Morien

And to Khanwulf's point, Riothamus is also NOT Ambrosius / Aurelius in SIRES, either. That being said, you could easily enough send Aurelius to a continental campaign in 470 with Riothamus, and have Aurelius survive. You could even rename Riothamus to something else, and then pretend that your Aurelius is the Riothamus who gets his ass handed to him in Gaul, only that Aurelius survives the debacle. This would presumably cause some ripple effect on 471 and 472, since one would imagine Aurelius' prestige and manpower would take a hit, too. YPWV, as Greg was fond of saying.

Bigger issue for SIRES is that Riothamus is NOT Ambrosius in SIRES, but the King of Domnonie. His death allows Idres to seize power in Domnonie and Cornwall, and also kicks off a war between Idres and Gorlois, without which you don't have the Duchy of Cornwall in its full extent, including Tintagel. So what this would mean in short term is that Britain would be stronger against the Saxons in 470s, since there is no side war going on in Cornwall, and Riothamus is instead a loyal ally. There is also less of a need for a war in Brittany, meaning that Riothamus would be able to rebuild his army much better. But whether this would be enough to tilt odds, who knows? Aurelius is more reactive than proactive in most of 470s, save for the Frisian campaign, which is already a success. The Cornish troops might not make a big difference, if they even get to the battlefield in time. It would be easy enough to kill Riothamus off by 480 at the latest and kick off the Cornish War then, a decade out of date. The only problem here is that Uther has no love for Gorlois, so he might step in earlier to try and rein Gorlois in.

In SIRES, Vortimer had pretty much won in 462, before he died. He was declared King of Logres by his supporters, and probably could have made that stick. If Aurelius would have chosen that time to throw his weight behind Vortimer, too, they definitely could have taken Vortigern out. The bigger problem was if they'd start fighting each other instead. One thing to keep in mind... Vortimer had been the hero of the British resistance through 450s. Aurelius was raised in Brittany and didn't even set foot on British soil until 466. This was probably why Aurelius bided his time in the Continent, knowing that all that anti-Vortigern sentiment was behind Vortimer, not Aurelius. But Aurelius did have the support of Brittany, not an insignificant power base to tilt the odds. So riffing from Jeff's suggestion, a marriage of Aurelius and Madron (I forget if this was the spelling we used in SIRES), with Aurelius either a co-king, or more believably, Vortimer's successor, would work nicely. Vortimer can die later, either in battle against Saxons or of natural causes, and you have Aurelius rising to High Kingship no problem. The marriage of Aurelius and Madron can be childless, and thus the Kingship of Logres goes to Uther, while the Vortigernids have an additional reason to oppose Uther's rise to High Kingship. Under this scheme, there probably isn't the Night of the Long Knives (since Vortimer is strong enough not to need a peace conference), although if that would happen anyway, Vortimer would probably die there and things get reset to the original timeline with Aurelius invading in 466. Although if you really want to screw with players' expectations, you could have Aurelius joining Vortimer at Stonehenge and both of them getting slain there. Leaving Uther as the standard bearer for the line of Constantin, making for a very bloody, and interesting, threeway war between Vortigern (and Paschent) vs. the Saxons vs. Uther.

Hi all. I was wondering if I could get those of you who have bought and used Book of Sires to share your results in a quick study. In short, I am curious to find out the birth and death year (and maybe cause of death?), and Glory of the Grandfathers and the Fathers. Starting homeland would be nice, too, since that does have some impact (more peaceful regions -> fewer battles -> less glory but longer lifespans, on average). Thanks to the way Book of Sires is set up, with nested tables (if you roll this, then roll that) that change year to year, and some additional IF-THEN statements and choices, it is laborous to automatize as a code, since you pretty much have to type in each year and table... It is doable, but it would take me time I am not willing to put into it. Instead, I am hoping that people who have actually rolled through the family histories could list their results, and I could just chuck them into an excel file and play around with it there. As an example: Salisbury Grandfather (413 - 445, Killed by raiders) 1897 Glory Salisbury Father (438 - 471, Illness) 2565 Glory

Here is an interesting What-If... What if Vortimer hadn't rebelled? What if the tribes would have simply muttered and bided their time? And once Vortigern dies of old age, then who better to follow him than Vortimer? Thus a unified Cymric coalition kicking the Saxons out, or at least limiting their influence. Vortimer's first rebellion failed because there was still a large proportion of Loyalists/Neutrals behind Vortigern, while his rebellion mostly included the Saxon Shore tribes, in particular the Cantii. We can see that he had much better luck with his second rebellion, but there was still a large group of Loyalists, even after the Night of the Long Knives. Anyway, my point is, without that large Loyalist Block behind Vortigern and Vortimer's death robbing the unifying figurehead from the Rebel side, there would not have been need for the 'peace conference' at Stonehenge. Hence no Night of the Long Knives, and no triumphant return of the Sons of Constantin. Or it could have gone another way, with Hengest and Rowena throwing their support behind Paschent instead, and pitting brother against brother... leading to a peace conference... "Nemet oure saxas!"

The Fortified Motte values that Atgxtg reported are in v1.3.2, too. So it is not a version issue, this time around. However, it might be a legacy issue... Let me check an earlier version... Yeah, v1.2 is even worse, when it comes to math errors. But funnily enough, it counts up to 8 for fortified motte, by mistaking Ditch for 2 (instead of 3 alone) and Palisade 2 (instead of 3 alone). Neither version would give 11, so something is off here. Personally, I'd be happy enough to handwave the difference and have it as 12, but the Atgxtg's option of saying that the Motte supersedes the 'rampart' part of the Ditch and Rampart, and hence together they are just 2+4=6 instead of 3+4=7, would work for me, too. And heck, that is exactly what your example just said: Ditch (2) instead of Ditch & rampart (3). So the problem is simply that ESTATE doesn't list Ditch by its own, and uses Ditch & Rampart instead, with the Motte.

6299? That doesn't sound right... The absolute maximum this Grandfather should have is: 300 (inherited) + 1000 (knighted) + 200 (vassal knight) + 400 (married) + 180 (9d20 from previous years) + 180 (Battle of Carlion) + 1000 (heroic death at Carlion) = 3260. How did you get to 6299??? That aside, I am actually curious about the whole distribution of Glory of the PK ancestors, not just the highest one. How much did the other PK ancestors get?

I generally let the Hate die with the hated person's demise. I mean, by the time the PKs themselves are forming memories (5+ years), the boogieman is Hengest and his Saxons, not Vortigern. Sure, Paschent comes back in 479, but he dies in 480, so very little potential interaction with PKs. By the time Cerdic comes around, Hate Saxons is probably more alive and well than Hate Vortigern. But I would definitely entertain the idea of giving a PK whose father fought against Vortigern (especially if there was Hate Vortigern at any level) a directed trait: Suspicious of Cerdic. But again, I think Hate Saxons would taint that well already. Vortigern's line is a bit more problematic, as both the kings of Escavalon and Powys trace their lineage back to Vortigern via Vortimer and Katigern, respectively. And those guys were heroes, as far as most of the Cymri are concerned. Finally, I have a GM's objection to people getting Glory for Passions that are defunct. That being said, I WOULD allow a player to carry Love Wife in the character sheet as a reason for the PK to refuse to remarry. That way, there is a cost and behavior associated with the Passion. Hate Vortigern, alas, would not make the cut for me. There simply isn't the Loyalist-Rebel split anymore after Vortigern's death. The most hardcore loyalists already die during 466 - 468, and the rest are happy enough to unite against the Saxons.

No, I don't use BoB. Most of the GPC battles are scripted anyway, so it tends to matter less on the whole battle scale what the PKs are doing. Instead, I try to focus on giving them 1 heroic extended melee per battle, whether helping/rescuing their liege or trying to take down an enemy commander (usually not the whole army commander!). The rest of the battle I pretty much just roll player eschille leader Battle vs. 15, to see if they manage to get/keep the initiative, or even gain an advantage, or if they are fighting at a disadvantage. If they have the initiative (i.e. win the Battle), they are free to maneuver, or go after a preferred enemy unit. If they lose the initiative (i.e. lost battle), then I might roll a random enemy unit from my own lists or just assign enemy knights to charge them (especially if they failed Battle vs. enemy success in Battle). In smaller, non-scripted battles, I might roll the PKs' battalion (wing) commander's Battle vs. his opposite as well as the Army commanders' Battle, and use those rolls to craft a narrative of the ebb and flow of the battle. Which then the PKs get a chance to interrupt/ameliorate with their heroics. For instance, in a battle vs. Essex, one wing of the Salisbury-Cornwall army broke, but PK heroics by knocking out the enemy prince (who was also the battalion commander) was enough to turn the rout into a mere hasty retreat, as the Saxon advance stalled at the unconsciousness of their leader. I also wrote up this thing: http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?1919-Variant-battle-system&p=16334&viewfull=1#post16334 But to be honest, I tend to go more for eyeballing the PK impact, crafting it more into the story. As an example, at the Battle of Terrabil, the important fight was the grudge match between then-Prince Mark (de facto ruler of Salisbury due to his marriage to Countess Ellen) and the Praetor* of Levcomagus, Sir Gnaeus, who had married Lady Jenna during the Anarchy and now claimed Salisbury as his by the right of his wife, since Robert had died. The PKs supported Prince Mark, and they ALMOST managed to kill the Praetor (already in negative hit points), which would have change the course of the campaign. But in the end, a young no-name knight managed to take down three PKs one after the other, and was promptly named by the players as Sir Noob. Anyway, the survival of the Praetor & Arthur's victory meant that Salisbury was given to the Praetor, who had absolutely no love left for his would-be killers. Fortunately now-King Mark came through for his loyal knights with LOTS of money as ransom, and after they were stripped of their lands and exiled from Salisbury, King Mark welcomed them to Cornwall. * In our campaign, Levcomagus is quite heavily Roman in culture, and hence a Praetor seemed like a better title than a common Steward. Sir Gnaeus started out as another young knight in 485, engaging in reciprocal border skirmishing with the PKs, until the Anarchy gave him the chance to take over the Praetorship with some adroit and timely Royal treasury seizing. He proceeded to conquer part of Salisbury in the chaos of 495, until the PKs negotiated a marriage alliance, and agreed to call those manors 'dowry'. This alliance was then put under strain with Salisbury's alignment with Cornwall, and relations went really down the tubes from mid-500s onwards, what with a few Cornwall-Saxon raids and sieges on Levcomagus.

Correct. Quick and easy, which means that we can focus more on duels and other feast events. This does show some of my bias as the GM, since I find the Grand Melee (or any other tournament combat) extremely boring, since usually, there are no stakes. And if there are real ransom stakes, then suddenly it becomes way too important, and it takes the whole session to work out. Rather than doing questing or moving the big plot forward.

I thought about that, but then he would not be part of the rest of the eschille, as they are dashing to and fro on their horses. The whole idea of the tournament grand melee is to try to be a mock battle, and the knights are primarily cavalry (at least until bows and bills become a thing...).

Yes, juha already reported this a month ago. What happened was that the corrected paragraph (whilst doing final tweaks on the manuscript) got accidentally pasted over the first paragraph of 467 in p. 240, rather than rewriting the first paragraph of 468. David is aware of it and it will be fixed in the errataed pdf, once that comes out.

No, the fires are connected with the siege of Vortigern's tower, and the burning of it, which happens in 468.

That River Parrett death is exactly why there is the Get Out Of Death -option. Alternatively, I would have allowed the player to start rerolling from 439 again, just so he doesn't get so bored. Out of curiosity, what were the Glory totals the Grandfathers and Fathers ended up with?

Correct. Whatever their preferred melee weapon is. Although I would limit it to weapons that they can actually wield from horseback (i.e. one-handed weapons). I have now clarified this in the initial post. One of the dangers of just copy-pasting my own GM notes without checking.

Here are the simple house rules rules I use to quickly resolve our yearly Pentecostal Grand Melee. 1. (Eschille) Leader rolls Battle vs. Battle 15. (While I have not implemented it yet, this could modify the other three skills, below. Giving bonuses to PKs is dangerous, since it can easily push them into the critting territory, which unbalances things severely. So perhaps just give the losing side a -5 modifier, if the difference is larger than one step: success vs partial = 0, success vs fail or critical vs partial = -5, success vs fumble or critical vs fail = -10. This would make successes much more common for the winning side, without pushing them straight into Criticals.) 2. Everyone rolls Horsemanship, Lance and Melee*, vs. 15. (* Melee weapon skill of their choice, although I would limit it to one-handed weapons, i.e. Sword, Spear, Axe, Mace, Hammer, that they can use from horseback.) 3. Each success grants 20 Glory, including Battle, and Criticals net 60 (vs. partial success) or 120 (vs. failure, you did very well!). 4. Partial success gives 10 Glory, Failure 5 Glory and Fumble 0 Glory. If opposition roll was a critical, downgrade the PK's result by one, as far as Glory is concerned. On Lance and Sword, roll Damage as normal (7d6 lance, 5d6 sword), but anything through the armor is halved, unless the PK fumbled, in which case the damage is not halved. Note also that opposition critical roll increases the damage as per usual. First Aid can be used on these 'bruises' as if they are a single wound each. On a fumbled Horsemanship, the PK falls off his horse and takes 1d6 falling damage. The same system can be used for smaller, regional tournaments, but the Glory amounts should be halved.

Yep, that is correct. The 1d20 per year is intended to just be the generic event glory for the years we don't follow more closely.

No, that 9d20 represents the 9 years from 430 to 438, for which we don't give yearly events. Then the yearly events start and the grandfather survives as long as he survives.

Heh. I had 2,866 posts on the old Nocturnal Media Forum. I have some catching up to do! I like talking about KAP and being helpful, so yeah, I pretty much stick my nose into whatever thread is open, if I think I can contribute something useful.

But not necessarily one that they'd pick... Yes, at the starting skill value of 5, as per BoK&L. This is a reasonable way of doing it, too. I would apply the Father's Class modifiers, as per Stewardship, though. A daughter of a merchant should know less about defending a castle than a daughter of a baron. EDIT: Actually, refreshing my memory about how the skill assignment works in ENTOURAGE, I think we are actually on the same page here: Fashion/Siege doesn't automatically improve to 10, but remains at 5. I think this switch you propose is a very good one. This also means that the Stewardship modifier is probably a bit too harsh: halving it seems to give more reasonable numbers.

I'd say no. High Siege skill is not that common, unless (or even if) the wife happens to be a Chatelaine (female Castellan). Certainly not all 20 year old ladies have it at 10! Even in the GPC example, Lady Jane has Siege of 3, despite defending an actual castle. (BoK&L has Cymric Ladies starting with Siege 5, Siege 2 in Romance and after.) However, if it would fit the lady's background (she has been defending the family castle against Saxons for some years now) then I would consider allowing Siege as one of the three picks. But this would be very extenuating circumstances. Otherwise, I would be happy for them to have Siege 5 and increase it if they are actually using that skill in game.

Book of Sires has your back on this. It is scalable to whatever starting year up to 510, as long as you are in Logres. It explicitly supports starting years 480 (Book of Uther) and 485 (GPC). If you are using Book of Sires, I very much would recommend putting aside a session to run it more or less as a prequel for the players, even before they make their actual PKs. This helps to ground them in the history of their homeland(s). Note that it is quite easy to have families starting from all over, and ending up in the same place (Salisbury) for the campaign start, which gives it a lot more flexibility compared to the KAP 5.2. That being said, if you don't have Book of Sires, you can make do with KAP 5.2 for a Salisbury campaign. The main events are still there, and it is easy enough to push the births of PK and the Father back by 5 years. No biggie.

No worries, good luck with GMing! We are now in 521 (second playthrough for me as the GM, a (mostly) new group).

Hmm. I see it now. No KAP category, though. I guess it would go to Historical - Other...

enora.dk hosted some of my stuff but alas, I am not web-savvy myself. drpendragon.com is Thijs' site, and the knight & warlord generators there are based on generator we did together for Book of the Warlord. I think this place allows for attachments, so let me go back to my files and start a new thread with some random wives for you to use in your campaign... EDIT: Note that these wives are based on my own wife generator and are not fully compatible with the system in ENTOURAGE. I have been thinking about making a generator for the ENTOURAGE system, but thus far, I have not mustered the will. EDIT2: I decided to just attach them here. The titles of the txt files should be obvious, with 'random' and 'vassal' referring to the father's class. The number row is just a number going 1 - 1000, so if you roll 1d1000, you can easily find the lady in question. See this old thread in the Nocturnal Forum for more: http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?1939-Wife-candidate-generator&p=16504&viewfull=1#post16504 1000_cymric_christian_wives_random.txt 1000_cymric_pagan_wives_random.txt 1000_cymric_pagan_wives_vassal.txt 1000_cymric_christian_wives_vassal.txt 1000_roman_christian_wives_vassal.txt 1000_roman_christian_wives_random.txt