Atgxtg

These days they can digitally de-age people, and put faces over motion capture, so those people could still be "in the running", but I don't think that's necessary. It's not like an actor would have to compete with the image of a previous portrayal. Considering the current trend towards younger actors, and that Elric is in his 20s or so throughout the saga, I could see them going with an unknown or little know actor, barely in their 20s.

Pretty much. Being slightly better armed and armored that the general population makes other less likely to want to start trouble with you, the more your packing the more likely thayt people will beleive that you are goinhg to intiate trouble and that they should plan for the inevitable, maybe even get in a preemptive strike. It's pretty sound reasoning as no one lugs around with a flame thrower and a rocket launcher without a reason. So everyone will assume the PCs have a reason. But, since the regular people don't know what that reason is they will get a little paranoid and defensive, and things get less stable. In the real world this is one way how "incidents" tend to happen between nations.

Like I said it's pretty close to the formula I came up with. In fact it is one of several such formulas I was kicking around. I think I had three or four as I was trying to match the stats with a draw weight, based on the SIZ table, with the draw weight is one-third the weight for a given SIZ. So a STR 10 (or STR+SIZ =10 or STR+Skill =10) bow would have a draw weight of 100/3 or about 33 pounds. So those 150 pound longbows from the Mary Rose would take a STR+Skill = 26. My goal was to put all the bows, and crossbows on the same basic table, with modifiers for the type of bow (longbows and composites get a boost to effective STR due to the arms acting a levels, crossbows get a mechanical aid from the mechanism used to pull back the string, but lose effective due to the shorter travel and inefficiencies of scale, etc.). I even extended it all into siege engines, with a Roman Scorpion doing something like 1d6+27. But it was all a bit of a sideshow for Pendragon. It would be much more relevant in Middle Earth or for something like a Robin Hood campaign.

LOL! That's pretty close to what I have. The major difference is that for bows I took SIZ out of the equation and either just used STR, or STR+Bow skill to determine damage (i was debating between the two). The idea being that an archer would need to be stronger to draw back a more powerful bow, and that experience will help build up the muscle groups particular to archery. I never really finsihed off the bow stuff as this is Pendragon and bows are unknightly.

Yes, they revised (lowered) the damage for longbows from 4d6+10 to 3d6+6 in the Book of the Entourage. I assume composite bows would be about 3d6+3 now. BTW, if anyone is interested, the damage should really be determined by the draw weight rather than the type of bow. Composite Bows and Longbows aren't all that better than common self bows, just that they tend to come in higher draw weights and are easier to use at such weights.

LOL! Gun, no, energy packs, yes. But realistically, even when it's someone you "trust" it raises the tension. For example, just imagine a policeman knocking on your door asking your a routine question about some car parked illegally, up the street from your house. Now imagine him doing in in body armor with an assault rifle in his hands. He can ask the same exact questions, and do the same exact things, but your reaction and interest would probably be entirely different. That sort of stuff actually factors into how most local police forces arm and outfit themselves.

Yeah but by pre-Feudal and even feudal society marrying the widow of the King adds legitimacy to the claim, even if she wasn't entirely faithful. Yup. I kinda like the idea that rather than some sort of hoax to steal the throne Mordred actually believes that Arthur is dead. It makes much more sense. He fiugre Lance killed him and that he is the next in line. Then his mistakes Arthurs returning force for new invaders and, once he realizes what happened, he tries to back out of it then everything goes wrong. Of coruse if you go with the old Welsh soruces where the two Gwens are the cause of it all, then he is more or less caught up in the events.

Yeah, it even extends into the psedo Shaskpearian speech that players sometimes adopt. Something along the lines of "Hold Knave, and submit to the King's Justice, or suffer my wrath!" has a mucch diffent feel to it that "Stop Thief, and wait for the cops, or I'll kick your butt!" I wound't read much into that. For starters spelling hadn't been finalized at that time, and the version we get now has been modernized to confirm with more modern spellings. We don't even know exactly who "Thomas Malory" was, and the leading candidate for authorship of Le Mort, Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel, is named as THOMAS MALLERE on his tomb.

Not to mention a desire to further legitimize his claim to the throne. Marrying the widow of the old King and all. Or, for those who want a less evil Mordred, he could have been thinking of protecting her, but that would be a very forgiving interpretation. Or course it could just come down to her still having an APP of 28 or so, and being more of a step mom in relation to him.

That kinda goes with the territory. Few kings rose to and kept power easily. Legitimacy of birth was really just one more reason to side one way or the other. Yup, and if a GM were to go with the false Gwen stroy, there are a lot of reasons to go with the Welsh sources over the Vulgate. Is it a feudal state? it is in Cambria (or border it) a territory that remains at least partially pre-feudal in Arthur's time. It seems somewhat odd that Cameliard's transition to full on feudalism while the lands around it do not. Again, this is just another way of looking at it -nothing definitive. Yes, I imagine that Leodegrance did something with her. Probably gave her something and married her off to someone important, but considering the plot to substitute her for the real Gwen on Arthur's wedding night, it seems that she might have been disowned. Still, it opens the door for all sorts of Man in the Iron Mask type of stories.

I know you've said that before for other characters, but historically bastards did inherit. Look at William the Conqueror. If Leodegrance decided to set something aside for her, she would probably get it. If a Gm wants to use the False Gwen idea, she becomes much more powerful and significant if she has part of Camelard under her control.

Well, I guess I can't say much against that, considering I started my campaign in 410, extending my campaign by 70 years or so. Considering that Cornwall has ties with Brittany, I'd suggest linking your PKs families to Cornwall before you get to the Downfall and Camlaan. THat way, the retreat to Cornwall and then moving overseas would seem more natual and organic and less like your jumping from set piece to set piece. You could even have Constatine attempt to reclaim the lands of Riothamus, and maybe have the PKS marry heiresses in Brittany. If you do it slowly, over time, you can lay all the groundwork well in advance and just sit back and let the players "get the idea" to migrate to Brittany. In my camapign I had the players hear a rumor that Vortigern was going to use their PKS as scapegoats for the rebellion, along with a promise of safe passage from Duke Eldol, and they got the hint and went into exile. I suggest you start laying the groundwork for whatever direction you would like to nudge them towards. It would still be their choice, but if they have a manor or two somewhere it might affect their decision as to what they want to do. With all the widows after Camlaan, you could probably justify setting up the PKs anywhere.

Mallory, can be difficult for modern reader to follow, but it is what that Greg used as his primary source for the game, so a Pendragon GM should get it. These days there is no doubt a free PDF version of it in the public domain. There are also counter modern simplfications of the tale that were based offof Mallory, such as Howard Pyle's The Story of King Arthur and His Knights and Steven Corbourn's King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, which are fairly true to Mallory, and can help to explain things in a more easy to read way. I think that White re imagines a lot of things in a way that is counter to the spirit of the game. For instance his view of the round table as something of a sign of equality. Basically it's Arthur idealized in a 20th century democratic leader as opposed to being King Arthur. The play and film Camelot is probably the most extreme version of this with Arthur becoming a sort of social worker who blames armor as the cause of war (knights have it so they don't get hurt in battle, while commoners don not have it and so die), and who wants to essentially replace feudalism with a modern court stems where everyone is viewed equally under the law. The whole burning of Guinevere at the Stake situation is morphed into a conflict between Arthur's ideals versus his love for his wife. He has more in common with Hamlet or Perry Mason than with King Arthur. The whole Arthur being forced to burn his wife at the stake to preserve his ideals is nonsense. Even today heads of State can and do issue pardons without bringing down the whole justice system. OVerall while White is readable, I think going with him as a primary source is a mistake. He's best taken like a dietary supplment, rather than as the diet.

Well then, if you want to run a sequel, why not extend the campaign by using Arthur's actual heir, Constantine of Cornwall? Sure it could be as depressing as Hell, since the Saxons would constantly be pushing the Cymri back, but at least it would be connected to Arthur, whereas Charlemagne isn't connected, and transporting the PKs families over to France and several hundred years in the future is probably going to kill off any sort of continuity.

Hmm, if a GM decides to use the False Guinevere this could get very interesting, as it would give her half a kingdom to rule.

Yes, that's quite likely. What tends to happen is that when people see someone decked out in armor they wonder why they need it and just what is going on. In my last Star Wars campaign the PCs kept gravitating towards bigger and better weaponry, and the bounty hunter picked up and went around in a suit of power armor. In the long run that tended to make the bystanders more nervous, and any potential adversaries more likely to pull out bigger weaponry and call in for reinforcements. It's pretty basic psychology. If you got a handgun and the other guys have a machinegun, then you want more firepower and will tend to focus on the guy with the machinegun over another guy with a rifle. So in play, most of the criminal and low life types that the PCs ran up against would do what they could to try an offset the PCs arsenal, which typically mean't bigger badder weaponry that was less forgiving and caused more collateral damage. The end result of the firepower upgrade for the PCs was that it made it harder for the PCs to keep a low profile, and their combats became more dangerous, more lethal, and less forgiving. But it's hard to convince players that they would be better off carrying a weapon that did less damage.

I'll also toss in that a GM should pick up some version of the King Arthur story. Preferably a version of Mallory's Le Mort D'Arthur, but anything based off it is, and thus true to the central storylines is good enough. Other books, such as the HRB are nice, and due to the age of the sources much of it is in Public Domain, and obtainable as an ebook or PDF. Reading that will help the GM understand what the game is supposed to be about.

I agree. With Pendragon I can see it because of the tradtion of Arthruian authrors to equip Arthur and his knights in the arms and armor of the later periods. But Chalegemagn, as a histroical figure should be more grounded in time and place.

It might but I don't think I'd want to run it as a sequel. It's too far later to just continue a KAP camapign, and I'd rather run something else or even start up a new Pendragon camapign before running Pladin. Again, nothing against Paladin, just that I and my players prefer the Arthurian setting of Pendragon. Yeah, that's one of the clever thing Greg did with Pendragon. Despite using Mallory as his main source, he expanded the game to include all sorts of versions and variations of the King Arthur legend. which left the door open for using stories from Mallory, the Vulgate, ther HRB, Welsh Triads, T.H. White, and whatever source we fancy.

Pity, considering "ring mail" probably didn't exist. I really wish gaming would drop all the 19th century mistakes that D&D inadvertently brought into gaming, like taking on mail to the name of everything, and armors such as ring and studded leather.

Interesting, but I'm not sure if that makes it any easier to adapt to the Pendragon setting. Not that there is anything wrong with Paladin, just that my players (and GM, too) are more inclined to play ia campaign in an Arthurian setting, and I doubt we will ever play Paladin. I'd like to try it, but it's a case of so many games, but only one gaming night. I've still got about two years left to go in my Pendragon campaign (up to 461).

The combat system and the relative/absolute ratings are linked. D&D uses ever increasing hit points, which is what leads to an unbeatable foe. It gets to the point where a weak creature like a trollkin can't do enough damage to kill off a high level PC. HQ is somewhat similar in that a weak trollkin won't ever be able to defeat an equivalently skilled character. Except that is is more of an issue with systems that have a relative scale. With a fixed scale some mook with a handgun or javelin is always some sort of threat, and a GM doesn't need armies of mooks to threaten the PCs, nor as many highly skilled bad guys. Just compare what it takes to challenge a group of high level D&D characters as opposed a a group of Rune Level characters in RQ. Actually, you can replace combat with something else, especially in a system like HQ.While gamers are used to RPGs being focused around combat and character life & death as the primary motivation for things, the reality is any sort of contest is valid, as long as the players care about the outcome. Combat is just easier for most GMs to set up. HQ in particular illustrates this by revolving all contests with essentially the same game mechanics.

Thanks, I've got most of the older KAP books, although I might be a revision behind on a couple things( I was recently mildly surprised when going over an updated version of Boy King, unaware that it had been altered for KAP4, so now I'll have to check out some of the revised version of supplements on Drivethru). So while several adventures might be usable with some modification, how about the core rules? I've read that Paladin handles family differently, and wonder if it could help with the winter phase, add more solos, equipment, horses or some such? Hmm, after looking over the preview, the Gardens of Fortune seems especially suited for adaptation, since Morgan Le Fay seems to be in it.

Yes it could. You just need someone who could benefit from player one side against the other. Yup. What happened was that the PK in question was making a killing off the tourney circuit and had invested in a large amount of siege equipment. An old knight who was a friend of his sent a messenger asking for help in a local war, and the PK rushed off with what forces he could gather and made his way north to the old knight, all to eager both to aid his friend, and to use some of that siege equipment. Unfortunately, the road he took lead right past Levcomagus, and when the PKs realized what that looked like, some of them rode off ahead to to and convince the knight of Levcomagus that they "were just passing by" and not to worry about the 200 libra (!) worth of siege equipment. The locals didn't believe the PKs and captured them, and the PK's army, encouraged by an overzealous household knight whom a PK had taken on, assaulted the city to rescue the PKs. It turned into quite a mess.

There are a few diffierences: First off in a absolute scale a low skill opponent tends to remain some sort of threat, not matter how skilled the character. Thus such an encounter always presents an element of risk. The infamous Rurik vs. the Trollkin is a prime example. In RQ the trollin is always going to have a chance of hurting or killing Rurik. In HQ Rurik can have enough of an advantage that the trollkin is no longer a threat. Secondly has to do with worldbuilding and verisimilitude. Since greater skilled opponents are supposed to be progressively rarer, the campaign becomes less and less believable as the PCs advance and all these highly skilled opponents pop out of the woodwork in order to keep the game challenging. . Unless the GM decides not to go down the rabbit hole of ever improving locks. The trick them is to find another challenge for that player to replace lock picking. So lockpicking can become virtually an automatic success, at least most of the time, and the player will have some other obstacle to get around, say guards, spirits, or magic. The difficulty, in game terms, is that they player has invested points into lockpicking. Yeah, that's kinda true of most RPGs, but is especially true in D&D. What happens is that the spiraling escalation makes it tougher both to find reasonable challenges and to "sell" them to the players. PLus the magic gets much more powerful, and it possible to drop a PC or two before they can act, which isn't very satisfying. It's like if someone was trying to run a group full of supermen and needing to pull out a bunch of krytonite each adventure. To be fair though, all games have a "sweet spot" where they were designed to be played, and most start to break down as they go beyond that spot. Imagine RuneQuest with four digit skill scores. One of the reasons why most FUDGE and FATE based RPGs don't have character advancement to speak of, is to avoid this problem. Basically character improvement isn't such a good thing for the game.