Atgxtg

I Agree with Morien. Logical reasoning is that it would take less time for the arrows to be loaded, drawn, aimed, loosed, and reach the knight than it would for a knight om horseback to reach an archer.

But in most cases the Lord is deciding things not on actually innocent of guilt (which is probably not known) but on claims, opinions, and relationships. By medieval standards it's quite just for a higher ranking noble to have more influence that a lower ranking one, even if the lower ranking one is correct. Not that I've seen much graft so far in my campaign. Most of the PKs seem to be squeaky clean. The officers all have very hight Loyalty scores too, so I doubt they could go through with it if they wanted to. It's one of the reasons why they got those jobs.

Yup, that's about it. Although V&V characters, at least in V&V 2E were not that fragile because the game had a rule where a character could "roll with a punch" and take some of the damage to their power points. It's also why the way Superworld handled damage worked for comics. If Larry hits Curry enough, Curry gets KO'd for a bit, Larry stops, the story continues on., and the player running Curly doesn't need to roll up Shemp.

IMO that's wrong, and directly contradicts earlier stuff. . For example in the Your Own Land Solo, a PK is sometimes given the choice between taking a bribe to side for one part in a case, or deciding the case Justly. Nowhere does the solo state that the PK is ever making the correct decision in terms of who is right or wrong, only that they are trying to Just or not. In other words, intentions not results. If someone were to decide the outcome of a case by flipping a coin, regardless of the facts of the case, would they be considered to be Just on those times that the coin toss gets it right?

Well, let's See Higherlander, and Star Wars both come to mind. But I think it depends on just how much of Superworld you want to use. If you want to use all of it, then you probably do wind up with something more like WildCards (no surprise) unless you already have a strong fraework in place to attach it to. It's like how all old A&D setting felt and played basically the same, despite the setting (Generic D&D world,Greyhawk, Llankmar, Ancient Rome, Charlemagne's France, etc.) becuase the rules were the same and the logic of the game mechanics tended to support the same style of play. So it kinda works out to what style of play do the rules support and/or how can the rules be adapted to a different style of play. I think the former would be much like Wildcards, basically a somewhat more realistic Superhero setting (because Superworld is somewhat more realistic than most other Superhero RPGs), while the latter is literally anything that a clever GM could shoehorn the Superworld mechanics into (or, unfortunately, the reverse).

That is the inherent problem with an extreme variance in ability and scale. It's not really a Characteristic problem though, but one of relative ability and scale. You get the same sort of thing with a wide variance with powers or even skills. Look at Harrak the Berserk in RQ. He abilities are so extreme in RQ terms that normal RQ characters really can't compete with him, and it's not just because of his Characteristics. I find the ability to rate things using real world data that can be measured and kept consistent to be a blessing, not a bane. For isntace, I find it much easier to be able to determine the Hulk's STR based on how much he can lift and the SIZ table that by just making up some number off the top of my head. Especially if I need to have SR scores for other characters and want them to make sense relative to each other. I don't think the do go away, they just shift. For instance you still need to assign relative ability scores, and you can still have situations where one side completely outclasses the other to the point where one side has no chance of success. The difference is mainly that the players and even the GM are limited in how the can usually rate abilities to prevent the values getting beyond the range where they can interact with each other, which, btw, is also much wider than in RQ. For instance in RQ/BRP, a difference of 10 points or more in a characteristic is essentially unbeatable, while in HQ (back when HQ was HW and had some characteristics), you needed a difference of several masteries for that to happen. With newer version of HQ, where challenges are rated relative to the PC you can't get such a variance so high that the PC has no chance of winning in a contest. So the problem is really not one with characteristics but with the relatively small (and probably more realistic) scale that characteristics can oppose each other at in standard BRP games, especially compared to skill scores. A character with a 50% skill fighting someone with a 100% skill stands a much better chance of winning that someone with a 10 Attribute opposing someone with a 20 Attribute. If you look at most Superhero RPGs, they tend to have very condensed attribute scaling to allow for that. Spiderman has a much better chance against the Hulk in terms of STR in most MArvel Super Heroes RPGs that he would in Superworld because of the scale used to rate STR in Superworld. I have messed around with a scale that was base10 logarithmic and set the die roll directly off of the characteristic. For example STR 10 would roll 1d20, STR 15 would roll 1D20+1d10, STR 20 would roll 2d20 and so forth. This gave a much wider ranger where an opposed roll was still feasible.

Okay it does just sound like a difference between how we use the terms setting, genre and such. You see I don't consider the 'xenomorphs' in Alien to be part of the setting, anymore that I consider Dracula to be part of the setting of Victorian Great Britain. Whatever way you define it, the point is that you can take a setting/story/theme/genre/whatever and add elements from another, in this case superpowers, to it to create a new setting/story/etc. WoD did this a lot with the various supernatural beings by dropping them into historical times and events but in a way that they kept under the radar so as to not overtly change the world from what we normally view it to be like. I suspect you are referring to "Where No Man Has Gone Before" the second pilot and "Charlie X", the order of episodes for TOS is a bit tricky as the production order and the Broadcast Order were different, both because the original Pilot was (mostly) drooped from the series and because episodes were aired mostly in the order that the special effects were finished. While the effects might not seem that great by todays standards, TOS used special effects to a much greater degree than other TV shows until then, and they had a lot of trouble getting all the effects finished in time. In fact the main reason why the original Pilot, "The Cage" was eventually reworked into the series as the two-part "Menagerie" was to give them a cushion for when the series would eventually miss a deadline due to the delays in finishing the optical ("special) effects. But, assuming we mean the same episodes then yes, that is the basic approach, at least from a story point of view.. Only in both instances the situation is a bit more complex because the in both cases the antagonists are really villains. Gary Mitchel is mutating into something so powerful and so different from humanity that he no longer cares about humans, combined with all the flaws an insecurities that come from his once having been and still mostly thinking like a human. This is compounded by his power growing faster than he can learn to deal with them. Chalrie Evans is the case of a teenager who is far more powerful that the adults who would normally be able to discipline, teach and help him. On the other hand, both characters exhibit powers that are not easily quantifiable in Superworld terms. In both cases they are probably too powerful to use in a game as there is really no way for the PCs to defeat them. Gary, who is somehow capable of absorbing the massive energy output of a phaser is somehow crushed by a (big) rock, which seems a bit unlikely. Charlie is only stopped because his even more powerful Alien guardians show up and "send him to his room". The "Squire of Gothos"" if a fairly similar story, except that it isn't quite as obvious about it. But basically you can take any sort of story and introduce superpowers to a certain degree and get something. Look at Highlander.

Sure For starters you have something with the stun mechanic, but it is the fundenmental difference in what hit points represent and how damage works and is recovered that is the big thing. it has multiple effects. Hit Points in Superworld (Boxed Set, not the WoW version) were the measure of how much damage a character could take before suffering serious injury and requring medical attention. That is very different than most other BRP based RPGs where Hit Points represent the amount of damage a character can take before dying. A ten point wound, through armor in most versions of BRP are either fatal injuries, disabling limbs, or major wounds. Then there is the Permanent Damage threshold. That meant that a character could take a bounce back from quite a lot of damage before it "counted" the way it does in other BRP games. If a character takes ten points of Damage in CoC, or RQ, they probably have some serious injuries and will take weeks or months to heal up barring magical healing or some such. In Superworld the character can easily heal that up over the time it takes to drink a cup of coffee. Then there is the Unconsciousness rules. Since character reduced to zero hit points are knocked unconscious, they are out of the fight, and so don't need to be attacked again until they take lethal injury. Since in most BRP games the line between incapacitating and lethal attack is a hard one to tight walk this makes Superworld much less lethal, and thus more superheroic. Overall the effect is that characters can be defeated in combat with a much lower chance of actually killing them or even inflicting a lot of permanent damage. An unarmored character with 12 HP who takes a 14 point shotgun blast in CoC or BRPG BGB is almost certainly dead, baring magic or some such. That same character in Superworld in just knocked out of the fight and will wake up shortly with the wind knocked out of them and be bruised and down 2 hit points for the next week or two.

No it doesn't, that's why there can be various takes and ways to handle a given setting. Alien is a story in the Horror genre placed a Science Fiction Setting. Yes some settings lend themselves to a particular genre, but they do not set the genre. For instance you can have a fantasy or SCi-Fi genre in a modern setting. Likewise you can tell the same story with the same characters in the same genre all adapted to a different setting. Alien could work as a Horroe genre story even if set in modern day or in the ancient world. So basically you don't really want a superhero genre, but a setting and story where beings with superhero type powers could exist. Well, frankly any setting could work. It just comes down to how far the GM ants to divert from the expected norms. For example the current movie Brightburn is apparently what would happen in Superman had been evil. A GM could easily turn something like the King Arthur legend into a superhero story, with Knights having superhero powers. In fact, a case could be made for that being the case already. Many of the earliest heroes such as Kay ans Gawain came from Celtic Legends about warrior heroes and deities with superhuman powers. Gawain was a sun god, which is why his STR was tied to the Sun;s position in the sky (very superhero-ish). Lancelot's invincibility, the Green Knights ability to shrug of decapitation , all that fits into the superpower framework. So I think you don't really need a special setting for the Superworld RPG to work mechanically. It's more a case of it being another layer than you could add to an existing setting to spice it up, or to handle aspects of that setting that are difficult to quantify without superpowers. If you look at any of the suggested alternate setting for Sueprworld, they would all work with teh BRP BGB, or for any very of BRP, if you add a power system or some sort to them. Not a bad way to sell it. If you look at WoD it does exactly what I mentioned above. It takes the modern horror genre (long ago expanded to earlier time periods), adds in role reversal (the PCs are the monsters not the victims/hunters) and adds in a power system. A GM could actually adapt Superworld to WoD if he wanted to. I think what might be a good approach for this would be for you to figure out what sort of setting you would like to run a campaign in, and what sort of powers you would like to add in and how that would work in Superworld mechanics and go from there. For instance, if you wanted to run a Star Wars game you could grab the basic Sci-fi tech from BRP/FutureWord and use Superworld to represent the various Force Powers. So you got a lot of possibilities.

The latter issue probably applies more to other versions of BRP than to Superworld. At least the full boxed set version, which did tone downt he lethality abit. Yes, free from vs. scripted is part of it, but I think the main difficulty is that most RPGs are not designed to handle non-lethal combat very well. Most FRPGs have characters and monsters getting wounded and dying from sword, arrow, axe, claw, fist and fang, modern RPGs do the same with firearms, and futuristic RPGs do so with lasers and energy swords. The trappings change but the basic game mechanics are about the same. But in the comics, combat is handled much like on a TV fistfight, or on a professional wrestling match, with characters punching, hitting, throwing, (or blasting, burning, freezing) each other until one combatant is either knocked out, gives up, or runs (flies, teleports) away. Usually with no real lasting signs of the fight except maybe a torn bit of clothing, cut lip, or a having a hat knocked off their head. That is the big disconnect here. In the comics a character such as Batman or Captain America is not going to die from a gunshot wound, unless it is a specific decision made by the writers are part of a narrative story arc, and even then it is a result that will probably be reversed somehow in a later story. This is desite the fact that neither character is bullet proof nor are they actually fast enough to be capable of dodging bullets. In the comics they might get hit once in awhile, but they will survive and eventually recover. In most RPGs, the results are much more open. Someone who isn't bulletproof can potential die in a firefight from a gunshot wound. The games that "get it right" from a comics standpoint, are ones like Prince Valiant, where combat is about winning or losing the fight, not about the injuries suffered or the results of those injuries. That make sit much easier for the heroes and villains to survive a fight, if desired by the GM, to continue on. But the problem isn't one of setting but one of mechanics matching the genre being emulated. You can have a vicious and gritty superhero game, but it won't feel like the genre people were probably trying to emulate when they decided to play a superhero RPG. If the want something with superpowers and a more lethal bent, then most superhero RPGs work fine -- except that the wide differences in character capabilities can easily derail a game when the player character come up against a NPC with an ability that they can't defend against. For example someone with mental powers against a group without strong mental defenses. It's almost impossible to cover all the bases, and high lethality makes any gap a potential Achilles heel.

Except that according to custom and law a king could pardon a condemned prisoner. So the issue when Guinevere is not a Just/Arbitrary conflict in most sources of the tale. In the pro-Arthur stories is is a just act, and in pro-Romance stories it is a Vengeful and unJust one used to help support the view that Romance trumps all and that the affair is a is a Just act. It only becomes a Just vs. Arbitrary in more recent T.H. White inspired versions such as the play and Film Camelot, where Arthur would dearly love to pardon "Jenny", but cannot not do so because it would completely undermined his allegedly revolutionary idea of the rule of law (by 20th century standards, mind you) over the rule of law (per the feudal system). This latter is compounded by the fact that he is desperately trying to prove the virtues of his more enlightened view to Mordred in order to somehow redeem him (which is somewhat ironic as the traditional view of Mordred isn't an a wicked spoiled boy who Arthur vainly tries to turn good, but as a good knight who sours and turns bad after a chance encounter with a monk with a big mouth). Even more ironic is Arthur's absolute joy of Lancelot unjust act of circumventing the Law by freeing her at the stake and slaying many good men and knights. It just shows that Arthur in the film is preferably willing to throw all his ideals out the widow , he just doesn't want to be seen doing it. From a medieval standpoint, the situation in the movie Camelot is ludicrous medieval people would be surprised if Arthur pardoned the Queen but probably praise him for his great Mercy, ability to Forgiveness and Love of his wife. It wouldn't hurt him in the least. Neither would burning the Queen after a trial, under the circumstances. That's why even strong supports of the Queen such as Kay and Gawain could accept it. It is only a problem from a modern (T.H. White) point of view where it is considered to circumvent the law, but even that argument is weak, as high ranking officials such as governors, presidents, and kings can indeed pardon people who were scheduled for execution. While doing so might be seen as nepotism by modern western standards, also by modern western standards, Adultery isn't a capital crime. I'd agree. It is. But that is true of most traits. Vengeful requires some wrong, real or imaged that the character is vengeful about. Lustful is usually directed towards a particular individual, Deceitful is normally lying about something specific, and not just being a habitual liar. Proud requires something for the character to be Proud about, Cowardly requires something for the characters to be afraid of, and so on. That the traits are listed as opposing pairs also plays into that, as any action can be viewed in terms of being the opposite of the other trait in the pair. Someone being Arbitrary could be called unJust, Vengeful considered unForgiving, Deceitful being disHonest, and so forth. It is part and parcel with the traits being opposing natures. Admittedly nobody seems to get up in the morning filled with a sense of feeling Arbitrary, but some people are noted for being biased, capricious, mercurial, or willing to do things on a whim, and I do think that plays into the Arbitrary trait. To some extent you see this with some of the fans of virtually all sports teams who tend to views things from a very team-centric point of view. In personal experience I used to have a friend who a was a very nice guy, generous and merciful, but extremely Arbitrary in how he would view situation and act. He would often side with friends and family in a situation over any sort of logical argument. In gaming we somethings saw him argue entirely different views depending on who was on what side of the situation he was on. And the thing was he generally believed that he was right and just both times despite picking opposite side in the same situation! I have since used him as the example of a high Arbitrary trait. In his case he was someone who was Honest, and Merciful but whose other traits and Passions tended to be more important to him than being "Just" (in essence to him being "Just" was doing whatever seemed best for his friends, family, and religious beliefs in all situations).

Basically the GM. If the Knight rolls Just he does the "right thing" according to what the GM tells him is right. Where as if he does the Arbitrary thing then his decision is made based upon personal beliefs passions, and prejudices. Note that something the Arbitrary choice might also be the Just decision, but if so it is by coincidence not by reasoned judgment. Mostly it tells you what the "right thing is" based on feudal oaths, custom, family obligation, honor, hospitality, and the codes of chivalry and romance. Sometimes that differs from modern values ofd right and wrong. . Pretty much. Although the distinction is that being Just is making decides based upon what society says is correct behavior, as sometimes knights can do the wrong thing for the right reason and vice versa. It's actually more serious than that, as Adultery in a Queen is considered to be treason, and she not only betrayed her husband, she betrayed her King. If that seems especially harsh, then consider that if she had a child then someone other than the Kings actual son would have been the heir tot he throne. Not necessarily. First off if people respect him or not will be based on what action he takes, and people will judge him by that and some could lose respect for him. There are quite a few cases where a vassal loses respect for a liege because the liege did something the vassal considered unfair or even dishonorable. Also, many times Justice ends up being tempered by Mercy. Not really. As the king he is the law in that he can usually insist on almost any action. However if he insists on an an Arbitrary action people will consider it to be unJust, and might lose the respect of a lot of people. The problem here is that the punishment in this was was considered to be Just for Guinevere's crime. So ever those who might not like the punishment probably consider it to be a Just one. While some latter day versions of the Tale, inspired by T.H. White, might have Arthur agonizing between enforcing Justice and using his Royal power to pardon Guinevere, with the latter being unjust, and thus overthrow his "new invention" of the court. Most earlier versions of the tale have Arthur hurt and angry for being cheated on, and quite willing to execute Guinevere. Most medieval people would have been surprised if he would have pardoned the queen, but they also would have considered the act to be one of mercy and not an arbitrary action. Usually it the choice between that they think they should do vs. what they would like to do. But usually the conflict isn't Just vs. Arbitrary but Just vs some other Trait or Passion, such as Mercy or a Hate. In my games, Arbitrary tends to come up more when PKs are tempted to show favoritism to another character. For instance, the PKS in my campaign have formed a Knight Order and whenever one of them hosts a feast they could bump their fellow members to better seating during the feat, instead of where their rank and glory would normally seat them. So if the Host bumps his friends up o the seating they get an Arbitrary check, as he is giving his friends special advantages. Just vs. Arbitrary tens to come up when a PK has a reason to want to select a particular outcome instead of doing what he thinks is fair. Stuff like when a PK knows someone is guilty but wants to acquit him because he is a friend, or knowing that someone is innocent but wanting to say he is guilty because he is a rival. For a Famously Just or Arbitrary Knight I'd usually reserve the trait rolls for when a the Trait would be opposed by some other Trait or Passion. Like when a PK knows his son is guilty but would like to defend him in court because he is his son, i.e. Love (Family). Another instance might be when the test is some sort of moral test that might need to be passed on an adventure. For instance, if a Knight needed to make a Just roll to successfully draw the "Sword of Justice" from it's scabbard.

More than that. First off, Merlin is the one who enlists the aid of the PKs, as well as the one who gives Uther the Sword, not the PKs. Secondly the same Merlin also "abducts" baby Arthur and leave the PKs holding the bag, and they end up on trial for treason. None of that puts the Pks into Uther's favor. Merlin's praise does help the PKs somewhat with the Count, but then Merlin's rep take a big hit after he is declared a traitor.

I'll grant that, but what about the other officers, who generally don't get much glory from their office?. Oh and I did (eventually) spot the +25% Glory increase to "High" Officers, so it does seem the there is greater prestige for serving someone of a higher rank.

It's not a question of stle of pay or a GM holding them back but simple the fact that unless things go very very well for them, they are just not high enough to have that sort of pull. Sure, but that assumes that they PKs manage to get Uther's favor or establish themselves into Roderick inner circle and still survive St. Albans. Basically the higher up the are the more likely they are to get poisoned. Gaining Uther favor or becoming an officer isn't automatic. OKs have to do things to earn it, and be lucky. It's doubtful that the PKs will have more than a manor or two for holdings during the Anarchy. Sure if a PK does something fantastic for Uther they might rise up in the ranks a bit, but the odds of becoming powerful enough to have any real impact on things (at least a Banneret) is quite the longshot. No, but it depends on a lot of things to fall the right way for the PKs. Basically it's like someone planning for thier future based on the assumption that first, they will win the lottery. Well we disagree then. For starters Arthur goes off conquering everywhere (the Conquest Period) which gives many more opportunities for knights to earn favor and gain new holdings. Yes there is a better chance to take someplace by force during the Anarchy, but so what? The odds of keeping it afterwards are slim. One of the first things Arthur does as High King is to restore the lands to all the nobles who got hosed during the Anarchy. So that PK who conquered 20 mansors and built three castles probably won't keep them. Well for startrs the higher ranking nobles. I have no problems with the PKs earning things through good play, or even through dumb luck. I'm just stating that its not automatic. This isn't old D&D where characters will eventually get whatever they want if they just live long enough to reach a high enough level. That is partially true. Acting reckless, stupid and biting off more than one can chew will get Player characters killed in most adventure RPGs too. Especially one like Pendragon. Yes, but it also makes them dead. the PKs should temper those risks with good judgment, or all they will accomplish will be the die trying part. A newly knighted age 21 starting character could heroically fight a Dragon by himself, and will get tons of glory if he wins, but his chances of doing so are rather slim. A player who does stuff like that repeatedly is just going to go through a lot of characters. At least if the "uphill battle against dire odds" is really an uphill battle against dire odds, and not an easy battle with a good PR from the GM. The ones who do well and rise in rank and status learn how to pick their battles and when to take risks, and when not to.

I think that has to do with the whole divine right of Kings bit from fedual thinking. Constantin, Aurelius, Uther, and Arthur succeed because they are of Royal lineage which can be (tentatively) traced back to Roman Emperors. So they are the rightful rulers in the eyes of God, while everyone else isn't.

I suspect that Nanateleod is an example of a good man with the right idea, but one who will ultimately fail. Probably through treachery. What seems to happen in the sources is that the Brits are unstoppable when united, but fall to pieces when they aren't. All their great defeats tend to be because of in-fighting and inability to unite rather than to the capabilities of the enemy. Of course there is a lot of pro-British "spin" there, but King Arthur is a national symbol. But the overall theme is that the Brits would be fine if they could just stop the in-fighting and band together. The basic timeline seems to be: Romans leave, Brits divided = Brits get raided by the Picts, irish, Saxons, and Huns Brits can't agree on who to make High King (i.e. nobody wants to make a rival stronger)= raids continue. Constatin (outside but with a family line claim to the throne) comes in and unites the Brits = Brits defeat everybody, times are good. Vortigern takes the throne through treachery = Picts rise up again. Vortigern turns his back on his own people in favor of Hengest and the Saxons = Saxons gain power and the Brits are divided and weak again. Vortimer rises up against the Saxons, other Brits flock to his banner = Brits (mostly) drive out the Saxons. Vortigern fails to back Vortiner against the Saxons = Vortiner killed, Knight of Long Knives. Aurleius arrives, unites the Brits = New High King, Saxons beaten back. Uther takes over, but fails to unit the people = about a standstill. Uther dies, Brits weak and divided = Saxons get more powerful again Brits fail to unify= things continue and even get worse. Arthur shows up, become High King and Eventually unifies the Brits again = Brits crush the Saxons. Arthur creates the round table, most Brits are loyal = A golden age where the Brits manage to conquer just about everybody and Arthur is the High King of most of civilized Europe. Lancelot, Guinevere and Mordred betray Arthur, round table split, Brits divided again = Saxons conquer Britain.

You certainly implied that it would be. As I mentioned previously it's a great idea, but not something most PKs will be alble to implement. That is going to be pretty difficult for vassal knights. They don't have the connections, status, or wealthy to do so. What baron is going to ally with a lowly knight who has no army to speak of? Now, PKs who are officers has some pull with the Countess and Estate Holders might be able to accomplish something, but the opportunities to actually accomplish anything of a signficant scale are limited. Maybe if a PK manages to marry the Countess. No "or" about it. It would be die trying. Several reasons: The Saxons had no need to push forward at present. Secondly, invading a place and securing is difficult and costly. Even if someone has an enemy outnumbered, if that enemy is making a last ditch stand on their home territory they will fight tenaciously and inflict heavy casualties on the attackers even if they loose. Especially if the enemy has any sort of fortifications. The Medeival rule of thumb was that you needed 3:1 odds to even consider assaulting a fortification. The thinking was that the defenders would kill two attackers before they could scale the walls. Whoever did try to push forward would be vulnerable to attack. Both from Brits and from other Saxons. Good point. Although that would still be a risky tactic, since if the defenders fight you off, you could lose a lot of your workforce and suffer income reduction. There are just as many opportunities in other Periods for PKs to be BDW's, in fact, probably more. Most PKs simply don't have the means to become warlords during this era, and the major theme of the era is that things are going bad for the British, not go forth and conquer. I've seen some posts on various forums where some people have had thier character take over the County or some such, but most of that seems to happen with GM who just let the players succeed at whatever they want. Yes, although the GM should pay attention to the situation presented. They don't meekly wait for the storm to pass, they rebuild thie forces and try to find a new High King but fail.. The whole idea is that Saxon power is on the rise, the Brits are in decline. It's all part of the story of Arthur. It's like saying "Why start with the premise that Uther dies?" The central theme is not that the the Brits should stop sulikng and stand up for themselves, but instead that they need to bide thier time to rebuilt and unite. Now I'm not saying that the PKs can't try to fight the Saoxons, or move up in the social ladder, but I am saying that your view that the PKs should just go out and kick the Saxons butt is very risky and not all that easy to pull off. If it were as easy to fight back and you seem to think then the Countess would have told the Saxons where to stick their deamnds for tribute. Ulfius is probably the most powerful British warlord in the South and he doesn't ally with Aelle for nothing. The situation is that the Brits don't have much of a chance to defeat the Saxons and drive them out at the start of the Anarchy Period. If doing so was as easy as you made out, then the various Barons would have done it. Let's keep the modern world out of this and deal with the Arthurian one. What you are missing is that what you suggest wouldn't work without Arthur either. The Brits didn't fail because the didn't fight back, but because they lacked Arthur. That's the whole point of King Arthur. Without him the Brits lose and the Saxons conquer Britain. That Arthur stopped them is the central point in the story, and why the legend sprang up in the first place.

Good stuff. I agree with the idea that Cerdic isn't all bad. He is proud, and he is also Vortigern's son, so his lineage works against him, and he appears as the worst of combination. As far as the Saxons inaction during 510-513 I think they were just willing to sit back and let the Brits kill each other off. Then they could just roll over the survivors of the conflict.

Me too. I would treat is as basically the same as raiding your own lands. I understand the intent. I just don't like the implementation. Basically, if they could do that without it impacting their income, then shortages wouldn't be as much of a problem. Plus I just don't see things like looses in food and livestock automatically replenishing themselves. True, but a lot of the feudal system is like that. Especially in the Early periods of KAP. Bottom line is that it sucks to be a serf, and being a freeman isn't much better. But realistically raids harm the raided more than they enrich the raider.

It depends on why and how they do it. There is an official adventure where a PK leads the group raiding and goes through the whole rewards gained and division of spoils and by the time it's all over the final rewards for most characters was trivial in game terms (say 80d), although that would still be something like two weeks income for a knight. Not if you alerted all the neighbors of your plans. They'd probably all post scouts on their borders and wait to spot your troops on the move. Ah, unfortunately per the latest rules of KAP you can't take the levy with you. ONly the King can muster them to war. They aren't super coordinated, they are forewarned. The last thing you want to do is tell someone that you are going to come raid them, or when you are going off to raid another. It gives them time to prepare defenses, hire troops, move valuables, etc. As far as the Anarchy goes the whole point is that Salisbury, like most of Britain is basically at the mercy of the Saxons. If it were as easy to resist them as you suggest, then the Countess would so so. The reality is that during the Anarchy the Brits are shorthanded and missing a lot of leaders because of the events at Saint Albans. So they don't have the ability to stop the Saxons. That's why the major Barons pay tribute. So if the Countess can't muster the forces to drive the Saxons off, I doubt most landed knights could. No. You missing the point. Many Knights and especially leaders died at Saint Albans. Ulfius/ tactic are: To wait until the next generation grows up and can fight. Ulfius is also planning that the Brits will select a new High King to unite the people. If you look at the HRB and other sources the Brits always get raided, invaded and beaten when they lack a High King. He expects the Saxons to turn an war with each other. One of the reasons behind his allying with Aelle. Ideally if Silchester and Salisbury allied with Aelle and took out some of the other Saxon Kings, the Brits could then al join together and drive out Aelle. The reasons why his tactics don't work is because the Brit leqaders mistrust each other, to give power to rivals and that it ultimately takes an outsider to do so. Plus the Saxons Kingdoms never went to war with each other. But fighting the Saxons piecemeal, especially during the Anarchy, wouldn't work. The Brits, already shorthanded, would just lose by attrition. They needed time to rebuild thier forces and elect a new High King. No. Vortigern's doom, wasn't bring in Saxon foederanti. That tactic did work historically for the Romans, for the Brits in the past (Berroc Saxons).and even worked for Vortigern, at first. What doomed him were three things. The first being catering to Hengest's whims, especially after he after he married Rowena. The second was his essentially turning his back on his British subjects once he got his new bridge (again Rowena). Lastly was the betrayal and murder of Constantin and Constans. Had he not made all three of those mistakes he would have been in a much better position. Unfortunately he doesn't realize the truth of the situation until Long Knives, and by then his fate is pretty much sealed.

Thanks guys. That helps, and give me a direction to look into. Since I'm running a campaign that will play though the Aurelius Period this could be more than just backstory for the PKs. So an Avalon connection? Interesting. Especially the idea of it being a Kingdom and not just the center of the Ladies of the Lake.

Okay so the ships are from somewhere in Faerie. That's cool. Gorlois somehow got the Fae to loan or give him some Faerie ships and he uses them to good effect. Sounds like you had a specific place of origin for her. Could you mention it? There are a lot of borderline Fae places in Celtic lore, that's what makes figuring out the origin of the ships so difficult. This interests me a lot, because I don't know of any source material that went this route with Ygraine and Gorlois. With most of the chronology there are sources that a given story is based on. This is completely new to me. I'm not complaining, mind you, just intrigued.

Okay I follow that... until this. What the difference between Faerie and Summerland. Cadwy is "ancient beyond memory" King who seems to be of Faerie to me. What does that mean though? Ambiguous stuff like that might sound cool, but it is very hard to GM correctly. I've been mostly avoiding Summerland until the Book of the Magician comes out for just that reason.

Nice idea but mercs are expensive. A single man at arms costs £½ for 30 days service. So to have one around for six months would eat up the £3. And you have to hope the raiders don't come in one of the unprotected months- not that one guy will make all that much difference. Alternatively you could hire 4 knifemen under the same conditions. You could get more protection by just putting men on the payroll permanently, you could get three men at arms year round for the price of one merc, or 6 footmen, or 12 poor grade footmen. But then you'd have to keep then year after year or deal with the additional raiding when you release What are you going to go raiding with. You need 40 foragers to be able to raid someplace in 4 days. Unless you are some sort of lord, you probably can't field 40 men. And since you told all the neighbors that you would go raiding your lands are defenseless while you're away so you'll be lucky if there is anything left to come home to. While defending your ground is fine, the money you get back from raiding won't even come close to making up for things. First you have to pay the mercs. Then you need to get a large enough force to raid. Then you have to pull it off successfully. Then you need to give £1 to the Count, per custom. Then you have to reward your troops (especially your non-mercs), or suffer the selfish check. Very unlikely that you break even. Meanwhile you own lands are now wide open to other raiders. If I were one of the neighbors that you threated to raid because of Saxon X, I wouldn't go after him, I'd wait until he raided you and then hit you. If your away raiding I get a free ride, and you take a bit hit to your income and won't be able to afford any mercenaries next year And if a half dozen bands of Saxons have the same idea, your manor is toast. Yes, but hiring enough mercs to make it profitable usually costs more than the benefits you reap, and leaves you own lands wide open, and the drawback of being raided multiple times outweigh the benefits of raiding multiple holdings. Now if you got £100 sitting around back home you can hire a lot of mercs and go to town, but for most knights during the arnarchy period that probably isn't an option. It sounds tough, no doubt. But without the money and men to back up that boast the knight is just a paper tiger. If Cerdic comes into your lands with 300 Saxon warriors you probably can't do much except send word to Sarum and hope the Countess can gather enough men to drive the raiders off before they do permanent damage. You not talking one small group of Saxons here, but a large force being sent to "teach you a lesson". Why do you think Ulfius pays? He's the richest most powerful Noble in Logres during the Anarchy, but he still pays, because the British forces are weak and lack leadership, especially central leadership. So he pay up, keeps a record of what he's paid to when, and bides his time until the situation changes and he can get back everything he paid up, plus some. Of course if you got a ton on money lying around to muster a huge army so you can meet force with force then you have a whole different world of possibilities.