Morien

That was before BotW, though. We know that Uther has a personal domain of £2100 or so (BotW, BoU) and another £1900 from Royal forests (BoU). Who knows how much of the fee farm income he is keeping for himself, too? Presumably all of it, since otherwise it would be accounted for in the barons' income? In any case, his Standard of Living is at least £400, and another £400 Discretionary Funds, plus whatever of the fee farms. As for Arthur, it would not be strange if he has doubled or even tripled this domain via conquest of the Saxon lands and lands in the North, Cambria and Cumbria. So we might be easily looking at something in the £1000+ range for Standard of Living. If the maintenance of the clothes is simply paying the half the price, then it would just be £512 for the pair of them* to keep maintaining the upper tier clothing, or about half of the standard of living. This seems OK to me. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that they have just one item of clothing. Indeed, it is much more likely that this is their whole wardrobe, with dozens of outfits through the year. But it is a reasonable simplification, IMHO. If a PK has just ONE fine outfit that he is wearing everywhere, it is the same as the fashionistas today: 'oh, he is wearing that old thing again', they'd sniff. Thus, even if the PK would have a single outfit that would match a single outfit of what a Baron would wear, the bonus would still be counted from the whole wardrobe. YPWV, though. I don't expect that any PK would actually get this far in clothing. However, if the High King and Queen have just £64 in clothing for the pair of them, especially if half of that is coming from non-degrading jewelry, then this becomes something that even a PK can accomplish with their loot. And that feels a bit wrong to me, that a mere knight could outshine the High King himself. * EDIT: Except that since £1 is the knight's own clothing, this doesn't work... So the High King might be limited to £512 personally, £256 upkeep. I would imagine that most of the Discretionary Funds would go to things like hosting tournaments and feasts, rather than their personal clothing. This does mean that we'd probably need to bump everything above Ordinary down a level and remove Rich, most likely. OK, so it is more like: Fumble: Sitting with the squires Failure: Below the Salt Success: Near the Salt Critical: Above the Salt. In this case, the roll could be: (Glory/1000 + clothing mod)*3. This gives a starting knight a 'skill' of 4-5 or so, someone with 4000 a skill of 12, and someone with 8000 a skill of 24 (or more, likely having better clothing already). There is still a problem of the critical being a flat 5%, but I do like the house rule that we have about doing a confirmation roll on a critical (roll again, and it is a critical if you succeed a second time); this makes it much less likely that someone with skill 5 crits vs. someone with skill 12. We also use a fumble confirmation rule: roll again vs. skill-10, and if it is a success, it was just a fail, not a fumble.

You could do a Parvenu rule, too. But I don't think it is necessary. I think I'd make it so that Status is the main qualifier for the seating order (Kings before great barons, great barons before barons, barons before knights, knights before esquires, esquires before commoners). Then you can roll amongst the class (usually all PKs are knights of some sort, so it works out), based on Glory + Bling. More Bling, the more wealthy and hence important you are, is the assumption. More about this later. This leaves APP alone to decide the feast cards: APP/6, round normally, everyone gets to choose their action all at once, and then everyone who is drawing a card declares that they are drawing and take a card, reading it and deciding if they want to play it or draw another card if they can. If they choose to draw again, go ahead. (Atgxtg, I don't think this would slow down the game, since now there is just a binary choice after you have read ONE card. Play it or risk it and draw another one. This is faster than, say, reading three cards and deciding what to do.) If they cannot draw again, they have to play it. The GM can start sorting out the cards as soon as they are played, leaving other players to decide on their cards if necessary. (Note: I don't have BoF, so I don't know if there is usually a reversed Glory order or something to playing the cards.) As for the Bling, I think I would remove the whole jewelry thing and replace it with clothing, which degrades down to your Standard of Living (£1 = Ordinary). So if you are a knight with a £4 outfit and you are living as a Rich knight, you can't afford to restore it to its magnificence, and it degrades to £2. However, if you keep up being a Rich knight, that is as far as it drops: fixing it is accounted for by the standard of living, no extra cost. Now, it becomes very expensive to keep your bonuses up, especially since the cost now doubles for each +1... Clothing Value Mod Level 0.25 -4 Impoverished 0.5 -2 Poor 1 0 Ordinary 2 +1 Rich 4 +2 Superlative, Minor Estate Holder 8 +3 Spectacular, Banneret 16 +4 Minor Baron 32 +5 Baron 64 +6 Rich Baron 128 +7 Count, Duke 256 +8 Minor King (Escavalon, Estregales, Malahaut) 512 +9 King of Logres 1024 +10 High King, Emperor You could even make it so that if the lord in question doesn't have his fine clothing with him (he is questing), then the host('s herald) has to succeed in a Recognize/Heraldry check to correctly assign the status. Similarly, if someone walks in with very fancy clothing, the assumption might be that they are of higher rank than they are, if the Host (or his Herald) fail the roll. If I have understood the rules correctly from what people have said, being Below the Salt is a bit of an insult, so it shouldn't be too common. Thus, maybe the roll should be 15+Glory/1000+Clothing? This pretty much ensures that before 4000 Glory or so, good luck getting to Above the Salt (crit). Even then, it is going to be tough qualifying. However, once you are 8000+ Glory and regularly rocking Rich or better outfit, your chances are about 25% to get to Above the Salt. Seems about right to me. Note, I am assuming that the Feasts here are not dingy little family & friends gathering, but big ones, like Pentecost etc. If you are like in your Liege's court, I would toss the Glory roll out altogether; these people know what the internal pecking order is, so they would get seated in Glory order, unless the Liege has someone on his naughty list and wishes to express his displeasure like a mean girl: "No, Megan, this seat is already taken. Your seat is over there, with the other losers Below the Salt."

Naturally, if the widow doesn't have any kids to take care of herself, then she might have some more money to spend around. Well, when I say her, I do mean the guardian. I doubt that widows of a marriageable age stay on the shelf for long: they are pretty great for rewarding household knights with, giving them a chance for a family at very little extra cost for the liege. I also could see widows being quite common as ladies-in-waiting for the Wife of the Liege. Also, if the knight is unmarried (at the moment, could be a widower), then of course there is no need for a Lady's Maid, although he probably would spring for a wetnurse/nanny of some sort if he still has little kids. If he doesn't have kids, either, then he might be spending that £1.5 for a chaplain and some other hang-around follower worth £0.5.

How about doing it so that you are allowed to draw and discard one card at the time, rather than being able to draw the full hand and pick? And once you are in your last card, you HAVE to play it? So you first make a choice if you are trying one of the skills or if you are drawing a card. If someone with APP 6 - 11 would choose to draw a card, then s/he has to play whichever card s/he draws. Someone with APP 12-17 would draw one card, decide if s/he wants to play it, and if not, discard and draw a second card, which they MUST play. Someone with APP 18-23 gets to discard up to two cards, but has to play the third and so forth... This would give the High APP some buffer (unlikely to draw several bad events in a row), but make it possible for them to have bad events if they push their luck and get unlucky. I guess in this case, the number of cards could be increased a bit, which might make the limits a bit nicer. Such as 1 card per full 5 APP: APP 5-9 = 1 card, 10-14 = up to 2 cards, 15-19 = up to 3 cards, 20-24= up to 4 cards, 25-29: up to 5 cards. This way, lower than average APP (10) would have a clear downside, and it is possible to get to 4 cards if you are a Roman pretty boy. Of course, I am also of the opinion that the APP bonus from Bling should be, at best, a pyramid sum: +4 would cost: 1+2+3+4 =£10, not £4, and in order to get to +10, you'd need: 10+5+6+7+8+9+10 = £55. Then again, I would be happy to have it logarithmic, instead: +1 is £1, but each additional +1 is x2 the cost. So in order to get to +10, you need to multiply by 2^9 = 512 => +10 = £512. Something the High King and Queen might be decked out in, but probably no mere knight, and even Great Nobles might struggle to lay on so much bling.

Yep. My recommendation would be to start at 508, and hammer home a bit the pressure from the Saxons. This makes the eventual defeat of the Saxons by Arthur all the sweeter, too. I'd probably also make the Southern Saxons more active in 510-517, as in raiding Logres (not full scale invasions until Badon), since then the internecine fighting looks even more frustrating, and making the PKs more eager to bring the fight to the Saxons, instead. Also, I added a point 9. to the original post.

Atgxtg already gave a good response on why to is useful to know the income and even the distribution of the lands of the nobleman. After all, one of the big things during the Anarchy is that the outliers probably get gobbled up by the more powerful neighbors, so this sets up a possibility for the PKs to consolidate Salisbury's power over some of those pieces... while at the same time Salisbury likely loses its own outliers, diminishing the income. Also, having different liege lords provides a bit more of a chance of strife and escalation, as the conflicting knights owe allegiance to different lords. That being said, I think going into decimal digits was a step too far. Indeed, in our campaign, I operate mainly on the '1 manor = 1 knight' principle, assuming £10 manors. Granted, the improvements that the PKs have built on their manors means that they will differ from the £10 average, but as far as the NPCs are concerned, this is good enough for me. Personally, if I had the choice, I would rather have a map of Salisbury with all the manors mapped out, with a color code or something to signal who owns what, than a list of £YY.Y per hundred, or even per manor. The former is much more intuitive and easier to see whose lands might be exposed to what raid, while the latter is more of a perfectionist look, and which will get skewed as soon as the PK starts building something in his home hundred/manor. Having the Salisbury map of hundreds are better than nothing, bit not the ideal case, IMHO. Hence why I used the Salisbury manorial map during our campaign's Anarchy.

Well, I very much dislike the 'dad married an heiress' for various reasons: 1) It cheapens how easy it is to get an heiress (these guys managed one each, when they were still fresh out of knighting; at least KAP 5.2 added that their fathers' managed to be favored by the Count, although this might not get born out by the events of the history...) and hence established a very unfortunate precedent (at least here we have the Night of the Long Knives sorta giving an excuse why so many male family members got wiped out), 2) It cuts the manor off from the Family history, 3) It cuts the family off from patrilineal descent. In other words, if the 1st PK and his siblings die, his uncles and paternal cousins have no claim to the manor whatsoever, and furthermore... 4) Since Mom was a sole heiress, there won't be any legitimate maternal uncles or cousins to inherit it, either. (Where does it say, actually, that mom's father was specifically an officer to whom the manor was granted?) (Also, the Bride's Glory is way off. Since KAP 5.2 calls them Widows, they ought to be flat 1000 Glory each. Not that I agree with that approach, either. Widows are not tossed around willy-nilly, either.) In short, A Very Bad Idea, which is why we did not follow it in Book of Sires. Now, if it is a special case (like one or two of a larger group) to bring a foreign-born PK in at the start, sure, I will stomach it to allow wider backgrounds. But that it happened to all PKs' fathers who were already living in Salisbury? Why would we need to do this? As for 'well, we didn't quite earn it', I don't think that would enter into the thought process, really. Sure, if you are the liege's favorite and get favors and lands showered on you, you might elicit some jealousy and antipathy (Piers Gaveston & the Despensers come to mind). But if we go by KAP 5.2, clearly the intent is that Grandfather was favored by the Count who organized the marriage between the Father and the Mother. So Grandfather kinda 'earned' the manor for his kid. The problem here is that both the grandfather and the (old) Count died in 463 (at the latest for the Grandfather, who is very likely to snuff it before 450s, actually). Roderick himself is only 12 at this time, himself a minor, who would have very scant memories of the Grandfather (if any) and not be in a position of power to gift anyone anything, being a minor. Sure, you could insert Roderick's Mom there as a regent, which might work out. Shades of Ellen and Robert later... Other Barons & the King, mostly, as per BotW. There might be some vassal knights sprinkled around, too, owing fealty to these other barons.

Getting an heiress should not be easy, and the 1d20 is way too random. The new marriage table is in (revised) Entourage.

Greg's own thoughts are here: http://kapresources.wpengine.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-2091.html

Note that the 20 or so vassal manors would be INCLUDED to the 90-100 total manors held by the Count in Salisbury. @Uqbarianmakes a good point that once the PK manors have been assigned, the rest of them can be used for NPCs as desired. This also illustrates why the heiresses' lands are way too generous in KAP 5.2 and why Greg was revising them in preparation for Book of Salisbury.

No, it does not. See KAP 5.2, p. 78 for a more complete manorial map, or the link in previous post. Although as the discussion in there shows, even that map doesn't reflect BotW accurately. EDIT: I think the map legend got dropped off for some reason from Salisbury Map in BotW, p. 196-197. The barren trees are hundred court sites, not (necessarily) manors. The dotted circles with a spike on top are villages around the potential PK manors (KAP 5.2 p. 34 Current Home table & p. 78 map).

p. 38 is actually in error (need to add it to the errata; Ulfius' income & eschilles are off, too). Nor could you use it directly to go back to Salisbury, since as we see in p. 112 the exact land holdings of Roderick, the Count of Salisbury. Again, I just eyeballed it, but it should come to about £1000 in Salisbury for him, and about £600 outside of Salisbury. Thus, assuming £10 manors, the Count should hold about 100 manors in Salisbury and 60 manors elsewhere. Now, this doesn't actually tell us exactly how many manors total there is in Salisbury County, but given that Swans is about £70 and I am guessing Wereside is at least £100 as a (minor) barony (alternatively, Wereside is just part of the whole Barony of Wereside, which is possible as well, but I think the text supports reading it as more of a single entity), and we still have like 8 hundreds unaccounted for, it seems to me that 150 manors total would be a minimum value. Looking at the Salisbury map (p.13 and p. 196-197), Kingsguard and Ambrius are huge, comparable to Thorngate, which is about £100. Of course, size isn't everything, since Vagon Hundred is huge but according to p. 112, it actually provides very little income. Thus, it is very difficult to assign a clear value. Assuming the high values, we'd get about £300 for Wereside+Kingsguard+Ambrius, £130 for Swans+Studfold+Beautyfields, and £40 a piece for Hillfarm, Chalkhill, Milkfield and Mere, you'd end up with £590 + Count Salisbury's £1000 or so = £1590 = 159 manors (a £10). Now, that is of course just a quick and dirty way of doing it, but I'd be happy with ~150-160 manors in Salisbury, 100 of which are held by Count Roderick. 200 would be stretching it, though. You would need all the other 10 hundreds to be £100 each, which is simply too much. Actually, the £1000 for Count Roderick also includes all the hundred court profits and such, too. So you could probably knock about £100 off it, making it just 90 manors or so, and thus bring the total number of manors down to about 150 again, 60% of which (90) are held by the Count of Salisbury. For a more accurate answer, I think we will have to wait for the Book of Salisbury. EDIT: One caveat, though... The £1000 for 15 hundreds does not account for land held in those hundreds by other people, who are not vassals of the count. There is an entry like this in the Manors 1: "Bordermark: £12; Salisbury, Hillfort H.; £12 food render. £24 is held by Ludshall Castle (Sheriff ), £18 by Count Salisbury, £12 by Ramstown Manor." However, in the write-up of Count Salisbury's lands in p.112, we get: "Hillfort Hundred, Salisbury* £61.3", which is in clear contradiction of the previous £18 statement. Since p. 112 was one of the last things we worked on, I am much more confident in it being right, though. Still, it does mean that there is more wiggle room in the total number of manors. 200 manors still seems somewhat high to me, but if you wanted there to be that many manors in whole of Salisbury, it is your game. In our campaign? 120 or so, named and numbered from Thijs' fine map (which I posted in this thread: https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/10085-spoiler-maps-based-on-the-gpc-and-others/page/3/#comments ), which was based on the old 'x marks the spot' manorial map (KAP 5.2, p. 78). And yes, I don't care that it contradicts BotW. A fine map is worth more to me than the intricacies of the intertwined baronies in BotW...

Objection. It is actually 15 eschilles and a bit, but more importantly, not all those lands supporting the knights are in Salisbury. Quickly eyeballing, it is about £1000 in Salisbury, including recent conquests, not £1400. Also, I am not sure were you get the number 250 manors from? I am guessing you are basing it on the 25 hundreds that are within Salisbury (p. 12). Unfortunately, not every hundred equals £100, and indeed, they tend to be significantly less than this (just see the listing of them in Roderick's charter, just one is in three figures). I think I did a quick averaging of the total income of Logres divided by the number of hundreds, and it was closer to £50 per hundred. Which would mean about 125 manors in Salisbury, not 250, and about 100 of those would belong to Count Salisbury. About 20 of them would be vassal manors, the other 80 would be demesne manors (of the Count). Now, there is a small issue, which is that according to page 12, Roderick controls 15 hundreds, leaving 10 hundreds unaccounted for. If they are an average of £25 a piece, they are amongst the smallest hundreds we see. Indeed, Swans Hundred is almost £70, and Wereside has its own Baron, so one would assume at least £100. Thus, the average of £50 per hundred of Salisbury is probably an underestimate, and the true number of manors is probably at least 150, to prevent the remaining 8 hundreds from being too tiny. 250 seems too much, though.

OK, for some reason this didn't post... It is explained in Entourage as well. For simplicity, the division goes like this: £3.5 Widow's Portion: Widow and her children (from other marriages) £2, three foot soldiers £1.5 (stationed at the manor still, most likely). £6.5 left to whoever inherits the manor: Knight & family (incl. horses and squire) £6, Lady's Maid £0.5. Naturally, if the knight is childless, then there is money left over for a Chaplain, otherwise the knight has to rely on the village priest for religious guidance (alas, the village priest is likely illiterate himself, too).

How about flipping the uses of Glory & APP? Glory determines your seating (as it should), and APP determines on how many cards you get to draw: Beautiful People get more opportunities to choose from. Edit: Also, it means that the Ugly People are more boorish, since if they pull a bad card, that is what they end up with.

You know, I am really tempted to come up with some rules to 'play' through the Book of Sires, rather than just roll 1d20.I mean, there are a few built-in decision years, but it might be fun to come up with some mini-game where you could actually roll the Grandfather's & Father's skills and passions more. Granted, that might also be a bit limiting in a way, a the current random d20 will give full reign to imagination. Did the Grandfather get lucky when he performed Heroically in Battle X, or was he a born badass? Anyway, I am just thinking that it might give a bit more of an oomph to the backstory if the whole group gets together and plays (rolls) out the Grandfather's history during one session and Father's during the next one, and only then make their own characters. See what intersection points there are between the various ancestors, did they meet at the court of Vortigern back in the day? Did they fight in some of the same battles? The fathers are very likely to fight in the March of Aurelius, although it is not a sure thing, either.

I'll whole-heartedly echo GPC. For me, Book of the Entourage would be an obvious second choice. I am hearing very nice things about the Book of Feasts (save for some issues of Glory inflation, if the feasts happen often), so if you like to add something to spice up your Spring Court, it might be worth it. As Jeff said, the usability of Book of Sires depends a lot on what you are planning to do with your campaign. It is an excellent resource for family history, especially if you have characters coming outside of Salisbury, or if you are setting the game some where other than Salisbury. Or if you are intending to play a prequel campaign in the sub-Roman Britain, with Vortigern and Saxons arriving and all that stuff. (Full disclosure: I also worked extensively with Bob on that book, so I am somewhat biased. ) I would not bother updating KAP 5.1 -> 5.2, as it was mainly a layout update, with very limited corrections. You are fine with 5.1. Book of Manor is superseded (and quite well) by Book of the Estate, which fixes many loopholes and balancing issues with BoM. Worth picking up if base-building is a thing you like to do, but not really essential for the game. I prefer Book of Warlord over the Book of Uther. I don't think Book of the Knights & Ladies has been updated... I hear that there is an update in the works, though. As I dislike both Book of Battles and Book of Armies, I cannot offer you advice on those... I don't recall when Book of Battles was updated to BoB2, and I am not sure BoA has been updated ever. Some more stuff in here: https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/9244-prioritizing-the-5th-edition-supplements/

This is a bit of a compilation thread to offer some advice for people who are new to Pendragon. Feel free to post your own if you feel like it, but here are some of the main things I'd tell new people: 0. Have Fun! When it is all said and done, the main thing is to have fun. If you misread a rule but had fun playing, it is all good. If you made sure that the rule was correct but the game was miserable, was it really worth it? That being said, since the rules are the 'physics engine' of the game, it is necessary for the GM to strive to be consistent in their rulings. It is better to be upfront about it with the players, too, if you made a mistake or need to change a rule. But even better if you have thought about all the rules you might want to tweak before the game begins (see my point 7. about my own house rules). 1. What books are required and which order should you buy them? My full answer is in this thread: https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/9244-prioritizing-the-5th-edition-supplements/ In short: KAP 5.2 (with some fixes) and GPC is all you NEED. Now, I am very fond of Entourage, especially the marriage tables within and rules to make the NPC wives a bit more interesting (alas, you still need to come up with the personalities on your own), but you don't absolutely NEED it. I also think that KAP 5.2 + GPC Expansion 480 - 484 + The Marriage of Count Roderick (which is free, see below) would make for a decent starter pack to test the game out, with GPC left for later, although it needs to be noted that GPC Expansion was not written to be newbie-friendly. Also, don't forget the free stuff: The Marriage of Count Roderick: https://www.chaosium.com/content/FreePDFs/Pendragon/NM14 - Marriage of Count Roderick.pdf Quest of The Red Blade: https://www.chaosium.com/we-are-all-us-free-adventures/ The Dragons of Britain #1 - #4: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/121452/The-Dragons-of-Britain-1 Oh, also note that there are BIG changes between KAP 5.2 and Book of Knights & Ladies chargen (especially cultural speciality skills and the Luck Tables, which are much much more generous than in KAP 5.2, both of which I personally dislike). So the GM will need to sit down and make up their mind which book and chargen method to use, since having some players use one and others use another is a bad idea. 2. You should fix Childbirth and Child Survival in KAP 5.2, ASAP. The first and the most important thing to fix in KAP 5.2, IMHO, is Childbirth and Child Survival in Winter Phase. The full thread and reasoning, as well as some quick fixes, is here: https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/10315-childbirth-and-child-survival-moriens-recommended-quick-fix/. Also, check with the players how realistic you wish to play these things, as these are potential trigger issues. It might be that they prefer to not deal with death in childbirth & child survival, in which case, just roll 11+ on 1d20 and congrats, your wife gave birth to a child, who will survive to adulthood. Skip next year and then continue rolling again from 2nd year onwards. 3. Quick explanation of the manor and income of a vassal knight The standard (average) manor is valued at £10. The knight sees £7 of this: £6 to support himself, his horses, his squire, his wife* and children**, and £1 per year to spend as he wishes. The rest of the money goes to pay for a chaplain, a lady's maid for the wife, and three foot soldiers. Any additional manor adds 1 household knight, 3 foot soldiers, +£1 to maintenance of the family and +£1 to spending money. That is all you need to know. Anything else, you want Book of the Estate. * If he is unmarried (or a widower), he will need a steward to look after the manor. Cost is £1 per year, so no savings for not having a wife. ** However, if he is childless as well, he can add an extra £1 to his spending money per year (so £2 per year). 4. And the next thing we do, is revise the Heiresses One of the VERY common 'mistake' I see new GMs doing is using the Heiresses in the KAP 5.2 book as the default wife candidates. They are not that (see my rant in the following link, omitted here for brevity). Also, the manors they have in KAP 5.2 reflects the older, much common abundance of vassal knight manors than the newer* BotW & BotE. Hence, Greg was revising them here: http://kapresources.wpengine.com/Pendragon%20Forum%20Archive/index.php/t-2091.html * KAP5.2 is actually newer than BotW & BotE, but it was mainly a layout improvement, with quite limited 'fixes' otherwise. This, amongst some others, were not corrected. 5. Speaking of Inheritance (of land) and Widow's Portion Each manor follows the bloodline of the family. The eldest son gets everything. In the case of heiresses, it is THEIR eldest son, not the husband's, who inherits HER manor. If the eldest son is dead, his children (if he had any) would still inherit before other brothers/siblings. If he was childless, then it is the 2nd eldest brother who gets it all (or his children if he is already dead). If there are no brothers nor their children, then it is the sisters' turn, and they share equally. Any children of already predeceased sister would inherit their mother's share, as per normal. Widow's Portion is is 1/3rd of the husband's lands (if he was landed), gifted to the widow for life to help to support her and her children in proper style. The Liege Lord appoints a guardian (default: himself) and it is he who collects the income from the Widow's Portion, and ensures that the Widow and the children are maintained properly. If the Widow remarries, the husband collects the Widow's portion. For simplicity, assume that the Widow's portion is £3.5 of the £10 manor, of which £1.5 go to maintaining the 3 foot soldiers for the army, and remaining £2 goes to supporting the Widow and her children. This leaves £6.5 to whoever inherits the manor, which is not ideal. It is just enough to support a knight (with squire & family) and a Lady's Maid for the wife, but those 3 foot soldiers are already paid from the Widow's portion, so there is that. 6. Chivalry Bonus ought to be 96, not 80 Word of Greg himself: http://kapresources.wpengine.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-1306.html Personally, I like the tiered system (see my house rules, link below). 7. Here are my house rules. Have fun. Here is a link to my house rules: https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/10356-moriens-house-rules/?tab=comments#comment-153611. They work for us in our campaigns. Maybe they'll work for you too. EDIT: Since there were also a couple of 8A. and 8B. suggestions, I am numbering this as 9. 9. Starting a campaign (specifically at 480 instead of 485, but valid for all starting times, actually) Here is a link to an advice I wrote in the old Nocturnal Forums on starting a campaign in 480 instead of 485. However, there are some other points there as well, such as why it might be a good idea to keep the PKs' fathers around for a bit longer rather than kill them off before the start, and also, why it is a very good idea to tweak the PK's family trees to give them a couple of younger brothers. http://kapresources.wpengine.com/Pendragon%20Forum%20Archive/index.php/t-2552.html EDIT3: Updated link to this Forum: https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/13822-if-you-start-the-campaign-in-480-for-gms/ EDIT2: Here are a couple of links to the old Nocturnal Forum archives, where I wrote a quick Pendragon Primer and some chargen advice for my players: Pendragon Primer: https://greathall.chaosium.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-2161.html Advice for chargen: https://greathall.chaosium.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-2162.html EDIT4: 10. Revise the family knights. In short, Greg felt that the section was better cut, as players were using them as their personal army, and while I don't think that there should not be any family knights, I agree that the current presentation and generation system are not good. Here is a link to a thread where this issue is discussed: https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/10410-upkeep-for-family-knights/#comment-154791

Yep. "GIFTS, REWARDS, AND LOOT". It is used whenever the ancestor manages to get lucky with loot or rewards while you are rolling the family history.

Also, I just noticed that in this thread: http://kapresources.wpengine.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-2091.html Greg gives Lady Indeg's age as 45. So my assumption is that she is intended to be out of the childbirth pool by the Word of Greg.

I wasn't involved with the sausagemaking when K&L came out, so I can't comment on that. My 2 denarii... 5.2 table is too little (mostly), K&L is too much, so BoS table is just about right for me. Granted, if your game is more high in magic, then K&L might be more your style. Me, I prefer a bit more mundane take. Like Atgxtg, I dislike the swinginess of K&L tables, and some of the stuff there is simply game-breaking (for example: Tooth of St. Germanus).

Quick googling: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/felt Old FrenchEdit EtymologyEdit Proto-Germanic *faluz, cognate with felon. Adjective fel m (oblique and nominative feminine singular fele) evil vile; despicable quotations ▲ circa 1170, Chrétien de Troyes, 'Érec et Énide': "Fui!" fet Erec, "nains enuiieus! Trop es fel et contraliieus.["] "Flee" said Erec "pesky dwarf! You are too vile and maddening"

Yep, I misread in haste. A very easy heraldry mistake to make at a glance. Although one would imagine that the good count has scores of knights vouching that he was holding court at Sarum/someplace else at the time of the murder. But he would definitely want to know what knave is going around bearing his arms and committing these crimes.

Wouldn't matter, for your character. Indeg's two manors are for Indeg's blood-relatives, her own (future) children first, not her husbands' families (since she has no children with the husbands'). The Widow's Portion manors go back to the husbands' families, even if the husbands' were childless. If there are NO heirs (in either case), then the manors escheat to the Liege. Good luck getting them; he has plenty of deserving household knights to reward, too... You are quite welcome!

Yep, this too. Didn't we talk about NPK thresholds when the book came out? I distinctly remember that, but I am too lazy to look for the link.