Is it possible or has anyone tried to play Pendragon solitaire?
Just curious.

Todd

As a creative writing exercise that would be a lot of fun.

The problem is that players provide a lot of the fodder for at-table improvisation. The players can be just as creative as a GM and add so much depth.

Solitaire is doable for what-do-you-stand-for adventures.

For example, there is an old published adventure (I forget the name/source) where a lady asks the PKs to straighten out her son, a landed knight who thinks chivalric values are pointless and self-defeating. The son leads the PKs to the contests where he failed, and challenges the PKs to solve the contradictions in the knightly code. For example, knights are supposed to protect and certainly not harm ladies -- what do you do when faced with a deadly female warrior?

It can be done. The winter phase is primarily a solo. The court activities can be set up as random events as well. The only real problem would be the actual scenarios. If you are planning to create scenarios on the fly, then you need to decide what the decisions would be at any point and what options your character would likely take. There are probably some true solos out there, but I don't remember any official ones.

Bob

Solitaire is doable for what-do-you-stand-for adventures.

For example, there is an old published adventure (I forget the name/source) where a lady asks the PKs to straighten out her son, a landed knight who thinks chivalric values are pointless and self-defeating. The son leads the PKs to the contests where he failed, and challenges the PKs to solve the contradictions in the knightly code. For example, knights are supposed to protect and certainly not harm ladies -- what do you do when faced with a deadly female warrior?


Nice thought, but bad example. THe idea that all woemen are ladies is a Victorian era concept that has held over into the modern era. It is not a medieval or Arthurian concept. A knight would have no problem dealing with a woman warrior.

IEven if the woman warrior also happened to be a lady there wouldn7t be much of a conflict for a knight. If the woman7s bevaior is socially acceptable then the knight is free to fight here, and if here bahavior is not socially acceptabe (i.e. the GM is running a strongly medeival campaign with a strong Christian ethic, where women do not fight), then the knight is not repsonbile for the woman7s abberant (and hertical) behavior.

To get a trait conflict out of this you would need a situation where the woman isn7t a warrior, but might be mistaken for one.

Atgxtg,

I agree with your views -- but in the adventure the Victorian view was the failed knight's argument, and it was the PK's job to come up with a rebuttal.

For example, there is an old published adventure (I forget the name/source) where a lady asks the PKs to straighten out her son, a landed knight who thinks chivalric values are pointless and self-defeating. The son leads the PKs to the contests where he failed, and challenges the PKs to solve the contradictions in the knightly code. For example, knights are supposed to protect and certainly not harm ladies -- what do you do when faced with a deadly female warrior?


I think the adventure you are talking about is "The Castle of the Maiden Knight," from Tales of Chivalry & Romance.

Atgxtg,

I agree with your views -- but in the adventure the Victorian view was the failed knight's argument, and it was the PK's job to come up with a rebuttal.


Oh, sorry. I though you were using the Victorian view as the Arthurian view. I've seen a lot of GMs do that with midevial RPGs. Since we all live in he modern world and are familar with it, it is common to assume many modern beliefs and conventions applied to eariler cultures. Some of my players are notorious for trying to apply modern US beliefs and culture to the campaign, and I think I went into "automatic correction mode".