As a new GM i have some questions about various aspects of Pendragon which I'd like some help on - from all you veterans :). I'll keep the topics grouped.

Passions and Trait scores
If it's fine to a have a Passion or Trait score above 20, does that mean a knight can never fail the roll? This seems very powerful with Passions because there is no longer any downside to their use and no chance of them ever being reduced or failed.

High Passions
I have several new players who have knights with relatively high Hate Saxons passions, above 15 at least. No problem there, my question is one of application. I know that high passion scores force behaviour. I'm assuming it would be correct to force one of these knights to attempt to invoke their Hate Saxon passion if they were attacked by Saxons, but what if the situation were more subtle. Say one of these knights is invited into a meeting and there happens to be Saxons present (lets just disregard Hospitality rules here for arguments sake). Should I force the passion roll but mediate the outcome to be one of beligerence/rudeness rather than bloodshed/battle, or should the knight be able to control themselves in such a delicate, non life threatening situation and not make the roll?

Melancholy
I have actually mentioned this elsewhere but I''ll add it here. If a melancholic knight attacks because of a failed attempt to mend his mental state, for how long does the attack persist? Does the knight attack for 1 round? Or until a successful attempt to break his mood is made? Or until he's dead, knocked down, or bleeding, or until his opponent is?

General Passion Use
Using such things as Hate passions is easy (to understand at least) but what about the other passions (Hospitality, Honour, Loyalty etc). I can understand that if a knight's honour is threatened he can then invoke his honour passion. What about these scenarios though, worthy of a passion roll or not? An encountered monster is encroaching upon your lord's land; loyalty to lord? ("I will not let this demon threaten my lord"). A knight, lady, peasant calls your mother a whore; invoke Love (Family)? You meet some random picts, not on your land, not threatening your lord, family etc. Could you invoke any passion in this situation (assuming no hate passion was present)?

Trait Failure
Just one point here; let's say a knight is attacked by a terrible monster (werewolf, ghost etc) and has to make a Valourous roll. If he fails the roll does he run away, tremble, fail to act etc, or does he only do so if he then fails a Cowardly roll? With a further failure on the Cowardly roll allowing him to chose his action.

Passions and Trait scores
If it's fine to a have a Passion or Trait score above 20, does that mean a knight can never fail the roll?


Yes and no. He can not fail an unmodified roll, but can still fail a modified one.
And he can still lose an opposed contest.



This seems very powerful with Passions because there is no longer any downside to their use and no chance of them ever being reduced or failed.


It is very powerful.
The downside is in the other consequences, which will come up below.



High Passions
I have several new players who have knights with relatively high Hate Saxons passions, above 15 at least. No problem there, my question is one of application. I know that high passion scores force behaviour. I'm assuming it would be correct to force one of these knights to attempt to invoke their Hate Saxon passion if they were attacked by Saxons, but what if the situation were more subtle. Say one of these knights is invited into a meeting and there happens to be Saxons present (lets just disregard Hospitality rules here for arguments sake). Should I force the passion roll


Yes, if they have a Hate Saxons over 15, yes, absolutely.



but mediate the outcome to be one of beligerence/rudeness rather than bloodshed/battle,


In an Unopposed roll under those circumstances success at Hate Saxons means that the knight would not be able to contain his feelings, and they would be plain to everyone.



or should the knight be able to control themselves in such a delicate, non life threatening situation and not make the roll?


They have to make the roll, and once the knight has succeeded and begun to expose his Hate then I oppose just about every action that he does by that Hate.
"I'll calm myself."
"Make an Opposed Roll of Courtesy versus your Hate axons"
"I'll be chill."
"Opposed Prudent versus Hate."
...and so on.



Melancholy
I have actually mentioned this elsewhere but I''ll add it here. If a melancholic knight attacks because of a failed attempt to mend his mental state, for how long does the attack persist? Does the knight attack for 1 round? Or until a successful attempt to break his mood is made? Or until he's dead, knocked down, or bleeding, or until his opponent is?


No one answered, eh?
Well, dead, knocked down, or bleeding is it. This formerly melancholic knight is nuts, crazy, off his rocker and blind with misdirected rage. Yes, certainly another successful mood breaker is theoretically possible, though when he 's crazy, I can't quite figure out which or how.
So the only blow great enough to snap him now is a fight to dead, knocked down, or bleeding.



General Passion Use
Using such things as Hate passions is easy (to understand at least) but what about the other passions (Hospitality, Honour, Loyalty etc). I can understand that if a knight's honour is threatened he can then invoke his honour passion. What about these scenarios though, worthy of a passion roll or not? An encountered monster is encroaching upon your lord's land; loyalty to lord? ("I will not let this demon threaten my lord").


No.



A knight, lady, peasant calls your mother a whore; invoke Love (Family)?



yes, yes, no.



You meet some random picts, not on your land, not threatening your lord, family etc. Could you invoke any passion in this situation (assuming no hate passion was present)?


No, none of the usual ones. Of course, you could have a Hate Picts, Fear Picts, Fear semi-naked men, etc; but those would be specialized.



Trait Failure
Just one point here; let's say a knight is attacked by a terrible monster (werewolf, ghost etc) and has to make a Valourous roll. If he fails the roll does he run away, tremble, fail to act etc, or does he only do so if he then fails a Cowardly roll? With a further failure on the Cowardly roll allowing him to chose his action.


Only a successful Cowardly roll makes him run away. Remember that many monsters modify Valor/Cowardly too.
If both are failed, the knight does what the player wishes (but gets no check).

--Greg

That's crystal clear. Thanks very much, Greg.

I was a little unsure about the Passion usage because of this paragraph from your website re: Passions in Battle;
"Note, too, that each Passion may be used just once per battle (or once per day, in cases like Badon), but that multiple Passions can be used ("The count is down!" and later, "Oh my dear children, my beloved wife, I hold you too dear to retreat now," and yet later, "My Great God, help me now!") "

The "Oh my dear children...." roll I'm assuming to be an invocation of Love (Family), but as they are neither present, nor directly threatened in the above scenario it suggested to me that a knight could invoke a passion based upon their own perceived threat of an event. That's why I used the scenario of a knight invoking Loyalty (lord) when a monster encroaches on their lord's land; their lord may not (or ever) be directly threatened by it, but the knight perceives it that way (or at least wants others to think he perceives it that way) and thus is granted the roll.

Experiment with it as you play.

Key: Passions spur actions, and actions have consequences, often unexpected.

--g

Traits and Passions are the GM's way of (without story railroading) forcing actions out of Players. A few bad turns of a Passion of 26, and quickly Players start thinking of ways to curtail that passion's score.

Usually by opposed Trait or Passion rolls.

They are hooks. And in 5th ed, the players have CHOSEN their scores... they have GIVEN you those hooks to poke, prod, and jolt the characters with.

Another thing to bear in mind with high passions:

It is possible to suffer automatic loss, sometimes of more than one point.

For instance, look at the Honour loss table, where, for instance breaking an oath or vow costs 3 points of honour, and the table lists penaties as big as 8. Other passions have similar penalties, but you have to go by ear on what they are (GPC has a few examples scattered through its pages).

So, that character with, say 26 Honour, really really isn't going to want to break an oath or do other dishonourable things - you can take account of that in constructing adventures, especially if you're an evil GM.

I have a few more questions re Traits which I've been struggling a bit with..

Which Trait to Use
I know this has been asked before and I know there is no real hard and fast rule but is it ok to have the same group of knights roll opposite traits in the same situation? Let me expand on this..
A group of knights, half of them Pagan and the other half British Christian have a feast one night surrounding by flirtatious women. All of the Christian knights have high Chaste traits while the Pagans have high Lustful traits. Calling a trait roll is fine, but to call for a global Chaste or Lustful roll seems wrong. The christian knights are by nature Chaste so should check to see if they remain so, not to see if they are Lustful. However, the Pagan knights are the exact opposite, they should be checking to see if they act lustfully, not chaste. This may seem inconsequential as the net result seems the same, however there's a difference; if I have the Pagan knights roll against their chaste, and they succeed, it's in their interest to purposefully act against the outcome of the dice, thereby gaining an automatic check to their Lustful trait, something they would not automatically get for succeeding in a Lustful roll (unless checks are always given even for simple success).

When to Roll
I have a player in my group with a starting Chaste trait of 19 (yes he wanted it that way). He plays his character very much whiter than white when it comes to the opposite sex. The other player's know he's like this and his reputation for chastity is well known throughout the group. My question is this, if he's presented with a situation (such as a flirtatious woman) which might test him, should he make the Chaste roll. He always role plays it straight but should I force him to roll just in case. There's no ambiguity, me and him both know the knight would act that way, but if rolls are not forced then there is never any chance for him to act against type - small though that chance may be.

I guess this is the same with any trait roll. Do you call for rolls in ALL situations, even when the trait values are so high that there's no real uncertainty about how the knight would act?

My understanding of those high traits ( 16+ ) is that a person can always choose to act with his trait, but must roll if he wants to go against his trait. However, sometimes the trait is tested in an antagonistic way and a roll needs to be done.

Actually those with high traits (16+) are required to roll any time the GM deems necessary, and this definitely includes situations where they want to act in keeping with the trait. (Though you don't want to do it for every little thing.)

However, failing a chaste and succeeding a lustful roll does not necessarily mean the knight hops into bed with someone- it may just mean he felt enough lust for it to show on his face, embarrassing him and letting the lady know she got to him.

There's an example in the book of Bors, I think, in exactly this situation.

Thanks Darren. I have read the example you mention and it is very helpful. The only thing I don't quite understand is why Sir Bors ( a knight of 19 chastity) is required to roll vs his Lustful! Surely he should roll vs. his Chaste.

I have a few more questions re Traits which I've been struggling a bit with..

Which Trait to Use
I know this has been asked before and I know there is no real hard and fast rule but is it ok to have the same group of knights roll opposite traits in the same situation? Let me expand on this..
A group of knights, half of them Pagan and the other half British Christian have a feast one night surrounding by flirtatious women. All of the Christian knights have high Chaste traits while the Pagans have high Lustful traits. Calling a trait roll is fine, but to call for a global Chaste or Lustful roll seems wrong. The christian knights are by nature Chaste so should check to see if they remain so, not to see if they are Lustful. However, the Pagan knights are the exact opposite, they should be checking to see if they act lustfully, not chaste. This may seem inconsequential as the net result seems the same, however there's a difference; if I have the Pagan knights roll against their chaste, and they succeed, it's in their interest to purposefully act against the outcome of the dice, thereby gaining an automatic check to their Lustful trait, something they would not automatically get for succeeding in a Lustful roll (unless checks are always given even for simple success).


I understand your dilemma perfectly.
I would ask the players which they want to be, and then have them roll that one.



When to Roll
I have a player in my group with a starting Chaste trait of 19 (yes he wanted it that way). He plays his character very much whiter than white when it comes to the opposite sex. The other player's know he's like this and his reputation for chastity is well known throughout the group. My question is this, if he's presented with a situation (such as a flirtatious woman) which might test him, should he make the Chaste roll. He always role plays it straight but should I force him to roll just in case. There's no ambiguity, me and him both know the knight would act that way, but if rolls are not forced then there is never any chance for him to act against type - small though that chance may be.

I guess this is the same with any trait roll. Do you call for rolls in ALL situations, even when the trait values are so high that there's no real uncertainty about how the knight would act?



You call for rolls in every sitation which your dramatic sensibility tells you a roll is necessary. Those with scores below 16 don't need to roll of course.

Thanks Darren. I have read the example you mention and it is very helpful. The only thing I don't quite understand is why Sir Bors ( a knight of 19 chastity) is required to roll vs his Lustful! Surely he should roll vs. his Chaste.


I have to admit, I was puzzled about that too.
The GM can always choose with the player must roll, so I think it's like this:
If Bors had been actively opposed by the lady, a lady who was trying to seduce him, he would have rolled Chaste to resist.
But this was a situation in which an innocent but beautiful woman was present, so the GM decided tosee of Bors had any lust in his heart - so it was a simple unopposed roll of Lustful.

The GM can always make judgement calls like that.

Yes, I see the very subtle difference. Explained perfectly, thanks.

But this was a situation in which an innocent but beautiful woman was present, so the GM decided tosee of Bors had any lust in his heart - so it was a simple unopposed roll of Lustful.

The GM can always make judgement calls like that.


So it is a test to see if the knight is Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. ;)

Hi,

I'm resurrecting this thread because I have a very similar question as the one above, and I'm still not sure about the answer.

This weekend we're playing our first game of Pendragon (a dream come true, I've been waiting for it for about two years), I'm a GM and I still can't grasp the Traits rules. I'm very confused about when to roll which of the two opposed traits rolls, and what do the results actually mean. Before I read more into the rules, I thought it was very simple: "Right, I have Merciful/Cruel 13/7, so I roll a d20 and if it is 13 or less I'm merciful, if it is 14 or more I'm cruel." That seemed simple enough. But then I read the rules and realised it's much more complicated.

So it turns out I have to roll either Merciful or Cruel, and it really matters which one I choose because the results (probabilities) are very different. Example taken from the book:


A knight is standing above a defeated opponent. A lady is asking him to "kill him, he's an evil bastard," the opponent is begging "please, spare my life, I have a wife and children." A great moral dilemma!

So does the knight roll against Merciful or Cruel? Imagine his stats are 10/10. If I make him roll against Merciful, there's a 50% chance he'll succeed and act mercifully, a 25% chance he won't succeed and fail the Cruel roll, thus having a free will, and a 25 % chance he'll fail and then succeed in the Cruel roll, thus acting cruel. BUT! If I ask him to test against Cruel, the chances are switched - 50 % chance he'll act cruel and only 25% chance he'll act mercifully.

This means I, as the GM, have a lot of power in my hands and by choosing which of the opposite Traits to roll, I'm also choosing what behaviour is more probable. For some reason, this feels very wrong. Or is it just me? Why does it matter which of the two Traits the player rolls? Shouldn't the probabilities be the same either way?

But let's say I accept this fact and learn to live with it. The question then is: In the example above, should I ask the player to roll Merciful or Cruel? When the knight are attacked by a monster, do they roll Cowardly or Valorous? Etc. etc. Is there some general rule or advice for the GM?

So does the knight roll against Merciful or Cruel? Imagine his stats are 10/10.


At 10/10, the choice of what to do is entirely up to the player knight, unless it is a special test situation.
Ordinarily, the player states what he wants to do.
He might be required to make a roll if it is an unusual circumstances--if a modifier is indicated to a roll, for instance (fighting a monster) the roll is required even under normal curcumstances



But let's say I accept this fact and learn to live with it. The question then is: In the example above, should I ask the player to roll Merciful or Cruel? When the knight are attacked by a monster, do they roll Cowardly or Valorous? Etc. etc. Is there some general rule or advice for the GM?


The general rule is:
most of the time, no roll is necessary whatsoever
The knight does what he wants
He might have to make a roll if:
there is a significant chance he might fail
it is a special test of virtue

Hi,

I'm resurrecting this thread because I have a very similar question as the one above, and I'm still not sure about the answer.


Markus - You might also want to take a look at this thread;

http://www.gspendragon.com/roundtable/index.php?topic=910.0

There is some good feedback from other forum members on very similar subjects.

So it turns out I have to roll either Merciful or Cruel, and it really matters which one I choose because the results (probabilities) are very different.

That part has always bothered me, too. However, as GM it is your role to choose whichever approach is most fitting to the story.
If the roll is prompted by or asked for by the player, let them choose which to roll first. If it's a situation you have created ahead of time, a test of personality, etc., then usually it doesn't matter if they fail and reroll the opposite side: they must succeed the first roll to succeed, and any other result is the same as a failre, so the distorted probabilities don't matter.
To illustrate:
A doorway to the underworld can only be opened by one of kind heart.
So, you might say: "anyone with less than 16 Merciful cannot pass through; anyone with 16+ passes through automatically."
Or you might say, "Everyone must make a merciful roll at -5; anyone who succeeds gets a check and passes through; those who fail don't. Roll Cruel: if they succeed, they take their frustration out on someone, but fail or success on the cruel roll has no effect on the test."
Or you might say, "the door has a resistance of 20; every player will make an opposed roll against the door's roll, and if they win, they can pass through. If they fail the merciful roll completely, there's no extra effect beyond losing."

For non-test situations, I generally ask, what is the character actively trying to do, and that sets the side of the trait to roll. So, one player decides to boast of his prowess and impress everyone; another decides to use Modest to try to humble him. The first knight rolls proud, the second rolls modest, and the winner upstages the other. If either fail, they roll the opposite, and may end up winning on that side and acting opposite their natures!