Atgxtg

If I recall correctly it's more a case of restoring her to power. But even that is failry low powered. Not like controlling a country. The Warlord game adds whole new levels of story and plot to things. It also takes away some stuff too. Major Nobles and their Officers probably won't be adventuring much.

That's an interesting point. It was certainly what allowed the Romans to take over. I'm not certain how much of a factor it played into Vorigerns situation, as least in Pendragon terms. JUst how tribal or feudal Britian is in the early years is a bit hard to pin down. I don't think it can really be the full 11th Century medieval Britain at the start as there are too many hold overs from earlier eras. The general impression I've gotten is that the further out you are from Logres/Salisbury the less historically advanced it is. Yes, common enemies. In Europe the Huns pretty much forced various other tribes west. In Britian the Picts, Scotti, Irish and Saxons kept encroaching. I think the ability to hold the army together for three years was probably possible becuase this was a generation that had grown up unified under one king. From what I've read, it really looks like Constatin coming over and becoming High King allowed the Britis to unifiy as a nation, and keep unified, in order to hold off the invaders. I also thing the reason why Constantin could do this was becuase he was an outsider. The various leaders at the time probably would rather accept an outsider king than give power to a rival. Me too,. A knight expanding into a minor or major lord is an very interesting story arc for the campaign. I'm not sure how well it works for multiple PKs, or just what to do with it should a PK become successful, but it's interesting. Hypothetically, if one of those PKs were to marry Countess Ellen and take over the County, elevate the other three PKs to his major officers and go through the rest of the campaign as Lord Salisbury it would be a very different but interesting campaign.

My bad, I was vague. What I meant was that I do not believe that the Celtic tribes had been mentioned in Pendragon (other than maybe a throwaway distant history reference to Boudica somewhere) prior to Book of Sires. So I didn't see any "Belgae tribe being tied to Salisbury" in KAP. I was actually surprised that various Celtic tribes were given the space they got in Sires. Maybe Greg had them play a bigger role in the background, but none of that came through in any of the published stuff. Now historically, yes they were significant, but as far as Pendragon goes I can't recall a mention. There might have been some vague references to tribal Cymri in Savage Mountains or some such, but no real mention of any historic tribe. No argument, just trying to get my head around the revision to the ranks and what it will mean in play. I think there is a pretty solid consensuses that the situation presented by the OP is highly unlikely to occur, but as it was what the OP wanted in his campaign, he could and did made it so. Which he certainly in allowed to do, since it's his campaign. I'll be curious as to how that change will affect the course of his campaign, too. A group of estate holders with 55 knights between them gives the PKs a pretty significant power block, both militarily and politically. That will let them accomplish things that were unlikely or not possible to typical vassal knights. A PK might even have a decent chance of taking over the county during the anarchy! I could also see other knights banding together to oppose the PKs power block. The possibilities are very interesting.

I'm sorry but while I'll accept that the game eveolved over time as Greg did more research, nd also as he decided between different paths to take - i.e. going from a semi-histroical Cadbury Castle Camelet to a more Malloryesque(?) Winchester. What I won't accept is the Belgae tribe. Frankly I don't even think any of the old Celtic tribes were even given a mention before they were "downgraded" in SIRES. More like the opposite. Salisbury was perhaps the only Earl mentioned in the game. I think it was changed to Count because Earl/Jarl is a Saxon term and he was working on replacing the Saxon titles and place names with more British ones. And it would be? Other than how the title is awarded, there is no difference. I don't see it enhancing a campaign.

It just links to the magazine which you have to buy

I really wonder why he brought up a distinction at all then. We get what amounts to a meaningless distinction that won't last long in play and essentially makes no difference. Then why bother with it at all? Greg put the additional rung on the ladder. This was something that was deliberately added to the game, after five+ editions, to accomplish what? It could have easily been ignored or just simpled to "a banneret is an estate holder who won his title on the battlefield from the King", or just have an extra 50 glory tacked onto the title. It is complexity that wasn't there until Greg decided to change things, but I don't see any reason for the change. Which was the way it was until the change. What I don't understand is what the purpose was for the change. I really can't see a reason for it. We don't bother noting the distinction between which vassal knights get knighted on the battlefield, and which do not. I'd say it was less of a distinction, as at least Earl has a cultural distinction (it's a Saxon title). I see this as the least significant distinction between ranks in the game.

Maybe, but is is very subjective as Moorcock doesn't really say. The whole thing seems to take place at about the same time as the Corum series and the multiverse seems to survive that. Plus the story with Saxif Daan, I got the impression that the wreckage from another plane was from the Young Kingdoms, so it might be that the PCs go to a time after the end of the cycle. What we do know is that Elric survives it. So the door is open. Lots of ways a Gm can go with it.

Some suggestions: Have them make a lot of skill, resistance and STATx5% rolls early on, basically the trivial stuff that you'd normal not bother with in a normal game. That can help to teach them about tie die mechanics, success levels and so on. yes they have played CoC, but impales don't matter much against mythos nasties. A lot of begging adventures from Chasoium used to do something like that to help teach the game. Have them play a mock combat, in character. Something like a training fight with padded or rebated weapons. The idea is that they can see and learn what would have happened if the fight were real before it actually is real. That way they can see how much more fragile RQ characters are compared to D&D characters, and can adapt their actions accordingly. The guy who would have lost a limb and sees the bullet he just dodged, will learn much faster that way than if you just tell him how dangerous combat is. Don't bother much with magic. Give the characters a little Spirit Magic, say an offensive spell like bladesharp, speedart, or disrupt, a defensive spell (protection, countermagic) and some healing. That way they will all know the same few or similar spells and can learn from seeing each other cast.Basically stick with the common stuff that most everybody has in the game. Ignore Rune Magic. Yes the PCs have it, but it adds another layer of complexity and if they can use it in a one shot they will, and probably too early on something trivial, and then they won't have it for when they need it. If the game continues as more than a one shot you can introduce it then. Use the setting culture for color to make the game world seem rich--is it one of the main reasons for playing RQ, but don't get into a lot of depth, or you could easily waste the entire session in a big infodump explaining Glorantha instead of playing - and just scratch the surface. So just explain things in simple broad strokes and use the minutiae as little bits to enhance the characterization of the NPCs.

LOL!. Yeah that works too. I've run Stormbinger campaigns where the PKs never left the Young Kingdoms, or even went to the East. The culture shock of the new setting should be interesting. Can the PCs speak one of the local languages or are they going to have to pick it up?

Yeah, I think we all agree that the idea of Roderick parceling out 20-40 manors among four knights is pretty much not happening under remotely normal circumstances. About the only ones who I could see doing something like this would be Kings and maybe Dukes as they got enough manors to be able to had out five or more to a knight without it impacting so heavily into their "available manors". For any lesser warlord it just isn't feasible. I don't really see why. Or that their ancestors were. I just wish there was some difference between the two titles. It seems like banneret is supposed to be a step up, but the glory award and other game stuff is identical. It seems like the difference between Count and Earl. So it might not be battlefield heroics, per say but just something that a King (or possibly a Duke) noticed and considered significant enough to reward. Yeah. I think that we all agree that the situation presented by the OP is not something that would happen. The Count is basically subdividing his county, weakening his own power base, and lowering his status just to benefit four PKs. Roderick is essentially reducing Salisbury from being a sort of "super county" down to the level of the other counties or even a barony. I'll accept that the OP wanted it that way, so he got it that way. No problem. But it wasn't something that would happen naturally. I was mostly puzzled and concerned about the reclassification of bannerets and estate holder. Frankly I don't like the new definition.It doesn't seem to add anything to the game besides complexity and a "weak' title where is wasn't needed.

That's what I figured. In Stormbringer, once the PKs can world hop the only way to keep them in one plane is to place some sort of restriction, otherwise, they can always bug out if they don't like how things are going (btw, it's the same reason why the ability to operate the transporter remotely with the communicator was removed in the original Star Trek). Of course as the GM you are always free to add an out should you later desire to let them leave the plane.

Where Mortien and I seem to disagree is on point (2). According to Morien I think, logistically a King (note I said a, not the) King has more land and thus can afford to grant more estates than a lesser lord, but Dukes, Counts and Barons could do so, and there are probably a few floating around. SO in other words a worthless distinction between estate holders and bannerette knights that wasn't worth making the change in the first place. I had thought that the difference was that bannerettes were made by the king and estate holders not, but if the difference between the two is just one got his title through battlefield heroics and the other not, and the two are otherwise identical, then what difference does it make?

, I doubt that would be the case. The EC is essentially a manifestation of the collective will all of humanity and the chief agent of the Cosmic Balance, so when push comes to shove he probably has enough Ooomph to get out. That's why the gods don't just destroy him. They can't. They might be able to do away with an aspect of him, but there are probably repercussions to doing so. Now unless your players are aspects of the EC though, it would seem that they are basically stuck - unless you decide to somehow unstick them.

But The Book of the Warlord, page 6 states: An estate holder is a nobleman of rank higher than a knight, with an estate-sized holding. If he holds the estate from a baron, he is also a vavasour (see below). Knight Bannerets are estate holders who are direct vassals of the King, and have won their rank due to battlefield heroics. Unlike in King Arthur Pendragon 5.1, this term is no longer synonymous with an estate holder. Not according t othe Book of the Estate, page 19: If the king grants an estate, the recipient is promoted to the rank of baron — a nobleman set apart from lesser knights by his personal relationship with the king and Since the estates in this book are valued at about £ 50, Player-knights do not hold the estates given in this book by barony, but by knight’s service. Only estates from the King can be held by barony If the King granted the estate then they are are baron or bannerette perk the quote above. And the "if he holds the estate from a baron, he is also a vavasour" line shows that someone can hold a estate that does not come directly from the king. That is a Baron could give or grant someone an estate. Frankly I do see this are bing all that likely for anyone below the rank of Duke, as it would take up too big a chunk of thier estate to be able to reward many other knights with land. That is not how it is worded in the text. In fact, the distinction between estate holder and bannerette would then be meaningless. Exactly. While a Baron could do it, he usually had little desire to do so as it limits his ability to gift or grant land to other household knights who distinguish themselves, or eat into her personal demesne. I could see someone like Count Salisbury, with 150 manors and 30 avilable for landed knights to be able to have one or two minor estate holders taking up a third or so of those 30 manors, but much more than that I don't dispute that the majority would be vassals of the king, only that according to how estate holder and bannetette and baron are defined, if they are estate holders they are not holding land directly from the king. This is the only distinction between estate holders and bannerettes.

Actually by RAW estates are not granted by the king. That's why they changes the definition of baron and bannerette to exclude estate holders. If they are granted by the king then the character is a baron or bannerette, now. I figured estate holders were those characters in KAP4 who managed to acquire land over time through successive marriages over the generations. They got a half dozen or so manors scattered throughout Britain. As far a Roderick weakening his power base and prestige, yes that would be a big problem if all the manors were his. I could see it possibly happening but only under exceptional circumstances. It would be much more likely that only a fraction of those manors lie is Salisbury with many coming from elsewhere. In my own campaign, I had the Count actually pause and remove ae PK as castellan of DuPlain castle when another PK expressed a desire to and requested permission to fortify nearby Broughton manor. Especially as both PKs were members of a Knightly Order that had relative related to and could soon include a Bannerette in Hampshire, right on the border.. The thought crossed the Counts mind that if war to to break out between him and the Banerette then the PKs would have a conflict of loyalties and could conceivably betray him and side with the Bannerette, giving a potential enemy control over two castles on the eastern border of the country. Now all the PKs in the order were known for loyalty but they didn't all have 20s, and the threat was too great to risk, so I had the Count make the first PK castellan at Devizes (where he's raided Marlborough/Sparrowhawk several times and has no goodwill with the neighbor), and put the knight in Broughton (with Loyalty 20) in charge of duPlain. If the PKs started to work on fielding a third of the Counts forces I'd have probably had the Count step in to prevent it. They would probably need to be incredibly loyal, beyond all suspicion, won tons of glory, and be an inlaw to get that sort of trust. THat might account for one or even two such knights but probably not four. But since Rowelio wanted that set up to start with, I'd just assume they were all powerful clan warlords who grabbed the land back around 413 when the Belgae were wiped out as a tribe, and just managed to hold onto the land and power this long. I wonder if the country will survive the Anarchy Period? With such a powerbase any of the PKs could opt to expand thier holdings during the Anarchy.

I assumed so. I just thought that it was worth pointing out. Although it is technically possible for someone to "roll" an heiress or even a major heiress on the table, the modifiers and conditions required to do so makes the result much less likely that it might appear at first. To really have a chance of picking up and keeping the equivalent of a manor most knights need +20 in modifiers which means a combination of lots of glory, loyalty and a history of exceptional service. To get a chance at more than a manor requires at least +24 in modifiers and that probably means maxing out at least one of the glory/loyalty categories and a history of exceptional service, plus good manners. Yes, it's gets a little easier for rich knights and estate holders, but that too makes sense. Frankly if I were a liege lord, if one of my knights had 10K+ Glory, a Loyalty (Me) 25, and a history of pull my bacon out of the fire, I'd make sure he married well. Not only to make him happy and keep him around, but also as an example to my other knights. Earn glory on the battlefield, serve me faithfully, and go above and beyond in my service and I will see that you and your family are well cared for. That's exactly the message I'd want to send. So in actual play the table makes a lot more sense and is a lot less of a random roll that it appears to be. In fact, in my campaign I sometimes use to to generate semi-random marriage prospects for the PKs to pursue in roleplay. At any give time there are several unmarried ladies that the PKs can opt to take an interest in, for themselves or their family.

Yes it should, unless your shooting at the Flash. That's not how most RPGs, or how most GMs running such game handle it. In most RPGs a character with the in titiave gets to act first and can charge up and hack somebody before the other can release the bowstring or pull the trigger. Nor do most games even mention such n option. Some games do have a held action rule, but that essentially means not shooting when a character could have in order to be able to act later. There are really only a handful of RPGs where a missile attack gets to go off first. Most just go strictly by Initiative/DEX order. RQ's Strike Rank system is one of the few methods that allows for that.

Uh, no, similar event's happen all throughout the saga. Hengest's head, Lot's, Ryons, etc.etc. There are quite a few times and battles where a PK could, with a bit of luck and an GM who will let them bend the scripted events a little if they get lucky on the battle tables, take down an enemy leader and get a heiress as a reward. Just how much of an heiress is another matter, and would depend upon the PKs status, loyalty, and closeness to their leader/king. But overall I agree with the sentiment that a knight really shouldn't get a manor and especially not several manors simply due to a roll of a random table. That said the marriage table is somewhat deceptive in that as the major factor to the result is the modifiers, not the die roll, the results are not as ransom as they appear. One of my PKs, a household knight with 10K Glory, Loyalty 20, and a +3 bonus to previous service to the Count, only had a 50% chance of getting any land that he could keep, and only a 17% chance of it being equivalent to a manor. Although a courtesy roll did improve those odds to 67/83% and 33/50%. So a PK really has to have a ton of glory, high loyalty, and be in his liege lord's good graces to permanently get a manor by the table. What knights can get by the table is small parcels of land or a widow's portion, which can give him some extra income and be a great source for discretionary funds. And extra couple of libra a year that do not have to be spent on upkeep gives the PK money to spend on horses, armor or improvements for his manor.

Well, then in that case, you succeeded. Together they control a solid third of his army. That still gives Roderick a 2:1 advantage should something go wrong between him and the PKs, but they still have a sizable force. That is something of a double edged sword though. On the one hand they are powerful together, but on the other they are a potential threat as well. Roderick will want to keep them happy to some extent, but if he feels threatened he can still crush them, especially if he goes after them piecemeal or could keep them from working together. With such a powerful force, Roderick will be much more concerned about their Loyalty/Homage scores than with most knights.. Especially if the PKs estates are very compact, close together, or all along a border.. For instance, if they were to turn against him, could they open up a border to an neighboring lord? At this point the PKs will probably be some of his most loyal knights, or he might worry about them gaining too much power and step in to prevent their power from growing. As would other knights and officers at court.And any enemies they have at court (which would be quite a few, with that much power) are going to be working hard to reduce their status in the eyes of the count. So their actions will be under much more scrutiny.

Pretty much like Cornelius said. The exception would be if they somehow got the other knights from elsewhere along with income from outside of Salisbury. Early on eschilles can be a little smaleer in size, but that's still a lot of knights. At £4 per knight, 55 knights would cost them £220/year to maintain. How did you PKs manage to afford such an army?

Stormbringer. Originally it was Moorcock's multiverse demons, basically creatures from other spheres with a chaos affiliation. But even then there was a distinction between demon and Chaos beast (for example creatures of Matik). Magic World is a different setting through, so demons are somewhat more loosely defined to be adaptable to different settings. So just what a demon is is tied more closely to setting. If a GM goes with a more Myth-like interpretation, . with demons being any creature from a different plane, which is not how Magic World defines them, then Summoning spells and binding spells become much more powerful. A wizard can go off to another dimension, summon another character and just kill them or magically bind them- bypassing a lot of their defenses.Which I consider to be a big game changer. For example the evil sorcerer could summon and bind all the PCs and control them as summoned demons. That could kill off a campaign. There would be little the PCs could do to defend against it too, as hiding, walls, and range have little effect on summoning. .

Wow doubled quoted six months later! Yes, I'm fond of the Myth books, and that in that series Robert Aspirin uses the word Demon to stand for Dimensional Traveler, but that is setting specific. Yes, but my point is what constitutes a Demon according to the magic World RPG? According to the rulebook demons are supernatural in nature and as per Summon Demon spell "For purposes of this game “Demon” is a catch-all phrase used to signify an otherworldly entity of particularly malign disposition." That definition does not match up with the "any creature from another plane of existence" approach. Not that the latter isn't a valid approach, it just not the one that I think Magic World uses. Not unless one considers all the characters in the myth book and the children in the Narnia series to all have particularly malign dispositions. I think that, according to Magic World, most of those characters would not be considered demons and vulnerable to being summoned through spells like Summon Demon. Now there are probably other ways to summon such characters but I think it is something different. I also think that demons are somehow especially vulnerable to summoning and binding in ways than non-demons aren't. At least per the RAW. Now a GM might want to, and certainly could run it another way, but it don't believe that was the intention, and I do think that such an interpretation opens the door to all sorts of abuse and problems. Namely what happens when a character summons another character? Can the evil sorcerer summon a PC hero to his lair kill (or worse) bind them as a demon? Can a PC do it to get at the main villain of the adventure? It is a game changer.

It could be. She might have also sold the art years ago. It is a popular piece and is over 30 years old.

There was a thread about that cover art on the old Nocturnal Forms but I don't remember what was posted. I suspect the rights to the art reverted back tot he artist (Jody Lee) long ago and that to make any sort of print would require some new arrangement. You might be able to find it on Lee's website.

Yes. When HQ finally came out I almost had a heart attack.I had long considered it the vaporware of RPGs. Now, I Know the Chasoium always meant to release that announced stuff, but for various reasons things didn't work out as planned.