Atgxtg

I just use the average cultural CON for genetic Non-player wives. Yeah, it a tough call, in part because the role of the female knight is not as clearly defined. Still, since they are supposed to get glory for childbirth at least the risk is rewarded. I could see replacing the childbirth table with CON rolls for the parents. Two success = child. One and a critical = twins. If the wife fumbles her CON roll then she risks death in childbirth.

I've been toying with the hoserule of letting the wife survive if she makes a CON roll, but treating it as if she survived a mortal injury (3 rolls on the aging table, maybe only one on a critical CON roll). I like it because: It is easy to implement Doesn't require chanigng any of the existing tables Makes CON a useful stat for female characters Automatically makes childbirth more risky as the wife gets older and her CON goes down.

Was RQ3 horribly expensive like it was in the UK, with trimmed down basic editions and more pricey advanced rules? I think that was one of the things that really hurt RQ3. AH tended to price things like a wargame, which was higher than the pricing of most RPGs, a factor that was made much worse oversees. That and the long delay in getting and signfically new Gloranthan content. Yes, Glorantha is an intimidating setting. Yes, in recent decades we have "Your Glorantha May Vary" but it takes a certain amount of understanding of the setting before a GM will consider it to be Glorantha. Golrantha's level of detail and uniqueness works against it in that regard - especially back them when there wasn't that much out about it in print.

Yeah that's probably true. The comics had a certain style that didn't adapt all that well to the system.. Usually Chaosium would adapt the game system to the setting, but EQ was indeicat to RQ3 except for starting skill scores and using jewelry for armor . If I recall correctly the RPG came out during the height of ElfQuest's popularity, so there wasn't as much to work with, and the project might have been a bit rushed to capitalize on that popularity. Considering how personality dreven the story was, something liek Pendragon or better yet Prince Valiant might have suited the comics better.

Probably not a big surprise as the story is centered mostly around Castle Brass in the the Kamarg (Camargue region of France). So it was more "local". I also think part of the reason why Stormbringer/Hawmoon/etc. wasn't as successful as it might have been was that it was always a secondary line, to RQ2 in the early days, and then to RQ3 and CoC. So producing any stuff for Strombringer projects took resources and manpower away from more successful lines. Supplements prodced by companies other than Chaosium didn't have this problem. I wish the French book had been translated. I can muddle through a little French but it's been a long time since I took it in school. The was an Elfquest Companion, and EQ got a 2nd edition softcover book to replace the boxed set. Part of the problem with ElfQuest as an RPG was that there was only so much information to work with and Chasoium couldn't really add much to it without risking alienating fans and/or the Pinis by changing things.

O think a combination of modifications are necessary to make lady characters viable for long term campaign play. Some initial thoughts: Attributes need to be significant to the ladies somehow.That would mean making DEX and APP do something for ladies (just how is another topic), and I think Id use a CON roll to let ladies survive childbirth, but treat it as if they survived a mortal wound (three rolls for stat loss). Ladies should get port of the glory for actions done by knights carrying their favor/or done in their name. This will give lady PKs an in game reason and in game benefits for getting involved in things and promotes romance.Note that this won't be extra glory but come from the glory the knight would has won, as he will credit the lady for inspiring to success. This would be just like when knights share glory for defeating a foe. Wives should get some glory (say 10%) from the actions performed by their husband. That will help to make who they marry important as well as how they can influence their husbands to earn more glory. I'd eliminate the cap on glory from marriage so that ladies would have a reason to pursue more glorious knights for marriage. If all they get is 1000 glory, then all knights are the same as far as glory is concerned. As a starting point I'd go with 1000 glory for a knight plus the award for the knights glory bracket (ordinary, notable, famous, etc.) That way marrying a Legendary knight of the round table would be worth more than marrying a young knight with 1000 glory. Titles would also stack. This way marrying a King would grant the wife 1000 for marrying a knight plus 1000 for marrying a king, plus a bonus based upon how much glory the king has. Note that titles would still be a one time thing so once a lady becomes a queen she'd get no title bonus if she were widowed and later married a Duke. I'd make the 1000 glory for marrying a knight a one time bonus as well (so from the second marriage on it would be just the bonus based on the husband's glory). I think there needs to be courtly honors and rewards that lady characters can compete for, and a method for them to gain and use influence at court to make things that they want happen (or prevent another lady from getting something that they might want). This could mostly be handled with skill and trait rolls. Roughly speaking the idea would be that influence points would could like 1000 glory for purposes of getting favors and such at court, but are expended when used, probably after the die is rolled (but maybe before to get a standard modifier would be better). For example, if a wife has earned ten points of influence, and he husband asks for permission to go off on a adventure, rolls Loyalty (lord) to get it, and his wife could lobby behind the sceneces spending 3 inflei\unce points to give him a +3 modfier, but now she only has seven points left over. Once again the above is just some rough thoughts. As the game stands now most of what on a lady's character sheet doesn't matter much and there is little they can do to influence the game other than be a prize for a knight for marriage or lover's solo, heal a few injuries, and be the cause behind the occasional duel. If they are to be primary characters then the focus of the game needs to shift towards them. But note that most of this stuff could be ignored for a typical KAP knightly campaign, or maybe added in a simplified fashion (like giving NP wives a few influence points).

Not much point in their updating the page until they find out if they still have the rights to distribute it or not.

jeffjerwin, That's very interesting. Can you elaborate a bit more of the "half time at court" stuff? The reason why I'm asking is that awhile back several of us discussed the situation with lady player characters and that as written, they are somewhat difficult to do much with. The attributes don't mean all that much, there really isn't much right now to make their skills all that effective, and they don't have many ways to get much glory. So I'm interested to see what you've done with your group to see if there is anything that might improve the situation. Considering how often ladies tend to accompany knights in the stories, maybe lady PKs should have an NPK champion to escort them that the players could take control of to handle combats, duels and the like?

I used to use a form fillable Pendragon sheet for NBOS's Character Sheet Designer. I Just used the normal sheet as a background image and then put text boxes over the old sheet. The only reason why I stopped using it was that KAP5 has such a sheet so I didn't bother to update my old one. It wouldn't be all that hard to swap out the Pendragon sheet for a Paladin one and move/add text boxes if you wanted a form fillable Paladin Sheet.

We've considered making the price cumulative. So a +1 only costs £1 but a +2 cost £2 more and so on. The idea is that it would get expensive. But we'd also make clothing and Jewely separate modifiers- that would make clothing worth the investment. I also recall chatting with Khanwulf about the idea of scaling the modifiers with glory somehow, but would need to hunt for the thread. The idea was that a 1 libra dress that wows the local knights out in Cambria probably won't be that impressive in London or Camelot. I think we were using your idea for the marriage table in Book of Entourage as the inspiration. So a knight with 10,000 glory would need to spend £11 to get another +1 and so on. Another possiblity for those who want to simplify would be to just link the APP bouns to the standard of living. Just some thoughts, nothing really worked out.

Yes, but ti wouldn't be fancy enough to give the additional bonuses that clothing worth £1 or more would give during a feast. Me too. As far as the day to day stuff goes, it's easier just to handle it in abstract. My point here was to show that a knight who is living at the superlative level can't use the libra devoted to doing so to purchase anything that gives a significant, measurable bonus.

That is very interesting. I'd love to hear how things pay out in such a campaign. Do you spend more time at court, or do the ladies accompany the knights on adventures? Do the ladies stay at home or in the base camp during a battle?

Players usually have a primary character, who they run most of the time, and a backup character, who they run with their primary character cannot take part in the adventure for some reason, such as injury. If the campaignhas been going for awhile a PK might have an older knight as well, but he is usally semi-retired once the player switches over to the younger character. Not necessarily. A liege lord will need to keep some men at home to defend the place while the army is off to war. Exactly who stays and who goes is up to the lord, but the Pks can try to influence him one way orthe other. Generally yes, although the GM as the liege lord has the final say. So depending on what the GM and players want to do a player could have one character at the battle or several. However, it is usally a good idea to leave the backup character at home so the player has a spare character to play should his primary character die in battle. Probably. First off the status, vassal or household shouldn't make much of a difference regarding the number of skill checks. Both should have a similar number of opportunities during a year. Secondly, all characters get whatever checks the GM rewards them with during an adventure for making important skill rolls. Thirdly, all characters can partake in the solos (if the GM allows them). A household knight has just as much chance to serve garrison duty, get into battle or play through a lovers solo as a vassal knight. Lastly, any checks that come from officer status would apply to a houshold knight if he were an officer. Yes, officers tend to be vassal knights, but it isn't always the case. So the household knight should be getting roughly the same number of checks as the vassal knights. The rules as written do no limit the number of checks received per year. Basically as written it is up to the GM to determine if a particular use of a skill merits a check. While the rules say stuff like "extraordinary use" or some such, that really just there so GMs can limit the number of checks to suit their tastes. Greg tended to be very liberal with skill checks in his adventures and considering the way time passes in the game, I'd advise doing likewise. Even with a check every year it will take time for a character to get a skill from 15 to 20 by skill checks.

I think the point is that while it's perfectly okay to run Barons and other such characters as PKs if desired, such shouldn't be forced onto GMs and players when not desired. Such things are probably best not left to random tables.

Yes I do. Let me try that again. Each year a knight gets a new set of clothes for free. These new clothes are fit for his station but not especially fancy or expensive. A knights old clothes are reduced in value by half each year due to a combination of going out of style and wear and tear. Living as a rich or superlative knight does not include extra sets of clothing or significantly better clothing than that for a typical knight, jewelry or other fancy gear. If a knight wants something better than the default, he must dip into his own funds. So for example if a knight was living as a superlative knight, he'd get the various modifiers for survival and childbirth, as well as a few extra points of glory each year per conscious consumption, but he wouldn't be able to spend that libra on a set of silk clothing, a new charger, or a gold ring. They would be separate purchases. Basically the knight is eating better and buying more expensive and better gear, but it is spread out over the year. In modern day terms it would be like eating at expensive restaurants, staying at better resorts, being able to afford better heathcare and so forth. A person could by a designer suit, a Ferrari, or a Rolex watch, but they wouldn't affect his and his families health and standard of living.

Yes and no. A PK does get a new set of clothes each year, but the income spent to live as a rich or superlative knight is just cost of living expenses, and doesn't come with any noteworthy tangible possession. If a PK wants new clothes or jewelry or a fancy pavilion he has to buy them separatly. Depends on who does it and how experienced they are. Typically the wife does this, but sometimes there is a steward, especially if a knight has multiple holdings. Generally a young Steward starts off with a skill of 2d6 and an older, experienced one with 2d6+5. As this would the the character key skill it would go up 1 point a year until it reached 15 (the 1 in 6 chance until 20 per Book of the Entrounage). So a new steward probably isn't that good at first but should improve quickly. But if your players aren't into land at all, you could just skip it all and give them the 1 per year.

The simple method is the one given the the Book of the Estate. What it boils down to is atypical manor produces £10 in income but expenses eat up £9, leaving the knight with £1 in discretionary funds each year. The reason why it costs 9 is because estate factors in for the servants at the manor and such. There is a detailed breakdown, but all you really need to know is that the knight ends up with £1. If you want a knight to have more that £1/year extra income then you could assume he had an improvement or two and might make £11, £12 or £13 per year, for a surplus of £2, £3 or £4 per year, respectively. After than a Knight generally needs a special source of income or another manor. For a simple random method, you could roll £2d6+3 for the harvest, instead of the flat £10, with Stewardship adding another £ and then subtract £9 for expenses. Note that rich, superlative etc does not mean that the knight has extra money, but that he generally has less, since he is spending extra on his upkeep to live a better lifestyle. This kinda means that rich and superlative knights have multiple manors or some additional source of income, such as an officer's position. So if a PK wants to live as a rich knight he is spending another £3 to do so, not earning another £3.

Yes, but it won't make that much of a difference if you forget it. By the time you get to the PKs it's only another 22 glory.

That's pretty much my view as well. It's why I think the cap should be tossed out. it didn't exist prior to KAP5 and it didn't need to. The only place where I see people hitting the cap in in Book of Battle 2nd Edition with the multipliers. Exactly. I've been thinking of something like 1/10th or so of the husbands glory with either a minimum of 1000 or plus 1000. So marrying a Legendary Knight with 4000 glory will be worth 4-5K to a Lady., But then that is really where she is going to get the majority of her glory.

As noted above I dislike the limit. As far as title go, I don't see the need for a limit at all, since we can set the glory award for any given title. If we want to make High King 1500 we can. No need for a limit since no one is going to be getting multiple titles as the same event. For wives I could see them getting a percentage of their husbands glory. Surely it would be more glorious to be the wife of a King than the wife of a Baron or King than the wife of a Knight? The 1000 point cap sucks for wives since they do get their titles through marriage, and no matter who they marry they get the same amount, 1000 points. So basically a lady gets 1000 points for marrying anybody of Knight status or higher. And a far as the Book of Battle goes, if we lowered the multipliers we wouldn't hit the 1000 glory cap in the first place, and occasionally going over it would be okay. The way I look at it if a PK slays two dragons at the same time he deserves full glory. Note that only the top tier Round Table Knights could be expected slay two dragons at once anyway.

I agree with Morien here, both because things would happen in sequence and be two separate events- probably over two different days will full pomp and ceremony, and because I'm not all that wild about the 1000 glory cap to begin with. I only see one place in the rules where it is required, battles. Specifically the Book of Battle, and IMO it would probably be better to lessen some of the multipliers in BoB. As for other instances where a characters earns over 1000 glory at one time, I think he earned it -not that it happens all that much.

I like it too. I think it's a solution that is easy to implement and actually simplifies chargen. I think that the cultural niche protection can be kept just by keeping the higher starting values for skills above STAT/2 or by giving a bonus to the special cultural skills (i.e Picts either get Stalk at 15 or it starts at DEX/2+8). But, the idea has a lot of opposition.

It's an idea, and fairly similar to what RQ does with it's category modifiers. If the modifiers applied to improvement rolls (as in RQ3) as well it could make APP very useful to Courtly skills without changing chargen.

You don't need all 16s to get a 96, just the total. Of course 96 does set the bar rather high. 90 should work out. It makes it obtainable while still requiring an effort. I honestly think 80 wan't a problem until KAP5 with British Christianity and the Logres trait bonuses from Knights & Ladies. From what a read, it looks like Greg wanted to have multiple thresholds for the bonuses, with lesser bonuses and glory awards, as opposed to the all or nothing nature of things now. It could have been interesting if it were something like: 80+ = +1 Armor of Honor, 25 Glory/year 88+ = +2 Armor of Honor, 50 Glory/year 96+ = +3 Armor of Honor, 100 Glory/year I don't know how far along he got with this or if they have his notes, but it looks interesting. I guess the religious bonuses were going to be be "tiered" as well.