all i'm really interested in are the seasonal rules i've heard so much about. the whole arthurian thing doesn't do it for me.
so, in that regard, which edition is best? any particular one to specifically avoid?
5th, it's cleanest and best laid out.
I use 5th and have 4th in pdf form as it has the magic rules and tons more setting and chargen optional stuff, none of which sounds like it would interest you anyway.
5th is beautiful, shiny, well-laid out, and has the Great Pendragon Campaign supplement (previously editions only had The Boy King, a tiny fraction of what the GPdC was meant to be - it's Stafford's glorious magnum opus and a must-have). That's all the Pendragon anybody could possibly want, although the magic rules and rules for characters from alternate cultures in 4th may be handy to have in PDF form.
Balbinus and Warthur already gave my answer. In many ways I still enjoy my old copy of 1st edition best, but the 5th edition captures just about everything I love from it. The 5th is also very complete, very polished, and clearly laid out.
Spring for the .PDF of the 4th edition for alternate starting homelands (and detailed magic, if you must).
It's truly a fabulous game.
!i!
The newest edition, without a doubt.
Along with the Great Pendragon Campaign; easily the best book of 2007.
RPGPundit
i thought that's what folks had said (use the 5th ed) in some earlier thread. if the pdf of 4th is cheap i may get that too. it's all brp-derivative, right? so i can adapt it to my weirdo fantasy-prehistory-europe thing i'm trying to get going. system is going to start with MRQ slaine and then sprinkle in others to taste. available spices include possible earlier RQ versions, BRP/CoC, and a brief translation of 'drakar och demoner'.
It is, indeed, largely compatible with BRP games. Here's an example of how David Dunham adapted the emotional trait rules to RuneQuest -- PenDragon Pass (http://www.poppyware.com/dunham/pdp.html). Nifty stuff.
!i!
[Edit: Upon reading the site after a good, long time, I realise that it was basically adapting RQ magic to Pendragon.]
Quote from: Ian Absentia[Edit: Upon reading the site after a good, long time, I realise that it was basically adapting RQ magic to Pendragon.]
Yes, indeed. I ran a twenty-session game of that, with 8-12 guys playing. You could smell the testosterone from a block away. The male rivalry killed it in the end.
Was that a good thing, or a bad thing, though? Well, obviously not the killing off the game part.
!i!
Well, it was just a thing, really.
Ah. A gentleman never asks and a lady never tells. Gotcha.
!i!
Eh?
The manly testosterone thingie. I believe I'm reading too much into this. :deflated:
Anyway, yes, Pendragon and other BRP games can cross-pollinate quite handily if the mood strikes.
!i!
I'll add a vote. 5th is great. Passion botches are great. Hehe.
5th is excellent. WW did a superb job with it.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice5th is excellent. WW did a superb job with it.
-clash
Yes, I have to admit that the typical WW high-production good-looking product certainly combines well with a game designed by someone who isn't a pretentious little turd. Its a WW-level visual product but actually backed up with substance for once!
RPGPundit
I must confess that I'm less than pleased by the WW-style art that was used, making it look more than a little reminiscent of Ars Magica. AM was a fine game, but I was spoiled by the more distinctive Lisa Free art from earlier editions.
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaWW-style art
Uh oh. You just unsold me a bit. Not that I actually need 5th ed.
Yeah. And I don't even really know how to describe what's wrong with it. It's too...panel-arty, like each picture is a frame from a comic book. The original Pendragon art was more akin to portraiture, depicting a person or thing, without trying to tell a story. Also, the new art is all water-colory instead of sharp and crisp.
It's really not a major detraction, but it lets you know that you're reading a WW/Arthaus book, rather Greg Stafford's game.
!i!