[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/tg/ - Traditional Games


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: kap3.jpg (308 KB, 830x1081)
308 KB
308 KB JPG
What's the best edition of Pendragon for a newcomer to the series? The one with the best balance of accessible rules and interesting mechanics and lore.
>>
bump
>>
>>66231931
I played 5th and it was fine. Haven't played
others though.
>>
>>66231931
I've only played 5.X, but it seems to be the overall best. Some of the earlier systems have magic rules, but
>magic rules
>>
>>66231931
3rd edition. It was the last edition published before Pendragon was cucked by SJWs and allowed female knights to exist.
>>
>>66232636
Based.
>>
>>66232636
I mean ladyknights functionally aren't supported. There's nothing in the rulebook about them bar a single paragraph going "oh yeah they're completely playable". There are no ladyknight characters that I've come across, the marriage tables still assume you're marrying a woman and having kids, the GPC assumes you're a man...

Fuck, if anything I'm disappointed by the lack of support for playing female characters of any sort. It feels worse to throw this stuff in as if it was playable without a whole bunch of GM-wrangling.
>>
>>66232629
Yeah the magic rules always seemed like a crutch for GMs who felt scared of going "This happens cause Merlin."
>>
>>66233763
Get the supplements for the other areas like Ireland, the Picts, Saxons, Northmen, etc. They all have rules and roles mentioned for female warriors/leaders.
Mythras Mythic Britain also has setting rules for Briton(Celtic) female characters but it's not very detailed and Pendragon is the overall better system for the period, especially for nobles.
>>
We played this Sunday the first battle against Octa and Eosa and one of the knights killed king Octa with one blow. Just one, the first. That player has a high Hate for Saxons and was inspired so it was pretty one sided. I bullshitted Octa surviving since the book specifically tells you to do that and luckily the players didn't notice it or didn't mind it.

Are my characters too OP? Is the game supposed to be like that? Am I supposed to bullshit some passions for the strong NPCs? Octa only had Honor which didn't seem appropriate for the scene.
>>
>>66236567
>Are my characters too OP? Is the game supposed to be like that? Am I supposed to bullshit some passions for the strong NPCs? Octa only had Honor which didn't seem appropriate for the scene.
Passions can be very powerful, so it's a good way to balance powerful NPCs as having a strong passion in a scene. Whenever in doubt, as the text suggests, don't be afraid to focus on story and fun over mechanics; however, sometimes odd results can make better stories.
In your example you could've had Octa severely wounded and a strong follower suddenly defending him with ferocity. That could add an organic NPC to your storyline.
>>
>>66231931
They're publishing a new one "soon." Normally I'd say Chaosium never actually follows through on its niche products but they're running games of Pendragon at Gencon this year so we're probably getting close to a kickstarter announcement.

If you'd rather not wait, get the most recent one and be ready to jump ship to the new one. I say that because it's usually easier to get a group to try a new game no one's heard of than an old game no one's heard of
>>
>>66231931
5th if you want to play a kniggit, 4th if someone else
>>
>>66232636
So play 4ed and beyond, got it.
>>
>>66238081
If you're a cuck, then sure. The best thing about Pendragon is that it keeps women where they belong and where they were historically. Getting rid of that misses the entire purpose of the setting. Women are objects and are treated as such, not actual characters with agency.
>>
>>66239780
>The best thing about Pendragon is that it keeps women where they belong and where they were historically
Is that really the BEST thing it does? That's not a very strong selling point
>>
>>66239838
Pendragon was the only RPG with enough moral courage to put women where they belong. It took the SJWs 25 years to convince the authors that their game would go out of business if they didn't add some faux-inclusivity, but yes, the best thing Pendragon does is exactly that. It took a stand against liberalism, and should be applauded for it, even if the battle was in the end futile.
>>
>>66239899
Greg Stafford was completely okay with the idea of female adventurers, he explicitly establishes the restrictions as being there for historical accuracy, but he promotes and gives examples of several female characters both in Pendragon and in his previous Arthurian game, Prince Valiant.
There's absolutely no "anti-liberal" sentiment behind it, stop pushing your agenda everywhere, and stop shoving politics into my hobby.
>>
>>66239899
shut the fuck up about sjws you obsessed fuck
>>
>>66239899
t. hasn't read Pendragon

>>66231931
The most recent edition is best, as it's basically errata for the earlier editions. The game has changed remarkably little over time.
>>
>>66240094
>The most recent edition is best, as it's basically errata for the earlier editions.
Alright, that's 5.2 right? I'll go with that. How fiddly/old-school are the rules? Are they easy to teach a group used to 5e and WoD?
>>
>>66240533
Fairly old school, but it's the kind of old school that was forward thinking at the time and has aged well. Not very clunky. It's simplified Runequest with a d100 swapped for a d20. The Passion rules may be the only stumbling block, but if they're used to WoD style narrative stuff they'll be fine.
>>
>>66240533
Basic gameplay is super simple and unless your players are complete baboons they'll get it in a couple of minutes.

Base management rules are a clusterfuck if you try and dig into the system, but the fun kind of clusterfuck like an orgy or a particularly convoluted 4x game.

Overall its pretty fun, but I'd definitely recommend running the GPC. Its one of the best 'modules' I've ever played.
>>
>>66239838
this
why would i play pendragon if i am already enforcing proper sexual dimorphism and its consequences
>>
>>66241997
Because as >>66240094 said they didn't actually read Pendragon. It's a fantastic setting in the dark ages that allows for noble houses, politics, tournaments, raiding and generational play. It's fucking awesome. I agree with >>66240945, the GPC is an amazing module; don't be afraid to do a bit of ad hoc stuff with it, though.

There are supplements for all the cultures you can encounter, so you can base your NPCs in them or run something in them. A Saxon game will play different to the Britons and the Irish are on the rise during the later part of the period.
>>
>>66231931
5.2. It's the prettiest version, and they don't really change that much between them. Magic is the one thing that was removed, but the game is better because of it. It's a game about knights, not magicians.
>>
>>66231931
Don't forget to use online supplements. Like this expanded event table:
https://gspendragon.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/pendragoneventssummerwinter1.pdf
>>
File: Pendragon Map 531.jpg (295 KB, 800x946)
295 KB
295 KB JPG
>>66242983
>>
>>66236567
Trust me, while Hate Saxons seems really powerful right now, wait till he fails a Passions roll. That -5 to all rolls, or maybe even -10 hurts. And then we get onto the craziness of rolling a 20.
>>
>>66239780
>letting friends have fun in a game of pretend is cuckoldry
¿Que?
>>
>>66244913
>replying to someone with obvious brainrot
>>
>>66244962
Sorry, I'm morbidly curious about their reasoning.
>>
>>66244992
There isn't any. It's trolling for the hell of it.

I'm running a game fairly soon. Probably next month. What's the deal with the new edition someone mentioned? Is it going to be basically 5.3 or a major departure like Runequest Glorantha was from previous games?
>>
What's the best introduction to the Arthurian myth? I know the common knowledge stuff about the sword in the stone, Lancelot and Excalibur, but aside from watching The Sword in the Stone and watching Monty Python's Holy Grail I've never actually experienced the whole Arthur story.
>>
There is a good review/overview of the game and its history in the most recent post--just the other day--at:

andrewloganmontgomery
dot
blogspot
>>
>>66246217
I started with Mallory, though it is a bit of a dry read. Truthfully, I suggest the GPC.
>>
>>66246301
Oh, thanks a lot. I'm reading it right now.
>>
>>66231931
3rd for
>>66232636
both lack of inclusiveness (that isn't supported well system wise at all) and the most modules for the system.
5th for up to date mechanics and artwork. Also, use PALADIN - Warriors of Charlemagne for a magic system that is bare bones but at least functional and usable by knights!
>>
>>66233763
>Fuck, if anything I'm disappointed by the lack of support for playing female characters of any sort. It feels worse to throw this stuff in as if it was playable without a whole bunch of GM-wrangling.
Yeah, it's kind of like the "magic" rules. Dog shit.
>>
>>66246326
I will eventually read the GPC but I was thinking of a novelization of some sort.
>>
>>66246607
In that case, go for Mallory, or maybe for Tennyson's Idylls of the King, if you'd like a more poetic input. In fact, pretty much all of Tennyson's poems are excellent. I like Galahad's.
>>
>>66231931
Does Pendragon have good social interaction rules?
>>
>>66246698
Not quite. There's rules to see if you do the courteous thing right, for example, but no rules to persuade.

You do that through roleplaying.
>>
>>66246703
As god intented.
>>
>>66246718
Amen.
>>
>>66231931

IME, like Call of Cthulhu, the different editions seem pretty much indistinguishable from each other insofar as mechanics go so just pick the setting/art you like best - or y'know, the cheapest one
>>
>>66246217
Mallory, The Once and Future King, or go with individual original texts and work your way up. The Knight of the Cart is pretty fucking great, as is Gawain and the Green Knight.
>>
Any anon got a pdf of MechDragon? Supposed to be Mechwarrior/Battle tech rpg ported into Pendragon.
>>
>>66247875
If you do go with TOaFK, remember the first book especially is meant for kids. It's what Disney's The Sword in the Stone is based on, and there's a lot of turning into animals in order to learn morality tales and general whimsical humor. The truly Arthurian stuff starts in the second book onward. I enjoyed the whole thing, but you can maybe probably skim over some stuff if it's boring you.
>>
>>66247942

*Nobody* does, except for Cam Banks and his immediate playing group. MechDragon is his homebrew system, and he hasn't released it to the public, except some of his design notes to his Patreon subscribers. Go on Twitter or RPG.net and talk to him there, or go sign up for his Patreon and pay money.

Feel free to bring it back here if you get it. I'd certainly like to see what he's got.
>>
I'm reading the rulebook, but I'm a bit confused by the skirmish rules. How exactly should that be handled? The commanders roll their battle scores, then you run an arbitrary series of one-on-one melee rounds until the GM feels like making the Follower's Fate roll? Does the number of combatants not affect the combat at all?
>>
>>66248683
You should be using the book of battle for mass combat, not the version in the main rulebooks.
>>
>>66248683
Core book skirmish combat isn't about the actual fight. It's about what the players can get done in that fight, if that makes sense.
>>
>>66247942
>>66248499
>Mechwarrior/Battle tech rpg ported into Pendragon
I never knew I'd like to play this until now, but damn, that would be pretty fun.
>>
Bump for obscurity
>>
>>66249278
>>66252556
Does anyone have any tips for running Fights (less than 25) and Clashes (less than 250) that are on the lower end in terms of numbers?
>>
>>66249278
>>66252556
I like the lighter rules for skirmishes and battles from the core rulebook, but I don't get why they didn't put in modifiers for troop size and quality in the core skirmish rules. Even Prince Valiant had those, it's really weird.
>>
>>66255304
I wonder if there is any homebrewed skirmish rules out there that account for that.
>>
http://thecommentsection.org/viewtopic.php?f=78&t=9501&start=360#p264429

These are the skirmish rules I use.
>>
>>66231931

Which is the least problematic?
>>
>>66256166
There is no "least" problematic. No matter what version of Pendragon you run, men are inherently more powerful and worthy of being leaders than women. Even if you have a game which includes ladyknights, no matter what happens, there's going to be a glass ceiling and arthur and the round table knights will be male. It's incredibly problematic, and in 2019 people shouldn't be playing games that support a LITERAL patriarchy.
>>
>>66256348
>It's incredibly problematic, and in 2019 people shouldn't be playing games that support a LITERAL patriarchy.
Is this trolling? There's nothing wrong with playing historically-inspired period games, as long as you understand that it's a fucking game and no one in your group is uncomfortable with it.
>>
>>66256348
There are plenty of other threads and games for you to enjoy; ask yourself why you choose to complain about how others play a game?
>>
>>66239899
made me lol

have a (you)
>>
File: 1363022814451.jpg (1.43 MB, 1600x1200)
1.43 MB
1.43 MB JPG
>>66255897
Thank you, these are good!
>>
bump
>>
>>66256348
This can’t be real.
>>
>>66260125
Oh I assure you it can. The last 5 or 6 Pendragon threads can easily attest to that.
>>
>>66256348
8/10. Pretty quality, mate.
>>
>>66232636
>>66239780
>>66239899
If you were not so fucking stupid you would see don't have to have women knights but you make it clear you are too retarded to be playing tabletop gaming
>>66233104
Stupid is the word you are looking for.
>>66256348
I disagree. What people forget is Pendragon is based on Arthurian MYTH. The stories of king Arthur and his men are not historical accurate with it having stuff from time the stories were written and the stories themselves changed over time. Also lets not forget king Arthur himself most likely never existed. There is nothing stopping you from making at least small changes so things more to your liking.
>>
>>66260125
Of course it isn't real.
When did people loose the ability to spot obvious bait.
>>
>>66263451
When people stopped learning how to spell “lose”.
>>
>>66263451
When everything became bait.
>>
>>66263833
And when everything is bait...
>>
>>
>>66257742
that thumbnail has a nice ass
>>
>>66265895
Do those castles listed include minor keeps/manors? Or would there be multiple manors and keeps belonging to lesser lords? Do any of the rulebooks go into the demographics and such of the region?
>>
>>66266075
I'm not 100%, but if its going to be anywhere it'll be in the book of the estate.
>>
>>66266075
>Do those castles listed include minor keeps/manors?
Not even close. As that map shows, there's like 3 castles in Salisbury (Vagon, The Rock, and Du Plain).

Look at this. Here's all the Salisbury manors. There's about 120 of them, just is Salisbury.
>>
>>66266279
Oh shit, it's a much more populated setting than I thought. If you consider that each manor oversee at least a village and/or some hamlets, and that there are smaller towns that sprout here and there. I don't know why I had the idea that post-roman Britain wasn't that densely populated.
>>
>>66266329
It's actually less populated than you think. There's a really good section in the Book of the Manor about this.

The theory is that everyone who "lives in" a hamlet is within 2 hour's walk of their market (ie, the manor). Each manor ends up roughly half a days walk from the next closest major. You should be able to get to a city/castle every 2-3 days walk. So you end up with manors and hamlets strung out deliberately along roads, kind of like this

(C)ity; (M)anor); (H)amlet. Slashes denote lines of control. " - " is roughly a couple hours travel.

C - H - H - / - H - H - M - H - H - // - H - H - M - H - H - / - H - H - C
^this city's control........................//........................this city's control^

So it's going to take you about 3 days to get from City to City, and you'll pass by roughly 12 hamets of about 100 people each, and 2 manors of about 200 people each. You'll be able to stay in the Manors overnights.

The important caveats are that this is the THEORY; geography can break this up. The other one is that this is specifically along roads, and that's the big thing to remember about population density. This sort of population is ONLY among roads. Sure a manor may have a hamlet or two stretched "above" or "below" a road, but the areas between roads are all more or less vast stretches of wilderness. There's not all that many people.
>>
>>66266437
Sure, but the roads branch out in all directions. The roads are there to link major settlements, not the other way around, and minor settlements then pop up along those routes. If you deviate from a road you'll stop encountering population centers, but if you keep going eventually you'll stumble upon a village or manor that is part of a different " road network". Like, take a bunch of those C-H-H lines and then just crisscross them together in a web pattern, and you'll have it. There'll will definitely be vast stretches of wilderness between roads, but it's densely populated enough that if you keep going straight in any direction you'll probably stumble upon people in a few days' time.
>>
>>66231931
The one that does not allow bitches to be knights.
>>
>>66263451
Because baiters spam
>>
>>66232636
Based and redpilled.
>>
>>66266681
None of them let you be a knight
>>66266751
Stupid and redpooped
fixed that for you
>>
>Fetish threads galore.
>Baiting.
>Not one talking about games.
When did /tg/ become such a shit board holly shit.
>>
>>66266075
Yes, sort of. There are setting books for regions like Savage Mountains (Cambria), Lands of Tristram (Dumnonia), Pagan Shore (Ireland), Beyond the Wall (Picts, Scotland).

You can also find good info and maps for areas online.
>>
>>66267051
/pol/ /v/ and /a/ invaded. We gotta kick them out
>>
Picked this up from an earlier Pendragon thread. My PCs liked it. Maybe yours will too.
>>
>>66232636
>>66256348
These posts were made by the same person.
>>
>>66270483
These are pretty good rules for horses, too.
http://w.ikabodo.se/index.php?title=Rules_for_Horses#Breeding
>>
>>66270537
Prove it.
>>
>>
>>
Is there a manor generation tool for PC like Harn has? If not, has anyone tried generating manors with Harn and using them with Pendragon?
>>
>>66276362
bumping for this
>>
>>66276362
>manor generation tool for PC like Harn
Curious about this. Which harn pdf has it?
>>
>>66272957
How did you fall for that? All you had to do was not post, do you literally have no restraint?
>>
>>66278006
Not either of them, I just wanted to see if the method to see posters IPs was back. It'd be useful as fuck in other threads.
>>
>>66277966
>Which harn pdf has it?
HarnManor.
Here's a link to the Java settlement generator. It can make manors, keeps and castles.
https://www.lythia.com/game_aides/harn-settlement-generator/
Pic attached is a coastal manor generated using it.
There's also a more detailed generator that takes a bit more input but can make towns near castles, too. It's an .xls, though.
https://www.lythia.com/game_aides/harnsettlement/
>>
File: manor.png (41 KB, 730x648)
41 KB
41 KB PNG
>>66278349
>pic
>>
>>66232636
But I want to play that one gal from faerie queene
>>
>>66278365
She never existed, like all ladyknights. You should stick to something more realistic like playing a male Knight. That's the whole point of Pendragon.
>>
>>66278349
What is this Harn-thing?
>>
>>66278416
It seem your brain does not exist. Women knights existed,
>>
>>66278545
It's an older low-fantasy feudal setting in Not-Britain that is very detailed and has good info and supplements for the period. In general it's a bit more advanced than Pendragon - but not by much - and it has a lot of detailed supplements and random event tables that are useful for a Pendragon campaign.
>>
>>66278794
Where may I acquire some of these detailed supplements?
>>
>>66267051
>>66269305
the usual reason for a forum falling apart: mods stopped enforcing rules
>>
>>66278794
What's its magic system like?
>>
>>66278594
No they didn't. No woman has ever successfully fought in a battle, war, or duel. It's biologically impossible.
>>
>>66279859
I really hope you are trolling and you are not this stupid and ignorant.
>>
File: TRUTH.png (3.44 MB, 1911x912)
3.44 MB
3.44 MB PNG
SPREAD THE TRUTH
MERLIN IS THE DEVIL
LOT LOT HE'S OUR MAN
DOWN WITH ARTHUR HE'S A SHAM!
TRUTH
>>
>>66280483
>This is unironically making the thread better. Moar, plz.
>>
>>66279467
It isn't like bans have any meaningful affect anyway. It's trivial to get around them.
>>
>>66279492
Play Ars Magica, its basically Pendragon but Wizards instead of Knights and high medieval europe instead of Arthurian England.

It is very pendragonesque, in that wizards manage laboratories, experiments, apprentices etc just as you manage your estate in pendragon.
>>
>>66279467
Who would want to mod /tg/ other than someone who has an agenda to push?
>>
>>66232636
This. No magic and no women.
>>
I find this game interesting and like many BRP-based games something I'd like to try. I'm not sure what it says about me though that the first thing that comes to mind is wanting to manage the estate more than adventure.
>>
>>66284881
Than you have great taste, let peasants and hedge knights muck in the mud or bleed, getting those pounds and breed fat happy horses/wifes is the true noble life.
>>
>>66284881
I'll be honest, I'm a little disappointed there aren't more Heroic Eugenics Simulator aspects to the game. With such an emphasis on bloodlines and family, it seems like a perfect opportunity.
>>
>>66236567
>I bullshitted Octa surviving since the book specifically tells you to do that and luckily the players didn't notice it or didn't mind it.

I must admit, that is the sort of thing that rubs me the wrong way. I tend to go with 'If you're not willing to accept a result happening, why are you rolling for it?'
>>
>>66287573
Personally I really dig having story moments happen but it takes a very competent and confident GM to pull that off well.
>>
>>66287573
I've heard that the way the GPC is structured for the GM encourages this kind of behaviour, where notable NPCs need to be left alive or manage to survive somehow for the game to stay together and not come apart at the seams.

Obviously a very good GM can work around that sort of thing, but it takes extra work.
>>
>>66284153
t. retard
>>
>>66291041
Reee.
>>
>>66293260
In your socks
>>
>>
Is this a good system for a Song of Ice and Fire campaign?
>>
I really want to run Pendragon or Paladin but no one I approach about is interested. The fact that it's historical fantasy with low magic turns off almost everyone I've asked.
>>
>>66297484
Unfortunately your average man thinks standard historical fantasy is boring, and really only play for the magic aspect. I'm having the exact same issue with Pendragon
>>
>>66297253
I think it would work. Passions might be the only sticking point, because they inherently make your character act like a retard at times, something that in ASoIaF is pretty much suicide.

Apart from that it fits very well, I'd say. You'll need a damn near encyclopaedic knowledge of the setting for it to work though.
>>
>>66297484
>>66297660
Always pitch a setting by its strengths. Its not a "historical low-fantasy rpg in the arthurian mythos", its a system where you play chad knights taking part in the saga of king arthur, managing your castles and warring with the saxon hordes.

It got my group to play it, anyway.
>>
>>66291041
Get back to the kitchen woman! Seriously, female knights are lame a shit. It's much more interesting for women players to play Ladies. Keeps the atmosphere intact and allows for some game of thrones style politicking.
>>
>>66297782
It sounds like you are lame a shit.
>>
>>66297484
>low magic
That's because they think you're talking about boring Dark Fantasy where nothing ever happens outside of "maybe magic existed at some time I don't know." Pendragon is a very high fantasy setting and all of the Knights have access to magic (passions) and are exposed to it on a yearly basis. That's why when you fail a passion roll you prematurely age! Because it's your natural magic backfiring on you. Same thing happens to wizards when their spells failed in 4th edition.
>>
>>66297814
This is what women are. They do this. They don't don armor and fight in wars.
>>
File: This is what women are.jpg (51 KB, 697x1000)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
>>66297837
>>
File: Butthurt1.jpg (37 KB, 335x202)
37 KB
37 KB JPG
>>66297837
>>66297845
This is you and all the other morons who are upset about women knights. Also the The Order of the Hatchet came by to call you a faggot
>>
>>66297815
>Pendragon is a very high fantasy setting
Now that's a stretch
>>
>>66298125
It is! The only "restrained" element to it is actual magic users. Magic itself is fucking everywhere and extremely powerful, too. When a Knight invokes a passion he briefly gets superhuman powers. Lancelot in the Grand Campaign in one scene gets enraged and his passion allows him to kill five fully armored knights, one he crushes with is bare hands!
>>
>>66297950
>upset about women knights
How can you get upset over something that didn't exist and isn't supported by the system in question? Women need to act like women in the game if they can't handle that than they can role play as a male knight!
>>
>>66298169
That's a stretch of the definition of High Fantasy by my understanding of the term. Superhuman feats don't make it high fantasy. I agree that it is not a a simulationist game, as in it isn't trying to simulate reality, but it IS a historical game based on a more realistic take on 15th century Arthurian romance.

I'd say it's a form of fantastical realism; it's a magic'd-up and romanticized version of the early middle-ages, but it's not really High Fantasy.
>>
>>66298176
Don't reply to this post.
>>
>>66298176
Women knight did exist they were called dames. If that makes you butthurt then don't have them in your game, not that it matters as you are too stupid to play it and too unlikable to have anyone to play with you.
>>
>>66298254
>Women knight did exist they were called dames
Stop quoting wikipedia retard. No women participated in battles that's fucking retarded. Not a single culture from that period would have accepted that bullshit.
>Saxons
>British
>Picts (LULZ)
>Romans
>Islamic forces
NATTA. You're fucking retarded for peddling that shit and the author of Pendragon only included Female Knights as lip service when retards like his kike friend asked if they could play "Female Jewish Lesbian knights." Now get your ass back to the kitchen where it belongs, hoe!
>>
>>66298233
>Flying Castles
>Alternate Dimensions
>Super human abilities
>Wizards
>Demons
>Sorcerer Demon Knights
>Acts of God
>Monsters
>Fairies
>Magic weapons and gear
>Human fey hybrids
I mean I hate to drag on this point as you can very easily avoid a lot of what I'm talking about, but it's still a high fantasy game. It's just that the PC's are more in the "human" world rather than the fantastical one. However, even the world's timeline slowly notes that Fairy world causes locals lives to change into surreal versions of what ordinary life was like that.
>Supernatural talents
>Crops grow easier and life abounds
>Strange monsters and fey question your ethical beliefs in fairy tale esque contrivances
>>
>>66299158
>Saxons
Stopped reading there. When your first example already includes multiple recorded accounts of female warriors in their ranks, it's clear that you're full of shit.

>>66299195
That's still not high fantasy. High Fantasy means a completely fantastical world where supernatural intrusions are ordinary. The supernatural in Pendragon is not ordinary. It exists, but it's rare and misunderstood by most. The setting is a historical version of our own medieval world, with some magical elements in there. How crazy or over the top those elements are is irrelevant, only how ordinary they are, and how the main world diverges from our primary reality. Literally no one who takes literature seriously would claim Arthurian tales to be high fantasy; they're fantastic chivalric romances.
>>
>>66299158
>Wwwwwhhhaaaa! Stop posting stuff showing I am wrong!
wikipedia is not the only place that says that you are retard who does not know what he is talking about https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dame. Seeing how the best you can do is yell because I say so it seems the one who is fucking retarded is you.
The fact the author of Pendragon added women knights show that he does not really care about what brain dead 12 year olds like you think.
>>
>>66299272
>multiple recorded accounts of female warriors in their ranks
MUH Shield maidens. You mean the whores they took into battle with them fucktard?
>>
>>66299272
>When your first example already includes multiple recorded accounts of female warriors in their ranks
IIRC most sources talk about women cheering the men on, which is actually brought up in the campaign. Makes sense that a migrating saxon tribe would have a bunch of women and children at the back, because honestly that's probably the safest place you can put them. Plus it spurs the warriors on.

Hard to argue though if you don't quote your sources. Give me some of them and we'll talk about it.
>>
>>66299272
>That's still not high fantasy. High Fantasy means a completely fantastical world where supernatural intrusions are ordinary. The supernatural in Pendragon is not ordinary. It exists, but it's rare and misunderstood by most. The setting is a historical version of our own medieval world, with some magical elements in there. How crazy or over the top those elements are is irrelevant, only how ordinary they are, and how the main world diverges from our primary reality. Literally no one who takes literature seriously would claim Arthurian tales to be high fantasy; they're fantastic chivalric romances.
It's high fantasy man. It's heroic fantasy. It's the type of fantasy where incredible things happen on a vast scale. It's not D&D, but that's borderline not even "fantasy." That's more like a derivative of a derivative. King Arthur's cycle is one of the quintessential examples of what people think of when they think of high fantasy.
>>
>>66299323
>>66299301
https://www.lothene.org/women/womenvik.html
>>
>>66299323
>Give me some of them and we'll talk about it.
There's really no point as rights of women and what men thought of them back then is well understood and only the most delusional of people would claim there were female warriors beyond the rare instance a woman got caught up in a fight against her will.
>>
>>66299330
>King Arthur's cycle is one of the quintessential examples of what people think of when they think of high fantasy.

In the 1800s maybe. High fantasy in the modern context specifically means Tolkianesque "fantastical world" where the magical and supernatural are ordinary. You're defending your point using your own personal definition of high fantasy, I'm using the actual definition used by basically everyone when discussing fantasy literature. Anyways, this is basically all semantics, so who cares anyway.
>>
>>66299338
This is the kind of delusional shit I'm talking about. Those "women" were buried with the man's gear in a funerary ceremony. Did you know Norse women were commonly strangled to death so they would pass on with their husbands and the remains were interned with the man's possessions while his body was burned?
>>
>>66299372
Yeah let's discuss the entries that back your claim and completely ignore the ones that don't, like the fucking brain-damaged maggot that you are.
>>
>>66299372
No, viking men were often buried, and warriors were buried with their arms.
>>
>>66297950
The women of the hatchet weren't knights, they had the priviliege of knights, than its different.
>>
>>66299387
You mean how women can't fucking fight men evenly so having them involved in a melee would be fucking suicidal for them. Like that fucking delusion? You're trying to seriously link to a source that confirms Viking burned their Widows to death and somehow say it proves they were actually female warriors. That's not just intellectually dishonest. That's fucking nuts. You know what happened to a Viking when his wife died!? FUCKING NOTHING. Because men were the law makers and women weren't shit. They had no rights outside of what their own male family members represented or the rare case they were the sole matriarch of their family. In which case they were expected to hand over their possessions to the first eligible suitor.
>>
>>66299338
Looks like these fall into a few major categories:
>Women buried with armaments
Hard to conclude either way. I'm sure there were *some* women who fought in battles and skirmishes, especially in self-defence when under attack, but equally its possible that they were just buried with valuable items which happened to be spear tips.
>Queens leading armies
Fair enough, but I wouldn't call them 'warriors' for it unless they fought. Generals, maybe.
>Historical propaganda tales or isolated incidents
If there's one thing I'll buy less than mainstream women warriors its pregnant women warriors.

That's the thing, I don't see any sources mentioning women offhand, which means that they're likely rare. And that's pretty much my view on it already: I'm sure women occasionally did come to power and/or fight, but people do try to overrepresent them for political reasons/because muh dick.

A queen leading troops from the back with the help of her knights wouldn't remotely look out of place in Pendragon. A queen fighting amongst her knights would stick out quite a lot.
>>
>>66299427
That person linked to some feminist blog post misrepresenting archaeological findings! There were no female warrior queens or any women of serious power back then. The only power a woman could or would have would be political based on men back the kingdom or house she stood as the figure head for.
>>
>>66299405
It was order of knighthood so I am counting them as knights.
>>66299414
So in other words you have nothing to back up the shit you are posting.
>>66299437
You say while failing to do anything other yelling because I say so.
>>
>>66299437
It does actually say that a couple of times. The queen ruling in her husband's stead while he's away makes a lot of sense and doesn't clash horribly with Pendragon's themes. Fuck, a queen regent clinging to power to the detriment of her children/kingdom fits decently as well.

At least for me this isn't about
>REE women can do NOTHING
but in the context of the setting they operate under a different social framework. A woman taking up a man's role should be about as common as a man taking up a woman's: pretty damn rare. That's just how the timeframe was, and I don't feel like the setting gains anything from homogenising it.
>>
>>66299470
I'm with this anon in that.
>>
>>66299458
>So in other words you have nothing to back up the shit you are posting.
>https://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-viking-age/religion-magic-death-and-rituals/human-sacrifices/
No, I have an actual authoritative article discussing the Vikings propensity to sacrifice people including their wives and lovers. Unlike the bullshit your peddling it was also witnessed by third parties both Christian and Islamic. You'll note their are no such accounts of "shield maidens."
>>
>>66299555
Yes, you found a article about human sacrifices that has nothing to do with anyone going to war. It's likely you did not read the thing you posted. Good job retard.
>>
File: 1290498399070.jpg (72 KB, 331x562)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
Has anyone tried that new Paladin supplement? If so, how did you like it? What's the major differences between it and normal Pendragon?
>>
>>66278365
Britomart. Knight of Chastity, IIRC.
>>
>>66297837
No, THIS is what women are.
>>
>>66297253
There is a game specifically for that.
>>
>>66300355
...it's a horse.
>>
>>66301087
It's also not very good at much and has no structure for long-term games at all. Pendragon fits very well if you tweak it a bit for the theme.
>>
>>66299778
I have. It's not much of a supplement, but a whole game. Very similar mechanics, but the character creation system is much more randomized and kind of hands-on, with you growing skills and attributes by spending time being a squire. You get knighted whenever you meet the requirements.

In terms of mechanics, all is super similar, except for the fact that Passions are downtoned a bit, by giving a +5 instead of a +10 on an Inspiration. Instead, there's a Divine Miracle mechanic, which is kind of like your knight summoning the power of God for superhuman feats, which is pretty much a normal Pendragon passion, with the usual modifiers.

There's new mechanics, too, like Companionship (bond between two knights), pagan conversion, revamped hunting. It also comes with a Mini-GPC that is kind of underwhelming. Cultures seem to be less about attributes and more about Traits. The ones I could spot in the main book are Frankish, Basque, Gascon, and maybe Saracen.

Overall, I kind of liked it.
>>
>>66302396
It's pretty good at what it's supposed to be.
>>
>>66299638
>nothing to do with anyone going to war.
Because their women didn't go to war. That is the entirety of my point!
>The isotopic results revealed that the persons buried with their heads had eaten lots of land-based protein, such as milk or beef. The beheaded individuals had diets rich in seafood. The tests also showed that those buried in the single burials ate the same things as the thralls in the multiple burials, which may indicate that those buried in single graves were from a lower class. The mtDNA tests confirmed that most of those buried in graves together probably weren’t close relatives through their maternal line. The mistreatment of the bodies, the dietary differences, and the mtDNA results support the argument that the headless skeletons belonged to Norse slaves who were sacrificed and buried with their masters.
>The burial of slaves (or thalls) with their Viking masters is well documented throughout Scandinavian history. There is a famous account by a 10th century Arab muslim traveler, Ibn Fadlan, who witnessed a Viking ship funeral. During this funeral he witnessed the sacrifice of a female slave so she could accompany her Viking master into the afterlife. It would be interesting to know the sex of all ten skeletons, especially the beheaded individuals. Sex would be easily identifiable using the pelvis, which was recovered for all 10 skeletons.
>https://strangeremains.com/2013/09/20/human-sacrifice-at-viking-funeral-the-tale-of-the-headless-norse-slaves/
>>
>>66305492
More like your point is you are just butthurt. The articles you posted are interesting but it seems like you know you don't really have anything to go on so you are just posting articles about Viking sacrificing humans.
>>
>>66302911
Is it more setting agnostic than Pendragon? Could I use it to run a game of Westerosi Knights, for example?
>>
>>66307008
No, though if I *had* to run an ASOIAF game using one of the two, I'd use Paladin, since it places a lot more importance on family.

If you want to run a game using Westerosi knights, you can definitively try your hand at it. While the game is meant for a singular setting, you can try to divorce it by tweaking around. I wouldn't suggest Pendragon or Paladin for a game set in Game of Thrones. As I think it has been said above, these are games for emotional knights inspired by their supernatural feelings to do Big Things, not really Game of Thrones material.
>>
>>66307071
>I think it has been said above
I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but I think the majority of the system would be fine for a GoT game. Even passions would work if you toned down the autism levels a bit. I mean even in GoT people do dumb shit, or get enraged in battle, or fight super hard for their family or friends. It's not quite blades breaking across Lancelot's rock-hard boner for guenevere, but there's definitely an element passion-driven strength in the setting.

I'd just council to get rid of the +10 bonus in favour of a +5, and remove the "go mad and run off into the woods for years" element.
>>
>>66305492
The paragraphs you quoted have nothing to do with the discussion, and no one is claiming female knights were common, we're saying that there's historical precedence for female fighters in the middle-ages, IF you're annoying enough to cry about HISTORICAL AUTHENTICITY in a fantasy game.

Your misogyny, and I use the term in its actual definition, is clouding your reasoning and probably crippling your social life. Be a better person.
>>
>>66307071
>>66307417
Solid tips. I thought about using the green ronin ASoIaF system to run a Westeros game, but I just like Pendragon's feel a lot more.
>>
>>66307546
I've run a game in the ASoIaF system and I agree Pendragon would be better if you want lots of roleplaying and a lengthy game based on generations of houses; if you are looking for a game that you run for a month in which the characters rapidly gain power and the campaign ends, Green Ronin's is ok. You would need to tone down the passions a bit as >>66307490 said, and add in more intrigue based rules.

There are some delightful adventures on the Green Ronin forums that fans have done which make for good adventure material.
>>
>>66307922
>wrong quote
meant to quote >>66307417
>>
>>66307922
My main concern with the green ronin system is that I've seen a lot of people complaining that player characters get really OP really quickly, as in being able to take down single-highhandedly an entire military unit and talking people into doing basically anything they want.

I don't know how much of this is exaggeration, but I've seen more than a few people repeating these complains. Was your experience different?
>>
>>66307490
>The paragraphs you quoted have nothing to do with the discussion
It completely debunks the assertion of your evidence retard about women "shield maidens" getting buried as viking warriors. They weren't. it was female slaves and rarely their widows.
>DNA studies of corpses in an Anglo-Saxon village at Heslerton, North Yorkshire (AD450-650) found that two bodies buried with spear and knife are women.
(source - The Times newspaper 22/8/00 - see also The West Heslerton Assessment)
>The body of an Anglo Saxon woman (circa 500AD) with a dagger and shield was found just outside Lincoln.
(source Lincolnshire Echo, 20 September 2003 . see also Time Team, Channel 4)
>https://www.lothene.org/women/womenvik.html
The above taken from your own sourcing claiming that presence of female remains is somehow proof they were "warriors."
>no one is claiming female knights were common
Bullshit you made a fucking claim and it was wrong. Completely wrong. Cherry picked examples of less than half a dozen females caught up in fights is not the same as a dedicated warrior culture that covered the lives of millions of men. It's an eronious argument in the extreme.
>Your misogyny, and I use the term in its actual definition
Truth doesn't correspond to your bullshit and decrying Misogyny doesn't rewrite reality for you. Let me repeat myself
>Man caught committing adultery
He owes the woman's relatives money and they can take her back and we her to somebody else depending on the situation.
>Woman caught committing adultery
DEATH, disfigurement, etc
The only possibility for something like that is in a society where women have no rights. That also includes not being part of the warrior caste.
>you are just butthurt.
I'm not the one screeching at anybody that contradicts muh narrative. Women were not knights, warriors, Samurais, Mongols Khans, Islamic Saracens, or any other male caste. The term "Dame" had nothing to do with Knight Hood and even less to do with combat.
>>
>>66308938
That's not the core system but a "glitch" that happens if you let somebody start out before younger than they're supposed to. Character gen is very finicky and even simple deviations can lead to mathematical disasters.
>>
File: 1441234743257.jpg (75 KB, 624x791)
75 KB
75 KB JPG
>>66308938
>being able to take down single-highhandedly an entire military unit and talking people into doing basically anything they want.
If you go by RAW, you will run into these problems because of the dice system. As soon as someone has a 1 die, 1 skill advantage over an opponent they are very likely to win. So, you only get parity on rolls between fairly evenly matched opponents. So unless you constantly give them an enemy that matches their ability they will mostly win or mostly lose their competitive rolls. It can be worked around if you really commit to doing so, but why bother when there are better alternatives?
>player characters get really OP really quickly
Only if you let them or they're attempting to powergame. You still run into the problem of heavily weighting outcomes towards one participant when resolving checks.
>Was your experience different?
Yes and no. I had a good group that didn't try to break the system but we all grew to dislike it after 4 sessions due to the problems listed above.

>>66309005
>That's not the core system but a "glitch"
If you're referring to characters having super high skill, yes; I'd still say that it isn't a glitch but poor system design that gets really bad towards the edges.
>>
>>66309371
Thanks for the info, I guess I'll go with Pendragon/Paladin then.
>>
>>66246217
Tennyson's Arthurian poems are a good read as well.
>>
>>66308971
A article about human sacrifices has nothing to do the shield maidens you stupid faggot. You debunked nothing. Women fighting happened and your retarded whining failed to change that. Again you are wrong about dames https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dame
>>
>>66312142
>A article about human sacrifices has nothing to do the shield maidens you stupid faggot. You debunked nothing. Women fighting happened and your retarded whining failed to change that.
Every single authoritative source disputes their existence. Even the term "Shield Maiden" in viking was used as an allusion for their angels or Valkyrie. Completely fantastical creatures that had nothing to do with actual warfare.
>Shieldmaidens: myth or reality?
>However, the evidence is disputed, and the presence of weapons in a grave does not necessarily mean that the person buried there was actually a warrior. It can alternatively be an indicator of their social status instead.
>Nevertheless, an Old Norse word for a shieldmaiden 'skjaldmær' does exist, and they do feature in Old Norse literature, and in Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Danorum, so it can be difficult to know what to make of this. Given that they come to sticky ends or find their way back to female roles, it seems likely that they were objects of fantasy, whose role was also to act as a warning that people should not transgress boundaries.
Also, Dame did not signify a female warrior and its ignorant claim that it did. This is from your own source!
>a woman of rank, station, or authority: such as
>a archaic : the mistress of a household
>b : the wife or daughter of a lord
>c : a female member of an order of knighthood —used as a title prefixed to the given name
I assume you're going off the last one primarily, but its important to remember that "knighthood" didn't imply you were an armor wearing Heavy Calvary Men. Knights had daughters, Wives, and mothers and each one had an official title similar to a lower caste version fo the "queen." That's what Dame was used for.
>>
>>66314937
Every single authoritative source says you are a retard with bad B.O.
Ah, so now that you got told about women knights existing so you goalpost moving to make it about about fighting. The women of The Order of the Hatchet did fighting to get their order formed.
>>
>>66315039
>knights existing so you goalpost moving to make it about about fighting
No one disputed the existence of female nobility. Claiming Knights wives and daughters were actual warriors is completely false and has no supportive evidence. The only "examples" of it are linked to less than five women that either wore armor near a battle or were simply loosely associated with and there is no evidence they fought, either.
>>
>>66315039
>The women of The Order of the Hatchet did fighting to get their order formed.
They dropped bricks on men trying to climb a wall and were given honorary titles as a result. Like I said above you're just misrepresenting historical facts in a desperate attempt to promote a false narrative.
>>
>>66315063
If you read the fucking thread you would see there are retards disputing the existence of female knights, which is why the term dame came up. Again the Order of the Hatchet did do fighting
>>66315072
They use other stuff like hatchets hence the name of the order and they helped save the city.
>desperate attempt to promote a false narrative
That is ironic coming from a dumbass who tried to pass off articles about something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand as proof
>>
>>66315173
>That is ironic coming from a dumbass who tried to pass off articles about something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand as proof
That's because your bias as hell and refuse to see the connection for some fucked up reason. The only claim that female warriors existed for Vikings was taken from Viking grave sites that had women with armor and weapons buried near them. This had nothing to do with them being warriors but instead was them being high ranking wives, sacrificed slaves women, or noble women. Just like with the Dames it's absurd to claim there was an accepted social institution of female warriors. That was not a reality until post the 1950's, and it's still rarity because even the toughest women can't meat the lowest male requirements to be frontline soldiers. Women can't keep up with men even when guns are involved. Let alone in melee, marching, and horse riding! Also, as a final note stop shitting up this thread. You have ruined dozens attempts to get Pendragon threads going and you spam nearly every fucking thread concerning this topic. It's fucking annoying.
>>
>>66315222
>TL;DR I don't have anything to back up what I am saying so I posted some articles then claim there is a connection.

>You have ruined dozens attempts to get Pendragon threads going
Yes it those who are fine with women knights being a something that is in the rule book but not forcing anyone to play them who are ruinning threads and not the retards who shat themselves over it and whine about women knights in every fucking Pendragon thread.
>>
>>66315286
>Yes it those who are fine with women knights being a something that is in the rule book but not forcing anyone to play them who are ruinning threads and not the retards who shat themselves over it and whine about women knights in every fucking Pendragon thread.
You fucking nigger. All somebody says is
>LULZ no female knights
And then it would have ended. You come back and RESPOND TO EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THE TROLL POSTS. EVERY TIME. Usually individually like an autistic spurg of the highest order. Between you and one guy shit posting once a day you'll derail and the kill the thread ten seconds flat!
>>TL;DR I don't have anything to back up what I am saying so I posted some articles then claim there is a connection.
It direly addresses the claim and substantiates what it actually is. Witnessed accounts, historical writing/research vs speculative horseshit from a single academic source of questionable legitimacy. It isn't even a "contest" its you acting like a fucktard every thread.
>>
>>66299368
>You're defending your point using your own personal definition of high fantasy
That's exactly what you are doing. High fantasy just means explicit supernatural elements. King Arthur didn't exist. The setting has him using technology literal centuries ahead of what they had available at the time, magic is everywhere and in everything including Camelot being filled to the brim with magic artifacts, creatures, and other openly magical stuff everywhere.
>>
>>66315337
So you are going with the I was pretending to be retarded reply, that does not really help your case dumbass. Also there is more than anon that is fine the women knights.
Yes, witnessed accounts and historical writing/research on a topic that has nothing to do with what is being talked about. Other than that all you faggots have is yelling because I say so.
>>
File: 1551562101036.jpg (264 KB, 800x754)
264 KB
264 KB JPG
>>66315286
>Autism: 20
>Passion: Love (Women's Rights) 18
>Passion: Love (Chivalrous Romantic Fiction) 15
>Fealty (Pendragon) 15

>>66315222
>Autism: 20
>Passion: Love (Historical Accuracy) 15
>Passion: Love (Shitposting) 20
>Fealty (Pendragon) 16

>>66315337
>Fealty (Pendragon) 20
>>
>>66280014
Oh please, good sir, please, provide us with examples of successful female warriors. And no, religious figureheads like Joan of Arc do not count.
>>
5.1
Fuck 5.2 fags, GPC still a mess, more unnecessary supplements and rules bloat.
4th if you absolutely have to play a wizard.
>>
File: 1552781712858.jpg (1.39 MB, 1920x1080)
1.39 MB
1.39 MB JPG
Would anyone be interested in playing in a Paladin game on Wednesdays, about noon-ish Pacific Daily Time?

I've never run the system for but I'd really like to. I'm thinking of using a constructed setting but if the system doesn't handle it very well I'm fine just using the default one.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.