stryker99

This is happening in 499. I think I will have Aelle threaten Wessex with his dual alliance, if nothing else just to show off his strength and thumb his nose at Cerdic, and Cerdic will hole up in fortifications due to the overwhelming threat. Sussex will raid, giving the PKs the choice to get some negative trait checks for loot if they participate as well as earn a grudge score increase with Wessex if they do. This plays nicely into the interactions already scripted into the GPC in the upcoming years, the PKs can play the Saxons off against each other in the coming years which the GPC seems to heavily hint at. Thanks again for the great ideas!

During the Anarchy when faced with triple tribute demands the PKs decided to pay Wessex, tell Essex to go pound sand, and ally with Sussex. I believe they were afraid of Wessex, thought Essex was weak and distant, and wanted to align themselves with Silchester who had also allied with Sussex (per the GPC). They were mostly worried about finding themselves facing Duke Ulfius across the battlefield. I decided old King Aelle would accept one campaign of troops from Salisbury in lieu of one years tribute AND Salisbury verbally backing Aelle's claim as Bretwalda. I felt Aelle was negotiating from a position of strength, and some opposed courtesy/intrigue rolls for negotiation were a draw. My question is how do you veterans of the GPC see this playing out? To me this looks very bad for Wessex. They are mostly surrounded by Sussex, Silchester, and Salisbury.

Oh, don't get me wrong. There was definitely a clear threat when he told them "I am sure you wish to be on the WINNING side?" complete with intimidating stare and a long pause, then he went all noble on them again ("I will treat you well and justly"). I tried to deliver it as a guy that can turn on/off the malice at will, throwing them off balance. I think that's part of why they are considering it, they are a little scared of him. I made a point of how it appears these Saxons just wiped out the knighthood of Hampshire, loyal landed knights just like them. That rattled them a bit as they realized "that could happen to us" (though I assume Hampshire was not as strong as Salisbury, a point I didn't make to them). My players probably aren't as steeped in the pre-history of the campaign as they should be. They are a bit on the casual player side of the casual/hard-core spectrum. I'm wondering how much of history I should review with them. For instance they surely don't know Hengest was his grandfather, or about uncle Octa and Aesc. They are probably even fuzzy on the Night of Long Knives, I double checked and NONE of the grandfathers were killed there (most had bad rolls and died earlier in the history). With the lack of "knowledge" based skills in Pendragon, how do GMs manage in character knowledge vs out of character knowledge? It seems obvious that the characters probably know more than the players do, but where to draw the line is fuzzy. If I go too far the players will take it as a clue that "the GM is trying to tell us not to do this".

Exactly! I asked my wife (one of the PKs) about this and she said I played Cerdic as very sympathetic. This was intentional as that's how I read this piece of the GPC: Cerdic puts on a show of his Briton manners, throwing a very British feast, and parading in front of them a contingent of knights who butter up Cerdic's credentials. I even gave the PKs intrigue rolls to realize he was putting on quite a show for them. One of the PKs even brought up the fact that Uther has an heir out there somewhere, they were put on trial for helping Merlin kidnap him! But still, they were considering backing Cerdic... We are playing this out next session. I plan to have Sir Leo argue Cerdic's villainous heritage if they actually counsel Ellen to pay homage to Cerdic (many thanks to Atgxtg for providing the details of his argument against Cerdic). Even if the PKs stick to this I am thinking Ellen would not listen to them and refuse to bow to Cerdic. However this feels like it is stealing players "agency" by not allowing them to influence the direction of the campaign. I imagine it's quite likely they will listen to Sir Leo's moral arguments and wise up, but I need to be prepared if they stick to it and push for homage to Wessex. Any input as to how to handle it if they do is welcome!

We just started the Anarchy last session, 4 out of 6 PKs IMMEDIATELY bent the knee to Countess Ellen. The other 2 were considering Sir Lycas' argument that the dangerous times required the leadership of a man, not a woman, but the fact that the one PK with much higher glory was the first to swear loyalty kind of nipped that one in the bud... More surprising was how sympathetic the PKs found Kind Cerdic. They are currently ACTUALLY considering counseling Ellen to swear fealty to Wessex. I didn't expect that. Regarding Sword Lake: The giant laid a couple PKs low (unconscious), but they used wolfpack tactics where the ones the giant was facing fought defensively while others attacked unopposed. I played the giant as big and dumb: he focused entirely on whichever knight wounded him last, they quickly figured out to manipulate him to their advantage and took him down. It was an epic fight. The nukalavee was a massive anti-climax, there was no threat there whatsoever. IIRC they dropped him in one round (he has really crappy armor).

So I bought Book of the Warlord, it had a ton of info in it that is useful heading into the Anarchy. I made my players head spin when I had Countess Ellen have them review Lord Salisbury's holdings. The maps and castle information alone is well worth it. However, the maps are weak on legends. What are the dead tree icon locations on the maps, especially the 2 page Salisbury map at the back? Also the 5 leaf icons of Holyhill and Oakcamp? I am guessing the latter are pagan holy sites? The dead tree locations have me "stumped" (pun intended)...

Looks like I shouldn't have skimped and skipped purchasing Book of Warlord and Book of Uther. I don't have those which is why I am a bit disconnected from current knowledge. Thanks again all, lots of help as usual!

First of all I want to thank EVERYONE for the excellent discussion here, I typically avoid participating in online forums as they are usually quite hostile, but this community is amazingly supportive. It has helped me a LOT. I will admit I have not read Mallory. I will as it is clear it will help, but I have had a passing amateur interest in Arthurian legend for a long time so am not completely ignorant. I also have done a bit of research in feudal society and the history of Brittania, again not as a historian but more from an interest in the topic and it's roots in fantasy lore (and a youth fascinated with knights in shining armor many many decades ago). Given that I am a long way from an expert on Arthurian lore, both myself and my players have still been greatly enjoying Pendragon. The players especially feel like they are learning through playing and are excited about participating in legends they all are at least familiar with. The point that I can make it come alive even more by reading at least Le Morte D'Arthur is well taken. Getting back on the original topic, I have been trying to compile notes for heading into the Anarchy and have a few holes I was wondering if some of you could help fill in. I am trying to set up details for the players of the neighbors and here is what I have: Hampshire: Earl ?, Earl ? collegium legate in Winchester, Hantonne port for royal fleet, soon to be conquered by Cerdic and I assume the Earl and any heirs are killed? Dorset: Earl ?, Praestor Jonathel in Dorchester Collegium legate Jagent: Earl Tegfan, County of Cornwall, Collegium legate Earl Tegfan Somerset: King Cadwy (the magician king?), Kingdom, King Cadwy Collegium legate Marlboro: Earl ?, Sir Thebert warden of Terrabil notable knight from Marlboro Silchester: Duke Ulfius, Duke Ulfius collegium legate, Ulfius is most powerful noble left after St Albans (not neighbor but powerful) Lindsey: Duke Corneus is not named until 502 up until then it is just Duke Lindsey. Is this because the original duke dies at St Albans and Corneus inherits? I am specifically looking for any help filling in the question marks (?).

Thanks guys for the quick help, it's all coming together now. We will likely get to the PKs meeting Cerdic tonight and I think I have it all mapped out so that I can adequately answer the players questions about all this... My Hate (Saxons) 18 PK is going to be squirming again. He is shaping up to be one of the most influential knights in Salisbury during the Anarchy so I have a pretty good feeling what the future holds for Salisbury. It's a little prophetic that he just spent 36 Librum on a full Motte-and-Bailey, he's likely going to get quite a bit of use out of it! Bonus questions: Am I reading Book of the Estate right that a complete Motte-and-Bailey can be completed in one year? And what happens to the old Large Wooden Hall when a full Motte-and-Bailey is built?

Yeah, I have read well ahead (I think I have read in detail up to around 540). The problem is information overload, I am having difficulty digesting it all, it had been a couple months since I read through the Anarchy in detail. Thus the spreadsheets and separate notes, my notes regarding Wessex failed me. A search on "Wessex" didn't work as the section on Cerdic never mentions "Wessex"...

I might have just figured it out. Does Hampshire become Wessex after an invasion in 496? If so, sorry about the wasted bandwidth...

We are about to head into the Anarchy period and I am a little confused about Wessex in GPC. Wessex plays a major role, but I cannot find it anywhere on a map. I know it's supposed to be south between Sussex and Cornwall, it seems it should be sharing a border with Salisbury as Wessex is going to be a major problem in this period to my Salisbury knights. One of the things I am finding most difficult about running the GPC is how important NPC's and regions just pop up suddenly in the narrative with no previous explanation. I have tried mapping things out with spreadsheets and notes, but it is a monumental task and Wessex in the Anarchy has me stuck. The counties neighboring Salisbury are Somerset/Somerland, Jagent, Dorset, and Hampshire/Hantonne. All maps I have of the southwest coast show Logres covering it all west of Sussex. The maps my players are familiar with are here for reference (I am trying to place Wessex for them in this context): https://thegreatpendragoncampaign-2.obsidianportal.com/maps Help!

There were only 3 PKs involved at that point. I like the idea of having the reward come from Roderick at Uther's urging. I already had planned some treasure as reward, but the idea of whoever earned the most glory in the capture being awarded land in Salisbury is excellent. This keeps it closer to home, and limits the expansion and makes it special. How mechanically does this work in BoE? Basically their estate is now income of 2 Librum instead of 1 and they now have two plots for expansion instead of 1? How do PKs eventually get vassal knights of their own? The core rules cover this a lot, but I get the feeling it is extremely rare and the GPC would be better off if I avoid this...

The PKs managed to capture the warbanner of a Saxon king and earned great glory during the Uther period. I have been looking out for opportunities to elevate the PKs as they advance in their careers, earning new holdings and possibly vassal knights of their own. It seems like something like this should qualify, but I'm not sure exactly what to do. If King Uther were to reward these heroes with new holdings where would they be and how mechanically would it work (I am using Book of the Estate)? Would I just award them a new manor in some county other than Salisbury and just hand wave +1 Librum income (and an additional plot for expansions)? Is there a list of manors Uther has in his back pocket to hand out as rewards? Could they then assign a family knight as lord of the new estate and make him a vassal if they were so inclined? Any suggestions on how to help the PKs expand their holdings and standings is appreciated!

Yes, and it went off very well. The players really enjoyed the change of pace from the battles of the Uther period. They were very interested in the Roman connection. The high hate player had a VERY uncomfortable time in Baron Wilfrith's hall, he was wearing his hatred on his sleeve and I had great fun taunting him (this knight has a very high appearance and high courtly skills, so my favorite taunt was "I didn't know the southerners had LADY knights!"). Thankfully his famous prudent and high hospitality scores allowed him to keep his composure, along with some help from his more level headed friends. I definitely made the player pay a price for his high hatred as he constantly felt on the verge of losing control with dire consequences and was very nervous. Every PK had a chance to shine and role-play.

Wow, this one went totally off the rails. How do we go from "I want to run an adventure that isn't just all combat to give my players some variety, I really like the themes of this adventure, any suggestions how to adapt it to 490" to "You shouldn't be playing this game"? I am going to run it as-is, the high Hate PK will cause a lot of trouble, the < 16 hate PKs (thanks Morien for reminding me that < 16 means it isn't forced) will have a challenge dealing with the situation. I am not going to require a Hate roll to force the PK to try and murder every Saxon he comes across, that's childish. As long as there is some serious downsides to the Hate demonstrated in game, I am satisfied.

I understand all that, it's just that I was looking for a change of pace from "kill Saxons" which dominates this period. I saw this adventure as something that would require some more subtlety, I hate to see it devolve to just more of the same because of some dice rolls. Everybody has SOME Hate (Saxons), if they all roll a success they could be facing a party wipe, and seeing that happen because of some passion die rolls makes for a bad game. I hear what you all are saying about passions having a downside. But even a successful passion roll doesn't make a knight a maniacal killer. I won't force a combat just because of a passion roll, but a passion plus reckless? Heck yeah. I am a very experienced GM, I think I can manage the situation such that I can demonstrate the downside to high passions while still avoiding a party wipe by unbalanced combats forced on a die roll. Actually, it's a situation that will challenge my GM skills, require me to do some quick thinking and react based on where the story takes us. Thanks for the discussion. However, my questions on Malahaut still stand: Are the Centurion King's subjects a culturally diverse lot?

Want to talk consequences? The player of the 20 Hate (Saxons) passion is my wife! Yikes! Great stuff here as usual here! One thing I am trying to wrap my head around is Malahaut itself. I may be a little crippled because I skimped on Book of Uther/Warlord, but there is not a lot of clear information on Malahaut considering how much activity of the GPC takes place there. I take it that Malahaut is basically a Cymric kingdom, but considering it's size and location I am guessing that it is quite diverse in the cultures of the Centurion King's subjects? Would there be Angles/Saxons/Brigantes as subjects of Malahaut? Would it be possible to replace the Angles in question with Brigantes (which would not trigger Hate Saxons right)? Or I could just make them some unsavory Cymric subjects of the Centurion King? There is precedent for some tension between Malahaut's subjects and the knights from Logres that I set up a few years back. Some better understanding of Malahaut could help in preparing for our upcoming sessions in general, and lead me to a way to solve my concerns with this adventure. I really want to make this adventure work in our current situation as it will be a nice change of pace from the brutal series of conflicts that dominates the Uther period and the story is really cool.

Thanks to a lot of great replies asking about adventure support in another thread I am planning on running the Adventure of the Horned Boar from The Specter King, moving it to around 490 when the PKs are gallivanting across the north as emissaries of Uther. In this adventure the antagonists are Angles. Thus far the GPC has portrayed the Saxons as bogey men, anytime they show up there is blood. The core book indicates "Saxons" are to include the Angles and the Jutes. However, the Angles in this adventure are treated more in the "grey" zone as outsiders that you may dislike but sort of belong because it assumes Arthur has subdued the area. So I am having trouble figuring out how to portray the antagonists in this story at this time frame. One PK has a Hate (Saxons) at 20 (his new wife was captured at a certain ambush a few years back and raped, so he has been ramping up his Hate passion based on this incident). I am worried if the PKs go all "Saxons!!!! Chaaaarrrrgggee!" this adventure will loose a lot of nuance and possibly result in the PKs quickly getting in over their heads (liberal use of Prudent calls from the GM will likely be the best way to save them). Any suggestions on how to treat Angles vs Jutes vs Saxons in general, especially in light of Hate (Saxons) passion, and/or ideas on Angles as antagonists in the Malahaut region around 490 in GPC?

We are currently in 489 GPC, and I am looking for some adventure supplements I can drop into the campaign to break up tempo of the years rolling by. I could have sworn I read a discussion about adventures in older supplements that broke down by period and discussed quality/quantity of content in various older supplements. But I cannot find it, I have tried at least 3 times, no love. While I will probably end up diving into most of them, I was wondering where to start/priority considering we are in the middle of the Uther period right now. If anybody could point me in the right direction either with where to find the previous discussion or with some specific suggestions on which supplements to start with I would greatly appreciate it! Just scrolling through the old supplements on DriveThruRPG makes this seem like a monumental task as there is so much content to wade through...

The Expanded Manor Luck tables are interesting, but depend heavily on "Fate" points. What is this? Surely not the turn failure into success mentioned as "fate point" in II.10, there are way too many in the tables for that.

I don't have multiple characters per player, but we are only in 487 GPC. I do have generic knights using stats from the core book that are other vassals of Earl Roderick waiting in the wings. If a PC is taken out of action for the while I just have the player play one of these (as long as I can fit them into the story) until their PC recovers. I have only had to do this once when 2 of the PK's were captured by the Saxon ambush. Other times when a PK was taken out of action it was towards the end of an adventure/battle so it didn't matter. I figure that if a backup character for a player could step up, so could a generic vassal of the Earl. My players are having enough trouble managing their one character, adding backup characters would be a nightmare. Maybe later, when heirs come of age and the players semi-retire their main knight, I might have them keep the older knight as a backup.

I love these tables. I am guessing a lot of people use them, so house rule or not it's probably worthwhile discussing it. Sure wish there was some explanation packaged along with it as it took me quite a while to figure out the plus/shield was a check, and I didn't understand the negative version of this either. I just the other day think I figured out the 0/1/2/3 tables... Each one has 3 attributes/traits/skills listed above them and I take that to mean "How many of these succeeded at an unopposed test"? Also, how do people interpret "Luck" "roll Luck" and "Gift of Luck" here? I need to come up with something as I really want to continue using these tables. It adds a lot of cool story elements to the game.

I understand there are several conversation on "what is homage" and how it differs from Loyalty. I am running a standard GPC campaign with all Salisbury knights. I gave them both Loyalty to Roderick passion and Homage to Uther passion. In play this has both diluted their focus in these passions relating to their chain of command as well as given them double the "chain of command" passion options in battles. How do you recommend using these passions in standard Salisbury GPC play. I am kind of thinking I should have skipped the Homage and stuck to just Loyalty Roderick. I am also still having trouble differentiating between Loyalty and Homage despite having read what I could find about it...

How do you all handle the determination phase when there are uneven numbers of attackers/defenders? For instance 6 bandits against 5 knights: I had the bandits declare 2 one attacking each knight with Sir Herringdale (the pretty one with flowing hair, ie easy target) getting 2. Then Sir Grigor (the big Siz/Con guy) declared he was attacking one of the extra ones (let's call him Wulfgar) going after Herringdale. How do you sort this out? Herringdale vs 2 Grigor vs 1 (bandits declared first, sorry) Herringdale declares how he is splitting weapon skill Herringdale vs 1 Grigor vs 2 (knights declared second, sorry bandits) Grigor declares how he is splitting weapon skill Herringdale vs 2, Grigor vs 2, Wulfgar vs 2 each deciding how to split weapon skill I have also had cases where there were multiple on one knight, but other knights had no opponents (bad guys were focusing for a reason). The unengaged knights declared attacks against some of the ones ganging up. I just had the gang ups redirect their attention into one on one resolutions, lessening the gang up.