Atgxtg

Yeah, like I said eariler 3d6+6 isn't much different than 5d6. I think I prefer 5d6 but it's not an issue, just a preference. I'm using 3d6+3 for composite bows.

Oh, in that case I don't see the need to increase the bow damages. 5d6 for the longbow was plenty against a target without a shield. I did up some rules for bow damages by draw weight and special arrow types vs. armor, but never really use them as bows as not a knightly weapon. The GPC came out first, but Greg might have had the new Longbow damages in mind and K&L partially done before the GPC was released. I do recall Greg mention on the old forums that he thought 4d6+10 was too much.

I believe it was K&L that gave us the 4d6+10 Longbow, and the 3d6+8 compound bow. At least Greg admitted to the latter being a slip up (composite bow not compound bow). Personally I think the 5d6 longbows from KAP4 were about right, not that 3d6+6 is much different. Bows got helped in KAP 5 by the way shields now work against them. Before, the 6 points of protection from the shield sort of required higher damages to get through. With shields not reducing damage, but apply a -5 to be hit, the damage can be kept more reasonable. In my current campaign 3d6 bows are actually a threat against 10-11 point mail armor.

It's one of mine too. Plus, after running mutiple campaigns, I often want to go in a different direction at times. Yes, and that it continues to grow and evolve also gives us all more options as to what we can do with it. Considerng that every Pendragon campaign uses basically the same setting, characters timeline, and major events, we need those changes and alternatives to keep the games fresh and unique. Going off on a tangent or diverting from the established timeline can often enhance a campaign. Recently my players actually mange to win a battle that they were scripted to loose. It was a battle against the Irish in the 450s, and the outcome really didn't make any difference to the course of events. All the change really did was bring the PKS to the attention of Kings Vortimer and Katigern which drew the PKs into the rebellion, and led to their going into exile in 458 after hearing rumors that they might be charged with treason for their part in the rebellion. It was a minor deviation from the established timeline in Book of Sires, but it paid off wonderfully, both in terms of story advancement, and in terms of player satisfaction. It was really the one and only time where the players actually threw the outcome of a battle with their actions. Yup, although I'd probably say that very little will throw everything off course, and that in most cases things throw some stuff of course but n most cases the main storyline will continue on just fine. There are really only a handful of characters and events that can throw the whole campaign off course. Only Arthur is really indispensable. Even Merlin was a retcon. It probably only had marginal effect during the Anarchy, too. Cerdic is really just one more potential threat that has to be enduring during the Anarchy Period. It really doesn't matter much where he is situation just as long as he is close/powerful enough to exert pressure on Salisbury. Unless the GM wants to go for a more sympathetic version than the one in the GPC.

You can do it that way, but sometimes the easiest path might not be the best path. No they are not historically accurate, but they do draw on history. We shouldn't just blindly follow something in the core rules or the GPC just because the setting inst historically accurate. KAP could easily have used a more generic FRPG type of economy and price lists. Instead Greg went with something at least partially based on history, because doing so enhanced the gaming experience. THe economic system has since been refined over the years tot he point where it is one of the most historically accurate as any RPG. At least for one that doesn't fluctate the way prices really did. I think that maybe only HARN does the economics better. And that all enhances the game. A GM could just hand wave off the economics becuase the game is a romance, not a histroical RPG, but doing so would diminish the gaming experience. So my point is that a GM really shouldn't dismiss things out of hand, as doingh so could shortchange the group. Okay, but Greg did stuff like that on multiple occasions. He drew on a lot of soruces besides Mallory and the HRB, and occasionally he even ripped up the floorboards. Orginally, in KAP1 Camelot was Cadbury Castle, a site that had been recently suggested as a possible site by some Arthruian researchers. So Greg ripped up the floorboards set down by Mallory and opted to use Cadbury Castle for Camelot, instead of Winchester. Then, with KAP3, he ripped up the floorboards again and decided to use Winchester as Camelot after all. And frankly Cedric isn't a floorboard, he's a nail that popped up. He serves more as a boogeyman during the Anarchy of of what could happen to Logres, but he quickly fades into the woodwork once Arthur shows up. Especially after Badon. Can you prove that? I'd say the opposite is usally the case. Historical detals tend to provide a clearer structure, themese and pattern than ficional ones. Typically fictional ones miss stuff, and can easily fall apart if someone turns left instead of right or some such. Yes and the choice for KAP has always been a blending of sources, literary and historical. Not to forget film. Excalibur has had a huge impact on Uther in KAP5. If Greg had followed your methods then KAP would have been Mallory and nothing else. THat was the easilest and simpliest way to go. Nothing else was needed. But but expadning beyond Mallory we all got a better game setting and much better campaigns. THe setting has more depth, and we are free to adventure in any part of it., instead of being restricted to the things in Mallory. And I think the divide isn't about sotry over histroy. It's about which version of the story. The thing is, there are mutiple versions of the King Arthur tale, and they all contradcit each other at times. Much of the decsions made by GMs depend on which version or versions they wish to go with. Or which bits they wish to mix and match. THat';s what Greg did. it's why we get stuff like Arthur's sons and the Troit boar. But it's not history vs. "the story". it's about which version of "the stroy" does a GM go with. Greg used elements from many versions of the tale to various degrees, and most of the differences between GMs here are based more on which sources they prefer over others.

Well to get any sort os soultion you have to start from somewhere. For somethin g like "What is Wessex" history is really the only way to find an answer. Except that the material presented already contradicts itself in places. So any attempt to clarify, clean up, and sqaure the material is going to require deciding which stuff to keep and which stuff to alter to fix the stuff being kept. And to do the best job of that we really should look at the sooruces, like Greg did. Greg did pull all of this stuff out of thin air, he read a lot of Arthurian and historical literature and crafted the world of Pendragon from that. If we want to fix the desceprancies that exist, we should adopt the same methods if we want good results. Yes, but since the sorucebook isn't always consistent within itself is exacly when looking elsewhere helps. Be it historical soruces or other Arthurian ones. It's a minor wrench and it might be worth considering, seeing as the situation is messed upo anyway, and any attempt to fix it is going to require some changes. So it's worth looking at the whole siutation and deciding if a given change has merits that make it worth the trouble. In this particular case probably not, but dismissing historical data out of hand is cutting off a good soruce for adventures and story ideas. A lot of the location specfic adventure in the GPC and elsewhere are based upon real world legends and accounts that are not tied to King Arthur in anyway, but instead are just good stories that Greg decided to incorporate into Pendragon because he could.

It's not necessarily about getting the gamer to align with real history, but instead getting the pseudo history of the game to be internally consistent. There are more than one version of this tale, and the GPC incorporates bits from several sources, and they don't alwys fit nice with each other. Greg has also changed some things along the way, and that has other ramifications. In this case, the OP was trying to figure out who was where among the Saxon Kings threatening Salisbury during the anarchy. What do you do when the text, charts and maps contradict each other? That the situation here with the GPC. The various Kingdoms don't matchup with each other in the GPC. People were usually the historical information to try and figure out the best solution for the situation.

Yes, I was wondering what route Cerdic took to Wessex. Through Kent or Portsmouth? No, and in most cases it doesn't matter so much. It's just that in this particualr case the maps, tables, and text do not align with each other. Unfornately it's in a place where it sort of matters for the rest of the anarchy period.

That a good point. The GPC is very much a chronicle of the big events that are going on, not necessarily a itinerary for the PKs. Quite a lot of what's in there is stuff that the PKS won't get involves with for various reasons. Some of it is stuff designated for Lancelot or some other Round Table Knight. Other bits are things happening far away, that might one day prove to be important, even if no PK was there when they occurred. Yes, and this is a very good thing. It's part of why countless groups can run a game with the same basic premise and timeline, multiple times, and yet each campaign can be unique. Each GM and group can focus on different aspects and versions of the King Arthur legend each time though.

That makes more sense. The maps, text, and tables do not match up and it makes it all more confusing that it really should be. Maybe one day we could get a revised map with the Kingdoms mentioned in the GPC marked?

As Morein states it can. But what I ususally do is limit the amount that can be built in one year without outside help to the income of the estate. So in my campaign an M&B castle would probably need to be built over -4 years unless the PK wants to pay extra for addtional work crews. An estate holder or other noble, with at least 36 income per year could still build an M&B in one year. I think this matches up okay with the norman conquest, since the M&Bs were generally built by those who held more than just one manor. Nothing, unless you build on top on it, in which case it's buried under the Mott. I have allowed PKs to take apart and rebuild structure at half cost, but that's not RAW.

Good. I wouldn't want anyone to run up against them over an RPG. That's not a bad idea. I'm partial to using historical 5th-6th century cultures for places that are not really mentioned in the literature. I think the age of advancement that accompanies Arthur mostly radiates out from Britain with the rest of the world still at their historical levels. The only exception seems to be the Romans, who are sort of held over to make Arthur's conquest of Rome mean something, and who are already tied to the "historical Arthur" in some ways..

Not really. Everything has been "in the pipeline", and then for some time. So it's pretty much a matter of it will come out when it's ready.

One thing I'd advise is to avoid filling in all the blanks for these things for your players. Most of the time they don't want or need to know exactly what is going on, and you can get by just dropping a few hints. That allows you to avoid painting yourself into a corner. RE: Wessex: I think part of the difficulty here is that the Saxon kndoms mentioned on pages 71-32 (Anglia, Deira Essex, Kent, Nohaut, Sussex, and Wessex) do not match up exactly with the Saxon Kingdoms on the table on page 72 (Kent, Sussex, Essex, Angles, Port and Wessex). The map in the GPC on Page 78 shows Cerdic to be in control of what I'd expect to be Port. So, as best as I can figure it out: Wessex seems to be Hampshire, especially southern Hampshire, around Portsmouth, at least during the Anarchy. Perhaps these were two kingdoms that were merged into one prior to 495, since Port isn't mentioned in the GPC? Part of the problem with the term Wessex is that is actually refers to the region of Britain that they PKs are occupying, and doesn't really come into existence until after Arthur. Deira is along the coast between Lindsey and Nohaut.

Sounds like a golden opportunity for someone to write a supplement along the lines of Pagan Shores, Saxons! or Land of the Giants. That tends to be the case with alot of cultures. We really didn't get much for poplaying in a Roman settng or Celtic, let alone Africa. Typically they end up as one shot publciations. So there is little incentive for RPG companies to do much with them, and they end up as "labor of love' projjects for those with an interest in the settings. The Rolemaster and GURPS lines of settings books were really good for fleshing a lot of setting out, as were some of the BRP BGB supplements such as Rome and Merrie England. The thing that the authors would need to tap dance around is Islam. Because that faith has severe restrictions to how it can be referred to in text and illustration, and because certain practitioners of it would take extreme action upon anyone who broke those tenets, it is probably best avoided in an RPG, especially in one such as Pendragon. We don't want anybody to be under a death sentence for writing an RPG supplement. Since Islam had such a profound effect on the cultures it makes it difficult to work out what they should be like for Pendragon. Are the more like 5th century cultures, or like the Medieval cultures, but without Islam? And if the latter, then what else is used to justify some of the cultural mores? It's quite a minefield, especially in an Arthurian RPG where a strong Christian bias tends to exist.

As Anuillan pointed out, in SIRES when a PKS ancestor does well in certain events, usually battles, there is a chance he could be reward with a roll on table 1.13. Something like this: That ties the reward to a specific event, and gives it more history and meaning. The item is no longer just something that the player rolled on the Luck table, but instead because the thing that their grandfather received from Prince Aurelius for his bravery against the Suebi. Table 1.13 is a Luck Table on page 21 in the Book of Sires that has a bunch of toned down items. Most items are cups, clothing, and other crafted items worth about £2 libra, with some items being worth £4, £6, or even £10. The best items on the table, IMO are the "magnificent" sword and saddle (two separate items) each of which grants +1 to the skill of the user. Overall the items on 1.1.3 are much weaker than sopme of the items in K&L, but can have more meaning since their history is better worked out. A GM could, howver, replace one of the rolls on table 1.13 with a roll on the K&L table to add the the backstory of a item from K&L. I actually use all of the tables at various time in my campaign, depending on the circumstances.

Probably not all that likely to end up as a huge bust. More like one that will upset the players, and make them less supportive of Uther, and less trusting of the GM. I'm not fond of the version of Uther in the GPC or in BoU I think that Greg followed the film Excalibur a bit too closely by making Uther a bad king.. That is an interesting take. Did Igraine defend them at court, or was she out for blood per the GPC? THe act, and the response can have quite an effect on how the story plays out. For my part, I think the Merlin steals the baby" thing is really just a cover to make people believe that Arthur is being raised oversees so they won't look for him in Britain. The trial is a complete sham and no one is in any real danger of being found guilty. One of the things that I dislike about the trial is that it takes Merlin away from St. Albans, where he was really the one to get Uther out of bed, lead the troops, and declare Arthur as his heir. With Merlin commended to death in the GPC it makes the latter situation from Mallory much more difficult. Someone, perhaps aPK is going to try and cut him down long before he gets to Uther.

The trial for treason for helping Merlin is probably the most blatant and worse instance. The PKS end up helping Merlin escape with the baby Arthur, and the Gm is supposed to put the PKS at Uther's mercy and have them barely get off charges of treason when everyone makes Merlin the scapegoat and claim that he must have ensorcelled everybody into helping him. I can see why Greg added it. It is one of the few instances where the PKS can take center stage in a big event. It also works out well story wise, I suspect the whole thing was really a put up job to hide Arthur's whereabouts (in Mallory Uther knows Arthur is with Sir Ector) and getting people interested in Arthur to try and follow Merlin aboard. But from a gaming standpoint it's not all that great. The PKs get asked to help out by Merlin, which has worked out well for them in the past, only to be accused of treason, and later found innocent, without really doing anything in the adventure.

Well, most of us were running Pendragon before the GPC, and so have already gotten into the habit of adapting the timeline. The GPC is really just the Pendragon campaign, expanded and fleshed out. In a way, I wish the old PC was reprinted/including with the GPC in order to show how loose the timeline really is. Probably the biggest complaint I've read about the GPC is that is is a straitjacket that forces GMs to run the campaign a certain way. What the old PC revealed, with things such as the alternate dates for the kidnapping of Guinevere, was that the timeline was only one way of stringing the events together- not the "one true way". Mind you the GPCs timing and decisions made are very sound, but the GPC is really just a guideline, not a directive.

Yup and modern writers continue that to this day. I'm not sure if historical accracy enters intot he picture. The OP just wanted to know what languages were likely to be spoken in the game and how much trouble a Briton would have understanding a Saxon, or vice versa. I think we arrive there because it would have been boring if all the various cultures and peoples couldn't understand each other, not because of any sort of desire for any sort of accuracy. The Saxon hero steps out from the enemy ranks, points his axe at Sir So & So and shouts something that none of the players understand because no one had Speak Saxon. That kills the drama, and limits the relationships with characters from other cultures.

It's a case of their needing some sort of bad guys for the story and, as Saxons were not acceptable bad guys anymore, they opted for someone who would have been acceptable to readers at the time, anachronistic or not.

Probably deliberately. One of the things about the British in Mallory's time was that they had a good deal of Anglo-Saxon stock. So they were, essentially, the bad guys in the King Arthur story. But by Mallory's time they were the target audience. So he needed to use another group to be the "heavies". It's not so weird. To medieval people any non-Chrisitan is a pagan. Pagainism isn't an actual faith, just a term used to denote those who faith different from the predominant one. Which means that they are not followers of the one true faith, etc. To most medieval people it doesn't matter.

Yes, because it comes down to which version of the King Arthur legend people want to go with. Greg, in his wisdom, didn't really lock down entirely on one version (although I think KAP is predominately based on Mallory with a good chunk of the HRB) and took elements from various versions. Thus the setting is a hodgepodge of Welsh triads, French Romances and even semi-historical records, not to leave out the more modern retelling such as the works of T.H. White or Mary Stewart. It's kinda of an Arthurian tradition to revise and retcon Arthur. Even Mallory was guilty of it to some extent, with Arthur fighting the Saracens.

Yes, except as Mass. However , the setting for Pendragon isn't the real world. There are still a few Legionaries and such floating around. So Latin is probably still in use.

The clergy would be speaking Latin. Historically Latin might have been dropped from day to day use, but in Pendragon there are still pockets of Roman culture left and they hang onto Latin to some extent.