cgcauth

By-the-by, Atgxtg, as a means of learning the system, I decided to learn how to do some PDF creation. Would you mind looking at these (will probably have to download them) and twll me what you think? I am wanting to know as much about function and usability as accuracy. // https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nSDSvZ0kO8SsOAD4baFJVtJXZnACP9ov/view?usp=drivesdk // https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s31ptLU3GWtK5_oGv4FlsKag8FoNtEUt/view?usp=drivesdk // https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HG00EFAJAQhsxnwSiL45hhnWXEJ-_YjA/view?usp=drivesdk

Thank you for the candid replies. While I didn't mean to come across as a whiny bastard, it is still a sort of repeated slap in the face, that I keep looking for the bright side of the game, and upon thinking I have found it, am told that it doesn't work that way. As far as the control being largely out of the players PK's hands, I do understand that. I have actually read and re-read the manuals (KAP core 5.1, BoM, K&L) that will be in use for the game. I like a lot of the concepts. I don't like being told constantly that I can't do things. Thus far, in game play, I have been feeling like my character is largely inert. That said, we started off as squires, have done a few practice missions so that the two of us in the group that haven't played before can get the hang of it. Looking forward to building my characters ancestral lands was something I was looking forward to. And then the rules happened. As you say, a lot of things can happen, but I have always been one to work out a way not to depend on my luck too heavily. It is really crappy luck. (You would not believe how many times the my first combat roll in a new campaign was a critical fumble). Anyway, I will keep my hopes high, and play for all I am worth, and disregard my penchant for poor dice rolls. Although, I still maintain that the rules, smoothed out and taken as a cohesive unit, actually support a knight running his lands responsibly, that the benefit of doing so is increasing the population (however gradually) and continuously increasing their approval of the land holder. And, I am still apprehensive that simply being an unlanded knight, collecting your annual stipend, and winning the tournaments like a champ are the better options. In other words, that having land is a burden that could break a knight, and won't be worth the effort.

Alright, to be specific, I wasn't so much concerned about the monetary side of the 'investment'. Rather, it was the subject of the hate reduction. You are right, the buildings that are part of the Manor village to start with have a net 0 hate, increasing it if it is destroyed, only decreased again if the rebuilding is financed by the lord. My actual assumption was that only one improvement of certain type could be built (so only a single Apiary or Large horse herd), so that wasn’t a part of the question. With the exception of roads, which clearly state ‘per mile’. I also wasn’t asking about building dozens of villages. I was taking the ‘expanded population’ mechanic into consideration, combined with the ‘build them homes and fields or the turn to banditry’ rule, and aligning it to the rules of building a ¼ village, a hamlet, or a full village. (although, strictly speaking, the numbers don’t work out, a hamlet is 100 commoners, a village is 500 commoners, ergo, a hamlet can’t be ¼ village). So, let’s consider that Sir Whosit has been running his land pretty well for the last year. Come winter phase, he rolls the population roll, and boom, he 100 to many commoners for the current size of his village. That means he either builds new accommodations in the current village, or he builds a shiny new hamlet for them. Both mechanics are there: (Cluster of (Commoner’s) Houses A cluster is 5-10 commoners’ huts (about a quarter of a hamlet). These peasant hovels are house, barn and byre all in one so that the people can stay warmed by small fires and the presence of their animal and rotting hay and cabbage. Cost to Build: £8 Personnel: Eight or so farmers and their families, each approximately 5 people, plus a few animals. Reduce Hate (landlord): 1 Hamlet, or ¼ Village This includes the structures for approximately 100 people, including outbuildings, animals, etc. Cost to Build: £30 Reduce Hate (landlord): 3 Entire Village This includes the structures for approximately 500 people, including their outbuildings, animals, etc. but not the village church, bakery, mill, well, etc. Cost to Build: £150 Reduce Hate (landlord): 15 If you combine these rules, instead of making them exclusive, then it seems like building up your population and increasing the size of the settlement is one way pacify them. Combine in further subtle text, like a manor and village produce 4-8 libra, and the populations of different types of settlements on page 7 (again, BoM), finally, the idea that being a good landlord comes with the increases of population, the added glory for increased income, etc. What you have is a metric for increasing the conditions of the holding in order to benefit both the land holder AND the commoners. On the other hand, what’s the point of even bothering? If no matter what you do, they are just going to freaking hate you, why worry about it? Hell, letting them turn to banditry just seems like good adventure hooks. “Woohoo! Another 100 saps to hunt down and brutally murder… er, I mean bring justice to!” Of course, if they hate you enough, that won’t be a problem either. I mean, it’s not like we are talking about a game where traits like generosity and justice are adhered to. Wait, yeah we are. I personally have no intent on playing the Sherriff of Nottingham, here. So, why should I be punished, as a player, as though I were. Oh, and to counter the earlier comment about it not being economical to build hamlets, that is true until every year you income is reduced to negligible or meager because your commoners hate you. Then that one libram a year is looking pretty important.

New... old question. I have been, to put it frankly, roped into playing KAP 5.1 using the Book of Manors as a supplement. Having read some of the forums here, I gather that it is generally viewed as broken. Still, it's what I have to work with. The question is about Hate (Landlord) as it applies to the Book of Manors. I get that the passion is the counter for Knights Concern (Commoners) passion. It isn't hte rule exactly that I stumble over, so much as the mechanics behind it. Looking at the system, there are a hand full of buildings that can 'reduce' the hate, as long as they are standing and operational. The problem comes when adding in other improvements that also reduce the hate. The real headache, and where I feel that my interpretation is completely different from the GM's, is in the settlements hate reduction. Build a hamlet, it earns a Libram and reduces hate by 3, I think. upgrade that to a vilage of 500 commoners, and it reads like it "reduces' hate by 15. My interpretation is that as the population increases, it offsets the hate passion (by roughly 3 per 100, if I recall). the GM's interpretation is... more like the passion is 'X' until the settlement is razed to the dirt, and then it goes up by 'Y'. So, in my interpretation, I had finally seen past the 'screw the player vibe' this game is giving me thus far. His insistence of the reversal, though, indicates that no matter how hard you try, the hate only gets worse, you can't counter it or decrease it. While, ultimately, it doesn't matter, it's his game and his rules, I still would like to know if I have jsut completely read it all wrong?