Atgxtg

Yeah, this all goes into the origins of the King Arthur legend. It used to be believed that the story was originally British and that the Welsh sources were the earliest ones. But in recent years, some historians believe that the legend could have sprung up in France and was spread by the Templars. The theory has some support since places like Avalon and the Grail Castle can be "placed" in France. Well depending on how you want to interpret things. Like you note KAP canon obviously supports the Cat being in Wales, but KAP Canon does let in a lot of Freacnh sources, so two giant cat adventures isn't unreasonable, nor it dropping one cat for the other. Greg altered the KAP cannon at times.

Yeah, and even if they did, it would be altered to something the other side would understand in translation. For the most part the actual titles are probably best used to add "cultural color" to characters. I intorduced a Berroc Saxon in my campaign, Uflric, Thegn of Goldenford, who is interchangeably called Sir Ulfric by British Knights, depending on the circumstances and how much respect they have for him. Later in the campaign some NPCs will start to refer to Goldenford as Guildford , too. It probably comes doen to being a case of if the people you are dealing with consider you respectable enough to beleive in your title. With Kings and other nobles that is almost always the case. With Knight equilvants, it might be a bit harder.

That's what I did. I think I had Knowledge skills start off as INTx2%. Agility skills were something like DEXx2+STR-SIZ or some such. I usually tied to use two or more characteristics for each category to both approximate the categories in RQ, and to discourage players from focusing on one attribute, such as DEX or STR based on what skills they wanted to be good at.The idea was that the average starting skill was still in the 20-30% range for most characters, but could vary by about 15% either way. From experience, I'll also point out that adding the category modifier to improvment rolls in RQ3 was far more signficant that the actual skill% bonus, as that allowed characters to improve more quickly. But since the modfier was lower in RQ3 that it would be with this method you might want to use only part of it, such as 1/2 or 1/5th or even 1/10th.

Well, sort of. The rules have said that in the last few editions, probably as a concession to those who don't like die rolls ruling their actions, but Greg's adventures never had that escape clause. Much like how skill checks got toned down in later editions of the rules to please those GMs who wanted to limit and control how checks got passed out, the 16+ passion rule in the books isn't how Greg wrote trait tests into adventures. So it's really "he doesn't have to roll, if the GM says Generous 16+ lets him off the hook." If it were a blanket "no need to roll" then: What would be the point of traits higher than 16? Why do knights with Valor 16 still need to make valor rolls?

Well the Adventure of the Paulag Cat already exists, and Lausanna Cat gets killed by (or kills) Arthur solo, so you will need to figure out how you want to adapt it. Replacing Arthur is easy. In fact, I'd suggest having it kill a knight or even a lesser (local) king named Arthur so you can blend that element of the story into your campaign without actually needed to use or kill off Arthur. Maybe he could be the son of Riothamus and a French noblewoman and raised in Avallon in Burgundy? With all the parallels and overlaps you can play with the legend a bit so that in the end it blends in with the "official" story and blurs things for us today. If fact if you use Avallon, then the "other King Arthur" could be brought there to recover from his injuries. There was also an Arthur the Less, an Illegitimate son of Arthur who travels as the "Unknown Knight" (King Arthur wanted to conceal the connection). Plenty of stuff to play with there.

As opposed to the rock solid ground supporting that giant cat? A little googling lead me to wikipedia where it states Lake of Lausanne version originally came from the Lake Bouget region of France, where there is a Mont du Chat (Mount of the Cat) which used to be called Mont du Lac (Mountain of the Lake) before Arthur slew the cat. I wonder if it is the same Luc that Laceleot gets his name from. But I don"t think Arthur fighting the cat on the continent is from a Welsh source, those orginally had Cai fighting the monster, but it is probably a case of people adapting an Arthurian story to put their locale into the story. After alittel more Google-Fu: In one version of the French Chapalu tale (the medieval romance Romanz des Franceis), Arthur fought the cat in a swamp and was said to have been slain by the creature, which then invaded England and became king. It has been suggested that we may have here an alternative tradition of Arthur's death. In Bataille Loquifer (medieval romance with limited Arthurian content) there is a youth called Kapalu, a servant of Morgan. So that's the source of the tale where Arthur looses to the cat. in the French romance La Bataille de Loquifer, the hero Renoart slays a “Chapalu” in Arthur’s kingdom of Avalon So that might be how and why Arthur looses. MAybe this is linking to Riothamus and the French Avallon? It's ard to say since so much Arthurian stuff is interlinked, or retconned by later authors. I don't think there is a single point of Arthurian lore that is definitive -it all has alternate versions.

There are some heroes in that mid-range. It's just that most of them are not as well known, or not know for thier strength. Here is alink to the strength scale for Marvel Heroes: https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Strength_Scale Using Superworld: SIZ 40= 800 kg or 1760 pounds SIZ 55= 2934 kg or 6456 pounds, and probably strong enough to lift a jeep (or most cars) nearly every time. BTW, should I put a SIZ spreadsheet in the downloads section for reference? I find it really helpful for determining the SIZ, STR and CON of creatures and items. I find it much easier to scale up an animal from the stats of an existing , similar animal than to just guess, and the results tend to be more consistent ,too.

Plus, what could she really do even is she wanted to? If a wife reported her husband for murder and theft and cost him to loose honor she would be in an even worse spot than the situation above.

Per Chistopher Bruce's Arthurian Dictionary :William Camden also identified Cadbury with Cath-Bregion, the site of one of Arthur’s battles against the Saxons in Nennius’s account. So it might just be that the "Cat" is symbolic of the Saxons overwhelming Arthur (and the native Cmyri). That would also explain why that ending got dropped later, when Arthur couldn't lose to the Saxons and had to fall to treachery and internal fighting.

That's better. Un, I mean rules wise.

They have changed Cap over the years from peak human Strength to low Superhuman. 800 pounds would be a high SIZ 30 using the Superworld/RQ3 SIZ table. So CAP'S STR could be somewhere in the low 20s. Interestingly enough 22 is slightly above human max, and would just allow a 10% chance of lifting 800 pounds. There was a SIZ table used in Superworld and RQ3 that, combined with the Resistance table would help a lot here. The formula is 2^(SIZ/8)*25 kg or 55 lbs. That works out to SIZ 16 being 100 kg/220lbs and then doubling every 8 points. An old army Jeep had a curb weight of between 2450 and 2700 lbs (SIZ 43-45), depending on the model. So a character would need a STR in mid 30s to have any chance of lifting one, and like seneschal noted, that should be beyond Cap's abilities.

I think she is in the clear legally. She didn't steal it her husband did, and she was legally bound to obey him. Even in the modern world the case against her would be shaky. They would have to prove that she knew about the murder, and there used to be laws prohibiting a wife from testifying against her husband, and a social acceptance of her not outing his crimes. Now there might be some social fallout for that, but I think the most likely consequence would be the rich traveler's family taking her to court to get their money back.

Sounds like the Purr-fect monarch. Happy now? More seriously this seems to link back to the Cait Sidhe, and to actual Scottish wildcats. Although there was a king Catellus in the HRB.

You might want to try to adapt some of the solo adventures (they usually have Alone in the title). They were are written for a single investigator, so all you really need to do is read through them and try to adapt the "pick a path" style of play into an adventure you can run, which usually isn't all that difficult.Alone Against the Flames is available as a free download, too, and might be a good one to start with. As far as a general guideline goes, CoC is actually well suited to a single PC, and many things are best solved through investigation rather than confrontation. Just keep in mind that with only one player, all failures and fumbles are magnified in their effects, and combat of any sort becomes more deadly, as there isn't anybody that can step in and make the roll if the player fails, or help if the player gets hurt. So I'd suggest that you be far more careful with the number of fights and how you frame them. Avoid (competent) ambushes against the PC at all costs. You might even want to create some sort of NPC assistant for the player just so you have someone who could find the unconscious PC and bring him to a hospital or some such.

Yeah, but I think that would be more of a case of the knight being able to use loyalty to resist his selfish urges. Hay, wait a minute! Looking over the OP he says that the PK fumbled his selfish test and tried to stealthily steal some treasure for himself". If the PK fumbled his selfish test, then he should have acted generously, not selfishly. Maybe that was mis-worded?

Yeah, but as you've admitted you still used the skills over 100% reducing the opponent's skill rule from RQ2 in your RQ3 games. So I think you were probably an easier convert to RQG than the typical "Massive fan of RQ3", as your RQ3 was always more of a RQ2-3 hybrid. To me the pages and pages of clarification in the RQG rules thread to clarify how all the changes to the way the core game mechanics now work (for example the way two weapons now work, the different in critical and special chances for no real reason) is a big enough turn off to avoid RQG and either use RQ3 or RQ2, possibly porting over the Pendragon based inspiration rules and the easier rune magic use and recovery rules from RQG.

I think it's more the fact that it's sources are showing. The Welsh Triads, and Black Book of Caermathen are collections of old Welsh tales that predated Christianity in Britain. Such stories in Arthurian literature usually have a bit of an anti-Christian feel as they are playing by different rules. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is another such tale.

If Arthur ordered it, I don't think the PKS would deserve the gernous check, since they didn't choose to act generous, but merely followed Arthur's command. Well, unless the PK was given a chance to steal the money earmarked for the poor, which wouldn't be a bad way to set things up. the PK is given some libra to distribute, and has the chance to skim some off the top. The monk accompanying him of the job could even suggest doing so, but is really there to check on the PKs honesty, with the whole thing being a test.

Dogs and cats existed, but were as much working animals as they were pets. Dogs helped on the hunt and served as guards, alerting the people to strangers approaching. Cats were kept because they hunted mice, who were a big problem (and ate a lot of the stored grain).

Well there are values for stone walls in in BRP and in RQ3 (IMO, the RQ3 values are better because they give armor ratings instead of just SIZ/hit points). In anutshell if someohne spends enough time hitting it with something it, like anything else, will break. It's just a matter of the time and effort required. It really depends on who built the wall and what for. If it were just designed as a fence or to mark a boundary then it probably would have been made with the closest materials. If it were designed as a defense then it would have been made with the sturdiest stuff available, and taken a lot longer to get through.

I can vary considerably. Stone can be very tough or very easy to break. Plus when it does break it might just chip off in small pieces and take forever to break apart. How thick it is matters too.

I wouldn't have Arthur force the character to change religion. That's sort of pushes the boundaries of liege lord rights, and seems out pf place for Arthur. I'd probably have Arthur give him some task-perhaps helping the poor so he can see why he shouldn't be selfish.

It was something of a thing with later armies as well, for much the same reason. I think it fell out of favor in the middle ages due to the greater costs to feed and maintain grain fed warhorses, as opposed to horses than can live off of grass.

That's a great way for things to play out, especially in the mid to latter part of the timeline when RTKs, chivalry, mercy to enemies and such are all things. But I think in 490, when the Saxons are the major threat, and the "low-life saxon rat-scum deserve to be starved to death", attitude is more prevalent, that sort of outcome is unlikely.

LOL! Considering that the "Beach Movie" series ended with Boris Karloff this could actually be true.