Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Atgxtg

  1. Okay. I rounded off mandrill_one's formula to the nearest £0.5, similar to what you did, and matched it up to the existing values. I'm going to combine the values so that we get ranges like: £1000-1200 = £5, 1300-1600 = £5.5, £1700-2200 = £6 and so forth. That should give us a much smaller table, and be easier to scale for different officers and bonuses. Something like this: Income Landholder Pay Bonus £60.5-£80 Minor Baron £0.5 £80.5-£107 Minor Baron, Bishop or Abbot £1 £108-£143 Minor Baron £1.5 £144-£191 Minor Baron £2 £192-£255 Minor Baron £2.5 £256.5-£340.5 Baron £3 £342.5-£454.5 £3.5 £457-£607 Rich Baron £4 £610.5-£810 Duke £4.5 £814.5-£1081 Duke £5 £1087.5-£1443 King Cadwyr £5.5 £1451.5-£1926 Count Salisbury £6 £1937-£2570.5 £6.5 £2585.5-£3431 £7 £3450.5-£4579 £7.5 £4605.5-£6111.5 £8 £6147-£8157 £8.5 £8204-£10887 King Uther £9 £10950-£14530.5 £9.5 £14614.5-£19393 £10 £19505.5-£25883.5 £10.5 £26033-£34545.5 £11 £34745.5-£46106.5 £11.5 £46373.5-£61536.5 £12
  2. I wonder if trying it to the discretionary funds instead of the Total Customary Revenue makes more sense, since discretionary funds increase at a slower rate? BTW, does anyone remember what book has the income for Uther? Is it Book of Uther, Warlord, or Estate? I want to compare the 9 for Royal Marshal to the value derived from mandril_one's formula. I'm working on a streamlined table based on his formula, rounding everything off to the nearest quarter or half librium. I'm thinking I can just add a list of multipliers/modifiers to get the other officer positions, bribes and such, so we could scale the results for any holding.
  3. So based on the answers I take it that there is no official method? Okay that makes it easier. Thanks. The reason why I mentioned court costs is that there is an throwaway line that links officer pay to the revenue generated by a lord's court. But tying it to revenue is a lot simpler.
  4. That's actually what the bonus pay is, per the BotE and BotW. For instance a typical officer gets around £3 in bonus pay, which is automatically used to improve his standard of maintenance to rick.
  5. Yeah, but in this case there are going to be a few rumors going around. It will probably be a topic of gossip at the next feast. He had a bad year a few sessions back and and took two major wounds so people will probably assume he received a ghastly injury below the belt. I'm on board with that, but the PK does have a high Chaste score. The whole situation should play out in a entertaining enough fashion. One of the PKs is marring off his eldest daughter to a neighboring knight, so there will be a feast and the "reluctant knight" will be quite the topic. Then the PKs are going off on campaign with General Aetius (I'm running very early in the timeline) and he will be away from home for a year or two. So his wife will buy a new dress and some perfume, use the fashion skill to boost her APP, see the local witch to buy a love philter, and all that upon his return.
  6. Is it? It might be an interesting theroy, but that's all it is.There isn't anything in Lovecraft's work to support that theory. Can you think on any Mythos stories that supports your theory? I can only think of one off the top ofmy head, and that was a Robert Bloch episode of Star Trek. Sounds more like Gloranthan Illumination. The problem is that view doesn't match up with the behavior we see in the stories. Once again, I ask just how would you handle that in play?
  7. Yup, the whole reason why the Knight went after her was because there was no one else to speak of with a claim, so he figured he had a better chance of getting the land. I agree. This was partly due to the player misunderstanding some things early on and not fixing them later due to other distractions. In reality the wife worked that all out with the count a decade ago, when the PK followed through on taking on squire of the widows previous husband as a squire and getting him knighted, but the player missed it. The Count is planning of granting the land (Broughton) to the PKs son when he gets knighted in a year or two. As the PK in question is also Castellan of DuPlain, and has a enough to support himself, this shouldn't be a burden on the elder knight, who will be able to live on in semi-retirement as a Castellan. Yup. The only reason why the woman didn't do so was because the PK was a big hero in battle and helped to save the Count's life last year and was promoted to Deputy Marshal. . So right now she's wondering what's wrong.Maybe he has a battle injury that impairs his ability to do his husbandly duties? The reason why the PK acted the way he did was because of bad advice from the first player. Often my players try to help each other, and that's where they usually mess things up. In this participial case the first PK mis-advised the second, overlooking the differences in their relative situations. So both players should be in for some surprises next year! But, as per my first reply, I'd certainly let them avoid rolling on the childbirth table if that's what they want.
  8. Slight miscommunication. If Lady X was an heiress and had no previous children and then married Lord Y, her first child would be her heir. If Lady X isn't an heiress, but a widow, then her children would not inherent the land, her previous husband's children would. Normally those are one and the same, but if she remarries I don't believe she gets to pass on the land. In both of the cases I mentioned the Knights are older knights who are remarrying older widows who do not have any living heirs. In the first case, an arrangement was made prior to marriage to make it easier for the knight's son to take over the land. In the second case the knight just remarried and his actions will cause some difficulties with his wife. In both cases the PKs actions will probably be moot as they are both on very good terms with the Count who can and will simply grant them both the land and smooth everything over. This was actually in the works for both knights but neither player has figured that out yet due to other concerns. It's what happens when the PKS spend several years away on campaign and don't get to tidy things up at court. Yup, except for the bit I mentioned about widows.
  9. Willow, your off to a good start. Some "teething problems" are to be expected with a new system. No GM get's it perfect all the time, at least none that I've seen. I know I goof up at least one thing each session, and suspect a few others that I fail to spot. To help a little, the £6 amount was the official amount from KAP3 through to KAP 5.1 or so. The 10 came in latter supplements where they went into a bit more of a detailed breakdown of the economics of a manor. Now a knight sees a little more income, but has higher expenses so it's mostly a wash. He just ends up with £1 to spend during the year on additional stuff, which is actually the equivalent of a typicality income of a peasant family. Raids, seiges, battles and other aspects of war are generally beyond the scope of what is considered legal. It's how nobles expand thier holdings and get more wealth. THat said, if things go "too far" a liege lord, such as the king, could step in and put a stop to it, at least for a time. It depends a lot of the relative power of the feuding lords, the king, how intense the fued is, and what else is going on. It's kinda part of the whole feudal structure. If the nobles didn't fight among themselves then they wouldn't need as many soldiers or knights, and the whole thing would start to change. Historically, once people started to realize and consider peace to be more profitable, kings switched to smaller professional armies and mercenaries with better equipment do the fighting while the commoners were left flourish and really make money. As for Alver's son, he would be a good choice to show up someday and want to clear his father's name or seek vengeance. It's classic adventure stuff, as you already laid all the groundwork for his actions, so the players will understand why he is acting the way he does.
  10. I'm having trouble figuring out what the officer bonus pay would be for Salisbury. According to table 3.4 in the Book of the Warlord, A Marshal's bonus pay (devoted to his upkeep) is, according to the customary revenue: £100= £1, £300 = £3, £1000= £5 Salisbury has a customary revenue of £1574, so what would the Marshal's pay be? I assume there is some method to figure this out by court costs of something but I don't know what it is.
  11. Just to chime in and agree with what Morien said. basically: If you read the second paragraph where it says "up to one roll per" the impression is that the roll is somewhat optional. Generally speaking if men and women act like men and women, especially husbands and wives, then a childbirth roll is in order. But, under certain circumstances, I've let players avoid making that roll. I have a couple of PKs in the campaign with sons who who re-married to women with land. As a second son would have a stronger claim to the land that the eldest (since the land came from the wife), both have deiced to avoid childbirth to ensure that their eldest sons (both of which are now squires) inherent the land. So if you got a PK who doesn't want to roll on the childbirth table, in most cases I'd say it would be optional. Of course there might be repercussions from that, or even circumstances where they might be forced to make a roll. Two points. First as Morien mentioned, by the rules you can only use Passions for inspiration (although there are a few who allow Traits to be used as a houserule). Secondly the normal bonus for inspiration is +10, not +20. A critical inspiration roll does not give +20, but instead doubles the value of the skill be inspired. The only way to get +20 from inspiration would be if a character made a critical inspiration roll, which doubles a skill, and had a 20 skill. Is probably a death sentence depending on how far below zero the character was, how many wounds they suffered, and if any magical healing was possible. I've seen two characters come back from -11 (in the same game session) thanks to great First Aid rolls. I've even had a character come back from around -25, but it was a major NPC to the stroyline, and involved a Grail appearance -but it was definitely a deus ex machina. As Morien pointed out, the Count probably doesn't have the authority of High Justice- namely the ability to try and execute people, especially nobles. That power is usually reserved for Kings. Now hanging a peasant or some such might slip under the radar, and killing bandits, especially along the kings road, on the spot is generally allowed, but executing a knight out of hand would be a big problem. Also, killing is not a crime. Murder is. Knights are expected to fight and kill people. That's basically their job. This situation would not be murder as the knights were clearly fighting in combat, which isn't a crime. Killing the defeated knight is the most questionable act as it is the closest to simple murder, if the defeated knight had surrendered. If not it is more of a fortunes of war thing. The same would hold true to a duel, although occasionally the king could be influenced to rule such as a murder. Sir Alver shouldn't be hung as a thief, as he didn't steal anything. Knights killing and robbing peasants is all part of raiding and plundering. It's common stuff that all knights engage in - or nearly all, some of the really ultra chivalrous types might abstain from it. Now raiding a nobles lands and killing his peasants is a totally honorable and acceptable thing for knights to do. It might be cruel, but acceptable. It's also an offense and act of war against the landholder, the peasants are technically his property.. So none of the Levocmagus knights should be hung as thieves, but they might have been acceptably killed during the fighting, without any fallout for the defending landholder. Even including finishing off a downed foe or two. Basically the big offense here is to the landholder and his leige-not to the poor peasants who suffered the brunt of the violence. It's not fair but it's certainly feudal. But generally the survivors would probably be hauled off to Sarum and then left to rot for a bit and probably ransomed off to Levcomagus. Probably the Count, with his feud, would order a counter raid, and the PKs could go into Levocmagus territory and kill and rob their serfs. That's what knight do. Maybe some character pick up a Hate passion here and there as relatives are killed and things become personal. Okay this time the rules are a bit confusing. Once again Morien is correct. What happened is that the original income from a manor was £6, the same as the upkeep for a knight and his family, but in latter supplements it was increased to £10 (actually it much. much higher than that, but £10 is what the knight "sees"), but that covered additional expenses, such as a some foot soldiers and servants. In the end, typical yearly income, after expenses, is only £1. The book of the estate gives a breakdown of the expenses. Roughly: £5.5 goes to maintaining the knight, his squire, their mounts, two footmen for the knight (and his liege) and an additional footman for the King. £2.5 goes to maintaining the wife, her handmaiden, and the chaplain (who also doubles as the court clerk and scribe, as he is literate) £1 goes to maintaining the children £1 is left over as discretionary funds, which can be spent on conspicuous consumption, additional purchases, improvements to the manor, furniture and other "treasure" or, if they are really crazy, converted to coin at 2:1 (so £1 becomes £ ½ in coin) and saved. The manor mostly just maintains the knight and his family, which most of his wealth coming from ransoms, battle plunder (armor and horses, in particular), rewards from their liege lords, adventuring, and raiding (like the Levcomagus knights were doing in your adventure). Now if a knight has some money he can build some improvements which can provide a modest increase to his income, but most knights will get the bulk of their wealth by fighting.
  12. There is a difference though. In Lovecraft it's not about ignorance and preconceptions. but that, according to HPL, these are beings things that we cannot comprehend and accept. It's not just about challenging believes and knowledge, but about confronting things that we are mentally incapable of accepting. The closest thing to it were the Medusuan's from Star Trek. If someone got a glimpse of one they would supposedly go insane. And that's in a futuristic enlightened society. Now, like soltakss, this is a concept that I have trouble with, but that's how HPL wrote it. I'm also fine with alternating that, but it could alter the basic tone of CoC. If you want to divert from that idea, how would you run with it?
  13. The interesting this about is is that both are taken from the viewpoint of the "modern" human. A technological singularity might be completely comprehensible to a futuristic humanity after the event.
  14. Yes, but what does that mean as far as investigators and gameplay goes? Essentially a story like Alien or Independence Day or War of the Worlds all fit in the Lovecraft Universe.The major differences are mostly point of view and the difficulty in accepting it. So nothing changes, unless the GM wants to run the Mythos races with a different attitude towards humanity. It's kinda like how in Star Trek they had to be careful with how they interacted with less advanced cultures, as the natives couldn't handle the sudden and major chances that would come about with the existence of aliens and advanced technology. But that way the goodie-goodie Federation. If Mythos races are more like the Klingons or Cardassians then they could still come across as monstrous.
  15. Quite probably. I've seen and read stuff about him that claim a link between the Mythos stuff and Lovecraft's difficulties in dealing with people in the real world. R'lyeh was apparently inspired by New Yorck City (which Lovecraft hated). SO character's in Lovecraft's fiction couldn't deal with the hidden dark truths of the universe, in part becuase Lovecraft had difficulty dealing with the world outside of Providence. Still, that's the paradigm we all agree to accept when we play CoC. It's a sweeping generalization, but not without a grain of truth behind it. Most people 100 years ago would have a hard time understanding concepts such as smart phones or the internet. So on the one hand, yes the Mythos could just be a lack of understanding or more advanced technology or mental abilities. But how much does that change? If the various Mythos races are just advanced aliens who view humans as a lower lifeform, usually not worth consideration or bothering about, it doesn't really change anything. Unless you want to change the Mythos races' view of humans, and how they interact with them. Are you thinking of making them benevolent, or at least ambivalent about humanity?
  16. It's much like with the ladies campaign. More emphasis on court. Probably more emphasis on battles too, as capturing a manor or three over a summer becomes a real option. Less small scale stuff, as it would take a greater rewards to merit the risk, or move the needle. Fifty libra is a small fortune to a knight, but will barely keep even a minor lord's entourage fed for a year.
  17. Definitely. I've had a PK Pennath (Minor King, really an Estate Holder in KAP5) in a previous campaign and the big game did tend to take PK away from the typical adventuring knight game. For instance he had to avoid a lot of tournaments as his ransom could bankrupt him. It's much easier for a knight to acquire and tuck away 18 libra from adventuring than it is for a major noble to accumulate a comparative amount of wealth.To get big money they have to act on a bigger scale.Ransom is a gamer changer here. Both to the PK lord who must pay it, and to anyone under him or who captures him. It paints a big target on the noble's back. That's what hurts the adventuring. If a PK vassal knight has a run of bad luck and has to pay a couple of ransoms, he might be broke, but probably can pay it and still have enough left over to continue on. If it happens to a major noble, he's in deep trouble. Just organizing and sending the ransom is a major logistics problem, and a financial burden on all of his vassals. For the most part the rewards aren't worth the risk.
  18. If I recall correctly it's more a case of restoring her to power. But even that is failry low powered. Not like controlling a country. The Warlord game adds whole new levels of story and plot to things. It also takes away some stuff too. Major Nobles and their Officers probably won't be adventuring much.
  19. That's an interesting point. It was certainly what allowed the Romans to take over. I'm not certain how much of a factor it played into Vorigerns situation, as least in Pendragon terms. JUst how tribal or feudal Britian is in the early years is a bit hard to pin down. I don't think it can really be the full 11th Century medieval Britain at the start as there are too many hold overs from earlier eras. The general impression I've gotten is that the further out you are from Logres/Salisbury the less historically advanced it is. Yes, common enemies. In Europe the Huns pretty much forced various other tribes west. In Britian the Picts, Scotti, Irish and Saxons kept encroaching. I think the ability to hold the army together for three years was probably possible becuase this was a generation that had grown up unified under one king. From what I've read, it really looks like Constatin coming over and becoming High King allowed the Britis to unifiy as a nation, and keep unified, in order to hold off the invaders. I also thing the reason why Constantin could do this was becuase he was an outsider. The various leaders at the time probably would rather accept an outsider king than give power to a rival. Me too,. A knight expanding into a minor or major lord is an very interesting story arc for the campaign. I'm not sure how well it works for multiple PKs, or just what to do with it should a PK become successful, but it's interesting. Hypothetically, if one of those PKs were to marry Countess Ellen and take over the County, elevate the other three PKs to his major officers and go through the rest of the campaign as Lord Salisbury it would be a very different but interesting campaign.
  20. My bad, I was vague. What I meant was that I do not believe that the Celtic tribes had been mentioned in Pendragon (other than maybe a throwaway distant history reference to Boudica somewhere) prior to Book of Sires. So I didn't see any "Belgae tribe being tied to Salisbury" in KAP. I was actually surprised that various Celtic tribes were given the space they got in Sires. Maybe Greg had them play a bigger role in the background, but none of that came through in any of the published stuff. Now historically, yes they were significant, but as far as Pendragon goes I can't recall a mention. There might have been some vague references to tribal Cymri in Savage Mountains or some such, but no real mention of any historic tribe. No argument, just trying to get my head around the revision to the ranks and what it will mean in play. I think there is a pretty solid consensuses that the situation presented by the OP is highly unlikely to occur, but as it was what the OP wanted in his campaign, he could and did made it so. Which he certainly in allowed to do, since it's his campaign. I'll be curious as to how that change will affect the course of his campaign, too. A group of estate holders with 55 knights between them gives the PKs a pretty significant power block, both militarily and politically. That will let them accomplish things that were unlikely or not possible to typical vassal knights. A PK might even have a decent chance of taking over the county during the anarchy! I could also see other knights banding together to oppose the PKs power block. The possibilities are very interesting.
  21. I'm sorry but while I'll accept that the game eveolved over time as Greg did more research, nd also as he decided between different paths to take - i.e. going from a semi-histroical Cadbury Castle Camelet to a more Malloryesque(?) Winchester. What I won't accept is the Belgae tribe. Frankly I don't even think any of the old Celtic tribes were even given a mention before they were "downgraded" in SIRES. More like the opposite. Salisbury was perhaps the only Earl mentioned in the game. I think it was changed to Count because Earl/Jarl is a Saxon term and he was working on replacing the Saxon titles and place names with more British ones. And it would be? Other than how the title is awarded, there is no difference. I don't see it enhancing a campaign.
  22. I really wonder why he brought up a distinction at all then. We get what amounts to a meaningless distinction that won't last long in play and essentially makes no difference. Then why bother with it at all? Greg put the additional rung on the ladder. This was something that was deliberately added to the game, after five+ editions, to accomplish what? It could have easily been ignored or just simpled to "a banneret is an estate holder who won his title on the battlefield from the King", or just have an extra 50 glory tacked onto the title. It is complexity that wasn't there until Greg decided to change things, but I don't see any reason for the change. Which was the way it was until the change. What I don't understand is what the purpose was for the change. I really can't see a reason for it. We don't bother noting the distinction between which vassal knights get knighted on the battlefield, and which do not. I'd say it was less of a distinction, as at least Earl has a cultural distinction (it's a Saxon title). I see this as the least significant distinction between ranks in the game.
  23. Maybe, but is is very subjective as Moorcock doesn't really say. The whole thing seems to take place at about the same time as the Corum series and the multiverse seems to survive that. Plus the story with Saxif Daan, I got the impression that the wreckage from another plane was from the Young Kingdoms, so it might be that the PCs go to a time after the end of the cycle. What we do know is that Elric survives it. So the door is open. Lots of ways a Gm can go with it.
  24. Some suggestions: Have them make a lot of skill, resistance and STATx5% rolls early on, basically the trivial stuff that you'd normal not bother with in a normal game. That can help to teach them about tie die mechanics, success levels and so on. yes they have played CoC, but impales don't matter much against mythos nasties. A lot of begging adventures from Chasoium used to do something like that to help teach the game. Have them play a mock combat, in character. Something like a training fight with padded or rebated weapons. The idea is that they can see and learn what would have happened if the fight were real before it actually is real. That way they can see how much more fragile RQ characters are compared to D&D characters, and can adapt their actions accordingly. The guy who would have lost a limb and sees the bullet he just dodged, will learn much faster that way than if you just tell him how dangerous combat is. Don't bother much with magic. Give the characters a little Spirit Magic, say an offensive spell like bladesharp, speedart, or disrupt, a defensive spell (protection, countermagic) and some healing. That way they will all know the same few or similar spells and can learn from seeing each other cast.Basically stick with the common stuff that most everybody has in the game. Ignore Rune Magic. Yes the PCs have it, but it adds another layer of complexity and if they can use it in a one shot they will, and probably too early on something trivial, and then they won't have it for when they need it. If the game continues as more than a one shot you can introduce it then. Use the setting culture for color to make the game world seem rich--is it one of the main reasons for playing RQ, but don't get into a lot of depth, or you could easily waste the entire session in a big infodump explaining Glorantha instead of playing - and just scratch the surface. So just explain things in simple broad strokes and use the minutiae as little bits to enhance the characterization of the NPCs.
  • Create New...