Jump to content

Username

Members
  • Content Count

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Good

About Username

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Pendragon, D&D, M&M, GURPS, Classic Traveller, Shadowrun, Marvel Superheroes RPG a bunch more
  • Current games
    Pendragon, Marvel Superheroes RPG, and D&D 5E
  • Location
    Ohio
  • Blurb
    I live in the USA

Recent Profile Visitors

85 profile views
  1. I've uploaded some more county maps, I selected the towns shown on the county map as brown dots based upon Market Towns as designated by English counties. I tried to keep the counties relatively uncluttered because I like the aesthetic more, but they should show a lot more than the larger scale maps. I tried to look up the counties and added places that I felt fit the categories of locations. Which were Christian, Pagan, Castles, Cities, and towns.
  2. @creativehum I'll say this, my player love the BoK&L. I've had Aquitainians, Irish, Romans, Cymrics, Saxons, and even multiple Picts! None of the more exotic cultures as I've only played in the early years when it's hard to justify their coming to Britain. I was interested in this topic, so I asked a few yesterday and all of them were very positive about the cultural skills. They really enjoy the customization options the book offers and enjoy how it differentiates between their characters. We've had a great time with it. @Morien It's funny you mention that! I just was looking through KAP 4E as I may actually get to play in my first game and someone was talking about being a magician and noticed that Occitanians were one of the main cultures and the Aquitainians were not. Does anyone know what prompted their addition? I mean it makes sense, you can hardly imagine the lands of Ban and Bors being culturally Occitanians or Germanic Frank's.
  3. I agree here, but the Orkneys and de Gales are both Cymric and they're super soldier-lite already. I would say that the Aquitainians themselves do seem to be quite esteemed as fighters, or at least that's my impression. I just think that the Aquitainians should have some sort of combat ability cultural skill or something and a stat array that focuses more on raw combat potential than what they have. Leave the courtly stuff to the French and Occitanians. Maybe some thing like +2 STR, +1 DEX instead of the +1s or just +3 STR. Maybe a bladed weapon cultural skill covering daggers, swords, and great swords. I will say that the ones genetically predisposed to be super soldiers are the Saxons though. +3 SIZ and +3 STR to lose out on DEX is amazing. They're two weapons skill is ok, but they make for amazing mounted warriors. They're the ones in the BoK&L that competes with Cymrics for title of the best. I like it much better than the book. We've been doing a +4 DEX, +2 CON, -3 APP, -3 SIZ. I wanted to avoid a +3 to CON because of Irish and Cymrics, but that was also my first thought. Ours is distinct, and even though it totals to a 0, the APP penalty, despite my best efforts, is very palatable to players. Still, I'm not quite satisfied with it. As to the cultural skills conversation, I definitely understand your point. I think what you've proposed would make for less shoehorned characters than I've seen and by extension, more people playing against cultural type.
  4. I agree with what Morien says though I don't necessarily see it as a problem. I have ran half dozen or so one shots in Pendragon with character creation, two campaigns one of which stopped in 510 and one of which is still going in 515. I've probably seen 20-25 different people make any where between 50 and 100 characters. All of which have been with the BoKL. And the cultural skills and, to a lesser extent, family characteristics set characters on a path. If you want to be a good bare, you play an Irish. If you want to be a good fighter and you're either Saxon or Cymric. These traits define characters by culture. I have seen people play against type, but never greatly so. If you're Roman, you always get your Law up to 15 at least. Every character I can recall has had at least a 15 in their cultural skill. This is a bit odd if realism is a concern since every Irishman is an overall more well-rounded musician than nearly any Cymric character will be, but I like it. It makes cultural selection a very meaningful choice. I like that all Aquitainians are good at Romance. I like the Cymrics being excellent fighters. I like it because it differentiates between cultures strongly and plays into the stereotypes. The initial differences in your other skills is inconsequential and serves little to separate the different peoples of Arthurian Europe. I also like that they all have niches and while not balanced have different advantages. I would personally like to see an improvement to the Picts as it's odd to me that their the only culture that loses as a total in their starting statistics. I agree that the Picts should be worse, but when the Danes, Germans, and Saracens all have bonuses, it seems odd that the equally barbaric Picts get screwed. The design choice for the Saracens even purposefully bucks medieval depictions for a more enjoyable play experience, but the Picts aren't given the same consideration. The other thing that I also consider changing personally is the Aquitainians. They should be a more skilled combatant considering who they are in the literature.
  5. If there's a GPC revision at some point, it would be handy to have an additional adventure section that lists previous books adventures that can be used during the "era". I would think that'd be great. Also, we definitely need Gareth mentioned earlier. I know many people aren't happy with the cultural skills in Knights and Ladies, but I really like them. I think encourages people to be Cymric which is an advantage and I think it distinguishes the cultures. Though, my biggest gripe there is that the Picts are at a total of -3 to stats while everyone else is +3. Still, I've enjoyed nearly everything in the Pendragon line, which is unusual. I think they've been quality products and I look forward to whatever's next.
  6. So, I actually made a character to play Pendragon instead of running it. First time ever for me! Anyways, I went from the Southern lands in Logres then left for the continent then returned with Aurelius. Grandpa was surprisingly mild rolling 6-12 seemingly everytime. Father did a lot better though died younger Grandpapy: 413-465 Died in Aurelius' March that year end Glory 2305 The Ole Man Himself: 438-477 Died with 6032 Glory (Wow, still impressed by that.) He was in battles frequently and I rolled high on the 1d6. The marriage at the beginning was decent, but not notable. He did originally die young {early 460s} but the GM gave me a complication so that we could keep going. I was hoping to go down with Aurelius, but it just wasn't meant to be. Edit: Grandpa had a Suspicious of Roman Christians, they both hated Saxons and father was afraid of fire though I think there was another passion/trait in there
  7. Unrelated, but if anyone has any suggestions for more map ideas, I'd be interested to hear them. I'm probably going to do some more county maps, but I want to do a more interesting one.
  8. @MorienI like your interpretation here. Theoderic's reign covers the area nicely and extending his lifespan a year works well. Further, the borders work well for the viable threat Rome seems to be suggested to face. Really, it's an elegant historical solution. If you wanted, you could even say Theoderic latinized in the familiar trope of the powerful and virile barbarian war become effeminate from the intoxicating effects of civilization. Which could serve to forshadow the same in Arthur's court. However, personally, I'm not sure if I want to go that way. I'm torn between a historical based approach and an Alliterative Morte Arthur's approach. Arthur's conquest of the true Romans suggests that he is greater and his achievements more important than that great empire. Which, I think drives a point home, the players are living in a golden age. An age that, rightly so, deserves to be admired and held up as a great ideal and how else to do that, but defeat the greatest empire to ever existed.* This fits, our GPC well, which has been more based off of the medieval poetry and Tennyson with hints of White than Malory and the Vulgates, but there is something very tempting as a someone who spent far too long pursuing history degrees to trying to make it fit the historical record as much as possible. Either way, I think we're going to extend the Roman War and make it a proper campaign. *Very arguable of course and not necessarily my opinion.
  9. This is great! Did your players have a role in this? Or was this based off of the thread you sent me? I have to say, I wasn't actually present during Nocturnal's run. I went to their website right at the end, but it was starting to run into issues and I didn't have enough confidence to actually post. Really, I learned of Pendragon a little while back, maybe around 2015-2016, but never actually looked at the rules until early 2018 and played my first game of Pendragon as the GM that summer. I definitely wouldn't have imagined that about a year and a half later I'd be 35 game years into a Pendragon game and making maps for it. Haha.
  10. I've updated the topic page with a political map I made for the Roman War. Our game is in 514 now and I'm looking forward to the changes that are to come. The Roman War map is based on various historical speculation of kingdom boundaries during the real 6th century. I then merged the Vandals, the remaining Alemanni, Visigoths, Suebi, Basques, Burgundians, and Ostrogoths into one reformed Roman Empire. I chose not to have the Zazamancs from the Book of Knights and Ladies represented as I wanted to keep the Byzantine Empire intact. My canon here is that they are sub-kings of the Byzantines. Related to sub-kings, I did not represent them on the map though France and the Romans Empire should be divided amongst other locations. I chose only to represent some tribal people as kingdoms mostly based on how accurately I could place them/whether they were in the Book of Knights and Ladies. The Moors and Mauritania could, probably, be more accurate as a empty space with a label like the Huns or the Norse. Finally, the cities are curated from estimated populations during the 4th-7th centuries as well as cities that we're of prominence in the Pendragon line (that I noticed), or we're very prominent cities in the later Middle Ages. It's sized to be printed on a 24x36 plotter. Inspiration comes from text book history maps. I wanted something clean and crisp to use as an informational aid. Plus, I just like making them. I would say that a really great looking historical map of 525 comes from cyowari on DeviantArt.
  11. On the record for keeping track of characters, strong characterizations area must and frequent repetition. When you do a court scene name drop people especially in Uther's time. In Anarchy when there's no King or Earl, then it should be more mysterious. And while you're name dropping, put in comments about their prominent traits (e.g. "Oh, did you hear that another maid in Gloucester had a baby that looked like Pellinore?) Do that with a number of characters. Also, most helpful, we have a lined list that I hand out to the record keeper in the group and they add names, homeland, and a note as they meet people. That has been the most helpful, they've met well over 4 pages of named characters and it's 512 for us. Inevitably, many of them blend together. As too starting you're game, I would really recommend starting in 484 for you, and when I say that, at 3 hours, you'll get characters made and then I would run through the knighting ceremony with the jump and then run some training session style mock combats and horse races stuff. That'll probably be all you can get. Introduce Elad, Earl Roderick's family, and some other knight to train with them. That way everyone has an idea how to play when you jump into the GPC for 485. My players had a very difficult time grasping the roll under concept. Not conceptually, but in prsctice they started rolling dice and were bewildered because of D&D. Many of them celebrated rolls of a 1 in their weapon skills despite multiple explanations and losses in combat. Anyways, after that tutorial, I'd start following everyone else's advice on the start of 485. I will also say, if you use the extended family history, you may not even have time for that little. In which case, I would just start in 485.
  12. I certainly don't need much justification. My biggest remaining question is two fold, do you run many player led battles and if so, do you feel like they often result in ties? The other one which I'm just curious about, do you let the players choose their extended melees? And how many do you have a battle?
  13. @Morien That's what I meant for personal glory not for triumph. I see I must have forgotten since I last looked that was how it was. @Atgxtg I have a few other questions about your experience with the BoB, but I think we're really derailing the thread. Sorry.
  14. Only one question, isn't damage important for the opportunity for capture? In which case they have to do more than the MW threshold? I thought that was the sams case for them to get the victory glory too, but I may be mistaken. The loss of damage rolls is a big change and not having to calculate damage-armor-MW would speed it up. Otherwise, seems fast. I'll have to read through Book of Battle again and see how it looks.
  15. Hmm, really? I don't think we can manage a 9 round battle in an hour even in the old system. I'm ecstatic and lucky to get a 6 round battle done that fast. We use a house ruled form that takes inspiration from the Book of Battle. The GPC battles are a little faster since the players aren't army commanders, but still I couldn't hope to get a 9 round done in an hour. How do you manage? How big is your group? We're anywhere from 4 to 8 players. Which definitely slows us down on the high end, but I would say at 4-5 players I'm still over an hour. Maybe even 2 for a 9 round battle.
×
×
  • Create New...