Just a thought that I have been pondering on. I did a quick search to see if I have missed any info on the subject below but did not find any so forgive me if someone has already asked about this or if I have not explained this well enough.

One criticism I have sometimes heard from PC's about Pendragon is that some feel that they are just spectators witnessing the metaplot unfold or that they feel railroaded through it. I would like to add that this does not happen very often! ;) This usually happens during battles when they feel that their actions have no effect on the outcome of the battle they participate in.
Of course every PC wants to be the main character of their own story and part of the art of being a GM is to weave the players stories into the legend itself. Maybe some PC's feel that the entire story should revolve solely around their own character especially when it comes to their actions in combat.

Is this addressed in the upcoming Book of Battle? Do the PC's roles and actions in a battle have more influence over the outcome? Or is still down to PC and GM cooperation in creating the story together?

I don't know about the new battle system but I like how it works at present. I don't think knights should be able to alter the outcome of battles through normal hand to hand vs normal enemy troops - I like my campaign battles grim and gritty as opposed to LOTR style - unless they get the chance to engage the leader or other hero (which are usually v. tough fights against v.tough opponents.), or the enemy army consists of a low number of troops.

Of course, that's just my preference! If you want Elric style epic then go for it! :)

If they are part of a grand battle that Arthur leads himself, then yes of course they should be humble and realise that there are thousands of knights and tens of thousands of soldiers involved in the battle. Of course they will not solely determine the outcome. What they can do is feats of grandeur and heroism which if played properly will be recognized by the inner court or even Arthur/Kay/Lancelot afterwards.

What I usually do is that before a session start is to give the player the choice of where they want to be. Do they want to be swept up into the Arthurian legend, do they want to adventure close to it or do they want a totally seperate adventure. If they went on their own then the Arthurian legend would unfold as is which usually affect them anyway.
After a few sessions like that my players went from where yours are now, complaining about not being able to affect the outcome, to actually more and more often ask to be a plan of the grander things, knowing that playing a smaller role their affects their destiny more than playing a major role in the countryside.

I think that as soon as the BoB is out you can stop poking Greg for whats in and not and just simply ask other players to review it, and to adress your question if the Bob does give the players more influence on the Great Campain battles then I would be greatly dissapointed.

Is this addressed in the upcoming Book of Battle?



Yes. It was one of the major two motivators to come up with the system.
(The other one was to introduce some off the ebb and flow, the clash of luck and skill, and the general movement of battle)




Do the PC's roles and actions in a battle have more influence over the outcome? Or is still down to PC and GM cooperation in creating the story together?



The PCs have a significant chance to affect the battle.

--G

Thanks for the info Greg. I'll definitely be in the vanguard of the thunderous cavalry stampede to acquire the BoB & BoA when they get released!



I think that as soon as the BoB is out you can stop poking Greg for whats in and not and just simply ask other players to review it, and to adress your question if the Bob does give the players more influence on the Great Campain battles then I would be greatly dissapointed.


I try not to 'prod' Mr Stafford too much for info. I would not like to irritate him. I understand that he has eerie powers! :D

I think I agree with you Pramalot and Spoonist. I too, have a slight aversion to the grand cinematic sword and sorcery style in which one heroic individual combatant dominates the battlefield. Generals and commanders can play a decisive role in combat and combatants usually only experience a small part of the events of a battle's entirety in the individual combats, skirmishes and engagements.

In the literature though, there are the heroic examples of Pellinore, Balin and Balan in Arthur's battle with the second rebel alliance led by Nero and Lot before Castle Terrabil. Surely the turning point of the battle there happened with Pellinore killing Lot, thus causing the rebel army to flee the battlefield?

In the literature though, there are the heroic examples of Pellinore, Balin and Balan in Arthur's battle with the second rebel alliance led by Nero and Lot before Castle Terrabil. Surely the turning point of the battle there happened with Pellinore killing Lot, thus causing the rebel army to flee the battlefield?



Yep, in the BoB that is minus 20 to the Intensity for killing the enemy Army Leader.

Sorry for the teaser. :-)

And when it goes public, there are several veterans of the play test and creative process who will be able to answer questions as well as I.
Then, shortly afterward, you all will be able to do it.

--g

I have just been re-reading Mallory, and there are any number of battles, often involving thousands of knights, in which the actions of a select few seem to determne the ebb and flow of the whole thing.

So good to hear that the PKs will have a chance to influence the battles.