Can Knights "simply" follow the roads/tracks from one town to another, e.g. Medbourne to Northampton, or do they have to make the hunting rolls described in "Lost in Sauvage"?

Moving at free will seems too easy, but hitting them with a -15 Hunting roll to go from one town to another seems too hard.

I've got both the GPC and some older versions of the Boy King campaign and it appears in that older book the idea was simply to have a random encounter every day in the forest, which seems like it might work very well.

How have other GMs dealt with players exploring Sauvage?

I've got both the GPC and some older versions of the Boy King campaign and it appears in that older book the idea was simply to have a random encounter every day in the forest, which seems like it might work very well.
This is the way I usually manage it. For your question, i'll say manage it as you want. If your PCs are just crossing ther forest as part of the scenario, well, a random encounter is perfect. If it'as like a winter phase or other, you can use multiple random encounters to create a full scenario in the forest :)

The hunting rolls are only for if you want to go somewhere specific. If you are just wandering around the forest, you can happily fail rolls every day and encounter beasties or whatever. Then when you want to find your way out, or to a specific place like Northhampton, you need to make the rolls.


Those big penalties are supernatural effects, and in the case of sauvage, does vanish after a certain point. Also, it's not uncommon for a group to end up with a knight who has a skill of 20 or more, and many knights end up with 15 or more - get them on a quest to which he a passion applies, and those journeys become possible.

The tricky bit for me was ruling how many hunting rolls were needed for each of the journeys.

I would say it depends on when the knights are crossing Forest Sauvage. If it is in Uther then I would say no penalties. The areas should be open, albeit remote. During the Anarchy period when the other side comes into play, then getting lost once or twice would make it much more mysterious and foreboding.

As far as the number of encounters, it depends upon your game.

Can Knights "simply" follow the roads/tracks from one town to another, e.g. Medbourne to Northampton, or do they have to make the hunting rolls described in "Lost in Sauvage"?

Moving at free will seems too easy, but hitting them with a -15 Hunting roll to go from one town to another seems too hard.
I ran is as once they had found a place within the forest then they no longer we "lost".

BUT I also gave them all sorts of encounters when going from place to place, and if they left the defined road/trail then they had to make a hunting roll to relocate it.

Actually a good way to do it even with hunting modifiers is like so: Make a -15 hunting roll. Did u fail? Probably. Go to random events table. If u roll a 1 a hermit finds you and leads you out of the forest. Roll a20. You luckily chanced upon the are you wanted to be at. I like this way the best. ;D

Thanks for the responses.

The idea of only having to do the hunting rolls the first time that a path is taken sounds like one that works for me. The Knights will either have to find a guide or work on their hunting. It also means that they can gradually push into the heart of the forest getting a little further every year.

I also like the idea of keeping on rolling on the random encounter tables for every journey, it will make sure that the forest is never mundane or predictable.

As to hermits and suchlike, would they take Knights to where they want to go (or the closest town) or just out of the forest?

Have you seen the Lost in the Woods table? It's in the GPC.

When you fail a hunting roll you normally roll on that each day, and sooner or later you'll meet someone who takes you out of the woods. They don't take you where you want to go, because that would be too easy.

Yes I have seen that table. My impression from older versions of the Boy King is that it was used every day within the forest, where as I believe that with the GPC it's used only when someone is lost.

The hermit might take the knight where he wants ... if he makes a PIOUS check!!!!!!!!!!!!! A little evil... but the hermit wouldnt go out of hids way for a non-believer would he? ;)

The whole point of the people on the table not taking you where you want to go is this: if they do take you where you want to go, the reason for making the hunting check is negated. You may as well just say, "Okay, you're going to get where you want to go anyway, we are just rolling to see how it happens."

In a lot of RPGs, that is standard operating procedure, but Pendragon is set out deliberately to be not like that. Many adventures and rules support the idea that players will fail, and maybe they'll come back later to try again - and maybe it will take several attempts and they don't succeed till generations later!

I think the game is stronger when GMs have the bravery to allow their players to fail, and don't worry they'll be disappointed. Sure, it'll be a shock the first couple of times it happens, but I've seen it happen time and time again that players learn to appreciate the campaign more in the long-run.

I think the game is stronger when GMs have the bravery to allow their players to fail, and don't worry they'll be disappointed. Sure, it'll be a shock the first couple of times it happens, but I've seen it happen time and time again that players learn to appreciate the campaign more in the long-run.

I quite agree with that thought. Success is sweeter if one has to work for it.

Here here!
Broavo!
Well said!!



The whole point of the people on the table not taking you where you want to go is this: if they do take you where you want to go, the reason for making the hunting check is negated. You may as well just say, "Okay, you're going to get where you want to go anyway, we are just rolling to see how it happens."

In a lot of RPGs, that is standard operating procedure, but Pendragon is set out deliberately to be not like that. Many adventures and rules support the idea that players will fail, and maybe they'll come back later to try again - and maybe it will take several attempts and they don't succeed till generations later!

I think the game is stronger when GMs have the bravery to allow their players to fail, and don't worry they'll be disappointed. Sure, it'll be a shock the first couple of times it happens, but I've seen it happen time and time again that players learn to appreciate the campaign more in the long-run.

I'll add my voice to the chorus appreciating the let's take multiple stabs at succeeding on this quest approach. I allowed my players to get regularly lost in the Forest. Here the paths keep changing magically and even the locals get lost unless they take extreme care - this makes every location very insular and unique. One year my players got lost, and it wasn't until a companion joined them that they discovered somehow a year had slipped by and it seemed but a day. After a while they treated the Forest with extreme caution, fearful of trifling with it, but also (thanks to a changling child) knowing that they would eventually have to overcome it...

As an aside, I enjoyed throwing in the mad hermit - in my imagination there was a nod to Monty Python at this point...