IlluminatedSeraph

I've been greatly interested in Dame Tamura since the Starter Set drops. Bringing in the connection to Viviane early, being Pagan in an explicitly Roman way, tangling in the presence of Roman-hired mercenaries and people of color in Brittany... all extremely cool. Plus, you know, she's a tall buff lady with an Amazon grandmother. What's not to like about that?

It did not. No news on this since the 15th of January.

Hypothetically, it's supposed to go to the printer by today (again). We'll see if this deadline holds up any better than the previous ones.

Thank you! That's reassuring and a help.

So.... my player in my Pendragon game just saved Madoc and possibly Gorlois. To make a long story short - one of my players has a massive love passion for Madoc (think 18) and access to the Medicine skill for background reasons. At the crucial moment at Terrabil, they reached Madoc just after the Duke of Cornwall struck him down... and by a combination of Inspiration and max-rolling their First Aid, just managed to get the Prince on the right side of zero HP before he died. Meanwhile, the other PK took out Gorlois... and my first PK then tested Merciful and pulled Gorlois back to the right side of dying too. The battle proceeded, the area around both men was secured, and now I have a not-dead Prince and a not-dead captive Duke and... problems, narratively. Thoughts on how to cope with this without overriding the epic sequence of die rolls and tactics my player pulled off (which I don’t want to do)?

So, I'm prepping (a few weeks ahead) for an early encounter with King Lot as part of Madoc's retaliation raids, and I'm struggling with some technical/chronological details. Morgause clearly isn't a factor yet, but how old is Lot at this time? Are there any retainers or other figures around him that I particularly ought to try to feature who might be fun to bring back later? Any other myth details that y'all have used effectively about the people around him, given how big a role he eventually plays?

What's important about an estate isn't the money it produces. That sounds super-strange in a gaming context, but it's true. An estate could be so barren and ravaged it only produces 10 pounds or even less, but as long as a grant from a royal authority exists making it an estate, it still is one. And you can own enough land to produce any amount of money and still only own a manor or collection of manors, and not an estate, should higher authority choose to withhold that recognition. So goes the theory. If you become rich and powerful enough and the King goes on refusing to make/grant you an estate, that can create problems for him until he *does* decide to do it, but Kings can be stubborn. Until he changes his mind, that title isn't coming. So goes dealing with the font of honour.

It was published by Chaosium but commissioned by Nocturnal, which is a weird situation but happened (as far as I've read) because of Nocturnal needing help with distribution and fulfillment, particularly after Stewart Wieck passed. So it's completely possible Chaosium would want to do their own edition fully in-house, especially since 5e's travels have carried it through a couple publishers at this point.

Mainly, I'd like to see more Tournament, Grail Quest and Twilight support in the line. The Early Phase is in great shape and needs minor cleanup (detail consistency, etc) at most, with the possible exception of more detail on Salisbury, but the later stages of the GPC are not nearly as well supported. The core rules are solid as is (except the child and wife survival tables, ugh, talk to Morien about that), but there a lot of material from the early editions that could use updating and organizing, and there's also just a lot of room to give players and GMs more to work with in the later periods.

As long as the rules changes stay at the level of cleaning/tidying/minor improvements, I don't think there's any disrespect. The current team has been doing much of that work with Greg's oversight for some time, so them continuing in the same vein seems only appropriate. And, frankly, I want more expansions and a live game, so I want the rules to continue evolving - preserving as much of Greg's work as possible, but not letting the game die because he's gone.

Frankly, I really love the art in 5.2 and can't say enough nice things about it.

Bless you, good sir, that would be most gracious of you. The tale is fascinating and well told, and I find myself quite invested in how it all turned out. Even if no more can be unearthed, though, it makes me happy to know that the game itself carried through. Many belated congratulations.

I've been reading through @sirlarkins wonderful Solo GPC on Obsidian Portal and fetched up against 545 AD with some surprise - Blind Man's Bluff, the adventure summary for that year, seems to be the last one posted. I realize I'm asking about a summary collection that's seven years old now, but I'm still dying to know what, if anything, happened next. I thought it might have moved to another of his blogs, like RPG corner, but that seems to have closed up so I'm left at loose ends. If anyone knows if the blog moved, just never resumed updating, what have you - well, I'd appreciate knowing. Even more so if you can tell me how things turned out for Sir Graid!

Since I'm at the design stage right now, which of those two models (more counts and dukes or the fewer barons with fewer knights) so you think make for more interesting and powerful storytelling opportunities while moving through the full Arthurian legend? I can see the immediate effect of making my PK a bigger player in the second model, but beyond that, I'd value your experience.

Thank you both so much!

Thank you! That's really helpful, and clarifies some things for me. The extent to which being a landed knight is huge was pretty clear in the book, but the proportions were less so. And yeah, that the bannerets' vassals would also serve Roderick was clear enough, but I was wrestling with the chain of command. A couple of follow ups. 1) Is Salisbury meant to be a comparatively small county then, or are bannerets/estate holders meant to be comparatively rare, or is it more that Earls are unlikely to be served by them compared to more powerful nobles? 2) So 60+ household knights aren't unusual for an Earl? A particularly well-landed and armed nobleman might make it into the triple digits of household knights?

Hi, all! Building out a first-time Pendragon campaign as the GM (it's a one-to-one, if that matters) and feeling a little stuck trying to conceptualize my PK's peer group. 5.2 is pretty specific that the Earl can call on 75 knights, but I'm struggling with the breakdown - it seems unlikely all 75 are his household knights, but possible? If they aren't, wouldn't his bannerets have some say in their deployment? Anyway, can anyone who either has more supplements or more experience with the lore than I do give me an idea of the following: How many bannerets, roughly, answer to Count Roderick in 485? If they command 8 to 12 knights each, do those count against the 75? That seems to take up a big proportion. How many vassal knights does he have? The twenty starting manors, more or less, or...? How many household knights? I'm sure this is a common thread, but a little searching hasn't turned up an exact match (the thread on manors was instructive, though). Help is much appreciated!