Embarking on a new edition for a game is a serious and tricky business. The best reasons to do so are to attract a new audience and/or either stoke the existing fan base. A new edition must be different enough from previous editions or you won't get many takers and the differences must improve the game, not diminish it.

So what sort of changes would you like to see? This is all green-field, blue-sky dreaming, so throw anything out there that you'd think would add value. I'll start:

For my part, I'd like to see some sort of weapon groups or proficiencies with dependencies and related weapons, or affinities, with slight penalties. Not having same means characters develop an unrealistically narrow range of weapons, IMO. Or maybe fighting styles, like weapon and shield, or two-handed, where you can wield lots of weapons at a similar level when armed with a shield. I struggle with how a starting knight — a guy that's been born and bred for battle — could start play with a 15 in Sword and 0 — zilch — with an Axe! Fighting skills are not that compartmentalized and siloed. Not by a long shot. A lot of it is endurance, speed, sizing up one's opponent, conquering one's fears, footwork, etc. No way I should have a 15 with a Sword and 0 with just about any melee weapon.

Also, I think starting characters should have higher scores in Courtesy and Religion, and possibly Hunting and Falconry as well. They're raised as pages in a noble house, after all, and are thus steeped in these skills for 7 years as a page and 7 more years as a squire. Yet they start with really low scores here (typically Courtesy 3, Falconry 3, Hunting 2, Religion 2): I'd be for reducing the pool of points but increasing these to a higher threshold of maybe even 9 or so.

I might make Swimming a Dex roll, instead of a separate skill. Although Swimming was a rare skill in Medieval times, it's not very hard to learn once you put your mind to it. There's very little incentive to put points into Swimming.

Finally, I think I'd prefer to not have modifiers considered as ±5 or ±10 only. Those are huge jumps! Why not any number the GM wants, with very simple guidelines?

I'd also like to see different skill sets per the Early Phase and later Phases of the GPC. Characters in the rough and tumble court of King Uther might not need Courtesy, Dancing, Romance and Tourney, for example.

What would you pay good money to see in a new edition?



T.

For my part, I'd like to see some sort of weapon groups or proficiencies with dependencies and related weapons, or affinities, with slight penalties.


I concur. I'd love to see some form of default system for weapons--not too complex but something that would allow a bit more of switching between weapons. I used to play The Riddle of Steel, which had a good default system.

In the realm of weapons, I'd also like to see 'longsword' (aka, 'bastard sword'/hand and a half sword) added to the weapon list. I've always liked the 'historical' progression within KAP, and 'longsword' is the one thing that I miss. I'm not sure how one would stat it but perhaps +d6 when used 2H against plate and partial plate, or something like that.

NT

Embarking on a new edition for a game is a serious and tricky business. The best reasons to do so are to attract a new audience and/or either stoke the existing fan base. A new edition must be different enough from previous editions or you won't get many takers and the differences must improve the game, not diminish it.

A sixth edition should finally be set around Camelot and not Salisbury, with the more seasoned knights finally becoming knights of the Round table or at least Arthur's household knights, even being the companion knights of the famous round table knights.

There's lots of little stuff that could be better too. You mentioned one of the biggest. Fencing was a general skill that was modified by talent in specific close combat weapons. Maybe have the game use "Sword" as fencing talent and other close combat weapons as sword -5 (up to a max of 15).

Arms and armor were complicated in the age of plate armor and one really needed to be a connoisseur to gain their full benefits.

Internationalizing the setting better than has been done would be good too, not as has been done, but international purely from the English point of view, e.g. there were preferences for weapons and armor from certain places, with Medieval fanboydom just as strong as that we see between Mac and PC fanboys or Intel and AMD or Nvidia or ATI...Matrox forever ;)

Having the Romance skill actually play a part in Amours would be good too.

Family characteristics need an update, "like an otter" in a county without big lakes or major rivers was always pretty bad, though in fairness I know of at least two instances where men drowned and those trying to save them drowned with them in fairly shallow rivers, e.g. one of the "heroes" of Evesham (the battle that put King John's equally wicked son, Henry III back in power) was at the Scottish court of Henry's sister queen Joan and her husband, when a damsels sneaked up behind him and playfully pushed him in the water. He was a strong swimmer, but was drowning anyway. His valet jumped in and shared his fate rather than saving the day.

Although I understand the wish for weapon groups, all the systems I have seen go a bit wonky and seem more arbitrary than anything else. Maybe a minimum score for all weaponry is a better idea. You know how to fight. that is irrelevant to the style or weapon. But you are not trained to use the weapon most effectively. That requires skill.

About the location of the starting characters I disagree that it should be set around Camelot. The fun of Salisbury is that it is close enough to go the path of Round table knight or their companions, but just off the beaten path that you can create your own stories. The knights are less outshone by the RTKs.

Different starting skill sets for different periods is also a good idea. that way you can emphasis the different periods a bit better.
During character creation you could also use some sort of skill group advances. For example:
You can choose to be a huntsman (getting bonus to spear, hunting and awareness), a courtier (bonus to courtesy, intrigue and recognize and/or heraldry), a musician (bonus to orate, singing, play), etc.
This would give starting players immediately the right skills they need to play the role they imagine. In the current setting when a player wants to be a good huntsmen you have to point out all the relevant skills.

Ah, good, I was going to start a thread like this myself, but someone beat me to it.

I have several thoughts and opinion on this subject, and some of them will probably seem radical. I figure, there is no such thing as bad feedback here.

So, with the realization that not all of these will be popular ideas, but with the firm belief that there is value in at least considering and discussing some of these suggestions, I humbly submit my list of ideas for a KAP 6th edition.

+ Return the game's assumed starting year to 531 as it was previously. Keep the Uther period in the GPC only. I believe the expectation of most new players who pick this game up is that they'll be playing in a world with King Arthur, Sir Lancelot, the Round Table, knights in shining plate mail, etc. That should be the game's default mode.

Fold the Book of Battle and Book of the Estate into the core rulebook. These two elements are a core part of the game and should be made a fundamental part of it. I realize that will make the volume larger, but that didn't stop people from buying tons of copies of Pathfinder, for example, so big books can still sell.

Bring back the Feint rule so Dex has a use in combat. That was a nice option. Maybe I could also use Dex to perform an evasion? Just overall, would not mind seeing Dex get a little love in combat, even if only in 1 or 2 places.

+ Remove "pagan" as a starting religion choice. Christianity is a fundamental theme of the Arthurian mythos and my entire party of players chose to be pagan, which made my game weird. I didn't find that option to be very well supported in the rules, it felt more like a novelty or a tacked-on option to appease a small group of people. It feels like the game's major themes would resonate more strongly if the knights were all required to be Christians.

+ For that matter, why not just have all the knights be British Christians? Here again, the choice between Roman and British Christianity just muddied the waters and did not seem to have any real meaning or impact on gameplay. This is a great candidate for an optional rule in a supplement book, as is paganism. I'd strip it from the core rules though.

Would love to see a Major Wound table with specific injuries and effects, similar to the great Critical Hit tables you see in the Warhammer Fantasy game. This could certainly be optional but I think it would be a fun, colorful option that adds to the narrative.

+ Unify the missile combat rules so there's only one way missile attacks work, not one version in battles and a different version in non-battle melee combat.

+ My group finds the hunting rules confusing. We would not mind seeing a pass on these for clarity.

+ Add specific listed Glory awards for every enemy in the book. For example, currently no saxons have Glory awards given in their stat blocks in Appendix 2, and these are enemies the players will fight very frequently in the early days of the GPC.

+ Streamline and speed up the Winter Phase. Make stuff like family events an optional rule at the end of the chapter, not a step of the main sequence. If a child being ill has no game effect, remove it or make it optional. Just generally tighten up and focus this whole phase... what are the essentials here?

+ Just my two cents but consider a less generous set of rules for creating "a son of my previous player knight" rules. Allowing all traits and passions below 20 to automatically convey to the new PK is incredibly generous, letting brand new knights start with several nearly infallible passions (Hate(Saxons) being an obvious choice here) and within reach of religious, chivalric, etc bonuses. I would prefer something more conservative, like taking 1 trait and 1 passion from the father, and that's it.

+ Clean up the various niggling errors, inconsistencies, etc. For example the saxon berserker refers to using a "Berserk" tactic in combat, but the tactic is actually called "Uncontrolled Attack". There are many such minor issues throughout the text. I imagine if we started a thread to compile them all we could colelctively ferret out the vast majority.

I'll ask my players if they have any additional ideas and I'll post them here seperately.

I'm not enough expert as you guys. So my only concern is: if it will be a 6th edition I hope is as much polished as possible. With many edition stages to eliminate almost every inconsistence and errata.

This is a very cohesive fanbase, so I think it's possible to have some kind of democratic process, or even better, a longtime hardcore fans contribution in the core system and publication line. So, Greg must read this thread.

All of you have good ideas I would adress a few of the posts but I dont have time right now will try to make time and think about what changes I would like to see later on but the following does come to mind first I think a 6th eddtion should have a main core rule book should be printed with all of the following options

a quick fast past Charactor Creation for Knights and Lady's

come up with a better combat system I have quated in other of my posts I have had to come up with my own interpation of the rules for own game which is a good quck fast past comabt option.

Also a better ecconimics system is diffantly needed for the game I had to crate my own version to fit my needs wich works wel for me using the book of mannor the book of estate and now use a revised version of the winter pahse anothe fan in this fouram did. I would like to see the economics show how big an actual manor is like how many english miles itis how big is a small castle mediem castle large catle and grand castle comapried to the laters such as what would set a grand castle appart form a small castle etc. I think that this is a huge hole in pendragon, at least for me. Also would like to see more manirail improvements as well.

As far as making wepaon groups and complaning about why has in charactor creation a sword skill of 15 and no other combat skills other than spear and lances is becuse that is how they were trained rember at the time the romaen legions and calvory heavly realied on these things axes were used by saxons and Irish as well as the ghauls but no other then them used them as widley in romonized england nor knew even how to make them. with that in mind could use weapon gropups groupingthem as simple, martial, and exotic.

I will make a list of other stuff and post later!

1. Better organization and navigation aids in the rulebook (like in the GPC).

2. Straightforward and cleared up explanation of the rules for traits and passions (note how often this has come up on the forum, and the confusion in those threads).

3. A childbirth table in which children do not have a 80% chance of dying before reaching their 16th year (it was 16, wasn't it?).

Those are the things that irk me. Points 1 and 2 I have fixed for myself (1: tabs and markers for important chapters, page references pencilled in. 2: Read and reread the rules and the forums until it clicks), and I hear one of the newer books apparently has point 3 fixed. Apart from that, things that would be nice:

4. Integrating the winter phase rules from the GPC in the main rulebook for a still fast, but somewhat more interesting winter phase, and

5. More illustrations like those in the GPC, of buildings, cities and people with clothes and gear, but that's already daydreaming.

So, yeah, I'm pretty happy with the game as is.

I still would buy a 6th ed.

+ Remove "pagan" as a starting religion choice. Christianity is a fundamental theme of the Arthurian mythos and my entire party of players chose to be pagan, which made my game weird. I didn't find that option to be very well supported in the rules, it felt more like a novelty or a tacked-on option to appease a small group of people. It feels like the game's major themes would resonate more strongly if the knights were all required to be Christians.



I suspect that much of this was thanks to a lot of modern Arthurian fiction (especially "The Mists of Avalon") featuring paganism, and might have been also part of the "Dark Age" elements like the Saxon and Pictish invasions. (Though I question whether paganism was even that prominent in the real 5th and 6th century Britain; Gildas makes no mention of it still being around in his "De Excidio Britanniae", and he'd have surely denounced it with even more vehemence than the murders and adulteries of the kings of his time if it was.

+ Remove "pagan" as a starting religion choice. Christianity is a fundamental theme of the Arthurian mythos and my entire party of players chose to be pagan, which made my game weird. I didn't find that option to be very well supported in the rules, it felt more like a novelty or a tacked-on option to appease a small group of people. It feels like the game's major themes would resonate more strongly if the knights were all required to be Christians.



I suspect that much of this was thanks to a lot of modern Arthurian fiction (especially "The Mists of Avalon") featuring paganism, and might have been also part of the "Dark Age" elements like the Saxon and Pictish invasions. (Though I question whether paganism was even that prominent in the real 5th and 6th century Britain; Gildas makes no mention of it still being around in his "De Excidio Britanniae", and he'd have surely denounced it with even more vehemence than the murders and adulteries of the kings of his time if it was.


Yes, and the idea of a pagan knight is even further afield, though as I stated, I do not mind this as an option because it is interesting, and I appreciate that Greg chose to include it. I would just prefer to see it at a greater distance than it is now from the core character creation process.

Greg has commented before that there's a certain stripe of gamer who just won't roleplay a Christian. It is for them that pagan knights were introduced. Of course, the Arthurian tradition has pagan knights — but they're Saracens. I tend to agree that pagan knights tend to muddy the waters and dilute the milieu, but what'cha gonna do?


T.

Greg has commented before that there's a certain stripe of gamer who just won't roleplay a Christian. It is for them that pagan knights were introduced. Of course, the Arthurian tradition has pagan knights — but they're Saracens. I tend to agree that pagan knights tend to muddy the waters and dilute the milieu, but what'cha gonna do?


T.


1. Get rid of Pagan Knights (except for the Saracen and Moorish one, though the ones at Arthur's court are likely Christians).

2. Get rid of British Christianity. Arthur is a legendary person who may or may not have existed. The Matter of Britain/the romances surrounding him are French complimented by German ones and some English ones (mainly the Mort d'Arthur of Malory) and have only a very tenuous connection to the "real" Arthur.

3. Center the game around the conflict between pious catholic knights vs chivalrous knights, with heroic knights in between and a lot of greedy poor knights not interested in ideals beyond paying lip service to them.

4. Get rid of Wicca and Druidism (Wicca has no roots deeper than the 20th century and no one knows what the Druids believed- they did not write anything down and the Romans completely exterminated them).



In short take King Arthur back to the medieval romances and dump all anachronisms from the game.

This is one of the reasons I'm afraid of seeing another edition (aside from the fact Greg is still working out supplements for the current one): people splitting hairs.

Nothing is going to be gained by removing thematic concepts from the core book. If all you could do was play a British Christian in the core book then just as many people would be up in arms about a 'lack of character options' in the core book and that it's a greedy ploy to have additional, basic options in a supplement. Book of Knights & Ladies was great in this regard, at least in keeping continental characters out of the core book.

Just because having a bunch of pagan knights as your PCs was slightly problematic doesn't mean it is for everybody. If you don't like it then rule it as unavailable at your table. We all know pagan knights weren't historic, but neither was magical Merlin guiding a plate-armored King Arthur against a dying Rome. In the Arthurian setting, pagan knights represent a fairly significant niche in representing the medieval transition from pre-Chrisitian belief forms to favoring Christianity.

Christianity is a big part of the Arthurian mythos, hence, you know, the Grail Quest period in the GPC, but that doesn't mean paganism doesn't have its place and certainly that it shouldn't be included in the core book.


At any rate, like I said: don't remove thematic concepts. A new edition should just be focusing on the mechanics mostly. The one thing I do agree with is that the default starting year should be for 531 and only the GPC should pull it back to 485. It was hard to sell to my players a game where you play "knights of King Arthur" only to see you start 24 years - as in, 24 game sessions - before Arthur even shows up! Hence why I started my campaign at the Boy King period.

This I don't feel is a removing of concepts, but reinforcing what the game advertises itself to be: Arthurian roleplaying, not Utherian

This is one of the reasons I'm afraid of seeing another edition (aside from the fact Greg is still working out supplements for the current one): people splitting hairs.

Nothing is going to be gained by removing thematic concepts from the core book. If all you could do was play a British Christian in the core book then just as many people would be up in arms about a 'lack of character options' in the core book and that it's a greedy ploy to have additional, basic options in a supplement. Book of Knights & Ladies was great in this regard, at least in keeping continental characters out of the core book.

Just because having a bunch of pagan knights as your PCs was slightly problematic doesn't mean it is for everybody. If you don't like it then rule it as unavailable at your table. We all know pagan knights weren't historic, but neither was magical Merlin guiding a plate-armored King Arthur against a dying Rome. In the Arthurian setting, pagan knights represent a fairly significant niche in representing the medieval transition from pre-Chrisitian belief forms to favoring Christianity.

Christianity is a big part of the Arthurian mythos, hence, you know, the Grail Quest period in the GPC, but that doesn't mean paganism doesn't have its place and certainly that it shouldn't be included in the core book.


At any rate, like I said: don't remove thematic concepts. A new edition should just be focusing on the mechanics mostly. The one thing I do agree with is that the default starting year should be for 531 and only the GPC should pull it back to 485. It was hard to sell to my players a game where you play "knights of King Arthur" only to see you start 24 years - as in, 24 game sessions - before Arthur even shows up! Hence why I started my campaign at the Boy King period.

This I don't feel is a removing of concepts, but reinforcing what the game advertises itself to be: Arthurian roleplaying, not Utherian


This! Remember some peoples reactions when Magic and Magicians was removed in 5e? Players like options. Some groups like having "Merlin" (or insert name of sagely fellow) in their party for a more epic and independent feel.

In "6e", I would leave the core much like it is now in 5.1, cleaning up some of the things in the core that were enhanced or changed in supplements, example bringing the basic ideas of estates more in line with current though, tweaked basic battle more in line with Book of Armies and Book of Battles, etc.

This would be QUICKLY followed on by the Pendragon Companion, which would contain more advanced character generation (BoKL) and Magic.

Weapon groupings would be nice, but I wouldn't go any further than things like Sword, 2h Sword, Spear, 2h Spear, etc. Axes and Maces would be in the same group... perhaps 1h Hafted. This would not be a killer issue though. This would be more of an issue if trying to divorce the system from the setting.

SDLeary

I am content with 5.1, I would probably not purchase six edition, unless it was designed in such a way that the supplements for it Were not backwards compatible. And even then, I would be more likely to abandon the game in disgust if my previous purchases were invalidated. I would be little butt hurt to be honest. There are so many things that need to be fleshed out in the current edition, that I feel supplements are a better way to go. Personally, it would take several lengthy essays by the designs team\Greg as to why the game warrants update in order to keep my business . Just my two dennari

You know, Snaggle, Reseru, and the others – that's a good point you make. That's what I play Pendragon like, too: Christian knights (only one kind of Christianity), in Arthur's time. That's what I want from Pendragon, first and foremost.
If I want Uther or the end of Arthur's reign, the GPC is there for that. But the core of the game should be in the main book.

Having a rulebook which does not split equipment, horses, weapons etc. over two volumes would also be nice. This is stuff that should be in one place.

[P.S. One reason not to do a new edition: it would be hard to make it as beautiful as the 5th ed. That is a really nice book. Not easy to navigate, but very beautifully made.]

I think a 6th edition would be a great idea. Over the course of evolution of 5th edition, GPC and various supplements, there are a lot of conflicting or at least different versions of how to do things like battle, manage estates etc. For me a 6th edition core book would work towards producing one set of consistent rules. That is not to say that the core book should contain the complete text of Book of Battle in the battle section, for example, but the basics should be consistent from the core book to the supplements.

I agree with sir cripple that thier is way to much fleshing out to do in the current eddtion to warrent a 6theddtion I would also like to see if it goes to a sixth eddtion 3 core rule books the first the palyaers hand book, secound a gamemasters book and thired a bestary of all the monsters and animals. I am still working on trying to get enough money tpgether and to track down all the fifth eddtion books I dont have which is all of them I am the typ of person who refuses to buy pdf's and here is why when your computer gets corrupted and you ghave to purge all the files all your opdf's you hve purchased now are no longer valled and must redown load them for the same cost as you orginally bought them for so you pay for the product 2 or three times this has happend to me in the past and some opdf's are made in such away that they are unprintable. I am the type of person that if i cant buy it in a printed copy sorry i wont buy it and Inver pay more then 50 dollers for any game book.

For me a 6th edition core book would work towards producing one set of consistent rules. That is not to say that the core book should contain the complete text of Book of Battle in the battle section, for example, but the basics should be consistent from the core book to the supplements.


This, too, would be highly desirable. (Heaven preserve me, however, from having to buy three separate core books.)
Perhaps some of the most commonly houserules might be worth a look as well – though that would probably mean opening a floodgate.

Greg has commented before that there's a certain stripe of gamer who just won't roleplay a Christian. It is for them that pagan knights were introduced. Of course, the Arthurian tradition has pagan knights — but they're Saracens. I tend to agree that pagan knights tend to muddy the waters and dilute the milieu, but what'cha gonna do?


1. Get rid of Pagan Knights (except for the Saracen and Moorish one, though the ones at Arthur's court are likely Christians).

2. Get rid of British Christianity. Arthur is a legendary person who may or may not have existed. The Matter of Britain/the romances surrounding him are French complimented by German ones and some English ones (mainly the Mort d'Arthur of Malory) and have only a very tenuous connection to the "real" Arthur.

3. Center the game around the conflict between pious catholic knights vs chivalrous knights, with heroic knights in between and a lot of greedy poor knights not interested in ideals beyond paying lip service to them.
:
In short take King Arthur back to the medieval romances and dump all anachronisms from the game.


I vote for keeping the current variety of options to let people customize the game to suit what most interests them. I am not Catholic ... in fact I'm not even Christian ... but the Arthurian legends and issues still speak to me. I spend much of my time gaming lower-level characters and combats because I'm a squire in a medieval research/combat group and find this game helpful in thinking through next steps in my advancement (Winter Phase character points being great analogies for where one does and doesn't invest one's training time, and deciding to do deeds that will earn Valorous checks means more when you know real-life bruises will result). This is not what most people use the game for, fine. Just please don't narrow the game any further -- the Your Pendragon May Vary approach is a great one, please keep it.

This is one of the reasons I'm afraid of seeing another edition (aside from the fact Greg is still working out supplements for the current one): people splitting hairs.

Nothing is going to be gained by removing thematic concepts from the core book. If all you could do was play a British Christian in the core book then just as many people would be up in arms about a 'lack of character options' in the core book and that it's a greedy ploy to have additional, basic options in a supplement. Book of Knights & Ladies was great in this regard, at least in keeping continental characters out of the core book.

Just because having a bunch of pagan knights as your PCs was slightly problematic doesn't mean it is for everybody. If you don't like it then rule it as unavailable at your table. We all know pagan knights weren't historic, but neither was magical Merlin guiding a plate-armored King Arthur against a dying Rome. In the Arthurian setting, pagan knights represent a fairly significant niche in representing the medieval transition from pre-Chrisitian belief forms to favoring Christianity.

Christianity is a big part of the Arthurian mythos, hence, you know, the Grail Quest period in the GPC, but that doesn't mean paganism doesn't have its place and certainly that it shouldn't be included in the core book.


At any rate, like I said: don't remove thematic concepts. A new edition should just be focusing on the mechanics mostly. The one thing I do agree with is that the default starting year should be for 531 and only the GPC should pull it back to 485. It was hard to sell to my players a game where you play "knights of King Arthur" only to see you start 24 years - as in, 24 game sessions - before Arthur even shows up! Hence why I started my campaign at the Boy King period.

This I don't feel is a removing of concepts, but reinforcing what the game advertises itself to be: Arthurian roleplaying, not Utherian


Just to clarify, I am in no way espousing the view that such options should be removed from the game, only from the core rulebook. Non-standard options should, in my opinion, be the domain of sourcebooks and supplemental material. I think there is a danger in trying to include too many options, as you risk diluting what would otherwise be a strong core focus and vision for the book.

Deciding what options go where is an important part of determining the product's overall vision. It's my opinion (and perhaps only mine) that recent edition have lost a little bit of the focus that earlier editions had. My ideal Pendragon RPG core rulebook would focus on the most widely-recognized interpretation of an Arthurian setting such as I described earlier. I'd prefer to see alternate time periods, alternate faiths, druidism, foreign lads, etc explored in other books.

Again, that's just my opinion. YPMV :)

I mean, I agree to a degree. I like that 4th edition included knights from France, Gaul, and Ganis but didn't like how it included magician PCs.

I think 5th edition does what you're saying in a way: a tighter, more consolidated focus - which is why Frankish, Occitanian, and Aquitanian knights are absent from the core, as well as Irish, British Saxon, and Pictish knights, as well as other European knights and warriors, as well as magician PCs! :P

So it has a tighter focus on the core, archetypical Arthurian adventurers but you can't present a book with no options at all, hence pagan and Roman knights.

I agree between the core book, GPC, Book of Manors, and Book of the Estate, as examples, there's lots of rules for the same thing and it would be nice to be like, "Okay, here are the core rules. Now here's one supplement. Done" but Greg is the kind of guy who keeps refining, which is great! But it can make the edition convoluted and I don't want to see a 6th edition be the way to clean that up. Or at all haha not yet anyway

Oh no! This kind of discussion is really troubling when you're looking into investing in the current iteration of a system.

That said, I wished that the rulebook included rules to make knights from any region of Logres not just Salisbury. When I first read the character creation chapter, I first thought that this was chapter for newbie to help them through their first character. But then I realised that there wasn't any more advanced/generic options. That was it. It seems to be ideal to generate a character for the GPC. But how many times do you play through this campaign.

Do long term players that are starting new characters sometime say "Oh no not another Salisbury knight..."?

Indeed, KAP 5 seems to be intended to go hand-in-hand with the GPC. I'm not sure if that was the litreal intent, but it feels that way.

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, the GPC is one of the greatest RPG supplements ever created. It is an epic campaign in every sense of the word, and I firmly believe that it is one of the few true masterworks in the genre.

On the other hand, the new players I've run the game for are often surprised and a bit put off when some facet of the game does not meet their expectations and assumptions because of the shift in era.

I often get asked "So wait, we're not wearing plate mail armor?" or "What kind of knight doesn't care aobut chivalry?" These are legitimate and understandable reactions from players who are largely uninformed about real history and going just on their own preconceived notions born of the romanticized and perhaps idealized knights you get in many films and novels, but it was those very preconceived notions of chivalry, romance and glory that made those players want to check out Pendragon in the first place.

Now, the game does support these things, but they have been pushed into the margins as options and are not really the normal operating mode. If I had my druthers, I'd swap them and make the Arthurian era the default for CharGen and play, and make Uther's period an optional alternate setting. I believe the previous version of the game was this way and I'd love to see that come back.

Things I like about KAP 5/5.1:

*Characters have a lot in common (all knights, all typically from the same region) but still have a chance to differentiate themselves.

*There are many options, although there is usually a "best" choice (British Christian/Logres/Sword+Shield). Historically, "balance" didn't exist and variety is its own reward.

*Emergent gameplay from unexpected situations.

*Difficult risk-vs-reward decisions, particularly in combat. Yes, if you fight another round of battle instead of disengaging, you'll earn twice as much Glory... but there's a very good chance you'll die, as well.

Things that I would like to see improved upon:

*Variety tends to taper off after mid-game. During the first few sessions when one player is trying to become a Religious Knight and another is going for his Chivalry bonus and a third is trying to develop a long-term Romance you've got lots of different stories to tell. But eventually most knights are going to go for the trifecta and things get a bit stale.

*Some random events lose their impact after two or three runs, or have minor distinctions that don't really affect gameplay. Family events table, I'm looking at you, but the Winter Phase judgement roll and random tournaments also fall in here. I'd like to see something closer to the Book(s) of Battle, where there are enough events (with enough meaningful differences) that you can play through several times without seeing the same patterns emerge. Yes, that's largely a matter of word count, but we're dreaming here.

*Risk gets a bit swingy in some circumstances. I love the idea of Passions but Madness is wildly unbalanced. Throwing a '1' at the beginning of a huge battle means missing out on tons of Glory, but doing so during a courtly scene just means you miss one or two rolls (and may get a bonus adventure while the rest of the party tracks you through the woods to disabuse you of your sudden notion that you are in fact a bear). And yet during a major battle is exactly when you *should* be invoking your Passions!

*I'll echo sentiments that the "default" setting for the main book should probably be moved forward and the Uther period kept as an option for longer games. While I love the idea that your Uther characters are your "training knights" while you get used to the specifics of the system, most games tend to run out of steam long before a full GPC can run its course.

*I'd like to see more use of courtly skills.

*I'd also like to see a *little* more variety in combat options. I like that combat tends to go quickly and is wildly unpredictable, but I dislike that you really only have 3 options while attacking and you only consider 2 of those if you're vastly outclassed.

*Clearer definitions on Personality Traits, and possibly cleaning up the list a bit. I know Greg has mentioned that "Pious/Worldly" is unlikely to survive a new edition, so I'm sure this would already be in the works, but I'd like to chime in that I'm for it.

I'm not totally sold that a 6th ed is needed right now.

I have all the previous editions and still find some merit in older rules that have been tweaked from time to time.
KAP is the model for how a good rpg should change between edition - not very much (though it helps when it starts off this good I suppose).

I know we have some new settings (Greece, japan and others) on the way. Would a stripped down settingless version of the ruleset be useful?

With plenty of designer insight into the effect of various rules in play and a suite of options for emulating different worlds and settings. It could open up KAP to a new audience that have balked at the Arthurian setting before.

Plus I need it ;)

Check out Greg Stolze's Reign Enchiridion as an example. The Reign setting was quite fantastical and not to everyones taste. Enchiridion seems to have performed well.

Well, to be fair, I don't think this thread exists to debate whether or not we need a new edition, it's just a fun "what if" thread. :)

I've enjoyed it, actually. It's been interesting to read what kinds of things we'd all like to see in future iterations of the game.

Well, to be fair, I don't think this thread exists to debate whether or not we need a new edition, it's just a fun "what if" thread. :)


Bingo!


T.

I just hope that I won't finally buy the 5.1 hardcover to discover a new edition Kickstarter 6 months later.
But I guess you never know.

I just hope that I won't finally buy the 5.1 hardcover to discover a new edition Kickstarter 6 months later.
But I guess you never know.


Better buy it now! Seriously, there's no chance of that happening. Right now, a Kickstarter campaign is just a kernel of an idea floating around in a gossamer cloud of daydreams and Arthurian fancies. As Greg says, there are no plans on the table. And even if there were, it would take a lot more than six months to produce a 6th Edition book. I just thought it would be nice to have a thread so we could soak up ideas and fresh perspectives just in case we ever do decide to go that way...


T.

Role-playing games can be played at any edition. Just pick the one you like best and ignore the rest of them.

When it comes to RPGs, the latest is not necessarily the greatest. The one that best fits your taste and preferences is the greatest.

2 things

Player Characters should be relatively more powerful. There is no reason for a PC to ever be as good as Lancelot, Galahad, Gawain or Tristam. But that does not extent to secondary characters like Ywaine, Palomides, Bors or Lamorak. Either beef up character creation so that PCs with similar glory are just as strong, or cut those NPCs down to the size of PCs with comparable glory.

If* mr. Stafford ever decides to redo the magic system, he should focus it around the notion that mages can do something with a lot of impact (moving Stonehenge, Raising the dead**, turning an army into menhirs, or changing the king's appearance so that he can boink a lady that is not his wife) once a year/adventure and the small stuff (Blessing the fields, fireworks display at a party, dusting the shelves a mini-whirlwind) once an afternoon of playtime.

*He probably should, because those things sell relatively well.
**Non-knightly NPCS only.

Hi Daniel,

I disagree with you on both counts. The PKs are strong enough as they are, and if you look at the sample knights at the back of Great Pendragon Campaign, the 'lower-tier' Round Table Knights such as Bors and Percivale are not that tough. And I think Sir Bors actually got defeated by a PK in a tournament in our campaign. Also, one of the previous PKs was probably if not the best then amongst the few best swordsmen in Britain at the time of his death (Badon Hill). So I think it is well possible to have PKs who are able to challenge the Round Table Knights. You'll just need to get up there in Glory and experience, which tends to take about 10-20 game years. But if you survive that long, then you will be a contender against the best knights of the land!

Now, I have said before on this forum, that if you are looking to play a young paragon, a young knight/squire who shows up at Camelot and is instantly able to defeat tough foes, like Gareth/Beaumains (after he was knighted), then you could do this simply by tweaking the chargen a bit. Give players 70 stat points to distribute. Give them like 10 extra yearly trainings, allowing the rise of skills up to 20 as usual. And you could also do several quests in a year, rolling experience checks after each one, rather than once a year to allow them to improve more quickly than normal knights. For extra oomph, you could also double the glory rewards. I would not mind having this kind of an optional 'High-Powered Campaign' box in the rulebook for those people who really wish to play this kind of Super-Knight game. In fact, I would heartily encourage including it! But I wouldn't like it to be the default version.

As for magic, no way shape or form should there be PK mages who will be able to pull a merlin and turn an army into stones once per adventure. What the heck are the knights supposed to do then? I do not miss the magic system at all and even if it were still in the books, I would not use it (I do have 4th edition, so I could easily lift the system from there if I wanted to). Now, Your Pendragon Clearly Varies, but I think it would be a huge mistake to include Merlin-level spellcasters. And of course, magic is a huge pain to GM. If you cut magic down to manageable size, then it starts to become more or less useless, so why bother?

I haven't read the magic system in 4th edition but I also think it is perfect like it is now. Making it a simple GM-only no hard rule system help creates the wonder, excitement and mystery of magic.

I haven't read the magic system in 4th edition but I also think it is perfect like it is now. Making it a simple GM-only no hard rule system help creates the wonder, excitement and mystery of magic.


Yaeh, and for those who really wants it: TheBOOKofMAGIC (if someone wants to write it). It should never be a core feature of this game.

Alright, just to summarize what stuff I would like to see in the hypothetical 6th edition. A lot of these have been expressed by other posters before, especially SirBrastias' list on the first place was pretty close to my thoughts, too.

1. Default Setting & Locale
- Make this 531 AD again, the heyday of Arthurian adventure and gallant knight errants. This is what people think about when you say King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.
- Keep 485 AD as the default setting for the GPC, by all means advertise it in the rulebook, but keep it as extra. This means that the GPC should have a page about the differences of character generation, mainly the starting skills and the equipment and of course a brief overview on how the society is different from the Arthurian one in 531 AD.
- I would be tempted to change the default setting to something else than Salisbury (which would be kept for the GPC), since this would, in essence, give a starting Gamemaster even more choice. And it would be some new material for the old hands as well (who of course might be doing their own). One interesting (I think) idea would be to have it based on Levcomagus/Silchester, and see things from their side for a change! :)
- I am not convinced that Camelot would be a good place for the setting. As other people have noted, it gives less leeway for their own stories. I do think, however, that there should be at least a few pages devoted to Camelot, though, in the main rule book. Since it will be a rather important place for their later adventures, when they try to get to the Round Table or simply when they participate in the Pentecostal Tourneys.

2. Character Generation & Skills
- Upgrade it to 531 AD. Include 485 AD stuff to the GPC, like said in above.
- Swimming using DEX sounds like a great idea to me. So far, I have not seen a single PK with Swimming higher than the default, but it would be much more useful, from adventure design perspective, to have the chance to get the PKs to strip and go swimming. Besides, given the almost certain chance of drowning as it currently is, it is already hard to get the PKs anywhere near deeper bodies of water. :) And a total party kill by drowning is not nearly as much fun as it was as a kid playing D&D.
- Give all weapon skills a default: 5+(DEX/2). If you get an experience check or use yearly training points to increase your skill, this is the level you start from. Your weapon skill default (not the skills that have already been raised above it) increases as your DEX increases, but doesn't drop if your DEX drops due to old age or major wounds. This is just to make it simple and encourage players to spend points on DEX, but I don't see it as unbalanced: +2 DEX is +1 default, but if one would have taken the 1d6+1 roll instead, one would have on average 9 poins to spend on all skills. In short, just make DEX a bit more desirable. The weapon skill default also ensures that the GM can occasionally throw challenges that do not involve sword, such as needing to defend themselves with daggers or hunt boars with spears or fight a duel with a flail, without totally crippling the PKs.
- Include the 'High-Powered Campaign' rules (mentioned in my previous post) for a more super-charged characters out of the starting gate and devote at least a couple of paragraphs (a page?) explaining what the differences with the default Pendragon are and their probable consequences.
- Take out British Christianism and leave just (Roman) 'Christian'. British Christian is a munchkin option to obtain Chivalric bonus as easily as possible, and I don't really see the point of having two Christian flavors, especially as the difference seems to never come up, really (save when building Churches in BotM). Besides, we are all thinking about Cathedrals and bishops anyway, rather than Irish monks.
- Son of the previous character: lay down some rules that are not overpowered.

3. Winter Phase
- Have 'Your Own Land' solo as its own step here. The PKs by default are landowning knights; it is a pain having to skip back and forth pages. Also, on a failed Stewardship on Good and Excellent results, lower the outcome by a step. Have two alternatives to 'Your Own Land': 1) Don't bother with it, ask the GM what your level of upkeep should be. or 2) Use BotM system with opposed fate roll to a stewardship roll. Don't bother with the random contestants & dispute tables, just do a quick opposed roll of Just vs. Difficulty of the case, as in BotM. Or make it so that there are some benefits/consequences of the actions, since so far, I have never seen a PK to decide to be anything but Just; there is no benefit in being Arbitrary, and it is simply three rolls / player more that have absolutely no effect whatsoever.
- That by the way is my beef with the Family Events, too. As it is, they do not offer much benefit for the amount they take to roll, especially since most of the time, all the grandparents and parents are already dead, and there might not be that many brothers and sisters around either. And even if there are, does the GM really wish to keep track of twenty or so extra NPCs, let alone play them? Probably better to drop this whole thing off or expand it as a full scenario generator in an appendix: what does it mean that there is a marriage in the family? Who is paying the dowry & feast? Why is the PK hearing about this only now? Who is the groom/bride? Not to mention that all those missing/lost results that might act as adventure hooks are somewhat too random. Better for the GM to plan for such an adventure, than to simply roll one up and have to improvise on the spot on the rescue party heading out? Or even worse, one PK heading out while they others say that it is not their problem. Especially if one adheres tightly to the one adventure per year guideline.

4. Combat
- I am pretty happy with the combat as is, although I think the Uncontrolled Attack is too powerful as it is. I will comment on that in another thread rather than make this post bloat even more.

5. Hunting
- What SirBrastias said. Overly confusing and not really all that interesting, to my mind. The obstacles don't actually do much at all. It would, I think, better to save some space there and replace hunting rules with something like an opposed roll of Hunting vs. Avoidance, on a critical you find the prey now and get a free attack, on a success you corner your prey, on a partial success you can continue the chase, on a failure you lose the trail, on a fumble you find something dangerous!

6. Battle
- I hear nice things about BoB, but alas, I don't have the book yet. Would it be easy to have a 'lite' version of it at the main book?

7. A Quest Scenario or two
- Don't get me wrong, the starting scenario is OK as it goes, but I would like the main book to have a real knightly scenario in it, too. Something for the new gamemasters really see what quests are all about, and how to go ahead to build their own. Possibly something involving a bit of Amor as well, a chance to win the hand of a beautiful lady, perhaps? Who would become the wife of the lucky PK, of course.
- This could be intertwined with the Camelot introduction, too, or that could be a separate scenario: the PKs first time at Pentecostal Tournament!

8. Scenario seeds & solos
- This might be a good place for those Family Events and Justice Events. Something to make scenarios where there is something at stake. For instance, could be that the culprit of a justice case is actually very well liked guy, and if you punish him as the law states, the peasants will be upset (-1 to the year's harvest roll). Or could be that bribe thing again. Or something, to make that Just check not an obvious free lunch all the time.
- And all the other scenario seeds, in particular for the knightly questing.
- Also, a quick timeline on the main GPC events could be here, in particular stuff involving the big names like Lancelot and Tristram and such, with a few notes on how players could interact with them.

That's all I have time for now. :)

That's some great feedback, Morien. Thanks so much for taking the time to capture it here.


T.

Some thoughts based on Morien's very good assessment:

1) Starting at the height of Arthur's reign is the best way to start for beginning players. This gives them the best idea hwat the game entails.
Changing default setting is tempting, but the biggest strength of Salisbury as the starting area is that it is not Camelot, but close enough that you feel/know its effect. Chaanging to Silchester (or Levcomagus) is an interesting move and would please a lot of experienced GMs (Imho).

2) Why stop with only weapon skills? Why not have all skills based upon one of the stats. Players tend to focus on only a few skills and the others are negligible low (2 or 3 is not really an option). If skills start between 5 and 10 then even though you are not good and fail most of the time, there is a good chance it will work.

As for the Christianity. I liked the difference between Roman and British. If it is important in the game is all up to the GM.

3) As I am a GM who tracks not 20, but over 200 NPCs (that is only the live ones). And yes I am nuts. I do not use the family event table. I found it too boring and the events not really interesting. I see it more as an inspiration to the GM.

4) Uncontrolled attack is too powerful as is stated by Morien.

5) I like to elaborate further on the Hunting than the standard rules. In the core rulebook I would keep it simple as Morien stated, and you could create a supplement with a more elaborate rules. Effects of different hounds and such springs to mind. Like in Lordly Domains, although the rules of the hounds are a bit overdone there.

6) I like to have the Battle more cinematic and haven't used the rules from the BoB although they seem to work out fine. I have to test them one time. ;)
The system in the current book seems a bit over complicated and I would suggest to simplify it. Much like is described as the skirmish rules. The BoB can act as a more elaborate system.

7) The starting adventure is a good way to start. It has most of the rules used in it, but it isn't really a knightly adventure (as Morien says). You could add a follow up adventure as knights?

8) A short timeline of the main events would be nice.

A basic principle of the system could be that you have only the easy forms of the rules in the main book (main focus is the questing knight) and the worked out rules in the supplements. BoK&L for a more worked out character generation and family, BoB for rules on battles, BoM and BoE for rules on manor management. That way the GM and players can choose how complicated the system will become.

Why is a default setting needed?
Just describe the different regions, their cultural differences and any tweaks to stats or skill and off you go.

Default setting is good, because it gives the beginning GMs some structure to base their game around, without needing to do all the work themselves. For example, in 5.0 edition, the actual description of Salisbury and its places and people covered 8 pages. Which is not a lot, but if you have that even for, say, 10 counties, you are already taking one third of the page count. Furthermore, in addition the Salisbury Family History covers 6 pages. Especially as for a good part of the southeastern counties, you would have the Saxon influence on the history, too, it would be difficult to have a same history for all counties. So in order to get the same detail, you'd have to do more work and expend more pages. The other option is to make a more bland generic overview of the counties, spending like a page each. While I would of coruse welcome extra information on the counties, I doubt that is so useful as the starting setting, especially for a new GM.

2) Why stop with only weapon skills? Why not have all skills based upon one of the stats. Players tend to focus on only a few skills and the others are negligible low (2 or 3 is not really an option). If skills start between 5 and 10 then even though you are not good and fail most of the time, there is a good chance it will work.


Weapon skills are different from normal skills. Having several weapon skills at moderate level will not influence the game much, as you can only use one weapon at a time, and the use of that weapon tends to be the same: to hit the other guy.

Having all the skills at higher level will impact on the game a bit more, since it starts to chip into the niche protection. Now, I would be quite happy to see APP play a bigger role in Courtly Skills, such as every +2 from 10 giving +1 to courtly skills where appearance plays a role, and Every -2 giving -1.

While at the topic of Courtly Skills, overhaul the Glory Bonus. Yes, I know it is up to the g to decide, but the +1 for every 1000 Glory is a bit excessive when people are running around with 10000+ Glory, swamping the skill and criticalling all over the place. I think I have posted some suggestions to fix this, IMHO, problem.

2) Why stop with only weapon skills? Why not have all skills based upon one of the stats. Players tend to focus on only a few skills and the others are negligible low (2 or 3 is not really an option). If skills start between 5 and 10 then even though you are not good and fail most of the time, there is a good chance it will work.


Weapon skills are different from normal skills. Having several weapon skills at moderate level will not influence the game much, as you can only use one weapon at a time, and the use of that weapon tends to be the same: to hit the other guy.

Having all the skills at higher level will impact on the game a bit more, since it starts to chip into the niche protection. Now, I would be quite happy to see APP play a bigger role in Courtly Skills, such as every +2 from 10 giving +1 to courtly skills where appearance plays a role, and Every -2 giving -1.

While at the topic of Courtly Skills, overhaul the Glory Bonus. Yes, I know it is up to the g to decide, but the +1 for every 1000 Glory is a bit excessive when people are running around with 10000+ Glory, swamping the skill and criticalling all over the place. I think I have posted some suggestions to fix this, IMHO, problem.


I concur that it will impact the game more if the skills start a bit higher. But the problem I have now is that it is less interesting to put points into skills other than the niche you got from your family characteristic or the ones you chose at character generation. It takes a lot of effort to get a skill at a reasonable level if it starts at a 2 or 3.
I like to add personal quests into the mix and if the number of skills that the knight has to make it a challenging quest are limited it will become boring. (other than using inspiration all the time).

It takes a lot of effort to get a skill at a reasonable level if it starts at a 2 or 3.


I agree that is true. I would be tempted to do what we did as a house rule in our campaign for weapon skills: weapon skills below 10 cost only half. Since we also adopted 5 points / training rather than 1d6+1, it meant that the players could learn new weapons a bit easier, gaining already 'usable' level of 10 in one year. Or somewhat adequate one of 13 if they started from 6 (like Spear). This could be expanded to non-weapon skills as well. I am sure more people would be inclined to raise a useful skill to 10 if it didn't take two years or more to do.

I'd still rather keep APP as a bonus to courtly skill than give a default from it, although I guess one could do both?

APP/2 as default for: Courtesy, Flirting, Intrigue, Orate, Romance. Maybe Singing too.

Play and Dancing could be DEX/2, although I could see a APP/2 default for Dancing as well.

These two stats tend to be less mechanistically useful than others, APP especially, so this would give a good reason for a courtier build to have a high APP. And not have it as a dump stat.

I also use the 5 point rule instead of the 1d6+1 rule. I also added a new option during the winterphase:
If a PK is concentrating training on one skill below 5 the new value will become 1d6+5. This is for both combat and non combat skills. That way after a 1 winter you can have a reasonable skill level.

The idea of using APP and DEX for these skills is an option imo.

Sorry for bumping the thread, but I'd like to give my feedback regarding a future 6th edition of the PENDRAGON rules. Hopefully Nocturnal will apreciate some more feedback from a consumer.

In no particular order, these are the main points I'd like to see adressed:

1) Bring back the default setting in the rulebook to Arthur's reign. As others have stated, this is what people think about when they think of an Arthurian game. They want quests, tournaments, full-plate armor, romance, etc. Starting with Uther is a bad option when thinking of potential new players/game masters who will only now be introduced to the game for the first time. The earlier periods should be detailed in the GPC, not the other way around. Most people will never finish the full campaign any way and it's a bad move to assume so.

2) Update the battle rules to reflect changes from the BoB. I know Greg and other people never felt satisfied with those rules. This would be the opportunity to finaly make them consistent, with BoB being an seamless upgrade from the basics. Not everyone wants the amount of detail found in BoB and the basic rules in the core book should be enough and hopefuly in final form from that point on.

3) Update the hunting rules; again, neither Greg nor everyone else ever felt the hunting rules were quite finalized in a definitive form. Let people discuss their opinions (again) in the forum when the time comes for the update and hopefuly the rules can finaly be crystalized into an acceptable final form. I do like the minigame though, so I wouldn't want them to turn into just a couple of rolls.

4) Aesthetics. Contrary to some people here, I dislike the comic book style of the illustrations. Stylized is fine, but not as they are now. The layout is OK, and the presentation clear, but I'd like to see something more along the lines of the new Nocturnal products, which as a cleaner look. The page borders aren't nice either. The previous editions had very nice, evocative illustrations. Bring that dreamy, romantic feel back to PENDRAGON! I understand there may be a problem in terms of budget, but that's what kickstart projects are for... ;)

5) Minor tweaks like weapon skills, DEX use, etc. These are not so important for me, but maybe they should be re-thinked.

6) The introductory adventure in 5th edition is quite nice and should be kept for teaching the basics. However, that adventure doesn't really give new players and GMs any feel for what PENDRAGON is about. There should be a second full-lenght adventure in there that brings some of the best things about PENDRAGON as a game. My suggestion is the adventure present in the 4th edition of PENDRAGON, The Adventure of the White Horse (long version). That adventure was relatively short in page count and could be run in a single session. Best of all, it's one of the most beautiful adventures for PENDRAGON. It has scantly clad girls in the Beltane fires and that's nice for new players to see the whole lusty side of PENDRAGON, as well as a chalenge by a mysterious knight, all wraped up in a really nice dreamlike questy feel that portrays the magical feel of PENDRAGON quite well. Please consider bringing it back, it's a perfect match for the basic rulebook.

My 2 cents.

EDIT: corrected the name of the adventure in point five.

Great suggestions, Gorgon. Thanks for taking the time to capture them here.


Best,


T.

** Edited my post** I own every edition of Pendragon up to 5E. I didn't go for 5.1 initially -to be honest I held off as I always look for new adventure materials over core rules. BUT tonight my players wanted to check out 5.1 so I have just grabbed it and the Book of Battle 2 from Drive Thru RPG.

The system is great and adaptable for anyone who wants to make it their own. In our campaigns we included new rules governing
1. Lifepath creation -detailed background creation inspired by the likes of cyberpunk
2. Magic -using a hybrid of the Pendragon 4E rules, Runescape and Harn
3. A detailed intrigue system loosely based off of Green Ronin's Song of Ice and Fire

That being said, if a 6th edition is in the works -then I'd simply want to see far more added in than just a rehashing of everything I already have. Sure keep the core -as it's brilliant -but make the book different enough that we really gain from the pourchase

Personally, trade dress.

We live in a gaming world where new and younger customers are used to seeing games by FFG, Cubicle7, and Paizo. The days of a colour cover book with minimal b&w art are over (somebody tell Mongoose before they disappear). The fanzine I edit (colonial Times for 2300AD) has better art and production values than anything done by GDW & Mongoose. Incidentally, I'm starting a Arthurian gaming fanzine soon if anyone wants to submit.

Full colour, nice paper, good layout, nice art, preferably a box.

In terms of actual mechanics... I've been buying KAP since the 1st edition so I'm reasonably happy with the small changes in those years and dont see a need to change. Trade dress is one way of getting customers to a game without the need for new rules.

I'm a christian but would never play a christian knight. Mainly because MY version of Pendragon is the 'wild and wooly' Welsh version of barbarian british warlords in furs and celtic deities. There are christians like columba and germanus but few on the ground. If i tried to run the plate wearing, chivalric, norman Arthur with my group i'd get laughed at. But then, we live in Wales. The Bear of britain seems more natural here than the wace/malory/de Troi version.

Keep the pagan and non British options in.. let the GM and his players choose the version of the cycle they want to play.

steffworthington,

I agree that a 6th edition of Pendragon does need a new set of cloths, purely for marketing purposes. However, the style should be oniric, dreamy, not comic book style. In fact, I think 5th edition's illustrations are completely out of sync with the game. I don't want Pendragon to feel like it was illustrated by Marvel Comics. The previous editions were much better in that regard. Anyway, I think Kickstart will eventually be the way to go, as we have discussed already in this same thread. It won't be anytime soon anyway.



I'm a christian but would never play a christian knight. Mainly because MY version of Pendragon is the 'wild and wooly' Welsh version of barbarian british warlords in furs and celtic deities. There are christians like columba and germanus but few on the ground. If i tried to run the plate wearing, chivalric, norman Arthur with my group i'd get laughed at. But then, we live in Wales. The Bear of britain seems more natural here than the wace/malory/de Troi version.

Keep the pagan and non British options in.. let the GM and his players choose the version of the cycle they want to play.


I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean that support for Pagans should continue in future editions, well, I don't think that ever was brought into question. But if you mean that Pendragon should support a more "historical" what-if along the lines of, say, Bernard Cornwell, then no. There's already Age of Arthur for that. The core book should have a very specific approach, the one that Pendragon was created for. If game master's want to change and adapt, fine, I'm all for that. But to turn the core book into a book of options for alternate visions of Arthuriana, that would be a mistake.

We live in a gaming world where new and younger customers are used to seeing games by FFG, Cubicle7, and Paizo. The days of a colour cover book with minimal b&w art are over (somebody tell Mongoose before they disappear). The fanzine I edit (colonial Times for 2300AD) has better art and production values than anything done by GDW & Mongoose. Incidentally, I'm starting a Arthurian gaming fanzine soon if anyone wants to submit.

The Book of Battle II and the Book of the Estate both have a wonderful layout and it would be great to have a future edition of KAP look like those great books. I would also prefer b&w art in general, because it totally fits the medieval fantasy theme KAP stands for.

** Edited my post** I own every edition of Pendragon up to 5E. I didn't go for 5.1 initially -to be honest I held off as I always look for new adventure materials over core rules. BUT tonight my players wanted to check out 5.1 so I have just grabbed it and the Book of Battle 2 from Drive Thru RPG.

The system is great and adaptable for anyone who wants to make it their own. In our campaigns we included new rules governing
1. Lifepath creation -detailed background creation inspired by the likes of cyberpunk
2. Magic -using a hybrid of the Pendragon 4E rules, Runescape and Harn
3. A detailed intrigue system loosely based off of Green Ronin's Song of Ice and Fire

That being said, if a 6th edition is in the works -then I'd simply want to see far more added in than just a rehashing of everything I already have. Sure keep the core -as it's brilliant -but make the book different enough that we really gain from the pourchase


Thanks! There has been some very high-level, tentative discussion of what a 6th Edition might look like and I think it's safe to say the team is all agreed that it would have to offer something of value beyond a rehash. That's what inspired this topic, really. What does our audience find valuable? At this point there is no hard planning and 6th Edition would take a back seat to several other books now in progress at any rate, so we have plenty of time to gather feedback and look for trends. So keep it coming, guys!


Man, I'd really lime to see those house rules, the intrigue system in particular. Why not post them in the House Rules forum?


Best,


T.

Personally, trade dress.

We live in a gaming world where new and younger customers are used to seeing games by FFG, Cubicle7, and Paizo. The days of a colour cover book with minimal b&w art are over (somebody tell Mongoose before they disappear). The fanzine I edit (colonial Times for 2300AD) has better art and production values than anything done by GDW & Mongoose. Incidentally, I'm starting a Arthurian gaming fanzine soon if anyone wants to submit.

Full colour, nice paper, good layout, nice art, preferably a box.


That would be awesome, wouldn't it? Although the team is certainly aware of the value of trade dress, it brings with it considerable expense and time — as well as production challenges. An undertaking of this magnitude could only be realized with a very serious Kickstarter effort behind it. It is unknown if the PENDRAGON fan base is large enough to support such an effort, much less sustain it through a series of subsequent books but, who knows, we may find out! Everyone here can help grow the fan base by writing reviews on DriveThru RPG, RPG.net, talking it up on gaming forums, etc. Greg and the Nocturnal team can't really carry that torch on our own lest we seem biased. It has to come from you guys. It has to be authentic and "grassroots". Please help us spread the good news about the game however you can. Recruit some players in your local game store, or online. Contact prominent bloggers and ask them to review the game. Nominate the game in any award shows that you can. Every bit of visibility helps. PENDRAGON is one of the most influential RPGs of all time and I know we're capable of broadening the fan base. But it takes all of us working towards that goal. With enough support behind us, we could match the trade dress of just about any game out there.

An Arthurian 'zine is a great way to offer additional support (which can help attract new players) so please post links here, once you're up and running!




The Book of Battle II and the Book of the Estate both have a wonderful layout and it would be great to have a future edition of KAP look like those great books. I would also prefer b&w art in general, because it totally fits the medieval fantasy theme KAP stands for.


Aw, thanks, Curwain — those remarks are very rewarding, personally, because I saw the departure from the earlier 5th Edition supplements as somewhat risky, but necessary. It's always great to hear the design has been so well-received.


Best,


T.

Great suggestions, Gorgon. Thanks for taking the time to capture them here.

I'd like to say that I totally agree with Gorgon, the adventure of the White Horse would be amazing to have in a new edition of Pendragon as one of the introductory adventures, along with the hunt one, and that it would make sense to bring the main Pendragon book to the time of Arthur, and leave the Uther period etc. to the Pendragon Campaign book. Not that I'm opposed to the Uther period or anything like that, I love it actually and really enjoyed running the GPC from start to finish, but I definitely understand that people who are just getting the core book would be expecting the focus to be on Arthur and his shining knights of the Round Table etc. rather than a bunch of gruff guys in chainmail beating up Saxons.

I'm not too worried about the inside of the book being in black and white, but I do understand why some people might be put off a bit considering how the trend does seem to be heading toward full-colour everywhere. I don't think that it would be unrealistic for a 6th edition of Pendragon to have a successful Kickstarter, but that's a thing that would need some research first; I've started seeing a good few RPG projects stumble recently, but Pendragon has the advantage of big names and a strong history attached to it!

Hopefully this post makes sense, I've caught the lurgy and am in a bit of a stream of consciousness mode right now. . . .

steffworthington,

I agree that a 6th edition of Pendragon does need a new set of cloths, purely for marketing purposes. However, the style should be oniric, dreamy, not comic book style. In fact, I think 5th edition's illustrations are completely out of sync with the game. I don't want Pendragon to feel like it was illustrated by Marvel Comics. The previous editions were much better in that regard. Anyway, I think Kickstart will eventually be the way to go, as we have discussed already in this same thread. It won't be anytime soon anyway.

Hi, sorry if i was unclear. I'm not advocating comic art (I cant find where i said that) but upping to the level of the same production values as those games i mentioned, not necessarily the art. I draw maps and am fully aware of themes fitting into the source material. I'm currently transcribing my own personal version of the 5.1 rules using a leather bound cotton paper book using a lightbox and tan ink (admittedly I've been at this for a year and I'm only on page 20... commissions getting in the way ;) )


I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean that support for Pagans should continue in future editions, well, I don't think that ever was brought into question. But if you mean that Pendragon should support a more "historical" what-if along the lines of, say, Bernard Cornwell, then no. There's already Age of Arthur for that. The core book should have a very specific approach, the one that Pendragon was created for. If game master's want to change and adapt, fine, I'm all for that. But to turn the core book into a book of options for alternate visions of Arthuriana, that would be a mistake.

Sorry if i wasn't clear again, I'm suggesting the ability to generate knights/warriors from elsewhere in Britain and Brittany and also different religions (covered in 4th Ed.) should return. I'm not advocating anything new in that regard, merely saying I use the 4th ed for that purpose.

I'm aware of Age of Arthur. I drew the main map and consulted on some of the minor historical aspects. My more historical version of Pendragon has been going for over 20 years so would like to be able to continue that using future products. I'm not advocating changing Pendragon at all. The faux-medieval setting is very popular. :)

I wouldn't want the core book to become a dark ages version in the same way i wouldnt want it to become entirely medieval either (and end up looking like Chivalry & Sorcery).

Just voicing my opinion :)

I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean that support for Pagans should continue in future editions, well, I don't think that ever was brought into question. But if you mean that Pendragon should support a more "historical" what-if along the lines of, say, Bernard Cornwell, then no. There's already Age of Arthur for that. The core book should have a very specific approach, the one that Pendragon was created for. If game master's want to change and adapt, fine, I'm all for that. But to turn the core book into a book of options for alternate visions of Arthuriana, that would be a mistake.

Sorry if i wasn't clear again, I'm suggesting the ability to generate knights/warriors from elsewhere in Britain and Brittany and also different religions (covered in 4th Ed.) should return. I'm not advocating anything new in that regard, merely saying I use the 4th ed for that purpose.

I'm aware of Age of Arthur. I drew the main map and consulted on some of the minor historical aspects. My more historical version of Pendragon has been going for over 20 years so would like to be able to continue that using future products. I'm not advocating changing Pendragon at all. The faux-medieval setting is very popular. :)

I wouldn't want the core book to become a dark ages version in the same way i wouldnt want it to become entirely medieval either (and end up looking like Chivalry & Sorcery).

Just voicing my opinion :)


Ah, ok. My bad. Yeah, I know you're aware of Age of Arthur ;)

I think the different geographical origins/religions of PKs were cut out of 5th edition simply to keep the book slimer and to concentrate on the basics. As it stands now, you'd need the Book of Knights & Ladies to get the full package, as you know. I understand that forcing everyone into being a Salisbury knight or fork out the money for BoK&L isn't particularly nice. If it depended on me, I'd return to what was in the 4th edition for the core, and leave out the more detailed aproach as an option with BoK&L. I feel that new players/GMs may feel that KAP, as is now presented in the core, gives very limited options for charcter gen. This may have a bad effect on how new people perceive the game.

I've been a fan of the Pendragon RPG for a long time, but have just joined these boards, so please forgive me for dredging up a 3-month-old thread... I know that a 6th edition is probably pretty far off still, but I wanted to put my opinions out there because they just might be heard by those that matter!

Designing a game in the Britain of King Arthur must be a difficult thing, because there are so many versions of how players can enjoy that setting. Some people like a gritty, no-magic setting, where any sorcery is only rumored but never seen; some, a high fantasy world with faeries, giants, and dragons abounding. One group of players might prefer a pseudo-historical game that tracks year by year with real-world important events; another might like to ignore the year altogether, perhaps even skipping ahead a dozen years or more to further the story of their children's inheritance. You get the idea -- some might want full military campaigns; others, wild quests and chivalric adventure. Some might even like to begin playing during the decline and the Grail quests, so any period should be available to play in.

I fully believe that King Arthur Pendragon, 6th edition should be able to accommodate all of these styles of play. As a player, and as a GM, I feel that having plenty of options is the best thing going for a traditional RPG. Today there are many Indie-styled, short-form games out there that can do a single thing really well, but IMHO, KAP ought to outshine them by providing many options to suit whatever the GM and players find interesting. To me, this means providing a nitty-gritty combat system for mass battles, as well as something streamlined to assist those GMs who don't want to drown in detail just to find out who won. It means that non-Christian religions be fully represented, as well as an optional magic system, while being careful it doesn't turn the game into "wizards and their knightly bodyguards."

One huge issue that continues to be a problem for the game is the limited choices for women who wish to play (as female characters), but I understand this has more to do with the setting than the rules. In the campaign I ran recently, I used the 4th edition rules because playing an enchantress was the only option that appealed to our one regular female gamer. The other options we came up with (a damsel -- who is only very involved in healing or intrigue; a woman masquerading as a man; or a female warrior from a culture where that is common) didn't appeal, and I can see why. My appeal to Nocturnal to include a magic system in this or future editions of the game is strongly tied to this notion of giving women (as well as men) something interesting to play other than a military figure.

Anyway, thank you for your time. As a side note, I agree with much of what was said earlier about condensing skills (especially combat skills), and giving some of the lesser ones more actual in-game use. More tactics in combat would be great as well, such as fighting styles. And whatever you do, please include a full index and as many of the important NPC character sheets as possible!

The system is great and adaptable for anyone who wants to make it their own. In our campaigns we included new rules governing
1. Lifepath creation -detailed background creation inspired by the likes of cyberpunk
2. Magic -using a hybrid of the Pendragon 4E rules, Runescape and Harn
3. A detailed intrigue system loosely based off of Green Ronin's Song of Ice and Fire



Funny. An Artesia replacement of Pendragon system has been on the design floor in my basement for over a year now. And my Harn hack for Artesia is even further along. It's the alltime greatest feudal game ever made IMO.
----
As for Worthington's comments, I'll only say that his 2300 fanzine is better than 99% of the big company zines I've seen. And I'm excited to know that we share multiple forums in common ;). So any fanzine from his corner will be incredible. And I think his comments merit some thought. Especially given I just discussed Artesia above...

Artesia was $40.00 and had color graphics on well over half of its 351 pages. Granted, the author was also the artist but the production costs were the same I would imagine.
----
As for a 6th edition, the reason why I keep trying to smash Artesia into Pendragon is to allow an emphasis on intrigue, skulduggery, politics and the like. At the same time, I many times wonder whether Pendragon has the right amount of it. But Artesia has more skills, mechanics etc for dealing with a real medieval/political/warfare game.

Best medieval knight system if you're looking for gritty. Pendragon is best for Arthurian.

Combining the two has given me countless headaches but I know it's possible... somehow.

None need ever apologize for resurrecting this thread. We put it here to be a permanent pace to gather feedback for a future edition of the game. In that respect, it's evergreen — the more feedback the better. We are listening and taking notes!


T.

Take your time releasing that sixth edition, I just ordered a 5.1 hardback from RPGNow ;)
Thinking about it, I hope the source PDF is not about to receive a huge update.

Id like to see more space in 6th devoted to the knightly past times or mini games, you know feasts, tournaments, hunting (could use a serious revising), intrigue as a mini game, duels as a mini game, more attention paid to a knights steed perhaps with special traits and specific training for thier mounts, horse breeding as a mini in game?, handled by the knights entourage of course, and well frankly all the activities that set Pendragon apart from other fantasy games is what makes it so unique.

As for the art, I agree go back to the old dreamy style and the new layouts are awesome I think that is the look of future Pendragon.

I love that KAP has Pagans, British Christians, Wotan/Germanics, Judaism, all manner of delightfully anachronistic things. I love that the setting compresses many centuries into a span of only a few generations. I think it's the most astonishingly well-considered approach of any game of its era and since, and I think changing that - removing the dynastic play, removing the options for multiple interpretations of Arthur, dropping things like that from the core, would be tragic.

Cheers,
Cam

Just bought 5th Ed (5.1) and will be starting my game soon, so I don't have much intelligent to add besides repeating 3) what others have already said.

1) Life Paths would be AWESOME
2) More detailed minigames like the fan created Feasts to reflect other social environments.
3) I understand the value of the "premium editions" but I would be happy with a limited print run just to get the game back in stores.

Maybe do something with the Book of the Warlord or some other upcoming book and do a "physical only" release, or a very limited kickstarter to see what can be supported before committing to a big KS for the next edition.

We had an interesting discussion about consolidating skills in the Play Aids section of the forum and I liked the idea so much, I figured I'd add it to the wish list. Here's the link to the original discussion (http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=2438.msg18741#msg18741). 8)

Short version for those that don't want to read the whole thread:

The current skills list is very granular and while interesting (and appropriate from a simulation standpoint), from a gameplay perspective the end result is that some skills are *so* granular they are not able to be used very often.
Because some skills can only be used on rare occasions (often requiring a GM to create custom adventures just to make use of those skills), Players are unlikely to invest skill points in them. It is more efficient from a gameplay perspective to "invest" skill points in skills that are used more frequently.
The result is that while the skills list gives the appearance of having lots of choices, there are less "efficient" choices than it would first appear.


The proposed solution is to consolidate some of the similar skills together to give them more value. Granted, this comes at the cost of simulation, but personally the gains in gameplay would be worth it to me. Just a few possible examples (these would need to be validated in playtesting sessions):

Combine Faerie Lore and Folk Lore - They are both used for superstitious knowledge
Eliminate swimming as a skill and just use an attribute test (likely DEX).
Combine Recognize and Heraldry - They are both used to recognize things, a perfect example of a skill that becomes more powerful when consolidated at the cost of simulation
Combine your "knowledge" skills such as Reading, Religion (Theology), etc. into a generic "Education" ability


Because KAP is about simulating Knights, you are *always* going to have some abilities that are more useful than others. Knights are warriors, so combat skills are good. I'd consider these core skills and will be used in almost 100% of the adventures.

Moving past this, you have what I would consider "archetype" skills that make the PKs unique. These skills would probably be used in at leat 50% of the adventures and would include things like "Hunting", "Intrigue", or "Flirting." Not every PK would want to take these skills, so it gives the Players an opportunity to create unique Knights that fill different roles in their party. My thoughts on consolidating "Faerie/Folk Lore" and "Recognize/Heraldry" is that by doing so, we would bump them up into this category. You'll probably want someone who is strong with "Folk Lore" and another with "Recognize" in your party.

Finally, you have the "flavor" skills. These skills probably won't get used as often as the others, but they are fun and really make a character feel unique. Ideally, I'd love for these skills to be appropriate at least 25% of the time. Examples here would be "Falconry", "Dancing", or "Gaming." Not always useful, but when they do come up, it's fun and makes a PK feel unique.

If a skill can't be used in at least 25% of the adventures you run, it probably needs to have some special adventures created just so it can be used. To me, the current skills like "Swimming", "Boating", "Reading", "Religion", etc. fall into this category. In particular, these are the skills I'd like to consolidate so we can make them appropriate in that 25% realm instead of almost never/custom adventures only.

While I admit some loss from a simulation standpoint, I feel the impact on gameplay would be minimal. For example, if you consolidate the education skills, every published adventure will still work, you would just make an "Education" roll in place of those "Religion", or "Reading" rolls, increasing the likelihood the skill can be used.

I can always houserule ("Your Pendragon May Vary!") but as a new player that is starting to get pretty deep into the system now, I really feel this could be an improvement for a potential KAP 6th Edition if it ever comes out. :D

As is obvious from the linked discussion, I approve of the skill consolidation idea.

As is obvious from the linked discussion, I approve of the skill consolidation idea.


+1

I'll try to write something on the subject if I can find the time.

I would not combine Faerie lore and Folk lore. I see them as very different things.

Folk lore: everything you need to know about the commoner world. How to behave, what are customs and most of all what is the latest gossip. These are the mundane things told among the servants.
Faerie lore: Everything you think you know about the unseen world. what are the tales and myths told. Faerie lore are the stories told when people sit around the fire or the evening meal. this both commoner and noble alike.

I would not combine Faerie lore and Folk lore. I see them as very different things.


A lot of those faerie stories and customs against warding against the faerie and how to treat with them are peasant customs, though. Horseshoe over the door frame, leaving a bowl of milk out, that sort of stuff that I see the commoners doing.

It is a matter how you define it. By combining the skills, you enhance how often they are used, and hence if they are worth points or not. If they are not worth points, players are reluctant to take them, which closes doors on some of the adventures or at least makes them a poorer fit. Whereas if you have a knight in the party who was listening to the old tales his nurse used to tell him as bedtime stories, it opens up the adventures.

By splitting the skills, you are making both skills marginal, usable only when a specific set of circumstances is valid. This of course depends on the GM and the group as well, but at least my feel is, specifically from the published adventures and GPC, the commoners don't really matter. Sure, they are the underpinnings of it all, but the intrigue and courtesy are what makes the wheels turn amongst the nobility, and that is where the power and advancement and adventures are. Not what Tom the Barrel-maker thinks of John the Thatcher's amorous affair with Gwen the Wife of Roger the Smith.

By splitting the skills, you are making both skills marginal, usable only when a specific set of circumstances is valid.

Of all the suggested skills to combine, Faerie and Folklore are the two I struggled with the most. Ultimately I came to the came to the same conclusion Morien stated above. It's not that I don't recognize that the skills are different, it's that by combining them, the skill's value to the PKs increases. Again, a loss of simulation in favor of an improvement in gameplay (at least for my play group!).

By splitting the skills, you are making both skills marginal, usable only when a specific set of circumstances is valid. This of course depends on the GM and the group as well, but at least my feel is, specifically from the published adventures and GPC, the commoners don't really matter. Sure, they are the underpinnings of it all, but the intrigue and courtesy are what makes the wheels turn amongst the nobility, and that is where the power and advancement and adventures are. Not what Tom the Barrel-maker thinks of John the Thatcher's amorous affair with Gwen the Wife of Roger the Smith.


It depends on the adventure. In scenarios taking place in the wilderness and less-civilised lands, especially during the heyday of knight errantry, Folk Lore is quite valuable skill. It can be required to gain assistance, co-operation or information from commoners (sure, the peasants can be beaten and tortured to get those things as well, but that can net some unwanted negative trait checks and/or the ire of their landlords...).

It is true that in the GPC and the regular campaign of landed Salisbury knights - with much of the action concentrated on the courts of Sarum and Camelot - Folk Lore can be nigh useless, but in different settings its value rises. E.g. in my Anglian campaign the PKs had to spend eighteen years as mercenary knights, after their lands had been taken by the invaders, and many adventures took place far from lordly courts and castles. The poor, landless wanderers could not rely solely on their authority as knights while dealing with peasants and burghers (some of whom where their employers), and Folk Lore was used almost as often as Courtesy or Intrigue during the "dogs of war" period.

Granted, Folk Lore does not exactly net the PKs heaps of Glory, but it can be turned into a useful skill in terms of plot and adventure progress.

As always, YPMV.

The poor, landless wanderers could not rely solely on their authority as knights while dealing with peasants and burghers (some of whom where their employers), and Folk Lore was used almost as often as Courtesy or Intrigue during the "dogs of war" period.

Granted, Folk Lore does not exactly net the PKs heaps of Glory, but it can be turned into a useful skill in terms of plot and adventure progress.

As always, YPMV.


Yes, in special circumstances or if the campaign is geared towards that. I would imagine that playing the brave freedom fighters in Anglia, dodging Saxons and dealing with the peasants, would find Folk Lore very helpful, too.

However, the main system should, IMHO, be geared to the more common type of campaign. And seriously, if the Folk Lore HAD been defined from the beginning to include knowledge about the Faeries from the folktales & superstitions, would you have questioned it? Or would you have just nodded, said it makes sense, and gotten the skill if you thought it would be useful?

That is pretty much the point I am trying to make. Of course you can define the skills more narrowly. For instance, you could split Awareness (one of the most used skills in the game) to Vision and Hearing. They are different senses, aren't they? And people can have poor eyesight and great hearing or vice versa. Similarly, Courtesy, Flirting, Intrigue, Orate and Romance are all separate skills, even if they could, conceivably, be wrapped in the same package. But I am not arguing about those (save Flirting+Romance), since each of them does have a usable game function in the default setting and are rolled often enough to merit them being separate skills. Folk Lore and Faerie Lore do not clear that threshold, IMHO. They might do if you are playing a campaign with a heavy commoner or faerie focus, BUT again, that is not the most common set. And would it really break your campaign if they were rolled into one? Skarpskytten is playing a Faerie/Otherworldly centric adventures. Would it matter so much if the same skill means that his player(s) get along well with the village wise women etc, too? You play a game where interaction with commoners is a given. Would it stretch the imagination that they would have heard tales of the Devil's Dandy Dogs while sharing a tankard in the local pub?

However, in a normal game, both Folk Lore and Faerie Lore are very seldom used. So they are 'wasted points'. But rolling them up as one, there is enough oomph in the skill as it covers BOTH commoners and Faerie critters, effectively doubling the occasions when you get to roll the skill (or halving how many points you have to spend to be good in both skills). Sure, it is still not as good as Courtesy, in my opinion, but it is high enough up there that it would be a reasonable specialty for a knight.

In my option...
Core skills (everyone should have at 10+, one 15+ in party): Awareness, Courtesy, First Aid
Specialty skills (one 15+ in party): Hunting, Intrigue, Orate, Battle
Flavor skills (one 10+ in party): Entertainment skills, Courtly Glory skills, MAYBE Faerie Lore if there are faerie related adventures (some published adventures), Romance & Tourney (maybe) in later periods, Recognise & Heraldry
Almost useless skills (meh): Boating, Read, Religion, Swimming, Folk Lore, Gaming (maybe)

Again, depends what kind of a campaign you are running. But the argument I am trying to advance is that by combining Religion and Read into 'Education' skill, it goes up to Flavor Skills. Recognize+Heraldry bounces up to Specialty skill (the guy who knows everyone). Folk+Faerie Lore is definitely a Flavor Skill, MAYBE a specialty skill if commoners/faerie feature often enough in the game. Boating could be ditched with no loss, and Swimming can be handled by a DEX roll (strengthening DEX slightly, too, which is a bonus). If Flirting+Romance, then the guy picking that become the Charm Guy. I'd roll Tourney to Courtesy, too, since tourney is also very specialized and is about following known rules of conduct. Etiquette could be another word for it.

From GMing point of view? Having fewer skills is a boon, since it means my players will be able to cover more of them, allowing me to challenge them with more vectors, without making it seem that I am picking on them by making use of their lack of skills. And if they spend 10 points to Folk Lore in response to that one adventure where they should have been able to talk to that crazy commoner greybeard, what then when nothing happens with the commoners for the next few years? Wasted points, no?

We did 'solve' part of the issue in the second campaign by making skills below 10 cost only half, so it was pretty cheap to raise skills up to 10. This allowed the PKs to spread their points around more to cover those rarer skills, withut making them feel that they were crippling their main skills.

I would not combine Faerie lore and Folk lore. I see them as very different things.

Folk lore: everything you need to know about the commoner world. How to behave, what are customs and most of all what is the latest gossip. These are the mundane things told among the servants.
Faerie lore: Everything you think you know about the unseen world. what are the tales and myths told. Faerie lore are the stories told when people sit around the fire or the evening meal. this both commoner and noble alike.


I agree with this completely. I like all the other combined skills are good, but I don't like these combined. I like that faerie lore is more exotic and specific and harder to get checks.

I agree with this completely. I like all the other combined skills are good, but I don't like these combined. I like that faerie lore is more exotic and specific and harder to get checks.


Well, but it is my contention that these two skills on their own are too weak, which is also the premise for this discussion. So any suggestions on who to make them more useful?

Examples.

Folk Lore could be expanded to Folk Ken, a skill that can be used to understand, curry the favor of, and get information out of people from any class. (But that might overlap to much with Intrigue).

Faerie Lore could be expanded to not only be the knowledge of Faeries but also cover interaction with Faeries. It could be used to trick that monstrous guarding, or getting that dangerous Faerie king's oath worded so that he can't abuse it.

However, the main system should, IMHO, be geared to the more common type of campaign. And seriously, if the Folk Lore HAD been defined from the beginning to include knowledge about the Faeries from the folktales & superstitions, would you have questioned it? Or would you have just nodded, said it makes sense, and gotten the skill if you thought it would be useful?

That is pretty much the point I am trying to make. Of course you can define the skills more narrowly. For instance, you could split Awareness (one of the most used skills in the game) to Vision and Hearing. They are different senses, aren't they? And people can have poor eyesight and great hearing or vice versa. Similarly, Courtesy, Flirting, Intrigue, Orate and Romance are all separate skills, even if they could, conceivably, be wrapped in the same package. But I am not arguing about those (save Flirting+Romance), since each of them does have a usable game function in the default setting and are rolled often enough to merit them being separate skills. Folk Lore and Faerie Lore do not clear that threshold, IMHO. They might do if you are playing a campaign with a heavy commoner or faerie focus, BUT again, that is not the most common set. And would it really break your campaign if they were rolled into one? Skarpskytten is playing a Faerie/Otherworldly centric adventures. Would it matter so much if the same skill means that his player(s) get along well with the village wise women etc, too? You play a game where interaction with commoners is a given. Would it stretch the imagination that they would have heard tales of the Devil's Dandy Dogs while sharing a tankard in the local pub?

However, in a normal game, both Folk Lore and Faerie Lore are very seldom used. So they are 'wasted points'. But rolling them up as one, there is enough oomph in the skill as it covers BOTH commoners and Faerie critters, effectively doubling the occasions when you get to roll the skill (or halving how many points you have to spend to be good in both skills). Sure, it is still not as good as Courtesy, in my opinion, but it is high enough up there that it would be a reasonable specialty for a knight.

In my option...
Core skills (everyone should have at 10+, one 15+ in party): Awareness, Courtesy, First Aid
Specialty skills (one 15+ in party): Hunting, Intrigue, Orate, Battle
Flavor skills (one 10+ in party): Entertainment skills, Courtly Glory skills, MAYBE Faerie Lore if there are faerie related adventures (some published adventures), Romance & Tourney (maybe) in later periods, Recognise & Heraldry
Almost useless skills (meh): Boating, Read, Religion, Swimming, Folk Lore, Gaming (maybe)

Again, depends what kind of a campaign you are running. But the argument I am trying to advance is that by combining Religion and Read into 'Education' skill, it goes up to Flavor Skills. Recognize+Heraldry bounces up to Specialty skill (the guy who knows everyone). Folk+Faerie Lore is definitely a Flavor Skill, MAYBE a specialty skill if commoners/faerie feature often enough in the game. Boating could be ditched with no loss, and Swimming can be handled by a DEX roll (strengthening DEX slightly, too, which is a bonus). If Flirting+Romance, then the guy picking that become the Charm Guy. I'd roll Tourney to Courtesy, too, since tourney is also very specialized and is about following known rules of conduct. Etiquette could be another word for it.

From GMing point of view? Having fewer skills is a boon, since it means my players will be able to cover more of them, allowing me to challenge them with more vectors, without making it seem that I am picking on them by making use of their lack of skills. And if they spend 10 points to Folk Lore in response to that one adventure where they should have been able to talk to that crazy commoner greybeard, what then when nothing happens with the commoners for the next few years? Wasted points, no?

Would I have created my own Faerie lore skill if it was put under folk lore?
Probably not. I would use modifiers for certain things, but that is something I use now as well. Having heard the name Oberon as a faerie king would be different than knowing he is actually a small ugly dwarf. But I use them now as well, so that would bot be different.

What is a normal skill use?
Maybe people should make a list of the skills that are used most in their games and which ones do not. In my games folk lore is gives important information. The gossip gives them information that they can use later on. Not in just 1 adventure.
Aside from the combat skills in my game the following skills are used most:
Awareness, Courtesy, First Aid, Intrigue, Folk Lore, Hunting are probably high on the list.
Play and Orate are also used fairly often, but mostly in social events.
Boating and swimming are the skills that have not been used yet.

What is a normal skill use?


Well, here's my five cents. Or, perhaps, how useful skills are in my games.

Core skill. Used several times per session by all PKs; these skills give important information and clues, sometimes saves lives, and there use are often controlled by the players.
Good skill. Used every other session by one or more PK. Packs a good punch, but aren't just used as much as the core skills.
Weak skill. Used every other session by one or more PK, but actually add little to the game.
Glory/flavor skill. Can give some Glory, some players have fun with it, but doesn't do anything in the game. Requires severe efforts from the GM to make them useful (apart from generating some Glory).
Useless. Should be removed/merged from KAP6. Seldom used, and/or adds nothing to the game when used.

Awareness. Core skill.
Boating. Useless skill. I think that this skill has been used twice in the 250+ KAP sessions I have run.
Compose. Glory/flavor skill.
Courtesy. Core skill.
Dancing. Glory/flavor skill.
Faerie Lore. Good skill.
Falconry. Glory/flavor skill.
First Aid. Core skill.
Flirting. Glory/flavor skill.
Folk Lore. Good skill.
Gaming. Glory/flavor skill.
Heraldry. Weak skill.
Hunting. Core skill.
Intrigue. Core skill.
Orate. Good skill.
Play. Glory/flavor skill.
Read. Useless skill.
Recognize. Weak skill.
Religion. Useless skill.
Romance. Useless skill. I really don't like this one. I understand why it is there, but it seems that its only application is to punish players who want to play romantic knights. The only thing it seems to do, is to lead to amusing situations when it is failed, an a Lady gets an unsuitable gift. GM: "You fail? ... You bu her a ... gilded battleaxe!" *laugher*. There is no "Chivalry skill", so why should there be a Romance skill
Singing. Glory/flavor skill.
Stewardship.Weak skill. Since I don't use BoM/BoE.
Swimming. Useless skill.
Tourney. Useless skill. I've always liked this skill, but have yet to find out what to do with it. The Quick Tournament system makes it somewhat useful, but thats the end it.

Combine Faerie Lore and Folk Lore - They are both used for superstitious knowledge

A lot of people make this mistake
But the rules make it pretty explicit
Folk Lore is to know about the folk, the commoners
Thus:
Courtesy: knowledge of court, nobility
Religion: knowledge of church, clerics
Folk Lore: knowledge of commoners

Can anyone come up with a better word than Folk Lore?
Lemme know!

I suspect that much of this was thanks to a lot of modern Arthurian fiction (especially "The Mists of Avalon") featuring paganism, and might have been also part of the "Dark Age" elements like the Saxon and Pictish invasions. (Though I question whether paganism was even that prominent in the real 5th and 6th century Britain; Gildas makes no mention of it still being around in his "De Excidio Britanniae", and he'd have surely denounced it with even more vehemence than the murders and adulteries of the kings of his time if it was.

In fact I ran across many people in the SF Area that refused to play if they had to be Christians
Hence they are a choice
the game is not very favorable to them, so minimaxers will play Christians
And I too do not believe there were many Pagans around in the sixth century, except maybe up in the northlands

I am content with 5.1, I would probably not purchase six edition, unless it was designed in such a way that the supplements for it Were not backwards compatible. And even then, I would be more likely to abandon the game in disgust if my previous purchases were invalidated. I would be little butt hurt to be honest.

Me too!
I've worked hard to keep all editions compatible
That would be an absolute if there was another edition


There are so many things that need to be fleshed out in the current edition, that I feel supplements are a better way to go. Personally, it would take several lengthy essays by the designs team\Greg as to why the game warrants update in order to keep my business . Just my two dennari

And good solid coin it is

Can anyone come up with a better word than Folk Lore?
Lemme know!


Just as a couple of suggestions... Rural Lore, Country Wisdom, Peasant Customs

Does the skill include urban commoners? If it does, then a general, all-encompassing term like Commoner Lore might work.

Combine Faerie Lore and Folk Lore - They are both used for superstitious knowledge

A lot of people make this mistake
Can anyone come up with a better word than Folk Lore?
Lemme know!


Just to clarify my statement Greg, I was not confused at all by this. It is very clear the two are separate with the rules as written. I was simply suggesting that in the interest in making these skills more "powerful" they could be combined.

OK
Got it







Combine Faerie Lore and Folk Lore - They are both used for superstitious knowledge

A lot of people make this mistake
Can anyone come up with a better word than Folk Lore?
Lemme know!


Just to clarify my statement Greg, I was not confused at all by this. It is very clear the two are separate with the rules as written. I was simply suggesting that in the interest in making these skills more "powerful" they could be combined.

My biggest issue with the game is the lack of continuity through the system. If I was to pick up a new addition of Pendragon it would only be if the mechanics of the game where consistent through all of its supplements. This mostly shows in the Manor system. The BoM and BoE have such differing systems that they are completely incompatible. It would be nice if their was a smooth transition between these two systems.

Also the complexity of the different parts of the game varies wildly. One on one combat or interactions between characters is very basic often resulting in one or two opposed rolls with maybe one thing, like hp or knockdown, to keep track of. In contrast the Manor and Battle systems are very complicated. Multiple stats to keep track of with many rolls taken each round, or winter. This tilts the games emphases away from the individual and toward the Manor or Battle systems.

I would like to see some complexity added to all types of skill rolls made by a character on an individual scale. Simple choices they can make during the skill rolls to add a level of depth to a skill or combat check. At the same time I would like to see the Manor and Battle systems simplified to make them easier for the characters to understand and use.

Can anyone come up with a better word than Folk Lore?
Lemme know!


I think the issue here might be with the common use of the word Folklore. While I understand where Greg is coming from I can also see why people are confused. The definition of folklore as most people know it is as such:


Folk·lore
ˈfōkˌlôr

Noun

1) The traditional beliefs, customs, and stories of a community, passed through the generations by word of mouth.

2) A body of popular myth and beliefs relating to a particular place, activity, or group of people.

Synonyms: Mythology, lore, oral history, tradition, folk tradition.


Clearly the word Folklore is as closely linked with stories of magic and myth as it is with traditions of the common people.

The text of Folklore as it is written in 5.0:
"... Folklore is used in play when a knight observes peasants to determine what they are doing, or when trying to evaluate how they feel. It may also be used to gain a benefit in communicating with peasants. In this case, a successful Folklore roll indicates that the knight has communicated his friendliness and knowledge of “folksy” ways, presumably making the peasant more agreeable and less afraid. A failed Folklore roll reveals the knight to be a typical upper-class oppressor, while a fumble indicates a major social gaffe that offends, and possibly gravely insults, the peasant."

To me this does't fit with the other skills. It seems to be less like knowledge test and more like a trait, or even a passion check. A passed check means the player is kind and personable to the little people where a failed check has them acting aloof and harshly toward them. This isn't necessarily something that can be learned. It could be linked to the Passion Concern (My commoners) or even to a Trait like Generous or Modest (or possibly a new trait for dealing with this, maybe A liking toward the Commoners vs a liking toward the Nobility). As a trait it would be something more organic that could change over the course of a characters life. They could start off allied with the little people and end up hating them as they gain power and wealth.

I would personally like to see Folklore cover both Fairy lore and the knowledge part of Folklore (like knowing what they are doing) and then have how a player acts toward them covered in a Trait.

I’ve been thinking of writing this answer for over a year now, and have now finally come around to it. I love this game, which I have played more than any RPG in my life, and I think a 6th edition should be a definite edition. Please sign me up if you ever start on this, Greg.

Now, I will start with some of the issues that have been on the table before. 1) I do not think that a magic system should be included in KAP6. This is a game about knights and ladies, not magicians. Including magicians changes the game drastically – adventures will be much more difficult to make for example, to challenge magic users and to make sure that they can’t be broken by a mere cantrip. I would not mind a BookofMagic as an option – and such a book should be based on the 4 edition system, which looks good to me – for those GMs/groups how do want that. But space in the rule book should be taken up by more essential things than a magic system. 2) Advanced combat options. Again, I see little place for this in KAP6. Combat in KAP should in my opinion not be about using a system to get maximum benefits, as DnD 3 or 4. It should be simple, quick and heroic, not bog down into minutiae and the search for optimal use of a system.

Then what should be done in KAP6. Well, as I see it, an RPG really has three parts, looks, rules, and world content. I will discuss KAP6 from these three angles. I think major changes are due on the first and the last part, but not the second.

As several commentators have said above, KAP6 should be in color and with updated artwork. The current artwork are, frankly, not that nice. I think that the world’s best knightly RPG deserves better. I have seen small Swedish RPG producers make rule books that are just stunning, and Nocturnal must have the muscle and ambition to do a stunning book, just not a decent one. The whole book needs a strong art director working with a couple of really talented artists. It can be done.

As for content, a big issue is the starting year. Here I am on the side of those who advocate a return to 531 as the baseline year. It seems a bit strange to have a game of King Arthur (it’s in the title!) and then having to play 25+ sessions before he shows himself. I think quite few KAP campaign actually survives to see Arthur enter the stage. Also, as it is now, PGC is more or less a required buy to play the game, for the GM will have so much work to do without it to get the story right. I think that the rule book in an RPG should support play just in and of itself. This is the thing with 531 as starting year: what follows is 20-25 years of quests, adventures and tourneys, which do not require much of a base story line from PGC. I do think that KAP6 should contain a short overview of MAJOR events from PGC, let’s say compressed to just two pages, well tied in with the most important NPCs, to help running the game without PGC.

This means of course that a lot of the material in Chapters 1-3 and 7-8 needs to be revised, and that that irritating Appendix 1 needs to be removed. All this will have to be rewritten to a 531 perspective, and updated along with Greg’s current research. I would like to see this revision go hand in hand with certain changes. From the questions form newbies on this Forum, it seems there are some parts of the game world information in Chapter 1 that is hard to understand and apply to the game. I also think that Chapter 1 to some extent is to abstract and free-floating from the actual playing of the game, and, as we all know, the proof of the pudding lies in the eating. Thus I advocate that this chapter, that is the main world introduction chapter, is moved to be a new Chapter 7. This means that when the reader reaches this chapter he knows much more about the game. And – this being the important thing I am getting at here – the chapter should have a lot of boxes and side-bars that explain the text from a game perspective. This includes things as marriage, inheritance (and relief), the universal laws, the King’s justice. This information must be very concrete (“If you have one son, he inherits … “ “If you have just a bastard son, … ” “If you have three daughters …” “If you leave a widow, she will take 1/3 of your estate for her life” [followed by a concrete set of actual rules on how this affect a manor or an estate]).

And I think that Morien is spot on when he says that PGC should introduce 485 as the staring year. Thus PGC will also have the rules for making Uther Era characters. This gives players two solid options when to begin, one for those who wants the whole thing, and one for those who are happy with using just the KAP6 book and see no need for the GPC (which will be useful to the latter sort of players anyway, of course).

What about the rules per se? I will list some changes below, but none of them is really very far reaching. I realize too that backwards compatibility is an issue here. It is great that the 3, 4 and 5 editions of this game are so alike that the adventures and other published material can be used over all of the editions with very little problem [and even the 1 edition material with some tweaks)] and I doubt that Greg is very interested in sweeping changes anyways.

I will repeat some of the stuff from my house rules thread at http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=2461.0. I have removed most of the minor changes; I would not mind them in the 6 ed but I will keep to the main points here. I will try to say a bit more on each point.

Chapter Two
The “advanced” character generation of 4th ed / Book of Knights and Ladies should be in here; to support games with PC from all parts of Britain (that have knights). This will make the game far more complete and allow players to make more interesting and varied characters without having to buy and extra book. And when you buy KAP6 you should get something complete.

Chapter Three
This chapter is removed, to save space, and indicate that this is not a game of Salisbury knights, but of any Arthurian knights. It is instead placed, free, on the Nocturnal website or drivtrhu. Indeed, two or three extra chapters set in other counties/baronies should be available, for free. I can write the Jagent/Sharp hill one. These background chapters should contain plots, story seeds and adventures, too, a bunch of them.

Chapter Four
Passions
• The most important thing here is that I think that it should be made clearer what it is that provokes Passion-rolls. Each Passion could have short list of situations in which those that have 16+ in them must roll, and in which it is appropriate to roll for others too. This should make it much easier for newbies to get a handle on this aspect of the game.
• Fear is not an appropriate passion. It should be a Directed Trait, i.e. Cowardly [xxx]. See this thread for my argument: http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1399.msg11066#msg11066.
• Loyalty (vassals) should be removed. This just adds to the number of passions. When is a Lord ever impassioned for the sake of his vassals? (And remember, according to the rules, Passions are only ever rolled for inspiration, nothing else). Just use his honor, if it should crop up, a be gone with a rather useless Passion. It’s not really proper for the game, if Passions are only ever used for Inspiration (as RAW).

Skills
As has been noted in this thread, above, not all skills are born equal in KAP; some saves lives, some just gives a bit of glory; some are used every session, other only rarely; some are controlled by the players, some need a lot of GM help to get into play. I won’t go further than that here; good stuff has been said above. The bottom line is: the skill system should be revised; some skills removed, others combined. Or: some skills should be easier to increase, cheaper to buy, to compensate for being less useful. (I hate swimming, by the way: http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1399.msg11066#msg11066). (As for backward compatibility, yes that is important, but since NPCs rarely ever use their skills, I do not think that a revision of the skill system will decrease that in substantial way).

Attributes
Many consider APP as a dump stat, I among them. I would love to see an “APP roll”, on the lines of the famous DEx-roll, included in KAP6. I won’t go into it more than that, and point towards these two discussions, that have a lot of good ideas in them: http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1509.0 and http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1302.0

Weapons
• Axe and Great Axe deal +1d6 damage vs shields. This is just simpler and quicker.
• It should be clarified that the bonus some weapons gives vs some opponents (axe vs shield, mace vs chain, etc) are not doubled on a critical and that the +1d6 from a Great Weapon is.

Chapter Five
• Knights do not get +5 to weapon skills while unarmored. This is in the errata.
• No Glory is gained for Traits and Passions over 15. Glory is gained for Ideals. This is in the errata.
• The Childbirth should be reworked. The lethality of the table in the rules is ridiculous. It’s more dangerous to be a wife than to be knight. There are many ways to do this, and I do not favor one in particular, as long as it is simple. See this discussion for some ideas: http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=2416.0
• Child survival is rolled for seven year olds and younger. From eight, children are safe. This rule is in the Book of Estate.
• Characters gain 5 points in skills instead of 1d6+1. See this thread for my argument: http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1399.msg11066#msg11066.
• Remove the Family event from the Winter Phase, as have been said by others above.
• Glory cannot increase an attribute above “cultural maximum”. This rule was in KAP5 but removed in KAP5.1. I like it, 1) prevents min-maxing and 2) makes Culture matter. As it is, you are very unlikely to see starting PKs which actually benefits very much from their Culture, since you have too few points to max out your Attributes. A balanced starting PK can’t benefit, basically, and after that the bonus does not matter very much since you can make any “build” you want with Glory. And I am sick and tired of have whole eschilles of PKs with SIZ 22. Just stamp out the abuse, once and for all.

Chapter Six
• Out-of control attack. It should be removed from the game, as the infamous Double Feint was. It is too easy to abuse and I’ve seen to many players try to use it to break the game. Well, what about berserkers? They are, after all, very cool. Just give then +10 in Great Axe or say that they are always Impassioned or critically Inspired. That should do the trick, without the need for this kind of attack.

Appendix One
• To qualify as a Chivalric knight, 96 points in the bullet-traits are needed. See http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1437.0.
Appendix Three
• Solos in the present edition give one check per year, if I understand them correctly. I think that is a bit harsh, and should prefer a couple of more checks for PKs that have missed a year. In my house rules I give out three checks per year.

Odds and ends
The rules for Battles, Skirmishes and Hunts need to be revised and rules for Tournaments should be added. I find the first incomprehensible, the second illogical and the third inefficient. The battle rules in the KAP 6 should be derived from BoB, but much simpler. Intensity, yes, and a small number of maneuvers, and that should do. The Skirmish system should be based on a opposed Battle roll, commander vs commander, to decide the outcome. Or at least allow that, when you as a GM do not want to just make up what happens. The hunting system has some very good ideas in it, but – as had been said above – the obstacle part adds little. Some tweaking is needed.

The Pugnacious knightly ideal should be offered, to give players that to not want to play the hero-types, nor want to be outright evil something to strive for. And because it is really cool, and actually fits the setting; Mallory is full of Pugnacious knights, for example. See my write up here: http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=2461.0.

A really good starting adventure, that teaches game-play. The old Adventure of the White horse from 3 / 4 ed is excellent, and could be used if the late starting year is chosen; otherwise something really good suitable for Uther Era play should be added. Also, a bunch of story seeds, minor events, and short adventures should be included, and they should be selected to further then newbies understanding of game-play.

And finally, something should be done for Lady-characters; the compromise that we see in the rules to day, that give some but very little meat for those who want to include Lady characters in their games, is, I think, unsatisfactory. There should be no or much more on playing Lady characters, I will address this issue in depth a new topic, sometime in the future.

Great post Skarpskytten. I agree on almost every item. 8)

Speak my name and I will appear. :P

Yeah, great post, Skarpskytten. It probably comes as no surprise that I agree with almost all of it, too.

By the way, I am now of the opinion that GPC should start from 481. This is because of the discrepancy between how Uther is presented in KAP (unanimously elected High King in 480, who campaigns in Eburacum in 484), and how he is in GPC (does NOT get elected as High King at all, barely able to bring his own dukes under control (Lindsey 487, Cornwall 489, I think it was)). What the heck was he doing between 481 and 485? It would work much better if all the GPC 'Sword of Victory' stuff would be in 481 - 483. Thus explaining how he can get stuff done even in Eburacum in 484. But anyway. :)

Great post Skarpskytten. I agree on almost every item. 8)


Thanks!



Yeah, great post, Skarpskytten. It probably comes as no surprise that I agree with almost all of it, too.

Thanks. No surprise there, no.


By the way, I am now of the opinion that GPC should start from 481. This is because of the discrepancy between how Uther is presented in KAP (unanimously elected High King in 480, who campaigns in Eburacum in 484), and how he is in GPC (does NOT get elected as High King at all, barely able to bring his own dukes under control (Lindsey 487, Cornwall 489, I think it was)). What the heck was he doing between 481 and 485? It would work much better if all the GPC 'Sword of Victory' stuff would be in 481 - 483. Thus explaining how he can get stuff done even in Eburacum in 484. But anyway. :)

I like the idea of starting the Uther Era earlier in Uther's reign, perhaps from the death om Aurelianus. But the PGC is quite long enough as it is - so perhaps, then, a rewrite of the background, so that Aurelius is king until 485 or so?

I also would like to see Uthers period start sooner for those who want a more gritty dark ages period. Perhaps with a side note about the benefits for those who want to get right into arthurian to start from the boy king period.

I've not read the whole thread, so apologies for reptition in advance

has any one considered a bell curved dice system instead of the single d20? what about 2d10 (criticals only on a double perhaps)?

I have always had a (slight!) problem with the single d20 roll for a game that seems so grounded most of the time.

obviously this would require a major re-write; like +5 for successful passions as just the most obvious example.

A proofread, well indexed version of 5th ed, with all the missing bits, errata and revisions included.
That would be nice.

I'd buy that.

has any one considered a bell curved dice system instead of the single d20? what about 2d10 (criticals only on a double perhaps)?


I started a new thread discussing this here:
http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=2666.msg19857

A proofread, well indexed version of 5th ed, with all the missing bits, errata and revisions included.
That would be nice.

I'd buy that.


Yep!
No need to reinvent the wheel. Don't do a CoC 7, please.

I've not read the whole thread, so apologies for reptition in advance

has any one considered a bell curved dice system instead of the single d20? what about 2d10 (criticals only on a double perhaps)?

I have always had a (slight!) problem with the single d20 roll for a game that seems so grounded most of the time.

obviously this would require a major re-write; like +5 for successful passions as just the most obvious example.

This would make all the previous supplements unusable.
I do not want that to occur

Hello all.

Excuse me for not reading through all the replies to this thread, and this may be touched in other threads or here. If not, one thing out of the top of my head that I would really like to see in Pendragon 6th ed, is a little more in depth explaining on what the main differences in mindset is between courteous, chivalric knights and the other "non-chivalric" types. I mean, knights can be led by the love of fighting, and just like being a powerful nobleman among commoners, doing some things that's not really very nice, and yet get away with it (within the law). They can be coarse in their "lovemaking" and generally just think of women as another useful commodity.

Of course this difference is most useful for earlier times (Uther-/Anarchy eras), and since the 6th ed. is supposed to start in 530 maybe it's not even a topic of much use. The reason I ask for this is also that I'd like a greater comparison, not just in how traits and/or passions or bonuses would work, or how things like flirting is seen during the earlier times.

I used to be a diligent supporter of classic Pendragon, never wanted the rules to change and all that, but after a full year of Pendragon gaming I came to the realisation that some of the old & beloved rules need some cleaning up:

-Combat, and wounds, could be made easier. Add initiative & clarify actions. Make it so that wounds & bookkeeping is not that tedious. Even If i'm used to it, the check SIZ for fall/reduce armor/check major wound/roll major wound if it occurs/etc... sequence can become a bit boring after a while. Make it easier

-regarding tables in the core book, solos & winter phase are apart yet are generally played together. Wounds & ability reduction are apart, yet it's mostly used together. Etc... Clean up the book a bit.

-Mass combat could find a happy medium between the clunky core rules & the expanded BOB rules. Make it easier & more adapted to the actions of a group of players inside the big picture. Keep some degree of mass combat to it obviously.

-Speed up character creation & family tree generation. I find the Salisbury family history to be too long - even if it's a pretty cool feature, I don't want to spend 2hrs+ rolling to see what my family history is. Keep that sequence for a supplement book.

-I have to agree that the core book should focus on the Arthurian era & that the Uther + Anarhy time should be kept to the Great Pendragon campaign book, as it was in the grand old time of the Boy King book. Keep the new setting divide into Early/Medium/Late phase, add the rules & modifiers in a dedicated chronology chapter so that GMs with only the core book can still play something early or late.

These are some ideas. The core is solid & has resisted time (passions, attributes, implied setting), but some rules need some cleaning up & letting go of some of its oldest & clunkiest elements.

I used to be a diligent supporter of classic Pendragon, never wanted the rules to change and all that, but after a full year of Pendragon gaming I came to the realisation that some of the old & beloved rules need some cleaning up:


One of the things I really love about having a Forum like this is that people express their own opinions and experiences. You never know when someone points out something that you hadn't considered. Not saying that is the case now, but in general, I love reading people's experiences and contrasting them with my own. :)



-Combat, and wounds, could be made easier. Add initiative & clarify actions. Make it so that wounds & bookkeeping is not that tedious. Even If i'm used to it, the check SIZ for fall/reduce armor/check major wound/roll major wound if it occurs/etc... sequence can become a bit boring after a while. Make it easier


This is the only one that I actually disagree with. To me, the Pendragon combat system is one of the quickest and most elegant combat systems out there. There is no need whatsoever for Initiative, as the combat round works simultaneously; it is not 'I try to hit, then you try to hit' from old D&D, or, indeed, from most of the other fantasy RPGs. Initiative serves no purpose here.

How would making the combat system "easier" (simplifying it?) make it less boring? We haven't found it boring; instead, the fact that you can get knocked down, having to fight at a disadvantage, defending yourself while trying to get up, is much more interesting than the D&D style 'I hack, you hack, lets see whose hit points last longer' combat.

Clarify Actions? There I agree. I actually would move away from 'grid based' idea, counting yards of movement, and go for a more narrative based system. But yes, that section usually brings many questions and could do with a rewrite.



-Speed up character creation & family tree generation. I find the Salisbury family history to be too long - even if it's a pretty cool feature, I don't want to spend 2hrs+ rolling to see what my family history is. Keep that sequence for a supplement book.


I don't mind character generation as such, but I admit that rolling the Salisbury Family history and writing it down is a grind for a group of players. That is why I originally wrote a program to do it for me.

Another option would be to do the family history FIRST. A history lesson as well as immersing the players into the world. Letting them 'play' their grandfather and father. I haven't tried that yet, but I think that might be an interesting experiment. Especially if you as the GM would add some actual choices in there, rather than just a random roll. Does the Grandfather go for Glory in battle (double glory, -5 to roll, making survival less likely)? Something like that.

Another option would be to do the family history FIRST. A history lesson as well as immersing the players into the world. Letting them 'play' their grandfather and father. I haven't tried that yet, but I think that might be an interesting experiment. Especially if you as the GM would add some actual choices in there, rather than just a random roll. Does the Grandfather go for Glory in battle (double glory, -5 to roll, making survival less likely)? Something like that.

I like this idea. By creating a history first you can almost begin imagining the character from birth onward. Why they do what they do and how their family's experience has shaped their own. GREAT story-telling element.

I'd love to see this incorporated in a cool lifepath creation for the character.

About combat:
IMG We calculate the knockdown after reducing armor. That way it usually is only during critical hits that knockdowns occur (if you survive the blow that is). This also means that you do not need to check it that often. But as Morien stated this reduces the need to fight against disadvantages.

Mass combat. Maybe only use the basic skirmish rules and remove it from the core book. Although it is an integral part the life of a knight, you could do without mass combat rules if you go for a more questing knight type campaign.

character creation: I like the family history. When you go and play only a few adventures I would not bother with this, but if you play a longer campaign, the hours spent on the family history give a good background for the characters.
IMG one of the players rolled a high Hate(Saxons). To explain this she combined a reputation as horse breeders (from another add on I made. I gave each manor in Salisbury something special). The story was that the grandfather dealt with the Saxons to gain better quality horses. The sudden betrayal during the knight of the Long Knives the once good relations was betrayed and hence the idea that the Saxons are untrustworthy and vile. All the actions the PK does is colored by this event.

To address first the removal of pagan knights because their problem mattic to a gm tells me that the gm obviously has no idea to handle them and granted in both 5e and 5.1 their not as much supported as in 4e was with the Celtic magic system in place, with that said I have GMed both kinds of party's. I had a friend from Africa who wanted to play a muslam moor who came over because he heard that the pendragon kings were awesome and fierce warriors and he wanted to see for him slef but the rules did not support this type of character but I allowed it he helped me figure out the religious traits for Islamic based religion and a few other things and I took te discription of them out of the GPC and let him buff his stats a bit by re-rolling them! Then I added him to the game it kinda made things weird but we got passed it that was an interesting party we had a different party mix a Britsh Christion (a proud Predestination), Roman Christian (who was a devout Catholic), a Pagan Enchantress (who was very vocal about how the bible was just a history book to her), a Pagan Master of the Hunt Knight who was the enchantresses son), a Jewish Priest (who was a Jewish Rabbi), and a Muslim warrior for god. The interesting thing was this all the players actual believed that their religion was the right one because they all where from that back ground in real life so they were going with what they knew and all crusading in one form or another about which religion was right it made for a very interesting game and I handled it with mostly 4e rule set because 4e was set up to handle all religions mentioned above. With that said I hope greg continues to add more religious stuff to the game I was happy to see evil traits and sarracine traits in the gpc and final grail christian knight traits. Also non of these people wanted to play a different religion than the one they were actually practicing that is why greg has put them their in the first place. for those that have the 4e rule book read knight of the old way and for those that don't it is avalible at drive through rpg ,com found here http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/1415/King-Arthur-Pendragon-4th-Edition?term=pendragon+&it=1 it has the magic system and ex planes paganism quite well, I think! With that said I was hoping for more magcal adventures and an updated magic system, in perhaps a new supplement for KAP!

I personally would not like to see KAP combine folk lore and faerie lore and here is my reasoning I use it in my games as follows
Folk Lore in my games represents what a person knows about folks in general as well a folk tales told around the camp fire at night!
Faerie lore is what a person knows not just about the other side but how much knowledge they have about all things faerie such as a person with a high faerie lore in my game if they get a 5 know some common knowledge about a creature or thing on a 10 they know something about its habits on a 15 they know something more about its habits and on a 20 or more they know all about it or get a critical success I do the same for folk lore creatures as well!

also folk·lore
ˈfōklôr/
noun
the traditional beliefs, customs, and stories of a community, passed through the generations by word of mouth.
synonyms: mythology, lore, oral history, tradition, folk tradition; More
a body of popular myth and beliefs relating to a particular place, activity, or group of people.
"Hollywood folklore
faerie
/ˈfeɪərɪ; ˈfɛərɪ/
noun (archaic or poetic) ( pl) -ries
1.
the land of fairies
2.
enchantment
adjective, noun
3.
a variant of fairy
this is how i use them in my games

What is another word for folklore? take your pick from these!
Noun
legends, traditional stories, folk tales, received wisdom, urban myths
myth, legend, oral tradition, mythology, tradition, custom, traditional beliefs, fable, superstition, wisdom, ballad, folk story, mythos, oral literature.

Agree,

Folklore and Faerie Lore are two different topics, and even I, non-native English speaker, understand the nuances between the two:

Folk-lore : Knowing the people
Faerie-lore: Knowing the faeries & all that

So keep it as it is.

If I had to say anything for a sixth edition is that the support for the non-christian religions be more like the fourth edition. Along with the chivalry requirement be brought back down to 80 again otherwise the there would be no non-christian round table knights. These knights are supposed to be the embodiment of what it means to be a chivalric knight yet as the rules for sixth edition are written they have no way to be considered chivalrous knights because the chivalry bonus is supposed to be the game mechanic representation of being chivalrous.

Another thing would be no listed start date but instead give a spark notes timeline of the early/middle/late time periods and allow the Gm/Players of the individual groups to figure out were they want to start. With the supplemental material out there there is no reason that a Gm shouldn't be able to give a player a back history for their family just by using the family characteristic table, where they are from and with their fathers class.

I also feel that the character creation should go back to the older 4th edition style , even though I do agree that it is slower and more convoluted, because it allowed for more variation in characters having them come from different lands and classes which truly made for more interesting situations due to the players "knights" who would all react sometimes in very different manners to any number of situations.

Lots of interesting ideas here.

Let's address two annoying typos.
p.2
The arms of King Arthur’s Knights are based on the 15th-Century French manuscript known as La forme quon tenoit des tournoys from the collection of Harvard University, attributed to Jacques d’Armagnace, Duc de Menours.
should be
The arms of King Arthur’s Knights are based on the 15th-Century French manuscript known as La forme quon tenoit des tournoys from the collection of Harvard University, attributed to Jacques d’Armagnac, Duc de Nemours.
The complete title is "La forme et maniere qu'on tenoit a faire les tournois et assemblees au temps du roy Uterpendragon et du noble et puissant roy Artus, roy de la Grant Bretaigne".

Here it is in the Ms. 4976 Armorial de la Table ronde (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b71000160/f1.image.langEN) from the Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal (Paris)
You can browse or download it (it takes some time to prepare the download as the size is 100 Mb).
It's gorgeous.

Most of all I would simply love too see 6th edition books in shelves at stores, really. So that they it is easier for non-fans to stumble over them and get interested. I want more people to hear about this game and be able to enjoy it!

Secondly I'd be happy seeing more details on characters' childhoods. Do they often have play-mates amongst commoners, maybe even help out on the fields when there is great need? How is class-distinction instilled into them? What are the adventures of young pages and squires? What do the characters' formative years look like? What are typical squire-knight relationships?

I think prior events could help root characters and would be a good lead-up to knighthood. It might differentiate them more and firmly connect them to their land. Player knights would not only be going somewhere, they would also be coming from someplace.

Just like the family history lists prior family events there could be a few random events, modules or choices for Salisbury characters. This would help flesh out the man behind the armor. Part of the histories could also involve "another page /squire", so that inexperienced players would get explicit suggestions about connecting their first characters with each other.

I will say, I would very much rather a campaign that embraces the magic and mythic nature of Arthurian legend then that of realism. Paganism, magic, fey, mythological creatures, Celtic folklore and mythology can all be found even if there might not be as much details on such I feel it fair that this is given some attention if not in the Core Book in then a supplement. I admit, of the more classic literature I have read Le Morte D'Arthur, though that was years ago, and I want to read The Once and Future King.

I can't offer much more, as I am new to the setting but some parts of this conversation as worried me. I admit, I would much rather the setting start with Arthur then his father Uther and the age of chivalry.

I've just finished running my third Pendragon session - and I've had a career of running games going back to Moldvay Basic.

What I would like to see is not a new rulebook, but a free supplement. The rules are laid out well, the setting is compelling, it's got a wonderful campaign - but the sections on the character's goals are a mess. For a game that is about gaining Glory and perpetuating a family, we have too many gaps in the rules, or places where expectations are not expressed. I'm having to put together some concepts that I find to be fundamental from a weird mix of sources - other books, Greg's website, this forum, etc. I really don't see how someone coming in fresh can even be expected to do it.

I propose a free PDF (also available through POD on Drivethru, perhaps) with the following:

* The missing Glory rules in previous editions of the rules
* Errata that gives the Glory values for the various people and creatures statted in the rulebook, if not listed therein
* The childbirth table (or perhaps one simplified) from Greg's website
* The new mortality chart from the Book of the Estate, to knock down that nasty wife and child death rate
* Guidelines for social advancement - household knight to vassal, vassal to banneret, banneret to noble, when marrying a heiress is likely, etc., some of which is in the Book of the Estate

From what I've seen, this is the absolute minimum that someone who purchases the rulebook needs to run a campaign. And they should have it.

In addition to Danharms comments, essentially pulling together bits that have been updated or are missing, I'd like to see more setting and cultural material, myself.

In other words, it's hard to find a succinct description of the clothing worn in different periods (thus, showing how it changes), how feasts are decorated and what is served (a random table of dishes would be nice!), and other things to flesh out the setting in terms of how people behave to each other and when and where lines get crossed. Many, many questions on these forums touch on this last point, which is a good indication of its vagueness.

I'd also like to see more on the lands and peoples outside of Logres, but that's literally supplement material.

--Khanwulf

My wishes for 6E:
1) return to 15yo Squires plus training for main detailed character generation
2) flowchart the battle, feast, and tournament processes to make them easier to understand.
3) Support Pagan, Jewish, Wotanic, Roman Christian, and British Christian knights of Logres in the core
3.1) Of course this requires supporting the Cymric, Roman, and Saxon Cultures
4) Support Ladies of Logres in the core
5) Possibly change Crits to max damage.
6) Vassal Knights inheriting not being the standard; household knights are simpler, and easier. (Plus, the good marriage is thus better.)
7) Not Salisbury!


There is much in the legends about Christians vs Pagans; many of the "evil" folk in the lit were pagans (often Saracens, per Mallory).

Historically, British Christianity was different From Roman, but still in communion with, Rome. I could wax on about the differences, but I'll spare people. Suffice it to say that I agree with retaining them in the setting, as there is room for knights of either to have religious differences as part of play. Remember that Romans are largely Urban, while Britano-Christians were largely rural... and less judgmental. (And, historically, heretics.)

I stay largely with 4E+Saxons increased experience for CGen because I like the wider range of starting ages and competencies. The average is the same as 5.0... but the variability is, for me, a plus.

Some quick personal comments. :)


My wishes for 6E:
1) return to 15yo Squires plus training for main detailed character generation


Do you have Book of the Entourage? It includes rules for Squire Player Characters and their attribute & skill increases as they grow up.

I actually like the 14 year squires, since it works quite nicely in that 7+7+7 growing up phases.



2) flowchart the battle, feast, and tournament processes to make them easier to understand.


Battle could use this, yeah. Feasts and Tournaments tend to be simpler, so I don't see as much of a need for a flowchart there, but if there is space...



3) Support Pagan, Jewish, Wotanic, Roman Christian, and British Christian knights of Logres in the core
3.1) Of course this requires supporting the Cymric, Roman, and Saxon Cultures


Cymric and Roman, definitely, as well as Pagan and Christian.

Personally, I would do away with the whole British Christian vs. Roman Christian. Pelagianism was stamped out like a couple of generations before Uther's reign already, let alone Arthur's reign. (Yes, I know that the Paganism is anachronistic as well, but that at least has some interesting takes.) And the Celtic Christianity, as you noted in your post, is doctrinally almost indistinguishable from Roman Catholicism. I don't see a good argument there for distinctive traits.

Admittedly, I would be fine with no Jewish knights appearing at all, since they are such a niche Religion. Saxons are the enemy, so I wouldn't mind them not being in the main book. Although that depends a bit on the starting time. If we are starting in AD 531, then I could easily see the new generation of Saxons, especially from Hampshire/Wessex to be raised to knighthood under Arthur. But they wouldn't be Wotanists, but converted Christians, IMHO.



4) Support Ladies of Logres in the core


You mean more than they already are?



5) Possibly change Crits to max damage.


My vote is still on +4d6 flat critical.



6) Vassal Knights inheriting not being the standard; household knights are simpler, and easier. (Plus, the good marriage is thus better.)


Yeah, I'd agree with this too. Also, it makes for a nicer learning curve, when the whole manor management isn't dumped on them straight away.



7) Not Salisbury!


I admit that I would very much like to see a different starting region as well, since many of us have had Salisbury since the 3rd (or at least 4th) edition onwards. Even 5th edition backdating it to 485 was mainly just switching the names around, rather than actually changing anything major.



I stay largely with 4E+Saxons increased experience for CGen because I like the wider range of starting ages and competencies. The average is the same as 5.0... but the variability is, for me, a plus.

I actually liked the 5th edition chargen, since it was much faster and easier, and ensured that all PKs started with a wider range of competency (skills at 10+) than tended to be the case in 4th edition, where the temptation to minmax your weapon skill up from an early age is quite overwhelming.

i admit, though, that I was a bit disappointed by the fact that 5th edition pared down the culture choices so starkly compared to 4th edition. It felt more like a downgrade, admittedly, on that score, since the other cultures that did appear in 4th edition were split off to their own supplement, BoK&L.

As for the increased experience in Saxons!, I am not a fan. The three yearly trainings per year of Previous Experience past year 15 is again an invitation for minmaxing. I admit that it might come to about the same as the rules in 5th edition, but those rules mandate a lot of skill points, and spreading them around.

Personally, I would do away with the whole British Christian vs. Roman Christian. Pelagianism was stamped out like a couple of generations before Uther's reign already, let alone Arthur's reign. (Yes, I know that the Paganism is anachronistic as well, but that at least has some interesting takes.) And the Celtic Christianity, as you noted in your post, is doctrinally almost indistinguishable from Roman Catholicism. I don't see a good argument there for distinctive traits.

You're historically wrong about Pelagianism, and about what I wrote. In Britain, Pelagius was not locally condemned until after his death. The first british local council to denounce Pelagianism was after Uther's death. Semi-pelagianism remained a recurrent local heresy well into the 700's.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, Pelagius and Pelagianism
«For the saintly Archbishop David of Menevia participated in 519 in the Synod of Brefy, which directed its attacks against the Pelagians residing there, and after he was made Primate of Cambria, he himself convened a synod against them. In Ireland also Pelagius's "Commentary on St. Paul", described in the beginning of this article, was in use long afterwards, as is proved by many Irish quotations from it. »

This provides a sighting of pelagianism during Arthur's reign, and mention of later inclusions of pelagian theology.

Augustinianism wasn't declare the sole orthodoxy until 530 (when Pp. Boniface II ratified the 529 council of Orange's refutations of semipelagianism and pelagianism.

Augustinianism: Adam's Sin stains all of us, and only grace can lead to faith, and grace is unavailable to the unbaptized. Baptism is required for salvation, and other religions are all inherently false and damning.

Pelagianism: Adam's sin merely forced humanity out of the garden. All children are born sinless, baptism is not required, and other religions, (especially Judaism) are not condemnation to hell. It is by good acts alone that one enters heaven; Christian acts of obedience are counted as good acts, but are not the only acts that qualify. Baptism does "wipe the slate" of prior personal sins. Death is natural, and is not caused by Adam's sin.

Semi-pelagianism: Baptism is required of christians, and brings salvific grace; only personal sin matters, but it is by grace that one enters heaven, and grace is sourced in good deeds and in Christian religious observance.

As for the liturgies...
The british liturgy (as best can be reconstructed) used a prothesis including the fraction of the host into many particles, opening prayers and liturgy of the word following the Coptic pattern, a unique (but more closely to roman) Anaphora, and roman style post-communion prayers. Communion of the faithful was by intinction of individual hosts (like the modern Armenian praxis)
The Roman of the period used a prothesis, but the fraction was done in the anaphora, and only one particle is broken off (for the commingling). In this period, the faithful who received probably were offered communion of both the host and cup separately (based upon surviving illustrations).

Organizational turmoil: Pagan Shore is correct about british (and galatian) organization. At start of the Pendragon period, in these national churches (Galatian, British, Welsh, and Irish), the abbots elected the bishops, had full authority to ordain priests and deacons, and each archbishop's synod of bishops and abbots had authority over which missals were allowed. In 525, the Gauls had a synod which eliminated this for the Galatian, (french) and (dutch) churches, made abbots dependent upon Bishops by stripping abbots of authority to ordain major orders (Deacon, Priest, Bishop), and banned pelagianism. This shift implies that the pelagians were also monastics.

The distinction of Friary also begins in the Arthurian age; St. Benedict's rule was in use in Britain only amongst the romans; in fact, Benedict's rule for the office of the hours remains to this day the principle formula for the Roman Office of Hours... St Benedict was still kicking in 543. Given the time compression of the game, pushing up the adoption to the 530's is reasonable.

British native monasticism was not the rigid monasticism of the contemplatives nor the eremitic/anchorite assemblies, but, like the Byzantines, diocesan institutions of common living, home to all manner of unmarried priests, and school for those seeing ordination.

Which brings up another issue: Pelagians do not consider sex impure; Romans do. We don't have the rubrics of the British church in the era; the Roman, however, prohibited clergy from sexual congress even with their wives from sundown the day before liturgy, and during all fasting seasons (in this era, the Roman church observed 4 fasts: St Phillips aka Advent, Great Fast aka Lent, Dormition Fast (2 weeks prior to Dormition Feast), and Apostles Fast (2 weeks following Pentecost); Rome since has dropped Apostle's and Dormition fasts outside monastic and friary communities. It is reasonable to expect the Pelagians to differ on the rules for clerics to have sex with their wives; even unto the 12th Century, in Britain, married clerics were more common than in the rest of the Roman rite.



Also, as a historical note: neither the Roman nor the British missals of this time have surviving full missal texts; referenced texts are by reconstructions from 3rd party references, mostly by Greek Orthodox clergy. Surviving roman outlines pre 300 exist, but not full texts; the earliest full text I've seeen referenced for Rome is in the 8th C. The Roman Prothesis continues through at least 1250 when the DOminicans became a separate rite, using the then missale of Rome, with no further change; by 1400, Rome reduced the prothesis to 3 lines of prayer, which could be delegated to the acolyte.

The British missal was no longer evident by 1200, when the Sarum missal was essentially Roman in character, with minor differences in the prayers.

The Missal of the British church would likely have remained in use well into the 6th century, supplanted by the roman as the monasteries were no longer the source of priests, and no longer superior to bishops. Several monastic and friary orders were exempt from local bishops' authority except for ordinations.

You're historically wrong about Pelagianism, and about what I wrote. In Britain, Pelagius was not locally condemned until after his death. The first british local council to denounce Pelagianism was after Uther's death. Semi-pelagianism remained a recurrent local heresy well into the 700's.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, Pelagius and Pelagianism
«For the saintly Archbishop David of Menevia participated in 519 in the Synod of Brefy, which directed its attacks against the Pelagians residing there, and after he was made Primate of Cambria, he himself convened a synod against them. In Ireland also Pelagius's "Commentary on St. Paul", described in the beginning of this article, was in use long afterwards, as is proved by many Irish quotations from it. »

This provides a sighting of pelagianism during Arthur's reign, and mention of later inclusions of pelagian theology.

Augustinianism wasn't declare the sole orthodoxy until 530 (when Pp. Boniface II ratified the 529 council of Orange's refutations of semipelagianism and pelagianism.



I thought Pelagianism was already declared a heresy in the Councils of Carthage (418) and Ephesus (431)? Orange had to do with semipelagianism. Could some vestiges of pelagianism have survived until Arthur's reign? Sure, I am not contesting that, especially as you have a nice historical reference there. However, note that the Archbishop of Menevia is NOT a Pelasgian here, but condemning them. They are clearly a minority, heretical sect by 519.

This is in marked contrast with 5th Edition, where Uther himself is a British Christian. I.e. a heretic, if we take British Christianity = Pelagianism. And in GPC, we find out that pretty much all named British characters are British Christians, from Arthur and Guenever downwards! This is not a persecuted, heretical minority!

Sorry about misreading what you said about being in communion with Rome; I took that to mean the Celtic Christianity, which is a different beast from the Pelagian Heresy. Their differences with Rome were minor. The organization of British Christianity in Book of Uther (and in KAP 5.2) is clearly reminiscent of the Celtic Christianity, and if British Christianity = Celtic Christianity, fine and well. But in this case (unlike in Pelagianism) I don't see a good argument for changing the Religious Traits. And since the difference is mainly an organizational one, I would just prefer having them all simply as Christians. (Yes, I dislike having Arian Christians as a separate religion, too, but at least Visigoths and Ostrogoths were still Arian in our timeframe. Again, I am not sure that saying that Christ was a created man is enough to change the Religious Traits, however much such a statement causes beards to quiver amongst the theologians.)

Speaking of the Religious Traits, I don't see a good match even with Pelagian Heresy in the British Christianity. I think Greg has mentioned it somewhere that British Christianity Traits were deliberately chosen so that they'd have the easiest time to become Chivalric, rather than any deeper doctrinal consideration. Personally, I would have rather had a more minor difference, like making Roman Christianity Just and Pelagianism Merciful, if I would have had that religion in my campaign in the first place. Which I ended up not doing, going back to 4th edition Christian, i.e. 5th edition Roman Christian traits.

Anyway, it is clear in KAP 5.2 that "British Christianity" is actually Celtic Christianity with Semi-Pelagian theology, since it says as much. And granted, given that we have widespread Celtic Paganism as well, it is not really all that fruitful to try and impose a historical judgement over it all.

I thought Pelagianism was already declared a heresy in the Councils of Carthage (418) and Ephesus (431)? Orange had to do with semipelagianism. Could some vestiges of pelagianism have survived until Arthur's reign? Sure, I am not contesting that, especially as you have a nice historical reference there. However, note that the Archbishop of Menevia is NOT a Pelasgian here, but condemning them. They are clearly a minority, heretical sect by 519.

This is in marked contrast with 5th Edition, where Uther himself is a British Christian. I.e. a heretic, if we take British Christianity = Pelagianism. And in GPC, we find out that pretty much all named British characters are British Christians, from Arthur and Guenever downwards! This is not a persecuted, heretical minority!

Sorry about misreading what you said about being in communion with Rome; I took that to mean the Celtic Christianity, which is a different beast from the Pelagian Heresy. Their differences with Rome were minor. The organization of British Christianity in Book of Uther (and in KAP 5.2) is clearly reminiscent of the Celtic Christianity, and if British Christianity = Celtic Christianity, fine and well. But in this case (unlike in Pelagianism) I don't see a good argument for changing the Religious Traits. And since the difference is mainly an organizational one, I would just prefer having them all simply as Christians. (Yes, I dislike having Arian Christians as a separate religion, too, but at least Visigoths and Ostrogoths were still Arian in our timeframe. Again, I am not sure that saying that Christ was a created man is enough to change the Religious Traits, however much such a statement causes beards to quiver amongst the theologians.)

Speaking of the Religious Traits, I don't see a good match even with Pelagian Heresy in the British Christianity. I think Greg has mentioned it somewhere that British Christianity Traits were deliberately chosen so that they'd have the easiest time to become Chivalric, rather than any deeper doctrinal consideration. Personally, I would have rather had a more minor difference, like making Roman Christianity Just and Pelagianism Merciful, if I would have had that religion in my campaign in the first place. Which I ended up not doing, going back to 4th edition Christian, i.e. 5th edition Roman Christian traits.

Anyway, it is clear in KAP 5.2 that "British Christianity" is actually Celtic Christianity with Semi-Pelagian theology, since it says as much. And granted, given that we have widespread Celtic Paganism as well, it is not really all that fruitful to try and impose a historical judgement over it all.

I've seen theological references to the Celtic Rite being "the last bastion" of Pelagianism, most specifically in the monasteries, into the 600's. The Cletic Rite, for what it's worth, is the liturgy of which I speak, and it's reconstruction was noted, by the Orthodox priests reconstructing it, as insufficiently orthodox; it was compatible with pelagianism.

Pelagianism is said to have died in 529... but the popes had not condemned Pelagius nor the heresy named for him until Boniface II in 525; several regional synods had, but they were limited to the local synods participating unless ratified by the Pope or one's Patriarch. In 415, he defended his theology successfully in a regional synod. (The west did not have local patriarchates until mid 2nd millenium AD, and their role is not truly patriarch, but arch bishop with automatic cardinalate vote.) So, Pelagianism was condemned time and again, but kept moving west ahead of the condemnations. The Menavian condemnation was of both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism.

Chaste, Energetic, Modest, Pious, and Prudent: those are all consonant with Pelagian theories of grace. Grace was "a vague concept" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Pelagius and Pelagianism. Pelagian teaching was that salvation was through good deeds, which opened one to God's Grace, enabling one to be worthy of heaven. Roman was, at the time, only barely embracing Ambrosian Faith+Deeds+Orthopraxis... the whole of Christendom (excepting the middle eastern Gnostics) Accepted Pauls writings, requiring modesty, orthodoxis, and chastity.†

The one major mechanical difference (Roman Virtues: Chaste, Forgiving, Merciful, Modest, Temperate.) is the call to forgive one another instead of active works. whatever the reason Greg picked it, it's a good fit to have the Celtic have the pellagian work ethic and Romans the forgiveness ethic.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

† in the sense of no sex outside marriage. No one ordained to major orders (deacon, priest, bishop) could marry after 325; in Rome and the west, Subdeacons as well were considered major. Until the 12th C, married men could, however, receive ordination to major orders. Rome always banned sex the night before a liturgy and during all of the fasts. The Christian East (The "Orthodox" still do). Rome instructed, starting in the 6th C, to demand total continence (absence of sex with one's wife) full time, and by 800, encouraged placing them in nunneries. Rome wouldn't ban married men's ordination to major orders until the 12th C, due to a property dispute. The Christian East retains married clergy to this day, both in and outside communion with Rome, and the Roman Church has absorbed most of the national churches save 4: Dalmatian, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Bragan, into the Roman Church; in those three national churches, the traditional rite remains an extraordinary form, and the Roman the dominant. The Anglican Use is a special case - a national expression of the Roman Rite but denied separate rite status. And, Rome has also again allowed the ordination of married men to the diaconate. My father was one such married deacon.

In Britain, Pelagianism died (or seriously moved underground) after the expeditions of Bishop Germanus of Auxerre. If it continued to exist anywhere after that, it would have been in Italy, primarily Rome, and Africa... the area that Pelagius actually did most of his preaching and teaching.

The Celtic Rite only became an issue later, primarily during the time Anglo-Saxons in Britain, and the non-christian Germans in the north of Gaul and Germania were being converted by the Merovingians a couple of centuries later. This latter disagreement seems to have been mainly political in nature, as opposed to theological.

SDLeary

In Britain, Pelagianism died (or seriously moved underground) after the expeditions of Bishop Germanus of Auxerre. If it continued to exist anywhere after that, it would have been in Italy, primarily Rome, and Africa... the area that Pelagius actually did most of his preaching and teaching.

The Celtic Rite only became an issue later, primarily during the time Anglo-Saxons in Britain, and the non-christian Germans in the north of Gaul and Germania were being converted by the Merovingians a couple of centuries later. This latter disagreement seems to have been mainly political in nature, as opposed to theological.

SDLeary

Given that the bishops of the Welsh Church had to stomp on it in 529... that's firmly into Arthur's realm. A pelagian influenced British church might have abandoned Pelagianism without removing it's effects upon the local beliefs for a good 50 years or more. And that's ignoring the 5 to 50 years to get all the clergy educated in the new paradigm. I forget which theologian said, "No council's effects are known until 50 years later"...

Given that the bishops of the Welsh Church had to stomp on it in 529... that's firmly into Arthur's realm. A pelagian influenced British church might have abandoned Pelagianism without removing it's effects upon the local beliefs for a good 50 years or more. And that's ignoring the 5 to 50 years to get all the clergy educated in the new paradigm. I forget which theologian said, "No council's effects are known until 50 years later"...

Source please? Not a reference that I've ever seen.

EDIT: are you talking about the Synod of Victory from the Annales Cambriae? While text B does say 529, text A states 569. There is a footnote in both that leads to a reference that claims it was about the Pelagian Heresy, but that is not stated in the main entry in either text. Do you have further first source references?

SDLeary

Aramis was talking of this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Brefi

Alas, there are no sources in the wikipedia page, and the date is given as 560 instead of 519.

Catholic Encyclopedia mentions the Synod of Brevi in context of St. David, followed 'shortly afterwards' by a synod at Lucus Victoriae in 569:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04640b.htm

And of course Aramis' original link to Catholic Encyclopedia on Pelagius and Pelagianism:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm
"For the saintly Archbishop David of Menevia participated in 519 in the Synod of Brefy, which directed its attacks against the Pelagians residing there, and after he was made Primate of Cambria, he himself convened a synod against them."
The second synod is no doubt referring to the synod at Lucus Victoriae. The reference work seems to be: Pohle, J. (1911). Pelagius and Pelagianism:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Pelagius_and_Pelagianism
Alas, no references there, either.

In any case, I don't think this is a fruitful rabbit hole to go down:
1) British Christianity, as written in KAP 5.2, is stated to be semi-pelagian in theology, and otherwise follows Celtic Christianity (organization, Easter calculations, tonsure...).
2) Whether or not semi-pelagianism is an anachronism is a bit beside the point in a game that has transported 11th/12th century Norman England social order to late 5th century Britain, and where knights will be going about less than a century later in 16th century Gothic Plate armor, facing firearms and cannons in the field.

Finally, it is an argument that is not that well-suited for this thread. Should Christianity be unitary in KAP 6 is germaine to this thread, but is Semi-Pelagianism historical in 6th century Britain is not. I am sorry I opened that can of worms.

Finally, it is an argument that is not that well-suited for this thread. Should Christianity be unitary in KAP 6 is germaine to this thread, but is Semi-Pelagianism historical in 6th century Britain is not. I am sorry I opened that can of worms.

Feh! No can o'worms here! :)

For those of us who still utilize the resources of 3e and 4e as bolt ons, differing Virtues/Vices are important! I mean, we have a Mythras write-up floating around out there, so knowing more about possible differences between different traditions and where they might crop up is useful.

I will admit that my History Guy side is showing quite a bit in those posts though, that is to say an issue with late sources making references not backed up by at least secondary sources.

In any event, my hope is that 6e moves back a bit towards the more comprehensive approach of 4e. It gives much more flexibility in the way one executes the game, and helps when there are differing interpretations in what sources should be played. At times I like to add more Culhwch & Olwn, more Franks (Lancelot), and other bits of literature which the more closed nature of more recent versions can make a bit problematic (time consuming) at times.

I also want Magic. Magic has to return.

SDLeary

For those of us who still utilize the resources of 3e and 4e as bolt ons, differing Virtues/Vices are important! I mean, we have a Mythras write-up floating around out there, so knowing more about possible differences between different traditions and where they might crop up is useful.


Sure. We even have one Mithras worshipper PK in our current campaign. But that discussion is probably better had in the Rules section (for Religious traits in general) or even House Rules (added religions in particular), rather than this thread.



In any event, my hope is that 6e moves back a bit towards the more comprehensive approach of 4e.


Bit more comprehensive than 5th editions' laser focus on Cymric knights would be nice, yeah. I don't need quite the full international treatment, even in AD 531. But Cymric, Roman and maybe Ganis (given the number of De Ganis knights in Camelot after 518 and especially after the Roman War) and Christianized Saxon knights (after 531) would be nice. I couldn't care less about Picts, Saracens, Ostrogoths/Italians, Visigoths/Spaniards or even Byzantines. Even Franks I would be happy enough to leave alone, although they at least have the excuse of living right across the Channel. But that is just my personal opinion.



I also want Magic. Magic has to return.


Well, based on what Greg has said on the upcoming supplements, Book of Magic is in the pipeline. So even if it is not part of the 6th edition core book, it should be an easy enough add-on.

Personally, I have no need for Magic rules. I use Magic as a plot device, so it does whatever it needs to accomplish to power the plot. Not to mention I tend to run low-magic campaigns; mysterious and spooky stuff might happen, but the PKs have little idea how that was accomplished. Or even leave it up to the interpretation: was that black raven Morgan's familiar or not?

Aramis was talking of this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Brefi

Alas, there are no sources in the wikipedia page, and the date is given as 560 instead of 519.

Catholic Encyclopedia mentions the Synod of Brevi in context of St. David, followed 'shortly afterwards' by a synod at Lucus Victoriae in 569:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04640b.htm

And of course Aramis' original link to Catholic Encyclopedia on Pelagius and Pelagianism:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm
"For the saintly Archbishop David of Menevia participated in 519 in the Synod of Brefy, which directed its attacks against the Pelagians residing there, and after he was made Primate of Cambria, he himself convened a synod against them."
The second synod is no doubt referring to the synod at Lucus Victoriae. The reference work seems to be: Pohle, J. (1911). Pelagius and Pelagianism:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Pelagius_and_Pelagianism
Alas, no references there, either.

In any case, I don't think this is a fruitful rabbit hole to go down:
1) British Christianity, as written in KAP 5.2, is stated to be semi-pelagian in theology, and otherwise follows Celtic Christianity (organization, Easter calculations, tonsure...).
2) Whether or not semi-pelagianism is an anachronism is a bit beside the point in a game that has transported 11th/12th century Norman England social order to late 5th century Britain, and where knights will be going about less than a century later in 16th century Gothic Plate armor, facing firearms and cannons in the field.

Finally, it is an argument that is not that well-suited for this thread. Should Christianity be unitary in KAP 6 is germaine to this thread, but is Semi-Pelagianism historical in 6th century Britain is not. I am sorry I opened that can of worms.

There are two forms in prior editions: Roman and Grail. 4e adds (in Pagan Shore) the Irish flavor of Celtic, brought into 5th as British. So it was nothing new, just a wider application.