Jump to content

SaxBasilisk

Regulars
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SaxBasilisk

  1. Comments: 1) We're not talking about hobbits here. We're talking about people who have been marginalized from our hobby. I'm not saying there aren't women at our tables - but there are others who won't show up because of inappropriate behavior, harassment, or even assault in spaces where men won't see it, even if it happens right in front of them. Many of them will see a game that says "no female characters" may decide not to stick around to see if that reflects the group's real-world attitudes and treatment of women. It's just a game - why take a chance? 2) Art does matter. One comm
  2. Here we are, at the second year of the GPC! First, let's start with a minor point. The Book of Uther notes that Syagrius is a king, not a praetor, and that he shows up next year, not this one. I think it actually works better to have this situation simmering in the background. The game also keeps Syagrius alive after his death at the hands of the Visigoths, so it's not as if we're adhering strictly to the historic record anyway. Now, let's dive into Sword Lake! This is a key opportunity for players to participate in a key point of Arthurian legend - and it's also a little weird, for
  3. I think we've got that one pretty down pat - it doesn't matter much when someone's on the receiving end of a two-handed weapon crit - but I appreciate the reminder.
  4. Thanks to everyone for their comments and feedback. I appreciate the notice that great spears will not negate the +5 bonus the knights get, which I had missed. I did want to answer some of Axgtgx's comments, largely because I think they were helpful in making some choices about my campaign and its philosophy. Most of my players started their gaming experience with Call of Cthulhu, and the majority are veterans of a multi-year B/X "death at 0 HP" campaign. We've already had two knights die (one through crits, one through crits + bad decision making), and the players just created ot
  5. Yes, that title is a bit provocative. We've been having some serious trouble in our campaign battles, which prompted me to take a look at the tables I was using - those for Defending and Attacking Saxon armies in the Book of Armies. Just to be clear, I'm using the main rulebook's battle rules with two house rules: first, the reduction of critical hits to 1.5xregular damage, and second, the commander of a disengaged unit gets to choose between two units if they decide to attack. I've also incorporated the rules from BoB regarding rescue of unhorsed characters. Even given this, ba
  6. I like those suggestions - I'm trying to draw a line between "starting a Pendragon campaign" and "starting the GPC" which might be helpful. Casting the net wider, I'd recommend Sires and Knights and Ladies, although I'm not sold on Battle, especially as a new campaign book.
  7. It's been a while... but I'm back, ready to pick up where I left off... at the beginning! To alleviate confusion, this is the first post in this series that's at the start of the published Great Pendragon Campaign, beginning in 485 AD. The Book of Uther covers 480-484. I've started campaigns in both, and I can say I honestly don't have a preference. I'm sure someone's done a detailed post somewhere about how to get started with the campaign here, so I'll just give my summary: The Great Pendragon Campaign (print and electronic): Sadly, the GPC is a huge book - in fact, so huge
  8. Thank you! I think I am looking for something along those lines. As for the backstory - I'm altering the system slightly, so I've got female knights and pre-Romance Period use of the Amor passion. Those are my choices. I figured that Lady Llylla had another couple years, given how picky Ederyn was about her suitors. Then my player declared that he wanted to court her, despite the differences in status. I let him roll for a passion, and he ended up with a high one. So every time a suitor shows, he duels them into a bloody pulp, usually in public - thus the bad relations with powerful pe
  9. One of my players wants to switch to playing PKs so he can take up a household knight. His previous PK participated in the Adventure of Sword Lake, has a tendency to anger powerful people, loves Lady Llylla of the Castle of Vigor, and really hates Saxons. Thus, Count Roderick is going to put him "on loan" to Baron Ederyn, and send him off to kill Saxons for a few years. There's a good chance the player will want to return to this PK at some point. Looking at the book, I'm wondering how to play this. The Vassal Knight Service solo seems a little short on both Glory and risk of death. At th
  10. For whatever it's worth... what I'd like to see: * Rules for childbirth and survival incorporated into main rulebook * Likewise with the marriage rules from Entourage * A Siege skill that isn't just an add-on * Consolidated Glory awards and quality (pages 122 and 257 vary in weird ways) * An early Saxon army that doesn't have mounted troops * All the tables having numeric designations, instead of just some * Table 5-3: Attributes Lost should be repeated in the combat chapter, for ease of reference. * "Your Own Land" extended with five pages of wacky stuff that happens at c
  11. The gossip section is definitely unreliable - but for me, there's a line where it jumps the line from questionable to conspiracy theory, and declaring that the head of the Druids isn't at least partially pagan falls into that category for me. I think I'd be more comfortable swapping out "demon" for "pagan" when presenting that information to the players. Tactically, it may be on Madoc - but Uther was the one who took Madoc to Cornwall and then left him guarding the camp while he was off in disguise. (I'm willing to give him leeway for most of the Ygraine affair, but as far as I
  12. Oh yes - but in a setting that has a good number of pagans, even if the faith is dying out in Logres, "pagan" is just a weird leap from "half-demon potential Antichrist," compounded by the nonsensical response that he's not pagan when he clearly is. Perhaps a GM should use that information on page 40 instead.
  13. Here we are, at the last year of the Book of Uther expansion for the GPC. Let's get into some commentary... Gossip: I had no idea that the founder and head of the revived Druidic order was a Christian. Is the speaker an idiot? Is Merlin's role a secret? Did Greg write different things at different times? No matter - I'm flagging it here. The Battle of Eburacum: First, I'm interpreting the modifiers per round to Battle rolls to replace the Melee Events table in the Battle series (III.B.), even though it's not being explicitly given anywhere. My own experience of the battle (most
  14. Would that requirement be binding to the Saxons? Couldn't he push for a longer period of service in the negotiations, if he's got them over a barrel?
  15. FYI, Stormbringer has some rules regarding weapon length which are at least derived from another BRP game. They're too long to type in here, but they might be of interest.
  16. As am I, on both counts. And Username - I just picked up Lordly Domains, so I can indicate to the player that we can pursue more advanced options if desired.
  17. One of my players asked if he could build a mews on his land - oddly enough, without even knowing that this was an option in the game. The Book of the Manor, p. 84, lists three different size tiers for mews, but all it grants is a check in Falconry a year, no matter the size. On the other hand, the kennel above also has three tiers, but these modify the Hunting roll based upon size. I'm wondering if the intent here wasn't to give a similar +1/2/3 bonus to Falconry checks. That seems balanced to me - the mews costs less, but Hunting is more likely to incur repeated checks and is used more
  18. I'd also add somewhere, for those buying more of the books, that different parts of the game were written at different times, with different philosophies. This is especially true for that late period where Greg decided to rename most of the counties and towns (to my own ongoing frustration). The GM should be prepared to pick and choose what they like, and understand that some grey areas will need to be filled in.
  19. That is the major impact of the adventure. I'm not too worried about covering that one, as it's explicitly mentioned at the end of "Marriage" - but now it's mentioned here as well. It does inspire another thought: GMs should probably be reminded in 496 to go back and look at the end of "Marriage," to see if they want to employ any of those plot threads from thirteen years before...
  20. I wanted to start a series of threads dealing with each year of the GPC as I ran it, to discuss some of the opportunities and challenges thereof. Of course, I didn't think about that until I got to 483 AD. Oh well. I'm perfectly happy if anyone wants to start threads for these or other years. I don't intend this to be particularly inspiring or insightful, but we'll see how it goes. Material given here is from the events of the year in The Book of Uther, as well as the free scenario "The Marriage of Count Roderick," which a potential GM should be reading in advance. Depending upo
  21. One item I'm still debating whether to include is Arthur's Irish campaign. GPC's presentation of Arthur as a just and righteous king (most of the time, mind you) doesn't quite square with the long and problematic history of Anglo-Irish relations.
  22. As for what deeds qualify - for whatever it's worth, page 18 of The Book of the Estate gives Greg's ideas of what actions might be worth a promotion.
  23. Personally, if I were playing the system as I've seen it so far - and I've read through both the rules and the cards - I'd bump my knight's APP up to, but not past, 20 with jewelry. Not only are the cards more fun, but there's on occasion a long-term benefit they offer that's worth more than the Glory, IMO.
  24. Some of this may be how GPC, Book of Uther, and The Marriage of Count Roderick interact with the rules. Thus, in my campaign (GPC SPOILERS): Year 479 - I try out a quick feast to celebrate all these new vassal knights - which is a reason given for a feast - and give the rules a go. 480 - GPC stipulates a coronation feast where Uther insults Gorlois. Thus, we have a feast, and one of my vassal knight players draws a card for a potential marriage, to which she agrees. 481 - No feast (due to aforesaid player's absence). 482 - A vassal knight's marriage is worthy of a two-round
  25. The other effect that "Geniality gained from cardson play" provides is that a player drawing multiple cards gets interesting choices. If one card is worth more Geniality, but the other gives another benefit, which one should the player choose? What I'm hearing is that I understand the rules as written - but also that"Geniality from cards played, not drawn" is a more satisfying interpretation for people. I may implement the latter, then.
×
×
  • Create New...