Morien

As I replied in Discord: Knights are not magicians or miracle workers. The trait critical is just a trait critical. However, YPWV. If you want that to matter a bit, and if you have already portrayed AA as ill, have him recovered the next morning, the fever having broken. A healer monk arrives to court, quite confidently promising to heal the king with the elixir. 'Thank you, but I am feeling fine. I have no need for your services, good monk.' 'W-what???' Play up the surprise of the monk a bit, but then he slinks out of the court, unable to poison the king. This means AA is Hale and hearty when the Saxons arrive, and rather than the defenders being in chaos with their king dead, they are confident of victory. Especially AA, who might be feeling a bit too confident after the miracle healing. He leads the charge into the midst of the enemy, gets cut off and slain by berserker axes. Thus you can have your cake and eat it, too. But players who know that he died by poison in HRB might appreciate this difference. Especially if you claim that had AA been poisoned, the Battle of Salisbury would have been LOST by the Cymri, leaving Salisbury burned and ravaged until Uther's victorious army would have caused the loot-sated Saxons leave.

Neither; I made up my own. If I were to use GPC table, I would definitely pre-roll the opponents and try to come up with a story explanation as to why this is the progression of the enemies. However, I think the GPC table is 'too easy'. At this stage of the Campaign, the PKs are at the very least in Full Plate for 16 points of armor, +6 from the shield, and +5/-5 from horseback vs. footmen, even ignoring the lance bonus of +5. Sure, some of the footmen have halberds and great spears, but the vast majority of them don't. So my gut feeling looking at the opponent list is that the PKs will slaughter their way through the opponents without raising a sweat, especially if they are survivors of Grail and Twilight periods with skills in 20+. EDIT: Just to add... I have not used the Book of Armies, but on a quick glance at what armies it suggests to use, I don't agree with it, either. In my mind, it should be more likely to run into some elite knights towards the end of Camlann, not to some guys in armor that is three generations out of date! Also, most of the opponents in the Book of Armies are infantry, and see above.

Somewhat disagreed. The Wasteland part is in GPC, but that is just 12 pages out of 128, so around 10%. Some of the Malahaut info is in GPC, but not the Perilous Forest & the Wall, as far as I can remember. The Adventure of the Perilous Forest is a nice long adventure, 27 pages, and there is another 19 pages of 16 short adventures, some of which will work nicely as the main adventure of the summer when you plump them up a bit. In short, I stand by my decision to recommend Perilous Forest over the Tales of Chivalry and Romance and Tales of Magic and Miracles. Although I admit that if all you are after is some adventures to run, then the ToC&R and ToM&M are more useful. Also, I would rank Saxons! below the adventure books and PF and BtW in usability. The Saxon kingdoms are pretty much wiped out at Badon, and prior to that they are very much enemies of the default GPC, so it really doesn't matter so much what the details of their societies are like. Whereas it is possible that the PKs will participate in fighting in Ireland during Romance, and get involved with the tournaments and such. I agree that as a book, Saxons! is very nicely written and it would be invaluable for a Saxon campaign, whether KAP or historical, but in a default GPC, it is simply not that useful. That is really my complaint about Pagan Shores and Land of Giants as well. They are much more geared as variant campaigns, making characters in those distant lands and playing there. However, where they fall down (and Saxons! and Beyond the Wall do not) is that there is very little support for such campaigns. Pagan Shores doesn't have a single adventure in it. Land of Giants has two adventures adapted from Beowulf's tale, which fair enough, but they don't really make for a good campaign skeleton.

One thing I would likely do in a situation such like the above is to check with the players as well. For instance, if they like having a large party with limited time in the spotlight but sharing in all the adventures together, no problem with a larger group. However, if they want to be in the spotlight more, one option with a group of six would be to split them into two groups of three and run two campaigns in parallel. Granted, while GPC + published adventures give you a nice skeleton, if you want to focus more on the individual families and such, you still have to do some prep work. On the other hand, the two campaigns can also crosspolinate: the family events in one can also be used as background events in the other ("Oh, you heard that the Lord of Marston had a spat about the tolls that his neighbor imposed? They ended up dueling about it!"). And if you really wanted to, if the campaigns happen to sync, you could even bring the two groups together to fight in battles, where there is less personalized stuff anyway. A lot of early GPC especially is non-specific, other than the Sword Lake. You can easily have both groups participating in the Bayeux expedition (randomizing a bit what happens inside the town as it is being sacked), for instance, and even swapping stories about that when you have a common session. So in short, you could have them occupy the same world, even, just with the conceit that there is a bit of an alternative timeline feel there with one group doing the Sword Lake in one, the other in the other one. But like arranging marriages between the families would be possible as well, decreasing the overhead you have as the GM to make the world more 'alive', as you have the six players doing part of the work for you. But you still benefit from being able to give each player more screen time in each session you play with them. In Anarchy, though, things are likely to diverge more, so it might end up separate campaigns as far as campaign events are concerned. Unless... if you want to make it even more political in a way, you could have ALL six players decide which way they want Salisbury to go, thus adding a bit to the intra-PK politicking. This would obviously make some things easier for you, as it continues on a more or less common timeline. On the other hand, it might be more interesting for you and perhaps the players as well to see just how different things may get during the Anarchy...

I find four to be just about right too. It easily splits into two pairs as well. With three, there is more of a risk of 'third-wheel' when it comes to intra-PK interaction. I used to have six players and it was a bit of a chore. I currently have five. The problem is that with more players each of them gets less screen time. So it also depends what kinds of players you have. If some of them are more passive and happy with it being so, then six might work. But if all of them want plenty of screen time and personalized adventures and such, then six is going to be tough. Also, what is the reliability? If you are often missing a player due to scheduling conflicts or such, then in effect you have just five players present each time. As for combat: I strongly recommend having the Players handle their opponents rolls, too. Thus speeds up combat a lot when I don't have to do the opposed rolls one by one and can just ask each Player what the result was. Naturally this works better when the Players have more experience with the system. And I do roll for important enemies and such.

I'd say most of them have at least SOME fantasy elements, usually monsters or fae. Some are easy to modify away, some are integral to the adventure. Like you can run through the Heart Blade (my favorite) as an almost totally non-magical adventure, simply by downtuning the magical elements, the magical glade becoming just an ordinary glade, etc. However, you do lose some of the charm. The White Horse climax has a lot of magic in it, but if you don't like it, it is very easy to turn it into a vague 'blessing of Epona' which you either believe or not, with only the GM knowing if it actually has any rules-benefit. Other adventures, such as the Deceitful Fae, obviously requires there to be a fae. So maybe give the Tales of Magic and Miracles a pass if you don't want any magic and miracles in your campaign. The Cambrian War (my second favorite) is pretty much straight-up diplomacy/military/social multi-year adventure, without any magic in sight, unless the GM adds some. The Golden Circle becomes a bit boring (as well as easier, actually) if there is no magic to help to sustain the little Kingdom. But you could, if you wished, run it without any magical creatures and so forth, and the core of the adventure would still be there. It becomes a more straight up 'fighting tournament' at that point. The Grand Tourney of Logres doesn't have any magic to begin with, being just a big, famous tournament, so no problem there. However, it doesn't really get started until the Romance Period. Those just off the top of my head.

As for the adventure/regional books from 3e and 4e, they are still very usable in 5e (and presumably in the future 6e). Here are some of my thoughts on them: Blood & Lust (Anglia) is my fav, with Savage Mountains a close second. I prefer Perilous Forest to Beyond the Wall, which I am more lukewarm about thanks to its focus is on Picts. Mind you, a lot of the grail stuff was originally in Perilous Forest before basically copied over to GPC. So that diminishes the value of Perilous Forest a bit, but it still has good stuff in it. So my order would probably go... Blood&Lust, Savage Mountains, Spectre King (3e version, not the Tales of the Spectre Kings), Perilous Forest, Tales of Mystic Tournaments, Tales of Chivalry&Romance or Tales of Magic&Miracles, Beyond the Wall. Although I could see boosting Tournaments over PF, due to the Grey Knight and the replayability of the Golden Circle which has become an almost annual event for my PKs. Both C&R and M&M have a mix of adventures I like and some I am lukewarm about. I don't find Land of Giants all that usable in KAP campaign to be honest. The most digging I did on Pagan Shores was trying to figure out the politics in Ireland what with Strongbow and all that. So I did not find it super useful either, unless you are really getting involved there. Beyond the Wall slips towards the same verdict but is saved by the Treacherous Pict adventure which is very usable. Alas, as said, I don't find the Pict tribals as player chars all that exciting, so what pages could have been used for making adventures in the politically fractured Lothian were 'wasted' on shamans and spirits. As indicated in the previous, I prefer the 3e Spectre King to Tales of the Spectre Kings. The Grand Tourney of Logres is, to me, a more interesting and reusable adventure than the White Horror that replaced it. The Grand Tourney was in fact so reusable that I had to shuffle Sir Lupin off the mortal coil to stop the PKs from spending a session there each game year. 😛 Saxons! Has some interesting ideas, and I like what it does with Badon, but I find it quite overpowered and as a Saxon focused campaign, it is more of a variant campaign than really applicable to your default Salisbury campaign. The timeline doesn't fully conform with KAP5.2/GPC/BoSi either, although I did enjoy the summaries of the Saxon kingdoms in it. So if you can spot a trend... Those culture expansion books that set the campaign away from Arthur's Britain tend to get more of a 'eh, pass' from me. But if someone were into playing a more historical Anglo-Saxon campaign, Saxons! would be great for it. The Last Kingdom type of campaign or even earlier. But pretty much all the adventure and regional books have enough good material to be worth having. As I said in a forum post once, a KAP pdf book tends to be cheaper than a pizza, and while the pizza is gone in an hour, the pdf is for hours and hours of enjoyment. Heck, 10 USD for 4e is worth it for the White Horse and the Lands and Peoples chapters alone. Note though that most of the published adventures are written for Arthur's time. The Horned Boar would require only a bit of tweaking to work in Uther's times, though, and it would not be a huge stretch to make the White Horse into an almost generational event. The Faerie adventures from M&M would be easy enough to run in the Forest of Gloom or in the Forest Sauvage almost in any Period, too, without much tweaking required.

Check this out: https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/11000-helpful-suggestionsadvice-for-new-playersgms-what-books-etc/ Also, the adventure/regional books are great. I will have to see if I can find what I wrote on those.

Do you have the Book of the Estate? It does spell out how much free space you have in your manor and what investments take spaces (p. 76). Also, page 90 limits how many investments of each particular type you can build in your lands, even if they do not take space. When it comes to enhancements, most of them are small, like statues, and most of the buildings. Build away. Fortifications are also likely more limited by your purse and time, as well as your liege lord's trust in you that you don't use that castle as a robber knight base to raid your neighbors.

Depends a bit how difficult I want to make it for the PKs. I sometimes do as you do in the above, and the first to knock their opponent out / off the horse gets to engage the primary target. Other times I might go for parity of numbers and the PKs can try to sort out amongst themselves who gets to engage the boss and who fight the bodyguards. In the case of the personal enemy, I would do the latter: the PK who has the enemy fight against the enemy, while the other PKs engage the other members of the enemy's unit. He wouldn't be riding around the battlefield by his lonesome, after all.

This is what 4e says about Grail Christianity: "Grail Christianity is a henotheistic earth religion which acknowledges the Creator and his incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, but also acknowledges the divinely feminine in religion and life. Sometimes the feminine is characterized as Mother Church; Sophia, or Divine Wisdom; as the Virgin Mother Mary; as a man’s wife; or even as a pagan divinity, recognized as a mythic archetype." I am sure I saw a write-up of Merlin as a Grail Christian... Yep. In The Boy King, both Merlin and Vivienne are Grail Christians, which combines BOTH Pagan and Christian Religious Traits, and if they conflict, sweet 10/10 split is the correct answer. I think that in 5.x, with its British Christianity being founded by Joseph of Arimathea under the auspices of the Grail, would be the current 'Grail Christianity'. It melds together some Pagan (such as Energetic and Generous) and Christian elements. So the easy answer is, the Old Knight of the Wilds is a British Christian. (Also, this is a perfect excuse to actually introduce Sir Gregor of Stafford, from the Red Blade, as the Old Knight of the Wilds.)

Happy to help!

Well it remains part of Gentian county, as long as you are talking about county courts etc. BoU: "White Horse, Gentian: Uffington White Horse, Wiltshire" As for whose fief it is, possibly the Baron of Sparrowhawk/Marlborough.

Conjure with my name and I shall appear. In the 4th edition, Earl Robert married the heiress of Uffington (AKA White Horse Vale), Lady Katherine, so the White Horse is within her lands and via the marriage, within Salisbury's lands. Also, since it was the long-form adventure example (in addition to the bear hunt), it made sense to have it mentioned in the Salisbury write-up. "Salisbury county consists of all the holdings of the Earl of Salisbury. This fief consists primarily of a large land area on Salisbury Plain, and secondarily of the lands around Uffington, known as the White Horse Vale, an area to the north which is separated by other fiefs..." "Countess Katherine Glory 2,470 APP 10 Countess of Salisbury and Lady of the White Horse Vale. She is neither greatly beautiful nor intelligent, but is heiress of the White Horse Vale..." The entries to Uffingham and Uffington were taken off from 5.0 In and Around Salisbury, and their garrison removed, but the comment about hard-riding knights remained: "Hard-riding knights can reach Sarum from anyplace within the county (Uffingham excepted) within 2 days..." (Uffingham excepted) was removed in errata; it is no longer mentioned in 5.1.

The topic came up in the Discord, and below are some of my thoughts on it. I figured it would be interesting enough a topic to cover here on the Forum, too. My two denariii... Given the Honor hit that a noble lady would risk having such a fling, I would GM it slightly differently. The easiest option is to make her into a pretty serving wench instead. Maybe she has some hopes of improving her station, especially if the PK in question is unmarried and might be interested in a concubine. Or at least she would potentially ensure that one of her kids is a bastard of a nobleman and hence better taken care of. Maybe even helping with his commoner half-siblings later on in life. Or maybe she is already married and even if there is a baby, officially it is the husbands, although she might tell the knight and/or the child at some later point. Maybe she was just swept off her feet by the hero of the day (especially suitable if the PK did some heroics prior to the feast, doubly suitable if the feast is because of the dragon he slayed or similar). Religious reasons might apply, too, if this is a Pagan Court at Beltaine... Similar considerations could apply to a noblewoman, although as said, the Honor hit makes it less likely that she would risk it lightly. If she is married, then if everything is handled discreetly, any children would be attributed to the husband. But if caught, it would be a huge scandal and cause duels and stuff. Of course, this might have been her intent, to rid herself of an abusive husband or some such, but it would come with the cost of her own reputation and likely harm her children, if any, as well. An unmarried, younger daughter of a knight might be looking to get herself a husband, if the PK is still unmarried. This could be innocent (she is in love and thinks that surely he is too) or more calculating (to get herself a husband above what her dowry would likely allow); rejecting her suit, especially if she finds herself pregnant, would lead into serious consequences with her family. Which is in the end a long-winded way of saying what David said above: If you want story consequences, you can add them, and if you don't, you don't have to. That being said, I think sidestepping the Honor loss by making her a commoner works better if you are just playing it straight with a simple childbirth roll if Lustful wins. Especially if the PK is supposed to have a chance to acknowledge the bastard. Which in the case of a noblewoman would lead to Honor loss and strife with her family/husband.

My rough rule of thumb: Unarmored but with a weapon and shield**: no encumbrance, no penalties to DEX, +2 Move Non-metallic* armor with weapon and shield**: light load, -5 DEX (and +1 Move, house-ruled) Metallic* armor with weapon and shield**: heavy load, -10 DEX, normal for knights * These are obviously a bit game-fied statements, as a non-metallic armor can be comparable in weight to a metallic one. Especially if a thick gambeson gets waterlogged. But it is close enough for game purposes. Although I would posit an idea that a 8-point chainmail byrnie (tunic) should be in the -5 DEX category, as should a brigandine doublet when it becomes available. Basically, give those nimble longbowmen an armor that they can still zip around with. ** Depends a bit on the shield, too. A heavy, large shield like the scutum might push you into -5 DEX territory even without armor, and push you into -10 DEX even with a lighter armor. But for the most part, I don't have to worry about it since the PKs usually run around in full armor for -10 anyway.

KAP doesn't do the accounting of every piece of equipment you carry, but simplifies it mainly to the armor you have on. But yeah, I admit that the rules could be clearer here. One reason is that there used to be more rules for being unarmored than just the +2 Movement rate, so there are some legacy text issues. Anyway, if you are wearing a Chainmail, the DEX penalty is -10 and that is it. This is confirmed by the host of published adventures that quote this rule, and I am pretty sure I can find a Greg quote if I try, too. You have to be doing something else in addition to qualify for more. I would consider -20 if you are hauling another armored knight over your shoulder as well (extra heavy load or something like that), but not for just wearing a chainmail. Also, note that the DEX penalty for armor does not influence your DEX roll to stay on your feet in the case of a knockdown roll.

Since it came up in the Discord, I am just going to copy-paste my comment from here to this thread: This really should be errata in KAP 5.2: They tried updating the £6 manors to the £10 manors used in BotE and BotW... BUT they didn't take into account that £4 of that money is going to soldiers & courtiers (apart from £1), meaning that the knight & his family (including horses and a squire) only get £6 for their upkeep (£7, if they spend that extra £1 to upkeep, too). The charitable reading of KAP 5.2 is that they tried to simplify it by referring to the whole £10 as the knight's upkeep, but then they screwed up the limits for the categories (p. 183-184). The limits should be £3 to qualify for poor, £6 to qualify for ordinary and £9 to qualify for rich, when using £6 upkeep for the ordinary knight. If using a 'total upkeep for the manor', then they should be more like £6, £9 and £12 (i.e. the old limits+£3 soldiers and courtiers, leaving £1 spending money for £10 manor - £9 ordinary). Also, this bit (p. 183) applies ONLY to the household knights (word added by me): "Thus, household knights do not get money every Christmas. Instead, the lord spends enough each year to keep each [household] knight up to accepted standards of maintenance. " The accepted standards of maintenance is generally Ordinary, although hard times may require to temporarily tighten the belt down to Poor, as explained in the Book of the Estate. Vassal knights are responsible for their own upkeep, from the lands granted to them. Yes, if things go very wrong, they may beg the Lord for aid and likely get it (at least keeping them at Poor or perhaps even Ordinary if they are well-liked by the Lord), but it should not be a common thing to need help. "Christmas" in the above quotation should be changed to "Winter", IMHO, to better draw the thoughts to the Winter Phase where these things are resolved.

Uh... not that I recall? I mean, I may have downloaded someone else's at some point, but the one I use is basically a re-balanced BotM with a couple of homebrew things thrown in. I was trying to move the campaign to BotE steady income investments, but the Players said that they liked the variable income, so...

I created similar knighting packages for my players too, for each periods and 'levels' of wealth. I forget the details but the typical price was around £20 - £30 for a 'normal vassal knight" with the costs sharply increasing in late tournament and especially twilight periods. When the average 1 manor knight would be more likely in the poor category equipment wise.

Just to point out something... In our campaign, generally the eldest son gets knighted with the Universal Aids, i.e. the peasants pay for the equipment, etc. However, the spare usually needs to wait until the father kicks the bucket and inherits the father's old equipment and gets knighted with those, while the eldest gets the manor. Of course if the father has done well and is still around, he could buy the equipment for the second son, which would leave his own equipment to an even younger son (or to the eldest, to make up for the money that went to the knighting of the second son). Anyway, this often means that the second son needs to cool his heels for a while, maybe working as an esquire in the Liege's court, until dear old dad dies and everyone nudges forward a slot: heir household knight -> vassal knight, spare esquire -> household knight.

As a general rule (at least in our campaign), the heir would have been squired in the Liege Lord's household, either to the Liege himself, or even better to his own heir, in order to foster those ties of friendship and loyalty. Thus, if the dear old dad is still going strong, the Liege would likely make a space amongst his household knights for the young knight, in order to ensure that that there are no competing ties of loyalty to another nobleman. The father stays on as the vassal knight, until he is too feeble to fulfill his duties as a knight, and even then, the Liege Lord might have him 'retire' as a trusted advisor, or he might retire to a monastery to spend his last few years as a monk to shorten his purgatory stay. As for the 'spare' (second eldest), he'd often get squired the same way, although perhaps not to the liege or his heir personally but some higher ranking knight in the household (marshal, constable, etc), so that he would be in the liege's household still. If the heir is still with the Liege's household knights when the spare is knighted, it depends if the Liege has space for him; he likely would try to accommodate the spare as well, depending what the situation is. And once the heir inherits, then his household knight 'slot' would be available for the spare. Game-wise, I tend to find it more convenient to dispose of the NPC fathers at a suitable time, a few years into the game, to give new players time to learn the system before they need to even think about manorial management. Also, having them as household knights to the Liege Lord makes it very easy to drag them to whatever adventures I have in store for them. As for former PK fathers, a lighter touch is needed, but given how few of them live to the retirement age, it has not really been an issue. Also, they usually have more than one manor at that time, too, so we tend to just hand over a new manor for the eldest to learn to take care of (and to build on), while the dad continues living in the ancestral home. I hope this answers your questions, but feel free to ask for clarifications. 🙂

I'd suggest embracing the narrative opportunities in battle. Focus on crafting like an interesting encounter or two rather than sweat the round-to-round rolling. Especially if you are using the basic battle system rather than book of battles 2, there is very little that the PKs can actually do in a normal battle round; even if their unit leader succeeds in battle, the choice of fighting or retreating is pretty much a non-choice since unless you are burdened with wounded or prisoners, of course you will fight to gain glory. So you can basically gloss over most of that until you reach some important or an interesting situation. Like a choice between helping an ally or a chance of attacking a higher ranked enemy or stuff like that. Whether to show mercy on a bloodied Saxon youth stumbling before you dazed and unarmed or trample him under your horse's ironshod hooves.

Yep. See my earlier post with this warning.

Alright, a couple of things on the ready adventures to warn the GMs about... Most of them are obvious when you skim through the adventure. The Birthday Hunt is most important to check at the beginning of the campaign, if you relocate it to Salisbury, since it has some changes to the Earl's family in 4th edition. The Red Blade This adventure is set in Romance/Tournament, so mid-530s works without issues. Actually, I would be VERY tempted to transpose Sir Gregor of Stafford to the Adventure of the Maiden's Oath (below) as the hospitable host that the PKs will meet in Escavalon. Thus introducing him some years earlier and then have him visit Salisbury to offer this Quest to any Salisbury knights who are valiant enough to assay it (naturally, the PKs ought to volunteer, or the Earl might call upon them by name, even). Alternatively, the PKs could easily stop by at his place on their way to Sir Ector's Manor in the Adventure of the Great Hunt (below), which would introduce him, and not require changing his home. However, this would mean adding another encounter... but that could work to its benefit, actually, since Sir Gregor could offer some advice to the PKs about that adventure, too. Finally, Sir Gregor should be the one to recommend the PKs to be elevated to the Round Table at the end of the mini-campaign. EDIT: Duh, obviously the best place to introduce Sir Gregor is at the Adventure of the White Horse. Just replace the Old Knight of the Wilds with Sir Gregor and you are done! Then he can be a recurring character in the other adventures, having already developed a friendship/mentorship with the PKs. The Great Hunt As written, this is set prior to the Roman War, but there is nothing in this adventure that REQUIRES it to be set in that time period. Granted, Sir Ector is getting a bit long in the tooth by mid-530s, but you can easily handwave him being a very young knight in 490s. Especially since this is just a mini-campaign. The Birthday Hunt (DoB #1) As written, this is set in 514 and at Tewkesbury, but I am sure that it is using a different timeline from GPC anyway, as it references Camelot (built in 520s) and a war against Maelgwn of Gwynedd (probably in 520s or 530s, definitely not in mid-510s)... In any case, again there is nothing to stop you from moving this adventure to 530s in Salisbury, and use the Morgaine Forest rather than the Forest of Dean as the Faerie Forest. And as I suggested, you can tweak this so that the birthday boy is the eldest son of Earl Robert of Salisbury (remember to make that change at the beginning of the campaign), or he could be the second (not as big stakes). Anyway, you can easily name-change the named people in the Earl of Tewkesbury's family. The location of the Hermit's homeland ought to be changed a bit, but it basically doesn't matter. I would be tempted to make him someone who went crazy at Badon Hill, thus linking it to the adventure below, too. The Maiden's Oath (DoB #2) This is set in 519, right after the Battle of Badon, which is referenced in the adventure. However, you can easily enough make the attackers into grave-robbing bandits, who have dug up some buried Saxon equipment that no one was bothered about at the end of that bloody battle. Or, if you want to make it more spooky, they could be actual Saxon ghosts, rising up to fight against their Cymric foes... I think I actually prefer that option. 😛 The last time a host family would have had news would have been prior to the Roman War, or the GM can just keep it vague and let the PKs roll Courtesy, Intrigue and Orate to deliver some gossip and news. The King of the Red City (DoB #3) This is already set in mid-530s, so no worries. On a quick look, this doesn't really require any changes. However, since the PKs are most likely all married by now, those heiresses could be still girls and the PKs get the wardship, and can arrange the marriage between their wards and their eldest sons once they grow up. Thus making for a nice dynastic plan there, too. The Dragon's Hoard (DoB #4) This adventure works nicely in 530s as well, without issues. You could consider sending the PKs dragon-hunting more on their own initiative, too, which would of course make their liege lord less upset with them, if they return empty-handed, but it is better for some drama if it is a mission from their lord.