Atgxtg

Sure. I'll try to keep this simple. RogerDee wants to run a full fledged multiverse. He also wants to do a lot of crossovers, mixing Eternal Champion stuff with other settings and genres, comic book characters and so on. I tried to point out some of the difficulties in doing crossovers and how it is like "comparing apples and oranges" since there is really no common frame of reference between setting, and difficulties at time even within one setting, as the needs of the story often outweigh contintuty, logical ans such. RogerDee believes that such comparisons are easy and can be done with through logical extrapolation of what we see, and with real math and physics. I'm contending that such comparsions are not easy, and mostly subjective, especially when doing crossovers. The Photon Torpedo thing is an rather infamous example, used by Star Wars fanboys to show that Star Wars ships are more powerful that Star Trek ships., but while they did use some real world physics to get the "answer" that they wanted, they also avoided any and everything that contradicted their desired answer. Thats how we got there. Now I'm fine with a GM mixing and matching to his hearts content, but any conclusions he comes up with regarding X vs Y is just one person's option, not something that can be "easily proven".

Yeah it does look like overkill with PLs trying to vamp at least one new victim per year. We just need to find another way to make APP and women more significant in KAP.

. I considered something something similar to RQ with:1-4=-2 5-8=-1: 9-12= +0, 13-16=+1 17-21=+2 but it seems a bit weak. I think it is. While an extra d6 damage is nice 50% more glory is phenomenal. Especially on the big awards,or for those who get a religious bonus or some such. I think it would lead to massive glory inflation and higher stats. So the 15 APP guy will end up with the extra d6 too. It the math were easier I'd suggest 15% (i.e. !% per point over 10) but that would be a pain.

I'm relying on primary source material and real world physics. It is something that, if you are using real physics, has to be so. You're not. You mix 'n matching whatever material you want to give you whatever result you are looking for. That's fine, as long as you realize that is what you are doing. But you can't do that and claim that you have any sort of definitive answer. It's entirely arbitrary. What you are doing is using any information that supports your theory and fact and ignoring anything that contradicts it.

It's a concern. Maybe we should just roll back to my original idea of unmodified APP over 25? Yeah, that could be a problem. A pity too as it was a nice way to make APP valuable. Yeah, I think it would have made more sense just to adjust the BoB rather than everything else. All that ends up happening in BoB2 is that in a big battle players eventually have no reason to track glory anymore since they hit the wall. SO functionally the modifiers don't really matter unless the battle is small or the PKs do poorly, inc which case the multiplier help to give similar glory to a big battle. Sort of counterproductive. I kinda wish we could step back to KAP1 in some ways, and use a 1/10th or 1/5th rule. That way marring a king with 20000 Glory would mean something. I know the old 1/10th friom oppnents was a bit much, but a 1% rule would match up fairly close to what we got now. Yeah a PK could get 1000 Glory for detating Arthur or Lancelot that way, but Lacelot doesn't lose and Arthur rarely does, nor do any knights with 32K+ glory. . You know I didn't think of it as the knight choosing how much of the glory to give, but I'm glad you viewed it that way because, I like it too. So a knight goes off to impress his lady and earns 1000 Glory in her name, gives her all the glory and she gets a glory point. And by extension every 1000 glory that a knight gives his amor could reduce her resistance by 1 point. Maybe the knight should have to keep some of the glory though, since he did it. I mean if a guy slaws a dragon, even to impress a lady, he still did it. So 50-50 split tops? Nah, I don't mind one sided amor passions. But since this could be a competition between suitor, perhaps only the greater source of glory given to her count each year? The five bandits that Sir Lovestruck captured in her name probably pale in comparison to the Giant that Sir Truelove slew.

Obviously not. If it were subject to the cap then the husband's glory wouldn't matter. I think this was written before the 1000 point cap, which BTW I don't agree with. If Sir Lancelot slaw a dozen dragons in a single battle don't you think he would get more glory for it than if he slew one or two? TO bring this in-line with the 1000 point cap. Assume that the 100 Glory is for the wedding and the Husband's glory is from the consummation. It's a bit sketchy, but ladies have a hard enough time earning glory and this will be the only time they do so. Either that or make this a one time exception. But...you'd thing there would be something to be married to a knight who keeps doing glorious deeds. Maybe wives should get a fraction of the glory their husbands earn during the year? Maybe 10%. And possibly vice versa (could be simulated for NPL wives with 1d6 roll each year for courtly stuff).

Wouldn't the rule be the same max+dice?

Successfully?

I agree. It's basically playing it safe. The PK will get 5-15 Genality plus 100 Glory with little or no risk. Not so much. Generallt it's hard to really mess up at the high table as you are avoiding the cards. A PK could easily game for the feat sand keep a low profile, and go home with 105 more glory. I disagree. First off the extra blind for low APP characters doesn't alter their chance of sitting at the high table at all, the still need a critical success and that a 5% chance for anyone with a modified APP under 21. They need a critical success. Secondly, it does benefit those characters by increasing their chances of sitting near the salt increasing their geniality and and avoiding some sort of seating arrangement incident. Possible but unlikely. These are knights not serfs or jesters. Its the sort of thing that leads to duels and even rebellion. If a liege lord invites Sir Ugly with 10,000 Glory to sit at the high table and mocks and ridicules him all through the feast, causing a loss of Honor and Loyalty, then that lord is asking from vassal problems. It's pretty much the Uther and Gorlios situation. What happens if they fail? Why? Such ladies would probably love to flirt with a knight, if he is good looking or has a lot of glory, or could get someone else jealous or something. At the least it would be a chance for pace from the having to deal with that idiot baron's son who keep stepping on her toes every time they dance. Such activity is acceptable social behavior. If the knight tried to do more than flirt, that another story. If your just going to put the thumbscrews to PKs whenver the sit at the high table, then all you are doing is ensuring that they will decline the offer. It could be, but again, flirting with the ladies around you is sort of expected at social gatherings. It actually considered ruder NOT to flirt with the ladies sitting nearby-it suggests that they don't appeal to you.The skill is flirting, not groping.

Close. We were thinking that to get the "Whammy" that Gwen or Ygraine get the lady would need to roll a critical APP roll. The idea is that Gwen with 29APP and +10 for mods would have a 39 and thus automatically get the effect, as in KAP. I think that maybe only one knight should be able to carry her favor at one time. Other knights might do deed in her name, but that probably wouldn't be the same. Maybe 10% Glory? Also, another way to keep this in check migth be if the Glory comes from the knight, as if he had to share the glory with the lady- because without her to inspire him he wouldn't have done as well, right?). I could see either. I think it really depends on if you have people playing ladier characters and giving them something to do. Like battles, tournaments and feasts it depends on how much the GM wants to fouc on a given event. Ooh, nice stuff. I guess the extra 1000 a woman gets for her wedding is the ladies equivalent of being knighted. And being able to choose gender for the child would be a real plus

Uh, not really. The penalties far outweigh the rewards, and most my players just opt for the free Honest check. Why risk throwing everything away for a dozen libra or less? Nor do I think there is much modern horror about official corruption. Is there any place in the modern world where the people don't think that they have some corrupt officials? I view it less as adding more systems than trying to make use of what's already there. We could easily toss out all the lady stuff, in fact most KAP games do that, as they are just NPCs that serve some important functions in the support role. But to make them really worth playing they need something more meaningful to do other than a stewardship roll and bearing children. I'd like APP either we use it or we should lose it. It kinda goes hand in hand with playing something that isn't a derivative of D&D. It has it drawback but also it's advantages. For instance while Pendragon doesn't use as many monsters or as many varieties as typical FRPGs, it can also get greater effect out of the ones it has. An experienced knight slaying a dragon still means something in KAP because it is both rare and difficult, where as in more typical FRPGs it can become mundane (in AD&D the fighters usually had more hit points and did more damage than the dragons). Yeah, but I think strategic skill modifiers are probably worth more than the glory. In part because the glory doesn't do as much for the wives as it does for the knights. A knight gets more glory improves his abilities and can go out and do heroic things that can net him hundred or more glory. A wife would be luck yin what she improved ever netted her enough glory to get another glory point to make up for the one she spent. But having the Counts wife own you a "10 point favor" might be worth something when the hubbie gets busted for graft. "But dear, he was only taking that money to buy you that horse that you liked so much the last time you were in London. He wanted to get it before it was gone, and was planning on replacing the money later when his harvest came in, and he could sell that extra suit of armor he has."

That is probably another one of those cut & paste artifacts from previous editions. Prior to RQG it was: So "B" is probably "old data". Unless the original poster meant for a previous edition of RQ, but if that were the case he wouldn't be confused, as RQ1-2 has only A, and RQ3 has only B.

Which would support

Oohh, now your bringing Stewardship and Industry into it. That could actually add a lot to Lady characters.Suddenly all those "background flavor" skills would have real in game uses and rewards. We know skills like Industry and Fashion are supposed to man something but never really have been worth the points. But if they could lead to in game benefits they become useful and wives become values for more than being baby machines, sources of land,m and trophies (high APP). I could see something based around the idea of the Liege wanted to build a chase or deer park and the various wives maneuvering to get in in the woods near their manors so their husbands could be put in charge of it (and reap the game benefits). The PK get's a "free" Improvement to his manor, if his wife can swing it. EEk! I've threadjacked my own thread!

No. This is the key point. The whole argument that the yield of a photon torpedo can be calculated using real world physics is based upon ignoring the proven (in universe) fact that phasers exceed those limits. Now since photorp torpedoes are stated as being more powerful than phasers they must, logically also exceed those limits. So mathematically: T>P>Jmax with: Jmax= Max Energey in Joules, per E-mc^2 P= Phaser Energy T= Photon Torpedo Energy So any argument that state that photon torpedo energy must be capped by E=mc^2 has been "proven" false according to the laws of physics used in Star Trek. Otherwise phasers wouldn't work.

Don'cha'no 'Evil' is the new kewl.

I have problems wrapping my head around that. WhileI know KAP5+ seems to make things more medieal, there were no medeival Roman (okay there were the Btyzantines but they weren't exactly the same) or PIct cultures. SO we kinda get astange hodge podge of pre-Roman, Roman, Sub-roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norman British cultures to work through. And thats just the Uther Period. Hey now that's worth putting into the alleged Book of Courts, Tournaments (and now other festivals). Could probably tie it together with geniality. That would certainly help in picking a winner for the grand melee. Maybe knights could earn some geniality points by hamming up a good wound or "death" for the crowd? Maybe roll Orate to say something poignant or comical when slain?.

Do the Lord of Law or Chaos make an appearance in the Hawkmoon series? Not a reliable source. Oh speaking of which there would a whole debate around just what is considered to be an acceptable source. Generally anything not shown on screen is dubious, and even some of the on screen stuff is questionable or contradictory. My point being that these decisions are not simple, but basically more a matter of choice with perhaps some element of deductive and inductive logic involved. That means that: You (the GM) is arbitrarily deciding things,, which is okay, as long as you are aware of it, and Other people (like you players) might look at things differently, and that if fans of a given subject might either act in an unexpected way (with disastrous consequences) based on those contrary views, or might not be happy with what you did to somethingg they liked. Look at the current state of Star Wars and Star Trek to see what I mean. You want to be sure that they way you re imagine things is one that your players can accept or things will crash and burn over your "ruining" so & so. No but what it does mean is that what works in X would work in Y. I can take any argument about one series ships being better than another and bring up "evidence" that can prove otherwise. But it all depends on which assumptions you want to make. For instance, Star Wars tech is mostly advanced low tech. That is the ships work much like WWII era ships, only in space with lasers rather than machineguns and such. That was a conscious decision by Lucas, as he was trying to capture the feel of SF stories of that time. But is that a limitation of the technology or simply how the technology appears to work? Visual targeting would be pretty useless when shooting a targets moving at the ranges and speeds that the ships are commonly believed to be moving at (which on screen evidence doesn't support). Except those "certain core conceits' are uncertain variables that chance from setting to setting or even from story to story. Yup, or the character saying it could be wrong, or lying, or even the writer could have messed up. Actually that can also be calculated by physical laws. Much better than the Sci-Fi stuff to since we can use real data. Just go with the minimum to achieve critical mass and you get a minimum threshold for 100 cobalt bombs. But that's assuming that E-=Mc^2 holds true ,and there is Trek stuff that puts that into doubt. Case in point, according to E=mc^2 antimatter can't power a warp drive, yet war drives work. We also know that Trek has another layer of Peroid elements with propeties that we don't understand, such a Dilithium. There are also sources that state that phaser tehnology can produce more power out that you put in. It violates laws of physics but we're already admitting that. Once you open up that Pandroa's box you have to deal with what comes out of it. Okay, first of all you keep using "canon' sources rather loosely. In Star Trek the only canon source is what is shown on TV series and the feature films And the JJ Verse and Discovery are not in the same canon. Now Stars has recently shifted to the same rules by tossing out the EU (it was always that way,but they just admitted it). And so are you. Just becaome some writer 30 years later writes something doesn't mean than the previous statement was wrong, or that thing don't change. Your still just cherry picking the stuff you want to accept as fact. Real data which you don't have by taking a techobabble approach. Let me give you ONE example of where your approach fails utterly. In Star Trek is has been long established that phasers can disintegrate people. That's been shown in multiple episodes of the original series, the films, the Next Gen and so on. Now real world physics: 1. It would take an insane amount of energy to get matter to do that-much more that could be stored in a hand phaser that someone could pick up and carry. 2. It would release an incredible amount of radiation and energy (it's essentially a fission reaction) and would kill anybody close enough to take the shot from radiation exposure, assuming that it just doesn't go all nuclear explosion. Conclusion: 1. Phasers either contain more power than E=mc^2 allows, in which case all the photorp calculations are meaningless as we don't know what else is going on with them, or phasers use some unknown principle to break atomic bonds and control the effects, in which case all the photorp calculations are meaningless as we don't know what else is going on. And you have to accept that phasers can disintegrate if you accept the "physics" of Star Trek. It just that once you allow for that, you open the door to all the secondary stuff that comes along with that, even if that stuff contradicts other facts. Between the warp drive phaser, transporter and inertial dampers, you have already thrown out so many of the laws of physics that what you got left over is entirely suspect and can't be used to prove anything. And that's just one of your settings.

You should know, you've seen some of the rough drafts.

Not just the ills either. Practically everything that we do differently or that doesn't conform with the medieval world view would be rejected. A few things might squeak by just on sheer evidence or because of practical benefits T

Please do. I've got a lot on my plate right now. I think I'll swipe Greg's stuff for APP that Ringan kindly reposted, and maybe add in glory for APP 16, as one of my PKS has a faerie wife, and the children should be very pretty (3d6+11 for the daughters).

Incentive for me to get my armor and horse rules into shape.

There are a few ways to do it. THe first is to quote mutiple times and delete the bits you don't want. The other is to click on the spot you want to post at, then do a few carraige rturns until it breaks the qoute up into sections. The APP modfiers from Jewelry etc. cap at 10 total. So the most an APP 6 character is going to get is APP 16. And that just modifiers not their APP score (in fact Feasts even distinguishes the two at one point).

I wonder if he has a deal going with the Dentist cult.

I agre, that's why I think the threshold forit should be very high. SOmethin gthat a PK might be able to achieve but not easily or quickly. One idea would be to have a lady roll and APP roll to try install amor in a viewer. The "Guenevere effect" would kick in on a critical APP roll. Since Gwen and Ygrane would have APP of 39+ if you factor in for accessories, then they would get the auto-critical and thus always get the effect. Then we could add in a penalty of some sort for fumbling the roll to counterbalance it for PKs.