Jump to content
creativehum

Pendragon Chivalry Bonus Requirement: 80 or 96?

Recommended Posts

In this thread over at the Nocturnal Pendragon Forum, Greg Stafford announced that the requirements for The Chivalry Bonus have been wrong in each edition from the beginning. Having 6 Traits total 80+ allows the Traits to average 13, and he thinks that is too low for such a vital quality for the game. He announced the requirement should now be 96, requiring 16 or better in the Chivalric Traits. (Note that this makes it hard for Pagans to get the bonus. Greg said this was exactly as it should be. You can go check the thread to see the back and forth on this.)

The thing is, Greg made that announcement in December 2011. Five years later, in 2015, KAP 5.2 is published. It still has the Chivalry Bonus requirement set at a total of 80 for Chivalric Traits. (Note that the fillable KAP Character Sheets Nocturnal created reflect the change to 96.)

As Greg noted in the linked thread, KAP is always a work in progress for him, and so he might have switched his mind and decided it was 80 again. I have no idea. 

I was wondering, especially with Chaosium about to bring KAP 5.2 to print next year, if there is any official word on this? Also: who is the person to ask now?

Edited by creativehum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, the agreement with Chaosium is for distribution only. Rules and publication still sit with Nocturnal, so there forums are probably the best location for clarity on this. Keep in mind though, with Greg now beyond the veil, you might not receive official word quickly. 

SDLeary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

IIRC, the agreement with Chaosium is for distribution only. Rules and publication still sit with Nocturnal, so there forums are probably the best location for clarity on this.

Yup. After poking around a bit I realized this. And have posted a comment over at Nocturnal pointing out that

a) Greg's reworking of the rule makes a lot of sense

b) if Chaosium is going to be distributing the game next year it would be awesome if someone made the small adjustment to bring the rules into alignment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg was constantly tinkering with Pendragon. Not every change he proposed or discussed (even publicly) was eventually adopted, and some may have been saved for future editions.

Edit: now, in entirely my own opinion, raising the threshold for the Chivalry bonus might exclude many knights Malory praises in his book as 'good knights' (like Gawaine), and thus make it tempting to create cookie-cutter 'pure knights' when flawed heroes are among the best characters in the saga (and for roleplaying).

Edit 2: It doesn't exclude Gawaine, just makes it a tighter fit, so I think it works.

Edited by jeffjerwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

Greg was constantly tinkering with Pendragon. Not every change he proposed or discussed (even publicly) was eventually adopted, and some may have been saved for future editions.

Edit: now, in entirely my own opinion, raising the threshold for the Chivalry bonus might exclude many knights Malory praises in his book as 'good knights' (like Gawaine), and thus make it tempting to create cookie-cutter 'pure knights' when flawed heroes are among the best characters in the saga (and for roleplaying).

Yes. After five years of thinking about it Greg might have changed his mind... which would be why 5.2 kept the 80 requirement. Which is why I'm asking about this. I'd love to know for sure.

As to the second point, Greg discusses it in the thread I linked to. He wrote in part: "Do not think that everyone in the literature who calls himself chivalrous is in fact chivalrous, especially by KAP standards." Again, this is seven years ago. And we can't ask him now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, creativehum said:

Yes. After five years of thinking about it Greg might have changed his mind... which would be why 5.2 kept the 80 requirement. Which is why I'm asking about this. I'd love to know for sure.

As to the second point, Greg discusses it in the thread I linked to. He wrote in part: "Do not think that everyone in the literature who calls himself chivalrous is in fact chivalrous, especially by KAP standards." Again, this is seven years ago. And we can't ask him now.

Heh, having been going through and reading different versions (all relatively "late", that is not 1st, 2d or 3d Ed directly AFAIK) of different supplements and rulebooks, EVERYTHING in KAP has been in a constant state of flux for decades as Greg tinkered with the system.  Given that and starting the basics of possibly running a campaign, I'm sticking with 5.2, but using parts of other versions to run the game.  Different bits of the character creation come from different versions (that actually appear to be the SAME game version, but different methods) to both streamline the process and make it a bit more interesting (for my and my players' purposes) because some are too simplistic, some are too complicated and some are simply too strange.

All that being said, I'd suggest you set the bar for the Chivalry bonus where you want it to be: 80, 13s (which is actually only 78 :) ), 84 (14s), 90 (15s) 96 (16s), etc..  Since I'm using the BoK (not BoK&L) "squire experience" rules as well as rolling 3d6 and pick the side you want it on for traits (the other trait subtracts the rolled number from 20), then it is fairly trivial for players to boost their numbers to hit whatever requirement is listed, if the numbers are higher, then a player who rolled poorly will end up with lower skills as they spend more on traits is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Algesan said:

Heh, having been going through and reading different versions (all relatively "late", that is not 1st, 2d or 3d Ed directly AFAIK) of different supplements and rulebooks, EVERYTHING in KAP has been in a constant state of flux for decades as Greg tinkered with the system.  Given that and starting the basics of possibly running a campaign, I'm sticking with 5.2, but using parts of other versions to run the game.  Different bits of the character creation come from different versions (that actually appear to be the SAME game version, but different methods) to both streamline the process and make it a bit more interesting (for my and my players' purposes) because some are too simplistic, some are too complicated and some are simply too strange.

Can you talk more about this? Except for a few subtle points, as far as I can tell everything in KAP has been rather consistent going back to one.

 

Languages were dropped from the 1st edition in all later editions, which is the big change from that one. And FYI: 2nd edition was announced, but never published. So there is no second edition. 

Third edition put play directly in Arthur's realm and so the starting year was 531 (I believe) with Cymric Christian knights. The supplement Knights Adventurous expanded character creation to all sorts of lands and faiths. 

Fourth addition was 3rd edition stapled with Knights Adventurous, along with the magic system for PCs. (And I mean, pages from 3rd and Knights Adventurous were simply copied and pasted into the new book.)

Fifth edition brought the assumption of play back to 485 and limited choices of knights in the core rules. But The Book of Knights and Ladies expanded character creation again as Knights Adventurous did for the 3rd editions rules.

But if there a lot of ingesting changes between the editions I'd like to hear more about them. (In fact, I started a thread on this top here.)

Also, can you tell me more what you meant by this: "that actually appear to be the SAME game version, but different methods"

And can you tell me what you meant by "too simplistic, some are too complicated and some are simply too strange." (This may be more work than its worth, so I understand. But I'd love to hear more about the "strange" part.)

Finally, yes... I'll set the level at whatever I want for the Chivalry Bonus. The point is that most knights are going to have a few high Traits that fit the Chivalric bonus, which means that if the average is 13.33 (😉) then some Traits could hang out at 10 or less. And that would kind of suck for someone getting a magical bonus.

I think Greg brought up a good point. I'm wondering if he ever settled anything... or if the next printing of the game might reflect his thoughts on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an average of 16 probably makes the bonus too unattainable, and I have doubt about it being the idea in KAP1. Back then characters didn't get as many modifiers to starting trait values, and knight weren't necessarily valorous. KAP3-4 changed that. 

 

Looking over the thread I see that once of the ideas that Greg was toying with was a tiered approach to the bonuses, where instead of getting or not getting the bonus, the amount of the bonus was tied to the trait values. That might be the better way to go. That might help differentiate between knight who are chivalrous and thous who are paragons of chivalry. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

have doubt about it being the idea in KAP1.

Did anyone say it was in KAP1?

For what its worth, the big difference in KAP1 and later editions the mechanical benefits involved:

KAP1: 

Quote

Knights who qualify as chivalrous gain 100 Glory points per year. They also gain the prestige which their behavior deserves, and are considered greater than other

knights of equal glory who are not chivalrous. 

Later editions: 

Quote

 

All Chivalrous knights receive a supernatural boon called the Armor of Honor, which provides him with 3 points of armor reduction. The protection from the Armor of Honor is added to any protection already gained by actual armor or shields. Thus, a Chivalrous knight wearing chainmail (10 points of reduction) subtracts 10 +3 = 13 points of damage from each attack that hits him.

 

So, in part Greg was reacting to the fact that there was a solid mechanical advantage offered in later editions at the same "cost" of the first edition.

As for which requirement/model to use, I think it comes down to how important the group/GM wants Chivalry to be, how hard they want it to be for their setting, and what it means to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Did anyone say it was in KAP1?

Yes, Greg. According to his post, 80 was an error .

29 minutes ago, creativehum said:

 

So, in part Greg was reacting to the fact that there was a solid mechanical advantage offered in later editions at the same "cost" of the first edition.

Yes, except the "cost" wasn't the same in later editions it was actually lower, since player knights got more modifiers to their traits. For example, in KAP3 all PKs start with Valorous 15, something they didn't start with in KAP1-2. That combined with the religious trait modifiers, brought the average PK total up to around 71 and made it much easier for an average PC to get to 80 than in KAP1-2. 

29 minutes ago, creativehum said:

As for which requirement/model to use, I think it comes down to how important the group/GM wants Chivalry to be, how hard they want it to be for their setting, and what it means to them.

Yup. Much like any other rule in KAP. Plus what it means in play. One thing about Chivalry in KAP is that it often is treated as something a knight either is or isn't. This tends to make the player's behavior a bit extreme, as there is no point, in game to being "a little chivalrous". It also makes it so that a PK can act very unchivalrously, and still technically qualify  for the bonuses due to his high traits. I used to require that Chivalrous knight had to act chivalrously to get their bonus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yup. Much like any other rule in KAP. Plus what it means in play. One thing about Chivalry in KAP is that it often is treated as something a knight either is or isn't. This tends to make the player's behavior a bit extreme, as there is no point, in game to being "a little chivalrous". It also makes it so that a PK can act very unchivalrously, and still technically qualify  for the bonuses due to his high traits. I used to require that Chivalrous knight had to act chivalrously to get their bonus.

It may seem harsh or dramatic, but I have immediately raised or lowered traits based on extreme decisions on the part of a player. Mordred didn't wait until the end of the year for his personality shift around the Peningues tourney to set in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, jeffjerwin said:

It may seem harsh or dramatic, but I have immediately raised or lowered traits based on extreme decisions on the part of a player. Mordred didn't wait until the end of the year for his personality shift around the Peningues tourney to set in.

LOL! That's a bit of an extreme example. I can see someone doing something out of character as a one off- thats part of what the trait scores are for, and even kind people do cruel things at times. What I was referring to was a situation where a player knight was acting very unchivalrously one year, but technically qualified for the bonus. But I've had a few problem players, such as one guy who kept telling everybody how Modest he was (he got miffed when his 22 Modest got ruined by a Pride check).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

LOL! That's a bit of an extreme example. I can see someone doing something out of character as a one off- thats part of what the trait scores are for, and even kind people do cruel things at times. What I was referring to was a situation where a player knight was acting very unchivalrously one year, but technically qualified for the bonus. But I've had a few problem players, such as one guy who kept telling everybody how Modest he was (he got miffed when his 22 Modest got ruined by a Pride check).

Well, extreme actions occur. Traits reflect not just a character's internal morality, but how the story is shaping them; a 16 in a trait isn't just a definite predisposition but a matter of notoriety. A character who kills their rival when they're begging for mercy, even if emotionally justified (they killed a character's lover), is not about to keep their Forgiving trait (at least as high as, say, 16+). They may also get checks on Love (dead lover) and so forth as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, jeffjerwin said:

Well, extreme actions occur. Traits reflect not just a character's internal morality, but how the story is shaping them; a 16 in a trait isn't just a definite predisposition but a matter of notoriety. A character who kills their rival when they're begging for mercy, even if emotionally justified (they killed a character's lover), is not about to keep their Forgiving trait (at least as high as, say, 16+). They may also get checks on Love (dead lover) and so forth as well.

Yes, but that partially why the traits get a rating and are not absolutes. I wouldn't trash a trait score for one action. Also traits are often opposed by other traits, so that someone might not be less mercical, but more Just. In one of my campaigns we had a PK with a hilariously funny example of that. His character was noted for being Cruel (16) but Forgiving (19 to start with). As a result, whenever any of his peasant got into trouble they would usually just apologize and beg for forgivingness thus triggering Forgiving for an opposed roll. It pretty much always worked, and the character didn't become are less Cruel, but he did become more Forgiving. 

 

If you do it the way you described what happens is that characters literally become one dimensional, with one trait dominating all the others. In your example, Merciful and Forgiving take hits despite the fact hat other factors clearly apply. It would certainly be Just not to spare that rival. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but that partially why the traits get a rating and are not absolutes. I wouldn't trash a trait score for one action. Also traits are often opposed by other traits, so that someone might not be less mercical, but more Just. In one of my campaigns we had a PK with a hilariously funny example of that. His character was noted for being Cruel (16) but Forgiving (19 to start with). As a result, whenever any of his peasant got into trouble they would usually just apologize and beg for forgivingness thus triggering Forgiving for an opposed roll. It pretty much always worked, and the character didn't become are less Cruel, but he did become more Forgiving. 

 

If you do it the way you described what happens is that characters literally become one dimensional, with one trait dominating all the others. In your example, Merciful and Forgiving take hits despite the fact hat other factors clearly apply. It would certainly be Just not to spare that rival. 

True. Though the relationship of these traits aren't in any reality or story a vacuum: a cruel person is rarely forgiving, nor would a cruel knight in any romance be 'forgiving' (the best I can imagine is 'forgetful' (as in, why did I just throw you in the dungeon? not sure...)). Pendragon's level of abstraction is kinda weird in that regard. Most villains, of course, in the stories, are pretty 'one-dimensional' - complexity is a PC or protagonist trait. I can imagine an Honest Coward a bit better than a person who somehow is both Merciful and Selfish...

It isn't just to not spare a rival begging for mercy - it's just to put him on trial, or bring him for justice to your liege. It's a wash between Just and Arbitrary, leaning toward arbitrary, as a personal vendetta got in the way of abstract justice there (though all of this is culturally subjective).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jeffjerwin said:

True. Though the relationship of these traits aren't in any reality or story a vacuum: a cruel person is rarely forgiving,

Sure they are. A lot of histories real baddies could, under other circumstances, be nice guys. Plus there is a lot of overlap among traits, plus a lot of factors pulling people in differernt directions. 

2 minutes ago, jeffjerwin said:

 

nor would a cruel knight in any romance be 'forgiving' (the best I can imagine is 'forgetful' (as in, why did I just throw you in the dungeon? not sure...)). Pendragon's level of abstraction is kinda weird in that regard.

Read the stories,it gets weirder. 

2 minutes ago, jeffjerwin said:

Most villains, of course, in the stories, are pretty 'one-dimensional' - complexity is a PC or protagonist trait. I can imagine an Honest Coward a bit better than a person who somehow is both Merciful and Selfish...

Most characters in the stories, villains and heroes are one-dimensional. This is probably due to several factors: lack of  characterization in general in  early literature, limited "screen time" (most baddies aren't around long enough after their intro to get a fleshed out personality). The problem here is that just what traits a given one dimensional character has often changes depending on the story. 

I think one of the reason for the multiple traits and opposed rolls is so that you can recreate the various facets of characters from different stories. For instance, Gawain is a paragon of virtue except when his family is involved. Then he can be a vengeful murderous thug., and the game strives to reflect that. Without such a complex interacion of traits and passions he would be reduced to being one of the other, and his actions would not be explainable in the game. 

2 minutes ago, jeffjerwin said:

 

 

It isn't just to not spare a rival begging for mercy - it's just to put him on trial, or bring him for justice to your liege

What if it this is his trial? For a Knight charged with murder, trial by combat would be the norm, and tghe Liege picking your character to face off against the accused would be seen as fitting. 

Or what if the killer is so well connected that he can escape justice? So it's quite possible that killing him might be more just that bringing him to your liege.

 

2 minutes ago, jeffjerwin said:

. It's a wash between Just and Arbitrary, leaning toward arbitrary, as a personal vendetta got in the way of abstract justice there (though all of this is culturally subjective).

You're assuming that the fight is a personal vendetta. It might be, but that's not spelled out in your initial post. Context makes quite a difference. If it's a personal vendetta then that different, but then a Love or Amor Passion is probably going to be playing a major factor here, and rightly so. Passions, and the nature of the transgression also play a big factor here. If someone spills soda on me, I'll probably forgive them for it, and fairly quickly. If they murder my family, I'd be less inclined to forgive, and if I did it probably would take longer to do so.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Read the stories,it gets weirder. 

I think one of the reason for the multiple traits and opposed rolls is so that you can recreate the various facets of characters from different stories. For instance, Gawain is a paragon of virtue except when his family is involved. Then he can be a vengeful murderous thug., and the game strives to reflect that. Without such a complex interacion of traits and passions he would be reduced to being one of the other, and his actions would not be explainable in the game. 

Yeah, I've read nearly all of them.

The Post-Vulgate is actually unusual in its depiction of complex villains and flawed heroes (that's where our flawed Gawaine, our flawed Arthur, and even our flawed Mordred come from). Thankfully it fed Malory's grist-mill, but it also created unusual problems.

Gawaine, for example, is up there with Lancelot prior to the P-V. He's a bit of a lady's man, but he's fundamentally honest, tough, and kind. Before the P-V tried to create a tragedy out of the romances focused on Arthur (rather than on Lancelot), his characterization was not complex, though it wasn't unrealistic, either: he's just a decent person. Malory had some trouble with this: English storytelling made Gawaine the best knight, kind of like Roland, and he ended up downplaying some of the P-V's darkness and fronting Gareth as a 'substitute'. But the Post-Vulgate's depiction of Gawaine is entirely, in the end, in the service of making Arthur suffer and have moral dilemmas, rather than making Gawaine into an anti-hero. The P-V Gawaine isn't even a good person. Instead, what we have is mainly the work of Malory trying to make sense of the contradiction, and Greg searching out a sort of way through the problem. I personally prefer a heroic Gawaine because I honestly find Lancelot a little boring. Lancelot has serious character flaws or idiosyncrasies of his own, but being anti-social and shy and aloof aren't represented in the game by active traits but by their absence.

Merciful, Generous, Forgiving, etc., are empathic character traits. Valorous, Modest, Temperate, Prudent, are all traits we might associate with self-control. Just and Temperate may also invoke introspection or clarity of thought. It's not impossible for these to be out of whack with each other, but, for instance, being 'Reckless' and 'Indulgent' go together because they reflect a lack of thinking things through. Being empathic enough to Forgive someone usually also means you can recognize that a different person requires Mercy (which is, really, a kind of forgiveness, just more abstract), or Generosity. That's probably too complicated for a game. When Gawaine is tested by the Green Knight, it's his self-control and self-discipline that really the focus, even though what are multiple traits in KAP come into play. That's why a merciful knight who is also vengeful is kinda difficult to explain; I suppose a cruel knight who is forgiving might have trouble understanding other people's suffering, but follows a sort of code of respect? Still, it becomes convoluted. Most of the villains in my game were either monstrous, or just ordinary, ambitious people with some reason to discount the needs or experiences of others. The latter works a bit better for actual roleplaying...

Which is why, I think, Morgan makes a better villain than Agravaine, because Morgan has goals, a certain respect for skillful enemies, and a capacity to love, while Agravaine is basically a sociopathic bully. Not all of Morgan's redeeming traits surface in KAP: she's evidently curious, intelligent, and honorable, even though most of these aspects of her character appear in her skills... and a sort of abstract Honor passion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jeffjerwin said:

Yeah, I've read nearly all of them.

The Post-Vulgate is actually unusual in its depiction of complex villains and flawed heroes (that's where our flawed Gawaine, our flawed Arthur, and even our flawed Mordred come from). Thankfully it fed Malory's grist-mill, but it also created unusual problems.

Yeah, plus there is a merging of old Celtic stories into Knightly tales. We end up with different morals, virtues and priorities. So some behavior thiat would be considerable admirable or at least acceptable by some audiences become reprehensible by others. 

 

1 hour ago, jeffjerwin said:

I honestly find Lancelot a little boring. Lancelot has serious character flaws or idiosyncrasies of his own, but being anti-social and shy and aloof aren't represented in the game by active traits but by their absence.

Lancelot has the problems of being more of a icon than a person. In a way it diminishes him. It like Superman facing off against an armed robber. You know he's in no real danger and is just going to roll right over the bad guy. Galahad is worse, because he is a Saint, and has no flaws or traits outside of those required to be a good Christian and a Chivalric Knight. Both are more ideals than heroes.

1 hour ago, jeffjerwin said:

Merciful, Generous, Forgiving, etc., are empathic character traits. Valorous, Modest, Temperate, Prudent, are all traits we might associate with self-control. Just and Temperate may also invoke introspection or clarity of thought. It's not impossible for these to be out of whack with each other, but, for instance, being 'Reckless' and 'Indulgent' go together because they reflect a lack of thinking things through. Being empathic enough to Forgive someone usually also means you can recognize that a different person requires Mercy (which is, really, a kind of forgiveness, just more abstract), or Generosity. That's probably too complicated for a game. When Gawaine is tested by the Green Knight, it's his self-control and self-discipline that really the focus, even though what are multiple traits in KAP come into play.

I would look at it as more honor, courage and justice. He agreed to the situation going in, although probably not expecting to actually have to fulfill his end of the bargain, and then stuck through to it in the end. 

1 hour ago, jeffjerwin said:

That's why a merciful knight who is also vengeful is kinda difficult to explain; I suppose a cruel knight who is forgiving might have trouble understanding other people's suffering, but follows a sort of code of respect? Still, it becomes convoluted.

I considered it more quick to anger but more fair minded once he calms down, of it he thinks something is in error. Personally, I'm much more forgiving over an accident than when someone deliberately tries to "hurt" me.  

 

1 hour ago, jeffjerwin said:

Most of the villains in my game were either monstrous, or just ordinary, ambitious people with some reason to discount the needs or experiences of others. The latter works a bit better for actual roleplaying...

Most of the "villains" in my games were usually just people who were on the other side in a conflict, and not really villains at all. That ran to Saxons and Picts too. Some "villains" were rivals or personal enemies, who, outside of that, were decent enough. Occasionally there would be the baddie who was really evil, but they were few and far between.

 

1 hour ago, jeffjerwin said:

Which is why, I think, Morgan makes a better villain than Agravaine, because Morgan has goals, a certain respect for skillful enemies, and a capacity to love, while Agravaine is basically a sociopathic bully. Not all of Morgan's redeeming traits surface in KAP: she's evidently curious, intelligent, and honorable, even though most of these aspects of her character appear in her skills... and a sort of abstract Honor passion.

Morgan certainly a more capable and dangerous foe, when she is a foe. Most versions of the tale seem to have her reconciled with Arthur to some extent by the end. Agravaine is a weak villain, I think because he is one of the first examples of deliberately trying to make a villain, especially one who isn't killed right away and who gets to hang out with the good guys. He's more of a caricature than a character. To be fair, he's not helped by the fact that everything he does Mordred does better. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2018 at 2:15 PM, creativehum said:

Can you talk more about this? Except for a few subtle points, as far as I can tell everything in KAP has been rather consistent going back to one.

 

Languages were dropped from the 1st edition in all later editions, which is the big change from that one. And FYI: 2nd edition was announced, but never published. So there is no second edition. 

Third edition put play directly in Arthur's realm and so the starting year was 531 (I believe) with Cymric Christian knights. The supplement Knights Adventurous expanded character creation to all sorts of lands and faiths. 

Fourth addition was 3rd edition stapled with Knights Adventurous, along with the magic system for PCs. (And I mean, pages from 3rd and Knights Adventurous were simply copied and pasted into the new book.)

Fifth edition brought the assumption of play back to 485 and limited choices of knights in the core rules. But The Book of Knights and Ladies expanded character creation again as Knights Adventurous did for the 3rd editions rules.

But if there a lot of ingesting changes between the editions I'd like to hear more about them. (In fact, I started a thread on this top here.)

Also, can you tell me more what you meant by this: "that actually appear to be the SAME game version, but different methods"

And can you tell me what you meant by "too simplistic, some are too complicated and some are simply too strange." (This may be more work than its worth, so I understand. But I'd love to hear more about the "strange" part.)

Finally, yes... I'll set the level at whatever I want for the Chivalry Bonus. The point is that most knights are going to have a few high Traits that fit the Chivalric bonus, which means that if the average is 13.33 (😉) then some Traits could hang out at 10 or less. And that would kind of suck for someone getting a magical bonus.

I think Greg brought up a good point. I'm wondering if he ever settled anything... or if the next printing of the game might reflect his thoughts on the matter.

I will note that core mechanics of gameplay appear not to have changed and at least in a surface manner, many things have not, but.... I do see a shifting emphasis in some of these sources and when A recommends you roll dice for everything (but offers other options) and B recommends you allocate points (but recommends other options) and C gives a totally different way to handle the years of "squiredom" ("squirehood"?), it starts to get a bit fuzzy.  I just fall back on the old school gaming convention of I make it up to work for my world (which was actually required back in the day because the rules were so fuzzy, but absolutely SUX when you see a GM haul out that excuse to bust the balance of a game that has matured and has a recognizable system) which does the job. 

 

I've been looking at character creation mainly, with a side onto lands.  That is where I'm seeing the differences.  BoK, BoK&L, 5.2, etc.  All of them have differences, mainly in backgrounds and how you derive those backgrounds...  GKAP Campaign book added some too (I think) where every player gets to Hate Saxons...even though Saxons are a playable knight class (good RP potential there)  Then there are the various versions of Book of Manor vs Book of Estate (there actually seems to have been a recodifying of all this stuff going on with some of the later books), etc.  DrivethruRPG has a "Leather Books of Pendragon" bundle for them, these seem to be the latest and greatest.  I've also seen these quotes in an online discussion at rpg.net: 

Quote

BoEstates operates in the same space as BotManor.

Manor works best as a way of providing additional detail for a vassal knight's holding - you can use it to run a more substantial endowment (up to say a banneret who keeps a few knights as retainers or sub-infeudated vassals) but the paperwork starts to become a chore.

Estates can handle single knight manors (a £10 honour in its parlance), but scales up through the small banneret level (£50 honour) and on to the minor baron level (£100 honour) - it also fits smoothly with Book of the Warlord (which provides mechanics for the senior baronage - the 20-30 nobles of Logres who owe direct fealty to the Pendragon).

My game is currently in abeyance but if I revive it and we reintroduce the (semi-retired) landholding knights, I will be using the BoEstates rules to deal with their landholdings.

Quote

While both expand the Winter Phase, each use completely different methods. In essence, Book of the Manor is playing a Knight with one or two manors and Book of the Estate is for playing ranking landed noble's estates.

The Book of the Manor updates the mechanics found in the core Pendragon 5e core book. You have a single manor in which you upgrade and maintain. You gain libra depending on how well the year turned out.

In the Book of the Estate, you are so rich you never have to worry about starving or smaller maintenance. Instead, the game focuses on major events and very large purchases.

Heh, slightly different take on the two books there, although I find the second one to be more useful.

From a user named Kligs:

Quote

ProTip:

Use Book of the Manor for the older, detailed system of managing a particular manor. This is the standard set-up of the KAP campaign where each player has their own manor. It is not the future of KAP though and will be fazed out in all future KAP products.

Book of the Estate is the NEW economics version that will be/is used in all KAP supplements and (possibly forthcoming) a 6th edition. Book of the Manor will not be supported. BoE changes the base income of a manor to 10L (libra) and has a number of other changes. It is the system used in Book of the Warlords and all of the forthcoming supplements (yes, there are forthcoming supplements).

Book of the Estate is a streamlined version of economics and land ownership. It covers larger honours (grants) that include multiple properties. It drills down less, not so finicky with coins/etc. But it has lots of significant information.

Book of the Estate is also due for some errata sometime in the next few months so go digital at this point. We're working as hard as we can in our spare time so it may be a bit.

PERSONAL NOTE: I disliked BoE upon first blush and preferred Book of the Manor. I wanted something specific that drilled down to a finer level. After spending time with BoE and seeing how it integrates into Book of the Warlords (larger estates), I am completely sold on it over Book of the Manor. It has some oddness to it due to the lengthy historical text but the mechanics are very sound. Trust me. It grows on you very fast!

Book of the Manor works just fine. But if you want to keep pace with the future of KAP, BoE is the way to go. But you certainly can't hurt Greg Stafford any by purchasing both 😉

PS: Ovid, I loved Bitter Harvest!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply. 

As for rolling vs. allocation, yes, the default changed. But I'm not seeing much of a change there. 

I keep hearing there's some sort of big change about Squire expirence between one edition or another.... but I keep not seeing it. That doesn't mean it isn't there. Simply that I haven't found it yet.

And as for the "Books"... for my own needs, the Book of Knights & Ladies and Book of Battle are all I'm really paying attention to right now. Anything the moves us into a lot of economics isn't something I envision for the kind of play I want to run. So the lower half of your post is full of things I know other people care about.... but it is extraneous to the rules of KAP as far as I'm concerned. (I'm one of those weird people who thinks a) core rules should provide a game that works and no other book are needed; and b) supplement are there to use as a person wants, and are not required to play the game or are assumed to be part of the core rules as soon as they are published.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, creativehum said:

Thanks for the reply. 

As for rolling vs. allocation, yes, the default changed. But I'm not seeing much of a change there. 

I keep hearing there's some sort of big change about Squire expirence between one edition or another.... but I keep not seeing it. That doesn't mean it isn't there. Simply that I haven't found it yet.

And as for the "Books"... for my own needs, the Book of Knights & Ladies and Book of Battle are all I'm really paying attention to right now. Anything the moves us into a lot of economics isn't something I envision for the kind of play I want to run. So the lower half of your post is full of things I know other people care about.... but it is extraneous to the rules of KAP as far as I'm concerned. (I'm one of those weird people who thinks a) core rules should provide a game that works and no other book are needed; and b) supplement are there to use as a person wants, and are not required to play the game or are assumed to be part of the core rules as soon as they are published.)

Look up Book of Knights, IIRC, it is "pay what you want" at DriveThruRPG.  IIRC, you simply get 3 points a year for six years.  You can use them to raise a trait (up to 19), a stat (up to max), a skill 1 point (if at 15+), or roll a d6 to generate skill points to raise skills up to 15.  You can also only use one point a year to raise one thing a year....so if you need five more of Trait X, then you have to spend one point each year for five years.  If you happen to need more than six points to get to the level you want, then you cannot get there.  The background generation was different also, not as detailed, but better in some ways IMO, but then that depends more on the type of campaign I'm looking at running more than anything.


Yes, it wasn't that big a change between rolled and allocated, the biggest thing was the presentation which made the current secondary option not so obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone just pointed out to me that KAP 5x introduces British Christianity as a set of Virtues and bonus distinct from Roman Christianity. In 3rd edition there was simply Christianity, with one set of Virtues and one bonus. Even in 3rd edition's Knights Adventurous, whcih goes into detail about different types of Christianity, there is still only one set of Christian Virtues and one bonus.

The British Christianity makes it easy to hit both the British Christian Virtues and get the Chivilary bonus. With the original CHristian bonus Chivalry is harder to attain. I think this change in the rule might have something to do with why Greg thought he had to make Chivalry harder.

For myself, having been reminded of the rules from 3rd on this point, I will stick with those. I like the idea of not only ideals clashing with harsh reality, but ideals clashing with each other. Which solves the conundrum for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, creativehum said:

Someone just pointed out to me that KAP 5x introduces British Christianity as a set of Virtues and bonus distinct from Roman Christianity. In 3rd edition there was simply Christianity, with one set of Virtues and one bonus. Even in 3rd edition's Knights Adventurous, whcih goes into detail about different types of Christianity, there is still only one set of Christian Virtues and one bonus.

Yes, Christianity got subdivided, and they introduced a few new Regions, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2018 at 12:23 AM, Algesan said:

Yes, it wasn't that big a change between rolled and allocated, the biggest thing was the presentation which made the current secondary option not so obvious.

I think the change was to help speed of chargen, and to ensure that PKs weren't dysfunctional. Back in KAP1 I'd often see People  roll up PKs that, by the luck of the dice, were practically unplayable. Or, a bad Loyalty (Liege) roll might force a player to age his character for years, or stay a squire longer so as to reach the required 15. 

 

It also helps to prevent super characters. Oddly enough its not high Characteristics that are a problem, so much as high traits, and the related glory awards. I've seen lucky players end up netting both the Chivalry and Religious bonuses, plus a couple of notable passions to net over 300 glory per year at the start. With only moderate adventuring they will earn 1000 Glory every three years-to start! Down the road a bit, it tends to be every other year, and all those extra glory points really amp up the characters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...