Questions Regarding The Great Pendragon Campaign

[creativehum]

1 hour ago, Morien said:

Still, you could play Cerdic's slaying of all the nobles (in GPC) as harsh as you want to:

Does the GPC state who used the magical,poison at the feast? I haven't been able to,track it down.

Or are you suggesting a GM could make Cedric responsible to nail down his awefulness? (Which is a good idea!)

Either way the GM has to make a decsion: Is Cedric a "reformed" Saxon and not as bad as the rest of his family? In which case all is well.

Or is he ultimately horrible? In which case revealing him to be horrible is crucial.

For what it is worth I prefer the second option.

[Morien]

11 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Does the GPC state who used the magical,poison at the feast? I haven't been able to,track it down.

I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the conquest of the Isle of Wight, where GPC states: "The castle is stormed, the nobles killed,"

As for the Infamous Feast, Book of Uther (p. 120) lists some potential culprits. Cerdic is not amongst them, but I know we had a discussion in this very Forum that you could have him responsible for it and have his arrival in 496 to be pre-planned. Personally, I think it is more opportunistic: Uther is dead, Logres is in chaos, perfect time to get some ships and warriors together and return to Britain to claim his birthright... If Cerdic had been the poisoner, I would have expected him to land already in 495, at the height of chaos, to reap maximum benefit of it, and stop other Saxons (like Aelle) from gaining an upper hand. Speaking of Aelle, he is surprisingly inactive in 495 and afterwards, not really doing any conquering, unlike Essex, Wessex and Anglia. Kent is another 'missing in action' Saxon kingdom, but even they do more than Aelle, by at least allying with Essex to take London. Aelle simply has a little skirmish with Kent and then pretty much calls it a day, apart from helping Wessex against Nanteleod.

[creativehum]

8 minutes ago, Morien said:

I was talking about the conquest of the Isle of Wight, where GPC states: "The castle is stormed, the nobles killed,"

Got it. And I think that would be a terrific spot to have the man be horrible if that is how the GM wants to go.

[Morien]

57 minutes ago, creativehum said:

For what it is worth I prefer the second option.

Dunno. It might be a very interesting and poignant campaign if Cerdic is earnest in his desire to claim what is rightfully his, and is actually worthy of that role. Trained by the pro-Vortigern exiles in Saxony to his role of becoming the High King of Britain. How much more interesting campaign if Cerdic is actually a good man, but unable to gain any traction since everyone is tarring him with the same brush as his father and grandfather?

You could even start him with very good intentions, and just gradually move him more and more to the Saxon side of things, since the Britons. Just. Won't. Accept. Him.

Might be interesting.

[creativehum]

Excellent point!

[Tizun Thane]

6 hours ago, creativehum said:

They have fallen for manners over character, and I would let let Cerdic keep the manners but reveal his true character. Let him be horrible. They'll be near him. They'll hear him. They'll see him. They'll be ordered to be party to his plans.

If he is a horrible man (and everyone here seems to think he will be) then let him be such a man...

He is not that horrible. He is an opportunistic king. A bit cruel and cunning, yes. So what? All the campaign have a heavy bias pro-kymric and pro-Arthur. In that light, he became a bad man, that's all.

His dream is to unify Saxons and Bretons, to learn from each other, to make an end to the old feuds and hate, to build a better kingdom, a tolerant one. In that light, he can become an ally, a strong king who can protect Salisbury against other Saxons. To achieve this dream, some blood will be spilled. Of course. It's inevitable.

6 hours ago, Morien said:

DIT2: Cerdic's write-up in GPC actually portrays him as a reasonably level-headed guy. His only 16+ baddie trait is Arbitrary at 18, and a goodie trait of Valorous at 18. He does have leanings towards Cruel and Proud, but also Chaste, Generous, Pious and Temperate. No Passions at 16+. Frankly, other than the high Arbitrary*, he doesn't seem all that bad.

This Cerdic is a good chief, as long as you remain in his good graces. 

[creativehum]

4 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

He is not that horrible.

 I agree with you.

When I made my first posts about Cerdic I had not yet read deeply into the Anarchy Phase. My posts were based on some of the statements made about him by other posters on this thread. Now that I have read the first third of the Anarchy Phase and have skimmed ahead to read more specifically about Cerdic I believe the case he makes is strong. 

We learn from a throw away line in 509 that "Cerdic punishes those who fight against him." Which is hardly a non-starter for this rough and tumble time period. And since he can trace his lineage directly to a High King, and his own father was betrayed by Saxons, I think he makes a strong case he is not a Saxon and even more he is the rightful heir who can unify Britain in this time of crisis.

Ultimately, however, just like the NPCs and the PKs, each person on this thread will have their own ideas and opinions about Cerdic based on whatever details about him, his family history, and clashing cultures they wish to highlight or ignore!

_____________________________________________

I want to address the question of what to do if Countess Ellen swears fealty to or marries Cerdic. Because reading the Anarchy Phase it seems to me as if it is not that big a deal. 

The Saxon kings are already fighting amongst themselves. Certain British lords are making alliances with them (though not submitting as vassals). The whole situation is a tangled mess, and the GPC leans into this. 

If Counless Ellen and Cerdic marry, what really changes? Not much in terms of the tension and politics. Cerdic has a desire to now to protect Salisbury, and so does the Countless. Cerdic will want to knock down the other Saxon kings, and so does the Countess. 

By tying himself ot Ellen, declaring himself British rather than Saxon, and growing in strength, Cerdic paints a target on his back for the other Saxon kings to shoot at. 

In other words if we take Cerdic at his word, about who he is, what he is, and what his plans are, then the interests of King Cerdic and Countless Ellen align almost perfectly. 

In terms of the material in the book all of it remains the same. If the Countess swears fealty and loyalty to Cerdic or even marries him, the Saxon kings will deman tribute or attack, they will attack Cerdic, Cerdic will try to expand his power (just as the PKs would do anyway), and so on. As far as I can tell very little changes from what is presented, and what is presented is somewhat slight since Stafford assumes he has no idea what the PKs might end up choosing to do.

(Interestingly, the one choice Stafford takes away from the PKs is the Countess marrying Prince Mark. That decision is made by the Countess alone, in the middle of the night, with no input from the PKs asked for or allowed!)

Edited January 30, 2020 by creativehum

[Morien]

14 minutes ago, creativehum said:

(Interestingly, the one choice Stafford takes away from the PKs is the Countess marrying Prince Mark. That decision is made by the Countess alone, in the middle of the night, with no input from the PKs asked for or allowed!)

Yet that was exactly opposite to what happened in our campaign, with the PKs pleading with her to accept the Cornish marriage proposal to seal the alliance against the threatened Essex invasion. So the PKs found themselves on the Cornish side, as I mentioned in my earlier comment.

[creativehum]

I am sure that did happen in your campagin. But I think you and are talkinga about two different things.I was referring to the actual text within the GPC.

In almost every year of the Anarchy Phase, Stafford introduces options and information for the Countess to deal with, and then there is a paragraph that states one way or another, "The Countess turns to her advisors. She does what's the Player Knights suggest."

In the case of Prince Mark's marriage proposal this paragraph is not present. The PKs are not invited to weigh in on the matter of marriage proposal within the text. That the PKs can discover what the secret offer was, have an opinion about it, and argue for the marriage doesn't change the fact that unlike almost every other years the text not only doesn't declare that the Countess will do what they suggest but also hides the marriage proposal behind Intrigue rolls makes it unique from other decisions in other years. That was my only point. 

That your knights discovered what had happened, pleaded with the Countess to accept the offer, and ended up in a conflicted rift is terrific stuff. But it comes about because the PKs, in this one matter, are not given sway as advisors over the Countess.

[Username]

26 minutes ago, Morien said:

So the PKs found themselves on the Cornish side, as I mentioned in my earlier comment.

This nealry also happened to me. Don't doubt the power of a Hate Saxons passion! The players nearly convinced themselves and Countess Ellen to marry Idres. One of their members, who started in County Ascalon under Gorlois, was forced to join Idres after a series of battles for the county's independence. It was an exhausting prospect that drained Salisbury and Rydychan of forces. (We did the usurpers of Rydychan situation early 497 as the (relatively) massive glory and intimidating martial prowess of the PK knights of Salisbury quickly forced the other knights of Salisbury to swear allegiances to Ellen. This resulted in an unmarried PK [Definitely use a different childbirth chart then the default. Too many wives died early] marrying the reinstated Countess of Rydychan.)

Then the Saxons started to cause havoc with constant raiding and the players were getting nervous about being conquered so, they immediately rejected all Saxon alliances and mostly refused to pay ransom resulting in heavier raiding then typical and a few extra battles. So, when Idres and Mark proposed marriage they were nearly taken in since they were Cymric. However, ultimately, it was bitter feelings about the conquest of Ascalon that resulted in them rejecting it and trying to form their own alliance which they did out of Jagent, Dorset, Salisbury, and Rydychan. With a quasi-unofficial alliance with Silchester. They even managed to make peace with Cornwall. This was a pretty powerful block and able to hold their ground though they couldn't make any gains.

If you have really active and politically engaged players remember to control the length of the year and throw too many events at them for them to handle during Anarchy. That way they have to prioritize and they feel the overwhelmed and assaulted on all sides feeling they should. Assuming they don't ally with the Saxons.

[Atgxtg]

14 hours ago, stryker99 said:

Exactly! I asked my wife (one of the PKs) about this and she said I played Cerdic as very sympathetic. This was intentional as that's how I read this piece of the GPC:

Funny, I always read that bit as his being an arrogant Saxon SOB, boating about Vortigern and telling the PKS that they want to be on the "winning side". He doesn't come off as all that sympathetic to me.  TO me it seems more like "come join me and I'll be nice to you, or if not I'll crush you." 

The last time I ran that adventure the PKS had a hard time not cutting him down at Ellen's court, for the good of Britain.  The GPC even goes out of it's way to mention Vortigern, so I don't know how the PKS could have forgot.

14 hours ago, stryker99 said:

Cerdic puts on a show of his Briton manners, throwing a very British feast, and parading in front of them a contingent of knights who butter up Cerdic's credentials. I even gave the PKs intrigue rolls to realize he was putting on quite a show for them. One of the PKs even brought up the fact that Uther has an heir out there somewhere, they were put on trial for helping Merlin kidnap him! But still, they were considering backing Cerdic...

Wow! Well they say that there is one born every minute. Consider how Vortigern handled Constatin's sons Cerdic probably should have left that topic alone. But...that's probably stuff your players don't know about.

But it sounds more like since Vortigern is all ancient history the players sort of viewed Cedric with a blank slate and just took him at his word. 

14 hours ago, stryker99 said:

We are playing this out next session. I plan to have Sir Leo argue Cerdic's villainous heritage if they actually counsel Ellen to pay homage to Cerdic (many thanks to Atgxtg for providing the details of his argument against Cerdic).

Your welcome. One thing that i did differently with this campaign compared to previous ones is start it very early and ran the players through Vortigern reign. For most players this is just stuff that happens long ago that they note down during chargen. Unless the players read  the source material it probably doesn't hit them personally like the stuff they play though. For the players in my current campaign, this is personal. They were there when Comstans was murdered (two PKs took major wounds trying to defend him), helped usher Aurelius and Uther to Britanny,  lost a manor to the Saxons becuase of him, ended up being rebels under Vortimer and fled into exile in 458. There is an excellent chance that the two remaining active original PKs will fall trying to defend the Count at Long Knives next session. So I think that will give them a more personal take on Vortigern than the usual PKs in 497. 

I wouldn't be surprised this time around if my PKS offer to build him a tower like King Votigern's so that Cedric can follow in his father's footsteps. But, if Cerdic were to play it smart he'd play up his relationship as Vortimer's brother rather than Vortigern's son. But he doesn't seem bright enough.

14 hours ago, stryker99 said:

Even if the PKs stick to this I am thinking Ellen would not listen to them and refuse to bow to Cerdic. However this feels like it is stealing players "agency" by not allowing them to influence the direction of the campaign. I imagine it's quite likely they will listen to Sir Leo's moral arguments and wise up, but I need to be prepared if they stick to it and push for homage to Wessex. Any input as to how to handle it if they do is welcome!

 

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

But, if Cerdic were to play it smart he'd play up his relationship as Vortimer's brother rather than Vortigern's son.

Smart players might also realize that he is the nephew of Octa (invading Logres twice in the career of the PKs, likely) and Aesc (Battle of Salisbury). Also, something that Cerdic would be smart to play down. Vortigern himself could potentially be rehabilitated with the claim that he was betrayed as well, but this would very much require throwing the blame on Hengest (legitimately, IMHO). The linkage to Vortimer is a bit iffy, considering that Cerdic's mom was rumored to having poisoned her stepson... But if the players fall for it, why not?

[Atgxtg]

22 minutes ago, Morien said:

Smart players might also realize that he is the nephew of Octa (invading Logres twice in the career of the PKs, likely) and Aesc (Battle of Salisbury). Also, something that Cerdic would be smart to play down. Vortigern himself could potentially be rehabilitated with the claim that he was betrayed as well, but this would very much require throwing the blame on Hengest (legitimately, IMHO).

Yes, that's the thing by playing up the Saxon connection he hurts his position. I think the thing is players can look at this as "Well us Britons and Saxons have to share the island and coexist so a leader who wants to do that seems sensible," but the thing is all the Saxon lands in the South was taken from Britons by Vortigern a generation or so ago. 

He could try to rehabilitate Votigenr's image, although then he would be best not to mention young Arthur, as that would bring up bad memories of Vortigern.

Throwing Hengest under the bus is the way to go, but he can't do that while most of his supporters are Saxon. 

 

22 minutes ago, Morien said:

 

The linkage to Vortimer is a bit iffy, considering that Cerdic's mom was rumored to having poisoned her stepson... But if the players fall for it, why not?

Exactly, why not. IT sure beats relying trying to gain support by linking to the King was was a tyrant, led to many knights going into exile, and was burned alive in his own tower, or the man who murdered everyone's liege lord. Ceridc might be a real stand up guy, he does seem to be good once Arthur becomes King and causes no trouble after Badon. But being the son of Vortigern and the grandson of Hengest are probably not the sort of things he that are going to win over the Cymri.

I figure linking to  Vortimer is the only card that Cerdic can play that won't  hurt his claims. Assuming he can pull it off in front of his Saxon followers. 

At least Aesc and Aelle reps are based upon straightforward conquest and not treachery. 

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

then he would be best not to mention young Arthur

I think it was the PKs who mentioned Uther's kidnapped son, not Cerdic, in the above campaign example.

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Morien said:

I think it was the PKs who mentioned Uther's kidnapped son, not Cerdic, in the above campaign example.

You're right, too. That's a good thing too.  It wouldn't be in Cerdic's best interests to remind people of Uther's son or anyone else with a better claim to the throne that he has. 

[stryker99]

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Funny, I always read that bit as his being an arrogant Saxon SOB, boating about Vortigern and telling the PKS that they want to be on the "winning side". He doesn't come off as all that sympathetic to me.  TO me it seems more like "come join me and I'll be nice to you, or if not I'll crush you." 

Oh, don't get me wrong. There was definitely a clear threat when he told them "I am sure you wish to be on the WINNING side?" complete with intimidating stare and a long pause, then he went all noble on them again ("I will treat you well and justly"). I tried to deliver it as a guy that can turn on/off the malice at will, throwing them off balance. I think that's part of why they are considering it, they are a little scared of him. I made a point of how it appears these Saxons just wiped out the knighthood of Hampshire, loyal landed knights just like them. That rattled them a bit as they realized "that could happen to us" (though I assume Hampshire was not as strong as Salisbury, a point I didn't make to them).

My players probably aren't as steeped in the pre-history of the campaign as they should be. They are a bit on the casual player side of the casual/hard-core spectrum. I'm wondering how much of history I should review with them. For instance they surely don't know Hengest was his grandfather, or about uncle Octa and Aesc. They are probably even fuzzy on the Night of Long Knives, I double checked and NONE of the grandfathers were killed there (most had bad rolls and died earlier in the history). With the lack of "knowledge" based skills in Pendragon, how do GMs manage in character knowledge vs out of character knowledge? It seems obvious that the characters probably know more than the players do, but where to draw the line is fuzzy. If I go too far the players will take it as a clue that "the GM is trying to tell us not to do this".

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, stryker99 said:

Oh, don't get me wrong. There was definitely a clear threat when he told them "I am sure you wish to be on the WINNING side?"

On no problem in how you ran it. I'm just surprised the players fell for it. It is like the grandson of John Anthony Walker getting a sensitive government job with a security clearance.

1 hour ago, stryker99 said:

My players probably aren't as steeped in the pre-history of the campaign as they should be.

Neither are mine. I have one player who might be up on some things, but most of them are lucky to find Salisbury on the map. It's somewhat annoying since this is the fifth time around for most of them.

1 hour ago, stryker99 said:

They are a bit on the casual player side of the casual/hard-core spectrum. I'm wondering how much of history I should review with them. For instance they surely don't know Hengest was his grandfather, or about uncle Octa and Aesc. They are probably even fuzzy on the Night of Long Knives, I double checked and NONE of the grandfathers were killed there (most had bad rolls and died earlier in the history). With the lack of "knowledge" based skills in Pendragon, how do GMs manage in character knowledge vs out of character knowledge? It seems obvious that the characters probably know more than the players do, but where to draw the line is fuzzy. If I go too far the players will take it as a clue that "the GM is trying to tell us not to do this".

You don't have to go into a lot of depth. They key points are:

• Vortigern had the King and his son murdered and usurped the throne from Aurelius and Uther, who were sprinted away to Brittany
• He then married the daughter of the Saxon chieftain Hengest, and gave away tribal lands to the Saxons and began to favor them over the British in everything, and executing those who protested his actions. Many Brits fled to Brittany to join the princes in exile.
• After a series of rebellions, Led by Vortigern's own sons, the Saxons were driven out, and Vortigern held a meeting on Salisbury plain where all the nobles could come and air thier grievances and try to reach a peace with the Saxons. But, at the meeting the Saxons treacherous drew hidden daggers and fell upon the British, killing all the nobles, including the Count of Salisbury. Only Vortigern was spared, as he was married to Hengest's daughter.
• Aurelius and Uther returned to Britain to reclaim their birthright, burned Vortigern to death in his tower, killed Hengest in battle, and restored lands to the exiled knights. 

That should be plenty.  

[creativehum]

24 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Vortigern had the King and his son murdered and usurped the throne from Aurelius and Uther, who were sprinted away to Brittany

I think this fact might depend on which sources one is using. I just searched through both KAP 5.2 and GPC and as far as I can tell (though I might have missed it!) Vortigern is never fingered for Constan's death. 

But clearly he was a terrible ruler and everone hated him. I mean, even his own children rebelled!

@stryker99 to your question about what the PKs know: I always tell my players significant things their character should know that are relevant to the situation at hand. We play once a week, they have lives. I'm not expecting them to carrry little details that might have been mentioned weeks about about a fantasy world we only dip into for a few hours.

I have also made it clear to my players I am never trying to lead them anywhere with what I say. They know that my delight is them doing things I did not expect and finding out where the game goes. If I'm running some game and say something like, "Your mage as seen runes like this before. They are from a cult of that worships Gre'kala" (or whatever) they know I am a) yes, revealing important information, but also b) revealing their world through the point of view of their characters and their character's expertise. Revealing the world to the Players through the point of view of their characters is, I think, one of the BEST ways to make a world feel alive and hook the Players into the fictional details. 

As for the choices the PKs make regarding Cerdic, remember that any choice is a good choice. As I outlined in a post above, there will be fallout and grist for adventure no matter what they advise the Countess. There is no "right" or "impopper" decision. As has been noted Vortigern's sons tried to do the right thing by rebelling against their father years ago. It is possible Cerdic is of the same stuff.

Ultimately, after reading through these pages these past few days it seems to me Greg is laying down lots of reasons not to ally with Cerdic and lots of  fair reasons the PKs might want to ally with Cerdic. Issues of history, culture, military strength, old feuds, fear of new feuds, Saxon Kings on all sides, a land in need of a strong leader (Cerdic is a strong leader) mean that Cerdic's arrival is interesting. The players and the Player Knights will have to make decisions about what matters most and what defines them: The hatred of Saxons over their need to bring peace to the land over their Honor (Cerdic, despite his tough talk treats them with Honor), and so on.

I think this is one of the key reasons Greg puts the adventure here: What do the PKs value? How do they value one thing over another thing. It is a chance to have a discussion about what it means to be "British" (as Cerdic claims to be), to be a knight, to have honor, to bring peace, to be a leader, and so on. After all, 

Whichever choice the PKs make will be fine because they will have sorted something out, there will be fallout and consequences and that means the game is moving forward. 

[jeffjerwin]

29 minutes ago, creativehum said:

I think this fact might depend on which sources one is using. I just searched through both KAP 5.2 and GPC and as far as I can tell (though I might have missed it!) Vortigern is never fingered for Constan's death. 

In the Story of Merlin, part of the Vulgate (also known as the Lancelot-Grail) Vortigern says he is willing to become king if Maine (that text's name for Constans) dies, but he cannot himself countenance murder. So twelve of his supporters, understanding the hint, kill him on their own initiative. It's clearly a reference to Henry II and Becket.

Edited January 31, 2020 by jeffjerwin

[Atgxtg]

36 minutes ago, creativehum said:

I think this fact might depend on which sources one is using. I just searched through both KAP 5.2 and GPC and as far as I can tell (though I might have missed it!) Vortigern is never fingered for Constan's death. 

He is fingered in the HRB and most other sources. The book of SIRES even points the finger at him, but the general problem was that there was no proof that he masterminded it. But since Aurlius and Uther believed it and voewed revenge on him for it, it is pretty much considered to be the true story. 

36 minutes ago, creativehum said:

But clearly he was a terrible ruler and everone hated him.

They do now. He did have supporters and appeared to have friends with his Saxons, but he was something of a tyrant, and favored his Saxon inlaws too much. Long Knives is what really sealed him as a villan, even though he appeared to be duped along with everyone else.

36 minutes ago, creativehum said:

I mean, even his own children rebelled!

His Cmyric sons did. THey were not happy with his throwing over thier mother (the sister ofthe old High King) to marry Rowena, HEngest's daughter. But even during the rebellion the sons were focused on driving out the Saxons rather than fighting thier father.

36 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Ultimately, after reading through these pages these past few days it seems to me Greg is laying down lots of reasons not to ally with Cerdic and lots of  fair reasons the PKs might want to ally with Cerdic. Issues of history, culture, military strength, old feuds, fear of new feuds, Saxon Kings on all sides, a land in need of a strong leader (Cerdic is a strong leader) mean that Cerdic's arrival is interesting. The players and the Player Knights will have to make decisions about what matters most and what defines them: The hatred of Saxons over their need to bring peace to the land over their Honor (Cerdic, despite his tough talk treats them with Honor), and so on.

I think the thing that Greg is showing is that there is no "right" answer in the situation. In many RPGs then tends to be a way to resolve everything that will work out ofr the best. In this situation, as often is the case in Pendragon (and life) every solution has a downside and causes complications. The players would probably like to send send all the Saxons packing, but lack the might to do so. So they are probably going to half to ally with someone they'd rather not, and hope they can live it the consequences. 

The Bullith War adventure in Savage Mountains is similar. The player in charge has multiple groups to try and deal with, and there is no way to please them all, so he has to decide who to befriend and who to war against. 

 

36 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Whichever choice the PKs make will be fine because they will have sorted something out, there will be fallout and consequences and that means the game is moving forward. 

Yup, and whatever choice they make will come back to haunt them later, to some extent. Or maybe, even come back to help them later. Someone who allied with Cerdic back before Arthur might receive a warmer welcome in the later periods than someone who opposed him. 

[Atgxtg]

19 minutes ago, jeffjerwin said:

In the Story of Merlin, part of the Vulgate (also known as the Lancelot-Grail) Vortigern says he is willing to become king if Maine (that text's name for Constans) dies, but he cannot himself countenance murder. So twelve of his supporters, understanding the hint, kill him on their own initiative. It's clearly a reference to Henry II and Becket.

The HRB is similar with Votigern telling Constans bodyguards that they deserve to be treated better and that if he were king they would be rewarded appropriately. So some of the guard decide to kill COnstans and make Votigern king. He wards them with a quick execution - probably to prevent them for telling anyone why they did it. 

[Morien]

The PKs not knowing Vortigern, Hengest and the Night of the Long Knives is like a US baby boomer not knowing WW2, Pearl Harbor, and Hitler.

The Night of the Long Knives happened around the PKs' birth. Hengest and Vortigern died when they were children. Their fathers fought and maybe died in the battles against those two. It would have been talked about, regardless whether the fathers lived or died.

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, Morien said:

The PKs not knowing Vortigern, Hengest and the Night of the Long Knives is like a US baby boomer not knowing WW2, Pearl Harbor, and Hitler.

Exactly. I can see how it happens, because in the standard campaign it all takes place 20-35 years before the campaign starts and is just something that players roll during the background history., and probably didn't pay a lot of attention to. But the whole thing is something the characters would be aware of. Cerdic's posturings in the anarchy would be like Hitler's son running for chancellor of Germany in the 1960s.

5 hours ago, Morien said:

The Night of the Long Knives happened around the PKs' birth. Hengest and Vortigern died when they were children. Their fathers fought and maybe died in the battles against those two. It would have been talked about, regardless whether the fathers lived or died.

Not to mention that their liege lord was murdered by the Saxons. Then the liege lord's son and heir (Roderick) get poisoned by Saxons (at least that's the belief, in no small part due to Long Knives) at St. Albans. So all this stuff would be going through the character's heads.

[creativehum]

Question:

In 496 we find this:

Quote

 

New Walls: Among other possible topics of discussion is the building of new walls around Sarum city and the castle proper. They ought to be built of stone to in- crease their defensive value. (The DV for stone walls is 7, while that for wood is only 3.) It will cost £20 to enclose the castle, and £100 for the entire city.

It takes about a summer to build one of these walls with the available help, so the city could be enclosed after four years of work, or it could be enclosed in one year by a wall that was only one-quarter the full normal height.

Money needs to come from outside sources, but this project should be undertaken. The county itself generally has no extra money to spend for this. This is where the player knights come in, of course, as benefac- tors. The countess would no doubt reward such generos- ity with titles, rewards, or other gifts. 

 

Can anyone help me with the math/logic here?

One wall is a summer, so the whole city is four years? I am either missing something (likely!) or perhaps there is a typo. But I'm not getting it.

Thanks!

[Username]

I understood it to be a square wall around the perimeter. 1 wall=1 side. And the summer was the building season with Spring planting, fall harvest, and winter is too cold. So, 1 summer = 1 year.