Tizun Thane

You're not a fan of the kingdom of Elmete/Roestoc? Kingdom of Powys/Sugales?

It would be awesome^^

By the way, will we have more material to play a lady in KAP in this new edition? To have more options beside killing things ? Because I always felt that playing a female knight was a lazy way to resolve the inherent sexism of the setting. Honest question. I don't want to ignite a new war.

To be honest, it was my first choice as well. But, it is already a virtue for the animist religion, so I didn't want any duplicate. Thank you. I am more and more inclined to change the (home)rules^^

Your first post was very clear ;). Clearly, if you want 50/50, the only logical way is to change the rules of succession (like Dorne in ASOIAF for example). I admit I was pretty surprised to read it as well. What a weird question... My point exactly. Thank you for explaining it better than I could ^^ Not sure pagans were more progressive but yeah. We talked about it by the past. I can see, during Arthur's reign, enlightment and many "progressive" new rules and behaviors. But Uther was not a just man, neither a good one. It was dark Ages, and progressive stance about women doesn't feel "dark ages" to me.

* Experience checks - Generous. My interpretation of a significant roll is large. * Solo's. I don't play solos in my game, except for missing players to catch up one year or two. * Non-knightly character creation? No need IMO. * Squire character creation? Book of Entourage have complete rules for PC and NPC squires. They're good, I believe.

Yes, I think you're right. There is also enough promiscuous faeries in briton and welsh folklore to support the lustful way. There is also the (debunked) myth about fertility rituals. About the high kingship of Ireland, there is a also a weird debatted custom the king should have sex with a white mare to prove his right to reign. A link: It's just... Weird symbolism about sovereignty don't make all pagan people horny. The lustful trait looks very untrue to what we know now about celtic druidism. The more I think about it, the less it makes sense. Lustful is sexual in the KAP rules, as opposed to chaste. According to the RAW, if he is faithful to his wife, he is still chaste. If he sleeps around, the husband is lustful. Same for the wife. That's why I suggested indulgent as a new virtue for pagan people.

Poor Cedric. As usual, I liked the 13 treasures of Britain bit. The whole battle was epic. Your players suffered, I see ^^ Why Luc is helping Cornwall? I didn't understand his motivations. He was lucky to crit, to be sure. As Uther is both vengeful and arbitrary, I fear for his future. Anyway, good campaign.

The more I play the game, the more I dislike the way celtic paganism is handled i KAP. Above all, my main issue is with the pagan virtues, especially lustful. Lustful is problematic because it turns every pagan into an horny goat. It is simply untrue, and in fact, a bit of a christian caricature. I read as much as I could about celtic religion. Druids were celibate (all men by the way). Pagan people uphold monogamy (not like christians, but in their own way). Pagan women were supposed to be faithful to their husbands. Virginity was desirable for a maiden. They were probably not obsessed about the need to control sexual urges (like christians), but they were not that horny. Maybe a better pagan virtue would be indulgent (love of life) ? Still shocking to christian people, but more true ?

To each his own. I use the dex roll for unhorsing since forever, and I have plenty of horsemanship rolls as well. IMO, it is a terrible idea, the only change I will never implement in my game, because it's against the spirit of the game.

The true difference is with a pagan (religious) knight with his +2 to healing rate. Clearly, the pagan bonus was the worst bonus, and with this new rule, it will be the best.

By the way, it was Greg Stafford's vision as well. Each time you diverge from the sources to appeal to a modern sensibility, you look like a D&D game and not a KAP game. I think quite the contrary, and I think it's the heart of the argument. I never saw any racism in the sources, and I read many (many) medieval tales, but as you said, it's a feudal world, and the game portrays it as "a good thing". IRL, no player is thinking the "blue blood are better people, because their ancestors were better people". And yet, in the game, it's true. The feudal word is patriarcal. Proudly, without any shame. If you alter one thing from the setting, you change the mood of the game. That's why I am very reluctant to allow women knights in my game. Otherwise, it looks like any other D&D game (very inclusive, but empty). It's not against women (of course not!), but it's to be faithful to the sources. In the old greg stafford site, there was a whole essay "this game is sexist". It was a bit provocative. In fact, the game is not, but the setting is. I have jew players at my table. They think the whole idea of jew knight to be hilarious (in a bad way). By the way, the rules are in the GPC (and in knights adventurous).

First. I love the cover, and the interior art. The adventure itself is fun as hell. Otherwise, there is a bit too much rule changes to my taste. The passion rules. I will not comment now. I have to think about them. However, madness should be in months, years, and a real drawback. DEX keeps a character upright or horsed. Oh yeah! The horsemanship roll was a mistake. Attempting First Aid on yourself is done with a –10 Skill modifier. Love it. Good compromise. the new weapon skills. A good idea. The initiative rules. Why? The actions are simultaneous. If damage is greater than the sum of the loser’s SIZ and their horse’s SIZ, then the horse is knocked down too! Love it. the loser is knocked down. They begin next round on the ground. If mounted, they suffer 1D6 damage from the fall, and drop their weapon and shield. The fallen character drops his shield? What?! First Aid may be tried just once per wound, restoring a number of Hit Points equal to the wounded character’s Healing Rate. Interesting, but powerful. I prefer more gritty games. Horsemanship Limitation: The Horsemanship Skill limits the value of all Weapon Skills employed while riding. No effective Weapon Skill value may be greater than the rider’s Horsemanship Skill value. It's a terrible rule. Like really bad. KAP is about playing knights. A horseman. Cheval-ier (horse-man), Caballero (horseman). The rules should favor a man fighting on his horse, not the contrary. Fighting multiple opponents. The new rules are very gentle for the players. I prefer the old ones. The armor rules. They look more protective. The old armor rules were protective enough to my taste. Does the parry bonus of the sword add to the parry bonus of the shield? If the answer is yes, it's really powerful. Lions should be scary monsters, not a joke. The Hit points of the monsters have changed ? It's not the old Tai+Con formula, but Tai x2 ?

Ok. sir Brastias, the new bodyguard of Uther, should be there. He is an important figure during the Anarchy and the Boy King period. Actually, the Book of Uther would be very useful to you. There is the whole court presented. IMO, you should present characters of local importance (sir Elad, and a few others) who will be important during the Anarchy. An arrogant banneret, a scheming seneschal, and a few others NPCs. Totally! They don't really care. They don't have time for this petty problems.

Exactly. It's a weird little tale a GM can keep under his sleeve to surprise every player. IMO, it's the same thing with the murder of Kay. However, it shouldn't be in the GPC, the main tale of the game. I love the sarcastic Kay full of bravado, but faithful to his king. The "Loholt accident" makes Kay dirty, the same way the "false Guenever" incident makes Arthur dirty. Why the italics? I always thought they were the same character. By the way, Loholt appears in passing as well in Erec and Enid of Chrétien.

It's a bit like the legend of the Grand'Goule of Poitiers. This is a dragon killed by holy water by St Radegonde in the 6th century (like Pendragon ;)) the link in english. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ghoul In french (more complete), they said sir John Lauder de Fountainhall, saw a stuffed crocodile in 1666 (!) with a very big maw. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand'Goule I always thought it was gold for a KAP adventure^^

In my campaign, I talked a bit of Borre in the Background, and his tragic death (like in the CPC). However, I never talked about Loholt. As in Perlesvaus, Chrétien in his Erec and Enid, and other welsh tales, he is in my head the only legitimate child beetween Arthur and Guenever. Yes, his death would be a tragedy, and explained a lot about the end. I really dislike the bit with Kay in the GPC (from Perlesvaus, yes, but he is not my Kay). As I said, a bit of a missed opportunity.

Surely...^^ I loved that bit. Otherwise, your players did well with the water leapers, one of the deadliest encounters of the GPC IMO.

Love it! Beware with back ups. I ended up with running two campaigns, instead of one 🤣 Anyway, I like how your married the GPC with your owns ideas. The 13 treasures of Britain took me by surprise, in a good way^^ Your players left the poor Esmee behind? The rascals! My favorite bit. I love the randomness of it (Book of Feasts, I guess), and how this event alters the story in a good way.

Nasty ! Love it I understand your position. But it was very nice of you. After all, it was only one fight to witness.

Yes. there was the whole "The King is beyond the rules of normal men". Their attitud is totally understandable. It's just I was looking for drama! Brother against Brother! 🥰 Uther is a shitty king. A good warlord, but a bad king. Thank you. I understand better you take. My Pendragon is much more middle ages than Dark Ages. That's why polygamy was in my mind such a big deal. Your explanations woks marvelously for your game.

The cursed villa was very interesting. I like how you combine the GPC with your own adventures, and I think it's the only way to play it. About the poor Reynard, lethality is part of the game. Merlin is not a nice man, not a healer, and his healing of Reynard is a bit of a deus ex machina. I think his death would have been more powerful. As you said, YPMV. Just be careful about the balance of the game.

I love your campaign, as usual. You have great players, and you look like a Great GM. I was surprised that you tell them so much of the Uther/Ygraine debacle. By the way, in the sources, Uther tried to seduce Ygraine first, not rape her. You pictured him so much as a villain in your campaign that I was surprised your players didn't betray him. I was a bit disappointed Graid abandonned all of his cornish roots so easily. I hope there will be consequences Poor woman. How did you manage that, considering it's not possible in RAW? Not a fan of the whole bigamy plot. Neither Christians or Pagans are polygamous. It's your game of course. In mine, there will honor loss each year of bigamy.

Love your story, as usual. You all seem to have fun^^ But... Death is part of the game in KAP. I understand your move, but the sudden death of a character is probably better in the long run. When death is part of the game, every fighting against all odds is indeed very brave. IRL, dead people all have unfinished business.

You mixed up the adventure of the Bear of Imber and the battle of Mearcred Creek. A classical move for 485 A few questions: Why did Reynard make love (family) roll in the Battle? There was no real reason. How Luc manage to loot anything with a retreat? By the way,what battle rules did you use?