Interest/feedback check: RP heavy Text only (Asynchronous?) Pendragon game

I've always wanted to run The Great Pendragon Campaign, but I don't think I'll ever be able to talk my friends into taking it seriously. It's an enormous campaign that spans almost a hundred years of Arthurian mythology. And I'd like to run it very roleplay heavy. I was thinking of either playing on sundays, or possibly taking a somewhat more unusual approach: That is, to maybe play it a bit asynchronously. It seems like the sort of game that might be possible to play without all players necessarily being present. As each player essentially plays as an entire dynasty of characters, sometimes having very little to do with each other. It could even play out a bit more like a play by post game, like say for example, with a week of real time amounting to a year of game time. So as long as every player drops in at some point during the week, they can maintain the development of their lands, manor, and holdings, etc. I was thinking, if my schedule permits, to even run a daily drop in/drop out session for an hour or two each day. Do you think it could be done? Do you think it would be fun? And do you want in? Any and all feedback welcome.

There was a guy named Cody R. that ran this on roll20 about 6 months ago as voice plus text, it was a blast. you got to get the right players. and really know the system as a GM, but it was great fun. we got beat up almost every battle and characters got crippled and killed but it was just wonderful if you are into Arthurian mythos. Warning, if you run this via text, combat unless you heavily modified it would be a real chore. As it is text only games suffer from players nottaking their turns, the game slows down to a crawl and dies three weeks on. Not always, but very common to have that happen unless you find very motivated players, with a lot of energy. I'd join, but I'm full up running a game of One Ring, and playing a game of Traveller on roll20. Good luck.

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, I am a little worried about some of the mechanics. I don't feel like I've really got my head around them yet. But some of them seem a little...sluggish. I was thinking of maybe even simplifying some of the system to something that was a little more narrative focused, like maybe FATE or something. But I think that would take a lot of doing. I am very into Arthurian myth (I guess I wouldn't want to run it if I wasn't), and I'd particularly like to try and capture the feel of Mallory's interpretation. Le Morte d'Arthur should be required reading! But maybe that's a little too much to ask... Haha.

When this guy ran his he knew a lot. we played knights, and I read up on orders of knighthood and the cermonies involved. it was a fun game. Don't give up hope. There are players out here. it might take a few weeks, or start with two players. Again, I'd join, but no time.

Courtney C. said: Do you think it could be done? Do you think it would be fun? Oof. I'm sure it could be done, in the sense that anything can done. Trying to adjudicate, say, five different and asynchronous Winter Phases isn't going to be fun - unless you want to "zoom out" the scope of the game to where you're more focusing on the manors and lands than the character or family. If you're still trying to run adventures, what happens when two players start going on the Adventure of Sword Lake on Tuesday, then a third jumps in on Thursday(but spent Wednesday adding up skill points)? Especially considering the disparity of speed between voice and text games, I think you're in for an uphill climb. My calculations figured that with a long term group, I'd get 43 sessions out of a year of play. On average, I thought a Pendragon year would take two sessions. 86 game years would need 172 sessions - exactly 4 years of real life campaign. In play, even two sessions per year felt like we were zipping through the game too fast; so were I to decide to re-tackle it, I'd tack on another two years to my estimation.

Dave D. said: Courtney C. said: Do you think it could be done? Do you think it would be fun? Oof. I'm sure it could be done, in the sense that anything can done. Trying to adjudicate, say, five different and asynchronous Winter Phases isn't going to be fun - unless you want to "zoom out" the scope of the game to where you're more focusing on the manors and lands than the character or family. If you're still trying to run adventures, what happens when two players start going on the Adventure of Sword Lake on Tuesday, then a third jumps in on Thursday(but spent Wednesday adding up skill points)? Especially considering the disparity of speed between voice and text games, I think you're in for an uphill climb. My calculations figured that with a long term group, I'd get 43 sessions out of a year of play. On average, I thought a Pendragon year would take two sessions. 86 game years would need 172 sessions - exactly 4 years of real life campaign. In play, even two sessions per year felt like we were zipping through the game too fast; so were I to decide to re-tackle it, I'd tack on another two years to my estimation. Woah. Thanks Dave. It's immensely valuable to get an opinion from someone who's actually run it before. I hadn't really done the math like that. When you put it that way, it really is an enormous commitment, isn't it? But hey, it wouldn't be the first time I've run a four year campaign. As for the asynchronous adventure thing, I thought maybe I could set aside a certain day for when adventures occur, so if they have to be, they could all be at the same place at the same time. That way, it would work like a drop in/drop out for every other phase, but a regular sunday game for adventures.

Reading Malory was an enormous commitment...running the GPC is more like writing Malory. If you think it'll work go for it! There are plenty of players around who will give it a shot, so don't worry about that.

I would be interested in playing! Pendragon has been on my radar for a while, but I haven't had the chance to play it yet. That said, a few suggestions that might help with slimming down the workload: Cut down on the player count. Three or even four would be less complicated than five. Run combat normally in Roll20, then summarize the events in text. That should speed up those sections immensely.

Calle A. said: That said, a few suggestions that might help with slimming down the workload: Cut down on the player count. Three or even four would be less complicated than five. Run combat normally in Roll20, then summarize the events in text. That should speed up those sections immensely. - As for player count, I am aiming for three. I think any more than five would melt my mind. - The combat is the part I think I should simplify. I would really like to make it a lot less complicated, but certainly no less lethal.

This actually sounds really interesting, but the only part that keeps me on edge is the "text-only" thing. While it can be done, wouldn't players with an inability to type fast kinda hold back the campaign and slow down the flow?

There's your group! Good luck.

Rhela A. said: This actually sounds really interesting, but the only part that keeps me on edge is the "text-only" thing. While it can be done, wouldn't players with an inability to type fast kinda hold back the campaign and slow down the flow? I realise this is going to put some people off, but I'm afraid that part is non negotiable. I exclusively run and play text only games. I'm sorry, but I just hate the sound of my own voice too much. I do data entry for a living, so I can type just about as fast as I can talk. So, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't slow down the flow at all. I apologise if that is a player deterrant.