Jump to content

fulk

Members
  • Content Count

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

fulk last won the day on October 4 2016

fulk had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

40 Excellent

About fulk

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Played RQ since the 1980s
  • Current games
    Pendragon, RQ6/Mythras/BRP, DnD5, Talislanta
  • Location
    Seattle
  • Blurb
    Castle fan

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think there are options to how you play it. Either way, you still have a marriageable countess and no male leader for the county. That said, if you use Warlords, counties aren't really integral units that one person can control, but there would be lordships that are vacant in the same way. RE adventuring. YPMV. Through the early years, PK lords can certainly lead armies in the big battles and engage in politics. I have found that fun. As for adventuring, I don't really see any problem with it. Many of Arthur's knights who go adventuring are great land owners. It just comes down to how you want to play (historical reality is a different matter).
  2. RE PKs taking over a county. In Lordly Domains there is the Adventure of Rydychan (I think that is the name). The adventure gives the PKs the chance to take over Rydychan by helping the widowed countess there fight off some robber knights. So, the idea has been out there. Makes for a more political/army-based game.
  3. Historically, I agree this is unlikely. I could see it in cases where a father was subenfeueding to a second son or something like that where the lands would stay withing the immediate family. Nevertheless, it would be rare. I think what matters is playability. If you want to reward PKs but keep everyone a vassal of Earl Rodderick for game purposes, just do it. Historically, there are also ranks of household knights. So some one like William Marshall could be granted the rank of Banneret of the household and have his own set of followers.
  4. Re Barons and Estates...I agree with Morien... (1) Estates are a single, integral unit (with outliers). It cannot be split up. Multiple manors acquired over time are not an estate. (2) Kings or other lords can grant estates. (3) You are a Baron if you are granted the estate by the king per Baronium. You are not if the land was granted per Knight's Service (4) You are only a Baron if you hold land (here 100L or more) from the King. You are not a baron if you hold land from Earl Rodderick, even if you hold a lot.
  5. Re the hilt. It is probably not worth modeling, but he lack of hand protection (hilt) would affect technique to some extent. When fencing with French Cane one's guard position is different and the distance a bit different than when fencing with other weapons that provide some hand protection. Essentially, you need to protect your hand, which is the closest target to your opponent. I don't think this level of detail is, however, important for Mythras.
  6. My suggestion is ... roleplaying. Everything doesn't need a game mechanic to be useful. The GM can just have ladies gravitate towards the high APP character, lords notice them first, etc. I'm personally against the computer-game-ization of roleplaying games where every situation needs a mechanic. Perhaps its just because I'm older. That said, I'm not against the second two suggestions above. I don't like the APP cap unless we applied a similar cap to all skills based on some skill specific root-trait. F
  7. I was being a bit flippant above, obviously, but in general Chivalry really only applies to other Christian Knights and Ladies. You can kill foot soldiers after a battle etc without being dishonorable--Cruel, yes, but not dishonorable because they had no expectation of mercy. It is also perfectly knightly and honorable to burn and pillage your enemies peasants. Cruel yes, but within the norms of war, no matter how much the Church tried to limit such behavior. Chivalry in your Pendragon may vary though. In the modern day, we would certainly think that a knight should protect the peasants and not burn down their houses and steal their cattle. You can interpret things that way, but it isn't really historically consistent in terms of behavior and perception. The Black Prince, that paragon of chivalry, burned and pillaged his way across France. I'm not sure if being just being Cruel would really lose you Honor. Likewise, some of the extreme examples like cannibalism would violate other social or religious rules. I'm not sure if that would lose you Honor or just make you seem crazy...and evil.
  8. The code of chivalry only applies to other knights (and ladies). You are free to massacre the peasantry and especially Saxons at will.
  9. I would generally agree with the above. Back-stabbing an individual opponent instead of defeating him in honorable combat would be murder and dishonorable. Using ruses and tricks in group actions and war is totally acceptable, at least historically.
  10. Great minds...That describes the overall content of Book of Castles pretty well. Re the large bonuses, you shouldn't expect to take a strong castle without a large, well supplied army with lots of Assault Gear and Siege Engines. That said the Assault rules are for large, full-scale assaults. If you're looking at a -40 modifier to assault the castle, you should probably try a ruse or special ops type sneak attack, which would just use regular role playing rules.
  11. All of the castles 'Built' in BoCastles were done with an excel program, so they are internally consistent and the DVs add correctly. BoCastles add a lot of logistics to control for some of the problems above. For example, (1) You can't just buy Assault Gear and Siege Engines whenever you want or replenish it at will. You need engineers for Siege Engies. Both also take time to produce. (2) The amount you can deploy is based on the size of the force. So 20 men can't use 100 AG. You need a lot of soldiers to use a lot of AG or SE. For example, you would need ~400 soldiers to deploy a siege tower. (3) Recruiting soldiers is limited based on your land holdings and glory. A random knight can't just hire 500 foot soldiers. (4) You have to track food. BTW, this part tormented me for ages. I spent a lot of time reading articles on medieval logistics and food requirements. Interesting stuff. (5) You have to transport stuff. So if you have 100 AG, you need the wagons to get it there. Wagons are limited. (6) The number of attackers is limited (as well as defenders) based on the perimeter. So you can't throw 1000 men at the keep. There is only one door. NT
  12. I think Greg was bouncing around on DV values early on. They didn't stabilize until BoCastles. Either way, the above motte-and-bailey is correct and should match stuff in BoWarlord etc. NT
  13. BoE has also been revised a few times. At which version are you looking?
  14. You are correct that there are errors in the BoE, especially v1. The motte shouldn't get a ditch and rampart. Just a ditch (DF 2), as in the above example. DV 5/11/2 is correct DV although the works appear wrong.
×
×
  • Create New...