Jump to content

Voord 99

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About Voord 99

  • Rank
    Advanced Member


  • Location
    An undisclosed location not too far from Marinus.
  • Blurb
    Hapless interstellar conqueror. I’m really not very good at it.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Way back when, I was quite generous with experience checks. And I’ve still been doing that in my just-started game, because I trust my players not to do the “knight slaughters helpless peasants to get a check in Sword” thing, about which the rules express a (reasonable) concern. I’ve always felt that the BRP experience mechanic is already elegantly self-limiting, especially when you only check for an increase every year, and demands less attention from the GM than, say, Glory awards. There are also squire creation rules in the Book of Knights and Ladies, but IMO the later ones in Book o
  2. I think it’s one of the things I am most likely to adopt, in combination with DEX for unhorsing. Mechanically, it’s an elegant solution to the problem that (a) you want Horsemanship to have a vital mechanical effect in combat and not just be a skill for special tests when the GM remembers to devise them, but (b) DEX also has a tendency not to matter enough - which has produced the push-pull between “roll DEX to see if you‘re unhorsed, no, wait, roll Horsemanship, no, let’s roll DEX, actually...”. This way, both matter. But it’s also a partial solution to something that has bothered me
  3. There’s obviously room for different games to play differently. (For what it’s worth, my personal preference is, female knights are exceptional, but if people, male or female, play one, I won’t foreground it as an issue. Because I am primarily interested in the game as genre emulation of medieval romance.) But I think you’re exaggerating the extent to which this is a radical change: Twentieth century thinking allows for extrapolation where the Middle Ages did not. The Arthurian legend has survived for 1400 years because it has been able to adapt to the needs of its audience. Ther
  4. Hey, “cosmopolitanism” is definitely staying true to the source material. Arthur’s court is supposed to be so great that it attracts knights from all over the world! One thing about Pendragon is that its Arthurian world is rather small. I want the Gawain who is knighted by the Pope at 15 and goes off and has adventures in the Middle East* before he even finds out who he is. *I don’t actually, at least not the last part, because it’s basically the Crusades. But I do want something of medieval narrative’s love of handwaving long distances and just getting the hero to exotic and very
  5. Since the “historical” Arthur possibly has more to do with the cultural politics of 9th-century Wales than it does with anything that really happened in Britain in the C5th-C6th, that’s not automatically relevant.* But in any case, Pendragon’s version of paganism is quite unlike anything that is likely to have existed, and is more like modern paganism, that wouldn’t matter in any case. *See Guy Halsall, 2014, Worlds of Arthur: Facts and Fictions of the Dark Ages, Oxford: Oxford University Press; Nicholas Higham, King Arthur: The Making of the Legend, New Haven and London: Yale University
  6. Personally, I feel that female knights are less of a break with the source material than (as Morien notes) pagans or a pseudohistory in which vassalage is invented recently, and yet everyone treats it as if it were ingrained practice since time immemorial.* There is at least one female knight in an Arthurian romance (Melora, recently mentioned by Leingod) and, as Morien notes, one finds them elsewhere. It’s closest to the source material to treat female knights as exceptional and sometimes disguised as men, but not impossible. On the other hand, it would be closest to the source mate
  7. An interesting detail is that Disheartened has been folded into Melancholic - in fact Melancholic is more like Disheartened than what used to be Melancholic -, and so that -5 hits you after the situation that provoked the Passion roll. This is another thing that encourages you to roll Passions (in this case Famous ones), as a failure doesn’t affect your chances during the critical situation where you call on the Passion. Plus, you get Glory for Melancholy, and a fairly generous award at that.
  8. Wild speculative theories, absolutely. Devotion looks like it might be Love (God) - the Religious Knight has 15 in it. Station is tricky. Perhaps following the rules of your knightly status, possibly encompassing some things that currently fall under Honour (e.g. not doing physical labor, spending enough to maintain a lifestyle appropriate, having your reputation impugned)? I notice that the Champion and the Courtier have it as a high Passion. Honour would then be more narrowly personal honour, not breaking oaths and so on. However, I find it hard to see how often you would use S
  9. One thing I find interesting is that Pendragon has from the beginning encouraged the possibility of games that break with the source material in their assumptions about gender* and religion - but from the beginning has been insistent about sticking with the source material’s assumptions about class. It makes for a striking contrast with what I affectionately call Schlocky Modern Arthuriana (Merlin, Cursed, etc.) which often goes out of its way to question that - we have had at least two Lancelots in other media whose defining trait was that they weren’t noble, but deserved to be knights
  10. A possible addition to that is that, if you pick the weeks for Madness, you get a roll on the Madness table in the GPC, with the possibility of checks, useful contacts with poor but decent knights, etc. I’d probably say that you couldn’t pick the longer one, and have the benefits, unless you have a Famous Passion. But I’ve never really liked the Madness rules, because they don’t create moments that correspond well to the classic moments when madness happens in the literature - and RAW, a really strong Passion (20+) means that you can’t go mad, barring modifiers, which is the exact opposi
  11. I would wonder if there could be an additional penalty for trying to do this from horseback to a single unmounted opponent. Intuitively, it seems like it would be easier to lean to the right to strike at someone below you with a single weapon in your right hand than to lean enough to strike at them with a second weapon in your left hand as well.
  12. I think I would probably reverse it, so that it wasn’t the product of an epic quest, but a means to complete one. In an otherworldly/off-the-map/faerie context, obviously. One can, and very possibly has to, tame/befriend the hippogriff to fly up the impossibly tall mountain or whatever, but the knight can’t take the fantastical creature back into the (relatively) normal world when they’re done. They might meet the hippogriff again next time they’re in the right sort of context, though.
  13. The Dorset coast is famous for smugglers, as it happens, with plenty of beaches and sea caves that were used to bring in goods in secret in the 18th century. So there is no shortage of real geography that the Saxons could exploit. Also, now that Syagrius is no longer a “praetor,” the most likely explanation of the Dorset praetorship is perhaps that it’s a unique affectation and not an actual title, civic or otherwise. The count became known as “the Praetor,” because of the first count’s fondness for obscure bits of Roman antiquity, but it doesn’t mean anything specific. I think it’s not rea
  14. Agreed. I didn’t mean that all of the added Paladin Christianity rules would be troubling, just the ones that are oriented towards those themes. That being said, the setup of my (I hope) upcoming Pendragon campaign is pretty much as you describe, so that we’re eliminating pagan knights. The way I’m handling that is to eliminate religious Trait bonuses entirely. The reasoning is that, if Christianity is the universal norm, then Christians aren’t unusually chaste, modest, etc. — they define what it is to be typical. A 10 in a Trait means “about average for a knight in this medieval Chri
  15. Forgot to say this. Nothing interesting - I just meant that everyone might be given Cymri stats with a couple of added things that are specific to regional stereotypes. What those would be for the Low Countries in the Middle Ages, you would know better than I. Or what they are nowadays...
  • Create New...