-
Posts
708 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Profiles
Events
Everything posted by creativehum
-
Legitimagte Pagan Marriages
creativehum replied to creativehum's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
The "confiscated" was an autocorrect error. As for your points 1 and 2, exactly. I'm making no claim that Christianity invented marriage. I'm asking about the fact that since the Church held the records that mattered for "who gets Daddy's stuff when he dies" I'm not sure how Pagan marriages are handled. If anyone wants to address the issue I'm asking about, I'd love to hear more. -
I'm sure this has been covered somewhere, but I haven't been able to dig it up. The first born son is supposed to be legitimate through an act of marriage. In history, this would have been a marriage consecrated under the eyes of a Christian god. In the mythical history of King Arthur Pendragon, there are plenty of Pagan knights running around, with first born sons (or even daughters with KAP6) who can received estates passed on from a parent. But how does one handle the fact that the Pagan blessings will not be Christian? I assume the children are still "legitimate." I'm curious about how folks handle that.
-
Conflicts Between Counties in the Time of Uther
creativehum replied to creativehum's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
Thanks for the links and info. Sir Blaines was my go-to on this front. (Everything is lined up in terms of motivation.) But I wasn't sure how their lords and the Pendragon would see such conflicts.) But I've made a shift in my thinking on how to kick off the campaign. The key is I'm looking at The Uther Phase as a discrete unit of campaign. It ends in a bloody and horrible disaster, a cliff-hanger of a cliff-hanger for the PCs. Conflicts that had been the focus for years were finally going to get resolved... and now those conflicts will be torn open for the next ten years, with things even worse than they were before! And what are those conflicts? The war with the Saxons, and the avarice of British knights and nobility to grab what they can when no king stands to hold conflict at bay. In the past few years, when I've thought about starting the GPC, I wanted to start things someone easily: the introductory bear hunt, perhaps, or The Adventure of the White Horse. But I think now I want to get to the conflicts at hand, with plenty of mud and blood, as soon as possible. So we'll do character creation, send them off on patrol, have them encounter Blaine and some of his knights taking advantage of the uncertainly and despair after the Battle of Mt. Damen with a raid into Salisbury. I really like this because it shows the fragility this world's order. Yes, Uther Pendragon is the King of Logres. Yes, the Saxons are knocking on their door. But even then, things are still fraying at the seems. And the efforts to unite Britain, which is what the phase is all about, ultimately will fail. -
While Uther lives, do knights from within Logres raid each other or pillage? I'm curious how people run the game in terms of such conflicts, the fallout from such actions, Uther's thoughts on the matter if it happens, and so on. I'm finally getting a chance to start the Great Pendragon Campaign and wondering how some of the Adventures listed at the end of the Phase play out in terms of conflicts between knights within the boundaries of Logres. Thanks!
-
Questions regarding the Rydychan adventure
creativehum replied to The Wanderer's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
Those are all really good points. Remembering that @The Wanderer gave out 250 Glory per knight is an important point and I missed that. My bigger point, however, was that while hading out estates and such is important in KAP, the core engine of the game is Doing Things that Get Glory. So in many cases the deed itself is reward enough. -
Questions regarding the Rydychan adventure
creativehum replied to The Wanderer's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
How long did it take game-time-wise? I'm imagining two or three years? I ask only because it seems like I might be offering more Glory for the quest of a multi-year campaign. You get 250 Glory for killing a lion. I think this tale is worthy of more than that -- knocking down villains, bringing stability to the troubled isle, saving the sister-in-law of Duke Ulfius -- but that might be just me. Not saying you did anything wrong! Only passing on how I see this adventure as a big deal and worthy of solid renown for pulling it off. -
Questions regarding the Rydychan adventure
creativehum replied to The Wanderer's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
How did it go? Anything interesting you want to share about running it? As far as rewards go, the rules say "The object of King Arthur Pendragon is for your character to accumulate Glory." So, I'm curious: what Glory did they get for accomplishing the Adventure? That's what my focus would be on. -
Trusting versus Suspicious
creativehum replied to Merlin Monroe et alia's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
I can see how the two might get tangled! Candor might be seen as the quality of being trustworthy. From a dictionary I just opened: It isn't how trusting you are, but but whether you are honest yourself. It is how you express yourself and how you behave in terms of being honesty, but not a quality of being trusting. Another definition of candor is This is not the same thing as trusting. Trusting is how one perceives other people: In the case of candor, you are choosing how to perceive others as honestly as possible. In the case of "trusting" you are lacking discrimination, honest or otherwise. This is why KAP says an "extremely Trusting person is gullible and credulous, perhaps even a dupe." Meanwhile, a person of extreme candor would be someone who is able to judge situations free from discrimination or dishonesty, which is a completely different thing. -
Trusting versus Suspicious
creativehum replied to Merlin Monroe et alia's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
I did some digging a couple of days ago. The use of "candour" here seems to come from a single source: a sermon by an 18th century Scottish minister named Hugh Blair. In part her writes of candour: Meanwhile, turning back to the text of King Arthur Pendragon, and its definition of Trust: ... which seems to be the opposite of the definition the word Blair is concerned with. Moreover, Blair is more concerned with this point: While this is, in my view, a commendable quality, it isn't what the text of KAP is talking about when it comes to Trusting. It seems to me that a Player Knight could be both Trusting and full of Candour, but still wouldn't make the two words the same thing. As far as I can find, the only person who refers to "candour" as a Christian Virtue is Blair himself -- and those who quote Blair. In short, I wasn't particularly taken with this line of reasoning. As I said in another recent thread, any GM or group playing KAP can of course redefine concepts and ignore the text of KAP in any way they wish. But I think that often runs headlong into lots of complications and trouble. For me: I look to the text of the game, which takes the time to define and illustrate its terms, and use it as the key reference to move the game forward. -
Trusting versus Suspicious
creativehum replied to Merlin Monroe et alia's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
I'm not sure I've ever seen "Trusting" listed as a Christian Virtue -- I mean, in real life... not in KAP. But Le Morte D'Arthur has several characters who are very trusting, and some who are not. And that's how the passions arrived in the game. I always turn back to the text of the game when I get stuck. When I think of this Trait I'm thinking of a young knight whose uncle wants to kill him, and offers to hunting with him. A Trusting Knight might well go if if he succeeds at his Trusting roll, even though others might see through the uncle's plan in a heartbeat. On the other hand, a kind knight might offer a famously Suspicious knight a hand up the social ladder, and the knight might reject it with great fear. I think the simple baseline for tests here, in my view, "Would the situation at hand, for a reasonable person, provoke the need for more information or trigger suspicion?" Because, remember, the Traits are there for temperaments of impulse in place of rational thought. (Pendragon famously has no Intelligence stat!) If you want to feature the nature of these Traits for a particular knight, you'll be building storylines that feature elements of trust and betrayal, it seems to me. That's where they are featured in Le Morte D'Arthur. -
I think it is important to remember that “the point of the story” has been up for debate ever since monks began adding their own clarifying details to the tale hundreds of years ago!
-
Questions regarding the Rydychan adventure
creativehum replied to The Wanderer's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
Thank you for the heads up on this. I had forgotten about this. Nice to know it is more fully expanded. Just opened it up to read! -
Running away and Honor penalties
creativehum replied to Ringan's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
Hi Ringan, The line from the Dishonor table is specific to "Desertion from battle or military service." I offer that this penalty for the dishonorable act is tied to the social aspect of leaving your fellow soldiers and, in particular, not meeting the standards and expectations of a knight -- which is to be a soldier. The other circumstances you are introducing for your questions are not covered under this specific rubric and thus do not apply to the specific penalty of "Desertion from battle or military service." Moreover, the questions you are asking about are covered elsewhere in the rules. Here is a passage from p. 209 discussing how Knights might choose to interact with, say, a dragon: And this passage is from p. 211: From the two passage we know that no knight is obliged to throw himself at obviously bad odds in order to retain his honor. In fact the mechanics sometime discourage a knight from pursuing such a course of action, but at no cost to his honor. The difference between this matter and the one you quote from the Dishonorable Acts Table is that when you commander says, "We're charging the enemy line!" you are expected to do it -- whether the odds are good or not. That's the job. At this point the GM might call for a Valorous or Prudent roll (especially if this is designed as a Valorous/Prudent Test), or the player may decide to make such a roll to see which way his character is leaning, or the player might simply decide his Player Knight is not going to take this action. Depending on how the die falls or how the PK acts, at this point there might be -1 to his Honor. But, agin, the matter is not because he is dodging the bad odds, but because he is being a bad soldier. As for wounds, on p. 149 in the Wounds section, we find this passage on Major Wounds: Once again, we see that game discouraging a Player Knight from taking action if it might be considered too dangerous to be worth it. A character with a Major Wound is in no shape to wade back into battle -- but that doesn't mean a given PK might not try! But he or she will have to make a successful Valorous roll with a Major Wound to try this. Note that a fumbled Valorous roll leads to the knight fleeing or surrendering, and here we have the loss of Honor! Since this rule covers Major Wounds, we know that Moderate Wounds do not have this privilege, and a knight is expected to keep fighting alongside his fellow knights if he does not want to risk losing honor. The rules, thus, are clear on these points. I hope this helps! -
Good KAP Convention Scenarios. Also… Using Traits
creativehum replied to creativehum's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
@Morien sums it up for me: Of course the GM can run the game any way he wants. All I've been doing is pointing at the text and the default design of the game. -
Good KAP Convention Scenarios. Also… Using Traits
creativehum replied to creativehum's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
Hi @Tizun Thane, For clarity, we're on the same page about the fertility festival. While the text states nothing explicit about it having magical effect, as the GM I certainly would lean into that, if only because it is more fun! So the question at hand has nothing to do with the fictional content. Yes, Rhiannon is present and magical boons might be granted. The question at hand is how the Trait rules are being used. And the only reason I'm going on about this is because it has been stated the rules are unclear or messy, and I'm not seeing it. Or, rather, I do see the the one hitch now after reading over the posts one more time. @Voord 99 does make a good point that the The Moral Test subsection does not explicitly state or clarify that unlike standard Opposed Trait tests all characters are tested with either the need for an absolute value or with the less rigorous test of making a roll. With that said, the context of the section makes it clear to me that: a) this section is clearly working in a manner very different from the standard Opposed Trait tests; b) if the whole point of Moral Tests means that absolute values can knock off folks with lower values, lower values will also have to roll; c) one of the examples in the text uses an example of needing a static Trait value of 15 to pass, so clearly we're not talking about Famous Traits anymore; and c) the qualifier for only Famous Traits having to roll is placed in the standard Traits section because it is explicitly about the choices of behavior on the part of the PK. Since Moral Tests are about choices of behavior, that qualifier does not apply to this kind of test. Could one sentence saying "All Knights have to make the unopposed Trait roll for Moral Tests, whether Famous or not" make things clearer? Sure. Is such a sentence needed given the context of the subsection? Not for me, but I can see how it would help others. Whether or not this is worth a conversation I really don't know! I do know that some people are confused by this point, and I found a question on the old Nocturnal Forums on exactly this scene in The Adventure of the White Horse from four years ago. (Maybe it was you!) But if people are confused, then hashing this out might provide clarity and help people see that the rules are not messy and not confusing. (Because, truly, I don't think they are. And I'm quite harsh about my distaste for unclear rules.) So, one more time into Moral Tests! First, we have established in the conversation so far that the presence of magic alone is not enough to trigger a Moral Test. Also, we have established that the moment being a "test" in the story does not trigger a Moral Test, since standard Opposed Trait tests are called "tests" but are not Moral Tests. So when does a Moral Test apply, according to the text found in the rules? In the text for the Moral Test subsection, Greg offers four examples of what a Moral Test might be to help a GM understand what kinds of situations the Moral Test is built for. (The three paragraphs of the Moral Test section have remained unchanged since the first edition of the game in 1985, by the way! When I look at older editions it is often amazing to me how much of the game is word-for-word the same from edition to edition.) Here are the examples: A magical shield may be fated to be wielded only by a chaste knight An enchanted sword may be withdrawn only by a courageous knight Only those characters with an Honest Trait of 15 or more may pass uninvited through the doorway into the Palace of the Lake, where lives the fay Nimue. Anyone who answers a “justice riddle” correctly can enter into the great feast hall of King Bagdemagus on St. John’s Day, while failure to answer the riddle means a cold meal outside. The use of Moral Test is slippery business of course. The rules of King Arthur Pendragon famously, and in my view, appropriately, do not have rules for handling magical effects apart from Magical Virtues. (Apart from the 4th edition, of course, but they were removed again for the 5th.) This lets the GM create whatever magical effects and moments he wishes, on the scope or scale he wishes, without having to worry if such effects are too powerful or not, or follow the rules, or whatnot. That said, Greg offers the examples in the Moral Test section to help any GM triangulate what sorts of situations are appropriate for Moral Tests. What do we find? A knight wants to pick up an object and must be Chaste enough to do it A knight wants to pick up an object and be Courageous enough to do it A knight wants to pass through a magical barrier and be Honest enough to do it A knight wants to pass through a barrier and have a sense of Justice enough to do it (the barrier in this example might be magical, might be mundane, GM's call!) In all these cases there is: Something the knight wants to do An object to interact with (a shield, a sword, a magical doorway, a mundane doorway) The test at hand is not about the knight's behavior or choice of behavior (it is assumed that the knight freely wants to pick up the object or pass through the barrier). The choice has already been set: "I want to pick up this object." "I want to pass through this barrier." What matters is, "Is the knight worthy of interacting with this object?" Looking at the four examples I see a common quality and it is quite clear (at least to me) what kind of situations we're talking about when it comes to Moral Tests. And now we have the "Challenge 2: The Moonlit Celebration" in The Adventure of the White Horse. In this case: There is not specific object at hand to interact with At best the festival is the object at hand (Hand on heart, I find this to be a terrible stretch given the example from the Moral Test text.) The knight may or may not want to interact with the festival, making it completely contrary to both the spirit and concrete examples found in the Moral Test section As established in the adventure, the Challenge is about about choice of behavior ("Do I continue down the road, or do I get pulled in by the lovely disrobing ladies or the wonderful, fresh food?") and not whether or not the knight is worthy of interacting with something One could say that the Moral Test is about bypassing the festival. But, again, this runs counter to the examples in the Moral Test section. Moral Tests about whether the knight, in an absolute sense, is worthy of moving interacting with some specific object, not about avoiding something. (The KAP rules standard Trait tests for that.) In other words, given the four examples from the Moral Test section, and the facts as presented for "Challenge 2: The Moonlit Celebration" in The Adventure of the White Horse, I feel quite comfortable saying, "One of these things is not like the others." How Do You Run Challenge of the Fertility Festival, @Tizun Thane? Can you help me out? I have tried to imagine the fictional context of the scene with you as the GM and me as a Knight as I approach the fertility festival, and for the life of me I can't quite figure it out. I don't really understand how your are bringing the Moral Test to bear in this case. That all said, you're the GM, you should be playing as you want. But given that -- can you walk me through it? Let's say I'm your player, and (as far as I can tell): The players say they want their knights to keep going down the road You say "You need to make a [Trait roll X] to keep going down the road. Everyone needs to roll because this is a Moral Test." And I say, "How can this be a Moral Test. I'm not checking to see if I can interact with something. I'd be checking to see if I can avoid something. That's a standard test." (Let's assume for the moment I'm not trying to be a dick. Let's assume I'm genuinely confused about how you are applying the rules... because I am!) Now, I might be mangling how you would run it! That's my point. I really don't understand the fiction of the situation as you would present it, or how you would be using the Trait rules here. You might simply say, "I'm the GM, this is how it is." -
Good KAP Convention Scenarios. Also… Using Traits
creativehum replied to creativehum's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
[Full Alert: I'm on Christmas Break. I'm talking about a game I love. I'm going into text/archeological dig mode. I tend to go to sources and quote things. Sorry for the long post! Also, I'm not particularly trying to convince you of anything. But others might be reading these posts, and having confusion about Traits as well. so I'm simply going to point to the text in the rules to clarify how to play.] Absolutely. Every step is a test in The Adventure of the White Horse. This is why I love it as an introductory adventure for new players. There is little combat (and the only combat is a joust), and instead the adventure focuses on Traits, Passions, and choices. I would insist that this quality, an emphasis on tests, is one of the central qualities of King Arthur Pendragon. You don't want this every moment of play -- it would become both ridiculous and exhausting. But time and time again, the game circles back to tests of Traits and Passions, as defined by the text. Going further, a test does not need to involve a roll. We know that the GM can award checks for strong actions based on a PK's behavior, even if a roll was not made. ("One of the key tasks of the Gamemaster is to decide when an action performed by a player deserves an experience check." KAP 5.2, p. 87) Even if a check is not even on the table, choices become tests. In The Adventure of the White Horse, the text suggests no Trait test for whether or not to pursue the Red Stag. But if a PK has a strong emotional reason tied to any Trait or Passion worthy of a check when they decide either way, I'm giving them a check in their Trait or Passion. (I'm not saying that such a decision is obvious. I am saying that the rules are clear on the matter. Interpreting when to give such checks or when to requires Trait tests on the spot is part of the art of GMing Pendragon.) The notion of all Trait rolls as tests (not only Moral Tests) is in the 1st edition of the game, even when the player is imposing the Trait roll on himself or herself: Moving ahead 35 years, here are the three passages from the KAP 5.2 rules referencing Trait tests. Each passage is a separate application of the Trait rules, each under a separate heading, with the last (Moral Tests) placed three pages after the first two. So, this has nothing to do with Moral Tests. This is the standard use of Trait test as most people think of using Trait tests in Pendragon. The key point of this passage is about the use of Famous traits and how they are used to determine "character behavior" (how will a character act?; what choice will a character make?) in crisis. Then we have a passage outlining how the Traits in various combinations to determine how a player knight might act or choose to behavior in a crisis, and how the player might impose such a test on his own knight. So, again even if the player is deciding to create an opposed Trait roll, it is still a "test." Again, this kind of test is about how will the knight behave. Of special note: Many "standard Opposed Trait tests" will have a moral component. This does not make such a test a "Moral Test." A Moral Test, as defined by the text as a specific application of the Trait rules, has several specific components which stand in contrast to standard Trait tests: Here we have the word "test" again. But from the previous quotes, we know that Moral Tests are not privileged with being "The definition of Trait tests in Pendragon." Moral Tests are simply one more use of Trait tests. Specifically, every example in the Moral Test section is about The knight wanting to do something or acquire something in that instant. Can the knight pick up the shield? Can the knight see the Grail? Can the knight pass the magical barrier he wishes to pass? This is clearly not about which way will the character behave, but about whether or not the character can succeed at a specific test. While magic is, without doubt, a defining quality of a Moral Test, it is not the only quality that defines. If Morgan Le Fey conjures an illusion to disguise herself and seduce a knight, there might be a test of Chaste/Lust (or some other combination) whether imposed because of a Famous Trait, or imposed by the player for non-Famous Traits. But it would not be a Moral Test (despite magic being involved) because the issue is not whether or not the knight is worthy of being seduced by Morgan Le Fey or worthy of not being seduced by Morgan Le Fey, but simply "Which way is he going to behave?" Whether magic is involved or not, the question of behavior is a test for general Trait rolls, and the question of worthiness is a test for Moral Tests. To use a different example, one from a post I made upthread, if the GM wanted to add a reward or boon of some kind for participants who were worthy of the ritual because of a Trait, then there could be a Moral test. Having chosen to stay with the festival (standard, opposed Trait test, pulled by his or her lust), the Knight may now well receiving a blessing if his Lust his high enough or he rolls well on his Lust. (As a side note, if the Knight hat made a crit on his first roll to see if he joined the festival, I would not require a Moral test. I would assume he entered the festival with such spirit he was already worthy of the blessing.) But would I use a Moral Test for the first roll, when the knight might not want to participate? (Which is what standard Opposed Trait rolls are for.) No. I would not. Would I use a Moral Test when there was no reward or boon or object or need on the part of the knight -- which are the qualities the text that defines Moral Tests -- and is the circumstance when the knight is determining whether to stay or ride on? No, I would not. So, magic knight or not, each test needs to be defined by the circumstances as defined by the text from the rules. All Trait rolls are "tests" as long as the rolls are binding. The fact that something involves Traits and is a test does not make it a Moral test. Is The Adventure of the White Horse full of tests? Absolutely! But it is full of the many kinds of tests King Arthur Pendragon offers. That's why I love it! I can see the way you interpret the fertility festival. The Knight wishes to pass by the festival to continue on with the race to the White Horse. But the road itself is not magical but mundane, so I don't see that path as a magical test that must be passed. The knights are trying to avoid the festival, which in the simplest reading of the rules makes it a standard Opposed Trait test. Further, applying the Moral Test rules this way opens up the use of them for most situations and tests involving magic (the way you seem to be using them) and I fear in a world rich in magical events the knights would be robbed of the chance to have an impulse to participate or not. As far as I can tell, when one interprets the text the way you are interpreting it (again, an interpretation I think I understand) -- yes! -- the rules get clouded and confused, and deciding when and how to apply them becomes tricky. But if one sticks with a tight reading of the examples offered in the passage on Moral Tests, all I see is clarity and ease. I say this not to dissuade you from playing how you want. But I do think there is an easier way to read, and thus run, the game. -
Good KAP Convention Scenarios. Also… Using Traits
creativehum replied to creativehum's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
Thank you for continuing the conversation! KAP is my favorite RPG, and I love talking about how RPG rules can be clear or clouded. Can you tell me more what you meant by this: How are you interpreting the rule about Critting here? Per the rules, if you Crit a Trait test (whether as required by a Famous Trait, or if rolled by choice by the player), you act strongly in accordance with the Trait you rolled. But that doesn't contradict or complicate what I wrote in my summary post, so I must be missing your meaning. Can you tell me more? Thanks! -
Good KAP Convention Scenarios. Also… Using Traits
creativehum replied to creativehum's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
I'll add that my players where making Traits tests left and right on Sunday (sometimes the "casual Trait tests" per the rules, sometimes committing themselves even if they didn't have to (like the fertility ritual). People like rolling the dice! -
Good KAP Convention Scenarios. Also… Using Traits
creativehum replied to creativehum's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
Even better. I was rushing to get my convention prep done a week ago and didn't give it the time it deserved. I've now written too much in response to clarify my points, so here is the simple version: tl;dr: Per the rules: Standard Trait Test = Which way does the Knight act? Only Need to Roll if Famous Trait; choose otherwise Moral Test = Can the Knight do the thing/get the thing he or she wants to do/wants to get? Either you have the value or you don't succeed or you need to roll unopposed to succeed, Famous or not; this is not about choice, it is about being worthy at this moment, so the out of only having to roll if Famous is not offered In The Adventure of the White Horse, the Chaste/Lust roll when passing the fertility festival is a standard Test, since it is about which action the Knight will take -- pass by the festival or join the festival. -
Good KAP Convention Scenarios. Also… Using Traits
creativehum replied to creativehum's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
That's a good point, and I'll clarify, since I was trying to make a point about Moral Tests, as described on page 87 of KAP 5.2. Also, as far as I can tell, @Voord 99 has substantially re-written the post I responded to (which is fine!) so I'll take a moment to dig in again. It's a fertility ritual, so of course it is magical. The Chaste/Lust test, based purely on the language of the adventure as written, is a Trait of the standard kind. It is a test of whether the knight gives up on his race to reach the White Horse and the ritual before the moon sets and the sun rises. It is a Test to see which direction of action or choice the knight makes, which is the standard use of Traits. As for it possibility of being a Moral Test, I'll quote the rule here for clarity: So, a Moral Test is not about which decision a character makes. It is about whether the character is worthy/"can do" the task he wants to make. That's the distinction. When Voord writes above... ... all I can say is "Yes, absolutely! The section on Qualifying for a Moral Test is written in a different way. It is set apart from the rest of the section under its own heading, with its own definition that marks it as specifically its own thing. In other words, I don't see it as a problem at all, since they are different uses of Traits, and explicitly defined as different. In the case of the festival, however, there is no reason to think the Chaste/Lust Test is a Moral Test. The adventure makes it clear that anyone can join the fertility festival. The question is not "Are these knights worthy of giving up on the chase to the White Horse?" The question is "Will any knight act impulsively and join in the festivities?" Which is the standard use of the Traits and no roll is required if the PK does not have a Famous Trait, per the rules. However... once a knight or knight have joined the fertility ritual (through choice or impulse borne of a Trait roll) the GM might well expand the magical quality of the ritual on the spot. This is part of what any GM in Pendragon must do all the time. No adventure as written can handle every aspect of what might happen in any given adventure. And more specifically, what the players, their knights, or the story are interested in exploring. In this case, if the GM decided to dig deeper into the fertility ritual, he might decide what is to be gained from the ritual, he might decide that a certain lustiness might be required to gain that benefit. Now the situation is Moral Test, because the issues is not "Which way will the knight act?" We already know that -- he's rejected the pursuit of the White Horse ceremony and joining this fertility ritual. What matters now is "Is this Knight worthy of Rhiannon's blessing?" With that in mind the GM might call for a Moral Test. And in this case it doesn't matter whether you have a Famous Trait or not. The GM can make it an test of Absolute Trait value, and the PK needs a Lust of a certain value or higher to gain the benefit of the ritual. (He or she will still have a great time! But not get the magical benefits!) Or the GM might allow the unopposed roll, which means the PK summons the lust required in this event, whether the PK's lust was low or high. So... again, simply reading the rules, I'm literally seeing no confusion. The passages about not needing roll if you don't have a Famous Trait are in sections about actions the knight chooses to take in stressful situations. That's what its about, and it is only used in that section.But the Moral Test section is about something completely different, and assumes that no matter what the value, a PK might not be able to muster the needed Trait to a value needed to pass the test. -
Good KAP Convention Scenarios. Also… Using Traits
creativehum replied to creativehum's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
@Morien Thank you for all the help and thoughts on The Adventure of the White Horse. Just ran the game for my online convention slot and it went gangbusters. I was kind of loose with a lot of the "race to the ceremony" rules. For example, they all decided to join the hunt for the Red Stag, and because they did that in such a cool manner, I said they still had time to get to the ceremony. We had so much time left it felt strange shutting down the game right then! But it also meant extra Horsemanship and Horse CON rolls, so it all felt like it was going great. My favorite part was when they confronted the knights from Somerset who blocked their way and demanded jousts. One of the knights volunteered to do all four jousts, allowing the other three squires to continue on to the ceremony. He got himself a Generous check. The framing device was that they were squires training at Vagon Castle while Uther, Roderick, and their relatives were marching east against the Saxons in 485. The squires returned from the adventure to find that the Saxons had kicked the ass of Uther's army. Roderick and the knights of Salisbury were despondent. But when Roderick has them tell the tale, especially the way the request the blessing of the Red Stag and it was granted by the beast after they cornered it, the tale of wonder lifted the spirits of all the knights. All in all, a great session! One of the players just commented on the convention site: -
Good KAP Convention Scenarios. Also… Using Traits
creativehum replied to creativehum's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
I think we’ve talked about this before? At another forum? the Moral Tests are in a completely different section, under a completely different heading. I’m not saying people might not get confused. Not only are they clearly separated out, I’m not sure what else Greg could have done, the text under Qualifying for a Moral Test is clear and specific in the matters it is discussing, and completely different than than the Trait tests discussed in the earlier pages. * * * As for the text of The Adventure of the White Horse in this matter... The situation at hand has no text to suggest the fertility festival is magical — which is what the section on Moral Tests hangs on. So… I’m not sure what the confusion is here. “Are you good enough to pick up this sword?” Is not what is happening here. As for the test in question makes it clear the PCs will have to succeed at either their Indulgent Trait or Lust rolls after failing their Temperate or Chaste rolls — so I this case it is right there. The note about Indulgent or Lust is made a few sentences after the first roll, so it is possible someone might miss it. But this is why I stick to the rules. I do believe the adventures assume the rules to be in play… but they don’t keep repeating the rules again and again. By sticking with the rules and not making special cases I keep play on track. -
Good KAP Convention Scenarios. Also… Using Traits
creativehum replied to creativehum's topic in Pendragon & Prince Valiant
I've never found Trait rules wonky, but maybe that's just me. They've been the same for 30 years, going back to the 3rd edition (1990)*. They work great, I enjoy them. So much so that I'm confused as to why some people get them chewed up in play. But then, gamers are like that. They often think, "I know how to play RPGs" and skim the rules that are novel to their expectations and never really take the time to see how all the pieces fit together. (I am not saying you are like this @Morien. You have thought about all this a lot.) As to your second point... what can I say? like I said, I like. the rules as written. They make perfect to me. So I'm fine using them as written. And so characters with Traits less than 16 get to choose. I'm comfortable with this because of the mechanics of the game and how they interlock. The game offers a reward for having a Trait of 16+ (an annual Glory reward equal to the value of any 16+ Trait), and the cost of that reward is having to make a roll when Tests arrive. That's the game part of the game, and it is clear and functional. I understand that for the some people the Trait values working this way (changing nature at 16 or higher) doesn't "make sense" or whatever. Especially for those who might have played the 1st edition, where this rule isn't part of the game. Ultimately, if people want to change the rules so they make more sense (which really means, "makes sense to me") they should! I'm no stickler on this points. But I note that many people don't play the Trait rules as written, and have often been surprised when I point out what they thought were the rules are in fact not how the game was written to be played. _______________ * The one big change since the 1990 3rd edition was in 5.0, when the annual Glory reward for Famous Traits was only awarded if the Trait was tested that year. (I'm sure this was a result of one of the many conversations online you mentioned above.) That, of course, broke the interlocking structure. The rules were revised back to the previous rules in later revisions of KAP 5. To get several Traits to 16 is going to take consistent effort on the part of the player knight, as well as maintaining that level, and the Glory reward is for those things.