictated things far more than people seem to realize. 

 

I'll give another example that is entirely about RPG rules. In D&D spell casters have access to all sorts of spells that essentially make fortifications much less effective, and medical care much better than it was historically. This would affect the setting and culture and lead to it being much different than a medieval setting. Likewise, if female knights become commonplace then there would be major changes to the whole feudal structure. There would have to be. The manorial economic system evolved to support knights. Then chivalry would need to be altered to account for men fighting women, and if women should/need to be rescued anymore.  Then the rules for Romance would have to be altered. Can women pursue men now?  And how does the church fit into all this? Marriage, inheritance, childbirth, all that would need to be factored in. Ultimately, it would lead to a very different society. 

In limited numbers female knights are fine, but if the norm, then the setting becomes a very different place and there are a lot of things that would have to be worked out. 

 

 

 

[Atgxtg]

23 hours ago, Voord 99 said:

Since the “historical” Arthur possibly has more to do with the cultural politics of 9th-century Wales than it does with anything that really happened in Britain in the C5th-C6th, that’s not automatically relevant.*  

Since the orgins of Arthur as so vauge, it's hard to prove one way or or the other. Although paganism still existed in the 9th century.

23 hours ago, Voord 99 said:

But in any case, Pendragon’s version of paganism is quite unlike anything that is likely to have existed, and is more like modern paganism, that wouldn’t matter in any case.

True. Then again none of the other reglions are like anything that existed at the time. 

23 hours ago, Voord 99 said:

I basically agree with you that this is how it should be, and I’d go further, but as of the Book of Sires, it no longer is: Aurelius Ambrosius invents vassalage entirely - about a decade before play begins if you start in 479.  That’s what I was referring to.  And there has always been a certain amount of fudging here - back in 3e with The Boy King there were traces of a pseudohistorical post-Roman Britain, with tribes like the Iceni and so on, “Roman knights” who are essentially urban civic elites, the equation of the “Emperor Lucius” with Theodoric, and so on.

But the fudging level goes way up with the BoS.  (Which is, however, enormous fun.)

I see your point, but BoS is actually a bit more muddled in that. For instance, Knighthood somehow comes to Britian before vassalage or the manor system. So somehow we had knights who had liege lords but weren't vassals, and who had income but no manors. 

 

23 hours ago, Voord 99 said:

But they are all over the place in Arthruian Lore. Look at the orgins of characters such as Gawaine, and Kay, or items such as Excalibur and the Holy Grail. All have pagan roots.

There are things that may ultimately go back to Celtic pagan stories, but it’s at several steps removed in the stories as we have them.  

It depnds on which version of which stories you look at. The Troait Boar, for instance, isn't removed at all. 

23 hours ago, Voord 99 said:

Pretty much exactly how they are represented in actual medieval romance, frankly.  Not really a problem for me.   The game is not about them.

It isn't about female knights either. 

23 hours ago, Voord 99 said:

 Not all of those are things that it makes sense to identify as particularly pagan, though - they’re characteristic of Welsh literature well into the Middle Ages, long into the Christian period.  They affect Welsh retellings of stories that originate on the continent, like retellings of Chrétien, for instance.

They are particular pagan, but mostly obscured. PArt ofthe difficulty here is that British Pagan was more semi-pagan, and that many of the Celtic imagery has been toned down, or altered to obscure it's origins.  For instance, in a late medieval telling an old woman washing clothes in a stream as a hero goes by is probably just  an old woman washing clothes in a stream. In an early version she was a portent of bad things to come.

23 hours ago, Voord 99 said:

And one should not underestimate how weird continental medieval romance can seem from a modern perspective.  Medieval literature is often very distant from modern sensibilities, full stop.

Yes, a lot of medieval thinking seems absolutely crazy to modern people. But that doesn't mean we should throw it all out for a more modern view. 

[Hzark10]

 Again, the rules clearly state that each gm makes their own decision.  KAP 5.2 clearly states the traditional role of women. It also, on page 52, details the Non-Traditional Woman where it clearly says, "Your campaign may have room in it for female knights..." 

If, you want to play a male dominated campaign where women can only get married and have babies, that is fine for your campaign. If someone else, using the same rules, wants to have an occasional woman knight, valkyrie-style, or amazon type female warrior, why should it bother anyone if it is not your campaign?

Before anyone jumps off the cliff, it might be a good idea to actually wait and see what KAP6 has in it before making the decision to start burning books.

Humbly submitted,

Sir Vortimer/Hzark10

[BioKeith]

31 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

That's yet to be confirmed by the rules., and slightly more emphasis isn't a problem. It the increasing push turn the game into modern day with swords.  

You seem to be getting very worked up about something that is a non-issue, as far as I can tell. There is no one saying that your game (or anyone's for that matter) is going to be forced to follow a certain ratio of male/female knights or adopt any particular form of inheritence, or anything else you might consider 'modern'. Remember, your YPMV.

I believe it was articulated by Mr. Larkins that this 'change' (again - since it's been part of Greg's vision all along, I'm not entirely sold that this is a huge change) is being brought more to the forefront to encourage inclusivity. I'm not sure why anyone would be against that? 

[Atgxtg]

26 minutes ago, BioKeith said:

You seem to be getting very worked up about something that is a non-issue, as far as I can tell.

I'm not very worked up. I just do go along with the push by some people to make everything fit modern social views. 

26 minutes ago, BioKeith said:

There is no one saying that your game (or anyone's for that matter) is going to be forced to follow a certain ratio of male/female knights or adopt any particular form of inheritence, or anything else you might consider 'modern'. Remember, your YPMV.

No but there are several people saying that the game should (or must) change to make it more accommodating to female gamers. Pendragon doesn't have to change at all. It has been and still is quite playable and enjoyable as is. 

26 minutes ago, BioKeith said:

I believe it was articulated by Mr. Larkins that this 'change' (again - since it's been part of Greg's vision all along, I'm not entirely sold that this is a huge change) is being brought more to the forefront to encourage inclusivity. I'm not sure why anyone would be against that? 

I'm fine with what been officially revealed about thew role of women in the game. It the push to retroactive emancipation that I'm resisting. It neither fits the setting, not will it stop short of completely reworking the setting. 

[Pnick]

Listening to the What Would The Smart Party Do? podcast interview with David Larkins, the line developer for Pendragon, it's quite clear that he prioritises inclusivity as a core tenet of his game design philosophy:

                                https://www.whatwouldthesmartpartydo.com

David mentions that, far from women being the minority, his Pendragon gaming group is actually solely female.

He mentions that from the outset Pendragon was a hard sell for his group —  they had to be dissuaded from the notion that it would be all about male knights rescuing damsels in distress. 

He also mentions that in one of the first products the PCs will be trained by a female knight (I believe it's the Starter set but without listening again, I'm not 100% certain).

Personally, I welcome inclusivity — how could you possibly not. The extent to which making female knights the norm rather than a justifiable minority distorts the original source material and has ramifications that 'breaks the setting' I don't know,  I'm not an expert on Arthurian legend or the historical period.  

Edited October 21, 2020 by Pnick

[Lordabdul]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Pendragon doesn't have to change at all. It has been and still is quite playable and enjoyable as is. 

Then you can stay on the 5th edition and ignore all this  

What you see as "retroactive emancipation", others see as more options for engaging with more diverse people. Everybody is free to use these options or to ignore them. I'm sure there are some Pendragon GMs out there who ban plate armour and limit access to crossbows...

Think about Call of Cthulhu's classic 1920s era, for instance. I shiver at this thought but I'm sure that if the original game had restricted access to certain occupations to black characters, and later said "you know what, most players, especially people of colour, don't really want to deal with this kind of stuff in their game, so how about we just ignore it, and we add some optional chapters near the end of the book for those who want racism to be a theme in their game?", there would be people like you complaining about "retroactive emancipation" that "doesn't fit the setting". Well, I don't think these people would look good.

Edited October 21, 2020 by lordabdul

[creativehum]

Since this has become a thread about this singular issue, and I've been giving it some thought, I thought I'd post here:

King Arthur Pendragon, unlike many other RPGs, makes it clear what qualities a knight is supposed to posses. The game tracks these qualities, reinforces them, and rewards Player Knights who act accordingly.

So here's the thing: man or woman, if a knight is behaving like a knight, then all is well with the world. If the starting Player Knights are trained by a knight named Elaine rather than Elad, but Elaine behaves in manner similar to those Elad would posses, then what does it matter?

If the Player Knights, man or woman, seek to be Valorous, Loyal to their Lord or Lady, Energetic, Generous, Just, Merciful, and Modest, then what more could we ask of them. They are being knights! That's what the game is about, and they are succeeding.

***

Honestly, I'm more worried about the rules not being clear, not thought out fully, and editorial quality control issues than I am about whatever all this is.

Edited October 21, 2020 by creativehum

[SilverSeraph]

David Larkins mentions in the interview at https://www.whatwouldthesmartpartydo.com/2020/10/18/king-arthur-pendragon that there is historical precedent for women fighters, etc and that this change was Greg Stafford's intention.

Honestly, it should be up to the group.  Personally, in my game I like the idea of females playing more of the manipulative Morgause or Cersei Lannister type rather than a fighter and that's what I'll probably go with, but that's just me.

[redmoongoddess]

15 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

By the way, it was Greg Stafford's vision as well. Each time you diverge from the sources to appeal to a modern sensibility, you look like a D&D game and not a KAP game.

I think quite the contrary, and I think it's the heart of the argument. I never saw any racism in the sources, and I read many (many) medieval tales, but as you said, it's a feudal world, and the game portrays it as "a good thing". IRL, no player is thinking the "blue blood are better people, because their ancestors were better people". And yet, in the game, it's true.

The feudal word is patriarcal. Proudly, without any shame. If you alter one thing from the setting, you change the mood of the game. That's why I am very reluctant to allow women knights in my game. Otherwise, it looks like any other D&D game (very inclusive, but empty). It's not against women (of course not!), but it's to be faithful to the sources.

In the old greg stafford site, there was a whole essay "this game is sexist". It was a bit provocative. In fact, the game is not, but the setting is.

1. The idea that it was "Greg's vision" for Pendragon to be completely morally at odds with our modern view points is only partially, vaguely, true. Greg deliberately based Pendragon on not what actually happened in that time period, but what people who lived in the 14th century thought happened, and thus he opened up the idea of historically inaccurate stuff happening from the start. Saying it's now D&D because women knights are now accepted is ignoring what makes D&D D&D, as said Lady Knights will most probably start off with an HATE SAXONS passion just like any male knight, and be just as likely to be Cruel, Vengeful, Arbitrary, and Greedy as the guys are. If this was D&D, the possibility of them being racist towards Vikings or scoundrels isn't something that is mechanically presented in D&D, aside from alignment. And the option to be a Fae knight or Wizard would be an part of the core rules (which it will likely not be). Not to mention D&D's own history of struggling with sexism, largely due to one of the authors being an ACTUAL sexist who was baffled to find out that women actually played and enjoyed the game.

2. The idea that blue bloods are better people because they're blue bloods, is contradicted in Pendragon (despite the Knights, who are supposed to protect the land, all being presumably nobles) by the existence of evil Knights (Including possibly the PCs! It's mentioned in the core rules as something that might happen, if discouraged), knights who become poor, non-nobles who become knights (a possibility in book of Lady and Knights), foreigner's becoming knights, and King Mark Of Cornwall being an piece of shit.

3. Women Knights being more of an thing doesn't automatically mean that the ENTIRETY of Logres is now a non-patriarchal land, since as mentioned, it's only a thing in some areas of the land in-lore, and just because women can be knighted (which presumably requires a lot of hoops to jump through, as with any other non-Cymric Male Noble Knights who exist in the setting) doesn't mean it's common for most areas or that most NPCs aren't bigoted in some fashion.

4. Pendragon is a game, meant to be fun, and how alien and immoral the culture of Pendragon that the Players defend should be is ultimately up to the people playing it. And frankly, an 100% accurate simulation of actual knight morality would be extremely unfun to RP, as it would no doubt up play their racism and paranoia towards Saxons, their willingness to perform war crimes to keep their land, the fact that "honor" is an ideal that is frequently never upheld, not to mention rape, plagues, and torture. Themes that could show up in Pendragon but are wisely usually not, at least not as major ones, since such a game relaying around them would be nothing but extremely depressing and irritating to play through and run, at least for more people.

5. If Pict Knights are allowed, I don't see why Jewish knights are something to laugh at.

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

...The mounting evidence, based upon what we are seeing with films, tv, video games, and now D&D is that doing so ruins everything...

...altering them to make them all fit the modern cookie cutter image ends up destroying everything that made them compelling in the first place...

...Well, with modern rules and values, Gwen could simply have divorced Arthur. That whole story only works because of the way medeival soceity worked...

...For instance if someone were running a game set during WW2 you won't be able to play someone who is Jewish in the German military, because Nazi Germany was a racist, prejudiced place...

...If people won't play a game because the genders and sexual orientation of the characters in the game different from their own, then how do they expect to be able to deal with the many setback that will occur during actual play. Or how can they deal with the other people the have to interact with in daily life, especially at the gaming table?...

...Just look at how Star Wars, Star Trek, Terminator, and Doctor Who are doing. All those franchises went down the same path you want Pendragon to go down,. and all have lost most of their fan base and can't sell any merchandise anymore...

...But you don't really want that, you just want to try and force everyone else to do that.  

 

1. Doctor Who, SW and ST STILL have fan bases that are going strong to this day, Terminator went downhill as a franchise because T3 and Salvation were terrible movies, not because of wokeness, and FYI T2 was and still is praised for being one of the few 80's action movies to have a strong lady protagonist. So why would that be what killed it? (Not to mention Star Trek's relationship with communist themes and social justice.)

2. Why would you EVER want to play as a game where you played as nazis? Playing as villains, sure, but playing as one of THE WORSE AND MOST HORRIFIC armies in history who's entire idology was based around killing people simply for their skin color who killed MANY real people? No. Such a game would be maddeningly unfun and painful to play for just about anyone with a love for basic human rights.

3. Most people play RPGs to be escapism from the real world. Presumably most "minorities" have to already deal with racism, sexism, and other bigotries in their lives more than someone should experience, why would you play a game where the players are charged with protecting a land that ENDORSES these sins in order to escape that shit they already deal with often? And presumably the game is going to retain the need for conflict as it did in earlier editions, so why would all bigotry just suddenly disappear when it could easily be used as an obstacle for the players to deal with?
 

4. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Edited October 21, 2020 by redmoongoddess

[Luca Cherstich]

1 hour ago, Pnick said:

He also mentions that in one of the first products the PCs will be trained by a female knight (I believe it's the Starter set but without listening again, I'm not 100% certain).

That kind of things are a problem for me... I guess I'll stick with Sir Elad. 

[TrippyHippy]

Will they make special editions with leather covers?

[Atgxtg]

14 hours ago, redmoongoddess said:

1. Doctor Who, SW and ST STILL have fan bases that are going strong to this day, Terminator went downhill as a franchise because T3 and Salvation were terrible movies, not because of wokeness, and FYI T2 was and still is praised for being one of the few 80's action movies to have a strong lady protagonist. So why would that be what killed it? (Not to mention Star Trek's relationship with communist themes and social justice.)

Doctor Who, Star Wars and Star Trek have all lost thier fanbases and no one ics picking up thier mercandise. Trek is doing so strong that they can't get funding for thier series, CBS All Access is failing, ratings for new Trek on brodcast TV are pititful, and all the merchandises have dropped it. Star Wars is going so strong that the last two films have bombed,  there have been a power struggle to oust Kathleen Kennedy, and the best place to find Star Wars toys is in the discount bin at the dollar store. Doctor Who is going so strong that people in the UK want to defund the BBC, and the show is now being funded by China.

 

Terminator Dark Fate's total subservience to wokeness, right down to killing off the one person who was supposed to stop Skynet, is what killed the franchise. Yet T3 and Salavation were terrible movies. But is was Dark Fate that killed it. As for T2 is is a a great film, and deserves to be praise as a great film, not because it had a strong female protagonist. A strong female protagonist does not constitute a great or even good film, any more than a strong male protagonist, and that is precisely what's wrong with all these modern woke films and tv shows that focus entirely upon the gender and sexual orientation of the characters. 

[Shawn Carpenter]

19 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

21 hours ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

A. It's a game. Games are supposed to be fun.

Yes, yet in all games people have to accpet the rules and setting that they exist in. 

I disagree. RPGs require everyone involved to accept the rules they and setting parameters they agree with. Nobody runs a game exactly as written. If one can make exceptions because a rule seems out of balance, they can certainly make an exception to the setting. Nothing stops you from running your campaign with male knights only. Why do you think the rules shouldn't support other approaches?

 

19 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Quote

C. Game companies like to make sales.

Indeed, and that includes keeping existing customers. 

Putting the existing customer base ahead expanding the customer base is suicide for any company. A growing company must be willing to accept the loss of existing customers to pursue more and younger customers. Failure to do so results in sales contraction and, eventually, the greying out of the company as a whole.

Existing customers should be considered, but they should not be the deciding factor in product design of any type,

19 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Quote

D. At least half of the RPG market is now female.

Yup, and if they aren't interested in Pendragon already what makes you think they will be if you add female knights?

Because women like cool games, too. They just don't like to be told they have to play a man. The same is true of male players. Remember, it's a game. People play it to enjoy themselves. It is not historical reenactment. 

Is it your opinion that there's something about Pendragon that makes it a peculiarly male game?

19 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Quote

E. Like men, many women like the option of playing characters of their own gender.

And many are just fine with playing male characters in a male dominated setting. 

But many aren't. If we can imagine a world in which exceptional knights clad in grossly anachronistic armor fight ogres and witches while searching for a magic cup, why can't we imagine that some of them were women? More importantly, if a human player wants to play a make-believe Joan of Arc at a game table that you will never see, why should you care? You are free to run your male-only knights version with your pals, after all.

 

19 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Quote

F. The game now puts slightly more emphasis on female PCs.

That's yet to be confirmed by the rules., and slightly more emphasis isn't a problem. It the increasing push turn the game into modern day with swords.  

I believe that female knights are already mentioned as options. Also, allowing female knights doesn't transform Pendragon into the modern world. That's an overreaction, particularly when you can still run your game however you wish. I don't see why you'd care what some poor benighted group of gamers in darkest Utopia are doing at their table when you can do whatever you want at yours.

 

19 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Quote

If this bothers you because you feel that it is historically inaccurate, discredits the source material, or in some other way runs afoul of your vision of Pendragon, refer back to A.

No, all the existing Pendragon gamer who don't like the change can just go back to playing a previous edition of the game. Unlike other forms of entertainment, RPGers do not have to continue on with the new version to continue enjoying new adventures. 

Now maybe a version of Pendragon where half the knights are female and there are of LGBTQ+ characters around will sell to enough people to offset the potential losses, but judging from how that trend has worked out for other media, I doubt it. 

Sure! You can do that! Or you can use the parts of the new game you like and ignore the parts you don't. I don't care what other people do at their own table. If you like the old rules better, more power to you!

But your assumption that being more inclusive is somehow a risky gamble for Chaosium - well, that's just your Original Gamer syndrome talking. Games move on past their original consumers, as all media does. The number grognards dwindles every day, literally. Eventually we (I include myself - I started playing Pendragon with the 1st edition) will all be gone. If any media is to survive, it must embrace change and grow. Any game company that bases its strategies on fear of losing the Old Guard is being managed as a social organization, not a business.

The world has changed. You don't have to change with it, but your games, TV shows, books, music, and movies will. If you're comfortable withdrawing with your relics, that's aces with me. Enjoy! No judgement from me at all, and why would you care if there was?

For me, though, I love seeing tables fill up with exited gamers who are there to tell a story. I don't care what the faces look like, I'll make their characters fit in my game.

Also - you don't think there were gay Romano-Britain knights? Come on!

 

[Atgxtg]

15 hours ago, redmoongoddess said:

2. Why would you EVER want to play as a game where you played as nazis?

Off the top of my head?maybe to run a person who sees how bad things are and it changes their outlook, like Otto Schindler. Keep in mind, it was a Nazi doctor who exposed the war atrocities committed by the Japanese. 

But I'd be much more inclined to run something were we played against the Nazis, and that has tons of possiblities.  Running spies who are working undercover. People in the underground. Being part of the plot to kill Hitler. Lots of good gaming possibles there. But if I did that, then anyone playing a black and/or female character is not going to easily pass themselves off as part of the German military.

15 hours ago, redmoongoddess said:

Playing as villains, sure, but playing as one of THE WORSE AND MOST HORRIFIC armies in history who's entire idology was based around killing people simply for their skin color who killed MANY real people?

Not everybody who joins a political party is evil, as few political parties go around claiming to be evil. Much of Nazi ideology was about restoring German industry and p[ride following it defeat in WWI and the Treaty of Versailles. Not that I'm defending the Nazis. Just pointing out that no everyone who joined up signed off on all the atrocities. 

And, the Soviet Union under Stalin was at least as bad, if not worse.Although that isn't saying much for mankind. I think history is full of peoiple who were as bad as the Nazis, it's just the Nazis had the benefits of industrialization. 

15 hours ago, redmoongoddess said:

No. Such a game would be maddeningly unfun and painful to play for just about anyone with a love for basic human rights.

Since most RPGs tend to revolve around heroic character fighting bad/evil people who do not seem to care so much about "basic human rights" that would seem to eliminate practically every RPG. 

Oh, and the concept of "basic human rights" is a very modern one. Generally commers didn't have any real rights to speak of. 

 

15 hours ago, redmoongoddess said:

3. Most people play RPGs to be escapism from the real world. Presumably most "minorities" have to already deal with racism, sexism, and other bigotries in their lives more than someone should experience, why would you play a game where the players are charged with protecting a land that ENDORSES these sins in order to escape that shit they already deal with often?

Because you are not your character. From a medieval viewpoint someone from another county is considered to be difference and inferior just because they aren't from around here. That only gets worse when you deal with people from further away, or who look different. 

Take a good look at what Arthur does in Pendragon. He go off and conquers everyone, in no small part becuase he and his knights are British and thus better than everyone else, at least in thier own eyes and that of those who created and passed down the stories. 

If you want an enlightened egalitarian society Pendragon isn't it. It is literary a Patriarchy.

15 hours ago, redmoongoddess said:

And presumably the game is going to retain the need for conflict as it did in earlier editions, so why would all bigotry just suddenly disappear when it could easily be used as an obstacle for the players to deal with?

Exactly. But things would actually be much worse. 

15 hours ago, redmoongoddess said:

 

4. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

More like jumping off a cliff. The whole feudal system is based upon certain beliefs, economic needs, and logistical requirements that would be thrown out the window with a significant number of female knights. These things are going to need to be addressed and their effects on the society and manorial system will need to be worked out. 

[Rick Meints]

13 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

Will they make special editions with leather covers?

We will have limited editions of many of the books (128+ pages) bound in leatherette, just like we do for RQ and CoC.

[Shawn Carpenter]

I'm pretty sure that Chaosium isn't keen on the discussion of the merits of National Socialism on their Pendragon forum. Just saying . . . 

[Trifletraxor]

1 hour ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

I'm pretty sure that Chaosium isn't keen on the discussion of the merits of National Socialism on their Pendragon forum. Just saying . . . 

😄 

On the whole male/female knights discussion; it's obviously going nowhere and is utterly pointless. The new edition is highly unlikely to be influenced by this thread and GMs will just have to use what they like from the new or stick with the old. 

[Hzark10]

It is helpful in that it helps SirLarkins and the gang know what perceptions are out there. And what people really like.

[Ian Absentia]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Doctor Who, Star Wars and Star Trek have all lost thier fanbases and no one ics picking up thier mercandise.

Honestly, I reckon that has more to do with those franchises' writers' and executives' ability (or inability) to incorporate progressive themes in the entertainment they develop and produce, and less to with the themes themselves being inherently repellent.  From personal experience, I can tell you that it's been scatter-shot writing by executive committee that have turned me away, and not the bogey-man of "wokeness".

Let's extend our trust and goodwill to @sirlarkins that something on this scale will manage the changing social terrain more deftly.  And when we buy the new edition, let's do what we always do -- play it exactly the way we want to play it.

I mean, we are playing these games, right?  And not just critiquing them from the bookshelf?

!i!

[Atgxtg]

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

I disagree. RPGs require everyone involved to accept the rules they and setting parameters they agree with.

Nope. The GM decides. The players can question things,  and arguer their points, and even drop out, but ultimately it is the GM who decides what rules. With the exception of troupe style RPGs and RPGs where everyone gets to add to the story line, a GM is run by a GM who is the ultimate authority on their game.  

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

 

Nobody runs a game exactly as written. If one can make exceptions because a rule seems out of balance, they can certainly make an exception to the setting. Nothing stops you from running your campaign with male knights only. Why do you think the rules shouldn't support other approaches?

Nothing stops you from running your campaign with female knights only. Why do you think the rules need to be changed to throw out the approach they have gone with so far?

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

Putting the existing customer base ahead expanding the customer base is suicide for any company.

Are you familiar with the story of New Coke? Trading your existing customer base chasing after new cusmoers only works if the new customers outnumber the ones you lose.

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

A growing company must be willing to accept the loss of existing customers to pursue more and younger customers. Failure to do so results in sales contraction and, eventually, the greying out of the company as a whole.

Unless of course the younger customers don't take to the product and the companies dies out anyway, just faster., which what seems to be the norm when a customer abandons it fanbase chasing after another one.

 

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

Existing customers should be considered, but they should not be the deciding factor in product design of any type,

No they shouldn't. But you assume that this change will be a boon to the game. What if it isn't?

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

Because women like cool games, too. They just don't like to be told they have to play a man.

Tough. There are a lot of things in life that people aren't going to like. That doesn't mean that those things are going to change just because they don't like them. 

 

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

 

The same is true of male players. Remember, it's a game. People play it to enjoy themselves. It is not historical reenactment. 

That doesn't mean that they don't have to accept the parameters set by the game and GM. For instance no one gets to bring a lightsaber into my Pendragon campaign, even though they would enjoy doing so.

 

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

Is it your opinion that there's something about Pendragon that makes it a peculiarly male game?

No, it my my opion, and based on what he wrote, Greg's that Arthurian Britian is a male dominated society. Greg's various statements on the setting and the role of women, as well as the socio-economic factors. These are things that none of the pro female knights faction ever address. How does childbirth affect knight service. While female knights get maternity leave. If so, who fights in their place? That right there is a good reason not to have female knights. 

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

But many aren't. If we can imagine a world in which exceptional knights clad in grossly anachronistic armor fight ogres and witches while searching for a magic cup, why can't we imagine that some of them were women?

Because it clashes with the feudal society. Now if you want to go with a more Celtic version of Arthur, or make such women rare, it not an issue. But if you are going to base the game as heavily upon Mallory as Pendragon does, then it clashes. 

Pendragon has been successful because it has tried to portray knights and knighthood from a more medieval viewpoint, rather than from the veiwpoint of modern gaming. Once that goes away it will just be just another RPG.

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

More importantly, if a human player wants to play a make-believe Joan of Arc at a game table that you will never see, why should you care? You are free to run your male-only knights version with your pals, after all.

I don't. What I care about if when the human player who wants to play Joan of Arc gets the rules changed to suit their wishes. Why does their viewpoint count more than the existing players. 

I'll bring this up again, I actually do have a female playing in my gaming group, and she is running a female Saxon warrior and may one day run a female knight (not under Uther,m but maybe under Arthur, especially if she distinguishes herself during the early years when Arthur is constantly at war to defend his title). I find nothing wrong with making some accommodations for a player character. It's the whole idea of turning Pendragon into what it isn't that I object to. Greg could have made knighthood unisex back in the 80s. He choose not to do so then, nor in any of the later editions, and he left such things up to individual GMs from KAP3 onward. It's only after his passing that we are getting universal suffrage in Pendragon.

 

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

I believe that female knights are already mentioned as options.

Yes, and yet some people say that isn't enough, and that the game needs to do more for female knights.

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

 

Also, allowing female knights doesn't transform Pendragon into the modern world.

It does transform it significantly from a feudal one. Here are some of the topics that will need to be addressed:

1. If a female knight marries does she still control the land or her husband?

2. Does her land pass down to her firstborn son, firstborn daughter, firstborn child or what?

3. Are allowances to be made for when a female knight is in the family way in regards to her knightly duties? If so, what's to keep an enemy from attacking when the knight of the manor is indisposed?

4. What happens to all those males who would have had land and been knighted?  

5. Does the feamle knight get to pass 1/10th of her glory down to someone? Her daughters?, Her sons? As is stands now Glory comes entirely from the father. I'd suggest 1/10 of the higher of the two.

I'm not saying that those issues (and other) Can't be dealt with, but I am saying that there will need to be some sort of official way to handle them if female knights become common. Again, one, or even a handful of female PKs won't be a major problem, but if half of Logres is held by female knights then there will have to be a solution worked out for succession. And that solution would significantly alter the setting. 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

That's an overreaction, particularly when you can still run your game however you wish. I don't see why you'd care what some poor benighted group of gamers in darkest Utopia are doing at their table when you can do whatever you want at yours.

No changing the core rulebook would be an overreaction, as all the people who want to run with female knight can already do so. There is no need to change the rules. This is just identity politics sticking in nose into something it doesn't already control. 

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

Sure! You can do that! Or you can use the parts of the new game you like and ignore the parts you don't.

Or better yet, not buy the game in the first place. You see if I buy it then I end up supporting it, even if I don't like it. By not buying it I don't support it. Now if other people buy it, then the game does well and propsers desite my dropping out. If it doesn't, well that tells them something too.

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

I don't care what other people do at their own table. If you like the old rules better, more power to you!

Great. If you don't care what other people do at their table why do you want the rules changed, as that would only affect what other people do at their own table. 

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

But your assumption that being more inclusive is somehow a risky gamble for Chaosium - well, that's just your Original Gamer syndrome talking. Games move on past their original consumers, as all media does.

Have you seen how the media's been doing. "Get woke go broke" is a real thing. This may come as a shock to you but the majoity of people are not SJWs. 

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

The number grognards dwindles every day, literally. Eventually we (I include myself - I started playing Pendragon with the 1st edition) will all be gone. If any media is to survive, it must embrace change and grow. Any game company that bases its strategies on fear of losing the Old Guard is being managed as a social organization, not a business.

And any business that dumps what it has to get on the bandwagon of whatever the hot topic is today, is going to be left high and dry. In all my years of gaming I've never run into any woman who had a problem playing a male character or with Pendragon being about knights, male knights. Not one. Most of the people I've met at the gamer table were made of sterner stuff that that, and realized that it was all part of role playing. I don't believe that they've suddenly got so insecure in the gender and worldview that they refuse to play a game that doesn't constantly reinforce it. 

I don't see a legion of women who are just aching to play Pendragon it only it wasn't so masculine. 

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

The world has changed. You don't have to change with it, but your games, TV shows, books, music, and movies will. If you're comfortable withdrawing with your relics, that's aces with me. Enjoy! No judgement from me at all, and why would you care if there was?

They world hasn't changed the way you think. The TV shows books, music and movies that have changed are all dying off. I'm not concerned about your judgement of me or anyone elses. We are all free to make our own choises and decisions. I do care about what happens to the actual game and rules. 

Doubly so considering what's been happening in the media an with D&D. I'm sure we are not far from someone stating that the cultural modifiers are racist and that they should be dropped like in D&D. And then we will be left with a bland game flull of bland characters all cut with he same cookie cutter. Then no one will be playing Pendragon and the people who were so adamant about changing Pendragon will move onto trashing RuneQuest, or Traveller, of whatever RPG they can ruin.

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

For me, though, I love seeing tables fill up with exited gamers who are there to tell a story. I don't care what the faces look like, I'll make their characters fit in my game.

So do I. I don't care what the players look like, but I do care if their characters fit the setting. 

1 minute ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

Also - you don't think there were gay Romano-Britain knights? Come on!

No I don't as they would have been hunted down and executed by the church. Tolerance is a modern concept.

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, Shawn Carpenter said:

I'm pretty sure that Chaosium isn't keen on the discussion of the merits of National Socialism on their Pendragon forum. Just saying . . . 

LOL! That would have to be a short discussion. 

My point though is that bad unfair settings are part of what make for a good adventure game. RPGs would be pretty boring if the knights rode up to the bad guy's castle, confronted him with his misdeeds and he replied "Gee, I'm sorry, I didn't realize rape, pillage, murder and cannibalism would upset people. I'm sorry. What can I do to fix it?"

 

[Atgxtg]

14 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

Honestly, I reckon that has more to do with those franchises' writers' and executives' ability (or inability) to incorporate progressive themes in the entertainment they develop and produce, and less to with the themes themselves being inherently repellent.

Indeed. It doesn't matter what type of story you are trying to tell if you tell it badly. But then why are these shows being run by people who can't or won't write good stories?