creativehum

First, thank you for the discussion! And yes, I'm addressing specifically this: "However, during the Infamous Feast, the death toll is catastrophic amongst the attending barons and perhaps even estate holders."

A thought I've had is to use the table on p. 19 of Book of the Entourage but move over one column for the Knight's Rank to reflect the greater odds of ending up with someone with more land or money. So a Vassal Knight would reference the Rich Vassal Knight column, and a Rich Vassal Knight would use the Estate Holder column.

As I sit here thinking about building an spread sheet to track the NPCs that get soft introductions in The Uther Phase that become much more important in The Anarchy Phase it occurs to me that running The Great Pendragon Campaign is kind of a lot of work!

Question:

In the year 496 we find this passage under Events:

Quote

Wife Seeking? 

War makes many widows, and many Salisbury noblewomen are now without husbands.

I'm curious if there are guidelines for what sorts of lands and dowries might be appropriate for such ladies.

I know many people here think the "eligible ladies" found in KAP core rules are too wealthy. But are the concerns loosened in the Anarchy Phase?

I'm looking for any sources of tables or concrete lists, and less a discussion on these matters. 

Thanks!

36 minutes ago, Username said:

I understood it to be a square wall around the perimeter. 1 wall=1 side. And the summer was the building season with Spring planting, fall harvest, and winter is too cold. So, 1 summer = 1 year.

I thought that as well.

but Sarum is a circle.

i'll assume they mean a quarter of it and move on!

Question:

In 496 we find this:

Quote

 

New Walls: Among other possible topics of discussion is the building of new walls around Sarum city and the castle proper. They ought to be built of stone to in- crease their defensive value. (The DV for stone walls is 7, while that for wood is only 3.) It will cost £20 to enclose the castle, and £100 for the entire city.

It takes about a summer to build one of these walls with the available help, so the city could be enclosed after four years of work, or it could be enclosed in one year by a wall that was only one-quarter the full normal height.

Money needs to come from outside sources, but this project should be undertaken. The county itself generally has no extra money to spend for this. This is where the player knights come in, of course, as benefac- tors. The countess would no doubt reward such generos- ity with titles, rewards, or other gifts. 

 

Can anyone help me with the math/logic here?

One wall is a summer, so the whole city is four years? I am either missing something (likely!) or perhaps there is a typo. But I'm not getting it.

Thanks!

24 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Vortigern had the King and his son murdered and usurped the throne from Aurelius and Uther, who were sprinted away to Brittany

I think this fact might depend on which sources one is using. I just searched through both KAP 5.2 and GPC and as far as I can tell (though I might have missed it!) Vortigern is never fingered for Constan's death. 

But clearly he was a terrible ruler and everone hated him. I mean, even his own children rebelled!

@stryker99 to your question about what the PKs know: I always tell my players significant things their character should know that are relevant to the situation at hand. We play once a week, they have lives. I'm not expecting them to carrry little details that might have been mentioned weeks about about a fantasy world we only dip into for a few hours.

I have also made it clear to my players I am never trying to lead them anywhere with what I say. They know that my delight is them doing things I did not expect and finding out where the game goes. If I'm running some game and say something like, "Your mage as seen runes like this before. They are from a cult of that worships Gre'kala" (or whatever) they know I am a) yes, revealing important information, but also b) revealing their world through the point of view of their characters and their character's expertise. Revealing the world to the Players through the point of view of their characters is, I think, one of the BEST ways to make a world feel alive and hook the Players into the fictional details. 

As for the choices the PKs make regarding Cerdic, remember that any choice is a good choice. As I outlined in a post above, there will be fallout and grist for adventure no matter what they advise the Countess. There is no "right" or "impopper" decision. As has been noted Vortigern's sons tried to do the right thing by rebelling against their father years ago. It is possible Cerdic is of the same stuff.

Ultimately, after reading through these pages these past few days it seems to me Greg is laying down lots of reasons not to ally with Cerdic and lots of  fair reasons the PKs might want to ally with Cerdic. Issues of history, culture, military strength, old feuds, fear of new feuds, Saxon Kings on all sides, a land in need of a strong leader (Cerdic is a strong leader) mean that Cerdic's arrival is interesting. The players and the Player Knights will have to make decisions about what matters most and what defines them: The hatred of Saxons over their need to bring peace to the land over their Honor (Cerdic, despite his tough talk treats them with Honor), and so on.

I think this is one of the key reasons Greg puts the adventure here: What do the PKs value? How do they value one thing over another thing. It is a chance to have a discussion about what it means to be "British" (as Cerdic claims to be), to be a knight, to have honor, to bring peace, to be a leader, and so on. After all, 

Whichever choice the PKs make will be fine because they will have sorted something out, there will be fallout and consequences and that means the game is moving forward. 

I am sure that did happen in your campagin. But I think you and are talkinga about two different things.I was referring to the actual text within the GPC.

In almost every year of the Anarchy Phase, Stafford introduces options and information for the Countess to deal with, and then there is a paragraph that states one way or another, "The Countess turns to her advisors. She does what's the Player Knights suggest."

In the case of Prince Mark's marriage proposal this paragraph is not present. The PKs are not invited to weigh in on the matter of marriage proposal within the text. That the PKs can discover what the secret offer was, have an opinion about it, and argue for the marriage doesn't change the fact that unlike almost every other years the text not only doesn't declare that the Countess will do what they suggest but also hides the marriage proposal behind Intrigue rolls makes it unique from other decisions in other years. That was my only point. 

That your knights discovered what had happened, pleaded with the Countess to accept the offer, and ended up in a conflicted rift is terrific stuff. But it comes about because the PKs, in this one matter, are not given sway as advisors over the Countess.

4 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

He is not that horrible.

 I agree with you.

When I made my first posts about Cerdic I had not yet read deeply into the Anarchy Phase. My posts were based on some of the statements made about him by other posters on this thread. Now that I have read the first third of the Anarchy Phase and have skimmed ahead to read more specifically about Cerdic I believe the case he makes is strong. 

We learn from a throw away line in 509 that "Cerdic punishes those who fight against him." Which is hardly a non-starter for this rough and tumble time period. And since he can trace his lineage directly to a High King, and his own father was betrayed by Saxons, I think he makes a strong case he is not a Saxon and even more he is the rightful heir who can unify Britain in this time of crisis.

Ultimately, however, just like the NPCs and the PKs, each person on this thread will have their own ideas and opinions about Cerdic based on whatever details about him, his family history, and clashing cultures they wish to highlight or ignore!

_____________________________________________

I want to address the question of what to do if Countess Ellen swears fealty to or marries Cerdic. Because reading the Anarchy Phase it seems to me as if it is not that big a deal. 

The Saxon kings are already fighting amongst themselves. Certain British lords are making alliances with them (though not submitting as vassals). The whole situation is a tangled mess, and the GPC leans into this. 

If Counless Ellen and Cerdic marry, what really changes? Not much in terms of the tension and politics. Cerdic has a desire to now to protect Salisbury, and so does the Countless. Cerdic will want to knock down the other Saxon kings, and so does the Countess. 

By tying himself ot Ellen, declaring himself British rather than Saxon, and growing in strength, Cerdic paints a target on his back for the other Saxon kings to shoot at. 

In other words if we take Cerdic at his word, about who he is, what he is, and what his plans are, then the interests of King Cerdic and Countless Ellen align almost perfectly. 

In terms of the material in the book all of it remains the same. If the Countess swears fealty and loyalty to Cerdic or even marries him, the Saxon kings will deman tribute or attack, they will attack Cerdic, Cerdic will try to expand his power (just as the PKs would do anyway), and so on. As far as I can tell very little changes from what is presented, and what is presented is somewhat slight since Stafford assumes he has no idea what the PKs might end up choosing to do.

(Interestingly, the one choice Stafford takes away from the PKs is the Countess marrying Prince Mark. That decision is made by the Countess alone, in the middle of the night, with no input from the PKs asked for or allowed!)

Excellent point!

8 minutes ago, Morien said:

I was talking about the conquest of the Isle of Wight, where GPC states: "The castle is stormed, the nobles killed,"

Got it. And I think that would be a terrific spot to have the man be horrible if that is how the GM wants to go.

1 hour ago, Morien said:

Still, you could play Cerdic's slaying of all the nobles (in GPC) as harsh as you want to:

Does the GPC state who used the magical,poison at the feast? I haven't been able to,track it down.

Or are you suggesting a GM could make Cedric responsible to nail down his awefulness? (Which is a good idea!)

Either way the GM has to make a decsion: Is Cedric a "reformed" Saxon and not as bad as the rest of his family? In which case all is well.

Or is he ultimately horrible? In which case revealing him to be horrible is crucial.

For what it is worth I prefer the second option.

1 hour ago, stryker99 said:

Cerdic puts on a show of his Briton manners, throwing a very British feast, and parading in front of them a contingent of knights who butter up Cerdic's credentials.

What I love about this is it drives directly at one the thematic threads of the campaign: Are you a good knight simply because you do the rituals well? 

The answer is obviously no. But still, Mordred years later will assume that if surrounds himself with the object and people (like Guinevere) that surrounded his uncle, he'll be on track to be the High King. 

It's a lesson the PKs might have to have knocked into their heads. Like @Morien I say loosen the reigns and let them go for it. 

However, I would let the fallout happen relatively quick. The game, the book keeps telling us, involves consequences from choices. By marrying Countess Ellen off to Cerdic they are doing The Wrong Thing. They have fallen for manners over character, and I would let let Cerdic keep the manners but reveal his true character. Let him be horrible. They'll be near him. They'll hear him. They'll see him. They'll be ordered to be party to his plans.

If he is a horrible man (and everyone here seems to think he will be) then let him be such a man...

And then let the Player Knights figure out what to do once they realize the error their ways! Do they flee? Steal away with Countess Ellen? Have they sworn loyalty to him? Will they conspire to kill their lord?

Let it all rain down on them after they have made their choices. Make it have been a terrible choice. And then see what they do after that!

Well, I have finished reading the years and Adventures of the Uther Perod.

i have to say: when I flipped through the book it all seemed too much and overwhelming. "Ther is no way I'll keep this all straight!" I thought to myself.

But reading it page by page, year by year, i found the book both compelling and clear. The big takeaway for me is this is something i can't wait to run for my players. Not on a conceptual or abstract level of "I always love running Pendragon and the GPC is Greg's crowning achievement" but rather "Tnis thing rocks and will be a blast to play."

The real work for the GM is to make sure all they "history" and events don't swamp the personal live of the Player Knights. The Introduction of the GPC makes it clear that the focus of the game should be the PKs and their lives. But with so much compelling material to share with the PKs I could see that getting lost!

The trick, I think, is to use all the techniques from the Introduction and the Adventures at the end of the Uther Period chapter as a foundation for building the game. Almost every year has plenty of space to introduce adventure, conflicts, and NPCs that focus on the PKs. The job of the GM Is not to let the Events in the GPC run roughshod over him but take each year apart before play, find those gaps, make sure that is the focus of play, and then be prepared to introduce the scripted elements around the PK focused material. 

For example, the setup for Merlin roping the PKs into helping him steal the baby is that the PKs are riding Salisbury on patrol. Well, there are several Adventures at the back of the chapter that focus on riding patrol. But the book also tells us to make sure to build NPCs as recurring adversaries. By this point in the campaign the PKs should have a couple of grudge matches going on with Saxons, romantic rivals, or other clans. By first setting up an adventure with a recurring nemesis we build out the tales of the PKs. But we also provide surprise when that is over and Merlin arrives and requests aid. We thought the night was going to be about patrolling-- and now here's Merlin!

The same holds true for the Feast after The Battle of  St. Albans. The PKs will be surrounded by countless knights and many ladies. All sorts of conflicts can either reach a head -- or perhaps even shut down in celebration of the victory. A full hour or more of roleplaying can take place focused on the PKs outside the hall. And then, when the PKs are fully caught up in their own drama... the screaming  starts.

Most years have theses spaces and gaps that Stafford clearly left for the GM to use for the PCs, folding in NPCs, rising tensions, and fallout and escalation from the years before. There are only ten years, which will come out to about 12-15 sessions. Meaning there really won't be time for them to feel repetitive or abritrary. If handled correctly each one will be an encounter the Players will be eager to engage with since it will advance or raise the stakes for the personal stories of their knight's.

i'm really looking forward to digging into the Anarchy Phase.

Question about the format for the years. As an example

493 offers us this passage:

Quote

Christmas Court

Royal Court: The king’s court is very gloomy. The queen seems to be holding herself apart from the king.(Does she care about Uther, really?)

Salisbury: The earl is worried. Uther is ill, and the condition of the king has affected the entire land of Logres. Octa and Eosa are marching south.

I assume that Stafford is offering details that might come into play depending on where the PKs end up for the Winter Court or what news they might catch with Intrigue.

It is not expected that the knights will travel from one court to the other. He is offering more information than might be played out, allowing the book to provide info that might come into play depending on circumstances, yes?

40 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I'd think someplace else. I mean would you want to get married at the same time and place where you are burying your only son?

So there is no further confusion, I meant that Uther might host the wedding at his own castle... not Roderick's. (I have edited my previous post to make this clear.)

I like the suggestion of London. It is a chance for the PKs to go see "city life" and have adventures there. (The GPC suggests doing this so the PKs/Players get to experience the difference between the "dirty city" and their own lives out in their estates.)

Questions: 

After the battles and events in 491 there are, as the text notes, many social events that can make the year spill over several sessions as the PKs hobnob with lords, knights, and ladies. The GM has opportunity to introduce any NPCs he wants to the PKs to see, meet, or interact with.

We have Madoc's Funeral, Uther's Wedding, and the Winter Court.

In particulate the text notes: "In such a crowded social milieu, Gamemasters ought to prepare for many bouts of social interaction between player knights and allies or rivals, and/or with suitable ladies."

What sorts of "preparation" have GMs done? Given the upcoming events are there any NPCs it would be useful to introduce? Or types of NPCs (the text suggests throughout these gatherings romantic rivals, possible romances, and so on.)

Also, Earl Roderick hosts the funeral as it is near Stonehenge. I assume Uther hosts his wedding at his own castle? Or somewhere else?

Thanks!

4 hours ago, stryker99 said:

More surprising was how sympathetic the PKs found Kind Cerdic. They are currently ACTUALLY considering counseling Ellen to swear fealty to Wessex. I didn't expect that.

Desperate times... desperate measures!

(I'm sure I'll have more questions when I have time to dig back into the GPC and read a few more yers!)

3 hours ago, Morien said:

As you correctly state, the Anarchy has probably the greatest chance of going sideways, due to its very nature of putting the PKs into a position to influence the fate of the County. Do they support the Countess or do they try to seize power (for themselves or for the whole group?)? Do they pursue different foreign policy, advocating alliance to Saxons/Cornwall/Silchester/Nanteleod?

Even Arthur's crowning pales in comparison, as they will probably just go along with what their own liege decides. And unless the GM does some serious work, the Downfall is probably also going to get decided by their high Loyalty Pendragon or some other liege. It is much rarer that a PK has Loyalty (Lancelot). However, they might very well have Amor (Guenever), and this might be a very good story reason for the GM to be generous with giving that passion out to PKs who wants it.

If we make it to the Downfall phase I'll take whatever happens!

As for Anarchy, that's where I expect things will get janky for the players and their choices for all the reasons you describe.

This is why I think utilizing and leaning on a Fellowship for the PKs makes the most sense.

Speaking of which:

25 minutes ago, Call Me Deacon Blues said:

I will ask if by Dame Elaine, you mean Countess Ellen

Yes. Sorry about that. I meant Ellen. Thank you for catching that.

In the King Arthur Pendragon core rules Common Terms and Abbreviations section "Dame" is defined as "Title for a woman that is equivalent to 'lord' used when the woman is the head of her own household." Since at the time in the campaign I was referencing Countless Ellen is now the head of the household I used Dame as a marker for her specific situation in the campaign. 

4 hours ago, Morien said:

Alas, the campaign imploded a session or two later, when the PKs fractured over supporting the Countess or seizing power for themselves,

Question:

The quote above brings up an issue I've been wondering about.

Give the choices and possibilities of shifting loyalties the PKs will face through the campaign have people found any problems with the games fracturing as PKs split apart. I'm not concerned with OOC arguments... but simply PKs splitting up or becoming enemies. My assumption is that the game will run smoother and easier if the PKs are working as a band of knights or as a fellowship. (King Arthur Pendragon materials through the decades that suggest such "Fellowships" seem to support this!)

I'll be doing myself some favors on this front by working from the core KAP rules: all the PKs will be from Salisbury, each with a manor in Salisbury they inherited (though I'm going to stretch ownership back to the time of the PK's great-grandfather or grandfather), everyone will be swearing fealty to Sir Roderick, everyone will have trained together with Sir Elad. So there will be many bonds between them.

But even with all that, which way to go in the matter of Uther vs. the Duke of Cornwall; whether to back Dame Ellen after Roderick dies, and so on there will be opportunities for the PKs to fall away from each other.

My own instinct is to say bluntly: "Folks, for the sake of the game, know that you must find a way to work together as a fellowship, because that's the kind of tale we're in..."  After all, it is the tearing apart of the Fellowship of the Round Table the ends Arthur's rule, the lives of the Knights, and the story! The notion that knights must be in a fellowship for the story to continue is baked into the myth!

But I'm curious how this issues has affected other games and how people have dealt with it... or how it might have torn games apart.

2 hours ago, Username said:

The best part is they ultimately grimaced and said our loyalty ultimately matter more. But, I remember well a good 15-20 minutes of discussing running off with Sygarius and sighing and looking at their pretty high loyalty scores 

It's as if King Arthur Pendragon is a well-designed game built to produce certain effects and challenges for the players!

1 hour ago, Username said:

Also, it does work well if he's using it to make a point too, I just like the idea of the Uther scheming in that manner.

Without doubt! Uther is a sharpshooter when it comes to Intrigue after all!

I am grateful to everyone who gave me a broader context for the political situation on the Continent. There is a lot of info in the GPC... but there is a lot that is unspoken or implied as well! Having folks unpack some of this is why I started this thread!)

I'll definitely be keeping the notion that Uther and Madoc are signaling to Clovis with their actions. I love that. But as @Atgxtg said above about not dumping lots of info on the Players about Excalibur's backstory, I want to keep the backstory about this political maneuver light as well. 

The Player Knights might talk to Earl Roderick about it, or make Intrigue rolls, or whatever to get more information or infer what they can. That's on them to dig deeper. 

The key thing for me -- that the GPC sets up -- is that the Players/Player Knights think they are doing one thing and then have the rug pulled out from under them while making them active participants in an act of betrayal. This puts them on the spot and, as I stated above, sets up the seeds of Uther's further revelations of selfishness and betrayal in the years to come. It is all a piece, as far as I can tell, of putting a sharp light on the game's central question: "What sort of knight are you going to be?"

I love the fact that your PKs were loyal to Madoc and backing him, only to have to ask, "Are we the baddies?" I think that is so much of what the game is about!

.As a note: Everything proposed above can, in one way or another, be accomplished without Uther and Madoc scheming directly with Clovis. Clovis knows Syagrius has gone to Uther for help. Madoc leads forces across the English Sea. Loots one town, walks away, and leaves Syagrius hanging high and dry. 

I think the messages to Clovis are quite clear without any words needing to be spoken:

1. We were asked by your enemy to wage war against you. We didn't.
2. If we want to come and mess up your lands, we can.
3. Stay out of our business, and we'lll stay out of yours. Here's your enemy. Good luck.

A second note: Username's summary of his Player's/Player Knight's reaction to the adventure (questions about Madoc's choices, bringing the matter up with Earl Roderick, thinking of going to help Syagrius) are all talked about in the text of the GPC. The scenario is designed to provoke this sort of reaction from the Players and their knights. The question of "What sort of behavior do we want from our leaders?" is being hammered here. And that question matters a lot depending on what sort of ideas and themes one wants in one's GPC. 

Ultimately Uther is the kind of man who would use his authority to imprison a man and wife in order to sleep with the man's wife. (And, notably for the culture, who are a Duke and Duchess.) In my campaign the Duke of Cornwall doesn't support Uther for several years because he doesn't trust Uther. He knows of Uther's ambitions to be High King. He also believes a High King needs to serve the interests of all Britain and not himself first. But he suspects that Uther is all about himself -- a fact proven when he imprisons himself and his wife. (I think the Duke also suspects Uther murdered his brother in my setting. Whether this is true or not, the Duke believes it is possible, and that says a lot about how he views Uther!)

I bring this up because the adventure we are discussing is exactly the point where the PKs get to start seeing and interacting directly with how the Duke sees Uther and having similar doubts about Uther and his son. The theme and tensions will be exploding soon. But the seeds are planted now.

Thus, while it "makes sense" for Uther to do what he has done to Syagrius I, as the GM, don't want to shine to bright a light on that cleverness. I don't want a lot of justications that ease or excuse the behavior. 

The act of betrayal, and how that hits the PKs, is what the adventure is about and I want to make sure to stay focused on that. If the PKs sort out the justifications and reasoning that's on them. And if they decide the wrong thing was done that's on them. But I want to leave those choices for them and not make either road too smooth.

Thanks for the clarification on the sentence. It really tossed me -- geography and all -- and now it makes perfect sense. And I love that it hammers the "savage stereotype" that will be part of the campaign for its run.

And thank you for the clarification about Uther and Madoc being in agreement. That all makes perfect sense. (And a second reading on my part would have made it so.)

As for the nature of Uther I'll be leaning the other way from you in my game. That's the story my intuition says to follow.

Also when I look at the Traits I find for Uther in the GPC GM Characters booklet I find Uther leans toward being Lustful, Deceitful, Cruel, Proud, Worldly, Reckless, and Suspicious. 

Uther is the failures that Merlin has to repair with Arthur is how I'll be playing it.

35 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

In the GPC/Pendragon it comes down to if Excalibur is specific sword of King Arthur or the Sword of Kings that has been passed down from various Celtic Kings down the ages. That will be something for each GM to decide.

Cool. And thank you both @Atgxtg and @jeffjerwin for your replies. 

With the above in mind I'm gong to cobble something together, stealing a bit I think from Boorman's EXCALIBUR. First, there is only one sword -- The Lady in the Lake's gift and the Sword in the Stone are the same sword. Second, it was "forged when the earth was young," as Merlin says in EXCALIBUR and The Great Pendragon Campaign.

In my version, because I want to keep Britain's pagan origins baked into the setting and always relevant, the sword was forged in ancient Britain by fairie folk, and either given to humans when they arrived or stolen by humans when they arrived. (Making this up as I go!) At different times the sword has been lost and found, used by Just rulers to hold the land together. 

With that in mind, and picking up on the breadcrumbs Atgxtg offered, I'll be tracing it back to the Sword of Lugh and Nuada Airgetlám, who I will name as the first High King. This gets the threads of Uther's ambitions, Merlin's plans, and Arthur's destiny all tied up into a tapestry going back to the ancient history of lands.