Morien

The PKs not knowing Vortigern, Hengest and the Night of the Long Knives is like a US baby boomer not knowing WW2, Pearl Harbor, and Hitler. The Night of the Long Knives happened around the PKs' birth. Hengest and Vortigern died when they were children. Their fathers fought and maybe died in the battles against those two. It would have been talked about, regardless whether the fathers lived or died.

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! 🙂 If anyone is interested, that thread can be found in this forum but I don't want to use my phone to find it, too much of a hassle. I do admit that the suggestion I made does suffer from the fact that while it does make DEX and APP stronger at chargen, once the PKs increase their skills, the impact of further DEX and APP increases is lessened to a great extent. Granted pretty much no one is increasing either nowadays anyway (save some ladies for APP and PKs reaching DEX 5 or less trying to shore it up against eventual aging), so I don't really see it as a killer argument. However I do recognize that it would be better to have game mechanisms that support those APPs. Making DEX challenges that can be won by knights wearing armor will help. I also like the idea of making the number of feast cards depend on APP, while Glory dictates seating order. This makes more sense to me than the current feast system which is opposite. That would definitely help APP, I think. And it fits to the idea that beautiful people simply have easier time in social setting.

I think it was the PKs who mentioned Uther's kidnapped son, not Cerdic, in the above campaign example.

Smart players might also realize that he is the nephew of Octa (invading Logres twice in the career of the PKs, likely) and Aesc (Battle of Salisbury). Also, something that Cerdic would be smart to play down. Vortigern himself could potentially be rehabilitated with the claim that he was betrayed as well, but this would very much require throwing the blame on Hengest (legitimately, IMHO). The linkage to Vortimer is a bit iffy, considering that Cerdic's mom was rumored to having poisoned her stepson... But if the players fall for it, why not?

Yep. We also use a houserule that the courtly (skill) glory is APP Glory, not flat 10 Glory. So someone with APP 18 will be getting 18 Glory for a successful skill use at court. Also, we play through a Spring Court each year, and have a mechanism for rolling APP+Glory/1000 during it, which gives you chances for checks & Glory, or on a Critical, you get to dictate an encounter somewhat, usually a chance to ask a favor from the liege or some such, or just picking an encounter that gives you a check to a trait you really want to get (bit of a waste in my opinion, but hey, if that is what you want...). So while a low APP is not as bad as a low SIZ, a high APP is definitely desirable thing to have. As for DEX, we have a houserule that the mounted knockdown is actually (DEX+Horsemanship)/2. I think Greg issued a ruling that it would be DEX all the way, all the time, too. Both of which keep DEX somewhat more interesting. Furthermore, we have quite a lot of combat on foot, too, so DEX definitely plays a role. Again, not so much that the players would prioritise it, but similarly, it is not an utter garbage stat. Quite agreed about DEX tasks being almost impossible for an armored knight, which is a bit of a pity. I am very tempted to flip it around a bit and give unarmored people a bonus rather than knights a penalty...

Yet that was exactly opposite to what happened in our campaign, with the PKs pleading with her to accept the Cornish marriage proposal to seal the alliance against the threatened Essex invasion. So the PKs found themselves on the Cornish side, as I mentioned in my earlier comment.

Dunno. It might be a very interesting and poignant campaign if Cerdic is earnest in his desire to claim what is rightfully his, and is actually worthy of that role. Trained by the pro-Vortigern exiles in Saxony to his role of becoming the High King of Britain. How much more interesting campaign if Cerdic is actually a good man, but unable to gain any traction since everyone is tarring him with the same brush as his father and grandfather? You could even start him with very good intentions, and just gradually move him more and more to the Saxon side of things, since the Britons. Just. Won't. Accept. Him. Might be interesting.

I am adding my recommendation as well. Not only will you get the maps, but you will also get a few nice adventures, as well as a load of geographical and rulers information you can use to enliven your campaign. There is significant overlap with the Wasteland section here and the ones in GPC (particularly the Adventures of Boiling Girl and Black Hermit), but don't let that stop you, that is just 12 pages of the whole book. Frankly, all Pendragon books are well worth the money. PDFs are so cheap.

I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the conquest of the Isle of Wight, where GPC states: "The castle is stormed, the nobles killed," As for the Infamous Feast, Book of Uther (p. 120) lists some potential culprits. Cerdic is not amongst them, but I know we had a discussion in this very Forum that you could have him responsible for it and have his arrival in 496 to be pre-planned. Personally, I think it is more opportunistic: Uther is dead, Logres is in chaos, perfect time to get some ships and warriors together and return to Britain to claim his birthright... If Cerdic had been the poisoner, I would have expected him to land already in 495, at the height of chaos, to reap maximum benefit of it, and stop other Saxons (like Aelle) from gaining an upper hand. Speaking of Aelle, he is surprisingly inactive in 495 and afterwards, not really doing any conquering, unlike Essex, Wessex and Anglia. Kent is another 'missing in action' Saxon kingdom, but even they do more than Aelle, by at least allying with Essex to take London. Aelle simply has a little skirmish with Kent and then pretty much calls it a day, apart from helping Wessex against Nanteleod.

See the conquest of the Isle of Wight. Something the PKs will be participants in, if they join Cerdic swiftly enough. If that doesn't make them take a good look at themselves and ask "Are we the baddies?" then nothing will. They might double down and claim it just; times are hard and the Wightians refused to bend a knee. Vae Victis. Let that be a lesson to all others. That is certainly how I would expect Cerdic to play it. Then again, it is possible that with Salisbury switching, Wight might follow suit rather than resist (embassy mission for the PKs, to try and convince Wight to see the light, with a chance to introduce some damsels to be distressed later if they fail?). Butterfly effect from changing 'history'. And maybe the PKs are encouraging Cerdic to raze the hated Levcomagus to the ground instead... EDIT: I misremembered slightly and confused Cerdic's attack on Isle of Wight with Caedwalla's, almost two centuries later. Still, you could play Cerdic's slaying of all the nobles (in GPC) as harsh as you want to: is it all noble men (somewhat justified, although the method of execution might also show off a cruel streak if need be) or is it women and children too (clearly in the baddie territory)? EDIT2: Cerdic's write-up in GPC actually portrays him as a reasonably level-headed guy. His only 16+ baddie trait is Arbitrary at 18, and a goodie trait of Valorous at 18. He does have leanings towards Cruel and Proud, but also Chaste, Generous, Pious and Temperate. No Passions at 16+. Frankly, other than the high Arbitrary*, he doesn't seem all that bad. Frankly, Uther's high Lustful & Reckless and tendency to Deceitful, Suspicious and Hate Saxons might strike some as worse traits and passions to have. And I would very much argue that Uther's Arbitrary ought to be higher than 9, but that is an argument for another time. * And nothing wrong with high Arbitrary as long as you stay on his good side; Arbitrary doesn't mean that he is a maniac flipping from liking you to hating you depending which way he got up in the morning, just that he makes his decisions based on something else than the concept of justice and laws of the land, such as how much he likes you.

While the above is true, it is not what Username was arguing about (assuming I understood him correctly). If I roll 2d6+7 (average 14), and I want to know how many results of 16+ I get, that is the number I am interested also in 4d6 (average 14) case. The chance of getting 19 on 2d6+7 or 24 on 4d6 is immaterial, or even the chance of getting 19 on both of them (2.78% vs 4.32%, if you wanted to know). Results of 16 or more (i.e. at least 16): 2d6+7: 27.78% 4d6: 33.56% However, I am personally also very concerned with the range. 2d6+7 gives me a range of 9 to 19, a +-5 maximum deviation from the average. 4d6 gives me double that, 4 to 24, +-10. While it is rare, the possibility is there. Also, I am VERY concerned with rolls of 21+, which may happen with 4d6 (2.7%), but are impossible with 2d6+7, also a good thing in my book. Agreed, although as Deacon says, there is no choice, everyone rolls. The thing that I dislike about this is that it turns a high APP roll into a 'penalty'. Imagine that both A and B roll the same mediocre values for SIZ, STR, DEX and CON (say 11 each), and then A roll APP 16 (total 60) and B rolls APP 8 (total 52). B suddenly has 8 points to spend, which means that he can easily start the game with SIZ 18, STR 12+3 from miscellaneous picks, meaning 6d6 damage, while A, even if he puts all his miscellaneous picks to SIZ increases will still have puny 4d6 damage. In our campaign, we give choices to the players: Distribute 50 points or roll 2d6+43 points (APP is always rolled separately, and if the player so chooses, he can INCREASE APP by +2 by every stat point he loses from other points, but he can't lower it to get points to other stats), or roll randomly each stat (1d6+modifier per stat, no substitutions). The random method gives an average that is slightly higher than 50+APP, and of course there is a chance that you happen to roll high on some of them. But then you are stuck with them. The 1d6 has a low enough range that even if you roll crappy in your stats, the PK is still very much playable. And if you roll high, well, you are a lucky so-and-so, but you are still not 18 across the board.

Let them. If they are pushing the 'ally to Wessex, all hail King Cerdic, the Rightful High King' despite getting reminded of Cerdic's father and grandfather being the worst in living memory, let them. In our campaign, the PKs allied with Cornwall, and kept friendly relations with Wessex from the get-go. End result, they ended up fighting against Ulfius and then Nanteleod, rather than against the Saxons. And of course they ended up on the wrong side of history with Arthur, until after the Battle of Terrabil. So if your PKs submit Salisbury to Cerdic (the marriage between Cynric and Jenna would be the best option, since Cerdic himself is a) older and b) it would make Cynric very very jealous of any half-brothers he might have), then they might actually do reasonably well out of the Anarchy, save for likely getting raided by fellow Cymri and having to fight against Nanteleod. The addition of Salisbury Knights probably allows Cerdic to crush Port (it did in our campaign), adding Port's warriors to his cause. This stronger Wessex might actually be a much stronger player pre-Badon, too, maybe even contesting Aelle's claim to the title of Bretwalda. After Badon, there would be a reckoning, but Arthur tends to be pretty merciful: he might not punish the PKs' heirs (I would expect the PKs to die at Badon, you see) too harshly; after all, they are fellow Cymri. It is pretty noteworthy that Arthur apparently doesn't kill Cerdic, as he is said to be taken as a prisoner and then he vanishes from GPC. Dies in comfortable captivity, would be my guess.

It is being used more as a geographical designation in BoS rather than a dukedom. Basically, it is saying that the family is from NW Cumbria, past the Pennines. The actual Duchy of Cambenet is smaller than this (at least by the time of the Perilous Forest). I am not sure why the river was taken as the border in the map... Could have been just convenience and not considered a big deal since it was all part of Malahaut anyway still.

Because at the time of BoS, Cambenet is not independent but part of Malahaut.

Yeah, I should have been clearer in saying that MOST of Cambenet is south of the wall. It does have a bit north of the wall, too. As for GPC, the text says: "Cambenet. A dukedom of Cumbria in the northwest, centered on the city of Carduel. The ruler is Eustance." Cumbria is generally thought to be between Humber Estuary and the Wall (although this simply means that culturally and geographically, Cambenet is more in Cumbria than north of the wall). Anyway, the maps on GPC p. 127 and the players' map of KAP 5.x, should not be taken to mean that Cambenet is solely North of the Wall. The placement of the Kingdom name was probably dictated by available space (it would have been better to switch the name of the city, Carduel, and the Kingdom, Cambenet, to make it more plain, but...). The reason Cambenet is missing its northern extent on BoS is the same as why only its northern extent is shown in KAP 4, p. 87 map of the North: all maps stop at the Wall, whether coming from the South or coming from the North. The separate map of KAP 4 shows Cambenet clearly straddling the Wall. Perilous Forest map actually shows a bit of Cambenet (incl. Gilsland) poking north of the wall. It is just that the orientation of the map (not aligned neatly to the north) threw me off a bit.

That is a different kettle of fish from ours, for two reasons: 1) It is not a formal order, but an informal fellowship amongst individuals, so it wouldn't be inherited anyway. 2) We don't allow 'cloning', i.e. the statistics, traits and passions are not just inherited by the sons. They do get a bonus if they choose to pursue the famous traits and passions of their fathers, though, so there is a 'family resemblance' if the Player wants it.

Just to clarify, I was speaking of the initial modifier before the Passion is rolled, not the actual Passion in play. Although I tend to be generous with checks, the Passion only gets checked when it is used (not necessarily for Inspiration). I would also cap the Passion modifier around +6, and I don't think I would actually let a mere acquaintance count. Adventuring and fighting as a team, sure, I would let them accumulate some initial bonus modifier that way. So it has become a bit of a balancing act, when do they want to roll? Go for it immediately means that the loyalty will be low and less useful, but waiting on it means that they don't have that Group passion to fall back on, which has bitten them in the backside a couple of times with the new PKs joining in, as in "Nope, you can't use that passion, since X is not part of it."

Actually, what I meant to convey was almost direct opposite to this... A group that has played together for a long time, being friends outside of the game as well, tends to have more experience with one another and with the hobby in general as well. Thus, even if the PKs work at cross-purposes now and again, there is a more of 'hey, it is just roleplaying, he is not a conniving bastard, really' -attitude. A group that only connects via the game, and possibly have very different RP backgrounds (both in style and in amount of experience), has the potential to explode much more easily. After all, if your background is more 'my group vs. the world', and another player's is more drama school, then once those expectations collide, it might easily lead to 'you rat bastard, how could you do that, I am out' -situation. I was actually a player in a GURPS campaign where one new-to-the-group player took a huge enemy disadvantage (an adult red dragon, hunting his character over some destroyed dragon eggs or something), after the GM had repeatedly warned him not to do that. It was the start of the campaign, and the premise was that we had all been hired by this noble to crew a skyship, so all the characters were strangers to one another. The character in question spent the whole first session belittling the other characters and insulting them and their beliefs. And then the dice came up as 'enemy appears' (in GURPS, you roll randomly to see if your enemy appears during the session in some way) for him and the red dragon showed up, flying towards the skyship to which it had magically tracked (there were spells for that, as well as counterspells, but when you are facing a frigging adult dragon, you'd better be an archmage level yourself) the culprit. The dragon arrived and demanded to fight the murderer. I ought to mention that the dragon was quite sporting about it, explaining that it had no beef with the other folks on the skyship, just the murderer of its children (after all, none of the other PCs had an enemy disadvantage). So yeah, all the other character basically took a step back and told the dragon to have fun, not our problem to fight the battles this insufferably smug, insulting so-and-so had brought upon himself. The character died after a brief chase, and the player quit and walked out, quite upset at the GM for letting the disadvantage to influence the game and at the other players for not backing his character up.

Yes. I don't use either modifier. Instead, I use 3d6 base, +1 for each year the group has been together before they roll Loyalty, +1 per adventure during which they fight side by side. Since oftentimes there are new inductees to the group (due to a previous PK having perished), we reroll the Loyalty and take the average between the old and the new one. That seems to work well enough, although I could see an argument of not rerolling it unless most of the fellowship changes at once. It is a bit of a Ship of Theseus -problem.

As you correctly state, the Anarchy has probably the greatest chance of going sideways, due to its very nature of putting the PKs into a position to influence the fate of the County. Do they support the Countess or do they try to seize power (for themselves or for the whole group?)? Do they pursue different foreign policy, advocating alliance to Saxons/Cornwall/Silchester/Nanteleod? Even Arthur's crowning pales in comparison, as they will probably just go along with what their own liege decides. And unless the GM does some serious work, the Downfall is probably also going to get decided by their high Loyalty Pendragon or some other liege. It is much rarer that a PK has Loyalty (Lancelot). However, they might very well have Amor (Guenever), and this might be a very good story reason for the GM to be generous with giving that passion out to PKs who wants it.

Cambenet should be south of the wall, not north of it. Perilous Forest, p. 13, Kingdoms of West Cumbria. Or Book of Sires, p. 117, Cumbria.

Well, I already gave the result of one of the campaigns. I did have another 'break-up' which stayed IC due to the characters having to decide between their loyalty to Prince Mark (regent of Salisbury for 10+ years) and Robert (who had just switched sides and sworn allegiance to Arthur). End result, one PK defected (and managed to survive the aftermath), and another tried to defect later due to the way that the pro-Robert loyalists were being slaughtered on the castle yard after the meeting. Alas, he happened to tell another PK of his plans to evacuate the rest of the family, who told a couple of other ones who had Loyalty (Prince Mark) in the upper teens, so what was supposed to become a 'talk some sense into the guy to convince him to stay' -chat became a 'halt, traitor, and answer for your treason to the Prince!' -arrest. Generally speaking, we do try to run with Group Loyalties and common lieges and all that jazz. So it is not common that the PKs end up on different sides (save by magic, as has happened a couple of times). Well, there was another case when a famously lustful pagan was paying too much attention to another PK's famously flirty wife, leading to a duel challenge and a beatdown to get the pagan to keep his distance in the future. While I have a very limited sample size, obviously, I would say that it matters a lot how well the players know one another. For instance, the campaign that fell apart was with basically a new group with various levels of RP experience. It is probably not surprising that the Black Knight was an experienced RPer, while the guy unable to maintain IC/OOC separation was a newer player. While it is not always the case, experience tends to often give one some more perspective. By contrast, the other group was composed of friends, so it was easier to shrug and move on. Things happen and high passions are high passions. I very much could see the breaking of the Round Table being something that breaks the PKs apart, too, making for a particularly poignant endgame. In my first playthrough, the characters were very much in the Orkney camp due to various reasons, so there wasn't much of a chance of the group splintering over that. But I could see it happening with other groups. I did end up running the Defector PK and the other PKs practically in two separate stories for a couple of years. This was made easier by the fact that there were some scheduling issues, and the fact that it was during the Boy King, meaning that oftentimes they were in the same battle, just on separate sides, which was no biggie. They ended up facing at the Battle of Terrabil, but again, that was easy to play, in principle. But I would not want to do that full time. It is much much easier when the PKs are joined together in a team of some sort. At the moment, I have 4 PKs in Cornwall and two in Salisbury, which is making some things a bit complicated. Fortunately, they all have Loyalty (Group) towards each other, and they were all in the Roman War, so that wasn't too bad. As long as they travel and adventure together, that is easy enough, and so far, they have been happy to extend an invitation to the PKs who have not been told explicitly to go on the adventure. Or they might choose to go monster-hunting by their own volition, and then it doesn't matter so much who is the liege of whom.

One of my favorite Pendragon story moments came when one Roman PK decided to stick with Syagrius (he had APP 20 and had become a bit too chummy with the Countess for Roderick's liking, so this seemed a fine way for the Count to get rid of him; the player wanted a change, too). Lo and behold, the player's second character happens to disappear (got ensnared by a faerie maiden and the player decided that was a nice end for the character and just went with it) just before St. Albans, and who might be riding in but the exiled Roman knight? And not only that, but return to favor by helping the other PKs to save the life of the Count himself? But little did the other players know that the Roman PK was in cahoots with Syagrius, who had survived the Battle of Soissons and was looking to avenge himself on Uther and all the traitorous Britons. Syagrius had returned to Britain in the guise of a mercenary captain and led a force of bitter, angry, desperate Soissons knights. The PK ended up advising the use of poison (Syagrius had a poisoner in his entourage, so that worked out) and even recommended sending assassins to kill Ulfius and Brastias in their sickbeds (thwarted by the other PKs). And naturally Syagrius would need a new powerbase for himself and his Roman mercenary knights for the Anarchy that was sure to follow... And the PK had just the thing in mind: Sarum Castle. Helped by the 'turncoat', Syagrius' knights managed to gain entry into the castle and then turned on the skeleton garrison, butchering them. However, they were stymied momentarily by Sir Jaradan, the best blade of the county, who had been appointed by the Count as his only son and heir's bodyguard. The Roman PK's response at Jaradan challenging him to a duel? "Crossbows, shoot!" And thus passed Sir Jaradan, pierced by a dozen quarrels. Syagrius forced his way into the Countess' bedchamber, followed by the PK and another knight. There, the Countess pushed her children behind her as if to protect them with her own body if need be. When she saw the PK, there was a momentary hope in her eyes, only to shift to despair when she realized that the PK was working for Syagrius... "Argh, I can't do this!" the player exclaimed. "I can't do this." the PK murmured and stepped between the Countess and Syagrius. "Have you lost your mind?!" Syagrius demanded. "More like regained it." the PK replied, and the fight was on. The PK killed Syagrius and drove the other knights out of the room, defending the doorway long enough for the other PKs to arrive to the scene (miraculously healed by Merlin and advised to hasten to Sarum, for their presence was needed), despite the ambushes set to slow them down (on the advice of the turncoat PK again...). With the attackers dead, the question turned to the Roman PK's fate. Naturally, the true extent of his crimes were unknown, but it was clear that he had advised Syagrius on how to gain entry to Sarum Castle. And for that his life would be forfeit. But for saving the Countess and her children, the execution would be stayed indefinitely. He would wear only black, to show his status as a dead man walking, but he would be forbidden to die until the Countess would give him leave to do so. And that was the Tale of the Black Knight of Salisbury. (Alas, the campaign imploded a session or two later, when the PKs fractured over supporting the Countess or seizing power for themselves, and some of the players took it personally OOC that other players had chosen to back an NPC over fellow players. Still, I thought that was a damned epic arc for the character.)

Well it is clearly a recent conquest... So it might be good to have Syagrius' new Briton allies to sack the town and hence allow the Franks to be the protectors of the rest of Normandy. On the other hand Bayeux is not just opening its gates to Britons so clearly they are not overwhelmingly for Syagrius either.

I think you need it to be in 487, since the decision has been made by the Spring Court of 488. At the very very least you'd need to have the Franks at the Spring Court 488 making their demand, and Uther deciding to launch the invasion during the Spring Court, since it is being talked about then, but this would be rather haphazard of him (then again, Uther has high Reckless...). This option also has the problem of this plan getting rumored openly already, with the ambassadors around. Granted, you could have Uther reply 'no' to the ambassadors, who leave the court and the kingdom right away, and then have the rumors spreading AFTERWARDS, perhaps portrayed as the appropriate response to the Frankish arrogance. But just before the battle itself would be too late. First of all, Uther is not there, so he cannot be party to this plan, and it would require Madoc to make the decision on his own to hang Syagrius out to dry. I don't think it works. I think it works better in 487, giving Uther and Madoc time to think about it. I admit that drama is probably heightened if during the 488 Spring Court the PKs witness the arrogant Franks addressing the King ("Hand over this felon to us!") and the King's response ("He is a guest under my roof; you may not have him. Go back to your king, for you are not welcome here."), followed by the declaration a day or two later that the army will gather to sail to Frankland to teach these barbarous Franks a lesson. But I think I prefer the slow-boil, having the above scene in 487 Spring Court, and having Uther come to the decision during 487 that Syagrius is starting to be a liability rather than an asset. I guess it comes down if you want to keep this thing tightly confined to 488, or stretch it out. I am obviously more in favor of stretching it out, letting the PKs potentially witness Syagrius' arrival to Uther's court in late 486, followed by the Frankish Embassy in 487 demanding his head, and perhaps allowing the PKs to interact with him through 487. I could very well see Uther dragging Syagrius with him to Lindsey and Malahaut Embassies: a foreign king, even in exile, makes Uther's entourage more magnificent. The court gossip in 487 has Syagrius visit Malahaut and Cornwall on his own, but these would be better pushed to 487 Christmas gossip or 488 Spring (and 486 Syagrius gossip moved to 487 Spring). (We made a note of this Syagrius date change in the GPC Expansion in the Book of Uther.)