Jump to content

Morien

Members
  • Content Count

    654
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Morien last won the day on July 31 2019

Morien had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

114 Excellent

About Morien

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    1989 D&D, the original one.
    1990s Other RPGs to follow.
    1995 GURPS. Lots of GURPS.
    2000 Pendragon. Lots of Pendragon.
    2010-ish Becoming active in Nocturnal's Pendragon Forum.
    2014 Starting to help out with the publications & erratas as part of Greg's 'Household Knights'.
  • Current games
    GMing one GPC Pendragon Campaign, and another campaign in Middle-earth using Pendragon system.
    Playing in a couple of GURPS campaign.
  • Location
    Barcelona, for now
  • Blurb
    To be honest, I chose my username based on an old RPG character of mine, not because of its Arthurian connection. I am a pasty-white Finn, actually. :P

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Sure, but many of those can be explained away with recent heroics or marriages or the like. I find it much less useful that Baron Whodis has also a manor in Hartland and another manor in Gentian in addition to his main estate in Lambor. And then multiply this by 70 or so. Especially since most of these guys will be dead before the PKs have any real chance to interact with them. Give me rather a list of the counties, their leaders and their armies, and then maybe 20 or so important, named RTKs from Orkneys, De Galis and De Ganis families and what their landholdings and armies are and when they gain them. The former I more or less get from 4th edition although the numbers are a bit suspect at times, and of course more appropriate for 530s. But so are the three families, too: Orkneys and De Galis get started already in 510s but things don't really heat up until 520s and Lancelot's rise us more in late 520s and during 530s. Orkneys are around and active for 50 years or so and De Galis and De Ganis for close to 40. Much more playtime and interaction there.
  2. Well, if you want to run your campaign based solely on GPC and not on BoU and BotW, you are more than welcome to do so! The Supreme Collegium matters not: Arthur will become the High King, and after that, there shall not be another. Not one that matters, anyway. Speaking of historical research occasionally getting in the way of gameplay... I actually preferred the old territorial nobles of GPC and earlier editions, than the scattered landholdings introduced in BotW. I had some arguments with Greg about why I think that Logres fighting against Saxons on one side and the Irish and the Cornish and the Picts in other flanks might be better served by more concentrated landholdings, and why this would make more sense given the tribal origins of those holdings. Rather than transporting the Norman method of scattered landholdings from the historical post-Norman Conquest England to keep the regional nobles weak and less able to defy the royal power. Needless to say, I lost that argument, but I still feel that the concentrated landholdings (county lords) is much easier for the players to grasp and easier for me to GM! (Not that the scattered holdings can't have some advantages for travel, such as the PKs sent to check up on outliers, but still.) I also have much easier time keeping track of 20 or so counts and dukes than 70 or so Barons of the Sword and Barons of the Robe (although the latter would still be there as bishops, of course). What can I say? I like keeping some things simple!
  3. I could have sworn that we had this discussion not too long ago... Or maybe it was in the Discord server? Anyway, my take is that it depends on the context. If the King tells you to carry his saddle, oh, what a privilege, gladly sire! If your amor asks it, of course you do it, again. If a commoner merchant asks it, you throw the saddle in his face, or you might carry it and lose Honor by lowering yourself to be the commoner's servant. Grabbing a log used as a battering ram against enemy's gate: Honorable and brave. Carrying a similar log to help peasants clear a field: clearly beneath your status and hence dishonorable. In the particular examples mentioned by the OP, I would penalize the knight for lowering himself to just another oar-jockey for the Saxon scum, but I probably would not penalize him for chopping wood to save his liege. Also, surroundings matter. The feeble old wise woman clearly cannot chop wood efficiently and there are no other strapping lads around (or they would get the job while the knight supervises), so it is when needs must. But the Saxon ship is full of sailors while the knight is not that proficient sailor, so clearly here his contribution is not mandatory. Besides, the Saxons are likely just demanding it to make fun of him, anyway, the bastards. Modest and Proud would come into it to see if he is willing to do something 'beneath his station', but it would not influence Honor loss itself. The difference is that the Proud one would be likely to decline to do it and might even get upset by the suggestion, possibly reacting violently.
  4. Yes, although that is not necessarily a problem... The Byzantines and the Sassanids were butting heads over Middle East for centuries. You could easily recast this 'crusade' to going to help the Byzantines against the Sassanids. Besides, the Crusade is pretty much just a sideshow/epilogue, anyway. It is not like in Charlemagne where the Saracens are an ever-present issue. Personally, I would be happier with polytheistic pre-Islamic Berbers and Moors, and Zoroastrian Sassanid Persia. There is not enough Zoroastrian love in the RPGs. (Besides, the Zorastrians have one of the most kickass opening intros in: Yes, I know the inspiration here is Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathrustra, which has very very little to do Zoroastrianism nor its founder, Zarathrustra. Kickass music by Strauss, nevertheless.)
  5. As I mentioned in my earlier answer, in Logres it is the churchmen, bishops and abbot-bishops. In Hampshire/Hantonne it is the Bishop of the White City, i.e. Winchester/Venta Belgarum, and the Bishop of Noviomagus (Chichester). Similarly, in Dorset, it is the Bishop of Durnovaria (Dorchester). See BoU, map p. 122 and list p. 123.
  6. The issue was that in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Hengest lives to 488. Since HRB tells a better story with Hengest dying in 469 and HRB is the basis of KAP history, it was deemed best to go with that. This was already retconned in BoU.
  7. Yep. After it has been reconquered from Wessex, after Badon. There is a bunch of barons there in Uther's time. IIRC, Idres bounces off from Dorchester's walls: he is unable to conquer Dorset. Dryw dies at the Infamous Feast (at the latest), IMHO. This is implied by the fact that it is his heir and widow who are holding Sparrowhawk Castle during Anarchy.
  8. I know. I am just saying that it is doubling the dynamic in Salisbury while it would have been more interesting storytelling wise to have something else there. After all, the PKs will already make a choice whether to support a widow and a child.
  9. It is. Even when we disagree, sometimes vehemently, there is always the feeling of being ultimately on the same side, appreciating and enjoying KAP. As for your particular questions, let me start by mentioning one thing: Greg liked to tinker. A lot. So the Book of... -series changed some of the stuff that was in GPC, in particular the Supreme Collegium and the county lords. Let me start from the latter. County Lords: In GPC, pretty much each county has an Earl or a Duke ruling it, as his personal fiefdom. In Book of the Warlord (and BoUther), this was changed. Earls were pretty much wiped out, with just a couple of Counts remaining (see also the change from the Anglo-Saxon-derived title to the Latin-derived one). But in addition, the Barons (as the higher noblemen were now called, with the Counts and the Dukes being collectively referred to as Great Barons) had their landholdings scattered across many counties, usually (Salisbury is an exception, but even there, the Count holds around 50% of the County which is around 2/3rds of his total holdings, or something like that, we had a recent thread about this...). However, with most of the Barons dying in the Infamous Feast prior to the Anarchy, most of those lands were up for grabs by usurpers and surviving neighbors, etc. So the assumption pretty much is that soon after the Anarchy starts, each local nobleman has tried to consolidate his power around his main landholding, gobbling up lordless estates. That way, you still get something pretty close to how the Anarchy plays out, with Barons (earlier Earls) of Jagent, etc. More about the individuals in a bit. Supreme Collegium: The big change (Book of Uther) here is that in Logres, the legates are no longer the regional leading nobles, but the leading bishops and abbots. Salisbury and Summerland/Somerset are the exceptions again, but otherwise, it is the Bishop of Dorchester who is the legate, not the Baron of Dorset. So none of the guys in your list would be Supreme Collegium legates, save for King Cadwy. Then to the individuals. Like said, almost all of the Barons die during the Infamous Feast, so you are left with their heirs or people usurping them. For most of these people, they are not named, so you can be free to come up with their names and personalities. In addition, since there are no county lords anymore, you can make it as splintered as you like, with each castle having its own petty warlord ruling it, if you wish. That being said... Hampshire: If the sheriff of Hantonne survived, then the likeliest guy holding Hantonne (a county castle) is him, Sir Cynbel. Dorset: Praetor Jonathel works. Jagent: Tegfan works. Marlboro: Renamed Gentian. The likeliest guy here is young Charles (the heir of Marlborough castle) and his mother, Joene, who is a regent to her son. (Unfortunately doubling the dynamic of Salisbury.) Somerset: King Cadwy is alive and well, and in BoU, it is heavily implied that he is a powerful magician with faerie allies. No where near the walkover that he is in GPC, although how you play the Cornish invasion is up to you. Silchester: Duke Ulfius of Silchester is still alive and kicking, yes. Lindsey: Duke Corneus is the Duke of Lindsey (Duke Lindsey for short, same as Count Roderick of Salisbury is called Count Salisbury for short) at least from 480 until he dies in 509, I believe. He is replaced by Duke Derfel, but for the life of me I can't remember if Derfel was Corneus' son or nephew...
  10. Which is why it is 3d6+6 in revised BotEntourage. 3d6+6 is equivalent to 5d6-1, on average.
  11. This change was already in KAP 4: "If the target has a shield, he does not get a roll, but the shield acts as ’cover,’ providing a -5 modifier to the attacker’s skill." Did BoK&L come out before GPC? I admit that I have forgotten what the actual publication dates were.
  12. The discussion on the other thread reminded me of something I really dislike: circumstances & situations lifted from real medieval history and transported to GPC, simply because it happened in history. Examples of this: Genoese (and Milanese) crossbowmen, and, especially, the Lass of France (clear expy of Joan of Arc). I am pretty sure that there were some references to Brabant mercenaries and the best plate armor coming from Germany and Milan (as was the case in Late Middle Ages), but it is possible that I am simply remembering an example I made to Greg whilst arguing about these things. Oh, and don't get me started on the Medieval Machinegun that is Long Bow in GPC: 4d6+10 damage, which is equivalent to being hit by a lance charge with an Andalusian war horse. I think not! I am much happier with the revised Longbow in Book of the Entourage with its 3d6+6 damage. Which also makes the arquebus more of an improvement in Twilight, damage-wise.
  13. GPC is pretty clear that he lands near Hantonne and takes it after a brief battle: "Messengers from Hampshire, panicked and worried, ask for help to resist a new fleet that has landed in the south." & "...there was already a battle and that the knights of Hampshire were destroyed. The enemy king, Cerdic, has taken the city of Hantonne." While it is possible that he could have landed somewhere else on the southern coast of Hantonne, like near Portsmouth, given that his initial conquest is at Hantonne, it makes more sense to me that he lands near Hantonne. See also below. In our campaign, he actually took Hantonne by a ruse, by sending some of his Gewessi knights ahead to gain entry to the city, and then attacking the gates from within, allowing his Saxons to pour into the city. Yeah, but we have what we have. KAP leans heavily on HRB & Anglo-Saxon Chronicles when it comes to the Saxons, and taking the establishing myths of the Saxon Kingdoms more or less at face value. "A.D. 495. This year came two leaders into Britain, Cerdic and Cynric his son, with five ships, at a place that is called Cerdic's-ore. And they fought with the Welsh the same day." As for where Cerdic's-ore or Cerdices-ore/ora was, opinions vary, but there is this one: https://books.google.com/books?id=oRA2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=Cerdices+ore&source=bl&ots=_vKJ8oc-P_&sig=ACfU3U22QjQv9bKyenCQM3XqdYgvRJYTYw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjuyr2iqIDnAhXIK80KHfISDk4Q6AEwA3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Cerdices ore&f=false which puts it between Southampton Water and Beaulieu river, just southwest of Southampton/Hantonne, perhaps even at Calshot Castle.
  14. One can hope. The best I can point to at the moment is Book of the Warlord, p. 33, which is a map dated 505 (tenth year of the Anarchy). It doesn't distinguish Port as his own, but then again, he and Cerdic are allied by 507, so no biggie. And you can just cut a chunk of the eastern bit of West Seaxe (Wessex) off for Port. Even then, the actual western border of Wessex at this time would surely depend on the PKs, too. And no map is perfect. Both Summerland and Jagent ought to be under Cornish control if we go by GPC. That being said, Greg changed Summerland a LOT from Somerset. Somerset gets invaded by Cornwall twice in GPC, but when Uther does it in BoU, he ends up calling it a victory even though it was much more of a draw, hastening out of there. Naturally, this map is focused on Logres, so it is missing Deira and Nohaut. However, those two are portrayed in Book of Sires, p. 116. There is also Saxons! p. 36 map, which, while rather lacking in details (and covering way too large a timespan; for example Deira and Nohaut are shown at their maximum extent when Colgrim was holding Eburacum for a winter), still manages to give an idea where all the kingdoms are.
×
×
  • Create New...