Pendragon Chivalry Bonus Requirement: 80 or 96?

[Hzark10]

Not to argue, per se, but it does matter and it is somewhat unfair. When you try to combine both Chivalric and Religious goals, Christians do have the edge.  That may be part of the goal, but depending on when (what time period) your campaign is set, and what type of religions being played, having them so easily attained gives them an unfair advantage;.

22 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Greg was working on lesser bonuses that wouldn't be "Chivalrous" but work out as some lesser bonus.  I just don;t know if he had it worked out and passed it on.

Rest assured that much of what he was working on has been passed on. David was the torch recipient and has much of it in his hands. Chaosium will also be in the know in one facet or another. But, until such time as new stuff comes out, I was trying to address perceived failures in the rules now.

[Atgxtg]

3 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

Not to argue, per se, but it does matter and it is somewhat unfair. When you try to combine both Chivalric and Religious goals, Christians do have the edge. 

The new KAP5 British Christians do. The older Roman ones, not so much.

3 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

That may be part of the goal, but depending on when (what time period) your campaign is set, and what type of religions being played, having them so easily attained gives them an unfair advantage;

I don't know if it is an "unfair" advantage Is it fair that "good" knights get an extra 3 points or armor or that those who are virtuous according to their faith get other bonuses?

I think the basic idea is that it reflects the literature, and that Chivalry is more of an ideal than an actual way of life, so most knights should be found somewhat lacking.

 

A British Pagan character from Salisbury with a starting total of 74, is only 3 points behind and can get the bonus just as easily, thanks to the bump.

3 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

Rest assured that much of what he was working on has been passed on. David was the torch recipient and has much of it in his hands. Chaosium will also be in the know in one facet or another. But, until such time as new stuff comes out, I was trying to address perceived failures in the rules now.

Well, the 80 was, according to Greg, an error, not a failure. Just one that he never caught until recently. That makes sense too, since values for starting knights have generally increased with newer editions. 

 

[creativehum]

How can something so recent (the Book of Knights & Ladies) be the thing that "tipped Greg off to the 96 vs. 80 after all these years." That's nonsensical. Having 80 points be the target for the Chivalrous bonus worked fine for two decades. The complications only arrived recently. Greg may have said it was a mistake going back decades in one post on a forum, but the fact remains the complications are new.

Yes, BoKL hands out Trait points like candy... and so a problems are created. Raising the value for the Chivalrous bonus is one option. (BoKL along with the introduction of British Christianity in KAP 5.x)

Here is another: stick to the core rules and all these problems vanish. After all, BoKL is a supplement... and one that seems to gum up the game as written. Why obsess over it? 

Further, if one removes British Christianity and its bonuses (which were only introduced in 5th edition, and again, throws the Religious Traits/Chivalrous bonuses out of whack) most of the issues of Chivalry being too easy to reach vanish as well.

Or, one accepts that, according to BoKL all PC Knights are exemplars of regional and religious values and leave it at that. So, yes, they also get the Chivalry bonus easily, because the system seems designed to make them amazing in terms of their traits. That's what that inflation in that supplement offers. If you don't want that, don't use the Trait system from BoKL. 

This all touches on something I was saying in another thread: I don't want another RPG line where you have to stitch together a dozen books and figure out how they all fit together to play the game. The notion that an optional PDF character sheet that many (if not most) players don't even know exists is now "official" rule is odd. One can buy KAP 5.2 and the game works without any of these new complications of Glory inflation or Chivalry being too easy to reach. Why not reexamine these supplements that seem to be adding trouble and grow the game from core rules that already work?

Edited January 1, 2019 by creativehum

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

How can something so recent (the Book of Knights & Ladies) be the thing that "tipped Greg off to the 96 vs. 80 after all these years." That's nonsensical.

One way is that the player characters have gotten consistently more powerful over the various editions, and it only recently became noticeable. THere are a few others in the game too.

For instance in KAP1 you rolled 3d6 for all the traits with no modifiers, except for religion and discretionary points.. So the average chivalry total for a starting PK was lower.  Probably closer to 70. KAP3 and 4 added some new modifiers, and bumped up Valorus to 15 (it became a knightly requirement) and that did make a difference, but it also made fixed traits the norm. Likewise KAP5 added British Christianity which added a few more points.

 Knights & Ladies increases the cultural modifiers a bit for Logres (the default homeland) and adds 6 discretionary points from earlier edtions to the famous trait (16) from latter ones. So now, suddenly 80 is available to standard characters in chargen.

 

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

Having 80 points be the target for the Chivalrous bonus worked fine for two decades. The complications only arrived recently.

What complications? Remember Greg never said that there were complications, only that 80 was wrong and should have been 96. 

I'm the one who claims there are complications due to K&L.  I think I've proven it too, but don't blame Greg for something I've said.

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

Greg may have said it was a mistake going back decades in one post on a forum, but the fact remains the complications are new.

Again Greg said error, not complications. If it was an error then it would have been something only he could have spotted (if KAP1 set the Chivlary threshold to 75 or 90 how would we know if it was "wrong"), and might noit have been apparent right away, because the average chivalrous trait scores tended to be lower.

 

What I think happened (and this is just my theory), he probably thought/intended that Chivalry had 5 traits, like Religions do, but wanted to make Chivalry a bit more flexible than requiring all 16s. So he decided on a 16 average. 5x16=80.

But Chivalry uses six traits, not five, and 6x16=96. .

 

 

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

Yes, BoKL hands out Trait points like candy... and so a problems are created.

IMO the  problem is that K&L stacks the Famous Trait (change one trait to 16) with the 6 discretionary points. Up until K&L the famous trait went with fixed traits, and the 6 points went with random. And, I think this was an error. There is a post in the Nocturnal forums where Greg seems to indicate that. 

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

Raising the value for the Chivalrous bonus is one option. (BoKL along with the introduction of British Christianity in KAP 5.x)

You're missing the point. It's not that Greg said, "80 is a problem, so here is the solution." He said' 80 was an error, and should have been 96". 

So it's not a question of ":How do we fix this new problem?", but one of correcting a longstanding error. There are some others too. For instance the typical Pict has remained SIZ 8 since KAP1 when SIZ was rolled on 3d6, despite the fact that SIZ has been changed to 2D6+6 (ave 13) and latter 3D6+1 (average 14.5).

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

Here is another: stick to the core rules and all these problems vanish.

Yes, but at the expense of all characters coming from Salisbury with the fixed trait scores. 

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

After all, BoKL is a supplement... and one that seems to gum up the game as written. Why obsess over it? 

I don't know anybody is obsessing over it. I was just trying to point it out, and that it wasn't really the designers intention for everyone to start with the chviarly bonus, or for lots of  PKs with randomly rolled traits to end up netting 300-500 of glory a year. The latter of which does cause complications. A KAP campaign where most of the PKs are earning over 500 glory a year goes off the rails fairly quickly.  It almost ruined my last KAP campaign. 

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

Further, if one removes British Christianity and its bonuses (which were only introduced in 5th edition, and again, throws the Religious Traits/Chivalrous bonuses out of whack) most of the issues of Chivalry being too easy to reach vanish as well.

Not really. Even without it most PKs can end up with it easily. Pagans have an advantage since the shift to fixed traits. Especially if they don't want thier relious bonus and pick Modest for thier famous trait.

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

Or, one accepts that, according to BoKL all PC Knights are exemplars of regional and religious values and leave it at that. So, yes, they also get the Chivalry bonus easily, because the system seems designed to make them amazing in terms of their traits. That's what that inflation in that supplement offers. If you don't want that, don't use the Trait system from BoKL. 

Except that's not what K&L or Greg claims. The idea wasn't that they PKs should be exemplars. That was an untended byproduct. 

. 

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

This all touches on something I was saying in another thread: I don't want another RPG line where you have to stitch together a dozen books and figure out how they all fit together to play the game.

That's a fair goal. And frankly, with KAP you don't really have to. I'd say the GPC is kinda required for the latter versions, since they shift the starting era to Uther, and if you have KAP5 you have to have the errata, due to all the editing errors,  but you don't have to buy any other books. 

But also keep in mind that while you don't have to get any other books, there are advantages to the other books, too. For instace the GPC is invaluable, even for a GM who doesn't  want to follow it, and all the supplements add something, and most are interchangeable with the core game so you don't really need to fit anything.

For instance Book, of Armies just gives you one page tables for lots of different foes to fight and could be used in place of the generic foe tables in KAP5 (or earlier). The Book of Battle just fleshes out battles more, and so on. 

 

Most of the complications./problems aren't so much because of the supplements but because of typos, or errors in editing or proofreading. 

 

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

 

The notion that an optional PDF character sheet that many (if not most) players don't even know exists is now "official" rule is odd.

It's offical in that it came from Nocturnal, and not some fan sheet. The "96 rule" doesn't orginate from the sheet, but is incorporated into it. Since the sheet was produced by Nocturnal and Greg mentioned the 96 previously we kow that the 96 is a correction, not an error. There are quirte a few things in KAP that have been officially changed but managed to slip past the proofreaders. 

 

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

 

One can buy KAP 5.2 and the game works without any of these new complications of Glory inflation or Chivalry being too easy to reach. Why not reexamine these supplements that seem to be adding trouble and grow the game from core rules that already work?

Actually Chivalry being to easy to reach isn't just from K&L. A beginning Pagan can start with a 73 or even a 76, and catch the bonus fairly quickly.  

[Hzark10]

Sorry, it has taken so long to get back to this, but wanted to ensure I was talking correctly.

First, what you say is valid IF you think that having Chivalric or Religious knights to be bad.  I do not necessarily agree with you. Next, yes, Book of Knights and Ladies (BoK&L) offers much more “candy” in terms of traits than the normal Pendragon 5.2 character.  But, that if you consider BoK&L to be more of an advanced character generation system, in which we delve deeper into options for a PK, then that is a possibility we do indeed have to deal with.  Let’s look at the numbers.

In KAP 5.2, players are offered 2 types of characters to play: Preconstructed or Designed.  It is even suggested you play the designed character, if at all possible.  I will be looking only at the designed character as In both cases, you play the first born of a vassal knight. You choose your religion.  Now, to be Chivalric, you have to have 6 traits totaling 80.  Valorous is one and automatically starts at 15 no matter what religion you have.  Of the remaining 5, British Christians have 3, Roman Christian 2, and Pagans also get 2.  No one gets Just, so you could make that your famous trait automatically starting it at 16.  This means British Christians need only 16 raises.  Roman Christians and Pagans need 19.  You can assign 4 points total (which means you will still need 12-15 points minimum) to raise these further, but essentially it will take game time to become Religious using KAP 5.2.  I am assuming you agree with this synopsis. Chivalric only needing 80 points can be gotten out of the starting gate if British Christian.  13 in Energetic, Generous, and Modest, 15 in Valorous, and 16 in Just or Merciful and 10 in the other gives one 80 right then and there.  If Roman Christian, you automatically get 13 in two of your religious traits, Valorous (15) and famous (16) and normal values (10) in other two gives 77 points which you can raise to 80 by using 3 of your 4 increases.  Pagans have 2 have 13, but Proud of 13 reduces Modest to 7. The other 2 being 10 and Valorous of 15 totals 74. However, if you choose to raise Modest as famous trait, you get 77 so it can be raised to 80 as well. So, using just KAP 5.2, you get Chivalric knights most of the time.

With BoK&L, however, things change.  Will discuss only the Uther Period, but that is also a change as the homeland you come from depends on the Period the campaign is set. You now have 3 choices. Standard and Intentional Shaping are the newer once. Standard could be considered Preconstructed, but you have some flexibility.  Intentional Shaping is prone to min-max abuse. I will be discussing the Random Determination.  First, you are not guaranteed to be first born. You now find what homeland you come from.  Salisbury is much more narrow.  By random choice, it is located in Logres C and thus 20% chance.  Once you know where you come from, then a second roll will determine the specific homeland which gives you your culture and religion. It also gives you your Society you come from which affects your liege and your father’s class. This in turn affects your starting equipment.

These rolls also affect the “candy” you get in form of additional traits increases. Most give +6 points, but Cumbria gets the short stick with only 3. If using the Random creation, you get 3 points more to add/subtract to starting traits before the regional mods and the famous trait and 6 additional points are given. If you are lucky, you can start very close, if not already, Chivalric or Religious. 

The decision is whether you want to play a Chivalric Knight (or have Players play them from the get-go if a gm) starting or to have it easily attainable.  If you don’t, then you should automatically just declare you need 96, as you suggest (16x6), but if you do, then you should also raise Religious by a like amount to make that harder. Perhaps all 18s or even 20s.

But, since Chivalric Knights appear to be the norm even using just KAP 5.2, you either decide to accept that or restrict it somehow. BoK&L is more about the differences between various knights as even Continental knights are possible.  One change using Book of Sires regardless of which set of character creation rules you are is starting knights can come from Aquitaine, Brittany, Cambria, Cornwall, Cumbria, or the 3 regions of Logres set for campaigns starting with Uther.

[Atgxtg]

It's not that Religious/Chivalrous knight are bad, just that Chivalrous knights show up in far greater proportion in KAP5+, thanks to K&L than they did in the past, and more frequently than intended by, Greg,  the game's designer. Greg who point in his thread on this is that Chivalric Knights are not supposed to be the norm. They are supposed to be the ideal. The fact that most starting PKs from Logres can not start with the Chivarly bonus wasn't something that he intended. 

The 96 threshold for the Chivarly bonus was also from Greg, and based on the idea that the chivalry total is calculated with six traits instead of five. That is 6x16=96 while 5x16 =80.

Religious Bonuses don't have quite the same problem. Souce they rely on the having all the traits meet or exceed a threshold value rather than be the sum of traits. Somebody with a 10 Energetic, but who has  19s in all his other relevant traits will get the Chivalrous bonus, but not the Religious bonus. 

 

As far as random generation goes, Greg had mentioned in the past that the GM shouldn't determine the homeland for the PKs randomly, but instead he should pick a region where the majority of the PKs come from in order to be able to keep them together for a campaign, and Salisbury has been the default location since KAP3. Now that Book of Sires is out, that might change  somewhat(congrats!), but I suspect not by that much, as a default setting serves a propose, and Salisbury puts the PKs close enough to, and far enough away from Camelot to make it easy for the GM  to rplay up or play down Arthur and the Round Table Knights. 

 

 

[Hzark10]

Yes, Book of Sires is specifically built so a PK could start from any of the 9 regions (Estragales is inside Cambria so could be argued there are only AND end up where the gm has established his campaign, although the gm is perfectly allowed to say you are all "xxxx" knights from the beginning, or say, "You may not have a knight from so-and-so region."

In KAP 4, most PK usually started around 73 points towards Chivalry, but could increase it to 79 as you get 6 years of experience and could put all 6 advances into traits. The big thing there was you had to qualify to be a knight and some yearly advances might be needed to increase your skill level to make it to the level you desire.  

I found BoK&L not so much a problem with starting with Chivalry, as I tend to run a higher powered game.  My own house rules add additional information.  I also tend to emphasize the difference between Roman and British Christianity and the Pelagian Heresy.  The Fae also have a bigger impact, but start slow until Excalibur shows up.

So, we really aren't necessarily arguing about the system, but rather we feel 80 point threshold is too low simply because Greg made a statement that 80 was a mistake.  I think the slow changes between editions over the years with feedback did much more to make him feel that the 80 was too low than realizing that way back when 80 was too low.  Look at how Runequest changed and how Runemasters were initially created/played and how they are now. Same with Pendragon.  If there is another edition, I would assume that there will be changes as well.  We will have to see. All I will say, YPMV, and it is up to you to find the game style you like best.

[womble]

I look at the difference between Religious and Chivalrous status, and think that, in vanilla KAP, Religious (needing 5 at 16+) is quite significantly harder to get than Chivalrous. I feel that setting Chivalrous to 96 from 6 makes it too nearly-as-hard-as-Religious to get. In my head, there should, by the heyday of Arthur's reign, be a fair proportion of Chivalrous knights, even if they don't exactly turn out Christian-Pious (and Paganism would be rare by then). The problem, I guess is that it's not a great leap from one to the other: nearly all Religious PKs will be Chivalrous, and vice versa. Maybe that's as it should be in the PK-context; they're supposed to be among the heroes after all.

Obviously, that doesn't address the problem of 'Glorflation' that giving nearly everyone who already gets +100 (and all the Glory for Traits) another +100 a year can generate... I think addressing that directly (say dropping the Glory bonus to 50, so being both still only gets you 100) might be a better approach. That, and really yanking hard on the levers that players are handing the GM when they push Traits over 15.

[Morien]

Starting with Chivalric was pretty much the default for the christian knights in our 4th -> 5.1th edition GPC campaign, and most pagan knights got there within a few years, too. It was ODD for a PK not to have it, since it was so useful.

In our new 5.2ed GPC playthrough, I have adopted the following rule:

1.) There are 6 Chivalric Traits + 1 Chivalric Passion, i.e. Honor.

2.) As you collect these to Famous/Notable levels (16+), you start unlocking the Armor of Honor:

3 Traits/Passions at 16+: +1 Armor

5 Traits/Passions at 16+: +2 Armor

7 Traits/Passions at 16+: +3 Armor

Works like a treat, allowing people to inch up to the uber +3 Armor, rather than making Chivalric a strict binary yes/no proposition. Also, since it requires 16+ Traits/Passions, it means that the darned PKs had better ACT Chivalric, or I will ding them with a check on the opposite trait and they will start losing bonuses. Something that irked me to great extent in 80 point Chivalric was that it was very possible to reach that with almost starting traits, 13 in 4 traits and 14 in 2, with no Famous Traits whatsoever. Bah, humbug! Final advantage is that while Truly Pagan Knights will never get the +3 Armor, they can reach the +2 Tier even while being Famously Proud*. Some might see that as a problem, I see it as a desirable feature.

(* Mind you, while I have not had to deal with this yet, I think it would be fair to give -1 to the Trait count for each Opposite Famous Trait. So the Pagan knight would have to be otherwise perfect: 6 Chivalric Traits/Passions at 16+ - 1 Opposite Famous Trait = equivalent to 5 so +2 Armor.)

 

Furthermore, I give no extra Glory for being Chivalric or Religious, since we do give out Trait & Passion Glory. So someone who is Religious already gets 80+ Glory from Traits, so I'll be damned before I will give an extra +100 on top of that. Using the above scheme for Chivalri, someone with the full +3 Armor of Honor would get 7*16 = 102 Glory at minimum. I think that is reputation boost enough.

 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Morien

[Hzark10]

2 hours ago, Morien said:

In our new 5.2ed GPC playthrough, I have adopted the following rule:

1.) There are 6 Chivalric Traits + 1 Chivalric Passion, i.e. Honor.

2.) As you collect these to Famous/Notable levels (16+), you start unlocking the Armor of Honor:

3 Traits/Passions at 16+: +1 Armor

5 Traits/Passions at 16+: +2 Armor

7 Traits/Passions at 16+: +3 Armor

Really like your house rule.

[Atgxtg]

7 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Yes, Book of Sires is specifically built so a PK could start from any of the 9 regions (Estragales is inside Cambria so could be argued there are only AND end up where the gm has established his campaign, although the gm is perfectly allowed to say you are all "xxxx" knights from the beginning, or say, "You may not have a knight from so-and-so region."

I plan to pick it up in a week or two, I've been looking forward to it.  It should be helpful for establishing a pre-KAP timeline. I started my current campaign in 410, and am up to 418. It will be nice to have names for the Earls prior to Roderick. 

my very first KAP campaign, back in the 80s was set in Cornwall. It ended up being very interesting when the PKs all wanted to back the Boy King, but their liege didn't. 

7 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

In KAP 4, most PK usually started around 73 points towards Chivalry, but could increase it to 79 as you get 6 years of experience and could put all 6 advances into traits. The big thing there was you had to qualify to be a knight and some yearly advances might be needed to increase your skill level to make it to the level you desire.  

In 4 we went with randomly rolled traits, which were not as problemicatic are they are in KAP5 with K&L. But even with fixed traits, the time it would take to quality for knighthood and such did slow down the chivarly bonus.

7 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

I found BoK&L not so much a problem with starting with Chivalry, as I tend to run a higher powered game.  My own house rules add additional information.  I also tend to emphasize the difference between Roman and British Christianity and the Pelagian Heresy.  The Fae also have a bigger impact, but start slow until Excalibur shows up.

So, we really aren't necessarily arguing about the system, but rather we feel 80 point threshold is too low simply because Greg made a statement that 80 was a mistake.

Not quite.

My initial beef was with how rolling random traits in K&L with British Christianity,  Logres regional modifiers, 6 discretionary points and the free 16 in any trait tended to lead to super glory characters. I had a group of PKs who were netting over 500 glory a year just staying at home.It lead to some serious inflation and escalation issues. But Greg had a post on the Nocturnal forums where he said that random traits shouldn't get the free 16, so that would probably fix the problems I had.

My current group is using the standardize traits, and the 96 threshold for the Chivalry Bonus, but they are in 418, so as far as they know there is no such thing, yet. 

As for the 96 thing, Greg said that the 80 which was used for decades was an error, and that chivalrous knight were supposed to be more rare. He also said that he had more trait bonuses in mind and some sort of tiers for the bonuses, and I'm looking forward to seeing those turn up in a future product.

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

 I think the slow changes between editions over the years with feedback did much more to make him feel that the 80 was too low than realizing that way back when 80 was too low.

Yeahm, that and as Greg said, a math error. In KAP1 there were no trait modfiers so getting to 80 took some luck and some work. Over the years PKs got more and more trait modifers, and 80 got to be a lot easier. Plus I do think there was something to Greg thinking there were five Chivalrous traits and not six.

7 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

  Look at how Runequest changed and how Runemasters were initially created/played and how they are now. Same with Pendragon. 

Actually RQ has changed much much ore than Pendragon has. Game mechanics-wise wise Pendragon has been pretty much the same since KAP3. And the differences between 1 and 3 aren't all that much. Chargen has had more changes than anything else. 

7 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

If there is another edition, I would assume that there will be changes as well.  We will have to see. All I will say, YPMV, and it is up to you to find the game style you like best.

The thing with the 96 is that it was added to this edition. As far a future editions go, while I do expect some changes, I hope they are minor. Pendragon is a fairly sound game system and doesn't need to be "fixed". I can see a few tweaks and such, but the game doesn't need an overhaul. 

I don't mind radical stuff in games based off of Pendragon, though. But I want the core game to basically remain the core game. 

[Tizun Thane]

On 1/29/2019 at 4:25 AM, Atgxtg said:

my very first KAP campaign, back in the 80s was set in Cornwall. It ended up being very interesting when the PKs all wanted to back the Boy King, but their liege didn't. 

It's a bit late, of course, but your old campaign sounds very interresting. How dit it turn out?

[Hzark10]

On 1/1/2019 at 4:36 AM, Atgxtg said:

That's only partially true. Pretty much every official KAP scenario had some mandatory trait and passion tests ,or at least ones that were mandatory to succeed at the adventures. 

You have hit the nail on the head.  BUT there is a difference between passing a test, and being forced to make a test.  Some scenarios require a certain trait to successfully be passed in order to continue.  If you have a trait of 16 or above, you are FORCED to take the test, while someone who has 15 or less has a choice in the matter. In the regard of fighting a giant, or some other creature you would prefer not to fight, if you are notable, you must fail in order not to fight.  Whereas if you are not notable, you can choose not to fight.

And, as you said, in some sceanarios, someone must succeed in order to continue.

[Morien]

16 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

If you have a trait of 16 or above, you are FORCED to take the test

Only if you want to go against the trait. If you want to go along with the trait, you don't have to roll if no one else is rolling (voluntary test), either.

But if everyone is rolling Valorous to engage a Giant (mandatory test), then even if your (modified) Valorous is 16+, you still have to roll it.

[Hzark10]

7 minutes ago, Morien said:

Only if you want to go against the trait.

That's true, and thanks for the clarification.

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

You have hit the nail on the head.  BUT there is a difference between passing a test, and being forced to make a test.  Some scenarios require a certain trait to successfully be passed in order to continue.  If you have a trait of 16 or above, you are FORCED to take the test, while someone who has 15 or less has a choice in the matter. In the regard of fighting a giant, or some other creature you would prefer not to fight, if you are notable, you must fail in order not to fight.  Whereas if you are not notable, you can choose not to fight.

And, as you said, in some sceanarios, someone must succeed in order to continue.

Yes often there is a choice but often it is a false choice,  as in roll the trait or out of story. Often Greg would simply write stuff where everybody has to roll and they do not get a choice. I think the wording was made more ambitious in latter editions  so people who don't like traits and passions governing their behavior and limiting their control over their characters had an out. 

[Morien]

56 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes often there is a choice but often it is a false choice,  as in roll the trait or out of story. Often Greg would simply write stuff where everybody has to roll and they do not get a choice. I think the wording was made more ambitious in latter editions  so people who don't like traits and passions governing their behavior and limiting their control over their characters had an out. 

I make distinction between trait choices and trait tests. The former is voluntary (but 16+ has to roll and FAIL to choose to go against the notable trait), and the latter is mandatory (everyone rolls, with consequences based on the roll). Examples of the latter would be the previously mentioned Valorous rolls (you have to succeed to engage the monster) and many of the trait tests in the adventures, in particular when it has a magical origin, let's say a magical field of poppies that causes people to fall to sleep as they try to cross it (roll Energetic to resist).

[Atgxtg]

38 minutes ago, Morien said:

I make distinction between trait choices and trait tests. The former is voluntary (but 16+ has to roll and FAIL to choose to go against the notable trait), and the latter is mandatory (everyone rolls, with consequences based on the roll).

That's a good idea. I was noting that in the published adventures there are a lot of time where a character's virtues are tested, and rolls are required. It makes sense too. While we would all like to be paragons of virtue the reality is that in real life people don't always live up to the ideal. But in most RPGs it is a lot easier to do so, because the player ususally has complete control over his character and doesn't have to deal with the  temptations and threats that the character would have to. The gorgeous temptress that might sway a man's actions , the pot of gold and the like are all illusionary rewards, and thus easy for a player to resist.

38 minutes ago, Morien said:

 

Examples of the latter would be the previously mentioned Valorous rolls (you have to succeed to engage the monster) and many of the trait tests in the adventures, in particular when it has a magical origin, let's say a magical field of poppies that causes people to fall to sleep as they try to cross it (roll Energetic to resist).

That would be one Ozsome poppy field. 

 

[JonL]

What is frustrating about the dynamic is that the rules describe traits below 16 and guides for roleplaying,  and then scenarios use them as saving throws, sometimes with extremely high stakes.

[Atgxtg]

17 hours ago, JonL said:

What is frustrating about the dynamic is that the rules describe traits below 16 and guides for roleplaying,  and then scenarios use them as saving throws, sometimes with extremely high stakes.

There is something similar with checks. The core rules, especially the latter editions note that checks are only awarded when the GM states so, yet most published adventures are fairly liberal in awarding such checks, with practically every use being worth a check. My impression is that most uses in play are worth a check, especially considering the `1 adventure per year pace, but that the later rules were written to give GMs who prefer to limit skills checks the ability to do so. I suspect the same hold true with the trait rules. While the rules have been loosened up for people who want more control over how they roleplay their character, the original intention seems to have been more geared towards trait rolls.  

I would have loved to have seen Greg run KAP to see just how he ran it. 

[SirUkpyr]

I looked at the debate and decided to split the baby (grins).

I set the Chivalry bonus at 90. Still makes it harder for a pagan to get the needed numbers, but not quite as hard as if it were at 96.

Of course, every game is different, and YPMV.