Jump to content
MOB

WeAreAllUs: download Greg Stafford's 'The Quest of the Red Blade'

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, SaxBasilisk said:

One other catch: two of the characters have a "Finger of St. Alban" among their possessions, but only one sheet describes its effects.

A duplication error for Sir Echen—he should not have the Finger of St. Alban. (Or let him have it as well and boost his Spiritual by 3!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really want to thank all the team for this gift to the community.

The Art is gorgeous. On the adventure itself, there is a strong ressemblance with an adventure of Gauvain(Gawaine) in Perlesvaus, which can not be a coincidence and is of course a plus. The mix with the historical and mythical Merionnyd stuff was beautifully executed. I really like it and will play it, for sure.

The hommage is well done, by the way.

My nitpickings:

  • I am surprised you turned Idris into a dragon. Why not a big giant?
  • Pagan knights will have trouble with the Idris stuff. A religion (pagan) roll for learning more about Idris is lacking
  • It lacks the hospitality and honor loss for stealing the red blade (-5 and -3 respectively?)
  • The "hospitality dilemna" is the core of the adventure, but is a bit too much easily resolved by smart players.
  • The "Red Blade" is too powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SaxBasilisk said:

One other catch: two of the characters have a "Finger of St. Alban" among their possessions, but only one sheet describes its effects.

Although previously answered, I believe that St Alban had more than one finger.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, soltakss said:

Although previously answered, I believe that St Alban had more than one finger.

And perhaps the two could share possession of one of St. Alban's fingers.

!i!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, sirlarkins said:

If there could be multiple foreskins of Jesus ;)

I don't think that idea holds up to circumspection.:blink:;)

Edited by Atgxtg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sirlarkins said:

I knew I could rely on you all to pick up the ball and run with it.

Naw, that's right off the table.

Don't think there was ever a suggestion that Jesus of Nazareth was a castrato.  They did NOT pick up His balls & run.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, g33k said:

Naw, that's right off the table.

Don't think there was ever a suggestion that Jesus of Nazareth was a castrato.  They did NOT pick up His balls & run.

The Skoptsy would care to differ with that assertion, but that's a whole other ball of wax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Son of God, guys.  He'd just heal himself.  🙄

But he was a devout orthodox Jew.  And what the Romans actually did to Jesus was worse than anything even Clive Barker could imagine.

For a fun account of duplicate relics check out Mark Twain's "The Innocents Abroad."  During an overseas vacation he reports seeing enough nails and pieces of the One True Cross to build a housing division.  On the other hand, if you can multiply loaves and fishes or be tempted to turn rocks into Hoagie buns, maybe duplicating other materials isn't such a big deal.  😉

Edited by seneschal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Maybe we strayed a bit too far from the topic?

Undoubtedly.

So here's a thought... Other than RQG+HQG, which two #WeAreAllUs adventures can most smoothly & with least effort, be combined in the same game?

Adaptationswill obviously be needed, but which two need the /least/ work?

I confess I may be challenged to get ANY game in, the next few weeks (planned to travel), but I'll bring book & dice & some printed materials, and keep my eyes open for a chance...

But I'd LIKE  to twofer this one, if there's any way I could!

Edited by g33k
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about  the adventure:

The PKs meet knights from Gormeret. The text states:

Quote

“Hail good knights!” says the leader. “Do you seek to enlist?”

Of course, this begins a rather dangerous conversation. The Player-knights will wish to know: “enlist for what?” One of the Gomeret knights rather foolishly states, “For the conquest of Castle of the Kite!” He is silenced by their leader, who then wants to know, “What are you doing here if you have not come to enlist?”

If the Player-knights are evasive, the other knights become suspicious and quickly turn hostile. If the Player-knights state they are heading towards the Castle of the Kite, the Gomeret knights become immediately hostile. Weapons are drawn and they fall upon the Player-knights. If the knights lie, perhaps saying they are just traveling through, they get a Deceitful check and the Gomeret leader warns them that evil lies ahead and they ought to take a road north to Gomeret instead. If the knights agree, they are Out of the Adventure—they will eventually be recognized as Logres knights, captured, and given to King Maelgwyn of Gomeret for ransom. However, if they insist on continuing on, the now-suspicious Gomeret knights get hostile and draw weapons.

I've looked into both KAP 5.2 as well as the GPC and I can't find anything about hostilities between Gomeret and Logres or Gomeret and Arthur. So I'm not sure why discovery they are from Logres will lead them to be captured if they choose to join the Gomeret knights. After all the PKs are planning on the conquest of the Castle of the Kite (in one manner of speaking), so why does alleging themselves with other knights with the same enemy cause them to be held for ransom? And why is being from Logres the trigger for being captured?

Thanks!

Edited by creativehum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess: Cambrian War, Savage Mountains.

Although I agree, if the Gomeret Knights were waiting for mercenaries to help to take the Castle, it should not matter that they are from Logres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gomeret and Maelgwn are vaguely hostile to Arthur after Maelgwn expels Pellinore's family from the throne in northern Cambria after Pellinore's death (523). Btw the adventure would fit well with the events that lead to the discovery of Percivale in the GPC: his mother's house is about 30 miles north of the Castle of the Kite, so, a different route back or to Cadair Idris could be folded into that episode. I put that in c.535 in my campaign so it would match Chretien.

If you use the century = phase for a rough corresponding sequence of events, the Cambrian War would be around 542, but Arthur's imprisonment would conflict. Maelgwn dies in 547. His son Rhun hir could easily however continue an anti-Arthur policy.

Hostages of Maelgwn could also meet Elffin, the foster-father of Taliesin, and be rescued by the boy-seer if the adventure takes place in the 540s.

An earlier setting could work during the period Ryons usurped northern Wales (c.510-514).

King Garan (whose name means 'crane') is sometimes represented as the father of Gwyddno Garanhir, the ruler of Maes Gwyddno, alias Cantref y Gwaelod. He also is sometimes connected to the family of Cynyr, the father of Cei (Kay the Steward), though this is not the case in this adventure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the Referee should establish, once the knights are recognized from Gomeret, that Gomeret is hostile to Arthur and Logres. That is implied in the adventure text, but never explained. So any justification the Referee wants can do.

And so... mystery solved!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

Gomeret and Maelgwn are vaguely hostile to Arthur after Maelgwn expels Pellinore's family from the throne in northern Cambria after Pellinore's death (523).

They were also hostile a bit earlier. Vortigern and his sons were from Cambria. Vortigfern treated Cambria fairly well as did his sons, who drove out the Irish. Votimer even lead a semi-successful rebellion against the Saxons. So there is probably some bad blood between the families that supported Vortigern, and Ambrosius' line (i.e the Pendragons). 

Oh, and although the pregen character and equipment both seem to point to the adventure taking place in 535, it wouldn't be hard to adapt this for another date, by altering armor and Castle of the Kite and such to fit whatever Period the GM wants. King Cunneda was a contemporary of King Constatin, so the backstory could easily happen long before 480. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2019 at 1:19 AM, jeffjerwin said:

his mother's house is about 30 miles north of the Castle of the Kite, so, a different route back or to Cadair Idris could be folded into that episode. I put that in c.535 in my campaign so it would match Chretien.

Very nice idea! I was wondering... In the KAP, the PK are looking for the stolen jewels of Cameliard. In Chrétien's work, the wandering knights are looking for 5 knights and 3 maidens. How would you reconcile all of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in Parzival, there's an actual reasoning: a group of knights have abducted the maidens and the knights are searching for them. Of course, one can be diverted by the abduction en route, as is a common trope in romances, if it looks like the route is approximately the same.

The abductor is Meliagant in fact (which would place the events ordinarily before 538) and the abductee is the Lady Imane; the other ladies are her handmaidens and the other knights are Meliagant's escort. As to why they are stealing away to Maelgwn's kingdom, perhaps there is an alliance between Gorre and Gomeret, which makes a great deal of sense. In any case, the rationale for being in the Lonely Forest (Snowdonia) is pretty much irrelevant - the point is meeting the young Percivale, after all, so it changes nothing if the PKs and PLs are doing something else.

In my campaign, the PKs and PLs were searching for Lancelot and were diverted en route into searching for Orilus (the knight whose wife Percivale will shortly trouble) who had taken prisoners for ransom. I tossed the bandit side plot so I could introduce Orilus, Lancelot, and Percivale. This was the very first adventure of my current campaign, so bringing in Lance made a great deal of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...