Luca Cherstich

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 for the year 487 and later (p.41 and 53, for example) do not show a Saxon-occupied Caerwent, but maybe Greg was changing things heavility in Book of Uther. Any suggestion?

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.

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 this passion? (including aquiring/loding it) I was thinking about allowing Love-Family or Love-God rolls just to avoid acquiring the passion (rather than to make those rolls to delete the Fey passion later on). Any opinion regarding or game experience regarding the use of the Fey passion?

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 explain to players (questions like "Wasn't Ulfius the Baron of Silchester as Roderick is the Baron of Salisbury?").

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 Silchester (Ulfius, Thornbush, Wynchbank before he dies, the Senate of Silchester...). So, I guess, Sir Blains either has many relatives/friends helping in his raids or some bigger lord (possibly Ulfius?) gives him more knights because he wants bad things for Salisbury. Is this correct?

We need to knighten a couple of younger brothers when they are 19 and 20, instead of 21. I've found in BoK&L p.68 that the minimum age requirement is 18....but what about mechanics? I've seen Morien's suggestions on doing Step.3 the other way around.... https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/10356-moriens-house-rules/?tab=comments#comment-153611 ....But, do we have any other official answer in the books? I mean: if I well understood, Morien's suggestion is 2 options per year = -1 Attribute and -1 trait/passion?? Since subtracting 1d6 skill points seem odd. OK?

One suggestion: be careful NOT to over-use this book. I would say: use it no more than once every one or two years. I really like it and at some point I even used it twice in a single year due to the presence of TWO different important marriages.....but I'll wait some times before I'll use it again. 155 cards seems a lot, but they really are not and using this book every year will make some cards to appear more frequently. Off course I always interpret cards, adapting the results to the NPCs which I know are present to the specific situation....but I do not want to waste the surprise for players. For example In the last two feasts I've noticed that there are too many cards with unknown ladies to be involved.

I like Book of Feast but I have thus far avoided using it for any social meeting or court, in order to speed up things and allow some variety in the game experience. Sometimes I use a lot of ad-hoc GM& player improvisation or, if I'm bored, I roll on the "Courtly Experience" table from this pdf. https://www.chaosium.com/content/FreePDFs/Pendragon/NM14 - Marriage of Count Roderick.pdf Furthermore, Book of Uther p. 60-62 has some tables for creating very quick adventure-hooks for court intrigues, but you have to work developing them.

For what is worth, I've used three times and had a lot of fun, creating incredibly good hooks for new stories which were developed later on. regarding playing online: I make the players roll 1d155 and then I post the Jpeg of the Card. It works for us!

How many skills do you give per Squires? BoE p.13 shows a "Squire Sheet" with many skills but, in reality, the other column seems to imply the use of One Single value for ALL the "Knightly Skills" of the Squire (which is frankly more respondant to the Skill Sheet on page 43 which has only a couple of entries for skills).

As a curiosity regarding normal NPC squires (not PC squire): what will most people use? The Squire rules in KAP core rules (Age, couple of skills)? Or those in Entourage (more skills, Squire skill separated from Age and often, therefore, lower than in the basic system)?

OK...but if I start applying the "Conspicous Consumption" Glory award to each +£1 beyond £6, it will become another (very small but continuous) Glory bonus for anyone having larger than basic manors (due to the new Standard of Living calculation) and which applies every year. I'm tempted to use the "£1 = +2 Glory" from BoE only because I suspect (am I wrong?) that the new correction was not updated in 5.2... I really like the Estate/Warlord system. Maybe it's only badly explained, but it is great. I really hope they will integrate it in the 6th edition, but also hope that they will show clear indications about the minutiae of the linked sub-systems (Glory award rates, standards of Living, Entourage, etc...).

1) Now that you mentioned BoEnt... I have the revised edition (which I guess you worked on) and it says +1 Glory per £1 of expenses in retinue....I guess this Glory bonus is only for people you hire with Discretionary Finds Beyond those servants mentioned in the models? 2) Are you doing a house rule of Cospicuos Consumption of £1 = 10 Glory instead than the basic £1 = 1 Glory? Or is the amount shown in Core Rules wrong?

OK...but in Estate p.40 (and Warlord p.169) Extra squires are not included in the Standard of Living part, but are calculated as to be detracted from Discretionary Funds. So the £50 estate holder spends £10 to live as a Rich Knight but also spend + £1 from Discretionary Funds to have a second squire... Are you saying that this system is wrong? (even if apparently repeated twice in both Estate and Warlord?).

OK...so £9 for Rich and £12 for Superlative? OK....we know that the new model for the "Standard or Living" cost is = to that formula (Family Expenses (10% of CR) + Pay Bonus + £5) So....whatever the result, +10 Glory per Extra above £6? What do you suggest? It sounds OK and clearly Easy Fix, although it is clearly more (x10) generous in Glory than the typical "Conspicuous Consumption" of £1 = +1 Glory. What's the maximum cap? 100 Glory?

Every time I go back to “Warlord” I find new things…and new doubts! DOUBT no.1: STANDARD OF LIVING COST in Core Rules This is not from Warlord, but rather from the Core Rules 5.2 (p.183-184) …I ask here, just to be sure. Is the following esteem of MINIMUM costs correct? Impoverished = ? Poor = £3 Ordinary = £6 Rich = £10 (every +£1 beyond this minimum = +1 Glory in Winter Phase) Superlative = £15 (every +£1 beyond this minimum = +1 Glory in Winter Phase) Related question: spending more than the minimum for Ordinary (£6) and Poor (£3) knights does not seem to give Glory….right? DOUBT no.2: STANDARD OF LIVING in the New Model According to the “New Model” (Warlord p. 172) the “Standard of Living” is equal to: Family Expenses (which is 10% of CR) + Pay Bonus + £5 What does this mean in case of earning more than the basic amount for one’s standard of Living? If so, are the following Examples Correct? EXAMPLE no.1: the £27 Westfort manor I asked about in another thread. Standard of Living: £ 2.7 (Family) + none (the knight is not an officer=no pay bonus) + £5 = £7.7 The result (£7.7) is higher than the basic cost of Ordinary Knight (£6) but not enough to reach the Rich level (£10). What’s the consequence? Just a non-mechanic/pure-fluff consequence of saying that the Knight is living “slightly better” than ordinary knights? EXAMPLE no.2: a £60 Estate Standard of Living: £ 6 (Family) + none + £5 = £11 This qualifies for “Rich” (£10) but what happens for that +£1??? Will it give +1 Glory? DOUBT no.3: Pay Bonus This should add the Officer’s Standard of Living (Warlord p.167-168). This was not clear the first time I read about Officer’s pay in Estate….will this mean that this is NOT extra money to be used as one wishes, right? It is money which serves ONLY for living better, right? If so, are the following examples correct? EXAMPLE no.3 So, for example I am a Household Knight of Roderick (which, I guess, will feed me to live as an Ordinary Knight) and, as a prize, he will make me Castellan of one of his castles. My pay (according to Warlord p. 47, should be £ 3 (maybe even more, since Roderick’s Honour is bigger than £1000, but let keep things simple and let say £3). This means that I’m living as an Ordinary Knight (which costs £6) + £3 spent in “better living” but ... with no mechanic consequence since £9 does not make me rich the “Rich Knight” standard of living level. EXAMPLE no.4 I am a £50 estate holder exactly respecting the model on Estate p.40 (which means I live as a Rich Knight spending £10). Roderick will make me a Castellan (+£3). For my Standard of Living I now spend £ 10 (from my estate) +£3 (Pay Bonus) +£5 since i have an estate= £18 This will make me Superlative (£15) but £18 is +£3 above my standard of living, will I get +3 Glory per year? EXAMPLE no.5 I am Sir Elad, a Household Knight (Roderick makes me live as an Ordinary Knight spending £6 for me) + £5 (Marshal) + £3 (Castellan of Vagon) = £14. I live at Rich Standard of Living (£10) + £4 which means +4 Glory per year. DOUBT no.4: Additional Squires! According to Warlord p.169 (but it was also present in the models in Estate p.40 and 42) additional squires are paid ONLY with Discretionary Funds. OK….so what forces me to have one? I guess it’s “social links with noble families” and “it is expected from you”. So… looking ad Standard of Living in Core Rules p.184 it looks like: - Rich Knights are required to have 1 Extra Squire - Superlative Knights are required to have 2 Extra Squires. If the above assumptions are correct…. - What Happens if a Rich (or a Superlative) Knight does not want to have an Extra Squire required? Any mechanic penalty? - Extra Squires are paid with “Discretionary Funds” which are 10% of CR…so what happens to Sir Elad in Example 5 of the previous entry? He is a Household Knight, therefore no CR. I guess the Earl will just pay an extra squire for him…. DOUBT no.5: Income to Treasure Transformation This is not a question but rather something which I just realized… In the past I forgot this thing…but checking Warlord p.51 and 168 I realized that if you want to keep the Discretionary Funds (which is just “food”) for the future you must translate it into Treasure which means dividing by 2… Auch! This is clearly something which should be clearly indicated in a Winter Phase model! I hoped they put it in Estate but they did not!

So....if through improvements the £27 manor will turn to £30 it is still a Manor UNLESS the King says so declaring a nrw estate (and the main difference is getting that +200 Glory, right?). So, a Vassal Knight with a £27 manor will still have 1 single household knight (and maybe he even Knighted him in the Uther period) but still, he will remain a vassal knight, right?

What's the upper limit for calling a property a Manor? Maybe are they considered Estates from £30? Book of Warlord (Salisbury charter, notes) defines Westfort manor as encompassing the whole settled part of the Westfort hundred (whose CR is £27). So can we have a single £27 manor? Which means a Vassal Knight +at least 1 household Knight but Without the possibility of been defined Estate Holder? (and therefore getting only the 200 glory for vassal Knight but not the 200 glory for Estate holder).

What came first? I guess it was "Warlord" first and "Map Folio" later. In Warlord we got maps with "Chalkhill" and mentions of the Bishop having ChalkHill on page 97, but also there are also clear mentions of Churchford on page 12. In Map Folio we got the map with "Churchford" and no Chalkhill at all. So, I guess, did maybe Greg changed idea while he was working on Warlord, while giving the final name "Churchford" name in a map only in Map Folio?

Ah! Thank you. I really was blind, it really is in Warlord book. I thought that the map that I was checking really was from that book but, in reality, it was from "Map Folio". The same hundred in Map Folio is called "Churchford" and not Chalk Hill.....what's the real name? EDIT: I also realized that Chalk Hill is held by the Bishop of Venta (= Andronicus, quite an interesting Roman Warrior/Bishop), so maybe at some point maybe Greg or somebody else decided to turn the name into Churchford?

Regarding "Chalkhill" (hundred administered by the Bishop of Venta): where is it? I am probably blind, but it's impossible for me to find it in the Salisbury map in Warlord.

The powered up "Major Wound Threshold" may be explained less with "magic" and more with ancient philosophical approaches (enduring more pain!) but i guess I'll just try it in my games ... If the thing will turn the whole campaign into something not cool or fun, I guess I'll realize how much wrong I was in my choice!! In the meanwhile I think I tinkered again with traits, substituting "Honest" with "Proud". This will make it more respondant to an "elite" mentality but adding a (further!!) weakeness of Nobilis compared to chivalry (since high Proud will make more difficult to combine Nobilis with Roman Christian, the only possible religious ideal to be compatible with Nobilis). NOBILIS (V. 4.0) This Knight/Eques follows the old, civilized ways and precepts of Nobilitas and Romanitas which are even more ancient than the coming of Christianity. A Nobilis is, by its own nature, well educated (READING LATIN 8+), and interested to know about the great Romans of antiquity: the only possible examples of real virtue. The Nobilis is well aware of the greatness of his cultural heritage (PROUD) in this debased age, when new cultures and barbaric ideals seem to prosper, although they cannot reach the greatness of Old Rome. The Nobilis is rational and knows how to behave like a proper, virtuous noble CIVES/ citizen, worthy of his own self-respect. A Nobilis knows that fantasies and faerie stories are real in this world influenced by Barbaric ways and traditions (whether they are Cymric or Germanic). However, the "Nobilis" knows that only a civilized, urban and "roman" way can make a society to prosper, therefore he tends to keep his thoughts more linked to the needs of the civil society (WORDLY), rather than to barbaric fantasies and fairy tales. A Nobilis is a man of action (ENERGETIC), as he knows how the old "patres" of ancient Rome disdained the "otium" and recomended hard work to reach one's objectives. The mind of a Nobilis is also partly influenced by ancient Stoic philosophy, at least in general terms, if not with proper education regarding the old authors. A Nobilis knows how to endure pain and difficulties, as he knows that a strong mind and proper virtue can overcome anything. However, this may happens only if proper self-control and discipline are exercized (TEMPERATE), keeping one away from the barbaric laxity and lack of "decorum". The Nobilis values courage in battle (VALOROUS) and knows how to be civilized. A Nobilis is never reckeless but he is always aware that evil and danger may happen (PRUDENT). Requirements: 80 + in Valorous, Temperate, Wordly, Proud, Prudent, Energetic Read (Latin) at 8+ Roman education in the background or, at least, having somehow been influenced by Roman ways of life and/or culture. The Knight/Eques cannot be Chivalric, Pugnacious or Religious. If the GM allows so, only the "Roman Christian Religious" quality is compatible. Bonuses and Consequences: + 100 annual Glory +4 Major Wound Threshold .Off course!!

I understand...but, on the other hand I still feel that there are a few weaknesses in the "Nobilis" ideal which will make it less convenient to Chivalric in the long run: - Lack of compatibility with most Religious bonuses - Major Wound Threshold bonus is less useful than proper Chivalric Armor bonus - You need be educated (Reading Latin 8+) and you need to have been raised in Roman culture (which is something which, maybe, I feel will decline during the Age of Arthur in the big cities, as everything quickly becomes more "Medieval"). And, regarding the "each culture will want its ideal" problem, i frankly believe that having a universal "Roman ideal" is not the same as a specific Saxon, Cymric, German or Frisian ideal. I know this is a big mess (and to be "Roman" in antiquity was not the same as having an exact ethnic identity since one can be BOTH Roman and having a local ethnic identity ... although off course KAP semplifies everything with the different ethnic cultures). In my view the "Romanitas" in the old times is the "generic/universal virtue" towards which everybody tended (whatever the culture) when the Empire was properly working (legions, globalized market, etc..). Maybe Pugnacious is a more barbaric alternative, but my "Nobilis" aims to be universal .... as far as Roman "civilization" endures. And I feel that it will not endure for long. Later on, in the age of Arthur everybody will prefer to be "Chivalric", since Chivalric will be the new universal. I know this is just me and "Your KAP may vary", and I do not pretend to have the single truth (especially since I'm way less expert with KAP than most of those here in this forum!). And, at the end of the day, even my "Nobilis" is not perfect since it is just a very limited, simplified and subjectively (and possibly wrongly) defined ideal of what ""Roman"" elite ideals possibly were.

OK, but I'm trying to build the "Nobilis" as a kind of "Old-style" Roman Eques ideal. Maybe better not to mesh it with Religious things, since it's more about "Roman elite civilized ways" than about religious fanaticism. I can understand why most people may disdain to use it....but I'm a Classical Archeologist and sometimes, even if Romans are not the focus in KAP, I feel that they should need some more detail, especially in the earlier time periods, before Arthurian chivalry becomes the norm.

And regarding (again!) on Nobilis ideal (NOT the Stoic religion/philosphy) I'm thinking about the possible traits...."Energetic" maybe should be part of the Nobilis, since to be Active is often seen as a good things by old Roman standards ... So, the traits for Nobilis now are: Valorous, Temperate, Wordly, Honest, Prudent, Suspicious If I want to introduce Enegergetic, and i Want to I'm still in doubt whether to remove Honest or Suspicious. However, Romans in BoK&L p. 46 tend to have better suspicious than Honest, but here we are speaking about a "Noble/Nobilis" Romans, not a normal Roman Eques ... EDIT: A new attempt at NOBILIS NOBILIS (V. 3.0) This Knight/Eques follows the old, civilized ways and precepts of Nobilitas and Romanitas which are even more ancient than the coming of Christianity. A Nobilis is, by its own nature, well educated (READING LATIN 8+), and interested to know about the great Romans of antiquity. In this debased age the only examples of ancient virtue can be seen in ancient literature, therefore a Nobilis is always eager to learn more about them. The Nobilis is rational and knows how to behave like a proper, virtuous noble CIVES/ citizen, worthy of his own self-respect. A Nobilis knows that fantasies and faerie stories are real in this world influenced by Barbaric ways and traditions (whether they are Cymric or Germanic). However, the "Nobilis" knows that only a civilized, urban and "roman" way can make a society to prosper, therefore he tends to keep his thoughts more linked to the needs of the civil society (WORDLY), rather than to old fantasies and tales. A Nobilis is a man of action (ENERGETIC), as he knows how the old "patres" of ancient Rome disdained the "otium" and recomended hard work to reach one's objectives. The mind of a Nobilis is also partly influenced by ancient Stoic philosophy, at least in general terms, if not with proper education regarding the old authors. A Nobilis knows how to endure pain and difficulties, as he knows that a strong mind and proper virtue can overcome anything. However, this may happens only if proper self-control and discipline are exercized (TEMPERATE), keeping one away from the barbaric laxity and lack of "decorum". The Nobilis does not lie (HONEST), since he does not need to to offend his own self-respect, he values courage in battle (VALOROUS) and knows how to be civilized. A Nobilis is never reckeless but he is always aware that evil and danger may happen (PRUDENT). A Nobilis knows that a rational mind can overcome any difficulty, and he is ready to perform his duty, whatever happens. Requirements: 80 + in Valorous, Temperate, Wordly, Honest, Prudent, Energetic Read (Latin) at 8+ Roman education in the background or, at least, having somehow been influenced by Roman ways of life and/or culture. The Knight/Eques cannot be Chivalric, Pugnacious or Religious. If the GM allows so, only the "Roman Christian Religious" quality is compatible. Bonuses and Consequences: + 100 annual Glory +4 Major Wound Threshold