Atgxtg

I basically agree with you here, but I think rather than a 0 skill, which we all seem to dislike, the lack of traning could be handled in another way. Even something liek defaulting to DEX with a =5/+5 reflexive modifier would work better at reprsenting the telegraphing and such. But I will say from real world experience I did get a few hits in on a trained swordsman while I was fairly green. Of course I took more than a few hits in the process, but it wasn't quite the runaway success that people expect. Apparently part of the problem is that untrained people tend to attempt (and occasionally succeed at) stuff that they shouldn't, and that can catch someone who knows better off guard.

Yes, plus realistically it doesn't take much skill to successfully hit somebody with an object. if it did the homicide rate in the real would would drop dramatically. It's not like most of the axe murders around today have any sort of combat training, and two kids with Nerf swords will hit each other, a lot.

I do use ICE's Robin Hood supplement as a resource on locations and adventures for KAP. One problem I have with using KAP for Robin Hood is that KAP is entirely geared towards and biased towards Knights who are usually the bad guys in a Robin Hood campaign. Pendragon's combat system is not very kind to unarmored heroes - even less kind that other BRP based games. All it all, it could work, but the system would need to be tweaked somehow to change the bias from chivalric knights to heroic outlaws. If you just ran the game as it, I don't think the PC outlaws would last very long. I think to make KAP work for Robin Hood a GM probably would need to: Halve the armor protection (i.e like in RQ/BRP) Double the Shield protection (i.e like in RQ/BRP) Let parrying weapons soak some damage on a parry/partial success (once again like in RQ/BRP) Possibly turn some tasks important to outlaws that are covered under DEX (sneaking, climbing) in KAP into skills (once again like in RQ/BRP). Incorporate some of the ideas for making DEX and APP more important/useful in game. Robin Hood stories tend to be more about stealth, wits, charm and scoial interaction than about combat.

There is the old RQ rule of related skills working at half skill. That does mean than improving Sword would improve something related (like Axe), but at half skill it would take quite a lot to be good at the related weapon.

I view Faeries as having some sort of morality, only that is isn't quite the same as what we have. I also consider them to be more concerned with following the proper form and letter of things as opposed to the spirit of or meaning behind something. In some ways it's like children trying to play house. They know that they are supposed to send the children to bed early and punish them for improper behavior, but they don't necessarily know why, or even bother to try and figure out why. So a faerie knight might oppose the PKs or set up some sort of horrible challenge for them not because he has anything against them or wishes to see them killed (or maimed, eaten, cursed, etc.) but because that's his part in the story and he is doing what he is supposed to do. If the PKs don't defeat the giant and save the maiden, well then they were the ones who dropped the ball, weren't they? The giant and maiden did their bit.

Okay everybody, brace yourselves, I've had an idea. Now, a few months back several of us discussed the idea of using DEX/2 as the default score for Dexterity skills and APP/2 as the default for Courtly skills. THis was to help make DEX and APP more useful, especially for ladies. But, non of us really know if that idea would hold up and how it would all look in play. So, I have an idea: How about we try writing up Pendragon characters (either 5.2 core rules or Knights and Ladies) posting them here, and seeing how they look? That way we can all see if the Knight with a high DEX and a fast track to mastery in weapon skills really balances out against one with a high CON or SIZ. With various people posting we could see various approaches to character generation too, which would give us all a better chance of spotting any problems or pitfalls. Physical Skills (these are noted in some KAP book, I'll have to hunt to find out which book again, but I figure it's a good start for DEX skills): Boating, Dancing, Hunting, Industry, Play (instrument), Horsemanship, and weapon skills. Courtly Skills (per p.8 of the Book of Feasts): Compose, Courtesy,Dancing, Falconry, Flirting, Gaming, Heraldry, Intrigue, Orate, Play (Instrument), Romance, Singing, Tourney Note that Dancing and Play (Instrument) are covered under both, so I'd suggest using the higher of the two attributes for those skills. So let's try some chargen and see what it looks like!

I have used minis off and on for KAP. One of the nice things about the way Pendragon does combat is that it's easy to downplay positioning most of the time. Recently I've been using some paper/cardboard minis. They tend to be inexpensive (even getting them printed at a print shop,on card stock, in color only runs about $1 a sheet, which works out to less than a dime a mini). There are some nice Saxon,Medieval, Normal ones over at Drivethru, too. I've bout a couple of sets and then edited the shields and minis a little to customized them to the characters. More recently, I've been looking at getting a 3D printer and making up customized figures for each PK over at HeroForge.

As everyone has already pointed out, according to the rules the knight would forthwith a 0 skill in axe. Also as Morien has already pointed out, the knight could opt for the "all-out" attack option to get a +10 skill. He could also possible invoke inspiration for +10 to skill (I think I mentioned that first). Once again bring Morien's name up, his idea of using DEX/2 as a default for several skills (including weapon skills) and APP/2 as a default for the courtly skills is one of the ideas that several of us have been considering in order to try and put DEX and APP more on par with SIZ, CON and STR. The situation you presented would be a great example where such a rule would be a huge boon.

Just my point. It's really one story with soem added details to flesh out the setting. Not that that is wrong, as it wasn 't supposed to be a RPG setting but the setting for the Hobbit and LOTR. Yes, but as you mentioned it is all added stuff, not Tolkien. Nringing this back to topic, Pendragon has a lot more going on and more options and details, not just with the GPC but with the source material. There are so many versions additions and variations written over hundreds of years, by som nany differernt people that we as GMs have a lot of options to pick and choose from.

Don't get me wrong, I think the GPC is a wonderfully fantastic supplement. There is really nothing else quite like it for any RPG. Nor do I believe it is the straight jacket than some think. It's more of a helpful outline and backdrop. But someone could run a Pendragon campaign without out it. That's quite obvious from the fact that the game came out out and went through several editions before the GPC ever came out. So it's not essential, but it is really good and helpful. Amen! I think the difficulty with Middle Earth is that it really only has a handful of stories to tell and everything else is based upon/tied to those stories. When you get to the Third Age you really only have the events relating to the War of the Ring to work with, and little else. In fact, if a GM want's to remain true to the source, he is severely limited in just how far he can let some characters travel and interact. For instance, if Hobbit adventurers traveled throughout Wilderland prior to Bilbo then much of the mystery and confusion about Hobbits doesn't hold up, and you have to wonder why it took so long for Sauron's minions to find Hobbiton. It's similar with Elves and Dwarves too, as they seemed to be almost legendary beings to the Roharrim. With King Arthur is is different as not only are there various legends of King Arthur and multiple versions of those legends, but that Arthur and his court were used as a backdrop by other authors to showcase tales of other characters. So you wind up with a "tapestry" of interweaved stories to work off of. With leave a GM with a lot more plot hooks and ideas to work with. The setting is a lot more resisitant and tamper proof too. In Middle Earth during the Third Age, everything has to work out just so, or the ring could have ended up up back in Sauron's hands, leading to the fall of the know world for an unspecified amount of time -basically until Valar, or, more likely, Eru, actually step in an d do about it. It's the outcome that all the free peoples are working to avoid. In contrast, the situation in Arthurian Britain isn't quite to precarious or so dire. Yes, the Saxons, Irish and Scotti will invade, in fact we all know that those invasions are part of history and thus inevitable. What Arthur does is give us a sort of magical golden age before the inevitable happens. There is very little that a group of adventuerous could do early that could actual derail the timeline in a serious manner.

Yeah, although modern travel times might be a little too "as the crow flies" or take advantage of roads that wouldn't have existed back them. Still, thge actual distances between places should be about the same. The distance between Sarum and Broughton probably hasn't changed much in the last 1600 years. Sometimes I come across intering tidbits of history, like what a given manor had for additions or produced or the name of the local church and use them to ehance the game, such as the actualy font at Monstisfont (DuPlain) with alleged healing properties, or... ..had a Roman villa nearby that was burnt down, and had a dead body (believed to be the careless servant who started the fire). I used the ruins of the old villa in my cvampaign and the PK who holds Grateley has done work to restore the villa, and now resides there with his wife, while his son and heir now runs the manor at Grateley. I took some of the old maps and info found online and used them to modify satellite images to get so-so maps of the manor. Something like:

Yes, but in creativehum's defense (guess there really is a first time for everything) the basic statement of just what is "essential" for Pendragon still holds up. All a GM really needs is the core rules and the timeline from the GPC. And technically the GPC isn't actually essential (quite a few people on-line feel this it too much of a straitjacket although I do not agree), as GMs do not have to follow Greg's Mostly Mallory based timeline. So all that is "essential" is the core rules, and (probably) the GPC. Of course that is (or should be ) true or virtually every RPG. A good RPG should be complete and not require supplements to play. One of the nice things I have to say about Chaosium is that in general you don't need to buy any of their supplements to enjoy their RPGs. The supplements to enhance the experience but are not required (except maybe Cults of Prax for RQ2, but that's was one supplement).

Yes! That's it. I'd like to collate into a single document but not sure when I'll get the chance as I am working 6 days this week and have a family get together on the seventh, plus need to get my next Pendragon adventure (441) written. Plus I need a haircut. Well, maybe I can sneak in it sometime.

That's not bad advice. A new GM needs the core rules\ book, and the GPC is timeline for the entire campaign, so those two are probably the best placwe to start, and probably take some time to "digest" . It might not just be what you need, but also what the other books can add. No one needs to be able to play during the time of Uther, but it can be nice. No one needs to be able to improve their manor,or build a castle, or play a lord or some sort, but they can all add to the experience. But I agree with you about how/where to start. For those of us who have played the game for decades, and have most or all of the existing supplements, incorporating something new is pretty easy and can add new elements and more depth to the game, and help to keep all the campaigns from feeling the same (they do all share the same timeline of major events). But at the start? Better to learn how to handle the the core game mechanics and storyline. They are key.

Yes it's Surrey. Basically what seems to have happened was that Greg decided to get rid of all the Saxon influenced place names and titles (so the Earl of Salisbury became a Count), but this didn't go over well, as most modern names are or at least associated with the ones used in KJAP 5 and before. Espcially since many of the descriptive names are hard to place outside of Pendragon. People can figure out where Sarum or Malborough are, but probably can't find the Rock or Sparrohawk castle without looking it up in one of the game indexes. There was a compiled list of place names of the old nocturnal site, which linked the new place names to the old. . I might have saved it on the hard drive somewhere. If I can find it I could repost it here.

There are a few sources you can use to get some good historic names. Bristish History online at https://www.british-history.ac.uk is one of my favorites as it gives information from the Medieval and Anglo-Saxon periods or various places. Anything from the Doomseday Book is also helpful.

They do tend to match up with the sources though. In fact there are stories of true berserks being practically immune to edged weapons. Saxons! seems to downplay some of the weaknesses of berserks (i.e. getting beaten to a pulp by someone with a blunt weapon, vulnerability to Christian Holy Men), too. I do think it is far to easy to be a "true" Berserk in Saxons!, as it only requires a character to take a passion or two. For NPCs it's controllable as the GM can use or not use them in any numbers that he wishes, but for players it seems far too easy to grab Love (Wotan) and go tot town..

Whoa! I was about to unleash the dragons and there're harder to recall that a squadron of B-52. Maybe we need an irony banner?

Welcome, I'm sure your see a lot of discussion going on about Pendragon. It is both a very good and a very popular RPG.

But not half as good. Streamlining an RPG isn't necessarily an improvement. Those complicated bits exist for a reason. Taking away stuff like Traits and Passions is basically ripping out major aspects of the Pendragon RPG - to the point where it might not even be Pendragon anymore. I can see a new GM downplaying traits and passions until they (and their players) get more familiar and comfortable with the game system, but ignoring them means ignoring Chivalry, and is as bad as ignoring knighthood, the round table or even that King Arthur fellow that the game is named after. If someone wants a more streamlined Arthurian RPG, try Prince Valiant (assuming that it returns sometime in the near future). It gives a much more streamlined game, and even includes a streamlined versions of traits & passions as an optional rule. IN fact porting over PVs trait and passion system to KAP would be better than just dropping traits and passions entirely.

Probably not. KAP doesn't really work all that well as a tradtional dungeon-crawl type of game. Damage is more singficant and healing slower and less reliable compared to most dungeon-crawl type RPGs.Not that it can't handle an epic adventure, it can, but it's not geared towards the slow attrition of hit points and other resources that most dungeon-crawl RPGs are designed around.

BRTC's Timelords and related RPGs did something similar. It would compare the damage taken to the Body Point total of the target to determine the sevirty of the injury. So a 10 point injury to a character with 20 Body Points would be the same severity as a 6 point injury to an animal with 12 body points, or a 25 point injury to a being with 50 Body Points, or a 250 point injury to a creature with 500 Body Points. It scaled beautifully.

That's a great point. Plus smaller creatures ten to have shorter lifespans to begin with, so the loss of one individual isn't as great. Yes, most prediators try for a quick easy skill. Getting hunt by the prey animal is very dangerous to the predator and can even be life threatening, if the predator sustains either a serious wound, or even a minor one that prevents it from being able to feed itself properly for a time. Sounds like DragonQuest, which used Fatigue Points and Endurance Points. IMO, the problems with large creature in RQ is that their damage goes up in big jumps (increments of d6) while nothing else in the game (sort of tank guns and heavy artillery) does, and that damage increase happens at a much faster rate than the ability to soak damage (hit points and armor points). One approach that might work is to do what was done with FUDGE/The Princess Bride RPG. In that game damage bonus from a great Body (STR and SIZ) stat cancel out, and it is only a difference in Body that matters. The idea being that larger tougher people (and animals) have more muscle, hide and fat to soak up the damage. If damage bonus dice canceled out in RQ, then larger animals wouldn't need a lot of hit points or lots of armor. Something like two lions or two bears would just be rolling normal claw and bite damage and I think the results would be more realistic.

Yup. Plus we are trying to quantify an abstract concept, and a host of modifiers and conditional variables. Yes, plus those traits are relative. A "Modest" knight, let alone a "Modest" Baron is going to be a lot more Proud that a "Modest" Serf. HE would have to be just to prove himself worthy of his title.

Well, way back (and this is slightly tangential) I handled Kaiju using RQ3 hit points, along with the old Suerworld SIZ table (i.e the mass kept doubling). This kept Showa Gojira at something like SIZ 157, and worked out fairly well. I had an idea for that, using a base10 log for SIZ (x10 mass = +10 SIZ, so the table repeats making it easier to convert, and to scale). Pretty much all RPGs are designed for a "sweet spot" and tend to get more out of whack the further one deviates from that spot. There could be several reasons, the first one I can think of is that larger creatures tend to be more territorial, so there is less chance of their running into/overlapping territory with others of their own kind. Smaller creatures tend to overlap more. So two tigers or bears and less likely to run across each other than two rats or squirrels. I think a second factor might also be that the samller creatures are probably more fragile and are more likely to take serious or mortal injury before the fight is over. Yeah, I think the problem here is that realistically the wounds would probably scale up more proportionally than they do in RQ. So lion vs. lion should probably be a bit closer to house cat vs house cat but in RQ it turns into one hit fights. I think it's probably due to the increasing db.