Atgxtg

I think there is some merit to this, but only after a certain point. Going by real world physics, a proportionally large giant, with twice the height and reach of a man, would weight about 8 times as much, or approximately 22 points of SIZ greater. A SIZ 25 Giant is probably less than 8' tall and might not be big enough t negate the height or reach advantage on a mounted knight. Especially if the knight himself is big and/or mounted on a larger warhorse. For instance, consider a SIZ 25 giant vs. a SIZ 21 Saxon PK. The giant is probably only a few inches taller, and if he got an advantage against the Saxon, then why doesn't the Saxon get that advantage against Brits, Romans, and Picts? IMO there should probably be a minimum SIZ threshold, as a difference between the two combatants for the height and/or reach modifiers to kick in. At least 10 points, although I think 15, 20, or even 25 would work out better. That way the spread would be wide enough to encompass most humans, and make most animals too small to get a height bonus (most aren't taller than people), while still leaving the door open for the really big creatures and monsters, such as elephants, giants and dragons.

A couple of thing that may ,or may not, help: The Knight of Long Knives happened in 463, so whoever ruled Cameliard before him almost certainly died there. If that was Leo father, we could assume the Leo must have been born by 463, 464 at the latest, assuming that he was conceived in 463. which makes him 21 in 465 highly improbable, but still barely possible. He isn't mentioned as doing much, if anything before Arthur draws the sword in the stone, yet Uther left him with the Round Table (suggesting he was a close friend and/or strong supporter of Uther). Book of Uther mentions him as King of Cameliard in 492, when he supports Uther against Malahat. So this might be what earns him Uther trust and the Round Table. Some sources claim that he passed away shortly after Guinevere marriage to Arthur, and he isn't mentioned in the GPC after giving the Round Table to Arthur. So while a 21 King Leodegrance seems barely possible, and older Leo seems more likely. Why? 35 year old men can father children. We do not know how old his wife is, or if he remarried during his reign.

The value of the gifts should general also reflect the rank and income level of the recipient. That is, an ordinary gift for a estate holder is going to be much better than an ordinary gift (and probably most special gifts) for a vassal or household knight. In my campaign's I've given out: New weapons, armor, horses (normal and special), books, special honors and titles (with associated glory), tapestries, furniture, mosaics, statues, and other stuff that I've forgotten. Having gifts come with glory also helps to keep minor gifts special (I'ts not just a new sword, but a gift from the King!) One thing I'll note is that stuff like statues and tapestries are great rewards as they are rewards that don't really impact game mechanics the way better armor or a better mount might. In fact such gifts can also be used to draw excess wealth away from player knights. In my current campaign the PKs managed to get a hall for their knightly order and have pent a small fortune outfitting and maintaining the place. Just the cost of transporting the statues of the founding members from the manors where they were at to thier hall cost a considerable amount.

For me it depends on the situation and just how much they are opposed to each other. Usually it would be a roll, but if one passion is low I'll usually let a player ignore or override it. If both passions are moderate to strong, then I usually require an opposed roll, although I might apply a modifier depending upon the circumstances. For example saving your liege lord's life is generally more important than going to town to buy the woman you love a new dress, and so the contest wouldn't be equal. Vice versa would also hold true, although probably not to the same extent due to the "top down" nature of feudal society.

Yeah, it isn't really the focus of the game. From what I recall though, it was something of a zero sum game. There is a website I used to try and research some prices and it appeared that while things went up, pretty much everything went up at about the same rate, except for labor- which shot up after the Black Death. I could see a case for keeping all the prices the same in the game and just upping the default gear as you go along. That is, a mail hauberk (10 point) would be the standard armor for the stand price at the stat of the game, be replaced by reinforced mail (12 point) during the Conquest Period, for the same price, and eventually become Plate (16), with older armors losing their value over time as better armor becomes available.

I was thinking about that, and the reality of it seems to be that while the prices went up the relative value didn't change much. RPGs are used to plate costing more, as in most RPGs plate and mail coexist, but in reality the cost to produce plate dropped to less than mail with the introduction of the blast furnace and the ability to press metal. I'm starting to suspect that while the overall prices might have gone up it was mostly the same. Much like how a $1.50 can of a softdrink is the same as the $0.25 can of the same softdrink 30-40 years ago.

THat's what I'd suggest. Keep in mind that the income part of "Your Own Land" was written back for 3rd edition, and was a step up from the way it had been handled in KAP1. If you use Estate then you don't need "Income" section anymore.

It doesn't to me. Generally peasant (actually serf) transfer was between manors and thus between differernt knights. Also, while many town and cities did have magistrates and such people could always appeal to a higher court, such as the local knight. Yes it is and awesome idea. At least I though so when we came up with it. A pity is isn't a finished one. Like I posted above there were a few different ways to go with it, and it was hard to decide on which one was the best one, not to mention putting the time and effort in to polish it off. The detailed mini-quests were nice and gave a good feel to what was going on, but the more free form, draw and assign cards method was much more flexible and let the players craft their own story within certain parameters, as well as decide between an easy adventure or a more difficult (and more glorious) one. One aspect of the flexible version that I like was that Joker cards represented Merlin or the Lady of the Lake showing up, helping the night at one stage, and then sending the knight on a sidequest. Sometimes this was very helpful and lead to extra glory. Other times it was annoying and made things more difficult. I can check through the old emails to see where we left it. I think it got put aside when I had to work on the Battle of Charlons.

First I'd suggest giving knights checks in all the skills in a solo rather than just one. THis is how it used to work in previous edtions and I think it makes more sense. A knight who for some reason doesn't get to go on a advance will get a couple of skill checks in stead on one, and a knight who does adventure will find that many of the checks overlap. Since you like the solos you could create some more. I could see an "At Your Lord's Court" solo or a Reglion solo to give player knights more options. Maybe even a "Knight Errant" solo for knights who decide to ride around looking for adventure. "At the crossroads" is quite repatable once the whole practicle of knights jousting at the crossroads pops up. But keep in mind that a lot of these solos take place in the summer and might not be "available " to a knight who spends a good part of the summer on an adventure or on campaign. The solos in the books came from 3rd edition , which is why the economic model doesn't fit. I believe, commons did still put disputes in front on the knight of the manor. The economic model does including running the knight's court. I think the hundred court is more for disputes between manors. Khanwulf and I had also considered doing up a "Deck of Solos" which in theory could allow someone to generate a mini quest using a deck on standard playing cards. We didn't get all that far with it, but the basic framework might be useful. Mostly the suit determined the type/nature of the adventure (hears would be romance or other passion, diamonds land and wealth, spares warfare and combat, etc) while the opposing value was determined by the values on the cards- usually two cards, but sometimes one or three depending on way the solo was constructed. The idea only go so far, in part because we were undecided on which way to go with it. One idea had little quarter or half page adventures determined by the cards, and another let the player construct his own quest based upon certain guidelines. Also, were were deciding between multiple tests with difficulty difficulties or using something like the battle intensity to track the overall progress on the quest.

After 16 months? Welcome back!

If it is a unit, then someone else takes over. This could (and probably should) be someone decided upon before the battle but it could also be done ad hoc based upon glory, battle skill or just gumption. The unit doesn't just fall apart-although they might have their morale affected, or even be inspired to seek revenge.

Well one way to look at things is that the players invest their character skill points into skills and abilities that they want to use more in the game. So a player who puta a lot of skill points into a characters credit rating, wants to be able to use that .So you should let the player buy stuff and use their CR skill. But players also expect to be challenged during play so you could: Have a rival crime boss show up and start messing with the player's holdings and projects. Let the crime boss run into some mythos nasties due to a recent investment (and old warehouse turns out to be a warren for ghouls, some trouble tenants he is trying to evict are cultists, a strange statue is found locked away in a safe, desk or office cabinet, an old nightclub he planned to renovate has a Shoggoth in the basement). This is nice as it not only uses the characters Credit Rating, but also can lead to an adventure for the PKs. Bring in a crusading District Attorney who is trying to root out the criminal element of the city, including the well intentioned PC crime boss. This could be an relation that starts antagonistic, but might mellow if the DA discovers that the crime boss is protecting the city form unspeakable horrors. The crime boss could have problems with underlings who don't understand why the crime boss is "throwing money away" and might consider him to be going soft and either consider taking over the crime ring, or shifting allegiance to the rival mentioned in the first bullet point. This happened a lot in the old days of the mob, and never really died out. Introduce some sort of threat to the Boss';s wealth/Credit Rating. New laws, technical or supply problems, enemy action, Dhole eats the new building, subway infested with Deep Ones. Stuff happens. But keep in mind that you got other players, who also put points into skills that they expect to use, so don't focus entirely upon the crime boss. Make sure to come up with stuff for the other players and their skills, and ideally overlap stuff.

Sorry comrade, KGB no more. But the Russian Mafia can hook you up with a new GM, for a price.

No but it can turn it from something you want to do, to something you have to do. Note that I didn't say that it does turn it, but that it can. This isn't unique to paid GMs either. There are times when I would rather do something other than prep for my game, and it becomes work. That's part of being a GM, and hopefully is worth it when I sit down to play. You think that's bad read Machiavelli. But to clarify my previous point, it's not that a paid GM doesn't want to game, only that it does open the possibility of someone only GMing for the money. Ised to work as a hospital and, while I hate to think it, there were some Doctors there who looked at patients as another paycheck. In fact one Surgeon actually waked out of the operating room to go cash his paycheck. So yeah, that kind of thing does happen. Now there were some really committed doctors there too, but a lot of them were just punching the clock. Doing it for free is doing it as a hobby. So the benefit is the actually enjoyment that comes from playing. Doing it for money means the benefit is the payment received, and GMing doesn't pay well compared tot he time and effort invested. Yup, and I would also assume that most pro GMs also enjoy GMing, and that's why they do it. But turning any hobby into a paid position has its pitfalls. For instance, look at a lot of the computer games out there that are pay to win and imagine a hired GM implementing that!

I doubt it. I've run at Cons, and even when I did get paid to run, I wanted to run, so I was vested in things and tried to engage the players. I think the key thing at Cons is that the people there want to be there. Even the "hired guns" want to be there. If they just wanted a paycheck they could be off doing something else, which probably took less time, work and paid more money. What hurts the pro GM is that the pay per time and effort put into the game is probably below minimum wage level in most places. It's not like a job where you show up and go to work, a GM probably has to put more time into writing and prepping the adventure than running. Plus additional time afterwards updating things-especially if running a campaign.

Possibly. It depends on the style and tone of the campaign. I'm currently running Pendragon where the soruces have gone out of their way to paint Vortigern and Hengest as the villains, and don't really get into the reasons why. So for that game, we probably don't need to have a deep understanding or detailed psychological profile of most of the villains. Not that Arthurian Literature doesn't have it's complex characters and moral gray areas. THe MAy Babies incident for instance, knocks Arthur down a few pegs. Yeah I agree. Gamers shouldn't be role-playing out bad stuff just to role-play out bad stuff, although I suppose it could be a therapeutic way to work through negative impulses. It's somewhat better if a person beats up on a NPC goblin that to take it out on their spouse.. I fell the same way about films. I'm not a fan of so called "splatter" films or gore in general, but I can see it being used to give a battle or fight scene more weight.

I'll second that. I think it was tongue in cheek commentary on certain overreactions by some police, not a condemnation of American Police in general. Most police officers haven't shot anybody. Because you need really bad villains in heroic fiction and adventure RPGs. It's also why in most RPGs the heroes and villains don't just sit down and talk things out. I think it's perfectly okay to come up with any sort of bad behavior in game, for a villain, provided it is shown to be bad behavior. It would be a pretty boring game if someone objected to something in the film and the bad buys went "Oh, we hand't thought of that. In that case we won't do it. Thanks for the constructive criticism." Much like it's perfectly okay for the Emperor in Star Wars to be a ruthless, manipulative tyrant. He exists to be taken down. Because otherwise the adventures become mundane or morally vague. It's why the evil king, wicked stepmother, etc. are tropes of heroic fiction. Not that such games can't be fun or interesting, just that for those who want heroic games they need villains for the heroes to oppose. For instance if Orcs aren't thoroughly evil, vicious cannibals, then the PCs who go into an orc cave are the bad guys (i.e." murder hobos").

I disagree. The best gamer's I've seen were great gamers and not so good profressionals. Typically people who are good creatively aren't that good at running a business, and vice versa. That's different, and seems more like equipment fees and lift tickets. I doubt there is one, or if there is one, it can be at a different position depending upon the people involved and circumstances. I have been paid to run at conventions, but it was $1 per player and mostly went towards drinks and snacks consumed during play. Sure. But players can and opften do chip in to buy a supplement or gaming mat or some such. It makes sense too as such tings enhance the enjoyment of the game for everyone. That not the same as charging a hourly rate or a fee per session. In my own group we are setting up to use a TV for out battlemat and one of the players has already said that everyone should chip in to by the tabletop software I'm going to go with. I dunno. I think it's the same skill set require by all GMs (read you players to determine their wishes and expectations, craft entertaining, yet interactive adventures, present the game in a way that said players can understand and enjoy). In some ways gaming with strangers can be more interesting tot he GM, as it will be a change from the standard players and could open up new possibilities. I ran a game for a friend's 9 year daughter, and in many ways she was more fun the GM than her father. She didn't like it when her NPC friend got hurt and started to game smarter to avoid it happening again. I wish my regular group thought like that!

Yup., much like in Excalibur when Merlin tells Arthur that he is leaving and "now you must be king". I think the idea in Malory is that Arthur is in way over his head, and get propped up by Merlin, Ulfius, Leodegrance, Ban and Bors, until both his Kingship is accepted by the British Lords, and he has learned enough to tackle the job. But he seems very much a fish out of water at first. I suspect that was partially to add to his appeal with the commoners. Being raised as the son of an ordinary knight put him about a low on the pecking order as someone could be and still be accepted as a King.

I did listen. Quote: "...for the longest time could not think of a battle system that wasn't about who wins the battle". The battle system in KAP 1-5.2 were all though up by Greg and were not about who wins the battle. So Greg could think of and did think of such a system. That's assuming they are indeed adding more content to each sub-book and not just breaking up what already exists. Each phase could always been as rich in material as anyone dream. The GPC was just an outline, and that's all it should ever be. That leave it pone for the inclusion of adventures and other material. I liked the idea from the first video on covering the various eras in the core rulebook. No I don't expect a huge section for each period, but a half page or a page or so on each should be included in the core book. Subdividing the game into 15-20 year subsections for people who don't want to play though the whole campaign means optimizing the game around four or five month campaigns for groups that play weekly.. So either they restart the campaign over, buy the new book, or switch to a different game. I'm still waiting to see what comes out, but I've got my fingers crossed.

7Tigers, thanks for the video. Although after watching it , I'm starting to get worried. The Battle System in the rules was never about who won the battle (players couldn't even affect the outcome of the battle normally, as the battles were scripted) and that only came around in the Book of Battles. So Jeff's statement there doesn't make sense. And dividing the GPC into four books in almost certainly going to end up costing GMs more than the GPC.

It can, and I think... ..has some truth to it. Once you are getting paid to do something it becomes work. Something that you have to do as opposed to something you want to do. I also think there may be another factor at play here that does differniate between a paid GM and other paid activities. Namely that of what is owned to the players. For instance, with most services you can specfiy what you want and the provider will agree to that and try to give you what you ask for - or you can opt to go elsewhere. Thus it is in their best interest to give you what you ask for, even it is ins't always the best thing to do. For instance the clerk at the store will sell you $100 worth of snacks if you are willing to pay for it, a hundred packs of cigarettes, etc. With gaming, part of the fun of playing is that players do not get everything they ask for. If they did the game would quickly get boring. Instead they get enough of what they ask for to feel a sense of accomplishment and continue playing. A good deal of the fun comes from not getting what they ask for, as it makes a future success much more satisfying. I can't see that working at a store. It's not like they can sell you the TV you wanted the next time you buy a TV. And that's where I can see "Pay for Play" breaking down. What if the GM doesn't give the players what they want (success, magic items, personal retinue, kingdom, etc.)? Better for them to appease the players and take the money rather than run a better game. Especially short term. So maybe you are onto something.

Good! Best wishes.

Will you stop fuming for a minute and actually read the posts. I never said that the game scarps DEX, I said that DEX is one of the areas where the game could be improved. Right now it's practically a dump stat. I don't know where you are getting a different title. Greg spoke up about this back when Pendragon was starting to shift back to Chaosium. I'll see if I can dig it up. It also detailed three of four supplements for Pendragon that were in the works. Unfortunately the old nocturnal forums are difficult to search since they got spammed by porn right when the game was shifted back to Chaosium and were not maintained. I'll search. One thing I do know is the the guy in charge of the game now is someone who Greg put in charge back when the game was still published by Nocturnal, and not something assigned to the job by Chaosium. The folks at Chasoium wisely chose to keep Greg's handpicked successor. Check out his (David Larkin's)'posts on this thread:https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/8699-greg-staffords-king-arthur-pendragon-rpg-returns-to-chaosium-ownership/ Oh, I'm with you there.I was disappointed with RQG. If Pendragon gets any sort of radical change I'll grab a torch and pitchfork and join you in stormin' the castle! But from what I've read/heard so far, this is all just following through on Greg's desire to update the published version of the game to the rules he was using at the time.

Whew! If your not careful someone will be posting that as fact over on some other website. I just want to stress that right now, all we really know about KAP 6 is: Greg had been working on it for years Had a say as to what the changes were What Jeff said about putting more information into the core rulebook to make the game more accessible to new GMs. Everything else is conjecture.