Here comes - a bit belatedly - the third installment with some musings of rule changes I wish I had done in my old Blood + Lust campaign. I will only tackle one issue here (I'll get back to the APP-roll and the Battle system later).

Manor system
I optimistically injected the manor system in my game. I soon discovered that I and one of my players hated it. Basically, it is too detailed, too time consuming, and too easy to use to min-max economy in a totally unknightly way. Was there ever a manor in Logres without a beehive? Unfortunately, three of my players loved it (particularly the min-max economy part), so I decided to keep it, very reluctantly.

What would I do if I ran a campaign today? The problem with the manor system is that i addresses the wrong issue. It should not address economy, because, frankly, any economic system will be pulled apart by some players and used to create money machines and this is not what we want in a game of romance and chivalry. So that part should just be stopped.

I would suggest that manors, however rich, do not generate income. They generate a standard of living. The system on page 12-13 in PGC has the right idea. Sure, I would allow players to decrease their standard of living a bit at get some money in exchange, but that should be some, a couple of pounds per year, not more. Not dozens and dozens, like the BoM allows. There would be some simple rules to increase income, but they would be very simple, and only allow slow, modest increases in income. (Say, that to increase an £6 manor to a £7 manor would cost £60 or £70 and take a couple of years).

One problem with BoM is that if some of your players don't use it, and some do, the whole Winter Phase grinds to a halt in Step Four, aka "Roger you can remove yourself from this room the coming thirty minutes while Johan uses the manor system to get as much cash as he can for Sir Cheesealot". Any manor system should be so simple and fast that it can be used in the Winter Phase without fuss in a group with those who want to use it and those who don't.

The manor system should not generate checks. Because if it does, those players who don't want to use it gets punished, not only with a worse economy than those that do, but also with less checks.

What I personally would like the manor "system", or rather the BoM to do, is to 1) generate stories and 2) generate background color.

1) Theres a robber on your manor. Your peasants are restless. There is a faerie loose. The priest ran off with your daughter. The hunting will be good next year. Etc etc. This is what the manor system could do, as an optional add on; to generate things that the GM can use and abuse in game to tell a story about the manor, the knight(s) who owns it and the peasants and other persons who lives there. Instead of being an instrument for greedy players, it could be an instrument to generate game content (it does, as written, I know, but a too high cost in opinion).

2) I want to know who my PKs manors look. One or several villages? What kind of villages? Who do I describe them (clustered, along the road, scattered cottages etc). Are the many forests? Swampland? Along a road, and thus beset by travelers in need? Are the fields rich or poor? Does the most income come from great flocks of sheep, fields, or something else? And what about the hall? Not only is at wooden one or stone one, but what is its layout? Furniture? Staff? The manor system should in this aspect not be a system at all, but an aid to help us visualize and describe everyday life - and as a detailed backdrop for important stories. (I once had two trolls attack a PKs knight in the middle of the winter, prompting questions as were are the front doors in relation to the great hall, and where are the PKs armor, when they have to arm up in the middle of the feast).

Finally, I think that the Book of Manor should address the question of the church (the building) and the priest. This should be important issues for any knight (and can of course create stories, as when the church tower gets destroyed by lighting and the peasants demands a new tower - while the PKs lord asks for a Tallage).

Just my five denarii.

Manor system
Basically, it [manor system] is too detailed, too time consuming, and too easy to use to min-max economy in a totally unknightly way.

I agree 100%. I ought to relabel BoM as the book of the STEWARD.
Book of ESTATES does away with accounting. It has a little money thing


Was there ever a manor in Logres without a beehive?

Interestingly enough, my research at the time said "no,"
Everyone seems to have had one, or wanted one


The manor system should not generate checks. Because if it does, those players who don't want to use it gets punished, not only with a worse economy than those that do, but also with less checks.

Manors granting checks is one of my own favorite parts of BoM
It will be kept in BoE
However, some builds are removed from knightly opportunity, simply becazuse it was not likely to be so. A Hunting lodge, for instance, has no place on a knight's little manor. In a Forest holding, maybe.


What I personally would like the manor "system", or rather the BoM to do, is to 1) generate stories
Well, BoM states what it's intent is, and that is not part of it
Using it to create scenarios is one thing that I figured GMs would do for themselves
I am continually surprised at how difficult that is for people
A page of hooks and ideas are going to be in the new games, though
I even use 'em


and 2) generate background color.

Although that is one thing I like too, once again, not within the BoM's own stated parameters

Most of that information is not actual game material. All of that is available elsewhere to people who wish to find it. Even online for a lot of stuff, or in cheap books.
I realize bibliographies in these books are in order, and will start putting them in again.


Finally, I think that the Book of Manor should address the question of the church (the building) and the priest. This should be important issues for any knight (and can of course create stories, as when the church tower gets destroyed by lighting and the peasants demands a new tower - while the PKs lord asks for a Tallage).

More than the mention it got? Why? A village church was outside a knight's domain entirely.
and most village churches are to poor to even have a steeple


Just my five denarii.

a bit of change back :)

I agree 100%. I ought to relabel BoM as the book of the STEWARD.
Book of ESTATES does away with accounting. It has a little money thing

I think its a move in the right direction.



Interestingly enough, my research at the time said "no,"
Everyone seems to have had one, or wanted one

Its the best Investment in the book, thats why!



Manors granting checks is one of my own favorite parts of BoM
It will be kept in BoE
However, some builds are removed from knightly opportunity, simply becazuse it was not likely to be so. A Hunting lodge, for instance, has no place on a knight's little manor. In a Forest holding, maybe.

Well, I think that if you can integrate it in the system in a way that doesn't make it to unbalancing and that the building part of the Winter Phase can be gone through quickly, it is a cool ideal.



Well, BoM states what it's intent is, and that is not part of it
Using it to create scenarios is one thing that I figured GMs would do for themselves
I am continually surprised at how difficult that is for people
A page of hooks and ideas are going to be in the new games, though
I even use 'em

I'm aware that it is not part of the parameters. I'm pleading for changed parameters ;)

Hooks and ideas is just the thing!



Most of that information is not actual game material. All of that is available elsewhere to people who wish to find it. Even online for a lot of stuff, or in cheap books. I realize bibliographies in these books are in order, and will start putting them in again.

Yes, but then again, the rule book and most supplements to the game are full of background material that isn't actual game material. And that is most useful, because it is through much of that material that you can build interesting stories. And stories about the homes of the PKs should or could be important in any PGC game.

I applaud the bibliographies. It would really help.



More than the mention it got? Why? A village church was outside a knight's domain entirely.
and most village churches are to poor to even have a steeple


Because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advowson and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_patronatus. The church - or at least the priest - is the knights business. If I understand this right. That was the way it functioned in Sweden at least ...

If I may—I use Spoonist's extended Good and Bad Events for the Winter Phase, as well as his expanded Family and Annual Events. The latter one is his own creation, I think. At any rate, really good stuff with lots and lots of events. they have added immeasurably to the depth of my campaign.

Best,


T.

Man,
I had the exact same experience with the manor system.. because I got tired of spending all my work lunches rolling the harvest results (nice thing if your players are also your colleagues) so I wrote a whole program for it.
However what I also missed are the adventure hooks..
though I had a great adventure when 1 player declared after a dragon had burned his fields [on the manor event table] that he would hunt it down.. I want more of those things.
Some players love that bookkeeping, but as GM I want dilemmas/hooks (the kind of: "do I anger my lord or my wife", not the "do I buy beehive or pond").
Even a D100 event table gets boring after some time..
I always sorta imagined a sorta mini-game with sliders choosing between chivalry and money, lord or family, pagan or christian, peasants or merchants, neighbors or etc etc. That would show what kind of knight you were and would affect future relations (instead of just another beehive). And based on that some kind of reactions..
And I want players to do such a thing completely on themselves and just tell me=GM the result...
Anyone done such a thing?

fg,
Thijs

Interestingly enough, my research at the time said "no,"
Everyone seems to have had one, or wanted one
Its the best Investment in the book, thats why!

Not in the game. Historically everyone wanted and/or had bee hives.
The frequency that players will get the bonuses, as determined by price, is based on my research, not whim. Wait, I mean it is based on the whims of my research, not meaningless numbers.




Manors granting checks is one of my own favorite parts of BoM
It will be kept in BoE
However, some builds are removed from knightly opportunity, simply becazuse it was not likely to be so. A Hunting lodge, for instance, has no place on a knight's little manor. In a Forest holding, maybe.
Well, I think that if you can integrate it in the system in a way that doesn't make it to unbalancing and that the building part of the Winter Phase can be gone through quickly, it is a cool ideal.



Well, BoM states what it's intent is, and that is not part of it
Using it to create scenarios is one thing that I figured GMs would do for themselves
I am continually surprised at how difficult that is for people
A page of hooks and ideas are going to be in the new games, though
I even use 'em
I'm aware that it is not part of the parameters. I'm pleading for changed parameters ;)

Well then, I am looking forward to your and everyone's submissions for this!


Most of that information is not actual game material. All of that is available elsewhere to people who wish to find it. Even online for a lot of stuff, or in cheap books. I realize bibliographies in these books are in order, and will start putting them in again.
Yes, but then again, the rule book and most supplements to the game are full of background material that isn't actual game material. And that is most useful, because it is through much of that material that you can build interesting stories. And stories about the homes of the PKs should or could be important in any PGC game.
[/quote]
As a designer with limited resources and time, I have to choose what is important to the game.
Whereas I find it fun to map out my manors, diddle with details and play, I do not find that it adds story opportunity to the game I want to ply.
I have never had a game where it mattered whether the player's peasants lived in three hamlets, or half of a village.
But yes it is fun, and I look forward to the submissions for it!


More than the mention it got? Why? A village church was outside a knight's domain entirely.
and most village churches are to poor to even have a steeple

Because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advowson and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_patronatus. The church - or at least the priest - is the knights business. If I understand this right. That was the way it functioned in Sweden at least ...
[/quote]
These issues never attached to knights in the middle ages, just to bigger lords who could build big things.
There is a BoCHURCHES that deals with this kind of things, which is actually the dominant method of churches for the British Church. But those are outside of my scope for the Manorial or other secular books.

Coming to this a bit late. I've had the same experience with my players. Some of them love the bookkeeping angle and others hate it.

I agree with Skarpskytten about the money issue. Those values are easy to exploit to bring in large amounts of money. To combat this, for starters I *don't* allow multiple builds of anything. I've tweaked the values a little bit as well.

It's been mentioned before but I think one of the problems is that a lot of manors evolve in almost exactly the same way. The Apiary is the de facto first build for all my players, followed by the low cost income generating builds; Dove cote, Fish Pond etc. There's simply no variety despite the illusion of variety that comes from having so many different things to build (and I've added more).

Personally, I think the system would work better if it were tech tree based, with certain builds being dependent on other builds. A simple eg, Fish Pond cannot be built until a dam has been built. This would create more choice; players may choose to build lesser immediate value buildings for the potential reward of something greater later on, or build the quick stuff which has little development potential. At least it's a choice. I haven't done this because I just havent had the time. Games like Medieval Total War have been doing this for years though.

Winter Phase in my game can take hours. It was impacting our play session too much until I took it offline and automated the process. I *do* prefer the personal touch of rolling dice face to face as opposed to faceless rolls across the internet but something had to give.

It's been mentioned before but I think one of the problems is that a lot of manors evolve in almost exactly the same way. The Apiary is the de facto first build for all my players, followed by the low cost income generating builds; Dove cote, Fish Pond etc. There's simply no variety despite the illusion of variety that comes from having so many different things to build (and I've added more).

Personally, I think the system would work better if it were tech tree based, with certain builds being dependent on other builds. A simple eg, Fish Pond cannot be built until a dam has been built. This would create more choice; players may choose to build lesser immediate value buildings for the potential reward of something greater later on, or build the quick stuff which has little development potential. At least it's a choice. I haven't done this because I just havent had the time. Games like Medieval Total War have been doing this for years though.

Interesting idea. You could refine this system so that some choices exclude others; i.e. you cant have both sheep herds and bovine herds (for example), because there is only so much space. Or you could just have a "slot" system; a manor cant have more than say six investments/enhancements/fortifications/etc. This would force players to prioritize, which is always a GOOD THING, since it forces them to think about their characters and whats important to them.

I like one aspect of BoM, and that is that a manor can express personalty, it can say a lot about what kind of knight it is that owns it. And as I have said I don't like that the manor system gives checks, because it can become unbalancing (and I also think that PKs should improve through play, by being active in the world, and by just sitting at home an moping. If you still want the system to express personality, you could reverse the process so to speak. You cant build a Chapel to get a roll to Love (God) or Pillar to get a check uin Worldy, etc. Instead the system could use prerequisite, ie a knight with a high Love (God) is allowed to build a Chapel. These things could grant a modest amount of Glory instead of checks or rolls.

Also, you could demand that some of he enhancements that grants checks to have a prerequisite.

It's been mentioned before but I think one of the problems is that a lot of manors evolve in almost exactly the same way. The Apiary is the de facto first build for all my players, followed by the low cost income generating builds; Dove cote, Fish Pond etc.

In fact, that was my intent. Those are very common but not universally found on manors
nice cheap builds, easy start into the system if it is being used


There's simply no variety despite the illusion of variety that comes from having so many different things to build (and I've added more).

No variety, or that players are all sensible and choose simple and profitable first?
Perhaps it's easiest to just give players a choice of one of those three for their starting manor, and rule out any chance to have the others "based on environmental concerns too complex to discuss here." :)


Personally, I think the system would work better if it were tech tree based

I shudder at that
it limits the choices even more than offering cheap simple profits to everyone!

Here is one thing that's going to be in the Book of the ESTATE
The hodge podge of items in BoM is clarified considerably
They are arranged Period by Period
more or less following the KAP/Medieval parallel
An with several new items as well

But you will not need to have a common mill before you get an overshot mill

Well then, I am looking forward to your and everyone's submissions for this!



As a designer with limited resources and time, I have to choose what is important to the game.
Whereas I find it fun to map out my manors, diddle with details and play, I do not find that it adds story opportunity to the game I want to ply. I have never had a game where it mattered whether the player's peasants lived in three hamlets, or half of a village.
But yes it is fun, and I look forward to the submissions for it!

Well, I guess I deserved that one! :P

In a world with more time, "yes"! In this world, "Ill think about it". I do have the qualifications, at least ...



These issues never attached to knights in the middle ages, just to bigger lords who could build big things.
There is a BoCHURCHES that deals with this kind of things, which is actually the dominant method of churches for the British Church. But those are outside of my scope for the Manorial or other secular books.

Well, thats fair I think. I would like a book with more full information about the Church!

Well then, I am looking forward to your and everyone's submissions for this!


As a designer with limited resources and time, I have to choose what is important to the game.
Whereas I find it fun to map out my manors, diddle with details and play, I do not find that it adds story opportunity to the game I want to ply. I have never had a game where it mattered whether the player's peasants lived in three hamlets, or half of a village.
But yes it is fun, and I look forward to the submissions for it!
Well, I guess I deserved that one! :P
In a world with more time, "yes"! In this world, "Ill think about it". I do have the qualifications, at least ...

However, having crowed and strutted successfully, I'll say that I will proved a couple of examples of some things, and a good reference sources for villages that I've seen.




These issues never attached to knights in the middle ages, just to bigger lords who could build big things.
There is a BoCHURCHES that deals with this kind of things, which is actually the dominant method of churches for the British Church. But those are outside of my scope for the Manorial or other secular books.
Well, thats fair I think. I would like a book with more full information about the Church!

Churches, of course :)
church of the cross, & church of the cup
The information I have is interesting, but with little actual game-playing contact
We've been hoping it will work in nicely with the Magic book for priests and necromancers.
Thank you for your enthusiasm

Personally, I think the system would work better if it were tech tree based

I shudder at that
it limits the choices even more than offering cheap simple profits to everyone!


Interesting. I think it boils down to what a 'choice' is..
I think everyone agrees that the Apiary is not really a choice, it's a dead give-away.
So the first few improvements are not really choices (unless you are being really really non-smart).
After that you have a whole list of choices, all who either give some more money or give a check in some trait. Since everyone already has their own favorite traits/skills, this boils down to a choice between more money or checks. That is the only real choice made.
The problem with tech-tree is: a choice is made once and then you are stuck running down the tech-tree.

I personally like more dilemma's eg the Hare Island (easy money, but check on coward... do you want that?)
I'd add some negatives to some of the improvements to make it more 'interesting'. Or perhaps adventure hooks or event tables with each improvement...

One problem I had is that players were hoarding too much money in with the manor system, but ok, that can be simply avoided by stating that no money can be saved beyond a few librum.

BTW: I sorta miss inflation. If knightly income can so much increase, I expect armor/horse prices to increase as well.. (but instead we see everything becoming cheaper (till the plague).

fg,
Thijs

Interesting. I think it boils down to what a 'choice' is..
I think everyone agrees that the Apiary is not really a choice, it's a dead give-away.

It's also historically accurate that nearly every manor would have at least one.
Which makes me think:
The problem with the manors is not the various enhancements, etc. It's only the Investments, the ones which generate money.
So, maybe, rather than saying you can buy an apiary or sheep herd, or whatever, assume that some apiaries, some sheep, some cows, etc., are part of most manors and this is included in the basic £6.
The investment is not to have those things, but to focus on them, and have them developed to an unusual level compared to your neighbours.

So if you have an apiary, it means you manor is seriously focussed on the development of honey, and you might well be called the Knight of the Bees.

Thus, you can say, choose one investment - that's the only one you can get. Maybe if the manor reaches a given population level, you can choose a second, etc.

Then people *might* develop an apiary - if they want something cheap and fast. Or they may go for a costlier investment, in the hope of getting a bigger return - but they wont do both. Choice is now a real factor.


One problem I had is that players were hoarding too much money in with the manor system, but ok, that can be simply avoided by stating that no money can be saved beyond a few librum.

BTW: I sorta miss inflation. If knightly income can so much increase, I expect armor/horse prices to increase as well.. (but instead we see everything becoming cheaper (till the plague).

Horse/armour prices do increase, in a way.
In the begiining chargers are expensive (£20). Later they drop to £10, but by then players can spend £28 on getting Andalusians. Then when andulusians drop in pricce, more expensive Destriers are available. So, a lot of the time there is an escalation in prices.

Thus, you can say, choose one investment - that's the only one you can get. Maybe if the manor reaches a given population level, you can choose a second, etc.

Bit harsh to allow only a single investment...



Horse/armour prices do increase, in a way.
In the begiining chargers are expensive (£20). Later they drop to £10, but by then players can spend £28 on getting Andalusians. Then when andulusians drop in pricce, more expensive Destriers are available. So, a lot of the time there is an escalation in prices.

:) I've been 'fighting' with Greg over horse/armor prices and their variance over time.
In 4th edition you have a 531 pricelist and in 4th a 485 list and there indeed there is difference. But after that there is no mention about Andulusians or Destriers getting cheaper (there is in text, but not in a table).
Hence I created my own horse price list (with inflation correction) on my webpage.

http://gspendragon.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/pendragonhorseprices.pdf
(before anyone asks).

Thus, you can say, choose one investment - that's the only one you can get. Maybe if the manor reaches a given population level, you can choose a second, etc.

Bit harsh to allow only a single investment...


I was speaking just off the top of my head. I'm not sure I'd go that route or recommend it, but having a limited number of investments available to each manor could be worthwhile.



:) I've been 'fighting' with Greg over horse/armor prices and their variance over time.
In 4th edition you have a 531 pricelist and in 4th a 485 list and there indeed there is difference. But after that there is no mention about Andulusians or Destriers getting cheaper (there is in text, but not in a table).
Hence I created my own horse price list (with inflation correction) on my webpage.

http://gspendragon.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/pendragonhorseprices.pdf
(before anyone asks).


Nice.

Thus, you can say, choose one investment - that's the only one you can get. Maybe if the manor reaches a given population level, you can choose a second, etc.

Bit harsh to allow only a single investment...


I was speaking just off the top of my head. I'm not sure I'd go that route or recommend it, but having a limited number of investments available to each manor could be worthwhile.



I assume you mean limited in total number (not options).
Before this derails: (or in the words of Greg) What are we trying to fix?

a) All manors evolve identically in the beginning

b) Players income becomes huge

c) Winterphase 'shopping' takes too long

d) We are missing adventure hooks

Have I missed something?
(Some people dislike checks?)

Any change/houserule we propose should be modular.

Concerning [a], what I also wondered if every manor has an apiary why did your father not build one?
Suggestion [a1]: Al those default order builds have already been build by your father and is part of your income (this will increase players income).
Suggestion [a2]: Al those default order builds have already been build by your father and the income is wasted [gifted to earl orso] (this will not increase players income).
Suggestion [a3]: Al those default order builds have already been build by your father, however he also
spend the income of it on some non-profitable maintenance. Select additions with total maintenance to equal extra income [todo: decide those default builds].

Suggestion [b1]: No income allowed to be saved, except as treasure which can be sold at half value.
This will make players spend money like crazy and thus avoid the large investments
Suggestion [b2]: At certain income Earl will increase your tax [todo: at what level]

Suggestion [c1]: Do it with some computer program (working on it).

Suggestion [d1]: Create event table for each improvement when build


fg,
Thijs

I assume you mean limited in total number (not options).
Before this derails: (or in the words of Greg) What are we trying to fix?

a) All manors evolve identically in the beginning

b) Players income becomes huge

c) Winterphase 'shopping' takes too long

d) We are missing adventure hooks

Have I missed something?
(Some people dislike checks?)

Well, I dislike checks, and I do think that if manors do give checks, it must give it to those players that don't want to get involved in a manor system.

As I understand it, most of the economy will be gone in the BoEstates. Which is a good thing.

And I would sure like a bunch of adventure hooks and local happenings. It should not be mandatory, because time is short in Pendragon, but it could be used to 1) Create quickly resolved solo scenarios (I'm not sure this is a good idea) and 2) generate game content that could be used by the GM who is strapped for ideas, want local color or whatever.

Well, I dislike checks, and I do think that if manors do give checks, it must give it to those players that don't want to get involved in a manor system.



Ok, so a system for those player that dont want to get involved... How about equal number of checks to the manor-involved player with lowest number of checks? So they will always get as many checks as the 'worst' manor player...

fg,
Thijs

Well, I dislike checks, and I do think that if manors do give checks, it must give it to those players that don't want to get involved in a manor system.



Ok, so a system for those player that dont want to get involved... How about equal number of checks to the manor-involved player with lowest number of checks? So they will always get as many checks as the 'worst' manor player...

fg,
Thijs


I guess that it would be better than no checks at all.

Perhaps you should just ignore this grumpy old man and his aversion to manor created checks. No one seems to agree ...

BTW: I sorta miss inflation. If knightly income can so much increase, I expect armor/horse prices to increase as well.. (but instead we see everything becoming cheaper (till the plague).


OK, I confess--I AM working on the Book of Inflation
But it will as always be an option and it is nowhere close to being done

Originally the inflation was to be handled by a series of Price Lists that were to appear in GPC every 15 years or so. However, it was to be the last thing done, and at deadline I was already over size and exhausted and it went by the wayside

So I'm new to Pendragon and the amount of old and revised material plus House Rules is a little confusing. I have picked up 5.1 and am interested in Book of the Manor. However, I see Book of Estates mentioned here. It sounds like that will take the place of the Book of the Manor? Is there a list of upcoming titles and what they will be replacing? Is there a tentative release date for Book of Estates, or should I just grab Book of the Manor 2nd edition and call it good?

So I'm new to Pendragon and the amount of old and revised material plus House Rules is a little confusing. I have picked up 5.1 and am interested in Book of the Manor. However, I see Book of Estates mentioned here. It sounds like that will take the place of the Book of the Manor? Is there a list of upcoming titles and what they will be replacing? Is there a tentative release date for Book of Estates, or should I just grab Book of the Manor 2nd edition and call it good?


Depends on what you want from the game. We're enjoying Book of the Manor 2nd Ed. quite a bit, accounting and all, and it's not as bad as, say, Hârn, when it comes to managing your manor. It goes pretty quickly once you get in the groove of it. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a new book/system. No telling how long it will take to come out, and I can't blame Greg for not offering dates.

Best,


T.

So I'm new to Pendragon and the amount of old and revised material plus House Rules is a little confusing. I have picked up 5.1 and am interested in Book of the Manor. However, I see Book of Estates mentioned here. It sounds like that will take the place of the Book of the Manor? Is there a list of upcoming titles and what they will be replacing? Is there a tentative release date for Book of Estates, or should I just grab Book of the Manor 2nd edition and call it good?

Book of Estate has a different scope than book of the Manor. Don't wait for the former, just by book of the Manor, as Taliesin suggested.

As for all rules floating about, the esteemed members of this forum has very different opinions. Just run the game as written - it works well - and form your own opinion before you start to fiddle with the rules. The basic rules of the game are well written and robust, and many house rules is about flavor rather than fixing things that are broke.

This is what I would advise if you are new to the game:

One session = one year. The game works best this way, and if you deviate to far from this, I think the game will break down unless a lot of house rules are introduced.

Be careful with Glory inflation (and remember, that according to the errata Traits and Passions do not generate annual Glory; I cannot stress this enough, because if you ignore this, Glory will sooner or late get out of hand). If your PKs get 300-400 Glory in total a year (with annual glory), you have a good level and will have a game that runs smoothly. More glory than this, and the game system start to unravel.

You really don't need the book of Manor for a good game. Book of Battle turns battles from a chore to something worthwhile to have in your game. And you must have PGC.

Be careful with Glory inflation (and remember, that according to the errata Traits and Passions do not generate annual Glory; I cannot stress this enough, because if you ignore this, Glory will sooner or late get out of hand). If your PKs get 300-400 Glory in total a year (with annual glory), you have a good level and will have a game that runs smoothly. More glory than this, and the game system start to unravel.

Um... what errata? I just checked the errata on the website and found no mention on the KAP pendragon website of striking Traits and Passions from Annual Glory. However, I quickly glanced over 5.1 and saw that there is indeed no mention of Trait & Passion glory.

Like the marriage table, this seems another case where 5.1 has a previously unpublished change without any hint that the change is there. I've been totally ignoring this change for the past half-dozen sessions and am now a bit concerned about what to do about it.

That said, most of my group haven't pushed much past the kind of glory levels your talking about. They got more for Bayeux and Lindsey, but then I did make them fight many rounds of the battle system and did my utmost to kill them - so they probably earned it. :-)

EDIT: I've gone through the Pendragon 5.1 PDF again. The Winter Phase, Page 111 still has several sections referring to traits and passions above 16 giving glory.

Page 105 doesn't include it under passive glory, but does mention it as the example for passive glory. "Sir Eoric the Golden is famed for his strong-headed lack of caution."

If it's been errataed out, it's somewhat erratically errataed out. :-D

Problem with tech-tree is: a choice is made once and then you are stuck running down the tech-tree.


Let me elaborate a little more on this. Perhaps inter-connectivity is a better word. At present you can buy anything and it works exactly the same regardless of support or circumstances. That's ok but you can present more choice by tying things together a little more.

Sticking with the Apiary, and working along the example giving by Darren, where a knight specialises in making Honey, here's an on the fly example. Let's say Apiary, Mead Brewer, Potter and Chestnut Trees have a level of inter-connectivity. The chestnut tree on its own is somewhat lifeless without the bees. The mead brewer is an extension of the Brewery that brews beer and mead if enough honey is present.

Year 1 I buy an Apiary. Next year I could buy anything but decide to invest extra in my Brewery to make use of the additional honey I'm making. I get a check for Energetic and Indulgent. The next year I still have all the normal choices open to me but I'm determined to specialise. I clear a field and use it for chestnut trees, I get a check to Cruel or Selfish, and lose £1 from income, but the trees fare well with the bees. Next year I invest in a Pottery and start storing the extra honey and nuts and selling them at the county fair. News of my produce begins to spread.

I could build any of these things separately, but by building them together they function better than they would individually. They augment each other to a slight degree and are a form of specialistion. Gaining a "set" may also trigger a trait roll or some other effect that doesn't come with just having the individual pieces and which could have further consequences, good or bad (as Thijs points out, the Rabbit hill is an interesting build because it's not all positive, there is a downside for the player to consider) Multiply this example across the other builds and you're faced with more dilemma and choice.

Um... what errata? I just checked the errata on the website and found no mention on the KAP pendragon website of striking Traits and Passions from Annual Glory. However, I quickly glanced over 5.1 and saw that there is indeed no mention of Trait & Passion glory.

Like the marriage table, this seems another case where 5.1 has a previously unpublished change without any hint that the change is there. I've been totally ignoring this change for the past half-dozen sessions and am now a bit concerned about what to do about it.

That said, most of my group haven't pushed much past the kind of glory levels your talking about. They got more for Bayeux and Lindsey, but then I did make them fight many rounds of the battle system and did my utmost to kill them - so they probably earned it. :-)

EDIT: I've gone through the Pendragon 5.1 PDF again. The Winter Phase, Page 111 still has several sections referring to traits and passions above 16 giving glory.

Page 105 doesn't include it under passive glory, but does mention it as the example for passive glory. "Sir Eoric the Golden is famed for his strong-headed lack of caution."

If it's been errataed out, it's somewhat erratically errataed out. :-D

Sorry, I should have been at bit clearer. This is not part of the official errata (yet), but Greg talks about it in this thread (http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1422.msg11423#msg11423). Annual Glory for high Traits and Passions (but not ideals) were supposed to have been removed from the 5.1 ed. Somehow, it was only removed from the Winter Phase chapter (read it carefully), but all other references to annual glory from traits and passions was left in the rule book ...

Sorry, I should have been at bit clearer. This is not part of the official errata (yet), but Greg talks about it in this thread (http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1422.msg11423#msg11423). Annual Glory for high Traits and Passions (but not ideals) were supposed to have been removed from the 5.1 ed. Somehow, it was only removed from the Winter Phase chapter (read it carefully), but all other references to annual glory from traits and passions was left in the rule book ...


This is probably worth a thread of its own. I know Greg has removed it but personally I prefer the old system. The Glory bonus for traits and passions works very well IMHO, as it cuts in at exactly the point where the player loses a degree of control. Thus there is risk reward, and one which meshes seemlessly with the rest of the system. I know it's to cut Glory inflation but I feel it's the wrong solution to the problem. I'd lose (or devalue) bonus Glory for the Chiv or Religious bonus to avoid the double payback.

Sorry, I should have been at bit clearer. This is not part of the official errata (yet), but Greg talks about it in this thread (http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1422.msg11423#msg11423).

Ah, like the Battle size change - discussed in the forums but not properly printed yet. (Though that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. :-) )

5.1 does have an odd mixture here - on the one hand the proper reference to it in "Glory" is out, on the other than the example of first Winter Phase right after the winter phase rules points out Trait and Passion glory for 16+ scores. As the linked thread points out, 5.1 is not clear enough on the nature of this change if it's supposed to be there.

As Sir Pramalot says, further discussions is probably worth it's own thread. :-) I can appreciate the logic in capping the glory from certain sources - getting religious or chivalrous means you "double dip" somewhat, since the same trait pays you Glory twice - or moving the threshold somehow, but I'm not sure I think completely removing Glory for high passions traits is the way to go.

If it's been errataed out, it's somewhat erratically errataed out. :-D


Since I have to make a choice between writing new material
or collecting errata
I always choose to do the job no one else can do