Jump to content

Morien

Members
  • Content Count

    211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

33 Excellent

About Morien

  • Rank
    Senior Member

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
    Helsinki
  • 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. Lots of Trolls in them thar marshes, I hear. Also... 483 would be perfect to set up some of the Saxon trouble that breaks out fully in 484. Have her kidnapped by some Saxon raiders from Nohaut or Deira, and the PK, helped by his friends one hopes, has to rescue her. Makes the Mt. Damen a bit more personal.
  2. Nah, pin it on me all you want! Even my players are already convinced that I am out to get them, and my online GM avatar is the Eye of Sauron, so... "It is not me, it is that EvilGM Morien from the forums who is at fault..."
  3. On Hindsight, it would have been better to take the Market Town bonuses out of Assized Rent and just apply them to the Customary Revenue. Spaces, being actual physical space, shouldn't increase with market town & other trade bonuses. It doesn't matter if there is no trade or booming trade, the borders of your land grant stay the same. Thus, I would base it on the basic AR without trade boni. Note that the whole Trade bonus is more of a reflection of imported goods being cheaper, rather than an increase in production. It is just a conceit that this saving is expressed as an income bonus, like it says in BotW, p. 11: "The advantage of these centers of commerce is that local and regional trade benefits the neighboring lands by making it easier to acquire outside goods, so they are cheaper. This general and widespread savings is expressed as income." *long sigh* I was comparing £10 manor having 1 space and building 1 vaccary, vs. a £100 estate having 10 spaces and building 10 vaccaries. Former pays £15 (1.5 times its basic annual income of £10) and gets £2 income out of it (+20% boost to its basic annual income of £10). The latter pays £150 (1.5 times its basic annual income of £100) and gets £20 income out of it (+20% boost to its basic annual income of £100). Thus they both scale in building costs (x1.5) and accrued benefit (+20%) in comparison to their basic annual income (£10 or £100). Now if they already have built something else, then no, the +20% to CURRENT income is not the same as +£20. But that was so not my point. Is it clear now? You actually can do this, but the system very much doesn't like you to: "One new Improvement per £10 Assized Rent can be accommodated. Beyond that, an Improvement can only be made on arable land, reducing income by £2 per used space." I think a lot of your confusion is due to the fact that you are, if I remember our previous exchanges correctly, using an older, unrevised version of Estate? The revision was a major overhaul.
  4. So this issue came up in a Discord chat, and I figured I'd post about it here, where it is easier to find and for people to comment on. In short, I am not a fan of this table. For those who don't know it, it is basically a Skirmish resolution table, where the unit/skirmish commander rolls battle and it tells you how the NPCs did in the Skirmish. However, during the Battle resolution, it is rolled EVERY ROUND. That is where the problem lies, since even a successful Battle roll entails 10% casualties (mainly wounded). Not that bad, right? Well, the problem is that in a typical Battle, you end up rolling half a dozen times, and end up with casualty rates around 50% (10% dead-dead), and that is when you are supposed to be winning! If you fail even once, it cuts your followers in half, which would be a cause for a rout there and then. While the sources for the medieval battles are not always the greatest for numerical accuracy, we can take a look at things like Battle of Bouvines, where the losing side lost about 10% of their knights as killed, and another 10% as captured. Granted, I am sure that there were some wounded who escaped, too. Battle of Hastings is considered to be quite bloody, and it is estimated that maybe about 50% of the English side died, based on the count of named individuals (so take that with a grain of salt). But that is the losing side, not the winning side. I also dislike the fact that the Followers' Fate Battle roll is totally separate from the Unit Battle Roll at the start of the round, since surely that roll should indicate how well ordered the unit is, etc? Now it is possible to crit UBR and fumble FF, or vice versa. The final criticism is that now that the group bonus no longer exists, there is no real impact on the Followers' Fate Table. It simply never comes up if your eschille's NPKs are dead or not. I have some thoughts about that too, but I think I will save them for later. As a quick fix, though, here is what I would personally do (if I tracked Followers' Fate, which I haven't, since there has been no point): 1.) Instead of a separate Battle roll, simply use the (C.) Unit Battle Roll to determine the fate of the NPKs, too. If you fumble as a unit commander, the NPKs will pay the price. 2.) Since the roll in Battle is per round rather than simply the end result, halve all the casualties in Table 6.4B. This still gives high-ish casualty numbers, but at least they will be a bit more reasonable over the whole battle.
  5. Lots are different from spaces. Lots are simply 1/10th fractions of the total income (BotE v1.3.2, p.44): "Every holding is divided into ten Lots, each of which represents ten percent of the holding’s full, undamaged Assized Rent." They are simply used for the damage & reconstruction calculations, basically a unit of a simplified accounting. The whole Estate is treated as a single entity. (But, if you want to use the constituent manors in your own game, feel free. Especially if they are outliers, so not the whole Estate got raided. That's what I do in our campaign, treating one £50 contiguous estate as a single entity, while the earlier £10 manor counts as a separate one. Also, note that raiding the full £50 estate would require 5 times the manpower to raid a £10 manor, too, so it does scale up appropriately.) Spaces are defined on p. 76: "These Improvements require space to build: Horse Herd, Leprosarium, Mellisarium, Orchard, Sheep Herd, Vaccary, Vineyard. One new Improvement per £10 Assized Rent can be accommodated." So your £100 estate would have £100/£10 = 10 spaces for the space-limited improvements. Each Improvement is for a SINGLE improvement. So if you build a dairy (Vaccary), it costs £15, provides £2 income and takes one space (BotE v1.3.2, p. 93). It doesn't matter if you build it on a £100 Estate or a £10 manor. What matters is that the £100 Estate has 9 spaces left, which you could, if you wanted, fill with dairies as well for a total price of £150 to build, £20 income and 10 spaces used. Also note that the building time scales with the size of the estate, too: "Each £10 of Assized Rent allows one improvement to be built per year. If more are built, then extra outside labor must be brought in. This adds fifty percent to the cost." So both the £10 manor and the £100 Estate can fill their available spaces (1 and 10, respectively) in 1 year with dairies by paying 1.5 times their annual income to build, and gaining +20% to their income out of it. It all scales, you see? It is also possible for the £100 Estate to build up a variety of space-limited investments, say 3 horse-herds, 3 vaccaries, 2 vineyards and 2 sheep herds. They do not all need to be the same investment.
  6. Just to note that 'One Lot' is just 10% of the Estate, no matter what size. It is just a tenth, a fraction of the whole, not an absolute measurement.
  7. Just off the top of my head... I figure the easiest way would be to make an opposed Iaijutsu contest, and assign +5/-5 to the first round of combat. Assuming that both start with swords sheathed, in a duel situation. In the case of a surprise attack, allow instant readying of the sword on a successful roll, and hence avoid the +5/-5 rearming penalty, as you are already swinging and defending yourself.
  8. Nice Boon and Bane tables, and on a glance, the personality traits ought to work, too, although I would simply reverse the Pagan traits that are in conflict with the traditional Christian ones. I.e. if you roll Chaste for a Pagan, treat it as Lustful and vice versa. Otherwise, you will actually give Pagans 'religious vices' 33% of the time when you do the 1d6 roll, instead of virtues. As for the lack of personality in Entourage wives, I feel compelled to point out that they were follower wives, not intended to be full characters by any stretch of imagination. So, you know, hands tied by the design intent.
  9. I have not had problems with this. Thing is, I am willing to be reasonable about it. For example, the PKs noticed that they were being shadowed by bandits in Forest Sauvage. So when the time came to go to sleep, they opted to keep their armor on. Like you would, if you expected a night-time attack. Now, if they had to do that several nights in a row, I might actually make them roll LAZY to see if they can get a good night's sleep despite being uncomfortable (hooray, finally some benefit from being lazy!). And then start giving them fatigue penalties. But riding around while wearing your armor is uncomfortable rather than tiring as such, although I could see it becoming very uncomfortable during a hot summer's day, thanks to the gambeson. Fortunately, Britain is pretty temperate. My point is, there is enough trust at the (virtual) table that I let the PKs show reasonable paranoia, and don't actively work to 'grief' them when they are out of armor. That being said, occasionally shit happens. For example, there is that night-time sortie by Gorlois. It makes sense that the PKs would be out of armor, since the guards should be raising an alarm in time, etc. It makes sense that they would be out of armor when they are attending Pentecost Feast, etc. But it also makes sense for them to wear armor when they are adventuring in a forest filled with bandits and monsters, or patrolling the border with hostileLevcomagus or Wessex during Anarchy.
  10. I think the 'crust' applies more towards 16th century onwards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathing#Medieval_and_early-modern_Europe Medieval people did do regular bathing, albeit perhaps not quite as often as modern people: http://www.medievalists.net/2013/04/did-people-in-the-middle-ages-take-baths/ Also, people are people. The difference is in training. The medieval knights certainly trained in their armor and were used to the weight, and the rigorous weapon training would leave them stronger than the modern office workers. But they were not 'monstrously strong'. You put a modern man through the same training regime, and the chances are that the modern man would be bigger, healthier and stronger than the medieval knight.
  11. Given that the game doesn't make a difference between SIZ 12 and SIZ 18 knights when it comes to horse endurance, I wouldn't bother penalizing the horses even if the knight wears armor. YPWV, though.
  12. I think you are probably thinking of this, on p. 186: "In most cases, a knight doesn’t ride around the countryside fully armed and armored, due to the discomfort caused by weight and heat, so a packhorse is needed as well." However, it is a comfort issue, and very much depends on circumstances. If you are riding on patrol and expect to be called upon to fight on a moments notice, you sure as heck will wear your armor and just suffer the discomfort. If you are travelling in wilderness teaming with monsters and bandits, yep, you are wearing the armor. If you are travelling on King's Road from Sarum to Camelot in the middle of Romance Period, you might opt for comfort, since the risk is negligible. During Uther and Anarchy, I'd let the PKs wear armor pretty much whenever they travel outside the manors and castles of their allies and lieges.
  13. Funnily enough, I am not TOO bothered by the wonderful mouser cat nor even the fantastic goose. £1 extra per year is not that much, and given that they are as likely to die as to procreate, the population probably won't explode. Especially the cat is easy to limit to 1 per manor, since it is already killing all the rats; extra cats need to be gifted to friends/allies. I am particularly against one player rolling from KAP 5.2 and rolling 1 = 3d20 denarii (i.e. insignificant, averaging 31.5d) and another rolling from BoK&L and rolling the same 1 but getting £30, a difference of over x200! We tried to split the difference with BoSires, where the values are from £2 to £20 or so. There is still a big gap between someone having a Sword that gives +1 to skill and someone getting a £2 goblet, but at least the difference is not a factor of hundreds. I'd also be totally fine giving each new PK like £1d3+1 in savings, just to give them some spending money. That could be a possibility, although I think I would advocate leaving it up to the GM if they want to have a magical items commonly around or if it is something quite rare, in their campaign. I do think that some of the BoK&L are quite neat and would make fine quest reward items for the PKs to find. What I object to is that each PK would start with one, simply by the luck of the roll. The differences of chargen between KAP 5.2 and BoK&L, in the starting skills & Luck Table, is annoying to me, since it creates differences between characters based simply on what book happens to be used when they make their characters, placing the players in a differential status. Granted, what goes around comes around, so I would be less bothered if the group decides to shift to BoK&L for the 2nd generation or something like that. But it would clearly be unfair if when making their characters one player uses KAP 5.2 and the other uses BoK&L.
×
×
  • Create New...