Howdy,

I woul like to share with you all a major WTF?! moment we just had happen in yesterday's session and possibly get some advice on how to salvage the most from it.


So 488 A.D. coms along and everyone goes around to France to help Praetor Sygarius and kick some Frankish behind. Things go awesomely well and eventualy Bayeux falls and we get some loot galore. So far so good.

THEN we have the while Prince Madoc / Sygarius fall out and lo and behold, Sir Afan, who was fast becoming one of the best knights of Salisbury decides not to follow Madoc's cowardly and disohourbale ways and ride out with Sygarius to finsh the job.


You should have seen the player's face when I read out of the book "Those traitorous, deserting who went against the orders of their liege are Out of the Game."

That's it. No rolls, no tables, nothing. Just a big GAME OVER with no as much as an "Insert Coin".


To make matters more interesting, Sir Afan is unmarried, left no will, and even tough he managed to make a couple of sprogs on several concubines did not bother to adopt any of them. So the whole "your character is gone and you have no son of knightable age, so play a "regent" until he gets old enough" went tits up

Looking at the family tree it turned out the next family member in line would be Evgral, the 3rd son, as Morven (the 2nd) having been been wasted by a Saxon Gerefa years before.

Now, the new PC Sir Evgral is 31 years old by the time he enters play.

Having the 5th edition rulebook bow, we used it for chargen. So Sir Evgral gets stated up to age 21, then ages 5 years to 26...and then what? Well I decided he would get the next 5 years' worth of Winter Phase training until he gets to 31. Fair enough.

The result is that the player, a Pendragon newbie when the game started, got loads of points to designed his new character. I believe it will prove I think to be better than his predecessor, who was actevely played for 8 years, right off chargen. He wisely burned his skill points in the skills who have actually seen use during the game and ignored the others.


This is the bit I wanted to share with you. It seems to me that the Pendragon 5th Ed chargen system, as it stands, rewards entering the game with an old character more than playing a young one (i.e. creating a PC who has done nothing for the past 10 years or so other than sitting on his butt is better than begin play with a young knight and adventuring for the same period.)


Another question ensues. What of poor Sir Afan who did the honourable thing (if not the right one) and was lost to the lands of France?

I think, at the very least, the GPC should have the details of the battle between Sygarius and the Franks that follows, and whose rumours arrive in Britain in 489 A.D.

The whole "Game Over!" cosequence of ONE single decision taken by a player seems very rail-roady, and it is a shame there is no information at all about to deal with what befall knights who wish to follow Sygarius. Of course, the easiest way is to assume the PC dies fighting the Franks, but again that smacks too much of GM fiat.


So I would welcome any ideas on how to deal with Sir Afan's fate, even only if to give some closure to his saga that involves more than reading a sentence from the GPC.

There's a couple of ways to handle it.

The first will require a bit more work on your part. That is, have everyone create characters from Brittany and play out that year. You can have fun laying out the battle so that the players can see Syagrius lose. Perhaps the character dies gloriously in the battle.

The second way is to run the Adventure: THE MERCENARY SYAGRIUS (GPC, pg. 68). Sir Afan could be one of the knights accompanying Syagrius. The consequences of him disobeying his liege is something you will have to deal with.

Being out of game is something you have to deal with from time to time. I sure as heck didn't like it when my gm said to me, "please give me your character sheet, you're character has just gone mad." I got over it, and turned to my secondary character. ?When I finally got my sheet back, with some interesting skill improvements and a back story, I started playing him again.

Bob

There's a couple of ways to handle it.

The first will require a bit more work on your part. That is, have everyone create characters from Brittany and play out that year. You can have fun laying out the battle so that the players can see Syagrius lose. Perhaps the character dies gloriously in the battle.

No way jose. I aquired the GPC precisely to avoid dealing with having to lay out entire years. :)



The second way is to run the Adventure: THE MERCENARY SYAGRIUS (GPC, pg. 68). Sir Afan could be one of the knights accompanying Syagrius. The consequences of him disobeying his liege is something you will have to deal with.


I had totattly forgotten about that adventure. Thank you for reminding me of it. Unless Sir Afan decides to stay in the continent and travel all the way to Denmark to try and get the sword Wilfgridh reforged (long story), I think he will pop back again in Britain with Sygarius.



Being out of game is something you have to deal with from time to time. I sure as heck didn't like it when my gm said to me, "please give me your character sheet, you're character has just gone mad." I got over it, and turned to my secondary character. ?When I finally got my sheet back, with some interesting skill improvements and a back story, I started playing him again.


I have run Call of Cthulhu before and have no problem with PCs being out of game for extensive periods. What I have a problem with is false decisions which lead to "no save" type of consequences, like removing a PC from play permanently and automaticaly without as much as an epilogue. Imagine a D&D dungeoncrawl in which just because you went left your character suddenly explodes and the GM hands you a new sheet.


Believe me, the player was surprised but was quite gracious about the whole thing considering he loved Sir Afan to bits.
If it had been me this could be the type of thing that causes me to leave a game.

It seems there are two issues here.

One: The Syragrius Incident, in which a player makes a decision and loses his knight.
Two: The way character design makes strong characters.

The Syragrius Incident
When I ran this, I had two players. Their knights ahd previously met Syragrius, and considered him an arrogant oaf. Then during the French campaign, one of the knight's went mad just before this decision so was speared having to make a decision. The otehr was intensely honorable, and decided to stay and fight with Syragrius.
I ignored the "out of the game", and instead let him join Syragrius, get into a horrifyingly bad battle, manage to survive (against the odds, it wasn't planned!), and then he decided on his own to return home with his tail between his legs.
Since he had done various things for Uther previously (getting him the Sword of Victory, etc.), and had the ear of the Earl, he was shielded from any immediate ramifications, but it was the beginning of his downfall.

So, my advice: although the book says, the knight is Out of the Game, it's up to you if you really want that. The book says it because it takes the players off-scene - the GPC covers what's going on in Britain, not the continent. But if you want to run an occasional adventure for Afan, and are willing to prepare, you should. If not, then he is out of the game.

Character Experience
Yes, it is possible for new characters to start out powerful. They shouldn't be getting much glory though, and they are much closer to the point where they start aging than younger characters, who have plenty of years in which to build up glory.
Also, you should be reletavely generous with experience checks for characters in play - look for every opportunity to reward personality traits and passions, in particular. The previous experience system starts to lose out here.
Also, note, that you can't raise skills above 15 through previous experience - a knight who starts at age 21, and plays to 31, can easily have a skill (and even a stat or trait or passion) at 20 or higher, and other skills above 15. The character who starts at age 31 can't.

One thing that my be playing a part is player experience affecting character design, rather than character experience. The player now knows which skills to concentrate on, and so he does. Other players, when they design new characters, will do the same.

It seems there are two issues here.

One: The Syragrius Incident, in which a player makes a decision and loses his knight.
Two: The way character design makes strong characters.

Indeed.



The Syragrius Incident
So, my advice: although the book says, the knight is Out of the Game, it's up to you if you really want that. The book says it because it takes the players off-scene - the GPC covers what's going on in Britain, not the continent. But if you want to run an occasional adventure for Afan, and are willing to prepare, you should. If not, then he is out of the game.

Of course, we could tell the continental saga of Sir Afan, this means Sir Ronan McDonnel (the other PC) would be left to rot in Britain and his player would have to make a new unrelated NPC or go trough the drudgery of running either Afan's squire or his herald who both got stuck in France with him.

As as for preparing the saga, well, were's the info? I got the GPC to have the prep work reduced to a minimum and avoid having to hunt for information about what the heck is going on from year X to Y on location Z.




Character Experience
Yes, it is possible for new characters to start out powerful. They shouldn't be getting much glory though, and they are much closer to the point where they start aging than younger characters, who have plenty of years in which to build up glory.

Also, you should be reletavely generous with experience checks for characters in play - look for every opportunity to reward personality traits and passions, in particular. The previous experience system starts to lose out here.

I am probably one of the most generous Pedragon GMs in giving out skill checks, judging from the answers I've read online when someone asks what a "fair" check allocation would be.

I've gone so far as to granting checks when the player doesn't even roll the dice but has, for instance, a fruitfull conversation with someone about Hunting and picks up a few tricks from it.



Also, note, that you can't raise skills above 15 through previous experience - a knight who starts at age 21, and plays to 31, can easily have a skill (and even a stat or trait or passion) at 20 or higher, and other skills above 15. The character who starts at age 31 can't.


Wrong, unless you rule that after age 26, for some reason, Winter Phase training works differently. Or decide not to grant it atgether to a PC who enters the game after his 26th birthday.
In fact, you could say the root problem is that 5th Edition does not provide guidelines for creating characters younger than 21 or older than 26. But the fabled high mortality rate of the game, combined with railroad GAME OVER consequences for left-right game decisions makes it higly likely you WILL be playing a character outside the 21-26 age interval.



One thing that my be playing a part is player experience affecting character design, rather than character experience. The player now knows which skills to concentrate on, and so he does. Other players, when they design new characters, will do the same.


Indeed, and I would have done the same as the player did to be honest. It kind of makes you wonder why all those useless skills are threre in the first place.

What amazed me is how ubber a 31 year old PC emerges from chargen when compred to a 33 year old who has been played since a young age. Sir Afan was the best knight is Salisbury, his younger brother Evgral was an esquire by age 31 who never did anything of valor and as far as we know never left the family manor.

Yet he could probably kick his older brother's behind in a fight and is much more adept at courtly life. I guess being a couch potato, combined with appropriate selective skill/trait/passion point distribuition is the way to power... :)

Quote from edsan:
I had totattly forgotten about that adventure. Thank you for reminding me of it. Unless Sir Afan decides to stay in the continent and travel all the way to Denmark to try and get the sword Wilfgridh reforged (long story), I think he will pop back again in Britain with Sygarius.

You're welcome!
I keep good records when I gm, and I try to recycle faces as recurring NPCs. One plot today may lead to two or three down the road.

Bob

It seems there are two issues here.

One: The Syragrius Incident, in which a player makes a decision and loses his knight.
Two: The way character design makes strong characters.

Indeed.



The Syragrius Incident
So, my advice: although the book says, the knight is Out of the Game, it's up to you if you really want that. The book says it because it takes the players off-scene - the GPC covers what's going on in Britain, not the continent. But if you want to run an occasional adventure for Afan, and are willing to prepare, you should. If not, then he is out of the game.

Of course, we could tell the continental saga of Sir Afan, this means Sir Ronan McDonnel (the other PC) would be left to rot in Britain and his player would have to make a new unrelated NPC or go trough the drudgery of running either Afan's squire or his herald who both got stuck in France with him.

As as for preparing the saga, well, were's the info? I got the GPC to have the prep work reduced to a minimum and avoid having to hunt for information about what the heck is going on from year X to Y on location Z.

You've just explained why the book says characters left behind are Out of the Game - if you choose the characters on the continent, those left in Britain get left out - so the natural choice is to choose the ones returning to Britain.

A technique I have used before in this kind of situation, is to play both sets of characters. Have Afan's player continue to play him, and the rest of the group rolls up new characters to accompany him. Then, back in britain, have afan's player roll up a new character to accompany the knights back in Britain.
Then, alternate by year - on even years, run the continantal characters, on odd years play the british characters, and see what happens. Their stories will surely overlap.

I did this in my first Pendragon campaign, over 2 decades ago, when none of the players really knew the story. I actually eneded up with 3 groups of knights, one northern group - vassals of Lot and Uriens, one Logres set, and one mercenary group who had loyalties to Aelle Bretwalda. Their stories came together when Arthur turned up, hehe.




Character Experience
Yes, it is possible for new characters to start out powerful. They shouldn't be getting much glory though, and they are much closer to the point where they start aging than younger characters, who have plenty of years in which to build up glory.

Also, you should be reletavely generous with experience checks for characters in play - look for every opportunity to reward personality traits and passions, in particular. The previous experience system starts to lose out here.

I am probably one of the most generous Pedragon GMs in giving out skill checks, judging from the answers I've read online when someone asks what a "fair" check allocation would be.

There is always someone more generous.
For instance, a house rule I use: when you get an experience check, don't tick the box. Make an immediate roll, if it increases, tick the box. If it doesn't, leave the box empty.
As long as the box is empty, you can get more attempts to increase it in the same year.
At the end of the year, make no rolls, just add 1 to the value of anything with a ticked box.

I've known GMs who allow 2 or even 3 increases for the same skill in a single year, if you can succeed the rolls.

I've known one GM who gave 5 extra skill checks and 5 more checks to be put wherever you want during the winter phase.

However, the rest of this email will assume you and I are not using any of those variant rules.


I've gone so far as to granting checks when the player doesn't even roll the dice but has, for instance, a fruitfull conversation with someone about Hunting and picks up a few tricks from it.
I'm pretty sure the book recommends such an approach. At least it does from traits, and it's a natural extrapolition to do it for skills - certainly every GM I've run with does it.



Also, note, that you can't raise skills above 15 through previous experience - a knight who starts at age 21, and plays to 31, can easily have a skill (and even a stat or trait or passion) at 20 or higher, and other skills above 15. The character who starts at age 31 can't.


Wrong, unless you rule that after age 26, for some reason, Winter Phase training works differently. Or decide not to grant it atgether to a PC who enters the game after his 26th birthday.
In fact, you could say the root problem is that 5th Edition does not provide guidelines for creating characters younger than 21 or older than 26. But the fabled high mortality rate of the game, combined with railroad GAME OVER consequences for left-right game decisions makes it higly likely you WILL be playing a character outside the 21-26 age interval.[/quote]

Ok, you caught me there. I forgot you were using the standard winter phase rles after 26.
Now, if you say that a character designed at age 26 can be (can be, but isn't necessarily) more powerful than a character players from 21 to 26, I'll agree. I think the standard rule book benefits for ages 21 to 26 are too powerful. IIRC the Book of Knights and Ladies drops that option, and you just get standard winter phase development (one option per year instead of 2) but don't quote me on that - I may be misremembering.

However, that gap narrows the older you get. Once you start using the standard winter phase mechanics, characters in play are better off. here's why:

A character who is not played gains the Winter Phase benefits.
A character who is played gains the Winter Phase benefits and experience.

There is no way the first can be argued as being more powerful than the second, sicne experience can (sometimes) increase the things you are raising with training, giving a 2nd increase in the same year.

Take one of my group's knights (the most powerful of them): by age 33 (his current age) he has a sword skill of 25, and a Valour of 23, thanks to his 11,000 glory. He also has two passions at 20, which get him into a LOT of trouble. (He's the one who stayed behind with Syragrius.)





One thing that my be playing a part is player experience affecting character design, rather than character experience. The player now knows which skills to concentrate on, and so he does. Other players, when they design new characters, will do the same.


Indeed, and I would have done the same as the player did to be honest. It kind of makes you wonder why all those useless skills are threre in the first place.

All those skills are only useless because they aren't being used. There are some skills that have very limited use, like Boating or Swimming, but there are ways to bring in many other skills on a regular basis - like the courtly or entertainment skills (dancing, gaming, etc.), skills like Recognise, as well as the usual culprits of Sword, Lance, Awareness, Hunting, and Valorous.
Even other weapons can be made essential, by having knights challenge with unusual weapons, or "best of three" type challenges (first blow of sword, lance, and any other weapon).

If you are doing only the scenes described in the GPC, and not expanding to include other scenes you create yourself, you will likely create tunnel vision among your players and they will sensibly concentrate on only the very few skills they need.

Good types of scenes also include trait rolls, which are more expensive to increase than skills. Introduce the odd enchanted item that requires a Just of 16 to use, or a Pious roll every time it is attempted, are a good way to reward/encourage trait development too, where players get a concrete benefit out of it.


What amazed me is how ubber a 31 year old PC emerges from chargen when compred to a 33 year old who has been played since a young age. Sir Afan was the best knight is Salisbury, his younger brother Evgral was an esquire by age 31 who never did anything of valor and as far as we know never left the family manor.

Yet he could probably kick his older brother's behind in a fight and is much more adept at courtly life. I guess being a couch potato, combined with appropriate selective skill/trait/passion point distribuition is the way to power... :)


The real way to power is getting glory and having powerful friends. The couch potato doesn't have the opportunity to meet powerful people, marry wealthy heiresses (more powerful than the ones you get from standard marriage rolls), etc. Those in play do get those opportunities.

I have learned something new. Monty Haul and Powergame GMing is alive and well in Pendragon! :o

Why bother with all those infinite skill checks and automatic increases? Just let the players write whatever numbers they want on their character sheets (next to the words "ubber", "radical" and "awesome" I would assume).

If the orgy of skill increase you described is in any way, shape or form representative of the average Pendragon game these days, then it is no wonder people will disagree with me when I claim characters run age 21 onwards loose out to older ones.


Your claim that GPC is incomplete, tends to creates a tunnel-vision in players and forces GM to patch in the holes intrigues me. I am begining to believe you might be right.

I did wonder if your earlier post was a bit argumentative, but I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. I see, though, you are one of those people who finds it difficult to accept other people who have different views than you, so I'll leave you to find your own solutions.
I apologise, though, if something in my posting upset you.

I did wonder if your earlier post was a bit argumentative, but I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.


Ha ha ha! Jolly good! ;D ;D ;D I failed to live up to the expectations of the little baby who removed himself from the discussion because my harsh ways traumatised his fragile ego, and now he is sulking in the corner...how cute! :D

What made even think I give a toss about what you opinions on the level of argumentivity of my posts? Or that I need the benefit of any of your doubts?

Good grief, such hubris! ::)




I see, though, you are one of those people who finds it difficult to accept other people who have different views than you.

I think you looked into a mirror and mistakenly belived you where looking at a computer screen. Or maybe you are just an hypocrite besides being a windbag filled with false civility and a powergaming GM who is secretly ashamed of it.

I mean, I MUST have struck a nerve for you to toss the towel so non-chalantly, and pretend to be on some sort of moral highground. By all means, keep your illusions if they make life easier. I don't mind.




, so I'll leave you to find your own solutions.


I know you are hypocritical, but I honestly didin't take you for an assinine fool.

If you had bothered to read the posts so far you would know I found a solution thank to Hzark10 even before you started spewing your wankery around. Your "contributions", if they even merit that name, where vastly useless.

Again, such hubris! As if I ever needed your help. Oh poor little me! I can't run Pendragon with migthy DarrenHill's advice. Please come baaaack!

I'm actualy laughing out loud as I type this! ;D



I apologise, though, if something in my posting upset you.


Not at all my good man ;D

It takes much more than primate-level wankery to upset me. I'm actualy entertained by your antics.

Ha ha ha! Jolly good!  ;D ;D ;D  I failed to live up to the expectations of the little baby who removed himself from the discussion because my harsh ways traumatised his fragile ego, and now he is sulking in the corner...how cute!  :D
<snip>
It takes much more than primate-level wankery to upset me. I'm actualy entertained by your antics.


??? Wow...was any of that really necessary? You did seem to come across as a bit tetchy in your initial response, at least from this outsider's perspective.

Brandegoris here......

Edsan.. Iwant to tell you something, but keep in mind that i say it good naturedly : You are a magnificent little whiner! If you are unhappy with the game play D&D or something. I have the GPC as well and I dont recall seeing printed anywhere on it " Will GM your entire game for you, you do no work". Your gonna have to work a little to have a good game. If it is work its not fun ya know?

When I played that same year with Greg , my knight Sir Rhun was the knight that wanted to join Syagrius. I asked my commander ( another player ) and he didnt bar my way so I tried to. I was also the hero of bayeux as I criticaled my battle role to wedge the main gates open and lead an assault( even though Rhun was size 9 str 9 with a 3d6 dmg bonus and long shimmering blond hair!). Anyway, Madoc saw me joining Syagrius and asked what I was doing. I explained and he repremanded me and told me to get on the boat with the others. I eveb argued a bit like a fool. He couldve put me to death as a traitor. Greg knowin g i was a new player just made Madoc order me to the ship and I later had to sit through a feast where i was actually honored and rewarded with 2L in goods for openin g the gate at bayeux, and the whole time i was trying to remember my courtesy while I was seething and hating madoc. I asked for a hate Madoc after that incident and actually got one from greg. You know Pendragon is mildly scripted, so you might have to step in like Greg did with me when someone goes against the script at a CRITICAL time like that. Or just ignore the YOUR OUT OF THE GAME part. You need to know that Greg Stafford has a completely wicked sense of humor when it comes to his players! :'( Anyway, I think that even though there are fantasy elements in it , the fuedal society is still very realistic. That being said , it is NOT realistic to leave your Lord and help another... thats called..... wait for it.......Being A TRAITOR!!!!!!!! What a mean word, but no matter your good intentions that what you become when u abandon your Lord to fight for another without the first Lord's permission. Life sucks I guess

Brandegoris here......

Edsan.. Iwant to tell you something, but keep in mind that i say it good naturedly : You are a magnificent little whiner!

Thank you m'Lord! ;D One has to whine quite a lot here until holier-than-thou personages as yourself deign to give your 2 cents worth to us lesser mortals. Apparently, having gamed with Mr. Greg Stafford entitles you to just drop late on the discussion, having already taken sides and contributing nothing of importance, insult others without provocation and having the utmost gall of saying it is "good natured".

At least have the decency of throwing manly insults to my face and stopping to hide behind that shallow veneer.



If you are unhappy with the game play D&D or something.

Oh joy! We're down to the "clique" attitude now are we? 8) I'm sorry if you perceieve me as someone unworthy to bask in the glory of your game of choice and should choose "that other dirty little game".

In fact my dear Brandegoris I DO play D&D. OD&D to be precise. And Empire of the Petal Throne too.

Now, care to explain, in your sectarian and fanboyish manner, precisely why having those three tastes in gaming is incompatible?


Oh, and I'm sure Mr. Stafford will be delighted that you are advising others to just dump his game, escpecialy considering I am running 5th Ed and GPC from borrowed books and hoped to convice my group to pool the $$$ to buy our own.

As it stands I am somewhat disapointed with some traits of both the new rulebook and the GPC. Fair enough, nothing is perfect right?

But,from what I have seen in these forums, if you call attention to that fact you begin being treated as some sort of a undesirable. I am refereing not only to what is happening in this rapidly-becoming-a-quagmire thread but of attitudes I have seen in others.


I had the secret hope that by starting this thread we'd reach the point were we would agree year 488 A.D. has a flawed gimmick that is railroady and not much fun for the players; and THEN get out collective heads togheter to make it better beyond the "the individual GM should fix/ignore it" patch-job.

Like maybe making "The Adventure of the Traitorous Knights in Frankland"? And the battle where Sygarius looses to the Franks? And maybe post it in Mr. Stafford's website if he is happy with the result? Thereby enriching the game?

Maybe? Yes?

But no. Apparently it's better just to shove heads into sand and call me a magnificent whiner.

That sorts it all.

??? Wow...was any of that really necessary? You did seem to come across as a bit tetchy in your initial response, at leat from this outsider's perspective.


Not really, none of it was necessary. Neither was my reply to Brandegoris. But then again, they deserved it anyway, and why should we limit ourselves just to necessities? ;)

At least you say what you think frontaly, unpatronizingly and without hypocrisy. I respect that and answer civily back.

And we're all happy even if we don't necessarily agree in everything. That's the way it should work.

OKAY EVERYONE, TAKE SOME DEEP BREATHS AND TRY TO BE CIVIL HERE.

I apologize. Let me be clear here when I say I am not a super close friend of Mr. Staffords or anything. I have met him yes, but certainly so have many people the world over. I would never assume to know his mind. And my comments really are good natured. I am known to be quite a whiner in my group and so just thought the comment funny. I was a bit curt with you. It is truly my mistake.

...I remember the time when Greg and I each thought we'd gotten a little short with the other and immediately apologized, provoking approving chuckles all around the forum.

Anyway, all of this aside, I'd generally boomerang the knights back in the Syagrius incident with a couple years of gloryless skill gain.

Geeenerally speaking, I find that PCs will get more Trait and Passion gains running in the game, meaning more Glory, meaning more increases to their highest skills, as well as the benefit of being Glorious and getting alll the campaign-related increases.

If a knight has a Glory over 8k when the Round Table comes around, he's a candidate for very big benefits. Going journeying with Syagrius is not conducive to that goal.