Atgxtg

Yeah, historically sieges didn't give much opportunity for individual heroics to sway the outcome. It's like battles in KAP, only more so. In fact assaults kinda suck for knight, since they loose most of their advantages (being mounted), are just like another armored footman. The way I've viewed it is that if the attacking army can't offset most of the DV modifiers with siege engines, assault gear, or sheer numbers, then they should try to assault the castle and just besiege it and try to starve the defenders out.

Well according to the sources, the Saxons suffered heavy casualties against Aurelius at Masbeli and Kaer Conan (Coinsborough), so while Octa and Esoa might still have intact armies, few of the other Saxon leaders at the time did. So thet might not have had the manpower, and by the time they got more Saxons in from home, Aurielius returned. This could help to explain why Aelle is so successful and gives Aurelius what appears to be his only defeat. If he was supposed to come over to help Octa and Eosa in 471-72 but had to hold off for several years following Aurelius return, then he might have been especially prepared for the invasion. This could also explain why Alee doesn't seem to be all that fond of OCta and Eosa, too. Maybe they pulled out of an alliance at the last minute?

Okay, I can see your point. So to get around that you would need to have a separate method for awarding or replenishing Hero Points.

What about the change for 2L to £6 that came with the switch fromn KAP1 to KAP3? Yeah, Grey Knight is a good example. here are some of the changes Oh, and I do want to point out that I'm not necessairly opposed to these changes. I think that most of the changes, if not all, improved the overall game, although I also think that in some cases we lost something in the process. Economics: In addition to the increase in the upkeep for Knights, there is a change from the old libra/money system to a manor system, that came with KAP3. The was accompanies by a shift from PK being household knights who hoped to one day get their own manor to landed knights Squires: PK squires went from being a sort of "paying your dues" bit in KAP1 to pretty much being discarded in KAP5, then it was brought back as an optional rule in both K&L and BotEnt Hunting: Hunts used to be brutal. In my KAP1 campaign, deer killed off more PKS than anything else. When attacked, animals would fight back, and most were as skilled or better skilled than the PKs. Red Deer were Skill 18 and did 5d6+7 damage, pretty much a major wound to a hunter. Now knights typically get a free attack, most animals try to flee, and chargen ensures the PKs have much better skill with hunting weapons, such as the greatspear/boarspear than before. Now if a PK died in a hunt, something must have gone seriously wrong. Culture: All the Culture and Language skills were dropped. This had several effects. First off the elimination of those skills means starting PKS have more points to spend elsewhere. It also ensures that PKs can converse and interact with characters from other cultures, where before there was often a language barrier. Overall this was a good change. However, I do wish there were Lore skills, like Saxon Lore, Cymric Lore, Pict Lore, i\along the lines of Folk Lore and Faerie Lore to help differentiate and add color to the various cultures. Game Mechanics: If KAP1 a higher roll beat a lower one, even if the lower one was a critical. Glory: Back in KAP1 when you defeated a Knight you got Glory equal to 1/10th of his total. This was changed later, probably to prevent massive glory inflation. I could easy see (and did in fact see) it spiral out of control. Still it was nice to have the glory aware directly tied to the glory of the knight. I wonder if a 1/100th rule would work. It's pretty much what the table does. Buyt, on the other hand, there are a lot mor ways to pick up glory now, and higher traits and passions, so glory levels have generally increased. Back in KAP1 the PK who had 8,000 Glory was really something. Now it's not so hard to get. Chirugery: If KAP1 if the Chirugeon didn't make thier roll, then the injured character not only took damage, but they didn't get their Healing Rate for the week. Now they doi. That's a huge change, as now character will tend to break even on a failed chuirgery roll. Boosted Chargen: Back in KAP1 PKs started with everything either rolled randomly, or at the default value, with a handful of points to spend to customize thing. Often PKs would have to age their characters for several years just to qualify for knighthood. The loyalty (Lord) 15 was a toughie. As a result, many young knights were much less skilled, and certianly were more focused in their abilities. Most PKs barely qualified for Knighthood, and would focus on one to two key skills at first and work on the other over time. Even so they rarely had the time, glory, or experience to be really good at many things. By comparsion, PKs in KAP5 pretty much start out at 15 in Sword, Lance and Horsemanship, which would have taken a few years. Power Level: As you pointed out with Grey Knight, the overall skill and power level of the game has taken a dramatic shift, no doubt because after playing the game for awhile, the skills of PKs ended up being much better than what was initially expected. YOU can see this with the alternate NPK knight stats that came out in Torunament of Dreams (I think) that were an upgrade from the default NPC stats. As the game got less lethal, and as the players learned more about how to play the game the idea of just what was an average or typical value changed. If you look as the same character writeups for Arthur, Merlin, and such from the various editions you will see a big shift in Glory and skill levels. The average attribute, and skill level of a knight has gone up, and most KAP5 PKs can walk over most KAP1 characters. Lethality/Ease of Play: Overall the game has gotten much, much easier on the players many of the rule changes I've noted here contribute to that, but just to put some of them into context Giving PKs thier own manors and started them off married helps to ensure that PKs will start a family line, something that wasn't that common in KAP1 The critical=20 ruyle helped PKs to defeat superior adversaries The modifiers to traits and passions improved the PKS chances of securing bonuses, glory and inspiration The updated hunting rules made hunts far less lethal The change to Chirugery didn't quite eliminate the lingering death, but it make it much more a case of bad luck than the possible (or even likely) outcome of a serious injury. I agree, some are more optional than other. But, also the Book of...line also contradicts parts of the main rulebook and each other (for instance the nerwest armor values, manor incomes, number of knights in Salisbury, and alternate rules for PK squires), yet the game survives. Not necessarily. A Romanized Arthur or a Cletic one could keep many of the same elements. Yes it might mean diverging from the GPC, but the GPC is supposed to be a guide, not a a straitjacket. Greg himself diverged from Mallory several times with the adventures he included in the game. The Troit Boar for instance. I think that there are a lot of good Celtic and Romanized Arthur adventures that could be worth incorporating into KAP. Most would't require a radical departure from the GPC or anything like that. Knights and the manor system grew out of the old Roman Equestians and their Villa estates, so I don't thing we need to be exclusive in content. I do think one thing that does need to be looked at again and addressed in Pagaism. As the game has gotten more Norman-High Medieval in culture Paganism is become more problematic in game. I do think some of the social norms that came with/from the Christian Church need to be toned down or reduced in lands that have a strong Pagan following.

Thanks. I've seen the stuff where it said that Riothamus retreats to Avallon, and sources that claim that he returned to Britian after that (which, if he could, would have make sense in the circumstances), butnot that he remained in "Gaul".

I disagree. There are reason why Greg put the Pagan stuff in KAP to begin with. But over time, all the Pagan NPCs (Gawain, Merlin) have been converted to Christianity in order to conform with Mallory. Likewise place names, and even the location of Camelot. In fact it's gotten to the point where the Pagan aren't fitting in anymore, as their culture doesn't work in the more Medevalized Christian setting. I do not believe that we have to have only one version of KAP. I'll even go so far as to say that the various editions and versions of things that have come out for the game prove that. While the core game mechanics haven't changed much since the games creation, they have changed. And that has already had ripple effects on published adventures. I didn't hear you objecting when they upped the manor income from £6 to £10, or when it went from 2L to £6 come to think of it. Asa far as tossing Book of.... whatever, many KAP GMs already do that. Quite a lot of KAP GM just use the core rule book and the whole "Book of" line is considered to be optional enhancements that aren't needed to play. I think by going with one version of the Arthurian tale to the exclusion of all others you limit the game and it doesn't need to be. A book of alternate takes and What-Ifs wouldn't conflict with establsihed stuff, becuase it would be know to be a book of What ifs.As for the other RPGS, I've got and read most of them, and they show just how much you can vary the core Myth and still have a King Arthur campaign. GRUPS Camleot in partiulcar, which sketched out more than one type of Arthur. All that stuff can be a great add to a GM who is looking to mix things up and vary one campaign from the previous, but I guess KAP 5.2 won't vary.

There used to be a map like that in KAP3 or 4 with shields and lines. That might be nice for players, although I'm not sure how well it would work for for covering an area with open plains and multiple manors where riding cross country might be preferable to following the roads. But I'm thinking of something to be useful more to the GM that to the players. It's nice to look at a map and count squares to see how far away a place is, or how long it will take to get from point A to point B, or how close the neighbors are,or it if makes sense to build another Motte & Bailey at some spot based on the proximity of the next M&B castle, etc.

LOL! Not bad. I wouldn't assume that all gladiators are slaves though. Many were free men who went into the "sport" for fame and riches. Being a gladiator wasn't nearly as deadly are we used to believe. A typical gladiator might only fight one death match a year, if that. MAy retired from the games with a nice amount of money. Actually the crowd wanted a show. With just blood and violence the fights would be over far too quickly for the fans to enjoy. A non-showy fight would probably be over in well under a minute, and the whole show would be finished in under half a hour. It's pretty much the same thing with sword fights in movies and on TV.

Yup, and the Quick rules did already note that. Since I'm running way back in the 420s the only Siege engines are some old Roman ones that have been sitting around rotting for the last 15 years. It makes fortifications far more formidable, since you basically have to throw a lot of men at them to stand a chance of taking the place, and that limits the number of people who could successful attack such a place. That's alos noted in the quick rules. If he had the money couldn't he hire a lot of mercenaries? Yes, there migght be social consequnces if someone's leige lord found out that sir So &So was rasing a army, and the word could get out to the intended target, but if someone had the libra and his liege lords approval he could do it. Yea. While it's more bookeeping, I think it is important, as very few castles fell to direct assault. Usually it turned into who started to starve first and/or who got hit by disease. And would need drivers and cart animals to do it, which means more mouths to feed. Excellent! Ooh, I like that. That would also mean that with concentric castles the attacker would be able to commit fewer men to the assault and the defender would need fewer men to defend the walls. Thanks. Say, how close it Castles to being finished?

Why don't you like that? I'm not opposed to that view, just curious as to the reasons why you dislike that.

Yes but the Seige rules in Book of the Estate are presented as "Simple Seige Resolution". I expect there will be something a little better in BoC when it comes out. The simple system seems to favor the attacker too much. The attacker should be suffering more casualties than the defender. The medieval rule was that you needed 3:1 odds to even consider an assault, as the defenders would kill 1-2 men each as the attackers tried to get to the ramparts. Hopefully the BoC will adjust these values somewhat, and add in a simple way to track food (like £1 feeds so many men for a month OR 4 times that for a week), a modifier for malnutrition and starvation, and a roll of some sort fo disease to affect either (or both) sides. And then the effects of winter. I don't think it would need to be made all that more complex to do most of this. Right now, for the most part, it's not that big of an issue, since if an attacker doesn't have the men and equipment to can't take a castle quickly, there's no point in assaulting it.

I've read the theory that Riothamus was Arthur and how he was betrayed by an ally and after losing a battle retreated to the French Avallon. I've even read accounts that claim Riothamus was Ambrosius and that Arthur was his successor, but I never ran across a story of Riothamus ruling a small kingdom in Europe years later. Which kingdom? One thing I would like to see is a Book of What If?s that explore some of these possibilities. Orignally, in KAP1, the game was less tied to Mallory. Camelot was not Winchester (I think it was Cadbury Hill but I'd have to check the map), and there was a bit more room for the Welsh/Celtic versions of Arthur and the Romano-British version. With later supplements and edtions Pendragon got more fleshed out, but also more tied to the Mallory version, and with SIRES now the HRB. All that is good, and adds depth to the game, but it would be nice to one day see a supplement (The Book of Arthurs?) that explores some of the alternate versions of the tale. As I've mentioned previous, for decades I've toyed with the idea of letting one of the PKs pull the Sword from the Stone and discovering that they were really Arthur, raised in secret. Although I'm not sure how well it would play out. The first few years are very difficult, and Arthur gets by mostly due to the aid he receives by some of the powerful KIngs, Knights, and of course Merlin. Merlin serves as a deus ex machina to save Arthur for the first half dozen years or so. But even so it would be quite challenging for a PK Arthur to pull a lot of stuff off. It could also be tricky to run, since if young Arthur gets killed the campaign really goes off the rails. If young Arthur does survive, I see him evolving into more of a background character and the player being somewhat forced by circumstances to run another knight for adventuring.

Sorry, but I disagree. I see not reason why the numbers can't add up properly. Yes, errors happen, but that is what they are, errors, and they should be corrected when it is possible. We shouldn't just stick out heads in the sand and ignore anything that doesn't add up-or nothing will ever get fixed or improved. I don't care if they want the Motte & Tower to be DV9, 10, or 11, but I do care for it to be the same value, at least in the same book, and on the same page. Now again, errors creep into things, and something like this can easily slip past people, but it should be fixed and made consistent when discovered, eventually. I don't expect a instant solution, but I do expect the values to be the same at some point in the future. As far as the conflicting values from multiple drafts and whatnot, that is what I expect the Book of Castles to eventually rectify, and bring everything back into some sort of internally consistent system.

Yeah. I think those options are nice for GMs who are running Pendragon the second, third, forth ,etc. time around. Since the basic over arching story and timeline are essentially the same every time, these potential diverges help to keep things for being the same. Kinda like a Pendragon Mandela Effect.

Yeah, Vortimer would has been the hero of the day, and had the good will of the people, whereas Aurelius hadn't done anything for the Brits (not his fault). I think how it played out would depend on if Vortimer wanted to be the leader or if he wanted to restore the "rightful" heir to the throne. I think that dpends on if he rebelled becuase of recent Saxon actions, or if he rebelled because of father's earlier treachery. But there are so many ways a GM could run with it. Or kill them all off, go right into the anarchy phase, and find out that Uther had an affair with Ygraine and go from there. Very little of the timeline is actually needed to pull off a successful KAP campaign-especially the stuff that happens before the "Sword in the Stone" incident. I think my best idea for messing with the players expectations was the idea that one of the PKs was actually Arthur, raised in secret, and that he would draw the sword from the stone. I never ran with the idea, but just mentioning it keeps that d20 roll that every PK makes during the anarchy phase exciting, because there is that slight possibility that I might go off on the tangental path.

Yeah, I could see it going several ways. My "gut" feeling, based on "this must lead to King Arthur" is that Aurelius eventually becomes High King, Vortimer might resist him, but once defeated can become an honorable ally in Cambria and the Normal Pendragon timeline kicks in. Paschent and the other sons of Votigern probably end up being thorns in Arthur's side down the line, much like how some of Lot's sons became a problem. Maybe they become allies of Morden in the latter Periods. But that probably more the GM in me looking for an easy solution that preserves the standard KAP course of events.

I KNOW he was. I was involved with BoCastle years back and one of the problems I had with it was Greg wanted to increase the gate penalty. The part I couldn't accept was that the final DV for a palisade and gate ended up negative, and I felt that having a wall and gate to defend behind should always be better than just an open space. In my old draft from Book of Castles, Ditch & Rampart was DV2, a Double Ditch & Rampart was DV3, and a Ditch & Rampart DV4. A DV2 D&R would work perfectly.

Somebody else would have. I think the thing is the Brits felt that Vortigern had turned his back on them in favor of the Saxons. I think a revolt of some type was inevitable. If nothing else then it would have been Arulius leading the Brits sometime in the 460s. But without the rebellion there might have been more Saxons to resist, or maybe Hengest could have gotten more land out of Vortigern. Here's another interesting what if. What if Vortigmer won? He came close. Would he dispose his father, or maybe keep him on as a figure head.?And what would happen with Aruleius and Uther then? Would Vortimer consider restoring the line of Costanain? Or would his success in driving out the Saxons secure the High Kingship for him and his line? Maybe Aurlius and Uther go to war with Vortimer?

Your missing my point. The Motte is listed as DV 9 (11 with the tower) but according to the "Works' provided (Ditch and Rampart 3, Palisade 3, Postern gate -1, Simple Gateworks 1 = 6) it would be DV 10 (12 with tower) not DV 9 (11 with tower). The official math doesn't add up.

I was looking at the stats for the Fortified Motte, and something seems off. It's listed as DV5 (9 with the +4 for the Motte), but: Works: Ditch and Rampart 3, Palisade 3, Postern gate -1, Simple Gateworks 1 Equals 6 points, not 5. Or DV10 with the Motte. But, I don't think the M&B should get the Ditch & Rampart bonus since the Motte would seem to superceed that, and all the M&B examples I've seen put the palisade on top of the Motte. IS there any errata or something for this?

Yes, The Irish, Picts and Scotti were a bigger threat at the time. I think Vortigern mistake wasn't so much is setting up Hengest and the other "Saxons" as foederati, but in sticking his head in the sand and letting Hengest have his way once he married Rowena. Ironically the man who wanted so much to rule appears to have been ruled by his wife. Had Votigern not been so preoccupied with Rowena he either would have stopped Hengest long before he because a serious threat, or, more likely, Hengest probably wouldn't have acted up in the first place. One strong them in the HRB and other sources is that the Brits are only vulnerable whe they lack a strong leader. When they are without a leader they get persuaded, raided, and invaded by everybody, but once they have a leader they are practically unbeatable, and even when they lose give better than they get.

That's good, I'm getting to the point in the campaign where he is going to be showing up. Itr looks like he got chewed out by Germanus for sleeping with his own daughter, and was possibly involved in the whole Pelagianism controversy. In many ways he reminds of KAP 5+ Uther, but with a bit more political savvy but less military ability. Both seem to be a bit too proud, lustful and full of themselves to really succeed at being a good king. It makes him a bit more sympathetic and tragic in that he could have been a good king if he knew in 435 or even 445 what he knew in 465. He could have handled Hengest.

or S5M2

I got the impression that despite his plotting and betrayal to get the High Kingship, he actually starts off trying to do the right things and be a good King. It's just that after he meet Rowena he is besotted and neglects his duties and just lets Hengest have his way. I think that after Long Knives he realizes just what's happening, but by then he alienated most of the the Brits,. and it's too late for him to get out of mess he's in. I think he would have liked to come to an arrangement of some sorts with Aurelius to fight against the Saxons, but Aurelius won't go for it because Vortigern's was responsible for the murder of Aurelius' father and elder brother.

Oh yeah! Since I started my current campaign in 410 AD, the Book of Sires, is going to be just that for my campaign. I have plans for the PKs to transport Prince Aurelius and Prince Uther to Brittany. My PKs just met Vortigern for the first time in 424, last game session. As far a removing passions after they have "run their course" in the campaign, I was thinking of giving the PKs Forgiving rolls during the Winter Phase to let them reduce the Passion (Success= 1 point, Critical Success =2 points, Failure = No Change, Fumble = Roll Vengeful and increase the passion on a success or critical).