Hzark10

Ah, sorry I misunderstood the above. I see now that happened. Thanks.

Of course, with the Book of Sires, instead of simply rolling those 9d20 for glory, you could have the history that your grandfather had. By your statements, grandfather dies after 9 years of events? If that is because of KAP 5.2, those in Book of Sires are not as brutal, but you have a chance of dying every year. Chances are, you would have more than 9 years.

When I ran Uther, he was ruled by his passions. Yes, he is a strong king. Melin's words were "Remain Just," which Uther did not do. Thus, he fails and the Saxons remain and, well, you know the story. I agree with Cornelius' viewpoint, just as I would agree with many others. It is, YPMV, and the players will drive the story as much as the gamemaster.

That is what I remember as well, the system did not change.

Many gm's run Uther as one who listens to his 'little brain', or as my group says, 'big brain.' Has a illegitimate son, Ygraine, Baroness Pompeii (spelling) and so on. Merlin warns Uther that he just needs to remain just. His Lustiness makes him fail on this, so he loses overall.

Good points! And one that most players don't think of. They think they want their present PK to marry the heiress. Of course, that is not necessarily bad in and of itself. The powers that be could decide your most hated rival/enemy is the one to marry her instead.

This should be in even larger font. One of the Pendragon campaign goals is to get and keep an Heir. Many gm's gloss over this aspect of the game thinking only of it during the winter phase, or during court scenes where a PK wants to utilize his lustful/chaste trait. A good gm should take time to plan this aspect out. Believe me, the players will appreciate it when they realize that the target of their attentions appears to be already set down on paper, rather than just created on the fly. Of course, having the 'dream' girl as a target would be a welcome choice as well.

Sorry to confuse, but it does work the same. A 20 (+3) is the same as 23 except for glory. It made it easier to calculate all modifiers, especially if directed traits were involved, to find an overall modifier. I suppose it might make it harder when working with an excel sheet, but I rarely use such as I prefer having a hard copy. It also helped new players understand that "0" and "20" were hard numbers and in the case of traits, needed to add to the same amount. Else, 23 in one trait, mean -3 in another. But, wait, 0 is the minimum...

My notes are somewhat crude on this, but Greg decided that Merlin could not have brought the entirety of Stonehenge over from Ireland, too much information proves those stones have been around much longer than Merlin. So, the stones that Merlin (giant's crown?), did bring over completed the ring in combination to the existing stones that were giants cursed into stone by the sun. These stones were magical in nature, having been used by giants for healing. Together they create a bridge to the other world in a protective fashion. Bran's head was also part of the magical defense of the island. As a result, these stones from Ireland DID have some purpose, according to Merlin. I know Greg had a reason for the text as it changed into its present form.

Correct on all accounts. Auto-checks are built into the system to prevent abuse.

The difference lies in how one looks at the system. If one has a trait of 25, he gets 25 glory. If he has 20, he only gets 20. It was a way to slow down glory creep. Not by much, but in my campaign, I found it was just enough over the years.

One thing that Greg and I discussed is how to have traits above 20. What came about from that discussion is the following: The stat remains at 20. However, it can be raised as plusses to the value. For example, a trait of 20 which is raised by the rules, would now be 20 (+1). A 22 would be 20 (+2). A thirty would be 20 (+10). The values in parenthesis would come into play when the value drops below 20 due to checks in the other trait, or by a modifier. Valorous of 20 (+3) for example would still be considered a 20 when there is a modifier to Valorous of -1 to -3. Greg loved the idea, but I do not think it reached publication. But, I have used it in my campaigns since.

If you have the book, might also look at the Cambria section, year 445 for a possible plot hook. But yes, we hope that the Book of Sires is well received. There are distinct points we raised to help the game give as many options for players as we do.

Exactly why Greg allowed Berrocing Saxons to be created. They came over a generation (or so) before Hengest. They stayed loyal to the crown of Britain, fought numerous battles to prove it and are said to tattor the cross of Christ on their forehead (or cheeks, I forget which off the top of my head). So, these would be not susceptible to Hate Saxons. In Book of Sires, that is clearly spelled out. The Hate (Saxons) is now denoted as Hate (Non-Berroc) Saxons. It also can be used to explain why a Saxon could have poisoned King Aurelius as all he would have to do is tattoo himself.

Think about the idea of fostering pages to other knights. This is/was supposedly a common practice. Sure, for the first 7 years you are raised by your parents, then sent to another knight/lord when you become pages. Not everyone, but some. They are there for a number of years, up to 7, then you are squired to a knight, which could be an entirely different person. With whom do you learn the most from? Think of your own childhood and growing up. Who influenced you most? YPMV is the key here. I imagine many of us will have different views on this.

I'm interested in your future post. So waiting. Found while doing my own research that many persons could have been the basis of King Arthur. But, in the meantime, I will simply say that there is no historical reference for Picts to have lived in Cornwall, or Berroc Saxons to have been there as well, nor all of the 12 battles occurring in Southern England. Most rpgs take liberties with history or create whole cloth things like magic or faster than light travel. KAP also takes liberties. The idea is to have fun. King Arthur himself may never have lived at all. He might be completely made up, or, as is normal, is based on some historical figure that grew with each telling. I've recently seen a post where Tintigal was a roman outpost. So, where does that leave Gorlois? Humbly submitted and in no way meant to discredit or flame creativehum.

The idea of BoK&L partly was to expand the type of knight one could play. Originally, you were Cymric and Christian or Pagan. Then along came a newer version where British Christian and other lands became available. Then even more as BoK&L was published. YPMV has long been the rule, but think about how much has changed since the game was first introduced and how many more stereotypes have come about. Personally, I don't think there would be a problem with a knight from Dorsette feeling he is Roman, but having Loyalty (Liege Lord) instead of Loyalty (Emperor). But then, I might very well be in the minority. I followed BoK&L for the cultures and Greg never thought to counter my thoughts in this regard.

Really like your house rule.

pdf or pod? Just curious whether it is in both.

Yes, Book of Sires is specifically built so a PK could start from any of the 9 regions (Estragales is inside Cambria so could be argued there are only AND end up where the gm has established his campaign, although the gm is perfectly allowed to say you are all "xxxx" knights from the beginning, or say, "You may not have a knight from so-and-so region." In KAP 4, most PK usually started around 73 points towards Chivalry, but could increase it to 79 as you get 6 years of experience and could put all 6 advances into traits. The big thing there was you had to qualify to be a knight and some yearly advances might be needed to increase your skill level to make it to the level you desire. I found BoK&L not so much a problem with starting with Chivalry, as I tend to run a higher powered game. My own house rules add additional information. I also tend to emphasize the difference between Roman and British Christianity and the Pelagian Heresy. The Fae also have a bigger impact, but start slow until Excalibur shows up. So, we really aren't necessarily arguing about the system, but rather we feel 80 point threshold is too low simply because Greg made a statement that 80 was a mistake. I think the slow changes between editions over the years with feedback did much more to make him feel that the 80 was too low than realizing that way back when 80 was too low. Look at how Runequest changed and how Runemasters were initially created/played and how they are now. Same with Pendragon. If there is another edition, I would assume that there will be changes as well. We will have to see. All I will say, YPMV, and it is up to you to find the game style you like best.

Sorry, it has taken so long to get back to this, but wanted to ensure I was talking correctly. First, what you say is valid IF you think that having Chivalric or Religious knights to be bad. I do not necessarily agree with you. Next, yes, Book of Knights and Ladies (BoK&L) offers much more “candy” in terms of traits than the normal Pendragon 5.2 character. But, that if you consider BoK&L to be more of an advanced character generation system, in which we delve deeper into options for a PK, then that is a possibility we do indeed have to deal with. Let’s look at the numbers. In KAP 5.2, players are offered 2 types of characters to play: Preconstructed or Designed. It is even suggested you play the designed character, if at all possible. I will be looking only at the designed character as In both cases, you play the first born of a vassal knight. You choose your religion. Now, to be Chivalric, you have to have 6 traits totaling 80. Valorous is one and automatically starts at 15 no matter what religion you have. Of the remaining 5, British Christians have 3, Roman Christian 2, and Pagans also get 2. No one gets Just, so you could make that your famous trait automatically starting it at 16. This means British Christians need only 16 raises. Roman Christians and Pagans need 19. You can assign 4 points total (which means you will still need 12-15 points minimum) to raise these further, but essentially it will take game time to become Religious using KAP 5.2. I am assuming you agree with this synopsis. Chivalric only needing 80 points can be gotten out of the starting gate if British Christian. 13 in Energetic, Generous, and Modest, 15 in Valorous, and 16 in Just or Merciful and 10 in the other gives one 80 right then and there. If Roman Christian, you automatically get 13 in two of your religious traits, Valorous (15) and famous (16) and normal values (10) in other two gives 77 points which you can raise to 80 by using 3 of your 4 increases. Pagans have 2 have 13, but Proud of 13 reduces Modest to 7. The other 2 being 10 and Valorous of 15 totals 74. However, if you choose to raise Modest as famous trait, you get 77 so it can be raised to 80 as well. So, using just KAP 5.2, you get Chivalric knights most of the time. With BoK&L, however, things change. Will discuss only the Uther Period, but that is also a change as the homeland you come from depends on the Period the campaign is set. You now have 3 choices. Standard and Intentional Shaping are the newer once. Standard could be considered Preconstructed, but you have some flexibility. Intentional Shaping is prone to min-max abuse. I will be discussing the Random Determination. First, you are not guaranteed to be first born. You now find what homeland you come from. Salisbury is much more narrow. By random choice, it is located in Logres C and thus 20% chance. Once you know where you come from, then a second roll will determine the specific homeland which gives you your culture and religion. It also gives you your Society you come from which affects your liege and your father’s class. This in turn affects your starting equipment. These rolls also affect the “candy” you get in form of additional traits increases. Most give +6 points, but Cumbria gets the short stick with only 3. If using the Random creation, you get 3 points more to add/subtract to starting traits before the regional mods and the famous trait and 6 additional points are given. If you are lucky, you can start very close, if not already, Chivalric or Religious. The decision is whether you want to play a Chivalric Knight (or have Players play them from the get-go if a gm) starting or to have it easily attainable. If you don’t, then you should automatically just declare you need 96, as you suggest (16x6), but if you do, then you should also raise Religious by a like amount to make that harder. Perhaps all 18s or even 20s. But, since Chivalric Knights appear to be the norm even using just KAP 5.2, you either decide to accept that or restrict it somehow. BoK&L is more about the differences between various knights as even Continental knights are possible. One change using Book of Sires regardless of which set of character creation rules you are is starting knights can come from Aquitaine, Brittany, Cambria, Cornwall, Cumbria, or the 3 regions of Logres set for campaigns starting with Uther.

At least until the parents die off. Also, I know of those who had children later than 40 without help. Rare, but possible. Just keep an open mind and see how the story develops. Maybe by the time this all has come to pass in 510 or so, the campaign may have taken a different tone where a player Baron might be desireable. After all, there will be lands to rule once the Saxons are defeated.

Keep us posted. In my campaign, our woman knight did manage to comfort Madoc when he would come home after being afield for a battle. Over a few years, she did manage to become the Marshal of Salisbury after the current died in battle and so was known to him. Eventually, they did come together. Some very interesting plots came out of it.

They prefer the skirmish rules. The players are directly involved in the outcome, their passions last longer, and they feel more in control. In other words, the want the skirmish rules to run battles with. I agree that reaching the baggage train in and of itself should not completely swing the battle. I think more thought needs to tweak the system a bit more. But, I think we will have to wait until Chaosium, David Larkins, tells us what is up and coming...

My players tend to like the normal combat rules over the battle system. They feel they are doing more using those rules. But I have used the battle system where the players felt overwhelmed by events and when things when extraordinary in their favor. The more you use it, the more you will understand how it all works. And, you can always change the overall total by players' actions. In one battle, the players heard the call to retreat, but went ahead and kept going. They reached the baggage train which then halted the retreat and turned a battle in which they were supposed to lose into a victory. That was an exception.