I wasn't sure what to put as the title here but I hope that it makes sense. I'm a new GM running the GPC and we're four years in so far. I'm slowly getting a handle on most things and the Uther period is great to lean on for structure. But one thing is difficult for me to figure out.

My group is pretty experienced and while I've asked them to put up with a certain amount of railroading while I get used to GMing and the system I do want to show them early on how open the world is to their choices and influence. I also just got BoE (love it) and I want to make sure they get some extra income to build with every year.

I'll be following the events in the Uther period fairly closely but I also want them to be able to raid, ransom, and explore various story hooks I've cast out. My question is how to handle this without having too much happen in a year, glory get inflated, and sessions running too long. I do want to stick to 1 year/session as much as possible. I'm not really sure how much time knights would have to do these things during the rest of the year.

My ideas so far is a choice between:

1) Do the 40 days of service and main scenario as usual. Then allow one optional activity, either done solo or as a group as they choose.

2) Main scenario as usual. Allow as much raiding/scheming/whatever as they can fit into a fixed amount of in-game time. Such as the remaining summer weeks.

3) Do full years of them doing their own thing and just push the campaign dates ahead each time a "filler" year happens.

I'd really appreciate any advice and examples of how you experienced people deal with this. It's giving me quite a headache so maybe I'm overthinking it.

Personally I am leaning towards option 2. I just need to know what time frame would be balanced. I'm worried if I give them a month to wreck havoc it'll get out of hand.

The "40 days service" would include the battles, raids, etc that are the main scenarios in GPC for that period, I think. The 40 days service includes military service, which is what they are doing. Any extra time needed for campaigning under your lord would have to decided by the characters and their lord (not much of a problem, since loot is a good incentive to do it).

If for some reason you feel some scenarios shouldn't be included in the 40 days service, you can always simulate that service in the Winter Phase/solos (there's stuff in the core book to do precisely that e.g. patrol service, etc). Don't worry about glory inflation, etc; it won't kill the game balance. Plus, your knights are "special" anyway.

But notice that you still have a lot of freedom within the scenarios. The scenarios for the Uther period, etc, are quite bare-bones; a lot can happen during them, you can expand them, your characters may suggest courses of action to whoever is commanding them during an operation, etc. There are many opportunities to have your characters go their own way and influence a military operation, diplomatic mission, etc.




3) Do full years of them doing their own thing and just push the campaign dates ahead each time a "filler" year happens.

It would probably be better to just ignore a GPC event, assuming it's not too important, then to mess too much with the timing of the events by pushing them to other years. You'll have to see what the event is and make some judgement here.

Also remember that your players will have to do what their lord asks as a service for those 40 days; it's part of their feudal contract. If they are required to provide military aid in a raid then they should do it; they can't simply state that they prefer to go up north and knock-up some Pict wenches just because they feel like it, unless they do so after providing the required service (and even then their lord may have something to say about that).

Do whatever you feel makes sense in your campaign. Just remember that KAP is quite different from most other fantasy RPGs and that your knights are bounded by oaths of service, they have obligations, and they can't just do whatever they feel like doing. GM judgment and good sense is very important in KAP to keep a good balance in the campaign, as well as making it a fun game for the players, but the players also need to understand that this is about a feudal society with obligations, a game of knights and lords with some modicum of historicity, not Forgotten Realms.

Gorgon already gave a very good reply. Not much to add to that save to include a few comments on how we tend to do things in our campaign. Warning, some repetition of Gorgon's points will follow.

1) You owe that 40 days of service to your Lord. Thus, it is best to talk with your Lord in advance, if you are planning on being absent from your manor for an extended period. Not to mention that you also owe advice to your Lord, and you are responsible for the defense of your own manor. Especially during the turbulent years of Anarchy, Saxon raids might be bit too common place for you to ride off on a distant adventure. In our campaign, it is customary for the vassal knights to ask for their Lord's permission if they expect to be away from their manors for more than a week or so. For instance, questing or going to raid a bad guy who lives farther away. Like Gorgon pointed out, a lot of the campaign events would actually fall under this obligation, like the various battles and raids during the Uther period.

2) That being said, also remember that by and large, you are not supposed to play out every day of the year in Pendragon. The oft-quoted rule of the thumb is one adventure / year. The rest of the time, the PKs are looking after their estates, doing garrison duty / patrolling and attending their Lord's court to advise him. Now, this is of course a playstyle choice. Now, if your players do have some stuff that they'd like to do, that is good. I'd generally let them, but not at the expense of the campaign events. If Count Roderick summons his knights to war, then the PKs had bloody well better obey, or lose their lands and honor as traitors. As Gorgon pointed out, this is not D&D and the PKs have duties as well. if they prefer to be wandering adventurers, living off from the loot, then good luck to them... I haa messed around with the campaign timeline from time to time, for instance Tristram's death, since I simply forgot to mention it when it happened and then just ad libbed it for the next year. Stuff like that is easy. Running out of time to have Arthur to be conceived might throw the whole rest of the GPC out of whack, so I would be much less inclined to do that.

3) If you are serious about 1 year / session rule, then good luck to you! We just spent a whole session on a tournament. :P You'll seriously need to keep the adventures & fights short and any extra activities should be something that can be taken care of with a couple of rolls. The issue is not so much how much time will the knights have (adventures are often short in gametime; for instance the introductory scenario will take a session to play out but will only take less than a week for the characters), but how much time will you have during your session to play out everything! Asking the players to 'solo' their stuff via email between the group sessions might be a good idea (works for us especially since we play via internet anyway due to being geographically challenged).

4) Finally, my advice would be not to be slavishly bound by 1 year / session rule. Talk with your players. Do they want a campaign where time ticks on quickly or do they wish to do a bit more each year? Now, I know our sessions are on occasion too slow due to the fact that the players start to speculate on the next course of action, or simply because there is too much 'filler' in the form of courtly events and tournaments. But then again, that is where the actual roleplay is! When you actually get to talk to NPCs and to think about what you wish to do or accomplish. YPMV, of course. Also, I'd ask the players in advance what they would like to try and get done during the next year, so that I can prepare something for it.

Our 'generic ' yearly timetable:
1) Pentecost tournament: 1 session
2) Summer Adventure: 2-3 sessions, depending on the length of the adventure. Some years, there might be more than one adventure, too.
3) Autumn wrap-up and Winter Phase: 1 session
So yeah, we are slow. 4-5 sessions / game year.

I try and play it as 'one significant thing' per year.

Sometimes the 'thing' will be a key event from the GPC (battle, helping Merlin with some murky business... whatever), sometimes it will be one of the GPC capsule adventures or something I've cooked up, sometimes it will be something player initiated ('I really want to give Coenwulf Hard-handed a good kicking for his general dickish-ness when we were trying to sort the Caister situation out - can we put a raiding party together this year?'), sometimes it will be a routine part of the annual round that I drag into the foreground for a session.

Like Morien, we really don't get anywhere near 1 session per year - but I try to stick to one adventure/year. After the first few years the GPC opens up so you can fit non-GPC stuff in.


Oh and I'm happy to break the rule for certain important years - 491-492 (Cornwall's exit from court, then war, then Arthur's begetting and Merlin's elopement plus a sojourn in the weald of Sussex dodging between Saxon raiders and the robber knights of Eynesford) ended up being about five adventures over 18 months or so. Our current year (509) looks like it will bleed in to 510 with the big reveal of the Xmas tournament, the Eager/Good/Reluctant Vassals and finishing off with Caerleon.

Regards
Luke

Thanks a bunch for all the input! :) It's a lot to think about. I will still (try) to stick to 1 session/year, I want exceptions to be just that. I should mention ,though, that when we play we make a full day of it. So a session can be 6-7 hours for us and if I don't stick to it as much possible there is zero chance of finishing the campaign before we retire. ;)

I've got some more specific questions your answers helped me pinpoint. I've cut out some quotes, but I'm directing the questions to everyone so please weigh in if you want. This is really helpful to me.



('I really want to give Coenwulf Hard-handed a good kicking for his general dickish-ness when we were trying to sort the Caister situation out - can we put a raiding party together this year?'),
So a raid often becomes the main focus of the year in your group? I'd been considering how detailed to play them. Some years I figure they'd just be a roll and calculating the result, others more involved. Maybe rarely they'd be a full session depending on who they go after and what the aftermath will be.



You owe that 40 days of service to your Lord. Thus, it is best to talk with your Lord in advance, if you are planning on being absent from your manor for an extended period.
In our campaign, it is customary for the vassal knights to ask for their Lord's permission if they expect to be away from their manors for more than a week or so. For instance, questing or going to raid a bad guy who lives farther away.

Even outside of those 40 days?



The issue is not so much how much time will the knights have (adventures are often short in gametime; for instance the introductory scenario will take a session to play out but will only take less than a week for the characters), but how much time will you have during your session to play out everything.

Good point also. I'm just worried that if we have a lot of time left after the "main event" wraps up, they'll have time to do 4-5 raids each (or however many) and they'll get rich so fast it'll ruin the sense of working for the progression, if that makes sense.



The "40 days service" would include the battles, raids, etc that are the main scenarios in GPC for that period, I think. The 40 days service includes military service, which is what they are doing. Any extra time needed for campaigning under your lord would have to decided by the characters and their lord (not much of a problem, since loot is a good incentive to do it). I guess that's the crux of the matter for me. Assuming a year is a session (I know I may be defeated by this effort in the end. But hypothetically. ;)), how many raids would be balanced to allow in a year?


I guess to boil it down. They're gonna have little freedom during the 40 days, because the Earl likes them. And there will be other obligations during the year in order to keep the Manor running and safe. I'm assuming there's no fixed number of raids you allow per year (no matter how many sessions), but is there any number that would be too many? How much cash is too much to enter a winter phase with in Uther Phase?

What's bringing on this question is that I'm about to do year 487 this weekend as well as introducing BoE to them. There won't really be any spoils gathered from the naval raids, nor from the diplomatic missions. If they decide to raid a bit on the way home, I'd probably decide that's that for the year. I do think they'd buy "for balance reasons" as an explanation really, but I'd like to be able to lean on something like "If you're gone more from the Manor, you risk consequenses." and then allow more but have it lead to them looking like easy pickings, or wife cheating etc.

Also, this is mostly me asking specifically for the Uther Phase. I view it almost as a tutorial, and I want them to get enough money to have fun but not so much that they grow too fast and lose the sense of how valuable even 1 Libra is during the rest of the campaign. In Anarchy I'm basically gonna let them loose and only guide the action when needed.

The issue is not so much how much time will the knights have (adventures are often short in gametime; for instance the introductory scenario will take a session to play out but will only take less than a week for the characters), but how much time will you have during your session to play out everything.

Good point also. I'm just worried that if we have a lot of time left after the "main event" wraps up, they'll have time to do 4-5 raids each (or however many) and they'll get rich so fast it'll ruin the sense of working for the progression, if that makes sense.





As a GM, I prefer to make raiding a double-edged sword. If the player knights choose to raid, their victim may very well raid them back. If you are using The Book of the Manor, a successful raid on an estate full of improvements can reduce a player to tears ;) The raided enemy may also complain to his/her lord, who may (depending on his Loyalty(Vassals)) choose to lend additional forces to assist in a counter-raid, or even launch a full-on invasion on the raider's home county. Thus, raiding should never be an easy and riskless way to gather wealth and Glory. It is an action that may well spark long, destructive blood feuds and ramifications on both sides.

Some thoughts below:

1) Service owed to the Lord

a) 40 day service in war: What it says, 40 days. I think the Lord has the right to ask for an extension of another 40 days, but he is supposed to pay for upkeep for that (we usually handwave the supply costs that a PK would incur during campaigning rather than staying at home).

b) Defense of manor (and homeland): You are supposed to protect and oversee your manor. This in principle is a 24/7 job. Furthermore, you are supposed to help in the defense of the homeland (Salisbury) if it gets invaded. You can't say 'sorry, I already did my 40 days, have fun with the Saxon invasion'. Well you can, but as soon as the invasion is over and if the Count is still alive, he will be coming for your lands if not for your head.

c) Advice to the Lord: Again, in principle at the Lord's pleasure. He summons you to his court and you must obey, or be in danger of being branded a rebel and a traitor, with all the consequences that entails.

Taken together, those a, b and c are the reason why the PKs in Our Campaign ask for the Lord's permission if they intend to be away from their estates. Not only will that keep the Earl informed as to the state of the garrisoning of the manors, but he also won't waste time trying to contact the PKs while they are out. Similarly, that keeps him aware what is going on with them, and how that might impact his own plans. And finally, that gives him the option of saying: 'No, we are going to muster to war this Summer, so stay put, no extended vacations to Cambria.'


2) PKs and Raiding

Here are a few points you and your players might wish to consider:

a) Those who have been raided have a tendency to raid back. This of course assumes that they know who to blame, but assuming that this is a real raid and not just a 'spoiling raid' to burn a couple of huts and ride away, all those wagons of loot and herds of animals will leave very clear tracks. That is even assuming that the PKs have not been recognized in the first place. So if all the PKs have now managed to piss off 4-5 people, and those people likely have family/friends/liegelords, they will be spoiling for a chance to get some of the PKs hides in return. And when better to do it than when the PKs are summoned to a war in the Continent/Cornwall, especially if their enemies have not been summoned to such a war. They might find their manors burned down and stripped bare. Something you might wish to point out to the players before they launch their Raiders, Inc.

b) Preparation: For a real raid, you will need more than a knight on horseback. Sure, he looks pretty, but he is not going to strip the village bare and drive the livestock home. So he will need peasants to do the heavy lifting and other busy work. (If the players have a high tolerance for slavery and have enough military power, looting some of the enemy's peasants might be possible too.) Peasants are needed on the fields, most of the time. And they are slow, but so are wagons and livestock, too. Just where were you going to raid again? Travel time starts to become an issue pretty quickly, nor are the peasants willing to be taken to the other side of the island just so you can raid a guy.

c) Risks and Spoils. One knight versus another knight, backed by his village militia, will probably end badly for the raiding knight. So it would make more sense to get a group of knights together and raid in a bunch. Not only will this make the risk-factor much less, but it will also spread the blame: now all the raiding knights share the same enemy, rather than each making a new enemy. The downside from the PKs perspective is that they will need to share the loot, too, but this again is a good thing from the GM's perspective. Instead of having to run 4-5 raids / PK, you'll have to only run 4-5 raids / group, and the money probably ends up roughly equivalent to 1 raid / PK, which is more manageable economics-wise. Note that the same about spoils-sharing applies if the PK calls upon his family knights, who might not even be available during the timetable of the PK, as they might be busy serving their own lords (many of the family knights would be household knights) or adventuring / employed as mercenaries. Also, the blame would land squarely on the shoulders of the PK, something also to point out to the players.

d) Just who do you think you are raiding? If you are raiding your neighbors in Salisbury, expect the Earl to take a very dim view of this. Your neighbors in Levcomagus? Well, they are already in undeclared war of sorts, so they will be expecting raids: you have a higher risk of running to a patrol. Especially if your PK friend just raided Levcomagus last week. And of course, if you make this a common thing, sooner or later Levcomagus will retaliate in force (otherwise the Steward looks weak and ineffectual, as he can't protect his vassals), perhaps with the assistance of the Duke of Silchester. If your lands were close to the Levcomagus border, it is 'byebye village'. If they are further away, the knights whose lands are now getting burned thanks to your raiding activities will be most unhappy with you, too. Not to mention that if this internecine warfare escalates as above, Uther might be pissed off, too. So what will you do then? Raid Dorset, Somerset? Someone even farther away (see b) Preparation)? Count Roderick will be oh so happy that you are spoiling his peaceful relationship with his neighbors, and getting himself scolded by Uther for not keeping his knights from acting like common bandits. Oh, so you will raid Saxons, then? Of course, Saxons tend to be tough, even the peasants are big, belligerent and spoiling for a fight. And have a bit of a thing for vengeance, too. With all that bloodfeuding and whatnot.

In short, going on a raiding spree is a very good way to make new enemies and to ensure that your manor gets raided in retaliation for years to come. And come Anarchy, all those enemies are going to take advantage of the weakness of Salisbury and look for a chance to settle old scores or to make new scores because what goes around comes around.

EDIT: So basically yeah, what Helmward said in a single paragraph. :P Also, raiding gives 'bad' trait checks. Might not be a problem for your players, but it means their PKs will be unlikely to be chivalric and/or christian down the line. Finally, when you take into account the preparation time, the non-availability of the peasants to help with the driving of the loot and the fact that the prime looting season is also the prime fighting season and likely to overlap with your war service, that will limit the raiding activities a bit, too. Not that they can't do it. Raiding a neighboring manor should be quick, even one night cattleraid type of thing. Raiding someone in the next county? A week or two. Raiding someone at least a county away? Could easily be a month. Not to mention you are likely getting into trouble with the knights of the county in between, who don't like the looks of this obvious raiding party crossing their lands...

Everything that Morien said, plus in the later, Arthurian phases the nature of raiding may change. YPMV.

With the realm in peace, Arthurian mores being all the rage, and the British nobility slowly becoming more like courtiers than warriors, raiding is likely seen in a radically different light. Being branded as a "robber knight" before the Chivalrous court of Camelot can be dangerous both to a knight's reputation and to his health. A consummate raiding aficionado can probably kiss that Round Table seat goodbye (not that it is impossible to get into The Table as a robber knight: Sir Ironside of the Red Launds is a prime example of this phenomenon). A few chivalrous knights might also take it as their task to teach the robber baron some good, Arthurian manners the hard way,

Reactions to raiding might also be different during Arthur's reign; Instead of counter-raids, duels of honour (against the victim's Extraordinary, Round Table brother ::) ) might surface. Also, someone might even make a completely unmanly and undeserved legal complaint in the High King's court against the old school Utherian knight, and strip him of hard-earned loot and points of Honor in the process.

The "40 days service" would include the battles, raids, etc that are the main scenarios in GPC for that period, I think. The 40 days service includes military service, which is what they are doing. Any extra time needed for campaigning under your lord would have to decided by the characters and their lord (not much of a problem, since loot is a good incentive to do it). I guess that's the crux of the matter for me. Assuming a year is a session (I know I may be defeated by this effort in the end. But hypothetically. ;)), how many raids would be balanced to allow in a year?


I guess to boil it down. They're gonna have little freedom during the 40 days, because the Earl likes them. And there will be other obligations during the year in order to keep the Manor running and safe. I'm assuming there's no fixed number of raids you allow per year (no matter how many sessions), but is there any number that would be too many? How much cash is too much to enter a winter phase with in Uther Phase?

What's bringing on this question is that I'm about to do year 487 this weekend as well as introducing BoE to them. There won't really be any spoils gathered from the naval raids, nor from the diplomatic missions. If they decide to raid a bit on the way home, I'd probably decide that's that for the year. I do think they'd buy "for balance reasons" as an explanation really, but I'd like to be able to lean on something like "If you're gone more from the Manor, you risk consequenses." and then allow more but have it lead to them looking like easy pickings, or wife cheating etc.

Also, this is mostly me asking specifically for the Uther Phase. I view it almost as a tutorial, and I want them to get enough money to have fun but not so much that they grow too fast and lose the sense of how valuable even 1 Libra is during the rest of the campaign. In Anarchy I'm basically gonna let them loose and only guide the action when needed.


Others have already given good food for thought, but I'll just add another 2 cents.

You'll have to use common sense here, and will your players. As others pointed out, WHEN and WHERE do they want to raid? How far away do they need to go? What preparations do they need to make for the raids? How will they bring the spoils back (cattle, silverware, precious textiles, etc)? Are the raids overlaping with the 40 days of service? Does their Lord see those raids as too risky for the PKs? How long will they stay away from their duties for managing/protecting their manors?

Example: your characters go in some naval raiding. On the way back they decide they want to go do some more raiding. Fine. But the boats are from Uther's navy, not the PKs. Uther's the one forking out the money for the crews and boat maintenance. Whos' paying? Does Uther also wants to risk his assets on a whim from the PKs? Another example: Your characters will do some raiding in Saxon territory. They plunder some small villages fro cattle, etc. Are they going to herd the cattle cross-country all the way back? Remember that all you have is a few knights (the PKs) plus their squires. Do they want to bring their man-at-arms along? Fine, but who's protecting their estates now against raids and general banditry? Are you taking some peasents to do the herding for you? Fine, but who's herding your own cattle now? Plus, peasents don't have vast herds; Lords do. What do your PKs expect to achieve from an enemy village raid? This isn't D&D, so there will be no Ramdom Monster Loot Tables that will give you Ring of Magical Protection +5. You'll get some shovels, dirty peasant underwear and a sack of onions. Is it worth it? They won't get rich that way, that's for sure. If they go after some Saxon lord, maybe the payoff is bigger. But those Saxon peasents are fighters in their own right, something your's aren't. You sure a couple of knights and squires is enough?

I think this gives you a perspective on how involved is the planing for a raid. This isn't something you do on a whim, unless it's just a few miles away. You don't need to give your players some half-assed excused on why they should limit their raiding; as soon as you start asking questions about how they'll manage the whole thing it will become clear clear that they won't be doing 5 raids per year. Remember them that all their doinf in the Raid scenarios is presenting themselves to Roderick, who's actually organizing and paying for the whole thing. If they are doing it on their own than they are the ones who'll have to organize and do the paying where needed.

Hope that helps.

Not much to add about the raids. But I would like to point out that there are a lot of other things to do besides raiding.

1) Organizing Hunts or Feasts. Although they are probably not mandatory, it is a great way to make new (powerful) friends.
2) Entering politics. Although knights may not think a lot about them and more work with their swords. they still have to see to it that their children get married off well. This may mean you have to entertain a neighboring baron. And may be a great source of adventures as they are working for him.
3) Although the games of Higher Love are more for Arthur's reign even during the time of Uther things as Amor can happen.
etc.

I use the 'downtime' to enter some of my own side adventures. Some examples:
- A local wealthy heiress has decided to marry, but her uncle (a bastard brother of her father) is looking at the estate. The young groom is kidnapped and the PKs are asked to help free the boy.
- A larger group of bandits is hiding in the woods. The PKs go hunting them and manage to defeat the robber knight who is leading them.
- During their trip to Estregales as ambassadors for the King a local chieftain claims that a family heirloom of a PK is stolen from his family and he wants it back.
- Before the battle of St Albans one of the bannerets of Earl Roderick does not seem to come and honor his homage. The PKs are asked to convince the man to come with his knights.

('I really want to give Coenwulf Hard-handed a good kicking for his general dickish-ness when we were trying to sort the Caister situation out - can we put a raiding party together this year?'),
So a raid often becomes the main focus of the year in your group? I'd been considering how detailed to play them. Some years I figure they'd just be a roll and calculating the result, others more involved. Maybe rarely they'd be a full session depending on who they go after and what the aftermath will be.

Could be. It was just an example of the sort player-initiated action I might run with as the annual 'thing'. Other times it might be just reduced to a few trait/skill checks, although everybody else has already chipped in to say that raiding is likely to bring consequences, so it's generally not regular part of the annual round even if we resolve it quickly.

Regards
Luke

We play several sessions as part of an overall developing story arc prior to a year being out. In our last campaign, three years of time took almost six years to play so we held "winter phases" after every 4th session.