Like some of the esteemed members of this forum might know, I recently finished playing through the whole PGC (see http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1382.0). During my epic struggle to pull this role playing feat off, me and my players went through a large number of house rules. Most of them were weak, badly thought trough, and created more problems than they solved.

What follows is the house rules I would have used, knowing what I know today about the game (and player behavior). These can also be seen as serious suggestions to rule changes in any eventual 5.2 or 6 ed of the game.

This is one that I did use, and which I picked up on this forum; and - sorry - I don't remember whom suggested it: In the Winter Phase, a PK that chooses the "low" skill option, gets five skill points, instead of 1d6. Since glory might be low, few checks be given by the GM, and the checks given might lead to no gains, the winter training is all the increase in a year that a PK is guaranteed. Compared to increasing a trait, passion, stat or skill above 15, 1d6 to lower skills seems pretty weak. Players rarely use it, and damn the dice when they roll low. Why should players who invest in skills be thusly punished? 5 points isn't, I think, "broken". It's just 1,5 points more per year than the rolled average on a d6. After we introduced this rules (after a short spell with 1d3+3 points), my players choose this option for more often. This is a good rule, methinks.

I think that KAP - for a Basic Role playing clone - has a really good, well thought out, package of skills. All of the skills are relevant and useful in the game. With one exception: Swimming. This skill is rather hopeless. Since PKs are bound to wear their armor in most dramatic situations, they would need a Swimming skill in the 25-30 range to have a fighting chance to survive falling in water. The difference between having 2 in this skill and having 12 is nil - you'll drown all the same if the GM puts in a spot were you fall in the water. I have never seen a player invest point in this skill, and rightly so I think. This skills should become part of the DEX-roll, giving all unarmored PKs a fighting chance surviving a morning swim and underlining that if you fall into water with your armor on - you're a goner. Also, DEX need to become a more powerful stat, and this is a move in that direction.

The fear Passion can be removed and replaced with directed traits, Cowardly (x). Since whether to roll for inspiration or not is in the players hands if the Passion is below 16, and this Passions confers to benefit, Fear Passions below 16 is bound to be used – never. That is, I think, a sign that the rule is poorly written. A directed trait in Cowardly is much more logical in game terms, and has the same effect as this Passion – making a PK run from what he fears, or at least not dare to confront it – but will actually have an effect on the game.

The aging table is too weak. The table as written gives a loss on stats of 1,11 points per year. A PK could very well have an annual glory in the 300 to 500-range, and with a couple of hundred more glory per year from adventures, battles, tourneys etc. could more or less keep pace with the aging table with his glory increases alone. I had two PK knight who even after retiring and forfeiting their annual glory lived to be 106 and 107 years old. And I saw PK knights with 6d6 damage and 30+ HP in their 70ies. I would propose that the results of 6 and 8 on the aging table would give a stat loss on one. This would not solve this problem completely, but increase the stat loss to 1,39 per year in average or 25% more. This would help a lot to do away with the Methuselahs and fighting fit geezers. You could include a stat loss on the 7 too, but I think that PKs should always have a chance not to loose a stat.

The aging table, thus, would look like this:
Roll Loss
2 4
3 3
4 2
5-6 1
7 0
8-9 1
10 2
11 3
12 4

Uncontrolled attack should go the same way as the old double feint tactic, i.e. be stricken completely. I know that the rules state that the GM decides when it is to be used, but the rule is so wide open to player abuse that I am dead set to only allow it to Saxon berserkers in the future. When players learn about this rule, they have to reactions. 1) “It insane, I would never risk the life of my finely crafted PK using that tactic” or 2) “How can I use this rule to break the game?”, i.e. players will either never use the rule or try to use it always. The latter group will constantly pester the GM with questions to use the rule, and saying "no" becomes boring very soon. It also puts the GM on the spot were he can be seen or become arbitrary. I have also seen players building characters based on abusing this rule. With a SIZ of 20+ and a DEX of 20, a PK becomes very hard to knock down. With a good weapon skill, and the SIZ and HP to soak up almost any hit and the DEX to keep standing, and then have a 75% or so chance crit on the first attack, with 6d6 in damage ... a PK can wreck a lot of havoc. Sure, the PK will be killed sooner or later, but not after leaving a trail of death after him, way out of proportion to his fighting skills. To forestall all this nonsense, its better just to remove the rule from the game entirely.

Just my five cents. I’ll get back with some musings on the stats, glory inflation and the infamous APP-roll in due time.

I'm agree with you for the aging table.... in my house rule, I do the following.

for knights between 35 et 44 : I use the normal aging rule (1.11 point per year)
for knights between 45 and 54 : roll two times in the Aging table (2.22 points per year)
for knights over 55 : roll 1d6+6 twice on the Aging table (3.33 points per year)

I'm agree with you for the aging table.... in my house rule, I do the following.

for knights between 35 et 44 : I use the normal aging rule (1.11 point per year)
for knights between 45 and 54 : roll two times in the Aging table (2.22 points per year)
for knights over 55 : roll 1d6+6 twice on the Aging table (3.33 points per year)


Thats a very neat solution! Seems there are GM:s out there that are more cold hearted than me ;)

Possibly, the table could be rewritten, using 3d6 and aiming at a stat loss in the 1,5-2,0 region. That would be "just about right", I think.

Skarpskytten - excellent thread. As a GM playing through the GPC for the first time it's very helpful to read about the potential pitfalls and their solutions ahead of time. I'm about to enter the Anarchy phase so perhaps you might also like to comment on things you would/wouldn't do again regarding that.

From my experience so far on the points you raise;

Swimming - I disagree to an extent. I find the *most* useless skill in my game is Boating. No one has ever rolled vs it, or devoted a single point to it. Closely followed by Compose. Swimming, on the other hand, has been used fairly frequently. Nowhere near as much as some skills granted, but it does appear enough for it to be considered quite handy.

Aging - None of my PKs have yet reached the age where ability losses manifest themselves. Aren't ability boosts after age 35 forbidden though, even with glory points?

Uncontrolled/Berserk Attack - 100% with you on this. My group fell into category 2 that you describe. They used it every time in every single fight. Not one of my PKs died from doing so and they mince-meated just about everything I put in front of them. IMHO it's overbalanced in the attacker's favour. After a huge discussion here on the forum I housed the rule, but did not outlaw it. Now I give the defender of the attack the same bonus (+10) and they still go first. Since the change my PKs *almost* never use it except when attacking from behind or with surprise or in some other situation that prevents the defender from launching that +10 attack.

Great thread.

I was the one who suggested the 5-points for skills, and I always use it now.

Uncontrolled/Berserk Attacks: I agree, for the most part (especially when combined with Inspiration!). It tends to be a way for players to get easy victories and/or kill themselves too easily - neither result really adds to the game. I like the way some monsters use the berserk rule ("this beast has a weak point: you can attack it, but this works like a berserk attack, and the beast always attacks you").

Boating/Swimming: I find these two skills are very rarely used, too. I'd be tempted to replace them with DEX or STR rolls, to allow player-knights to flounder their way aorund inefficiently but adequately. That said, beasts like the Afanc and Water Leapers are mainly frightening because players tend to have very low scores in these areas, so still need to think about it.

Fear: This passion is a tough one, and doesn't fit with the other passions. I always ruled with Fear Passions that they were an exception to players having the choice to roll. Whenever they came up, they had to be rolled (in the same way as when you face a monster, you must roll a Valour check). That saidm the Cowardly directed trait is a pretty good alternative approach.

Aging - I hadn't found a need to increase this. My players get major wounds every now and then, as well as aging. I didn't mind high glory characters surviving to 100+ (in theory). It allows them to be like Lancelot and Gawaine - they stick around to the end, then most likely get killed at Camlann. The average 1 point aging loss per year was a good 'tithe' to allow playing older characters, and it slowed down their advancements. Most player-knights age faster than the glory they gain replaces their stats, and the few that live on should be allowed to, I think. Then again, even the highest glory characters in my games are getting an average of less than 1,000 glory per year, typically half that, so any losses due to aging take time to replace.

Skarpskytten - excellent thread.Seconded. I'll bend my mind to suggesting my own houserules when I have had time to ponder. Meanwhile my reactions to what has been posted.


Swimming - I'm disagree to an extent. I find the *most* useless skill in my game is Boating.
Whilst I accept the general point, I take these slightly obscure skills as a challenge to my GMing prowess. I've set up situations in the past where Boating is of use and now Swimming has been mentioned, I think I will have to come up with something to hit that skill soon.


Closely followed by Compose.
I've had Compose come up a fair bit however. One of my players got it as a family trait and he has become the go to guy whenever someone has time to prep and wants to do something impressive with Oratory, Singing or the like. His Compose acts as a supporting skill and grants a one-time bonus to the performers skill (if he succeeds of course) - I model it on the bonus granted by a unit leader for their Battle skill roll during a skirmish.


Aging - None of my PKs have yet reached the age where ability losses manifest themselves. Aren't ability boosts after age 35 forbidden though, even with glory points?Nope. Glory points can be used for anything. They supercede all other rules or restrictions.

I haven't been running for long enough for aging to be a serious factor so I reserve judgement on whether the aging table is vicious enough in the longer term, although IME the glory hounds tend to rack up enough major wounds to offset the stat advantage they gain from being so glorious.


Uncontrolled/Berserk Attack
Disagree on this one. IME it doesn't get used especially often and I like there to be a little bit of tactical play for the combat encounters. I concede that you can design tanks that are optimised for the tactic, but that isn't a really an issue for my game because we do random chargen.

Regards
Luke

Swimming - I'm disagree to an extent. I find the *most* useless skill in my game is Boating.
Whilst I accept the general point, I take these slightly obscure skills as a challenge to my GMing prowess. I've set up situations in the past where Boating is of use and now Swimming has been mentioned, I think I will have to come up with something to hit that skill soon.

Very true. Looking back, I could have brought Boating into the game more but failed to do so. I've designed a number of scenarios that involved Swimming - sometimes with the PKs prepared and others when not - hence why the skill is not totally overlooked.



I've had Compose come up a fair bit however. One of my players got it as a family trait and he has become the go to guy whenever someone has time to prep and wants to do something impressive with Oratory, Singing or the like. His Compose acts as a supporting skill and grants a one-time bonus to the performers skill (if he succeeds of course) - I model it on the bonus granted by a unit leader for their Battle skill roll during a skirmish.


That's quite neat. I've tended to use Compose without the need for Orate (ie you make the roll and if successful you've recited a nice poem). I know this is wrong, but I allowed it so as not to make the skill a two-step process. My PKs often try to give a rousing speech before battle or after dinner to flex their Orate credentials; perhaps I should either add a bonus as you describe, or *require* compose before Orate to say something of worth.

Sir Pramalot, DarrenHill, silburnl - tank you for your answers, it's really great to discuss this, one of the best RPGs ever, with you.

Skills
I really don't think boating is that useless, even though I did consider include it in my post. First, I think that in a game full of Saxons and other seaborne raiders, the skill has some logic. Also, a PK that takes this skill could become captain of a ship and thus have a use for the skill (one of my players did, after becoming Lord High Admiral). But Swimming. If you put four PKs with Swimming skills at 12, 2, 2 and 2 respectivley, any near water, three of them will drown if they ever end up in it. Sure, you could construe a situation where one PK with Swimming could shine, but really, you couldn't do it so often that the skill would actually be useful for any sane player. Not compared to killer skills like Awareness, Courtesy or Hunting (Tourney later).

Compose is very useful. It gives you glory. If you are a Romantic knight, you can't live with out it. You can use to write songs about your enemies, hoping they will catch on (very useful for the Vengeful PK). Okay, it's not terribly useful, but I think it has to be included in any Arthurian game worth it's salt. Knights swim to, sure, but that can be covered by DEX. And I think Pramalots use of Compose is very clever!

5-points: Kudos, Darren. This rule should become part of 6th ed, not doubt!


Uncontrolled attack
I do like it for some monsters too, especially Saxons, but if you just want lethal monsters, just increase their combat skill with 5 or 10 points, or give them a good passion.

Of course, not all players or groups will abuse this rule. But - boys will be boys - I think it is so wide open for abuse that it's just better to outlaw it entierly. Or rewrite it seriously. I did house rule it, saying that you had to succeed at [Reckless] before using it (on a round-by-round basis), but it doesn't solve the basic problem - players that don't mind their PKs going down in a blaze of glory will abuse it.

Aging
I don't mind one or two hale old knights; thats cool. But that should be the really outstanding ones, not just any half decent PK knight. And I do think that my rather modest modification will still generate some good old knights, far more than Murt's very harsh system.

I think it all comes down to what the GM and players are involved in. There are the naval raids during Uther's time (Maybe trying for a success in boating to row quietly), in my campaign, a skirmish on a ship, a quest that requires a successful navigation through a rapids, and so on.

Swimming for Cymri might not be all that important, but for other cultures, it could be. Again, the gamemaster needs to decide if he is going to use it. An example of this is Sword-Throwing and the need to do it to finish a quest. A swim across a lake in a cavern to a island where the "rose that grows in the dark" blooms which is needed to win the hand of a noble woman.

Be creative and you will find multiple uses for those lesser needed skills - and once the players realize you have quests that use lesser used skills, they will start spending those skill points on them.

Humbly submitted,
Robert Schroeder

Sir Pramalot, DarrenHill, silburnl - tank you for your answers, it's really great to discuss this, one of the best RPGs ever, with you.

Skills
I really don't think boating is that useless, even though I did consider include it in my post. First, I think that in a game full of Saxons and other seaborne raiders, the skill has some logic. Also, a PK that takes this skill could become captain of a ship and thus have a use for the skill (one of my players did, after becoming Lord High Admiral). But Swimming. If you put four PKs with Swimming skills at 12, 2, 2 and 2 respectivley, any near water, three of them will drown if they ever end up in it. Sure, you could construe a situation where one PK with Swimming could shine, but really, you couldn't do it so often that the skill would actually be useful for any sane player. Not compared to killer skills like Awareness, Courtesy or Hunting (Tourney later).


Just to be sure here, you know that characters only begin to drown on a Fumble? On a simple fail you just tread water. Re Boating, you're dead right. I think I painted myself into a corner by including the Seamanship skill from the start. My Pks have used this when captaining a ship or out at sea.



Compose is very useful. It gives you glory. If you are a Romantic knight, you can't live with out it. You can use to write songs about your enemies, hoping they will catch on (very useful for the Vengeful PK). Okay, it's not terribly useful, but I think it has to be included in any Arthurian game worth it's salt. Knights swim to, sure, but that can be covered by DEX. And I think Pramalots use of Compose is very clever!


I've yet to reach the Romance periods of the game (I'm still in the Uther phase) which is perhaps the reason Compose is currently underused. This is also perhaps why Swimming is used; my PKs have swum across rivers at night attacking Saxon outposts, swum out to sea to offshore rocks, swum through water filled tunnels while infiltrating a castle. Not that often I should point out (I'm not running a James Bond style campaign) but enough times to make it worthwhile. Oh, and I should point out that it was Silburnl's idea about Compose, not mine :)

Great thread.

I was the one who suggested the 5-points for skills, and I always use it now.
My players love it!

Boating/Swimming: I find these two skills are very rarely used, too. I'd be tempted to replace them with DEX or STR rolls, to allow player-knights to flounder their way aorund inefficiently but adequately. That said, beasts like the Afanc and Water Leapers are mainly frightening because players tend to have very low scores in these areas, so still need to think about it.
I combined the two skills into one. One of my knights has two manors on a river and is finding that knowing how to boat and/or swim can be useful.

I'm working (a very slow and long term project) on a campaign set in the Fens. Here I promise that boating and swimming skills will come up as the knights grapple with this marshy watery environment... [insert evil GM laugh here]

One of the things I've learnt from FATE is to take note of where your players place their skill points. These can indicate the areas of gaming they wish to play in or styles they wish to pursue. I also think it makes sense to keep an eye on those family inherited skills - I had a player who had swim like an otter as his. Knowing this, every now and then I give an opportunity for this to be used. The damsel you wish to rescue, she's on that island in the middle of the lake, or the drawbridge is up, the only way across is to dive in etc. Add's that bit of variety to the game and makes the player feel important (until they drown of course ;) )

Swimming for Cymri might not be all that important, but for other cultures, it could be. Again, the gamemaster needs to decide if he is going to use it. An example of this is Sword-Throwing and the need to do it to finish a quest. A swim across a lake in a cavern to a island where the "rose that grows in the dark" blooms which is needed to win the hand of a noble woman.
Be creative and you will find multiple uses for those lesser needed skills - and once the players realize you have quests that use lesser used skills, they will start spending those skill points on them.
Humbly submitted,
Robert Schroeder




Just to be sure here, you know that characters only begin to drown on a Fumble? On a simple fail you just tread water. Re Boating, you're dead right. I think I painted myself into a corner by including the Seamanship skill from the start. My Pks have used this when captaining a ship or out at sea.
I've yet to reach the Romance periods of the game (I'm still in the Uther phase) which is perhaps the reason Compose is currently underused. This is also perhaps why Swimming is used; my PKs have swum across rivers at night attacking Saxon outposts, swum out to sea to offshore rocks, swum through water filled tunnels while infiltrating a castle. Not that often I should point out (I'm not running a James Bond style campaign) but enough times to make it worthwhile. Oh, and I should point out that it was Silburnl's idea about Compose, not mine :)




I combined the two skills into one. One of my knights has two manors on a river and is finding that knowing how to boat and/or swim can be useful.




I'm working (a very slow and long term project) on a campaign set in the Fens. Here I promise that boating and swimming skills will come up as the knights grapple with this marshy watery environment... [insert evil GM laugh here]
One of the things I've learnt from FATE is to take note of where your players place their skill points. These can indicate the areas of gaming they wish to play in or styles they wish to pursue. I also think it makes sense to keep an eye on those family inherited skills - I had a player who had swim like an otter as his. Knowing this, every now and then I give an opportunity for this to be used. The damsel you wish to rescue, she's on that island in the middle of the lake, or the drawbridge is up, the only way across is to dive in etc. Add's that bit of variety to the game and makes the player feel important (until they drown of course ;) )


Gentlemen, thank you for this animated discussion on swimming. Little did I guess that the most controversial thing about my three years of experience with this game would be this humble skill ;)

Sir Pramalot, I am aware of the drowning rules. My point is that in an average PK will have a Swimming skill of 2. So if you put three knights in a situation where they must swim (and god forbid, don’t wear armor), eventually two will make it and one will drown (I find it unlikely that anyone with Swimming 2 will succeeding saving a drowning knight). This seems rather pointless to me.

Of course, you can always find uses for the skills that are there. Several creative suggestions have been made here (I would like to know more about the Fens Campaign setting, I have been eyeing that area for my next campaign, whenever that will be). But I still think that my initial point holds true: If a PK actually invests points in this skill, and the GM creates situations where he can use it, one likely outcome is that other PK knights will drown.

Since many skills that are usually included in “normal” Basic role playing games – such as Hide, Sneak, Climb, Jump – are treated as DEX-rolls in KAP, since they deal with things that knights doesn’t do on a regular basis, I think that Swimming could be subsumed under the DEX roll to.

I only wish to share a few things.


16) A simple and a complex manor system, so that players who want to do SimKnight can while the rest can skip it.

I sure got tired of being an accountant too.
In the forthcoming Book of the ESTATE, it has no accounting game session. A knight just farms his manor to someone for £6 which he gets each year at winter. He gets all the bonuses for building the cool stuff, plus a sequence of builds going through the GPC period-by-period.
Maybe some day I will do the Book of the STEWARD, with an upgraded accounting system.
BoESTATE is being worked on in tandem with BoBARONS and BoUTHER PENDRAGON. I want the economics to run properly through them all.

I'll tackle my issues with Book of the Manor in part Three ...

Spoonist, it's a very impressive list. I don't agree with most of them, but there sure are some interesting ideas in you list.

Note: I hope Sharp and Spoonist don't mind - I split some posts off into a new topic here: Spoonist's House Rules (http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1419.0).

Fear: This passion is a tough one, and doesn't fit with the other passions. I always ruled with Fear Passions that they were an exception to players having the choice to roll. Whenever they came up, they had to be rolled (in the same way as when you face a monster, you must roll a Valour check). That saidm the Cowardly directed trait is a pretty good alternative approach.

Sorry for the thread necromancy, but I was wrestling with the Fear passion and came to the same conclusion (to switch it to a directed trait for Cowardly). I'm happy to see that others were thinking along those lines.

Sorry for the thread necromancy, but I was wrestling with the Fear passion and came to the same conclusion (to switch it to a directed trait for Cowardly). I'm happy to see that others were thinking along those lines.


Nothing to be sorry about! I put these things here in the hope that someone might find my thoughts useful :D

Just one thought on the Uncontrolled Attack. Why not just making the players suceed in a Wreckless roll? When they hit 16 they'll have to use it for everything appropriate or not!

Just one thought on the Uncontrolled Attack. Why not just making the players suceed in a Wreckless roll? When they hit 16 they'll have to use it for everything appropriate or not!


That was the houserule I did use. A PK wanting to make such an attack would have to make an Reckless roll. On a turn to turn basis. But I still think that the rule is to easy to abuse, why I would just outright ban it today.