Atgxtg

I can think of a few that make better use. For example Cublice7s Doctor Who RPG rates stats on a lower scale and just adds the stat to the die roll, eliminating the need to track stats and a stat bonus. It's not alone either. Several RPGs make each point of stat significant.

Prince Valiant for starters: The RPG was written by Greg,m and the Hal Foster strip obviously had an influence on Pendragon. PV is Arthruian but with a bit of a golden age of hollywood feel to it. But the adventure threads in PV all pretty much port over to KAP. I once had a campaign where a major component was a long standing feud bettwen a PK and a Knight from Levcomagus based upon one of the "A Family in Despair" story leads. ICE's Robin Hood Supplement has a bunch of adventure hooks that can be adpated to Pendragon. Yes, the game is about playing justice seeking outlaws, but a lot of the stuff could be adapted to Pendragon. GURPS Camelot: It takes a bit of effort to adapt it to make it fit with KAP's \version of the tale, but the book can be mined for ideas. Any version of Merrie England gives a nice medieval backdrop and so adventures can ussually be ported over and adapted. Pretty much any game with an Arthurian, Medieval,Celtic Britain, Roman, Post Roman-Britain, Saxon or Viking setting has stuff that can be adapted to Pendragon in some way. Generic Medieval Adventures tend to be the easiest to port over, as they tend to be Knight errant type adventures, although they can have problems with requiring the PKS to use skills and abilities (magic, stealth, missile weapons) that PKs either cannot or will not use. They can also be a bit too "high fantasy" to port over as it. Adventures in Arthurian RPGs can be some of the easiest to fit in with the storyline and general feel of KAP, but might have problems with different interpretations of the story or have things that don't translate well into KAP. A monster that might be suitable for begging PCs in another RPG might be too tough for beginning PKS in KAp and so on. Almost anything historcial/semi-historical can be ported over and even some mythical stuff, with a bit of work. For example, the adventures from RQ3 Vikings can be adapted to KAP and still work. A GM might not want to have flying "Winged folk" in Thule, but the land is remote and mysterious enough that he could do so without ruining the feel of Pendragon, although it might cause some problems for Prince Valiant.

Yes. I think it comes down to just what the difference between those skills really mean. Is it the ratio between skills that is important or the difference between skills. That is does 50 vs. 100 equate to 25 vs 75 or 25 vs 50. Consider how skills over 100% cause a bump down, I'm inclined to assume the latter.

Yup. All games were designed to work in a particular "sweet spot" and tend to break down if you push the envelope far enough from the "sweet spot." I have to give HeroQuest credit for mostly getting around that problem by universally using a core game mechanic that is based upon the relative skill of the characters, and scales infinitely. But generally if the values are high enough the system starts to break down.

Dumb, but not entirely wrong. The problem is not so much having your own mage cast darkness but in continuing the fight in the dark. And that's because D&D made blind-fighting a big thing due to all the times and ways darkness/blindness/obscured vision can crop up in a D&D adventure. Sadly the same tactic does work in RQ to some extent., although the reducdtion to parry tends to offset the advantages.

No a tie doesn't have to be that way, but look at what happens with a tie in RQG. And if someonbody won on the first roll they won the race? That doesn't hold up well if it was supposed to be a long race, nor does theopposite situation orf a series of ties hold up well if it the race were supposed to be a short one. After a point you'd have to conclude that the racers just weren't trying very hard. And what about situations with some sort of time limit? IMO that, or somethingglike it is required. Maybe even increasing the difficulty of the task by applying a modifer to the skills on ties. Rather unlikely to happen in play. Ususally if a situation is important enough to warrant an opposed roll, it isn't going to just go away or become moot.

None of the expansion books require another expansion book to use, although, as has been pointed out a few books are far less useful than other, and in one case a supplement is basically incompatible with a couple others. The Book of Armies: is comprised of pages of troop composition and stats for various armies that could be fought. It is designed to be used with the Book of Battle, which comes about as close to being required to use the Book of Armies without actually being requited. The tables and stats provided would work with the existing battle rules in the core book, replacing the existing enemies table, and the stats could be used for NPCs in other combat situations. Some of the stats provided are a bit "buggy" with more than a few errors and contradictions, and there are a few "super units in it. Overall I'd say hold off on this until you get the Book of Battle. The Book of the Warlord: has some economic information that uses the system presented in the Book of the Estate. You don't really need the Book of the Estate to use it, but you probably need it to fully understand the economics of it. The Book of Uther: is mostly a "prequel" expansion to the Great Pendragon Campaign, and while you don't need to latter to use or understand the Book of Uther, the latter only gives you enough of a timeline for about half a dozen sessions, so you'd probably want the full campaign from the Great Pendragon Campaign to follow it up, even if you don't need it. The Book of the Manor: was one of the earliest supplements and uses a detailed economic system that is somewhat flawed (it's possible to build an infinite number of improvements) and also incompatible with economic model used in the Book of the Estate and all the supplements after it. It should probably the one of the last supplements to pick up.

I think that it is okay for a resolution to have tie results, but not at frequency of RQG.

Yes that is fine sometimes, but it shouldn't be the most common result outside of tic-tac-toe and master level chess. The stalement doesn't necessarily move the story along. In most cases it does the opposite, leaving the situation unresolved. A tie is no-winner at all, clear cut or other wise. And that leave both parties is essentially the same situation as they started. Yes, sometimes that happens. But do they happen at the same frequency that they do in RQG?

..and is is a major game design flaw. All it does is to stop the game from progressing. The occasional tie is okay, but too many ties just stops the game dead. It why a lot of newer RPGs try to avoid the "Wiff" result because nothing happens.

Yeah, your right. Same in 3rd. A few places specifically state checks to...

Yeaqh much better. BTW, what sort of results are you shooting for? A couple more checks in general? A lot more?

Oh, it's actually kinda ancient history here, and one of the things that can potentially touch off a flame war in the RQ.BRP forums. I think #1 &#2 really mean "award skill checks however you see fit, your Pendragon may vary." As for your variant, I think it might be a little too easy to get a check since pretty much any attempt could qualify for one. I'd be more inclined to replace failures with fumbles, because it is usually the really bad mistakes that people learn from. In real life I had a friend who learned the lard way why you don't do a circular parry in the opposite direction of the attack. He fumbled and we both learned why. Had he just failed we wouldn't have.

No, more the opposite. You see originally the "success in significant situation" rule was the norm for all RQ/BRP/KAP games. But over time, several GMs complained, either because of the possibility of players "skill check hunting" or just because they want to control advancement the way many other RPGs do with experience/improvement points. So #1 got added and #2 modified into its current form to allow GMs who didn't like the original method to tone down the number of skill checks received to an amount that they were happy with while still letting those of us who prefer the old method to stick with it. In fact, if you think about it #1 only exists in case GMs are a little too strict with #2, as most instances of #1 would qualify under #2 as well. oh, IMO "skill check hunting" should be a real problem, at least nor for very long, as the risks and the penalties for the all the increased failures and losses from check hunting greatly outweigh the benefits. If you take a new PK and keep trying to get checks in all his weapons every year what what happens. In a fairly short number of sessions you'll be wondering if it is worth taking a major wound (or worse) just to get a check in dagger, a weapon that you probably wouldn't want to use if you didn't have to. Especially since you could get it up much more safely and quickly via training & practice.

No, as Morien elaborated on it isn't. Normally the checks are earned on a success so the chances of getting a check slowly increase, while the chances of actually making the improvement rolls are based on failure and so slowly decline. The net result is a bell curve where improvement is slow on the the ends but fast in the middle (10ish). Also, #2 is, in practice, just about any successful roll. At least it is in the stuff Greg wrote. The restrictions are there to discourage frivolous rolls (i.e. a player who tires to go down his character sheet like a check list) or for those GMs who want to control or limit advancement for some reason -like those who prefer to hand out X number of improvement rolls per session or such. But IMO, based on how the official adventures were written and the pace of the game, I think GMs should be very open to just about any successful roll with skill checks, as unlike in other RPGs, PKs have a shelf life of 20-30 game sessions/years or so.

Or if you are unprepared for it. Most of the troubles are usually when something unexpected happens. Historically the way pout was that most women warriors didn't have manors to pass down but served their liege as some sort of champion in their household. That would work, except that Pendragon plays out over multiple generations, and makes family important. And yes, it's fairly easy to set up a manor or two as a special case with an unusual method for inheritance. That even fits in very well with the stories and places having strange customs. But the GM has to know enough to do it. In my current campaign I have a female player running a male knight. At present I'll allow female warriors but not female knights. Not yet. I'm running very early, and The people aren't enlightened enough for that, and will probably have to wait until the reign of King Arthur. But one day said player might run a female knight, if she wants to. Currently though her character is the only one of the group who doesn't have their own manor yet, although her character is the steward for the groups knightly order and runs their one manor. And the order might is one way being one way I can do an end run around the whole inheritance thing, as land stays within the order, skipping the whole inheritance thing.

Yeah, I agree. I could have sword it used to be that way at one time, too, but that could just be my memory playing tricks on me. I think that would cause problems for characters once a skill hit 20. Such characters cannot fail a roll (baring modifiers) and only critical 5% of the time. Well with most of the major skills (sword, lance ,horse, awareness, heraldry, recognize, etc.) players get to roll them so many times during an adventure that the actual roll required doesn't matter so much as far as getting a check box goes, but for those skills/traits that only get rolled one or twice a game session such a system would act as a "soft cap." For example, lets say that Sir Aelfric the Saxon has Boating at 20.If checks are awarded for failures and crticals, then he would only get a check on a critical, which he has a 5% chance of rolling. Then he's only improve it he rolled a second 20 later (also a 5% chance). So his skill only has a (1/20)^2 = 1/400= 0.25% chance of improving. So unless the Knight spends glory he probably won't go from 20 to 21 in his lifetime.But, if Aelfric does spend glory to up his skill over 20 his chances of improvement start to increase! So at 24 he'd have a 1% chance of improving, at 29 a 2% chance and so on.

Yeah, it's can be as much or as little a problem as the GM want's it to be. That in mind there are a couple of points the GM should consider and work out in advance with the players. 1. Reaction: Look through he section on female characters/knights especially the part about how the various lords could react to such a character., and decide how you want to implement that in the campaign, if that reaction will be universal among all liege lords, and knights, or vary from one to the next. Will everybody just accept a female knight, or will they just snicker and tell her to take off that ridiculous armor and get back to the kitchen.This will be where the social aspects of this mostly kick in. This is where most of the problems will be, both in game, and between GM and player so this is something that really needs to be communicated to the player. 2. Inheritance: Now the GM has to figure out how this will affect how land and inheritance works. This is going to raise a lot of sticky questions that the GM is going to have answer, and those answers will result in major changes in just who will be able to afford to be knight.. Here is a partial list: Does the eldest son or eldest daughter inherent the family manor now? Or maybe either? What if the eldest daughter is first born but doesn't want to be a knight? What happens to the eldest son if he doesn't get the land? And what happens to the younger daughters now, do they get nothing? Does a new PK get 1/10 Dad's Glory or 1/10th Mom's glory, or both? And how does all this affect the "standard marriages"?How does all this affect the universal aids (Knights of the eldest son/wedding of the eldest daughter)? What happens if a female knight marries a male knight. Does the male get control of her land per normal, or does she retain it? Can she get control of his land? What if a female knight marries a non-knight? How will all these changes affect the loyalty of landed knights? How do they feel about their eldest son's not inheriting or not even being a knight? Oh and how does all this apply to higher ranking nobles? It is opening a big can of worms. The answer to these questions will be crucial for the marriage and dynastic aspects of the game. They should also have a effect on the reactions part above too, since it will affect both the chances of sons inheriting land, but also the inheritance and probably the dowries of younger daughters, so everybody is affect in some way. IMO femle knights work best as one off characters without land, or as part of a self sustaining knightly order because that can avoid most of the issues about land and inheritance. Now that isn't to say that a GM shouldn't allow female knights, only that the GM needs to be aware of the questions such characters can raise and work out the answers to those questions, and then communicate those answers to the players so everyone will know how it is going to work.

Yeah, I think the general misconception/abuse comes from the fact that, as presented, it looks like they guys are hanging around the manor and will be around to defend it or to join in any raiding party. What I think might make more sense would be if the family knights were treated as a score, that a PK could roll against for a modifier at court, reflect the influence that having a dozen or so other knight supporting the PK. Something like: Critical Success: +10 Success: +5 Failure: +0 Fumble: -10

No, but it does wear out, get damaged, etc -espeically since softer iron makes better mail than steel (energy that is spent deforming links is energy not spent hurter the guy in the armor). So I don't think there is really a big surplus, especially with mail be used in the construction of plate armor covering the spots that can't be covered with plate ("gussets"). I don't think the pool of talent is that much small that is history, although I agree that, especially with the condesnse timeframe, the latter armor types probably would remain rare and expensive as the technique to make them wouldn't have then to spread. I suspect the prices for plate (not the "white armor"/gothic stuff) would probably drop the way chargers do. I might just bring the price of mail up, and plate down, but I'm not sure if it's worth the bother. Yeah, I'm still way before plate (445), and, aside for a couple of suits of light cataphact scale armor (11 point/12 with the facemask for those willing to take a -5 to Awareness), 10 point hauberks are the best armor around. Oh, except for some ivory partial plate that a Faerie knight wears, but that doesn't really count, being "magical" armor. Anyway, to bring this all around back to topic, the cost to outfit an average knight could be fairly stable throughout the various periods with just the quality of the equipment improving over time. In fact, I could see just listing armor prices by type (i.e. cutting edge/super-rare stuff that is hard to find £20, high grade/best armor available £10, average £5, low grade £2, very low grade 1) and then just shift the actually armor type up as the campaign progresses. For example, at the start of ta typical campaign a Hauberk (10) would be the norm, "norm mail w/nasal" (11) would be the high grade, and imported scale (12) would be the cutting edge stuff. Then just shift it up as the new armors become available. So when partial plate (14) becomes the high grade armor, reinforced mail (12) would be standard and so on. I think that would be a simple way to do it, match up well with the way Pendragon does the outfitting fin chargen, and also help with giving a price for the latter armors, as they haven't been put into 5th books yet. Not that anyone else has to do this, it's just a thought.

Yeah, the -1 per year was a 5th edition addition. That sounds a bit better although it's probably a bit too much in the other direction. You could see horses lasting 30+ years (21% chance) that way. Or even 50+ year (7% chance). That's one of the things I've got in my horse rules. It looks like it was a one general thing historically. While I agree there was some mail lying around, I'm not all that sure if it would keep the prices as is. A lot of mail would deteriorate over time, or get cut up and incorporated into the newer armors. I think that the pricing is more of a RPG convenience thing. Plate protects better than mail so it is more expensive. I suspect what probably should happen is plate pretty much becomes the new standard and ends up costing about the same as mail once did. KInda like what happens with chargers.

I have, or at least have played games where fatigue was incorporated into it. But it really comes down to the nature of the adventure and the pupose of the climbing relation to it. It's the same reason why most tasks are resolved in one roll while combat is broken down into rounds. It the climb is supposed to be a major part of the adventure then I might use a more detailed approach, and break it up into diffient stages or "legs" with multiple actions. If not, then probably not. Possibly. I think it depends on just how far/much climbing a character can do in one attempt, and how hard/demanding the climb is. Something like that, although maybe +50% would be too much. Again I think it comes down to how difficult the climb is to begin with. Sometimes someone can show you how "easy" something is, yet you still can't do it.

I'd assume that the standard charge is the "average" warhorse for knights even in the latter periods. Yes knights would want to have better horses, but I think most of the special breeds are still rare and too expensive for the average knight to afford, especially as the average income of a knight doesn't increase thought the campaign. Well, not unless you use the Book of the Manor. Yes, while it is a bit of a target here that is an issue I wanted to address. From what I've read so far it seems that a warhorse is 4-5 years old before it can be used as a mount, and such horses canlast for 15-20 years. I think the -1 per year over 7 in age is, much like the old childbirth and survival chances for wives and children, excessive. At the very least I think the -1 shouldn't kick in until the warhorse has served as a mount for 7 years, so -1 per year past 12. Yeah, I agree. It's like with automobiles today. The ultra rich might be able to afford to drive vehicles that cost over a million dollars, but most people are driving vehicles that aren't that much different in price (adjusted for inflation) or fuction than what people drove a generation or two ago. I mostly agree, especially with the armor. Historically once armorers could press plate (which was shortly after it's introduction) prices fell to the point where it was actually less expensive than mail. So I can see partial plate being the standard. With horses I would still assume the standard charger to be the norm, for several reasons. First there is the because of the scarcity of the Andalusians compared to the need for mounts. Secondly there is the greater expense without a greater income. Lastly there is the simple fact that historically, Andalusians didn't become the common warhorse of the latter middle ages.I think that most knights still rode chargers, although the Andalusian was probably the upgrade that the typical knight might aspire to having one day.

Oh, in that case I'd say: Character generation from Knights & Ladies. KAP4 had rules for random chargen and knights from other lands and cultures. They wouldn't need to be the full random rules either, but just allowing the standard method for knights from the standard non-Cmric cultures (Roman, Picts, Saxons, and Irish). The basic economic model from Estate, since it is very basic, requires no additional rolls and shows how many servants and warriors a typical knight has. For the mos tpart it means 1 librium to spend a year. DV values for fortification from Estate. They are similar to the ones in the GPC, but give you stuff that scale down to knights, such as fortified manor houses. Longbow and other new weapon stats. Update armor to the newer standards, which means going back to 6 point leather and the addtion of the gambeson (4 points, worn under other armors and included in thier values), and the haubergeon (a short mail coat worth 8 points). The new family survival tables from Estate. Squire and Wife rules, and the revised marriage table from Entourage. The marriage and survival tables are real improvements as they they stop the "black widower" approach where wives die in childbirth every decade, and PKs keep remarrying, picking up more and more manors. I think the above is the stuff that is easy to implement without actually changing much. Most of it would mean swapping out a table or two or altering a paragraph or adding a couple of things. The expanded chargen would be the only stuff that would take up significant space, but even that wouldn't add more than a couple of pages per culture, like in KAP 4. Uther is mostly background info for the GM, as is Warlord. Armies is just pages of NPC stats (of dubious quality). The only books that really change the rules are Battle (which has a new battle system), Manor (which has a new economic system that is highly problematic), and Knights & Ladies (which adds a lot to chargen). Most of the other stuff is just minor tweaks that can be incorporated the game easily enough. You're welcome. Most of the stuff in the supplements can be incorporated into the core rules easily enough. That's why some of us has stated that we's like to see the rules revised to be internally consistent. One economic system instead of four, that sort of thing.

THat's the one, although I missed the hyperlink. Still the average knight at £21-24 would be about the same from Conquest Period onward, and I think the bulk of it could be scrapped together from the father's war spoils, greatly reducing the actual "cost".