In the new edition of Pendragon, the one part that seems most incomplete in the rules is the magic system. Of course, this might be part of Greg Stafford's "knights only!" kick, wherein of course the assumption is the only people with magic powers are NPCs, but I was curious as to what others thought about this system, how they actually make use of it... I mean, it seems incomplete.

Thoughts?

RPGPundit

Greg's concept was to take Pendragon "back to basics".  The magic system was included in the massively bloated 4th edition, and removed for 5th.

Now, personally, I only have played 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th edition, so I don't have a lot of experience with the magic rules.

However, my understanding was that if sales warranted, and future books were developed for the game, and all-inclusive "Magic" book would be produced.  The idea behind that would be to the effect of not everyone wants PC mages in their games.  By keeping it out of the 'core' book and putting it in a supplement, it makes it easier for a GM to say "Hey, no PC magicians in my game, so don't bother bringing the Magic book along."

Which I think is a great idea.  What I would love to see, is a big fat book on Magic and Faerie, with all of the magic systems to date (the PD4, Pagan Shores, Saxons!, etc) printed in the first half of the book, and then a comprehensive guide to the Faerie realms and denizens in the back half.  I think it could be a great book.

I haven't had a look at PD5, but if the magic system is like 1st ed, it's not a system at all. It's instructions to the GM.

I've used the more comprehensive system in PD4. I think it's nice and all, but I don't think it works very well in the context of a normal game. Magic is best kept as special effects in PD.

I applaud the knights only approach, ditto that magic rules/instructions are available to the GM only. Let the players be just as much in the dark about magic as their PCs are. AFAIAC, Morgan & the Faeries can't be otherworldly enough.

PS: OK, I looked at the magic section in P5, and it is a bit spare... one misses some kind of framework for battles/contests between PCs and magic wielders.

I don't understand. When we played 1E back in the day, we had no problem in that area... why not? Maybe because the published modules had detailed write-ups for magical NPCs?

Quote from: RPGPunditIn the new edition of Pendragon, the one part that seems most incomplete in the rules is the magic system. Of course, this might be part of Greg Stafford's "knights only!" kick, wherein of course the assumption is the only people with magic powers are NPCs...

The game is about playing knights only.  Get over it.

Quote...but I was curious as to what others thought about this system, how they actually make use of it... I mean, it seems incomplete.

Thoughts?

I think, like the original edition, it works very well, wherein magic is something that happens to you, not something that you do.  I also think that the magic system that gradually developed by the time of the 4th edition (the last one, dating back to the mid-90s) was remarkably good and evocative of the genre.  If you really want that system, it's still out there, available in .PDF if you can't find a hardcopy of 4th ed.  Also, as zomben suggests, if the market can support it, various magic systems may appear in subsequent supplements.

!i!

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI applaud the knights only approach, ditto that magic rules/instructions are available to the GM only. Let the players be just as much in the dark about magic as their PCs are. AFAIAC, Morgan & the Faeries can't be otherworldly enough.

PS: OK, I looked at the magic section in P5, and it is a bit spare... one misses some kind of framework for battles/contests between PCs and magic wielders.

I should add, that in fact I approve of Stafford's decision that 5th edition should be all about the knights.  That's what Arthurian legend is for. I think perhaps my initial post might have been interpreted as disapproving of that, but in fact it wasn't meant to be.

All I was commenting was exactly what you put in the PS, that in fact the magic rules as written leave me wondering exactly how to best handle them as a GM. For me personally, the answer will probably to make it up as I go along. Essentially, magic has no rules.  But if that's what Stafford wanted, he really should have said so, rather than making something that seems like half a set of rules.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAll I was commenting was exactly what you put in the PS, that in fact the magic rules as written leave me wondering exactly how to best handle them as a GM. For me personally, the answer will probably to make it up as I go along. Essentially, magic has no rules.  But if that's what Stafford wanted, he really should have said so, rather than making something that seems like half a set of rules.

RPGPundit

Yup, you make it up as you go along and that's intentional as with pre-4th edition rules.

That said, there are guidelines that follow the 4th edition rules which as you say makes it something of a half way house.  I'm not sure what drove that, it seems a bit neither one nor the other, but I suspect they were wanting to make sure if there was demand for magic rules the basic guidelines in the book would be consistent with them so that magic didn't change flavour as more rules were issued.

Quote from: RPGPunditAll I was commenting was exactly what you put in the PS, that in fact the magic rules as written leave me wondering exactly how to best handle them as a GM. For me personally, the answer will probably to make it up as I go along. Essentially, magic has no rules.  But if that's what Stafford wanted, he really should have said so, rather than making something that seems like half a set of rules.

The guy who's been GMing the (currently dormant) Pendragon campaign I've been playing in has basically taken the approach of looking at what magic is like in Le Morte d'Arthur and riffing on that, which works a treat given that Pendragon is based mainly on Malory.

An acceptable cheat is to watch Excalibur and take notes instead, since Excalibur relies on Malory just as much as Pendragon does.

I found the 4th edition rules to be a bit of a mess, personally.  For a game like Pendragon I'm perfectly satisfied with leaving magic solely in the GMs hands.