I have had one or 2 complaints that the person with the highest glory is always leader and most respect etc, etc. I say well that?s the point.

Now to be fair this gap hasn?t been caused by greater heroics or acts of valour, but getting married to the right women.

Now as they are doing most of the quests together, without being unfair how do I help these guys catch up, or is it just tough.

Perhaps the one with the greatest Glory need not automatically be the leader? Consider a landless knight. He may be the most glorious man in the realm, but he will still not be put in charge of the king's army. Glory and rank is not the same (although, yes, they are connected).

What are the other characters good at? Make their special strengths the focus of a few sessions.

What do the other characters' players enjoy? If they want to be leaders at times, then make them leaders for various expeditions or whatever. Perhaps their lord recognizes that they are unfairly placed in the shadow of their more glkorious comrade, and wants to give them opportunities to shine. You can come up with reasons.

All that said, Pendragon is a most unfair game. It really is.

They should really sympathise with Sir Palomides then. I guess they have to work harder than the leader, go for a better marriage, make sure THEY land the killing blow on the Wyrm, impress others with their Passions, etc

Also don't forget, the most glorious gets to fight the toughest foe. It is not always a benefit to lead, let him be the one to get double-teamed.
Isaac

Do not forget that a courteous knight will in most cases let a younger knight seek to earn glory before himself. A Glorious knight who is VERY courteous may need to make a roll or allow the younger knight to GO FIRST so to speak. Also the glorious knight would recieve a modest check for doing that. But lets face it...... Would General Patton have followed his private? would de gaul have followed his seargant? The most glorious is still running the world even today. That is the way of the world. It makes complete sense. Lancelot does not have an OVERABUNDANCE of land. There are scores of men who hold far more land. But they ALL know to give Lancelot his right of way. He is Glorious. Land is MOney. Period. Glory is intangible respect. AWESOME! 8)

I have had one or 2 complaints that the person with the highest glory is always leader and most respect etc, etc. I say well that?s the point.
Now to be fair this gap hasn?t been caused by greater heroics or acts of valour, but getting married to the right women.
Now as they are doing most of the quests together, without being unfair how do I help these guys catch up, or is it just tough.


As has been said, this is not about equality or fairness. Glory from land is somehow inerior to Glory gained by adventure? Nah, sorry. Glory = Glory, whatever it sources (though do see my notes on the site about some revisions I'd make to the published system).

HOWEVER, in fact it is not necessarily the most glory who leads. It is, officially, the highest ranking noble who leads. That 19-year-old "early" knight with a Battle skill of 10 is the leader, when Sir Ex is present with 30,000 Glory? Yep, if he pushes it. And, oddly, no one would complain because that's the way it is. God and Nature have put him in the leadership seat by virtue of his birth. That's the way it is

Of course, the wet behind the ears young man may wisely defer his judgement to Sir Ex's advice (check Prudent). But he doesn't have to.

All other things being equal, the knight with the most Glory leads.

--g

Hello everyone.

To come back to the original question, of how to handle this in play...

In the first instance, as noted, it's part of the (escalation-timeline) setting, so to an extent at least, people should be encouraged to "get with the medieval programme".

Setting realism doesn't always correspond to a happy group dynamic, of course. If this becomes a real impediment, there's the option to retire the character. After all, the rules note that a vassal knight has "won the game", and for someone marrying into a still-greater holding this is even more true.

A middle course would be to suggest that the player with the landed knight generate multiple characters (often a good idea in any case), giving them the option of not having to be the leader all of the time. After all, that knight has other "commitments", so may not always be free to go on adventures at the drop of a hat.

In our campaign, we've just flipped out glorious characters. After a good long run of leading the glory stakes, the good Earl Orwaine has retired from active adventuring. (Glory 13,000+) He has lead from at least 8-9 years and therefore many story arc's played out around him as well as the decisions came from him. But with him retired, his good friend Sisbert glory 5-6k, is now our band's leader with my new young knight Bermayne, second son of Sir Cassius, playing the follower. When playing through the GPC, it should evolve that the players generally take turns leading over the course of the campaign, so I really don't see a problem with glory leading.

Players do take turns leading. One player will have the mostglorious knight , then die or retire and that same player obviously will have to roll up a new knight, so is sure NOT to lead again. One of the other players will obviously. Im not sure why this is such a problem...unless the current leader is an idiot and is getting everyone into trouble or something. Otherwise it is just a little bit of ego.... hmmm... right?