Cavalier
10-22-2015, 12:13 AM
My players and I have reached the year 500 AD as of tonight's game, so I figured I'd go over some of the more interesting things that might happen to GMs in this period as well as reflect on what my players did.
First, the players evaded the mass poisoning at St. Albans due to, in one case, being hospitalized for wounds taken while killing King Octa, and in the other case, not being notable enough to be invited. The poisoning freaked them out though, but as they had neglected to work on investigative skills, they couldn't identify a culprit. I hadn't planned for an investigation, so their failure didn't cause me too much trouble, but for GMs with more cerebral players, working out a conspirator or conspirators might make the poisoning more interesting. Perhaps the PKs could catch wind of the poisoning before it happens and race to the feast, only to arrive too late.
Second, internal dissent really hasn't been an issue since the more notable PK used the gathering of knights in 496 to cow any would-be dissenters into submission to the Countess. With the string of victories in battle and the constant advice of the PKs to not pay tribute, Salisbury is relatively internally coherent, though the recent raid by Essex will change that. Going off of the GPC alone, there isn't much in the way of plot hooks for a GM to use to play up the internal strife angle. BoW is, in my opinion, more useful for generating sources of dissent. Also, at the time my players weren't interested in internal affairs, being more drawn to adventuring and battle. Part of the problem is that I only found the material (from BoW, Greg's site, or these forums) for the motivations of the big mover and shaker, Silchester, after the players had made Levcomagus into their bitter enemy.
Third, Levcomagus presents an easily available non-Saxon foe for the players to fight, but some players may overstep the bounds of 'correct' warfare, like mine did, and attempt to solve the problem by eliminating the Steward. I've elaborated on this in other threads, so I'll just list some lessons learned. First, daggers can be thrown at foes (also axes and spears). Second, I should have had the other Salisbury knights be more outspoken in opposing the PK's decision to infiltrate Levcomagus. Third, during their escape, I should have had more determined pursuers, ones willing to cross into Salisbury to bring down the PKs.
Fourth, Cornwall. After taking an axe to any potential alliance with Silchester, the players hit on the scheme of seeking protection from a king.
A non-Saxon one. Cornwall, being closest, was chosen. The players attempted to convince Jagent to submit to Cornwall before the campaign season started, but ended up forging an alliance to fight Cornwall, and beat Idres in battle. Then Idres proposed an alliance between Cornwall and the Salisbury Allies and the PKs, tempted by gifts of land and promises of loot in a forthcoming campaign against Summerland/Somerset, agreed to be the allies of Cornwall. Since this all happened in the last few sessions, the fallout hasn't settled yet. This throws the expected progression of events in the GPC into disarray, and I'm curious to see what happens when Nanteleod shows up, or further down the line, when Arthur appears. I should note that the players ended up where they wanted to end up, but not after several twists. I should note the power of bribery here, as the PKs (and the Baron of Jagent) quickly switched the peace negotiations from 'how do we stop Cornwall from coming back next year' to 'what will Cornwall give us in exchange for us being his allies' once Idres hinted that he'd be willing to give lands to those who wanted to aid him.
Fifth, the Forest Sauvage has been a regular destination for adventure for the players. They love exploring the Forest, and getting lost often increases the fun. They've run into misplaced African wildlife, talking magpies, and more in the Forest. My advice is feel free to throw your own encounters in there. I placed three Faerie Knights at one of the old Hill Forts that the PKs came across, and one player ended up insulting one of the knights by accident. The Yellow Knight of the Hill still bears a grudge. They also had a run in with an Aquitanian knight who was a little overzealous with his Venery, and had to save him from himself (I did this as sort of a precursor of what to expect later in the game, much like Sir Lance, but for more...courtly affairs).
Sixth, and last, overall lessons learned. We went into Anarchy with both players sitting on three manors each, and they got the Countess to award them two more each (under the argument that they could more easily defend the border with Levcomagus if they had them). Then one PK gained Medbourne in Lambor for himself, and then the PK's captured and ransomed Idres and allied Salisbury with him in exchange for some land in Ascalon and Tintagel. Most (if not all) of this economic creep was my fault, as I had been a little too lenient before Anarchy with rewards from the Count and the King. In addition, one of the PKs has become nigh-undefeatable (an experienced Saxon knight is bad news for anyone else) and I can't seem to challenge him effectively (by which I mean have him not kill or maim his foe within 3-4 rounds). No cure there that I can think of, barring dragonfire or witchery.
Anarchy really tests the flexibility of the GM if the players hold positions of power. If the GM is not comfortable with amending the GPC, sometimes on the fly, then let some of the older knights survive St. Albans and hold the leadership positions in Salisbury.
The players are having a good time in Anarchy, the lawlessness allows them to try schemes that wouldn't fly with a King on the throne. They are starting to suffer the consequences too. It's been fun so far and we have ten years before Arthur arrives.
First, the players evaded the mass poisoning at St. Albans due to, in one case, being hospitalized for wounds taken while killing King Octa, and in the other case, not being notable enough to be invited. The poisoning freaked them out though, but as they had neglected to work on investigative skills, they couldn't identify a culprit. I hadn't planned for an investigation, so their failure didn't cause me too much trouble, but for GMs with more cerebral players, working out a conspirator or conspirators might make the poisoning more interesting. Perhaps the PKs could catch wind of the poisoning before it happens and race to the feast, only to arrive too late.
Second, internal dissent really hasn't been an issue since the more notable PK used the gathering of knights in 496 to cow any would-be dissenters into submission to the Countess. With the string of victories in battle and the constant advice of the PKs to not pay tribute, Salisbury is relatively internally coherent, though the recent raid by Essex will change that. Going off of the GPC alone, there isn't much in the way of plot hooks for a GM to use to play up the internal strife angle. BoW is, in my opinion, more useful for generating sources of dissent. Also, at the time my players weren't interested in internal affairs, being more drawn to adventuring and battle. Part of the problem is that I only found the material (from BoW, Greg's site, or these forums) for the motivations of the big mover and shaker, Silchester, after the players had made Levcomagus into their bitter enemy.
Third, Levcomagus presents an easily available non-Saxon foe for the players to fight, but some players may overstep the bounds of 'correct' warfare, like mine did, and attempt to solve the problem by eliminating the Steward. I've elaborated on this in other threads, so I'll just list some lessons learned. First, daggers can be thrown at foes (also axes and spears). Second, I should have had the other Salisbury knights be more outspoken in opposing the PK's decision to infiltrate Levcomagus. Third, during their escape, I should have had more determined pursuers, ones willing to cross into Salisbury to bring down the PKs.
Fourth, Cornwall. After taking an axe to any potential alliance with Silchester, the players hit on the scheme of seeking protection from a king.
A non-Saxon one. Cornwall, being closest, was chosen. The players attempted to convince Jagent to submit to Cornwall before the campaign season started, but ended up forging an alliance to fight Cornwall, and beat Idres in battle. Then Idres proposed an alliance between Cornwall and the Salisbury Allies and the PKs, tempted by gifts of land and promises of loot in a forthcoming campaign against Summerland/Somerset, agreed to be the allies of Cornwall. Since this all happened in the last few sessions, the fallout hasn't settled yet. This throws the expected progression of events in the GPC into disarray, and I'm curious to see what happens when Nanteleod shows up, or further down the line, when Arthur appears. I should note that the players ended up where they wanted to end up, but not after several twists. I should note the power of bribery here, as the PKs (and the Baron of Jagent) quickly switched the peace negotiations from 'how do we stop Cornwall from coming back next year' to 'what will Cornwall give us in exchange for us being his allies' once Idres hinted that he'd be willing to give lands to those who wanted to aid him.
Fifth, the Forest Sauvage has been a regular destination for adventure for the players. They love exploring the Forest, and getting lost often increases the fun. They've run into misplaced African wildlife, talking magpies, and more in the Forest. My advice is feel free to throw your own encounters in there. I placed three Faerie Knights at one of the old Hill Forts that the PKs came across, and one player ended up insulting one of the knights by accident. The Yellow Knight of the Hill still bears a grudge. They also had a run in with an Aquitanian knight who was a little overzealous with his Venery, and had to save him from himself (I did this as sort of a precursor of what to expect later in the game, much like Sir Lance, but for more...courtly affairs).
Sixth, and last, overall lessons learned. We went into Anarchy with both players sitting on three manors each, and they got the Countess to award them two more each (under the argument that they could more easily defend the border with Levcomagus if they had them). Then one PK gained Medbourne in Lambor for himself, and then the PK's captured and ransomed Idres and allied Salisbury with him in exchange for some land in Ascalon and Tintagel. Most (if not all) of this economic creep was my fault, as I had been a little too lenient before Anarchy with rewards from the Count and the King. In addition, one of the PKs has become nigh-undefeatable (an experienced Saxon knight is bad news for anyone else) and I can't seem to challenge him effectively (by which I mean have him not kill or maim his foe within 3-4 rounds). No cure there that I can think of, barring dragonfire or witchery.
Anarchy really tests the flexibility of the GM if the players hold positions of power. If the GM is not comfortable with amending the GPC, sometimes on the fly, then let some of the older knights survive St. Albans and hold the leadership positions in Salisbury.
The players are having a good time in Anarchy, the lawlessness allows them to try schemes that wouldn't fly with a King on the throne. They are starting to suffer the consequences too. It's been fun so far and we have ten years before Arthur arrives.