I will finally be running the GPC soon and just wanted to get a few things straight from experienced players. I've put the questions here in this forum as I felt overall they were more related to gameplay.

1. Famous Trait roles
Let's say the PKs hear a boy trapped in a well near a Fae castle and I ask them to make a Reckless trait roll (it may be a Fairy trick). For Reckless 5-15, the players have the option of not undergoing a Trait roll. However Ser Bors, with Reckless 3, must make the Trait roll. Naively I found this surprising, surely he is the most likely to be Prudent.
However am I right in saying that the reason you must roll is that Ser Bors holds himself to a much higher standard of Prudence, i.e. the typical Knight who succeeds the Reckless roll will charge in, however Ser Bors will hold back, but forget to unsheathe his sword or something similar?

2. Counts and Dukes
Is the following correct?
In the Early phase Counts and Dukes are mainly powerful Barons. However a Duke has military hegemony in a given region. A Count, as a title, is a holdover from Roman days, with no major legal differences from any other Baron.
In the Late phase, the main difference is that a Count also functions as the Sheriff of a county.
Am I missing anything, e.g. inheritance rules

3. Books
The newest economic system is in Book of the Estate (BoE) and Book of the Warlord (BoW).
On some forums I have read that you should use BoW instead of the system in BoE. However does this refer to early versions (pre v1.3) of BoE which were out of line with BoW and that both books now share the same system?

Thanks for any help.

I'm not versed on the game enough to answer 1 or 3.

For 2, my understanding is that early phase Dukes are indeed major military commanders in the kingdom (which is part of what makes Lucius's premature ascension so controversial), while Counts have a more administrative role. This can be seen by the fact that Counts tend to be hereditary and associated wit specific territories while all of the Dukes are apparently appointed by royal decree.

I will finally be running the GPC soon and just wanted to get a few things straight from experienced players. I've put the questions here in this forum as I felt overall they were more related to gameplay.


I'll do what I can. :)



1. Famous Trait roles
Let's say the PKs hear a boy trapped in a well near a Fae castle and I ask them to make a Reckless trait roll (it may be a Fairy trick). For Reckless 5-15, the players have the option of not undergoing a Trait roll. However Ser Bors, with Reckless 3, must make the Trait roll. Naively I found this surprising, surely he is the most likely to be Prudent.
However am I right in saying that the reason you must roll is that Ser Bors holds himself to a much higher standard of Prudence, i.e. the typical Knight who succeeds the Reckless roll will charge in, however Ser Bors will hold back, but forget to unsheathe his sword or something similar?


The thing with the Famous Traits is that you will have to FAIL in them in order to act counter to the Trait. So if going into that well (at least to be the first one in) is Reckless, then Sir Bors needs to fail his Prudent 17, which is functionally identical to succeeding in Reckless 3. The point is, while Reckless 10 knight may choose to be Reckless, Sir Bors cannot (normally). (There are long discussions on the forum about how this should or should not be GMed. You might wish to look around.) However, if Sir Bors succeeds in Reckless, he may act Reckless, including being the first into the Well! This will definitely result at least in a Reckless check, if not outright increase of one (I generally dislike automatic increases/decreases).

However, were I the GM, I would let Sir Bors enter the well once it seems that it is not a trap (i.e. once some guys have gone ahead to explore it at first). Or at least I would try to let him oppose his Prudent with Loyalty (Group) or some such. The thing is, it is not a good idea (IMHO) to use traits to exclude players from RP. Such as a famously prudent knight refusing to adventure since it is safer to stay at home. This would be too prudent in my opinion, unless coupled with Famous Cowardly, too. Just that the Prudent Knight would always think before rushing ahead, and try to avoid situations where he is at a disadvantage, and let the other knights take more risks.



2. Counts and Dukes
Is the following correct?
In the Early phase Counts and Dukes are mainly powerful Barons. However a Duke has military hegemony in a given region. A Count, as a title, is a holdover from Roman days, with no major legal differences from any other Baron.
In the Late phase, the main difference is that a Count also functions as the Sheriff of a county.
Am I missing anything, e.g. inheritance rules


As far as I know, Greg hasn't said anything definitive about the Dukes and the Counts in the Post-Badon periods. Assuming that 4th edition is still valid (and it might not be), it looks like Arthur is starting to hand out titles of Count like candy, while the title of a Baron becomes almost extinct (the Baron of Lambor is the only one that comes to mind right off the bat). Duke loses its regional overlord significance, and simply is a higher order of precedence than a count and generally signifies more lands (i.e. a richer honour). In 4th Edition, there were no Sheriffs (at least explicitly), so the question is not addressed.

However, it really needs to underlined that 4th edition, 5th edition and even GPC are behind the curve when it comes to the way that Greg saw the society and organization of Logres in BotW and BoU (Book of Uther). My personal feeling is that the sheriffs continue as independent royal officers, who are often counts AS WELL AS sheriffs, but that one doesn't imply the other. The distinction between a count and a duke becomes one of relative status (and possibly wealth), nothing more. There are no differences in inheritance laws.



3. Books
The newest economic system is in Book of the Estate (BoE) and Book of the Warlord (BoW).
On some forums I have read that you should use BoW instead of the system in BoE. However does this refer to early versions (pre v1.3) of BoE which were out of line with BoW and that both books now share the same system?


Your guess is correct; that caveat was referring to earlier versions of BotE.

The newest version of BotE is fully in line with BotW economics, and is much better geared towards Manor & small estate sized tinkering, as it has rules for fortifications and other buildings and investments, which are lacking from BotW. BotW is much better as an overview of the nobles and castles of Logres.

So for manorial economics, I would recommend (now) BotE, while for the castle & political information, BotW is better. It really depends what you are looking for.



Thanks for any help.

Hope this helped!

Thanks Morien and jmberry.



...However, were I the GM, I would let Sir Bors enter the well once it seems that it is not a trap (i.e. once some guys have gone ahead to explore it at first). Or at least I would try to let him oppose his Prudent with Loyalty (Group) or some such. The thing is, it is not a good idea (IMHO) to use traits to exclude players from RP. Such as a famously prudent knight refusing to adventure since it is safer to stay at home. This would be too prudent in my opinion, unless coupled with Famous Cowardly, too. Just that the Prudent Knight would always think before rushing ahead, and try to avoid situations where he is at a disadvantage, and let the other knights take more risks.
First let me say this is very helpful.


The point is, while Reckless 10 knight may choose to be Reckless, Sir Bors cannot...
Let me focus on this point.

I am convinced I am missing something here. I know if Sir Bors fails Prudent, he must still reroll to see if Reckless succeeds. Could I interpret it as follows, going sequentially (interpretation in italics):

1. Sir Bors rolls on Prudent. Prudence is instinctual to Sir Bors, where as for knights of lower Prudent value, the action to take can be a conscious choice (hence the player being allowed to decide)
2. He then fails the Prudent roll. Sir Bors's instinctual Prudence has failed him.
3. He rolls on Reckless. Does recklessness over take him?
4a. He fails the Reckless roll. It doesn't. Sir Bors does not act instinctively at all, he must make a conscious choice. (Player chooses)
4b. He succeeds the Reckless roll. In a rare slip, Sir Bors charges ahead on instinct.

My real confusion comes from 4b. A knight of Prudent 6, could always just choose to be Prudent, foregoing the roll and hence would never encounter 4b. It seems odd that Sir Bors, of even higher Prudence, can encounter it.

Is this to simulate the drama of a normally Prudent knight betraying his character/personality? And, going by Pendragon 5.2's examples, it's ameliorated by Sir Bors's recklessness in the case of 4b being more subtle in nature. E.g. He doesn't jump into the well, but does go to take a look.


Hope this helped!
Very much so! :)

Ah, I see where the disconnect is.

A) As long as the Player can CHOOSE if they wish to roll, Sir Bors' player can choose Sir Bors to be PRUDENT. But he CANNOT choose to be Reckless without rolling, since he is Famously Prudent. So as long as other players get to choose, Bors is always Prudent, unless he fails Prudent due to the Player wanting to roll.

B) If EVERYONE has to roll, then sure, Sir Bors rolls as well. But he is much more likely to still be Prudent than someone with Prudent of 6.

So:
Sir Bors Prudent 17
Sir Hotspur Prudent 5

Situation A: The players can choose whether or not to roll. Both players can choose to be Prudent (Famous Trait for Sir Bors) without rolling. Sir Hotsput can choose to be Reckless, but Sir Bors cannot, without failing his Prudent.

Situation B: The GM requires everyone to roll. Both knights wish to be Prudent, so they roll that first. Sir Hotspur has 25% chance of making it (Prudent 5), while Sir Bors has 85% chance of succeeding to be Prudent. Chances are that Sir Bors is Prudent and Sir Hotspur is Reckless.

As far as I know, Greg hasn't said anything definitive about the Dukes and the Counts in the Post-Badon periods. Assuming that 4th edition is still valid (and it might not be), it looks like Arthur is starting to hand out titles of Count like candy, while the title of a Baron becomes almost extinct (the Baron of Lambor is the only one that comes to mind right off the bat). Duke loses its regional overlord significance, and simply is a higher order of precedence than a count and generally signifies more lands (i.e. a richer honour). In 4th Edition, there were no Sheriffs (at least explicitly), so the question is not addressed.

For the record, my own personal interpretation is that Arthur consolidated the kingdom after the Roman War - tens of counts are easier to manage than hundreds of barons, after all. I mainly did this so that I could still use the county write-ups from the 4th ed book, with the justification that Arthur either rewarded war heroes (Hervis) or granted de jure recognition to de facto status (Jonathel). Also, Ck2 has taught me that vassals tend to get antsy when the king hogs all the titles :).

I did decrease the number of actual counts and dukes, with the metric of removing any guy I couldn't find in Arthurian literature. For the record, that means Hervis (Anglia), Sanam (Bedegraine), Galegantis (Clarence), Jonathel (Dorset), Bleoberis (Essex), Gilbert (Hertford), Kynniarc (Kent), Derfel (Lindsey), Boso (Rydychan), Ulfius (Silchester), Celyn (Sussex), and Artgualchar (Wuerensis) made the cut, along with Robert (Salisbury), but Dafydd of Huntigton and Macsen of Lonazep join Garmon of Brun, Blamore of Lambor, Uffo of Silchester, and Meilyr of Tribruit in being barons.

Thanks again Morien!


Ah, I see where the disconnect is.

A) As long as the Player can CHOOSE if they wish to roll, Sir Bors' player can choose Sir Bors to be PRUDENT. But he CANNOT choose to be Reckless without rolling, since he is Famously Prudent. So as long as other players get to choose, Bors is always Prudent, unless he fails Prudent due to the Player wanting to roll.

B) If EVERYONE has to roll, then sure, Sir Bors rolls as well. But he is much more likely to still be Prudent than someone with Prudent of 6.

So:
Sir Bors Prudent 17
Sir Hotspur Prudent 5

Situation A: The players can choose whether or not to roll. Both players can choose to be Prudent (Famous Trait for Sir Bors) without rolling. Sir Hotsput can choose to be Reckless, but Sir Bors cannot, without failing his Prudent.

Situation B: The GM requires everyone to roll. Both knights wish to be Prudent, so they roll that first. Sir Hotspur has 25% chance of making it (Prudent 5), while Sir Bors has 85% chance of succeeding to be Prudent. Chances are that Sir Bors is Prudent and Sir Hotspur is Reckless.
This makes perfect sense to me. I'm just confused when reading Pendragon 5.2:


Traits and Passions between 5 and 15 do not have to be rolled against if the player wishes to use his free will to determine an action

This to me, reads as if Situation A cannot happen for Sir Bors. Or at least that he equally cannot choose to be Reckless or Prudent (<5 and >15 cases) and must roll in either case. Only values between 5 and 15 have Situation A open to them. It reads as if Sir Bors cannot even choose to be Prudent, he must roll.

Again your system is totally logical, but is it the RAW rules?

(It is most likely that they are the RAW rules and that I am just being overly literal or dense! :))

For the record, my own personal interpretation is that Arthur consolidated the kingdom after the Roman War - tens of counts are easier to manage than hundreds of barons, after all. I mainly did this so that I could still use the county write-ups from the 4th ed book, with the justification that Arthur either rewarded war heroes (Hervis) or granted de jure recognition to de facto status (Jonathel). Also, Ck2 has taught me that vassals tend to get antsy when the king hogs all the titles :).

I did decrease the number of actual counts and dukes, with the metric of removing any guy I couldn't find in Arthurian literature. For the record, that means Hervis (Anglia), Sanam (Bedegraine), Galegantis (Clarence), Jonathel (Dorset), Bleoberis (Essex), Gilbert (Hertford), Kynniarc (Kent), Derfel (Lindsey), Boso (Rydychan), Ulfius (Silchester), Celyn (Sussex), and Artgualchar (Wuerensis) made the cut, along with Robert (Salisbury), but Dafydd of Huntigton and Macsen of Lonazep join Garmon of Brun, Blamore of Lambor, Uffo of Silchester, and Meilyr of Tribruit in being barons.

Wait, what? Jmberry, are you referring to your home game or is this a more official comment on KAP BoU/W+ period? Because I can totally see doing a post-KAP 5.2 cleanup on the later time-periods as things move toward a 6.0 version.

Regardless, your reconciliation looks reasonable, though I get really puzzled that Corneus' heir ends up as nephew Derfel (508) when Lucas (the Butler) was supposedly the duke's son! Maybe this is an instance where the succession of holdings differs from ducal title? Confusing.... (As things stand now I'm pondering having Lucas considered ineligible by the church for <reasons>, who throw their repressed weight behind Derfel and Lucas just doesn't care to contest things--much to Arthur's thanks!)

And yes, Arthur with his generosity would restructure all those titles away. After defeating the revolts and Badon he'd have serious bonuses against RevoltRisk, but that would wear off after 10 years. Vassals are fickle. /CK2

--Khanwulf

Wait, what? Jmberry, are you referring to your home game or is this a more official comment on KAP BoU/W+ period? Because I can totally see doing a post-KAP 5.2 cleanup on the later time-periods as things move toward a 6.0 version.

Regardless, your reconciliation looks reasonable, though I get really puzzled that Corneus' heir ends up as nephew Derfel (508) when Lucas (the Butler) was supposedly the duke's son! Maybe this is an instance where the succession of holdings differs from ducal title? Confusing.... (As things stand now I'm pondering having Lucas considered ineligible by the church for <reasons>, who throw their repressed weight behind Derfel and Lucas just doesn't care to contest things--much to Arthur's thanks!)

And yes, Arthur with his generosity would restructure all those titles away. After defeating the revolts and Badon he'd have serious bonuses against RevoltRisk, but that would wear off after 10 years. Vassals are fickle. /CK2

--Khanwulf
Home game. I have no authority with the game's direction, obviously :)

Thanks again Morien!


This makes perfect sense to me. I'm just confused when reading Pendragon 5.2:



This to me, reads as if Situation A cannot happen for Sir Bors. Or at least that he equally cannot choose to be Reckless or Prudent (<5 and >15 cases) and must roll in either case. Only values between 5 and 15 have Situation A open to them. It reads as if Sir Bors cannot even choose to be Prudent, he must roll.

Again your system is totally logical, but is it the RAW rules?

(It is most likely that they are the RAW rules and that I am just being overly literal or dense! :))

Part of the confusion might be from the specific example - if the knights fell it is a trap, I personally would ask for a contested Prudent (It's a trap!)/ Valor (An innocent may be in danger - we can't second guess ourselves!) roll. Reckless would only factor in if they forgo the roll and charge in without heeding any warnings, and that would be a simple Reckless check.

This to me, reads as if Situation A cannot happen for Sir Bors. Or at least that he equally cannot choose to be Reckless or Prudent (<5 and >15 cases) and must roll in either case. Only values between 5 and 15 have Situation A open to them. It reads as if Sir Bors cannot even choose to be Prudent, he must roll.


It also says this in the Famous Trait description:
"This does not mean that trait rolls must be used when-
ever the character makes any decision in the game. And
even characters with famous characteristics are allowed
free choice of behavior except when the plot demands
otherwise. The Gamemaster should request trait rolls only
when a trait is tested in an important situation. In general,
trait rolls simulate situations in which a crisis forces the
character to act unconsciously."

However, the Forum consensus has been that if you get your Trait up to 16+, then you will have to act consistently like it. You get the glory for it, you have to act it. That's the deal. So that is where the rolling system comes from, if you want to go AGAINST your trait. As long as you act according to it, not a problem.

Otherwise, as you correctly pointed out, you will end up in a situation where Prudent 5 character can be more consistently prudent than a Prudent 19 character, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Thanks Morien, it all makes sense now!

I'll be back shortly after I finish BotE and BotW.

Okay finished BotW and BotE, so next a bit of an attempt at understanding Nobility and Holdings in the Uther period, as well as Liege Lords for player characters. Some of the questions aren't too relevant to actual play, more out of interest.

If I am right:

1. An estate is a collection of manors and other holdings worth at least £30

2. An estate of £50 can field an eschille, a standard military unit

3. There are two meanings to the word Baron. Firstly, somebody whose lord is directly the king. Secondly, somebody who holds their land "by barony" from the King, where "By Barony" means rendering extra services like sitting on the King's council. Obviously to be of the second type, you have to be of the first. Those who are only the first type I will refer to as Minor Barons, per BotW.
In either case the holdings of a Baron are known as an honour when treated as one. (Thanks for the British/American spelling split!)
Minimum holding size for Minor Baron is £60.

4. Holding land "by barony" is only possible for estates >= £100.

5. Later (during Arthur's reign) there is a type of Minor Baron called a Banneret Knight, where Arthur grants a knight a single estate for military service.

6. A Count is just a Baron with much more land than usual, where that land is an historically recognised claim/has historical precedent. Such as Roderick's lands going back to Roman patrician holdings (I think) and in Cadwy's case due to previously being the king of the Summerlands.

7. A Duke is a Baron who can function as a military leader in times of war, i.e. in war Barons must respond to his commands, even though he is not their lord.

So here are the questions (they are pedantic, but this reflects interest, not problem finding, I promise!):

1. In BotE, "by barony" is defined in the Glossary as "sufficient to field one eschille". Considering "by barony" holdings are only possible at £100, which should be able to field two eschilles, why only one? Is this to indicate that although the land is worth £100, should it fall on hard times, it is only required to be able to field one. i.e. One does not have to render the maximum possible eschilles.
Inversely somebody with a £50 estate is not required to field an eschille, even though he may theoretically be capable of it, as he does not hold land "by barony"

2. Do estates need to be contiguous? I know an honour need not be.

3. Salisbury has three Barons. Roderick, Duach (Wereside) and Dilwyn (Ambrius Abbey). Where is Duach's territory? I can't see Wereside in Salisbury.

4. In the GPC or the Uther expansion, I assume when it says Court without specifying which Court (e.g. 480), it's the Royal court.

5. I'm going to use BoB's battle rules. Is this wise. Should you begin with the core's and then move to BoB's later?

I am a fool! Ignore question 3, no sooner do I post than I open up BotW and it's marked out on the map on p.22!

Okay finished BotW and BotE, so next a bit of an attempt at understanding Nobility and Holdings in the Uther period, as well as Liege Lords for player characters. Some of the questions aren't too relevant to actual play, more out of interest.

If I am right:

1. An estate is a collection of manors and other holdings worth at least £30


... that has been declared to be an estate by the King. Otherwise, it is simply a collection of unconnected manors. One big thing is that an estate cannot be split between heirs, separate manors can.



2. An estate of £50 can field an eschille, a standard military unit


Nope. A standard eschille is 10 knights, and the servitum debitum is 1 knight per £10 land, so 1 eschille = 10 knights = £100 land.



3. There are two meanings to the word Baron. Firstly, somebody whose lord is directly the king. Secondly, somebody who holds their land "by barony" from the King, where "By Barony" means rendering extra services like sitting on the King's council. Obviously to be of the second type, you have to be of the first. Those who are only the first type I will refer to as Minor Barons, per BotW.
In either case the holdings of a Baron are known as an honour when treated as one. (Thanks for the British/American spelling split!)
Minimum holding size for Minor Baron is £60.


I'd have to check the wording, but I always thought that baron = land is held by barony. A vassal knight directly under the king is still a knight, not a baron. Although he would get extra Glory for being a king's vassal.



4. Holding land "by barony" is only possible for estates >= £100.

5. Later (during Arthur's reign) there is a type of Minor Baron called a Banneret Knight, where Arthur grants a knight a single estate for military service.

6. A Count is just a Baron with much more land than usual, where that land is an historically recognised claim/has historical precedent. Such as Roderick's lands going back to Roman patrician holdings (I think) and in Cadwy's case due to previously being the king of the Summerlands.

7. A Duke is a Baron who can function as a military leader in times of war, i.e. in war Barons must respond to his commands, even though he is not their lord.


These are correct, IIRC.



So here are the questions (they are pedantic, but this reflects interest, not problem finding, I promise!):

1. In BotE, "by barony" is defined in the Glossary as "sufficient to field one eschille". Considering "by barony" holdings are only possible at £100, which should be able to field two eschilles, why only one? Is this to indicate that although the land is worth £100, should it fall on hard times, it is only required to be able to field one. i.e. One does not have to render the maximum possible eschilles.
Inversely somebody with a £50 estate is not required to field an eschille, even though he may theoretically be capable of it, as he does not hold land "by barony"


See earlier answer. :)



2. Do estates need to be contiguous? I know an honour need not be.


Nope, but to keep things simple in BotE, only contiguous estates were considered. I thought it actually said this in the book?



3. Salisbury has three Barons. Roderick, Duach (Wereside) and Dilwyn (Ambrius Abbey). Where is Duach's territory? I can't see Wereside in Salisbury.


You already found an answer to this. :)



4. In the GPC or the Uther expansion, I assume when it says Court without specifying which Court (e.g. 480), it's the Royal court.


Yep, except during the Anarchy, it is Salisbury Court.



5. I'm going to use BoB's battle rules. Is this wise. Should you begin with the core's and then move to BoB's later?

I am not the best guy to comment, since I have not used BoB rules in game and find them way, way too complicated. (I admit, possibly because of my inexperience with them.) The extended melee rules give an opportunity to rules-lawyering and insane glory rewards. Also, I find the army/enemy lists unbalanced in the extreme. If you search the forum, you should be able to come up with threads where people have already commented on the BoB rules.

My take: Use the KAP 5.2 rules, come up with ONE good extended melee situation (enemy leader, banner, famous enemy knight, own liege in trouble, etc...), and you have more than enough to make the fight memorable.

...

My take: Use the KAP 5.2 rules, come up with ONE good extended melee situation (enemy leader, banner, famous enemy knight, own liege in trouble, etc...), and you have more than enough to make the fight memorable.

I am with Morien here, except I will use BoB for the large battles. I usually will the have the battle already detailed in all but the PK's unit. I then just deal with that one unit modifying the overall battle results based on what they do or don't do. Usually, I find it complicated so don't use it on the fly.

Morien answered all the others, so I will only answer the last one.

I use the BoB (2nd ed) only with the large battles that are scripted in the GPC. As Hzark10 says, you can write out the battle and only focus on the part of the PKs unit (assuming they go in as one unit). I do not use them on the fly as they are too complecated.

As for the extended round rules. These I use only in case of scripted events during a battle (for instance trying to safe Prince Madoc and meeting Duke Gorlois on the battlefield in the Battle at Terrabil).

Since the rules are complex (and hence have a steep learning curve) it is wise to read it through several times and at times just wing it.
One thing I have adjust quit a lot is the rule on battle events changing the Army intensity (AI) randomly. Since I use it for the scripted battles I decide what the change in Army intesity is. So a battle that goes badly the AI will increase slowly and the actions of the players may change that a bit.

There is also a lot of bookkeeping involved with these rules and if you are not into that you may not wish to use it.
But aside from these drawbacks I have noticed that the battles become more interesting after awhile. Especially the fact that the PKs can use maneuvers that will adjust the battle is cool.

... that has been declared to be an estate by the King. Otherwise, it is simply a collection of unconnected manors. One big thing is that an estate cannot be split between heirs, separate manors can.
I hadn't appreciated the part in bold, thanks.


Nope. A standard eschille is 10 knights, and the servitum debitum is 1 knight per £10 land, so 1 eschille = 10 knights = £100 land.
Went reading again to follow up on this.
BotE p.25 mentions the army of a lord with £50 or more per year is an eschille and that it can have as little as five knights.
However, BotW p.43 does say that an eschille has ten or so mounted men and that an estate of £300 can field three eschille.

In many of the examples through out the books, your number of ten seems to be assumed (e.g. Logres has 261 eschilles and 2,610 knights, BotW p.38)

So perhaps an inconsistency? Or does estate assume that less knights means more foot soldiers so it still requires £100?


I'd have to check the wording, but I always thought that baron = land is held by barony.
My reasoning comes from BotE p.1, where a Minor Baron can have land worth £60, which is beneath the "by barony" threshold.

We also have:

If the king grants an estate, the recipient is promoted to the rank of baron


Nope, but to keep things simple in BotE, only contiguous estates were considered. I thought it actually said this in the book?
Just done another search and can't find it, but it is stated in BoU p.71


Yep, except during the Anarchy, it is Salisbury Court.
Never even thought to ask that, thanks!

Thanks Morien!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Morien, Hzark10 and Cornelius for your comments on BoB. I'll have a proper read to see if I'll use it for major GPC battles. The first candidate being "The Battle of Salisbury" in 480. In other cases Morien's system sounds good and depending on complexity I may use it for even the GPC battles.
I'll read the other forum threads on the BoB

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minor question, is there any in-game historical reason the King of Logres isn't on the Supreme Collegium? The Caledonian and Cumbrian kings are.

I think someone just took Nennius's 24 cities and made a pseudo-Parliament out of it, so the only kings who would be on it would be kings who map to those cities - although, technically, the bulk of members are sworn to the King of Logres anyway, giving him considerable influence even without a seat.

Went reading again to follow up on this.
BotE p.25 mentions the army of a lord with £50 or more per year is an eschille and that it can have as little as five knights.
However, BotW p.43 does say that an eschille has ten or so mounted men and that an estate of £300 can field three eschille.

In many of the examples through out the books, your number of ten seems to be assumed (e.g. Logres has 261 eschilles and 2,610 knights, BotW p.38)

So perhaps an inconsistency? Or does estate assume that less knights means more foot soldiers so it still requires £100?


Ah, it is more of an inconsistency of the term 'eschille'. It essentially just means 'a group of knights who train together and act as a unit in the battlefield'. The size of the eschille is typically 10, but can be as low as 5 (smaller than that, they are not enough to support one another against bigger eschilles) or as large as 15 or so (larger than that gets cumbersome, and split into two eschilles).

So, when BotW speaks of eschilles, it generally refers to the standard eschille of 10. However, BotE is referring to a 'short eschille' of 5 knights, which is what £50 estate would support. It makes sense that they would form a unit under their liege lord, the estate holder. It would be likely, in my mind, that the estate holder's liege lord would add some other vassal knights or household knights to round that group up to a nice 10 knight group on the battlefield, but yeah, technically the 5 knights would already be an (short) eschille.

To summarize:
£50 estate = 5-knight short eschille.
£100 estate / honour = 10-knight standard eschille.
£230 honour = 13-knight large eschille + 10-knight standard eschille.
Each of these would also bring 2 foot soldiers per knight to the party.

The point is, the £50 estate is NOT fielding the same size of n army as the £100 honour, even though both would be called an 'eschille'.



Minor question, is there any in-game historical reason the King of Logres isn't on the Supreme Collegium? The Caledonian and Cumbrian kings are.

In-game? King of Logres didn't exist when the Supreme Collegium was first called up, it was just part of the Roman provinces of Britain not already ruled over by other tribal kings. It became the personal kingdom of the High King of Britain.

Also, note that in BoU, the Supreme Collegium is changed significantly from the write-up of GPC: it is the clergymen who hold the vote in most of Logres, not the nobles. Which helps to explain why the irreverent, wenching Uther is having trouble getting himself elected as the High King. The discrepancy between the disunited, local Celtic church and the centralized Roman church also helps to explain why in Logres the Roman Church has managed to hold onto their votes, while predominantly Pagan or Celtic Church lands the local king usually holds the right to vote.

jmberry is right as to the geographical origins of the Supreme Collegium, as far as I know. The someone would be Greg himself. :)

Thanks, that's perfect!



In-game?

Silly phrasing on my part, I meant "within the game's history". Pointless distinction of me to make though as there was no Collegium in real life!

Lastly, I am just wondering about the year structure.

KAP 5.2 has Easter Feast or Spring Court and GPC has Easter Court. I assume these are all the same, the Royal Court occurring in Easter (Salisbury during the Anarchy). Or can Easter Feast be a feast at Sarum (KAP 5.2 says PKs can report to their lord for the Easter Feast) and Easter Court is the royal court.

Since there is a Sarum Christmas court and a royal Christmas court how have many of you played it. Knights stay at home all Winter (no Christmas court), go to Sarum court or attend with Roderick at royal court? Would Roderick often go to the royal court at Christmas?

Also, is pre-Spring Court a good time for mini-adventures like those in "The Marraige of Count Roderick"?

Thanks, that's perfect!
Silly phrasing on my part, I meant "within the game's history". Pointless distinction of me to make though as there was no Collegium in real life!


It was rhetorical. "Oh, in-game, not the actual reason why it was written like this?" :)



Lastly, I am just wondering about the year structure.

KAP 5.2 has Easter Feast or Spring Court and GPC has Easter Court. I assume these are all the same, the Royal Court occurring in Easter (Salisbury during the Anarchy). Or can Easter Feast be a feast at Sarum (KAP 5.2 says PKs can report to their lord for the Easter Feast) and Easter Court is the royal court.

Since there is a Sarum Christmas court and a royal Christmas court how have many of you played it. Knights stay at home all Winter (no Christmas court), go to Sarum court or attend with Roderick at royal court? Would Roderick often go to the royal court at Christmas?


IMHO, knights would attend to their local lords. If the King has summoned his barons, the barons would obviously attend (their wives would likely be hosting the local shindig); otherwise I would expect that only the close-by barons would attend wherever the King has deigned to stay for the Christmas.

This explains, IMHO, nicely why Roderick is there to present the Sword of Victory to Uther (he had a gift to the King), while many of the other barons were absent (Duke of Lindsey amongst them) and needed to be convinced afterwards.



Also, is pre-Spring Court a good time for mini-adventures like those in "The Marraige of Count Roderick"?

Wherever you can fit them, I say. If you have a slow summer season for the year (i.e. no campaigning/war, no long trips planned), use it there?

Cheers Morien, you've really been a great help.

Cheers Morien, you've really been a great help.

Happy to help. :)

Just to add that obviously the barons who are attending the King would have an entourage of their knights with them. Thus, Roderick could pick whichever knights he wants to come with him.

Just finished our first session. Spent hours on the Winter Court in 479 where the players are knighted. Roderick's Court alone has provided enough characters, when filled in with detail from BotE, BotW and BotEnt, to almost function as a soap opera! I don't think we've ever roleplayed in the literal sense as much in any previous RPG. Fantastic Game.

Four questions moving into 480.

Is Aurelius stated anywhere? Just to get a handle on his personality.

Was Vortigern Uther and Aurelius's maternal or paternal uncle (e.g. was he Constantin's brother?)

What literally is a court? I know this sounds basic, but I just want to be sure. When a lord's household is open to visiting at some holding? How long does this last? i.e. is court open for a week or so? Of course for most lords this will be the same holding, the caput major. I also know those who accompany him at court are known as his court.

Arthur tends to hold his Court at the Pentecost, where as Uther holds his at Easter. Hence in the Uther period you have the Royal Easter Court and the local (Roderick's) court at Easter. This means both a Roderick and Uther court at Spring and Christmas, do you tend to have the knights at only one each season or both?

Was Vortigern Uther and Aurelius's maternal or paternal uncle (e.g. was he Constantin's brother?)




There's no mention of Vortigern being related to the Pendragon family in the source material, as far as I know - in Geoffrey of Monmouth, he's simply a powerful nobleman who was cunning enough to manipulate Constans - and later, Constans' Pictish bodyguard. Constantin was from Brittany, but there's no suggestion that Vortigern came from there - so if he was family, he would have most likely been related to Constantin's queen. There's no hint even of that in Geoffrey, though, to the best of my knowledge. (One Welsh genealogy claims that Vortigern's first wife - the one before Rowena, and presumably the one who bore him Vortimer, Pascent, and Catigern - was the daughter of Magnus Maximus/Macsen Wledig, and Vortigern could have exploited having such an illustrious father-in -law in his rise to power.)

Oh I should have mentioned this is within Pendragon canon where he is their uncle (Pendragon 5.2 p.39).

Thanks for the information on the Welsh genealogies, it's incredible with all the detail they have on these characters you'd wonder what was the historical basis.

Vortigern-Sevira connection:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_of_Eliseg

This makes Vortigern the uncle-in-law of Constantin's sons, via a marriage to Constantin's sister, Sevira. This is what 'uncle' in KAP 5.2 is referring to.

Ah perfect!

By the way, you were right about Barons, BotW p.17 says that to be a Baron you must hold land per baronium, any other direct vassal of the king is just a tenant-in-chief.

Scratch the final question above, it's over pedantic. As stated already, the knights most likely go where Roderick goes and at Easter that tends to be the Royal Court, rather than his own.

Is Aurelius stated anywhere? Just to get a handle on his personality.



Aurelius is not statted anywhere, sadly, but we can extrapolate somewhat: he's referred to as "moderate in all his ways", which in context I take to mean he had a high Prudence and was not given over to the intemperance and lusts that Gildas otherwise complains about in his sermon. He was as close as you'd get to a Roman patrician at the time, perhaps a commander originally of Roman cavalry in Armorica/Brittany/Gaul--he certainly had a reputation as a competent commander, a man of self-control and purpose, and one with enough clout and claim to seriously threaten Vortigern's hold on a shaken Britain.

Once he arrived, he was enough of a threat that Vortigern first attempted to bribe him by unilaterally making him King of Logres (or, depending on sources, someplace else in the west)--which apparently he had some claim to anyway from, perhaps, old Roman province rulership in his family. For reference: Vortigern's land and claims appear to cover the region of the later Kingdom of Powys, plus some. Bribing Ambrosius didn't work and he remained dedicated to deposing Vortigern and avenging his family. He succeeded in penning much of Vortigern's army in Caer Leon, while the High King himself retreated with his personal troops to a new, impenetrable fortress.

Ambrosius avoided major loss of life in capturing Caer Leon by offering a magnanimous surrender versus threatening the city with destruction once he got his siege equipment in place. He then leisurely built said equipment in full view of the defenders, and they capitulated as he was getting ready to use them. Afterwards, there was about a year in which he traveled the length and breadth of Britain confirming oaths from his new vassals; I read this as collecting their ransoms and oaths, since some would have been captured at Caer Leon.

Then he returned to a (still, by Uther I assume) besieged Vortigern and ultimately burned him alive in his castle. The Council of Britain met and unanimously confirmed him as High King, and THEN he gathered the army of Britain and challenged Hengest.

After defeating Hengest (which was a close thing, accomplished only thanks to additional cavalry reinforcements mid-battle, arriving from the Continent), [Count] Eldol was sufficiently worried that he would release the captured Saxon Chief, that he argued with Ambrosius to be able to execute Hengest. Afterwards the Saxons were permitted to retire to the "uninhabited [by Britons] part of the island"--presumably with some kind of imposed baptism.

Ambrosius went to London, wept at the state of Britain's cities and swore to rebuild them, and spent some time re-establishing the laws and customs of the land. We can assume this represents a re-imposition of Roman law and custom, versus what of indigenous Celtic custom had crept in during previous decades. He settled festering land issues between the nobles, appointed Dukes (who were not hereditary at the time), and in KAP introduced the practice of Homage and formal knighting. Apparently this was his idea, practiced in Gaul.

He cared enough about the remembrance of Britain's noble dead that he had Uther and Merlin bring the Giant's Dance (or, Stonehenge) over from Ireland to memorialize the Treachery of the Long Knives, and cared enough about his enemies' dead to ensure they were properly interred according to their own customs.

While after Hengest he tended to have trouble in battle, the picture that emerges from all this is a person who cared deeply about the people, wished to avoid strife, but wasn't afraid to take action. He led well because he acts wisely and prudently, and relied on systems and the underworks of society to support his rule over the kind of heroic cult-of-personality that Uther adopted.

All this underscored Gildas' point that Ambrosius was the "last of the Romans". Within KAP Ambrosius could be looked at as a kind of proto-Arthur; the Arthur that came too early and Britain was not quite ready for him. Apparently it needed an extended anarchy period to fully accept the reforms Arthur brings. Within actual history, Ambrosius may have actually been Arthur.

--Khanwulf

Aurelius is in the Book of Sires. He, and his brother Uther, fled to Brittany when Constans was killed and Vortigern seized power. While there, he learned the fighting techniques of the Visigoths, the Romans, the Cymri, and others. He did not pursue the crown in Britain until Vortimer was killed. During Vortigern's years of power, many fled to Brittany to escape his tyranny and with Vortimer's death, there was no one else to help his people. Thus, he raised a mighty army and returned.

The entire story is told therein.

Aurelius is in the Book of Sires. He, and his brother Uther, fled to Brittany when Constans was killed and Vortigern seized power. While there, he learned the fighting techniques of the Visigoths, the Romans, the Cymri, and others. He did not pursue the crown in Britain until Vortimer was killed. During Vortigern's years of power, many fled to Brittany to escape his tyranny and with Vortimer's death, there was no one else to help his people. Thus, he raised a mighty army and returned.

The entire story is told therein.

To the best of my knowledge the Book of Sires is not yet released. If I'm wrong, please correct so I can go buy it.

That said, our versions are in general agreement I think.

Thanks,
--Khanwulf

To the best of my knowledge the Book of Sires is not yet released. If I'm wrong, please correct so I can go buy it.

That said, our versions are in general agreement I think.

Thanks,
--Khanwulf

Correct, it is in editing phase. If things go according to plan, next year.
Overall, yes, pretty much in agreement. Some differences, but will have to wait until final edits are done.

We just cleared the Book of Uther! On to the main GPC book, what a game!