In the 5th ed rulebook, the glory skill modifier for courtly skills (such as Courtesy, Dancing, Flirting, Orate, Singing and Romance amongst others) ranges from +0 to +Glory/1000. It also states that it depends heavily on the person who is being impressed by the skill use. However, it does not offer firm guidelines on how is the GM to judge that (other than that old tradition of 'Winging it'). So this is more or less my musings on various modifiers that might apply.

I set the maximum Glory skill modifier at Glory/1000 and then modify it with the three parameters below.

Friendliness of the Court (off-the-cuff example):
Friendly (Camelot) = x1
Neutral (Brittany) = x0.5
Hostile (Cornwall) = x 0.25

How Glorious people are attending?
You are the most Glorious without peers (Lancelot visiting some random Castle)= x1
You are one of a small elite group (like reasonably glorious PKs visiting a normal manor) = x0.75
You are more mediocre, but still noteworthy (a rank-and-file Round Table Knight in Camelot) = x0.5
You are well-below the luminaries (a 4000 Glory knight in Camelot) = x0.25
You are a nobody (a normal NPK, 1500 Glory, in Camelot) = x0
(That is roughly logarithmic... you are: the 1st without peers, within a peer-group of (up to) ~10 people, ~100 people, ~1000 people, and ~10000 people.)

How influenced are they by Glory?
Very (Camelot, most RTKs, reactions to requests of hospitality) = x1
Somewhat (asking for favors, etc, that involve some inconvenience) = x0.5
Not very (trying to convince someone to do something they don't want to do) = x0.25
Not at all (villainous curs) = x0

Note: I would cap the final, modified Glory skill modifier to +10. After that, it starts to get very silly (like Arthur's +100 Glory skill modifier).

So, lets us examine a Glory 8000 PK knight from Salisbury. So the base Glory skill modifier is 8000/1000 = +8.

1) During his travels, he visits another vassal knight on the other side of the Salisbury. The fellow Salisbury knight is friendly, and he seldom gets the chance to host such a famous visitor, so he is quite impressed. The full +8 would apply to the PK's Courtesy and other skills he might use to entertain his host and the host's family.

2) The same PK attends the Court at Sarum. There are other knights with similar Glory levels, but clearly, the PK is one of the most famous knights of Salisbury. Hence, x1 for friendly and x0.75 for not standing out that much, but still being one of the prime luminaries = +6.

3) The PK then attends the Pentecost Feast at Camelot. And with all the big names hanging around, he finds himself getting only +4 to his courtly skills, as most of the attention and praise is heaped towards the more famous people. (An argument could be made for x0.25 modifier during Pentecost (all RTKs should be in attendance), x0.5 while most of the big names are out adventuring (other times), and x0.75 during Grail Quest when almost all RTKs are out.)

4) The PK gets roped into riding to Cornwall, to deliver a missive from King Arthur, speaking for the restoration of Sir Tristram. King Mark, who does not like King Arthur and Sir Tristram at the best of times, starts out as Hostile (x0.25). There are some (comparatively equally) famous knights in his court (believe it or not!), so that is x0.75. Furthermore, he really dislikes the goal of the mission, so the knight gets another x0.25 out of that. In the end, the knight's glory modifier is reduced to 8x3/64 = 3/8 = 0.375 which rounds off to 0. No bonus. (On the other hand, if Sir Lancelot had been visiting Cornwall on this errand, even his whopping +50 bonus would have been diminished to about +3. But it still would be a bonus, due to Sir Lancelot's great renown.) On the other hand, had the knight simply been passing through Cornwall on his way, say, to Ireland, King Mark's court would react at 8 x 0.25 (hostile) x 0.75 (relatively famous) x 1 (not asking for anything in particular) = 1.5 rounds to +2. Yes, they'd acknowledge, grudgingly, that the knight has earned some respect, even though the court would be distinctly cold and unfriendly in general.

What do you think about these 'rule-of-thumb' modifiers?

I don't know, for rule-of-thumb modifiers, they aren't well positioned for easy of recollection. Having to remember that you get 0.75 from one thing, which is then multiplied by 0.5 for something else - it's a bit complex.

I'd personally prefer to rescale it like: x2 if it seems the modi9fier should be increased; x0.5 if it seems the modifier should be decreased (foreign court, no important people present, etc), and for the rest x1. With a maximum mod after multiple of +20.

Most of these kinds of courtly rolls, you are rolling against other people. Success or failure is less important than how well you succeed. Which means getting scores bumped into 20+ range acceptable - you can still roll worse than other people. While dropping bonuses to +2 or +1 makes them pretty pointless (especially having, say, an extraoridnary knbight having his bonus dropped to only 1 point better than an ordinary knight - at that level, is it even worth using the bonuses?).

Ah, now that is the difference between you and me. I tend to ask for unopposed rolls vs. skills, and just listen to the crit-success-failure-fumble result. Also, like mentioned in the other thread, I seem to have roughly 1.5 times the glory / yr, so I tend to see +12 by the time you see +8. Doubling that to +24 makes rolling unopposed nigh useless.

Also, I have noticed the tendency that the players are not improving their courtly skills that much, but counting on their Glory to carry them through. And it does destroy a bit of the niche protection from the Courtier, when the Monster Slayer can upstage him in pretty much all courtly skills, simply because the Monster Slayer has gained more adventuring glory (of course, you might claim that it is the GM's failing for not giving enough court glory, but that is another argument, ok?). My point is that -usually- the unadulterated Glory modifier swamps the actual skill, and I would like that to change.

It makes sense to me that in a crowd of 20000+ Glory heroes, the local boy made good with his 8000 glory might not be as much the star of the feast:
'How many dragons have you slain, good sir?' Sir Impressed.
'Uh... none yet. I did get one really big Saxon whose breath was nigh poisonous...' Sir 8000-Glory
'Ah. Hey, there is that famous dragon slayer, Sir Michael! Sir Michael, over here!' Sir Not-So-Impressed-Anymore

The three-variables system is likely more complicated than it needs to be, admittedly. Mind you, most of those calculations is something the GM could have calculated out in advance. A more simplified system could be:
x1
x0.5
x0.25
x0

Pretty much the same as yours, but divided by two. Start with x1 (friendly court, you are amongst the most glorious), and then drop down by a tier (i.e. divide by two) if: foreign court, you are rank-and-file in this feast*, you are a nobody in this feast*, they hate you, (* = cumulative). I just realized that my rank and file modifier is basically what you achieve with your opposed roll: making it more difficult for (relatively) low Glory knights to succeed.

So how would this work in Camelot, for Glory 1300 Sir Newbie, Glory 8000 Sir Not-RTK and Glory 20000 Sir RTK?
- Sir Newbie is practically indistinguishable from the squires, so he gets +1/4 = +0.
- Sir Not-RTK is locally famous, but in this party, he is merely one face amongst many more famous ones: +8/2 = +4.
- Sir RTK is one of the elite of Camelot, and even distinguished amongst the RTKs, so he gets full +20 (capped to +10?).

Well, to each his own, I guess. :)

I am curious, though... Why should the glory modifier be decreased, if no important people are present? In other words, shouldn't the famous knight become -more- likely to succeed, when he is the biggest hero in the party?

Ah, now that is the difference between you and me. I tend to ask for unopposed rolls vs. skills, and just listen to the crit-success-failure-fumble result. Also, like mentioned in the other thread, I seem to have roughly 1.5 times the glory / yr, so I tend to see +12 by the time you see +8. Doubling that to +24 makes rolling unopposed nigh useless.

I agree, in that situation keeping the modifier lower makes sense.
My comment about rolls tending to be opposed was drawing on this:
some of the rolls you make it court are of the success-fail variety, like making an intrigue roll to gather information, or a courtesy roll when introducing yourself to the court.
But a large part of the rolls in my campaigns are those situations where players are called upon to entertain the court, or everyone is doing some activity, and in these cases, it's not enough to know if you succeed or failed. you are rolling against everyone else, and the one who does best often gets glory.


Also, I have noticed the tendency that the players are not improving their courtly skills that much, but counting on their Glory to carry them through. And it does destroy a bit of the niche protection from the Courtier, when the Monster Slayer can upstage him in pretty much all courtly skills, simply because the Monster Slayer has gained more adventuring glory (of course, you might claim that it is the GM's failing for not giving enough court glory, but that is another argument, ok?). My point is that -usually- the unadulterated Glory modifier swamps the actual skill, and I would like that to change.

I see that. Not surprisingly, I see the solution to your problem as being the method I use :) having more rolls where players are contesting to see who is the best.


It makes sense to me that in a crowd of 20000+ Glory heroes, the local boy made good with his 8000 glory might not be as much the star of the feast:
'How many dragons have you slain, good sir?' Sir Impressed.

I'm having difficulty imagining a group of knights of 20,000 glory together in such a situation where that would be normal...
That could only happen at a gathering of the round table, and even then, most round table knights will actually be less than extraordinary, or just barely extraordinary. Lancelot, Gawaine and a tiny handful of others who get 20,000+ are a giant exception. The following is my opinion, in case I sound dogmatic: Take a group of people who don't have a history of watching arthurian films, reading arthurian fiction etc - ask them who the greatest knights of arthur's court aree. The tiny number of names they'll produce - those are your legendary knights (the ones with 20,000 plus). Everyone else should be less.
I know you said your players get to 12,000 glory quicker than mine do, but even so, I don't think you should ever have a situation where 8,000 glory (the base line for extraordinary) is regarded as a low score. When players reach that level, they should be being regarded as the shining stars of the court.

How about something like this: +0 for Ordinary, +2 for Notable, +4 for Famous, +6 for Extraordinary, +8 for Legendary? (Just throwing something out that popped into my head.) Then drop or increase glory ranks based on the modifiers you want to use.


The three-variables system is likely more complicated than it needs to be, admittedly. Mind you, most of those calculations is something the GM could have calculated out in advance. A more simplified system could be:
x1
x0.5
x0.25
x0

Pretty much the same as yours, but divided by two. Start with x1 (friendly court, you are amongst the most glorious), and then drop down by a tier (i.e. divide by two) if: foreign court, you are rank-and-file in this feast*, you are a nobody in this feast*, they hate you, (* = cumulative).

I like that better than the previous system. Easy to calculate.

I just realized that my rank and file modifier is basically what you achieve with your opposed roll: making it more difficult for (relatively) low Glory knights to succeed.

Exactly. They can succeed (getting the equivalent of partial successes), but not well enough to stand out from all the others.



I am curious, though... Why should the glory modifier be decreased, if no important people are present? In other words, shouldn't the famous knight become -more- likely to succeed, when he is the biggest hero in the party?


They probably wouldn't - I was just throwing in some possible examples of modifiers when i was half asleep and not thinking things through :)

The following is my opinion, in case I sound dogmatic: Take a group of people who don't have a history of watching arthurian films, reading arthurian fiction etc - ask them who the greatest knights of arthur's court aree. The tiny number of names they'll produce - those are your legendary knights (the ones with 20,000 plus). Everyone else should be less.


No no, I quite enjoy talking with you, and do see your point. :) Glory is of course the game construct, and I threw that 20000 out there without thinking about it more than that. What I meant was is that if 8000 is the lowest limit for a RTK, which tends to be the case in our campaign, then most of the RTKs would be lets say 12000 - 16000, and the really named ones above that (Gawaine, Lamorak, Lancelot, Gaheris, Gareth and Tristram to name a few). So in that crowd for the Pentecost, with all the big names there, and all the 100+ other RTKs gathered, the 8000 glory Not-RTK knight would be a small fish indeed.



How about something like this: +0 for Ordinary, +2 for Notable, +4 for Famous, +6 for Extraordinary, +8 for Legendary? (Just throwing something out that popped into my head.) Then drop or increase glory ranks based on the modifiers you want to use.


That is close to the normal system -2 for the low end and closer to x0.5 on the upper end. So it probably would be doing what I am trying to do. ;)



They probably wouldn't - I was just throwing in some possible examples of modifiers when i was half asleep and not thinking things through :)


Oh, I quite understand... Just look at me rambling on the Relative Glory Rewards reply. :)

No no, I quite enjoy talking with you, and do see your point. :) Glory is of course the game construct, and I threw that 20000 out there without thinking about it more than that. What I meant was is that if 8000 is the lowest limit for a RTK, which tends to be the case in our campaign, then most of the RTKs would be lets say 12000 - 16000, and the really named ones above that (Gawaine, Lamorak, Lancelot, Gaheris, Gareth and Tristram to name a few). So in that crowd for the Pentecost, with all the big names there, and all the 100+ other RTKs gathered, the 8000 glory Not-RTK knight would be a small fish indeed.

I used to regard 8,000 glory as the lowest requirement for round-table-ness, till I realised that dated back to Knights Adventurous, which stated it as a requirement. But that was only meant as a guideline: like, if you get that glory, and are loyal to Arthur and doing chivalrous things, you can expect to be noticed and be made a RTK at some point. And 8,000 glory is a nice point for that to happen. But most RTK are actually appointed long before they achieve 8,000 glory (most in the literature might get awarded after a single quest, or might be a RTK just because they are sons of a king, etc - remember, Agrivaine is a RTK). It's something the GM can grant at any time, like at the culmination of a major quest that gets the King's favour, but the 8,000 glory is a target that players can aim for (while being chivalrous).

If you're having players reaching 12,000 glory and the like, it would be nice to have them stand out, and have them noted as being higher glory than named characters from the literature. I can imagine having someone like Gareth congratulate them at becoming more glorious than him, while pointing out, say, Gawaine is still ahead of them, will they ever catch him...

It might be fun, actually, to build a list of NPCs at certain glory bands (4,000, 8,000, 12,000) and change the way they act towards the pcs when they cross those thresholds. *jots that down in my GM ideas notebook*

It might be fun, actually, to build a list of NPCs at certain glory bands (4,000, 8,000, 12,000) and change the way they act towards the pcs when they cross those thresholds. *jots that down in my GM ideas notebook*


The first generation noticed this wet-behind-the-ears squire, Gawy or something like that, in London 510, and impressed the lad like something fierce. Even though he turned out to be a prince and later a famous Round Table Knight, he still remembered his first meeting with those valiant knights, and remarked upon it to their children fifteen years or so later. :)

But yeah, I checked my 4th ed copy which had some of the knight's stats and imagine my surprise when I realized that one of the PKs was actually more famous (when he died in 518) than Sir Lamorak (in 530)! Looks like Lancelot and Gawaine are already in a league of their own: I couldn't find an example of a knight with more than 20000 Glory other than those two and Arthur himself (although I would suspect Tristram is above 20000 as well). Even Sir Ywaine, the Knight of the Lion, has only 9000 Glory (which I find suspiciously low, given that Ywaine has been active since early 520s). But anyway, he is quoted as a typical, successful Round Table knight, so I will need to start making a bigger deal about my players' characters...

Also, I have noticed the tendency that the players are not improving their courtly skills that much, but counting on their Glory to carry them through. And it does destroy a bit of the niche protection from the Courtier, when the Monster Slayer can upstage him in pretty much all courtly skills, simply because the Monster Slayer has gained more adventuring glory (of course, you might claim that it is the GM's failing for not giving enough court glory, but that is another argument, ok?). My point is that -usually- the unadulterated Glory modifier swamps the actual skill, and I would like that to change.


I think this is spot on. What I would do, is that I would remove the glory bonus to skills, and make it a bonus to APP. To use a courtly skill in many courtly situation I would require an APP roll. This means that Sir Kill-a-lot with 22 000 Glory and APP 6 might get to roll his Orate skill, but will fail anyway if he hasn't put any points in it. Sir Courtier, with a Glory of 3000, a nice set of clothes and APP 15 will also make his APP-roll - but probably make the Skill roll.

I'll get back to this in a separate thread, where I will write a bit of how I think the APP-roll might be construed. It looks quite a lot like Morien's suggestion above.

Also, I have noticed the tendency that the players are not improving their courtly skills that much, but counting on their Glory to carry them through. And it does destroy a bit of the niche protection from the Courtier, when the Monster Slayer can upstage him in pretty much all courtly skills, simply because the Monster Slayer has gained more adventuring glory (of course, you might claim that it is the GM's failing for not giving enough court glory, but that is another argument, ok?). My point is that -usually- the unadulterated Glory modifier swamps the actual skill, and I would like that to change.


I think this is spot on. What I would do, is that I would remove the glory bonus to skills, and make it a bonus to APP. To use a courtly skill in many courtly situation I would require an APP roll. This means that Sir Kill-a-lot with 22 000 Glory and APP 6 might get to roll his Orate skill, but will fail anyway if he hasn't put any points in it. Sir Courtier, with a Glory of 3000, a nice set of clothes and APP 15 will also make his APP-roll - but probably make the Skill roll.

I'll get back to this in a separate thread, where I will write a bit of how I think the APP-roll might be construed. It looks quite a lot like Morien's suggestion above.


The glory bonus applying to appearance could work alright. Another fix might be to limit the max glory modifier to the knights basic skill.

So if Sir Psycho-saxon-killer has courtesy 3 and 25,000 glory he can only claim a +3 modifier rather than a +25. If he had courtesy 10 he could get a +10 and so forth. It will mean that players still need to develop courtly skills to a reasonable extent no matter how high their star has risen.

Having played through a couple of campaigns since writing that,
I think that the Glory ratings in the early works are way too low





It might be fun, actually, to build a list of NPCs at certain glory bands (4,000, 8,000, 12,000) and change the way they act towards the pcs when they cross those thresholds. *jots that down in my GM ideas notebook*


The first generation noticed this wet-behind-the-ears squire, Gawy or something like that, in London 510, and impressed the lad like something fierce. Even though he turned out to be a prince and later a famous Round Table Knight, he still remembered his first meeting with those valiant knights, and remarked upon it to their children fifteen years or so later. :)

But yeah, I checked my 4th ed copy which had some of the knight's stats and imagine my surprise when I realized that one of the PKs was actually more famous (when he died in 518) than Sir Lamorak (in 530)! Looks like Lancelot and Gawaine are already in a league of their own: I couldn't find an example of a knight with more than 20000 Glory other than those two and Arthur himself (although I would suspect Tristram is above 20000 as well). Even Sir Ywaine, the Knight of the Lion, has only 9000 Glory (which I find suspiciously low, given that Ywaine has been active since early 520s). But anyway, he is quoted as a typical, successful Round Table knight, so I will need to start making a bigger deal about my players' characters...

Another fix might be to limit the max glory modifier to the knights basic skill.

So if Sir Psycho-saxon-killer has courtesy 3 and 25,000 glory he can only claim a +3 modifier rather than a +25. If he had courtesy 10 he could get a +10 and so forth. It will mean that players still need to develop courtly skills to a reasonable extent no matter how high their star has risen.


A very interesting idea! It would some of the worst part of the glory bonus rules. I have to write about my ideas about the APP-roll someday soon; they are a more radical break with the present system.

Another fix might be to limit the max glory modifier to the knights basic skill.

So if Sir Psycho-saxon-killer has courtesy 3 and 25,000 glory he can only claim a +3 modifier rather than a +25. If he had courtesy 10 he could get a +10 and so forth. It will mean that players still need to develop courtly skills to a reasonable extent no matter how high their star has risen.


A very interesting idea! It would some of the worst part of the glory bonus rules. I have to write about my ideas about the APP-roll someday soon; they are a more radical break with the present system.


I'd definitely be interested in having a look.

The glory bonus applying to appearance could work alright. Another fix might be to limit the max glory modifier to the knights basic skill.

So if Sir Psycho-saxon-killer has courtesy 3 and 25,000 glory he can only claim a +3 modifier rather than a +25. If he had courtesy 10 he could get a +10 and so forth. It will mean that players still need to develop courtly skills to a reasonable extent no matter how high their star has risen.

My take on this would be that you get *up to +5* for glory OR double the current skill, whichever is higher.

Thus, Sir Psycho-saxon-killer with his courtesy of 3 and 25,000 glory would receive a +5 modifier, but would still not get the full +25. At the same time, if he had a courtesy of 6 then he would receive a +6 modifier, not the lower +5.

The glory bonus applying to appearance could work alright. Another fix might be to limit the max glory modifier to the knights basic skill.

So if Sir Psycho-saxon-killer has courtesy 3 and 25,000 glory he can only claim a +3 modifier rather than a +25. If he had courtesy 10 he could get a +10 and so forth. It will mean that players still need to develop courtly skills to a reasonable extent no matter how high their star has risen.

My take on this would be that you get *up to +5* for glory OR double the current skill, whichever is higher.

Thus, Sir Psycho-saxon-killer with his courtesy of 3 and 25,000 glory would receive a +5 modifier, but would still not get the full +25. At the same time, if he had a courtesy of 6 then he would receive a +6 modifier, not the lower +5.


I think that is a good refinement. Sold!