Atgxtg

Close. Only more comical and less well thought out. Like so: PK does well in the tourney circuit and amasses a fortune in ransoms and armor over the years. Several hundred libra of which he invests into Siege Equipment. Late one fall, he receives a messenger with a plea for assistance from a NPK friend of his who is under attack, asking for help in the following spring. The PK hires some mercenaries, alerts the other PKs, and everyone readies their forces to go to war the following spring. Spring arrives and the PK leads his army along the north road through Silchester to help his NPK friend. A day or two on the road the PKs suddenly realize that they are marching right towards Levcomagus with a sizable force complete with over 200 libra worth of siege equipment. This would be suspicious/bad enough under normal circumstances, but made even worse as the lead PK had a long running feud with Levcomagus for the past couple of decades. A feud which had escalated to the point where King Arthur personally told everyone to knock it off. A couple of the PKs, decide that they should ride ahead to Levcomagus to try and explain the situation, and assure the knights of Levcomagus that the army and it's siege engines are "just passing through" and nothing to worry about, and not related to that nasty feud thing in any way. Really. Before riding off the PKs told a third PK that "No matter what, don't let the army attack the city." The two PKs then rode off and ran smack into a patrol from Levcomagus (it's as if they were shadowing the army or something). The PKs were challenged gave their story and were taken to Levcomagus to speak to the Steward, who, surprisingly, didn't believe them. He tossed them in the gaol. Meanwhile the army marched on and upon reaching the city discovered that the PKs were being held captive. Now the PK who was left in charge was supposed to keep the army in check, but a very loyal NPK household knight to one of the captured PKs managed to talk everybody, including the PK "in charge" to attack and liberate the captured PKs, helped in no small part by the fact that one of the captured PKs was the rich knight, and everyone smelled some sort of bonus for rescuing their commander (not to mention ensuring that they got a chance for some plunder). 200 libra worth of siege equipment more than negated the city defenses, and the army was well on the way to taking the city. The captured PKs actually had to escape from the gaol so they could stop their own army from taking the city. And then King Arthur showed up. He had been out hunting in the nearby forest and got curious when a baggage train scared off his prey. Needless to say some PKs looked very guilty.

I found it's actually quite beneficial to be generous when considering conspicuous consumption. From a gameplay perspective, it much better to let the PKS spend the money and get a little extra glory than it is for them to horde the money and spend it later. Rich PKs become relatively immune to certain troubles and can exert a strong influence on the game in many ways. I once had a PK accidentally take Levcomagus mostly because he was so rich that he could afford to buy a few hundred libra worth of siege equipment, and it was used quite generously during the (accidental) siege. It would have been much better all around if he had been able to spend it as conspicuous consumption.and racked up another 30, 50 or even 100 glory each year.

He probably has some DF, say £ 0.5, as his mother would be accountable for one-third of the manorial expenses too. He might even have a little more if there are no other children to provide for freeing up another librum. But overall not much has really changed except the young PK takes his dad's place.Mom probably has a little more say in the running of the manor and still holds the purse strings as before, but chances are "sonny Boy" could get the full DF from his mom, assuming it for a good reason. Of course, MOm might not consider a new Hill Pony to be a good reason. I suppose how much of an issue that all ends up being depending upon the personalities of the people involved and how money wealth there is. If Dad left his son £50 from previous wars then the son probably won't worry much about the DF, or if his mother spends it all on a new dress. If Dad left nothing, and the Saxons are demanding tribute, then no one will be happy.

Let's see. First off the knight would lose his discretionary funds, then the knight and his lady would drop down two standard of living (probably down to poor) and all his servants, troops, and court officials would be poor. Now in actual play I'd expect most PKs to simply make up for the shortcoming by spending treasure they have acquired over the years. Much better to sell of that gold goblet or spare charger and live according to your station than look like a beggar. But that assumes the PK actually has some treasure to sell off.

For the most part I agree with that interpretation. While, as Morien points out "the PK is still holding the lance and able to threaten both opponents until the last moment", I'll count that with the fact that generally most of the "oomph" (a highly technical term) of a lance charge comes from the momentum built up by the charging horse, most of which would probably be expended upon striking the first opponent. But...I could see something like a glancing blow not using up much of the momentum or a mount building up more speed if the opponents were spread apart. Still, for the most part I'd probably just give the charge bonus against the first opponent, and treat the second strike as a normal spear attack. Although...if the opponent were another knight counter charging then he'd have momentum too and... I'd just have crossbowmen pop up and shoot all the horses and make everyone fight on foot. Problem solved.

No problem. Just to clarify she is only a widow of the recently deceased PK, right? Yup, though as Morien pointed out above she probably won't get the full £3.5. A lady typically only needs £2 in upkeep for her and her maid, and she would still be "on the hook" for some of the manorial expenses, so I suspect it works out closer to £2.5, leaving her £0.5 for discretionary funds.. All it all it probably works out about the same as before the husband died, only that there might be a bit of a crunch if/when the son marries. Or, at least it would if he didn't have two manors!

So basically she would still get a third of that last manor to maintain her, right? Otherwise the widow of a knight with only a gifted manor would be in trouble if he died first.

If an heiress it is granted. .If she is an heiress then her land came to her from her father and will pass on to her eldest son. If she is a widow then she isn't an heiress, as the land came from her husband and her potion (typically 1/3rd the estate) is hers only to provide for her well being. So once the dies the land would pass on to whoever got the rest of the estate. Typically the eldest son of the knight the widow was previously married to. Now there can be odd situations where a woman can be both, especially if she is in the upper nobility, like if she was the daughter of a Count but married a Duke, but then, each holding would depend on where it came from. At least that's what is supposed to happen. In reality the son of a Duke and Countess might have enough political and military clout to claim and hold more than he is supposed to. Well in this case: Manor #1 (his original manor): would pass to the eldest son, and someone would be appointed by Countess Ellen to serve as regent, or she might act as a guardian and run the land herself. A widows potion (1/3rd the manor) would be set aside to maintain the widow, and this would pass on to the son upon her death. Manor #2 (From the wife): would go to the eldest son as well, assuming that the eldest son is also the eldest son of the wife/heiress, which is almost certainly the case. But if she did have a son from a previous marriage he would be in line for the second manor. Again, a widows potion (1/3rd the manor) would be set aside to maintain the widow. Manor #3 (The Gift from the Countess): Would go back to the Countess as gifts only last for the life of the recipient. I believe the wife would still get a widows portion as above to maintain her. THe eldest son should get 2/3rd of Manors #1 and #2 under normal circumstances, and get the reamining third upon the death of his mother (or if she joins an abbey and becomes a nun). Yes he will get it when she dies. If she marries again does't matter here as her lands belonged to her previous husband, not her current one. The easy wayto look at this is that land is supposed to go to the eldest surviving legitimate (usually, but illegitimate sons did get land on occasion) son of the original landholding knight. Daughters only get land if there is no sons to grab it first, and then the daughters are supposed to split it equally. But and land that a daughter gets will pass on to her eldest surviving legitimate son as above. If there is no son or daughter, go back up the family tree a step and re-figure from there using the same rules. Wives only get land temporarily as a sort of pension to provide for them for doing their duty as wives.The idea being that a knight wouldn't want to have his wife become homeless if he died valiantly in battle. Then it continues on to whoever would have held if if the wife hadn't existed. Key that in mind and it usually becomes easy. Now all that said, the rules for "Male Primogeniture" weren't ally formalized and locked down until the latter middle ages, and there were tons of exceptions.Things like who was moore popular or had the bigger army or the most money tended to play a factor.

That's a good idea. Back in the RQ2 Gateway Bestiary, Sand Peterson used to tie the armor rating of most animals and creatures to their db. Typically some multiple of db depending on how much fur, scales, a creatures had. This approach was kept with most pre 21st century Chasoium stuff. A human punching a bear is probably going to hurt the bear's diet more than the bear. I'd also consider having any actual armor (worn or superpower) count as half towards other types of damage. That way you don't have someone get dropped like a mook when a character shows up using some power that does damage that a character has no defense against. Plus it sort of makes sense that something like a WWII tank would offer some protection against a laser beam. The beam would still have to cut/melt though a couple of inches of steel.

For a a young adult I'd recommend King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table by Stephen Colborurn. It gives a nice overview of the King Arthur tale broken up in 13 stories of about four to six pages each, in modern, easy to understand language, along with descriptive illustrations, a list of who''s who along with who exercises to help understand the material. All in under 100 pages. Frankly. I might recommend it for an adult too. it makes a nice reference books for a Pendragon GM who wants a quick overview of a story without having to wade though/figure out/develop an appreciation for the prose of medieval text. It's also available as an audiobook, which probably increases the acceptable age span a little. IMO this book is probably about as good at a book can get while covering so much so well in under 100 pages. It lacks the style and feel of something like Le'Morte or the HRB, reading much like a scholastic book for young readers (which is is) but that keeps things simple and accessible in a way most of the older sources aren't.

It might affect their loyalty, or even cause the knight to lose status. For the servants, It would be like working some someone who cut your wages. You might accept it as a necessity, and/of if there was an obvious reason or it, but it if kept on you'd probably stand to think that their liege doesn't know what he is doing. And since "maintaining the manor" is part of a knights duty as a vassal, others might start to think the same as the servants. Technically speaking a liege lord could even view it as a failure of the knight to do his duty and even take the manor back! It's unlikely, especially if there is some outside factor that causes it, but generally speaking a knight running a manor into the ground not only reflects poorly on him, but also reflects poorly upon his liege and impacts the liege's income, the king's and any supported religious institutions. .

The things I do when bored and locked down.

https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/10868-botew-lots-of-damage-also-squeezing/?tab=comments#comment-161912

I'd say it was a bit more than fluff, but yes the idea is that in most circumstances we can just ignore beyond the fact that it supports the knight, his family, and provides some pocket change. That makes it much simpler and easier than working through a spreadsheet every game session as in BoM.

I can see your point there, I just wanted to go back to the original idea that has been shot down so many times, for reasons that I never quite understood. I can easily see dropping the cultural weapon skills for a DEX based default. While giving one culture Spear 7, Dagger 5 and another culture Great Axe 6, Spear 7 might look like some form of cultural diversity, that makes each culture distinct, the reality is no one wants to march into battle relying upon a low combat skill, and everyone bumps whatever weapons they decide to use to to 10+ anyway. Especially so with Player Knights. No PK actually wants to rely upon "Dagger 5" anymore than they want to rely upon "Swim 5." Since most skills don't vary much between cultures I see the whole culture skills/weapons thing similar to how mook opponents in RQ2 used to get individualized stat sheets. As if a 5% difference in sling skill or a 1 point difference in STR or CON was noticeable by the players. That why latter supplements, and updated versions of those early adventures tended to drop the customized stats for generic ones.

The way I've simplistic it for my players is just to say that a manor produces £10 for the knight but his upkeep and expenses cost £9. I also note that there is other income provided by the court that helps to run the manor, taxes that go to the king, and food for the peasants, but that the knight doesn't have to deal with any of that. It keeps things very simple, and we only go into finer details when a player has a reason to.

No. You're not doing it wrong. Common sense should always be considered when adjudicating game rules. As for if you should allow splitting against two foes, I'd say it would depend on the situation. If the foes are spread out apart and the knight is riding past one and then the other, attacking both might make sense. If the foes are in a line, especially on opposite sides of the charging knight, I'd probably go with Morien's option.

Just to add to this a bit, way back when this was first presented (and shot down) the idea was that DEX/2 was the "floor" value. That is if a skill was supposed to start off higher then the higher value would still apply. So if a Saxon had DEX 12, but was supposed to start with 2-H Weapons 9, he'd still start with 2-H Weapons 9, but all his other Combat/DEX skills would start off at 6.

Let me try to elaborate by comparing DEX to the other statistics.. SIZ: Factors into Hit Points, and Damage stats and is also the Knockdown (KD) value. KD allone is better than DEX since it is better to not have to make a DEX to to avoid failing down. Probably the most important stat. CON: Factors into Hit Points, healing rate and is the Major Wound (MW) value. Probably equal to or nearly equal to SIZ in importance. STR: Factors into Damage, Healing Rate and Move. A nice stat but not as important as SIZ or CON DEX: Used to avoid knockdown if and when the damage exceeds SIZ and the character is on foot. If a character is mounted DEX is superseded by Horsemanship.. Also used for other agility based things like climbing, jumping or stealth, most of which are either un-knightly (stealth) or not worth attempting while in armor. APP: Used to determine the number of distinctive features, and, for those using the Book of Feasts, potential seating. Not other explicit game use at all, other than to suffer loses from aging.. In fact an ugly character with high courtly skills will do better with the opposite sex than a good looking one with low courtly skills. As STATS go APP has reason to be jealous of DEX. When players created characters using the standard method, the highest stats are always SIZ or CON. The PK who starts off with a 18 SIZ or CON starts off considerably better than one with an 18 DEX. Now, I'm sure someone will chime is to say how much more important DEX in in KAP than in RQ, but it's just not so. In RQ DEX factored into the skill scores and (sometimes) the improvement rolls for multiple skills, and factored into he strike rank when a attack or spell went off. But in KAP melee combat is an opposed roll, and DEX doesn't factor into skill at all. Take two otherwise idential knights on horseback and take 5 points of DEX off of one to give to the other and chances are it won't affect the combat at all. Do the same with SIZ, DEX or even STR and you significantly shift the probabilities as to who will win.

The way things play out after Arthur draws the sword there could be some sort of plan in the works. Ygraine "recognition" of Arthur as her so, and Uflius accusation certainly look to be staged. There is really no proof to speak of that Arthur is really Uther's son. All we have is Ygraine's recognition of Arthur, despite not seeing Arthur since he was an infant, Ector's statement that Merlin brought the child to him to rear, and, perhaps, Merlin's claim that the child he gave to Ector was the same child taken from Ygraine. It's not all that solid. Even the inscription with the Sword in the Stone only state that by pulling the sword Arthur is "right-wise born king of all England". That doesn't prove a link to Uther, or even to a claim beyond Logres (i.e. "England"). Not that I'm claim that Arthur isn't the real deal, only that there is no proof of his identify beyond the third person narrator of the tale. I wouldn't think so, depending on how many knights they have. War, ransom, adventures, dowries, and tournaments can lead to a lot of money, armor and horses to outfit some knights. Several PKs in my current campaign have well over £100. So it don't think it would be all that impossible for a successful PK to be able to outfit several knights and maintain them for a time. Unlikely yes, but not next to impossible. I'm not sure how good an investment outfitting a cadre of household knights would be for a PK though. They really are only worth it during wartime, and then only if the PK can make some sort of land grab.

Tirffletraxor, Proof that not all bugs are bad.

Yup. Although I think the problme is more with DEX (and APP) than with the skill crossover. As we've mentioned previously DEX is a weak stat in KAP. Interesting. I'm not sure it that would be a good thing or not. One the one hand it would definitely put DEX up there with SIZ and CON, on the other hand it could completely revamp chargen. I could see a Roman PK starting with DEX 21 after being knighted, and quickly moving into ultra high skill levels. IMO we'd need an official rule for handling ultra high skills at that point, since it would much more common. I think the average but capped at 15 (the training cap) might be simpler and somewhat better. That way even the God of DEX with DEX 30 and Sword 25 would still be capped at 15 in a weapon that he's never used.

Not really. According to the last time I corresponded with Triff he mostly foots the bill. Actually, all of the Mods except for Triff and IPSSupport are Chaosium staff. For all intents and purposes this site is run by Chaosium. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, or a good thing, merely pointing out what is. Seconded. Without Triff this site wouldn't exist-at least not in it's current form. Odds are someone would have picked up the name when the BGB became a thing, but who knows what that would have turned out like?

Don't feel too bad about that. It was sort of the norm for KAP3-4. Two manors per knight won't break the game either. What I will warn you against is granting the PKs any more manors, or at least doing so easily. More land translates into more wealth, more glory, better armor, bigger army and so forth, which in turn can lead to their gaining even more land, power and glory. Due to the nature of the game, it becomes very easy for things to escalate and difficult to take anything away from a player once they have it. Not unless you want to wipe a family out.

Yes, that is something that is even mentioned back in old RuneQuest. Some aspects of combat are universal and would apply to any weapon. Especially since much of weapon use depends on knowing what the opponent can do with his weapon. RQ used to have a bunch of similar weapon rules where skill with weapon A typically resulted in half that ability with weapons B, C, and D. Something like any melee skill defaulting to half any other weapon skill probably works, up to a limit (say the 15 training limit). So that would bump the Sword 15 guy up to 8 with Mace.