Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
stryker99

Wessex

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, creativehum said:

Hey folks, 

I would never suggest not looking to history to help ground King Arthur Pendragon -- in both setting and play. As I've said across many threads even in Malory there is a tension between the grounded information Malory brings to the day-to-day business of combat and tack and bridles and such, and the fantastical elements of his tale.

Moreover, the game draws from customs of actual historical times, and chooses to set itself within a framework of laws and customs that we can read about in history books. After all, KAP did not create its own setting! So clearly working from history -- when it makes sense for the setting and play -- is a good idea.

 

16 hours ago, creativehum said:

My point was, in the specific case at hand,  trying to work in new discoveries by historians about Cerdic that would flatly contradict details already established in the GPC wouldn't be worth incorporating. If I can use what is in the book with a couple of clarifications to address the matter of where Cerdic lands (which has already been taken care of upthread) rather than rummage around in notions that mean reworking lots of material, I'm going to take the easier path even if it is not historically accurate.

You can do it that way, but sometimes the easiest path might not be the best path. 

16 hours ago, creativehum said:

This, first and foremost, was my  point. Le Morte D'Arthur isn't historically accurate. Historia Regum Britanniae isn't historically accurate. These are the books King Arthur Pendragon primarily leans on, and I'm stating I'm fine with continuing with King Arthur Pendragon's tradition of drawing on historically inaccurate material and building historically fanciful tales.

No they are not historically accurate, but they do draw on history. We shouldn't just blindly follow something in the core rules or the GPC just because the setting inst historically accurate. KAP could easily have used a more generic FRPG type of economy and price lists. Instead Greg went with something at least partially based on history, because doing so enhanced the gaming experience. THe economic system has since been refined over the years tot he point where it is one of the most historically accurate as any RPG. At least for one that doesn't fluctate the way prices really did. I think that maybe only HARN does the economics better.

 

And that all enhances the game. A GM could just hand wave off the economics becuase the game is a romance, not a histroical RPG, but doing so would diminish the gaming experience. So my point is that a GM really shouldn't dismiss things out of hand, as doingh so could shortchange the group.

 

 

16 hours ago, creativehum said:

More broadly my point was an expansion of this notion: that first and foremost King Arthur Pendragon is a Romance, not a history, given that since the first edition it has been stated clearly that Le Morte D'Arthur is the primary source of the game. It's as plain as that. If I can add in "real history" at the expense of tearing up floorboards of work that already works for the game, I'll pass on that.

Okay, but Greg did stuff like that on multiple occasions. He drew on a lot of soruces besides Mallory and the HRB, and occasionally he even ripped up the floorboards. Orginally, in KAP1 Camelot was Cadbury Castle, a site that had been recently suggested as a possible site by some Arthruian researchers. So Greg ripped up the floorboards set down by Mallory and opted to use Cadbury Castle for Camelot, instead of Winchester.

Then, with KAP3, he ripped up the floorboards again and decided to use Winchester as Camelot after all.  

And frankly Cedric isn't a floorboard, he's a nail that popped up. He serves more as a boogeyman during the Anarchy of of what could happen to Logres, but he quickly fades into the woodwork once Arthur shows up. Especially after Badon. 

16 hours ago, creativehum said:

That doesn't mean a dismissal of history as an aid to the game or the setting. (See the first part if this post). It's about the balance of the choice, which divining rod will I use. Clarity of structure, themes, and patterning for the tale being create will alway win out for me... and I know for a fact it is easier to do that with fictional details trumping history.

Can you prove that? I'd say the opposite is usally the case. Historical detals tend to provide a clearer structure, themese and pattern than ficional ones. Typically fictional ones miss stuff, and can easily fall apart if someone turns left instead of right or some such. 

16 hours ago, creativehum said:

Not a dismal of history,  but a choice about what the design parameters will be.

Yes and the choice for KAP has always been a blending of sources, literary and historical. Not to forget film. Excalibur has had a huge impact on Uther in KAP5. If Greg had followed your methods then KAP would have been Mallory and nothing else. THat was the easilest and simpliest way to go. Nothing else was needed.

 

But but expadning beyond Mallory we all got a better game setting and much better campaigns. THe setting has more depth, and we are free to adventure in any part of it., instead of being restricted to the things in Mallory.

 

16 hours ago, creativehum said:

Phyllis Ann Karr begins her Forward to the second edition of The Arthurian Companion (originally published by Chaosium, later Green Knight) with these words:

I would suggest KAP is the same. As is the GPC.

Now, I don't think the divide in stark. (After all, again, I'm all for using history in KAP). But I do think people lean toward one form, or are more interested in one form or the other, or emphasize one over the other.

And I think the divide isn't about sotry over histroy. It's about which version of the story. The thing is, there are mutiple versions of the King Arthur tale, and they all contradcit each other at times. Much of the decsions made by GMs depend on which version or versions they wish to go with. Or which bits they wish to mix and match. THat';s what Greg did. it's why we get stuff like Arthur's sons and the Troit boar. 

 

16 hours ago, creativehum said:

But clearly I lean toward the romantic form. Other people lean differently. And that's fine.

But clearly we're talking proportions here, since we can't be sure there even was an Arthur, and we certainly aren't expecting a game involving wizards, spells, Grail Quests, and men wearing full plate in the 6th century to be true.

But it's not history vs. "the story". it's about which version of "the stroy" does a GM go with. Greg used elements from many versions of the tale to various degrees, and most of the differences between GMs here are based more on which sources they prefer over others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

But it's not history vs. "the story". it's about which version of "the stroy" does a GM go with. Greg used elements from many versions of the tale to various degrees, and most of the differences between GMs here are based more on which sources they prefer over others.

One of my favorite parts of developing material for KAP is looking at as many as possible of the various versions of a story or event and finding the fullest reading of it, one that makes for the best story. The story that emerges at the table is a mixture of all of them.

In the end, what makes the best and most coherent story is what should be gone with.

Greg's perspective with the game was not that it would be 'finished' but that it would continue to evolve. Does it matter that in 1E Cadbury was Camelot? Not really. In some ways it is kind of exciting that the Pendragon setting evolved and changed, and that a campaign run ten years ago is quite different from one run a few years from now: it doesn't get stale, just like when a new conteur decided to make a new romance or retell the old epic of Arthur's death. It will be quite a long time before the game universe runs out of medieval literature, for example. There are many great Arthurian sources that are still outside it. The only considerations ought to be: does it improve the narrative? and does it throw everything off course if we do this?

In the case of Cerdic, modifying his kingdom has minimal effects beyond the Anarchy and would intensify his importance as a continuation of the Vortigern story. It's not a change on the scale of, say, replacing Lancelot with Mordred as the secondary hero.

Share this post


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

One of my favorite parts of developing material for KAP is looking at as many as possible of the various versions of a story or event and finding the fullest reading of it, one that makes for the best story. The story that emerges at the table is a mixture of all of them.

In the end, what makes the best and most coherent story is what should be gone with.

It's one of mine too. Plus, after running mutiple campaigns, I often want to go in a different direction at times. 

1 hour ago, jeffjerwin said:

Greg's perspective with the game was not that it would be 'finished' but that it would continue to evolve. Does it matter that in 1E Cadbury was Camelot? Not really. In some ways it is kind of exciting that the Pendragon setting evolved and changed, and that a campaign run ten years ago is quite different from one run a few years from now: it doesn't get stale, just like when a new conteur decided to make a new romance or retell the old epic of Arthur's death. It will be quite a long time before the game universe runs out of medieval literature, for example.

Yes, and that it continues to grow and evolve also gives us all more options as to what we can do with it. Considerng that every Pendragon campaign uses basically the same setting, characters timeline, and major events, we need those changes and alternatives to keep the games fresh and unique. Going off on a tangent or diverting from the established timeline can often enhance a campaign.

Recently my players actually mange to win a battle that they were scripted to loose. It was a battle against the Irish in the 450s, and the outcome really didn't make any difference to the course of events. All the change really did was bring the PKS to the attention of Kings Vortimer and Katigern which drew the PKs into the rebellion, and led to their going into exile in 458 after hearing rumors that they might be charged with treason for their part in the rebellion. It was a minor deviation from the established timeline in Book of Sires, but it paid off wonderfully, both in terms of story advancement, and in terms of player satisfaction. It was really the one and only time where the players actually threw the outcome of a battle with their actions. 

1 hour ago, jeffjerwin said:

There are many great Arthurian sources that are still outside it. The only considerations ought to be: does it improve the narrative? and does it throw everything off course if we do this?

Yup, although I'd probably say that very little will throw everything off course, and that in most cases things throw some stuff of course but n most cases the main storyline will continue on just fine. There are really only a handful of characters and events that can throw the whole campaign off course. Only Arthur is really indispensable. Even Merlin was a retcon.

1 hour ago, jeffjerwin said:

In the case of Cerdic, modifying his kingdom has minimal effects beyond the Anarchy and would intensify his importance as a continuation of the Vortigern story. It's not a change on the scale of, say, replacing Lancelot with Mordred as the secondary hero.

It probably only had marginal effect during the Anarchy, too. Cerdic is really just one more potential threat that has to be enduring during the Anarchy Period. It really doesn't matter much where he is situation just as long as he is close/powerful enough to exert pressure on Salisbury. 

Unless the GM wants to go for a more sympathetic version than the one in the GPC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2020 at 4:15 PM, creativehum said:

Hey folks, 

I would never suggest not looking to history to help ground King Arthur Pendragon -- in both setting and play. As I've said across many threads even in Malory there is a tension between the grounded information Malory brings to the day-to-day business of combat and tack and bridles and such, and the fantastical elements of his tale.

 

On 1/14/2020 at 8:51 AM, Atgxtg said:

KAP could easily have used a more generic FRPG type of economy and price lists. Instead Greg went with something at least partially based on history...

And that all enhances the game. A GM could just hand wave off the economics becuase the game is a romance, not a histroical RPG, but doing so would diminish the gaming experience. So my point is that a GM really shouldn't dismiss things out of hand, as doingh so could shortchange the group.

The portion of Atgxtg's post I quote is a terrific illustration of the points I made in my post. As far as I can tell we are agreeing... so... there we are.

He and I disagree on a few things, of course. Mostly about personal preferences how each of us wants to approach the game. At least that's how I'm seeing it. I suggest that some people are more focused on the delight of historical research than other people. If I'm understanding his post correctly he is saying that distinction does not exist.

But to be clear: My posts above are the people who might show up here and assume they need to be scholars of medieval lit and history to play King Arthur Pendragon. I'm not saying anyone is saying this. I'm saying one could show up and get the mistaken belief this is the case.

To address this head on and unequivocally: one can, and should, be able to play the game with the core rules and maybe the Great Pendragon Campaign without having to open another text or do any research.

If someone wants to dig deeper and add more details -- well, as I've said above, that is great. Clearly several people in the thread love doing that. And more power to them!

But it is a distinct part of the possible KAP RPG hobby. It isn't required. It isn't for everyone. And playing the game can work fine without it.

If anyone wants to contradict me on this, go ahead. Keep in mind:

  1. In no way have I stated anyone is wrong for wanting to make digging into the historical aspects of medieval Britain part of the KAP RPG experience
  2. In no way have I stated that KAP and GPC haven't already done this (in fact, I continually make the point it has been done)
  3. I literally don't know how anyone can contradict my point that some people are more invested in digging into history, and other people are not. I observe this difference of creative agendas on this site regularly.  Given that, I'm not sure what else there is to say. 

 

Edited by creativehum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, creativehum said:

 

The portion of Atgxtg's post I quote is a terrific illustration of the points I made in my post. As far as I can tell we are agreeing... so... there we are.

He and I disagree on a few things, of course. Mostly about personal preferences how each of us wants to approach the game. At least that's how I'm seeing it. I suggest that some people are more focused on the delight of historical research than other people. If I'm understanding his post correctly he is saying that distinction does not exist.

I'm saying that the distiction is about which version  of the King Arthur legend GMs lean towards. Not historical vs. literary/romantic.

 

For instance jeffjerwin seems to draw more from the Welsh sources than the French ones. So much of what he brings up is from eailer sources and has a differernt feel than the latter stuff. 

 

15 hours ago, creativehum said:

But to be clear: My posts above are the people who might show up here and assume they need to be scholars of medieval lit and history to play King Arthur Pendragon. I'm not saying anyone is saying this. I'm saying one could show up and get the mistaken belief this is the case.

No one has to be a scholar of any type to run or play Pendragon. I do think they should read at least one version of the tale, even it if is one of the modern adaptations aimed at younger readers, such as a Howard Pyle adaptation. But reading some of Mallory is advisable, and the HRB and other sources help, but are certainly not required reading. It all helps, especially to explain some of the wierder things that happen in the GPC. 

 

15 hours ago, creativehum said:

To address this head on and unequivocally: one can, and should, be able to play the game with the core rules and maybe the Great Pendragon Campaign without having to open another text or do any research.

Yes the can, but I doubt they will really appreaciate it without knowing a little more. It's one of the reasons why the game expanded in KAP3 to explain knighthood and how knights live in more detail. Without some understanding of the setting a KAP campaign can easily turn into another FRPG game. 

15 hours ago, creativehum said:

If someone wants to dig deeper and add more details -- well, as I've said above, that is great. Clearly several people in the thread love doing that. And more power to them!

But it is a distinct part of the possible KAP RPG hobby. It isn't required. It isn't for everyone. And playing the game can work fine without it.

If anyone wants to contradict me on this, go ahead. Keep in mind:

Okay. I contradict you. I think that unless a GM has some familiarity with Arthruian literature and knights they just won't do the game justice. They might be able to handle the game mechanics but they game they run won't bear much relation to King Arthur Pendragon. 

15 hours ago, creativehum said:
  1. In no way have I stated anyone is wrong for wanting to make digging into the historical aspects of medieval Britain part of the KAP RPG experience
  2. In no way have I stated that KAP and GPC haven't already done this (in fact, I continually make the point it has been done)

 

  1. I literally don't know how anyone can contradict my point that some people are more invested in digging into history, and other people are not. I observe this difference of creative agendas on this site regularly.  Given that, I'm not sure what else there is to say. 

That's not the point I'm contradicting. The one I will contradict is that "playing the game can work fine without it.". If someone hasn't read anything about King Arthur or knights then chances are it probably won't work out fine. I've seen more than one KAP GM run a shambles of a campaign, turning it into sort of D&D setting due to a complete leack of understanding about the setting, and the ways things work.  I'm not saying a GM needs to read much, but they have to know something about the setting other than just what is in the core book and GPC.

The GPC hints at a lot of stuff based on the assumption that the GM will know what is going on. It's why most of the adventures list their sources-so the GM can read up on them. So I think a certina amount of reading a research is expected of a Pendragon GM. 

 

Share this post


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

Okay. I contradict you. I think that unless a GM has some familiarity with Arthruian literature and knights they just won't do the game justice. They might be able to handle the game mechanics but they game they run won't bear much relation to King Arthur Pendragon. 

Of course this is true.

This is why King Arthur Pendragon has a bibliography of suggested reading.

It is why the Great Pendragon Campaign contains this gloss on page 7.

Quote

You Don’t Need It, But…

…as a diligent Gamemaster, you will significantly upgrade the quality of your campaign with access to a copy of Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte D’Arthur. Don’t worry, though: You need be only as knowledgeable as a frontier teacher — for any given session of play, just read ahead one chapter beyond the years you are covering. (Largely, though not completely, the campaign event sequence follows Malory.)

In both cases the books are telling you, "This will help your game." When I write "...using King Arthur Pendragon and the Great Pendragon Campaig"..." I mean taking the suggestions in those books seriously. 

And because I already believe this in every one of my posts above I have pointed big arrows at Le Morte D'Arthur. I mean, I keep referencing the importance of looking at the fictional sources for inspiration. Exactly at KAP and GPC do.

I know it is possible to take one sentence of mine and ignore everything else I have typed, but I really don't get the value in it.

_____________________

We resolved the matter of Cedric's invasion on the previous page of this thread with easy effort. I'm busy making handouts for my players.

I'm glad the question was asked. I'm grateful for the answers.

Edited by creativehum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all I want to thank EVERYONE for the excellent discussion here, I  typically avoid participating in online forums as they are usually quite hostile, but this community is amazingly supportive. It has helped me a LOT. I will admit I have not read Mallory. I will as it is clear it will help, but I have had a passing amateur interest in Arthurian legend for a long time so am not completely ignorant. I also have done a bit of research in feudal society and the history of Brittania, again not as a historian but more from an interest in the topic and it's roots in fantasy lore (and a youth fascinated with knights in shining armor many many decades ago). Given that I am a long way from an expert on Arthurian lore, both myself and my players have still been greatly enjoying Pendragon. The players especially feel like they are learning through playing and are excited about participating in legends they all are at least familiar with. The point that I can make it come alive even more by reading at least Le Morte D'Arthur is well taken.

Getting back on the original topic, I have been trying to compile notes for heading into the Anarchy and have a few holes I was wondering if some of you could help fill in. I am trying to set up details for the players of the neighbors and here is what I have:

  • Hampshire: Earl ?, Earl ? collegium legate in Winchester, Hantonne port for royal fleet, soon to be conquered by Cerdic and I assume the Earl and any heirs are killed?
  • Dorset: Earl ?, Praestor Jonathel in Dorchester Collegium legate
  • Jagent: Earl Tegfan, County of Cornwall, Collegium legate Earl Tegfan
  • Somerset: King Cadwy (the magician king?), Kingdom, King Cadwy Collegium legate
  • Marlboro: Earl ?, Sir Thebert warden of Terrabil notable knight from Marlboro
  • Silchester: Duke Ulfius, Duke Ulfius collegium legate, Ulfius is most powerful noble left after St Albans
  • (not neighbor but powerful) Lindsey: Duke Corneus is not named until 502 up until then it is just Duke Lindsey. Is this because the original duke dies at St Albans and Corneus inherits?

I am specifically looking for any help filling in the question marks (?).

Edited by stryker99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, stryker99 said:

The point that I can make it come alive even more by reading at least Le Morte D'Arthur is well taken.

I love Le Morte D'Arthur. It has a dream-like quality that I love bringing to King Arthur Pendragon when I run the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stryker99 said:

this community is amazingly supportive.

It is. Even when we disagree, sometimes vehemently, there is always the feeling of being ultimately on the same side, appreciating and enjoying KAP. :)

As for your particular questions, let me start by mentioning one thing: Greg liked to tinker. A lot. So the Book of... -series changed some of the stuff that was in GPC, in particular the Supreme Collegium and the county lords. Let me start from the latter.

County Lords: In GPC, pretty much each county has an Earl or a Duke ruling it, as his personal fiefdom. In Book of the Warlord (and BoUther), this was changed. Earls were pretty much wiped out, with just a couple of Counts remaining (see also the change from the Anglo-Saxon-derived title to the Latin-derived one). But in addition, the Barons (as the higher noblemen were now called, with the Counts and the Dukes being collectively referred to as Great Barons) had their landholdings scattered across many counties, usually (Salisbury is an exception, but even there, the Count holds around 50% of the County which is around 2/3rds of his total holdings, or something like that, we had a recent thread about this...). However, with most of the Barons dying in the Infamous Feast prior to the Anarchy, most of those lands were up for grabs by usurpers and surviving neighbors, etc. So the assumption pretty much is that soon after the Anarchy starts, each local nobleman has tried to consolidate his power around his main landholding, gobbling up lordless estates. That way, you still get something pretty close to how the Anarchy plays out, with Barons (earlier Earls) of Jagent, etc. More about the individuals in a bit.

Supreme Collegium: The big change (Book of Uther) here is that in Logres, the legates are no longer the regional leading nobles, but the leading bishops and abbots. Salisbury and Summerland/Somerset are the exceptions again, but otherwise, it is the Bishop of Dorchester who is the legate, not the Baron of Dorset. So none of the guys in your list would be Supreme Collegium legates, save for King Cadwy.

Then to the individuals. Like said, almost all of the Barons die during the Infamous Feast, so you are left with their heirs or people usurping them. For most of these people, they are not named, so you can be free to come up with their names and personalities. In addition, since there are no county lords anymore, you can make it as splintered as you like, with each castle having its own petty warlord ruling it, if you wish. That being said...

Hampshire: If the sheriff of Hantonne survived, then the likeliest guy holding Hantonne (a county castle) is him, Sir Cynbel.

Dorset: Praetor Jonathel works.

Jagent: Tegfan works.

Marlboro: Renamed Gentian. The likeliest guy here is young Charles (the heir of Marlborough castle) and his mother, Joene, who is a regent to her son. (Unfortunately doubling the dynamic of Salisbury.)

Somerset: King Cadwy is alive and well, and in BoU, it is heavily implied that he is a powerful magician with faerie allies. No where near the walkover that he is in GPC, although how you play the Cornish invasion is up to you.

Silchester: Duke Ulfius of Silchester is still alive and kicking, yes.

Lindsey: Duke Corneus is the Duke of Lindsey (Duke Lindsey for short, same as Count Roderick of Salisbury is called Count Salisbury for short) at least from 480 until he dies in 509, I believe. He is replaced by Duke Derfel, but for the life of me I can't remember if Derfel was Corneus' son or nephew...

Edited by Morien

Share this post


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

 

Marlboro: Renamed Gentian. The likeliest guy here is young Charles (the heir of Marlborough castle) and his mother, Joene, who is a regent to her son. (Unfortunately doubling the dynamic of Salisbury.)

 

Lindsey: Duke Corneus is the Duke of Lindsey (Duke Lindsey for short, same as Count Roderick of Salisbury is called Count Salisbury for short) at least from 480 until he dies in 509, I believe. He is replaced by Duke Derfel, but for the life of me I can't remember if Derfel was Corneus' son or nephew...

As for the whole widow and young heir thing, not only is it relatively common historically (being a knight is not always a safe occupation), but would be quite common after the Feast, I'd think.

Derfel is Corneus' nephew.  GPC, p.92. Why Lucan and Bedivere didn't inherit, at best guess, is because they were illegitimate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

For instance jeffjerwin seems to draw more from the Welsh sources than the French ones. So much of what he brings up is from eailer sources and has a differernt feel than the latter stuff. 

The Welsh stuff is often the least accessible, as Arthur was one of us... I'm Welsh... I feel I must represent for Cymru.

English language stuff and to a lesser extend French and German material isn't as hard to access. I read and have a collection of virtually everything however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, stryker99 said:

Hampshire: Earl ?, Earl ? collegium legate in Winchester, Hantonne port for royal fleet, soon to be conquered by Cerdic and I assume the Earl and any heirs are killed?

They probably all died. After 518, Hampshire became the personal estate of Arthur.

4 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

Derfel is Corneus' nephew.  GPC, p.92. Why Lucan and Bedivere didn't inherit, at best guess, is because they were illegitimate?

In my campaign, Derfel became Corneus grandson and Bedivere/Lucan became little brothers of the unnamed Derfel's father.

6 hours ago, Morien said:

Marlboro: Renamed Gentian. The likeliest guy here is young Charles (the heir of Marlborough castle) and his mother, Joene, who is a regent to her son. (Unfortunately doubling the dynamic of Salisbury.)

During the 530', it became a barony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

As for the whole widow and young heir thing, not only is it relatively common historically (being a knight is not always a safe occupation), but would be quite common after the Feast, I'd think.

I know. I am just saying that it is doubling the dynamic in Salisbury while it would have been more interesting storytelling wise to have something else there. After all, the PKs will already make a choice whether to support a widow and a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, stryker99 said:

Getting back on the original topic, I have been trying to compile notes for heading into the Anarchy and have a few holes I was wondering if some of you could help fill in. I am trying to set up details for the players of the neighbors and here is what I have:

  • Hampshire: Earl ?, Earl ? collegium legate in Winchester, Hantonne port for royal fleet, soon to be conquered by Cerdic and I assume the Earl and any heirs are killed?
  • Dorset: Earl ?, Praestor Jonathel in Dorchester Collegium legate
  • Jagent: Earl Tegfan, County of Cornwall, Collegium legate Earl Tegfan
  • Somerset: King Cadwy (the magician king?), Kingdom, King Cadwy Collegium legate
  • Marlboro: Earl ?, Sir Thebert warden of Terrabil notable knight from Marlboro
  • Silchester: Duke Ulfius, Duke Ulfius collegium legate, Ulfius is most powerful noble left after St Albans
  • (not neighbor but powerful) Lindsey: Duke Corneus is not named until 502 up until then it is just Duke Lindsey. Is this because the original duke dies at St Albans and Corneus inherits?

I am specifically looking for any help filling in the question marks (?).

Well first off I'd suggest dropped Earl. It derives from the Anglo-Saxon title of Jarl, and probably doesn't work for Cymric Lords. That's why the Earl of Salisbury was reconnected into the Count of Salisbury.  I'd suggest going with Count, Praetor or Baron.

Hampshire seems to be the demesne of the High King. 

Dorset falls to King Idres around 500. There is a sheriff two Barons, and a Duke who hold castles there but I don't know just whom is in charge before that. It would probably be a Roman.

For Malborough, I'd suggest Sir Dryw, Baron of Sparrowhawk. In Book of Warlord, when some of the place names were temperality changed, Marborough was renamed Sparrohawk. So Dryw is your man and he is a Baron.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

The Welsh stuff is often the least accessible, as Arthur was one of us... I'm Welsh... I feel I must represent for Cymru.

LOL. The Welsh stuff is also some of the earliest stuff and so much of it was replaced or retconned later. Still there tend to be remnants from it in latter works that are more understandable if you know the origin, such as Gawain strength waxing and waning with the day.

13 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

English language stuff and to a lesser extend French and German material isn't as hard to access. I read and have a collection of virtually everything however.

Yes, which is why when something comes up you (and several others) often know of additional part of the story or alternate versions, or reasons why some odd stuff happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

LOL. The Welsh stuff is also some of the earliest stuff and so much of it was replaced or retconned later. Still there tend to be remnants from it in latter works that are more understandable if you know the origin, such as Gawain strength waxing and waning with the day.

Yes, which is why when something comes up you (and several others) often know of additional part of the story or alternate versions, or reasons why some odd stuff happens.

Welsh Arthurian material continued to grow and develop alongside the French and English (etc.) literature, and seems to have evolved as well. There are triads that clearly refer to Vulgate stories, and Welsh translations of Chretien and the Grail romances were circulating. It did have a conservative element, but it's clear from Ellis Gruffudd and others that it was a part of Welsh folklore and entertainment as much as it was English into the 16th century. However during the 16-17th centuries there was a major cultural break in Wales, namely the Reformation, which gradually saw the disintegration of the oral-based bardic/storytelling tradition. By the 18th century and the Methodist revival the 'pagan' and 'Catholic' tradition (as it was seen) of poetry and stories about legendary heroes had been essentially lost. The modern Eisteddfods are a modern revival.

While it might appear that Welsh Arthurian literature is essentially conservative because of Culhwch ac Olwen (c.1150), I think that's simply because that story happened to have survived.

Some names and places in the Vulgate or Lancelot-Grail are direct transliterations from the Welsh (like Gazewilte, which is Croes Oswyllt, or Oswestry in English) which suggests a Welsh source for some parts of the French romance, without an English intermediary. For this reason I suspect that there were stories being developed in Wales and Norman Wales for a bilingual French and Welsh audience that were revised into the Vulgate. The so-called retcons you mentioned are from that milieu. It's only natural that these stories might have been written down only in French, as the Welsh versions were oral.

It's a great pity that this tradition died, but such is the fate of the oral traditions of many colonized peoples.

Share this post


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

Well first off I'd suggest dropped Earl. It derives from the Anglo-Saxon title of Jarl, and probably doesn't work for Cymric Lords. That's why the Earl of Salisbury was reconnected into the Count of Salisbury.  I'd suggest going with Count, Praetor or Baron.

Yep.

17 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Hampshire seems to be the demesne of the High King. 

After it has been reconquered from Wessex, after Badon. There is a bunch of barons there in Uther's time.

17 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Dorset falls to King Idres around 500. There is a sheriff two Barons, and a Duke who hold castles there but I don't know just whom is in charge before that. It would probably be a Roman.

IIRC, Idres bounces off from Dorchester's walls: he is unable to conquer Dorset.

17 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

For Malborough, I'd suggest Sir Dryw, Baron of Sparrowhawk. In Book of Warlord, when some of the place names were temperality changed, Marborough was renamed Sparrohawk. So Dryw is your man and he is a Baron.

 

Dryw dies at the Infamous Feast (at the latest), IMHO. This is implied by the fact that it is his heir and widow who are holding Sparrowhawk Castle during Anarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, creativehum said:

 

In both cases the books are telling you, "This will help your game." When I write "...using King Arthur Pendragon and the Great Pendragon Campaig"..." I mean taking the suggestions in those books seriously. 

Yes but I believe you statment that "You don't Need it, But.." you quote is wrong. I  believe, that like it or not, a Pendragon GM really has do a little homework. Not a lot, but some. They should at least read though some version of the tale that is reasonably consistent with the general story and characters. A version of Le Morte is probably best, but any of the versions with easier to graps writing that reamins true to the story, as opposed to a reimagining of it, is fine. 

I beleive without that, a GM is probably going to flub it badly. King Arthur is so well known, that many of the things about the story that are generally known, aren't actually true. Many of these were the result of filmmakers having to simply and condense things to squeeze things into a 2 hour film. Morgan Le Fey is almost never represented correctly, and is ususally beleived to be Mordred mother, rather than his aunt. 

 

23 hours ago, creativehum said:

I know it is possible to take one sentence of mine and ignore everything else I have typed, but I really don't get the value in it.

Becuase I think your assumption that these things are about history vs. the narrative. They're not. They are ususally about which version of the narrative to use. Since Greg often tinkered, and altered things, even after the GPC came out, and since each Pendragon GM has to keep their campaign fresh and interesting, they shouldn't just discount stuff becuase of what's in the GPC. Sometimes ite GPC can be improved upon. 

 

A good example is Hengest. In the GPC he lives to a ripe old age, but in most sources (these being literary sources, not anything historically accurate) he is killed in 469 after the battle of KaerConan/Coinsborough. Now since one of those sources was the HRB, and since that was used as the second primary book for the timeline behind Le Morte, especially for the Book of Sires, then it is a good thing that officially Hengest's death got retconned to 469.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

In the GPC he lives to a ripe old age, but in most sources (these being literary sources, not anything historically accurate) he is killed in 469 after the battle of KaerConan/Coinsborough.

The issue was that in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Hengest lives to 488. Since HRB tells a better story with Hengest dying in 469 and HRB is the basis of KAP history, it was deemed best to go with that. This was already retconned in BoU.

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Morien said:

Yep.

After it has been reconquered from Wessex, after Badon. There is a bunch of barons there in Uther's time.

Yup. Oodles. Although just who sits on the Supreme Collgium would probably be whoever was the King of Logres. 

 

1 minute ago, Morien said:

IIRC, Idres bounces off from Dorchester's walls: he is unable to conquer Dorset.

He does manage to get Eagle Hill  Castle in Dorsette, according to Warlord. And Duke Elaris, and King Uther also have holdings there.

I suspect Senator Robustus of Durnvaria (Dorchester) is the one who holds the seat on the Supreme Collegium.

 

1 minute ago, Morien said:

Dryw dies at the Infamous Feast (at the latest), IMHO. This is implied by the fact that it is his heir and widow who are holding Sparrowhawk Castle during Anarchy.

So there would be an heir tot he Baron of Marlborough. Probably underage for part of the anarchy. I wonder if a regent can sit on the Supreme Collegium?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Morien said:

The issue was that in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Hengest lives to 488. Since HRB tells a better story with Hengest dying in 469 and HRB is the basis of KAP history, it was deemed best to go with that. This was already retconned in BoU.

Exaclty. And it is a good exmaple of why we shouldn't just take the GPC as gospel. Greg's tinkering was always with the idea of giving us a better game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jeffjerwin said:

It's a great pity that this tradition died, but such is the fate of the oral traditions of many colonized peoples.

Yes, especially as so much got lost or mixed up along the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Although just who sits on the Supreme Collgium would probably be whoever was the King of Logres. 

As I mentioned in my earlier answer, in Logres it is the churchmen, bishops and abbot-bishops. In Hampshire/Hantonne it is the Bishop of the White City, i.e. Winchester/Venta Belgarum, and the Bishop of Noviomagus (Chichester). Similarly, in Dorset, it is the Bishop of Durnovaria (Dorchester). See BoU, map p. 122 and list p. 123.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...