Atgxtg

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.

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.

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.

That's just it. Yes there are tools that give you some sort of system to try and avoid such occurrence, but the reality is we never really know if something is going to bother someone else or not. So you might wind up in a situation where an adventure suddenly becomes unplayable because some important element in it bothers somebody a lot more that you would have expected.The reverse holds true too. If playing at a game and disturbed by something, players should also try to understand that the GM wasn't aware of that, and wouldn't have run things they way they did had they known. It someone was traumatized watching the Texas Chainsaw Massacre when they were a child they can't really fault Home Depot for putting one in their weekly flyer. And, if a player has issues with terms such as midgit and dwarf due to real word issues (maybe they or their parents were people of short statue) then they should probably think carefully and brace themselves before joining an FRPG where "actual" Dwarves and Halflings are running around. At least some of the responsibility falls on the offended in such cases. I mean if a person is deathly afraid of spiders and they decide to watch a movie titled Tarantula, well, it's nobody else's fault if they get upset.

Yeah, I think that is what most groups would do. It was kinda written that way.

And, of course Your Problematic May Vary. That is thing that might be problematic for some people won't be for others.

Wikipedia has an article on all the strange weather effects of that year and the leading theory is that it was caused by a volcanic eruption. I wonder if there is a Volcano in Listeneisse? But Morien is right about the timing. It is the Golden Age of Arthur. Maybe Arthur's Sovereignty powers as King actually resists and drives this effect back, so that lands under his rule are immune from the effect? So everyone else is suffering except for those who live under Arthur, who in turn prosper (except for Listeneisse). At least until 437 when Percival fails to ask the question and releases the wasteland beyond Listeneisse. I'm thinking along the lines of the film Excalibur, when after Arthur drinks from the Grail, is restored, and the land is restored with him and blooms.

What? The sum of two stats and/or stat x2? Yes, but it was complicated in that each skill had it's own formula, and I believe the starting bases also reflected previous experience. The idea with the categories is that we don't have to calculate and track values for the 60 or so skills on the sheet that will probably never be improved during a character's life time. So a character with Knowledge 25% wouldn't need to track something like Mineral Lore unless they were going to be a miner or jeweler or some such. I think in a typical BRP based game players only significantly improve less than half of the skills on thier sheet. Even less in versions that award improvement rolls instead of skill checks. What I am thinking of was inspired by FGU's Year of the Phoenix. It broke down each of the skills into skill spheres, and calculated a base percentage for each skill within a given sphere. The add two stats method would work fine for that, if the skills were kept into categories instead of each skill having it's own formula required that they be calculated and tracked.

Yup. He might not have been complicit in it, or even aware of it, but he benefited from it. She might not have committed a crime but she still was party to a bad thing, so she might have "done wrong". I could see the Knight being upset with his mother when he found out. Lots of people distance themselves from family members for things they didn't approve of that were not crimes.

Ah. that's a whole different kettle of fish. The PK might bear a grudge or even disown her. On the other hand, he might consider what would have happened if she had reported her husband. He probably would have been tried, possibly convinced, and the family could have lost their lands and the PK wouldn't be a K. So maybe Mom did what she did to protect him? BTW, that is one of the reasons why family wasn't usually held accountable, and also why the tactic of sending sons to help either side in a civil war usually worked. Another was the old wedding vows, which were the same as swearing fealty and homage. Would you rat out your liege lord if he murdered someone? If your family suffered for it? Tough spot to be in.

Except that King Arthur is also High King of Britain and thus is their overlord. As for running this in 490 with Uther, well he used to be High King (and IMO still should be, since he is in the sources, he is Uther Pendragon), but latter KAP 5 supplments have changed that, so they might get a pass there, except they are being caught abducting a maiden red handed. What I'm getting at is Hatred or not, why should the PKS be taking the Saxon's side? in 490? This is all happening to those who lost their leige lords at Long Knives, fought to regain thier lands from Hengest's mob, and have just suffered a half dozen Saxon invasions in the last 20 years. Even PKs without a Hate (Saxon) Passion, and those a few and far between in Britian at that time, are probably not going to want to go negotiate with them. Their track record in negotiations (*cough* Foederanti *coughh* Long Knives *cough*) isn't very good. Refusing to negotiate at that time isn't so much Hatred and Prudence. Now going back to my earlier posts, I mentioned that things are somewhat different if the GM introduces some "good Saxons" to the PKs that are trustworthy and the PKs might sympathize with.

They should be closer to 20+RQ Bonus, if based on adding two RQ stats together, with possibly a little help from a secondary stat. The goal was to give approximately the same base chances as the normal method. The benefit was in recording and speed of play. Rather than track am Agility bonus of 1% half dozen agility skills such as Climb 36%, Run 26%, Swim 11%, Boating 6% and so on, it could just be rolled in Agility 26% and individual skills raised from there. It should also be quicker and easier to calculate the bonus as you don't have to "Zero out" the bonuses at 10. Yes, I was just trying to keep things simple. This will change the amount added a little from RQ3 but be easier to implement. Adding the full base, would be better, athough that would really up the chances of improvement and make the math slightly harder when rolling. It's not ideal.

Yes, exactly. And they lose their lands because it belonged to the aforementioned robber, who essentially had it take from him posthumously, for dishonorable deeds, and then there is no land left for the female relatives. I suspect the latter is reserved more for extreme cases, where the offender had many enemies and few friends to support him in court, or someone else with influence wanted the land, and pushed to have that happen.

It's not, n or should it be. But it dos give the character certain predispositions and can affect how the react to a situation. In the adventure presented the PKS come across a group of Saxons abducting a Young lady, who begs for help, and the Saxons tell the knights to push off and that they do not recognize the King's Law only the law of their own Saxon lord. So the knights are supposed to fight the Saxons, and have little incentive to want to send a group off the their hall in order to negotiate with Saxons who do not recognize the King Law (that's treason right there, as is attacking people on the king's road, abducting maidens is also a crime). Hatred are only going to make the knights reaction more extreme and seem more justified. It's not that everyone is riding along the road when suddenly Sir Hates-A-Lot draws his Sword and starts cutting into some other travelers because they are "Saxon scum!" It that Sir-Hates-A-Lot is riding along and stumbled across a group of Saxon raiders in the acct, and expecting him to let it slide

That isn't a crime. It might get her ostracized socially, but it isn't a crime.

As Morien pointed out, basesd on the story so far, she didn't commit a crime and was bound by her duty as a wife not to rat out her husband. Accessory after the fact, and tuning in your immiedate famly to the law weren't really things back then. Now if she had a hand in the killer (say she poisoned the traveler, fatality or otherwise to aid her husband) or has been having sport by taunting the traveler's wife that she couldn't keep a husband all these years, well then things would be different, but as it stands now, she is "just a woman" whose husband did a bad thing. For the most part she would have been worse off turning him in. Now it is murder, and that is about the point where turning him is is almost acceptable, but the victim was a commoner. So she is in the clear, legally, unless the agreeived family has deep enough pockets to buy a little revenge medieval justice. More likely they would just try to get the moneny back though the court, and possibly with a libra ot too extrea tacked on as a blood price. I suppose if they had really good connections and the knights'wife didn't, they could convince someone to degrade the husband and have his manor escheat back to the liege lord (assuming that he had an heir so it hand't already done so). Maybe, maybe, maybe if they had the connections and the money and the widow had little family to support her, they could get her stripped of the widows portion, but that is highly unlikley and pretty much means that "the fix was in". Now socially, morally things would be very different. Just how much so depends on how she had acted about it, especially with her confessor, if she were a Christian.

Just wanted to say we are in agreement here.

Yeah, that's a real temptation alright. If we just consetiveely estimate that "all of Arthur's knights" means just his personal ones as King of Logres, well, Uther has 21 eschilles/210 knights in BoU, and we can probably double that because the population doubled historically, so 420 knights, times 20 libra each is £8400. So four king's ransoms. Ka Ching! That's a conservative estimate. We could throw in all his other vassals and really give the pack horse a rupture. I think it was already four tons of silver, maybe closer to twenty tons. Well at least it was a big temptation. When I first read it I kinda wondered: how much he could steal? Now I wonder: How much could he carry? Plus if the knight bucks up and does well, Arthur could forgive his transgression. It's was an unusually strong provocation, a momentary laspe, and he did recognize his mistake and turn himself in. I hope he emptied his pockets.

Yes, that has a ring of truth to it. I'm not saying you were wrong to force the issue. Neither was Tizun Thane when he mentioned the 16+ rule. It was just bringing up the options. As GM you get to decide when to enforce certain rules and when not to. Cursed Dragon gold silver sounds like a good time for a trait test to me. And like a GM, you didn't mention the curse until after you mentioned the silver. BTW, how much was there and how much did he try to steal?

A knight doesn't have to be a party to an injustice to act upon it. The stories are full of well intentioned knights riding into a bad situation and "righting wrongs" in some fashion. A PK who finds out about this and takes it upon himself fix things isn't out of place. It probably makes more sense during the Romance and Tournament Periods, but it's not impossible at other times. In the Uther period a mere merchants son with a bag of gold might not get any sympathy but he might get results. Uther's court is pretty corruptible. If someone is out for revenge he could probably buy it.

Well, as many a judge has noted: Justice and the Law are not the same thing.

Yes, but the French name of the creature is the Chapalu. So the Welsh version might be the name give in a retelling. Or vice versa. Don';t worry about it. Even Camelot doesn't stay in the same place in all the stories. You wan't want to use Lake Borget, as that version has Mont du Chat. Or not. I'm just tossing out information. Heck a GM could use three giant cats (welsh, Swiss, and French) if he wanted to. It's not like it would break anything or that any of the other monsters don't get reused in other adventures. Even Greg has three versions of the Gwen kidnapping to choose from.

Then I'd only have one.

Hey, I'm just citing some articles I ran across by some scholars while researching the Swiss Cat. Personally I favor the British origin story. But the French origin story is out there, and does have some stuff to substantiate it. What about Parzival (13th Century)? Part of the problem with your statement is that the best Welsh soruce I'm aware of, Peredur son of Efrawg only has written versions dating back to the 14th century, making Parzival older (at least in written form), plus the Grail location is never really locked down. In fact very little in the tales is locked down. There are so many variations and what we have ended up with is a hodge-podge of various versions and tales.

I dunno. I think it depends on how many trait tests adventures normally have. I don't have my PKs roll a trait for every situation that comes up, as that would be jarring and interrupt play too much. Most adventures tend to have a handful of trait tests, so I usally run them, and my players are happy to get the chance for a check. Yeah, and I usually run a test if the situation is important. Being Indulgent might not matter most of the time, but being indulgent when sitting next to a lady you are trying to impress might be. As a rule I thumb, I figure that if success isn't worth a check, then the roll isn't worth forcing, and vice versa.