Jump to content

Username

Members
  • Content Count

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

About Username

  • Rank
    Senior 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

101 profile views
  1. @stryker99 If this helps, here's the map I made for the year 502. I think it's pretty accurate to the setting described in the GPC for the middle of Anarchy. Most of the fine folks on this board advised me on it's creation. Britain Political Compressed 502.pdf
  2. @jeffjerwin Gareth is assuredly not as woven into the tale as well as Gaheris, in that he makes less frequent appearances where as Gaheris appears in and out through many books, but Gareth has a whole book devoted to him and I feel he has a much greater role and more story than Gaheris. In Malory, I feel like his role in his tale with Lyonette versus the colored knights, as a servant and then his death at the hands of Lancelot give him a much greater role and stronger characterization than Gaheris. I think we spend enough time with Gareth in Malory to firmly put him in the second class of heroes. Below Arthur, Tristam, Lancelot, Gawaine, Galahad, and Percival. But greater than a majority of the others. Dinadin, Lamorak, and Palomedes seem to be in a comparable place in terms of time spent with the characters. Gaheris though is rather forgettable except for his slaying of his mother. As to the separation of Gaheris and Gareth, I'd be interested in hearing why you think that was done. Reading through your post again, it seems like your speaking of him in the Vulgate as being less influential than his brother? Do you think he's given less story in Malory compared to his brother as well? Edit: I also wonder if Gareth's adventure was left out to be a solo adventure. It would make for a great one. And fits in line with what can happen with Dolorous Gard.
  3. This is all very true and I forgot about it. It went ok the first time for me, but just barely. Honestly, I think this adventure could end as a huge bust because of it's railroading and I'm thankful I lucked out.
  4. His death is mentioned at the hands of Lancelot as well as him being a good guy knight, but his whole story and accomplishments aren't there. He should at least have a few comments in the sections. As well as an introductory scene similar to Perceval where you run into him in Camelot as kitchen staff and then another where he leaves for his adventure. As it is, there's the presumption that the players should be upset about his death, but there's really no reason to be. Gareth is a big name knight, definitely in the same category of fame as Lamorak (as a character not as a knight in KAP), but he's not present. This was mine in regards to all of the heirs as well, but I also came to the same conclusion as you. Kay must have killed Loholt by accident because, in my opinion, Kay loves Arthur too much to kill his son purposefully and he would despair too much at the shame of the deed. Besides, Kay has been functionally retired from adventuring for many years at the point of Loholt's death. He goes on surprisingly few adventurs when he was young. So, it seems very out of character for him to be so mad with glory as to kill Loholt purposefully, but accidentally and then fleeing from the shame of it? Trying to hide it from Arthur as well, all seems very real. Why I think the heirs are introduced is because my players, like I think most players of KAP, have a passing familiarity of the Arthurian legend as most people do these days. They know Lancelot, Gawaine, Arthur, Guinevere, and Mordred. They know the general arc, and that Arthur dies with no children to carry on his legacy. So, I think the heirs are introduced as a red herring. To give the players the hope that they can save Arthur's reign to change the legend and ensure a happy ending. It also gives the GM a chance to allow that happy ending where there's a continuation of the legacy of Arthur or at least the stability of Arthur's reign through one of his sons. I would say the whole GPC is a railroad. Every event is laid out year by year, the outcome of battles, the adventures, the deaths, the crowning of Arthur, the death of Uther. Very little agency is allowed to the player to change the legend. These things will happen. But, I would say a few things to that. One, I don't think the GPC railroads your game unless the GPC is your campaign. By that I mean, if your focus is on the grand political world or national or international drame and not the character drama of your players then it's very railroad-y. We're midway through 515 at this point and I'm sure if I asked the players what their highlights were they'd be something like (all player names coming up) Galahad's tremendous fame and 25 kids. Gwfferfawr single handedly defeating a witch and marching through the swamp carrying Krullmyre who was nearly slain by the personification of his vices. Brien raising orphans as sergeants to replace his loses in the Anarchy. Our group losing 35% of it's members slaying a dragon that burnt down a players manor twice. All of those stories occurred with the GPC as the backdrop and it provided context and background for it, but not the storyline itself. Our story has been on the players as individual actors with their own limited sphere of influence not on the world and the players have, and I think they would agree, a lot of agency in their own storyline. Two, my players have loved the GPC. Many of these players had never done anything other than D&D and some have told me that KAP was their favorite RPG they've played. Everyone practically cheered when Arthur arrove on the scene. They try to avoid "spoilers" of the GPC because they enjoy the story that's happening in the background. I think that alone speaks volumes to the value the GPC has. Three, as a disclaimer, I never got to speak to Greg so I can't say this for sure, but from everything I've heard, I would say he didn't intend for the GPC to be followed verbatim. I think he would have rather seem the GPC used as a framework and a place for ideas while allowing changes to the storyline to be made. I believe he'd rather have seen people do what they wanted then feel like they have to do what a book says.
  5. My apologies, I wasn't clear and suggested it had been extinguished. My meaning was to say that, as opposed to now, the Basque culture was more widespread in the Roman and post-Roman world reaching well into the lands we would consider Aquitaine at the time. And while it could be a contender for the Aquitainian culture language, it doesn't fit the cultural description from the various KAP books.
  6. My biggest gripe is Gareth's non-mentioning. Definitely the biggest to me. Though I'm also not fond of Kay's treatment in the end.
  7. I may be mistaken, but isn't the topic about the 5th century situation not the 12th century when the romances were written? If it's about the languages spoken at the time of the romances then ignore my comments. They would be all entirely wrong. In the 5th century, Basque, as far as I know, would still be present, but the Aquitainians as described in the game don't seem to be culturally Basque. They would be more akin to a nobility in the area with a strongly sophisticated culture. Which is why I guessed at Latin as it would have been spoken at the time and there's evidence to suggest that the Visigoths and Frank's both would have made use of the Romanized population in their administration.
  8. @Qizilbashwoman describes the general British situation well. The Saxons, Angles, and Jutes would have all spoken early versions of West Germanic languages with some of them being from the Frisian language family. These languages would develop into Old English with almost no Celtic influences. Continental side, the French would have spoked the West Germanic Frankish and the Aquitainians, just from a guess, would have spoken Latin from the way they seem to be described. Geographically, they're similar to the Visigoths who spoke the East Germanic Gothic language. Generally, there would be a degree of mutually mutual intelligibility between the various West Germanic languages enough so not to be worth the trouble of splitting them. Also, I was actually reading about this yesterday, but the Picts had a language, Pictish, that apparently started to go extinct around this time period. I would say it's decline would begin in the 500s. The language was thought to be Celtic in origin, but there's not really any evidence of the language.
  9. Hi, I never volunteered to help out with this, but if you need some assistance I'd be more than happy to help. I manage the WordPress website at my workplace if that's any consolation. Further, I'm not sure what resources you intend to post, but if you would like the maps or list of knights I've made, or anything else for that matter, then you're welcome to them.
  10. I'd say it fits as well as that published adventure with the boar-headed humanoids from fairy. I think it's Tales of Magic and Miracles, right? Which is to say, it seems a little odd, but just right enough to be doable. I guess it all depends on how you present it.
  11. Mine are too! But they're usually plotting about how to get more land as a means to get more troops and then they only build a few fortifications. Probably less than they ought. Their big idea is to invade Cambria which they've been talking about for 30 in-game years now. Though that got put on indefinite hold after they were first shot by a longbow haha.
  12. Ah, my players have spent it on a variety of things, but oddly enough, they've not been spending it on investments to improve income. That's probably it. They tend to like to form coalitions and engage in politics/warfare so there's that. Also, they never seem to think that a permanent footsoldier is worth the cost.
  13. I intend to use it some when my players get into the conquest era. There's going to be less opportunity for glory then and they rather seem to enjoy campaigning and half of the group enjoys the political back and forth. The geas section should make for a great quest by itself.
  14. My bad, I thought you were both ignoring the Garrison. Makes sense. While on the subject, does anyone increase the manpower that comes from a major in the later periods? I was thinking about doing it. If you have, what was your experience, if you didn't, why not?
  15. Is this accurate? I thought it was as @Atgxtg said with it coming as one knight and two footmen. I always thought the numbers were a little small for the lands output especially in terms of the number of soldiers in later periods.
×
×
  • Create New...