Questions Regarding The Great Pendragon Campaign

[creativehum]

This is the first one. I'm sure I'll have more! 

Anyone else please jump in!

On pages 29 the Castle (Queen's Castle) lists the castle's DV (defensive value) in the same format used in the section explaining Defensive Values a few pages easier. 

But then there is another section for "Medium Castle" which lists items with numbers in parentheses. I don't recognize this format from the description in sieges. 

Quote

Castle (a.k.a. Queen’s Castle): A 300-foot-diameter mound stands above the city about it, surrounded by a deep ditch whose dirt made much of the mound. Around the outer edge of the mound is a stout log wall. Entry is possible only through the gateway with its drawbridge, on the east side of the castle. Inside are many buildings, especially the Great Hall. Note, too, the kitchens, guest house, stable, and other buildings. Total DV = 3/10/11. The initial 3 points of defense are the city walls (see below). It is an AREA = 4 city + 1 for the castle.

Medium Castle: Stone walls with ditch (7); two square towers with gates (4x2); one square tower with postern (0); one square tower (5); stronghold, a large stone tower on motte (10.) Minimum garrison = 20 men.

Can anyone explain what the section of "Medium Castle" is describing and how it corresponds to the information in the "Queen's Castle" section?

Edited January 26, 2020 by creativehum

[Morien]

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

Can anyone explain what the section of "Medium Castle" is describing and how it corresponds to the information in the "Queen's Castle" section?

Medium Castle is describing the outer works of the Castle (i.e. walls and towers) and then the keep (i.e. the stronghold: Motte + Tower). So assuming those values are correct, it would have DV 20/10. This is in contrast to Queen's Castle's 10/11 (as it says, the initial 3 are the city walls, with the castle being within those walls).

Note: I didn't check if both of these castles count as concentric and hence the Keep would enhance the outer works' DV, too. Also I didn't check if these rules are in agreement with the newest version of rules in Book of the Estate (Revised).

EDIT: Oh, you mean why is the Medium Castle even mentioned on p. 29? My guess it is an editing error, and it reflects Sarum much later. See Sarum Castle in 547, p. 296.

Edited January 25, 2020 by Morien

[Atgxtg]

8 hours ago, Morien said:

EDIT: Oh, you mean why is the Medium Castle even mentioned on p. 29? My guess it is an editing error, and it reflects Sarum much later. See Sarum Castle in 547, p. 296.

Yeah it does look like it matches the description from Year 547 with the 2 gates plus postern.

Oh and the rules are not in agreement with BoE, although the DV scores aren't far off. BoE seems to have dropped AREA (thankfully) and lists structures with some real word dimensions, which makes it much easier to figure out the stats for an existing structure. But the DV values listed look to be pretty close to BOE. 

. 

[creativehum]

Thanks for the replies folks.

I had assumed it was either a typo or that I hadn't understood the DV system at all! Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I'll make a note in the book.

Next question:

On p. 35 of GPC it says under Events that "Uther summons his army to meet at the city of Salisbury in early summer. Earl Roderick comes with all his knights..."

I assume "city of Salisbury" is a typo for "Sarum." Or is there a Salisbury city I missed? And is it Sarum, since it says, "Earl Roderick comes with all his knights..." but of course he lives in Sarum and doesn't need to arrive!

Any thoughts on this appreciated. (Not a big deal, but I'm curious.)

[creativehum]

486. Adventure the Sword Lake.

Holy Cow! Two supernatural creatures doing 9d6 and 7d6 damage respectively. I understand Merlin heals them between the encounters... but do Player Knights really survive this?

The average damage on a swing from the small trees the giant is holding is 30 points. I assume the trick is to attack immediately and start whittling it down before it can get blows in. 

What have been the experiences people have had with this adventure?

[Username]

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

assume "city of Salisbury" is a typo for "Sarum." Or is there a Salisbury city I missed? And is it Sarum, since it says, "Earl Roderick comes with all his knights..." but of course he lives in Sarum and doesn't need to arrive!

I can't confirm this for certain since I'm not an employee, but I'd say it's a mistake. Salisbury is the name of the modern city maybe a mile or two southeast of Old Sarum which I assume is the location of Sarum in the GPC. Then the rest is a typo. That's how I played it.

17 minutes ago, creativehum said:

What have been the experiences people have had with this adventure?

We didn't have any problems even with the young knights this expects this time. The first time I had a near death. There's a chance someone could die, but most likely 9d6 will be survivable after armor especially if the knights succeed and have a shield. If you have an average sized party, both monsters will go down pretty fast thanks to the players outnumbering them.

My first group that did this mission rushed the hill on foot and suffered the -5/+5. The second group ran up it on horseback, which I rules was a big enough height change to not suffer the -5/+5 because it was a small giant. Both groups destroyed the giant though. Three knights on foot can gather around it at least and two on horseback. The Nuckelavee is more dangerous. Especially if someone gets taken out in the giant fight. 

[Morien]

2 hours ago, creativehum said:

On p. 35 of GPC it says under Events that "Uther summons his army to meet at the city of Salisbury in early summer. Earl Roderick comes with all his knights..."

City of Salisbury = Town of Sarum, a typo caused by using the modern name instead of the more accurate one (location- and period-wise).

"Earl [change to Count] Roderick comes with all his knights [to join the army]". As you can see in Your Home -chapter of KAP 5.2, the knights of Salisbury are usually dispersed quite widely to garrison different holdings in Salisbury (and presumably outliers, too). So I took this to mean that Roderick summons all his knight (perhaps with a few absent to command Sarum and other castles) to join the army. They don't all live in Sarum, especially the PKs are likely to be normally in their own manors, so hence the clarification.

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

What have been the experiences people have had with this adventure?

I have ran it a couple of times. I think one try ended up in a party wipe against the giant, as they went up on foot and got bashed for their trouble. So it was time for a quick rewind, a prophetic vision of what might happen if they leave their horses behind, and up they went with their horses and killed the giant. I think the second group took down the giant and then the Nukalevee down easily enough, but they might have suffered one major wound on the Giant. Like Username said, the clincher is outnumbering the Giant and killing it quickly. I think mine used Lance charges, a couple of knights at a time, to take it down.

Nukalevee only has 5d6 in the write-up in GPC, and that is with a sword. Club (other attacks) is only 4d6. Where did you get 7d6? Ah, I think I know, you used (SIZ+STR)/6, but first of all, this would be 8d6, and secondly, you can't use that since this is not a humanoid; the SIZ includes the horse body, which is not providing the leverage for the swings -> hence 5d6 damage. Armor 5 and HP 45, my 6d6 PKs chopped it to seaweed in a couple of turns. Granted, they had the advantage of using our house rule that a footman attacking the horse of the rider doesn't suffer the -5 height penalty (although the rider still gets +5), and since the Nukalevee is a single creature, the damage down on the horse body is damage to the Nukalevee. The PKs easily enough shrugged off the hits that they got, and the ones that landed blows of their own took the Nukalevee's HP down swiftly enough.

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Username said:

Especially if someone gets taken out in the giant fight. 

But Merlin heals the guy, so why would it matter? Also, if someone is missing in the Nukalevee fight, then surely the Nukalevee's arms would be as many as the PKs who are present, not the ones who are napping?

[Morien]

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

What have been the experiences people have had with this adventure?

In KungFuFenris' campaign (link here: https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/10706-the-pendragon-chronicles-my-attempt-at-the-gpc/ ), he described his players' rolls thusly: "Aldwyn critted first, the Reccared critted a sword roll and finally Aldwyn used the +5 to the Knockdowned Giant to crit AGAIN! That's 25d6 of DMG in two turns. Bai bai Giant."

As for the Nukalevee, he switched that out for a Green Knight... I think the GK had the ability to attack numerous times, and hence fight simultaneously against all the PKs, like the Nukalevee, so it was more of a reskin rather than changing the dynamic. But I could be wrong. In any case, the PKs prevailed here, too.

 

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, creativehum said:

I assume "city of Salisbury" is a typo for "Sarum."

Or that Sarum is the City of (Count/Earl) Salisbury. 

4 hours ago, creativehum said:

Or is there a Salisbury city I missed? And is it Sarum, since it says, "Earl Roderick comes with all his knights..." but of course he lives in Sarum and doesn't need to arrive!

Unless his progress had him somewhere else at the time. Remember feudal lords do not stay at their home, but instead travel throughout their realm both the spread the burden of maintenance, and to keep an eye on their vassals.  He probably does arrive with "all" of his knights either. A few would probably be left at the various castles, someone might have been injured or ill, etc.

 

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, creativehum said:

I assume "city of Salisbury" is a typo for "Sarum."

Or that Sarum is the City of (Count/Earl) Salisbury. 

4 hours ago, creativehum said:

Or is there a Salisbury city I missed? And is it Sarum, since it says, "Earl Roderick comes with all his knights..." but of course he lives in Sarum and doesn't need to arrive!

Unless his progress had him somewhere else at the time. Remember feudal lords do not stay at their home, but instead travel throughout their realm both the spread the burden of maintenance, and to keep an eye on their vassals.  He probably does arrive with "all" of his knights either. A few would probably be left at the various castles, someone might have been injured or ill, etc.

 

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, creativehum said:

486. Adventure the Sword Lake.

Holy Cow! Two supernatural creatures doing 9d6 and 7d6 damage respectively. I understand Merlin heals them between the encounters... but do Player Knights really survive this?

Yes, often fairly easily. While the Giant has a good skill, armor,  does a lot of damage, and benefits from a height bonus against the knights, he isn't that difficult for a group to defeat. 

In Pendragon melee comba tis opposed, so unless the giant does and uncontrolled attack he will have to beat a PK's roll to infict any damage at all. If the giant splits his skill the PKs typically have it outclassed and it probably won't beat anybody. If it doesn't split it's skill then the PK it's focusing on will tend to fight defensively and rely of the remaining player knights to dispatch the giant. An uncontrolled attack by the giant can cause the knights to pnaic and has the best chance of killing a PK, but is suicidal for the giant.

So the giant works out not so much as a tough fight, but as a fight that can turn very badly very quickly if the PKs roll badly or the GM gets in a lucky critical.

 

The Nuckelevee is even less of a threat and almost anticlimactic. Basically it can almost fight two knights evenly but is under armored. Any group that can handle the giant can take out the Nuckelevee easily (baring bad die rolls). Which makes sense as the giant was a test.

 

Honestly an equal number of ordinary knights is more likely to drop a PK. 

 

3 hours ago, creativehum said:

The average damage on a swing from the small trees the giant is holding is 30 points. I assume the trick is to attack immediately and start whittling it down before it can get blows in. 

More like gang up on it so it divides it skill, or fight defensively if if decides to focus on you.

3 hours ago, creativehum said:

What have been the experiences people have had with this adventure?

Mostly a cakewalk for the PKs. Most knights will make the valor rolls and attack the monsters, overwhelming them. Yes, there is a slight chance of either monster getting a critical and probably killing a PK outright, but that can happen at any time, and past a certain point the number of damage dice become academic. It doesn't matter all that much if a knight is knocked by one blow down to -10 or to -100, except maybe to determine if the funeral service will be open or closed casket. 

But...dice are fickle and things can get very bad very quickly, especially with the giant. Should it get down to even odds or even a 2 vs 1 it can start taking out PKs much more frequently.

 

[creativehum]

Thanks for all the replies!

Side note: I'm reading 487 right now. I have to say... it is kind of a thrill to read the GPC. For all the concerns I had read from people about the Player Knights being sidelined by the bigger events, Stafford so far has set up the campaign so it is about the Player Knights. There are lots of stories one can focus on in the mythology of King Arthur... but the Great Pendragon Campagin, so far, looks to be a story about these knights, their friendship, and their relatives.

I'm really looking forward to sharing these events, challenges, and choices with my Players!

 

[creativehum]

Question: In 487, during the LINDSEY EMBASSY, Merlin "... tells a part of the High History of Excalibur..."

Is the High History of Excalibur described in GPC? If it is I can't find it anywhere. And if it isn't, can anyone point me toward a source I can use to build up the sword to the Players when Merlin does his telling?

Thanks!

[creativehum]

Question: In 488 Prince Madoc has Bayeaux burned after refusing to help Syagrius with further conflicts against the Franks.

I understand Madoc is betraying the agreement his father established after heading back to Britain so quickly. But I want to get a handle on what burning Bayeaux meant. 

Were the British forces supposed to get Bayeaux back for Syagrius after storming it? Or was it supposed to be burned all along?

Like, I kind of get heading back home early. But torching a city that was supposed to be returned to Syagrius is really a dick move. 

So was Syagrius supposed to end up with a freed Bayeaux, or was it supposed to be burned as part of the plan?

Thanks!

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

Question: In 487, during the LINDSEY EMBASSY, Merlin "... tells a part of the High History of Excalibur..."

Is the High History of Excalibur described in GPC? If it is I can't find it anywhere. And if it isn't, can anyone point me toward a source I can use to build up the sword to the Players when Merlin does his telling?

Thanks!

No I don't believe it is, but..some sources on Arthur use other names for his sword including Caledfwlch, which could be another name for Caladbolg the sword of Fergus MacRoy. and might in fact be the same as Answer, the Sword of Lugh. 

If fact many Celtic legends of magical weapons could in fact be about the same weapons, just under a new name with a new owner. Generally the appearance and powers of the weapons tend to be the same or similar and only vary in degree from tale to tale, typically becomes less powerful and more believable as time goes by and/or as the hero linked to it becomes more mortal and less larger than life. 

In the GPC/Pendragon it comes down to if Excalibur is specific sword of King Arthur or the Sword of Kings that has been passed down from various Celtic Kings down the ages. That will be something for each GM to decide. Over the years Greg has changed his mind about Exaclibur. Orginally it was just one of Arthur's swords and not the Sword in the Stone (it isn't in Mallory), and he even wrote an article trying to explain some of the various magical sword associated with Arthur that most people aren't aware of. Then, in the GPC Greg seemed to change his mind and combine them all into one Sword.

 

In my own campaign I have Excalibur/Caliburnus as the Sword of Julius Ceasar, Crocea Mors (and one of the reasons why he invaded twice) the Sword of Macsen Wledig/Magnus Maxiumus, Fergus MacRoy and probably a few others, making it a weapon with a history.

 

 

[jeffjerwin]

6 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

In my own campaign I have Excalibur/Caliburnus as the Sword of Julius Ceasar, Crocea Mors (and one of the reasons why he invaded twice) the Sword of Macsen Wledig/Magnus Maxiumus, Fergus MacRoy and probably a few others, making it a weapon with a history.

 

 

In Perceforest, the British take the sword of Crocea More and make it into needles, which are later incorporated into the styluses (as was thought in the Middle Ages) used to stab Caesar in the forum.

Edited January 26, 2020 by jeffjerwin

[Atgxtg]

8 minutes ago, jeffjerwin said:

In Perceforest, the British take the sword of Crocea More and make it into needles, which are later incorporated into the styluses (as was thought in the Middle Ages) used to stab Caesar in the forum.

I'd have to look it up again, But I recall some version of the tale having a Celtic warrior getting it and having it buried with him. I remember that since I used that as where Maximus got it in my campaign.

In my campaign Maximums brought it with him to Rome,  it got lost in 410 when the Alaric sacked Rome, and in 465 Aurelius will dig it up as part of the treasure that Alaric buried near Ravenna (Aurelius uses the treasure to hire all those mercenaries before invading Britain), but that's just my campaign. Also just in my campaign the sword was not supposed to leave the British Isles and that caused problems.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Atgxtg

[jeffjerwin]

Of course, one could also link it to the Alans, to which it has also been connected... I like the idea of there not being a canon in the game for its origins.

[creativehum]

35 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

In the GPC/Pendragon it comes down to if Excalibur is specific sword of King Arthur or the Sword of Kings that has been passed down from various Celtic Kings down the ages. That will be something for each GM to decide.

Cool. And thank you both @Atgxtg and @jeffjerwin for your replies. 

With the above in mind I'm gong to cobble something together, stealing a bit I think from Boorman's EXCALIBUR. First, there is only one sword -- The Lady in the Lake's gift and the Sword in the Stone are the same sword. Second, it was "forged when the earth was young," as Merlin says in EXCALIBUR and The Great Pendragon Campaign.

In my version, because I want to keep Britain's pagan origins baked into the setting and always relevant, the sword was forged in ancient Britain by fairie folk, and either given to humans when they arrived or stolen by humans when they arrived. (Making this up as I go!) At different times the sword has been lost and found, used by Just rulers to hold the land together. 

With that in mind, and picking up on the breadcrumbs Atgxtg offered, I'll be tracing it back to the Sword of Lugh and Nuada Airgetlám, who I will name as the first High King. This gets the threads of Uther's ambitions, Merlin's plans, and Arthur's destiny all tied up into a tapestry going back to the ancient history of lands.

[jeffjerwin]

22 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Cool. And thank you both @Atgxtg and @jeffjerwin for your replies. 

With the above in mind I'm gong to cobble something together, stealing a bit I think from Boorman's EXCALIBUR. First, there is only one sword -- The Lady in the Lake's gift and the Sword in the Stone are the same sword. Second, it was "forged when the earth was young," as Merlin says in EXCALIBUR and The Great Pendragon Campaign.

In my version, because I want to keep Britain's pagan origins baked into the setting and always relevant, the sword was forged in ancient Britain by fairie folk, and either given to humans when they arrived or stolen by humans when they arrived. (Making this up as I go!) At different times the sword has been lost and found, used by Just rulers to hold the land together. 

With that in mind, and picking up on the breadcrumbs Atgxtg offered, I'll be tracing it back to the Sword of Lugh and Nuada Airgetlám, who I will name as the first High King. This gets the threads of Uther's ambitions, Merlin's plans, and Arthur's destiny all tied up into a tapestry going back to the ancient history of lands.

The Cymric form of Nuada is Nudd. Nudd is sometimes also called Lludd, and was the brother, in the Mabinogi, of Caswallawn, the man who fought Julius Caesar...!

[Atgxtg]

11 minutes ago, jeffjerwin said:

The Cymric form of Nuada is Nudd. Nudd is sometimes also called Lludd, and was the brother, in the Mabinogi, of Caswallawn, the man who fought Julius Caesar...!

Yea the whole thing does tie itself up neatly in some ways, as long as you are selective about what bits to take in an exclude.

 

35 minutes ago, creativehum said:

With that in mind, and picking up on the breadcrumbs Atgxtg offered, I'll be tracing it back to the Sword of Lugh and Nuada Airgetlám, who I will name as the first High King. This gets the threads of Uther's ambitions, Merlin's plans, and Arthur's destiny all tied up into a tapestry going back to the ancient history of lands.

That's pretty close to what I did. One suggestion I'll make is don't come out and tell your players the sword's history.. Instead just leave breadcrumbs for them to follow and hints of things that they might or might not find out more about later. 

If you drop hints and odd stories it give s the weapon a feeling of history and depth and helps to make it more than just the magical sword that Arthur has. But, on the other hand, if you go into too much detail about it it becomes less real because the players have an unrealistically comprehensive overview of it. The goal is to suggest that there is more going on with the sword, and in the world, than the PKs are involved in or even aware of.

I played around with the history of Rhongomiant (Arthur's spear) and Caernweena (Arthur's dagger, which could/probably is another name/version of Excalibur), as well. 

 

 

 

[Morien]

2 hours ago, creativehum said:

Like, I kind of get heading back home early. But torching a city that was supposed to be returned to Syagrius is really a dick move. 

Again, GPC is a bit confusingly written here: "The army loads the ships with loot, horses, knights, and then footmen. The savage Irish kerns torch the city and come aboard as the flames sweep the entire waterfront, where the sailors slept last night."

Bayeux is about 6 miles inland. There is no way that if the fire here is Bayeux, the flames would reach the waterfront, and besides, the sentence reads as if the kerns are boarding right after they put the place to the torch, too. But if this is the village that is acting as the harbor and the landing site for the army, then it suddenly makes sense (save for 'the city' reference): The whole army marched out of Bayeux, and start loading up into the ships. The sailors have stayed with the ships this whole time, sleeping in the seashore village. The kerns are last to load up, and being savage pyromaniacs, torch the village in high spirits, without explicit orders, and then clamber aboard even as the flames consume the waterfront.

The other option here is that Greg was unaware of the geography (which would seem unlikely that he seems aware that Bayeux is not by the sea in the landing phase), and that the city is supposedly to be put to the torch. Even then, you have the option that it is the Irish kerns, acting without orders, rather than coordinated by Madoc. Finally, there is the variant that Madoc, his pride pricked by Syagrius' words, decides to torch the city to spite Syagrius (if he wins), or to deprive Franks the city (if Syagrius loses, as seems likelier).

Needless to say, I favor the first explanation, and amend the sentence to read: "The army loads the ships with loot, horses, knights, and then footmen. The savage Irish kerns torch the port [village] and come aboard as the flames sweep the entire waterfront, where the sailors slept last night."

[Morien]

3 hours ago, creativehum said:

I understand Madoc is betraying the agreement his father established after heading back to Britain so quickly. But I want to get a handle on what burning Bayeaux meant. 

Oh, I might add a bit here... I don't think Madoc acted against Uther's wishes at all. It very much seems to me that Uther is very pleased what Madoc managed to accomplish: "King Uther and Prince Madoc toast each other all winter. Everyone is happy..." and later, Roderick comments: "After all, his actions were good for Britain." Even when they set out, Madoc is pretty clear that this will be a quick jaunt across the Channel: the knights are supposed to have food just for 40 days. Given how variable the sailing weather can be in the Channel (see the Norman Invasion 1066), Madoc is playing it rather riskily by even intending to stay for 4 weeks, giving himself just a couple of weeks to get back (granted, they probably look loads of food at Bayeux). Also, the fact that they do not specify Bayeux as the invasion goal and just talk about 'one city' hints that Madoc's marching orders from the King is to plunder a city (any city), and get the army back safe and sound.

If Uther's orders to Madoc had been "Back Syagrius to the hilt and fight the Franks in a decisive battle.", I doubt that Madoc would have been so keen to ditch Syagrius. After all, he doesn't even ask how big of an army Syagrius managed to raise, and how many Franks they might be facing. Instead, he instantly nixes any plans of helping Syagrius.

In our campaign, I admittedly played Madoc and Uther somewhat more honorable, and it was Syagrius who came up short; after all, he already had an army smashed by the Franks a couple of years ago. Thus, Syagrius had been promising a mighty army that would rise up against the Franks at the stomp of his foot, but when Madoc inspected the said army, it was composed of bandits and peasants, old men and young boys, with a mere sprinkling of nobles who had mostly been in exile with Syagrius anyway. In short, an army that would ensure that it was the Britons who would have to do most of the fighting (and dying, as soon as this rabble routed, as they would), and that was not what Madoc (and Uther) signed up for. Nope, this half of an army is needed back home, rather then fertilizing the fields in Gaul.

[creativehum]

Thanks for the clarification on the sentence. It really tossed me -- geography and all -- and now it makes perfect sense. And I love that it hammers the "savage stereotype" that will be part of the campaign for its run.

And thank you for the clarification about Uther and Madoc being in agreement. That all makes perfect sense. (And a second reading on my part would have made it so.)

As for the nature of Uther I'll be leaning the other way from you in my game. That's the story my intuition says to follow.

Also when I look at the Traits I find for Uther in the GPC GM Characters booklet I find Uther leans toward being Lustful, Deceitful, Cruel, Proud, Worldly, Reckless, and Suspicious. 

Uther is the failures that Merlin has to repair with Arthur is how I'll be playing it.