Help offset server costs by donating. This is totally optional. Any overages will go to library fines or new books.
Sword at Sunset: Question Ten
And... the roleplaying question. You're running or playing a roleplaying game based on Arthurian myth or the general background, or incorporating some elements. What do you want to see included? What don't you want to see included?
Comments
I would just open your book. Problem solved, dude!
Mythic Britain captures things quite well for me, though I would personally do more with the north and with the Picts in general. I rather liked how Sutcliff brought in the various peoples of Brtian to create a complex society so that it wasn't just Britons vs Saxons. I also liked her suggestion that there were pockets of people who remained un-Romanized, though if they weren't Britons who were they? Little Dark People doesn't quite satisfy as a name for a people. They surely didn't call themselves that? And what were the Romans - blondes and redheads? Surely Italianized Britons would have been dark, too. Anyway, I digress.
I'm curious - how does Age of Arthur's take differ from Mythic Britain's take?
If I were in that situation I'd enjoy seeing the interaction between the diverse groups of people, together with some prior sense of prejudices for/against particular alliances.
Apart from the rules, there are similarities as we drew from the same sources, and took the same approach starting with "dark ages" history and using some elements of Arthurian myth.
So both are post-Roman Britain settings with some magical elements to them. But the moods are quite different. Mythic Britain is mystical, with subtle magic based around spirits. The magic in Age of Arthur is also generally subtle, but there are more blatant fantasy elements, including the Fae and such things as Saxons who can change into wolves. The Age of Arthur setting feels to me more fantasy and less mystical.
Another difference is that Mythic Britain feels quite Celtic with the people having moved on from Rome, whereas Age of Arthur is more post-Roman. There are still inhabited crumbling more or less Roman cities; it is the countryside which has reverted to Celtic (and pagan) roots. Of course, Hibernia (Scotland) was never Roman, though there was some influence in the lowlands.
Probably, despite the name, Mythic Britain is more "Arthurian" than Age of Arthur. The default timeline in Age of Arthur is after the fall of the High King, and there is no "Arthur" yet as a replacement, and he might never arise, or be replaced by the PCs or who they work for.
For what it's worth, I really like both, to the extent I wrote a supplement for Mythic Britain. Though now I've written all that, I'm enthused about returning to do more with Age of Arthur one day.