Jump to content

Luca Cherstich

Regulars
  • Content Count

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Luca Cherstich

  1. OK! It seems like the whole situation is messy enough in terms of published events that I can change what I dislike as much as I want without conflicting with anything in the GPC (at least with this version of the GPC....only God know what the future 4-volumes GPC will tell about it). I just hope next KAP edition will have some form of better Gazeteer or Atlas for each time-period (maybe one per each of the 4 GPC volumes).
  2. @Morien thanks a lot for the information. That's some good material for being inspired to create a story.
  3. As per title, does anybody knows what happens to the "Marche" after the Uther period? Do we have any published names for Heirs and/or Sons of the Duke?
  4. Listen, I'll stop using whatever word you feel it's offensive but, please, I never accused anybody of "moaning" and "whining" only because they have different opinions.
  5. If the word "she-knight" is insulting I beg your pardon. I'll stop using it. As a non-native English speaker (and maybe also as a non-English/non-American, living in a different context, where these issues are felt in a way more relaxed way) I did not realize the amount of sexist offense that word implies for you. From now onwards I'll call them "female knights" but, frankly, I do not feel I'll speak again about it soon,, since tones here have been over-exagerated on that topic. It is not really worth discussing it anymore. On the other hand, if you really thin
  6. That would be awesome. I agree with so many of Atgxtg's arguments on female knights, but I also accept as a matter of fact that my opinion will not change that part of KAP 6. And KAP6, from the few other details thus far revealed, really seem to be an interesting book to have (I'll just keep on ignoring those odd she-knights at my table). Therefore, let try to focus on other details! And, in that sense, I really hope that the game will give more opportunities for "traditional" Ladies to be played in canonical female roles, but also having more options than just that Industr
  7. Thanks a lot! Any news about the Book of Castles?? ( Maybe @sirlarkins ??) I've been waiting for that book since forever!!
  8. It depends on how many female knights NPC we will see in future books and future GPC. Furthermore, if all options are open, it would be nice if KAP6 would also expand on the bad and messy consequences on having common "fighting dames" in your pseudo-medieval Logres (inheritance, childbirth, inherited glory etc...) like Atgxtg was explaining above.
  9. Off course They Should tell people to play KAP as they like with knights of whatever gender or sexual preferences they like. However, if your read above that she-knights will start now to be common in Salisbury. That's definitively a change about the default approach. While, at least for me, the default should be the old Traditional approach which was in Mallory as well as in all the old chivalric literature (knights are men, with some unique, quite special female warriors). And, more than anything else, if we start seeing important NPCs changing gender in the GPC, that could b
  10. So, the game will present us options.... But it is clear that the default expectations about female knights is changed. One question about the setting: will this change affect also the new, revised multi-volumes GPC and the NPCs there? All the barons and knights in the GPC are obviously male (as they should traditionally be), will you change that? And, furthermore, will we have for example something like starting PKs been trained by some Old Dame She-Knight instead than good old Sir Elad?
  11. People should be free to play as they like, even with a whole female knights group of warrior dames married to calm gentlemen peacefully tending their manors at home... But the genre is what it is, with its strict genderized Male Knights/Female Ladies paradigm. I just fear that the assumed default will be changed.
  12. Listen...I'm old-style, and I feel that female knights are completely contradicting the genre that this game evokes. I feel that 5th edition did a great work explaining the traditional/non-traditional mode. Warrior women should be exceptional individuals, as they are throughout all European chivalric literature ....but I know many people play KAP with male/female knights at a 50/50 rate. And I have not problem with everybody playing as they like at their tables...as far as female knights / warrior dames do not become taken for granted as common in the core rules. That doubl
  13. Need time to properly consider this but the Pre-made PCs now have "arming swords", and we got "aketon" counted separated from "Coat of Plates" and "Great Helm"....that's interesting!!! The new Passion Results seem also to make sense. Thanks! I'm less enthustiastic on the she-knight on page 19 ... By the way, I'm eager to learn and read it properly when the book will be published!!
  14. I have done the same thus far, but I kind of like the way it standardize the Vow and not fulfilling it. Maybe I should have a look at it....thanks!
  15. I bought a pdf copy of Saxons! I know it's an old edition, and I know it is supposed to be mostly for playing Saxons....but I found a couple of very interesting rules, and I was wondering about how (and IF) to incorporate them into my regular KAP games, or whether it is worth to. The first rule is about "lineage" which seems like a great idea for Cymric and Roman knights too (Saxons! p.67-69, 127 and 136). I like the way it gives you some "recognition" of your ancestors, some glory per year and possibility to lose such a connection is some other families claim to have a bett
  16. I found this Homebrw system, maybe I can integrate it into the Estate siege system, just to create some variety and open up to PC's roles in the siege. I've yet to properly work on it and really think about it but, for the moment, I kind of like it. https://chivalry-is-magic.obsidianportal.com/wikis/siege-rules
  17. So, do you integrate Intensity into the months-long siege? Or is Intensity only relevant to the specific assault?
  18. Thank you all for all these suggestions, it looks like I'll have to take inspiration from multiple sources and try to make a system of my own, summarizing different things. I would like to keep the Siege skil, as well as a level of compatibility with Book of Estate/Warlord, etc. In this sense, I've noticed a certain difference about how DV is dealt in different books. The GPC and Estate/Warlord, for example, have totally different DV values. - A Motte & Bailey in the GPC page 16 has DV 5/3 - However, a Motte & Bailey in Estate p.81 has DV 5/11/2 (and the
  19. I love castles and I love sieges, and Castles under sieges are one of the most dramatic setting to play a great story....but unfortunately KAP rules does not really help in this sense. We've been waiting for Book of Castles for ages (and that's really the book in which I'm most interested in!)....but since this is bound to happen only after KAP 6, I guess that another 1-3 years will pass before we see Book of Castle... In the meanwhile, what Homerules on Sieges do you use? I mean the mechanics in GPC or Estate for Siege are easy.....but far too quick and too simple for my tastes
  20. In Book of Uther there's a lot of tinkering, trying to change some details of the GPC chronology. I frankly like some of the events (like the bloody crowning of Aescwine in 487), however I feel there are also some errors. Page 114 In 485 "Caercolun is occupied by Saxons", and I feel this is OK. In 486 "All of Caerwent, farm and forest, falls to the Saxons". QUESTION: is this second event an error??? Is King Aescwine really conquering not just Caercolun but ALL the Caerwent region (which means also the area which in 500 will be invaded by the Angli)? The GPC maps f
  21. I agree. After thorough thinking I decided to ignore the rule. I can maybe apply it to very, very specific cases (like a knight falling in love with an elven lady) but, in general, it's not fun. A GM decides to send the knights to faerie and they return with this curse which is not their fault....it does not sounds fun.
  22. Even if in Uther's times, long before enchantment spreads, I decided to make them deal with Faerie, especially when exploring some faerie-connected places like the darkest woodlands which separate Salisbury from Cadwy's Summerland. I've seen the "Fey" passion on the GPC (which is, in too many ways, a real curse)....what are your experiences with this rule? I mean: I do not want to give a Fey passion after every meeting with Faerie (since it seems too much), but I'll maybe give it after VERY CLOSE contact with Faerie or after a long scene in the Faerie world. How do you manage th
  23. I guess that having scattered holdings (please, somebody correct me if I am wrong) is more respondent to historical medieval holdings-types. But I'm ignorant about British feudalism, although I know that scattered holdings are typical of other other areas of Europe that I'm more familiar with. The question remains: even if historical (and the "historicity" of KAP is an issue...)I feel that this scattered holdings models should be kept as long as it is not a hindrance for game play. I personally like it (it gives me some sense of authenticity), however, sometimes it is odd to exp
  24. Reading Warlord p.116 I realized that Sir Blains's Levcomagus is only a £18.5 Manor!! This means that Blains is just him + (maybe) a household knight!! How could have such a lowly knight have aspired to marry Ellen (the daughter of a baron)?? I know that "Ulfius" is the answer... Furthermore, how could have done the famous Allington Raid/Skirmish in the Core Rules, where he leads various knights vs Salisbury? I got the feeling that when rules were originally written Silchester was a "unity", while now we get so many different barons with interests/holdings in Silche
×
×
  • Create New...