|
Haha yes! I'm pretty pumped for AD 486. Anyhow, I left your particular retellings of Cadogan's retreat and the Thin Knight hazy, as it'll be the story you each present to the Earl at Christmas that really counts. Give some thought to how your knight interprets the events of that afternoon through their own particular perceptive of religion, duty, and honor. Those knights who wish (minimum 1  ) will be asked to speak to the Earl and his court. No need for a literal retelling/typing of the events (though that would be kickin rad as hell), but dice rolls will certainly influence the receiving of your story.In regards to Sir Cadogan's episode: Tension between player knights is good, but let's ensure any rivalries or grudges are the domain of our group and the players in question. Also remember that your fellow knights are brothers-in-arms, and protaganism/railroading aside, are expected to watch your back in pitched combat. Uther's period is that of violence and cruelty. Knights gotta watch out for their own.
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
Since the Winter Phase is coming up: readers of ibntumart's game will know that since the GM has the right to hand out experience checks to any trait he chooses, it became a tradition in my old tabletop group - a tradition I continue in PbP games - to take a few minutes at the beginning of the Winter Phase to try and convince the GM that we've earned experience checks to certain skills and traits even if we didn't earn them through our rolls. So I'm gonna do that now. I've said it to ibntumart and I'll say it again here to Verr - this is not 'DCB saying that he deserves all these checks;' this is 'DCB trying to talk you into these checks, sometimes using tenuous reasoning.' It's important to say that up front so that it's clear that if the answer is no to any or even all of these suggested checks, it's understood that there'll be no hard feelings. Some of these rationales will most assuredly be longshots. But without further ado, things I'm arguing that Ysgarran deserves a check for: Temperate (after drinking so heavily after being knighted, Ysgarran doesn't want a hangover like that ever again) Just (accepted responsibility for the loss of the Thin Knight's 'hound' without hesitation) Reckless ('sure, I'll owe a creature of faerie a favor, what's the worst that could happen?') Merciful (argued for compassionate treatment of captured bandits) Forgiving (see above) Hunting (tracking Cadogan, meeting Pellinore) Stewardship (staying home to see to his manor instead of going around partying) Swimming (not really, just checking to see if you're paying attention) Horsemanship (multiple mounted combats, even if none of them strictly required Horsemanship rolls; chasing after Cadogan and Pellinore through the woods)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
I'll follow DCB's lead, if you don't mind Verr! Pious (calling for the priest to shrive him and tend to the dying) Knowledge (British Christianity) (after not having a response to Ysgarran's point about pride, Amig will ask some questions of his chaplain) Sword (taking down Gessius all by himself!) Horsemanship (from fighting on horseback) Battle (dealing with the mercs and using them effectively to hem the wolf in) Vengeful (killing the fleeing bandit, charging into the last knot of foes alone) Valorous (charging into the last knot of foes alone) Merciful (returning Gessius' token to the man, THOUGH I WANTED IT MYSELF) Faerie Lore (from having talked with the Thin Knight, maybe Florian will tell us a tale or two about faeries now)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
It's a great idea! Feel free to combine DCB's and the basic one most of you have already placed in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Does Heddwyn get to keep Trenus as hostage? I assumed he did and had his squire wrap him up, but I wanted to make sure. Though technically both he and Alwyn were attacking him, so Heddwyn's fine with splitting the ransom if he gets one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Verr posted:It's a great idea! Feel free to combine DCB's and the basic one most of you have already placed in the thread. It should be noted - half of the reason that I do this is because Pendragon, as a system, occasionally shows its age. It's best, I find, to be willing to cheese stats out as best one can even though Verr isn't a Dick GM; frankly you need those points sometimes, and it's best to get 'em while you can.  Basically what I'm saying is that it's okay to be a cheesy bastard with Pendragon, even with a more modern sensibility.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
I critted Fairie Lore and get a cbeck for that, but beyond that, if Verr thinks my actions deserve additional checks, he can give them to me. Its not up to me to decide what I should get.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Time for some  Friar John posted:Sir Amig's Glorious Deeds in the Year of Our Lord 485: Epicurius posted:Sir Florian's Glorious Deeds in the Year of Our Lord 485: FireSight posted:Sir Alwyn's Glorious Deeds in the Year of Our Lord 485: DivineCoffeeBinge posted:Sir Ysgarran's Glorious Deeds in the Year of our Lord 485 Viscardus posted:Sir Cadogan's Glorious Deeds in the Year of Our Lord 485 ibntumart posted:[i]Sir Heddwyn's Glorious Deeds in the Year of Our Lord 485 Everyone receives 1,000 Glory for being Knighted. Everyone receives 10 Glory for meeting the Great Wolf Máel-tuili and The Thin Knight. An additional 10 Glory to those who helped defeat it (including the spear-flank thing). Everyone receives 90 Glory for fighting and leading the Battle of the Brackish Bog. Not the most glamorous or glorious of fights, but those who where there will remember it for some time! As usual, keep being the bad dudes you are and feel free to voice questions/concerns. I'll be doing another review of ya'll actions and whatnot for extra glory/roleplaying experience checks. An IC post should go up tomorrow night.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
Quick question, do we get glory for defeating the individual knights?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Orate check - FAILED! Argh, seriously, I failed a 3+ roll. Valorous check - FAILED. Why couldn't this have been my Orate check?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Friar John posted:Quick question, do we get glory for defeating the individual knights? I'm wondering about this as well. If we're lobbying for checks based on other things, I'd argue that Cadogan should get a Prudent check for trying to talk down the Thin Knight (including using his time travel powers to undo Amig attacking him before you saw it! ). Of course, this is assuming that Cadogan's fit of madness isn't counted for anything, otherwise he should probably get a Reckless check instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
On the question of 'do crits using optional combat rules count,' I'd (obviously) argue that they do. Yeah, I'm getting +10 to my Sword skill by fighting defensively; I get an effective +10 to my Lance skill for charging an unmounted foe, too, and there's never any question of whether a crit with that modified score 'counts.' The game even specifically points out how use of optional combat rules is not dishonorable or inglorious. Having said that, I can see a pretty good argument for saying "a critical success using an optional combat rule will earn you an experience check, but any Glory awards for it are at the GM's discretion;" Glory awards are always at the GM's discretion, after all, and there's certainly an argument to be made that fighting defensively isn't, under most circumstances, the kind of thing that will get talked about when the stories are being retold (though in some cases it might be! GM's discretion!). Now, assuming 10 Glory per crit, I think Ysgarran is earning (10+10+10+45+10+10+10+1000+10+90)=1205 Glory, or 1215 is the Sword crit is declared to count. Not too shabby!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Friar John posted:Quick question, do we get glory for defeating the individual knights? Maybe! For this particular fight, mechanically, you are all splitting the glory for the battle as normal (barring DCB's leader glory). Bonus glory depends on your accounting at the feast. This is mostly my fault for mucking up the skirmish rules, but I'm also looking forward to tying Glory gains more closely to noble social interactions. DCB - Yeah, these are my concerns in a nutshell. Anyone else like to weigh in? V - The reckless check seems more appropriate given the circumstance. Sorry folks, gonna have to wait till tomorrow afternoon for that IC post. See you soon!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Verr posted:V - The reckless check seems more appropriate given the circumstance. Haha, fair enough. I said that because I wasn't sure whether Cadogan's actions while temporarily mad "counted" for the purposes of his traits. Before I post, what is Pellinore doing this Winter? Is he sticking around Salisbury the whole time, or did he leave before the snows came? Like I said (well, edited into) my previous post, Cadogan feels some responsibility for him, so he'd definitely at least invite him to visit his manor before he leaves, if possible. He'd invite him to stay for the whole winter, in fact, but I suspect that Pellinore would prefer to stay in Sarum if he's staying in Salisbury.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Depends on how we want to roll with the fumbles on passions. When I get some more free time, I'll put up a big "state of the game" type address 'cause I would definitely like all of your guys' input. As for Pellinore, he'd have respectfully declined but promised to party hard with Cadogan over Christmas. Tough to beat the comforts of a castle. Plus he has an agenda!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Hey, the next few days I've got some tests, so I might be a bit late with my posts. I'll be ready to catch up next Tuesday or so, though!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
No sweat. I'm 25% done with my thesis reading list... which is due next week. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Godspeed powering through! I don't miss writing Master's theses one bit and after watching my wife suffer through writing one for several years, am thankful I never had to suffer the pain of writing a dissertation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
Hey guys, sorry for my absence the last few days. I've been unexpectedly swamped, and will probably continue to be for the next couple days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
I am just drawing a blank for some reason. I keep trying to start a post, and then decide I hate it and stop. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
No worries. Life is pain, the stuggle bus is real, etc... Should be a decent post coming up tonight. I'll push it along to something a little more interactive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
I owe you a post, too... sorry! I'll get on that tonight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Is there a list in a book of noteables who should be at the court? Preferably with a listing of manors, so I can find my neighbors and be friendly with them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Yeah, but I should probably put together a list of "current" characters for you to interact with. The GPC and PC handbook list a few options but I've already deviated enough that they might not be overly useful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Alright, I think I'm going to have to drop from this game. I'm in too many at the moment, and this is one of the games I seem to be having issues writing posts for, so... it's probably better that I drop now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
No worries. I've been dragging my feet as well. I appreciate the warning, and thanks for playing! Big post tomorrow! Super duper promise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Works for me!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
Another big post to come tomorrow, but OOC instead of IC!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
A few of my thoughts on the game: - The issue of the critical passion failure. This can be a particularly tricky thematically, as proved by Sir Cadogan. Losing control of one’s character, even in the most general plot driven sense, is a bummer. I appreciate that the crit failure mechanism is a sort of mechanical deterrent to the constant use of passion rolls, due to their mechanical prowess of that sweet, sweet bonus. My solution: Inspired by the Dread roleplaying game, I propose a public “countdown” of sorts that is ticked downwards by each critical passion or otherwise non-combat related fatality. Start at say, 5 count, and each passion roll decreases that countdown until a player pushes the visible line a roll too far, and trigger a meltdown that has been brewing thematically for some time. The more the PC's push the limit, the more likely any given one of them is likely to invite disaster. In addition, I’ll be a little more picky in terms of accepting passion rolls. Every knight shouldn’t be rolling for Loyalty (Lord) each time he’s asked to fetch a letter. Barring awesome letter-fetching circumstances, of course. - For now, lets roll with DCB’s suggestion that a critical success on an attack roll modified by optional combat rules counts as a crit success for the purposes of glory and skill checks. More opportunities for increasing bad-assery can’t hurt. - Don’t split the party. The peasant/knight split could’ve ended with some excellent rewards based on the combatants, but instead pigeonholed a few knights into fighting without even the opportunity of material gain. - Post more regularly, but rely less upon mega-posts to drive the game. Flavor is no substitute for substance. - Abandon any hope of conforming any of the rule based "events" to the narrative flow of the adventure. The crit failure on the hunting roll nudged me into introducing the Thin Knight a little earlier in the story than I expected. These are some general changes/ideas. Do any of you have any concerns or advice for perpetuating this game? Any feedback would be appreciated. Feel free to post in the OOC thread or PM any concerns that you may not feel comfortable voicing in the open. List o' important folks to come tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
Some feedback, based on my own experience playing Pendragon as both a player and a GM: Actually, wait, first a disclaimer. My experience is, by and large, with tabletop groups of players who know one another well and who play off of one another well; the PbP environment shouldn't invalidate it, I think, but still, bear in mind that this isn't gospel, is all. ON PASSIONS: I've always found a healthy dose of "Rule of Cool" to be beneficial when dealing with Passion rolls. That is to say, a player gets to roll a Passion if doing so would be cool. Now, I'll be the first to admit - I am nigh-constantly trying to cheese out Passion rolls, casting hither and yon for justifications, whenever possible; Pendragon is a game where every point counts, and the mechanical benefits of a Passion are huge. Still, God knows there are several canonical examples of Arthurian knights being Inspired by their innermost Passions to do the silliest of things; more than a few Knights rolled their Amor or Love Passions to Inspire them to give speeches or ride really fast or win comparatively minor contests. So I err on the side of "if someone wants to cheese out a roll, let 'em" (actually with Pendragon I tend to err on the side of cheesing out a lot of things, from Glory to experience checks to Passion rolls to what have you; the game design incentivizes it to an absurd degree). That being said, the consequences of a failed or botched Passion are huge and often very un-fun. It's one of those times where Stafford chose "faithfully recreate Arthurian storytelling" over "make sure the players have a good time." One house rule I played with for a time was that if a character botches a Passion roll, the usual consequences - Madness, et cetera - can be opted out of by the player, at the cost of one or more additional points of Passion being lost (and given that if you can get a Passion over 20 points - not really hard to do - then they start rising really, really fast, this isn't always as large a hindrance as you might think). I was never 100% happy with that ruling - it seemed like it punished bad rolls disproportionately, though still less so than 'you go nuts and are removed from the game this week' - but it was functional, at least. Another house rule I experimented with, which was pretty functional but the game didn't last long enough for me to say it was really well-playtested, was to say "You can roll a second Passion immediately to try and snap yourself out of your funk;" so that, for instance, a botched Hate (Saxons) roll in mid-battle could be overcome by a successful Loyalty (Group) roll, because you know that flipping out and running off would be leaving your buddies in the lurch, or what have you. Doing so prevented you from being Inspired for the rest of the scene (in essence your Inspiration from your second roll was used up canceling out the consequences of the first roll). I've also spoken with GMs whose similar house rule was to say "if you botch a Passion, you lose a point of the Passion and any experience checks on it, and then roll again; if you succeed in the second roll, you fend off the melancholy or madness or what have you." I've never played with that rule, so I can't speak to how well it works in practice. Another option I've seen is "you can skip out on the melancholy or madness but if you do, that Passion cannot be raised for several in-game years, and the object of the Passion will be upset with you" (so that if you botch your Loyalty (Lord) and skip the consequences, your Lord feels like you have been less loyal than he expects and customarily assigns you the lousiest duties until you're out of the doghouse, et cetera). I know of at least one GM who said "gently caress it, you can't botch Passions," and just handled them as failures, just because he didn't want the headache - the simplest solution, though I don't know how balanced it is. Really, it's one of my least-favorite aspects of the system; Passions are so important to success that you want to roll them as often as possible, especially in your early career when your stats are still comparatively low, and yet the consequences of failure are so brutal that you can be heavily punished simply for attempting to be effective. This one worked out okay - it got us more Plot, and Cadogan didn't seem put out OOCly - but they don't always, and it's definitely a topic that needs poking at. ON PARTY SPLITS: At some point the group will end up developing a Loyalty (Group) Passion that will negate the issue by encouraging us all to stay together, but sometimes party splits are unavoidable. This one was one of the better-handled ones I've seen, in truth. I would say that if push comes to shove and we have an inter-party disagreement that can lead to a split like the one we saw this year, there's actually a simple solution baked in to the system; traditionally, unless a Lord declares otherwise, the knight with the most Glory is Party Leader, and what he says goes (though of course he'll usually try and accept input from his companions, because that makes for a better game). Even if everyone else thinks his plan sucks, they'll follow it - that's what the Honor Passion represents, after all - though they're of course free to tell him how much his plan sucks. Of course, this is the kind of rule that is unfun unless we all agree to it ahead of time, but in my experience, as long as the Glory leader isn't a dick, it works out surprisingly well in practice. We are, after all, all here to have a good time, and I think we all recognize that. No leader loses Glory for taking someone else's advice - and the advice-giver might well earn some! - and it really does smooth some things over. Still, something for us all to discuss OOCly. ON MEGAPOSTS: I love the megapost as much as the next guy, but sometimes you just need to say "Okay, you killed some Saxons, now there are more Saxons to kill" and call it good.  ON NARRATIVES: No plan ever survives first contact with the PCs. Think of them more as guidelines, I suggest, rather than goalposts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Does anybody actually think that this whole adventure this year turned out badly? I mean, I don't. I think that the whole thing; the split up party, Cadogan's botched passion roll, the attempts to find him, my bonding with the mercenary knight, us finally getting together to confront the Formor, all worked out well ruminatively, and helped us develop the plot and our characters. I can understand that the passion rules can be abused, and I personally hate the whole cheesing out passion rolls, but I think that in this circumstance that they worked. And I don't even really understand this point: "The peasant/knight split could’ve ended with some excellent rewards based on the combatants, but instead pigeonholed a few knights into fighting without even the opportunity of material gain." I mean, I understand what you're trying to say, I guess, in that some of us got to ransom knights, and some of us basically got to ransom conscripted peasant spearmen who were poor, but I don't see that that's a problem at all. It seems to me that material wealth in this game is very much a McGuffin, in that, while the characters are sometimes motivated by it and it serves a plot purpose, really, between the broken manor rules and the fact that there's just not that much to buy that gives you any real advantage, material wealth is pretty much mechanically useless. The only thing that it's really used for is paying for better lifestyle maintenance during the Winter Phase so that you can squeeze a few more points of glory out of the Phase.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Curse you, DCB for passing the buck to me!  Working on a post, but it may not be as elaborate as I want it to. Anyway, I thought things went alright, if a bit slow. I'm all for  About Passions: yeah, right now the problem is that we sort of need the boost to our stats if we want to succeed in anything that's not Sword or the other skills we have around 13-15. And then the Winter Phase only lets you boost multiple skills to 15, and then after that it's one point at a time if you don't have a check! So yeah, I understand DCB's point about us needing to cheese the rules for every check we can get.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
The thing about Passions that I think is important to remember is that they are very thematic - that is to say, as much as I am in favor of using them to eke out as many successful tests as possible (both because players like to be effective, and because a string of failed rolls will stifle future character growth through denial of experience checks... which is another reason I try to cheese out as many checks as possible!), it must be remembered that Arthurian knights were so incredibly awesome, not because of their training or their equipment or the armies behind them, but specifically because of their Passions. When Sir Kay - who hardly gets much credit for being strong of arm - wreaks so much havoc at the Battle of the Humber River, killing two kings single-handedly, he does so because he is Inspired; the rest of the time he is depicted as a middling warrior at best, and occasionally something of a coward. Indeed, it's the most Passionate knights that become the heroes and legends; Gawaine's Loyalty to Arthur and his Love of his Family pull him in two directions; Galahad's Love of God achieves him the Holy Grail; Yvaine's great Honor - and Hate of the Lady of the Lake! - is crucial to everything that happens in Mallory, for it is he who lands the Dolorous Stroke; and, of course, there is Lancelot's Love of Guenevere. What I'm getting at here is, I think the Passion system is a good system - but the penalties for a botched Passion are, while thematic, less than apt for gaming purposes. It's easier to mitigate in tabletop, where even removing your character from play is the matter of one session, but in a PbP where you can end up away from the party for weeks or even months, it's just too much. And, for the record, no - I thought the adventure this year turned out pretty well! But Verr asked for feedback, so feedback he shall get. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:ON PASSIONS: Another house rule I experimented with, which was pretty functional but the game didn't last long enough for me to say it was really well-playtested, was to say "You can roll a second Passion immediately to try and snap yourself out of your funk;" so that, for instance, a botched Hate (Saxons) roll in mid-battle could be overcome by a successful Loyalty (Group) roll, because you know that flipping out and running off would be leaving your buddies in the lurch, or what have you. Doing so prevented you from being Inspired for the rest of the scene (in essence your Inspiration from your second roll was used up canceling out the consequences of the first roll). This seems fair to me. The player knights can build up a passion that is foundational in both game mechanics and roleplaying, as having a reliable Loyalty (Lord) or (Company) depicts quite a lot about a character while still being in the bounds of credibility. Knights should be encouraged to act consistently, so that their exceptional/extraordinary deeds are that much more glorious. DivineCoffeeBinge posted:ON PARTY SPLITS: I would say that if push comes to shove and we have an inter-party disagreement that can lead to a split like the one we saw this year, there's actually a simple solution baked in to the system; traditionally, unless a Lord declares otherwise, the knight with the most Glory is Party Leader, and what he says goes (though of course he'll usually try and accept input from his companions, because that makes for a better game). Also seems fair. If we can agree to the idea that the most glory = leader, with the understanding that the leader has an OOC obligation to not be rude and also incite activity or more interesting events. DivineCoffeeBinge posted:ON MEGAPOSTS: I love the megapost as much as the next guy, but sometimes you just need to say "Okay, you killed some Saxons, now there are more Saxons to kill" and call it good. Right!? I'll work on this in the future. Sometimes combat is just combat. DivineCoffeeBinge posted:ON NARRATIVES: No plan ever survives first contact with the PCs. Think of them more as guidelines, I suggest, rather than goalposts. Absolutely! You guys have run with everything I've thrown at you so far. I don't deserve such radical players! Epicurius posted:Does anybody actually think that this whole adventure this year turned out badly? I mean, I don't. I think that the whole thing; the split up party, Cadogan's botched passion roll, the attempts to find him, my bonding with the mercenary knight, us finally getting together to confront the Formor, all worked out well ruminatively, and helped us develop the plot and our characters. I can understand that the passion rules can be abused, and I personally hate the whole cheesing out passion rolls, but I think that in this circumstance that they worked. Aww.  I'm glad we came out strong in that first adventure. In the face of conflict or obstruction I tend to escalate the stakes or scope of an encounter. I'm glad to hear that the passion roll seemed fair in regards to the knights. In the future, I'll attempt to keep to the passions rolls following a sense of pace and thematic necessity. As always, you guys are welcome to assert particular behaviors that supersede the dice. If you feel your knight would/would not act in a manner regardless of dice, let me know. As DCB points out, Pendragon occasionally sacrifices player agency over thematic concerns, which isn't my cup of tea. There has to be a more satisfying middle ground.Epicurius posted:And I don't even really understand this point: The concern that I was attempting to convey is that I understand players can be exceptionally motivated by material gain. I've always had issue judging appropriate awards for players in the context of deeds done and so forth. I agree that material wealth is mechanically impotent due to the period/technological development mechanics in the base GPC book. My greatest concern is that a player who enjoys that sort of accumulation of wealth in their RPGs would be upset that their character is not offered the same opportunity as others, or even worse, that their wealth is just an arbitrary number. My goal is to make wealth both useful in a local scope, yet ultimately much more about prestige than tangible benefit in the long run/big picture. Friar John posted:About Passions: yeah, right now the problem is that we sort of need the boost to our stats if we want to succeed in anything that's not Sword or the other skills we have around 13-15. And then the Winter Phase only lets you boost multiple skills to 15, and then after that it's one point at a time if you don't have a check! So yeah, I understand DCB's point about us needing to cheese the rules for every check we can get. I'd rather attempt to address this issue on my end. Instead of relying on passion bonuses to carry your knights through low-level fights, I'd much rather provide level appropriate fights that make successful passion rolls thematically A Big Deal than just a combat buff. If you all agree with this trend, I'll try to scale the encounters for a more specific scope than the standard Monster Manual style of danger. DivineCoffeeBinge posted:The thing about Passions that I think is important to remember is that they are very thematic - that is to say, as much as I am in favor of using them to eke out as many successful tests as possible (both because players like to be effective, and because a string of failed rolls will stifle future character growth through denial of experience checks... which is another reason I try to cheese out as many checks as possible!), it must be remembered that Arthurian knights were so incredibly awesome, not because of their training or their equipment or the armies behind them, but specifically because of their Passions. When Sir Kay - who hardly gets much credit for being strong of arm - wreaks so much havoc at the Battle of the Humber River, killing two kings single-handedly, he does so because he is Inspired; the rest of the time he is depicted as a middling warrior at best, and occasionally something of a coward. Agreed. This is why I'm pushing for more of a restrained approach to Passion rolls. This relies upon us all to work smoothly: As a GM, I need to provide more situations where the knights can use their passions meaningfully. On the other hand, I'd ask you all to refrain from requesting passion rolls for purely mechanical benefits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
I know I'm chiming in a bit late, but I just want to say that I'm enjoying the game so far. Thoughts on specific points:Verr posted:A few of my thoughts on the game: I think this went well. Instead of Cadogan being out of the game, another mini-adventure ensued that wound up giving everyone a chance to do something cool (yes, I think Heddwyn successfully chastising a bully faerie knight counts as cool  ).But I totally understand being picky about passion rolls. I haven't played Dread so I'm not sure how well that mechanic works; still, I am curious to see a house rule that treats Passion rolls in a more balanced fashion than "You either are going to crit like crazy next encounter or else run off frothing at the mouth for at least a season or two." Verr posted:- Don’t split the party. The peasant/knight split could’ve ended with some excellent rewards based on the combatants, but instead pigeonholed a few knights into fighting without even the opportunity of material gain. I'm still not sure if Heddwyn got to claim the knight as either a full or partial ransom, but honestly, money isn't really his main concern. At least, not from hostages. Earning renown and becoming a better knight is his main goal right now, which hopefully will dovetail into the eventual goal of securing a good marriage match with a nice dowry and the potential for heirs. Verr posted:Post more regularly, but rely less upon mega-posts to drive the game. Flavor is no substitute for substance. I like mega-posts! But then I am also guilty of not posting enough (both as a player and especially as a GM) because I want to write up something big and juicy. There's a sweet spot between frequency and mega-posting, I think. Verr posted:- Abandon any hope of conforming any of the rule based "events" to the narrative flow of the adventure. The crit failure on the hunting roll nudged me into introducing the Thin Knight a little earlier in the story than I expected. Every good GM adjusts the adventure to fit the players' actions. Tweaking when an NPC makes the first appearance so that it makes narrative sense is the way it should be. I don't know how you planned the Thin Knight's first appearance to go, but I like the way it turned out. We wouldn't have reacted the same way if the PCs hadn't already taken part in battle that day, plus all been angry about the perceived disloyalty (either by joining in an attack on the same target or by riding off in anger). The Thin Knight happened across a bunch of real people who had their own stuff to deal with on top of his showing up. Heddwyn for one likely wouldn't have been so snippy otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
For the record, Ysgarran's plans for the 15 Librum he's just been handed are as follows: 6 goes for his Upkeep, while one Librum apiece is shared with his companions - Alwyn, Cadogan, Heddwyn, Amig, and Florian (edit: I know Alwyn is leaving us, but he still gets some cash for having been around, I figure). So that's 5 more Librum, leaving 4 more to spend (plus his income from his manor). Two Librum will be divvied up among the villagers who fought as levy - are not troops, even common troops, entitled to the spoils of war? - if and only if the Earl has no objection to such, as it is really his duty to see to their welfare... but since Ysgarran is his knight, letting Ysgarran do it on his behalf will fulfill his duty, so hopefully he'll be okay with it. Anyways, some of the men were killed or wounded and the money will help support the affected families. That leaves two Librum, plus Ysgarran's income from his Manor - generally six Librum, assuming the harvest isn't remarkable one way or the other - for Ysgarran to keep at home for future use. No sense spending it all now when he might die fulfilling his oath to the Thin Knight. (if you're suspecting that this is me angling for a check to Generous, you're half correct; the other half is that Ysgarran is quite literally famous for being Modest, and so he's trying to share the wealth a bit so as not to seem to proud of his accomplishments) I'm assuming that the lady-wooing and roleplay is going to wrap up the year; do you want us to get started on Winter Phase rolls now, or should we hold off a bit longer to see if we can cadge a few more checks thanks to behavior and crits at Court?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Yeah I've got 10 hours on the road tomorrow, so feel free to get your Winter Phase stuff rolling. I hope to get that NPC post up Sunday. DCB if you've got a big Winter Phase post lying around somewhere I'd appreciate you posting that bad boy. Seems like sharing the wealth is worthy of a Generous/Humble check if none of the other knights object.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Did somebody say DCB Megapost? Whoooo Winter Phase! If there's anyone who needs an explanation on the basics, I already wrote one up many many moons ago in FATAL & Friends; the procedure is pretty much unchanged save that in 5e you can't use Glory Bonus Points to increase SIZ anymore. More's the pity. I'll go through the steps, though, in my customary 'explain everything even though most people won't need an explanation' style. It's mostly the above post, only with details. First step is Perform Solo - that is to say, if there's a Solo Adventure that the GM wants to run for anyone, this is the part where you fit it in. I'm going to operate under the assumption that if Verr had any Solos in mind he'd've mentioned them by now, and skip this step. Next up we perform Experience Checks. The procedure is simple - anything we had a check in (whether because we critted or because we were able to sweet-talk Verr into giving us one), roll 1d20; if the result is greater than your stat, the stat increases by one. So, for instance, Ysgarran has the following Experience Checks, most of which were helpfully listed by Verr up-thread: Battle (10), Loyalty (Lord) (16), Awareness (15), Reckless (10), Sword (15), Modest (16), Generous (13) (note that I'm assuming that no one is going to argue with Ysgarran when he decides to share the wealth; if roleplay determines that the cash stays with Ysgarran, we'll just ignore any increase to Generous) Rolling 1d20 seven times (the orokos syntax is '7#1d20' so you don't screw it up the first time like I did) I get: Winter Phase Experience Checks: 7#1d20 11 17 9 18 19 11 9 Okay! So, Battle increases to 11; Loyalty (Lord) increases to 17 (wow), Awareness does not increase, Reckless increases to 11, Sword increases to 16 (drat, that was lucky!), and neither Modest nor Generous increase. Hey, four out of seven is pretty good, especially since the three I was most hoping to get increases on bumped up! Lucky rolls! The discussion about the Generous check above turns out to be moot; ah well, maybe someone'll be impressed by the effort and Verr will kick 10 Glory my way or something. Next up is Aging. Now, theoretically none of us should care, because you only start making Aging rolls at age 35 or when someone takes a Major or Mortal Wound; that said, however, by a strict interpretation of the rules, a failed or fumbled Passion roll can lead to Shock, which warrants an Aging roll. Since Verr may be tweaking the Passion rules a bit I'm going to assume he's gonna say 'Don't sweat it, Cadogan, I'm not going to arbitrarily make you lose stat points' and call it good, so I'm skipping this step. Next up, Economic Circumstances, which is where things get interesting. See, barring unusual events like a very bad or very good harvest, each Knight is assumed to earn 6 Librum from running a Manor; this income is derived from taxing the peasantry, running tolls on nearby roads, and also the products of the lord's own pastures and fields, which the peasants work for you. You don't have to kick any of that wealth up to your Lord in taxes; your payment to him is, essentially, being a Knight in his service (you pay with your sword, not your gold, essentially). So that's 6 Librum you earn right off the bat. You then take that money, plus any other money you've accrued, and you spend it on your Annual Maintenance; this is the basic costs involved in keeping you alive and healthy and fit enough to kill the Lord's enemies and also living the kind of lifestyle that a knight is expected to lead. Six Librum is, coincidentally enough, enough to maintain a knight at an 'Ordinary' level of maintenance (anywhere between £6 and £8, really), which gives no bonuses or penalties, and accrues no extra Glory. Most knights will do exactly this. You can save some pennies if you need to; spending between £3 and £5 a year makes you a Poor Knight, which gives some penalties to future rolls during Winter but really isn't so bad. Doing this when you have no real reason to may be considered to reflect poorly upon your liege, however, so the Earl might get mad about it; still, if you're spending your money on - say - improvements to your Manor or gifts for a high-born Lady or what have you, it becomes more understandable and odds are no one will have a problem with it. If you're really stingy you can spend less than £3 a year and be an Impoverished Knight, but this is stupid, don't do it. Seriously, it can cost you points of CON for crying out loud. On the flip side - and this is important since the Earl just handed out cash to all of us - you can spend extra money. Spending between £9 and £12 makes you a Rich Knight, and in addition to having the finest fashion and all that fun stuff, you earn an amount of Glory equivalent to the number of Librum you spend (so spending £11 on maintenance earns you 11 Glory). You also get bonuses to some of the later rolls like Child Survival (not that we have to worry about that yet). Spending £13 or more makes you a Superlative Knight, which is like a Rich Knight only moreso; better rolls, but the Glory payout remains the same (spend £14, get 14 Glory). I already detailed Ysgarran's spending above; I'm going to upkeep him as an Ordinary Knight and bank the extra cash for lean years or future ransom payments or what have you. Oh, also, everyone's clothing becomes half as valuable as it was (wear and tear, plus changing fashions). Many Lords will hand out new outfits at Court, though, so it's not worth worrying too much about this unless you were wearing clothes worth £6 in order to impress the girls or whatever. Step five is Stable Rolls. Simply put, roll 1d20 for every horse you own; on a 1 or a 2, the horse dies (Poor Knights get a -3 penalty to each roll). Now, if you dip below your 'minimum stable' (a Charger, a Sumpter, and two Rouncys), often your Lord will give you a replacement mount to meet your minimum targets, at least according to the Winter Phase section of the book, but any extra or special horses don't get replaced (have an Andalusian Charger die in the stable? Sucks to be you). I don't know if Verr is going with horse replacement or not, so I'll roll: horse survival: 4#1d20 1 4 15 15 Well gently caress me! I hope the Earl's shelling out for replacement mounts, 'cause that's Ysgarran's Charger dying. Those things cost 20 Librum apiece! Well, we'll have to see. Step Six is your Family Rolls. This step has a couple of parts; the first is for Marriage. See, if you don't want to gently caress around with actually wooing a wife for your character - which can take several in-game years and also be pretty demanding - you have two options. One is to simply marry a woman 'beneath your station' - a handmaiden, a serving girl, another knight's younger sister, et cetera. The procedure is simple - go to your Lord, say 'Lord, I need a wife,' roll Loyalty (Lord), and on a success, poof! The Lord produces a woman for you to marry and you promptly marry her. She has a dowry of 1d6 Librum and 10 Glory (which you get for marrying her). Congratulations! That was fun. Also quick. (Also if anyone was thinking of marrying some other knight's younger sister I'll just note that Ysgarran's sister is around and given his actions so far this year you can probably expect him to kick some extra cash towards that dowry, just sayin') You can also try to wed within your station, to a suitable yet generic noblewoman. Doing so is pretty simple; you roll Courtesy. If you succeed, you can roll on the associated chart, or you can choose to wait a year; for every year that you roll Courtesy successfully but wait, you get +1 to the roll on the random wife table. The third option, of course, is to roleplay it out on a longer scale; this is what Ysgarran is doing, so I'm not going to be making any of the aforementioned rolls. The option is there for everyone else, though. Next up is the Childbirth table. Now, theoretically,  everyone makes a roll on this table whether they are married or not, to account for, y'know, lovers or camp followers or random peasant women you thought were cute or what have you. Which, believe it or not, I hadn't noticed before (and will be bringing up regarding my Pagan knight in ibntumart's game...)! Personally, I would suggest that notably Chaste knights ought to be able to skip the roll if they're unwed, but that's Verr's call. Also, characters that keep lovers or mistresses can argue for a chance to roll once per potential mother, but again, GM's call.Since we're all supposed to roll, and I don't expect Ysgarran to be uber-Chaste, let's assume that somewhere along the line he found himself with a woman (possibly during the post-Knighting celebration when he failed that Temperate roll, hmm?) and roll... Childbirth Table: 1d20 9 - a roll of 1-10 means no children (phew!). This is one of the rolls modified by your upkeep, by the way... Okay, next up is Family Events. Another roll... Winter Phase Family Events: 1d20 17 Huh! 'No event!' Well, that simplifies things. Finally we move on to the next step, Training and Practice. This one is relatively straightforward. You can roll 1d6 and add that many points to any skills you want as long as none of those skills goes higher than 15, or you can add one point to a skill 15 or higher, or you can add one point to any single Trait, Passion, or Statistic. You can only do one of these! If Ysgarran's Generous or Modest had increased in the Experience Checks phase, this would be easy; I would add another point to one of the Chivalrous Traits and qualify for the Chivalry Bonus. Those three points of armor come in handy! I thought about it, but I decided I'd go for the 1d6 in skills instead... Winter Phase Skill Increases: 1d6 1 Oh gently caress my life. Welp, that's a single point I can add to any skill up to 15; I guess all the good luck I got in step two needs to be paid for somehow! Ah well. Let's add it to Battle, because Ysgarran has already had a taste of what it means to lead men and it makes sense to me that he'd focus on it. Probably shoulda gone with the Trait, but I made the roll, so I'll just have to accept the consequences. The next step is to Compute Glory. Ysgarran started with a Glory of 151. He then got 1000 Glory for being Knighted; technically speaking that Glory was earned in play this year, and as you'll see in the next step, that matters! He earned 75 Glory for his individual deeds, plus the 10 Glory for meeting The Thin Knight and his hound, 10 Glory for helping defeat said hound, and 90 Glory for the Battle of the Brackish Bog. Then there are the Annual Awards; you get 100 Glory each for meeting the requirements for the Chivalrous or Religious Bonuses, but Ysgarran qualifies for neither. You get Glory for each Famous Trait (16 or higher) equal to the Trait's value; Ysgarran is Famous for his Honesty, Modesty, and Valor (all at 16), earning him 48 points, as well as for his Loyalty (Lord), his Honor, and his Love (Family), also all at 16 for another 48 points. (it should be noted here - you calculate your Annual Awards using the values you had during that year's play, even if they have already increased thanks to Experience or Training. This is why Ysgarran gets 16 points of Glory for his Loyalty (Lord) even though it got bumped to 17 in Step Two; this is also important if you start qualifying for the Chivalrous or Religious Bonus!) So we add all that up - 151+1000+75+10+10+90+48+48=1432 Glory. Respectable! Now, the reason I made a point of noting that the Glory for being Knighted was earned in-play - even though it happened literally at the very start of play - is for the final step, Glory Bonus Points. Every time your Glory increases to the next thousand points (that is, the thousands digit increases; going from 2999 Glory to 3001 Glory counts!), you get a Bonus Point; this is a point you can assign to literally any statistic (unless SIZ if you're 21 or older). I'm going to add my Bonus Point to Generous, thus earning the point that Experience failed to net. So! I'll copy over my character sheet and put a new, revised sheet in the next post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
Sir Ysgarran of Baverstock Name: Ysgarran Glory: 1432 Title: none (that he knows of, yet) Homeland: Salisbury Culture: Cymric Religion: British Christian Father's Name: Cynfan Father's Class: Vassal Knight Son Number: 1 Liege Lord: Earl Roderick of Salisbury Current Class: Squire Current Home: Baverstock Age: 23 Year Born: 464 Family Characteristic: Keen Senses (+5 Awareness) Distinctive Features: Hairy arms, rough hands Attributes SIZ 18 DEX 9 STR 16 CON 15 APP 6 Derived Statistics Damage 6d6 Healing Rate 3 Movement 2 Total Hit Points 33 Unconscious 8 Traits Chaste 13 / Lustful 7 *Energetic 13 / Lazy 7 Forgiving 10 / Vengeful 10 *Generous 14 / Selfish 6 Honest 16 / Deceitful 4 *Just 10 / Arbitrary 10 *Merciful 10 / Cruel 10 *Modest 16 / Proud 4 Pious 10 / Worldly 10 Prudent 9 / Reckless 11 Temperate 13 / Indulgent 7 Trusting 10 / Suspicious 10 *Valorous 16 / Cowardly 4 Religious Bonus: NO Chivalrous Bonus: NO (79) Passions Loyalty (lord) 17 Love (family) 16 Hospitality 15 Honor 16 Skills Awareness 15 Boating 1 Compose 1 Courtesy 10 Dancing 2 Faerie Lore 1 Falconry 3 First Aid 11 Flirting 3 Folklore 2 Gaming 3 Heraldry 3 Hunting 10 Intrigue 3 Orate 3 Play (Harp) 3 Recognize 10 Religion (Christian) 2 Romance 2 Singing 2 Stewardship 2 Swimming 2 Tourney 2 Battle 11 Horsemanship 10 Sword 16 Lance 15 Spear 6 Dagger 5 Horses 1 Charger 2 Rouncys 1 Sumpter Warhorse Type: Charger Damage: 6d6 Move: 8 Armor: 5 HP: 46 SIZ: 37 CON: 12 STR: 30 DEX: 17 Equipment Normal Mail (10 pts) Shield (6 pts) 2 Spears 1 Sword 1 Dagger Fine Clothing (1 L.) Personal Gear Travel Gear War Gear 1 Healing Potion (1d6 healing, once) Holdings: Manor of Baverstock Army Vassals: N/A Family Knights: 3 Young, Myself Lineage Men: 18 Levy: 31 Young Knights: Fraternal cousins, Cynrain (wed), Gwenabwy (unwed), Addonwy (wed) Other Family: Mother, Adwen, unwed Younger sister, Arianwed, unwed Fraternal Uncle, wed (father of Cynrain, Gwenabwy, Addonwy) Fraternal Aunt, alive, unwed Fraternal Aunt, alive, wed Maternal Uncle, alive, unwed Maternal Aunt, alive, wed Annual Glory Awards: Traits: 48 Passions: 49 Holdings: 6 Religious Bonus: 0 Chivalry Bonus: 0 Personality: If you've ever read Roger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber, Ysgarran would be a lot like Gerard. He's the biggest person he knows and one of the strongest people he knows, and he's not all that smart, but by God once he gets a conclusion in his head he clings to it like glue. He dislikes being the center of attention, and has studied Courtesy largely as a way to avoid embarrassing himself - and thus drawing attention - rather than for its own sake. He is generally the shy type, but if someone harms someone he cares about, or threatens his Lord, or otherwise draws his wrath, he is terrible to behold. DivineCoffeeBinge fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
Folks, I'm going to be pushing ahead to next years summer soon. Please post your winter phase biz! Thanks for the megapost DCB.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 04:11
|
|