Atgxtg

I thought it was Castles and then Magician. Those are two I recall, and I can't wait. It will be nice to finally have KAP5+ cover all the stuff that KAP1 and 3/4 did. No, but it does kinda kill off the idea of the Gazeteer I had in mind. I was considering trying to use or make a different map, too. Something that was a big bigger and could be mapped to scale so I could get the distances between locations to be more accurate. The existing maps were more general and artistic in nature-not something worked out with coordinates, and some of the locations are a bit off-not that medieval knights would have GPS to check up on this. Ideally I'd like to plot all the locations and then plug in the terrain to make sure the distances and locations are accurate. But for now I think I'll just update the grid, and add a list of additional locations with appropriate gird references. I've gone from a single 5 mile grid overlay to one, five and ten mile overlays, to make it easier to find something on the map.

Yeah, even though some runes look like latin letters they really aren't. Magic isn't really the letter "R" and the Death rune isn't a "t" or a cross (although in the case the similarity in symbolism was intentional). It works. I could see using something like: 3+2M or 3+Mx2, or even a 43 (and let the players work out the bumps). As long as everybody can follow it.

Sounds about right. There are dozens of Hillforts in what Pendragon refers to as Salisbury. I didn't know about the Book of Salisbury. Maybe what I'm doing is redundant?

Cool, that was more info that I expected. I've been putting together a list of Hillforts and Villas in Salisbury, with grid coordinates, and this info helps. Thanks.

Wow! All that for a book. I wonder what they do to you if you leave the seat up?

Thats' probably becuase 13th Age is offshoot of the D&D class and level system, so you get some of that complexity to start. RQ and HQ are both simplier mechanically that 13th Age, with fewer rules, modifiers and special cases. But, if it is complexity your players are already family with, then it will seem less complex. Back in the day, my local D&D players took well over an hour to generate RQ3 characters, while they could churn out AD&D characters, complete with multi-classing and proficiencies (weapon and non-weapon) within 20 minutes. My RQ players, on the other hand, could generate an RQ3 character in under ten minutes. HQ is probably the simplest of the three, mechanically, as it uses the same die mechanic to handle everything. The tricky bit is learning how to apply the in game circumstances to that die mechanic.

On several of the Maps in the Book of Uther, the Book of the Warlord, and the Book of there Estate there is a symbol for an Earthworks Enclosure and/or an Earthworks Castle (same symbol, different terminology). The only example of which I've found (so far) is Duke Eldol's holding of Hillfarm at Downtown. Can I assume that: 1. Hillfarm Castle is Clearbury Ring Hillfort? 2. That the the terms Earthworks Enclosure and Earthworks Castle are interchangeable? 3. That these Earthworks Enclosures are the old Iron Age Hillforts?

Don't feel bad, we all do that kinda stuff. Way back in KAP1 I once used (STR+SIZ)/6 for a creatures damage instead of (STR+SIZ)/10, and later had to correct it. Recently, I had printed out BotE 1.1 instead of 1.3 and messed up quite a few things. Fortunately, nothing that the players knew about.

If your nervous you can use the battle system in the core book. It works just fine. BoB gives you more detail and options but the core system can do the job. You can even simplifly the BoB system by eliminating most of the maneuvers and just go with: Triumph= -2 Intensity Win = -1 Intensity Loss: +1 Intensity Crushed = -2 Intensity I'm a fairly experienced GM and have made some mistakes with the BoB, and still doubt that I got it 100% right. But, I don't have to get it 100% right. Just right enough to work. For the most part that all you need to do. As long as give the players a feel for battle and "big events" and stuff like that, you'll be fine.

A 21 year old squire shouldn't have 1`5 in all those skills. They will also start at Age-11. Statically they will do slightly better than non player squires with the annual training and some improvement rolls, but not enough to get all those skills at 15. Yes, if you ever get a 20 year old NPC squire with all those skills at 19, that would make them better than the average knight! But that shouldn't happen. A 20 year old NPC squire should have those skills at 9, not 19 (Age -11). His "squire" skill could be anywhere from 15 to 20 but probably would be about a 16 or 17. According the page 10 of the Book of the Entourage once someone hits a 15 skill they only have a 1/6 chance of going up, and a 1/20 chance once the reach 20 skill. So even a 30 year old NPC squire won't have a 19 in all those skills.

By the book those skills just automatically go up a point a year until they reach 15 (per the rules on page 10), although that wouldn't be until they were 26 years old, and they probably would have moved on by then. But that's for non player "follower" squires. If a player takes over a squire as a new characters then switch to the Player character squire rules (Page 16) for their advancement from then on. Functionally the two methods are about the same. The Follower squires get to improve 8 skills 1 point each, and player character squires would get 5 points plus training and practice. {layer squires come out about a 1 1/2 points ahead each year, not to mention any skill checks they get, but they also have other skills they will want to develop, and player characters tend to be a cut above the norm. A player will probably focus on Sword, Horsemanship and such, and will raise those over a couple of years, but it shouldn't be a problem.

Nice, how did you make it? Did you draw it on paper, or use a map making program?

YES! About 40 years!

Except Cataphaacti probably didn't have stirrups to brace with, but instead relied upon a "four pommel" saddle. Apparently it wasn't as good as stirrups and the knights saddle but was good enough to do the job. Knight training didn't really start until 14-15 though. That's when they became squires are focused on the martial aspects of knighthood. No, probably not. The mount was controlled with the legs in a charge. The longer spear might have helped the rider to maintain his balance, but maybe not.

Maybe those would be better handled as special successes? So you could come up with frost, burn an whatnot special effects similar to the crush, slash and impale specials. After a certain point though, RM criticals in RQ/BRP just means the corpse isn't presentable.

What version of BRP/RQ do you currently have? RQ3 and Basic Role-playing's Big Gold Book, augmented with Magic World (mentioned by kross) both cover heavier armor, and Pendragon does as well, as Jeff mentioned. Generally speaking adding in armor and weapons is easy, as game stats generally exist for most of them already. You biggest headaches will probably involve the differences in magic and lethality between D&D and BRP games. The fireball throwing wizard usually can't clean out a room with one fireball in BRP, and swords, arrows and daggers can actually kill experienced characters with one or good two hits. Pendragon might be the easiest transition from D&D and can give you most of what you need, except for magic, where you'll need to pull something else in. Magic World or RQ3 is probably your best fit for the magic, and could be adapted to Pendragon. In some ways the BRP/RQ magic system works even better with Pendragon! Pendragon also has notes and bonuses for Religions which you could modify to fit you setting.

I agree. The idea that everying balances out is ludicrous, and seting the difficulty of taks based upon the duration of the campaign, is a formula for disaster. What if a group rolled bad and spent a lot of HPs of die rolls and fell behind the advancement curve? . Rather that use an increasing scale of difficulty based upon the number of game sessions, which promotes this exact problem, instead set challenged based upon the abilities of the character(s) who is going to be challenged. So if you want to challenge an Uroxi with W2 abilities, give him opponents that can challenge him, and less powerful opponents to the other characters. Also, don't be afraid to hit the Uroxi in any one of his multitude of weakspots (between the ears?) to try and get him to spread out his advancement into more areas, rather than just concentrating on a few areas. If ther PC has to spend HPs to broaden his character it will slow his advancement in his primary areas and help to mitigate the problem. Basically, either be accident or design, the player is exploring a loophole/weakness in the ruleset, and as GM you have to find a way to plug the hole for the good of the campaign- Preferably without alienating the player, who really isn't doing anything wrong. Transparency helps here too. If you explain to the player what the problem is that can often help. Good players will usually make adjustments for the betterment of the campaign.

This seems to be a quick "one round" method of resoling a grand melee, so a fallen knight situation wouldn't come up. It's basically make three rolls and collect your checks and glory.

Exactly, but I've seen players who want to do something, until the realize exactly what they are actually doing. I mean, fighting on foot like a commoner, really? No horse, and no shield painted with their personal arms? How's everybody supposed to know they are a knight? Or why would the heralds bother to keep an eye on a footman?

Hurray! We're in the running. 5 Lunars on the one with horns to win!

Fair enough. I'd let someone use a foot weapon if they wanted to give up their horse, take a reckless check, and suffer the -5/+5 foot vs. mounted. But then, who am I to stand in the way of player stupidity.

I think he means whatever melee weapon they prefer (i.e. Sword, Mace, Axe, Spear)

Nice. Regarding 1. Maybe you could just limit the players to adding the bonus to one of the three skills. In battle the unit commander usually gives a bonus to the charge, not the rest of the fight, so limiting to one out of three would keep the PKs in check. They would most likely want to shore their lowest skill rather than boost their best.

There are always backup characters, and the possibility that a PK could die without an heir to carry on the family name. So it could come up again.

LOL! So if we had pictures, we be fine. Now I get it!