Feast Question

[Atgxtg]

One of my PKs is going to host a feast. Since he is the host he will naturally sit at the Host's table, "Above the Salt". Does he get the extra 100 glory for that? To me it seems like it isn't that big a deal to sit at the high table when your the host.

[SirUkpyr]

Oh - it is always a big deal to host a Feast.

1. Host is spending money for food and entertainment - which is conspicuous consumption - *everyone* sees he is spending money.

2. He is hosting other people - perhaps his lord - a high glory guest - an RTK - etc etc.

 

Myself - I would give him either the glory for the feast itself, based on how much he is spending - OR the extra 100 glory - whichever is higher.

[Atgxtg]

12 minutes ago, SirUkpyr said:

Oh - it is always a big deal to host a Feast.

1. Host is spending money for food and entertainment - which is conspicuous consumption - *everyone* sees he is spending money.

Yes but you usisally don't get so much glory for so little expenditure.

12 minutes ago, SirUkpyr said:

2. He is hosting other people - perhaps his lord - a high glory guest - an RTK - etc etc.

Indeed he is. He is holding a fine feast and is inviting every VIP he knows. He just got landed and wants to show off. 

12 minutes ago, SirUkpyr said:

Myself - I would give him either the glory for the feast itself, based on how much he is spending - OR the extra 100 glory - whichever is higher.

It just seems to be a cheap way to buy glory. The PK is giving a fine feast (4d/person,) and spending £ 2. aI don't want the PKs to be buying glory at 50 per £ 1. 

Maybe the 100 glory award should be scaled to match the size and grandeur of the feast? A small feast with modest fare might only be worth 10 or 20 Glory? 

Something along the lines of cost per person times duration times a size factor?

 

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by Atgxtg

[SirUkpyr]

6 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Indeed he is. He is holding a fine feast and is inviting every VIP he knows. He just got landed and wants to show off.  

It just seems to be a cheap way to buy glory. The PK is giving a fine feast (4d/person,) and spending £ 2. aI don't want the PKs to be buying glory at 50 per £ 1. 

Maybe the 100 glory award should be scaled to match the size and grandeur of the feast? A small feast with modest fare might only be worth 10 or 20 Glory? 

Something along the lines of cost per person times duration times a size factor?

You must remember - 1L will feed a peasant for a full year.

What if one of his VIPs takes offense at something that happened at the feast? That VIP will expect the host to make things right. ex: "HOST - your servant just spilled wine on my new cloth-of-gold outfit - I demand that you replace it"... 25L later - it is replaced.

Or another VIP challenges one of the PKs to a duel due to an offense given a while ago. How will the Host handle it.

Another thing to think about - just cuz you host a feast doesn't mean you are "above the salt" - you have to have the actual social position. What I mean is that being the host means you are at the head of the table. To be above the salt, you actually *need* a high table that is not only at the head of the table but also raised. Host PK with other PK knights - not going to be lording over them "above the salt" - and thus no +100g.

 

Also - where *did* you find the 100g for sitting above the salt?

[Ravian]

25 minutes ago, SirUkpyr said:

Also - where *did* you find the 100g for sitting above the salt?

I'm pretty sure that's in Book of Feasts, you gain glory equal to your geniality at the end of the feast, multiplied by 10 if you have the most out of the other players, and an additional 100 if you ended up at the high table by the end.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, SirUkpyr said:

You must remember - 1L will feed a peasant for a full year.

I remember, but you have to consider that each vassal knight has £1 in discretionary funds every year, and with a luck from adventuring could run a feast every year. In fact most knights actually go to several feasts every year.  I doubt the people of station in the land who do regularly sit "above the Salt" are netting an extra 500 glory a year for the various feasts.

Quote

What if one of his VIPs takes offense at something that happened at the feast? That VIP will expect the host to make things right. ex: "HOST - your servant just spilled wine on my new cloth-of-gold outfit - I demand that you replace it"... 25L later - it is replaced.

Or another VIP challenges one of the PKs to a duel due to an offense given a while ago. How will the Host handle it.

Both are interesting roleplaying challenges but hardly anything that is going to come up each feast, or justify the 100 glory.

Quote

Another thing to think about - just cuz you host a feast doesn't mean you are "above the salt" - you have to have the actual social position. What I mean is that being the host means you are at the head of the table. To be above the salt, you actually *need* a high table that is not only at the head of the table but also raised. Host PK with other PK knights - not going to be lording over them "above the salt" - and thus no +100g.

Uh, no. The table is considered the "high table" because of the status of the people at it, not because it is raised. The host does indeed sit at the high table, and he various clues on the cards promote that. Also, even if the other PKs are of equal status and wind up "above the salt" they just get the benefit too. 

There is nothing in the book of the feast that states that "above the salt" doesn't apply to small, local feats, such as ones following a knighting ceremony. At least nothing that I could find.

But honestly, I think the Glory awards for feats should probably be scaled to match the size, grandeur and duration of the feast. There is precedent for that with the extra hundred glory for a regal feast. I think I do up an optional table that modifies glory rewards according to size and grandeur. A small, ordinary feast shouldn't be as glorious as a large grand one.

Quote

Also - where *did* you find the 100g for sitting above the salt?

Page 12, second paragraph under THE END OF THE FEAST

Quote

All other characters earn Glory equal to their final Geniality, if positive. Add 100 Glory each if the feast was a royal one, and a further 100 for any character who sat Above the Salt.

 

[Morien]

11 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

But honestly, I think the Glory awards for feats should probably be scaled to match the size, grandeur and duration of the feast. There is precedent for that with the extra hundred glory for a regal feast. I think I do up an optional table that modifies glory rewards according to size and grandeur. A small, ordinary feast shouldn't be as glorious as a large grand one. 

I have not read the Book of Feasts, but the above is definitely what I would be doing. Attending or hosting a minor feast for your friends and family should not net the same amount of Glory as the Count hosting 100 knights and ladies.

Also, hosting the Feast, IMHO, should follow the rules of Conspicuous Consumption in ESTATE. Otherwise, as you correctly noted, hosting a feast will net way too much Glory.

Nor should simply attending a Royal Feast be worth of 100 Glory. This would be more in line what you get from attending Arthur's coronation feast or his wedding*! Instead, I would give no extra Glory for people below the salt (save for what scaling modifier I may have given previously in the first paragraph), but getting 100 for being honored by the King to sit with him might be OK. Although I would limit this to just once per year: Sir Kay doesn't get 100+100 Glory each time he shares the table with Arthur**.

* Note: I am not currently at home so I am unable to check how much Glory you get from attending the Wedding of Arthur & Guinever in 514 (IIRC), but I seem to recall that stuff like Uther's funeral was 50 Glory.

** This, by the way, is the problem with giving Glory for 'everyday' events.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Morien

[Atgxtg]

Yeah. I think what happens is that Book of Feasts  gives out glory for the feast to make the process interesting and worthwhile, compared to adventuring. 

I don't mind the Royal feast so much, as it would be a lot less common.

I'm working on a sliding scale to replace the x10 multiplier and the 100 Glory for the High Table. 

Oh, while I'm nitpicking, I think the seating arrangement is all wrong. By the Book of Feast seating is done according to APP, which is nice in that it makes APP useful, instead of the dump stat that is has been. But everything else in the book stresses that seating is according to rank and prestige (glory). So a Glory modifier to APP would make a lot of sense.

 

[SirUkpyr]

Ah - I don't own The Book of Feasts (yet). I use the Feast Data from one of the older books, which I cannot recall of the top of my head.

Edited February 7, 2019 by SirUkpyr

[Atgxtg]

20 minutes ago, SirUkpyr said:

Ah - I don't own The Book of Feasts (yet). I use the Feast Data from one of the older books, which I cannot recall of the top of my head.

Ah.

The way it works in Book of Feasts is that characters gain geniality based upon their seating, actions, and event cards played during the feat. At the end of the feast the one with the highest geniality is considered the most entertaining guest and "wins" the feast, getting ten times his gentility in glory. Everyone else just gets their gentility. Those who sit "Above the Salt" (at or near the high table)can't play event cards (too great a risk of making a fool of themselves) but are awarded an extra 100 Glory. And they add an extra 100 Glory if the fest is a Royal one. Some other Glory awards are possible through he event cards but these are modest amounts  or rare occurrences and so aren't a problem. 

What appears to be a problem is that the glory awards from a feast are the same regardless of the size, splendor, or cost of the feast. I think grander, lager feast should be more glorious than smaller, more common affiars. I also am concerned about PKs taking turns holding feasts so they can all grab an extra 100 Glory or so, on a regular basis. 

Now seating in BoF is determined by an APP roll, but there are all sorts of social consequences for the character and the host if someone is seating beneath someone of lower station or glory.

 

What I was thinking of was:

1.  Factor Station and Glory into the Seating arrangements. Either by using the +1 per 1000 Glory, or +1 per Glory Band (i.e. +1 at 1K, +2 at 2K, +3 at 4K, +4 at 8K, etc).
2. Adjust the multiplier to glory for "winning" the feast, and the award for sitting "Above the Salt" based on the size and splendor of the feast. So a small feast with ordinary fare might only be x2 and 20 Glory instead of x10 and 100.

 

 

[sirlarkins]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Oh, while I'm nitpicking, I think the seating arrangement is all wrong. By the Book of Feast seating is done according to APP, which is nice in that it makes APP useful, instead of the dump stat that is has been. But everything else in the book stresses that seating is according to rank and prestige (glory). So a Glory modifier to APP would make a lot of sense.

You're not the first to bring up this apparent discrepancy. I'm actually writing a "Designer's Notes" post for the Chaosium blog that will in part address what the thinking was behind this mechanic, along with a suggested house rule or two.

5 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

What appears to be a problem is that the glory awards from a feast are the same regardless of the size, splendor, or cost of the feast. I think grander, lager feast should be more glorious than smaller, more common affiars. I also am concerned about PKs taking turns holding feasts so they can all grab an extra 100 Glory or so, on a regular basis. 

The idea is that any feast in which you break out the Feast Deck and the special rules is going to be the feast of the year for the P-Ks. Not necessarily the grandest or largest feast they attend or host, but the most memorable, and therefore the one deserving of Glory. As Morien suggested, I would limit these to one per year. So if your group wants to game the system and take turns hosting, fine. If you have a five-player group, each knight is earning an extra 100 Glory every five years. I also like the suggestion of going out of your way to make things complicated for the host--putting on a feast should be stressful!

[Atgxtg]

Just now, sirlarkins said:

You're not the first to bring up this apparent discrepancy. I'm actually writing a "Designer's Notes" post for the Chaosium blog that will in part address what the thinking was behind this mechanic, along with a suggested house rule or two.

Good. As it stands now it's fun, and thats good, but it is also a cheap way to get an extra hundred glory, so it liable to exploitation.

Just now, sirlarkins said:

The idea is that any feast in which you break out the Feast Deck and the special rules is going to be the feast of the year for the P-Ks. Not necessarily the grandest or largest feast they attend or host, but the most memorable, and therefore the one deserving of Glory. As Morien suggested, I would limit these to one per year. So if your group wants to game the system and take turns hosting, fine.

Okay, that helps a lot. I really haven't had any problems with things , yet (except for tied geniality scores), but now that my PKs are started to get landed they will want to find ways to spend their libra.

Just now, sirlarkins said:

If you have a five-player group, each knight is earning an extra 100 Glory every five years.

It can be much more than that. If the PKs take turns holding one feast a year, and everybody who make it "Above the Salt" gets the extra 100 Glory, then multiple knights could get it every year. That can be rather autmatic if the PKs have high glory and are selctive about the guest lists.

Just now, sirlarkins said:

 I also like the suggestion of going out of your way to make things complicated for the host--putting on a feast should be stressful!

It is, just this one turned out to be more stressful on the GM than on the player!

This feast came about because one PK finally manage to marry the widow he's been after, and his wife thought it would be a good idea to hold a small feast, where he could meet some of his neighboring knights, and also introduce them to the members of his order (the other PKs). Se though this could help both her husband and his friends politically. So a small, but fine feast for roughly 20 knights and wives. 

The PK, however, who is known for throwing rather large bashes in real life,  decided to expand the guest list to include the Earl (about another 50 guests including retinue), the Archbishop of London (who the PK is on good terms with. He even performed the PK's wedding ceremony, at St. Paul's), the Archbishop of Salisbury (doesn't want to snub the local archbishop), and practically everybody else he's rubbed elbows with over the last decade whose name he remembers. So now we got over 100 attendees (and probably growing).  

Some of the more interesting bits:

• The PK kinda inherited the squire of his wife's deceased husband, whose been helping around the estate since his lord died ten years ago. The PK finally decided to knight him, and maintain him as a household knight and has turned the feast into a knighting feast. The Earl is okay with this because it is both early in the campaign, when knights can knight others, and because the PK is known for his loyalty, so the Earl essentially gets a "free" knight out of this. 
• The PK wanted to seat the fellow members of his Order (The Knights of the Griffon) "above the Salt" but his wife told him that would wreak havoc with the seating arrangement, and his GM told him it would mean an Arbitrary check. 
• One of the reason why the wife planned for the PKs Order is that she knew if she didn't invite them,he would, and so she plans of sending them off hunting the week before the feast in the hopes that they can bag something exotic to spice things up. At the very least it will make all those Red Deer encounters pay off ("More venison, m'lord?").

 

 

[sirlarkins]

32 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

It can be much more than that. If the PKs take turns holding one feast a year, and everybody who make it "Above the Salt" gets the extra 100 Glory, then multiple knights could get it every year. That can be rather autmatic if the PKs have high glory and are selctive about the guest lists.

Keep in mind that the host of the feast is the only one guaranteed a seat Above the Salt; everyone else requires a Critical APP result. Granted they can modify their odds with jewelry and a successful Fashion roll (for which they'll need the assistance of a wife or Tailor, as that's a non-knightly skill), but in my play-testing I've never had more than two player-knights seated AtS at any given feast based on APP rolls.

I really like how you handled the players trying to do an end-around on those rules, too. An Arbitrary check and "cheesing off the wife" are a fine price to pay!

At the end of the day, if you find feasts are leading to too much Glory for your taste, you're always free to modify the totals. Remember that all Glory awards are merely suggested amounts. Per KAP 5.2 (p. 122):

Quote

 

Glory represents the respect of one’s peers, not something palpable like gold. Thus, to a great extent, Glory is dependent on the reaction of the Gamemaster and the other players to your roleplaying. This section offers guidelines, but not absolute rules, for earning Glory. If you impress everyone with your character’s actions, chances are that he receives some Glory. 

If your actions during the game are banal or uninspired, or if you rely on a powerful fellow character to gain attention and success, you should expect to receive less than the usual Glory for your actions. 

 

[Atgxtg]

10 minutes ago, sirlarkins said:

Keep in mind that the host of the feast is the only one guaranteed a seat Above the Salt; everyone else requires a Critical APP result. Granted they can modify their odds with jewelry and a successful Fashion roll (for which they'll need the assistance of a wife or Tailor, as that's a non-knightly skill), but in my play-testing I've never had more than two player-knights seated AtS at any given feast based on APP rolls.

I think I've seen three. I'm just being proactive about it. If this is supposed to be the "best" feast of the year, it won't be a problem. I was just thinking about what happens if and when all my PKs get knighted and have libra to burn, and each could throw a feast a year or some such silliness.

10 minutes ago, sirlarkins said:

I really like how you handled the players trying to do an end-around on those rules, too. An Arbitrary check and "cheesing off the wife" are a fine price to pay!

The funny bit is that the feast is something of a red herring. The actual adventure this year is going to occur during the hunt prior to the feast, and the whole feast could get delayed or scrapped depending on what happens to the PKs during the hunt. Not that they know that. 

10 minutes ago, sirlarkins said:

At the end of the day, if you find feasts are leading to too much Glory for your taste, you're always free to modify the totals. Remember that all Glory awards are merely suggested amounts. Per KAP 5.2 (p. 122):

Thanks. I haven't had any real problems with it yet, but know my players, and if they think they can get 100 Glory by spending £2 for a feast, then they will try to hold more feasts. If that happens I'll either have to scale the awards, or introduce some sort of escalation, where the knights have to one-up each other to keep the glory awards high. After all, roast suckling pig isn't so fancy after Troit Piglet ala Almondine. 

Overall the feast book has been a lot of fun for the group, and very helpful to GMing. Since I started the campaign very early (410AD), a lot of the typical sources for adventures (tournaments, chivalry, romance) aren't available yet, and feast help me to work up adventures during the "good years" when everything is going well, and there isn't much for knights to do.  

[Morien]

2 hours ago, sirlarkins said:

The idea is that any feast in which you break out the Feast Deck and the special rules is going to be the feast of the year for the P-Ks. Not necessarily the grandest or largest feast they attend or host, but the most memorable, and therefore the one deserving of Glory. As Morien suggested, I would limit these to one per year. So if your group wants to game the system and take turns hosting, fine. If you have a five-player group, each knight is earning an extra 100 Glory every five years. I also like the suggestion of going out of your way to make things complicated for the host--putting on a feast should be stressful!

I was wondering if there was some kind of a limiting mechanism (as with the rule-of-thumb one adventure per session per year). Personally, I'd make the Feast the Pentecostal/Spring Court Feast, and discount any smaller ones (including any the PKs can afford to throw). I might still use the cards and such to generate events in other feasts, but I would scale the Glory gain way down.

But as said, I don't own the book nor have I read it, so I try to keep away from these discussions. (I have my own little system in place which works for us.)

[Atgxtg]

 

2 hours ago, Morien said:

I was wondering if there was some kind of a limiting mechanism (as with the rule-of-thumb one adventure per session per year). 

No, there isn't. But in a way feats are like tournaments. While a GM could have the PKs do the tourney circuit and go to a half dozen (or more) tournaments in a given year, no GM I know has even done so. Ultimately it comes down to how much time do you want to spend at tournaments as opposed to doing something else. Same with feasts. If the GM runs a half dozen feasts each year using the feat system, then there isn;t going to be much time to do anything else, and the typical glory awards are going to be pretty low,  about 3-10 per feast. Yes some PKs might sit "Above the Salt" and net the extra 100 Glory, and one PK will be most congenial and get 70-150 glory or so, but most PKs are getting a pittance.

 

Oh, one other thing that I think might be an improvement would be for the GM to generate some sort of Geniality Threshold for the PKs to win. As it stands now the PK with the highest Geniality is declared the most congenial Knight at the feast, regardless of whatever any of the NPKs are doing. I had one or two feats where a PK won by default, being the only player left at the feast, due to feast event cards. It would seem to make sesne to me if a NPK could win the award once in awhile. Maybe some sort of random die roll to see how the NPKs are doing?

 

[Morien]

28 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

No, there isn't. But in a way feats are like tournaments. While a GM could have the PKs do the tourney circuit and go to a half dozen (or more) tournaments in a given year, no GM I know has even done so. Ultimately it comes down to how much time do you want to spend at tournaments as opposed to doing something else. Same with feasts. If the GM runs a half dozen feasts each year using the feat system, then there isn;t going to be much time to do anything else, and the typical glory awards are going to be pretty low,  about 3-10 per feast. Yes some PKs might sit "Above the Salt" and net the extra 100 Glory, and one PK will be most congenial and get 70-150 glory or so, but most PKs are getting a pittance. 

I was referring to the design intent (the most important feast of the year) that David mentioned in his reply.

I really think that the issue is more on how high the extra Glory are. 100 is heck of a lot of Glory, comparable to defeating a Small Giant in solo combat. You say that there is the most congenial bonus as well? Meaning that a single PK can easily net 200 Glory from a single feast he is hosting, which is clearly way too much. If you drop those rewards to, say:

Most congenial: double the geniality glory

Above the salt: +10 for small (knightly) feasts, +20 baronial feasts, +30 for comital/ducal feasts, +50 for Royal feasts.

then this becomes much less of an issue.

EDIT: Also, no bonus for attending normal yearly Royal Feasts. Extra Glory only when something important is happening, like the Royal Wedding or Coronation. Although I might give the most congenial knight like +50 Glory, if they win the roll below.

28 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Oh, one other thing that I think might be an improvement would be for the GM to generate some sort of Geniality Threshold for the PKs to win. As it stands now the PK with the highest Geniality is declared the most congenial Knight at the feast, regardless of whatever any of the NPKs are doing. I had one or two feats where a PK won by default, being the only player left at the feast, due to feast event cards. It would seem to make sesne to me if a NPK could win the award once in awhile. Maybe some sort of random die roll to see how the NPKs are doing?

Well, if you use the above tweak, then the congenial glory reward is unlikely to break the Glory Bank.

But yes, I think you could easily enough come up with some easy roll. Assuming the 3-10 Geniality is typical, you could roll 3d6 for the highest NPK Geniality (depending how hard it is to get 10; adjust down to 2d6 if 10 should be the winner in most cases, adjust +1d6 if you are in Camelot with the charming Sir Tor). That should give you reasonable numbers rather than allow PKs to default themselves to the top.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Morien

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Morien said:

I was referring to the design intent (the most important feast of the year) that David mentioned in his reply.

I really think that the issue is more on how high the extra Glory are. 100 is heck of a lot of Glory, comparable to defeating a Small Giant in solo combat. You say that there is the most congenial bonus as well? Meaning that a single PK can easily net 200 Glory from a single feast he is hosting, which is clearly way too much.

It's not quite easy, but it is possible. The glory for geniality varies a bit based on seating, length of the feast, die rolls and event cards. IMO the geniality awards isn't an issue so much as the "Above the Salt" award is. One character netting 10-200 glory isn't as big an issue as several characters netting 100 each. Even though it takes a critical APP roll for most PKs to sit "Above the Salt" someone with a good APP and £10 in Jewelry can get a lot of criticals. 

1 hour ago, Morien said:

If you drop those rewards to, say:

Most congenial: double the geniality glory

Then you might as well not run the feast. The typical award is about 1 glory per round of feast, plus another point for a successful roll of a feast related ability. So about 5 glory on average. Hardly worth spending the time fighting over another 5 glory, is it? Yes, seating can add another point per round, as can critical rolls, and the feast cards can make a difference too, but feasts just aren't going to be very interesting if the winner only gets another 5 glory on average. 

1 hour ago, Morien said:

Above the salt: +10 for small (knightly) feasts, +20 baronial feasts, +30 for comital/ducal feasts, +50 for Royal feasts.

then this becomes much less of an issue.

Yes, and frankly I think this is where the big reduction probably should be. 

1 hour ago, Morien said:

EDIT: Also, no bonus for attending normal yearly Royal Feasts. Extra Glory only when something important is happening, like the Royal Wedding or Coronation. Although I might give the most congenial knight like +50 Glory, if they win the roll below.

As far as I know there isn't any normal yearly Royal Feast for most PKs.

1 hour ago, Morien said:

Well, if you use the above tweak, then the congenial glory reward is unlikely to break the Glory Bank.

It;'s not the congenial award that breaks the glory bank so much as the "Above the Salt" and "Royal Feast" rewards. THe congeinal rewards is variable and only one PK gets it. The other awards can apply to multiple characters. 

1 hour ago, Morien said:

But yes, I think you could easily enough come up with some easy roll. Assuming the 3-10 Geniality is typical, you could roll 3d6 for the highest NPK Geniality (depending how hard it is to get 10; adjust down to 2d6 if 10 should be the winner in most cases, adjust +1d6 if you are in Camelot with the charming Sir Tor). That should give you reasonable numbers rather than allow PKs to default themselves to the top.

Yeah, I think so. I just need to run a few more feasts to get a better idea of what an average amount is. They way it works is that:

• Feats last from 2-5 rounds depending on size (Small, Medium, Large, Royal)
• Seating provides from 0-2 points per round depending on seating (Blow the Salt, Near the Salt, Above the Salt)
• Appropriate skill/Trait rolls can get an extra point for a success, two for a critical.
• Feast event cards can have all sorts of variable modifiers. Most will be worth 0-1, but some can be worth as much as 5 depending on how well the PK handles the tasks on the card. Character who are sitting Above the Salt, can't draw feast cards as some of the cards are bad, and they can't risk embarrassing themselves while under the spotlight.

So An average character who has a 10 in all relevant skills and traits could get from 3-9 (average  a little above above 4.5) geniality at a medium feast, but one sitting Above the Salt could get from 6-12 (average a little above 7.5). So something like 1d6+Length of Feast or 1d6+twice Length of Feast. 

 

[Morien]

10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Then you might as well not run the feast. The typical award is about 1 glory per round of feast, plus another point for a successful roll of a feast related ability. So about 5 glory on average. Hardly worth spending the time fighting over another 5 glory, is it? Yes, seating can add another point per round, as can critical rolls, and the feast cards can make a difference too, but feasts just aren't going to be very interesting if the winner only gets another 5 glory on average. 

I see. In that case, I'd suggest making the Most Congenial reward to be the same as Above the Salt reward I suggested in the above. And yes, this would mean that Small Feasts won't be that interesting in Glory Gain, but surely that is how it should be? Who cares that you were the most congenial knight in a family gathering in some manor in Salisbury? No one. So the Glory gain should reflect that. Yes, this is another way of saying "skip the small stuff unless important to the story" .

10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

As far as I know there isn't any normal yearly Royal Feast for most PKs.

I was referring to Spring/Pentecostal Court, with its customary feasting. These would be normal, every year stuff, and hence not worth extra glory for the rank-and-file attendees. Whereas if it is the Wedding Feast of Arthur and Guinever, then you get extra Glory for witnessing the wedding (less so about the feast itself, now that I think about it).

10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

So An average character who has a 10 in all relevant skills and traits could get from 3-9 (average  a little above above 4.5) geniality at a medium feast, but one sitting Above the Salt could get from 6-12 (average a little above 7.5). So something like 1d6+Length of Feast or 1d6+twice Length of Feast. 

Thanks for the explanation. I would base it for the Above the Salt numbers, so a base of (length * 2). How many Skill/Trait rolls do you have? 1 per round? Less? It is very likely that at least one knight above the salt would be succeeding in most of his rolls, and someone in the Royal Feast might even crit once or twice. So I might make it:

(length*2)+rolls-modifier for the feast size+1d3

Modifier: -3 for small, -2 for medium, -1 for large, 0 for Royal.

Yes, this would make it quite hard for a PK to win the Most Congenial title in a royal feast, which is how it should be, IMHO. This is equivalent to saying that you were more charming than all those Round Table Knights out there. It should be very difficult, and rely on getting good Feast Cards and acing those, too.

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, Morien said:

I see. In that case, I'd suggest making the Most Congenial reward to be the same as Above the Salt reward I suggested in the above. And yes, this would mean that Small Feasts won't be that interesting in Glory Gain, but surely that is how it should be? Who cares that you were the most congenial knight in a family gathering in some manor in Salisbury? No one. So the Glory gain should reflect that. Yes, this is another way of saying "skip the small stuff unless important to the story" .

Yeah., that might work. 

4 hours ago, Morien said:

I was referring to Spring/Pentecostal Court, with its customary feasting. These would be normal, every year stuff, and hence not worth extra glory for the rank-and-file attendees. Whereas if it is the Wedding Feast of Arthur and Guinever, then you get extra Glory for witnessing the wedding (less so about the feast itself, now that I think about it).

Does every knight go to the King's Court for that? 

4 hours ago, Morien said:

Thanks for the explanation. I would base it for the Above the Salt numbers, so a base of (length * 2). How many Skill/Trait rolls do you have? 1 per round? Less? It is very likely that at least one knight above the salt would be succeeding in most of his rolls, and someone in the Royal Feast might even crit once or twice. So I might make it:

Generally uyou get to make one roll per round. You deicde what you are going to do (gossip, flirt, indulge) and make a roll. Or you draw one or more feast cards (the amount you draw depends on your glory) and play one, along with whatever rolls and effects accompany that card. Generally speaking the cards work out to about the same as making a roll, but there are some rare cards with special opportunities to shine-or make a complete fool of yourself. 

4 hours ago, Morien said:

Congenial title in a royal feast, which is how it should be, IMHO. This is equivalent to saying that you were more charming than all those Round Table Knights out there. It should be very difficult, and rely on getting good Feast Cards and acing those, too.

Yeah, that's just it. As written a PK always wins. Where realistically a PK might sometimes win. 

[Morien]

Just now, Atgxtg said:

Quote

I was referring to Spring/Pentecostal Court, with its customary feasting. These would be normal, every year stuff, and hence not worth extra glory for the rank-and-file attendees. Whereas if it is the Wedding Feast of Arthur and Guinever, then you get extra Glory for witnessing the wedding (less so about the feast itself, now that I think about it).

Does every knight go to the King's Court for that? 

Perhaps not every knight, but I would expect most of the landed knights, especially ones living as close as Salisbury, to make their way to Camelot for Pentecost. After all, it is the main social event of the year, and, later, likely the biggest tournament, too. If you look at the numbers of knights that attend a Royal Tournament, it is clearly a good chunk of all the knights of Britain.

[sirlarkins]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Yeah, that's just it. As written a PK always wins. Where realistically a PK might sometimes win. 

That's because the intention is to measure the relative geniality between player-knights. In other words, it's who among the player-knights is the most Genial, not who is most Genial overall. (In that case, an average player-knight would almost certainly be outshined in all but the smallest feasts.)

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Morien said:

Perhaps not every knight, but I would expect most of the landed knights, especially ones living as close as Salisbury, to make their way to Camelot for Pentecost. After all, it is the main social event of the year, and, later, likely the biggest tournament, too. If you look at the numbers of knights that attend a Royal Tournament, it is clearly a good chunk of all the knights of Britain.

I can see knights from Salisbury, but I have doubts about most of the landed knights. The travel times could get horrendous, especially for those outside of Logres. Plus the logistics of providing food and accommodations for thousands upon thousands of knights. For several days prior, while waiting for everyone to show up. Plus it would leave everybody's land wide open to attack. With all the knights away at the Kings Court. 

I think it would probably be just the major landholders and their households, knights of the Round Table, Companions of Arthur, Queen Knights, any local knights who want to make a short trip, knights errant who are looking for a meal, etc. Still a hefty number of knights, but probably not the majority. Although, as you pointed out the big torunaments tend to get attached to it, so the number probably increases over time.

I'm currently at 420, and don';t expect it to be such a big deal under Constatin. 

 

[Atgxtg]

Just now, sirlarkins said:

That's because the intention is to measure the relative geniality between player-knights. In other words, it's who among the player-knights is the most Genial, not who is most Genial overall. (In that case, an average player-knight would almost certainly be outshined in all but the smallest feasts.)

Yes, but why should feasts be any different from say, tournaments? 

As I noted previously, I've had a PK "win" a feast by default. He was the only knight left in the hall with a positive geniality score.We all joked that it must have been a very dull feast. 

[sirlarkins]

Just now, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but why should feasts be any different from say, tournaments?

Because tournaments are formal recognitions of Glory, whereas feasts are informal.

Think of it this way: the "most genial" knight is among the attendants who gets talked about the next day. In modern terms, they'd be one of the attendees at a Hollywood shindig (among several) who got their red carpet photo retweeted the most.

Your example of the PK winning by default doesn't prove that the feast was dull. It's just that, with the PKs all leaving the feast early for one reason or another, that PK was at the feast the longest and therefore made the most lasting impression from among his cohort.