Uqbarian

KAP 5.2 says Ambrosius "built these massive earthworks as a part of a defense system against the Saxons to the east."

The Dike appears to have been renamed Renn's Dyke in BoW and BoU. Maybe Stafford did have a new origin in mind?

Neat, thanks!

Thanks! That's probably how I'll end up doing it too, mostly. But I'll cook up some mechanics of my own just for fun.

Yep, I found those threads, and they're great! But I still feel like I'm missing something. What I was looking for is a mechanical step, e.g. something like 'Lethargic Saxons: add 1d6 to Grudge Score for each refusal, raids occur at Grudge above 10 and drop Grudge by 2, invasion occurs at Grudge 15.'

(I know I could come up with something on my own, or just feel it out based on the narrative, but with the table and text in GPC it feels like there is an intended mechanical implementation that didn't get fully spelled out.)

I imagine this was discussed on the old forums, but I haven't yet found a thread for it. Does anyone have advice for how to apply the 'Grudge score' suggestion for tracking Saxon aggression during the Anarchy (GPC, page 71)? 

21 hours ago, Morien said:

Ah, that is where the misunderstanding happened. You see, I was saying 'I give checks pretty much on any other result than a failure', and you replied that you were thinking of giving checks on failures and criticals, hence implying that you do not give checks on successes and fumbles.

But glad that I am helping you 'see the light'!

My mistake! Sorry about the confusion.

2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

As for your variant, I think it might be a little too easy to get a check since pretty much any attempt could qualify for one. I'd be more inclined to replace failures with fumbles, because it is usually the really bad mistakes that people learn from. In real life I had a friend who learned the lard way why you don't do a circular parry in the opposite direction of the attack. He fumbled and we both learned why. Had he just failed we wouldn't have.   

Yeah, that's why I said upthread that Morien had made me rethink to fumbles instead of failures.

4 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

No, more the opposite. You see originally the "success in  significant situation" rule was the norml for all RQ/BRP/KAP games. But over time, several GMs complained, either because of the possibility of players "skill check hunting" or just because they want to control advancement the way many other RPGs do with experience/improvement points. 

 

So #1 got added and #2 modified into it current for to allow GMs who didn't like the original method to tone down the number of skill checks received to an amount that they were happy with while still letting those of us who prefer the old method to stick with it. In fact, if you think about it #1 only exists in case GMs are a little too strict with #2, as most instances of #1 would qualify under #2 as well.

Thanks for the background!

28 minutes ago, Morien said:

No, the RAW is:

1. Critical success, OR

2. "A success in a significant situation is achieved."

Now skill 20 is 100% to achieve either of these conditions as long as a significant situation comes up. However with your 'failures + crits' house rule, skill 20 cannot fail, so you have to get a crit to get a check, 5% chance.

That is what Atgxtg is pointing out, Skill 20 went from 100% to get a check and then 5% chance to increase = 5% total chance to improve by experience, to 5% chance to get a check and 5% chance to increase = 0.25% total chance to improve by experience. Clearly a much worse proposition.

He also makes the valid distinction that while you might roll Sword several times during an adventure and hence stand a much better chance of critting at some point (especially with modifiers like attacking a knight who is trying to get up), some of the less rolled skills you might only get a single roll per year, and the above math would be correct.

But I wasn't planning to remove the 'success in a significant situation' option. (I didn't think I needed to actually spell that out.)

RAW:

1. Critical success

2. GM's decision (e.g. 'success in a significant situation')

The house rule I was considering:

1. Failure or critical success

2. GM's decision (e.g. 'success in a significant situation')

So for skill 20 or higher, this is the same as RAW, no?

(I'm guessing that option 2 was included in the RAW partly to help with the issue faced by Sir Aelfric the Boating Knight.)

7 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I think that would cause problems for characters once a skill hit 20. Such characters cannot fail a roll (baring modifiers) and only critical 5% of the time. Well with most of the major skills (sword, lance ,horse, awareness, heraldry, recognize, etc.) players get to roll them so many times during an adventure that the actual roll required doesn't matter so much as far as getting a check box goes, but for those skills/traits that only get rolled one or twice a game session such a  system would act as a "soft cap."

For example, lets say that Sir Aelfric the Saxon has Boating at 20.If checks are awarded for failures and crticals, then he would only get a check on a critical, which he has a 5% chance of rolling. Then he's only improve it he rolled a second 20 later (also a 5% chance). So his skill only has a (1/20)^2 = 1/400= 0.25% chance of improving. So unless the Knight spends glory he probably won't go from 20 to 21 in his lifetime.But, if Aelfric does spend glory to up his skill over 20 his chances of improvement start to increase! So at 24 he'd have a 1% chance of improving, at 29 a 2% chance and so on.  

But that's the same as in the standard rules, isn't it?  

Thanks, Morien. Your link also makes me guess that the £8 minimum figure in the core book might be a carryover from an earlier edition with a later starting period (I couldn't figure out how it added up from the equipment list).

Landlords can collect money for the four universal aids (KAP 5.2, page 188). "When the aid is imposed by a lord knight, each of the lord’s vassals pays an amount equal to the average yearly income of his primary holding." Vassal knights are landlords, but they don't have landed vassals themselves (at least to start with); how much can they get? My guess is to keep it at the value of a starting manor, i.e. 10 libra, which is enough to cover the 8-libra minimum for a new knight and have a bit over for a small feast. Is that reasonable?

(That would make things more difficult in later periods, but I'll cross that bridge when/if I come to it.)

49 minutes ago, Morien said:

BotEnt is correct. Otherwise Coursers would be much cheaper and superior to poor chargers in every way. I would allow a battle and hunt trained Courser for double the price, so about the same as a charger: a bit less damage but better DEX, Move and CON.

Stat-wise, poor chargers are slightly smaller and weaker than a charger, to explain that drop in damage. I'd probably use courser stats for those (SIZ 30, STR 26), if it ever came up (it hasn't, thus far).

Would it be fair to assume that a starting courser is battle-trained, at least (e.g. for the Master of the Hunt pregen in the core book)?

8 hours ago, Morien said:

Correct.

Yes. This is probably because originally, we were going to stop at 484, full stop. But then first Uther, and then Anarchy were added in Appendices, and somehow, Wessex got forgotten about.

That being said, Chichester should be taken by Aelle, IMHO, since it is named after his son, Cissa. GPC maps have their usual detail, having Cerdic take Portchester (496 map) and then having PORT arrive and take Chichester (501 text + 503-504 maps), instead of Portchester/Portsmouth. Grr. Also, despite the text stating that Cerdic gives Portchester to Port, the 503-504 map does not reflect this. Oh well. Perhaps it serves to make Wessex a bit bigger and hence more of a threat to Salisbury, but I would be tempted to change that. It might even be an interesting plot point if Ulfius gives/abandons Chichester to Sussex in order to get an alliance/peace with them, perhaps in 502 (after Port's landing shows that the southern shore cannot be held) or 503 (Essex and Kent take London and push Ulfius west). 

 

I see! Thanks for that.

On page 11, in table 1.5, shouldn't Hantonne and Chichester have a 'Future Saxon Kingdom' note? (That is, 'Future Saxon Kingdom; will be conquered during the Anarchy Period (Appendix B)', same as Caerwent and Norwich on page 9.)

Maybe this thread?

http://kapresources.wpengine.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-1904.html

It's minor, but on page 275:

'Prince Idres of Totnes, whose father was the previous King of Cornwall, feels slighted by Aurelius and Riothamus, even though Riothamus marries Idres’ sister and makes Idres his heir.'

I think the bold text should be 'marries his sister to Idres', to match page 105 and the family tree on page 66. (In 457 Riothamus marries Triphine, the sister of Meliau, King of Vannetais; this connection is also mentioned on pages 98 and 106.)

12 hours ago, Username said:

@Uqbarian My plan was to list them as allies of Arthur, but I was unsure if that had been changed with the changes to names.

That's interesting about Brittany. Speculation on my part, but it seems like Vannetais leads all of Brittany. They seem to be rather united in the pre-Uther period. I think it would be most accurate to represent Brittany as one political unit with "sub-kingdoms".

Idres is mentioned as the king of Cornwall and Brittany in year 497 of the GPC. In my opinion, it's pretty necessary for Idres to have that kind of support otherwise, his invasions should have never succeeded. Cornwall alone shouldn't support the troop number he needs. Would that make Idres King of Vannetais by 496?

Do we know what happens to the Breton subjects after Idres' death?

I'm pretty sure when GPC says 'king of Cornwall and Brittany', it really means 'king of Cornwall and western Brittany' or 'king of Cornwall and Cornish Brittany' (Domnonie, Cornouailles and possibly Leon). BoS has him as 'King of Cornwall and Domnonie', as Riothamus's heir; he doesn't have any claim to Vannetais, as far as I can tell. Vannetais is in charge of all of Brittany until the Cornish refugees (and/or Irish, following jeff above) start showing up in the relatively unpopulated western and northern parts, and then it appears to basically cede control of those parts to them.

I did find a high kingship reference on page 143, though it's in the context of the power struggle after Idres's death. Again, I think that's about Cornwall and western Brittany.

For some dates, King Meliau of Vannetais conquers Domnonie in 471 (pursuing a weak claim via Triphine, Meliau's sister and Riothamus's widow); Idres takes Domnonie and Cornouailles in 476-9. These (and Leon) may still have their own kings in the Uther period, and/or Vannetais may be paying tribute to Idres, to explain 'lesser kings of Brittany' in the GPC sidebar on page 25. Idres never actually conquers Vannetais, as far as I can tell.

After Idres dies in 513, his son Mark inherits his holdings in Cornwall and (western) Brittany. Mark and his vassal Hoel, Duke of Cornouailles (one time called king in GPC, but I think that's an error) are fighting a war with King Conon of Vannetais around 536. Mark and Tristram are also taking castles in Leon in 546, according to GPC; I'm not sure who they're fighting, but it might just be local rebel lords.

12 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

There will be more on Brittany eventually. It did have a high kingship, at least in Geoffrey of Monmouth, with King Budic (Budec in the BoS). Earlier there are others, quite significant in Breton folklore.

Lyonesse is a form of the Irish Ui Liathain, a sea-going and mercenary tribe that colonized western Cornwall according to Irish legend. The name Liathain was Anglicized as Lyons in Ireland. But by the time of the BoS they have been conquered by the Cornovii. Leon would logically be another Irish colony (also absorbed into the Bretons), these dating probably to the time of the Barbarian Conspiracy.

Cool! Thanks for that.

5 minutes ago, Morien said:

Maris shows up as the place where Ector de Maris is from, the bastard son of King Ban and, I think, the daughter of the King of Maris. I don't have GPC with me at the moment, but IIRC, this happens after the Battle of Bedegraine (511), implying that Maris is friendly to King Arthur after that victory. They are a small kingdom, hidden in their swamps, so they wouldn't have a huge effect either way.

Of course! Yep, GPC has Ector de Maris being conceived after Bedegraine in 510 (page 133), though GPC describes Maris as a lordship rather than a kingdom.

Going by GPC page 126, Roestoc is also known as Elmet. (On page 121 Elmet is mentioned as a people or tribe allied with Malahaut, so it could be something like Elmet is the tribal name and Roestoc is the regional name.) As Elmet it shows up as an allied kingdom on some of the political maps for 519 and after (page 183); it's still around in 555 and 563. (It's also mentioned under the Conisbrough tournament in 549.)

Given the position of the 'Maris' label on the map on page 127, I'd guess the lordship of Maris is part of Elmet. (Leeds, Castleford, Doncaster and Conisborough are in Elmet. That could also fit the page 183 map, maybe?) The Humber is usually the southern border of Malahaut, I think. As Maris is the lordship of the Humber marsh folk, its lord might pay homage to both Elmet and Malahaut for the lands south and north of the river, or maybe it's just mainly on the south side. (The latter also kind of fits the 5.2 core book map.)

I'd say Pase falls with Lestroite and Rouse in the Pennines/West Cumbria tribal wilderness that generally shows up as a blank white patch on the political and event maps. I think these all remain independent through Arthur's reign, though under varying influence from Malahaut. Amans is probably the southern bulge of this white region, west of Elmet on the 519 map.

(The above is mainly going by GPC. The Book of Uther has the names in notably different positions, but 4e Perilous Forest roughly lines up with GPC. Amans and Pase are also mentioned as independent kingdoms in Savage Mountains, which covers 531-544.)

EDIT: As for Brittany, Aurelius and Uther go to Vannetais (according to the Book of Sires). Idres is of the Cornovii in the Kingdom of Cornwall, not Brittany. Vannetais is the oldest of the Cymric kingdoms in Brittany (since 395); that's why the kings of Vannetais are also called the kings of Brittany before other kingdoms are founded there. (There's not a high kingship of Brittany, as far as I can tell.) Domnonie is founded in 457, Cornouailles in 468. (I can't find info on Leon in GPC or BOS, but drawing on the possible historical and fictional parallels, my first thought is that Leon was settled by folk from Lyonesse. These could be Dumnonii who were driven out of Lyonesse by the Irish in the early fifth century, but as they don't join up with Domnonie, maybe they are bolstered in the 450s by families from both of the Cornish tribes (as well as some of the expelled Irish) who were sick of the Cornovii-Dumnonii wars and didn't want to choose one side or ther other.)

Thanks!

I'm going to steal a bunch of these! How big are the extra bonuses you give towards marriage Glory for wealth etc.?

Yeah, these are neat, Username. I'm keen to see the 519 map!

A while back I downloaded hundred maps for Clarence, Glevum and Rydychan. Were there any other hundred maps on the old site? (I can't find the relevant page in the Wayback Machine.)

2 hours ago, Morien said:

It is high*, but I am quite happy to handwave it as a narrative trope as well as to keep things simple. I mean, if you wanted to model the multiple birth rate accurately, it would also need to depend on the age of the mother**. I am much happier with a high chance of twins than I am with a high chance of death in childbirth.

EDIT:

* The current chance in UK is about 1.6% of a birth being a multiple birth, but this might be due to women giving birth older and fertility treatments. It was closer to 1% in 1984. So yeah, twins on a crit is quite high, but I am fine with it, for reasons stated above. The chance of identical twins vs. non-identical twins is actually a bit low. It might be better to just roll one 1d6: 1 = identical girls, 2 = sororal girls, 3 = girl & boy, 4 = boy & girl, 5 = fraternal boys, 6 =identical boys.

** Actually, the proposed CON roll system does this in a way, since the chance of a singleton birth goes down with age, but the critical (twins) chance stays the same. So the chance of twins on a successful pregnancy goes up.

Yeah, I was going to mention the age factor as well, but I figured that wasn't worth modelling. It's neat that your system does kind of do that, though, and it's certainly easier to have everything in one roll.