Tizun Thane

So, you can reintroduce the adventure later with an old Gregor of Stafford like written. Congrats!

I don't follow you on this. You can pay a beautiful castle with 512 £. A family of commoners can live with 1£ by year. And their is a limit to the cost of clothes. Sure, the queen have many fine dresses (a bit like Kate Middleton or other royals today), but each dress cost "only" 30 £ (or 32 £ as Atgxtg said).

In the books, even the queen Guenever wore only 30 £ of clothes.

RAW, jewelry is especially a good idea, because it's also a good way to convert your income excess into cash. All my players look like lords of bling from a rap clip. The rule is a bit broken (but fun to play!). As a quick fix, I suggest to max the jewelry bonus with the cost of the clothes. (ie if i you have 2 £ clothes, you can only have a +2 bonus with jewelry, even if you worn a 20 £ of jewelry.) Furthermore, I would add a "upstart" or parvenu rule, to maximize the App bonus according to your rank. Beyond this threshold, you look like an upstart, a parvenu, a nouveau riche, or a merchant (!!). Maybe bachelor knight: +2/+2 App max (clothes/jewelry) vassal knight : +3/3 officer or estate holder: +4/+4 baron or higher : +5/+5 As a vassal knight is supposed to worn 1£ clothes, I don't really get either why he should have a bonus. Instead, he should have a malus to worn shabby clothes. So he should begin with a -1£ malus to App.

By the way, did you play it?

This kind of religious conflict is always tricky. The bishop have a rank of a baron and you must talk to him with courtesy. The count should be ashamed of Aldwyn's reaction under his roof. The devout christian character should be insulted by the blasphemy. Curious to see how you will play it in your campaign. Wait and see...

Unhappily, his Cerdic landed in the wrong side of the Wall for reasons... But yeah, I like his performance too. Otherwise, the old LadyHawke is good too, especially the curse and the romantic mood.

To be honest, in my campaign, I don't use "hundreds", and all manors give 10 £ for simplicity's sake. I still used the number of knights in the old books (especially knights adventurous or the Boy King) to estimate the power of any nobleman. If the lord of XXX have a garnison of 10 K and 25 footmen, his estate is probably of 105 £. IMO, for your campaign, you just have to figure out: the count and his family (already done) his officers, their loyalty and their future a few powerful bannermen, their loyalty and their future a few vassal (and bachelors) knights to interact with a few maids to marry (not the heiresses, but more of girl-next-door vibe). The sister (cousin) of some PK, the daughter of a neighbor, etc., with special attention to their personality. The last is for a quick wedding if your PK are inclined. The others points are for flavor, and will become especially useful during the Anarchy.

Thanks both of you. The lady's Maid is paid for the new lady of the manor, not the widow. Interesting.

I agree. It is if they have not a precise goal in mind, like intriguing with the count, flirting with the beautiful princess, and so on. Without RP, it's boring anyway. By the past, I used a 2/rd threshold. It was a joke. I agree, even if I think they sould draw less cards (-1? -2?) to increase the risks.

Still, the widow would probably live in the familial manor. What is messy is not the inheritance rules, it is the application of the widow portion. 1/3 of 6£ in the old system is simple. 1/3 of 10 £ in the new one is messy. 3,333 £ (1 £ for herself, 1£ for her children, and 1,3333 £ for what?). And the rest of the family have only 6,5 £ to pay everything else? Who pays the soldiers, the chaplain? How do you apply that in game? For my part, that's why so many widows are deprived of their rights...

+1, especially the bit about the heiresses. I will only add 8. You can begin your campaign any time. In 485, in 480 (like in the Book of Uther), but you are not obliged. Uther's reign is a brutal one, and the Anarchy is worst. I love it, but if you want to play a more classical Pendragon, the year 510 is a good idea to follow the rise of Arthur, or 531 (like the 3e ed.) to play a classical "adventurous knight". When the PK think Pendragon, they think Arthur: tournaments, castles (of stone), virtuous damsels, and knights in shining armors, not the mud and blood of Uther's times.

Yes, it's easy to have one (or severals) feasts by year. You can add the christening of your son, the wedding of your sister, and in fact, many events. For the little feasts, I use the old system (in knight adventurous or a better one in Tournaments of dreams) to quickly resolve the feast. If I may, I disagree. I playtested it and my players won the game often. It's not that hard to seat above the salt. With a +10 bonus in App (easy to obtain with jewels), it's not that hard to crit either. As SaxBasilisc said, there is also times when the PK is logically above the salt without any roll (at his own wedding, the hero of the day, etc.). If you are above the salt, it's not that hard to crit, especially if you are a social character with geniality bonus (and inspiration?). One of my players had 21 in flirting for example, and you can imagine how easy it was for him to flirt. And even if you are close to the salt, you win automatically 1 geniality point/round+ any action. With lucky cards, you can win 3 or 4 points (I remember one time with 6 geniality points!). So... For me, it's a bit like a tournament. Even with a good jouster, local ones are hard to win. So, a feast is like a tournament for social characters and should be easy to have fun, and difficult to win.

Thank you for your googling skills. Sad. I liked the Red City connexion.

What I call "high table" is "Above the Salt" where you win 2 geniality points / round without doing anything. With a success, you win 1 another point (2 pts with a crit.). So, the threshold is not that high, and cunning and lucky players can win much more.

I suppose he appeared under this nickname in the old armorial. I am curious. What Fel (not félon) means? I readed somewhere that Hermin was the evil brother of this benevolent king. Edit: It was in the armorial of Freddy Sibileau, who was hosted in the old Greg Stafford site. I found a (dubious) link. http://doczz.fr/doc/422353/les-armoiries-des-chevaliers-de-la-table-ronde

No need to apologize A challenge is a good idea too, like the short adventure in the good old Blood and Lust.

In my game, the threshold is 3 x number of rounds of the feast, under the assomption that someone at the high table is going to win each round.

Under stress, you can not count precisely the stripes. It's easy to imagine the count being falsely accused of murder in front of the king Arthur by a squire who failed his heraldry roll. The count asks for a delay of forty days to prove his innocence. the PK must investigate, and any GM could craft a nice little adventure...

She probably live with her son in the familial manor, but she could go to a relative, to the count, buy her own little house somewhere... There is no rule. But yes, widows portion is a mess and a burden in the game.

The only one page scenario I know is under the year 518.

I was looking at this old armorial, and I found the blazon of "Hermin le Félon" very close to the one of the count of Salisbury. http://marikavel.org/arthur/armorial.htm This Hermin is a minor character, and was the (evil) brother of the king of the Red City. By the way, félon in french means "treacherous" or "perfidious". As his coat of arms was in a prestigious armorial, we can suppose he is a powerful knight (famous or extraordinary level). We can imagine an adventure where the count of Salisbury is accused of the felonies of Hermin le Félon, and are trying to clear the name of their liege

Fist, your GM is the Law in your campaign. If he said a woman past 40 can not naturally have a child (like you know, in real life), she can't have a child. You manage to magically have twins, so good for you. Don't be too greedy. When you married lady Indeg, you knew that fertility was an issue. It looks like you are trying to have your cake and eat it. And yes, there is rules concerning the declining fertility of women. Unfortunately, they were on the website of Greg Stafford, who is no longer available.

I suppose it's the Melwas connexion, king of the "Summer Country" , but still, I disagree. Oh yeah! His kingdom of Gorre is somewhat otherwordly and I like it! The Sword Bridge for exemple 🥰

It is written that way, but in my game, only played cards gave geniality bonus.