creativehum

17 hours ago, Luna Guardian said:

I actually did away with the Usurper brothers entirely in favor of other antagonists (Syagrius, a traitorous mercenary captain and a third one) that I wanted to get rid of and that the players already had history with

That makes sense! My method of GMing it to toss things toward the players, and what they get interested in we follow up with. If your PKs already have some nemesis action going with three NPCs, using them as the heavies in the Anarchy Phase up north makes sense!

This may not help, but when I was reviewing the GPC, I wanted to make sure to introduce the usurping brothers years earlier (along with the Duke and Duchess) at Uther's funeral (for example) so the PKs had a chance to hate them or warm to them.

I think there is milage to be gained by making sure there are personal stakes. Interacting with, negotiating with one or more of the usurpers can and should be, I think at least one adventure. 

Also, the effort to gain allies on the part of the PCs is part of play too. While the campaign might involved campaigns and seines, I would focus more on gaining the loyalty and alliances needed for the campaigns and sieges. If the PKs have enough allies you can hand wave away the battles, if you wish. The key was the PKs proving themselves worthy of leading or loyalty. They can do with adventures, quests, smaller skirmishes, helping nobles in trouble, and so on.

5 hours ago, Crabus said:

Hi,

Maybe someone have a answer to this question.

Why p9 (in the scenario), the success on a Religion (Christian) (not a passion but a trait) roll grant the KP of an inspire (+5) on a future roll ?

 

Thank you

This is my reading of the text:

The Religion (Christian) is not a Trait roll, but a Skill roll. (Religion is listed as a skill on the character sheet).

The PK who both succeeds in rolling on the skill, and rolls the highest value for the skill, remembers the sermon and Gains 10 Glory.

The PK, upon remembering the sermon, and any other PKs who hear the sermon from the PK who remembered the sermon, are become Inspired by the sermon without having to make a Passion roll.

The logic seems to be that it is the sermon itself which inspires the PKs. The sermon inspires the PKs to find a panther to use against the dragon. Because they are inspired, the PKs can name a Skill or Trait they wish to boost using the Inspired rules (+5) involving the search and use of the panther.

While this may not be the typical method of becoming Inspired, I dig it. The rules of Pendragon are there as tools, and in many cases can be used in interesting ways to mark the significance of objects, people, or events. Using a sermon to Inspire sounds legit to me.

15 hours ago, SaxBasilisk said:

One other change to the quickstart Passion rules I noticed that I don't think has been addressed yet: criticals do not automatically increase the invoked Passion by 1.

I think this is welcome, as otherwise PKs with Passions over 20 become ridiculous quite quickly.

This has been an itch in my brain since I read it the other day. 

First, we don't know whether or not one gets a check for a critical on a Passion, since the Quickstart does not address checks for rolls except in specific circumstances. (I assume this is because it is a QS, and concerns about tracking long term growth don't need to be in the rules.)

But the reason it stuck with me is that handing out a +1 point for a critical for Passions is nuts. I was completely baffled as to why the game would work this way and why it had never bothered me till now. 

So I went back to KAP 3rd... and found that in that edition, and I presume 4th as well, a critical in a Passion only rewards the knight with a check. This prevents Passions from becoming crazy high, and works with the essential improvement system found in KAP: Anything over 20 is going to be hard to come by, and for the most part will only occur from points gained from Glory.

Why was this changed for 5.x? 🤷‍♂️

3 hours ago, Nozbat said:

Old Germanic languages translate Lust as desire, appetite, pleasure and sensuousness,

For what it's worth, whether or not you've played KAP, this is how I always have seen it.

Also: You should play KAP.

Since this has become a thread about this singular issue, and I've been giving it some thought, I thought I'd post here:

King Arthur Pendragon, unlike many other RPGs, makes it clear what qualities a knight is supposed to posses. The game tracks these qualities, reinforces them, and rewards Player Knights who act accordingly.

So here's the thing: man or woman, if a knight is behaving like a knight, then all is well with the world. If the starting Player Knights are trained by a knight named Elaine rather than Elad, but Elaine behaves in manner similar to those Elad would posses, then what does it matter?

If the Player Knights, man or woman, seek to be Valorous, Loyal to their Lord or Lady, Energetic, Generous, Just, Merciful, and Modest, then what more could we ask of them. They are being knights! That's what the game is about, and they are succeeding.

***

Honestly, I'm more worried about the rules not being clear, not thought out fully, and editorial quality control issues than I am about whatever all this is.

Put 1st editions cover on the 3rd edition book!
Bingo! Done!

@sirlarkins A note about the QS:

I believe this very important sentence from 5.2 (and other editions of the game, written in one form or another) is missing from the text:

In opposed rolls, a failure is always treated as if the player had rolled 0, regardless of the actual number rolled on the die. 

Without that rule, the bullet points about results of Opposed Rolls fall apart and how to adjudicate Opposed Rolls makes no sense.

From the podcast @sirlarkins did, I understand Chaosium is going to do a Kickstarter for a reprint of King Arthur Pendragon 1st edition.

This seems so strange. I understand Chaosium is comparing it to the RQ 2nd edition they did, which was very successful and I see why they are making the comparison.

But RQ2 is and was playable as it stands, without a lot of tweaking to the game. In fact, many people still actually play RQ2.

In the case of PAK, however most of the shifts in rules (removing language skills, reworking Religious Bonuses, and such) happened between the 1st edition and 3rd.* Most of the changes from the 1st edition are now considered the norm by most players of the game for very good reasons. I'm not sure who, exactly, would use a copy of KAP 1st. 

So I'm typing this only because if there's going to be a Kickstarter for a previous edition, here is what I would much prefer. I know it won't happen. I know this is useless. But here it is:

If there is going to be a Kickstarter of a decades old edition of King Arthur Pendragon, I'd really much rather have a clean, beautiful copy of King Arthur Pendragon 3rd edition.

The interior layout, art, and color features of KAP3 not only make it one of the most beautiful editions of KAP, but also one of the most attractive RPGs ever printed, period.

Moreover, the 3rd edition was chopped up in the most horrible way and interlaced with Knights Adventurous to create the 4th edition, so that the fonts and layout mismatch through 4th edition that made something truly ugly. Many, many people were introduced to KAP with 4th edition, and it would be real treat for them to see the foundation fo the rules they love as presented in 3rd edition.

Many people don't like the cover of 3rd, so fine... put on a better cover! But the interior of the game is one of the best things ever.

I lost my copy of 3rd years ago, and if I were to back anything it would be for a new, clean version of one of my favorite games in one of my favorite editions. 

Again, I speaking a prayer into a cold, uncaring wind. But there it is. 

* (No 2nd edition was ever printed, for arcane publishing/distribution reasons.) 

Well, what is weird is that it is written, unexpectedly, as an algebraic formula. I say unexpectedly because I don't think there is another bit of algebra in the whole quick start.

But 23 is the same thing as 20 (+3). It is an awkward phrasing, but technically it is correct.

Here is the passage from 5.2 which explains the rule in plain language:

Quote

 

If a character has a statistic value greater than 20, even if it is only temporarily modified to greater than 20, then every die roll he makes versus that value is increased. The increase is equal to the amount of the value over 20. Thus, a knight with a Dexterity of 25 would gain a +5 bonus to the roll every time he makes a DEX check, as long as he suffers no penalties from other sources.

Note that the die roll can never be reduced, only increased, in King Arthur Pendragon. A penalty to a statistic is applied to the statistic’s value, not to the roll itself.

Treat any result of 21 or higher on the roll as a 20, which is a critical success. Thus, a value greater than 20 in a statistic increases the chance of a critical success and eliminates the chance of a fumble.

 

I find it a much better construction.

1 hour ago, Morien said:

What I dislike about the 20 (+x) notation is that it does not address what happens when the skill is 18 and then gets a +5 modifier to 23... The older rules were clear that you just added +3 to the dice roll. Current rules do not make it clear, and actually make it seem as if you'd only get a critical if you roll 23 on 1d20, which is impossible. Now I know I should count 23 as 20 (+3) but that is not explained anywhere.

I am not quite sure where this concern is coming from. On page 1 of the Quickstart:

Quote

 

Used when success is based entirely on the character’s own actions. Roll 1D20 versus the value of the Statistic. If the Statistic value is written as 20 (+x), add the value of (+x) to the die roll to determine its final value. The final number of the die roll is compared to the target value to determine the outcome.

• Critical Success: Exactly the target value—often confers an additional benefit beyond a success.
• Success: Less than the target value.
• Failure: Higher than the target value.
• Fumble: A natural 20; a spectacular failure causing problems.

Note that if a target value is 20, it becomes impossible to fumble, and that a modified dice roll greater than 20 counts as a result of 20 and is a critical success.

 

I believe the concept could have been expressed more clearly, but it is all there.

2 hours ago, Morien said:

+5 is a lot, though. +10 was an insta-win

But if someone has Orate 3 and risks invoking a Passion on behalf of his lord (or whatever), an 8 isn't an insta-win.

And I don't mind insta-win for the knights when it comes to Passions.

I think a lot of this comes down to what one person or another wants Passions to mean. To me I want them to be the truly bigger than life stuff. But that's me.

The rules for Passion seem to be the big change I've seen on a scan of the rules. 

I really love the rules for there being mechanical effect for non-Famous Passions. A lot.

On the other hand, the bonuses and risks for the Famous and Exhaulted Passions make the Passions seem rather... mundane and boring now? For me, a knight invoking Passions was a signal that whatever was happening meant everything to the Player Knight. Big risk, big reward, and a clear flag on the field.

(I understand that the GM can impose Passion roles per the rules, but because of the risks, I never did this. I always left it up t the Player to choose to invoke a Passion, which is the other half of the rules.)

On the third hand, sometimes going into Meloncholia or Madness for months didn't seem to fit if you failed a Passion against your Hatred of Saxons for example. Sometimes a "He's gone into the woods and has been lost for weeks and weeks" makes sense, and other times it doesn't. This is honestly the only piece of the Pendragon rules I consistently bounced against. I loved the rules and the idea... but the one-size-fits-all approach to the Melencholia and Madness never seemed to capture what the rules were after.

I think what I might do in the future is have two tiers for the length of time for Melencholia and Madness, to be discussed before the roll is made between the GM and the Player: keep the rolls from the table (1d6+5 or 1d6+10) but they represent either days or weeks, as defined by the importance of the Passion and the situation at hand by the Player for his Knight. (And,in the case of Madness for really, really emotionally significant matters for the PK, going back to the old rules, even months).

I understand this isn't a solution that will make sense for a lot of people ("Everyone will pick days!") and not certainly you could put in a rule book given how much this depends on everyone at the table being on the same page and collaborating. But for my group, who are heavily invested in making stuff up together that seems emotionally true and driven by the story, I think it will work.

As for the rewards... no. A +5 is the standard bump for any positive positive advantage, no matter how mundane. If I'm going to use Passions at my table (and I'm going to use Passions at my table!) I want them to produce crazy-inspired actions that make everyone at the table laugh and gasp as the PK makes rolls that are off the chart.

I appreciate Greg might have thought the bonuses were too much. But they were always balanced with the risk. Let a Player Knight be too much every once in a while, is my view. This is a game about a legendary time with legendary characters. If, in a given fight, or a given speech in court, or whatever, the knight' Passion drives him to super-human deeds that are told about for years afterward... well, that to me is the rule doing exactly what it was supposed to do.

@sirlarkinsCan you offer any clues as to what is changed from previous editions to the 6th? 

A crowdfunding for the new version of the game has gone live...

https://hasbropulse.com/products/heroquest-game-system

The earth loves us, and holds us close.

TLonger answers I'm sure will be forthcoming, but here are two brief passages from Runequest 2nd ed. that I have always found compelling when thinking about this question that address the matter directly and concretely. Starting from the instructions below will send you off in the right direction, I believe.

Quote

PURPOSE OF THE GAME

The title of the game, RuneQuest, describes its goal. The player creates one or more characters, known as Adventurers, and plays them in various scenarios designed by a Referee. The Adventurer has the use of combat, magic, and other skills, and treasure. The Referee has the use of assorted monsters, traps, and his own wicked imagination to keep the Adventurer from his goal within the rules of the game.

Quote

An adventure area, whether it be section of forest, cave, old ruin, river, etc., should provide the player with the following opportunities:

1. Experience in the use of his skills
2. Opportunity to obtain treasure and thereby purchase further training
3. The chance to die in pursuit of the above
4. Enjoyment while doing all of the above.

Also, here is a full thread from nine years ago discussing this topic. (I know about the quotes from RQ2 because of this thread.)

48 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Criminals? I think you are being unfair. Neither Dumas nor Shakespeare claimed to be historians, or to be telling a ture histroy.

I think you're missing the commentary I'm making on people faulting storytellers for not being historically accurate. 

All in all, I don't think your post did anything other than pretty much agree with the points I made in my post. For that I thank you!

On 7/5/2020 at 4:21 PM, Percarde said:

Like what Hollywood, or the movie / TV, industry does.  You know like they changed history with Braveheart, Pearl Harbor, The White Queen and pretty much everything that has been made in the last 40 years....

20 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Somewhat. I think some of the changes with Arthurian lore were more natural and occurred as the story was unintentionally altered and updated when retold over the ages to people in different times and places. Hollywood's changes tend to be more deliberate or out of ignorance about the story they are supposedly retelling, or even to simplify a complex story to make it more easily understood.. But I'm sure a lot of the changes to Arthurian lore over the years were deliberate too, so probably not too much different than today.

The needs of story are completely different than the needs of history. 

Anyone who thinks Hollywood only started changing history in the last 40 years hasn't paid attention Hollywood's storytelling in the past 100 years. And if we go further back, we find history altering criminals like Dumas, Shakespeare, and Homer.

Storytellers always take the grist of history and shape it to their own needs. That's what the storytellers of Arthurian legend did, looking back at a incidents we (and they) had no true record of, creating myths that they needed to shape for their own needs.

Ultimately King Arthur Pendragon is not about history. Is is about legend and myth. As noted in every edition of the game, Le Morte D'Arthur is the primary telling of the tale used for the game's inspiration. This means the game, following Malory's book, is looking backward with a nostalgic gazing to a time that never existed. This idea -- a lost time of something great -- is tied deeply into this particular telling of the tale.

I understand that a lot of people want a more historical version of KAP with a lot more historical details. Greg certainly did! He kept working on more and more books to provide a historical grounding. But I also think this can become a trap -- since Arthurian legends in general, and KAP in particular -- are not history. The are myth and legend. "Whose myth and legend?" seems to be what this thread is about. I can only suggest that the answer to the question is as rich as the number of people who want to play a game of Arthurian legend. 

But I also think expecting one game book to support all versions of Arthurian legend is going to be too much for a single RPG. One of the things I have always loved and admired about KAP in the 1st, 3rd, and 5th editions, is that it knew what it wanted to be, and did exactly that thing very well.

Cool.

That's what I thought. Thanks!

Okay, cool. So at the 70 or so manors he probably has household kngihts, responsible for protecting the manor, but not collecting money from it. Instead the Count pays them directly or is responsible for their upkeep. 

Thanks!

Thanks for the reply!

I wasn't clear enough about this, but for the moment my main focus is using only the core KAP rules, leaving aside all the supplements.

(I use what I call "The Le Morte Rule": If it wasn't something Malory troubled explaining in Le Morte D'Arthur, then it probably isn't something I need to worry about in playing Pendragon. The supplements open a whole can of worms and rabbit holes that I don't need to create a setting for adventurous and conflict driven RPG play in the style of Le Morte D'Arthur. For me that is the sweet spot for King Arthur Pendragon. But I completely understand other people want a lot more detail to build out the setting.)

To your answer, again, thank you. My question would be then, whose household are these Family Knights are part of? The Count? Other nobles? I can't imagine the Count is paying out almost every family member of every knight in Salisbury. But maybe?

Are they household kngihts sitting on manors he owns? Household knights that also hang out at the PK's manor until called up? (I'm sure it can be a variety of responses! But narratively I'm looking for answers for when the Players ask, "Hey, it's winter. We're sitting by the fire. Where is my uncle hanging out?")

On 12/14/2019 at 7:10 AM, creativehum said:

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.)
• 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.

Hi there, a bit of thread necro, as a question popped into my head.

Above is the distillation of the answer I was given a year ago. 

I am now curious about that 3rd bullet point, the manors that the count controls, but that are not gifts or grants.

Who lives in those? Who takes care of them? Are they knights? Do they have obligations to the Count (Earl, whatever)? Are they part of the knights that make up his army? And if not, who are they and what is their relation to the Count?

Thanks!

In the KAP core rules, the Player Knights inherit manors granted to their families two generations ago. Their upkeep is determined by how well the manor does each year, and any other gifts or loot they accumulate over the year.

The PKs might also have brothers, cousins, uncles. Their upkeep is not supported by the PK's manor. They might be bachelor knights, they might be mercenary knights, or they might even be vassal knights -- but this, I assume -- is for the GM and the Players to sort out.

My question is, is there any method in the book describing how to determine the upkeep or status of the PK's Family Knights? Or is this something the group decides on their own, year by year?

If it is decided by the group that's fine. But I wanted to know if I was missing something.

Thanks!

I love the premise of this thread.

I also think it's like one of the most important questions to ask about Glorantha.

@Elcid321, thank you for starting it!