![Nicholas Bielik](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 13
- 19 491
Nicholas Bielik
เข้าร่วมเมื่อ 30 เม.ย. 2012
Let’s Talk About King Arthur Pendragon RPG (Part 1)
In this video I talk about one the greatest tabletop rpgs ever made: King Arthur Pendragon! In what looks like will be a multi-part series, this first video covers the premise and publication history of this amazing game.
P.S. Just to clarify it looks like the 6th edition of King Arthur Pendragon will be out some time in 2023 (no specific date is available at this time due to ongoing supply chain problems).
P.S. Just to clarify it looks like the 6th edition of King Arthur Pendragon will be out some time in 2023 (no specific date is available at this time due to ongoing supply chain problems).
มุมมอง: 1 459
วีดีโอ
Let’s talk about Michael Moorcock’s Multiverse of Novels
มุมมอง 1.1K2 ปีที่แล้ว
In this video I discuss the fiction of Michael Moorcock.
Let's talk about Original Dungeons and Dragons
มุมมอง 9732 ปีที่แล้ว
In this reflective and rather rambling personal history with original D&D, I try to get at some of the unique and radical aspects of the original game.
Let's talk about the rules of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons
มุมมอง 4.1K2 ปีที่แล้ว
Let's talk about the rules of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons
RPG Settings: Glorantha
มุมมอง 6122 ปีที่แล้ว
In this video I discuss one of the greatest setting developed for gaming: Greg Stafford's world of Glorantha.
Let's talk about the basic rules of Runequest Classic
มุมมอง 1.2K3 ปีที่แล้ว
In this video I go on about some of the elements of Runequest Classic.
Let’s talk about the 1981 D&D Basic Set
มุมมอง 1.9K4 ปีที่แล้ว
Let’s talk about the 1981 D&D Basic Set
Why did TSR Hobbies publish Advanced Dungeons and Dragons?
มุมมอง 4.9K4 ปีที่แล้ว
In this video I talk about why TSR Hobbies published Advanced Dungeons and Dragons when they already had Dungeons and Dragons?
Overview of the Various Early Editions of D&D
มุมมอง 5335 ปีที่แล้ว
In this video, I go over the sometimes rather confusing various editions of early Dungeons and Dragons.
Origins of D&D
มุมมอง 5355 ปีที่แล้ว
In this video I talk about the origins of D&D and some of the early editions of the game.
My Tabletop RPG History (part 2)
มุมมอง 2725 ปีที่แล้ว
In this video I touch on some of the other games that I played after playing D&D for a while.
My Tabletop RPG History (part 1)
มุมมอง 5105 ปีที่แล้ว
In this video I talk about my early history with Dungeons and Dragons.
Super interested in Pendragon but am disappointed with the lack of initial support for the 6th edition
@@kylegrey1071 I sympathize, but, as I noted, all the editions are very similar. The subsystems and advice not included in the initial 6th edition rules are very much available in the earlier rule books. Edition 5.2 is in pdf for twenty dollars. If you just want to stick with strictly 6th edition, you do have a good amount of stuff available between the Starter Set, the Core Rules, and The Grey Knight. That’s an excellent short campaign right there. Chaosium also made the 5th edition bestiary available for FREE on their website if you’re looking for more adversaries. If you finish all of that and want more then you could just pick up the Great Pendragon campaign in pdf or as a POD, but there are a ton of other adventures you could easily run with 6th edition. I do hope the other 6th edition books arrive soon as, yes, it would be ideal to have them, but we can at least say that Camelot is just around the corner.
"Farewell, friend. I was a thousand more times more evil than thou!"
Just watched this whole series of "fireside chats" regarding early D&D editions, history, and player experience. It's really opened my eyes up to the variety and evolving nature of the early times. Given it's a dynamic reactive game, it makes sense the whole creation was a giant communal exercise in DMing. I'd love to hear more about the your history with 3/3.5/4 and you're recent experience with 5e. I first learned of D&D with 3.5, but didn't play until 5e. I remember the 4e backlash, but I can tell every version has it's merits. Being, excited about the changes in 5e24, I decided delved into this history, and it's severely fascinating. There is also a whole history to not just the rules but also the Lore! How settings were licensed, came to be owned by TSR, merged into the multiverse. How Forgotten Realms was courted to take over Greyhawk as default setting as early as 2e. It's wild to learn about. How 3e core was still technically Greyhawk, and 4e's Points of Light. How 5e's roll to hit is literally Thac0 but with Armor classes put into sensible ranges (no negatives, high better), and now you can roll up the goal boosted by your proficiency rather than roll down based on a pre-calculated starting penalty (essentially how it was constructed.) I realize 5e does a lot to synthesize the best of most editions, while opening up new room for enrichment by first polishing what is there. 5e24 looks to be pushing that concept even further, and with OSR in full healthy swing it seems like the best time to really lean into an even more Heroic AD&D/d20 lineage while the OSR bases are well covered. Things like a more amenable action economy seem great. I guess we'll see how that pans out, but I'd love your perspective on the WotC era leading up to 5e. With all the efforts of play-testing I get the sense Wizards really wants to unearth a more perfect vision of Gygax's "spring board / ready made toolbox" approach that took shape with AD&D. As if that core can still be polished so as to better construct within the ever-lingering gaps the best adventure yet. If nothing else it will be a great art book!
As I mentioned in my video on OD&D, the gaps in the early editions are essentially what birthed not only the D&D house ruling-fan culture, but also RPG game design in general. Within those gaps was the whole universe of gaming. More important than the rules was the promise and possibilities in the game.
I may eventually offer my perspectives on later editions like 4e and 5e, but, at the moment, my attention has been on other RPG systems including my own home brew systems. I’ve been thinking of sharing how I develop my short campaign “notebook” games.
@@nicholasbielik7156 I'd be interested in how you develop your campaigns. The real reason I became curious with old-school rules was trying to explore ways to provide enrichment for my first campaign. Ways to wield soft power to guide a narrative without impacting player agency. I was encouraged to explore BX/OSR and hex crawls, to gain a new perspective. So my curiosity over the evolution of the rule-set and the goals in each era stemmed from there. It seems with B/X it's low friction as long as you can rapidly furnish as you go. Since we play with the AD&D lineage 5e, I appreciate the modern efforts to reduce friction of a more complex time based system. But I think it could go a lot further, which is why I'm hopeful regarding the 5e24 action economy. (Which gets fixed on the ability/feat/spells block side, rather than any fundamental encounter format change.) But I'm really hoping to inject into my player's a sense of discarding the rules as much as possible, save for the scenarios that might require a balanced system to retain tension. (I.e. combat) I guess I'm always in conflict over using fiat to maintain tension, or truly leave it up to how my player's handle themselves. Provide them impetus, let it play out. From what I've gathered B/X might require more fiat, 5e tries to create a sense of fairness for letting the player's meet their fate. In particular because 5e is less deadly given player's are strategic, while B/X seems more deadly at all times and might require DM intervention to craft the macro scenario. I love both ideas, never sure how to balance the two. Especially when it comes to setting player expectation for a scenario. (Sorry this was long.) My main insight is it's less about crafting rules, but crafting story on the fly. I can't shake the imagery of burning through torches, staking doors open, and relying on your lone dwarf with Infravision to when torches run out. Clearly systems encourage a style of play, whether they are made on the fly, or homebrewed from the start. But will modern player's want to engage at the level, when so many more heroic freedoms are promised... outside of combat alone? That's my challenge as a new DM with these old-school new-school ideas.
It's simple, there are no RULES, this isn't a wargame, it's a rolegame. The books are guides. They aim for consistency, but not rigidity. Think of old cars. If it was made in the 50s or 60s, it won't have seat belts. No airbags. No crumple zones. Big fuel hungry engine. Metal bumpers. No diagnostic systems. But they were awesome to drive eh. A capable DM can employ advantage disadvantage simply by saying it is so. Wargames are not as lenient. Some will claim AD&D has several flaws, and then you can find others that say all the flaws are not indeed flaws. The only reason I am currently playing 1st Edition AD&D is nostalgia. Basic Fantasy Role-playing game is actually the same game, better organized. OSE same game, different books. You usually need a magnifying glass to find the differences, and essentially have no life :) There are literally dozens of knock off designs out there. Barely anything different other than the appeal for you to buy their books instead of the other ones. I didn't like the math driven 3.5. 4th was a miniatures wargame. 5th is just lets throw elements of past editions into a bowl and stir. I don't expect anyone under 40 to have any interest in pre 3.5 though.
One of my biggest complaints about TSR and even Wizards of the Coast today was a lack of a published random encounters tables. There was definitely DMs out there with good tables they were using but nobody at TSR ever stepped up to publish something very useful for the DMs wanting to providing a more open world system.
There is also a tabletop war game that is very heavy influenced by Michael Moorcock: Warhammer (40K)
@sucker4thewitch I can't say from personal experience, but I've heard that it is the Dorian Hawkmoon series
Another interesting and informative video. It has got me very interested in RuneQuest. I may be introducing it to my d&d group when our current campaign ends.
Thanks so much for this video. You have introduced me to RuneQuest in a really informative way. I plan on getting the game and giving it a go with my d&d group. Thank you.
Another interesting and informative video. I’m rewatching all your videos and I know more information has come out since you made this video regarding freezing out Dave Arnesson, but still I really enjoyed rewatching your take on it all. Great video. Thanks!
I’m rewatching all your videos. This was a complex subject in this video, talking about the different versions and editions. You did a nice job explaining it all. Thanks!
Another great video. It’s so interesting to hear your retelling of the early history of d&d. You do a great job of narrating the convoluted early history of the game. Also, thanks so much for recommending the book “Playing at the World”. That’s going on my birthday gift list. Thanks again!
Another great video. It’s really fun listening to you reminisce. It takes me back to my youth, growing up in the 1970’s and 1980’s. I have loads of Dragon magazine and you’re right, it was a great magazine. I wish it still existed. Mat Colville published a magazine called Arcadia for a couple of years recently which was awesome but it was only available in pdf format. I wish they would have published a physical version. Thanks for another great video.
I really enjoyed watching this video. This is my second time through watching all your videos. I hope you keep making them. Thanks! It’s great to see your face light up with joy as you reminisce on your first time playing d&d. These videos helped inspire me to get back into d&d. I’ve been DM’ing for a group for a year and a half now. It’s the highlight of my week and I’ve made some great friends through the game. So, again, thank you.
That’s wonderful to hear. I’m glad I could help inspire you to get back to the gaming table! I do plan on making more videos, but I’m not sure when the next one will go up. I would like to finish the Pendragon coverage I started, and I want to do videos covering a bunch of other topics and games.
Just bought this game and very hopeful to find a group. Just found your channel, new sub.
Loved Bill Willingham's Elementals comic back in the day. Seriously underrated series.
I want to add two words, a very relevant name: Dave Arneson. He also exists.
Thanks for the video!
What a great talk, I am checking Pendragon RPG!
Critiquing Pendragon from the context of D&D is like critiquing Burning Wheel from the context of D&D. They are very different beasts trying to do very different things. "Burning Wheel is so much more complicated than D&D", only if you try and use every rule at once. D&D you have to, BW it's actively discouraged and the whole game is compartmentalised into different systems for a reason. D&D combat is way more complicated than any single system in Burning Wheel.
I’ve never been able to figure out BW’s Fight or Range and Cover systems whereas I’ve run D&D combat in multiple different editions, so, from my opinion, D&D is easier to understand than those subsystems.
@@nicholasbielik7156it's easiest to think of Range and Cover as a chase system and Fight! as a duel system. They aren't meant to be used every time you fight, Fight! is generally for 1v1, and they're only for when an engagement involves character beliefs. So the big fight against Vader and Luke is a Fight! but the various fights against Storm Troopers are either Bloody Versus or just single rolls. Range and Cover is the same. Imagine if your campaign is a novel. If the fight is going to be just a few lines you use just a single roll, if it's a paragraph to a page use a bloody versus, if it's an important full chapter then use Fight!
I get the different uses for the systems, and I quite like core mechanics of BW, and the idea of the game and how all these systems are supposed to interact. However, I can’t imagine actually using Fight or Range and Cover to play out a combat at the table. I know lots of folks have done so, but it just doesn’t work for me. Anyway. . .hope you enjoyed my discussion of Pendragon.
Page 9 or so in the DMG. "The dice are the tools of the trade..." I know folks have problems with the gaps, but that's where the game lives. Regarding skills: You have to also take experience into account. A Ranger can yrack, and a 1st level Ranger has the same % as a 10th level; so the difference is the experience. A 1st level will know the tracks move in a direction, and maybe a general number; a 10th level Ranger will practically identify each horse by their shoe. You have to also remember, the characters are usually quite young, a fighter could be barely 20, meaning, about 5 or 6 years of an apprenticeship (starting at age 10 or so) before taking up arms and armour.
I got the AD&D books in 1982 as well, after getting the Basic Set for Christmas in 1981 (randomly, I didn't ask for it) and then buying the Expert Set shortly afterward. I needed the AD&D books to join my first group and begin playing. Of course I started with the Player's Handbook, but then got the others when I was trying to run Keep on the Borderlands and Isle of Dread in the B and X boxes (and where I learned just about all I needed to know to make adventures)...I know a lot of people who are newer players look at this old DM Guide and sort of scoff at it for not being a concise rule system that they can immediately use, but I think that they miss all the context like the Gygax books l"Role-Playing Mastery" and the general feeling of you don't need a lot of rules (culturally, Generation X tended to shun pre-packaged entertainment in favor of DIY); they only see a few artifacts and make a judgment based upon their tastes, which are perhaps shaped by their experiences the later more rules-crunchy WoTC versions of the game starting with 3.0 and beyond, with more rules constraints like video games have and more standardized D&D lore (which seems tired to me), These things change the whole style of play with less emphasis game design based upon reading fantasy novels for inspiration....I think the most promising future for tabletop "D&D" is OSE's Dolmenwood, where we see the herb and mushroom tables you mentioned. Their system is fantastic and the hex crawl is the best I have ever seen. Dolmenwood even has its own "Appendix N" (though they don't call it that).
Love the video man!!! Your passion for the game and mythos is tangible. Please post pt 2 and 3,4,5,6, ect ect
I've been playing since around 2007-8. Its been a great journey so far. I think you and I have similar perspectives about the hobby, from watching your videos I can tell you genuinely love role-playing. I've watched half your vids now, its a great little channel to stumble upon! Hope you make more vids in the future, peace dude!!
I’m about to get into Pen 6th Ed. I’m really liking your perspective on this game, from someone who knows zero about it. The game sounds like a good challenge but also really cool for a co op game.
2nd edition really fixed initiative too. My house variation is: 1) Always individual initiative. Group initiative is unfair to players from many directions. 2) Everyone rolls d10. Use Dex, specialization, magic bonus, and all other modifiers, plus add the speed factor of your weapon or the casting time of your spell, (or the activation time of your magic item, I make all of them 2 segments instead of the complicated list in the treasure section). Obviously, casting time isn't modified by dex, (but other 2nd edition flavors like Alacrity and Signature spells can speed you up). 3) Every goes in lowest number order first. At higher levels, especially for warriors, this leads to negative initiative rolls. But it's all just a number line so it doesn't matter, lowest number goes first. This is superior to group initiative because then everyone has a chance to be first and get the killing blow over the arc of many fights.
One small disagreement, there is a skill system in DMG, the secondary skill list. My bad joke since childhood has always been I rolled 76 or higher personally... Anyway, I always really liked the non-weapon proficiency system that started in Oriental Adventures and was refined in 2nd edition. To me, that, along with making the monsters more powerful and giving more xp for monsters, was the principal improvement 2nd edition offered. Why do you think it still wasn't a very good fit?
Good video - I agree that there's a mad genius to DMG. I often refer to myself as somewhat Gygaxian, and by that I mean as a kid seeing the possibilities of a made up existence spelled out in percentiles strongly informed my viewpoint of the real world, then and still today. The fact that Gygax essentially begins the book with an explanation of the bell curve kinda says it all.
Very interesting, thanks. I have now bought a copy of Pendragon and am looking forward to playing it with my D&D group.
Great summary
The very concept of a D&D *tournament* is absurd. Like I get that people just loved playing the game and wanted a shared experience at cons, but it feels wrong to shoehorn a players-vs-scenario game into a bracketing system.
I’ve never played in a D&D tournament but many of the classic TSR modules were originally run as tournament scenarios. By all accounts the tournaments were quite successful. I’m not sure if that translates to fun at the table, but they were well attended, and TSR kept doing them because players liked them. It was this situation which led to the formation of the RPGA which was the precursor to the “living” campaigns run by WOTC in later years.
Thank you for this. I was having a hard time really articulating why I dislike 1e. and 5e. 1974 3LBB especially gives you about ten different models for -how- to systematize things that come up in your games-- 1d20 roll over, 1d20 roll under, 1d6, 2d6, percentiles.. I think specifically so twelve-year-old DMs could generalize those systems to whatever situations came up. It trains the DM to just do their best to come up with something fair, trains players to accept it even when the "call" goes against them, and keeps the game moving, hence "referee." Moreover, that systems-design aspect is a core part of the fun experience for the old-school DM... and that's the other thing that makes the meat-computer DMing of today exhaustive and less fun.
I pointed out in my video on OD&D that OD&D was sort of a “make a game” kit rather than what might be considered a proper game. In this light, AD&D is essentially Gygax’s fully expanded version of OD&D. It’s a monumental piece of work. It has a strong identity of its own, and this means it clearly isn’t going to be for everyone. If you’re a bit of a mad scientist, a tinkerer, or a free wheeler then OD&D is clearly going to be more your jam.
@@nicholasbielik7156 I'll need to watch that next then! I'm inclined to agree with you; for me it's better to have-- and be trained to use-- that make-a-game kit. You really can't anticipate everything in design, and even if you do, players will inevitably disagree with some aspect of the "official" system. Then they'll play it that way anyway simply because it's "official," grumbling about it the whole time. We seem to crave orthodoxy even when it is destructive.
Very interesting. Thanks!
Really interesting stories and recollections. Thank you.
Interesting and informative video. Thanks!
I love your stories. Subscribed now
Cool video!
Interesting talk , but unfortunately unwatchable, because during first 15 mins I got 5 advertisement interruptions.
Yeah, that’s TH-cam. It’s massively ticked up in the last year or so. I’ve not monetized the channel, but it seems they show them anyway.
Good video. Iteration does not use the long vowel sound. It-uh-ray-shuhn. Pedantry aside, this is a fun video.
"A sword so dirty that it's actually _black_" - Cerebus the Aardvark
totally mystified. My friend Simon and I hanging around the bridge club after the bridge game, trying to figure out how to play. We developed our own combat system and never used the "official" one, even when I thought I was still running D & D.
Convention games, tournaments, and _to freeze out Dave Arneson_
@@nicholasbielik7156 LOL: I'm watching your Origins of D D when I saw your reply
Man, videos about old school games that don't try to pretend they were something they weren't are so hard to come by. A very flawed system that had a certain charm, but I'll never see the appeal of going back, at least not in the actual books. Maybe Osric or OSE or something. Or I'll just stick to RuneQuest ;)
Anthony Huso on his blog “The Blue Bard” is probably the best advocate for AD&D 1e that I’ve ever run across, but I think that much of this comes down to what you are looking for in a game.
Pendragon has always been interesting to me, but my favorite version of Arthur is the more gritty historic stuff that leans into chainmail and pagan themes, and I was never sure how it would fit that Also, the generational play reminds me a lot of The One Ring (although I am sure there is a line of influence from Pendragon in there somewhere) but if you like Tolkien its probably the best Middle-earth rpg ever made because it goes in hard on the themes
The GM and players have a lot of ability to set the dial toward your taste in terms of the material. The default approach is "classic Malory" but the game could encompass grittier approaches as well. The Uther period certainly has more of a gritty "dark ages" tone in order to contrast with the later Arthur period, but you could dial down the fantasy Arthur if you liked very easily.
This is a fantastic video. My first experience with Pendragon was also in 1989. I was a teenager in a group of "adult" players (actually 20-25 year olds) that treated like one of their own from the start. It was amazing. The adventures felt mythic and I fell in love with the concepts of "Winter Phase" and generational campaigns. I have never had an experience like that with any other RPG. In the intervening 30+ years I have acquired a sizeable collection of Pendragon books (PDF and physical), but have never tried to run a campaign myself. In the back of my mind I am afraid it would crash and burn and take all the good memories with it leaving nothing but ash.
We used Critical Hit and Fumble tables and Spells and Magic Items from the Arduin Grimoire books. We used Chainmail for Siege warfare. Rules were used and rules were thrown out. That was the beauty of the D&D system. You could use whatever you wanted and make it fit your game. Some DM's used technology from Gamma World and others didn't use any technology except what was available for the time period. Each and every campaign was it's own. Or in some cases, DM's would let you "cross over" from another campaign although your items may not work exactly the same.
Spell casting time was different from one campaign to the other. One DM would have your spell go off instantly, another would check the casting time and it would either go off at the beginning, end or the beginning of the next melee round. Each melee round was a half minute, your round then the opponents round which made one full "Round". Even Gary Gygax spoke on being able to "interrupt" a mage casting a spell. So it makes sense to keep track of the time it takes to cast. And we always tried to protect our spellcasters so this wouldn't happen.
Aging, the thing that most young people don't even think about. In most campaigns we did keep track of time. Not only the time to get to the "Dungeon" but the time spent in it. Food & water after all is a very limiting factor when in a dungeon. We had one Human Mage in a party of non-humans who complained every time we spent months doing something. He aged years and the rest of us were just like, oh well. Most DM's didn't age you for using potions of speed or for being hasted. Since humans would age so quickly, those would be prohibitive for them. Time for research and making magic items was painful enough for human mages. They could age years just to make one Staff of Power.
You have to remember that D&D & AD&D were Level based not Skill based systems. Most DM's wanted you to just use your imagination, use your own knowledge or ask someone who had the knowledge to make the game fun. They didn't want you to have rules for everything and spend all your time just looking up rules and rolling dice for everything. I have to say that most of our time was spent having fun playing. We seldom looked up a bunch of rules. As to the Major Battles and Siege situations, there were already plenty of rules for that. You could pick one to use for that session and if you didn't like it you could change it or find a different one to use. Most didn't factor in the use of magic anyway so you had to change things on the fly for each battle.
For the secondary skills, we rolled a percentile to see how good you were at that skill. If you were a farmer and rolled an 11%, well then you obviously left farming because you sucked at it. It was always up to the DM how you used any secondary skill and what you needed to succeed. It really didn't come up too often so why make a bunch of rules for it.