Luca Cherstich

17 minutes ago, Morien said:

The other way around. Anything larger than SIZ 25 would not get the penalty when fighting a mounted knight, and the knight wouldn't get a bonus. I could see an argument that SIZ 25 should apply only for bipedal enemies (including bears), while quadrupedal enemies might require a higher size (although big cats would likely still be quite able to leap at the horseman without penalties; a big boar could not).

Yes you are right...I just miss-typed forgetting to add the "NOT" get the penalty!!

30 minutes ago, Morien said:

Yep. I definitely would not apply that when fighting Giants. At the same time, I am not quite nasty enough to give a -5/+5 modifier for the knights on foot fighting a giant. After all, they can still stab the Giant's hairy legs.

I think that would be a reasonable point. It is already well beyond the human norm, whereas the Hag (Size 19) could easily be smaller than a big Saxon.

So, maybe, let say anything from Size 25 and beyond should get the penalty! 

I've always felt that the +5/-5 of Mounted Knights VS Footed enemies should not be considered when fighting large creatures, since this is basically a height modifier.

Why should a mounted knight have an height advantage against something as big as a Dragon (Size 80)?

However, I'm not sure from which size I should make the +5/-5 starting to apply....Maybe a Hag (Size 19) should suffer the modifier (since its size is not far from a big human), but what about Small Giants (Size 25) or Bears (Size 25)?

I would like to know how old is Leodegrance for my Campaign.

We are very early (480)...and this may be a problem for what we know about Leodegrance.

I know that:

•  in 485 Leodegrance should be king of Cameliard (GPG p.25)
• King Uther gave the Round Table to Leodegrance (although I do not know in which year), but this certainly means that Leodegrance was already an important man in the Uther period.
• in 492 (according to the Book of Uther p.117) Leodegrance helped Uther against Malahaut
• In 497 Guenever was born and her father Leodegrance appears often in the Boy King period.
• In 510 (according to GPC p.129) Leodegrance gave his fealty to Arthur
• in 514 (GPC p.147) Leodegrance gives the Table to Arthur and maybe suggest also some candidates.

Off course we cannot know how old was Leodegrance when he did what he did from 485 to 514, but since he was King in 485 and his daughter Guenever was born in 497, I guess he could have been 25-30 years old at that time, and maybe 45-55 years old during his main events during the Boy King period.

My guess is that in 480 Leodegrance is young: maybe 21 years old, just knighted.

In 480 he can maybe be a Prince (waiting for this father King to die and inherit the throne) or maybe his father has just died and he has just inherited the throne.

Off course, I guess, that we do not have information about Leodegrance father....

Does all of this make sense to you?

How do you behave when two passions conflict?

Do you roll them like you would do for opposing traits?

Let make a practical example.

King Uther in 481 orders his vassals to invade Bedegraine.

The example PC is a Household Knight of Earl Roderick but his first cousin is a Household Knight of the Bedegraine King.

The PC has both passions NOT at "famous" level (let say "Loyalty 11 and Love:Family 15").

Since none of his passions is at 16, nothing seems to force its behaviour.

However, this is definitively a stressful situation, in case he faces his cousin on the battlefield (especially since the invasion of Bedegraine is an especially "un-justified" or even "evil"  act by Uther).

Without considering any social consequence for disobedience (like been outlawed or something similar) what are the psychological consequences?

I'm for leaving the PC complete agency in this peculiar situation.

• If he chooses to obey his Earl (and therefore the King), he may get a check in Loyalty: Earl Roderick but lose 1 point of Love:Family.
• If he chooses to disobey the Earl (whatever the punishment will be), he may get a check in Love:Family but lose 1 point of Loyalty: Earl Roderick.

In both cases, whatever choice is made, if the player seems to be particularly upset about the situation, I'm for giving him Hate (Uther) at 4d6.

Any thought?

(And maybe also suggestions about both psychological and practical/social consequences?)

This is a great thread, and possibly at the end we could try to build a table for rolling on it.

However, I feel that Tizun Thane got it right: we should make differences between "special gifts for special times" and "ordinary, yearly Christmas gifts".

In particular, I feel that:

- an "ordinary" Christmas gift should be much lower in value than £1 and it should not give any significant mechanic effect, but just fluff effects.

- a "special" gift should give mechanic effects and/or be £1 or more of value.

In this sense, all the gifts in the first post by BioKeith should be "Special" with the possible exception of the "5 Glory Coat of Arms" (since 5 Glory is not that much).

@Baba Thanks a lot!

And I attach here the new auto-translate result.

There are still a few things which I do not understand (possibly because they are the product of automatic translation).

For example:

• the Critical result of the first line says: "You can choose to turn for a roll of the dice next year, with +5 on the terningslaget. "
• the Critical of line no.12 of Tabe A which says "+2 on beiler throw in winter."

I do not understand these few things....but the document is 95% or more OK!

Very useful, thanks!

Improved BABA SOLO Homebrew Pendragon TRANSLATED from NORWEGIAN.docx

56 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

It doesn't to me. Generally peasant  (actually serf) transfer was between manors and thus between differernt knights. Also, while many town and cities did have magistrates and such people could always appeal to a higher court, such as the local knight. 

OK, even admitting that interpretation, the "Your Own Land" solo still has the "Income" part which crashes with the Estate system (which is supposed to be more stable economy).

Maybe I'll use the Your Own Land solo but ignoring the Income part.

@Atgxtg anything like that would be awesome to have!

Baba, your tables are great!

That's maybe what I was looking for! The translator in Word is not too bad (I paste here what I've got).

It just needs a couple of language problems to be fixed, but I can understand and enjoy most of this document.

Thanks!

BABA SOLO Homebrew Pendragon TRANSLATED from NORWEGIAN.docx

5 minutes ago, Baba said:

We are three players rotating GM responsibilities. In any given year, we only give a solo to the gm’s character.

 

We are usually a bit short on time, and we like to do all play at the table, so we have made our own list of shorter solos. We roll a d20 and pick one at random. It involves a short descrption, 0-1 choices, 1-3 tests and give some checks and possible story consequences. Ideally going through it and discussing it should take no more than five minutes.

 

I would post it here, but sadly it’s in norwegian.

Post it if you can!

Maybe some Google Translate can help....

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

I  believe, commons did still put disputes in front on the knight of the manor. The economic model does including running the knight's court. I think the hundred court is more for disputes between manors. 

My doubt started since Book of Estate says:

"It meets every three or four weeks and handles most local business dealings, such as authorizing a peasant transfer of animals or land, and local justice like brawling, petty theft, boundary disputes, and whose cow is whose."

These sound like the kind of things which happen in the "Your own land" solo scenario...but the problem is that most £10 manors should be much smaller than a hundred, so I'm still doubtful whether a Vassal Knight can or cannot judge on these things.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Khanwulf and I had also considered doing up a "Deck of Solos" which in theory could allow someone to generate a mini quest using a deck on standard playing cards. We didn't get all that far with it, but the basic framework might be useful. Mostly the suit determined the type/nature of the adventure (hears would be romance or other passion, diamonds land and wealth, spares warfare and combat, etc) while the opposing value was determined by the values on the cards- usually two cards, but sometimes one or three depending on way the solo was constructed. The idea only go so far, in part because we were undecided on which way to go with it. One idea had little quarter or half  page adventures determined by the cards, and another let the player construct his own quest based upon certain guidelines. Also, were were deciding between multiple tests with difficulty difficulties or using something like the battle intensity to track the overall progress on the quest. 

This sounds like an awesome idea!

I like the "Solo" parts in Winter Phase, since it gives some depth + some clues about what has been happening during the rest of the year, without considering the opportunity for a few skill checks.

However, I found this part also a bit lacking in the core rules, and even conflicting with other books.

I would keep "Lost in the Woods", "At the crossroads", Lover' Solo (KAP 5.2 p.231-233) for special years/moments, since I was looking for something more repeatable through the years.

I guess that "Vassal Service" (KAP 5.2 p.231) is what applies to most knights, although in the long run, it may be boring.

I was checking  "Your Own Land" (KA P5.5. p.230) but, since I use Book of Estate even for basic £10 manors, I found the following problems:

- The "Income" which seems to conflict with Estate model (where manor economy is more stable)

- Step 4 (the "argument") I was considering that maybe this is not happening in the new model, since disputes should be put in front of the Hundred Court...which seems unlikely to be lead by a simple £10 Vassal Knight.

I've also checked this homebrew, unofficial table, but only God knows how it is supposed to work!

https://gspendragon.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/pendragoneventssummerwinter1.pdf

Any other suggestion?

Any thought?

If during a Battle the PCs' Unit Leader dies (or is unhorsed and lost in the fray of battle) what happens?

Is the Unit destroyed or disbanded if nobody takes command?

Can anyone do any roll to take command?

I was thinking about the "Rally" action (Book od Battle 2nd ed. p.79), but since it requires a value of Glory/1000, the chances of getting command is not very high for starting PCs (which are off course not supposed to be leaders, given their age and inexperience....but sometimes passions may help, I guess).

What if a "deputy commander" was appointed before the battle? No need for a roll?

Do we have anywhere in the books a place where it is said who can knigthen others and who cannot?

So....can a relatively minor £50 estate holder make other Knights?

Or do we need a warlord?

A related question.

A£50 estate holder can have a few household Knights.

The estate holder is a vassal of Earl Roderick and therefore he has Homage (Earl Roderick).

What passions do his own household Knights get?

Do the household knights have a Homage to Earl Roderick and Fealty to the £50 estate holder?

Or maybe can homage be linked to the one who knighted you?

In this case, could the £50 estate holder have knighted them or only the Earl can knighted them? I'm considering the possibility of giving Homage just to the £50 estate holder, but I do not know if he is maybe not powerful enough to justify it.

Ok!

It looks like normal, starting knights can start with just 1 passion (Loyalty/Homage), and they will start diving homages and fealties when they get more lords to obey.

Thanks a lot.

....so, even ignoring Quest of the Red Blade, do you confirm that, unless one has more than 1 lord, it is worthless to track Fealty and Homage?
A single Loyalty: Lord should be enough. Isn't it?

I was also asking since I found something else which made me doubt.

According the expanded chronology in Uther Book page 106, the PCs lose "1 point of homage" if they do not raid Bedegraine in 481.

But who has Homage at such a early date? It seems to refer to a Homage (Uther) Passion but, I guess, most PCs should not have it unless they are direct vassals/household knights of Uther and not Salisbury vassals....am I wrong?

Since the time of Book of Estate I thought to have understood the difference between Homage & Fealty...until now!

I used to think that tracking the 2 different passions was to be done only when you have multiple lords to answer, but maybe I was wrong!

WHAT I'VE DONE THUS FAR:

For single (Household or Vassal) Knight with 1 lord (usually Earl Roderick) I always counted just 1 single passion (Loyalty: Lord) since, without any relationship with other lords, there was no point in tracking differences.

When the Knights start having direct relationships with other lords (Maybe King Uther, maybe other lords where they get lands), I used to make a "Homage" passion for the higher ranking lord, and a "Fealty" passion for each of the other minor lords.

MY DOUBT

In "Quest of the Read Blade" there are pre-generated characters with 2 different passions (Homage and Loyalty) with different values, but all appaently linked to the same liege! (King Arthur, since they are all Arthur's household knights, so no need for other loyalties). 

For Example:

"Sir Echen" is a Bachelor Knight (Household Knight?) whose lord is King Arthur.

He has Fealty (lord) 12 and Homage (liege) 15....but aren't these two passions both linked to King Arthur??

What's the difference?

How can one establish whether to use Fealty or Homage....when they both apply to the same Lord?

This is senseless to me!

Please, can you help me understand?

22 hours ago, sirlarkins said:

e've got Robert Schroeder of Book of Sires fame working on the revision, so no worries there.

Great to hear! Thanks a lot!

I hope the revised text of Knights &Ladies will have something (maybe an appendix with clear indications?) to help coordinate character creation  of this book with the system in Book of Sires.

On 10/18/2019 at 12:36 PM, mandrill_one said:

BTW, Luca, for what purpose do you need the Atlas exactly? If you give us more information, maybe someone here could be able to help you using some freely available resource.

Nothing specific....just curiosity and hunger for more KAP stuff!
 

By the way I tried most of things your said there, but nothing works.

I kind of remember to have unzipped it from some odd format, when I downloaded it, ages ago, but never was able to open it.

Furthermore, I've also lost the original zipped formats. So, I guess, I'll never be able to open these things.

Amen!

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Oh, so like the alternate place names used in some of the latter supplements?

 

BTW, it might be possible to access a .iwa file on a PC by copying and renaming it as a .zip file and then extract it with a program that can uncompress ZIP files. If you want I can take a crack at it.

I did that...but it did not work. Possibly something got wrong after so many times that I copied things on different hard disks.

1 hour ago, Scotty said:

Hi, the website that had the files has expired. The materials on it were copyright Greg Stafford and are now copyright his family estate. We don't have permission to republish the contents or distribute them. They are not in the public domain. If some one wants to start an atlas / gazetteer based on our published products I could certainly add it to the Greathall.

 

thanks you, I got it.

I would really like to help, since I really feel that an Atlas/Gazetteer is what KAP needs now more than anything else. Unfortunately I'm not sure I got time in this time period! (and i'm also sire that there are people way mor expert than me on the matter, lurking in these forums!).

From what I remember it was more a real Atlas than a collection of maps (and that's frankly what actually would need now). 

From the preview page I can see a list of names....but unfortunately I cannot open index/metadata/data folders with .iwa files (I use a PC, not a Mac).

I clearly remember Greg to have said that it was an unfinished work.

But I do not know if I have all the files that he put on that website....by the way, I cannot read what I have.

A pdf or a .iwa/.pages converted to pdf by somebody who can do it would be great!

I remember dowloading some preliminary, unfinished parts of the Pendragon Atlas from Greg Stafford's website, some years ago.

Unfortunately I could not open the file since they were in a format good for Mac, not PC.

I remember that I somehow managed to unzip them, but could not open the file.

In the meanwhile I maybe lost parts of these files.

Since I could not find the website anymore...does anybody know if and where these files can be found?