Atgxtg

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.

He is said to be King in the GPC, but I could see him only being a Prince in the 480s. Perhaps his father (King Hedor of Lothian in the Vulgate) was olf or infirm and young Lot was a take charge, energetic leader? His father could die (old age and/or illness) or simple abdicate sometime around 489-490 at age 21. That way Lot could look at things as his having "paid his dues" as a squire while young upstart Arthur jumps the gun Another thing is that Arthur's parentage isn't revealed until two years after Lot goes to war with Arthur. So the beardless boy comment could not just be a knock on Arthurs age but on his apparent lack of a claim to the throne other than drawing the sword from the stone. Lot might have reacted differently had he known that Arthur was Uther's son. In some versions of the tale, where Lot isn't killed, Lot ends up a staunch supporter of Arthur, who give him more land.

It can be fun, although it can end up taking over or even completely derailing the game. In fact Mordred rebellion appears to be mostly over his being recognized as Arthur's heir. Not to William's son! I've had a few similar situation crop up in my campaign. Ususally an heiress just means a little extra pocket money. Then she dies and the party's over.

And that's the nice streamlined, simplified, idealized version of things that really didn't come into being until late in the medieval period. Historically it was much, much more convoluted, as there all sorts of other factors that came into play to determine who really got the land! Take a look at some of the wars and border conflicts and there is almost always a dispute over inheritance in the mix somewhere. Just about any arrangement could and did crop up as a one off.

My suggest is start small. You do not need all of the supplkments and ad-ons to start a game, or even to run a full campaign. Just start the players off as squire or even household knights and run them though a few simple adventures to get everyone more comfortable with he game. Then you can add stuff in depending upon your personal preferences and experience. Only run what you feel you can handle- you can always add stuff later if you wish, or just satick with the core rules. That's odd. In play the reverse is true. The Book of Manor is cumbsome to use and very time consuming while the Book of the Estate is simple and fast. In my last campoaign I used the Book of the Manor and we'd spend half the game session running the PKS lands, while in my current campaign we use the Book of the Estate and spend less than five minutes running the lands. Well the first one I'd suggest would be the Great Pendragon Campaign, as it give a solid timeline to run the game. Second would be the Book of Knights & Ladies assuming that you want more options for character generation. Next would be the Book of the Estate. It does overlap with the Book of Manor, but it is much simpler to use and covers more. It, along with the Book of the Warlord, help to give the economic system a bit of a facelift, and helps to show how much (or little) money is floating around and what everything (and everybody) costs. IMO the above three are they key books that a GM should probably have/use. The rest are more dependent on what areas of the game the GM wishes to expand upon, and thus their importance will vary more from GM to GM. Even Estate, above could be pushed down into the lower category if the GM and players do not care to do much with the manors. That said, all of these book are good After that, I'd suggest the Book of the Entourage, as than covers all sorts of support staff, wives, player squires and so on. Then I'd suggest the Book of Uther, since it expands the timeline back to 480, but if you don't want another five years of campaign, you can ignore it. The Book of Battle and Book of Armies are both mixed bags. On the plus side the BoB gives you a more detailed battle system where the players can actually influe the coruse of the battle. Also on the plus side the Book of Armies gives you a lot of pre-generated armies to use instead of the two sample armies in the core books. On the negative side the Book of Battle is a bit more complicated than it needs to be, and some of the unit stats in the Book of Armies are questionable (there are a handful of overpowered/super units in the book). The Book of Feasts does help to flesh out feasts, and is fun, but I'd give it a lower priority than any of the above, as it over covers feasts. If you do get it though, make sure to get the cards that go with it. The Book of Sires gives an expanded system for determining family history. The book is very nice and served me well when running a "prequel" game, but it does cover the same group ans the previous history section in the core rules, and little of it will actually come up in play. So I'd give it a lower priority (sorry, it's a good supplement, but IMO not as important as the previous ones). The Book of the Warlord would be one of the lowest priory books. It's a very good book that gives a good deal of insight into the nobles (i.e. warlords) but since the typical Pendragon campaign is centered around vassal knights, the book is a low priority. Yes, it's nice for a GM (or player) to know just how many men a given baron or duke might have at his disposal, or how much pocket money he has to spend, but as far as standard play goes, the answer is probably going to be "more than enough". At the Bottom of the list is the Book of the Manor. This book looks interesting, but it tends to take up a lot of time to play, and can be easily exploited to the point where it becomes a self-perpetuating money maker. Almost (90-95%) of what it covers is better handled in the Book of the Estate or the Book of Entourage, and there is really no reason to use this book. Morein and I even coverted over the last few remaining investments to Book of the Estate standards and posted them on the forum.

Probably with a tablet app. Computers can roll all sorts of wield dice. I was thinking that an app which actually shuffled a deck and showed a hand of cards could be useful.

I suspect that real dragons and dragonewts probably wouldn't care that much about dream dragon armor, as the dream dragon ins't "real", and no dragon actually suffered for it. But, I suspect the dragon's subconscious would probably hold a grudge when it manifested another dream dragon. That might be worse , too, as a dream dragon could have a more extreme irrational fixation of the character than a rational creature would. And maybe the dream dragon might not be able to identify the culprit all that well and just rage against anyone of a similar appearance, scent, species? So then the player character might have to deal with the people who suffered the dragon's wrath. Oh what fun.

Nothing has been militantly policed. If if were then something would have actually been done about you post. Instewad I just pointed out that there is an existing thread for KAP6 and what it may or may not contain, and that this one was posted by someone who had questions about the economic model from the Book of the Warlord, and the primary purpose of this thread should be to address the OPs topic.

For lesser feasts I usually don't do anything. Sometimes I give out glory for attending it, if it is significant in some way. Keep in mind that knights are attending feats throughout the year, on the major holidays. If a group tried to roleplay every feast, they would never get through the year. The same holds true for hunts. The ones you play out are either stand out in some way, or meant to be representative of the whole activity.

Hey, that's your choice, but it isn't what was intended for Pendragon, in fact is the exact opposite. I think it will work against your group in some adventures. Still, it's your game. BTW, how does that factor into inspiration? Can players choose to become inspired?

Because they are getting more from their lord and have more of a stake is his well being. In order for those guys to become veteran troops means that sombody had to support them long enough for them to become sufficiently experienced and equipment to count as veterans. Historically that meant that veterans were solider who supported one liege for a long time. Even when a veteran is a "new hire" they tend to be the soldiers of allies, or former allies who have died, and thus are grateful to find a place with a new lord and a chance to prove themselves. Think of it like being a household knight. The soldier's livelihood is tied to the liege lord. Exactly. But that really is what veteran troops are. It's not like they can change employers every couple of years. Mercenaries bands, on the other hand, would be different, and I recall some text somewhere that linked their loyalty to their pay. Yes, but the thing is troops aren't hired and fired like contract workers -other than mercs. A veteran soldier is someone that was taken on by a lord, went on campaign with them, and survived long enough to become a veteran. So he would have served under this lord for years, and benefited from doing so.

Yes, I recommend it, providing you buy or print the cards to go with it. The cards are the heart and soul of the Book of Feasts. Also, as Morien pointed out, it's best to use sparingly, both because of the time it takes up in the session (you can easily spend an hour or more running a feast, depending on what cards are played and what sort of story ideas the GM came into the feat with), and because the novelty of the cards/feast drops off with over use. A good deal of the fun is that the players don't know just what can happen because they do not know all the cards. Once the cards become familiar to them it becomes more routine. There are a few issues with the Feast procedure, especially the seating and glory awards, but they are minor, and any issues are easily overlooked as the feasts are a lot of fun to play out. GMs should be prepared to go with the flow and improvise some stuff based upon the card play. I've seen PKs unexpecteldy married off young, rivals made and plot hooks dropped for future adevntures. Yes, but it depends a lot on what Peroid you are playing in and what supplements you use. Something like a hunt can be good since you can run multiple groups at once easier in a forum as opposed to live play. I'd also suggest a few images, and maps to help set the mood.

Perhaps. Why did you post in in this thread about the new economic model, and not in the thread about the new edtion? What feedback? Feedback is a response to something. What you did was post about something unrelated. Neither do I. I just don't understand what you were doing. You jumped into a thread about the economics of the game to post about the possible new edition, and that the economics aren't important? Could you clarify?

Technically he could ask for a voluntary tallage, but suqqzing would probably yield better results -unless the liege is very popular and it had been a very good time..

Yes, and hopefully the Knight spreads those aids out a bit. In my campaign one knight nearly terrorized his peasants when he considered marring off his eldest daughter the same year he knighted his eldest son.

I didn't think you were, I was just trying to explain why the rules are such a hodgepodge. For most of KAP5 Greg was trying to get stuff out when he could becuase he wasn't sure if he would get the chance to do so later. I get your point, but I don't believe it is always the case. In some cases, especially when written by the same author(s), such as with Pendragon, the game system was actually improved in some ways between editions. Bt a lot of the time companies do use a new edition as a way to resell the same product over again, with minimal effort. As for KAP6, I'm adopting a wait and see attitude. If it's good and has some sort of improvements, or even just the clarifications and corrections many of us have desired, I'll buy it. If it turns out to just be an attempt to resell the same rules I've bought over half a dozen times already, then I won't, although I might buy supplements for it if they turn out to be useful. I think a lot of that was due to the changes of ownership and control the game went through over the years. Originally it was all by Greg, then Chaosium exerted more of an influence (supposed there is a KAP4 supplement that Greg didn't like), then Green Knight controlled the game and Greg has no say in it, then Greg got control of it again under White While's Art Haus line, then Greg was allowed to self publish supplements for it, then it it shifted over to Nocturnal and Greg's supplements were made official and started to get revised, and finally it went to Chaoisum. So the game really hasn't had a stable consistent line since early KAP4. I'm not playing with you, merely tryint to explain how and why the game has some of the inconsitiences it does, and why the economics don't quite work. The OP for one. LUca did want to know if something was according to the rules. As for medieval models, the game does draw heavily upon the medieval model, right down to the use of the manor as the basic economic unit. Greg and other used that medieval model to try and work out some sort of sensible consistent economic model for the game. It would be foolish to ignore that while addressing any discrepancies in the rules, as they would only lead to more inconsistency. Greg. So if it works for you, what are you posting about?

Hay, anyone know which edition's rulebook help together the best? I suspect it was SB2.

Well, in Greg's defense, with the way KAP5's support and status changed, and how he had to self publish some of the supplements, and his untimely passing right as he was getting around to updating it all, it wasn't really anyone's fault. A lot of KAP5 stuff barely managed to get out at all. 5.2 was mostly cleaning up the text from 5/5.1 and shifting the focus to a campaign startingin the Uther Peroid (a mistake, IMO. I think the core book should have focused on King Arthur). As for KAP6, yes it would be nice if the rules and consolidated and made consistent throughout the books. I just hope that KAP6 doesn't throw out all the KAP5 stuff, or go down the path of sub-dividing everything into multiple books that many RPGs have done lately. I don't want to have to buy a half dozen books in order to play through the whole campaign. And before someone notes the current state of Pendragon, I'll point out that a GM doesn't have to use the Book of Battle, Entourage, Armies, etc. They can get by quite nicely with the core rulebook and the GPC. Subdividing the GPC into smaller, period specific books geared to people who only want to game in one era might sound appealing to some, but I think ultimately it could just turn into selling the same the same information over several books that end up costing a lot more. Five of six $20 books vs one $60 GPC.

That touches upon something that is probably worth bringing up. Typically people in these times then to think of themselves as coming from a given area/region rather than from a country. Hence a lot of medieval warfare is between counts and barons, with people more loyal to their local leader rather than his superior or the king. The Romans were something on an exception, mostly because Augustus went out of his way to try and unify support behind the Emperor (himself) rather than to wealthy senators/generals, and that effort ultimately failed after Aurelius' passing. So pretty much every knight and soldier is loyal to the one who provides for them, and it why people stay loyal to their local liege when he goes to war with his social superior.

Yes they should. If Loyalty started at values similar to skills, but didn't go up (since they aren't skills) then I think it would make a huge difference tot he players. Leaving the manor defended by two guys who are devoted to you (Loyalty 14-15 ish) seem much more reassuring that leaving in in the hands of a half dozen guys who aren't all that loyal to you (Loyalty 10). I think I'll revise green troop to skill 7, and give troops a loyalty score equal to thier primary weapon skill. So the better veteran troops will be more loyal, which would make sense.

Okay, but that really wasn't what the passions are there fore. IMO you might be better served with the trait mechanics from Prince Valiant. There the players are free to do as they wish but earn fame (=glory) when thier actions match up with their traits. THe thing about that is players will rarely let thier character act in a negative way that they didn't choose, or if they believe their character is being tested somehow. I think that's a bad thing in Pendragon though. Quite a few of the adventures revolve around the characters having their traits or passions tested in some way, to see if they are worthy on some honor or reward. If the players get to chose then such adventures become a cakewalk. Frankly, you really can't run those types of adventures with that method as they players will always be able to pass the test.

Unforntalety that's not how it is worded. IMO it should be something like they start as green troops and become average tropps but that isn't mentioned anywhere in the text. Yup. Especially as the PK was situation on what had been a troublesome border. What I've done is raise the upkeep over time as all that nice armor needs to be maintained. So eventually the are considered to be armored soldiers. But, the PK has collected several suits of armor over the campaign and has been using those to help offset the cost. Except the knight is much more experienced, in plate armor on a destier, and the squire isn't. Mind you if poor troops came in at the competency level that squires used to come it at, and footmen at the levels that 21 year old knights used to come in at the difference between the fotsoldier would be significant. But as written, poor troops hold thier own against average troops much better than squires will against knights. Unforntately the game stats don't really reflect that though. A poor foltsolder can give an average one a good fight, but a squire typically won't be a challenge to a typical knight. The morale thing is't reflected anywhere though. Now if the troops got Loyatly (Lord) in the mix and the poor troops had lower scores there, the PKS would take notice. Hmm, maybe the next war I'll have a shortage of trained troops and up the price for green troops. I plan to do something like that for archers soon.

Ah. Gnerally speaking the field ins't as big a deal as the fortification, since fortifications need so many men to get their full DV> No, because it was stated that the levy isn't normally available to the knight, and that only the king can raise them. They were mostly useless anyway.

Yes, 3x upkeep is pretty much what it is now, since the knights upkeep hasn't changed. For what I've seen ransom was highly negotiable, with one year's income appearing closer to the mark. I believe Richard I ransom was around £56000, which in KAP terms would support 5600 knights for one year., probably less. I hope that KAP6 brings all that stuff together and makes thing internally consistent, but usually Pendragon has just kept kicking the can down the road. KAP5 especially, due to the haphazard nature of it's production.

Except in game terms it doesn't work that way. Upkeep wise it's a wash, and skill wise the poor troops catch up in skill in a few years. If Pendragon didn't have the 1 sesion per year thing going it would make a difference, but as written, not so much. Basically it's twice the prices for +1 CON. Oh yeah! That's a whole differnt kettle of fish. My PKs haven't gone that route though. I had one PK who did end up replaicng his average footsolider with poor troops but he hired ten of them, and outfitted them with haubergeons he picked up over the years, so the Count figured he was way ahead in the deal. I dunno, is Knight Value still a thing? Personally I think Poor troops should probably cost the same upkeep but just be cheaper to hire, I'd probably start them off at 10 in their skills too, or maybe even lower. But as written they aren't all that much different than normal troops. 2 points of skill and 1 point of CON isn't all that significant.