Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Atgxtg last won the day on October 19

Atgxtg had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

932 Excellent

About Atgxtg

  • Rank
    Senior Member


  • RPG Biography
  • Current games
  • Blurb

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Well, In over 30 years of playing Pendragon it has never come up. I've gotten close to a few times, but generally it does't happen. The GPC has a rule where both take 1d3 through armor on tied criticals. That would work here. Morien's house rule is probably the best soultion for eliminating the problem entirely. Bumping this down to 20 vs 20.
  2. Yeah that turns more into a case of politics and clot. The younger brother could be totally in the wrong but get the land if he has powerful relatives and friends whom the liege wants to keep on good terms with.
  3. Ah. The thin is in medieval times the land holder owed military service (and other things) to the liege lord. Steward in the latter sense is more akin to their Esquire role from the Renascence. The reason why that worked in latter times was because by then feudal armies had been replace with professional standing armies and mercenaries paid for by taxed. I hate to tell you but you probably can't solve it. The "men go to work, women stay home" thing is as much about the realities of earning a living as it is about "misogamy". The problems are that there is only a limited amount of income to go around, somebody has to go through pregnancy and rear the children, and both running the household and fighting require different skill sets and training. In the modern world we have gotten around this with two working parents, day care, school, 9-5 jobs, and the ability to commute. Women's liberation and women in the work force happened/is happening when it did less because men were keeping women down than because that is when it became viable. Just like with the marriage thing. It used to be that men would try to earn a promotion at work so that they could support a wife, and employers would factor that when considering who to promote. A married man was considered more reliable as he had a wife and family to support. Today that doesn't happen because the wife also woks, and the husband is expected to support her (at least not to the same extent as before). IMO your simpliest solution is probably the ones I mentioned above, especially scutage as there would be £4 of income left over that would normally support the husband. That could easily go to the liege lord (until a knight inherits) so he could maintain another household knight, or hire some mercenaries, and everybody is happy. The estate keeping another knight would also works but raises it own problems, such as what happens to him once the heir is of age. If the wife wants to suit up and be a knight for a few years, that's fine too. The only real problems with that are the time it takes to train and the risks of the job. But my suggestion is scutage.
  4. Yup. Probably Yes, and even his turning against Arthur wasn't there or at least wasn't clear originally. In some sources she is actually the cause of Camlaan. Apparently the conflict was between Arthur who wanted to keep Gwenhwyfach, and Gwynhafar's (Guinevere) supporters who wanted her reinstated as Queen. Someone got slapped and things escalated. I suspect that Gwenhwyfach got dropped because she provides an easy solution to the Lancelot-Guinevere affair. Arthur could put aside Guinevere for failing to produce and heir, marry Gwenhwyfach., Lancelot marries Guinevere and all four would have been happy. Gwenhwyfach pretty much ruins the whole love triangle. I think Morgan gets it worse from more Modern soruces. Most people tend to forget the other sisters (Morgause and Elaine in Mallory) and just dump everything bad onto Morgan who ends up being Arthur's one wicket sisister, the mother of Mordred, and sometimes takes Vivanine role as Merlin's apprentice turned jailer.
  5. Atgxtg


    All too true. Game systems are like toolkits, and which one to use depends on what you are trying to accomplish. It's less about which one is the best, and more about which one is best suited for a particular application.
  6. Yes, and that is certainly fine. GMs get to decide things like that, especially with magicians. The jury is still out on Morgan and Merlin.I just wanted to clarify that she isn't necessarily a villain in the sources, so that people don't automatically assume so. I don't believe she was his twin sister either. If you want to bring in Merlin's sister as an evil echantress, go for it!
  7. Because it isn't their own land. A steward is someone assigned to run the holding, like a caretaker or grounds keeper, or the manager of a store. He doesn't have any claim upon it by being steward, so he has no right to inherit. Now if the Steward also happens to be a younger son (sticking with primogeniture) of the land holder then he might be inline to inherit. For much the same reasons why most others in a household can't. Here are a couple: Because the leige lord has to pay for the upkeep of the wife. This is most obvious with household knights, but the same economic facts hold true down throughout the whole feudal system. A wife means another mouth to feed, typically at a higher station, and the liege lord pays for it, and for the children. If the steward has some status, which he probably does, then the marriage is also political in nature and effects alliances and loyalties. If a steward were to marry a Saxon woman then maybe her loyalties might be with the Saxons and she might give them information on the manor or even open the gate for them during a siege. Actually it solves a problem that you created. Even assuming you are throwing out the land passing down to the male heirs, technically the land was either granted to her husband, not to the wife. So when he dies either: If the land was a gift, it reverts back to the Earl, as a gift of land only last for the holder lifetime. Traditionally, the widow got on-third of it to support herself as the widows portion. So in this case the land would never go to her. The reverse would hold true if the land had been given to a female knight who died and left a husband. If the land was a grant, then is passes down to the heirs of the knight, which would normally mean his eldest son, however in am emancipated Britain this could mean the eldest child, so the daughter could get it. If the child were underage a steward might manage the land until the child were old enough to claim it, and that might be the wife of the deceased knight. So in this case the land would never go to her. Now if you want to change things so that the spouse inherits on a grant rather than the children, okay, but remember that they would also inherit all the duties and responsibilities that go along with the grant. So if the wife did inherit, then she would owe knights service to the liege, meaning that she had better get armor, horse and learn how to fight.Now this might sound all well and good to people with modern sensibilities there are some real economic and logistical problems that need to be addressed about it. It is expensive to a knight with horse, armor, weapon, squire and all that. Paying for this expense was a primary reason why the feudal system worked the way it did. In KAP terms that another £2 per year compared to the wife, and that income would have to come from somewhere. So most manors probably couldn't afford to have both husband and wife outfitted as knights. It would probably have to be either/or. It also takes time and is expensive to train someone to be a knight. That's why there are squires. So to function as a knight the wife would have to work of these skills, as opposed to her social ones. A Jack of all trades approach like that means that she would probably be a mediocre knight and an mediocre steward. Again the same would hold true for a man who wasn't raised to be a knight. Now to make a wife inherits system work, then non-combatant spouses (of either gender) who inherit would either have to take on another knight who can fulfill their military duties, or pay sctutage, which is essentially a portion of the estate income so that the liege can hire mercenaries to do it instead. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that you can't or should have female knight or women inheriting land, only that if you do, you need to deal with the economic, logistical, and military repercussions of it.
  8. Consider what tossing in things like Illunimation and the Red Goddess actually means, too. Or the God Learners. Or HeroQuests. I start to wonder if the Gloranthan gods really existed or it they were created and sustained by the worshipers who believe in them (and sacrifice POW and magic points to them). It may very well be that Olrranth is the way he is because people say he is, and believe it. If a movement stated up claiming that his favorite color was a Grey like an overcast sky, would that become true? Ultimately I think a big reason why the religions tend to tell us more about the people rather than the gods is because the people are the ones telling us about the religion. Almost all the stories about the gods are subjective, and told from the view of a particular cult or pantheon.
  9. Yes, the same can be said for the way the game awards skill checks. The rules make it seem far more difficult than the way it is handled in the adventures. But I think it really is becuase Greg added that stuff (no roll for traits less than 16, a stricter policy for awarding skill checks for those GMs who want to have control over character improvement) to try and please people who didn't like the existing rules. Lots of people do not like having their actions decided by die rolls rather than having a free choice. Of course the problem is if they had a free choice, it would play out like Arthurian stories. Personally I'd rather just drop the 16+ restriction, and just leave the decision of when a roll is needed up to the GM, as in the old days. The 16+ rule messes up more stuff than it helps. The stories and the game are full of tests of character where "only knight who is X is worthy of/can do Y" and getting rid of tests ruins that. Sure you can just set thresholds for stuff like they do with the relgion bonuses, but that also has it's drawback as far as playing goes. It's much better for a character to have a chance at something that to just fail. Also, people are contradictory. A kind person can sometimes be cruel , and vice versa. The roll allows for that. Well, thats probably because the poison rules were a late addition to the game, and the scripted nature of the key events.. Before that most poison was handled ad hoc. For instance Uther and all the nobles dying from poison after St. Ablans was in the Pendragon Campaign in 1985, and was Greg's invention, too. In Mallory Uther had been ill and succumbs to his illness after the battle. Greg changed to the Uther and all the nobles being poisoned. The poison rules as they exist now are a KAP5 addition. One of the things about Greg that was both good and bad was that he was always tinkering with things and often didn't update previous stuff to reflect the changes. For example, I've mentioned that the Pict Warrior in the rulebook being SIZ 8 was fine in KAP1 where we rolled 3d6 for SIZ, and the average PK was SIZ 10-11. But, with latter editions switching to 2d6+6 and now 3d6+4, Picts really should have had their SIZ increased to 11 to reflect the 3 point difference. As for the 21 CON and survival, well realistically that would depend on how much poison he consumed. It is quite possible to take so much of something that you won't survive, even with a 21 CON. Sometimes 50mg might made the difference between a 50% mortality rate and an 100% one. I think ultimately it comes down to the situation being a bad one to run, as the GM just kills off anybody who is there, with no chance of a a character of detection, avoiding or surviving the situation. It litterally the GM just killing off characters by fiat, and that really shouldn't happen to player characters in an RPG.
  10. Most of what I've read about her had her as good. Yes, the incubus story was an attempt to justify him in Christianity, and also to help with his taking Ambrosius place in the story of Vortigern tower. Prior to the HRB, it was Ambroius who was the fatherless boy brought to Vortigern. But Geoffrey mixed Ambrosius with Myrddyn Wilt, creating the figure of Merlin Emrys. Of course you with your knowledge of the Welsh sources are well aware of this.
  11. Ah. Come to think of it, Ringworld had root skills, which were somewhat similar.
  12. Not it's not. It's more about the reverse sitation where something happends and the "offended" party go off on an a GM. Now yest someone having a PTSD flashback or panic attack cannot be expected to try and understand, but if they are that upset by something that happens in an RPG, they probably shouldn't have sat down to play it the first place. And if it were something that could happen they should have informed the other gamers about the problem instead of being a ticking time bond. If a Vet is having flashback problems about the Vietnam War, maybe he shouldn't be playing Recon? Except that's the the equivalency I'm trying to make. The one I'm making is that most RPGs have setting and themes that are known to some extend long before you sit down to play. If somebody has a problem with traumatic combat situations due to real world military experiences, then they shouldn't be playing a game about solider s in a war zone., and virtually every game about that sort of thing is open about it. They advertise what these games are about. So unless the GM is really going of the beaten track, the player will have a good idea of what sort of situations to expect. Now if the player sits down to a game of Toon and the GM runs it like Night of the Living Dead, that's different. Yes, and that brings up a few things to consider. First off the fact that a Gm, working on an adventure could stay into uncomfortable territory without knowing it. Secondly many Gms use prewritten adventures so someone else wrote it. Lastly. anybody who has such strong reactions to events that can come up in an RPG should consider if this is the right hobby for them, or at least be very picky about what games they play and make it know what so tof stuff they want to avoid. Most RPGs have particular settings and themes and they can raise red flags concerning what sort of adventures you might have, and if something bothers a person so much that they can't alert their fellow gamers about things that could set them off, then they shouldn''t be there. If somebody can't handle things like Zombies and Gore then they shouldn't play RPGs like Callof Cthulhu or Chill. I think thier intention is good but utlimately they are just feel good tools. Yes, "midgit" is no longer socially acceptable, which is why I referred to the more acceptable term "people of short statue". My point though was that if someone is sensitive about height and terms like Dwarf, which isn't all that popular as it ususally denotes an asymmetrical reduced size, then a game where half the characters are under 4 feet tall might not be a good idea. What if the safety tools trigger such an event? That part of the problem with that situation. If don't really know what will set someone off then you might do so even why trying to head it off. I'd hate to see it reach the point where a GM need to get people to sign waviers before running. I wonder what happens with video games? I don't blame you for being reluctant, but just what sort of event triggered that? And what could at a open table RPG? I'm curious. Oh, and the closest I've ever come to an "off limits" topic was when I was gaming with a guy who, for religious reasons didn't want to play any RPG that had magic it it, because he believed that they were all trying to corrupt you, lead youinto the occult and worship the Devil. So we mostly played modern day and futuristic stuff with him. Although I do recall playing Pendragon with him, but I think that was before he came to that conclusion.
  13. Yup. and many who can as well. Spider-Man is actually very strong, currently being in the 25 ton range, which is something like SIZ 78, yet his is mostly know for web-slinging, web-shooting, and amazing agility. He rarely lift's cars, but is certainly capable of it.
  14. That's an infamous railroad that many players wished was shut down. OI recall a group that actually beat the encounter, and the DM actually apologized to the group before knocking them out so he could continue on with the next part, where they are captured, because there was no way around it. It's a terrible way to do things, but it was written a long time ago.
  15. Let me try to unjumble what I mean: GM's should try to avoid things that they know will upset their players. Bu upset I mean really upset or any in a serious way, not just the generally annoyances that come with gaming, like losing characters. Ditto Players. Everyone should also try to understand that if something bothersome does occur for some reason they should handle things in a manner that is respectful to the GM and other players. That means a player shouldn't vilify the GM for doing something that they didn't know would bother that player, or any other. Everyone should walk into things eyes open and be aware of what sort of game they are getting into. While yes, RPgs by their nature contain surprises, a good deal of what a game is about is made available to the player upfront. If a player chooses to play a game that they know has something in it that with bother them, then it it their own fault when that occurs. To sum up. 1. Means the GM should't be a callous jerk and taunt or tease the players. 2. The players shouldn't be jerks either. 3. Accidents and mistakes happen, be tolerant of other peoples when they bother you accidentally. They didn't mean it or knew it would happen. 4. If you know something is going to bother you , don't do it. And don't blame someone else if you do.
  • Create New...