"New" Economic model: Standards of Living, Extra Squires & Officer Pay Bonus

[Luca Cherstich]

Every time I go back to “Warlord” I find new things…and new doubts!

 

DOUBT no.1: STANDARD OF LIVING COST in Core Rules

This is not from Warlord, but rather from the Core Rules 5.2 (p.183-184) …I ask here, just to be sure.

Is the following esteem of MINIMUM costs correct?

Impoverished = ?

Poor = £3

Ordinary = £6

Rich = £10 (every +£1 beyond this minimum = +1 Glory in Winter Phase)

Superlative = £15  (every +£1 beyond this minimum = +1 Glory in Winter Phase)

 

Related question: spending more than the minimum for Ordinary (£6) and Poor (£3) knights does not seem to give Glory….right?

 

DOUBT no.2: STANDARD OF LIVING in the New Model

According to the “New Model” (Warlord p. 172) the “Standard of Living” is equal to:

Family Expenses (which is 10% of CR) + Pay Bonus + £5

What does this mean in case of earning more than the basic amount for one’s standard of Living?

If so, are the following Examples Correct?

 

EXAMPLE no.1:

the £27 Westfort manor I asked about in another thread.

Standard of Living: £ 2.7 (Family) + none (the knight is not an officer=no pay bonus) + £5 = £7.7

The result (£7.7) is higher than the basic cost of Ordinary Knight (£6) but not enough to reach the Rich level (£10). What’s the consequence?

Just a non-mechanic/pure-fluff consequence of saying that the Knight is living “slightly better” than ordinary knights?

 

EXAMPLE no.2:  a £60 Estate

Standard of Living: £ 6 (Family) + none + £5 = £11

This qualifies for “Rich” (£10) but what happens for that +£1??? Will it give +1 Glory?

 

DOUBT no.3: Pay Bonus

This should add the Officer’s Standard of Living (Warlord p.167-168).

This was not clear the first time I read about Officer’s pay in Estate….will this mean that this is NOT extra money to be used as one wishes, right?

It is money which serves ONLY for living better, right?

If so, are the following examples correct?

 

EXAMPLE no.3

So, for example I am a Household Knight of Roderick (which, I guess, will feed me to live as an Ordinary Knight) and, as a prize, he will make me Castellan of one of his castles.

My pay (according to Warlord p. 47, should be £ 3 (maybe even more, since Roderick’s Honour is bigger than £1000, but let keep things simple and let say £3).

This means that I’m living as an Ordinary Knight (which costs £6) + £3 spent in “better living” but ... with no mechanic consequence since £9 does not make me rich the “Rich Knight” standard of living level.

 

EXAMPLE no.4

I am a £50 estate holder exactly respecting the model on Estate p.40 (which means I live as a Rich Knight spending £10).

Roderick will make me a Castellan (+£3).

For my Standard of Living I now spend £ 10 (from my estate) +£3 (Pay Bonus) +£5 since i have an estate= £18

This will make me Superlative (£15) but £18 is +£3 above my standard of living, will I get +3 Glory per year?

 

EXAMPLE no.5

I am Sir Elad, a Household Knight (Roderick makes me live as an Ordinary Knight spending £6 for me) + £5 (Marshal) + £3 (Castellan of Vagon) = £14.

I live at Rich Standard of Living (£10) + £4 which means +4 Glory per year.

 

 

DOUBT no.4: Additional Squires!

According to Warlord p.169 (but it was also present in the models in Estate p.40 and 42) additional squires are paid ONLY with Discretionary Funds.

OK….so what forces me to have one? I guess it’s “social links with noble families” and “it is expected from you”.

So… looking ad Standard of Living in Core Rules p.184 it looks like:

- Rich Knights are required to have 1 Extra Squire

- Superlative Knights are required to have 2 Extra Squires.

If the above assumptions are correct….

-          What Happens if a Rich (or a Superlative) Knight does not want to have an Extra Squire required? Any mechanic penalty?

-          Extra Squires are paid with “Discretionary Funds” which are 10% of CR…so what happens to Sir Elad in Example 5 of the previous entry? He is a Household Knight, therefore no CR. I guess the Earl will just pay an extra squire for him….

 

 DOUBT no.5: Income to Treasure Transformation

This is not a question but rather something which I just realized…

In the past I forgot this thing…but checking Warlord p.51 and 168 I realized that if you want to keep the Discretionary Funds (which is just “food”) for the future you must translate it into Treasure which means dividing by 2… Auch!

This is clearly something which should be clearly indicated in a Winter Phase model!  I hoped they put it in Estate but they did not!

Edited April 13, 2020 by Luca Cherstich

[Morien]

2 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

DOUBT no.1: STANDARD OF LIVING COST in Core Rules

 

Ordinary = £6

Rich = £10 (every +£1 beyond this minimum = +1 Glory in Winter Phase)

Superlative = £15  (every +£1 beyond this minimum = +1 Glory in Winter Phase)

Related question: spending more than the minimum for Ordinary (£6) and Poor (£3) knights does not seem to give Glory….right?

First of all, I think those numbers are wrong and it should be £9 and £12, but never mind that for now. The issue is that it should be +1 Glory past the £6 ordinary, since as you pointed out, otherwise you do not gain any Glory for spending more. And it would make no sense that you'd gain 4 Glory for spending £14 and none for spending £15. In our house rules, we dropped the other benefits of high Standard of Living and just gave 10 Glory per £1 extra (above £6) spent.

2 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

 DOUBT no.2: STANDARD OF LIVING in the New Model

The result (£7.7) is higher than the basic cost of Ordinary Knight (£6) but not enough to reach the Rich level (£10). What’s the consequence?

Just a non-mechanic/pure-fluff consequence of saying that the Knight is living “slightly better” than ordinary knights?

As said above, I would give the guy extra 17 Glory (£1.7 Conspicuous Consumption), but if going by above rules, giving him an extra 1 Glory would be the least you could do.

2 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

EXAMPLE no.2:  a £60 Estate

Standard of Living: £ 6 (Family) + none + £5 = £11

This qualifies for “Rich” (£10) but what happens for that +£1??? Will it give +1 Glory?

I would give 50 Glory, the rules ought to give 5 Glory.

2 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

DOUBT no.3: Pay Bonus

This should add the Officer’s Standard of Living (Warlord p.167-168).

This was not clear the first time I read about Officer’s pay in Estate….will this mean that this is NOT extra money to be used as one wishes, right?

It is money which serves ONLY for living better, right?

Correct and Correct. Now, the GM as the liege could instead allow a marriage, and take charge of supporting the wife, but the way this is intended is that the officer gets better food by sharing the high table with his liege, finer clothing as Christmas gifts (as the Lord maintains his household knights), and so forth. So it ought to be non-transferable. It is not cash in hand.

2 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

This means that I’m living as an Ordinary Knight (which costs £6) + £3 spent in “better living” but ... with no mechanic consequence since £9 does not make me rich the “Rich Knight” standard of living level.

I think I have already made my feelings known on how I think the Glory should be calculated, even in absence of my own house rules.

2 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

DOUBT no.4: Additional Squires!

 

According to Warlord p.169 (but it was also present in the models in Estate p.40 and 42) additional squires are paid ONLY with Discretionary Funds.

OK….so what forces me to have one? I guess it’s “social links with noble families” and “it is expected from you”.

Nothing, but having extra squires is good in Battles and generally helping with any extra horses and whatnot. In addition to the social links, of course.

2 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

So… looking ad Standard of Living in Core Rules p.184 it looks like:

- Rich Knights are required to have 1 Extra Squire

- Superlative Knights are required to have 2 Extra Squires.

If the above assumptions are correct….

-          What Happens if a Rich (or a Superlative) Knight does not want to have an Extra Squire required? Any mechanic penalty?

Nah. They simply don't benefit from having a second squire. Rather than penalize them, I would give them extra +1 Glory per squire as per the rules in Book of the Entourage about extra followers. I also might give the PK some grief if they have plenty of horses and just one squire.

2 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

-          Extra Squires are paid with “Discretionary Funds” which are 10% of CR…so what happens to Sir Elad in Example 5 of the previous entry? He is a Household Knight, therefore no CR. I guess the Earl will just pay an extra squire for him….

You could easily lower the Pay Bonus by £1 and give Sir Elad an extra squire instead. Makes perfect sense to me that an officer might need an extra squire to do some running around and delivering messages.

2 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

 DOUBT no.5: Income to Treasure Transformation

This is not a question but rather something which I just realized…

In the past I forgot this thing…but checking Warlord p.51 and 168 I realized that if you want to keep the Discretionary Funds (which is just “food”) for the future you must translate it into Treasure which means dividing by 2… Auch!

This is clearly something which should be clearly indicated in a Winter Phase model!  I hoped they put it in Estate but they did not!

That is something that Greg added to Warlord, to encourage the spending rather than the hoarding. It was on oversight to not include it to ESTATE when we revised it. Mea culpa.

That being said, I don't use that 2:1 rule in our campaign and it works just fine. The PKs are mainly making their fortunes out of loot anyway, so it is just one less hassle for me to worry about, and makes it easier for the NPCs to afford dowries and such.

[Morien]

2 hours ago, Morien said:

First of all, I think those numbers are wrong and it should be £9 and £12, but never mind that for now.

I didn't stop to think about that before, nor am I sure if this was planned, BUT...

£9 + £1 extra squire = £10

£12 + £2 extra squires = £14 (almost £15, we can assume that the squires are getting nicer livery and all that for the extra £1...)

[Luca Cherstich]

2 hours ago, Morien said:

First of all, I think those numbers are wrong and it should be £9 and £12,

OK...so £9 for Rich and £12 for Superlative?

2 hours ago, Morien said:

First of all, I think those numbers are wrong and it should be £9 and £12, but never mind that for now. The issue is that it should be +1 Glory past the £6 ordinary, since as you pointed out, otherwise you do not gain any Glory for spending more. And it would make no sense that you'd gain 4 Glory for spending £14 and none for spending £15. In our house rules, we dropped the other benefits of high Standard of Living and just gave 10 Glory per £1 extra (above £6) spent.

OK....we know that the new model for the "Standard or Living" cost is = to that formula (Family Expenses (10% of CR) + Pay Bonus + £5)

So....whatever the result, +10 Glory per Extra above £6?

What do you suggest?

It sounds OK and clearly Easy Fix, although it is clearly more (x10) generous in Glory than the typical "Conspicuous Consumption" of £1 = +1 Glory.

What's the maximum cap? 100 Glory?

 

[Luca Cherstich]

4 minutes ago, Morien said:

I didn't stop to think about that before, nor am I sure if this was planned, BUT...

£9 + £1 extra squire = £10

£12 + £2 extra squires = £14 (almost £15, we can assume that the squires are getting nicer livery and all that for the extra £1...)

OK...but in Estate p.40 (and Warlord p.169) Extra squires are not included in the Standard of Living part, but are calculated as to be detracted from Discretionary Funds.

So the £50 estate holder spends £10 to live as a Rich Knight but also spend + £1 from Discretionary Funds to have a second squire...

 

Are you saying that this system is wrong? (even if apparently repeated twice in both Estate and Warlord?).   

[Morien]

39 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

Are you saying that this system is wrong? (even if apparently repeated twice in both Estate and Warlord?).   

No. You should follow BotW and BotE.

What I was just idly musing was if the KAP 5.2 values can be explained if you add the extra squires in and assume that they are part of the standard of living, as they are in KAP 5.2. But it is much cleaner to keep the extra squires out of it. That is the decision Greg came to when we were doing BotW and revising BotE & BoEnt.

[Luca Cherstich]

24 minutes ago, Morien said:

That is the decision Greg came to when we were doing BotW and revising BotE & BoEnt.

1) Now that you mentioned BoEnt...

I have the revised edition (which I guess you worked on) and it says +1 Glory per £1 of expenses in retinue....I guess this Glory bonus is only for people you hire with Discretionary Finds Beyond those servants mentioned in the models?

2) Are you doing a house rule of Cospicuos Consumption of £1 = 10 Glory  instead than the basic £1 = 1 Glory? Or is the amount shown in Core Rules wrong?

 

[Morien]

2 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

1) Now that you mentioned BoEnt...

I have the revised edition (which I guess you worked on) and it says +1 Glory per £1 of expenses in retinue....I guess this Glory bonus is only for people you hire with Discretionary Finds Beyond those servants mentioned in the models?

Correct, only the extra people give extra glory. The court and servants who are part of the estate's normal budget are already accounted for in the landholding Glory.

2 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

2) Are you doing a house rule of Cospicuos Consumption of £1 = 10 Glory  instead than the basic £1 = 1 Glory? Or is the amount shown in Core Rules wrong?

I think I was clear that the £1 = 10 Glory is the house rule we are using. We found that no one was spending money if all it gave was a measly 1 Glory per £1. 1 Glory is next to nothing. Now, at 10 Glory per £1, it is starting to become something that MIGHT tempt some players, especially if they are close to a Glory Bonus Point.

However, the RAW in BotE (p. 48) is £1 = 2 Glory. This was also partially so that there was some point in just spending the money rather than hiring a large entourage, where there really wasn't if both gave the same amount of Glory. Now, it needs to be pointed out that the rules in BotE differ from KAP 5.2 also in that there doesn't seem to be a soft cap anymore. Spend £100, gain 200 Glory. At 2 Glory per £1, this is hardly a problem. Even at 10 Glory per £1, I would be tempted to let it stand.

 

[Baba]

I love Pendragon, but I don't love the many subsystems.

Glory for standards of living is one of the parts that we have just houseruled away. Not because it doesn't make sense to get glory for standards of living, but because that seems to be covered by other rules.

You already get annual glory for your holdings. In addition, your holdings also give you annual £, that you can spend on conspicuous consumption. Those two mechanics together lead to rich knights getting glory for living well - a third mechanic giving another pittance of annual glory seems superfluous to me.

We HAVE houseruled greater glory rewards for conspicuous consumption, though, in our case 5 glory/librum, as discussed in another thread. So the glory we miss from dropping this, we get reimbursed through gifts and feasts and luxuries.

https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/10315-childbirth-and-child-survival-moriens-recommended-quick-fix/?do=findComment&comment=178962

[Luca Cherstich]

37 minutes ago, Morien said:

However, the RAW in BotE (p. 48) is £1 = 2 Glory. This was also partially so that there was some point in just spending the money rather than hiring a large entourage, where there really wasn't if both gave the same amount of Glory. Now, it needs to be pointed out that the rules in BotE differ from KAP 5.2 also in that there doesn't seem to be a soft cap anymore. Spend £100, gain 200 Glory. At 2 Glory per £1, this is hardly a problem. Even at 10 Glory per £1, I would be tempted to let it stand.

OK...but if I start applying the "Conspicous Consumption" Glory award to each +£1  beyond £6, it will become another (very small but continuous) Glory bonus for anyone having larger than basic manors (due to the new Standard of Living calculation) and which applies every year.

I'm tempted to use the "£1 = +2 Glory" from BoE only because I suspect (am I wrong?) that the new correction was not updated in 5.2...

I really like the Estate/Warlord system. Maybe it's only badly explained, but it is great.

I really hope they will integrate it in the 6th edition, but also hope that they will show clear indications about the minutiae of the linked sub-systems (Glory award rates, standards of Living, Entourage, etc...).

[Atgxtg]

49 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

I'm tempted to use the "£1 = +2 Glory" from BoE only because I suspect (am I wrong?) that the new correction was not updated in 5.2...

Yes. I believe the 2 for 1 rule came out after 5.2.

 

BTW the 6/912 thing for standard of living weas the old rule and I believe the latest version was +5 extra per grade of maintenance.  

49 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

I really like the Estate/Warlord system. Maybe it's only badly explained, but it is great.

More like it clashes with a lot of little things that already existed. Everything really needs to be brought up to date. One of the things about Pendragon is that each addition had supplements that added on things that didn't get carried over to later edtions or if they were, didn't get updated. So there are a lot of little artifacts in the "rules" from previous editions. For instance, ransoms used to be set at 3x the knights'' income. Should ransoms be raised to reflect the new economic model or not? Is 3x the income too high, now that we got a better overview of the economics? 

 

Greg had a habit of tinkering with rules, publishing the changes, then tinkering some more and changing things again. While the goal was noble, striving to make the game better, the effect was that the rules are outdated or contradictory in places. 

49 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

I really hope they will integrate it in the 6th edition, but also hope that they will show clear indications about the minutiae of the linked sub-systems (Glory award rates, standards of Living, Entourage, etc...).

Me too. What I think a lot of us would like to see is everything make consistent between products.At least for the stuff that is used universally, like the cominc system. Stuff like the battle rules can get by with multiple variants, since those sections are more modular and self contained. 

[Morien]

2 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

OK...but if I start applying the "Conspicous Consumption" Glory award to each +£1  beyond £6, it will become another (very small but continuous) Glory bonus for anyone having larger than basic manors (due to the new Standard of Living calculation) and which applies every year.

Feel free to drop it, honestly. I am more than happy to handwave that as part of the Landholding Glory, too. It is just 10% of the Landholding Glory, after all. Although to be honest, I went the the other way in our campaign and now give Glory for higher upkeep, but not for just hoarding money and not spending it as a nobleman should. Passive ownership of land should not give Glory, IMHO. It is being seen to be wealthy that is worth Glory: "Did you see Sir So-and-So in his new silk cape? That must have cost him a fortune!" Since I give +£1 SoL per £10 land and 10 Glory per extra +£1 SoL spent, this actually comes down exactly to £X land = X Glory, same as before.

3 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

the new correction was not updated in 5.2...

A lot of things were not updated in 5.2. It was primarily a layout upgrade, and a lot of actual rule changes were explicitly deferred to KAP 6. Trust me, I bitched a lot about the childbirth and child survival not getting fixed... *grumble mumble*

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Is 3x the income too high, now that we got a better overview of the economics? 

It is. Using 3x Upkeep would work much better, and even that is somewhat high given how little slack the knight has in his finances.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Morien said:

It is. Using 3x Upkeep would work much better, and even that is somewhat high given how little slack the knight has in his finances.

Yes, 3x upkeep is pretty much what it is now, since the knights upkeep hasn't changed. For what I've seen ransom was highly negotiable, with one year's income appearing closer to the mark. I believe Richard I ransom was around £56000, which in KAP terms would support 5600 knights for one year., probably less. 

I hope that KAP6 brings all that stuff together and makes thing internally consistent, but usually Pendragon has just kept kicking the can down the road. KAP5 especially, due to the haphazard nature of it's production. 

[fulk]

Yes. It's frustrating.  5.2 was a bit of missed opportunity in many ways.  It would be nice to consolidate things and have a coherent set of values and rules across all publications for v6.

 

[Atgxtg]

On 4/13/2020 at 7:24 PM, fulk said:

Yes. It's frustrating.  5.2 was a bit of missed opportunity in many ways.  It would be nice to consolidate things and have a coherent set of values and rules across all publications for v6.

 

Well, in Greg's defense, with the way KAP5's support and status changed, and how he had to self publish some of the supplements, and his untimely passing right as he was getting around to updating it all, it wasn't really anyone's fault.

A lot of KAP5 stuff barely managed to get out at all. 5.2 was mostly cleaning up the text from 5/5.1 and shifting the focus to a campaign startingin the Uther Peroid (a mistake, IMO. I think the core book should have focused on King Arthur).

As for KAP6, yes it would be nice if the rules and consolidated and made consistent throughout the books. I just hope that KAP6 doesn't throw out all the KAP5 stuff, or go down the path of sub-dividing everything into multiple books that many RPGs have done lately. I don't want to have to buy a half dozen books in order to play through the whole campaign. And before someone notes the current state of Pendragon, I'll point out that a GM doesn't have to use the Book of Battle, Entourage, Armies, etc. They can get by quite nicely with the core rulebook and the GPC. Subdividing the GPC into smaller, period specific books geared to people who only want to game in one era might sound appealing to some, but I think ultimately it could just turn into selling the same the same information over several books that end up costing a lot more. Five of six $20 books vs one $60 GPC.

 

 

[fulk]

Quote

 

Very true. 

[Percarde]

I am writing this just to express my opinion.  It is not my intent to hurt anyone's feelings or suggest that anyone  is wrong.

I for one have no intension to buy an edition 6.0.  I have found that games that keep changing editions are only doing that to remain relevant and to squeeze a little more money out of the gaming public.  I am not saying this is wrong of them but that I will not be buying it.  I know that the most common reasons given for new editions is to correct errors and fix awkward rules.  However, I have to say that I haven't really witnessed the truth of that.  Some basic mistakes keep finding their way into the new editions.  For example, simple things like kilometers and miles conversion.  Has estates or holdings gotten any better from the first rules through Lordly Domains to Book of Manor, Estate or Warlord?  Debatable.  The system has changed but to me it seems more like changing the ingredients without figuring out the recipe...

The thing is, I have bought everything in either hardcopy or pdf from first edition to 5.2 with a few exceptions.  Don't need feast rules, book of battle 2, book of armies 2, maps, and forms.  Why?  I'd never use them.  For example, character sheets; I use my own excel sheet during creation.  Then I have found that most want a lot of the data in pencil on a character sheet that comes with the game.  Most I do is paste their arms in it before printing the blanks...  Just me and the people I play with...

 

As to the topic of this thread, if you want to do accounting, if you are playing with me, lets just look at the new system and make it work for us.  Who cares if it is accurate according to some medieval model or if it is according to the rules.  If it makes sense to us, and you have fun with it?  Works for me.

Edited April 15, 2020 by Percarde
typo

[Atgxtg]

15 hours ago, Percarde said:

I am writing this just to express my opinion.  It is not my intent to hurt anyone's feelings or suggest that anyone  is wrong.

I didn't think you were, I was just trying to explain why the rules are such a hodgepodge. For most  of KAP5 Greg was trying to get stuff out when he could becuase he wasn't sure if he would get the chance to do so later. 

15 hours ago, Percarde said:

I for one have no intension to buy an edition 6.0.  I have found that games that keep changing editions are only doing that to remain relevant and to squeeze a little more money out of the gaming public. 

I get your point, but I don't believe it is always the case. In some cases, especially when written by the same author(s), such as with Pendragon, the game system was actually improved in some ways between editions. Bt a lot of the time companies do use a new edition as a way to resell the same product over again, with minimal effort.

 

As for KAP6, I'm adopting a wait and see attitude. If it's good and has some sort of improvements, or even just the clarifications and corrections many of us have desired, I'll buy it. If it turns out to just be an attempt to resell the same rules I've bought over half a dozen times already, then I won't, although I might buy supplements for it if they turn out to be useful. 

15 hours ago, Percarde said:

I am not saying this is wrong of them but that I will not be buying it.  I know that the most common reasons given for new editions is to correct errors and fix awkward rules.  However, I have to say that I haven't really witnessed the truth of that.  Some basic mistakes keep finding their way into the new editions.  For example, simple things like kilometers and miles conversion.  Has estates or holdings gotten any better from the first rules through Lordly Domains to Book of Manor, Estate or Warlord?  Debatable.  The system has changed but to me it seems more like changing the ingredients without figuring out the recipe...

I think a lot of that was due to the changes of ownership and control the game went through over the years. Originally it was all by Greg, then Chaosium exerted more of an influence (supposed there is a KAP4 supplement that Greg didn't like), then Green Knight controlled the game and Greg has no say in it, then Greg got control of it again under White While's Art Haus line, then Greg was allowed to self publish supplements for it, then it  it shifted over to Nocturnal and Greg's supplements were made official and started to get revised, and finally it went to Chaoisum. 

So the game really hasn't had a stable consistent line since early KAP4. 

15 hours ago, Percarde said:

As to the topic of this thread, if you want to do accounting, if you are playing with me, lets just look at the new system and make it work for us.

I'm not playing with you, merely tryint to explain how and why the game has some of the inconsitiences it does, and why the economics don't quite work. 

15 hours ago, Percarde said:

  Who cares if it is accurate according to some medieval model or if it is according to the rules.  If it makes sense to us, and you have fun with it? 

The OP for one. LUca did want to know if something was according to the rules. As for medieval models, the game does draw heavily upon the medieval model, right down to the use of the manor as the basic economic unit. Greg and other used that medieval model to try and work out some sort of sensible consistent economic model for the game. 

 It would be foolish to ignore that while addressing any discrepancies in the rules, as they would only lead to more inconsistency.  

15 hours ago, Percarde said:

Works for me.

Greg. So if it works for you, what are you posting about?

 

 

[fulk]

I can certainly understand not wanting to shell out $$ for a new edition if there aren't real changes that make the game better.  However,  better is to some extent a matter of taste.  There isn't really anything wrong with the Nobles Book or Lordly Domains, but the flavor is certainly different than BoWarlords or BoEstate (or BoManor).  As Atgxtg notes, v5 is a bit all over the place because of changes in ownership.  If I remember correctly, publication of the KAP5 core rules had a lot to do with getting something in print again and incorporating some changes. Realistically with such a simple game mechanic, not that much is going to change from edition to edition to some extent. 

My personal favorite is still KAP4.  Partly, it is what I first found and started with.  Partly, it has lots of stuff in one place. 

As for setting, I think I would prefer the core rule book to start in 531 or so with Arthur as King or maybe 510 so PKs can be involved in the early wars, perhaps with some info on equipment by time period so that people could bounce back to 485 w/o GPC and run Uther-based adventures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Percarde]

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I didn't think you were, I was just trying to explain why the rules are such a hodgepodge. For most  of KAP5 Greg was trying to get stuff out when he could becuase he wasn't sure if he would get the chance to do so later. 

I get your point, but I don't believe it is always the case. In some cases, especially when written by the same author(s), such as with Pendragon, the game system was actually improved in some ways between editions. Bt a lot of the time companies do use a new edition as a way to resell the same product over again, with minimal effort.

 

As for KAP6, I'm adopting a wait and see attitude. If it's good and has some sort of improvements, or even just the clarifications and corrections many of us have desired, I'll buy it. If it turns out to just be an attempt to resell the same rules I've bought over half a dozen times already, then I won't, although I might buy supplements for it if they turn out to be useful. 

I think a lot of that was due to the changes of ownership and control the game went through over the years. Originally it was all by Greg, then Chaosium exerted more of an influence (supposed there is a KAP4 supplement that Greg didn't like), then Green Knight controlled the game and Greg has no say in it, then Greg got control of it again under White While's Art Haus line, then Greg was allowed to self publish supplements for it, then it  it shifted over to Nocturnal and Greg's supplements were made official and started to get revised, and finally it went to Chaoisum. 

So the game really hasn't had a stable consistent line since early KAP4. 

I'm not playing with you, merely tryint to explain how and why the game has some of the inconsitiences it does, and why the economics don't quite work. 

The OP for one. LUca did want to know if something was according to the rules. As for medieval models, the game does draw heavily upon the medieval model, right down to the use of the manor as the basic economic unit. Greg and other used that medieval model to try and work out some sort of sensible consistent economic model for the game. 

 It would be foolish to ignore that while addressing any discrepancies in the rules, as they would only lead to more inconsistency.  

Greg. So if it works for you, what are you posting about?

 

 

I suspect there is a language issue between us.  I was just expressing my opinion about a potential new edition.  If this type of feedback isn't important, should I delete by post for you? 

Got to say that I rarely prefer yes man when I'm on a forum.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Percarde said:

I suspect there is a language issue between us. 

Perhaps.

1 hour ago, Percarde said:

I was just expressing my opinion about a potential new edition. 

Why did you post in in this thread about the new economic model, and not in the thread about the new edtion?

1 hour ago, Percarde said:

If this type of feedback isn't important, should I delete by post for you? 

What feedback? Feedback is a response to something. What you did was post about something unrelated.

1 hour ago, Percarde said:

Got to say that I rarely prefer yes man when I'm on a forum.

Neither do I. 

I just don't understand what you were doing. You jumped into a thread about the economics of the game to post about the possible new edition, and that the economics aren't important? Could you clarify?

[Percarde]

A lot of things were not updated in 5.2. It was primarily a layout upgrade, and a lot of actual rule

changes were explicitly deferred to KAP 6.

 

As for KAP6, yes it would be nice if the rules and consolidated and made consistent throughout the books. I just hope that KAP6 doesn't throw out all the KAP5 stuff, or go down the path of sub-dividing everything into multiple books that many RPGs have done lately. I don't want to have to buy a half dozen books in order to play through the whole campaign. And before someone notes the current state of Pendragon, I'll point out that a GM doesn't have to use the Book of Battle, Entourage, Armies, etc. They can get by quite nicely with the core rulebook and the GPC. Subdividing the GPC into smaller, period specific books geared to people who only want to game in one era might sound appealing to some, but I think ultimately it could just turn into selling the same the same information over several books that end up costing a lot more. Five of six $20 books vs one $60 GPC.

 

Both comments appear before I allegedly went off topic as I was accused.  I happened to agree with the second including the idea that you don't need a bunch of theoretical books to explain the economy.  Just do what works for you and you players.  Is it wrong, probably no different than what has been published.

Anyway, I will note that necroposting, one topic for thread and whatever are militantly policed except for some.

[Atgxtg]

17 hours ago, Percarde said:

Both comments appear before I allegedly went off topic as I was accused.  I happened to agree with the second including the idea that you don't need a bunch of theoretical books to explain the economy.  Just do what works for you and you players.  Is it wrong, probably no different than what has been published.

Anyway, I will note that necroposting, one topic for thread and whatever are militantly policed except for some.

Nothing has been militantly policed. If if were then something would have actually been done about you post. Instewad I just pointed out that there is an existing thread for KAP6 and what it may or may not contain, and that this one was posted by someone who had questions about the economic model from the Book of the Warlord, and the primary purpose of this thread should be to address the OPs topic.