I apologize, this post is beyond ridiculously long. I tried to break it up into chapters. Perhaps an audio book version would be best.

Sir Bridget:
Pagan
Female
(half) Irish

Pagan is not a problem of course, but it is a little isolating for the character. It makes marriage a bit more difficult and a lot of the information on customs and such of the setting is questionably relevant to her.

Female I knew (and encouraged). She initially offered to play a male knight, but did so in a tone of voice of defeat and sadness.

The Irish was a bit of a surprise, she actually did say something about it when we were going through the Salisbury family history but I didn't absorb it at the time. I think she thought Pict = Irish, so I was sort of confused by the statement and missed the implication that she intended her character to be Irish.

We discussed it after the first session and decided that she was Irish on her mother's side. Again, not a problem per se, but it's another factor that would serve to isolate Sir Bridget from the rest of the court and invite prejudice and suspicion.

---------------Blazing a trail against the patriarchy---------------

I've seen a few threads where the proposed solution is simple: once the female knight proves herself in combat, no one will care what she's carrying around under her armor. If you were writing a book, a modernized Arthurian tale, you could have Sir Bridget the Bad-Ass Protofeminist archetype. There would be resistance... but of course she would prove them wrong and pave the way for later female knights. That's kind of what I figured would happen.

RPGs aren't books though, and the dice are cruel and capricious. Her dice have been cursed from the campaign start. She actually managed to dismount herself against the static target during initial training scene. She has fumbled so many courtly rolls that realistically people almost certainly think she's a bit of a buffoon.

Last session Sir Bridget fumbled a flirt check and embarrassed herself. At that point the player (and by extension Sir Bridget) freaked out a bit. I don't mean she tore off her clothes and ran screaming into the woods like a Pendragon character, but she role-played her character grossly overreacting to the embarrassment. Sir Bridget made a huge scene right outside King Uther's tent (which she was supposed be guarding). It's almost certain that many of the high lords of Logres heard her. She even declared that she was going to run off (abandoning her post). I basically OOC talked her out of that.

I suspect she misses the zaniness of our FATE campaign, where crazy outbursts and irrational behavior were the norm for the PCs.

---------------The sacwed institution of mawwiage---------------

I've had a hard time keeping the world natural in it's reactions to the players, while still making it fair for Bridget's player. Marriage being a big issue.

A young house knight would be happy to marry her I would think - she's a 1000 glory wife, way more than they could ever hope to get normally. (Whoever puts a ring on the finger of the lady knight will definitely be the talk of the county for some time)

I should have invented some sort equivalent to the 'eligible ladies' of Salisbury. When adding additional detail to the knights of the county, expressly for the purpose of making them marriageable for her... I veered off target though with my sense of... propriety? Pure OCD? I generated the knights way too randomly rather than seeding the pool with good marriage candidates.

There is also the whole issue of inheritance. She would want to play a line of female knights. I have a hard time wrapping my suspension of disbelief around the idea of enatic succession in a medieval context. At best I think she could reasonably keep her family manor as a dower that passes onto the eldest daughter.

It isn't really fair though (on a player level) when the other PCs have the 'eligible ladies' of Salisbury who are fabulously famous and wealthy. (One of the other PCs married Elaine before I realized how ridiculous a 4 demesne manor dowry is - I got a little carried away with that story line when I should have stretched it out more)

Basically - every other player can (or has) increased their position substantially through marriage. Denying her (the player) the opportunity to do the same would be unfair, but doing so shatters the internal logic of the setting.

-----------------happiness for all-----------------

Most importantly of all: I don't think she enjoyed last session.

She's frustrated (in character and out of character) that Sir Bridget is still unmarried. I'm still getting a grasp on the game and system, I didn't really get the ladies and marriage information to the players until the third session.

There is definitely a more practical element to the frustration. During winter phase 488, I asked the players if they wanted to keep using the random family rolls or look into some other system. They all decided to keep using them. On cue she rolls and kills off her sister, who she was taking for granted up until that point as her heir.

I think I may have joked a little too much about the random marriage table being the "marry a random peasant table", so they don't realize it's a viable option. (I intend to make a note to myself to clarify that point) But then I think she would rather have an actual NPC relationship. (On the other hand, thematically the Uther period is the Uther period... not the age of romance.)

I also want to pull in more of the Pagan element. She kept bringing up the various pagan festivals, but each time I had already time jumped past the date of the festival or was frankly unsure of how the timing of them related to the various events of the year. I worked out a bit of a calender and have a little better of an idea of when the Pagan festivals fall relative to her military service and court events now. Vaguely at least.

-------------Next session----------

Next session is 489 which is a pretty open one, a good year to run a nice long adventure of my own devising. Of course it's only 2 days from now and the time that I should have spent planning, I spent calculating the date of Easter instead. (Actually I did plan something, but I decided it's rubbish.)

It came up in another thread...

She has a bastard brother named Sir Peithan. Peithan was not happy about her inheritance as he felt that he, an established knight of the county, should have been given the manor rather than knighting his sister. After Bridget was knighted in 485, Sir Peithen confronted her (verbally) at the manor. No one knows what became of him after that. He has a bit of reputation for impulsiveness and temper though. Some people think that he abandoned his feudal obligations in a huff.

The truth is yet undetermined, but in 487 he got married.

Morien proposed that Peithen might be planning to try and usurp her as the head the family. Truthfully I don't think that would be all that hard for him to pull off.

He has higher glory than her. (not by a huge amount, but he has a few years of experience on her)

She has 4 Irish (knights? warriors?) on her mother's side of the family, but only one of them is known to be active as a mercenary in Logres (Daig her secondary character). The others may well be unable to intervene in a such a crisis.

The only family knight she has on her father's side of the family is Sir Cynrain, her bastard great uncle. Sir Cynrain is 69 years old. (In truth he failed a survival roll already, and I'm just trying to decide how to make some use of him before he croaks) She was squired under him, and his influence contributed greatly to her achieving the honor. Her father also supported her becoming a knight - he died in the battle of Eburacum in 464.

Clearly their father very deliberately did not embrace Sir Peithen as a son and took steps ensure that he would not inherit. A had a thought that Sir Peithen had converted to Christianity, cementing the ire of the family.

Whew. A lot to read through and answer to. :)

First a disclaimer:
These are simply my thoughts on how I would (and have) handle/d similar things. It is not meant a criticism of your GMing style or choices. :) I'll try to tackle the issues you raise one by one, usually by offering an alternative view-point. This is just to explore the options open to you and the player, rather than trying to dictate, OK? If she likes playing the character the certain way, more power to her, etc. But given that one of the points you raised was that she is feeling unhappy with the game, maybe some tweaking is needed.

This, by the way, is one of the thorny issues. My starting stance as a GM is that the game should be fun for everyone, but that includes the GM too. I like to GM more of a gradual game, rather than see the PKs as Counts and Dukes. Some prefer to GM a more high-powered game. So hopefully you and your players agree on the style of the game. Related to that is... how much of an issue she wishes to make the fact that she is playing a female knight? A minor hurdle, easily overcome? A big, central campaign plot point? Many of my answers assume the former, since your posting implied that the deck is overwhelmingly stacked against her, and she is feeling unhappy with the game.


Half-Irish background:

You say that this serves to isolate her from Salisbury. The other way of looking at it would be that her father is from Salisbury and she has grown there all her life. Her mother has, presumably, lived there for quarter of a century (if she is still alive), so surely she has acclimatized as well? It is not like she is a Saxon wench, after all... So what I am saying here is that she doesn't HAVE to be isolated.


Pagan background:

Same here. It all depends how much weight you wish to put to the religious differences. I know that historically, the Church was pretty insistent on converting the pagans where it could, and the Arthurian milleau is almost exclusively Christian in Mallory. So this can be an issue, if you and your player wish to make it one. If you wish to downplay it, you certainly can. Many knights were not particularly religious to begin with, and I can very easily see a viewpoint in Uther's times that intra-cymric strife needs to take a backseat to fighting the Saxons. And especially if you have Merlin as a Pagan sorcerer, King's trusted advisor, you certainly have leverage to keep Pagans and Christians coexisting with minimal strife. Especially if she is willing to play along and keep her head down, rather than make a huge deal out of her paganism. I'll come back to this in the Happiness section.


Female Rolemodel:

I wouldn't worry about fumbles during the squire years. After all, every knight knows that squires, those larvae stage of true knights, are incompetents nowadays. Not like they were in the good old days, oh no. She has now been a knight for what, 4 years, so surely any squire fumble is inconsequential.

She has been dubbed a knight, presumably by the Count. Thus, the Count felt that she was good enough for the role. Sure, she might be an unpolished buffoon at court (as are many male knights), but is she holding her own in a fight? That is one of the main criteria, especially during Uther's times. Also, if she has participated in getting Excalibur, that is a huge mark in her favor right there.

Making a huge scene outside Uther's tent sounds more like a problem with understanding the game world (might have a quick chat with her and the other players about Loyalty and Honor?), and possibly a symptom of the unhappiness that you allude to. Crazy outbursts as such are part and parcel of Mallorian storytelling: just look at Lancelot how many times he flips when Guinevere gives him the cold shoulder. Big emotions are part of the medieval mindset. At the same time, disturbing the King is not the smartest of moves. :) But in this case, her gender might actually play partly to her favor by allowing the nobles to grin and shrug, pointing out that all women go crazy once a month. And partly to her disfavor, as it compromises the suitability for a woman to be a knight. I would expect that she will get fewer chances to be guarding the King's tent from now on, at least until she proves herself again. :)

And speaking of proving herself, I think you are coming up to the Battle of Lindsey, soon. Assuming she can hang on and participate in the capture of King Octa (or his banner), even if she is not the main person doing it, this would go a long way to rehabilitating her and proving that she has what it takes. Even without that, she ought to gain a big chunk of Glory from that. Gorlois' rebellion will follow, again plenty of chances to prove herself and shine her reputation.


Marriage & inheritance:

Haa, this is an easy one. :P You are too fixated to the premise that getting married would make her a 'housewife' or a non-entity. Granted, it is not the same as for male characters; my female player pointed out the same problem with the 'manor accumulation', as the eldest son inherits and she won't play a male character but the sister in the next generation. However...

Lets start with her. She has loads of glory, her own manor, is a knight by her own right, and, hopefully, is not that hard to look at (reasonable APP?)? Forget about household knights. Her estate wouldn't support two knights, so it is a no-go. She could marry 'down', by marrying an esquire steward (you know, those guys that the other knights hire to look after their estates if they are unmarried). This would just flip the gender roles: the male is the 'housewife' while the female is the adventuring knight. No problem, and since her status as a knight outranks the man's, no problem there either. Besides, she likely would pick out a guy who would be comfortable with the idea of a wife who outranks him.

The other option, 'marrying up'... Why not? She is, in effect, an heiress with her own manor. And loads of Glory. Possibly loot gained from adventuring/wars, too. Quite eligible wife candidate to vassal knights. So what if she is a knight? That means you don't have to hire another household knight, and some people would actually find a warrior woman appealing (rawr!). You would be very justified, even more so than with heiresses, to introduce knights with multiple manors of their own, who could potentially woo her or be wooed by her. No reason to shut her out of the marrying up business. And since the guy is an NPC, no reason to not make him a compatible personality with the female knight, and allowing her as the player to have a say how to run the new, bigger, common estate.

(As a quick aside here, which probably comes too late: I find those eligible ladies way way way over-endowed with lands. Especially with Greg's statement that there are like 20-25 vassal manors in Salisbury; the vast majority of knights are household knights and being a vassal knight is a BIG DEAL. But since you have already used Elaine, it is spilt milk. What you can do, however, is to point out that 'demesne manor' in this case means 'is under your direct control, but needs to produce a household knight'. That is £4 / manor, leaving £2 / manor as profit (or less, if you wish to be mean and demand separate stewards to be hired). Those enfeoffed manors mean that they already have vassal knights of their own. Demesne manor is not £6 / year extra cash that you can use as you will.)

So what about the inheritance, then? Like mentioned in the above, this can of course be a pain. Partially, it depends how easy you wish to make it for the player. You can, should you so choose, 'ensure' that the surviving children will be all girls, and conspire with the liege lord & husband to make it so that the eldest daughter gets trained as a knight, making her a 'honorary male' and thus eligible for the lot. Here are some options for that (note that in the interests of fairness, you should extend the same benefit to male characters' players):
1) You get to choose the gender of the baby. Thus, the male characters' players can have boys if they want and the female character's player can have girls in her family.
2) The 'designated heir' gets plot protection. In other words, each player can designate a heir, who will then survive, no matter what the dice say. You can only have one designated heir, of course. (I recommend doing this in any case, as part of the fun of Pendragon is the dynastic play, and nothing discourages a player, in my experience, as much as the family line getting cut. Besides, it makes the GM's task much easier, too, with spare characters waiting in the wings.)
3) Kill off the males. This doesn't require any 'concessions' to the male players, as it is simply taking children away from the female knight's family. Just have the events/dice conspire as the GM (openly so, don't hide that this is what you are doing) that whenever the dice come up with a male baby for the female character, the baby is either stillborn, or dies in childhood. Given how cruel the dice are in this regard, this would probably happen anyway. :P
4) The husband and the wife can agree that the first-born female will be trained as a knight and she will inherit the wife's manor. It is possible, at least in our campaign, for the father to split off parts of the patrimony to give to younger sons, so why not knighted daughters, too? This of course would not contribute towards the manor accumulation, though, which would leave the player's characters falling behind the wealth&power accumulation curve, which is not a good thing if you are generous with manors.

Options 1-3 would allow her to build her own dynasty, same as males. Also, you can be generous with gifted manors (which of course acerbates the problem of manor accumulation, as presumably males would get these, too) which she would control herself.


Happiness:

This is of course a biggie. The game should be enjoyable for everyone. It sounds to me that her primary source of unhappiness is that she is being denied a chance to advance her family (feeling like she is at a dead end), and the previous topic about marriage should go a long way towards remedying that. Just introduce her char to a charming, handsome knight of a couple of manors, who doesn't seem to be put off by her knightly status and paganism, and hopefully she would enjoy the opportunity. :) Or introduce a couple of knights of nice estates and differing personalities and motivations. Maybe even a knight who would otherwise be perfect, but feels that she 'should stop playing a knight and start popping out children'. And then give her an opportunity to prove her worth as a knight to this person, thus earning their (perhaps grudging) respect, which might evolve into appreciation... You no doubt know your player better, to pick what she might like to play.

As for Paganism, I don't suppose you have access to the White Horse adventure? It was in the 4th edition, and had a very nice pagan celebration of Epona, the Goddess of Horses, which gave the players a chance to get their steeds blessed. Something like that would no doubt be much to her liking, both in and out of character.


Half-brother:

The Irish kin would no doubt support Bridget, as you noted, but they would have very little clout with her paternal kin, who are the 'default' kin group of the characters. It is actually not a fight as such, merely an informal decision by the kinsmen, who is the best 'CEO' for the family. If the half-brother has a manor of his own and can offer (or at least appear to be able to offer) similar or better political patronage, etc, then the kinsmen might gravitate towards him. This would have no big impact on her personal situation - she'd still be a vassal knight with her manor and all - but it would reduce (a part of) her kinsmen number that would follow her orders/answer her call for help. The beauty of this is that you can make it as serious as you like: the family could be split half and half or any other proportion, or there might even be a duel/melee. I could easily see a family gathering, where she with her PK friends (presumably representing the allies she has to help her family in need) would square off against the half-brother and his cronies, probably with blunted swords to prevent accidental kin-slaying. Winner becomes the head of the family.

And then, if the situation changes drastically, she becomes much more famous or disgraced, the kinsmen could gravitate from one camp to the other, or even demand a new contest of champions. :)

Now, if her paternal kin are predominately pagans and upset at the half-brother for converting to Christianity, then that would make it much harder for the half-brother to pull this off.

Sir Cynrain, as the old, respected uncle and the eldest knight (and probably male) in the family would of course have a hefty vote to cast one way or the other. Since Bridget was his squire, that should prejudice him towards supporting her. The half-brother could try to sway him otherwise, and failing that, have his cronies assassinate Sir Cynrain to prevent him from speaking on Bridget's behalf at the family gathering? Solving that murder mystery (adventure!) would turn the kinsmen against the half-brother for sure, and seeing his hopes turn to ash, he might (or might not) throw himself at Bridget, his cronies following for a furious, murderous melee... I'd give the PKs an edge, or even let the kinsmen intervene if they seem to be losing, to prevent a total party wipe. Although in that case, I'd let the half-brother flee, swearing revenge. Always nice to have a recurring baddie with a personal axe to grind. :P

The father's wishes are less important, IMHO. After all, she was all of 1 or just born when he died 464, and the half-brother was like 5? Who helped the half-brother to become a knight, by the way? Interesting question there. Maybe it was even Sir Cynrain again? (Alternative way of handling the half-brother: he is actually a very good guy, just convinced that he would do a better job at being a family head than she does. She might actually agree!)


Whew. I hope that will be helpful and more than happy to continue chatting about this! :)

A minor hurdle, easily overcome? A big, central campaign plot point? Many of my answers assume the former, since your posting implied that the deck is overwhelmingly stacked against her, and she is feeling unhappy with the game.

I haven't discussed it with her at length. I'm going for minor hurdle. Or that was my target that I sometimes drift away from because... I dunno. I may plan to do one thing but during a session I often do something else because whim carries me off target.


Half-Irish background
Pagan background

The Irish thing probably isn't that important. The pagan religion is mostly only an issue because I need to specifically remind myself to put in pagan men for her to marry.


Female Rolemodel

The jousting thing was a poor example. She has a gift for fumbling intrigue and lore, and thus spreading terrible misinformation. She spread a rumor that Merlin was dead.

This has mostly been funny. (if occasionally a little frustrating for her)

Alric: "It's Merlin!"
Araimis: "Holy shit, Merlin!"
Merlin: "Yes, it I Merlin!"
Bridget: "It's the ghost of Merlin!"

Basically, she's just seen as a bit naive I suppose. There are worse things to have a reputation for.


Crazy outbursts as such are part and parcel of Mallorian storytelling

That's very true. Compared to the effects of melancholy or madness, her freakout was pretty tame.

While I was completely taken off guard by her reaction. The way the npcs actually reacted to it was, in retrospect, relatively appropriate. She apologized to the Earl later and he passed a courtesy check to not let on that he had overheard anything.


You are too fixated to the premise that getting married would make her a 'housewife' or a non-entity.

I'm not sure how I gave that impression, but that really wasn't a concern that I have. I don't expect marriage to affect her ability to adventure and be a knight.


my female player pointed out the same problem with the 'manor accumulation', as the eldest son inherits and she won't play a male character but the sister in the next generation.

That's what I'm getting at.


Lets start with her. She has loads of glory, her own manor, is a knight by her own right, and, hopefully, is not that hard to look at (reasonable APP?)?

More than reasonable.


Forget about household knights. Her estate wouldn't support two knights, so it is a no-go

Well, think about it from the house knight's perspective. Many have no opportunity to marry or have children because they cannot afford to maintain a wife. Here is a wife that can maintain herself and the family. The household knight would have to remain a household knight of course to pay for his own knighthood. I wasn't implying that the household knight would take over her manor.


She could marry 'down', by marrying an esquire steward (you know, those guys that the other knights hire to look after their estates if they are unmarried).

I think the player is more concerned with getting an actual NPC - with a name and some backstory, etc - for a husband, rather than how much land her character gets out of it. It's really me that is bothered by the inequality.


What you can do, however, is to point out that 'demesne manor' in this case means 'is under your direct control, but needs to produce a household knight'. That is £4 / manor, leaving £2 / manor as profit (or less, if you wish to be mean and demand separate stewards to be hired). Those enfeoffed manors mean that they already have vassal knights of their own. Demesne manor is not £6 / year extra cash that you can use as you will.)

Fortunately the player that married Elaine already agreed that getting £24 a year in extra income would be ridiculous. Both in and out of character he wasn't pursuing her for her land. What you describe is actually what we did. Though I'm going ret-con it slightly - I'd rather reduce Elaine's dowry specifically, without necessarily changing the definition of demesne and enfoeffed manors.


Half-brother:

Lots of good ideas there. The status of his new wife may also sway things. Currently he's a just bit more glorious she is (by dint of being a few years older mostly), but a high status wife would boost him considerably. A wealthy wife could potentially help him even more.

Going to spend some time hammering on those thoughts for a while today.


The father's wishes are less important, IMHO. After all, she was all of 1 or just born when he died 464, and the half-brother was like 5? Who helped the half-brother to become a knight, by the way? Interesting question there. Maybe it was even Sir Cynrain again?

I mistyped her father's date of death - I meant to say 484. I hadn't really decided who helped Peithen become a knight. Sir Cynrain is a good candidate for that.

The pagan religion is mostly only an issue because I need to specifically remind myself to put in pagan men for her to marry.


Why do they have to be pagan? I mean, sure, a rabid Christian wouldn't be a good match, of course, but if both are willing to compromise (Church wedding, baptized children - although not necessarily Christian upbringing) this doesn't need to be an issue. Actually, I think even the Church wedding actually came later... You don't really even need a priest in the Middle Ages for a valid marriage, just a promise of two people to one another that they intend to marry. Having witnesses is usual and helps to prove it, though.


More than reasonable [APP].

Then seriously not a problem. Men can be remarkably stupid over a pretty face, and willing to overlook a lot. Add lands into the bargain, a glorious wife, and the fact that she is a fully-trained and -able knight becomes a rather endearing eccentricity. :P

Seriously. She is starting to sound like an excellent marriage prospect for a (rich) vassal knight. Especially if she comes back from Lindsey laden with loot and Glory. If you are letting the other PKs play the marriage game, no real reason to exclude her, IMHO.



Well, think about it from the house knight's perspective. Many have no opportunity to marry or have children because they cannot afford to maintain a wife. Here is a wife that can maintain herself and the family. The household knight would have to remain a household knight of course to pay for his own knighthood. I wasn't implying that the household knight would take over her manor.


That is true, except it depends a bit how 'accurately' you track the income & expenses from the manor. You can certainly handwave it. In our campaign, this would be slightly suboptimal as a good £2 steward eats into the 'family' share of the upkeep, so having a family would constitute as an extra £1 upkeep / year. But we are fiddly like that.



Fortunately the player that married Elaine already agreed that getting £24 a year in extra income would be ridiculous. Both in and out of character he wasn't pursuing her for her land. What you describe is actually what we did. Though I'm going ret-con it slightly - I'd rather reduce Elaine's dowry specifically, without necessarily changing the definition of demesne and enfoeffed manors.


My definition IS the canonical one from Book of the Manor. I don't have it right here before me at the moment, but:
Demesne: a manor held by the knight lord himself
Enfeoffed: a manor held by a vassal knight, owing fealty to the knight lord

Greg has confirmed it in other threads where this question about definitions has come up, and has stated that the manors without any knight duties attached to them are extremely rare.



I mistyped her father's date of death - I meant to say 484. I hadn't really decided who helped Peithen become a knight. Sir Cynrain is a good candidate for that.


Ah, if the father died just recently then yes, his wishes would probably matter at least some of the kinsmen. Additional point in Bridget's favor. Of course, since the father lived that long, he may have been helping Peithen to scrape the money together to get knighted: "Here. You won't get my lands, but at least you will have a chance to win your own. Best of luck." Granted, if that happened, then he is being a bit of a dick to replay his father's Generosity by going against his wishes, but if you are making him a baddie anyway...

Then seriously not a problem. Men can be remarkably stupid over a pretty face, and willing to overlook a lot. Add lands into the bargain, a glorious wife, and the fact that she is a fully-trained and -able knight becomes a rather endearing eccentricity. :P

Seriously. She is starting to sound like an excellent marriage prospect for a (rich) vassal knight. Especially if she comes back from Lindsey laden with loot and Glory. If you are letting the other PKs play the marriage game, no real reason to exclude her, IMHO.


I know. It's a failure of execution rather than intent. I made a bunch of potential spouses but randomized their traits, rather than crafting them to be appropriate and desirable. From those traits I gave them agenda's and goals of their own... Why? I don't know!

I'm just not a very good GM really. I suck at planning, I always put too much effort into the wrong things. And then I forget to actually use what I did plan.

This post is a good example of how I get side tracked - I should have just posted the last little part about her brother, but I feel like I need to give context or background. At some point I went past context into War and Peace.

I know. It's a failure of execution rather than intent. I made a bunch of potential spouses but randomized their traits, rather than crafting them to be appropriate and desirable. From those traits I gave them agenda's and goals of their own... Why? I don't know!


So now you have a bunch of NPC knights that you can use to mess with the PKs during the Anarchy phase. Good for you! :)

No reason you can't come up with a couple NPCs who would be 'better prospects' to marry. But even then, they need not be perfect.



I'm just not a very good GM really. I suck at planning, I always put too much effort into the wrong things. And then I forget to actually use what I did plan.


Sounds like the normal session to me. :P (Just recently, I had this whole tournament planned and the players went off and did something else, missing the tournament. Oh well.)

In my opinion, as long as your players have fun and hopefully you do too, you are not a bad GM. If your players come back for more, then you are not a bag GM. Mind you, you might not be great, but so very few of us are. I know I am not. But in the end, it is getting together with friends and having some fun.

I suck at planning, too. Partly because I believe that no plan survives contact with the PKs, partly because the lack of time & inclination. I tend to sketch out broad outlines & key figures and then improvise like crazy. Or rely on old/published adventures. It has worked so far, although I am sure that my campaign pales in comparison to stuff that some better GMs get up to.

One non-Pendragon example about great planning... I have a privilege to play (very rarely, alas) with one GM, who has hundreds of NPCs from history and literature populating his early-mid 1600s France. You know, the Three Musketeers period. There are often two or more plots running at the same time, and we poor players try to scramble to keep up with it all, or at least come up ahead for ourselves and the King! :)



This post is a good example of how I get side tracked - I should have just posted the last little part about her brother, but I feel like I need to give context or background. At some point I went past context into War and Peace.


Well you did say you had a lot of questions about female knights in general, too, and I think you raised some points that would be good to take into account by any GM who has a female knight in the group. The inheritance, for instance.

One of the biggest traits a good GM has to have is the ability to improvisation. I also tended to plan out ahead for a long time, but recently I am more laid back in it. As long as I have some idea of the larger scale encounters all the details will come during play. And that may mean that the players get sidetracked because the innkeeper they were staying while travelling to their destination is a bit shifty, and they are first want to know all his secrets.

Also everything you thought they would do but they did not is always usable later on. they missed the tournament because they got sidetracked? no problem. It will take place later on. Maybe a slightly different setting, but all the small encounters and events you already have present.

As for dealing with a female knight. It is difficult and it will give some discussions as well. The same goes for a Pagan knight. Combining them together makes it even harder.

From what I am reading here you are doing good and nothing I would have done different.
As for suitable prospects for marriage: That for me is also a pain if the PKs are male. They all want her to be super hot (high APP), good with the manor stuff(stewardship). she also must be nice, smart and good at court. Dealing with this kind of wishlist is a pain. And I do not believe in perfection. Pendragon is a game to strive for that, but never gaining it. So yeah the candidates they get sometimes have all they wanted for...at least if they discount the rumors of witchcraft of course ;).

As for dealing with a female knight. It is difficult and it will give some discussions as well. The same goes for a Pagan knight. Combining them together makes it even harder.


I's day it is about as difficult as you & the player wish it to be. if you wish to get hung up on gender roles and have the women be oppressed, best to disallow female knights altogether. As being a knight already means that at least some lord believed she was equal to a man to be knighted.

Many PKs will end up standing head and shoulders above the mass of NPC knights in a few years, which will help to cement her status. And after that, once the door is opened and it is proven that a woman can be a knight, there is even less reason to discriminate against following characters. If you are worried about inheritance, you could even issue a ruling from the lord/king that from henceforth, the manor of such and such will be inhereted by the eldest female, in recognition of the great service to the realm done by Dame X. Frankly, given the anachronisms (including paganism) and the supernatural in Pendragon, historical accuracy is, in my humble opinion, one of the stupidest reasons to stomp on player enjoyment.

Sorry, went off on a bit of a rant there. :)



They all want her to be super hot (high APP), good with the manor stuff(stewardship). she also must be nice, smart and good at court.


And a big dowry and huge... tracts of land! Don't forget the huge tracts of land! :) And have a Gentlewoman bonus, too!

Such paragons of womanhood might exist now and again, but the competition will be fierce and great heroics are needed to win the fair maiden's hand. Or they can be happy with someone a bit more easily attained.

I agree with your rant. ;)
Incorporating female knights need both GM and player to be comfortable with and how they wish to play it.
The reason I find it difficult is not so much oppression of the female as that both have clear defined roles in the game. In my games ladies tend to be extremely well suited in manipulation of the male knights. Having a female PK makes means that the roles are not that clearly defined. Something I need to know before I start a game of Pendragon.

On the other note.
How could I forget the buge tracts of land. Of course they need to be rich as well. ;)

[quote]
Fortunately the player that married Elaine already agreed that getting £24 a year in extra income would be ridiculous. Both in and out of character he wasn't pursuing her for her land. What you describe is actually what we did. Though I'm going ret-con it slightly - I'd rather reduce Elaine's dowry specifically, without necessarily changing the definition of demesne and enfoeffed manors.


My definition IS the canonical one from Book of the Manor. I don't have it right here before me at the moment, but:
Demesne: a manor held by the knight lord himself
Enfeoffed: a manor held by a vassal knight, owing fealty to the knight lord


And now that I could confirm it from BotM, I find that the definition there is that demesne manor = no knight needed. So I was wrong about it being canonical in BotM. Oops. :P

That is how we have played it, though. I forget if Book of the Estate had anything to say about that? Greg's thread about the heiresses being revised makes it plain what the new 'level' should be, and he has mentioned in other threads that demesne manors (i.e. manors that produce £6 and require no knight service) should be extremely rare.