creativehum

Question: In 488 Prince Madoc has Bayeaux burned after refusing to help Syagrius with further conflicts against the Franks.

I understand Madoc is betraying the agreement his father established after heading back to Britain so quickly. But I want to get a handle on what burning Bayeaux meant. 

Were the British forces supposed to get Bayeaux back for Syagrius after storming it? Or was it supposed to be burned all along?

Like, I kind of get heading back home early. But torching a city that was supposed to be returned to Syagrius is really a dick move. 

So was Syagrius supposed to end up with a freed Bayeaux, or was it supposed to be burned as part of the plan?

Thanks!

Question: In 487, during the LINDSEY EMBASSY, Merlin "... tells a part of the High History of Excalibur..."

Is the High History of Excalibur described in GPC? If it is I can't find it anywhere. And if it isn't, can anyone point me toward a source I can use to build up the sword to the Players when Merlin does his telling?

Thanks!

Thanks for all the replies!

Side note: I'm reading 487 right now. I have to say... it is kind of a thrill to read the GPC. For all the concerns I had read from people about the Player Knights being sidelined by the bigger events, Stafford so far has set up the campaign so it is about the Player Knights. There are lots of stories one can focus on in the mythology of King Arthur... but the Great Pendragon Campagin, so far, looks to be a story about these knights, their friendship, and their relatives.

I'm really looking forward to sharing these events, challenges, and choices with my Players!

486. Adventure the Sword Lake.

Holy Cow! Two supernatural creatures doing 9d6 and 7d6 damage respectively. I understand Merlin heals them between the encounters... but do Player Knights really survive this?

The average damage on a swing from the small trees the giant is holding is 30 points. I assume the trick is to attack immediately and start whittling it down before it can get blows in. 

What have been the experiences people have had with this adventure?

Thanks for the replies folks.

I had assumed it was either a typo or that I hadn't understood the DV system at all! Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I'll make a note in the book.

Next question:

On p. 35 of GPC it says under Events that "Uther summons his army to meet at the city of Salisbury in early summer. Earl Roderick comes with all his knights..."

I assume "city of Salisbury" is a typo for "Sarum." Or is there a Salisbury city I missed? And is it Sarum, since it says, "Earl Roderick comes with all his knights..." but of course he lives in Sarum and doesn't need to arrive!

Any thoughts on this appreciated. (Not a big deal, but I'm curious.)

Thanks!

This is the first one. I'm sure I'll have more! 

Anyone else please jump in!

On pages 29 the Castle (Queen's Castle) lists the castle's DV (defensive value) in the same format used in the section explaining Defensive Values a few pages easier. 

But then there is another section for "Medium Castle" which lists items with numbers in parentheses. I don't recognize this format from the description in sieges. 

Quote

Castle (a.k.a. Queen’s Castle): A 300-foot-diameter mound stands above the city about it, surrounded by a deep ditch whose dirt made much of the mound. Around the outer edge of the mound is a stout log wall. Entry is possible only through the gateway with its drawbridge, on the east side of the castle. Inside are many buildings, especially the Great Hall. Note, too, the kitchens, guest house, stable, and other buildings. Total DV = 3/10/11. The initial 3 points of defense are the city walls (see below). It is an AREA = 4 city + 1 for the castle.

Medium Castle: Stone walls with ditch (7); two square towers with gates (4x2); one square tower with postern (0); one square tower (5); stronghold, a large stone tower on motte (10.) Minimum garrison = 20 men.

Can anyone explain what the section of "Medium Castle" is describing and how it corresponds to the information in the "Queen's Castle" section?

On page 46 of the Book of Knights & Ladies it says in section D. that Traits created by the Standard or Random methods are altered by the listed Regional Trait Modifiers.

However, I think I saw someone mentioned in a thread once that Greg altered that, deciding that the Regional Trait Modifiers should only be applied to either the Standard Method or the the Random Method. But I cannot find that post again.

Did Greg make such a correction? And if he did, which method is supposed to use the Regional Trait Modifiers?

Thanks!

5 minutes ago, Morien said:

Whereas if he just cools his heels for a year or two,

Some people can't... they really can't.

As for smart... I have my own thoughts about "smart." And one of them is a person can be smart in one way or another... but a terrible idiot in other ways. I see it around me every day. That Mordred is smart in some ways I completely buy. That he is perverse and corrupted in other ways I don't think can be avoided if one is using Le Morte D"Arthur as one's springboard for the tale.

19 hours ago, Morien said:

All he needs to do is to wait for the old man to drop dead or get killed by Lancelot, and he will have it all. Grr.

I find this an odd thing to get hung up on. 

Mordred wants to be King now. (Some people are like that.)

Why wait for his father to die? What if he himself dies first? What if Arthur lives another decade or more? What if Lancelot fails? (I get the feeling Mordred wants to get into the action himself.)

Mordred doesn't have to be a "object lesson" to be selfish, vindictive, and perverse. People like this exist in real life. That he is extreme makes him a bigger than life villain. But he has qualities that I can identify in people ruling countries right now.

I don't see the issue as Malory's Mordred being modern or not, but rather whether he is "reasonable" or "smart" in the ways some people on this forum measure reasonable or smart. But Le Morte D'Arthur isn't driven by characters that are reasonable or smart.

One of the qualities I love about using Le More D'Arthur as a reference is that not only the language but the style of the telling bring me into a different frame of mind. It really helps me see how all the piece of the KAP rules fit together and how I want to GM this specific and, in many ways, unique and strange RPG. Yes, it can be hard to read -- especially at the start. But I find once I get going with it brings to me to the strange land of dreamlike nostalgia for a time and place that never existed -- and thus very much the style I want for my King Arthur Pendragon.

As a side not: Malory has one "l", not two. (A mistake I make as well from time to time.)

2 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

It can be useful from a narrative perspective. Your PKs can stumble upon a friend's or foe's manor everywhere. But otherwise, it doesn't serve any purpose in my game.

The thing is (and I'm with @Tizun Thane on this) you don't even need it from a narrative perspective. 

The PCs can wander around and stumble across a friend or foe's manor or castle anywhere without any of the justification of scattered holdings. Happens Malory all the time.

For those who want justifications for randomly coming across manors and castles, scattered holdings make perfect sense. But for some of us they aren't needed at all and only clog up the works.

33 minutes ago, RichardA said:

That's very cool! Please pass on my kudos for his work. 

I shot him a note about!

One of the players in my Monday Night Group (Adam!) wrote it!

55 minutes ago, stryker99 said:

The point that I can make it come alive even more by reading at least Le Morte D'Arthur is well taken.

I love Le Morte D'Arthur. It has a dream-like quality that I love bringing to King Arthur Pendragon when I run the game.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Okay. I contradict you. I think that unless a GM has some familiarity with Arthruian literature and knights they just won't do the game justice. They might be able to handle the game mechanics but they game they run won't bear much relation to King Arthur Pendragon. 

Of course this is true.

This is why King Arthur Pendragon has a bibliography of suggested reading.

It is why the Great Pendragon Campaign contains this gloss on page 7.

Quote

You Don’t Need It, But…

…as a diligent Gamemaster, you will significantly upgrade the quality of your campaign with access to a copy of Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte D’Arthur. Don’t worry, though: You need be only as knowledgeable as a frontier teacher — for any given session of play, just read ahead one chapter beyond the years you are covering. (Largely, though not completely, the campaign event sequence follows Malory.)

In both cases the books are telling you, "This will help your game." When I write "...using King Arthur Pendragon and the Great Pendragon Campaig"..." I mean taking the suggestions in those books seriously. 

And because I already believe this in every one of my posts above I have pointed big arrows at Le Morte D'Arthur. I mean, I keep referencing the importance of looking at the fictional sources for inspiration. Exactly at KAP and GPC do.

I know it is possible to take one sentence of mine and ignore everything else I have typed, but I really don't get the value in it.

_____________________

We resolved the matter of Cedric's invasion on the previous page of this thread with easy effort. I'm busy making handouts for my players.

I'm glad the question was asked. I'm grateful for the answers.

On 1/13/2020 at 4:15 PM, creativehum said:

Hey folks, 

I would never suggest not looking to history to help ground King Arthur Pendragon -- in both setting and play. As I've said across many threads even in Malory there is a tension between the grounded information Malory brings to the day-to-day business of combat and tack and bridles and such, and the fantastical elements of his tale.

On 1/14/2020 at 8:51 AM, Atgxtg said:

KAP could easily have used a more generic FRPG type of economy and price lists. Instead Greg went with something at least partially based on history...

And that all enhances the game. A GM could just hand wave off the economics becuase the game is a romance, not a histroical RPG, but doing so would diminish the gaming experience. So my point is that a GM really shouldn't dismiss things out of hand, as doingh so could shortchange the group.

The portion of Atgxtg's post I quote is a terrific illustration of the points I made in my post. As far as I can tell we are agreeing... so... there we are.

He and I disagree on a few things, of course. Mostly about personal preferences how each of us wants to approach the game. At least that's how I'm seeing it. I suggest that some people are more focused on the delight of historical research than other people. If I'm understanding his post correctly he is saying that distinction does not exist.

But to be clear: My posts above are the people who might show up here and assume they need to be scholars of medieval lit and history to play King Arthur Pendragon. I'm not saying anyone is saying this. I'm saying one could show up and get the mistaken belief this is the case.

To address this head on and unequivocally: one can, and should, be able to play the game with the core rules and maybe the Great Pendragon Campaign without having to open another text or do any research.

If someone wants to dig deeper and add more details -- well, as I've said above, that is great. Clearly several people in the thread love doing that. And more power to them!

But it is a distinct part of the possible KAP RPG hobby. It isn't required. It isn't for everyone. And playing the game can work fine without it.

If anyone wants to contradict me on this, go ahead. Keep in mind:

1. In no way have I stated anyone is wrong for wanting to make digging into the historical aspects of medieval Britain part of the KAP RPG experience
2. In no way have I stated that KAP and GPC haven't already done this (in fact, I continually make the point it has been done)
3. I literally don't know how anyone can contradict my point that some people are more invested in digging into history, and other people are not. I observe this difference of creative agendas on this site regularly.  Given that, I'm not sure what else there is to say. 

3 hours ago, Username said:

@stryker99 If this helps, here's the map I made for the year 502. I think it's pretty accurate to the setting described in the GPC for the middle of Anarchy. Most of the fine folks on this board advised me on it's creation.

Britain Political Compressed 502.pdf 5.15 MB · 4 downloads

This is great.

thanks so much!

Hey folks, 

I would never suggest not looking to history to help ground King Arthur Pendragon -- in both setting and play. As I've said across many threads even in Malory there is a tension between the grounded information Malory brings to the day-to-day business of combat and tack and bridles and such, and the fantastical elements of his tale.

Moreover, the game draws from customs of actual historical times, and chooses to set itself within a framework of laws and customs that we can read about in history books. After all, KAP did not create its own setting! So clearly working from history -- when it makes sense for the setting and play -- is a good idea.

My point was, in the specific case at hand,  trying to work in new discoveries by historians about Cerdic that would flatly contradict details already established in the GPC wouldn't be worth incorporating. If I can use what is in the book with a couple of clarifications to address the matter of where Cerdic lands (which has already been taken care of upthread) rather than rummage around in notions that mean reworking lots of material, I'm going to take the easier path even if it is not historically accurate.

This, first and foremost, was my  point. Le Morte D'Arthur isn't historically accurate. Historia Regum Britanniae isn't historically accurate. These are the books King Arthur Pendragon primarily leans on, and I'm stating I'm fine with continuing with King Arthur Pendragon's tradition of drawing on historically inaccurate material and building historically fanciful tales.

More broadly my point was an expansion of this notion: that first and foremost King Arthur Pendragon is a Romance, not a history, given that since the first edition it has been stated clearly that Le Morte D'Arthur is the primary source of the game. It's as plain as that. If I can add in "real history" at the expense of tearing up floorboards of work that already works for the game, I'll pass on that.

That doesn't mean a dismissal of history as an aid to the game or the setting. (See the first part if this post). It's about the balance of the choice, which divining rod will I use. Clarity of structure, themes, and patterning for the tale being create will alway win out for me... and I know for a fact it is easier to do that with fictional details trumping history. Not a dismal of history,  but a choice about what the design parameters will be.

Phyllis Ann Karr begins her Forward to the second edition of The Arthurian Companion (originally published by Chaosium, later Green Knight) with these words:

Quote

Arthurian enthusiasm takes two forms--research and storification--and  divides into two schools: the realistic and the romantic. This volume is based primarily on the romantic storifications...

I would suggest KAP is the same. As is the GPC.

Now, I don't think the divide in stark. (After all, again, I'm all for using history in KAP). But I do think people lean toward one form, or are more interested in one form or the other, or emphasize one over the other.

But clearly I lean toward the romantic form. Other people lean differently. And that's fine.

But clearly we're talking proportions here, since we can't be sure there even was an Arthur, and we certainly aren't expecting a game involving wizards, spells, Grail Quests, and men wearing full plate in the 6th century to be true.

56 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

but instead getting the pseudo history of the game to be internally consistent.

Absolutely.

56 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

In this case, the OP was trying to figure out who was where among the Saxon Kings threatening Salisbury during the anarchy.

Yes. I know. I was one of the first people to respond to the OP, offering information found in the text of the GPC.

56 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

That the situation here with the GPC. The various Kingdoms don't matchup with each other in the GPC. 

Yes. I know. As noted in posts of mine above. And as I noted in the posts above I find this frustrating.

56 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

People were usually the historical information to try and figure out the best solution for the situation.

I disagree this will produce the best solution. As jeffjerwin himself point out, adding more details from recent historical research throws a wrench in the situation, obscuring, contradicting, complicating the text of the GPC even further. 

56 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

What do you do when the text, charts and maps contradict each other?

The solution, in my view (which hardly seems a mystery from my posts), is to clarify, clean up, and square the material already present in the text rather than adding new info that contradicts what is already there which will result in a new round or two of clean up because of the new information. (Obviously some posters above have already dealt with the matter exactly this way.)

The fact that information is historical does not necessarily make it more beneficial for clarity when working with an ahistorical RPG sourcebook based on fictional series of events. What matters is that the sourcebook is consistent within itself. History may, or may not, help in this regard. 

Introducing the notion that "Cerdic was never ruler of the Saxons around Hampshire" certainly is going to overcomplicate the question of "Where did Cerdic, leader of Saxon forced, land?" Yes? It certainly doesn't help clarify the question at all. That's why he refers to it as throwing a wrench into the works.

(None of this is a knock on jeffjerwin, who is, as far as I can tell, only adding an interesting point. But for the interests of actually helping straighten out the details of the GPC it is, of course, a nonstarter.)

18 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

Just to throw a wrench in there, most historians...

Not a wrench to me, because I would put it back in the tool box and ignore it. Here's my brief foundational text for the "history" of the King Arthur Pendragon RPG and The Great Pendragon Campaign:

Quote

It befell in the days of Uther Pendragon...

A man who never existed, written about in the game's primary source material by a man writing about a time period a thousand years before he was born without the tools or concerns about getting history "right."

For me, all other historical details are flexible and icing on the cake. Details of history that start making getting the game going more difficult, with no other value than they are "historical," are of little use to me.

What I do need is the text, charts, and maps of a decidely and by definition ahistorical campaign setting to be consistent for ease of use. When they are not I need to poke around these forums. Luckily, these forum are here and we can sort this stuff out.

I do understand that for some people the trying to square actual history with the ahistorical events of the Matter of Britain are part of the sport. And I wish them pleasure in their efforts! But for others, like me, not so much.

I just took a look at the GPC, doing a word search in the PDF file. Did you have a chance to do that? 

I ask because when I type in Cerdic? I ask because he is referred to several times as "Cerdic of Wessex."

The maps are a problem. The "496-500 Events Map" has a patch of land labeled "Cerdic" (I understand that it is actually naming the man leading the troops, but still.. one might be looking for the word Wessex.)

And then the 505 Events Map has I think the label "Wessex" on it (for the Battle of Levcomagus) but the "x" is hard to make out.

So... yeah. Finding it on the map is, while not impossible, is difficult. 

14 minutes ago, stryker99 said:

The problem is information overload...

Indeed! The number of NPCs, the political factions. All of it is a bit much!

21 minutes ago, stryker99 said:

One of the things I am finding most difficult about running the GPC is how important NPC's and regions just pop up suddenly in the narrative with no previous explanation.

I am curious about this. (And terrified of it too!)

One of the things I have been advised is to read at least the full Period I am about to run ahead of time. Are you finding you might need to read at least two full Periods to feel like you've got a grasp on things?

Thanks for the explanation!