Morien's Musings on GMing Different GPC Periods

[Morien]

Since I got asked the question... Here are some disjointed thoughts on GMing the various periods in the GPC.

 

0. General Stuff

https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/11000-helpful-suggestionsadvice-for-new-playersgms-what-books-etc/

 

1. UTHER

I have written about starting in 480, and it has a lot of my thoughts what the Uther Period is for:
https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/13822-if-you-start-the-campaign-in-480-for-gms/

I also like to lean more towards the idea that Uther checks out after 493 or so, meaning that his favorites get to run a bit roughshod over less favored nobles. For instance, rather than having the three brothers as the Rydychan Usurpers, I'd use the Trio, who straight-up just take over the castles under the pretense of reassessing the honour and simply never give them back to the rightful heiress. This being the case, I would be inclined to ditch the 493 Embassy to Malahaut completely, and move the Estregales Embassy to earlier, while Uther still trusted the PKs and they likely trusted him. Instead, 493 - 494 should see this kind of corruption take over, heralding the Anarchy to come.

 

2. ANARCHY

My original GM advice for the Anarchy led to the question of the other periods, and here is the link to that old post:
https://greathall.chaosium.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-2589.html

I'll mention here in addition that one of the BIG questions the GM ought to have been asking from the start of the campaign onwards: what is the power-level I want the PKs to have in this campaign? Will they be influential nobles with estates and honours, or will they just be very famous knights? If you want to push the PKs to the ranks of the higher nobility, Anarchy is your first good opportunity to do it, as if you are skilled, wealthy and ruthless enough, land is there for the taking. There ought to be consequences, but possession is nine tenths of the law, especially when there is no king to reinforce the laws...

 

3. BOY KING

The Boy King is a rather busy period with all the big battles already, so I don't have much to add there save that this is the time when the PKs are likely to earn a lot of Glory and goodwill from Arthur.

I did make this post about old Saxon kings at Badon Hill:
https://greathall.chaosium.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-2617.html

And answered this one about what Aelle might be up to during the Boy King Period, since he is so passive in the GPC:
https://greathall.chaosium.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-2582.html

Saxons! has a nice section on how the Badon Hill looks from the Saxon eyes, and it has several 'opportunities' that can be used with some tweaking on the Cymric side, too.

I am very much AGAINST the idea of slating 50% of the PKs for the chop at the Badon Hill. It depends on the GM's plans (see the next paragraph), of course, and how old the PKs are. In our first playthrough, I ended up TPKing the PKs, since the campaign was going to go on an indefinite hiatus due to my move to the other end of the country from my university rpg buddies. It worked very well. However, if you started with the Starter Set in 510, the PKs have been played just 8 years or so. I'd be looking for a generational shift at the end of the Conquest, instead. However, I am VERY much in favor of killing off several named characters from Anarchy and even Boy King period. Time for those mentors and other extraneous NPKs to eat a Saxon axe!

Post-Badon comes the Great Landgrab. All those Saxon Kingdoms are conquered (well, in Logres anyway), and that means there is suddenly a lot of land to be returned to their rightful owners, or to be used to reward the surviving heroes. Heiresses with landclaims to those regions are suddenly back in vogue, and Arthur is also encouraging knights to marry Saxon widows/heiresses in order to make the reconquest a bit more palatable to the Saxons, who in some cases have spent three generations in Britain already. Obviously, Anglia, with its Vengeful Duke Hervis, will not be assimilated back that easily, and atrocities will occur. In any case, this is probably the best time in the campaign for a bunch of PKs to get an estate or even a honour/barony.

 

4. CONQUEST

The Early Conquest would be a good time to go adventuring, for example if the PKs skipped the Forest Sauvage earlier, now they have time to explore its mysteries. The adventures in the Savage Mountains in particular seems to be geared towards this time period, Tournament of Dreams (from Tales of Mystic Tournaments) is another good adventure. I'd likely save the Cambrian War a bit later... While it fits to the ethos of Conquest Period, we have just finished one period with one war following another, and the Roman War is in the Horizon. It would also give Maelgwn some time to cement his control of Gomeret and be more difficult to dislodge, if he has taken over after Pellinore's death and Arthur doesn't have time to react until mid-530s. The Adventure of the Circlet of Gold (ToMT again) is a good one to start at this time, too, and it has a lot of replay value.

As a prelude to the Adventure of the Heart Blade (actually a mini-campaign spanning years, in the excellent Blood & Lust book), the PKs ought to attend the Contest of the Queen's Knights and interact with Sir Amren, a Round Table Knight and the wielder of the Heart Blade.

As for the Roman War, I wrote a couple of things about it and the Franks:
https://greathall.chaosium.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-2612.html

https://greathall.chaosium.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-2613.html

 

5. ROMANCE

The Adventure of the Heart Blade and romancing the fair maiden Ahvielle, the daughter of Sir Amren, is pretty much a must here. I ended up having two PKs vying for her attention, which admittedly distracted a bit from the 'love at first sight', but did fit well with the idea of the ladies having more than one suitor trying to prove their worthiness. If no other PK is available for this, I would be inclined to put in an NPK, just to keep the player on their game. I also sped up the romancing a bit more, having the challenges issued at Pentecostal Court and then another one at the Grand Tourney of Logres (see below). Oh, I also allowed the PKs to find Sir Amren's body and spoil the kidnapping of Ahvielle a few years before as a prelude, just to tie them more firmly to the plot rather than just hear about it after the fact.

The Grand Tourney of Logres is another good adventure (The Spectre King, 3e, NOT Tales of the Spectre Kings!), with multi-year replay value. My players got so eager for this that I had to give the poor Sir Lupin a heart attack to stop this tournament happening every year. It was also a way to show off the Orkney-de Gales strife.

The Cambrian War is another one that the PKs can get involved in, and it could even lead to a PK becoming a petty king in Cambria, if they play their cards right! It can also highlight the Orkney - de Gales feud, when Maelgwn is not ousted from Gomeret but allowed to keep his crown, rather than replaced by Aglovale or another of Pellinore's sons.

Blood & Lust has an Adventure of the Castle of Tears, which is another good adventure in Romance Period.

Obviously, the Adventure of the Circlet of Gold is a gift that keeps on giving, and the Tales of Chivalry & Romance fit well here, too.

The Adventure of the Horned Boar (The Spectre King or Tales of the Spectre Kings) is another good one that is set in this period, although I also keep saying that with some minor adjustments, it can be played all the way back in Uther Period, too.

There is less in the GPC for the PKs to get involved in. It is mainly Tristram and Lancelot doing great things and the PKs hearing about them. I did get my Cornish PKs involved in some of Tristram's shenanigans, including picking up Isolde for King Mark, and Tristram and Isolde falling in love instead. And there is of course the Camille Rebellion in Anglia for the PKs to contribute in. Which is another one of those big events that you can reward the PKs with lots of lands. You can easily have Camille even kill Duke Hervis, thus leaving the Duchy open for a PK to get (or split between several heiresses whom the PKs may marry, as thanks from grateful King Arthur). However, as you can see from the previous, where GPC slacks off, there is more than enough published adventures for you to stuff this Period full of excitement. I don't really like getting the PKs involved in wars in France nor in Ireland; there was enough of that in Conquest. This is also why I don't really like giving the PKs lands in France/Ganis or in Ireland, since it gets them out of Britain and adventuring.

I used the Treacherous Pict (from Beyond the Wall) to tie in Guenever's kidnapping to the kidnapping of a couple of PKs' wives, who were held by the Dal Riada Irish and the Picts, respectively. Obviously that took some tweaking, but it worked well enough.

 

6. TOURNAMENT

Tournament follows the Romance in that there is even less in the GPC proper for the PKs to get involved in. I tend to go harder for Faerie adventures in early Tournament, Castle of Joy is a good one (from GPC), and obviously the Tales of Magic & Miracles works, too. Tales of Chivalry & Romance is another good source for adventures to keep the PKs busy.

But there is the shade that is creeping in. The Orkney - de Gales feud comes more to the front, with the death of Margawse and then Lamorak. I like to kill off Tristram and Isolde by 548, too, and have 548 as an Annus Horribilis, when everything comes crashing down, the Yellow Pestilence expanding the Wasteland suddenly to cover all of Logres (having been mainly confined to Cumbria until that time, the PKs potentially having seen its effects there if they have traveled through it). Yellow Pestilence, by the way, is an excellent way to prune down those family trees.

The Late Tournament is miserable time in my campaigns, resembling more the Grail period in the GPC. This is a good time for the religious adventures in the Tales of Magic & Miracles, to get the PKs more prepped up for the Grail, and obviously the Stone House adventure from the GPC is useful to herald the Engine. I also have more banditry and unrest, although it doesn't explode fully until later. I tend to tamp down on the tournaments: when there is pestilence everywhere and crop failures and the like, it seems somewhat offputting to put on great shows of pageantry. YPWV.

 

7. GRAIL

Alas, the GPC doesn't really give you a Grail Quest. There are several adventures in the Wastelands and you can use them, let the PKs try and then bounce off. With all the knights off questing, the peasant unrest explodes here and there, Saxon revolts, Cornish Invasion... There is a lot of stuff for the PKs to do back home. Also, there is always the possibility of a liegelord being captured and needing ransom/rescue, etc. With Arthur sick and the famous knights gone, and the plague and the peasant revolts, it is a mini-Anarchy, only now you are starving and getting sick, too. Not a fun time.

With the death toll amongst the RTKs and other nobility due to the Yellow Pestilence and especially the Grail Quest, there are definitely seats at the table for any surviving PKs, who have distinguished themselves. And I wouldn't put it past Mordred to be trying to befriend them and grease their ascension to the Round Table and maybe even to a barony (or their heir to marry an heiress of one), if they look like they could be useful to him (and that being the game style that the GM wants).

 

8. TWILIGHT

While the Grail Period ends up with this promise of a new dawn, it is a false dawn. Twilight is all show and no substance. The best of the Round Table are mostly dead, and Mordred's politicking ensures that the replacements are mainly his allies.

When we played through this period, I got somewhat fed-up with how useless Arthur and his knights were in the face of Brian's invasions. And while they are narrative reasons for that (see an answer I got in the following thread), I resolved to rewrite that a bit:
https://greathall.chaosium.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-2648.html

In our campaign, the highest-glory PKs ended up in the corridor for the Lancelot's arrest scene, and it did not go well for them. On hindsight, I made a GMing mistake, as it pretty much took the high-Glory PKs off the board exactly when their voices would have been most useful. So I doubt I would do it again, or if I did, I would try to make sure that there was a good healer standing nearby to patch them up again and hope that Lance didn't crit too much. Anyway, I do feel that it kinda stole the wind from the sails of those players (and hence some momentum from the campaign), even though I did like the final couple of years to Camlann, and Camlann itself ending very nicely, IMHO.

 

Here is a link to our first playthrough, starting in early years of 2000s, and ending in 2016 (covering 4e 503 - 518 with Warren Mockett's campaign outline I managed to find on the internet for 503-509 + The Boy King, and then the rest with 5e and GPC):
https://greathall.chaosium.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-2829.html

Edited March 1 by Morien

[Morien]

Obviously, feel free to add your own thoughts and experiences or further questions here. 🙂

[Udy Kumra]

Thanks for this great write-up Morien! I use your posts as reference all the time 😄

I'll add that the land-grabbing of Anarchy ought to bite the player-knights in the butt sometime in the Boy King. It may not be Arthur doing it, especially because the PKs might be super influential advisors to him depending on the campaign power level, but it might be big political headaches they have to deal with. Like if you seized Rydychan instead of restoring it to the Countess over there, Ulfius and the other great nobles might now try to pressure you to give it up, and there might be raids on your lands if you refuse. Arthur might choose to remain aloof of all this infighting so long as they don't bring it to him, and if the player-knights are stupid enough to bring it to him they'll come across his famous sense of justice that might tell them they don't have a legal claim to the land when there are heirs of age. All that could make for interesting drama!

One piece of advice I'll add for new GMs, whether using 5.2e, 6e, or some other edition is this: you are best off starting in the Boy King Period, barring some very specific situations that may make a different period a better start. The Boy King Period onwards has a lot more adventure support from previous and forthcoming supplements both, plus this is the period where chivalry comes into play, and soon enough romance comes up as well. This is where you start seeing all the famous characters like Gawain and Guinevere. This is the game that people often sign up to play. As a bonus, anyone wanting to try out the game can do so with the Starter Set which has adventures starting in the Boy King Period.

There's a few reasons to start in other periods, though:

• Uther Period: You might want to start here if you really want to emphasize the generational play, since you get 30 extra years to build those mega-families. You might also want to emphasize the themes of how might makes right is replaced with chivalry later on. In general, though, I think this period isn't a great start because it's very much a gritty war drama and very different from what a lot of people associate with Arthurian legend, plus the gameplay can get quite repetitive with all the military action and battles.
• Anarchy Period: This might be a good start if you want to show some of the hopelessness before Arthur, or again emphasize the might-makes-right theme (though I don't think it is as great as if you start in the Uther Period). Also, it might be worth starting in 505 rather than 495 so you can go along with Nanteleod's wars against the Saxons, watch him get pummelled, and lead into the Sword Tournament.
• Conquest Period: I don't really recommend starting here, but it might work if one wants to jump to the first period where the wars aren't really mandatory and where you can just do adventures.
• Romance Period: This is a great starting point, and actually I will run a campaign starting in this period sometime, because you can just run a kind of sandboxy adventures-driven campaign. There's tons of adventures set around this time. Tournament Period is pretty much the same, but you get more time starting in the Romance. Plus, courtly romance and tournaments become big here, and who doesn't like that
• Grail Quest and Twilight: If for whatever reason you just want to experience the tragedy of the ending of Arthurian legend, you can start here. I don't think it's a great idea though lol.

Mostly I anticipate if people don't start in the Boy King Period, which is the best period to start in, they'll be best off starting in Uther, Anarchy 505, or Romance.

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Udy Kumra said:

I'll add that the land-grabbing of Anarchy ought to bite the player-knights in the butt sometime in the Boy King.

Book of the Warlord, p. 101, addresses this very thing.

As for your other comments about the best period to start from, I am in agreement:
Uther: Best if you want to do a real deep dive and have an extra generation.
Boy King: Best all-around.
Romance: Best if all you are interested in is the high adventure, courtly amour and knight errantry.

Edited March 4 by Morien

[merlyn]

One advantage with starting during the Boy King Period (or later): You don't have to worry over the player knights' response to Uther's war with Gorlois over Igraine (I recall an earlier thread here on that subject), and possibly trying to change history by getting rid of Uther before he can beget Arthur.

[Udy Kumra]

5 hours ago, merlyn said:

One advantage with starting during the Boy King Period (or later): You don't have to worry over the player knights' response to Uther's war with Gorlois over Igraine (I recall an earlier thread here on that subject), and possibly trying to change history by getting rid of Uther before he can beget Arthur.

I think this can be addressed in one of two ways:

1. Keep the players very distant from the top level during the Uther Period. In a game where I was a player, the GM took this approach, so the idea of killing Uther never really entered my mind because I felt like such a small fish (even though I was cracking 8000 glory by Terrabil) and the combat system was so unforgiving that it didn't really seem at all feasible.
2. Make Uther's quest for Ygraine more sympathetic. This one might be controversial, but a friend brought up the point that if Uther and Ygraine were actually in love, and he was trying to take her away from Gorlois, that might work better specifically in a ttRPG context to keep the group comfortable. Of course that might not work thematically, so just depends on GM.

But still, I see your larger point: starting in the Boy King means that you don't have to deal often with players potentially having moral problems with their leaders and trying to change that. I agree.

[Udy Kumra]

Also I wanted to ask other GMs about my idea for the Conquest Period: I think it would be hella fun to allow the veterans of the Saxon wars here to take the reins of a particular war in this period. Perhaps they take a leading role in the Irish conquest, or they lead a theater of war in the Roman war—things like that. Does anyone have experience running this kind of thing?

I ran a mini-conquest of Clarence in the Anarchy Period that was really fun for my players, so this would just be a larger version of that, I guess.

[Tizun Thane]

On 3/1/2024 at 11:59 AM, Morien said:

5. ROMANCE

To be honest, there is plenty of good stuff published during the third and 4e edition.

Blood and Lust, The Spectre King, Tales of Chivalry and Romance... Heck, even Tales of Magic and Miracles is useful.

[Morien]

10 hours ago, merlyn said:

One advantage with starting during the Boy King Period (or later): You don't have to worry over the player knights' response to Uther's war with Gorlois over Igraine (I recall an earlier thread here on that subject), and possibly trying to change history by getting rid of Uther before he can beget Arthur.

I don't think this is a big issue... there are enough levers in the GPC to get the story back on track.

1. It is unlikely that the PKs are even aware what is going on until after Gorlois and Ygraine escape. If they kill Uther after that, maybe he already had his way with Ygraine and that was the reason for Gorlois whisking her away. (I believe this happened in one of the campaigns I have heard about.)

2. If for some reason the PKs kill Uther prior to Uther meeting with Ygraine, maybe Madoc can step in, and then the subsequent legends got it wrong: Arthur is Uther's grandson, not son.

The bigger issue would be the ick of having Uther deceive Ygraine or taking her by force/threats. This could be triggering for some players. But it would be simplicity itself just to remove that from the narrative. Either by making it a love-match even pre-rebellion (as Udy suggested), or simply taking away the sneaking into Tintagel part (or taking away Uther sleeping with Ygraine while in disguise). Uther marries Ygraine, she becomes pregnant via normal means, and Arthur is born a bit later. Additional bonus is that you get a slightly younger Arthur for the Boy King.

I do not think that Uther entering Tintagel disguised as Gorlois is necessary. It is a canon event, but if it causes issues at your table, why include it?

[Morien]

2 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

To be honest, there is plenty of good stuff published during the third and 4e edition.

Blood and Lust, The Spectre King, Tales of Chivalry and Romance... Heck, even Tales of Magic and Miracles is useful.

You can add Perilous Forest, and Savage Mountains, and Tales of Mystic Tournaments to the list, too.

Romance is one of the easiest Periods to GM in a sense that you have all those published adventures to draw from. Very easy to run an adventure per year and just let the Players enjoy being knights erranting all over the place.

[Morien]

4 hours ago, Udy Kumra said:

Also I wanted to ask other GMs about my idea for the Conquest Period: I think it would be hella fun to allow the veterans of the Saxon wars here to take the reins of a particular war in this period. Perhaps they take a leading role in the Irish conquest, or they lead a theater of war in the Roman war—things like that. Does anyone have experience running this kind of thing?

Read the Cambrian War in the Savage Mountains. It seems pretty close to what you are wanting.

GPC's Roman War offers a couple of suitable Battles, and of course if the PKs are glorious enough and high enough in the pecking order, they might lead a battalion/wing of a larger battle, too. Also, the start of the Roman War, the pacification of France, offers loads of chances for relatively small size battles over individual castles or counties. GPC abstracts those into a simple roll in the French War Events table, but you could very easily write it out into a small campaign of its own.

In our campaign, after the PKs returned from the Roman War, rather than the Lady Elyzabel being the reason for the new French War during Romance, it was the new French King not recognizing the conquests Arthur had given to his knights, and unjustly seized those territories. The PKs joined Sir Kay in reclaiming his Duchy (Normandy as in the GPC rather than Anjou as in HRB). After landing, Kay's army spread out to try and defeat the local Norman lords before the French Royal army could interfere. Thus, the Battle of Mortain was fought mostly under PK control, about 40 knights and hundred footmen per side.

As you pointed out, GPC does offer chances in Romance and later for the PKs to take a lead in fighting in various wars in Ireland and Ganis. However, personally I think those are distractions from the main draw of the Romance Period. Instead, I think you are on the right track to rather give the PKs a chance to lead. You can even give them a small army and fight an action against a portion of the Roman army to prevent them from escaping to Italy, away from Arthur's army, and hence have to stand at Saussy to fight. And that makes all the difference. Or if you wish to be more HRB compliant, maybe they slow down the Roman army enough that Arthur gets to Saussy first to prepare the battlefield, even if they end up losing that smaller battle. It is very easy to make up these various smaller actions and tie the results to the events of the larger campaign.

Arthur assigning commanders to various battalions of his army, before the Battle of Saussy (in HRB):
"Disposing his men in companies as he thought best, he posted one legion close by under the command of Morvid, Earl of Gloucester, so that, if need were, he would know whither to betake him to rally his broken companies and again give battle to the enemy. The rest of his force he divided into seven battalions, and in each battalion placed five thousand five hundred and fifty-five men, all fully armed. One division of each consisted of horse and the remainder of foot, and order was passed amongst them that when the infantry advanced to the attack, the cavalry advancing in close line slantwise on their flanks should do their best to scatter the enemy. The infantry divisions, British fashion, were drawn up in a square with a right and left wing. One of these was commanded by Angusel, King of Albany, and Cador, Duke of Cornwall, the one in the right wing and the other in the left. Another was in command of two earls of renown, to wit, Guerin of Chartres, and Boso of Rhedicen, which in the tongue of the Saxons is called Oxford. A third was commanded by Aschil, King of the Danskers, and Lot, King of the Norwegians. The fourth by Hoel, Duke of Armorica, and Gawain, the King's nephew. After these four were four others stationed in the rear, one of which was in the command of Kay the Seneschal and Bedevere the Butler. Holdin, Duke of the Ruteni, and Guitard, Duke of the Poitevins, commanded the second; Vigenis of Leicester, Jonathal of Dorchester, and Carsalem of Caistor the third, and Urbgenius of Bath the fourth. To the rear of all these he made. choice of a position for himself and one legion that he designed to be his bodyguard, and here he set up the golden dragon he had for standard, whereunto, if need should be, the wounded and weary might repair as unto a camp. In that legion which was in attendance upon himself were six thousand six hundred and sixty-six men."

[Tizun Thane]

19 hours ago, Udy Kumra said:

• Grail Quest and Twilight: If for whatever reason you just want to experience the tragedy of the ending of Arthurian legend, you can start here. I don't think it's a great idea though lol.

 

Agree. Strange idea to start here. This eras are great to play, because you played the golden age of the reign of Arthur.

For the Conquest/Romance period, until there is new material from Chaosium, I highly recommend Knights Adventurous, because every lord, every army, is here. Great Source.

[merlyn]

9 hours ago, Morien said:

I don't think this is a big issue... there are enough levers in the GPC to get the story back on track.

1. It is unlikely that the PKs are even aware what is going on until after Gorlois and Ygraine escape. If they kill Uther after that, maybe he already had his way with Ygraine and that was the reason for Gorlois whisking her away. (I believe this happened in one of the campaigns I have heard about.)

2. If for some reason the PKs kill Uther prior to Uther meeting with Ygraine, maybe Madoc can step in, and then the subsequent legends got it wrong: Arthur is Uther's grandson, not son.

The bigger issue would be the ick of having Uther deceive Ygraine or taking her by force/threats. This could be triggering for some players. But it would be simplicity itself just to remove that from the narrative. Either by making it a love-match even pre-rebellion (as Udy suggested), or simply taking away the sneaking into Tintagel part (or taking away Uther sleeping with Ygraine while in disguise). Uther marries Ygraine, she becomes pregnant via normal means, and Arthur is born a bit later. Additional bonus is that you get a slightly younger Arthur for the Boy King.

I do not think that Uther entering Tintagel disguised as Gorlois is necessary. It is a canon event, but if it causes issues at your table, why include it?

Of course, there's still the "Uther lusts after the wife of one of his noblemen and plunges the kingdom into civil war as a result" aspect.

As for the deception of Igraine (and all of this, I should warn, is coming more from the perspective of an amateur Arthurian buff than a gamemaster, I should add), it is (from the perspective of Geoffrey of Monmouth's account) the whole point of the story - to give Arthur a magical and marvelous conception (one used for other mythical or semi-mythical heroes such as Heracles and Alexander the Great).  Although I can't help thinking that the story doesn't quite match this element to its surroundings.  The obvious difference is that Uther is at war with Gorlois over Igraine at the time, a concept not found in other such tales (in which the "real father disguised as the husband" is a god or magical being who visits the mother in disguise while her husband is away, opportunist fashion).  I suspect that Geoffrey, setting Arthur's birth after Britain had been converted to Christianity (necessary when following Arthur's dating to the Saxon invasions), felt that he couldn't use the notion of a god siring Arthur in that setting - so he had to make it Uther, and in turn, have Gorlois slain quickly afterwards so that Uther could marry Igraine and bestow some level of legitimacy upon Arthur (with a separate party - Merlin - providing the magical disguise).  And in turn, the most economical way of doing this was to have Gorlois slain fighting Uther over Igraine.

But in the new setting, the more logical solution of Uther's problem would be to defeat and slay Gorlois (breaking the apparent stalemate in the siege of Gorlois's castle somehow) rather than to pay a one-night visit to Igraine in Tintagel, disguised as Gorlois (even if Uther apparently seems too impatient to wait for a plan to resolve the aforesaid stalemate - which, ironically, is resolved shortly after he leaves), especially since, if anything went wrong, Uther would be trapped in the castle surrounded by men loyal to the Duke.  It feels like moving a painting to a new frame that doesn't suit it as well as the original.

All the same, there is one advantage of having the King Uther Period with all the examples of Uther and his nobles' "Might makes RIght" attitude (not only the case of Gorlois and Igraine, but also, a bit earlier in the "Great Pendragon Campaign"'s account, Uther and Prince Madoc deserting Syagrius in spite of their alliance with him); it brings home the need for something better, something to be represented by Arthur and the Round Table.

[Morien]

11 hours ago, merlyn said:

All the same, there is one advantage of having the King Uther Period with all the examples of Uther and his nobles' "Might makes RIght" attitude (not only the case of Gorlois and Igraine, but also, a bit earlier in the "Great Pendragon Campaign"'s account, Uther and Prince Madoc deserting Syagrius in spite of their alliance with him); it brings home the need for something better, something to be represented by Arthur and the Round Table.

Sure. The GPC could go even harder on this angle. At the same time, it should also highlight more of Uther's more admirable aspects, which it doesn't always do. Granted, the default Salisbury PKs are not really in Uther's orbit, but it would certainly make them appreciate Uther somewhat more if at the Sword Feast, rather than just getting a pat on the head, Uther rewards them with something more. Perhaps not quite a manor each (although that would be an option), but something like a decorated sword and swordbelt each (obviously he hasn't those ready right now, but by Easter Court) and declares that henceforth, in any royal feast, these knights will always be seated above the salt as a sign of Royal Favor. Show off Uther's generous, gregarious side, too.

My Uther follows Sulla's personal motto: "No better friend, no worse enemy."

Edited March 6 by Morien

[Hzark10]

I am all in favor of highlighting differences between the various Periods. It will make them stand out more in comparison to each other. It also highlights the challenge of navigating the entire GPC when they have different emphasis and challenges.

[Udy Kumra]

On 3/5/2024 at 10:36 PM, Morien said:

Read the Cambrian War in the Savage Mountains. It seems pretty close to what you are wanting.

I have! I'm looking forward to running that.

On 3/5/2024 at 10:36 PM, Morien said:

GPC's Roman War offers a couple of suitable Battles, and of course if the PKs are glorious enough and high enough in the pecking order, they might lead a battalion/wing of a larger battle, too. Also, the start of the Roman War, the pacification of France, offers loads of chances for relatively small size battles over individual castles or counties. GPC abstracts those into a simple roll in the French War Events table, but you could very easily write it out into a small campaign of its own.

Yeah, I definitely had some ideas for this. One thing that I saw another GM do was that he gave his players control over a "theater" of war. Since in the Battle of Bedegraine year I'm actually going to have them mostly skip the battle and instead go to Benoit to meet King Ban and do a little murder mystery while trying to get his alliance, I think I'll have them work to reconquer Benoit (which could also get them friendly with Lancelot!).

On 3/5/2024 at 10:36 PM, Morien said:

As you pointed out, GPC does offer chances in Romance and later for the PKs to take a lead in fighting in various wars in Ireland and Ganis. However, personally I think those are distractions from the main draw of the Romance Period. Instead, I think you are on the right track to rather give the PKs a chance to lead. You can even give them a small army and fight an action against a portion of the Roman army to prevent them from escaping to Italy, away from Arthur's army, and hence have to stand at Saussy to fight. And that makes all the difference. Or if you wish to be more HRB compliant, maybe they slow down the Roman army enough that Arthur gets to Saussy first to prepare the battlefield, even if they end up losing that smaller battle. It is very easy to make up these various smaller actions and tie the results to the events of the larger campaign.

My other idea was also to move up the war in Ireland to the Conquest Period and let the players take the lead there if they want. Of course, everyone takes a break to go to Rome, but my thinking was to move up the Roman War to earlier in the Conquest Period and let the players go to war in Ireland after. One of the player-knights in my group is Estregales Irish, and I think he'd enjoy going there since it's a bit more blank slate than Britain and he could really make a mark (like, it would be amazing to retire that character as the "High King of Ireland" if there are enough successes lol).

I do agree that by the Romance Period I want them in "errantry and adventure" mode, and one of the ways I'm going to do that is actually inform them at the start of the Conquest that we're gonna do a soft reset in the Romance Period with new characters from the family—super junior people who might have powerful enough families to be knighted with good armor and be given household knight positions, but have no inherited landholdings and not even enormous amounts of inherited Glory (probably I'll say they have to go with a nephew family branch, so that instead of getting 1/5 of the previous character's glory to start they get 1/20). I think that would set the tone of the Romance really well, where it's these really junior knights coming from great families with lots of pressure on their shoulders to be great themselves, and who idolize the Round Table and want to get on it.

On 3/5/2024 at 10:36 PM, Morien said:

Arthur assigning commanders to various battalions of his army, before the Battle of Saussy (in HRB):

Thanks for sharing this. I really need to read the HRB lol

[Morien]

8 hours ago, Udy Kumra said:

probably I'll say they have to go with a nephew family branch

I'd recommend going with a younger son of the previous go-getter. That way you have the same family line going. Of course, if the nephew's father was a PK as well, it is a different thing.