Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tizun Thane

War in Cambria

Recommended Posts

I just love the Cambrian War scenario described in the Savage Moutains. Did someone play it?

I think I will play it during the 540' (to remplace the King-napping of Arthur), and I hesitate to play it as written (with lots of abstract book keeping) or give more life to each tribe king, etc.

Any advices?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing it right now. It's just as much book keeping as you think. I've created some documents to reorganize things as we played if you want to have them I can share them.

My players are relatively wealthy and the first generation characters have mostly semi-retired to 50+libra in lands after aggressively pursuing marriage opportunities and ingratiating themselves to their lord's, so the whole thing hangs on the assumption of the player's being the marshal. I had to consider what to do with one player who was the Count of Rydychan. I'll have to grab those notes and send them later.

Some notes:

Longbows as written are incredibly deadly. Someone will die during the campaign. Multiple if there are multiple crits. I like the random nature of death in Pendragon. It makes it feel like no one is ever safe. Even that 30 sword skill 55 year old can still die from a longbow critical.

Use the Cambrian war charts as a schema. The players will definitely want to reach out to other groups than those listed. And I would allow that.

Encourage subdivision of duties. Maybe one person manages castles, one the army, the other diplomatic relations and etc.

I would stretch the whole campaign out over multiple sessions each. There's probably too much to do if the players are serious. 

Remember to throw some curveballs in there. Unexpected events and make the other Cambrian nation's active participants. The players can't be the only ones moving.

Timeline wise, we played it in 515-516 because my players enjoy being commanders and there was a desire for more land(always is ūüôĄ) But, more importantly, it fit into Arthur's uniting of the Cymrics and one player's 1st Gen character is the marshal of Logres (so much glory over 25k the rest of the living 1st Gen characters are around 18k). I think the mission could be given during any period of expansion by a strong king or during periods of relative calm.

The challenge in my mind to Cambrian conquest is holding the land and dealing with guerilla warfare not defeating the armies which should be relatively small. Smaller than most of the Logres counties except for Powys and the southern or northern kingdoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, we played it a pretty long time ago, and my note-keeping was much more haphazard then. But as far as I can recall, we played it pretty much as written, albeit with the following caveat... The initial wrench was that the first battle was a smashing success, the PK Captain criticalling his way through the Battle and Melee rolls, and ended up with Cynwyn captured and shipped off to Arthur's Court to cool his heels for the rest of the war. This also meant that the rest of the rebels sat up and took notice, leading to a rather peaceful first year. The Elfael tribe was even suggesting a marriage of their princess to the Captain's eldest son and back the Captain to become the new King! But alas, the young man decided that the princess wasn't comely enough and the Captain decided not to force his heir into a marriage against his will. So that fell through. Still, the Captain's personal prestige and prowess was enough that the tribes pretty much stayed put for a second year, especially with the gifts being showered at them.

However, then the Captain went and died in a side quest (a giant was involved), which meant that the command devolved to his second in command, who was a much less experienced and glorious knight. So the tribes prepared for another push, after sounding him out on a possible negotiated ousting of the foul Tathal. The new Captain declined, so the tribes recoalesced in rebellion (although kept quiet about it). The new Captain then took his garrison out to quell the most rebellious tribe, but they refused to meet him in battle, so he continued pursuing them. Some bad Battle rolls later, the new Captain found himself and his army surrounded by a superior force of unified tribesmen on superior terrain, so he ended up surrendering rather than fight the battle (I think it was something like -10/+10 modifiers). Luckily, Arthur was just wrapping up Powys at that point, so a negotiated dissolving of the kingdom was agreed upon (basically, Tathal kept his own tribe and another loyal one, while the rest became independent kinglets under Arthur's overlordship, and the castle held by Arthur's castellan).

I agree very much that a subdivision of duties is necessary. Try to give each PK something to do & decide, and if you have someone that doesn't have anything to do, spring a romantic subplot, or at least the possibility, on them. We had maybe 3 sessions per year, so we had some time for minor side quests, too, to give everyone something to do. The Justiciar got very very upset with Sir Antonio, by the way. :) There was a pretty epic rant from the player about Italian crossbowmen. I also introduced some personal animosities with some NPCs, leading to some side quests.

I did reroll the tribal relationships and what Powys is up to between the sessions, so that I could preplan what would happen during the following year.

As for longbows, you don't actually fight skirmishes with the regular combat system, so you wouldn't even roll longbow bow damage in the adventure as written. If you use longbows, remember to use the corrected damage from Entourage (3d6+6) rather than the medieval bazooka from GPC (4d6+10).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks both of you!

1 hour ago, Username said:

Playing it right now. It's just as much book keeping as you think. I've created some documents to reorganize things as we played if you want to have them I can share them.

Lucky you. Of course, i'm interested.

1 hour ago, Username said:

he players will definitely want to reach out to other groups than those listed. And I would allow that.

Do you mean Brycheiniog, Ystrad Tiwy, Cardigan ? My players are friends with the kingdom of Merionnyd (!), so I suppose they will try a new alliance against Sugales.

1 hour ago, Username said:

Maybe one person manages castles, one the army, the other diplomatic relations and etc.

I will definitively do that.

1 hour ago, Username said:

The challenge in my mind to Cambrian conquest is holding the land and dealing with guerilla warfare not defeating the armies which should be relatively small.

Guerilla warfare is very difficult to portray, especially in Pendragon.

58 minutes ago, Morien said:

As for longbows, you don't actually fight skirmishes with the regular combat system, so you wouldn't even roll longbow bow damage in the adventure as written. If you use longbows, remember to use the corrected damage from Entourage (3d6+6) rather than the medieval bazooka from GPC (4d6+10).

I use the old 5d6 damage for the longbow, and it's working just fine. Your campaign inspired me (the marriage, the minor quest, etc.). Antonio looks especially fun to play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Morien said:

As for longbows, you don't actually fight skirmishes with the regular combat system, so you wouldn't even roll longbow bow damage in the adventure as written. If you use longbows, remember to use the corrected damage from Entourage (3d6+6) rather than the medieval bazooka from GPC (4d6+10).

I must have an old copy of the Book of the Book of Entourage or maybe I don't remember the damage from there. I don't remember them being at less damage than the composite bows (3d6+8), right?

We turned the whole campaign for Buluth and the pacification of Powys as all the players duties. All of the skirmishes became battles for us. 

1 hour ago, Tizun Thane said:

Guerilla warfare is very difficult to portray, especially in Pendragon.

It is, but it doesn't really need to be protrayed unless you have an interesting story idea. For the players and historically it was a danger which is why the construction of castles and stone castles should be important to the players. An unfortified camp should see night raids while on the march through unfriendly or even conquered territory should see hit and run tactics which for us just looked like a small loss to troop numbers and additional weariness.

2 hours ago, Morien said:

We had maybe 3 sessions per year, so we had some time for minor side quests, too, to give everyone something to do.

We've been at 2 sessions per year and we're part way through year 2 (Sunday will be year 2 session 2), but there hasn't really been any sidequests or non-Cambrian material. 

Our campaign started thanks to call for assistance from Buluth. Arthur, busy with Saxons and his new bride. Decides to send his Marshal to answer Buluth's call for aid. The marshal a glorious commander that knighted Arthur and saved "the Triple Alliance" (counties around Salisbury) during the Anarchy by his military skills, position in Countess Ellen's court, and political maneuvering using his allies (the players formed a knightly order and he bartered them around, they, happily, went along with the plan) saved those counties from Saxon and Cornish conquest to a degree was selected to be the overall commander for the campaign. Tapping into a large amount of personal funds that I wasn't aware they were still sitting on and additional money from Arthur and some high placed allies along with basically every personal soldier they could spare (Count of Rydychan was formerly a PC.) They were able to put together a sizeable force though definitely outnumbered by any of the mid to large sized Cambrian armies. 

So, the way I ran the campaign was that the players had to rely on diplomacy, intelligence, and the disunity amongst the Cambrian a to win here. To do that, I institued some additional rules:

1. Though the normal rules applied (modifers to their attitude based on harvest and gifts and such) a big new part of the diplomacy was the feast at the beginning of the year where tribal leaders were invited and people could pick up the latest intrigue, engage in personal diplomacy with those that attended, and generally see who their allies or enemies were. In addition, all diplomatic duties were delegated from the marshal to the head diplomat. The head diplomat could send out diplomats(had to be nobility) twice a year to engage in diplomacy declaring war, but more importantly securing alliances, gathering information, and generally getting into trouble. Here's where I was reminded that all of my players were relying on glory bonuses for talking skills. 

2. We gave someone the role of spy master. The spies were mostly commoners who were sent out to other places to collect information. Their success was dependent on the spy master's intrigue and so was how many spies they had. This was important because they didn't have accurate information. It was "generally accurate" but ballpark figures get you destroyed.

3. We calculated the old KV for the army to determine army superiority based on a percent of the total. The closer your KV to troop # was to 1:1 the better and a significant difference gave you the bonus to starting Army Intensity. I gave the knights higher KV for the named knights they recruited to make it more worth while recruiting big names even if they had to give them something. 

All of this added up to a rough first year. Our marshal made a serious miscalculation by refusing to give over any good knights to the diplomatic corps. This resulted in them selecting random Knights from the army (6+1d6 in their courtesy and orate) and sending them out on high priority diplomatic missions. Mind you that my players main characters aren't the leaders of this mission. The marshal is a "retired" PC character and so are all of the other 1st Gen characters. The second Gen characters are still young men in their mid to early 20s. Anyways, the diplomatic missions go bad (usually happens when your best diplomats have a 10 skill). They alienate people they should have been able to ally with and are at a significant disadvantage. Wheeling around, they march their army to the aid of one of the claimants for Galvoie pick a side and their diplomat succeeds in angering all of the others against them uniting the other claimants. A tough fight that they win. Unites Galvoie under an ally. Then March west. Where they come up with a plan to march against Brychniog. (Diplomat angered them so greatly that he was killed two fumbles.) One player character is accidentally married to King Caradoc's daughter because incompetence who likes them from the completion of the Dolorous Wyrm quest (two failures on his rolls) 

So, calling upon their forces, they honorably declare war on Brychniog. Who quickly requests aid from Powys. A very difficult fight goes on against Brychniog which they limp through. The army is tired and angry. But one of the players makes an impassioned speech to inspire them. Rousing their forces, their greater by a contingent of Powys who Brychniog called for help, refusing to give up on their gains, they hold their ground and luckily and miraculous hold Powys to a tie as winter comes on. 

Realizing their mistakes in year 2, they enlist good diplomats. Bad rolls on attitude tables makes for a massive coalition against them Brychniog's remnants, Powys, and Cardigan. They call upon their allies using their 40 years of record keeping and general good deeds along with gold and gifts they call upon every favor they have to put together a large force. The second year begins with Powys sieging their Ally in Buluth. A deadly battle take place where the PCs main force is devastated with huge casualties. (8 rounds!) And the players lose the son of the Count of Rydychan to a critical arrow shot after he was already fairly wounded. Winning a pyrrhic victory, their faces with the main Powys force, Cardigan, and Orofoise this fall with a nearly destroyed Buluth and a heavily wounded main force. 

That's a long post/summary. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Username said:

I must have an old copy of the Book of the Book of Entourage or maybe I don't remember the damage from there. I don't remember them being at less damage than the composite bows (3d6+8), right?

Yes, they revised (lowered) the damage for longbows from 4d6+10 to 3d6+6 in the Book of the Entourage. I assume composite bows would be about 3d6+3 now.

BTW, if anyone is interested, the damage should really be determined by the draw weight rather than the type of bow. Composite Bows and Longbows aren't all that better than common self bows, just that they tend to come in higher draw weights and are easier to use at such weights. 

 

Share this post


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

BTW, if anyone is interested, the damage should really be determined by the draw weight rather than the type of bow. Composite Bows and Longbows aren't all that better than common self bows, just that they tend to come in higher draw weights and are easier to use at such weights. 

Agreed. Something like Bow damage = Damage - 1d6, max 3d6 hunting bow, 4d6 composite bow and 5d6 warbow (longbow) ought to work. With possibly specialized training (from childhood) giving +1d6 to bow damage (you are more used to drawing bows), which means that the professional longbowmen would be 5d6 damage with longbows and swords, and huns would be 4d6 composite bows and swords.

Share this post


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

Agreed. Something like Bow damage = Damage - 1d6, max 3d6 hunting bow, 4d6 composite bow and 5d6 warbow (longbow) ought to work. With possibly specialized training (from childhood) giving +1d6 to bow damage (you are more used to drawing bows), which means that the professional longbowmen would be 5d6 damage with longbows and swords, and huns would be 4d6 composite bows and swords.

LOL! That's pretty close to what I have. The major difference is that for bows I took SIZ out of the equation and either just used STR, or STR+Bow skill to determine damage (i was debating between the two). The idea being that an archer would need to be stronger to draw back a more powerful bow, and that experience will help build up the muscle groups particular to archery. 

I never really finsihed off the bow stuff as this is Pendragon and bows are unknightly.

Share this post


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

The major difference is that for bows I took SIZ out of the equation and either just used STR, or STR+Bow skill to determine damage (i was debating between the two).

I could definitely see an argument for STR+Bow to represent the training.

Anyway, I needed some kind of a formula for my Middle-earth campaign, where I also had the dreaded Numenorean Steel Bows (max 6d6).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found it odd GPC never depicts an single battle that's ending depends on the rolls done by a Player or GM despite the default rules allowing for it.

Therefore I can easily imagine the War In Cambria being an good addition to a GPC after tons of "railroaded" battles where your players are just pawns.

My first impression was for it to be in the Conquest period (considering...it's a conquest period) or the Tournament period (Original assumption in Savage Mountains) but I didn't consider the Boy King period before! It fits quite well, mood wise, and is an fittingly dark place. But one may want to run some of the different adventures in the book during "peaceful" periods if players are getting bored of the constant Waring. Granted, players may be greatly wounded, after many battles, I imagine this option is only for very lucky groups.

In particular, I enjoy it's Wine adventure, very weird and very cool. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Morien said:

I could definitely see an argument for STR+Bow to represent the training.

Anyway, I needed some kind of a formula for my Middle-earth campaign, where I also had the dreaded Numenorean Steel Bows (max 6d6).

Like I said it's pretty close to the formula I came up with. In fact it is one of several such formulas I was kicking around. I think I had three or four as I was trying to match the stats with a draw weight, based on the SIZ table, with the draw weight  is one-third the  weight for a given SIZ. So a STR 10 (or STR+SIZ =10 or STR+Skill =10) bow would have a draw weight of 100/3 or about 33 pounds. So those 150 pound longbows from the Mary Rose would take a STR+Skill = 26. My goal was to put all the bows, and crossbows on the same basic table, with modifiers for the type of bow (longbows and composites get a boost to effective STR due to the arms acting a levels, crossbows get a mechanical aid from the mechanism used to pull back the string, but lose effective due to the shorter travel and inefficiencies of scale, etc.). I even extended it all into siege engines, with a Roman Scorpion doing something like 1d6+27.

But it was all a bit of a sideshow for Pendragon. It would be much more relevant in Middle Earth or for something like a Robin Hood campaign.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I found it odd GPC never depicts an single battle that's ending depends on the rolls done by a Player or GM despite the default rules allowing for it.

Realistically a handful of knights ought to not tilt a battle dramatically under normal circumstances. GMs are of course free to change things in their own campaigns, but it is clear that GPC is more of a default campaign. For instance, despite all the options to steer Salisbury differently during Anarchy, the default is that they ally with Nanteleod and fight on his side at Nentley Marsh. And GPC reflects this with raid modifiers and the like. It is up to the GM to apply tweaks for their respective campaigns.

There is also the point that most of the GPC battles are victories for the default PK side anyway. So for the PKs to influence the result, they would have to cause their army to lose!

15 hours ago, Redmoongodess said:

My first impression was for it to be in the Conquest period (considering...it's a conquest period) or the Tournament period (Original assumption in Savage Mountains) but I didn't consider the Boy King period before! It fits quite well, mood wise, and is an fittingly dark place.

I would actually argue against Boy King: it is already very busy and you risk sidelining the PKs from major events and Battles. Also, Arthur simply doesn't have time during the Boy King to focus his army on Powys: he is busy with Lot and then with the Saxons.

There is also the point made in the Tournament of Dreams adventure that implies that Belinans is actually pro-Arthur and is very much enthusiastic about this new tournament idea. That fits poorly, imho, the image of Belinans and Powys being at war with Arthur around the same time, late 510s.

The presence of Saxon and Italian mercs needs to be amended as well to run this adventure early. But that is just switching some names and nationalities around.

Share this post


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

Realistically a handful of knights ought to not tilt a battle dramatically under normal circumstances.

Yeah, even if using the Book of Battle. I've only seen the player knights alter the course of a battle once, and that was a combination of high skills (Battle 29 and most of the PKS main weapon skills in the 25-30 range), tactics (repeatedly attacking the enemy from the rear) and luck (repeatedly getting an opportunity or surprise result that allowed them to maneuver back to Zone 8 in order to attack the enemy rear again).  

1 hour ago, Morien said:

There is also the point that most of the GPC battles are victories for the default PK side anyway. So for the PKs to influence the result, they would have to cause their army to lose!

True. And that is hard to pull off. Even harder to do so and survive it. 

 

1 hour ago, Morien said:

I would actually argue against Boy King: it is already very busy and you risk sidelining the PKs from major events and Battles. Also, Arthur simply doesn't have time during the Boy King to focus his army on Powys: he is busy with Lot and then with the Saxons.

I'll second that. The Boy King Period is the time with the most battles and a very inexperienced Arthur who has yet to establish himself. In the early years, he has several battles per year, and it takes everything he, Merlin,Ulfius, and Leodegrance can do just to secure him as King of Logres and High King of Britain. The he has Badon a few years later, so he probably doesn't have the time, or men to go and invade Cambria.

Share this post


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

I would actually argue against Boy King: it is already very busy and you risk sidelining the PKs from major events and Battles. Also, Arthur simply doesn't have time during the Boy King to focus his army on Powys: he is busy with Lot and then with the Saxons.

I would agree with this too and I ran it in the Boy King period. However, I'd say the biggest change is the status of your players. If they're into these kinds of things then go for it. Plus, if they're wealthy enough to make significant contributions to the campaign then that assists the argument . Mine enjoy the running of armies and the battle system. They chose to skip out on a year of Arthur's battles to fight this war, so, they're missing out on arguably better glory. Still, I think the Cambrian campaign could theoretically be made to fit in any period except the Grail Quest period. Though, if I ran it in the Twilight, I would make it a push by Mordred as a means to consolidate a larger power base.

On the battle system, I find if your players can consistently Triumph then they start to make a difference in the battles. Or if you let the really lucky members of the party roll the battle events...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2020 at 8:49 PM, Atgxtg said:

I've only seen the player knights alter the course of a battle once, and that was a combination of high skills (Battle 29 and most of the PKS main weapon skills in the 25-30 range), tactics (repeatedly attacking the enemy from the rear)

Once they understood this tactic, and have a good leader (battle 20+), PKs became very effective in battle. A little too much...

On 1/25/2020 at 4:17 AM, Redmoongodess said:

I found it odd GPC never depicts an single battle that's ending depends on the rolls done by a Player or GM despite the default rules allowing for it.

Therefore I can easily imagine the War In Cambria being an good addition to a GPC after tons of "railroaded" battles where your players are just pawns.

My first impression was for it to be in the Conquest period (considering...it's a conquest period) or the Tournament period (Original assumption in Savage Mountains)

The GPC depicts the results of battle, if players don't have huge influence over it. But it's a guideline, not a bible. In my campaign, for example, the king Lot was killed (by a a young PK, no less) during the battle of Bedregraine.  I feel the Tournament Period is effective. There are very few battles in the GPC, and my PKs are hungry for more battles (and glory and loot of course).

And by the way, I loved the Wine adventure too.

Back to the topic, my players befriended Dodinas le Sauvage and his best "bro" Sagremore. Dodinas, a RTK, is also the son of the king of Sugales, aka Belinan. So I am wondering how Dodinas will react when his lord go to war against his father. Take a side? Go neutral?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

Back to the topic, my players befriended Dodinas le Sauvage and his best "bro" Sagremore. Dodinas, a RTK, is also the son of the king of Sugales, aka Belinan. So I am wondering how Dodinas will react when his lord go to war against his father. Take a side? Go neutral?

I think it would be most exciting if he fought against them. Plot armor him some to protect him, but he would make a fantastic boss for Powys army to fight a player knight. (I'd let him bite it if he got put way under, but if he was savable I'd just say he made it. He'd probably also try to not slay his friends too, but things happen in war!) That would be something and a story to remember. My players still talk about where the allegiances of part of the party to the Count of Ascalon put half the party against each other during King Idres fight against King Nanteleod.

Share this post


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

Once they understood this tactic, and have a good leader (battle 20+), PKs became very effective in battle. A little too much...

Partially. Being able to pull it off repeatedly required several factors to line up just right. First off the group's Unit leader needed a very high battle skill in order to get enough freedom to maneuver consistently on the battlefield. Secondly he need luck to get the proper surprise and opportunity results to let he maneuver the group repeatedly back to Zone 8. This was no easy task. The chances of getting a surprise (both Unit Commander and Intensity critical) was around 25%, but rolling the 11-13 or so needed to get into postion brought the odds down to around 4%, and we rolled that 11-13 result three or four times during the battle. The one time this didn't happen the group got a result where they could still maneuver to zone 8. Lastly the rest of the PKS had to have to weapon skills to keep pulling this off. 

So it was more of a "perfect storm" situation rather than figuring out a strategy that could be repeated. 

Oh, and since that time fate has caught up with the knights, and they have lost several PKS, including their high skilled unit commander, and they now lack both the battle skill and combat skills to even think of trying this again.

One thing that I do have some misgiving about, concerning the BoB is that due to the higher Unit Intensity, a Unit Commander really needs a Battele skill over 20 (25-30) to avoid a lot of "Attack vs. Two" results. With the typical Battle Intensity starting off at 20, and the Zone Modifier being +5 or +10, the PKs are typically facing a unit Intensity of 25-30 in the second and third rounds, leading to a lot of Unit Intensity critical. This leads to a lot of automatic "Attack vs. Two" results or, if the Unit Commander is good (or lucky) a Surprise. 

 

3 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

The GPC depicts the results of battle, if players don't have huge influence over it. But it's a guideline, not a bible. In my campaign, for example, the king Lot was killed (by a a young PK, no less) during the battle of Bedregraine.  I feel the Tournament Period is effective. There are very few battles in the GPC, and my PKs are hungry for more battles (and glory and loot of course).

True, but Greg points out in several places that the PKs probably won't have much effect on the overall course of a battle, being but a handful of knights out of hundred or thousands. 

 

Share this post


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

I think it would be most exciting if he fought against them.

You convinced me. It's dramatically appropriate, and good foreshadowing of things to come. Besides, it's a good "hero" to fight against.

19 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

One thing that I do have some misgiving about, concerning the BoB is that due to the higher Unit Intensity, a Unit Commander really needs a Battele skill over 20 (25-30) to avoid a lot of "Attack vs. Two" results. With the typical Battle Intensity starting off at 20, and the Zone Modifier being +5 or +10, the PKs are typically facing a unit Intensity of 25-30 in the second and third rounds, leading to a lot of Unit Intensity critical. This leads to a lot of automatic "Attack vs. Two" results or, if the Unit Commander is good (or lucky) a Surprise. 

Yes, that's the downside. Attack vs. two became boring after a while.

Edited by Tizun Thane

Share this post


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

Yes, that's the downside. Attack vs. two became boring after a while.

I think maybe a table of complications,  random bad situations that the group would have to deal with might be better. Stuff like stand vs. two plus some of the surprise and opportunity things but against the PKs. That would give things a little more variety. I'll work on a table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played the cambrian war last week. It was awesome!

I was afraid it was too much book-keeping, and not enough roleplaying. But, in play, it worked very well. The trick is to give everyone something to do, I believe. I had a bit of diplomacy with the tribal kings and the like, and it was great.

The players win the war in two years (!), building the castle during this period. I played the battles with the Book of battles, with no predetermined result.

They played a few years before both the adventure of the dolorous wyrm (good friends with the king Caradoc of Ergyng) and the adventure of the red blade, reinstauring "Pig-Boy" (renamed Adelin) as king of Merionnyd. So, they were able to build a strong alliance against Powys. They invaded Powys with a big army of 960 KV. The battle was fierce, but they managed to get an opportunity against king Belinan himself. They killed him with one stroke, poor man.

At this point, half the PK were dead or dying, but they won the battle that way.

Edited by Tizun Thane
  • Like 1

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...