Morien

It would be relatively simple to recast the Roman War as simply the Hundred Years' War, albeit more successful and faster.

Roman envoys demanding tribute = French envoys demanding that Arthur does homage over Guyenne / Aquitaine
Arthur refuses and claims overlordship over most of France, based on not only the Plantagenet bloodline, but also his mother's inheritance as the senior royal branch.
Big battlefield wins later, Arthur finalizes the Treaty of Bretigny equivalent and annexes roughly a quarter of France (although I would be tempted to go full Angevin empire on this one). Or you can go for Henry V and claim the French crown for himself, too.

So rather than 1200s (which was pretty bad for England, on the whole, what with John I and Henry III and Simon de Montfort's rebellion, until future Edward I salvaged the crown), it would be more like mid-1300s with Arthur as Edward III.

It is doable, especially if you don't mind telescoping some things, like taking Simon de Montfort's rebellion as a stand-in for Lot & rebel kings against Arthur. But you are definitely needing to do a lot of adapting if you wish to run your version of the GPC. On the other hand, if all you want is some chivalric adventures, then the setting matters much less, and Romance & Tournament are already more or less high/late medieval, with Saxons mostly out of sight (except in Anglia, but you can recast that as a Peasants' Revolt against a tyrannical Duke).

8 minutes ago, RandomNumber said:

P23, bottom of left hand column refers to Appendix E “Mercenary & Household Knights”. This Appendix is not included with the Starter Set.

It is included, but noy as a separate piece. It is at the end of Book III 

The Derived Characteristics marginalia is screwed up on Book II, p. 14: https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/19253-starter-set-rules-discussion/

Instead of:
"The Derived
Characteristics are:
Knockdown (SIZ),
Major Wound
(CON), Weapon
Damage (STR +
SIZ/6), Brawling
Damage (STR +
SIZ/6), Healing
Rate (CON/5),
Movement Rate
([STR + SIZ/2] +
5), Total Hit Points
(SIZ + CON),
and Unconscious
(Total HP/4)."

It should be:
"The Derived
Characteristics are:
Knockdown (SIZ),
Major Wound
(CON), Weapon
Damage ([STR +
SIZ]/6 in d6s), Brawling
Damage ([STR +
SIZ]/6), Healing
Rate (CON/5),
Movement Rate
([STR + DEX]/2 +
5), Total Hit Points
(SIZ + CON),
and Unconscious
(Total HP/4)."

A big one that Bob brought to my attention:

AFAIK, this is the latest:

2 hours ago, RandomNumber said:

The nodes are consistent with the results of Winners, Ties etc but the axes of the matrix are not labelled that way. For example, the intersection of “Success” and “Success” is explained as a Tie. I had expected the axes to be Winner, Loser etc. I do think the matrix works though.

Success-Success can only be a Tie, though. Otherwise it would be Partial Success-Success or Success-Partial Success.

1 hour ago, Hzark10 said:

I might be misunderstanding, but perhaps you are meant to meet Arthur while playing in Book 1, "The Adventure of the Sword in the Stone"? That being said, when I ran my group through it, I used Book 1, the Sword Tournament, and some additional sources of mine to make it a bit more involved before the actual Tournament.

Book 1 is a solo adventure that you play as a squire in 510.

Book 3 is the Sword Campaign which you start in 510 as a fully grown knight.

One does not lead to the other.

It is indeed odd that the free Adventure of the Sword Tournament 6e preview has the meeting with Sir Ector and Arthur, but it has been cut from the Book 3's The Adventure of the Sword Tournament. I would definitely put that back in when GMing this. I can only assume that it was cut because of time (or page count?). The standalone AotST was supposed to be one session, ending at the drawing of the sword (and a bit), whereas the Sword Campaign has a lot of other stuff happening afterwards, too. There is a note that Year 510 in the Sword Campaign will likely take 2 sessions. Still, I would put the encounter with Squire Arthur back. It won't take all that long, and is a nice little addition.

Just now, RandomNumber said:

Agree, the marginalia for Brawling and Weapon damage are also incorrect although they do express the body text faithfully as stated (but not as intended).

Yeah, best to draw a big red X over that bit of marginalia...

13 minutes ago, RandomNumber said:

Should the marginalia should read ([STR+DEX]/2)+5 ? That would seem to align with the calculation of movement rates in the folios

It seems very obvious from your calculations that this must be the case. And clearly the inclusion of SIZ was in error, too.

Also, damage is written out in the same way in the text "STR+SIZ divided by six", and if you interpret that literally, Clarion's damage should be 14+14/6 = 16.33 = 16d6, which it clearly is not.

Obviously the marginalia is in error, and movement should be interpreted as (STR+DEX)/2 + 5 and damage (STR+SIZ)/6.

41 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

Seem weird that this book replaces BtoM (especially in early periods) when BotM seems to handle Single Manors a lot better.

It doesn't. BotM makes single manors much more complicated, and the investments are way out of whack, leading to exponential growth unless the GM exercises a veto on endless investments.

See BotE on Greg's comments on the matter, too.

41 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

When you say smaller proportion, some of the Improvements (Dovercote) are not listed because they are considered Included in the estate and their income is already included. So if this needs to be reduced what would its income be?

It is included and scales. No adjustment necessary. 

A 10 libra manor has a dovecote that matches its size. Already included.

A 50 libra estate has a huge dovecote (or several smaller ones) by comparison, providing about five times the doves to be cooked. It is all in the default, don't worry about it.

41 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

Not sure what you mean by space, I am not seeing any reference to it.

It should be mentioned in the investments (Requires Space or somesuch) and is explained in the beginning of that section.

41 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

It seems to have way to many unused space for a £10 manor for little or no gain. 

Obviously, since it is intended to fit a whole estate, too. 

46 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

Ok, How do you use BotE in the early game with the knights just having one manor.

Just treat it as a 10 libra 'estate'.

46 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

A lot of the rules/sheets don't seem to work for just one manor.

They should, except that the assumed standard of living (such as in the Lots damaged) rules are based on 40+ estates as it assumes a Rich Upkeep rather than the ordinary one (as would be the case for a 10 libra manor). However, the formulas are correct to calculate the Army, SoL and DF.

Well there is another part which is Building an Estate, since it assumes a 50 libra estate. Hence a monetary bonus of 5 libra is mere ten percent increase for that estate, but if you don't rescale it, it becomes a whopping 50% increase on a 10 libra manor, if you use that section. If you and your players want to use it and are fine with the results, feel free. Otherwise, consider rescaling or leaving it up to the PKs to build up their manors.

46 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

1. Do starting Manors have all the included improvements listed for Estates?

Yes, just smaller in proportion.

46 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

2. Some Improvements (Stable) don't have rules for lands as small as £10.

All the improvements should already be scaled for 1 Space / 10 libra manors. To get the 50 libra / 5 space horse-specialized estate horseherd, you'd buy it five times.

I'll check my pdf when I have time but I am pretty sure I am correct.

46 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

3. Do you not use a sheet until the Manor is converted into an Estate? 

Why wouldn't you use it?

46 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

4. If a Manor provides £20 (Customary Revenue + Production) why does the system still call it a £10 Manor?

Because the value of the landholding is its Customary Revenue value that the Servitium Debitum is based on. 

46 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

 

Congratulations!

It is a bit of a bittersweet feeling, when you get to the end, but well worth it. 🙂

200 is correct. BotW and BoSi both supersede KAP 5.2 in this.

BotE supersedes BotM. I very much recommend using BotE since BotM is way way too swingy and unbalanced.

1 hour ago, Oleksandr said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinque_Ports

Can something like that exist in Arthurian Logres?😀

Why not? I don't see any reason why they couldn't.

3 hours ago, Gryph said:

About heiresses; I found the thread that talked about the thread with their information (Heiresses Revised), but the main one is gone. Is that information somewhere still accessible, or is it lost forever? I'd love to read through it, and hopefully I'm just missing something silly, but really can't find it.

http://kapresources.wpengine.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-2091.html

And then just scroll down until you find what Greg settled on. Personally, they are still too generous.

Also, one thing that slows down the rampant Glory gain is that you fix the Childbirth chances from 10% per year to something like a couple of percent per year. This will actually allow the wives to stick around longer than half a dozen years, and means that the PKs can't just bluebeard their way to gonzo Glory and lands.

Oh, just to add something...

What is it that you and your players are seeking to experience with GPC? You said you have tried to play through it several times but never got to the Boy King? Which sounds to me that you stall at Anarchy (a common occurrence)? Well, one thing to consider would be to skip all the way to the end of Anarchy, which seems to be that 6e is doing. That would certainly keep it fresher for your players, and the Book of Sires does have an appendix to take the family history all the way to the end of 509.

It also has the advantage that most of the published adventures are set against the backdrop of Arthur's court, not Uther's, usually in the Romance or Tournament Periods, too. Although of course you can tweak them a bit to make them fit earlier/later Periods as well.

Some very quick answers:

1. It is better if you don't kill off the PKs in 495. Anarchy is at its most rewarding when the PKs have a high enough status (from Glory) that their opinion matters. Or that they really can do some power plays that a fresh 21 year old knight lacks means to do.

That being said, I am a big proponent of giving each PK a couple of younger brothers about 5-7 years apart, just in case. This way there are some spares if the main char snuffs it early on.

Technically, if you want the knights to be 21 at the start of the year, they should turn 21 by the end of the previous year. It just barely works with 475 birth if they got married in the summer 474, so you might push the start to (late) 473 instead. But this is a detail that doesn't really matter all that much, and is something that KAP 5.2 ignores. But see my point 3.

2. The Marriage and the GPC Expansion are meant to be run at the same time. That bring said, you can adjust as you wish. There should be a thread here about starting in 480 with some advice.

Edit: here it is.

https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/13822-if-you-start-the-campaign-in-480-for-gms/#comment-216083

3. There shouldn't be any particular problem starting even earlier save that it will be that much longer before reaching Boy King. Also the events are somewhat simple in late 470s, possibly leading into some battle burnout. Finally by making the PKs older, you ate making it more likely that they will be higher in Glory and thus more likely to be killed in 495, and see my first point on that.

4. What published adventures should you play with GPC? My answer usually is: all of them. 🙂

39 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Yes, as I mentioned in my Edit, this is the same rule as in the core 3rd edition book. I only used the Chivalrous Knights system, which explains why I didn't remember the simpler one.

I checked the Book of Knights and Ladies, and it doesn't change the creation procedure for characters below 21, but let you use Winter phase rules for older ones. Which, I guess (as I don't own 5.2), include the possibility to raise a single skill to 20, like in 3rd edition.

Note that the option to raise a skill above 15 is in option 2, with personnality traits and passions.

Interestingly, 5.2 has this to say about the Previous Experience:
"Each additional year of age provides a character with any two of the following benefits; you may not choose the same benefit twice for the same year. (Note: These benefits are similar to, but not the same as those gained in the Winter Phase of the game — see Chapter 5.)"

You get two picks, but the opportunity to increase your skill above 15 is NOT included.

And yes, I agree with you that BoK&L does seem to allow for it: "That is, he can perform a solo scenario (See: Pendragon 5th ed., pgs. 199-204) and also get the annual Winter Phase experience (Pendragon, pgs. 106–111)."
Since the Winter Phase allows for the increase of skill up to 20 as one of the picks, I would imagine that they are allowed to do so.
 

12 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Was the option to focus on a single skill removed in 5.2 ? That sounds strange to me.

In 5.2, all the characters are generated as 21-year olds or older. In both cases, there is a hard cap on 15 (personally, I would allow older characters to break this).

Individual skill choices:
"No Skill or Combat Skill may ever be raised above 15 by this process."

Previous experience (if older than 21):
"Distribute 1d6 points among the character’s Skills. No non-Combat Skills with a starting value of 0 may be augmented, and no Skill may be raised above 15."

15 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

Sorry, my point is that the box set is listing a 'set of seven polyhedral dice’ which implies to me that they are going to be the standard D4, D6, D8, D10 (and D00), D12 and D20  used in other games. I hope they include just the dice that the game actually uses!

I will be absolutely flabbergasted if the set includes d4, d8, d10 and d12, since KAP does NOT use those dice.

I'd expect 2d20 and 5d6, just as a guess.

You can't start with Sword 20 as a 21-year old knight in 5.2. And I forget if the previous exp was also limited to 15. But Sword 15 and 6d6 is enough vs. 1e knights. Part of the reason is that SIZ was just 3d6 so average 10-11. Now even the Average Knight is SIZ 14.

4.5e (Saxons!, some of the Tales of) went actually for more high power, so some NPKs there can have all stats in the mid-to-late teens.

5 hours ago, stew31r said:

In character generation, you role up your extended family. My question is about where they live. Am I correct in my belief that unless you are paying for their upkeep, that they serve someone else and live in the hall of the person that they serve?

Correct. They are not your personal army unless they are literally your own household knights and that you pay for their upkeep. Which you cannot afford to do in the default 1-manor vassal knight start.

As to how far they are, many could be serving your liege lord but the farther they are in kinship, the more likely they are mercenary knights, traveling through Britain in search of employment. The nth cousin and the like.

17 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

Just out of curiosity, does the game need a set of polyhedral dice or just D20s and D6s?

Based on the Quickstart, the system hasn't changed that much, so just d20s and d6s.

This is also exactly how it was done in 3e: The basic rulebook had the designed 60 point method, Cymric only, and the advanced chargen with random rolling and other cultures were in Knights Adventurous.

4e is the exception, since it is just re-editing 3e + KA together into a single book.

Book of Knights and Ladies has the 5.x edition random attributes. So my guess is that 5.x just had the default non-random Salisbury Cymric chargen with the other chargen options as their separate book.