creativehum

Oh... and I wanted to add something about this. (And Redmoongoddes, I am not addressing this specifically to you, but to anyone approaching the strange RPG project that is the GPC, as well as typing out notes to myself to make things clear to myself I have sort out.) I know that when I first flipped through the GPC and read a few specific years I had the same reaction. I thought it would be about jamming the PKs (and thus the Players) from one set-piece to the next. What gave me a different perspective was reading the Introduction to the book. Several times. I cannot stress how important and valuable the introduction to the The Great Pendragon Campaign is to a Pendragon GM. In it Greg makes it clear there is too much material in the GPC for it all to be used during a campaign. Especially if one is using the structure of one year equals one to two sessions of play. One literally cannot get everything written in most years into a session of play. The Introduction makes several further points that are vital to running the campaign. [emphasis added] Looking at this we can see that even though the book is stuffed with countless details, potential adventures, scripted notes, and more... what matters most in a Great Pendragon Campaign in play is what is not in the book. This cannot be emphasized enough. What matters most in during any group's playing of the GPC is what the Players and the GM create together in the choices, actions, defeats, and triumphs of the Player Knights. And none of that exists until it is created session by session. Thus, the PKs might miss a battle or two as they are caught up in other events. They might not catch every detail at court, or be present at every meeting to overhear what important NPCs are saving. That said, the impact of the battle they missed, or the impact of court gossip they missed can have a terrible or great impact on their lives as the fallout from what the court was talking about echoes across Salisbury and Britain. The rest of the Introduction continues with solid advice about how to run the Campaign, as well as suggesting the GM switch things up, skip years and do several Winter Phases in a given session, make dramatic changes to the campaign based on the choices and actions of the Player Knights, and so on. Again, I cannot stress, the Introduction to the GPC is vital not only to its use, but how best to use it. ________________________ A couple of more points: Greg was there at the earliest days of the RPG history. His expectations of what constitutes a published "Adventure" are very different than the exceptions that gathered in the subsequent decades. If one buys an adventure today, one expects it to be detailed, thought out, and ready to play right there and then. But if you look at adventures published in the first decade of the hobby (GDW's Traveller adventures, for example, or RuneQuest's The Haunted Ruins) one finds more than anything else a lot of inspiration for adventures that a) the GM will have to built out before play; and b) will most be discovered through play based on the actions and choices of the PCs. The GPC is built with this style of adventure design in mind. It doesn't provide everything. Everything won't be used. And ultimately it is a lot of material for the GM to sift through and grow adventures from. For example the Uther Period Adventures found on pages 65-69 offer countless hours of game play (to the degree that getting in all the Uther Period Events crammed into those 10 years of play might be a challenge!). But on that other hand, each "Adventure" needs to be opened up, detailed, attached to specific Player Knights to be effective, and so on. The "Adventures" in the GPC need to be opened up to make sure the focus of the game is on the Player Knights. Advice on how to do this, and why to do this, is sprinkled across the GPC. Which is a pain in the neck, really. But I'm not sure how else it could have been written. In the same way, the "tightly scripted" events of the Boy King Period need to always be opened up with details that provide specific focus for the Player Knights. By the time the Boy King Phase rolls around, one or more of the PKs will be in romantic rivalries with NPC Knights. One or more of the PKs will be in a rolling blood feud with another family (from Silchester; from the Anarchy Period; from somewhere). The PKs will have fathers of daughters they want to impress; apologies they might want to make; acts of atonement that weigh on them. All of these details might not lead to a lot of action on the part of the PKs. But it will certainly resonate with them, making sure that whatever is going on has specific moments and details that tie directly to the lives to the PKs. ________________________ A final point: While Pendragon is without doubt a game about choices, it is also, strangely, a reactive game. All sorts of things (people, monsters, magic, deaths, births, enemies, and more) abruptly fly toward the PKs and test them to see if their Traits are triggered or the Passions stirred. (I call these moments "pinches" as they offer a PC a chance to react and jump, or remain stoic, or whatever.) Even if the Knights do not take action, we certainly can learn about who the Knights are. (When I run Pendragon I am constantly asking my Players, "How do you feel about that?") Which Trait they choose to respond with tells us as much as when a Trait roll is made. So when all these events are happening around them, there is a great deal that will impact the Knights and give them a chance to reveal details of their Knights to the group even if some of this reaction might only fire off after key events, like the drawing of the sword from the stone, is completed. For example, the infamous Treason Trial has always intrigued me for two reasons. First, there is this moment in the text: I find this fascinating because it offers each PK a chance to define who they are what what they value about themselves in front of the biggest most important audience they might ever have in their lives. The Knight who makes his case with Courtesy is a very different Knight than a Knight who makes his case with Just. A Knight who appeals with his Loyalty to Uther is a very different Knight than the Knight who makes a logical case with Orate. The Knights present themselves in this moment, their lives hanging on the line. It is a chance to Crit, be remembered, and gain Glory (even if they end up executed!) Or they could botch it all, make fools of themselves. And then, even if they do, both Sir Elad and the Earl of Salisbury back them! What does it mean to the PKs to have these men risk their reputations for them? Will the PKs raise their Loyalty to Roderick during the Winter Phase if they can? Will they serve him with more integrity and effort? Put their lives on the line for a risky adventure on his behalf? Who knows? It is up to the Players to sort this out for the PCs... but the "pinch" of the loyalty offered by Elad and Salisbury gives the Players a chance to react as they wish in long term ways that can be quite fascinating if the Players seize the opportunity. (For what it is worth, I consider these two passages the crux of the Treason Trial, not all the NPC trial shenanigans swirling around them.) In the same way, once Uther makes his ruling, the Knights have more "pinches." What do they think of Uther tossing Merlin aside? Reasonable? An act of betrayal? What do they think of Uther now? Is he still be trusted if he treats his Enchanter like this? Especially in contrast to how Elad and Salisbury treated the Knights? You can bet that as a GM I'll be asking the Knights, "What do you think about Merlin having a death sentence put on him? What do you think of Uther now?" I won't have any expectation of what the Knights will say. After all, so much of it will depend on what their relationship with Merlin or with Uther up to this point. But by asking I point the arrows of the campaign back at the Player Knights. It might look like all this scripted material is "floating around" the PKs and leaving them with little to do. But in my reading it is all rich soil for reactions, shifting loyalties, cementing loyalties, and future actions that might come to bear. Anyway... since we're taking GPC... those are some thoughts I've been having over the past several weeks.

Could you tell me more about this? I'm not quite sure what this means. Thanks!

At a convention panel Greg said that making the first year a battle was a mistake, as it dumps first time players into a bunch of rules disconnected from what they expect an RPG to be. He suggests pushing off the first battle until at least the second year of play. As for the number of battles, I can't speak to that since I haven't had a chance to run a KAP Campagin I do know I've enjoyed running the Battle System in the past. But I only need so much Battle System! After discussions on this site about the matter, I think I'll be leaning on the Battle System in the core rules and delay or never get around to using the Book of Battles. I'd rather the battle be a part of an evening's play... but not the whole night. The GPC Index was cut due to the length of the book (and the Index is really long!). But it was recently posted as a PDF.

Got it. Thanks. And yes, I agree. And thank you for the rest of your lovely, thoughtful post. Your handling of the GPC as background is how I approach it as well. It is like using WWII as a backdrop of American grunts in an RPG making their way across Europe. Yes, there is a whole theater of politics and grand strategy going on... but what matters to the PC is their specific adventures, struggles, incidents, and lives. But then I see KAP and the GPC as an extension of how Malory built Le Morte D'Arthur. I can read the stories of Balin or Tristram and be completely caught up in them... but these stories aren't about the sweep of Arthur's rule and all the political shenanigans that, just as in the GPC, serve as background for the stories of these knights. I see KAP and the GPC as tools for the GM and Players to creature "other books" from Malory that he did not include, telling the tales of specific knights that's Arhtur's rule made possible, but are not about Arthur's rule.

I'm a bit confused by this statement. First, yes, it doesn't appear in Malory. I'm aware of that. Which is why I was surprised by this element and had to look it up. Second, if I say it was an accident... then... it was an accident, yes? That's what I assumed had happened when I read the details on p. 298 of the GPC. And then. On p. 299 of the GPC Greg offers a note the gamemasters saying the GM will have to decide exactly what happened, with it being an accident being a possibility. After all, in the GPC Kay does no further acts of treachery. It is all up to the GM to decide what happened before the reveal of Loholt's death and what actions Kay will take subsequently. I understand that for you it can't possibly be an accident. But I think we can agree we can disagree on this. Even if, as I suppose you might think, such an interpretation as offered by the GPC or myself is stupid and nonsensical!

Can I ask more about this? Gareth is obviously mentioned. Are you pointing at the lack of his story being told regarding his humble beginnings, being tested, and being knighted? I hadn't read far enough into the GPC to know this! And like others, I'm not that fond of it. I think I see why Greg introduced this boat-load of possible heirs and then killed them off. First, there's no heir, and that's bad. And then there are many heirs. And that's good! And then, slowly, the numbers start dwindling, and what was good fortune becomes the press of tragedy. But dragging in Kay as a traitor is an odd choice. (When I tracked down the events of Kay's killing of Loholt in the GPC yesterday after reading this thread my first assumption was he killed the prince by accident! I coudn't imagine him doing it on purpose. Of course, Greg is aware the whole thing might strike people as odd... and suggests that Kay might have killed the prince by accident!) My first instinct was to cut Loholt out of the campaign and avoid the whole problem. But then I asked, "But why did Greg do this?" And I arrived at the notes above. Upon reflection, I'll keep Loholt and go with my first instinct about how he died at Kay's hand. I think the notion that Kay, thinking he had done a great thing (finding the giant "asleep," hacking off its head to keep it dead), unwittingly beheads Loholt with the same stroke, That Kay is so proud In his deed only to discover a terrible error is very Malory. _______ As far as the railroading goes (and I say this as someone who hasn't used the GPC in play yet) I would love to hear more about this. What instances are in the book? How did the Players handle them? (I ask in part because I see places which might seem like railroading, but in the specific nature of KAP's rules work well with the game's strengths. So I want to hear more about this.)

All discussions of the RPG King Arthur Pendragon and "history" always hover in tension around this point, like two magnets facing each other with the same polarity... never quite able to meet!

Okay. That's what I was thinking. Like, I get the value of the data you guys pull from the information in the Book of Warlords. But it seems like extra steps have been put into place for what someone running the game might mostly likely need/use.

Sincere question to most of the posters here: When I see information like that in the quote above Ihave no idea what I would do with it. But many people here are obviously familiar with the numbers, have thought about the numbers. I'm curious: What do you do with this information in play? How does it help? (I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm asking how, because my imagination can't cough something up.) How do the Player Knights interact with it? Is it for battles? Is it required for certain types of KAP campaigns? And so on. Very curious about how this level of detail is utilized in play. Thanks!

Maybe I'll be getting a copy of BoE, I guess. I'll think on that. I'm not sure that marrying an heiress is that easy. The only way to use the table is make a successful Courtesy roll. So right there the odds will be against most knights, who start with a Courtesy 3. But one cannot marry an heiress unless one rolls a 20+. The only way to do this is to make a successful Courtesy roll, then "bank" that roll for a year, gaining a +1 if and when one makes a roll on the Marriage Table. If one succeeds on the first courtesy roll, one then has to make a second Courtesy roll the following year. If one makes that Courtesy roll then one has 5% chance of marrying a heiress. But this assumes one made two successful Courtesy rolls over two years. I'm not quite sure I see this as easy odds! But I've only run one-shots with KAP, so I might well be missing some points. You also might be saying that marrying an heiress should never be left to random die rolls. PS: I just looked over the Marriage Table and Modifiers in BoE. I like it! A lot! I really honors the work a Player Knight will put in to get the rep he needs to marry well!

Thanks for the comment, and @Morien's clarifcation as well. So, for my own notes, acknowledging there is wriggle-room for any GM and I am going to be building a campaign with enough information to give my Le Morte D'Arthur-inspired game a grounding of reality, but won't be going down the rabbit-hole of doing college level wok of understanding all the intricacies of feudal society: SALISBURY MANORS 150 Manors Of those, the Count of Salisbury controls 90 Of those 90 manors the Count retains direct control of 70 manors Of those remaining 20 manors, the Count has given them as single-manor gifts and grants to officers and a couple of bannerets (The Player Knights, using the KAP Family History rules, will draw their manor from this pool. The Player Knight's father married a woman who inherited the manor from her father, who in turn was an officer to the count, or whose father was, and was granted the manor years before the Player Knight was born. The Player Knight grew up as a child in this manor and considers it very much his, knowwing it is his to inherit one day.*) Of the remaining 60 remaining manors from the 150 manors and outside the Count's control, they are controlled by other lords, some inside Salisbury and some outside.** Quetsions: * What is it like for a page/squire/knight growing up in a manor that he knows his father married into? In a society built on passing things down from father to son, is there any kind "Well, we didn't quite earn it," quality? Does anyone have any thoughts on this? It might not matter, but I was curious. ** What sorts of people own the manors that are not controlled by the Count?

Great! Thanks! And I appreciated your rant under Greg's post as well. For anyone who is interested, here is Greg's post: While I have you here, @Morien, you have also stated you think the marriage table from KAP is too generous. Can you talk about that as well?

You've brought this up several times now across threads. Do you have any thoughts on what a better allotment of lands might be?

I'm more than content with this summary. I needed a ballpark to get me going, and this will do. Thanks all. 150 manors. The count has 90. 20 belong to knights and their families, including the PCs, making them, indeed, important families in Salisbury. (The relative importance of the Player Knights is why I asked about this, so I've got my answer. And another 40-50 controlled by other lords, some outside of Salisbury. Also, I really like Krijger's map. I downloaded it a while back and plan to print it on a large board for my game.

Okay. Checking... there's no source that simply states how many manors there are? It's all retro-calculating based off financial numbers?

Cool. Thanks. And those "20-30" manors the count does not control are the manors shows and listed in the core rules.

I'm sure this has been covered. (Probably extensively!) But my searching has failed. How many manors are there in Salisbury? Does the County-Salisbury map in Book of the Warlord show all the manors? I know KAP shows the manors immediately available for the the Player Knights. But I assume there are more manors in the county. But maybe I'm wrong!

And the cat can die. And the sword can break. And shouting the praises of God to drive off Saxons can drive you mad. All of these items can become "not very good luck." I understand that having baggage attached to a small fortune might not appeal to you. But I was spitballing an idea as to how to make the treasure memorable. (That was the source of this subtopic from a post of yours further upthread.) It introduces the same sort of possible misfortune and disappointment. I'll add I would only do it if the Player introduced NPCs that his father or grandfather had taken it from. I do this all time time. "Tell me more about these objects and people in your life. What would you be interested in seeing more of?" As for the random nature of character creation I also find it appealing. But I'd save it for after five or so sessions of play, after the players had a solid handle on the system and knew what they were getting into. But even then I'd really warn them about how swingy it can be, and suggest they take the option of the standard character creation. It can go bad as much as it can go good.

Clearly I didn't explain my point well, so I apologize. No matter when the PC Knight blows the inheritance, the people his father or grandfather took it from could come back years later. It could start a feud that lasts years after that. The same goes for other items on the list. Was the cat a witch's familiar gifted to the PC Knight's father? Where did the deadly sword come from? If it breaks, does it need to go back to that church for a blessing after mending? And so on. Further, if I had a PC Knight in that situation involving the money you have mentioned above, I would offer the counsel that saving some of the money would be worthwhile. For example, spending an extra bit of libra every year might mean the difference between life and death for his children. The Player might not follow this wisdom (which would be fine) but since all my players will be new to the game and their characters would know how the world works, it would only make sense to make this plain and clear. Getting better gear is good. But in the Uther Period there's only so much you can do, and spreading out out and having available for emergencies strikes me as a better use of the cash than too many horses.

My own take would be, as the GM, to build a bit of a story about where the money came from. What what was the story and how did it mark the family? What continues to echo today for the family or PC Knight? Where did they loot it from? Who helped them? Who might be angry about it being taken? That's how I would be looking at it. (Also, as a side note, I wouldn't make the little cat roll for death until two or three years had passed. But, again, that's me.) As for PC Knight creation, I'll be having the Players use the method found in KAP core rules, which BK&L refers to as the "Standard Method." I'm not a big fan of random creation for KAP. It's swingy and determines A LOT about the character. I'd rather the PC Knights begin around the same point (around, not identical) and build their Knights from there. As BK&L suggests I won't be allowing previous experience for first Knights either. Again, keep it simple: every Knight relatively straight forward based on religion, homeland, regional modifiers, Family History, and a few points to distribute. And then the Players get to see how the game works and build their Knights from there.

Huh. Well, for now I think the Cymric Luck Table will do. As for the imbalances, I really do think there are all sorts of advantages and disadvantages to each. For example, while the Tooth of Saint Germanus is indeed powerful, it requires a Passion roll (about God, no less) that can lead to all sorts of problems with a Failure or Fumble. Recovering from that can be an adventure in itself as the Knight struggles to right his faith again. And if the Knight uses it frequently he would definitely be marked by Saxons as a holy man of the Jesus-God who needs to be taken down. And if the Player pumps the Love (God) to very high levels that will, again, lead to adventure material and trouble. As for an Ordinary Knight acquiring a great deal of treasure, my own read is that it is a hidden treasure the father kept secured and the son did not even know about it yet. A note: I'll be using the basic setup from KAP core rules for new PC Knights. So they are all Ordinary, and have gone through the Family History from the core rules. I'm sifting through BK&L to see what, if any, elements and ideas I want to port into that process.

The Book of Sires has a third Heirloom table?

That is my guess as well. I know some people don't like the Family Traits and the Heirloom/Tables for several solid reasons. But I find them compelling because they help establish the notion of the PC Knight's family as the focus of play. And yes, they are swingy. Really don't know how to get around that. I'm not sure how I'd balance out a list of designed-to-be-unique-and-memorable items! But I smiled a lot while looking over the list last night and think I'll use it for the PCs.

Thanks! Your analysis confirms mine. (I was especially curious about Windlass!)

Thanks! When I followed your instructions I think I also saw Goudy on the list. since you seem facile with fonts, do you know which font was used for different kinds of text in the book. (I can sit there and compare as best I can, but if you are faster at identifying the fonts I'll let you tell me! If this would be work for you don't do it!)