Wessex

[jeffjerwin]

52 minutes ago, Morien said:

Well, if you want to run your campaign based solely on GPC and not on BoU and BotW, you are more than welcome to do so! The Supreme Collegium matters not: Arthur will become the High King, and after that, there shall not be another. Not one that matters, anyway.

Speaking of historical research occasionally getting in the way of gameplay... I actually preferred the old territorial nobles of GPC and earlier editions, than the scattered landholdings introduced in BotW. I had some arguments with Greg about why I think that Logres fighting against Saxons on one side and the Irish and the Cornish and the Picts in other flanks might be better served by more concentrated landholdings, and why this would make more sense given the tribal origins of those holdings. Rather than transporting the Norman method of scattered landholdings from the historical post-Norman Conquest England to keep the regional nobles weak and less able to defy the royal power. Needless to say, I lost that argument, but I still feel that the concentrated landholdings (county lords) is much easier for the players to grasp and easier for me to GM! (Not that the scattered holdings can't have some advantages for travel, such as the PKs sent to check up on outliers, but still.)

I also have much easier time keeping track of 20 or so counts and dukes than 70 or so Barons of the Sword and Barons of the Robe (although the latter would still be there as bishops, of course). What can I say? I like keeping some things simple!

The one advantage of having scattered holdings is that it helps to finesse the occasional mentions of some Round Table knight having a manor or castle in the middle of nowhere in the Lancelot-Grail (Agravaine, for example, has a tower and manor in Norgales, the De Ganis clan has holdings scattered across Britain - in Ergyng, in Cornwall, and of course, in Garloth).

[Morien]

Sure, but many of those can be explained away with recent heroics or marriages or the like. I find it much less useful that Baron Whodis has also a manor in Hartland and another manor in Gentian in addition to his main estate in Lambor. And then multiply this by 70 or so. Especially since most of these guys will be dead before the PKs have any real chance to interact with them.

Give me rather a list of the counties, their leaders and their armies, and then maybe 20 or so important, named RTKs from Orkneys, De Galis and De Ganis families and what their landholdings and armies are and when they gain them. The former I more or less get from 4th edition although the numbers are a bit suspect at times, and of course more appropriate for 530s. But so are the three families, too: Orkneys and De Galis get started already in 510s but things don't really heat up until 520s and Lancelot's rise us more in late 520s and during 530s. Orkneys are around and active for 50 years or so and De Galis and De Ganis for close to 40. Much more playtime and interaction there.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Morien

[jeffjerwin]

11 hours ago, Morien said:

Sure, but many of those can be explained away with recent heroics or marriages or the like. I find it much less useful that Baron Whodis has also a manor in Hartland and another manor in Gentian in addition to his main estate in Lambor. And then multiply this by 70 or so. Especially since most of these guys will be dead before the PKs have any real chance to interact with them.

Give me rather a list of the counties, their leaders and their armies, and then maybe 20 or so important, named RTKs from Orkneys, De Galis and De Ganis families and what their landholdings and armies are and when they gain them. The former I more or less get from 4th edition although the numbers are a bit suspect at times, and of course more appropriate for 530s. But so are the three families, too: Orkneys and De Galis get started already in 510s but things don't really heat up until 520s and Lancelot's rise us more in late 520s and during 530s. Orkneys are around and active for 50 years or so and De Galis and De Ganis for close to 40. Much more playtime and interaction there.

Yes, knowing where they live part of the year, is kind of interesting and important.

It's heavily implied in the L-G that the the Orkney brothers aren't all that well off and survive off their uncle's largesse. Arthur keeps deferring giving them Lothian and Orkney. It's finally agreed to give Orkney to Gareth and he refuses it. But no doubt they have at least a few manors in Logres near court. Gawaine's sister ends up with the Castle of Marvels. Mordred eventually secures Lothian and uses it to establish his powerbase for the Downfall. He's the only canonically 'rich' Orkney brother.

The Galis clan suffers the most losses, of course, with northern Cambria lost after Pellinore's death and the destruction of Listeneisse. They're shown to be landless knights errant. A PK theoretically could take in one of Pellinore's sons as a household knight or give them a manor and hey presto you have an impressive ally (and a bunch of new enemies).

Lancelot, if I recall correctly, doesn't really profit beyond Joyeuse Garde, but his exiled kin are more than willing to ride his coattails and take lands in conquered lands, or in the demense of JG.

One of the curious features of KAP is while PKs are angling to amass wealth and titles, the leading canon RTKs are often quite poor, surviving off the tournament circuit.

[Morien]

43 minutes ago, jeffjerwin said:

One of the curious features of KAP is while PKs are angling to amass wealth and titles, the leading canon RTKs are often quite poor, surviving off the tournament circuit.

I think Greg mentions in one book that each RTK gets a manor or a stipend to help to support them in appropriate manner. So they are by no means starving nor Poor by KAP standards. Poor compared to the Kings and Princes who actually still hold their own lands, yes.

Ah, here, KAP 5.2, p. 198: "Furthermore, King Arthur gives the Round Table knights a grant of land that will ensure their accoutrement as a Rich Knight, and will outfit them with the best armor and horses available when possible, and all other benefits of a leading courtier of the realm."

So this would normally be an estate of £40 or more, but I suspect what Arthur is doing is that he is giving like a £13 manor and exempting the knight from additional servitium debitum of the extra £3, treating that as free income, thus granting £6 for the knight and his family and +£4 discretionary funds.

[Morien]

50 minutes ago, jeffjerwin said:

He's the only canonically 'rich' Orkney brother.

Doesn't Gareth gain the Duchy of Lancaster, though?

[jeffjerwin]

9 hours ago, Morien said:

Doesn't Gareth gain the Duchy of Lancaster, though?

I should probably say 'canonical rich brother in the French literature'. Gareth does marry Lyonesse, in Malory and KAP, though Malory puts Castle Dangerous next to Avalon, not in Lancashire. The KAP Duchy in Perilous Forest is about a quarter the size of the later county of Lancashire, however, so it looks more like a palatine barony.

A 'rich' knight, however, is not a baron. Greg here has a different vision than Malory, who of course describes himself as a 'poor knight'. By the 15th century the RT also has quite a few impoverished knights, particularly in the Guiron cycle. I guess the average fictional knight, like Greg describes, has a handful of manors, but very few of the RT knights are described as barons, counts, or higher nobles, unless they're a seeming 'political' appointment, like the subject kings. But the historical counterpart to Palomides, or Lamorak, or Percivale, is William the Marshal, who only achieved wealth and status late in life, despite being a trusted retainer of kings and princes. One of the casualties of the realism in KAP is the idea of the penniless knight errant as a plausible hero. Percivale has no manors and no income except from winning tournaments and impromptu jousts. Lamorak is a hunted wanderer who travels incognito. Tristram spends quite a few years in the same predicament.

[Atgxtg]

 

On 1/18/2020 at 10:30 AM, jeffjerwin said:

One of the curious features of KAP is while PKs are angling to amass wealth and titles, the leading canon RTKs are often quite poor, surviving off the tournament circuit.

The richest PK I ever saw in any of my campaigns was one who "survived off the tourney circuit". The potential income from the tourney circuit is incredible and puts most other ways of generating income to shame. A knight with a high lance skill can enter a tourney, beat two or three opponents then loose, and come out ahead two ransoms, two chargers, and two sets of armor. Since this is all "extra" income the knight can make more in five years on the tourney circuit that he will make elsewhere. A really good knight can make two to three times that, or more.  The PK is my old campaign had Lance 27, and Sword 22 or so and had more accumulated wealth than he ever needed. The only real limit is the availability of "money tournaments". 

Now in theory, in KAP5, there would be a lot of knights going broke raising all those ransoms and replacing their armor and horses, on £1-2 discretionary funds, after a tournament. 

 

[Tizun Thane]

On 1/18/2020 at 4:38 AM, jeffjerwin said:

The one advantage of having scattered holdings is that it helps to finesse the occasional mentions of some Round Table knight having a manor or castle in the middle of nowhere in the Lancelot-Grail (Agravaine, for example, has a tower and manor in Norgales, the De Ganis clan has holdings scattered across Britain - in Ergyng, in Cornwall, and of course, in Garloth).

It can be useful from a narrative perspective. Your PKs can stumble upon a friend's or foe's manor everywhere. But otherwise, it doesn't serve any purpose in my game.

[creativehum]

2 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

It can be useful from a narrative perspective. Your PKs can stumble upon a friend's or foe's manor everywhere. But otherwise, it doesn't serve any purpose in my game.

The thing is (and I'm with @Tizun Thane on this) you don't even need it from a narrative perspective. 

The PCs can wander around and stumble across a friend or foe's manor or castle anywhere without any of the justification of scattered holdings. Happens Malory all the time.

For those who want justifications for randomly coming across manors and castles, scattered holdings make perfect sense. But for some of us they aren't needed at all and only clog up the works.

Edited January 21, 2020 by creativehum

[jeffjerwin]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

 

The richest PK I ever saw in any of my campaigns was one who "survived off the tourney circuit". The potential income from the tourney circuit is incredible and puts most other ways of generating income to shame. A knight with a high lance skill can enter a tourney, beat two or three opponents then loose, and come out ahead two ransoms, two chargers, and two sets of armor. Since this is all "extra" income the knight can make more in five years on the tourney circuit that he will make elsewhere. A really good knight can make two to three times that, or more.  The PK is my old campaign had Lance 27, and Sword 22 or so and had more accumulated wealth than he ever needed. The only real limit is the availability of "money tournaments". 

Now in theory, in KAP5, there would be a lot of knights going broke raising all those ransoms and replacing their armor and horses, on £1-2 discretionary funds, after a tournament. 

 

Going broke from tournaments was a serious problem, akin to gambling, and many a noblewoman tried to prevent their husbands and sons from going.

Also, if you win too often in tournaments, there may be a lot of people owing you money with a motive to shank you as you ride from one to another. Possibly another reason Lancelot went incognito to so many...

[Atgxtg]

18 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

Going broke from tournaments was a serious problem, akin to gambling, and many a noblewoman tried to prevent their husbands and sons from going.

I believe it. In that same campaign another PK wound up a King of aminor kindom in the Perlious Forest (what Pendragon used to reffer to as a Pennath). He had to drop out of competing in tournamnets after a few years, as his ransom would ruin him -especially as he won the kingdom in a poor state and it was barely supporting him to begin with.

18 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

Also, if you win too often in tournaments, there may be a lot of people owing you money with a motive to shank you as you ride from one to another. Possibly another reason Lancelot went incognito to so many...

Possibly, but I think it would be easier to just go to a different tournament where Sir So & So won't be. For the most part the great knights are't a problem, as they tend be be outnumbered by the ordinary knights, and so anyone who is worried that Lancelot is going to crimp his style can usually rack up a few wins in the preliminary rounds. 

 

The big jouster in my old campaign pretty much always came out ahead by the time he was eliminated. The two highlights of his jousting career was when he went three passes against Lancelot (he subsequently lost on foot), and when he "defeat" Gawain. Gawain fumbled, accidentally slew the PK's horse, and felt so bad about it that he gave the PK his brand new, and not generally available suit of partial plate. He also took an interest in the PKs career, as did a young (still good) Morded. 

[stryker99]

So I bought Book of the Warlord, it had a ton of info in it that is useful heading into the Anarchy.  I made my players head spin when I had Countess Ellen have them review Lord Salisbury's holdings.

The maps and castle information alone is well worth it.  However, the maps are weak on legends. What are the dead tree icon locations on the maps, especially the 2 page Salisbury map at the back? Also the 5 leaf icons of Holyhill and Oakcamp? I am guessing the latter are pagan holy sites? The dead tree locations have me "stumped" (pun intended)...

[Morien]

18 minutes ago, stryker99 said:

The maps and castle information alone is well worth it.  However, the maps are weak on legends. What are the dead tree icon locations on the maps, especially the 2 page Salisbury map at the back? Also the 5 leaf icons of Holyhill and Oakcamp? I am guessing the latter are pagan holy sites? The dead tree locations have me "stumped" (pun intended)...

Yeah I don't know where the legend went from BotW. There is a legend in the Book of Uther, p. 146. @sirlarkins, could that be made downloadable freebie on the Chaosium website?

The dead tree = hundred moot (hundred court location)

5-leaf icons = pagan holy site (as you guessed)