After two medium battles (5 and 6 rounds) and one huge battle (8 rounds), the last one beeing Nentley Marsh, we have some results. These are not exact transcriptions unfortunately, but more or less. (Our GM will perhaps shout if I made any glaring errors.) The enemy were mostly Saxon units.

We have all three player knights down from major wounds in all battles. To keep the player knights score up, we have filled in with the anonymous De Fawlt and his brothers. Four of them went down too.

The most interesting battle was the last one. We actually managed to get two triumphs! Great success!

I left out the first battle.

The second battle:
1. Charge, Loss
2. Withdraw against 2, win
3. Charge, win
4. Withdraw against 2, win (bodyguard bonus used)
5. Charge, loss
6. Enemy withdraw, no pursuit.

The third battle:
1. Charge *(bodyguard bonus used), loss
2. Withdraw against 2, loss (not disengaged)
3. Withdraw against 2*, win - Two pc horses down. Pc unit commander down and led out.
4. Charge, triumph - The pc Caedfannon the Reckless took over the command of the pc:s unit
5. Attack vs two*, win - Second Pc down
6. Withdraw, triumph
7. Charge, win, - Pc Caedfannon down
8. Withdraw, as no original pcs remained.
(9. Rout)

The "withdraw against 2" is when the battle intensity crits it's battle roll and we withdraw fighting two opponents.

*(bodyguard bonus used) We were allowed to each use our followers as "bodyguard bonus". This is marked with an "*" above.


Comments

Pcs losses were high, but no fatalities fortunately. Notable was the first round of the last battles where we faced passionate elite opponents. (One chance in six) My noble knight resorted to fighting defensively during the first charge, another player invoked his (extra) bodyguard bonus after an initial saxon crit.

We lost about half our followers to followers fate in each battle and the rest to bodyguard bonus (we had about 8 each). Time ran out so we haven't really rolled out how our followers will fare but a used bodyguard bonus and a decisive defeat leaves little hope for survivors. To face multiple opponents as we did in a prolonged battle is bad for the pcs, but terrible for the followers. They cant be lucky with the damage rolls.

To my surprise the pcs havent gone down due to attrition from multiple wounds but they have been critted out. Perhaps I shouldnt have been so surprised. In our last battle there were about 12 opponent attacks and that give a lot of crit chances. Our knights now know that the great spear is our biggest enemy and that opponents on foot is a better choice.

The advantage of beeing superlative rich with the extra squires is invaluable, but perhaps is the fancy clothing the reason we are targeted. :)

Other thoughts

After our last session we discussed how to integrate the battle system with roleplaying episodes and to let battles scripted by the Campaign still be decided by pcs (if they are so lucky). Strange developments must be allowed to let the pcs new abiltiy to influence battles come into play.

We also talked about various methods (to allow for more varied maneuvers and less deadly combat) to lower the battle intensity.

Sounds like you've had a lot of fun!

When playtesting the BofB we also found that it involved a lot of player knights being struck down. Caught the players by surprise at first, but we all realised that this of course was how it should be. No longer do they charge into battle quite so freely...

Running it with the GPC has plenty of scope to. I love the way the battle system, when you get used to it, provides plenty of opportunity for description so its not just dice rolling. There is so much going on, and the changes in intensity and battle events leaves space for the GM and players to interpret it so it fits the situation they find themselves in. The fat that it is a players eye view also helps when battles are scripted. This allows for the players to do fantastic things, and still find that the battle has gone against them - they were so wrapped up in their own situation, they never saw what else was going on until they realise they're the last ones on their side left standing. Of course, that doesn't mean that they can't change the GPC script - as a GM this is when I love it the most, when things change and adaptations have to be worked in. Keeps me and the players on our toes!

We also talked about various methods (to allow for more varied maneuvers and less deadly combat) to lower the battle intensity.



Sounds great.
I sincerely hope you will play this several times and reveal to yourselves some of the subtleties of the system before you start tinkering.

The third battle:
1. Charge *(bodyguard bonus used), loss
2. Withdraw against 2, loss (not disengaged)
3. Withdraw against 2*, win - Two pc horses down. Pc unit commander down and led out.
4. Charge, triumph - The pc Caedfannon the Reckless took over the command of the pc:s unit
5. Attack vs two*, win - Second Pc down
6. Withdraw, triumph
7. Charge, win, - Pc Caedfannon down
8. Withdraw, as no original pcs remained.
(9. Rout)


Nettle Marsh is a huge battle and therefore starts with an intensity of 30.

How did you deal with that therefore meaning that Nanteleod's army starts retreating immediately?

The new system looks great (I decided not to use it in my first new GP campaign last Sunday) but that is the one part of the mechanic that seems "odd" upon reading and I'd just like to see how it works in play.

Nettle Marsh is a huge battle and therefore starts with an intensity of 30.

How did you deal with that therefore meaning that Nanteleod's army starts retreating immediately?



I forgot to post it on the thread there, and will.
but for here, I'll reveal the the errata: the automatic options do not apply to the first round unless the GM wants them to.



The new system looks great (I decided not to use it in my first new GP campaign last Sunday) but that is the one part of the mechanic that seems "odd" upon reading and I'd just like to see how it works in play.


It doesn't, as written.
See Errata above

Our GM interpreted the automatic retreat rule, as a general "keep us together now, don't break the line-order", and our starting battle intensity was indeed 30.

As a side note. I think this battle might start at intensity 25, as the opposing side have two commanders, each reducing intensity 5, but the opposition gets surprise reinforcements very late giving a +5.

I forgot a spectacular event in the second battle. In round 3 I did score a critical on the unit commander battle roll and we got the opportunity Opponents unprepared -10 weapon skill. This meant that we with our horses charged in among enemy berserkers tending their wounds with weapon skill 1. Unfortunately one of them critted on a 1!!!, which knocked a pc out of the battle. This denied us of an almost sure triumph, most entertaining ofc.

Our GM interpreted the automatic retreat rule, as a general "keep us together now, don't break the line-order", and our starting battle intensity was indeed 30.

As a side note. I think this battle might start at intensity 25, as the opposing side have two commanders, each reducing intensity 5, but the opposition gets surprise reinforcements very late giving a +5.

I forgot a spectacular event in the second battle. In round 3 I did score a critical on the unit commander battle roll and we got the opportunity Opponents unprepared -10 weapon skill. This meant that we with our horses charged in among enemy berserkers tending their wounds with weapon skill 1. Unfortunately one of them critted on a 1!!!, which knocked a pc out of the battle. This denied us of an almost sure triumph, most entertaining ofc.


Yes I dont think the GPC battles are necessarily supposed to meld with the new book of battle. For now I think you have to decide which system to use or do a fair amount of adjustment to get the battle outcomes to fit.

We need a GPC update for BoB... containing the BI per round for all mentioned battles :(

fg,
Thijs

We need a GPC update for BoB... containing the BI per round for all mentioned battles :(


For every battle? Per round? Nonsense.
Sorry.

We need a GPC update for BoB... containing the BI per round for all mentioned battles :(


For every battle? Per round? Nonsense.
Sorry.



Nonsense? That's a bit harsh. It's might mean more work, and work that you might not wish to do, but it is hardly nonsense for people to to want the rules to work consistently with each other.

Or, looking at it from another vantage point, if the author doesn't want to do the work of updating the BoB and GPC to be compatible with each other, why should anyone else?
And why would people want to buy a supplement that isn't compatible with all the battles presented previous in GPC, or other KAP supplements?

To someone who hasn't bought BoB or BoA yet, this makes me much less inclined to buy them. The previous battle systems from KAP1-5 will work with the battles presented in GPC.

For many battles the conversion is very simple (or actually not a conversion at all since you use the battle modifiers now for intensity instead).
But some battles are very scripted (eg, at round 3 a hero appears etc) and then it's more difficult to 'guess' battle intensity..
Not suggesting that Greg does this, perhaps as people play the GPC battles they can post their 'conversion'?

fg,
Thijs

I think if people post their versions of the battles as they do them, that would be a great resource.

I think if people post their versions of the battles as they do them, that would be a great resource.


Hear, Hear!! 8)

It would be an excellent resource. Especially if someone compiled them all into a PDF, possibly taking the best version of a battle.

See how a BoB battle looks (and runs) compared to a standard battle could also help to illustrate the differences between the BoB and the standard system, as well as promote the BoB's advantages.

We need a GPC update for BoB... containing the BI per round for all mentioned battles :(

For every battle? Per round? Nonsense.
Sorry.

Nonsense? That's a bit harsh. It's might mean more work, and work that you might not wish to do, but it is hardly nonsense for people to to want the rules to work consistently with each other.


To have the Battle Intensity pre-determined for each round of every battle in the GPC?
Have you read BoB?
That would take all the fun out of it for players, who can seriously affect the battle intensity each round. i.e. NONSENSE.



Or, looking at it from another vantage point, if the author doesn't want to do the work


Are you familiar with the word "presumptuous"?



of updating the BoB and GPC to be compatible with each other, why should anyone else?
And why would people want to buy a supplement that isn't compatible with all the battles presented previous in GPC, or other KAP supplements?
To someone who hasn't bought BoB or BoA yet, this makes me much less inclined to buy them.


That is your ultimate vote as a consumer.




The previous battle systems from KAP1-5 will work with the battles presented in GPC.



Yes, of course it will.
No one has to buy these.
We'll continue to entertain discussion here for the old rules

However,
I do think that is wise to actually know what is in a book, and how it might interact with what you know, before suggesting improvements and criticizing the author's motives.

For instance, Book of Armies lists every battle and the enemy army to use.
The other factors, to calculate Intensity, are unchanged.
i.e. They are compatible

My 2 cents ( and only mine, of course) is that the new material that has come out AFTER the GPC was published, is not MEANT to mesh with the GPC stuff. It is meant to change the game for the better. The BoB REPLACES the GPC battle system. They are not remotely alike. The Author decided that he had found a new Battlesystem that seemed more entertaining and was better for the game. Now of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion about which they prefer, but that doesnt necessarily mean that there is an obligation to link older rules with the newer. Many people have expressed that they prefer 4th or 3rd edition Rules to the kap5, and that is great. Whatever floats their boats, ya know? But just like any good game that has been around for a long time it undergoes changes and evolves ( hopefully for the better). I mean Dungeons &Dragons had had a total facelift , but I still prefer 2nd edition D&D. I wouldnt expect D&D to seemelessly link 4TH edition to 2nd for my benifit. The two are quite different, just like the new stuff in Pendragon. Its all in what you prefer. No system is going to be JUST THE WAY U LIKE IT. All systems are usually tweaked by GM's to their preference. If you dont agree with something you can change it to fit your game, but no one else should be obliged to do it for you. Not even the creator.

To have the Battle Intensity pre-determined for each round of every battle in the GPC?
Have you read BoB?

No, I haven't. As the book is only available from one source, the only way to be able to do so requires one to either buy the BoB or know someone who has. Before I do the former, I'd like to have some idea of how the BoB will affect the game, and course of the campaign.

One thing that about the "Pendragon Publications" supplements is that due to the small print runs and limited availability, it is difficult to get the sort of advanced information on them that once can generally get on other products. There are not many reviews, examples of play or chatting going on on them. It's one reason why I'm here. This forum is probably the best place to find out more about the books before I decide what to buy.



That would take all the fun out of it for players, who can seriously affect the battle intensity each round. i.e. NONSENSE.

Considering that the outcome of most of not all battles in the GPC are predetermined, just how much effect can the players have on the BI and outcome of a battle? Can the Players now win battles that they are going to loose in the GPC or vice versa? Can the PCs win at Meracrek Creek in 485? Can Arthur lose at Badon in 518?

Just how does the Book of Battle affect the Pendragon timeline?

From what I've read about BoB it covered battle from the view of the knight's unit, with the knights being "one little piece in the battle." So the ability to integrate that one little piece with the rest of the battle would certainly be of interest to Pendragon GMs.

Does the BoB completely replace the rest of the battle system?



Are you familiar with the word "presumptuous"?

I apologize if you felt I have acted in a discourteous manner. That was not my intention. Let me see if I can rephrase my statement. As a GM, player, and consumer, I dislike inconsistency and incompatibility within a rule system. Most of the gamers I've played with express a similar dislike.

Now as the GPC is the framework for Pendragon, and Pendragon has more of a timeline and fixed course of events that virtually any other RPG, and as most of the battles in the campaign will come from the GPC and that the outcome of those battles (and many battle events) are predetermined, the compatibility of the Book of Battles with the material presented in the GPC is of some concern.



That is your ultimate vote as a consumer.

Yes, it is. But before I decided on how to "cast" my vote, I tried to explain how the situation appears to me on the outside. I'm sorry if you didn't like what I posted, or how I phased it, but it is how it appears to be from my vantage point.



Yes, of course it will.
No one has to buy these.

Yes, no one has to buy anything. So before doing so consumers want a reason. With a RPG supplement that usually breaks down to what will the supplement add, and at what cost. Cost being more than just money but also the effect and changes on gameplay.




However,
I do think that is wise to actually know what is in a book, and how it might interact with what you know, before suggesting improvements and criticizing the author's motives.

I didn't suggest any improvements to the BoB or criticize your motives. I criticized your response as a bit harsh, and stressed the importance of compatibility (or lack thereof).

Since I haven't read the BoB, I wouldn't necessarily know why requesting a GPC update for BoB would be "nonsense". Nor did that response indicate why. Hence your "Nonsense" answer seemed uninformative and a bit harsh.



For instance, Book of Armies lists every battle and the enemy army to use.
The other factors, to calculate Intensity, are unchanged.


So to use the BoB with the GPC, one would need to buy the Book of Armies as well?

I had thought the BoA was tables of foes/armies similar to the Battle Enemies tables in KAP5 (D-2 to D-6), albeit expanded to cover more foes and options than the five included in KAP.




Sorry if I upset you.

Have you read BoB?

No, I haven't.


That says it all.
Ask questions, and we are here to answer.
Tell me things that are based on wrong assumptions, and get called on it.



This forum is probably the best place to find out more about the books before I decide what to buy.


That is why we are here.





That would take all the fun out of it for players, who can seriously affect the battle intensity each round. i.e. NONSENSE.
Considering that the outcome of most of not all battles in the GPC are predetermined, just how much effect can the players have on the BI and outcome of a battle?

Alot.
Even if you are going to follow the GPC Script (never recommended, it's only good for maybe 60% of any adventure) your player character can be the one to win it.
Lancelot wins the battle in Malory?
My PCs always get first shot (and usually fail) to be the key stroke.
THAT IS WHAT THIS SUPPLEMENT IS ALL ABOUT.



Can the Players now win battles that they are going to loose in the GPC or vice versa?


Yes, of course.
They could do that before.
It was just less clear before how.



Can the PCs win at Meracrek Creek in 485? Can Arthur lose at Badon in 518?


Yes, yes.
The GM mus be prepared for such, but why not?
It depends on whether you want to play Le MorTe d'Arthur--the GPC version, or Le Morte d'Arthur--YOUR PC version



Just how does the Book of Battle affect the Pendragon timeline?


Not at all.



From what I've read about BoB it covered battle from the view of the knight's unit, with the knights being "one little piece in the battle." So the ability to integrate that one little piece with the rest of the battle would certainly be of interest to Pendragon GMs.


That is the core of the game.



Does the BoB completely replace the rest of the battle system?


Yes



Now as the GPC is the framework for Pendragon, and Pendragon has more of a timeline and fixed course of events that virtually any other RPG, and as most of the battles in the campaign will come from the GPC and that the outcome of those battles (and many battle events) are predetermined, the compatibility of the Book of Battles with the material presented in the GPC is of some concern.


Of course.



Yes, no one has to buy anything. So before doing so consumers want a reason. With a RPG supplement that usually breaks down to what will the supplement add, and at what cost. Cost being more than just money but also the effect and changes on gameplay.


Yes of course. And the KAP player is especially keen and discerning.



So to use the BoB with the GPC, one would need to buy the Book of Armies as well?


No. Up until this book, all GMs had to create the armies of later periods from whole cloth.
This provides them for the GM. It makes it easy. It's a GM aid.
No one needs it. Other people can tell you why they like it.



I had thought the BoA was tables of foes/armies similar to the Battle Enemies tables in KAP5 (D-2 to D-6),


Yes. It covers the armies for all battles in the Uther Period.



albeit expanded to cover more foes and options than the five included in KAP.


Correct.
It has the armies for the rest of GPC.
It would be impossible to include them in BoB--the price would have been unreasonable.

See http://gspendragon.com/pendragonpublications.html

--Greg

I feel so sorry for starting this.. sorry.

My style is to have everything minutely detailed rules-wise and then bluntly ignore it when I see a great RPG opportunity (but I prefer it to be detailed anyway in case I dont see the opportunity).
In that sense I love BoB, you can truly run a battle with clear rules (the few uncertainties Greg perfectly cleared after asking on this list) without any improvisation (I am thinking of programming it all in).
However some GPC battles are scripted (once I mostly avoided playing) and I was just thinking: in BoB you roll each round to see what the rest of the army is doing (and these rolls can be having a greater effect than player actions [at some unlikely odds], hence you could 'script' a battle by dictating the change of Battle Intensity due to outside factors..
I agree with Greg that in my campaign 'fully scripted' battles in which the PC actions are irrelevant, dont occur.

Concerning BoB, if you want to do more then 3 battles in your campaign (in which you want the players to be able to effect to outcome), it's a great supplement.


fg,
Thijs

I feel so sorry for starting this.. sorry.

My style is to have everything minutely detailed rules-wise and then bluntly ignore it when I see a great RPG opportunity (but I prefer it to be detailed anyway in case I dont see the opportunity).
In that sense I love BoB, you can truly run a battle with clear rules (the few uncertainties Greg perfectly cleared after asking on this list) without any improvisation (I am thinking of programming it all in).
However some GPC battles are scripted (once I mostly avoided playing) and I was just thinking: in BoB you roll each round to see what the rest of the army is doing (and these rolls can be having a greater effect than player actions [at some unlikely odds], hence you could 'script' a battle by dictating the change of Battle Intensity due to outside factors..
I agree with Greg that in my campaign 'fully scripted' battles in which the PC actions are irrelevant, dont occur.

Concerning BoB, if you want to do more then 3 battles in your campaign (in which you want the players to be able to effect to outcome), it's a great supplement.


fg,
Thijs




Im pretty sure that there is no apology necessary. ;)

Well, Netly Marsh is a pain in the neck -not- to run on script. (Speaking as the guy who anticipated 508 wondering what kind of rabbit his PCs would pull out of their hat.) If Nanteleod wins and survives there, it would probably take some fancy improvisation to give Arthur the throne.

Well, Netly Marsh is a pain in the neck -not- to run on script. (Speaking as the guy who anticipated 508 wondering what kind of rabbit his PCs would pull out of their hat.) If Nanteleod wins and survives there, it would probably take some fancy improvisation to give Arthur the throne.


Probably not much. Merlin shows up and confuses Nanteleod the way he confuses Lot.

The big question, when deviating from the established timeline is just how far is a GM willing to go. Changing the outcome of a small battle would be negligible, but changing one of the major battles could completely alter the course of the campaign.

If Arthur looses at Badon then we probably wouldn't see his rule expanding or Britain flourishing under his reign. More likely, we'd see something like the Uther or Anarchy phases, or even the A.S. Chronicles. Maybe the latter phases just take another 10 to 15 years to happen, or maybe they never do.

Or what if Arthur were to win at Camlaan? Easily? Some PC knight kills Mordred and the bulk of
Britain's knights survive. Lancelot arrives, is reconciled with Arthur and the Round Table continues.


Or what if Lancelot actually get's killed in a battle or tournament (with KAP5 stats, he is quite vulnerable at first).

The possibilities are endless.


For years, I've been toying with the idea of having one of the PCs secretly being Arthur and shocking the heck out of him when he pulls the sword from the stone and finds himself suddenly thrown into the thick of thing.

For years, I've been toying with the idea of having one of the PCs secretly being Arthur and shocking the heck out of him when he pulls the sword from the stone and finds himself suddenly thrown into the thick of thing.


I really like that! Please keep us posted if you ever use that (my campaign is at 502, so I still have time to do that if it sounds like you were successful).

Back to the thread at hand:
I agree that most of the time let the BoB results supersede the GPC script. It is pretty easy to work around these inconsequential events. But for the battles that have large-scale ramifications (that I'm too lazy to re-write all of Greg's hard work), I will use the following method:

I never mention all the working numbers to my players. I just describe the intensity, based on those numbers (which the BoB, Table 5: battle events, really helps me do). I describe their Unit intensity, based on the BoB results, but I describe the Battle intensity based on the GPC script. My players are well aware that things may be going well for them, but the rest of their army may be doing poorly.

Well, Netly Marsh is a pain in the neck -not- to run on script. (Speaking as the guy who anticipated 508 wondering what kind of rabbit his PCs would pull out of their hat.) If Nanteleod wins and survives there, it would probably take some fancy improvisation to give Arthur the throne.


He survived the battle in our game and joined lot against Arthur..where he fell in battle there! It was a lot of good fun!