Jump to content

fulk

Members
  • Content Count

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

fulk last won the day on October 4 2016

fulk had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

59 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. Re the original question, I'm for both modern place names and older ones where relevant. I don't really care which comes first, as long as both are there. The modern place names just make it easier to locate place on a map and are more intuitive in terms of my mental understanding of geography. I absolutely hate having to look through the appendices of BoEstate, BoWarlord etc to figure out the modern name of some location so that I can figure out where it is. If I were writing the game, I'd base the core rule book and most other stuff off of Malory, which is familiar to most people. However, I would certainly buy supplements that allowed conversion to a more historical dark ages or to a more mythological Celtic/Welsh interpretation of the setting. I think the game mechanics certainly allow it. I would love gaming in a more Mabinogian-ish setting.
  2. Ah. OK. I don't have CF.
  3. I agree. For one, if the hunt is organized as a chase, you should chase. The knight doesn't get to alter the "rules" of the hunt. I think we all agree that (at least in KAP) they would never use them in battle or against another knight. However, the idea that a knight would never touch a crossbow or have no knowledge of archery doesn't work for me. RE Gaston, it is often noted that if one is railing against an activity...it probably means people are doing it! Apart from hunting, the Pope outlawed crossbows for use against Christians, but plenty of soldiers still used them and kings still employed such soldiers. Later in the middle ages, there are examples of extremely fine crossbows or even fire arms. Make them expensive...and the upper classes will like them for certain purposes, like hunting.
  4. When he and Isolt are living the Cave of Lovers, he certainly uses hound and bow to hunt for food, although apparently it wasn't necessary as he and Isolt were sustained by love (how nice). Certainly, going Dagger-a-Tusk with a boar is more Valorous, but I think the point is that the text implies that knights (or at least Tristan) were perfectly comfortable owning and using bows for hunting. Again, knights would never deign to fight with them, but hunting is just fine. Plus, in most cases, the hunt is going to be a big event, and the lord is going to decide what type of hunt is conducted each day.
  5. I think it would be +30%. +15 from their cultural skills and +15 from the bonus points. Could be wrong.
  6. Another observation. I've been reading Tristan and Isolt recently. When they leave Mark's court, Tristan specifically takes his hunting bow. It is mentioned twice in the scene: once as a hunting bow, once as a crossbow. I have been reading a translation (not fluent in medieval German), but clearly Tristan, a master of the hunt, uses a bow or crossbow of some sort. While the Thomas/Gottfried version of Tristan isn't specifically Arthurian, it clearly expects that knights would both hunt with a bow/crossbow and specifically own one. In KAP, I expect that knights would never fight each other with crossbows, but would certainly be proficient and hunt with them without loss of honor.
  7. Bows were certainly in use for the hunt. William II Rufus was killed in 1100 during a hunt by an errant bow shot from William Tirel, a nobleman, who supposedly was aiming at a stag. The attribution of the errant shot to Tirel may or may not be true, but it does suggest that it was not unthinkable for a noble to be hunting with a bow. I expect knights would actually be proficient in bows and crossbows for castle defense and hunting. They just wouldn't use them in battle etc. YPMV of course.
  8. Which books you use/want will depend a lot on your playing style. Obviously the core rules and GPC are the most necessary. If you focus primarily on the big picture of battles and adventures and don't get caught up in the details, those two a probably enough. If you want to know the hidden economics and who is in your household, you might want Estates/Warlords and Entourage. Uther and Warlords give a lot of "fluff" background that is very cool if you like that sort of thing being detailed for you. However, you could also just decide who owns Castle X as fits your campaign. I would suggest that there are not really any necessary rules in either book. I personally find that level of background a bit restrictive some times. As Morien noted, the primary result of Estates and Warlords is that 10L supports one knight and 3 foot soldiers and figures you 1L to spend. I would suggest it is much simpler than Manors. You don't do any estate management. You just get 10L. The hundreds thing is just a gimmick for keeping track of larger holdings. You can easily still organize everything around manors as Morien does. You could very easily do without Estates & Warlords, but Estates does have rules for investments, some minor fortification rules, and similar things. Warlords has random holding generation that will scatter your Honour all over Logres...and a lot of castle defensive values for various periods. Again, what is your playing style? Do the players care whether their manor has carved lintels or an orchard? Entourage is really only necessary if you want to have detailed NPCs following you around. Otherwise, you can just pay 1/2L for a foot soldier. If your Wife is a real-ish character, the supports in BoEntourage might be the way to go, but if she's just in the background producing heirs, then you don't need it. Like most people, I use a mix. I got obsessed for a bit with land holding and got a hold of the Domesday Data, which Greg also used for Estates/Warlords. I made an excel file that lets you chose individual holdings and their "value", writes up a charter, and then maps out their location use another software (R-stats) so that I can easily map player or NPC holdings as they get complex. The excel file follows Estates and Warlords, sort of, but doesn't use either manors or hundreds but individual vills listed in Domesday. Totally unnecessary...but I enjoyed building it. In the end, 10L gets you 1 knight and 3 soldiers. At the same time, I've always been a fan of the old Nobles Book. As for Battle, the BoBattle and Core Battle rules differ quite a bit. BoBattle is much more detailed with the conroi choosing different maneuvers each round. I personally like the core rules better as they are a bit more simple. At least most of the time. Sometimes BoBattle can be more fun, but again you need to like the detail.
  9. I think the default assumption is that you are paying them adequately and that we're talking about the base loyalty value here. Assuming the adequate treatment, longer-serving troops would likely have higher loyalty because they have more personal relationships and such in the household and mesnie. Obviously there would be modifications to the base loyalty. New, green troops brought into the castle just before the Saxons show up might be grateful. Abused and underpaid troops might be less loyal. Also in the present context (and in previous publications like Nobles Book), loyalty ~ morale. So one would expect veteran troops to have higher morale. They are more experienced, more confident and less likely to break. Weapon skill seems like a good gauge, especially since most knights start with Main Weapon 15 and Loyalty (lord) 15.
  10. I can certainly understand not wanting to shell out $$ for a new edition if there aren't real changes that make the game better. However, better is to some extent a matter of taste. There isn't really anything wrong with the Nobles Book or Lordly Domains, but the flavor is certainly different than BoWarlords or BoEstate (or BoManor). As Atgxtg notes, v5 is a bit all over the place because of changes in ownership. If I remember correctly, publication of the KAP5 core rules had a lot to do with getting something in print again and incorporating some changes. Realistically with such a simple game mechanic, not that much is going to change from edition to edition to some extent. My personal favorite is still KAP4. Partly, it is what I first found and started with. Partly, it has lots of stuff in one place. As for setting, I think I would prefer the core rule book to start in 531 or so with Arthur as King or maybe 510 so PKs can be involved in the early wars, perhaps with some info on equipment by time period so that people could bounce back to 485 w/o GPC and run Uther-based adventures.
  11. I agree. I typically forget. I think it really depends on how you play the game. Part of the point of BoEntourage is to micro manage these characters, instead of just assume everyone is doing their job, but I tend to forget. If you are mostly adventuring and not in the minutia of running your estate, for example, wives and squires don't really matter much. You can have an anonymous squire roll (15) and don't worry much about what your wife (or husband) is doing. It might matter in your game whether your wife insults a visiting lord (fails her Courtesy roll) or you might just run everything though the PK.
  12. My advice is to not overthink and try to game the mechanics. Sure you could hire poor quality soldiers and let them improve...to be underpaid regular foot soldiers. But in my game, those underpaid, now skilled foot soldiers would just leave for better paying jobs...or something. Just make PKs pay 1/2L for skills in the range of regular foot soldiers. Otherwise, soldiers leave. Really, the economics system in KAP is just not designed for tinkering. One of the big mistakes, in my opinion, was dropping knights value (KV). That made some of the difference more obvious and gave better value for better troops. I was fond of KV. Also, don't forget to apply 'Superior Troops' type modifiers for skirmishes or battles.
  13. Yes. It's frustrating. 5.2 was a bit of missed opportunity in many ways. It would be nice to consolidate things and have a coherent set of values and rules across all publications for v6.
  14. Absolutely. I don't think it is even an Edition problem. It has been every subsequent publication. I think KAP would do well from a full KAP6 with all the supplements brought up-to-date and inline in a coherent manner. I don't know if people would buy all that, but I probably would.
×
×
  • Create New...