Atgxtg

Yes it is, but an RPG isn't a competitive game. As the goal of a RPG is for the players to be entertained and have fun, then cheating towards that goal does not violate the spirit of the game.

That isn't necessarily fudging. As the GM you get to write the adventures, and over time you can bring in more powerful opponents. If the players are doing really well and finding the adventures easy, there is nothing wrong with giving them a tougher adventure. That's just part of the game. That's where something like Luck points can help the players too. Sometime the dice are cruel to the players (I once had a player roll a malfunction with both his main and reserve parachutes). A game mechanic of some sort that helps them bounce back from bad die rolls is nice, especially with a small group. Fudging somewhat less nice. At that rate is probably works out okay, and keeps under the player's radar.

It's not thought, and by quite a margin. Player can accept stuff like bad die rolls. I once lost five characters in succession because the GM would roll a critical hit with the first attack against my new character. That sort of stuff just happens from time to time. I could accept it though because it was just the dice and, later on, when I did good I could revel my success all that much more. And as a Player I need that sense of risk to make the game rewarding. But if I know the GM is going to fudge things so that they work out for me regardless, then I stop caring much about the game. It will all turn out the same no matter what I try do. One of the reasons why my players like to play a BRP based game such as Pendragon over D&D is that no matter how good they are, then is always a chance that the opposition can roll a critical and kill or incapacitate them with one hit. If I fudged things to elimiate that risk, they'd get bored with the game. Lloyd Dupont mentioned luck points, and it is an excellent idea. Luck points give the players a mechanism to use to mitigate bad die rolls or other bits of misfortune without elminiating the sense of risk.

Yes, but that really wasn't what I was getting at. I was talking about agency. One of the major reasons why people play RPGs is because they can do all sorts of things they can't do in real life, and their decisions and actions have an effect on the game world. It gives players a sense of accomplishment to have saved the world or something. If the players become aware that the GM if fudging, then that sense of accomplishment goes away, as they know the GM was covering for them. They didn't save the world, the GM did and they just got to go along for the ride. Just stop and thick of the memorable adventures you've had over the years and then consider how different you would feel about them if you knew the GM had rigged everything to work out the way it did and that the players had no effect on the course of the adventure or the outcome.That's why I cautioned that if a GM has to fudge something, it's crucial that the players don't find out. This is also why fudging has to be done sparingly, as players will eventually catch on if things always work out a certain way. In my current group the previous GM used to fudge constantly. If the players did better than expected he'd up the opposition, if the players did poorly, he'd nerf the opposition. He did this all the time. Once the players figured out what was going on they lost interest in the game and just "phoned it in" , as the knew the end result would be the same regardless of what they did. They had no agency in the game, and thus no real reason to get interested or involved.

There hasn't bee all that much Pendragon news in the last year or so. I believe the Samurai RPG is still in the pipeline, but there is no info on how far along it is.

I've allowed for it, but I also don't saddle a PK with it after just once incident/encounter - especially as encountering Faeries is normally something that happens unexpectedly. I wouldn't want to run an adventure where the PKs cross path with faeries and then someone gets the passion. That's just taking someone character away without their being able to do much about it. Instead I have it that ti take several such encounters (I start with three) before the passion could "stick" to a PK, and I let them resist getting the passion with another passion. I figure someone with a high Love (Wife) at 26 or some such would have some reason to remain interested in the mortal world and thus be less susceptible to the charms of the fae.

I think fudging should be avoided, but if a GM feels that they have to fudge then they should do it sparingly, and, most importantly, not let the players find out that they are fudging. Once the players are aware of it, it cheapens the game for them. Either it takes the shine off of their accomplishments, or they start to play poorly, relying on the GM's fudging as a safety net. I'v e seen far more games ruined by GM fudging that by bad die rolls, or TPKs. Bad die rolls or poor judgement are thing that players understand and can deal with, but GM fudging is something they can't do anything about.

As Hzard10 pointed out, you only need to change Homage when swearing to a higher ranking lord-at least in theory. The situation you presented here is one of those sticky situations where a knight could end up in the middle if his two liege lords were to war against each other. Ultimately that is what this all boils down to. If push comes to shove, just who is the knight expected to back.That's why the higher ranking lord is an easy out. Historically and realsitically however, itwas always a bit of a mess. Every lord expects his vassals to be loyal to him, regardless of other allgiences. Just as if he were a generating it without the other Homage passion. Perhaps with addtional modfiers based upon previous events, rewards granted from the new liege and so forth. Just transfer the old Homage score over to the new Loyalty score. Keep in mind too that if it is considerably higher than the knight new Homage score, his true loyalties might still lie with the old lord. Part of the reason why this all seems difficult to "wrap your head around" is that in real life it was rarely as cut and dried as presented in the rules. Typically have two liege lords was like dating two women at the same time. It's also why families would often send sons to fight for both sides in a conflict- to ensure that no matter how things worked out the manor would remain in the family.

Yeah, when we first got the Book of Feasts we ran a lot of feasts and ended up overdoing it. Not only did it eat up a lot of the playing session but the feast cards started to loose their novelty with repetition. So I used it less often, and, as if often the case, less was more. One of the interesting side effects of the Feast cards is that the random events can often be weaved into existing story threads. For instance, in my current campaign the Count questions the loyalty of some of the PKs due to said PKs fanatical devotion to their knightly order, spurred on by their rivals at court. At last session's Victory Feast over the Saxons (475, in Dorsette, combined with the adenture of the Knight of the Tusks), there were several Host related event cards where the Count discovered that some of the PKs have a high Loyalty (Count) passion, others gave good council, and still other proved helpful at the feast. He found out quite a bit about the PKs at the feast and it will modify his opinions of them. It all fits in nicely with my campaign, just by interpreting the various random events on the cards.

How about 508? My reasoning is that it will probably take a session or two for your players to get up to speed with things, especially if they are new to Pendragon. 510 is a big important year, but it's sort of wasted on players who are still struggling to get a handle on the game mechanics, culture, and style of play. I think it's best to give them an introductory adventure to learn the ropes and a second or even third adventure to get comfortable with the game and their characters before running the Sword in the Stone or any other major event.

Optionally, in K&L Traits are inherited at 1d6 per 4 points of the father's value. I prefer this as it allows for some variation between father and son. I'd also not let Amor passions port over.

No they haven't. LOL! My group are in a similar situation. The original PKs did a lot of great deeds and won lots of glory, positions and rewards, then the next generation came it, stirred up trouble and ended up going into exile, and came back with Aurelius. The PKs formed a Knightly Order, and the new Count believes, quite correctly, that the PKS are more loyal to their order than to him. So it 475, the PKs have been back in Salisbury for a half dozen years, most of their allies have been dead for over a decade (Long Knives) and the players are somewhat surprised and puzzled that they aren't popular, like their original characters were. .

It cracks me up how my players sometimes think that they are keeping a low profile while riding around racking up glory points by slaying dragons, giants, etc. I don't think they quite understand the mean of the word Glory.

LOL! Although first he'd have to explain to the GM how he managed to accumulate £400! Related player comedy moment occurred last session when said PK took a major wound and the Saxon who dropped him tried to run off with the PK's magic sword. After the session the player asked how the Saxon knew about the magic sword. I pointed out that PKs with over 26,000 glory don't have many secrets-especially for things that they haven't been hiding, such as the sword of Alexander. Player response: "Oh...yeah, that."

I thought for a minute I was behind an edition again. Yes. Now it is implied that you get 1 SPACE per manor and that a 10 manor estate would get 10 SPACES that could be used on ten different investments that required SPACE, and that multiple one of the same type could be stacked for greater profit, but when I actually went looking for proof of this for my players, I found the text somewhat ambiguous. Thanks for the clarification. Don't kick yourself too hard. It usually the obvious core concepts that tend to get overlooked in these things. I know I've certain been guilty of it. What I think happens is that a idea become so obvious to the designer that it gets taken for granted and not spelled out specifically in the text. If it makes you feel any better, the player that prompted me to ask the question in the first place, doesn't have £400 to spend, and wouldn't haven't built the large horse herd anyway! I was puzzled too. I mean, I knew that he'd sacked away some libra .over 60 years of play, but I never dreamed that he had £400 libra. He didn't. Nor did I expect him to spend £400 to improve a estate that was only gifted to him -although the play does have high hopes of getting Aurelius to convert it to a grant, somehow.

Where? From what I've seen it mostly just gives very short descriptions of the retinue, which is covered better in the Book of the Entourage, and then focuses mostly on manorial improvements and the harvest.

Au contraire. On page 92: No, but the one of each type is what causes confusion, as Horse Herds and Orchards are two different types. Logic would support the assumption that each manor can only build one investment that requires space and that an estate with ten manors could have ten investments, and that the 400 Horse Herd take up ten spaces, but it's not specially stated that larger improvements take up more that one space, although it is implied. Still, thanks for the clarification.

Thanks. I thought it worked as ten improvements, but the text doesn't specifically state it as so.

Do larger improvements count as one improvement for supposes of how many things can be built on and estate. For instance if an Estate Holder has an Estate worth £100 and he spends £400 to build a horse herd, does that count as one one improvement? I would think not, as the larger herd would require more space, but I can't find anything stating otherwise in the Book of the Estate.

I'll third that. I have most, if not all of the supplements, in one form or another, and I don't recall any such adventure. Considering that starting at before 490 wasn't really suggested until KAP5 and starting at 480 wasn't really a supported option until the Book of Uther, I think it would have to be a fairly recent adventure., and probably a French edition exclusive.

Yes in terms of reducing the cost to become a knight. In fact it's probably expected in the latter Periods that a young knight is probably getting equipment and mounts that his father acquired in battle, tourney or adventures. No in terms of the universal aide that can be raised. That is the knights serfs and other vassals would still be expected to contribute the same and what would have been spent of gear would instead be spent to make the knighting feast more lavish. That said, a knight could choose to take less than his due for some reason.

Well he seems to have some authority over the PIcts, who had been a problem for the bulk of the 400s. So that right there would make him a force to reckon with. Toss in the fact that he seems to have had some status in Norway, according to some sources (his story is similar to Prince Valiant's), and his battle successes and alliances in the 500s and he was close to being the dominant king in all of Britain, especially after Nanteloed died. He probably viewed Arthur as an upstart and threat to everything he spent the last decade or so working towards- High Kingship.

Me too. I'd much rather have his father do some of the "heavy lifting" and Lot taking over c.495-500 when he's seasoned a bit. Since Lot's father is only named Hedor in the Vulgate, maybe we could have his father also be named Lot in Pendragon. Then we could just assume that some of the earlier actions were done by Lot I and that the Lot in 510 was his son, Lot II. That would make everything work without having to alter any text.

Which, when combined with his 467-468 year of birth puts him at around 15-16 years of age- the same as Arthur in 510.

As Morien said you should keep it the way you previously rules it. Unless you want to run some sort of adventure around a rival claimant or something. Then you have them use all sorts of legal tricks, bribes and whatnot to try and ron the PK of his estates.