Quote from: Voros;972722But Stafford is playing at your table: through your SOUL mannn!!:D

Okay, I guess I had better adapt to his needs and make sure Arthur becomes king and conquers Rome and is betrayed by his queen because it's all so deeply meaningful and more interesting than what my friends might inflict upon the setting.

The PC knights can add their stories and become a part of Arthurian legend rich tapestry, at least that's how i see it and run it for my players.

Quote from: John Scott;972839The PC knights can add their stories and become a part of Arthurian legend rich tapestry, at least that's how i see it and run it for my players.

I agree; I merely mean that I don't care about whether Arthur's saga unfolds or not in the manner prescribed. That's not why I play games. Maybe Arthur will be king and we'll enter a golden age, or maybe our PCs will screw things up for him. I already read the books so I don't need to play them out at the table.

Quote from: Dumarest;972815Okay, I guess I had better adapt to his needs and make sure Arthur becomes king and conquers Rome and is betrayed by his queen because it's all so deeply meaningful and more interesting than what my friends might inflict upon the setting.

More seriously that is not what Stafford wants. He think that playing is the creation of new myths not a strict recreation of them.

But he does believe that we share a collective unconscious of mythical figures and structures and that occasionally play will overlap with these. He uses an example in play a PC was given Excablibur and told to throw it in the lake but instead they took it and threw it into a bush, so they recreated an incident from the myth without knowing it was part of the myth.

Quote from: Voros;972900More seriously that is not what Stafford wants. He think that playing is the creation of new myths not a strict recreation of them.

But he does believe that we share a collective unconscious of mythical figures and structures and that occasionally play will overlap with these. He uses an example in play a PC was given Excablibur and told to throw it in the lake but instead they took it and threw it into a bush, so they recreated an incident from the myth without knowing it was part of the myth.

I hear you but...

How is throwing it in a bush recreating throwing it in a lake?

In many versions of the story the squire given the sword doesn't throw it into the lake as instructed by Arthur but hides it in a bush and goes back and tell Arthur he has thrown it into the lake. But Arthur asks him questions about what did he see when he threw the sword in the lake and the squire says something like 'just the wind on the waves' so Arthur knows he is lying and send him back to do it right.

Quote from: Voros;972908In many versions of the story the squire given the sword doesn't throw it into the lake as instructed by Arthur but hides it in a bush and goes back and tell Arthur he has thrown it into the lake. But Arthur asks him questions about what did he see when he threw the sword in the lake and the squire says something like 'just the wind on the waves' so Arthur knows he is lying and send him back to do it right.

Thanks for breaking that down for me. I don't remember that story.

Quote from: Dumarest;972847I agree; I merely mean that I don't care about whether Arthur's saga unfolds or not in the manner prescribed. That's not why I play games. Maybe Arthur will be king and we'll enter a golden age, or maybe our PCs will screw things up for him. I already read the books so I don't need to play them out at the table.

Here's how I perceive it. (I apologize beforehand for my grammar errors)

To me It's the same like playing a historical campaign based in WWII or any other war story that you know your side is going to lose. Allies are going to win in the end no matter what your soldier players do and here's why.

WWII Tank = Mounted Knight
WWII Tank Platoon = A party of PC's Mounted Knights

I don't think that a tank platoon can change the tide of a battle where thousands of units are involved, how much the fate of a war. You have to be a general to do that.

Player knights in order to change fate and the story must become war leaders (kings) and able to command entire kingdoms or VERY influential Knights in the round table. So influential that they are perceived as better than the likes of Lancelot, Guinevere and Merlin in the eyes of Arthur. Not an easy task at all especially if you consider that NPC's have passions to. But if my players somehow managed to pull it off then I would applaud them! (I did that when they stoped Cthulhu in SoYS, I congratulate each one of my friends in my group for accomplishing such a task)

You can of course change the plot, how the major NPC's behave, the love triangle between Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot (maybe Arthur is in love with one of the players!) etc. but then you are creating an alternate version of the story same like creating an alternate earth version of WWII. Nothing wrong with that, if that's what you like go for it.

Now here's why I don't have to change anything in GPC and why I consider Pendragon one of the best rpgs ever published.

Arthurian tale like Macbeth or Elric is a tragic tale, but also a tale of great heroism and self-sacrifice. The fact that the player knights know beforehand that they are riding to their dooms following Arthur's path adds immensely to the tragedy involved. It reminds me of Achilles who chose eternal glory but knew beforehand that in doing so he was going to die.
Arthur to me is the force or the plot device that leads to the player knights catharsis, that's why I prefer to build around him than altering him.

Quote from: Voros;972609Yeah read Stafford about GPC, he doesn't think it has to play out in any specific way but he does believe in tapping into an underlying mythic archtypes and events via play. Remember the dude is a Shaman.

Shamans and Wizards are apparently good at setting-design.