Jump to content

Sir Mad Munkee

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sir Mad Munkee

  1. Hi all,

    I've got 483 coming up – a pretty ho-hum year in the BoUther GPC expansion – but I've also got a knight who coincidentally ended up courting a lady from Malahaut, and is keen (and has Roderick's permission) to go up there and ask her father for her hand (and establish some possibly useful political connections).

    I'm looking for ideas to make that a session-filling little adventure. I don't know much about Malahaut at this time, and my ideas haven't gotten much beyond "her father you have to go kill the Un-Nice Local Monster to gain his permission", maybe with a little "local suitor is keen to discourage your suit, with steel!" thrown in, but it all seems a bit flat.

    I know Pendragon Fans are a creative lot, and wonder if anyone has better Malahauty ideas?

  2. I was also thinking about this. I think one of the things that's missing from the idea of "I'll host a feast" is that it's not like throwing a dinner party today. Your guests, assuming they're knights and such, don't just rock up at 6pm, have a nice time at your table, and go home right after the desert course. They're your guests for days probably. That's got to cost a lot more than just the feast itself.So depending on the guests, I'd be tempted to slide the cost up or down, depending. Same goes for the Glory, really. Being above the salt at your own feast is a given – it's your high table after all – so shouldn't be worth much or any extra Glory. Your Glory comes from being the host, not where you sit, but being invited by Arthur to sit at the high table is obviously a big deal.

  3. I'd just apply a modifier – maybe +1 for each point of APP above 15? – to all skills where APP might make a difference: definitely Flirting, maybe Orate, Sing and Play Instrument, Intrigue and Courtesy at GM's discretion, etc. High APP doesn't mean someone is technically better at these things, but they are likely to get a better reaction from the people they're interacting with.

  4. 16 hours ago, sirlarkins said:

    Something I've been contemplating trying out: use the Lady character generation rules and have the players roll up a background character as another player's wife.

    Oh yeah, I like this a lot. :)

    I’m sort of hovering between fleshing then out like full-on lady characters like in BoK&L, and the cardboard cut-out skill rolling baby factory default. I don’t think I want full on PC wives, but a _bit_ more than a Stewardship skill also seems more fun.

    Here’s my first version of a wife sheet, scaled down from the PK sheet but scaled up from the default.


  5. Hmmm, the army stuff is still straight out of the core rulebook. I’d think that, even though the family knights might live elsewhere, they could be called upon in an emergency or if the PK wished to go raiding, and the small levy of able-bodied men on his estate could be scraped together to defend against a raid.

    I’m still uncertain when and if any of that will be relevant in my game, but since it’s core rules, it makes sense to me to include it on the sheet, to keep it as useful as possible to as many players as possible.

  6. 13 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

    If you want to make more interesting wives, then I suggest you make them more interesting before the PKs marry them. Find something about them that could lead to adventures and story situations and work on that stuff first. Then she can be prominent enough to merit the attention.

    Too late! 😆3 out of 4 PKs married (random) in our second session.

    But otherwise, good advice. 👍

  7. In 480, their first year after getting their spurs, 3 of my 4 player-knights married. Apart from making sure they understand they won't be getting that much Glory every year, I've been mulling over how I want to deal with their wives...

    In most Pendragon games I've played or heard about, wives are basically just an APP stat and Stewardship skill, maybe also First Aid and/or Chirurgery, and that's it. We'll see how much or and my players want to involve the wives in the game, but working on a sheet to keep track of the ladies, I became curious: how have you GMed wives in your games?

    Call me a feminist, but I'm considering having tick boxes on the wives' Traits, Passions & Skills, and giving them annual Glory, as if they were actually people. Maybe it'll be a pain in the ass and just stretch out the Winter Phase too long, but I like the idea of wives who might possibly change over time, and not just in that they automatically get better at doing the things their husbands need them to.

    Have you dealt with any of this yourself already?

  8. 1 hour ago, Uqbarian said:

    Along a similar line, I'm wondering how likely it is that PKs might already be related. Vassal knights presumably tend to marry ladies from other vassal knight families. I'll leave that to player choice, though.

    Not exactly an answer, but when I heard @sirlarkins run of Paladin on his podcast, I immediately thought it'd be pretty interesting to run a group of PKs that are all related, brothers and cousins. You'd have to ensure there are plenty of unplayed brothers and cousins for backup characters, and the whole Estate management thing might need some rethinking, but kinda fun to have them all working on the same family legacy, and their Love (Family) Passions would all apply to each other. Kind of like playing the Orkney mob. :)

  9. I can’t point at a specific reference, but I’ve also gotten the feeling that a battlefield is, at least semi-officially, a whole other kettle of fish. Yes, the duel with the enemy hero that everyone nearby stops to watch should be conducted one on one and honourably. But those footmen over there, facing the other way and completely ignoring your unit? CHARGE! :D

  10. Apart from the income escalation, I’d be strongly inclined to not handout heiresses (tables be damned), more for the story implications than anything else. I like the idea of Roderick or Arthur giving a player a 2nd manor for some truly spectacular awesomeness, or a PK chasing a wealthy heiress for 5 years with some intense RP before snagging her. Just “oh, good roll, your income just quadrupled” is a bit weak.

  11. So, another little update:

    • Add the Pugnacious bonus to Traits, for those who want to use it.
    • More space for Directed Traits and Passions.
    • Moved Gear to page 2, and added Wealth to it (with a reminder how many d. are in 1s. are in 1£, which I and everyone in my games always forget), with lots more space.
    • Added space on page 2 for hired fighting men.
    • Removed family from page 2. That's what the Family Record is for.
    • Removed page 3 entirely, and broke it out into the  Family Record PDF.
    • Misc. visual fine-tuning overall.

    You can find the new version here: KAPCharacterSheetv06.2.pdf

    • Like 1
  12. 3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

    Ah, that's because it's the table from the core rulebook and not the updated one from The Book of the Entourage. They toned things down considerably and got rid of the "breed you way to more land" problem than existed.

    Yup, basically the same problem: the BoEntourage table is definitely better, but also massive. One-sheet, meet two-sheet. That's why I put in the BoEntourage page reference.

  13. Totally coincidentally I bumped in this in the KAP 5.2 book, pg. 178 under "Deities":


    A.K.A. Gronw Pebyr, Meligraunce This is the Dark God who terrifies men, abducts the Goddess, enchants the Light God, and brings the cold hardship of winter to the world. He is the Wild Hunter whose hounds can be heard in the wilderness. 

    And, um, wasn't King Cadwy's father's name Gwynn? And he's only described as mysteriously "banished"? Could he have somehow been elevated? :P 

  14. 9 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

    Yes, but what does that mean? Does the forest "act" differently? I don't think so. I just think that the people from the west, being more pagan, have a better idea as to the nature of the place.

    Actually, the full quote is:
    "... the fact that the Forest of Gloom is called the Forest of Glamour when entered from the west, we may infer that Cadwy is more magical than martial, and acts accordingly."

    Seems to suggest the forest is actually bizarre, not just a regional naming difference, and considering that the whole of Summerland is meant to be bizarre, and it offers many more interesting adventuring possibilities, I'll go with the former interpretation. ;) Also makes a sort of sense: if you're entering Summerland from Logres (the east) the forest is gloomy and forboding, but if you enter it from inside Summerland (the west) it's full of wonder. That'll confuse them PKs for sure. :D

    18 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

    There are a couple of possibilities, but I'll suggest the simplest. He didn't change his coat of arms! OK, now generally Kings and other high nobles often have more than one coat of arm. For instance Arthur is both King of Logres and High King of Britain and has the arms of both. Plus a closet full or others from the various kingdoms he conquered throughout the campaign. Cadwy is both a King in his own right, and an (honorary) Count so he has both coats of arms. The Sword is the Kingly one, and the Cup/Grail the one as a Count.

    Makes sense, though I'd suggest a slight difference: the arms with the sword he inherited when his father Gwynn was banished, but he changed them to the servant and cup when he granted Joseph of Arimathea the land to establish Glastonbury Abbey.

  15. 7 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

    Yea that works. It's just tougher to get the troops to do it. Lotting and plunder is really the main reason for them to want to do this, and not taking stuff would place a finacial harship on

    Yup. I'd imagine a purely tactical raid like this would be paid for by their King, out of the tribute Salisbury is paying him (dastards!). But, being greedy Saxons, I'd probably give it a 50/50 roll to see if they ignore orders and plunder anyway, slowing themselves down. :P 

  • Create New...