I want to begin running the GPC for a friend. I understand that the campaign is very difficult and am wondering if it's a bad idea to run it for a single PK. If not, what modifications should I make? We're both new to Pendragon and will be using v5.2.

Well one thing is that many of the standard adventures are scaled for a reasonably sized group. For instance, the Sword Lake will be next to impossible for a single knight. One way around that would be to give the PK some NPKs who are on the same patrol with him, and can thus contribute towards slaying the giant and whatnot.

Taliesin would probably have some thoughts about this, too, since he actually did GM a one-knight campaign back in the day.

Given that you are both new to the game, you might wish to run some 'practice adventures' at first, to learn the ropes and get a feel for the world before plunging into GPC. Do you both have plenty of other roleplaying/gamemastering experience with other systems? That is always helpful, too.

I have experience running other systems, mostly various editions of D&D. I like the idea of running practice sessions that touch on the various elements of the system, i.e., combat, social, etc. And I think I'll have at least one NPK along and see how that goes.

In the core rulebook there are some ideas for a first adventure (The Hunt and Imber). These are handy to start with.
But as Morien stated having some NPKs along could be helpful, especially in the beginning.
One way to aproach this would be to have the PK be an estate holder, with some household knights with him.
As for the complexity of the GPC: You can use the adventures as a backdrop and run your own, or you can get the PKs involved in the adventures and have them a pivotal role in the shaping of the world. The Sword Lake is an adventure that will bring them into the thick of it, as well as the Kidnapping of Arthur.

If you wish to delf into the deep: The Book of the Estate gives some examples, and a system on how to deal with the financials of such estate. Although I would not recommend unless you are willing to immerse yourself into it.

All good suggestions.

My GPC efforts are a very small group as well, and I'm making use of the Mythic GME in order to make it less "a bunch of NPCs and you" and inject some interpreted chaos. You may read up on it if you like.

--Khanwulf

Soloplay is possible.
For situations where other knights are supposed to be present, such as skirmishes and battle, you could just run the PKs portion of the conflict. You could have predetermined outcomes (much like battles), rules that the overall situation mirrors that of the PK, or treat the situation as an opposed roll, which could be modified by the player's results (like how a battle roll can provide modifiers).

As pointed out above, the difficult bits will be with powerful creatures. Something like a Standard Giant becomes a much more serious threat to a solitary knight. You might want to give the PC some sort of troops to lead there. That would up the PKs combat capabilities, and give the Giant multiple targets. I'd suggest that the PK be given command of some sort of garrison, with some calvary (sergeant esquires), some foot men, and archers. That way he could have support (only) when he needed it, but not be overshadowed by some NPC knights. It would also make him the defacto leader of that unit in battle/skirmish/or raid.

One way to aproach this would be to have the PK be an estate holder, with some household knights with him.



I'd suggest that the PK be given command of some sort of garrison, with some calvary (sergeant esquires), some foot men, and archers. That way he could have support (only) when he needed it, but not be overshadowed by some NPC knights.

After thinking about this for a bit, I am going to disagree with my esteemed forumites above, as far as the flavor of those NPCs is concerned.

The reasoning is simply this:
If the NPCs are underlings, especially if they are also non-knights, they are not as interesting as characters. Whereas if the NPCs are knights and they are bound together by (initially) circumstance, not by command structure, this gives more scope for RP. Not only might the NPKs disagree or suggest their own plans (based on their Traits), but some of them might even become rivals of the PK (for some fair maiden?) rather than friends, with both options sharing a nice common backstory with the PK. And it is easy to shuffle them in and out with regards to the needs of the story, since the PK can't simply order them to come along. The (equal) NPKs can more easily come with their own storyhooks unlike the PK's HHKs or common soldiers, making for a more immersive story.

In short, you will get more RP out of the story that way.

Nothing says you can't introduce NPC Knights too. It's just that it would be a lot easier for a single PC to get lost or overshadowed in a bunch of equals. It's not much fun to sit back and watch the NPCs slay the dragons, rescue the maidens, lead the army, earn most of the glory, and so forth. It could very easily lead to a PK being out-gloried and playing most of the game in a supporting role to a NPC knight.
Its' not quite as bad when the PC is in charge and is more famous and capable than his subordinates. I think you can get as much scope in RP with subordinates as you can with NPC Knights, as the RP is just between two people. So a seasoned NPC esquire assigned to a young starting PK offers some nice possibilities for RP. Kinda like the modern situation between a Fresh Second Lieutenant and a Veteran Master Sergeant. The Lt. might be in charge, but the sarge is the one who usually knows what to do.

Oh, and a younger brother or relative backup character is almost a necessity. Otherwise the adventure stops if (make that when) the PK gets seriously wounded.

Nothing says you can't introduce NPC Knights too. It's just that it would be a lot easier for a single PC to get lost or overshadowed in a bunch of equals. It's not much fun to sit back and watch the NPCs slay the dragons, rescue the maidens, lead the army, earn most of the glory, and so forth. It could very easily lead to a PK being out-gloried and playing most of the game in a supporting role to a NPC knight.


Then you make the overshadowing NPK such an absolute snot that the PK has no desire to go on adventures with him anymore. The high-glory NPK goes on with his own life and maybe gets eaten by the next dragon, and the PK continues with the main part of the GPC. Seriously, it is even easier to deal with high-glory NPKs than it is with high-glory PKs in the same group, and while I don't know about your game groups, in ours, the PK glory difference has not been an issue. The wheel turns, the high-glory PK leads, is expected to take the highest risks, is likely older and hence hits the aging rolls sooner... and when he dies, the player brings in the young knight with much less glory, starting at the bottom of the pack again.

Besides, you make the assumption that the PK would be sitting back and watching while the NPKs do all the work. At least in our campaigns, those dragons are slain as a group effort, with everyone sharing the Glory. And if the NPK who landed the killing blow (or claims to have done so) is claiming the main credit for the deed, well, that's an RP hook right there! As for leading armies, you are in a totally different scale than we are, but when it comes to leading the eschille, yeah, it is the highest Glory usually leads, unless he defers to someone with a higher Battle. It is very easy to shuffle the eschille membership so that the PK ends up being the one in the lead, especially since he is the one having all the solo adventures as well.



Its' not quite as bad when the PC is in charge and is more famous and capable than his subordinates. I think you can get as much scope in RP with subordinates as you can with NPC Knights, as the RP is just between two people. So a seasoned NPC esquire assigned to a young starting PK offers some nice possibilities for RP. Kinda like the modern situation between a Fresh Second Lieutenant and a Veteran Master Sergeant. The Lt. might be in charge, but the sarge is the one who usually knows what to do.


Then you have just the 'Advise me, good squire' -mechanic, not really anything else. There is no need to convince the squire to do what you want; he has to, because he is the subordinate. The squire is very unlikely to have his own agency, since he is serving the PK 24/7 anyway, and if he is an older career squire he is unlikely to be from a very influential family, either. So much less in the way of plothooks.



Oh, and a younger brother or relative backup character is almost a necessity. Otherwise the adventure stops if (make that when) the PK gets seriously wounded.

Most of the adventures are over quickly, so this is less of a concern than the PK death. I agree that having a younger brother (or two) is an excellent thing to have, in order to have spares to step up if the PK dies before the son has grown up. At the same time, you probably want something to 'soften'* the Pendragon mortality, since when you have many players, one PK dying evert now and again is not such a big deal, as the group provides continuity. It is a bigger jump when there is just one player. Sure, the family provides continuity, but it is still a soft reset in a way.

* Easy suggestion would be to allow one reroll per game session, whether a GM or a Player roll. Mostly to be used defensively to avoid that giant's bash or an enemy critical.

* Easy suggestion would be to allow one reroll per game session, whether a GM or a Player roll. Mostly to be used defensively to avoid that giant's bash or an enemy critical.

Generally agree with Morien and only wish to add that differences in skill capabilities are a great way to ensure PK and NPKs have their exclusive uses regardless of glory. This is the same principle at larger tables, since no one wants to spend their evening watching Mr. High-Glory hog the spotlight, even though that's appropriate for the game setting. (Gawain talks first, Gawain fights first, Gawait woos fights, Ga-waitaminute...! Well... actually Gawain does ga-wait, because he's humble, but that's another discussion.)

I have 1.5-2 PKs, so Merlin handed out a Fate point mechanic when they met him first, because he thinks they'll be needed to save Britain. Points refresh at a rate of 1/year, used for rerolls. I'm moving a lot slower than GPC norm, so hoarding is not expected to be a problem.

--Khanwulf

Then you make the overshadowing NPK such an absolute snot that the PK has no desire to go on adventures with him anymore..

The PC might not desire to adventures with the NPC, but he doesn't necessarily have a say about it.



The high-glory NPK goes on with his own life and maybe gets eaten by the next dragon, and the PK continues with the main part of the GPC. Seriously, it is even easier to deal with high-glory NPKs than it is with high-glory PKs in the same group, .

If you have to constantly get rid of them, then there is no point in having them there in the first place.




and while I don't know about your game groups, in ours, the PK glory difference has not been an issue. The wheel turns, the high-glory PK leads, is expected to take the highest risks, is likely older and hence hits the aging rolls sooner... and when he dies, the player brings in the young knight with much less glory, starting at the bottom of the pack again.

If our groups PK Glory has, at times, been an issue. What tends to happen is that the rich get richer, and knights who have a significant difference in glory end up getting glory faster than the others, which in turn makes them more capable, which in turn tends to net them more glory, etc. etc. Age does kick in, it's the great equalizer, but if someone is really racking up glory, he can slow that down quite a bit.




Besides, you make the assumption that the PK would be sitting back and watching while the NPKs do all the work. At least in our campaigns, those dragons are slain as a group effort, with everyone sharing the Glory. And if the NPK who landed the killing blow (or claims to have done so) is claiming the main credit for the deed, well, that's an RP hook right there!

I'm not making that assumption, but I am assuming that if the PC is one of a half dozen knight he probably won't be playing all that big of a factor in the group effort. That okay when the PK is one of several PKs, but not so hot when the rest of the "group" are NPCs. You can reasily wind up with the situation where the player feels like he isn't contriubtuing much to the group, and that the NPCs are doing everything.



As for leading armies, you are in a totally different scale than we are, but when it comes to leading the eschille, yeah, it is the highest Glory usually leads, unless he defers to someone with a higher Battle. It is very easy to shuffle the eschille membership so that the PK ends up being the one in the lead, especially since he is the one having all the solo adventures as well.

But it's even easier to just put the PC in charge of his own unit to begin with.




Then you have just the 'Advise me, good squire' -mechanic, not really anything else. There is no need to convince the squire to do what you want; he has to, because he is the subordinate. The squire is very unlikely to have his own agency, since he is serving the PK 24/7 anyway, and if he is an older career squire he is unlikely to be from a very influential family, either. So much less in the way of plothooks.

And you end up with the reverse situation with the NPCs in charge, and that's even worse. If you have a group of 4-5 NPC and one PK, then the PK has to convince 4-5 NPCs to do something. It's better to give the PK a supporting character than to make the PK the supporting character.

Besides, the "Advise me good squire" bit only haapens in the PK decides to listen to the squire. He could just as easily decide not to.



Most of the adventures are over quickly, so this is less of a concern than the PK death.
I agree that having a younger brother (or two) is an excellent thing to have, in order to have spares to step up if the PK dies before the son has grown up. At the same time, you probably want something to 'soften'* the Pendragon mortality, since when you have many players, one PK dying evert now and again is not such a big deal, as the group provides continuity. It is a bigger jump when there is just one player. Sure, the family provides continuity, but it is still a soft reset in a way.
Yeah, not much is of more concern that PK death, but that's just part of the game.




* Easy suggestion would be to allow one reroll per game session, whether a GM or a Player roll. Mostly to be used defensively to avoid that giant's bash or an enemy critical.

As a general rule, I don't like this, but I do agree with what it would do to help a solo character. I'd probably learn to making it some sort of magical item or such to help increase PK survivability a little. With only one PK, those times where the dice turn against a player are even more disruptive than normal.One fumble could risk wiping out the group! Now as I said, that's part of the game, but yeah some sort of cushion isn't a bad idea. Major Wounds are pretty much going to end the year for the "group" though.

After thinking about this for a bit, I am going to disagree with my esteemed forumites above, as far as the flavor of those NPCs is concerned.

The reasoning is simply this:
If the NPCs are underlings, especially if they are also non-knights, they are not as interesting as characters. Whereas if the NPCs are knights and they are bound together by (initially) circumstance, not by command structure, this gives more scope for RP. Not only might the NPKs disagree or suggest their own plans (based on their Traits), but some of them might even become rivals of the PK (for some fair maiden?) rather than friends, with both options sharing a nice common backstory with the PK. And it is easy to shuffle them in and out with regards to the needs of the story, since the PK can't simply order them to come along. The (equal) NPKs can more easily come with their own storyhooks unlike the PK's HHKs or common soldiers, making for a more immersive story.

In short, you will get more RP out of the story that way.

Rereading it all I partly agree with you here.
I think it depends on the style of play. If convincing NPK to join the fight against the monsters, sure then the NPK should not all be bound by loyalty. In this case ther story is not defeating the monster, but getting everyone to join in.
But if you wish to make it more of a monsterbash, having NPKs follow around is handy. They are then more part of the backdrop and not so much the core of the story.
As is stated in the following discussion we all want to avoid the PK being overshadowed by the NPK. The Player should be the one in the driver seat. He or she decides where to go next.

As for back up characters. While this is something that can be handy with a group it is less needed with only one PK. The adventure stops when the PK dies. You can then take your time and create a new character and continu play. Not necesarily in the same adventure, but you could even get the new PK involved in the adventure later on (You know many knights have tried it before and failed. Yeah guess who.)