Voord 99

I think the actual terminology was more variable than in Pendragon. John Russell calls this person a “marshall,” which would really bother Pendragon players. Looking it up, though, the Book of the Warlord prefers dapifer (which is just Latin for steward or seneschal — it’s what Geoffrey of Monmouth calls Kay). Historically there wasn’t a mayor of London until the end of the 12th century. So the end of the Boy King period is the earliest that this could happen, and it’s not directly based on anything from before the equivalent of the Twilight period. The above incidents all draw on late medieval sources, in fact, and I couldn’t say how early these precise details would have applied in reality — to the extent that there are not idealizations going on in the sources (which, although I’m not an expert, I suspect there are). But I think one can go with any period where they seem to fit, and handwave with “Well, it’s how Malory would have imagined things would work, based on his own time.” I think the fit is always going to be be a little loose. Many of the “real” rules about precedence are about churchmen, and those break down in Pendragon, as they assume that there is only one religious hierarchy to be considered. Pendragon Ireland is a very uncomfortable compromise between historical medieval Ireland and the sources (one which is not unlikely to provoke an “Are we the baddies?” moment....), and one can argue that the above incident would not happen in any Pendragon Ireland that has Iseult, Sir Marhaus, etc., as even if the king is “tribal Irish” he should at least know about these things.

While doing research into precedence at feasts in medieval England, I’ve come across some titbits of information that might make for fun minor bits of business to throw into a Pendragon game. So I thought I might throw them out here, in case anyone finds them useful. All three are based in something from the period that people at least claimed was real.. 1) The new seneschal’s problem. A friend of the player knights has just been made seneschal of their liege, and he’s still learning the ropes. (He was rewarded for his loyalty, or as a favor to his family, or something, rather than being exceptionally well-qualified for the position.) He’s in a panic, and he asks the PKs for their advice. The mayor of London is going to be a guest at a feast to which a number of members of the titled nobility have also been invited, and the new seneschal has heard that the mayor of London, as representative of the king, is treated as being of the highest rank and outranking these barons. Stewardship or Courtesy-5 — Success: This is true, but it only applies within the city of London. In London, the mayor has the most honored place at the high table at any feast, except when the king himself is present, and ranks before even the most noble duke or archbishop. However, the mayor of London does rank the same as a baron outside London, so make sure to seat him with them. Failure: Yes, but that’s only in London. Don’t worry about it. Critical success: As Success, but did you know that the mayor of London is placed at the first table to the left at the front of the hall at a king’s coronation feast? It’s a fascinating topic. Of course, the mayor of London outranks all other mayors, but the mayor of [other city - it was Calais, originally] is allowed to dine with the knights.... Fumble: That’s ridiculous. The mayor of London isn’t even a knight, is he? Reward: the seneschal owes you a favor. Also, you may have saved your lord serious embarrassment. 2) The visiting Irish king. Kings plural, originally (four of them), but it will probably work better for a game if there’s only one. An Irish king is visiting Logres with his entourage. Why he is there depends on the period, but he has official or unofficial goals that call for him to seek favor (probably with the king) and the player knights have been assigned to guide him and make sure that he succeeds. The first time the player knights have dinner with the Irish king, they are horrified — not only do the Irish king’s servants and musicians eat at the same table as him, he allows them to eat off his golden plates and drink out of his silver goblet! He will never be able to fit in in Logres if he behaves like that. If challenged, the king is touchy about it and says that he is following the custom of his people. The player knights must find a way to persuade him to change his ways. (In the original incident, the English squire accompanying the kings let them eat as they pleased at first, and after a few days, set up tables in the English manner, with the servants and musicians at separate tables from the kings, and managed to win the kings over at that point.) Rewards: the gratitude of whoever assigned them to make sure that the Irish king’s visit was a success; the friendship of the Irish king; the resentment and hatred of his people in Ireland when he goes back and tries to introduce the customs of Logres there... 3) An unexpected honor. The player knights are acting as messengers from the king. (Possibly in 487, if they choose the Lindsey Embassy over the Naval Raids.) At a feast, they are assigned a much more honorable place than they are used to — they are dining with barons (not counts or dukes). Has there been some mistake? Stewardship or Courtesy-5: Success: No, messengers from the king are always considered to be one rank higher than they are, so that a knight who is a messenger from the king is the equivalent of a baron. Rewards: The player knights don’t risk embarrassing themselves and showing disrespect for the king by refusing. They have a chance to hobnob with more important people and impress them. Years later, a squire comes with a message from the king, and the player knights know to treat him as if he were a knight, on the same principle.

Book of Sires is amazing — worth buying as a game in itself. It’s one of the main reasons why I decided to try to talk my friends into starting another campaign.

Not in the core rulebook, but part of the original boxed set: I remember liking the introductory scenario more than what became the standard intro from 3rd edition on*, because of that element in it of witnessing the origin story of a famous character (Pellinore) — it makes the player characters’ experiences more dramatic and special from the start of the game. In fact, I’d probably use an adapted version of that as my introductory story now, if I still had my copy of 1st edition. There were also some characters statted up in the little booklet that aren’t in the GPC Gamemaster Characters PDF, some of whom I’d quite like to have statted up. I might also be inclined to use elements in the older version of some of the duplicate characters. (Gawain had his strength-goes-up-and-then-down ability in 1st ed, for instance, if I’m remembering correctly. It has been a very long time.) But overall, yes, 1st edition is either duplicated or superseded. *Or so I presume. I’ve never read 4th edition.

Thank you. That’s a very good idea, and easy to implement. I think I will definitely want to use that. One of the things that bothers me about the rules is that all feasts are created equal, aside from rounds and the flat +100 Glory for royal feasts for all guests. (100 for that is another thing that’s a bit high, given the generosity of the “winning” award and the fact that one will be using this sometimes for GPC feasts where there is Glory to be gained for witnessing things - if you made most notable at the feast at which Ygraine tells her tale, you could walk out of the event with 400ish Glory.) As for the award simply being too high, full stop, as compared to tournaments (and it’s comparable with some battles) — this is something where I’m pulled both ways. It is too high, but I quite like the idea of the high Glory being driven by the feast being memorable. You don’t get the Glory for being the most notable guest at a feast, but for being the most notable guest at Arthur’s wedding feast, who is remembered for the modesty that they displayed on that occasion. Something that’s worth recording in the character history, worth the GM having NPCs recall it years later. Which should get you a lot of Glory, but also be hard to achieve. (Thinking about it, this means that I should probably back off from the idea that all of Uther’s feasts are memorable. Which is better, anyway, as Arthur should be special in a way that Uther is not.) Arguably, the Geniality multiplier mechanic might be better replaced by something like the way tournaments work, with a set final bonus for the winner, based on the size of the feast and the status of the host. Hmm. How about the following? Same rules as above, but with the following changes. 1) Not only the also-rans, but also the winner gets their Geniality again for successes on the Three Rolls, with double for criticals. The winner will get 4x-7x Geniality total, but almost all of the time at the low end of the range, unless he puts serious investment and Glory bonus points into things that are not useful in combat — and even then, a knight can only guarantee that APP and Courtesy will be relevant, with no control over the third roll. 2) There is an additional bonus Glory award for the winner, It’s fairly small (because the winner has already at least quadrupled their Geniality, and larger feasts have more rounds, so there’s already a built-in increase). -Small Feast (if it somehow manages to be memorable): Before Arthur’s wedding: 5 Glory/after Arthur’s wedding: 10 Glory. (Winner gets a minimum of 21/26 Glory.) -Medium Feast (also normally not memorable): 10/20 Glory. (Winner gets a minimum of 34/44 Glory.) -Large Feast (can be memorable on rare occasions): 15/30 Glory. (Winner gets a minimum of 47/62 Glory.) -Royal Feast (generally memorable if a scripted GPC event, and often at other times): 20/40 Glory. (Winner gets a minimum of 60/80 Glory.) This is in addition to any Glory gained for whatever made the feast memorable (which can, of course, be something that a PK did in the course of the feast), and the GM may award additional Glory for things that PKs do during the feast, irrespective of whether they win or not. This includes things that happen as a result of a card draw, even when a Glory award is not on the card. A knight or lady who sings excellently before great nobles after drawing the Center Stage card surely deserves some Glory, whatever the card says. Note: Because Arthur will not feast until he has seen a marvel, all of his great feasts (after his wedding) are always memorable. However, these are typically Round Table feasts, at which there is no winner before the Twilight period. (Even if others are present, the spirit of the Round Table governs the atmosphere of the event, and people do not engage in one-upmanship, even if they are not seated at the Round Table itself.) 3) The 100 Glory for attending a royal feast applies only to the first time that one does this; no Glory is received for subsequent attendance at royal feasts, except for what is achieved in play. This is unless it is a Round Table feast. Attendance at a Round Table feast is always worth 50 Glory (100 if it is one’s first royal feast), unless one is a Round Table knight, for whom attendance is routine. (Look, you’re a Round Table knight. You want more Glory just for turning up? Besides, 50 Glory for you is a rounding error.)

Hello - I’m new around here. But I wanted to pick up on a point earlier in this thread that Morien made which I thought was very important: status should affect seating. My understanding it that precedence mattered in the historical Middle Ages, and it comes up in the literature. Sometimes, it’s part of the point of the Round Table to avoid conflicts over rank (as distinct from Glory). In Layamon, earls become violently angry when knights are served before them. So the egalitarianism of the Book of Feasts doesn’t suit the feel I personally want. I was thinking about implementing something like the following for a game which I’m hoping to start in the near future. It’s based on Tizun Thane’s system, but with a couple of tweaks. I’d be grateful for any thoughts about how it might be improved, especially if there’s an obvious horrible pitfall that I’m missing. I’ll mention that the game will have only one or at most two players. 1) The GM (that is, me) assigns the player’s “correct” (or default) place based on their social rank and the setting. A minor baron will be expected to be at high table in most times and places, but not at a huge royal feast attended by all of the great nobles of the realm. For most PKs, this is Below the Salt, except in small unimportant feasts, where they may “correctly” be Near the Salt. From the player host’s perspective: everybody with a Courtesy skill knows how people rank in broad strokes, but a Courtesy or Stewardship roll (either) may be needed to get the specifics right of how this particular bishop ranks in comparison to this particular baron when you’re making the cut in marginal cases. (This doesn’t have to be Stewardship as per the rules, in other words.) 2) Players are assigned places relative to their “correct” place by a roll against Glory/1000 (round down). This is unmodified: jewellery and clothing affect APP only. Failure puts you in your “correct” place; success moves you up 1; a critical moves you up 2; A fumble moves you down 1. More extreme results than that are always major events that reflect special circumstances and the GM’s decision, and mean that you have been singled out for an exceptional honour or an exceptional disgrace for some specific reason (generally, something that happened in play). Being seated above your correct place is glorious: 10 for one place up, 20 for two places up; more (GM’s decision) for an exceptional honor. This is an incentive to accept the seating, beyond the Geniality benefits. However, there is always someone (this is a zero-sum game, after all) who would be in your seat if you weren’t, and may resent you for this, which is an incentive to use the Ceding your Position rules (p.6) — which, if done well, retains the Glory and keeps everyone happy. This is an opportunity for Intrigue rolls to read the politics behind your seating, Courtesy/Stewardship rolls to see if there’s an obvious candidate who’s being snubbed, etc. A snubbed person need not be a knight, as there are other people at a feast who have comparable places in the order of precedence. A prominent clergyman could be a very awkward enemy to make. Being seated below where you should be is what triggers the “Effects on Honor” rule on p.6. (RAW, this is going to come up too often for my tastes, as Honour loss is a nasty penalty. This way it only comes up on a fumble.) 3) Card-drawing works with Tizun Thane’s APP/5 rule (maybe APP/6), but it’s APP as modified by clothing and jewellery and Fashion. (Still thinking about which of the options discussed in this thread about how accoutrements should work most appeal to me, but I definitely think that clothing should count, and I am particularly attracted by the idea that clothing should cap the effect of jewellery, as it’s the whole ensemble that matters.) 4) The very high 10 x Geniality Glory for being the most notable guest only applies to memorable, important feasts. Feasts at the courts of Uther and Arthur always count (except if it’s a Round Table feast, see below). Less important feasts allow you to get the smaller base Geniality glory only. At the end, you need to meet a threshold of 2 x rounds Geniality to be in contention for most notable guest — no matter what, you need to be competitive with the least successful person at high table. 5) But that’s just to be in contention. To “win” the feast you need make successful rolls in modified APP, Courtesy, and make again one roll that you succeeded during the feast (what your performance are most remembered for - the GM picks what they think was most memorable). Ladies may substitute Fashion for any of these rolls. Essentially, a knight who is perceived as lacking in APP and Courtesy will simply never be considered the “winner” of a feast by the medieval glitterati, no matter how well that knight handled specific social situations that came up in the course of the feast. This also brings APP back in as a vital part of the process, since the guiding spirit of the original rules seems to be the desire to give APP more value. The third roll is to make this more challenging (especially for knights, who cannot boost their Fashion) so that the very high Glory award seems deserved. 6) But — even being in contention is impressive. Successes on the three final rolls earn your Geniality again in Glory; criticals earn twice your Geniality. Since I’m making it harder to be the most notable person, I want to have something that makes all this feel worthwhile for the character who gets a lot of Geniality but doesn’t quite make it. 7) I’m playing with the idea of this changing over time to reflect different periods. E.g. : In the Uther period, the winner, if a knight, must have won at least 1 of their Geniality points through being Indulgent, Valorous, Reckless, or Proud. This does not apply to ladies. Before 514, the most notable guest receives only 5xGeniality. It is not until Guinevere arrives on the scene that courtly manners displayed in social settings are valued highly enough for people to care all that much about who came off best at a feast. Also from 514, there are Round Table feasts for Round Table knights at which the entire system does not apply. Everyone both gets 2 Geniality/round and can draw cards, and there is never a winner. Lesser lords and kings than Arthur sometimes imitate these with their own round tables, to give PKs a chance to experience this alternative at least once. From the Romance period on, there are separate Glory awards for the most notable lady and the most notable man, as otherwise lovers might be in competition, which would be against the spirit of true love. In the Twilight period, as Mordred’s influence is felt and there is a constant undercurrent of malicious gossip, the rolls against modified APP, Courtesy, as well as the third roll, become opposed rolls against “Backbiting” (use double d20). In this period also, it is no longer the case that no-one is considered the “winner” of a Round Table Feast.