tenchi2a

22 minutes ago, Morien said:

Just treat it as a 10 libra 'estate'.

Ok

22 minutes ago, Morien said:

They should, except that the assumed standard of living (such as in the Lots damaged) rules are based on 40+ estates as it assumes a Rich Upkeep rather than the ordinary one (as would be the case for a 10 libra manor). However, the formulas are correct to calculate the Army, SoL and DF.

Well there is another part which is Building an Estate, since it assumes a 50 libra estate. Hence a monetary bonus of 5 libra is mere ten percent increase for that estate, but if you don't rescale it, it becomes a whopping 50% increase on a 10 libra manor, if you use that section. If you and your players want to use it and are fine with the results, feel free. Otherwise, consider rescaling or leaving it up to the PKs to build up their manors.

Seem weird that this book replaces BtoM (especially in early periods) when BotM seems to handle Single Manors a lot better.

22 minutes ago, Morien said:

Yes, just smaller in proportion.

When you say smaller proportion, some of the Improvements (Dovercote) are not listed because they are considered Included in the estate and their income is already included. So if this needs to be reduced what would its income be?

22 minutes ago, Morien said:

All the improvements should already be scaled for 1 Space / 10 libra manors. To get the 50 libra / 5 space horse-specialized estate horseherd, you'd buy it five times.

Not sure what you mean by space, I am not seeing any reference to it.

22 minutes ago, Morien said:

Why wouldn't you use it?

It seems to have way to many unused space for a £10 manor for little or no gain. 

22 minutes ago, Morien said:

Because the value of the landholding is its Customary Revenue value that the Servitium Debitum is based on. 

Ok 

Ok, How do you use BotE in the early game with the knights just having one manor.

A lot of the rules/sheets don't seem to work for just one manor.

1. Do starting Manors have all the included improvements listed for Estates?

2. Some Improvements (Stable) don't have rules for lands as small as £10.

3. Do you not use a sheet until the Manor is converted into an Estate? 

4. If a Manor provides £20 (Customary Revenue + Production) why does the system still call it a £10 Manor?

Deleted

So I was wondering if the Knights get 50 or 200 Glory for becoming a vassal.

The Book of Sires seems to imply that you get 200 but I can not fined this in the corebook.

The corebook seem to state that you get 50 Glory for becoming a vassal.  

To the best of my knowledge Book of Sires is updated to 5.2..

So which is right.

Book of Manors vs. Book of Estates

Which do you uses and why.

1. Book of Manors

2. Book of Estates

3. Both 

Is there any word on when the corebook will be available. because I am not a fan of Starter boxes. They tend to be extremely stripped down rules that are massively changed/errata when the corebook is released. 

On 6/4/2023 at 9:10 AM, Mugen said:

You also have the possibility to favor STR, SIZ and CON over less important characteristics such as DEX and APP (at least, less important in editions before 6th).

I have found that in most if not all games (This one included) Point buy systems lead to carbon-copy characters, as players go for the most optimized Attribute spread for the type of game being played (Combat/Social/Etc.). And while some players will make a character based on a concept, most will game the system.

At least to me, the fun of a character is not having the prefect killing machine or super diplomat but having to work at what needs to be done, and sometimes failing.

Thank for the Radom roll location. looks like it was updated a bit to insure characters where no more then 1 point below the minimums. Nice fix.

Why was the random attribute option removed in 5th edition?

I am personally not a fan of point buy systems and prefer the random system. Was their a mechanical reason for the random system being removed or was it just due to preference and can you still effectively use the random system from 4th?

I reserve all opinions of the new Edition till full release.

To many times in the past a error or misinterpretation of QS rules can lead to to many arguments about rules that don't exist or are just badly worded.

As the title states, I am looking for a conversion of No Mans Land to 7th edition and was wondering if anyone has done it.

I know there are conversion rules in the corebook, but was see if it had been done already so I could save some time.

43 minutes ago, Morien said:

This is correct, although to clarify: Greg made very clear for BoSi and which is reflected in the Story of the Romans there: Pendragon Romans (in Britain) are not ITALIAN. Instead, they are Romanized Britons, Romano-Brits. They represent more of the urbanized Romano-British culture. That being said, the Roman characters are not civilian administrators. They are knights, and have been for a couple of generations. They are not intended to become law clerks or something like that.

Being a knight is their job not their culture. The point was they come from a city dwelling urbanized British culture as you stated while they can become knights that was not their cultural identity.

""These are the Old Families of the “ancient aristocracy.” The urban Britons revere their Roman heritage, especially their legal system that has maintained the “peaceful imperial times""

These are not remnants of roman legionnaires, but as is stated aristocracy so the Law skill is a fine fit for them not a specialized combat skill. That was my point.

48 minutes ago, Morien said:

Incorrect.

During Republic, prior to the Social War (91-88 BC), the demographics of the Roman consular armies was usually 50% Roman citizens + 50% Italian Socii, reinforced by whatever local auxiliaries they deemed necessary (like Caesar later on relying on allied Gauls for cavalry). Some of these auxiliaries became more fixed features later, too, as the legions became more of a permanent garrison force rather than raised primarily for each campaign, but they were not the majority of the forces.

After the Social War, the Italian Socii got a Roman citizenship, and you actually had to be a Roman citizen in order to become a legionary. Now, this wasn't always followed, Caesar for example was raising legions in Cisalpine Gaul from people living north of Po river, who did not have citizenship (I think they had Latin rights, so more akin to the Socii of earler). But by and large, the legions were made of Roman citizens.

Then in 212 AD The Edict of Caracalla made all free men in the Roman Empire Roman Citizens. So after that, all the legionaries were Roman citizens. Now, I would agree that the recruitment in Italy proper was declining and the manpower was recruited elsewhere, but they were Roman citizens.

You are somewhat more on a firmer ground in the 400s century Western Empire, when there were big 'barbarian' contingents fighting for the Western Empire. Still, not all of the 'legions' were just barbarians. There were still many Roman recruits, too. Funnily enough, the top military leaders are sometime barbarians, too, like Stilicho (granted, his mother was a Roman provincial and he identified as a Roman, not a Vandal which his father was), Aspar, Ricimer, and Odoacer.

first your %'s are way off as only the first 4 legions where raised in roman and tended to be kept as province defense and the other 10 where from client states so it would be more like 29% Roman citizens + 71% Italian Socii.

And the citizen is one I have seen debated as what was truly considered a Roman citizen has always been in question.

The point about "Latin Rights" is always the sticking point as even some "Roman citizen" did not always have "Latin Rights".

That said, I was more describing The Roman Empire near the fall, as that would be the time that mattered to the KAP game. 

6 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Actually it was. Per the orginal idea, only the defaults is changed, not any improvment. All those skills that Knights get a 10 during chargen relfect thier training as squires, and so would still start off at 10 (or 9 or 8 or whatever). 

Again I am not concerned with there combat skills.

I am concerned with their non-combat skill which are the true mark of their cultural upbringing.

Quote

Not really. All you have to do to break the sterotype, as far as skills go, is to mnot imrpove the cultural skills.  It's not all that hard either, as the PK will have a sword skill at least as good as thier cultural weapon, unless they work to promote the stereotype, and sword trumps other weapons anyway. It really the traits, passions, and religions that define the cultures amd they are much harder to break away from.

you seem to be stuck on just one skill representing the whole package, while I agree that skill is an important skill the rest of the chart also factors in and you idea washes over that.

Just in the British cultures there are major differences in skill distribution and those distributions also change depending on the time period.

Quote

Uh, yup. So? Per RAW there isn't much difference between starting PKs that don't put points into improving things. Pretty much all PKs start with Sword 10, Battle 10, Lance 10, First Aid 10, etc. Its the choices they make during chargen that individualizes them. 

Doesn't need to be much difference to be different.

Quote

Is it? What do you base that on? In the literature the various knights seem to be remarkable similar in skill sets. That KPA made it though to KAP4 without cutural meta-skills shows that the cultures were viable as distinctive cultures without the meta-skills. He's also right than a 1 point difference in a starting skill score is virtually meaningless in play. That once culture starts with Dancing 3 and another Dancing 4 does little to differentiate the two cultures in play.

Which is why the Romans could never organize under a leader and how the Cymri were able to dominate Europe on the batlefield with Sword and Spear, except, wait the opposite was true. A Roman Legion with Spear and Sword would slaughter most Cymri armies, who in term spent more time on Courtesy and Intrigue than they did on Spear & Sword.

You seem to have the administrative roman nobles the culture in the game represents confused with the roman legions.

First the roman legions were a subculture of the roman society not the Romans at large, and for the most part outside their generals (Legatus legionis) were normal not roman citizens.

The tended to be Socii or client state citizens who where indoctrinated into the roman legion culture, roman citizens did not normally if every join the legions.

And as the roman empire had been in decline since 410 AD and collapsed in 476 AD  roman culture in KAP is the remnants of the noble administration from the occupation that chose to stay or the British peoples that adopted the culture.

So no the roman society in the game is not the roman legions it is the roman administrators, so the culture skill is fine.

The roman culture that you are talking about would be the Byzantines in this game and I would say their cultural skill of "Tactics" fits the conquerors that you are portraying. 

Quote

I hate to say it, as I like the cultural skills, but neither history nor Arthurian lore supports the cultural skills in KAP5. And KAP 4 cultures lacked suck skills are were just as well defined. 

But that moot anyway, as the cultural skills always start off at higher than the default anyway. 

I don't feel its a moot point as again I am more about the total culture balance of all skills not just one or two and thru out each of the cultures skills charts their are differences not just with one or two skills.

16 minutes ago, Morien said:

Ah, now I never said that the cultures COULDN'T modify the starting skills, too, did I? Just that I don't see much of a point adjusting each skill by a point or two, like one culture having a skill at 2, and another one at 3. You wouldn't really see a big difference in play. Instead, I would rather see something like Saxons getting a Bonus for Boating, while the Cymri might get a penalty, the Cymric knights not really being famous seafarers, but vice versa for Horsemanship.

If that was the case I could see it, but as presented its not.

Quote

That being said, I wouldn't see a big problem if there were no cultural modifiers to skills. If you want to play a seafaring Cymric knight, go ahead. Make your own story. Don't play the stereotype.

The point here to me is that in the current system its up to the players to actively work to brake the stereotype.

In the system you and Atgxtg are proposing all players are equal from a generic attribute to skill conversion even if they don't put any work into being different from the stereotype.

Quote

One thing that really gets my goat is the Speciality Skills introduced in BoK&L. They lock each culture to their stereotype. Romans have a big advantage over others in Courtesy and Intrigue, since they only use a single skill. This means they need only 1 yearly training or Glory point to raise both of those skills, so any Cymric knight who seeks to excel in those is by design inferior. And I don't like that. I don't like your culture defining what you are. I don't like that all players who like intrigue will be Romans, since that is the best build for Intriguing, and so forth.

Quote

You say that the culture no longer matters. I say that it frees the character to be more than a cultural stereotype (with all Saxon knights using two-handed weapons, etc.) and allows much more varied RP too: "I thought all of you Saxons were uncouth barbarians!" "My dear fellow, what a horrid thing to say. Manners maketh man."

Here I have to say I disagree as that is the point of the different cultures.

Roman society at large puts more emphasis on Courtesy and Intrigue where Cymric society is more about the sword and spear.

You are dealing with a Knight who has been brought up with his society norms, so of course he will be better with spear and the same goes for Roman society and Courtesy and Intrigue.

to brake the mold one needs to active fight against the norms (Roleplaying and skill selection) not have it handed to them by the system.

46 minutes ago, Morien said:

Greg used to drive me nuts with his 'Optional Skills'. I think one of his examples was Knifethrowing, and I was tearing my hair out while typing a furious response that surely the correct skill would be Dagger, or DEX, rather than coming up with Yet Another Narrowly Defined Optional Skill

Ok this we can agree on. I have never liked the Idea of Narrowly Defined Optional Skill especially when they have a tendency to be put in several books later after the need has faded or an optional rule has taken its place. As a example why have the Knife-throwing skill, there is a Dagger skill and a throwing skill why would you need a skill to combined these?

Quote

But then again, I am a skill minimalist to an extent, too.

I agree when it is warranted, but minimalism can be its own trap to. 

Quote

Oh, I can definitely understand that. I would not like to see too drastic changes either.

I think we all feel that way.

Quote

However, replacing the nigh useless Starting Skills with something easier to remember and giving DEX & APP more of a boost appeals to me greatly. I did try it out in our Middle-earth conversion and lo and behold, the player who wanted to be a courtier type did go for high APP and got high starting courtly skills as the result, making it easier for him to continue improving them.

One of the major issues I took with the Newer Mechwarrior game (A Time of War) outside of the need a spreadsheet character creation was the generic character it created due to the removal of faction specific. The first thing I see with the Idea presented here is the removal of the faction specific skill list as they would be replaced by, lets face it, a generic attribute to skill conversion so that culture no longer matters only attribute. First, this kills random attribute since no one is going to want to be skill crippled by a roll. Second, like all PC the players are going to find the optimum point spread to get the best skills and start cloning it, so all PCs will become carbon copies from then on.

P.S. another of the system that got hit by the lets "balance and streamlining" it bug.

But while they streamlined the mechanics they went overboard on the character creation somehow creating a at once more generic but also overly complex character creation system.

That takes skill.

Quote

Giving +-5, especially stacked ones, seems to me to be asking for a galore of criticals. Especially combined with the Family Characteristic (another potentially huge bonus that I dislike) and Glory/1000 bonus (ditto). The fact that the Distinctive Features are so neutral and prone to interpretation seems, to me, to be asking rules-lawyering, too.

I was using the mod in the book which where in +5 intervals and capping it at +10. As most non-combat skill tend to be much lower the combat skills I never found a problem with it.

Quote

Whatever I am saying on these boards are my own opinions (and boy, do I have opinions!). I am not a Chaosium employee, although I think I get a tiny trickle of Drivethrough rpg credits from the GPC expansion standalone (Greg was kind enough to assign me a royalties slice of the pie), just to disclose that. I have volunteered to pitch in and help with various books, so sometimes I get to play 'I wrote the damn thing, I know how it is supposed to work' -card.

No issues keep having your opinions.

While I don't retract any of my former statements, I will say that I may have been to harsh do to my last few weeks on the Shadowrun forums and dealing with the complete gutting of the system in the name of "balance and streamlining".

Making it the 3rd game I liked (Star Wars, Legend of the Five Rings) to be destroyed by companies trying to get new customers at the expense of old customers that have supported them through the thin years before RPG became main stream.

So to come to another forums for a game I like and hear lets change the rules it will be better kind of is my "trigger word" right now.

AS for gaming, I may not have the years you have but I have been gaming since the mid 80's, and have seen many rules that where suppose to enhances turn around and bite the writers on the @$$

All that said the most impotent contribution  from APP and DEX are to the aging rules.

If either of these hit 0 you die, so to me that alone makes them equal to the other stats IMHO.

So if you want to have low APP and DEX  risking earlier death, more power to you.

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I haven't insulted you either. I did however wanted to point out that your previous post was contradcitory. namely you claimed that you resolved the situation without add or changing the rules and then introduced what is essentially a houserule as your solution. 

(U.S.) way of saying a person is acting strange: He's off his medication. Or...The doctor needs to up his dosage. Etc.

So a statement that is implying a person is not of a normal stat of mind, so an insult.

To use it as a non insult requires familiarity  that we don't have as two people on a web forum.

Quote

Using your same argument, I could claim that Morien resolved the same situation without adding any rules by adding a variable modifier of up to half APP to all Courtly skills. 

Here your are reaching, my idea comes from using the mod system as presented in the book not coming up with a mod from a derived state formula that is not present in the book.

Quote

I see many ideas as valid, regardless of the source. The DEX/2, APP/2 idea actually was from someone else. 

I can even be convinced to change my mind about an idea. I wasn't all that wild about the APP/2 idea to begin with, and would still like to see a better alternative. The reason why I've been attemtping to test out this variant in chargen is because Morien's been very good at backing up his position. 

No, but if you want to convince anyone of anything you have to present you case to do so, and deal with your points being challenged, either by presenting additional evidence that supports your points, or conceding some points. 

No you haven't. Not really. What you have done is pointed out that per page 114. a GM can apply any sort of modifier he wishes at any time he things it is is warranted, and presented that as a solution. You have even used the rules for Distinctive Features in a way that actually contradicts what is in the RAW on page 37. 

There is no contradiction.

See below.  

Quote

 

No what you have done is presented a houserule that uses Distinctive Features to give modifiers of social rolls, and one that doesn't quite fit with the RAW. Now it's not a bad hoserule, although it would only really work if distinctive features were positive or negative based on APP (which by RAW they aren't), and would probably need some sort of quality modifier determined by the actual APP Stat (otherwise all APP scores past a certain point are the same), but it is now what's in the RAW, or even what is implied by the RAW.

Again this is only true if you completely ignore the the second part of the sentence (though you may wish to make it so).

Quote

No, per the rules as written, distinctive features are not positive or negative based on APP. APP determines the quantity of the features, not that they are positive or negative in nature. Per KAP 5.2 p. 37

Distinctive Features allow for objective differences between characters with the same numerical value. A Distinctive Feature is not always a negative quality, even for a character with low APP, though you may wish to make it so. The following suggestions include ideas for both positive and negative features.

No the rules state the can be positive or negative regardless of APP, which actually goes against your case of using distinctive features as the solution for APP. In fact, had you presented your solution as a houserule (which you seem to deny that is is) then you'd be on firmer ground. 

Why does ever response ignore the (though you may wish to make it so) part of the sentence, a (,) is a continuation of an idea not a new one. That part is still RAW, but you seem to ignore it to make your point. 

So no, the RAW do not contradict my point. They provide an option within the core rules for doing what I am saying.

IF you are looking for a word "optional rule" is one I would except as everything I have said has connection to the RAW, but hose rule implies that I made everything up. 

The issues here is that by your logic a person with APP (18) could have all negative and a person with APP (5) could have all positive. this is the shining example of braking "suspension of disbelief" which you must have for any RPG to work. 

The idea that someone with APP (5) would have 3 positive distinctive features is a hard one to follow.

As, according to you this "unattractive and possibly physical deformity" (right from the book) knight can be;

• bright-eyed
• nice smile
• blond

Nothing here that explained his APP (5) appearance.

or a APP (18) "attractive character" (again from the book) knight can be;

• hunchback
• flabby
• facial blemishes

A real winner for an APP (18) here.

Quote

No, you are completely wrong on this point. Greg didn't avoid putting in specific modifiers in the game to allow the GM to apply once that fit the circumstances. They are specific modifiers all over the place: Mounted vs. Foot, rearming, DEX penalty for armor., lance charge, Inspiration bonus, etc. The information of page 114 even uses these specific modifiers as examples. The information page 114 is to help a GM gauge what sort of modifier is appropriate for a certain situation. I'd even say that the imformation of page 114 would be a lot less useful without examples of specific modifiers. So your claim here is entirely unsupported. 

Now you are implying my meaning outside of the point I was making. Most if not all these mod that you are addressing are part of the combat system, not what we where taking about here. The area we where taking about was non-combat skills which the game takes great strides to keep separate from the combat skills. (How they are raised, used, etc) And the section on skills only gives two non-combat examples, and both examples are roleplaying examples not set modifiers.

Quote

But nowhere in the rule or examples, in any version of Pendragon, does a character get some bonus to a social skill from a high APP. If it were implied in the rules, as you suggest, then it would have shown up somewhere in the last 30+ year. The lack of such evidence does not constitute proof. If you are going to claim that such a modifier was the intention then you do need something to back you up.

Has the "lack of APP doing anything" come up in 30+?

I ask because someone would have to say something first before it would be discussed.

I would think if it had then Greg or whoever had the license at the time would have addressed it.

Quote

I think you referenced the wrong page here, as p. 144 is in the combat section as covers jousting, mounted combat and so on.

sorry mistype.

Quote

However, assuming that your meant page 114, nothing about it suggests that APP and/or directed traits should be used to give skill modifiers, not does it give a nice little +5 per relvant positive feature and -5 or relevant negative feature. That is entirely your doing and constitutes a houserule.

It also doesn't say that of you are riding your horse and it is startled by a large snake the horsemanship roll gets a -5, would you say that that is a house rule or a use of the modifier system provided. If the former the it is clear you are a rules lawyer and this conversation is pointless. If the latter that you have just undercut your argument. 

Quote

Just looking at the rule by itself, it's not a bad houserule either, except that by RAW low APP and negative distinctive features are not a given. By raw you can have a APP 4 character with a "fantastic smile" or "melodious voice" or some such, completely separating the APP score from the modifier. So it's rather obvious that your method is not what was intended by the RAW. By the RAw a APP4 character with a"melodious voice" might get a positive modifier to singing or orate, if the GM thinks so. 

Agin see above.

If you are only going to use the first part of the sentence then again this conversation is pointless.

Quote

Oh, goGo ahead report it. Triff probably needs a good laugh. And btw, this is Triff's sitem, not Chasoiium's. He pays the bills. Not that I think that the folks over at Chasoium would take the phase "what are you smoking?" as an insult. At least not in this context.  You inferred some very extreme and basically unsubstantiated assumptions about the RAW  with no real evidence to back you up other than the fact that the GM can apply any sort of modifier that he wants to, whenever he wants to, and then used it to justify your own houserule. Basically you tried to retcon a houserule as RAW even though your interpretation directly contradicts how distinctive features are presented in the RAW. 

I have seen less lead to bans on websites.

And if this is not an office Chaosium web it should make that fact know on the site.

(bold) And again here you ignore section of the sentences that don't agree with you point.

Quote

Yes the rules allow the GM to apply any sort of modifier that he deems fit, but the lack of examples of such a modifier being applied due to distinctive features does not mean that such a modifier is implied in the rules. Just like there is no implied modifier given to combat skills by DEX. THat doesn't mean we should infer one.

There is no implied modifier form "STR for Faerie Lore" I can do that to.

You have this tendency to jump to combat rule for everything even when they are not in question.

Quote

I don't want to upset you but you really just did present a houserule here. It's not a bad houserule either, but it is a houserule. You might want to believe it is the RAW, but it isn't. Don't take my word for that - ask anybody else here. If just one person here agrees with your interpretation as being implied by the RAW then I'll create a thread specifically to apologize to you  for the "What are you smoking?", comment. Assuming I don't drop dead from shock or something first. No offense but your previous post was the broadest interpretation of implied game rules that I have ever encountered in all my years of gaming. I can't even come up with some sort of analogy, and I can usually do that with just about anything. 

I know quite a few KAP GMs/players that think I'm right as I did not come up with this idea it was my first KAP GM.

And most of the GMs that I have presented it to over the years have adopted it.

Now that is neither here nor there. I was presenting an will call it an option for how APP can be useful in the game. 

I am not looking for your validation or anyone else on the boards (the 2-3 other people that have responded to this thread), if you need it that your thing.

I just don't like being attacked or in a sense called a liar. So I was forced to defend myself.

If you don't like the rule "optional or what ever" don't use it.

I have already responded to the "What are you smoking?", comment above.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

So let's settle things and prove it one way or the other.

I have not once insulted you in this forum and I expect the same respect form you. If you don't agree with what I have said that is your right, but insults to me prove you have not true valid arguments. See "What are you smoking?" below.

Quote

Which also have no game use. Someone could have a winning smile or broken teeth, both are distinctive features. Neither have any real effect in game pay. Certianly not to the same extent as a single point of SIZ.

I have explained my position on this if you only see your ideas as valid that's your prerogative.

It's not my job to convince you otherwise

Quote

No, it's a problem with the mechanics, since there aren't any to cover their use. If if were up to the GM and players to implement these things" Somehow" then why do we need stats for armor? Or why bother with traits and passions, something that the vast majority of RPGs do leave to role playing. 

I have shown how provided rules within the current rules as written can easily handle this but since it is not written as this its what you do directly and to the letter in the rule you brush it off as not the rule. If you need a in-dept chart with all the modifiers in the game and can't use the open modifier system provided in the game that a failing on your part not the games. As an GM you should know the rule are a tool kit not a tech manual, so if the rules don't list specific modifier in the example it does not mean it is not part of the rules. If you went by that logic only Falconry and Awareness could ever be modified.

Quote

What are you smoking?

Apply a +/-5 modifier to skills for features based off of APP is a change to the rules.

I have shown that while it doesn't give a step-by-step instructions to do what I suggest the rule that make it up are all present in the RAW.  

Rule as Written.

1. APP provides the player with positive or negative Distinctive Features pg. 37

2. While not required the rule state these can be positive or negative based on APP. pg.37

3. specific modifiers are not given in the rules to allow GMs to apply ones that fit circumstances. pg.114

4. These modifiers can be anything that fits the roll. pg.144

Now I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you were being passionate about your ideas, but Next time it will be a report not a response if you insult me again.

8 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

Not trying to jump into the middle here, but if your campaign varies from another campaign, the rule: YPMV has come into play.  These little tidbits are where one gm differs than another. There is nothing wrong with it per se, but most gm's would say that if you are using a rule, and they are not, it is a house rule.  Your comments are a perfect example of this. However, these need to be noted so any new players are aware of them and prevent them from being blindsided.  

I use my own set of exceptions and additions to the standard ruleset. Morien has his, and so on.  We should be aware of them and HOW they affect the game. Do they help create an unfair advantage or change the rules to a great exent? Do they simply add color?  Nothing wrong, but it should be noted.

To me this comes down to your definition of a House Rule.

The to ways one can define 

1. Any rules that come directly out of the RAW but are not specifically stated can be called HR. Such as ruling that during a Hunting expedition, since the knight is using his favorite dog he gets a +5.(I don't agree with this)

2. Changes to the RAW to facilitate preferences at a certain gaming table. Such as, changing the initiative rules so that instead of it being a roll it is by set attributes. (This is my view of a HR) P.S. not directly related to KAP 5.2 but something that I did see a GM do in another game.

To me what I have written doesn't  qualify as one because they fit the RAW.

Rule as Written.

1. APP provides the player with positive or negative Distinctive Features

2. While not required the rule state these can be positive or negative based on APP.

3. specific modifiers are not given in the rules to allow GMs to apply ones that fit circumstances.

So to my view of House Rules this doesn't qualify, but if you disagree forum readers already have your warning.

24 minutes ago, Morien said:

Since this is 'without any changes to the rules', could you quote the book and the page where the above +-5 to skill rule is stated?

I am looking at KAP 5.2, p. 37, and it explicitly states also this: "A Distinctive Feature is not always a negative quality, even for a character with low APP, though you may wish to make it so." While I would agree that it would be better to mandate that low APP requires negative features, as in your table, it is explicitly contradicted in the text. Also, there is no mention of the +-5 to skills.

If there would be such an official rule, then you would hear much less bitching from people like me saying that APP is useless, from rules standpoint.

What you have presented is a houserule that tries to address this lack in the official rules. So it is a change as well.

There has been earlier suggestions in this forum and the earlier Nocturnal one of an APP bonus to Courtly skills (effectively similar to what you are suggesting, save that it is a straight calculation from APP score rather than pushing it through the distinctive feature and requiring the GM to make a judgement call which skill it boosts and when), but the problem with such bonuses, especially when they stack with Glory bonuses, is that they make rolling a critical much too easy. Giving a higher default instead avoids this problem neatly.

I use the highlighted part of that statement

And the fact that the section on Modifiers on page pg.114

Don't give any set modifiers only ranges allowing GM's to apply them as needed.

So while you are right that it no ways states that what I do is a rule.

 The rules cover it so I would not call it a house rule.

And to me that was the point of why the modifier section was written as it was to allow GMs freedom to use them how they liked.

The APP means nothing idea I totally disagree with, but each to their own.

As I have said before APP is directly responsible for Distinctive Features.

If you fail to use them in your game then that's a fault in your game not the mechanics.

When I play I uses them all the time as skill modifiers. 

I divide the chart into positive and negative Distinctive Features.

APP Value                  No. of Features             Results
5–6                                          3                         3 negative features
7–9                                          2                         2  negative features
10–12                                      1                         1 positive (12) or negative features (10) with (11) being players choice.
13–16                                      2                         2 positive features
17+                                           3                         3 positive features

Each features provides a -/+5 modifier to skills it would logically effect as determent by the GM, and the effects stack if applicable.

So quickly without any changes to the rules APP has a major effect on skills.

On 7/25/2019 at 4:40 PM, Morien said:

 

It is the same system.

BOE, p.36: Family: The amount spent on the lord’s family, typically 10% of Demesne Customary Revenue. Of this, £1 is spent on the children, while the rest is spent on upgrading the whole family’s Standard of Living (see below).

Also, read the Unmarried Lords on the same page: "If he is also childless, he can save about 50% of the Family Expense (round up to a full librum)."

Just because BOW appendix was more explicit doesn't make it a different system.

How do I know? I was the one who came up with that system, applied it to BOW, wrote that appendix and then revised BOE.

The New Economics works for any level of gameplay. That was the whole design purpose, so that it would scale to any situation, rather than be an ad hoc 'these numbers feel nice today' system that the earlier version of BOE was (which also contradicted earlier examples of knightly standard of living).

Since it is the same system, it doesn't matter as such which book (BOE or BOW) you use.

However, both books are scaled differently in details, for instance when it is talking about the effects of losing lots to raids and such. The assumption in BOW is that we are talking about Barons with £100+ lands, meaning that their standard of living is at least £15, and probably closer to £35 (£300 lands). By contrast, the assumption in BOE is that we are talking about a £50 estate, so the standard of living is £10. However, in both cases, the lot damage and its effect on the ruling family is a simplification for convenience in gameplay.

Ditch BOM. It is obsolete and very much unbalanced.

Thank you for your great work on these supplements and for the insight into there use. 😎

I was not planning on using BOM because it appeared to be obsolete, but thank you for confirming it. 😀

8 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Okay, I'll try to explain it better.

BoM was designed to let a PK run his manor in great detail, make a lot of improvements and addtions to thier manor, but it was very time consuming and was flawed in that there were no limits to the number of improvements that could be built.  THuis could lead to things getting out of control with a rich PK being able to start a perpetual cycle of old improvements paying the cost to build new ones, etc.etc.

Quote

BOE was designed to simply and easily allow land owners with estates (lots of manors) to be able to quickly and easily manage all of their holdings. SO it is a little less detailed than BOM, but a LOT easier and faster to use, plus it add in limits that eliminate the potential problems that existed in BoM. So BOE makes for a nice, quick way alternative to BOM that sacrifices a little detail for ease of use, speed, and better functionality. Plus BOE uses a newer, better, ecominic model that has a better foundation.

Cool makes sense.

Quote

Slight adjustment and clarification. But check to see which editions you have. I believe BoE was edited later to make it fit with the changes brought about in BoW, so fi you have the latest versions the two models should be the same. If not there are some realtively minor differences that won't ususally matter in play anyway..

Both my editions are the newest versions from what I can find. BOE Version 1.3.2 and BOW Version 1.2. 

And while we have been talking, I checked both book and have found some differences in just a quick look.

Such as BOE not allowing for variation in cash flow for being childless where BOW increases Discretionary Fund +1.

So I'm not sure that they are the same?

Quote

Mostly it boils down to a knight having some servants, and a court, for whom there is now some more, hidden income, plus some foot soldiers (one of whom is off serving the king). It's really more a case of explain who takes care of the horses, or keeps the records of the court cases and such. 

Sure I can see that

From what I gather most improvements to land and income in BOE/BOW boil down to spoils and land grants and not improvements. 

Quote

Ease of system isn't the same as familiarity with system. In fact it can sometimes make things worse. Pendragon is fairly easy to grasp, mechanically, but a bit trickier to understand as far various nuances and such. For example the game mechanics behind rolling for inspiration are easy to understand. Knowing if you should do so and when, plus the ramifications of doing so is another story. I'd suggest focusing on stuff like trait rolls, social situations, basic skill rolls, opposed rolls, combat tactics and so on in the first couple of sessions, and if you cover land at all just give them the 1 Librium to spend. You can worry about building walls and other defenses later on, as well as what improvements and investment (it's typically down to one) to make. 

Quote

It can be very easy to do something in Pendragon that looks like a good idea, but really messes a character up if someone ins't familr with the game. Some tactics from other RPGs just don't work out in Pendragon, and vice versa. 

Most of my players are familiar with it either owning the books or having played before.

An I have both GM it before and played in a few campaigned in 3rd editions, so this will be my first time in this running in 5th.

Thus the questions. 

15 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Not exactly, but that is how it kinda played out.

Not sure how that works but ok

Quote

BoM was focused on Knights and their holdings and goes into a lot of detail. 

BoE is really geared more towards Estate holders -that is those who have multiple manors than are grouped together into a single patch of land, and it doesn't go into quite as much detail and is easier and faster to use. It also avoids some of the problems that plagued BoM (you ca only fit a finatel number of improvments on a parcel of land in Boe, as opposed to being able to build whatever you had the money for in BoM). So it functions well as a more economically sound, streamlined way for a player knight to handle his manor.

BOE seems to try and state it works for early gameplay (10£-100£) BOW claims it works for any level of gameplay(10£+).

So I'm getting some mixed signals here.

Quote

More of an add-on, but also a stand alone book in thatit gives details on various landholders who could be the PKs liege lords.

I was wondering because of  Appendix D : New Economic Model 

It seems to imply that it replaces BOE.

Quote

BoW is about land and land management. BoW tells you who holds what, what forces they control, and who their friends and enemies are. Think of it as theBoE sort of tells you how to design an estate, with the BoW giving you examples using the great lords of Britian. So if you want to know more about Count Salisubry's estates, what castles he holds, how many manors he has, how many knights, etc,. as well as similar information on some of his neighbors, you want to see BoW.

As I said I am familiar with a lot of the book sections, but never gave it a good read other then the sections I needed.

Quote

I'd recommend using BoE to handle the PKs manors, and possibly add in one or two things from BoM (like a jousting list, which is more for one knight as opposed to the Jousting Arena) to BoE. I'd suggesting pretty much ditching BOM, especially in the early Periods, where a lot of it wouldn't really apply anyway, not work with the current economic model. With BoE it simplifies down to the average PK getting 1 librium to spend during the year.

Quote

For a typical campaign, BOW is more of a reference for the GM to give you an idea of the scale of things, the size of armies and how much wealth is out there. There is some stuff for characters who achieve officer positions that could prove useful for players later, but not every PK will become an officer, so it's of limited use-especially at the start.

Same question as above is Appendix D : New Economic Model an add-on to BOE or a replacement?

Quote

Just take a quick peek at the economic model (Basically it boils down to the PK only seeing about 10 libra out of the manor's total production, and his ending up with about 1 librun to extra to spend during a normal year), and the defenses and improvements (from around page 78) to see what the PKs can do to/with their holding (which comes down to not that much, due to lack of space).

HI will be taking an in dept look at BOE, but just wanted to make sure I was not wasting my time if it got replaced.

Quote

I'd even suggest starting the PKs off as squires or household knights for a year or two before letting them inherent the family manor to give your players time to get a handle on the game system before they have to learn how to run the manor. 

Shouldn't have issues my player are vets of many much harder systems

So if I understand it correctly

Book of Manors is the old system which I have used before and was replaced by Book of Estates.

But is Book of Warlords the replacement for Book of Estates or is it an add-on to it?

Either way what what would you recommend I use for my new GPC  that I am about to start.

I have all three and have used Manors before, but outside of a read through on Estates and a quick look at Warlord (mostly use it for NPCs and Coat of Arms) I don't have much experience with the others.

1 minute ago, Khanwulf said:

All of which are edge cases in most scenarios not specifically built for them (such as the blade bridge), all of which receive armor penalties to DEX rolls. 

The point remains that if you are a knight, wearing armor most of the time and doing your knightly thing, you have no use for DEX. If you are a scoundrel in the forest, doing things no honorable knight would consider and giving to the poor to salve your conscience, then yes, DEX is grand!

Also, in these cases (as with APP) the absence of DEX is overpowered by skills themselves. 

So the point remains: can setting skill level 'floors' through high DEX and/or APP create reasonable scenarios in which emphasizing those attributes would appeal to certain players? (For me, the idea of a skill-monkey squire on the fast-track to greatness sounds quite appealing, as does a skill->Glory APP machine.)

This response is still not making me think any change is needed.

As to me a knight is not suppose to be a DEX character and has never truly been in any other game I've played in were this area has always been the outlaw/rouge types playground.

I just don't see the point of trying to change the whole game to make two stats more useful, and I am never for fast tracking character growth.

I look at it like this, if you don't like the system in place but you like the setting you can always use GURPS or mod it for you favor system.

I will leave it at that since I don't see a point in this exercise.

 Not just speaking my piece and leaving just not going to be posting for any other reason then a direct response. 🙂