Jump to content

fulk

Members
  • Content Count

    108
  • 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. True. I'm not advocating for a Book of Lands per se. However, if one were to do it for some reason, I'd combine things. One reason might be to reduce redundancy and to reduce the cost for new buyers (one more expensive book but less than two individual books), but I don't see any urgency for such a project.
  2. I'm not suggesting one, per se. I just think there is substantial redundancy between BoW and BoE. IF they were to be substantially updated for some reason, I'd combine them. RE economics, I believe Greg was thinking of a later manorial economics book, but I don't think an entirely separate book is necessary. One could take BoE and BoW, combine them, then add a chapter or appendix to discuss how things change through time, add variable harvests, add retainers and affinities instead of servitium debitum etc, while not actually altering the underlying 10L manor etc. NT
  3. Apart from the value of the manor (6L vs 10L), BoM and BoE represent two different economic approaches to running a manor. Historically these approaches varies through time. BoE assumes that the peasants hold/work most of the land and provide a constant render to the lord, so variable harvests don't matter in terms of lordly income. BoM really assumes that the lord is holding more in demense and, therefore, can profit from good years and suffer in bad years. Technically speaking, the BoM approach to economics would be more appropriate to later Periods/Phases. That said, I think some of the economic swings are too high. A new version of BoE (based on 10L) might include both system and how they evolve over the course of the GPC. Personally, if I were to issue new versions, I'd combine BoWarlords, BoEstate and BoManor (for time-varying economics) into one big BoLandHolding.
  4. I'd just make the two brothers a year or two apart. Year 1, everyone only has one PK. Year 2 the younger brother is now a knight and everyone has 2 PKs.
  5. That is true of many weapons. Draw or push cuts, depending on direction, are certainly used in Italian Dueling Saber. In part, hacking at some one leads to less control and less ability to defend yourself during and after the attack.
  6. I like the Followers' Fate table, but I agree that the casualties should be lowered for Battles vs. Skirmishes for the reasons Morien lists. I also think that I would add: tired/lost/disorganized to the list of 'losses'. The knights or foot soldiers are out of the battle but not the campaign. I could be wrong, but I've always played it that the unit events modifiers flowed through to modify the Followers' Fate roll. I would bring back some modifier for unit size, probably based on the conroi with some negative modifier for lost knights.
  7. As an old guy who squints a lot...I prefer more simple font on a white background....I just can't read it otherwise...beautiful design aside....
  8. I think it also depends on how you want to represent things. In Malory, every one goes around in armor all the time, except in court. So traveling and adventuring in full armor is really the norm. I can remember a few instances from the literature where knights are hunting etc and not in full armor. I think Erec and Enide starts like that, but I'm fuzzy. In the real world, I agree you probably wouldn't go around in full armor all the time. That said, Italian magnates in the rinascimento often wore cuirasses under their clothes for fear of assassination.
  9. KAP has definitely had some consistency problems over the years, which is a bit annoying. Mostly, I think Greg was just constantly playing, fidgeting and designing, which I can understated. There are multiple chargen systems, multiple battle systems, multiple economic systems, etc. I think you just have to pick one or some mixed subset that you prefer and go with it. Fortunately, the basic rules are pretty stable so its easy to mix and match. You could always use starting skills for BoK&L, ignore ethinic specialties and use KAP 5.2 Luck tables... One think I would hope for in any new edition/publication is an attempt to standardize within the edition.
  10. The opposed WS rolls for missile fire seemed to come from BoBattle, as I remember. I don't think splitting the knights WS makes much sense in a battle, and I just prefer the -5. The round is abstract and long. Archers fire...luck and heavy armor sees you through...then melee if you close. Otherwise, if the knight splits his weapon skill, what do the archers do? Halve their missile skill then halve their sword skill? NT
  11. My preference is your way, which is how I've interpreted it in the past.
  12. I've never really understood that entry. Are there two rounds of combat: (1) unopposed missile skill (-5 for a shield); missile troops can do damage but knights can't, then (2) melee vs. melee with both sides capable of doing damage? I also don't remember the 5x rules for missile combat. 4th was missile -5 if the target had a shield.
  13. 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).
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...