Morien

Emphasis on NPC families. Things of course varied. It can be a pretty interesting background for a PK, too. An example of Gilbert Marshal, the 3rd son of the famous William Marshal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Marshal,_4th_Earl_of_Pembroke Gilbert was probably on a clerical career, when the death of his older brother Richard meant that he was now the heir to the earldom of Pembroke. He was knighted and then given the title. Gilbert's younger brothers, Walter and Ansel, were both raised to be knights and had been left with lands in their father's will.

1st: Yeah, BotE has a flat distribution from 2 to 21, with a high (10% mortality) peak for infants (i.e. the first year). I think we had a 1-5 column in one of the drafts, but since we didn't want to be constantly changing the second roll (which is a simple 1-5 or 1-10), we couldn't really make that work and simplified it to 1-5 throughout to get that 30% total mortality in the end. 2nd: Yeah, I am totally with you on that. Especially if you are trying to stick to the 1 session = 1 year, rolling loads of 1d20s for the NPCs is way too much. That's why the lifespan table is a very nice addition. 🙂 I don't think I adopt it for our campaign, as the relatives have been dropping dead often enough as it is from the system I already have in place, but I'd definitely consider it otherwise. Thank you, very kind of you to say. Glad that they have been helpful; that is what they are there for, and do feel free to ask any questions either here or in Discord; if it is a quick rule question or some such, Discord is fine, but Forum is better for longer discussions. 🙂 I started my own Pendragon GMing career back in late 1990s, armed with 4th edition rulebook, The Boy King, and Warren Mockett's campaign outline that covered 503 - 510s (I want to say 515, but I am not sure anymore; alas, I have lost the file and the printout got thrown out half a dozen moves ago). That campaign outline was very helpful to me as a new KAP GM, so contributing by advising new KAP GMs is a way to pay it forward. Not to mention I very much like talking about Pendragon, as is no doubt obvious by now. 🙂

Pretty neat. The Survival Table in particular can be very useful, getting rid of the yearly rolls for the NPCs. I have my own Family Events system where I roll just once for the death in the family (that is, unrelated to everything else going on), which has the downside that only one 'accidental' death may occur any given year. On the other hand, we have had people die in duels, wars, etc. as well, so it is not so bad, and keeps me sane. The Book of the Estate Family Survival system does include the standard of living modifiers for the kids, but only on the second roll (see p. 14). It would be easy enough to extend that to the adults, too.

Whenever that happens in your game; there is no canonical date that I know of. In the Marriage of Count Roderick, Jenna is born in 484, so she would be turning 11 during 495, and no doubt a valuable marriage alliance possibility during Anarchy. It would actually make a lot more sense for Prince Mark to court Jenna rather than the almost past her childbearing years Countess, who has no claim to Salisbury, while Jenna is the heiress to everything if something were to happen to Robert. Jenna should probably marry around 500-505, based just on her age. In our campaign, Sir Blains got killed at the Infamous Feast, and a personal recurring Levcomagus baddie seized the stewardship and invaded eastern Salisbury. He offered to returm those manors and an alliance in return for Jenna's hand in marriage (after she grew up a bit more), which the PKs recommended the Countess to take. This came to bite them in the fundament when they sided with Cornwall later on, and ended up in a very brutal feud with Levcomagus. And then Robert died during Arthur's reunification wars, leaving that Levcomagus guy with loads of personal beef with the PKs as the rightful ruler of Salisbury by the right of his wife. The Battle of Terrabil for the PKs was not about whether or not Arthur would win (they were fighting against him), but whether or not they would be able to get to this Levcomagus guy and kill him on the field of battle, hoping that widowed Jenna would be less anti-PKs. Well, turns out that they missed their goal by a hair (they got him to like -4 HP, but First Aid is a thing, and his bodyguards managed to roll the remaining PKs up). This lead to them being stripped of their lands and exiled to Cornwall (after some pleading from the lone PK who had switched sides a couple of years back and saved the Levcomagus guy's life, as well as now King Mark willing to pay double ransom for his favorite knights). I have heard of campaigns where she has been married off to Cynric or to Prince Alain, and of course one common course is a usurping PK marrying her and taking Salisbury for himself and his cronies.

Yes, that works as a good substitute and is right outside Salisbury. Besides, in BotW, there is clearly some friction there, what with the neighboring hundreds having been part of Summerland. The peasants there could easily be 'weird', still. Suspicious of outsiders, etc.

Yes. 502 is not a particularly 'busy' year, either, by which I mean there are no big battles or such. You should be able to throw more 'social' adventures at the Players, or testing ones. Especially if the Squire's family characteristic is something useful that the Glorious Knight doesn't have, such as Hunting or Faerie Lore. Faerie-related adventures might work well, since they tend to rely more on traits than skills, and this would even the playing field between the Glorious Knight and the Squire. If you have not run the Adventure of the White Horse (3rd and 4th edition rulebooks), that could be a good one. I'd make sure that the Squire gets to ride his father's Charger or something for that adventure, though.

Well, depends. You get that 250 Glory for defeating the lion by yourself. That is pretty darn impressive. Sure, if those two PKs go by themselves and beat all the usurpers in single combats, and single-handedly restore the Countess, that would be pretty impressive. However, they likely did not do so, but had loads of help, even if they were the primary movers behind it. And whether that 500-600 Glory is combined (hence x2 the lion) or individual (x4 - x5 the lion), it is in any case much more than just the lion. When we played through the "Of Allies & Enemies", one PK took down 6 enemy knights (and causing the remaining two to flee), four of them after all the other PKs were already down. The other PKs would have been captured were it not for him, likely dooming the reconquest effort. He got loads of glory for that and a granted manor in Rydychan. The Player is still talking about it even though it happened at the start of 2015 and about 50 years ago in game time. 🙂

This would be the reason why I usually ensure that each PK family starts with three brothers spread about 7 years apart. The eldest is the PK and the other two are the spares. Once the first generation is finished, there are often cadet branches established by these younger brothers, ensuring that there are plenty of interesting cousins to play while the main branch heir grows up. And makes it much harder for the whole family to die out. But to bring this back to your question, you kinda shot yourself in the foot by allowing for a 50 year old uncle to start with. If the Player wants to play a squire, let him. A couple of years and some heroics on his part, and he is ready to get knighted at 18. Since you have only two players, this is no problem whatsoever. Frankly, make him the squire of the other, glorious PK, and watch hilarity ensue. You can easily, easily throw appropriate adventures for such a pair for a couple of years, such as the knight interacting with the noble host and hostess, while the squire gossips with the other squires and even servants. Servitium debitum is not a problem. The old uncle takes vows and retires to a monastery, and the liege, already the legal guardian of the heir, simply makes up for the lack with one of his household knights. What year is this happening?

To be honest, I have not really been nasty enough, either, about this. But it is for the vassals to pay for their liege, not for the vassal's peasants (except indirectly, by Squeezing and such). I see KAP 5.1 already specifies 'primary holding'. I wonder why? It doesn't seem right that if the liege grants an additional manor to a vassal, he doesn't get the Universal Aid out of it. I choose to read this that 'primary' in this case means 'holding held in vassalage from this lord'.

By RAW, yes. However, you are the GM. If you want them to have some more spending money (and in particular since this is Anarchy and money is tight as it is*), you might let them save some of it or spend it on like extra soldiers or something. * Note also that due to it being the Anarchy (loss of trade, outliers, need for more knights and soldiers, need to pay tribute), the Countess might not be able to afford the same pay bonus as the Count could in the good old days of Uther. Really depends what the situation is in your campaign.

They were helping the Baroness, not the Countess. Hence, it is for the Baroness to reward them. A granted manor each in Rydychan sounds like a good reward (depending just how much money they spent), and also ensures that they are there to help the Baroness in the future, too... On the other hand, if they are glorious knights already, it could be that they are deserving of officerships anyway in Salisbury. Especially if they are of proven loyalty to the Countess, and having just proven their skills as commanders in Rydychan.

Who says it is from scratch? They know how old Robert is. The talk about the knighting ought to start happening like the previous year. They likely have loot etc. They can start gathering money. They can Squeeze. They can raid, hire themselves (and their household knights) as mercenaries, etc. With great power comes great responsibility.

All the manors they hold from Robert. If they hold 5 manors of £10 each, yes, this means £50. And if they are very Loyal (16+), especially if they are also Famously Generous, they might even pitch in from their other manors.

See Djerf, BotW, p. 100.

Yep, Conservation of Characters is a good thing. It allows the PKs (and hence the players) have repeated interactions with NPCs, and hence form more of an attachment (or rivalry) with them. I can see that. From p. 7, it is clear that the intent is to basically populate the feast with NPCs for the PKs to interact with, in their own table, etc. There is a very nice adventure illustrating how such an interaction could be GMed (outside the BoF system): the Adventure of the Werewolf in The Spectre King (3e) and the Tales of Spectre Kings (4.5e reprinting with the Grand Tourney switched out for the White Horror) books. That being said, I would happily just recycle most of the NPCs (indeed, the p. 7 suggests most of them are the famous knights, heiresses and other important, recurring NPCs), and their Glory and exact skills do not matter all that much, I don't think. So I would be happy to just keep their stats pretty much the same from year to year, except maybe revise them every five years or so, if I felt it was important. Or if I wanted the PK actions in the feast to have done induced a change, such lowering a lady's Chaste due to particularly fine piece of Flirting, or a NPK training up his Gaming for a rematch with a PK. I definitely would not be tracking 100s of NPKs every year on the off chance that I might need one of them. Sure, if I have a recurring NPK who shows up five years down the line to challenge a PK, I would hike up his skills some, maybe add a couple of hundred Glory, but that is probably all I would bother doing. And if he doesn't show up again, I would not even touch his statline, since what is the point?

Oh hell no. I might update a recurring personal enemy of a PK when he shows up again in the story, but I seriously don't bother keeping year to year track of anyone, not even the main NPCs like Count Roderick, etc. Frankly, most of the time it does not matter at all if the Count's Glory is 5000 or 6000, or if his Sword is 17 or 18. As for the other family members, I keep track of age (and of course the familial connection and the current status/position, including marriage) and any children (I have my own system for this). But I don't bother with their stats unless the PKs face them in battle, nor their Glory. I might assign a Glory 'tier' to some of the NPCs, and it is possible for them to move up with time, but that is more story-driven than game-mechanics-driven. If I need the personal enemy of a PK to succeed in X, so that the plot can happen, then he will succeed in X, without rolling.

My understanding from the video and the ImpCon talk etc was that the idea is that the new modular GPCs of two Periods each can cover a single generation in a more manageable gulp. But nothing prevents the group from getting the other modules and making it intergenerational, which I agree is one of the things that sets KAP apart from most RPGs (and in a good way!). But it is a whole lot less intimidating for a new GM, and for the players as well, to commit to a 20 session campaign than to a 60 session campaign, let alone a 80+ session campaign that the current GPC is even at the 1 session = 1 game-year pace. A weekly game session, with some skipped due to schedule conflict and family obligations, the full GPC can easily take a minimum of 2 years to play through, which can be a lot. A 20 session slice, half a year. Much more manageable. Also, for some of the younger groups out there that might not have the same amount of disposable income as us older folks do, getting one double-period book rather than a full GPC might be a difference of affording it or not starting the game at all. (Of course, I am assuming here that the individual period books would be significantly cheaper than the grand tome was. Stands to reason.) That being said, I could see a 'speed run' option as well, although more for those who have the current GPC book. If you have it, why not use it? I think we just had a discussion about this in the Discord, about skipping some years (and even the whole Anarchy period) to cram a GPC campaign through quickly.

Alas, it is not in KAP. However, I agree with the sentiment (I think it was Voord 99 who said that in Discord) that since KAP is basically about playing 'good guys' (Chivalric Knights), and being Trusting is 'a good trait', trust in your fellow man and believing the best of them, it is better to err on the side of rewarding the Trusting rather than punishing them for not being paranoid enough (something many other RPGs fall into). Besides, it makes for a nicer gaming experience when the Players are not acting paranoid all the time. "No, the gazebo is not going to try to lull you into a false sense of security!" 🙂

It is not easy, if you don't have access to some nice stuff like tar and grease and other such things that will stick and burn long enough for the fire to spread to the logs. I mean, in principle you can just cart enough dry hay and bundles of sticks and pile those against a wooden building and light them on fire, and eventually the building will catch on fire, too. It is not as if you can just fire a couple of fire arrows and see the whole thing go up like kindling. Now the issue with this is that the gentlemen inside the keep (or the bailey) tend to have shall we say strong views about people tying to set their castle on fire, and they tend to send rather pointed (sometimes even barbed) objections to this course of action. Or throwing down some weighty arguments against the besieger, too.

I would imagine that there is a cap. After all, if you cram towers right next to one another... Congratulations, you have a very expensive, slightly taller wall. I think Gatehouses/Barbicans would be a special case, guarding the gate, but priced/modeled as a single unit.

Rydychan (i.e. Wallingford) Castle is quite complicated, which makes the default 'defense rings' of KAP a bit too simplistic. Those work well enough with isolated, perfectly concentric castles. But if you look at the actual pictures of what the castle would have looked like in the 14th century (such as shown in this museum page: https://www.wallingfordmuseum.org.uk/displays ), you can see that technically, you could assault the inner ring from the riverside*. As the castle is situated at the edge of the town, the town's walls at the very least would not enter into it. This is not meant as criticism of our fortifications expert, fulk, but just a recognition that the whole DR & DV system is an abstraction, and cannot, by its design constraints, capture every detail of historical castles. * = Such an assault would have to be amphibious, under enemy archer fire from the walls, so likely result in huge confusion (hence slow and unorganized) and high casualties. Then again, attacking a strong castle like (middle period) Wallingford head-on is a fool's gambit anyway...

Maybe. But if I am giving the PK access to slightly higher quality troops, I am going to make him pay for that, too. For example, the Saxon Warriors might be expecting some gifts from their generous chieftain if the year has gone well, and the Saxon ceorls might not be willing to put up with Squeezes. And I might be even asking for the PK to have Folk Lore at 10, to reflect the smaller societal gulf between him and his Saxon subjects. Frankly, being a LazyGMtm, I probably would sidestep this issue completely by not even bringing it up in a normal campaign context. Even in Berroc, the commoners are a mixture of Saxon and Cymric, definitely by Uther Period, almost a century after the Saxon arrival, and the warrior elite is fighting in the Cymric style and needing Cymric type social organization to fund the knight and the horses. As for Kent, Wessex, etc... By the time the Saxon lands are reconquered after Badon, there are not really all that much call for the peasant militias, and you probably would have forbidden the Saxon ceorls to own weapons and armor anyway, in order to make rebelling harder for them. So it likely would not come up there, either.

That tends to be my default GMing position as well. That being said: However, if that is explicitly not the kind of story that the Player wishes to tackle, my historicity scruples would make way for the Player's enjoyment. For example, I can very easily imagine a situation where the Player carries some emotional baggage from their own real-world experiences with prejudice and such, and would just like to relax and have some fun playing a roleplaying game. Sure, we could play something else than Pendragon, but if my choices are GMing D&D or KAP with the rougher edges filed off, I know what I am going to choose! * In short, while my personal preference is for a more 'authentic medieval' setting, it is not a strong enough preference to trump the Player enjoyment. Let's say, for example, that the Player wishes to play an openly gay character who can legally marry another guy, and adopt children as their heirs. Sure, it won't be historic medieval, but I am already allowing female knights with minimal fuss in our KAP campaigns, so I am pretty much over that bridge already. The legalized adoption does mean that the childless NPKs and PKs would be adopting heirs, but that might pave way for other story hooks, instead. And many PKs think they are immortal until they suddenly are not. 😛 Anyway, the inclusion of the gay acceptance and gay weddings and yes, even the legalized adoption will actually not matter one jot as far as playing the campaign and the adventures are concerned, but they are just window dressing for the setting. Now all that being said, another GM might feel much more strongly about the historicity aspect. Changing that in their campaign would diminish their enjoyment, and the GMs need to enjoy their game too, or they will stop GMing it (either by choice or by burnout). Or there could be other players who want to have the struggle and the more authentically medieval setting. So it becomes the session 0 negotiation at the gaming table, to see if it is a campaign that everyone will enjoy playing. And at sometimes, one may have to recognize that this particular campaign is not for them. * In our first KAP campaign, I did have one player (and a good friend of mine), who was adamant that she would not play a Christian nor a male character. Those were her non-negotiable requirements for the campaign. As it happened, KAP already has as a default the (Celtic) Pagans, who are very much ahistorical given the rest of the medieval societal tapestry that Pendragon world seems based on. And there was already a discussion about female knights, so it was easy enough for me to accommodate her and I certainly did not regret having her as a player in the campaign. Actually, she switched to a lady character for like the last half of the campaign, and accommodating a lady character in the adventures designed for knights caused me way more headaches than a female knight would have!

You mean survival, not surveillance. 🙂 Yeah, I am pretty sure I have commented elsewhere that I think the Followers' Fate (I think that is what it is called) roll in the skirmish should be an opposed roll (with all modifiers + a modifier on how the PKs do in their fights) between the PK commander and the opposing commander. As for the Battle System, you will get way too high casualties by rolling Followers' Fate every battle round. The results are too high anyway for a Battle, where casualties of the order of 20% was enough to get the army to retreat. The way I would do it in Battle is to tie the Followers' Fate directly to the unit commander's roll and how the PKs do in their own melee rolls. Say, for example: PKs Triumph (i.e. all of them win their melee rolls) = 2% casualties of the whole unit (including the PKs, who of course are immune from these casualties themselves) PKs Win = 5% casualties PKs Lose = 10% casualties PKs Are Crushed (i.e. all of them lost their melee rolls) = 20% casualties If the unit commander failed the Battle roll, double the casualties. If they fumbled, triple. If they critted, half. In the case of a 'fractional casualty', carry it over to the next round. Half of the casualties are wounded, retreating to the Back of the Battle for First Aid in the next battle round. (If the whole unit retreats to the back of the battle, they stick with the unit and are recovered, or they can be recovered when the unit does retreat to the Back of the Battle later). Of the other half, half are dead and the other half are captured, when fighting against civilized foes. When fighting against Saxons and the like, they are all dead. Something like that. Obviously, numbers from the top of my head, not playtested, etc.

This is hella strong, especially compared to other 'standard' solos in KAP 5.2. Just letting you know.