Jump to content

fulk

Members
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

fulk last won the day on October 4 2016

fulk had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

49 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. My feeling is that weapon skills for knights should all just start at 10. Think of it as general training. Mace 10 seems reasonable. Remember that dropping from Sword 15 to Mace 10 is a pretty big drop. Even if it makes buying up weapon skills to 15 fairly easy, those are points that could have been used elsewhere. I just wouldn't stress over complicated details in a game that has a fairly simple combat system. NT
  2. In the end, it's just a game. I like all three books for various reasons. I don't like the funky place names. In terms of handing out manors, when it is time, I'd suggest letting the knight have the manor that the player wants. I just always liked the name Netheravon. My PK doesn't really care about the name, but I do...so that is the manor I got. It had no real affect on the game, I just liked the name.
  3. AAAA-PERSON. 😃 I wonder what it would take to 'find and replace' all the place names...and update the files...I'd even buy new hard copies.
  4. I agree with Morien, although I don't follow that advice! Greg constantly tinkered, so there are a lot of inconsistencies. Many of the PK manors listed in KAP 5.2 and earlier are not worth 10L in the Domesday data. It is hard to make some things match up properly. It is a gran roturre di palle. I kind of hate all the KAP place names. It makes everything difficult. I would pay good money to have Uther, Estates and Warlord redone using the modern place names, so everything is easy to find on a map.
  5. The format of the Open Domesday has changed. You used to be able to see the geld for each settlement when you looked at the hundreds. Now it shows households. I think at the time, Greg just cut and past stuff into an excel file. There is an API. I used it ages ago do download the Domesday data to make a Book of Estate spread sheet. You might try the API. There are some examples if you follow the API links. The data are nice to have because they include Lat/Lon data so that you can also map out the locations of larger holdings. One thing I can't remember is what data Greg used for the values. The Domesday Book lists value to the lord in 1066, 1086, and the geld. Greg used some percentage of one of those for the value of the settlements in a hundred.
  6. We have canceled games. Bit of a bummer, but in the grand scheme of things, not that bad.
  7. I think in the end, Greg (we) decided it was too much of a pain and not really what the game was about. Cost does seem to have gone up. You can see the absolute values of income to "qualify" for knighthood go up historically, but I'm not clear on whether the relative cost really went up. Certainly, the cost of plate dropped over time. Horses varied a lot, but were often in the range of the annual income for a knight for the better animals. NT
  8. Part of the point of BoE was to not have to do a lot of economics. That said, Warlord and Estates are supposed to be Early Phase. Perhaps one day we'll do some sort of later phase supplement. At one point, Greg had thought about doing a Book of Economics or something like that, which would have detailed changes through time like introduction of the heavy plow/plough, 3 field rotation, increasing $$ required to be a knight, etc.
  9. There would be Manorial Courts, not just the Hundred Court. Those would cover the Your Own Land bit for vassal knights.
  10. Your Pendragon May Vary. Play it how you want. I tend to agree that the PCs in an RPG are supposed to be successful overall as long as they don't do stupid things. However, different games are different. In RPGs like DnD or Palladium, PCs are supposed to be better than the average joe. They are heroes. In Pendragon, knights are, by design, better than everyone else because that is the genre. In Chaosium-BRP games, PCs are often much more realistically powered. If your group is perfectly happy having your PCs die all the time, that's fine. Might even be fun to change characters more frequently. As a corollary, I think one of the things that made Game of Thrones interesting was that major characters could die and often did. It add real risk to your PK and make 'winning' more satisfying. I also think that a good way of thinking about NPCs it to understand their place in the story and purpose in the game. In some cases, they're just mooks to let the group have a fight and win. If might be essential to the story that the PKs defeat a bunch of bandits and move onto some mystery uncovered while searching the bodies. In other cases the NPCs are major elements and are as powerful or more powerful than the PCs. I don't think that worrying about "fairness" really matters all the time. Other times, the PCs should lose...running away can be fun too. I mean half of the Lord of the Rings is the Fellowship running away from orcs. That said, after some though...if you want to make spears better, I might give the spearman's opponent a -5 modifier (or maybe -2). That gives the spearman an advantage of reach, but doesn't make a critical by the spearman more likely (at higher skills).
  11. So, I've been away from KAP for a while, but I tried to read through most of this thread as it interested me. A couple of thoughts/points. (1) KAP is a genre game so a lot of the design choices are based on the genre, not reality (Greg and I used to email a lot re Book of Castles and other topics, including weapons). In KAP, the Sword is the best weapon because it is emblematic of knights. The whole thing with it breaking maces etc, is meant to give it an Arthurian advantage. Greg said it was a conscious design choice (I was arguing at the time that I thought the whole sword-breaks-mace type rule was unrealistic). Obviously YPMV and you can easily ignore the sword-breaks-mace and similar rules, which are not really realistic. Nevertheless, knights in the sources fight either with lance on horseback or sword. Basic spears are for peasants...in the genre. (2) I think of KAP combat mechanics as quite simple. It isn't clear to me that the range advantage of a spear is worth modeling. However, if I did, I might just give a +2 to the attack roll or something like that. (3) In these various arguments, I think it is always worth recognizing the original poster's intent. I don't think more realistic combat rules are relevant for KAP, but if that is what you want, I can be interested in how to implement it. (4) Cost of armor and horses. The rising costs were also a specific design choice by Greg. In part, PKs have probably amassed some wealth by the later periods and the rising costs of horse and armor is supposed to mimic historical trends and stress the player finances a bit. If you want more complicated combat, I think it would be quite easy to use a Chaosium/BRP cousin. I've toyed with the idea.
  12. If one were to update the BGB, my main request would be to keep the format as black print on matte, white paper. I find all the glossy stuff or anything with a background hard to read, esp with glare etc. But, my eyes are old. Otherwise, I'm not sure what I would really change. The BGB is pretty...big. So adding stuff might be difficult. However, I could see adding Stunts and similar options form varius BRP pubs, and perhaps adding something like advantages and disadvantages. A non BGB option might be instead to produce a Compendium of these additional rules.
  13. I would be inclined to disagree. Clothing is just part of your annual budget. If you live at a Superlative level, you have Superlative clothing, which is replaced every year that you can maintain that level of spending. Display is important and clothing is a primary form of display. One could obviously limit this effect to degradable items. So an ermine-lined cloak is part of your Superlative clothing budget, but a gold ring, which would retain value, is not. Alternatively, a gold ring could be part of the Superlative budget but go out of style over time also losing value, even though it's gold. Depends on how much tracking of small stuff you want to do. We could argue about whether or not simple knights are allowed to wear superlative clothing. There were certainly various sumptuary laws and traditions about who could wear what. So perhaps your simple vassal knight isn't allow to wear an ermine-lined cloak. Then I suppose one could limit the value of clothing actually worn. I'm not a huge fan of minor book-keeping, so I prefer to let most that the small stuff just fall in the annual budget and assume that the knight has the same value of clothes each year that his spending is the same.
  14. True. But you can't have everything. Plus, I'm not sure if that is a quirk or a feature...
×
×
  • Create New...