Atgxtg

Yeah-although I suppose a GM could offset that by running three adventures per year. It's not an ideal solution, but then it's not an ideal situation to begin with. Basically, ladies do have a lot to do in Pendragon. As opposed to the Conquest Period, where Arthur campaigns in the North, France, Italy and Ireland? Let's face it, Battles are a thing in just about every Period. I don't think it makes all that much of a difference, really. THe GM still needs to figur out what the player lady is going to do while the wars come around. Can't very well ask the player to stay home when they run Badon. Well,if you do that, you could just retcon them back to Uther's reign. The game leave them out of the early periods for reasons -mainly to give the game a gritter feeling to contrast with the land under Arthur. So it's all about trade offs. Again we are all just trying to play with the hand we're dealt with. Honestly , if I were the OP I'd probably nix the lady player character, or at least make sure the player had a knight to play for all the combat stuff. Yes it is. I'm not all that fond of that adventure either. It also showcases the drawbacks of a traditional lady in Pendragon. While Ahvielle is the instigator of the adventure she doesn't actually do much. But I think that giving a PL some sort of wealth/status/item helps to keep her on par with the knights. The PKs can't just blow her off an unimportant. But the problem remains that ladies in Arthurian literature don't do much in an adventure. At least not anything good. That makes it much tougher for a GM. While some courtly adventures will be fine with ladies. Something like what Karr did with the Poisoned Apple incident would be a great adventure for Knights and Ladies, but I' not sure what a player lady could do while the knights fight a giant or dragon, other than to get abducted.

Yes that is certainly part of it. historically swords were a status symbol. I think RPG bias is a bit different. Most RPGs sort of boil down weapons to a damage stat and swords tended to either be top tier damage weapons. Yeah, although the weapons chosen do factor in. For instance just a spear vs. just a sword is quite advantageous to the one with the spear.

You beat me to it!

That's a great point. I could see the lady shining at Court, but not having much to do on an adventure. Finding a way for her to contribute while adventuring is important. I could see making a case fo the 531 start year. Romance and tournaments give the ladies a lot more to do. Another option would be to swipe inspiration (or even the whole adventure) from the Oxford Usurpers. If the Player Lady were the daughter of a nobleman and inherited lands than she didn't have control of, then one or more adventures could focus around that. That might even allow the campaign to start in/slightly before the Anarchy Period. Say her father dies fighting the Saxons, and she is the rightful heiress but has to seek refuge at Sarum or something. Then regaining the family lands could be a long term goal of the campaign, and the player lady would be important due to her potential holdings. The daughter of a bannerette knight favored by Aurelius and/or Uther, with a dozen manors to her name is going to have a lot of clout, and be too valuable a chess piece for knights to ignore.

You kind of hit on one of the weak points of the game. While Pendragon is geared towards and fantastic for playing knights, playing anything else is a bit problematic. This is mostly due to the sources. As far a ladies go, they tended to be more the motivation behind adventures or the prize awarded from a successful adventure rather than being actual protagonists. I think Greg had hoped to expand the ladies section to make them more involved, but not to the point where they rise above a supporting role. I suggest talking with the player and getting an idea of their expectations before creating their character. Than way you'll not only see if the player fully understands the limitations of the role, and also it will help to give you some possible adventure ideas. I'd also suggest making the lady some sort of heiress so that knights will take an interest in her. Then you can create some rival NPKS that she can interact with, and her marriage can become a subplot for the game. Especially if her father is dead and she is a ward of the Count. For instance, maybe the Count is thinking of marringy her off to Knight A, but she doesn't like him and can work to try prevent or at least delay the marriage, hoping that Knight B could move up in status and she could marry him instead. And maybe she could enlist the PKs, allow you to turn this into some adventures. If you give her some sort of wondrous item, like a magical sword, then lots of knights could take an interest. You can probably look at some of the old adventures and turn them around so thatt they are from a ladies point of view. Then try and come up with Courtly rolls she can make, and the consequences of them, and a way to handle some stuff off screen. As far as the feast deck goes, you are pretty much correct - the deck is really focused towards knights. I think most of the cards could be adjusted to work for a lady, maybe with a little gender swapping. I think that would be the easiest solution as that way you wouldn't need to make up any any new cards, and could just use the existing once with slightly altered contents. I'll give the cardas a quick going over to see which ones would be troublesome, and try to come up with ways to adapt them.

There are some videos on youtube where people face off with spears against swords and generally it's hard to get in close against a spear man without getting hit, especially if the spear man is in formation with others (who can help him out). A shield helps quite a bit, as does armor, since they allow the warrior to take a hit or two while closing. Pikes aren't so great if you don't have a unit to fight alongside, though.

I've used it at times. It depends on what story possibilities I come up with. Sometimes I use the table, and other times I'll have the character vanish for a year or so and reintroduce them with some new story that might factor into future adventures. The last PK who went mad was a Berroc Saxon, who did so while the PKs were defending the ruins of Joyuese Guarde in Brittany from the Bacadae at night. He ended up charging the peasants, and had his horse jump the ditch to do so, crticalling his rolls despite penalties. He rode into the peasants with his great axe and scattered them left and right and disappeared into the woods. He was persumed lost but was found recovering at the city of Aurelianium the next year while the army was on the march to face Attila. The character had some strange dreams about a stranger named Gangrand and stories of a big black wolf. Now the character has a Love (passion) battle that he is trying to keep under control. Take the character sheet and hold onto it, and maybe charge a few things here and there. I'd say passive glory doesn't really make much sense as the mad character probably isn't acting according to his normal traits. He probably isn't being all that chivalrous or religious, but that might depend on what form his madness takes. Likewise with passions, although the character certainly should get glory for the passion that caused the madness. As for training and practice, I usually handle that as the GM depending on if the knight recovers during the year, and what sort of things he does while hunting. Often knights come back with some new or strange skills. For instance a knight that runs off in the woods for a few years and lives off the land might come back with some Hunting, Greatspear and Bow skills. One knight came back with a couple of points of Industry! He never wanted to look into how that happened.

It mostly comes down to point of view. Each culture is confident that their beliefs are absolutely correct and that everyone else's beliefs are wrong in some way. Thus you get contradictory myths and belief systems. This is compounded by the fact that much of what makes Glorantha work is belief, and the ability to adjust reality through HeroQuesting. This probably touches upon things like illumination and the God Learners secrets in that Glorantha seems to be malleable in some ways. The core building blocks, the runes are constant, but how they interact with each other can differ and even be manipulated towards other ends.

Yup. Although in some cases, despite the situation being presented as ambiguous, what is actually going on is pretty simple to work out. Indeed. That is why situations in Pendragon don't always hit players over the head with clear cut choices. There is rarely a "right solution" to something, and the players must deice on a solution that is the "most wright" or "least wrong" to them. Ironically, when there is a "right solution" to a problem, it is usually something that might not seem right to the players, as modern ethics and morality differs from medieval ethics and morality.

Yup. What I could see is doing something like giving shields an AP rating or an AP and HP rating. Axes would bypass half of the AP rating, while spears would only do one point to the shield if it penetrated. Or some such. But then I'd also give shields a bonus to block with. Probably by just making a shield block easy difficulty.

Not quite a parry is an attempt to to deflect the attack, it isn't really the same as a block, which is just sticking something in the path to intercept the attack. The thing with shields is that they are used more to block than to parry, which is the opposite of most weapons. So shields really do work more like armor. Block should be easier than parrying but much harder on the parrying weapon -not that any form of BRP really incorporates that. Pretty much all shields work like small shields. Larger shields mostly just cover a larger area and help to cover the target sometimes causing him to attack an area that doesn't have a body part behind it. Yes someone with a shield can attempt to parry, shield bask, catch a weapon with the edge, etc. but generally the shield is optimized for blocking. If I were to redo BRP combat, I'd probably differentiate between parries and blocks, with blocks being easier but resulting in more damage to the blocking weapon, and give shields a bonus to block based upon size. So shields would be easier to use but probably soak a little less damage, and get chewed up while doing do. No but it does mean that a successfully parried attack will redirect the attack to a line where it won't hit the opponent.

I don't think that means a Waha Khan approval is required to actually release Oakfed, rather only he can give the tribal shaman permission to do so. Much like how only the US Persident can authorize the use of nuclear weapons, but someone else would actually do it. So I think that would still be consistent with:

Yeah, plus it is revcent. I don't see a situation like that happening if Uther were around to act. THe whole thing seems perfect to happen at the start of the Anaerchy Peroid. That's pretty much the way nobles act whent hey want something. In war they would actually go out of thier way to complise a list of greivevances to justify why they were attacking. Kinda showing that God was on thier side. It's not actually flaunting of tradtion or law yet though. Part of the problem here is that feudalism is so new that it hasn't had time to become a tradition yet, and there is some logic tot he "men rather than boys" view later expressed by the Ten Kings against Arthur. The fact is, the boy Count cannot manage or defend his lands, which is a failure to fulfill his own feudal obligation and leaves the door open for what happened. Now I'm not saying that they guys are virtuous, loyal knights for usurping the castles, but they aren't quite villainous in their actions. The whole situation is just ambiguous enough that it could happen and be left uncorrected in a fedual society. Of course in Pendragon, Arthur will probably right the situation after Badon, if the PKs don't handle it before then. The adventure is a golden opportunity for the PKs to make friends in high places and earn a future favor, or even a castellancy or some such. Happy gaming.

I think Beldri is supposed to be the Countesses'' second husband, but based upon what in the GPC he could have been her first husband or father. Lordly Domains, specifies that she is the wife of the Earl, but differs from the version presented in the GPC enough to have me question if Greg meant for the situation to be the same. But yeah the son could be just about any age, or even be deceased. THe GPC says that she gave birth to two children but not what their fates were.

Yes, it generally a god idea when starting up a new game world to start the PCs small in one area and then gradually expand to intorduce new areas so that they do not get overwhelmed. I think the GPC does so partly by design but also partly becuase of the underlying timeline. I mean the PKs kinda have to go to Cornwall if the GM wants to cover the Uther-Igraine situation and how it leads to Arthur. First off, do you have Lordly Domaians from KAP4? It has a longer version of the adventure which provides more details. Looking over it and the GPC The Countess husband was Earl Bledri (GPC p.96 under the OXFORD USURPERS) who died years ago in battle. In Lordly Domains (LD) he was the brother to Duke Ulfius who "passed away last winter from wounds received fighting the Saxons". In LD Saxon troubles force Ulfius to abadon his attempt to take back the lands himself, which leads to the PKs doing it, while their Liege and Ulfius fight the Saxons. But the adventure has quite a few differences from the shorter version in the GPC, so you might want to pick and choose bits to flesh things out. In LD there is no mention of the countess having children, and the death of her husband was more recent. In fact the adventure is desigend to help set up a PK as a possible suitor. In the GPC, the Countess married twice, and both husbands have died in battle. With big battles going back for decades, her first husband could have died anytime during Uther'a reign, or even earlier. So he son could be any age you want. I'd probably assume her husband died either at St. Albans or fighting Gorlois and so the son would probably be younger than 10-15, but that;'s just my thinking.

True. Pretty much everything conspires to keep that from happening. HPL's stuff is like a trip on the Titanic. The characters don't know they are in danger at first, don't see 90% of the threat, and the horror comes in the realization of what is actually happening and that the end is inevitable.

I think most of us would believe that. It's just not what HPL intended though or how CoC is set up to work. I think that's a good idea for a campaign, but one that probably would work better in a game system other than standard CoC. At least Pulp Cthulhu where the PCs are a bit stronger, or maybe even a full fledged super hero RPG. A campaign where the PCs are all superheroes trying to handle the events of the night where "the stars are right", could probably make for a great campaign (not to mention a graphic novel). The "stars are right" could be the the Norse Ragnarok and the Mythos nasties could be the Jontuns. Maybe Cthulhu could be the Midgard Serpent?

IMO it's more complicated that that. A big heavy weapon like a poleaxe or maul might just smash through a lighter shield without it protecting much. And besides if your argument was true, then why not apply it to armor as well? I think varying protection based upon materials makes sense. Realistically for a given thickness, some material will protect more than others. I think the problem is that the protection ratings are tied to the size and coverage of the of the shield and shouldn't be. A small metal buckler should probably stop more damage that a big wicker tower shield. The size and coverage should instead affect the chances of blocking with the shield as opposed to the amount protected. A inch thick piece of oak is going to protect against a weapon about the same if it is 1 foot across or three.

Yeah. There are reasons for that. First off, in the real world shields don't really have to soak the damage of the attack. THe shield stops the weapon from penetrating the body, and energy spent moving the shield and shield arm is energy that isn't applied tot he body. Next is the fact that ancients tended to fight with spears and sword cutting weapons as opposed to axes, mauls and greatswords. The actual damage tot he shield wasn't so bad. Since the shield arm moves with the blow, cutting through a wicker shield is a lot like trying to hack through the jungle. It takes awhile. There was an article for RQ3 to wicker shields and such, but in general thier AP scores were so low as to be mostly worthless, which was a pity.

LOL! I've have new players try that, but most quickly learn that it's not worth it. By switching weapons the player prolongs the fight, giving opponents more attacks and thus more chances to score a lucky special or critical hit. This ends up increasing thier mortialy rate and the characters tend to die off faster. It's not worth it, especially since it's better to be great at one weapon rather than mediocre at ten.

Certainly, it's just that the reasons why we get "contradictory evidence" is that different sources uses different approaches to things. OH, I think that hasn't really gone away -it's just cinematic horror is meant to entertain, more that really scare. People liked to be scared, but only to a point. And in an RPG it's tougher to pull off, as most of what makes horror scary isn't really available. GMs are mostly running a group of friends in a well lit, safe environment who know knowing is going to happen. Actually they could come. One thing that can help with a horror campaign is to throw out the requirement that the campaign world go on. If failure and the end of the world become actual options things get scary again. A GM can always start up another game if the PCs fail to save the world. I mean it's an option - and probably one worth mentioning even if the GM doesn't intent to use it.

LOL! But seriously, if you want to come up with some odd but interesting adventure and story ideas just take something you know and look at it from the viewpoint of another setting that you know which is very different. For instance the last Lengendary Godzilla film basically re-imagined the kaiju as if they were al mythical monsters and beings, and linked to any actually legendary creatures they could. Just imagine Godzilla/Gojira as Lovecraft's Dagon and it shifts both franchises. The'd like you to think that!

Yeah, especially for people who play games like BRP. I typically stop by and look at some of the free stuff and stuff that can be adapted to whatever game I'm actually running. Something a short fan made adventure or supplment is more useful that a full fledged professional product as there is less "baggage" to deal with.

Yes. What often hurts RPGs is that they are not necessarily written for a particular setting that people would like to game in. With D&D this isn't an issue since there are so many companies producing stuff that notonly is every niche probably covered, but a GM has a choice of multiple takes on a topic to choose from. But with smaller RPGs, most settings/genres aren't covered, or at least not as comprehensively, and fan produced stuff helps to give a GM some options or guidelines to adapt a game to whatever setting they are looking to run. Ditto with adventures. If your running D&D you have an almost infintitve selection, but most other RPGs don't have enough adventures to support a campaign. So fan produced stuff helps, even if it isn't a polished as professional stuff.

Yes, mostly-except that it is a lnychpin for the whole Mythos. Take that away and it just isn't the same thing and has an entirely different feel to it. That's also why any attempt to rationalize it or mix it with some other setting basically fails, as doing so would usually mean throwing out most of the paranoid xenophobia that underlies it. For instance, just consider how something like the original Justice League would look from a Cthulhu Mythos POV. You have two incredible powerful aliens running around, along with a woman from some hidden island who worship old gods, The ruler of a civilization that sunk beneath he waves long ago and has problems with the surface people, a man who was granted a powerful ring by a race of aliens, another man given inhuman powers of speed through chemicals and an accident, and some guy who seeks to avenger the murder or his parents by dressing up like a bat (a costume similar to some portrayals of Camazotz, which I'm sure Lovecraft would play up on), hanging around in caves, and riding around a big scary city and night beating up other weirdos. Normal people walking the streets would be driven insane by a glimpse of such "unnatural and otherwordly" beings. Because that is how Lovecraft would present them. Trying to look at it logical with "well, THIS doesn't bother people today, or in THAT movie or TV show" missing the point. Things bother people in the Mythos because the Mythos is built upon the belief that the universe is filled with things that mankind cannot accept or comprehend. Most of the things used for comparison come from setting where people can adapt to accept just about anything. So any sort of mix or crossover requires a paradigm shift , invalidating one worldview or the other. Ultimately a GM either needs to decide to accept the Mythos perspective and SAN loss, despite how silly and irrational it is in situations liek the one presented by the OP, or reject it, and run a game where the fundamentals of the Mythos are wrong. I think any attempt to rationalize it and integrate it with another setting is almost guaranteed to fall apart. I think that is also one reason why franchises that have touched upon the Mythos have generally done so sparingly, tucking in into the fringes somewhere, so that it doesn't get looked at too closely.