Atgxtg Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Morien said: Sword ought to be better against unarmored targets, hence -1d6 base damage, but keeping +1d6 vs. mace since that is about crushing, not slicing. If club gets a bonus vs. mail, then quarterstaff should too. A true quarterstaff strikes with quite a lot of authority, when you swing it with a two-handed sword grip. 6' of heavy wood coming your way hurts, but note that it would still only do the same as a mace, despite needing two hands. That is not unbalanced, IMHO. I have some houserules for wielding two weapons and let the quarterstaff benefit from that. Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Wolfpack Six said: No, I don't think it is. The Arthurian setting is anywhere from Dark Ages or even late Roman to late Medieval, at least in terms of the technology that is represented. I don't think I've seen it put anywhere else in literature or in film, though I admit that I probably havent read or seen it all. Still, no dinosaurs, no cars, and no laser guns or space ships. Lots of horses and swords and such. So, I'm gonna go with Dark Ages to Medieval. It has been used in other settings. It's just that normally such stuff is of what used to be termed "direct to video" quality. King Arthur doesn't tend to do all that well in film. There are some good films, but a lot more bad ones. Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 54 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: No, it's not. I like realism; I also like streamlined. The balance between the two (how much is too much?) always seems to be the question. Yeah,m it's both a matter of indiviual taste/chhoice and of tailoring the system to fit the setting. 54 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: Well, of course I enjoy the genre. I would never have explored the game if I didn't. I just don't think that tweaking rules to be a little more realistic will necessarily torpedo the knights and chivalry and all that sort of stuff. In fact, it might even strengthen it. It depends on the tweaking. Making spear better against knights is very dangerous because: Its the most common weapon for footmen to use. Greatspears and Halbards are already the best weapons for footmen to wield against mounted opponents. An effective use of those weapons, combined with decent missile troops is what lead to the downfall of the knight. 54 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: On a related note, I see that you're exploring the idea of tweaking bows and crossbows by tying them to draw weight, which is a very realistic way of going about the subject, and one that I can and do appreciate and support. 54 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: Now, it's been a while since I've read any of the source material, but I just don't recall bows having a major role in Arthurian literature or the Arthurian legends as a whole. Pendragon is about King Arthur and his knights and has chivalry and all that sort of stuff... but I don't recall King Arthur or his knights being archers or even facing many archers. (No doubt they did, but no big examples come to mind. What comes to mind is buff dudes in plate armor charging at each other on war horses with lances, then getting off their horses and wailing away at each other with swords or whatever.) Why bother pulling on that particular thread when the added realism wouldn't really contribute to the romanticized setting? Or do you think it would? For several reasons: First off it might help to contribute to setting. It will help with certiain non-knight player characters in my current campaign. It could porve useful in other setting using the same basic game mechanics. Keep in mind that I typed that a GM should hesitate before making changes, not that a GM should't explore alternatives or consider changing things. Greg himself tinkered with stuff all the time. Perhaps a bit too much. Some of the discrepancies between supplements are due to ideas that either didn't pan out or were improved upon later. Pendragon is and hopefully will continue to be an evolving, growing game. But that grow and change should be carefully considered, and the pros and cons tallied up. For instance, using my Bow thread as an example, would the game really benefit from a table that gave different damage and range stats for bows and crossbows by draw weight in 10% increments. Or would we be better off with a handful of three to five examples. Maybe add in a lighter or heavier bow or two? I've got some notes for more horse breeds, horse training, and expanded armors, with some new and alternate ideas but I won't throw them all into my ongoing campaign anytime soon. I'll test out some stuff, see what works, revise it, maybe even post something here or send it in for a supplement. Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BioKeith Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 On a tangent - is there a list anywhere of suggested prices for the arms/armor - the 5.2 rules cover the stuff that is available at the start of the campaign, but I haven't found a list for any of the things that become available later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Six Posted February 18, 2020 Author Share Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Atgxtg said: Making spear better against knights is very dangerous because: Its the most common weapon for footmen to use. Greatspears and Halbards are already the best weapons for footmen to wield against mounted opponents. An effective use of those weapons, combined with decent missile troops is what lead to the downfall of the knight. So, for me, I don't see those as dangers. The only "dangers" I'd be concerned about is how, mechanically, a spear would differ from a great spear, and how spears could be modeled with a reasonable degree of historical accuracy. If that causes the battlefield effectiveness of knights to suffer, then the answer isn't to nerf spears (or whatever), but to give some sort of game reason why the knights dont face spearmen regularly. Perhaps it's Medieval "gun control" for instance: can't have the riff-raff running around with the means to defend themselves against their benevolent overlords, & c. Quote For several reasons: First off it might help to contribute to setting. It will help with certiain non-knight player characters in my current campaign. It could porve useful in other setting using the same basic game mechanics. Interestingly, these are the same basic reasons that I'd want to examine any weapon in the game system, not just bows or spears. Edited February 18, 2020 by Wolfpack Six Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 25 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: So, for me, I don't see those as dangers. The only "dangers" I'd be concerned about is how, mechanically, a spear would differ from a great spear, and how spears could be modeled with a reasonable degree of historical accuracy. If that causes the battlefield effectiveness of knights to suffer, then the answer isn't to nerf spears (or whatever), but to give some sort of game reason why the knights dont face spearmen regularly. So you nerf it so that the most common weapon of the battlefield doesn't show up anymore? First off that goes against your '"more realism" reason for improving spears, and secondly if you what the point of upping the spear if it's not going to be used? 25 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: Perhaps it's Medieval "gun control" for instance: can't have the riff-raff running around with the means to defend themselves against their benevolent overlords, & c. So the'd let the riff raff get battle axes, maces and swords instead. Weapons which were better at hurting armored opponents, and which cost a whole lot more? Spears were common because they were cheap, easy to make, effective, and didn't have much of a learning curve. When used effectively by disciplined troops spears and stop cavalry charges, and for a long time dominated the battlefield. It's still in use by soldiers today in the form of the bayonet. That's because it works. 25 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: Interestingly, these are the same basic reasons that I'd want to examine any weapon in the game system, not just bows or spears. Exactly. And it goes beyond weapons but to any kind of rule change. In my experience, house rules have unintended consequences, and most tend to cause worse issues than the things they were created to fix. So a GM should be careful. Also, changes made mid-campaign are especially dangerous, as the players can only react to them after the fact. If spearmen suddenly become highly effective it's not just going to make things tougher for the players, it will probably kill off several of them. This in a game where characters do not bounce back from the dead. I'll give you an example from my current campaign. I've been working on some rules for introducing new types of armor and allow people to built suits of armor from pieces. What I've got so far mostly works and I'm tweaking the numbers here and there to get values that seem right, and it's mostly going on good, but... ...players being players and RPGs being RPGs, everybody is going to jump on every potential incremental improvement owner one shows up. In real life this would be less of an issue as marginal improvements are not as concrete and dependable as game stats. Barring special weapon bonuses, 13 point armor, in the game, is always better than 12 point armor, and it always stops 1 more point of damage. Now since in real life most armors could be, and generally were layered, it is quite possible to wear some extra mail, or padding with a full suit of armor for added protection. That's not just gaming, knights actually did that sort of thing in real life. So if I introduce a Jupon, or a double mail hauberk, I know every player character is going to spend the money to get one if they can, because in the logic of the game, it makes total sense to do so. This means that either everyone ends up with an extra point of armor, or the improvement doesn't last long and gets replaced by something better (partial plate), or I don't bother introducing the Jupon in the first place. So, any new bits of armor I do introduce, will need to be integrated with the existing one is such a way as to blend in and not cause armor escalation. That's a lot easier with some things (like proofed armor) than with others (a simple Jupon). Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Six Posted February 18, 2020 Author Share Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Atgxtg said: So you nerf it so that the most common weapon of the battlefield doesn't show up anymore? First off that goes against your '"more realism" reason for improving spears, and secondly if you what the point of upping the spear if it's not going to be used? I don't think I ever suggested nerfing spears. What I am saying is model spears authentically/realistically, and let the chips fall where they will. I think that if a particular change to the spear improves their effectiveness as a weapon, then yes players could certainly end up using them more. To me, that's an acceptable risk. The spear is a knightly weapon, afterall. Does that mean that the traditional knightly sword will get used less frequently? I don't know. Probably not, and precisely because of the significance of the sword as a symbol of knightly authority as well as its general effectiveness as a weapon. Quote So the'd let the riff raff get battle axes, maces and swords instead. Weapons which were better at hurting armored opponents, and which cost a whole lot more? Spears were common because they were cheap, easy to make, effective, and didn't have much of a learning curve. When used effectively by disciplined troops spears and stop cavalry charges, and for a long time dominated the battlefield. It's still in use by soldiers today in the form of the bayonet. That's because it works. You're preaching to the choir. The point to spears (no pun intended), in addition to their reach was that was they were cheap and effective. Are they cheap and effective in-game? Cheap, certainly. Effective as written? I guess that's up to you to decide. Quote Exactly. And it goes beyond weapons but to any kind of rule change. In my experience, house rules have unintended consequences, and most tend to cause worse issues than the things they were created to fix. So a GM should be careful. Also, changes made mid-campaign are especially dangerous, as the players can only react to them after the fact. If spearmen suddenly become highly effective it's not just going to make things tougher for the players, it will probably kill off several of them. This in a game where characters do not bounce back from the dead. Well, when you decide to implement any changes, if you decide to make any, is your call of course. I'm not suggesting that you or anyone does, or does not. I'm simply wondering about the relative effectiveness of certain weapons available in the game, and whether or not they are modeled authentically/historically. For my part, if I come to the conclusion that they aren't, I'd probably tend towards changing them so that they are, even if it impacts the Arthurian genre... and I don't know that it would impact it, but it would be fun (for me) to see if it did and how it would play out. In terms of lethality, one of the reasons I appreciate KAP is the obvious lethality built into the rules. And I see the generational/dynastic aspect as a part of mitigating that lethality. (In my opinion, it's a brilliant aspect.) Would modeling spears more authentically, rules-wise, make them more lethal? I don't know. Probably, but probably not in all circumstances. Even if it did, I think that intelligent players would adapt and change their tactics. Would such adaptation wreck the Arthurian feel? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. That's really for you to decide, IMO. Quote I'll give you an example from my current campaign. I've been working on some rules for introducing new types of armor and allow people to built suits of armor from pieces. What I've got so far mostly works and I'm tweaking the numbers here and there to get values that seem right, and it's mostly going on good, but... ...players being players and RPGs being RPGs, everybody is going to jump on every potential incremental improvement owner one shows up. In real life this would be less of an issue as marginal improvements are not as concrete and dependable as game stats. Barring special weapon bonuses, 13 point armor, in the game, is always better than 12 point armor, and it always stops 1 more point of damage. Now since in real life most armors could be, and generally were layered, it is quite possible to wear some extra mail, or padding with a full suit of armor for added protection. That's not just gaming, knights actually did that sort of thing in real life. So if I introduce a Jupon, or a double mail hauberk, I know every player character is going to spend the money to get one if they can, because in the logic of the game, it makes total sense to do so. This means that either everyone ends up with an extra point of armor, or the improvement doesn't last long and gets replaced by something better (partial plate), or I don't bother introducing the Jupon in the first place. So, any new bits of armor I do introduce, will need to be integrated with the existing one is such a way as to blend in and not cause armor escalation. That's a lot easier with some things (like proofed armor) than with others (a simple Jupon). That's a cool example. You've probably already thought about this, but armor effectiveness typically comes with a trade-off in terms of weight and bulk: more protection tends to mean heavier, bulkier gear. So, while buying that extra point of armor in the form of Jupon (using your example) will always give you one more point of damage reduction, perhaps the trade-off should be felt in game terms as a DEX penalty and count as a heavy load, for instance. And if that's a significant enough penalty/trade-off, some players may opt not to have it while some others will. And if the improvement doesn't last long, IMO that's how the ball bounces. If you don't think it's worth including -- the juice isn't worth the squeeze -- then, as you say, just don't include it in the first place. My personal preference is for more options, because part of the fun in deciding what gear to buy and use is weighing the pros and cons. Edited February 18, 2020 by Wolfpack Six Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morien Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 4 hours ago, Atgxtg said: Wouldn't it be easier to just use the t eh actual die result (19 and 13) to determine ties. Well the dice rolls in my example were 19 and 20. But here is the thing. If the bonus had been +1 and it would have been 20 v 20, this should be a tie. Then again if you like the idea of the (critical) winner breaking his weapon (second guy rolls 19 as well) then good for you. I can see that increasing interesting outcomes at 20+ skills. "I hit him so hard it broke my mace." 4 hours ago, Atgxtg said: I'd be inclided to let spears vs. calvary use the oppoent's mount's damage stat. I might keep that as a Great Spear special of "Set vs. charge" rather than a general bonus. Note that I am keeping Great Spears rare as the regular spear can be used two-handed too: boar spear becomes just a stout hunting spear with a crosspiece. Our Great Spear becomes more of a pike and shows up much later in the campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 On 2/16/2020 at 11:41 PM, Wolfpack Six said: Username, where is the Quarterstaff referenced? Is that something you made up? It may have been. I honestly can't remember though I thought that it was a weapon used by the peasants/bandits in the Book of Armies. 21 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said: I think the only thing I would say is that Glaives are about the same length as Halberds, so perhaps they should get the same +5 bonus versus mounted opponents. I didn't do that because that's the field of Great Spears. I was using it as a primarily cutting weapon not a piercing one which is why I think the Great Spear gets the +5 17 hours ago, Morien said: If club gets a bonus vs. mail, then quarterstaff should too. A true quarterstaff strikes with quite a lot of authority, when you swing it with a two-handed sword grip. 6' of heavy wood coming your way hurts, but note that it would still only do the same as a mace, despite needing two hands. That is not unbalanced, IMHO I could see that Quarterstaff -1d6, +1d6 for two-handed, and +1d6 vs. chain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 11 hours ago, Morien said: Well the dice rolls in my example were 19 and 20. But here is the thing. If the bonus had been +1 and it would have been 20 v 20, this should be a tie. Then again if you like the idea of the (critical) winner breaking his weapon (second guy rolls 19 as well) then good for you. I can see that increasing interesting outcomes at 20+ skills. "I hit him so hard it broke my mace." Yeah, but keep in mind that by RAW no one takes damage (or, by the GPC, both take 1d3) on a critical, so in a normal game at high skills ratings swords start breaking non swords left and right. 11 hours ago, Morien said: I might keep that as a Great Spear special of "Set vs. charge" rather than a general bonus. Note that I am keeping Great Spears rare as the regular spear can be used two-handed too: boar spear becomes just a stout hunting spear with a crosspiece. Our Great Spear becomes more of a pike and shows up much later in the campaign. Now thats an Idea. In my campaign I use spear for 1H spear and Greatspear for 2H spear (per boarspear). But I could definitely see the Pike getting an extra die damage like the other 2H weapons. . Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 11 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said: I don't think I ever suggested nerfing spears. What I am saying is model spears authentically/realistically, and let the chips fall where they will. And I say that's bad for the game. Running Pendragon, or any RPG realstically will just kill off the player characters. All RPGs are biased to some extent in order to allow the player characters the ability to do what they do every session and survive. This is true in games, movies, TV shows, comic books, novels, etc. Run things realstically and the PCs go down just from the laws of probability. 11 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said: I think that if a particular change to the spear improves their effectiveness as a weapon, then yes players could certainly end up using them more. To me, that's an acceptable risk. The spear is a knightly weapon, afterall. No, the spear is a common weapon. Knights use spear. Everybody does. It is the most common weapon on the battlefield. No if you make spears signficantly better then that increases the chances of PKs dropping to spear wielding opponents. 11 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said: Does that mean that the traditional knightly sword will get used less frequently? I don't know. Probably not, and precisely because of the significance of the sword as a symbol of knightly authority as well as its general effectiveness as a weapon. Probably yes. Histroically knights didn't go for sowrds until spear was no longer a viable option. If you watch the fight between Lancelot and Arthur in Excalibur, you can see just how much of an advantage Lance had on horse with a spear. 11 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said: You're preaching to the choir. The point to spears (no pun intended), in addition to their reach was that was they were cheap and effective. Are they cheap and effective in-game? Cheap, certainly. Effective as written? I guess that's up to you to decide. They are about as effective as most other 1H weapons, expect that they don't get and sort of special bonus. In game is really comes down more to the wielder's skill and damage stat. Someone with Spear (25) with Damage 7d6 is going to be quite effective, unless he ties with a sword. 11 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said: Well, when you decide to implement any changes, if you decide to make any, is your call of course. I'm not suggesting that you or anyone does, or does not. I'm simply wondering about the relative effectiveness of certain weapons available in the game, and whether or not they are modeled authentically/historically. For my part, if I come to the conclusion that they aren't, I'd probably tend towards changing them so that they are, even if it impacts the Arthurian genre... and I don't know that it would impact it, but it would be fun (for me) to see if it did and how it would play out. They are not modeled authentically/historically, and are not really intended to be. Pendragon isn't a historical game, but romantic one. Oh, I mean by the older definition of Romance as opposed to the modern (love story) definition. Let me try to explain this in another way. In the comic books, super strong characters sometimes fall from great heights and hit the ground, breaking the ground. This is realistic, even if you account for super strength, or bulletproof skin or the like. But in the world of super hero comics, that is how reality works. Now Pendragon is similar in that the rules are designed to mimic the reality of the setting, rather than actual reality. For instance, in the real world 5% or so of the enemy on the battlefield don't flip out and go insane because of a hate passion when on the battlefield. But rules like that are in the game to reflect how things work in the setting. Greg put in a bit from in Malory, that shows the idea of commoners ruling themselves is bad and leads to evil things. Obviously this isn't historically accurate (we hope), and simily a case of medieval bias on the part of Malory. But it does illustrate how the game reality different for actual reality. 11 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said: In terms of lethality, one of the reasons I appreciate KAP is the obvious lethality built into the rules. And I see the generational/dynastic aspect as a part of mitigating that lethality. (In my opinion, it's a brilliant aspect.) Would modeling spears more authentically, rules-wise, make them more lethal? I don't know. Probably, but probably not in all circumstances. 11 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said: Even if it did, I think that intelligent players would adapt and change their tactics. Would they? How? And what makes you think they'd be allowed to? When their liege lord says "Charge!" they are expected to charge. Look at World War I. Armies took hooredous casualties because they didn't adapt (and didn't want to adapt) to the changes to warfare brought about by weapons such as the machine gun. 11 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said: Would such adaptation wreck the Arthurian feel? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. That's really for you to decide, IMO. Would wiping out the PKS on a regular basis kill off a campaign? Probably. That's why you need to be careful with any improvements -especially to weapons that are going to be used against the PKS a lot. 11 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said: That's a cool example. You've probably already thought about this, but armor effectiveness typically comes with a trade-off in terms of weight and bulk: more protection tends to mean heavier, bulkier gear. So, while buying that extra point of armor in the form of Jupon (using your example) will always give you one more point of damage reduction, perhaps the trade-off should be felt in game terms as a DEX penalty and count as a heavy load, for instance. And if that's a significant enough penalty/trade-off, some players may opt not to have it while some others will. Yes it does. But: The jupon is pretty light, and appears to have been well worth the trade off The DEX penalty in game isn't much of a penalty. Let me explain that. Players generally try to avoid failing. To that end, they avoid making rolls that they have low rating in, as low rating means a greater chance of failure. Now the average DEX in the game is about 10-12, and the DEX penalty for mail armor is -10. So, by the time a knight is in mail, his DEX penalty has either already "zerod out" his DEX or reduced to so low that it might as well be zero. Armored knight in Pendragon do do much jumping. BTW, this is one of those unrealistic things I think does need to be addressed, you can actually do backflips and such in armor. But anyway in the game once your DEX is at zero then it doesn't matter how big the penalty gets. So the penalty becomes a non-penalty. It's like if you forgot your wallet you usually really care which pair of paints you left it in at home.I think the DEX penalty needs to be revised to make it an actual penalty that matters. The way it works now, knights have every incentive to tack on more weight and increase the penalty, since their DEX is already 0. I've got an idea of how to do that, but I'll save it for another thread. 11 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said: And if the improvement doesn't last long, IMO that's how the ball bounces. If you don't think it's worth including -- the juice isn't worth the squeeze -- then, as you say, just don't include it in the first place. My personal preference is for more options, because part of the fun in deciding what gear to buy and use is weighing the pros and cons. No it doesn't last long, but it might last "long enough in game". Chances are, in any Period of the game, if the GM offers the players a chance to increase their armor protection by 1 point by paying double what their current armor costs, they will do it. In fact, they have already done it. A couple of my PKs got some Cataphracti armor (12 point Light Scale) while abroad and everyone else has been hunting for more ever since. One PK just spent around £100 to get some light barding for his Byzantine charger. In game terms it's worth it. In real life, maybe not. I like the options and being able to customize a suit of armor (heck, I'm the one who started writing up the rules to do so, so I obviously liked the idea), but I can see my players just trying to max out their armor all the time. So if I introduce Double Mail at 12 points in the Boy King Period, all my players will upgrade, even if Reinforced Mail is right around the corner. Likewise if I introduce a Jupon (+1) to wear over armor, all the players will do so and keep doing so until there is a reason to stop. So far the Facemask that comes with the Light Scale has worked as far as a deterrent. I ruled that the armor was 11 point, 12 with the mask, but that the mask imposes a -3 to Awareness, so the players are always a bit conflicted about using it. Now this is a thing because I started my campaign early (410) and am up to 467, with Improved Mail (11 point) just starting to show up. But my players will spend a lot for an extra point of armor. Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Six Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 5 hours ago, Atgxtg said: And I say that's bad for the game. Running Pendragon, or any RPG realstically will just kill off the player characters. All RPGs are biased to some extent in order to allow the player characters the ability to do what they do every session and survive. This is true in games, movies, TV shows, comic books, novels, etc. Run things realstically and the PCs go down just from the laws of probability. Well, in general, I don't usually think something that adds realism to a game is intrinsically negative unless by adding it, it slows the game down to the point where the game is no longer fun. Granted, "no longer fun" is a matter of taste, but lethality to me is a feature, not a bug. Increasing the potential for killing off PCs, particularly in game dominated by characters who are literally members of a warrior elite, doesn't seem unreasonable or unfair, unless maybe that potential were to only apply to PCs and not to NPCs, for example. 5 hours ago, Atgxtg said: No, the spear is a common weapon. Knights use spear. Everybody does. It is the most common weapon on the battlefield. No if you make spears signficantly better then that increases the chances of PKs dropping to spear wielding opponents. Well, according to the current rulebook (KAP 5.2, p. 110), the Spear skill is listed as a Knightly skill, implying that the Spear is a knightly weapon. Again, in my opinion, if improving spears significantly means that they're modeled more realistically, and that means that it increases the chances of PC knights dying at the hands of spear-wielding opponents, I don't see that as a problem. There's nothing stopping PCs from using spears themselves. I get that you hold the opposite opinion. No issue with that. I'm not asking you, personally, to change how you run your game. 5 hours ago, Atgxtg said: Probably yes. Histroically knights didn't go for sowrds until spear was no longer a viable option. If you watch the fight between Lancelot and Arthur in Excalibur, you can see just how much of an advantage Lance had on horse with a spear. Yes, it's obvious that spear-wielding opponents, mounted or on foot, have a significant advantage in terms of reach. That's really the missing component to spears, the way I see it. Not greater damage (they're 1H weapons, afterall), but the potential to strike first, before someone with a sword can close the distance. 5 hours ago, Atgxtg said: They are not modeled authentically/historically, and are not really intended to be. Pendragon isn't a historical game, but romantic one. Oh, I mean by the older definition of Romance as opposed to the modern (love story) definition. And yet being a romantic game, it's set in a Dark Ages through Middle Ages European milieu where the PCs use the corresponding military technology. You can say, well it's not historical, and use that as a justification to keep certain weapons as they are. My counter to you would then be, why bother tinkering with bows, as you are in a separate thread? The game is not historical: it's romantic. Just keep things as they are. The RAW are good enough. It seems to me that this is simply a matter of taste. 5 hours ago, Atgxtg said: Let me try to explain this in another way. In the comic books, super strong characters sometimes fall from great heights and hit the ground, breaking the ground. This is realistic, even if you account for super strength, or bulletproof skin or the like. But in the world of super hero comics, that is how reality works. Now Pendragon is similar in that the rules are designed to mimic the reality of the setting, rather than actual reality. For instance, in the real world 5% or so of the enemy on the battlefield don't flip out and go insane because of a hate passion when on the battlefield. But rules like that are in the game to reflect how things work in the setting. Yes, again I get that Pendragon's rules arent trying to mimic objective reality. But they do appear, to me, to be trying to roughly approximate or simulate certain benefits and drawbacks to the different choices among weapons and armor. And I think that some of those rules can possibly be improved upon. Let me try to explain this in another way. There's a thing called verisimilitude. Verisimilitude is basically a fancy way of saying that something has a realistic quality. In my experience, modeling weapons capabilities and characteristics more accurately in-game tends to improve verisimilitude, which then impacts the willing suspension of disbelief in a positive manner. To me, that's a good thing. 5 hours ago, Atgxtg said: Greg put in a bit from in Malory, that shows the idea of commoners ruling themselves is bad and leads to evil things. Obviously this isn't historically accurate (we hope), and simily a case of medieval bias on the part of Malory. But it does illustrate how the game reality different for actual reality. Actually, the idea of commoners ruling themselves being bad and leading to evil things is historically accurate, if our perspective is that of knights during the Dark and Middle Ages (which, of course, it is if all your PCs are knights, squires, or ladies using the RAW). So, in this case, the game reality (PCs taking the roles, predominantly, of members of the military aristocracy) does in fact reflect the actual reality of the Dark and Middle Ages. 5 hours ago, Atgxtg said: Would they? How? And what makes you think they'd be allowed to? When their liege lord says "Charge!" they are expected to charge. Look at World War I. Armies took hooredous casualties because they didn't adapt (and didn't want to adapt) to the changes to warfare brought about by weapons such as the machine gun. Well, I'm operating under the assumption that player character knights aren't only serving as soldiers or officers in their liege lords' armies, but also off adventuring, slaying dragons, rescuing damsels, and so on. Sure, all things being equal, if they are in a battle and they're ordered to charge, they should charge. And if they're ordered by their liege lord to charge into a thicket of spears wielded by disciplined foot soldiers, then their liege lord is an idiot. Small comfort to the impaled PC knights, of course. But, maybe the PC knights can convince their lord to soften up the spearmen by showering them with arrows or somesuch. Or hit them from a flank. Or display some other form of tactical competence. 5 hours ago, Atgxtg said: Would wiping out the PKS on a regular basis kill off a campaign? Probably. That's why you need to be careful with any improvements -especially to weapons that are going to be used against the PKS a lot. You're assuming that PC knights would be wiped out on a regular basis. There's a saying about insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Anyhow, while I do understand the need for caution and discretion in implementing rules changes, I don't think that PC knights getting wiped out is the fault of a given weapon, but of how that weapon is used and countered. I don't think I can put it any more plainly. 9 hours ago, Atgxtg said: I like the options and being able to customize a suit of armor (heck, I'm the one who started writing up the rules to do so, so I obviously liked the idea), but I can see my players just trying to max out their armor all the time. So if I introduce Double Mail at 12 points in the Boy King Period, all my players will upgrade, even if Reinforced Mail is right around the corner. Likewise if I introduce a Jupon (+1) to wear over armor, all the players will do so and keep doing so until there is a reason to stop. I think being able to customize a suit of armor is a great idea. Of course players will try to maximize their armor. I'm thinking most players play to win or at least survive. Better armor in a hostile environment tends to improve survival. So, I'd expect that sort of behavior from rational players. Just off the top of my head, I don't see any problem with customized armor as long as it's implemented across the board -- i.e., such armor would be available to both PCs and NPCs. But that's a whole, 'nother topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: Well, in general, I don't usually think something that adds realism to a game is intrinsically negative unless by adding it, it slows the game down to the point where the game is no longer fun But adding realism isn't necessarily an improvement. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: . Granted, "no longer fun" is a matter of taste, but lethality to me is a feature, not a bug. I'ts also a matter of degree. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: Increasing the potential for killing off PCs, particularly in game dominated by characters who are literally members of a warrior elite, doesn't seem unreasonable or unfair, unless maybe that potential were to only apply to PCs and not to NPCs, for example. Why? Increasing the potential of killing to NPCs isn't an issue. You don't have to worry if the NPCs will bother to show up for the next game session. The players on the other hand, you have to make an effort to keep. RPGs aren't about being fair. IF GMs ran things "fair" the player characters would die off a lot faster, considering the sort of things they do. RPgs are intensitcally "unfair" but, unfair in the players favor in order to keep the game interesting. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: Well, according to the current rulebook (KAP 5.2, p. 110), the Spear skill is listed as a Knightly skill, implying that the Spear is a knightly weapon. Yes, but that means that there is nothing wrong with a knigth using one, not that it is a weapon exclusive to knights. Spears were the most common weapon on the battlefield until the introduction of firearms. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: Again, in my opinion, if improving spears significantly means that they're modeled more realistically, and that means that it increases the chances of PC knights dying at the hands of spear-wielding opponents, I don't see that as a problem. There's nothing stopping PCs from using spears themselves. It's not a contest between the NPCs and the PCs. It's a game where the players get to play knights. If half the PCs and NPCs kill each other off every game session that is not "fair", that's trouble for the GM. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: I get that you hold the opposite opinion. No issue with that. I'm not asking you, personally, to change how you run your game. I'm not asking you to change how you run or to not consider rule changes. What I am asking to to do is think about the effects of those rule changes and if they will actually improve the gaming experience or not. The goal of Pendragon isn't to be realsitic or simulate the real world -it is the play in an Arthurian world. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: Yes, it's obvious that spear-wielding opponents, mounted or on foot, have a significant advantage in terms of reach. That's really the missing component to spears, the way I see it. Not greater damage (they're 1H weapons, afterall), but the potential to strike first, before someone with a sword can close the distance. Yup. The got a few other advantages, such as being able to break up a lance charge (horses are generally too smart to run into a spear point), are fast, don't need much space to operate, and can help to assist allies easier than most other weapons. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: And yet being a romantic game, it's set in a Dark Ages through Middle Ages European milieu where the PCs use the corresponding military technology. You can say, well it's not historical, and use that as a justification to keep certain weapons as they are. My counter to you would then be, why bother tinkering with bows, as you are in a separate thread? The game is not historical: it's romantic. Just keep things as they are. The RAW are good enough. THere is nothing wrong with thinking of new ideas orexploring possible rule changes. There is nothing wrong with There is nothing wrong with tinkering. There is something wrong with doing so without considering the consequences of doing so. A GM should always look at the pros and cons of any change they are considering. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: It seems to me that this is simply a matter of taste. And not just your or mine but that of the players. You see if you up the capability of spears they are the ones who will suffer from it. Any NPCs the PCs will kill with spears would probably get killed by sword or axe, and besides the NPCs don't have to come back next game session. The players, on the other hand are a different story. You want them to come back and keep playing. Now that doesn't mean you shouldn't change anything, but you should consider the pros and cons of doing so. As far as I can tell the big pro is to give more love to the spear at the risk of increased PK injury and death. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: Yes, again I get that Pendragon's rules arent trying to mimic objective reality. But they do appear, to me, to be trying to roughly approximate or simulate certain benefits and drawbacks to the different choices among weapons and armor. And I think that some of those rules can possibly be improved upon. Definitely, but that doesn't mean than any and every proposed change is necessarily an improvement. It you have the Book of Battle or the Book of Armies you will see a few times where Greg mentions combat tactics that he states were not detailed in the game, despite being historical, because they were the sort of thing that ended the knights dominance on the battlefield. Most of those things involve firearms, longbows, and/or spears. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: Let me try to explain this in another way. There's a thing called verisimilitude. Verisimilitude is basically a fancy way of saying that something has a realistic quality. No. Verisimilitude is the willing suspension of disbelief. That is it is the ability of the audience to go along with something that they know isn't real because it seems or feels real enough to work for the story. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: In my experience, modeling weapons capabilities and characteristics more accurately in-game tends to improve verisimilitude, which then impacts the willing suspension of disbelief in a positive manner. To me, that's a good thing. And it can be, if realism is the goal. But Arthurian fiction isn't striving for realism. Now if you make spears, and thus footmen, better against horsemen, you will find that you players will soon be feeling realistically dead. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: Actually, the idea of commoners ruling themselves being bad and leading to evil things is historically accurate, if our perspective is that of knights during the Dark and Middle Ages (which, of course, it is if all your PCs are knights, squires, or ladies using the RAW). So, in this case, the game reality (PCs taking the roles, predominantly, of members of the military aristocracy) does in fact reflect the actual reality of the Dark and Middle Ages. And that's just it. Game reality isn't the same as actual reality. Thus a knight or horseback fighting righteously will defeat some dirty commoner wielding a spear. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: Well, I'm operating under the assumption that player character knights aren't only serving as soldiers or officers in their liege lords' armies, but also off adventuring, slaying dragons, rescuing damsels, and so on. Yes, and those things are quite risky. What I'm trying to say is upping the risk might not be the best thing for your game. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: Sure, all things being equal, if they are in a battle and they're ordered to charge, they should charge. And if are things are not equal, if they are ordered to charge they should charge. Knights are expected to obey thier leige lord. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: And if they're ordered by their liege lord to charge into a thicket of spears wielded by disciplined foot soldiers, then their liege lord is an idiot. Than 99% of liege lords are idiots. Look at medieval battles. Charging spearmen was a thing. Successfully doing it, less so. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: Small comfort to the impaled PC knights, of course. But, maybe the PC knights can convince their lord to soften up the spearmen by showering them with arrows or somesuch. Or hit them from a flank. Or display some other form of tactical competence. You mean insubordination, cowardice and treason? Much like with the example of the "peasants can be trusted to govern themselves" belief, chivalry is based upon obedience and a belief that knight will prevail if they are true enough. The French knights blamed their losses at Crecy and Agincourt on a lack of courage and chivalry rather than bad tactics. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: You're assuming that PC knights would be wiped out on a regular basis. Yes I am expecting that, because that is what knights did and would do, and be obligated to do. It's not like they can avoid confronting spearmen. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: There's a saying about insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. . Yes but it's not the same person doing it. It's another young knight who has every reason to do what all the other knights are expected to do. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: Anyhow, while I do understand the need for caution and discretion in implementing rules changes, I don't think that PC knights getting wiped out is the fault of a given weapon, but of how that weapon is used and countered. I don't think I can put it any more plainly. Okay, let's try mathematics and statistics. Under normal circumstances a NPC has a 5% chance of scoring a critical on any given round of fighting. It can be higher if the NPC has a very high skill or some good modfiers, but normally, assuming the NPC has a chance of success, there is a 5% chance of a critical. Critical hits do double damage and are thus far more likely to inflict a major wound or even kill a player knight. Most rank and file type footsoldiers only last a round or two in normal combat. Now if a GM introduces something that extends the fight just one more round, on average, that's significantly increases the amount of rolls that those NPCs get, and thus increases how dangerous they are. There isn't all that much the players can really do about it, either. The nature of the game limits their options, much of the time. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: I think being able to customize a suit of armor is a great idea. Of course players will try to maximize their armor. I'm thinking most players play to win or at least survive. Better armor in a hostile environment tends to improve survival. So, I'd expect that sort of behavior from rational players. Yes, except that in the real world things are not as cut and dried as in the game. Forinstance, is it better to wear an extra layer of mail or upgrade to partial plate? Does a facemask protect significant better than an open helm? It is worth going into debt to get armor that has a close fit? Now in real life those are things that aren't easily answered, but in the game players can work it out just by looking at the protection given. The same hold true with weapons. Is a 70 pound bow better than a 65 pound bow or a 60 pound bow. Possibly. But the differences might not be all that signficant in the real world. In game terms however it's all spelled out. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: Just off the top of my head, I don't see any problem with customized armor as long as it's implemented across the board -- i.e., such armor would be available to both PCs and NPCs. Why does it have to be implemented across the board? Typically it wasn't. The rich and powerful usually get the good stuff before everyone else. GMing ins't about striking a fail balance between the PCs and the NPCs. The potential problem here is the possible escalation when characters start to stack armor to the point where armor wins the contest against weapons. Weapon damages only go up so high and new weapons only appear so quickly. But layering armor is easy. And generally was done. 56 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said: But that's a whole, 'nother topic. Yes it is.But the underlying reason as to why it might not be a good idea is relevant to this one. Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morien Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Atgxtg said: Now if you make spears, and thus footmen, better against horsemen, you will find that you players will soon be feeling realistically dead. I am coming from a slightly different angle, obviously. The horseman still retains the +5 height advantage. And if he has a lance, he gets another +5 reach for that. So in a lance charge, we are looking at something like 15+10=25 minimum for a competent young PK* vs. Spear 10 or 12 for a Spearman. So they will do quite well in a charge, still. Now, if they get stuck in melee against two Spearmen, things become somewhat more even: Sword* 15 split 8+5/7+5 vs. two Spears 10 or 12 (rather than 5 or 7). Now it starts to become more of an issue, and something that our PKs try to avoid, getting stuck in a Spearman swarm. It is basically a result of a failed Battle roll by the unit commander, not recovering from the charge quickly enough. Still, the PKs generally do OK. Even if the Spearmen land a blow, it is likely that the PK gets the shield, and even if he doesn't, it is just minor wound. The real threat comes from criticals. Not only are the criticals almost sure to hit, they do double damage, and now it becomes a real possibility that it is enough to cause a Major Wound and/or knock the PK from his horse. But since this is a flat 5% in RAW, it actually scales with the number of enemies, not with their skill (as long as the skill is below 20), so the risk per roll is the same whether or not the Spearmen have the -5 vs. mounted or not. You are correct though that if the combat continues for longer (normal combat, not battle rounds) due to the PK not managing to kill the Spearmen as quickly and efficient as when they had -5 to skill, this increases the number of rolls and hence the risk that the PK is under. That being said, I can't remember a single instance where a PK has been killed by a Spearman or even been given a major wound (although I admit that one or two MWs might have skipped from my mind), in our current campaign (now in 529). So it has not skewed the results too badly on that score... although I ought to mention that we do have a confirmation roll house rule for criticals: roll 1d20 again and if it is a success, it is a full +4d6 critical (flat bonus, not doubled), if it is a failure, it is just +2d6. This would obviously cut the full criticals in half for Skill 10 Spearman compared to RAW, while the +2d6 is still unlikely to give a Major Wound. So this would soften the impact of the spearmen surviving longer: even if they survive twice as long, they get only the same number of full criticals. In any case, I think it is a good idea that the PKs need to think about getting swarmed by spearmen and to try to avoid that happening, rather than be untouchable demi-gods of war (they become that soon enough, when they get reinforced chain + chivalry bonus + Skill 20 or more). It is also a nice trade-off between spear-armed Saxons and axe-wielding Saxons, giving a bit more variety, whereas currently there is no point whatsoever (mechanistically, that is) in having a spear rather than an axe. Now there is a clear role for a spear and a reason why you probably would like to have your infantry armed with spears, so that they can at least try to resist the opposing knights. It is also a very easy change to do, just dropping the vs. mounted malus, rather than forcing Defensive fighting or something like that. Bottom line: It works for us, I like it, and I am the GM, so my rules! * In our PKs, I have seen starting Lance 12-13 on a minority of them, usually if they are knighted early and are missing some yearly training picks, but they up it to 15 as soon as they can. Sword, or whichever their primary melee weapon is, always starts at 15. It is simply too much of a disadvantage to leave it below that. Edited February 19, 2020 by Morien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Six Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 7 hours ago, Morien said: In any case, I think it is a good idea that the PKs need to think about getting swarmed by spearmen and to try to avoid that happening, rather than be untouchable demi-gods of war... This! How you decide to crack that nut is up to you, and I definitely think it is a nut to crack. 7 hours ago, Morien said: Bottom line: It works for us, I like it, and I am the GM, so my rules! Totally on board with that! 🍺😊 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 9 hours ago, Morien said: I am coming from a slightly different angle, obviously. The horseman still retains the +5 height advantage. And if he has a lance, he gets another +5 reach for that. So in a lance charge, we are looking at something like 15+10=25 minimum for a competent young PK* vs. Spear 10 or 12 for a Spearman. So they will do quite well in a charge, still. I'd say 10 (the qualifying amount) is the minimum for a competent young PK, but 15 is far more common, and makes a better example. The current generation of player characters started as squires and look to hit hit 20 before being knighted! 9 hours ago, Morien said: Now, if they get stuck in melee against two Spearmen, things become somewhat more even: Sword* 15 split 8+5/7+5 vs. two Spears 10 or 12 (rather than 5 or 7). Now it starts to become more of an issue, and something that our PKs try to avoid, getting stuck in a Spearman swarm. It is basically a result of a failed Battle roll by the unit commander, not recovering from the charge quickly enough. Still, the PKs generally do OK. Even if the Spearmen land a blow, it is likely that the PK gets the shield, and even if he doesn't, it is just minor wound. Exactly. And that's why I'm hesitate about upping spears. If the PKS get bogged down for a round, that's another round where the GM can kill one with a critical.It's not much but it adds up. In my last session the PKS were assaulting a breech during a siege, and at one point had to face three greatspearmen each. Several PKS took crticals. Fortunately some of the PKS rolled crticals at the same time (scratch another greatspear), and others were able to take the relatively low 6d6 crtical damage. 9 hours ago, Morien said: The real threat comes from criticals. Not only are the criticals almost sure to hit, they do double damage, and now it becomes a real possibility that it is enough to cause a Major Wound and/or knock the PK from his horse. But since this is a flat 5% in RAW, it actually scales with the number of enemies, not with their skill (as long as the skill is below 20), so the risk per roll is the same whether or not the Spearmen have the -5 vs. mounted or not. You are correct though that if the combat continues for longer (normal combat, not battle rounds) due to the PK not managing to kill the Spearmen as quickly and efficient as when they had -5 to skill, this increases the number of rolls and hence the risk that the PK is under. Were going through the MArch of Aruelius right now, with a lot of battles (Aurelius has been battle training his armor for the last 15 years) -almost as many as the Boy King Period. One thing we've realized is that with five PK in the players' eschille, they take a crtical from a NPK about once every four rounds. Highly skill/inspired opponents are worse, but in general, even against the dregs, there is still a 5% chance of a critand so the players can expect to take two or three crits in a battle, and similar results in skirmishes and adventures. So, depending on the size of my group, anything that give the opponents another round of battle essentially means a 20-30% chance of a PK taking a critical 9 hours ago, Morien said: That being said, I can't remember a single instance where a PK has been killed by a Spearman or even been given a major wound (although I admit that one or two MWs might have skipped from my mind), in our current campaign (now in 529). We've lost one or two to greatspearmen, and that's in a game where we've only lost six PKs in over a year of play. With one of those PKS being killed off retired in his 70s by the player, and two others victims at Long Knives. So that's about half of the legitimate combat casualties. Despite the fairly low fatality rate (we went from 510 to 557 without a PK death), major wounds have been common in the game, but I attribute much of that to the lower starting armor (8-10). Even now the best armor to be purchased is 11 point improved mail. I suspect some of the reduced mortiality rate is also due to a PKs getting the natural healer family characteristic and having a First Aid over 20. I think your houserules do change the math quite a bit though. Not that that is bad, just different. I agree that the PKS do need to think about being swarmed, although I disagree that the really become untouchable. Double teams and missile troops can bring them down to Earth (in more ways than one). 9 hours ago, Morien said: Bottom line: It works for us, I like it, and I am the GM, so my rules! Certinaly. And I'll also point out that I don't mind your houserule as much as some others. It helps the spearmen but doesn't shift things a lot. 9 hours ago, Morien said: * In our PKs, I have seen starting Lance 12-13 on a minority of them, usually if they are knighted early and are missing some yearly training picks, but they up it to 15 as soon as they can. Sword, or whichever their primary melee weapon is, always starts at 15. It is simply too much of a disadvantage to leave it below that. Yeah, most of my PKs do the same, although it does touch on another weapon that I think needs a little more love, the Lance. My players would much rather use sword. In old KAP chargers had higher damage stat (6d6) than the average knight (4d6). In KAP 5, chargers are still at 6d6, but the average knight is at 5d6 and powerful PKs can easily hit 6d6, negating the bonus from the horse. Combine this with the expense of quality horses and their short lifespan in KAP5, and Lance becomes pointless (sorry, sorry). The sword does almost as much or as much damage as the lance, doesn't break, and gets all the same benefits. I think that Lance and or the horse damage stat need to be revised, at at least the charge bonus more restrictive so that it favors lance. Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morien Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 32 minutes ago, Atgxtg said: In my last session the PKS were assaulting a breech during a siege, and at one point had to face three greatspearmen each. Several PKS took crticals. Sure, if you swamp the PKs with plenty of enemies, then the PKs will take more criticals. Stands to reason. However, in this context, this is a bit of a red herring, since: a) it was a siege and the PKs are presumably on foot anyway, and b) even if they were not on foot, Great Spear already negates the vs. mounted malus. Now I can get your point that if the Spears also counter the -5 penalty, then they become more useful on the battle field, but on the other hand, you seldom face repeated rounds of combat in Battle rules, unless you are in extended melee (most often against higher tier enemies who use Swords or Great Axes or whatnot). So whether the enemy spearman survives or not doesn't matter. I recognize your concern in normal combat, though, and there is also the point that having two or three damage rolls (from any weapons) coming in a single round is also potentially deadly, since the PK doesn't have time to go unconscious in between. So it is more likely that they drop deep to minus hit points and die. However, this is partially countered by the fact that the spear only helps if the opponent is mounted, and if the opponent is mounted, then the opponent has already a big advantage anyway. Furthermore, spear tends to be the cheap levy weapon so the spearmen tend to be less skilled and do less damage than the more elite opponents*. For instance, I would much rather face 2 spearmen with Spear 12 and 4d6 damage, than 2 Saxon raiders with Axe 14-5=9 and 5d6+1d6 damage. Especially if using the RAW double damage on a critical rules. * This is a bit of a roleplaying trope, admittedly, as in reality, almost everyone would start a battle with a spear and only switch to an axe or a sword as a secondary. Although in a duel situation I could see throwing the spear and switching to a more handy weapon right off the bat, if facing an armored swordsman. 43 minutes ago, Atgxtg said: I think that Lance and or the horse damage stat need to be revised, at at least the charge bonus more restrictive so that it favors lance. Only Lance gets the +5 charge bonus vs. Non-lances (and non-Great Spears) in basic rules; no other weapon does. Book of Battle introduced it for all charging units, even on foot (IIRC), and I really dislike that additional rule. Get rid of that and the PKs will be much more likely to use a Lance even on the battlefield. In any case, it should NOT be used in normal skirmish/melee combat. As for boosting up lance, we added +1d6 to all Lance damages across the board, as mentioned in my house rules -thread, partially in order to keep up with the higher damage stats that the PKs have nowadays. This also helps to make cheaper horses more usable war horses for sergeants and even household knights, keeping the loot value down a bit. Also important to note is that when you are facing other knights in normal combat, do you wish to take your Sword and do 5d6 (or at best 6d6), whilst giving them +5 to their Lance skill (potentially pushing it to 21 or more, increasing the chance of crits) and them doing 6d6 or 7d6 damage in return? In some rare cases (Sword 20, Lance 15) a PK might risk it, especially if they are more concerned about getting a shield armor bonus, but most of the time, they opt for Lance, too. Or even if their enemy doesn't have a lance: 15+5 = 20, and that 7d6 helps a lot. And once their skill is 16 or above, it becomes much easier to crit with a lance. I hear what you are saying, though. If I have Sword 20 and Lance 15, get +5 for charging regardless of the weapon, and do 6d6 on either weapon, then of course I am using a Sword. Dropping the +5 charge bonus for non-lances, and especially using the basic rule of the opponent getting +5 if you are not using a lance (rather than +5 for you if you are using a lance), and this math starts changing rapidly. I know I would rather use Lance 15 vs. Lance 20 than Sword 20 vs. Lance 25 any day of the week! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Morien said: Sure, if you swamp the PKs with plenty of enemies, then the PKs will take more criticals. Stands to reason. However, in this context, this is a bit of a red herring, since: a) it was a siege and the PKs are presumably on foot anyway, and b) even if they were not on foot, Great Spear already negates the vs. mounted malus. Actually the PKS were mounted as they were trying to exploit a breech in the wall, and the greatspear only partially negates the mounted advantage (the riders still get the +5 for being above). But one aspect of the PKS facing more than one footman (common) is that not only do the enemy get more attacks, but they tend to stick around longer, leader to even more attack. So if one opponent normally lasts one round and gets one chance to crtical, two opponents probably means two rounds of fighting with three chances of a critical. 2 minutes ago, Morien said: Now I can get your point that if the Spears also counter the -5 penalty, then they become more useful on the battle field, but on the other hand, you seldom face repeated rounds of combat in Battle rules, unless you are in extended melee (most often against higher tier enemies who use Swords or Great Axes or whatnot). So whether the enemy spearman survives or not doesn't matter. Where the enemy spearman survive or not doesn't matter. Where or not the PKs have to stick around to face him for another round does. While you are correct about players going into extend melee against higher tier enemies (more glory and ransom) they often have to go into extend to save other knights who were injured or unhorsed. So increasing the effectiveness of the spearmen increases the chances of a PK needing to be rescued, which increases the chance of extended melee and a second PK going down, etc.etc. This is made even more likely if the opponents are inspired-something that is more of a group problem in battles than in adventures. So it does exist in Battle as well as normal combat. 2 minutes ago, Morien said: I recognize your concern in normal combat, though, and there is also the point that having two or three damage rolls (from any weapons) coming in a single round is also potentially deadly, since the PK doesn't have time to go unconscious in between. So it is more likely that they drop deep to minus hit points and die. Yeah, it one of the things about Pendragon that is simple but doesn't quite work. Sequencing when fighting mutiple foes. All the mlee damage comes in and goes out at once. 2 minutes ago, Morien said: However, this is partially countered by the fact that the spear only helps if the opponent is mounted, and if the opponent is mounted, then the opponent has already a big advantage anyway. Furthermore, spear tends to be the cheap levy weapon so the spearmen tend to be less skilled and do less damage than the more elite opponents*. For instance, I would much rather face 2 spearmen with Spear 12 and 4d6 damage, than 2 Saxon raiders with Axe 14-5=9 and 5d6+1d6 damage. Especially if using the RAW double damage on a critical rules. By RAW, certainly, as spear doesn't get an advantage against mounted by raw, greatspear does. I'm less bothered by your mod here (spear +5 vs mounted, greatspear +5 vs mounted +1d6 damage). I'm more concerned about any sort of closing rule that extends the fighting by a round or two. And again, as I mentioned to Wolfspack Six, It's not that I'm against upgrading the spear, only that I believe a GM should be hesitant about changing things and carefully consider a rule change and it's pros and cons. Based upon previous experience I'd say you pass that litmus test! But I have seen a lot of GM houserule stuff that has come back to bite them, and it was usually by causing some sort of intended side effect. 2 minutes ago, Morien said: * This is a bit of a roleplaying trope, admittedly, as in reality, almost everyone would start a battle with a spear and only switch to an axe or a sword as a secondary. Although in a duel situation I could see throwing the spear and switching to a more handy weapon right off the bat, if facing an armored swordsman. Yes, in real life a spear is actually a really good weapon. In most RPGs it's a lower tier weapon that loses out to other weapons. 2 minutes ago, Morien said: Only Lance gets the +5 charge bonus vs. Non-lances (and non-Great Spears) in basic rules; no other weapon does. Book of Battle introduced it for all charging units, even on foot (IIRC), and I really dislike that additional rule. Get rid of that and the PKs will be much more likely to use a Lance even on the battlefield. In any case, it should NOT be used in normal skirmish/melee combat. Yes BoB did. Frankly I never really like the rule in standard KAP. Wielder a lance in a charge shoudl probably be more difficult, not easier. 2 minutes ago, Morien said: As for boosting up lance, we added +1d6 to all Lance damages across the board, as mentioned in my house rules -thread, partially in order to keep up with the higher damage stats that the PKs have nowadays. This also helps to make cheaper horses more usable war horses for sergeants and even household knights, keeping the loot value down a bit. That sounds good. I've been thinking of altering mount db to (STR+SIZ)/8, or just add +1 point per die to the knights' damage. So a typical knight would do 5d6+6 for a charger. The problem is one of those things that crept in over the years as PKs have gotten tougher in latter editions. Average SIZ has gone from 3d6 to 2d6+6 to 3d6+4 with starting knights going from having to work to get 4d6 to starting on the cusp of 5d6. I remember when starting with 5d6 damage was a big thing. The journey to 6d6 isn't what it used to be. Lance charges, by reaimaing the same, have suffered. 2 minutes ago, Morien said: Also important to note is that when you are facing other knights in normal combat, do you wish to take your Sword and do 5d6 (or at best 6d6), whilst giving them +5 to their Lance skill (potentially pushing it to 21 or more, increasing the chance of crits) and them doing 6d6 or 7d6 damage in return? In some rare cases (Sword 20, Lance 15) a PK might risk it, especially if they are more concerned about getting a shield armor bonus, but most of the time, they opt for Lance, too. Or even if their enemy doesn't have a lance: 15+5 = 20, and that 7d6 helps a lot. And once their skill is 16 or above, it becomes much easier to crit with a lance. Generally, yes. In play knights get to use sword a lot more than they tend to get a lance charge off. Compound this with the breakage rules and most PKs focus on Sword, so it tends to be significantly higher than lance. Most PKs would much rather go with the risk of increasing the opponent's critical than risk failure/fumble and the "loss" of their shield. 2 minutes ago, Morien said: I know I would rather use Lance 15 vs. Lance 20 than Sword 20 vs. Lance 25 any day of the week! Most of my players wouldn't. They are more afraid of taking a hit or a critical without their shield than taking a critical with one. This is partially due to the lower protection provided by armor in the early periods. With the average knight having 10 point armor, a lance charge has about a 50-50 chance of inflicting major wound to someone without a shield. Now, yes statically, a 30% of 12d6 (ave 42) vs 16 should be worse than a 24% chance of 6d6 (21) vs 10 with a 1% chance of 12d6 vs 10, but my players are more worried about death through failure (something they feel thay have some control over) vs. death by critical (which they view at out of their hands, even when it isn't). But then they are more likely to have Sword 23 and Lance 18, which alters the math somewhat. Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morien Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 1 hour ago, Atgxtg said: So it does exist in Battle as well as normal combat. Ah well, I don't use the Book of Battle, so it is less of a problem for us. 1 hour ago, Atgxtg said: All the mlee damage comes in and goes out at once. Well, it would be possible to house rule this so that whichever opponent is first in the rolling order gets his hit in first, then check if the PK is still conscious, and then deliver the second blow if he is, ignoring it if he isn't. You could even make it fair in a sense that if the PK had been the one to win the second exchange, he doesn't get to damage the second opponent if he goes unconscious against the first. This would mitigate the double-hit issue somewhat and make it less likely for the PK to die. 1 hour ago, Atgxtg said: By RAW, certainly, as spear doesn't get an advantage against mounted by raw, greatspear does. Yes, but my point was that I would still rather face Spear 12-0=12 4d6 vs. Axe 14-5=9 5d6+1d6, even if Spear would negate the penalty. 1 hour ago, Atgxtg said: And again, as I mentioned to Wolfspack Six, It's not that I'm against upgrading the spear, only that I believe a GM should be hesitant about changing things and carefully consider a rule change and it's pros and cons. Based upon previous experience I'd say you pass that litmus test! Alrighty then. 1 hour ago, Atgxtg said: Frankly I never really like the rule in standard KAP. Wielder a lance in a charge shoudl probably be more difficult, not easier. It is not that, it is more of a reach advantage of the couched lance. When you switch to spear-mode, you grip it more in the center, losing the reach advantage. But yeah, it is a bit of a trope to make the lances more useful. I don't mind it, though, since Lances by themselves are very flimsy. You likely get to use it once and then discard it anyway since you will be in melee and switch to a sword... So giving the PKs reason to use the very emblematic knightly weapon of a lance is a good thing, IMHO. 1 hour ago, Atgxtg said: Most of my players wouldn't. They are more afraid of taking a hit or a critical without their shield than taking a critical with one. OK, although as your math shows, they really should worry more about the critical. But agreed, it depends a lot on the skill levels in question, not only theirs but the opponents' as well. Fully agreed that the Players tend to prioritize their characters' Sword/Melee skill over Lance, simply because they likely get one or two Lance charges per fight at the very best, but will be swinging the other weapon the rest of the time. Since we use Glory Bonus Points also as Fate Points (which players tend to hoard for a rainy day), the skills above 20 are rare, giving Lance some time to catch up. They usually get a check in both during the year, so the difference is usually only a few points, seldom as big as 5 points. So the +5 to Lance if the enemy doesn't have a Lance is still plenty of motivation. Or, as mentioned previously, preventing the enemy from getting that +5 and increasing the crit chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Morien said: Ah well, I don't use the Book of Battle, so it is less of a problem for us. Yeah. It used to be a lot easier to rescue downed PKs. A simple squire roll. Now it's a fight. Quote Well, it would be possible to house rule this so that whichever opponent is first in the rolling order gets his hit in first, then check if the PK is still conscious, and then deliver the second blow if he is, ignoring it if he isn't. You could even make it fair in a sense that if the PK had been the one to win the second exchange, he doesn't get to damage the second opponent if he goes unconscious against the first. This would mitigate the double-hit issue somewhat and make it less likely for the PK to die. We could, except that there really is no order to rolling. Technically higher DEX goes off first, but generally the PKs are fighting rank & file types with the same DEX it works out to all the attacks happening at the same time. I supposed I could stagger the stats so that there is a Spearmen with a DEX of 10, one will and 11 a third with a 12 and so on, but that's a bit of a pain. Besides, it's not that much of an issue, and quite frankly, there is some realism to a guy taking a wound and being able to hit someone else before dropping. But it is something else that ups the danger of ganging up on a character. Quote Yes, but my point was that I would still rather face Spear 12-0=12 4d6 vs. Axe 14-5=9 5d6+1d6, even if Spear would negate the penalty. At 4d6 I would too. It still is the bounce off armor, minor scratch stage. Quote Alrighty then. Yeah, it probably got lost in the confusion but this all stemmed from my advice to be cautions about making changes without thinking them through. It's not that I'm against changing or houseruling stuff. I probably do that as much as anybody, and certainley have considered houseruling just about every aspect of the game at one time or another. Bows, horse, armor, shields, siege engines, saddles, Roman chargen. Quote It is not that, it is more of a reach advantage of the couched lance. When you switch to spear-mode, you grip it more in the center, losing the reach advantage. The grip isn't that much further back on a couched spear. Now the latter "lance" type lances, yes. But they would be closer to greatspears, being about 12' long. The thing is the game directly ties the advantage to the charge, not the lance. Otherwise it would be useful for knights to use it more. Lance certinaly has an advance with one against Arthur in Excalibur. Quote But yeah, it is a bit of a trope to make the lances more useful. I don't mind it, though, since Lances by themselves are very flimsy. You likely get to use it once and then discard it anyway since you will be in melee and switch to a sword... So giving the PKs reason to use the very emblematic knightly weapon of a lance is a good thing, IMHO. Lance certinaly needed something. It was decent in olf KAP but has suffered as knights have bulked up since the 80s. Quote OK, although as your math shows, they really should worry more about the critical. But agreed, it depends a lot on the skill levels in question, not only theirs but the opponents' as well. Yeah, the realtive skill scores play a big factor. Most of the PKS in my group push sword over 20, and spear tends to lag as they only have so many glory points to spend. THe exception is the PK who is wielding Rhongomiant, but he won't have that for much longer. Quote Fully agreed that the Players tend to prioritize their characters' Sword/Melee skill over Lance, simply because they likely get one or two Lance charges per fight at the very best, but will be swinging the other weapon the rest of the time. Yup. Plus Swords don't break and everything used against one does. IMO Spears do need a little something. It's just that whatever they get will end up coming at the expense of aPK. Quote Since we use Glory Bonus Points also as Fate Points (which players tend to hoard for a rainy day), the skills above 20 are rare, giving Lance some time to catch up. They usually get a check in both during the year, so the difference is usually only a few points, seldom as big as 5 points. So the +5 to Lance if the enemy doesn't have a Lance is still plenty of motivation. Or, as mentioned previously, preventing the enemy from getting that +5 and increasing the crit chance. With us, since Glory Bonus Points break all the other rules, players tend to use them to get skills to 20 quickly, or over 20 to eliminate fumbling and increase the chance of getting a critical; go for a trait bonus; up a passion; and to improve attributes for a damage boost or to counteract aging. So GBPs typically have a greater impact than just one more skill point. The current fad is to play a squire and try to get Sword and Horse to 20 before getting knighted. But that sort of stuff is always a tradeoff. Edited February 19, 2020 by Atgxtg Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Six Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 On 2/17/2020 at 5:45 PM, BioKeith said: On a tangent - is there a list anywhere of suggested prices for the arms/armor - the 5.2 rules cover the stuff that is available at the start of the campaign, but I haven't found a list for any of the things that become available later. Another tangent! Good question, @BioKeith. I don't remember seeing prices for the arms & armor available later in the game. Maybe someone with all the supplements knows... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Six Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) 18 hours ago, Atgxtg said: But adding realism isn't necessarily an improvement. Well, I think it is, again as long as it doesnt slow things down by making things too complex. Quote Why? Increasing the potential of killing to NPCs isn't an issue. You don't have to worry if the NPCs will bother to show up for the next game session. The players on the other hand, you have to make an effort to keep. RPGs aren't about being fair. IF GMs ran things "fair" the player characters would die off a lot faster, considering the sort of things they do. RPgs are intensitcally "unfair" but, unfair in the players favor in order to keep the game interesting. I haven't had any issue with players showing up for the next game session, at least not because of rules being too realistic. Quote Yes, but that means that there is nothing wrong with a knigth using one, not that it is a weapon exclusive to knights. Spears were the most common weapon on the battlefield until the introduction of firearms. It's not a contest between the NPCs and the PCs. It's a game where the players get to play knights. If half the PCs and NPCs kill each other off every game session that is not "fair", that's trouble for the GM. If half the PCs get killed off for doing something that gets them killed when they should've known better, then we'll just spend more time on character generation. Quote I'm not asking you to change how you run or to not consider rule changes. What I am asking to to do is think about the effects of those rule changes and if they will actually improve the gaming experience or not. I get the impression that you think that I don't actually think about the effects of rule changes. Not that I'm trying to convince you that I do, but of course I do. That is the whole point to changing rules: the effects that they will or could potentially have. Quote The goal of Pendragon isn't to be realsitic or simulate the real world -it is the play in an Arthurian world. Well, that might be your goal, and the goal of many players, and perhaps even the goal of Greg Stafford and anyone else who had a hand in creating Pendragon. However, if it's an either-or proposition, then that is not my goal. My goal is to play in an Arthurian world that has perhaps a bit more realism added to it. Quote There is something wrong with doing so without considering the consequences of doing so. A GM should always look at the pros and cons of any change they are considering. I think human beings in general weigh the pros and cons of actions they're about to take. Quote Now that doesn't mean you shouldn't change anything, but you should consider the pros and cons of doing so. Okay, so that's like the third time you've said this in this particular response. And I havent gotten through all of it yet... Quote As far as I can tell the big pro is to give more love to the spear at the risk of increased PK injury and death. You can look at it that way if you choose. I choose to look at it as possibly modeling one weapon more realistically. Quote Definitely, but that doesn't mean than any and every proposed change is necessarily an improvement. Okay, well I think changing spears is an improvement. Quote No. Verisimilitude is the willing suspension of disbelief. That is it is the ability of the audience to go along with something that they know isn't real because it seems or feels real enough to work for the story. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verisimilitude https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verisimilar Quote And it can be, if realism is the goal. But Arthurian fiction isn't striving for realism. Your Arthurian fiction might not be. Mine is. Quote Now if you make spears, and thus footmen, better against horsemen, you will find that you players will soon be feeling realistically dead. That is a possibility. Quote And that's just it. Game reality isn't the same as actual reality. Thus a knight or horseback fighting righteously will defeat some dirty commoner wielding a spear. If he does it right, he'll defeat the bloody peasant. If he does it wrong, he'll wind up wounded or dead. Quote What I'm trying to say is upping the risk might not be the best thing for your game. I appreciate your concern, but I think "the greater the risk, the greater the reward". Games, and really life in general, is a whole lot more rewarding when you actually earn what you've gained. If you win victories because of unrealistic rules stacked in your favor, somehow I think those victories will not be as meaningful as the ones where you struggle against greater odds. Quote And if are things are not equal, if they are ordered to charge they should charge. Knights are expected to obey thier leige lord. Than 99% of liege lords are idiots. Look at medieval battles. Charging spearmen was a thing. Successfully doing it, less so. Knights are expected to bring honor and glory to their liege lords. A great way of doing that is by winning battles and not squandering their lord's soldiery, noble or otherwise. Yes, it would appear that 99% of liege lords were/are (in the game) tactically idiotic. I don't have an issue admitting that. I've looked at medieval battles extensively throughout my life as a student, as a professional, and as a hobby and I do come away with the impression that the military art was not particularly sophisticated during the era depicted by Arthurian fiction, at least of the romantic sort. It's not like it is a huge secret or anything. Charging well-armed, disciplined spearmen was a great way to thin the herd of aristocrats and aristocratic wanna-be's. Quote You mean insubordination, cowardice and treason? I highly doubt that a knight who gave his lord reasonable tactical advice would be considered insubordinate, cowardly, or treasonous. I mean, some lords might look at it that way. So, they can lead the charge into those thickets of spears and thereby earn glorious deaths for themselves and their valiant bands of intrepid warriors. Or! You can just keep spears as they are, wade through a sea of spear-wielding tackling dummies and hack them to pieces. All hail the conquering heroes! Quote Much like with the example of the "peasants can be trusted to govern themselves" belief, chivalry is based upon obedience and a belief that knight will prevail if they are true enough. The French knights blamed their losses at Crecy and Agincourt on a lack of courage and chivalry rather than bad tactics. Chivalry was not based on blind obedience, and it was not predicated upon the notion that "if only you believe hard enough", you'll win. Chivalry was a code of behavior for the military aristocracy; and the military aristocracy would've gone extinct within a generation or two if it fought stupidly. As far as the French go, they drew the wrong conclusion from Crecy and Agincourt. The English "fought smarter"... and won. BREAK Okay, I can keep on going, but I think I've said enough to make my point, and it is getting tedious responding point by point over and over again. The bottom line is that I understand where you're coming from (KAP, RAW, is not meant to be realistic), and I accept the point you're trying to make about being careful when implementing changes. I don't think giving spears a realistic advantage in reach (for instance) is going to break the game, ruin player morale, or make it any less Arthurian. If you do, then I guess just don't change spears in your game. Edited February 19, 2020 by Wolfpack Six Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 On 2/17/2020 at 5:45 PM, BioKeith said: On a tangent - is there a list anywhere of suggested prices for the arms/armor - the 5.2 rules cover the stuff that is available at the start of the campaign, but I haven't found a list for any of the things that become available later. Yeah there is, sort of, and it's a little confusing. There have been several prices lists for the game over the years. A price list with prices for Towns and Cities, another for Great Cities, and yet another one for the latter periods of the game. Since the income for knights has shifted a bit over time, so have the prices. K&L does give prices for all the horses, as did Knight's Adventurous. But I don't think there was even official prices listed for plate or Gothic plate. Based upon the progression in earlier editions I suspect the price probably doublets per step, and probably increased by another 50% or so when the armor is new and in high demand, and probably drops off by about 50% when in low demand. I idea that I had was to consider fixing the prices of armor not by the armor but in terms of quality. That is the common armor worn by knights for a given period would cost £4 or £5, and then doubling/halving that price for each step up/down down there. The idea being that as time goes by and newer armors show up the older ones fall out of fashion and all that old armor can be bought and sold used at a lower price. Meanwhile advances in technology and economies of scale make the newer armor less expensive to produce over time. That way I'd only need one price table and then could just shift the default protection up on down by Period. It would also make is easier for PKs to upgrade armor by paying the difference to pick up the pieces to augment what they already have. 1 Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Six Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 18 hours ago, Atgxtg said: Why does it have to be implemented across the board? Typically it wasn't. The rich and powerful usually get the good stuff before everyone else. GMing ins't about striking a fail balance between the PCs and the NPCs. I think this question should be addressed... When I say that something should be implemented across the board, what I mean is that if a PC can use a weapon and all its advantages or disadvantages, then NPCs should have those same advantages or disadvantages. It's not necessarily a rich vs. poor thing. So, I do see one aspect of GMing as striking a fair balance between the PCs and the NPCs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Wolfpack Six said: I think this question should be addressed... When I say that something should be implemented across the board, what I mean is that if a PC can use a weapon and all its advantages or disadvantages, then NPCs should have those same advantages or disadvantages. It's not necessarily a rich vs. poor thing. So, I do see one aspect of GMing as striking a fair balance between the PCs and the NPCs. Okay, but why? Have the NPCs been complaining? Remember an RPG is for the benefit of the players. It's not any sort of fair competition between the PCs and the NPCs, it's rigged from the start in favor in the PCs. The NPCs do not need fair representation. Since the GM gets to create the NPCs they can have pretty much anything the GM wants to give them anyway. Sometimes they even have things the players can't get. For instance Arthur can draw the sword from the stone, but the PCs cannot. NPCs serve story and plot functions. RPGs are not any sort of fair contest between the GM and the players. It's not a wargame. Edited February 20, 2020 by Atgxtg Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.