Childbirth and Child Survival: Morien's recommended Quick Fix

[Morien]

5 minutes ago, SaxBasilisk said:

I'll also be ruling that half the children born are (handwaves) non-viable as knights, so we have similar dynamics in terms of succession as in the rules as written.

In our game, female knights are still exceptional. Most of the female nobles (NPCs) are not interested in becoming knights, and I would imagine that SIZ 8 & STR 8 persons, male or female, would get discouraged by their parents from a knightly career (boys steered towards a clerical career, etc). However, exceptional women (mainly PKs, but with some NPKs) have both the desire and the ability to become knights, and once they do, they are treated as (male) knights, being able to inherit and so forth.

Now granted, the inheritance can become a bit of an issue, if there are other siblings: brothers might feel that they are entitled to be before the sister, and sisters (and their husbands) might feel that they should be heiresses, if there are no brothers. But that is something I would discuss with the player: does she (or he) want to deal with such complications? If not, then the big brother might hear the call of the divine and become a clergyman, or he might die/go missing at some point. Younger brothers are probably already consigned to the idea of the big brother getting everything anyway, so it is not a big deal if it is the big sister instead, especially if there is an age gap between them. Younger sisters are very unlikely to marry before the big sister is already in squire training, so they and their future suitors know the score already. It is just a matter of working it out with the player. 

[The Wanderer]

On 9/2/2019 at 1:53 PM, Morien said:

I would use any excess spending as Conspicuous Consumption: 10 Glory per £1 extra used, so someone living as Rich (£9) would get extra 30 Glory.

Where does it say conspicuous consumption earns 10 glory per 1 libram used?? I thought it was 2 glory pero 1 libram (BotE)...

[Morien]

7 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Where does it say conspicuous consumption earns 10 glory per 1 libram used?? I thought it was 2 glory pero 1 libram (BotE)...

Looks like it is one of our houserules again. No one was spending money on consumption at the old 1:1 rate, and 2:1 is not worth it, either. At 10:1, it starts to become more competitive. We do lower it to 1:1 after the first £10 per year. Although to be honest, if a Player wishes to spend £100 to buy 1000 Glory, that would be fine by me. That extra Glory Bonus Point will be much less disruptive to the game as an ability to suddenly hire like 50 mercenary knights.

[The Wanderer]

Ok... well, it looks too much for me... I think 5:1 would be better (more balanced?).

One question... when they spend money on other things (treasure, armaments, horses, construction...) do they earn 1 glory per £1 spent, or glory is only earnt with conspicuous consumption (such as feasts, etc) ???

[Morien]

7 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Ok... well, it looks too much for me... I think 5:1 would be better (more balanced?).

It is your game. YPWV, Your Pendragon Will Vary, as Greg used to say. That being said, even with 10 Glory per £1, I have not seen a wholesale 'Glory-buying spree' from the players. But it is definitely more appealing to them than the old 1:1 rate.

7 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

One question... when they spend money on other things (treasure, armaments, horses, construction...) do they earn 1 glory per £1 spent, or glory is only earnt with conspicuous consumption (such as feasts, etc) ???

Only for Conspicuous Consumption. I count a higher than normal Standard of Living as CC, too: better food on the table, more lavish clothes, etc. In short, if it is consumables or background stuff ("I hire a bard to compose songs / spread tales of my great heroics."), it is OK to use CC, IMHO. If it is something that is permanent (armor, horses, construction, treasure), then it is not CC. Although I admit that I am thinking that cosmetic improvements on a horse should count: for instance, a basic charger would not qualify, but if you want a midnight black one with ten times the price, the extra 9*price you'd pay would count as CC as the only point of it is to make the neighbors go 'ah' and 'oh' with jealousy. The midnight black charger is no better than an ordinary one in a charge nor give any bonuses to horsemanship, it simply looks cooler, so yeah, that satisfies the CC criteria for me.

[The Wanderer]

Ok, basically any thing that doesn't give them other benefits than the glory itself should be counted as conspicuous consumption. I get it!

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Ok, basically any thing that doesn't give them other benefits than the glory itself should be counted as conspicuous consumption. I get it!

I found it's actually quite beneficial to be generous when considering conspicuous consumption. From a gameplay perspective, it much better to let the PKS spend the money and get a little extra glory than it is for them to horde the money and spend it later. Rich PKs become relatively immune to certain troubles and can exert a strong influence on the game in many ways. I once had a PK accidentally take Levcomagus mostly because he was so rich that he could afford to buy a few hundred libra worth of siege equipment, and it was used quite generously during the (accidental) siege. It would have been much better all around if he had been able to spend it as conspicuous consumption.and racked up another 30, 50 or even 100 glory each year.

[The Wanderer]

Ok, you convinced me with your example hahaha

[Morien]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

From a gameplay perspective, it much better to let the PKS spend the money and get a little extra glory than it is for them to horde the money and spend it later.

100% agreed.

[jmberry1s]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I found it's actually quite beneficial to be generous when considering conspicuous consumption. From a gameplay perspective, it much better to let the PKS spend the money and get a little extra glory than it is for them to horde the money and spend it later. Rich PKs become relatively immune to certain troubles and can exert a strong influence on the game in many ways. I once had a PK accidentally take Levcomagus mostly because he was so rich that he could afford to buy a few hundred libra worth of siege equipment, and it was used quite generously during the (accidental) siege. It would have been much better all around if he had been able to spend it as conspicuous consumption.and racked up another 30, 50 or even 100 glory each year.

... How do you accidentally siege a town?

[Morien]

53 minutes ago, jmberry1s said:

... How do you accidentally siege a town?

"See, we was brunging this siege train to take London back from the Saxons, but those Levcomagus bastards said a nasty thing about our Mum, so..."

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Morien said:

"See, we was brunging this siege train to take London back from the Saxons, but those Levcomagus bastards said a nasty thing about our Mum, so..."

Close. Only more comical and less well thought out. 

 

2 hours ago, jmberry1s said:

... How do you accidentally siege a town?

Like so:

PK does well in the tourney circuit and amasses a fortune in ransoms and armor over the years. Several hundred libra of which he invests into Siege Equipment. Late one fall,  he receives a messenger with a plea for assistance from a NPK friend of his who is under attack, asking for help in the following spring. The PK hires some mercenaries, alerts the other PKs, and everyone readies their forces to go to war the following spring. Spring arrives and the PK leads his army along the north road through Silchester to help his NPK friend. 

A day or two on the road the PKs suddenly realize that they are marching right towards Levcomagus with a sizable force complete with over 200 libra worth of siege equipment. This would be suspicious/bad enough under normal circumstances, but made even worse as the lead PK had a long running feud with Levcomagus for the past couple of decades. A feud which had escalated to the point where King Arthur personally told everyone to knock it off. 

A couple of the PKs, decide that they should ride ahead to Levcomagus to try and explain the situation, and assure the knights of Levcomagus that the army and it's siege engines are "just passing through" and nothing to worry about, and not related to that nasty feud thing in any way. Really. Before riding off the PKs told a third PK that "No matter what, don't let the army attack the city."

The two PKs then rode off and ran smack into a patrol from Levcomagus (it's as if they were shadowing the army or something). The PKs were challenged gave their story and were taken to Levcomagus to speak to the Steward, who, surprisingly, didn't believe them. He tossed them in the gaol.

Meanwhile the army marched on and upon reaching the city discovered that the PKs were being held captive. Now the PK who was left in charge was supposed to keep the army in check, but a very loyal NPK household knight to one of the captured PKs managed to talk everybody, including the PK "in charge" to attack and liberate the captured PKs, helped in no small part by the fact that one of the captured PKs was the rich knight, and everyone smelled some sort of bonus for rescuing their commander (not to mention ensuring that they got a chance for some plunder).

200 libra worth of siege equipment more than negated the city defenses, and the army was well on the way to taking the city. The captured PKs actually had to escape from the gaol so they could stop their own army from taking the city. 

 

 

And then King Arthur showed up. He had been out hunting in the nearby forest and got curious when a baggage train scared off his prey. Needless to say some PKs looked very guilty. 

 

 

 

[Baba]

In our game we sort of streamlined glory for spending, giving 5 glory/librum for just about anything, but then not giving any OTHER glory or mechanical perks for stuff like this:
* Gifts
* fancy clothes
* new castle wall
* new manor improvement
* hosting tournament
* hosting feast
* etc.

The only spending we do not give glory for is "necessary" spending, like horses/weapons/armor for yourself.

[Morien]

50 minutes ago, Baba said:

* new castle wall
* new manor improvement

Agreed with the other examples you gave and the rationale you gave: No other glory or mechanical perks. In the case of these two, I would only count them as CC if they give NO mechanistic benefit (like you said), like increased DV. For example, decorated rooftiles or glass on the windows of the manor, ornamental carvings and such are all fine and I would be willing to give out CC Glory for those. But if the PK is building a curtain wall that gives, say, DV 6, then that is clearly not CC but building a defensive wall.

[Baba]

I guess I would give a benefit if the character was up on a castle wall defending against an attacking enemy. But so far, that has only happened to us once in 60 years.  So close to no mechanical perks.

We stopped giving checks/yearly glory/income and so forth for manor improvements after the Anarchy - that system began feeling a bit too fiddly for us.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Baba

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Baba said:

We stopped giving checks/yearly glory/income and so forth for manor improvements after the Anarchy - that system began feeling a bit too fiddly for us.

Quick question, are you using Book of the Manor or Book of the Estate? Since the income in the ESTATE is just one number, which you simply add to your Discretionary Funds while you are alive, and to your holding value when it is reassessed when you die and the heir takes over. No rolling necessary. But sure, if you give no benefits for the investments whatsoever, then it is CC since you don't get anything else.

[Baba]

28 minutes ago, Morien said:

Quick question, are you using Book of the Manor or Book of the Estate? Since the income in the ESTATE is just one number, which you simply add to your Discretionary Funds while you are alive, and to your holding value when it is reassessed when you die and the heir takes over. No rolling necessary. But sure, if you give no benefits for the investments whatsoever, then it is CC since you don't get anything else.

Estate - but as you say, we now give no mechanical benefits for investments whatsoever, except rewarding it as CC.

(The character still gets the benefit of now having some bees they didn't have before or a nice hall or whatever. But it doesn't generate income or glory or checks.)

[Atgxtg]

On 4/8/2020 at 12:54 PM, Baba said:

Estate - but as you say, we now give no mechanical benefits for investments whatsoever, except rewarding it as CC.

(The character still gets the benefit of now having some bees they didn't have before or a nice hall or whatever. But it doesn't generate income or glory or checks.)

Did you start off using Book of Manor or Book of Estate? BoM got very fiddly, but BoE is much faster and easier.

[Baba]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Did you start off using Book of Manor or Book of Estate? BoM got very fiddly, but BoE is much faster and easier.

We used Estate from the start - I think it was new at the time. (I have book of the manor, but we never used it).

By all means, it worked fine - we used it for the first 25 years of the campaign and built some thriving economies.

But at the end of anarchy we took a hard look at what we wanted our campaign to be about and what we wanted to spend our time on, and estate management wasn’t it.

Nothing wrong with it - just not our main interest.

Part of it was also that your character can gain some significant advantages if you game it strategicaly, and that did not fit with the vibe we wanted.

Now our lands only have the three economy stats Customary Revenue, Discretionary fund and Standard of living, the two later derived from the former as per Book of the Estate, and we never fiddle with those stats. Investments do not change them, damage does not change them, family and servants do not change them, the only thing that may change them is if you gain or lose land.

The only significance it has when it comes up in play, is that some player knights are rich and others are not. THAT is important to us - but we don’t feel we need anything more.

[Atgxtg]

20 hours ago, Baba said:

We used Estate from the start - I think it was new at the time. (I have book of the manor, but we never used it).

By all means, it worked fine - we used it for the first 25 years of the campaign and built some thriving economies.

But at the end of anarchy we took a hard look at what we wanted our campaign to be about and what we wanted to spend our time on, and estate management wasn’t it.

Oh, I sympathize with you.-that was exactly how I feel about the Book of the Manor.  If felt like we were spending more time managing estates that playing Pendragon. 

I'm just surprised that you found Estate to be all that time consuming or had that significant of an effect. It mostly comes down to PKs building one improvement, and an enclosure and netting a little extra income. The extra skill checks are a non-issue, as the PKS will generally be using the skills they want checks in, and getting checks anyway.