OK, this is an advice request. I would love some input as to the best way to go forward.

My players are playing a standard GPC campaign, set in Salisbury.

One of the players has obtained the honor of Marshal of the county. (My version of Countess Ellen would do what the players want anyway, as per the GPC, even if one of the players was not the Marshal. :))

So the Marshal is an old Roman, and fairly hardcore ("Hundreds of librum for walls, but not one denarii for tribute!") about not giving any tribute.

So their history for the Anarchy phase is as follows:

Essex was denied tribute in 496, 497, 498, 499, 500 and 501.

Wessex was denied tribute in 496, 497, 498, 499, 500 and 501.

Sussex was denied tribute in 498, 499, 500 and 501

Kent was denied tribute in 499, 500 and 501

We are about to enter 502, and the Angles and Port have yet to demand Tribute.

Cornwall demanded alliance, which was granted for a year, but relations turned frosty when Cornwall invaded Jagent and the players sent all the worst knights to their aid, and not many of them, to boot.

Essex made deals with the Steward of Levcomagus (not opposed by the Duke of Silchester, I hasten to add) to raid in force, and then mount a minor invasion in 498. This was defeated by the PCs forces in a small battle.

For the past three years, I have told the PCs that raiding was affecting the bad weather roll, first at +5 for 499 and 500, then at +10 in 501. I allowed a successful Battle roll to negate 5 pts of this. As a result they have only now started to suffer the negative consequences of their actions.

They have sunk all their extra money into walls around Sarum, increased patrols and and a signal-fire network.

They have attempted two counter raids, both with disastrous results.

So, here are some questions, but please don't restricts yourself to answers, comments and criticism are welcome. All of these questions assume that the players will continue to refuse to pay tribute.

Should I increase the bad weather modifier as more forces come raiding in the next few years?

At what point should I start planning invasions from the refused kingdoms? Or combined invasions. There is already one planned according to the timeline in a few short years.

What other consequences should flow from the PC's choices?

I think the players are due for some escalation and retaliation.


Rading: You should only allow the PCs to reduce the effects of raiding if they are at home when the raid happens. If they are out adventuring or off fighting elsewhere, then they can't do anything to reduce the effect of the raids. I wouldn't increase the effects of the raids, but I'd up the frequency and the severity.

The Saxons would probably consider some pillaging and plundering in addition to raiding. Basically that means hanging around a bit longer, taking more stuff and doing more damage. Note that this could result in permanent damage that would reduce the income from the manor-at least until repaired.

Considering that your players have always said no to tribute, it certainly looks like it time for a attack, perhaps even an invasion. At the least, the Saxons would want to show that they mean business. The group hasn't responded to demands, threats or raids, so they will need to do something more drastic to try and get these knights to pay up. A battle seems quite likely. Perhaps more than one.


Walls around Sarum are nice for Sarum, but it doesn't help much when the Saxons start burning down villages and carting off peasants for slaves.

Combined invasion from wessex and essex. However they should not show up burning all they see, instead they should show up and demand double all the weregeld due. Plus tearing down any fortifications built.
or else...
The saxons can not allow salisbury to refuse them.

You see, that's the key. Saxons can't allow anyone not to pay tribute. If one county does it others will follow. It is therefore important that the Saxons come down hard on any counties that refuse tribute as an example to the others.

So yeah, hit em, hit them hard and then hit them again. Make tribute less painful than losing a manor.

I sympathize with the opening post (Sir Sagramore) as my players are in the same boat (year 503). They not only won't pay tribute, but they keep advising the Countess Ellen to invade the Saxons.

How does one play out these two options (mechanics)?

A) Saxons invade Salisbury for not paying tribute: Surely the county would raise its army to defend itself. Do we just play this out using the Book of Battles? If so, what are the sizes of the armies? What if Salisbury loses, won't that mess-up a lot of the GPC timeline? Some PCs will probably die in the defense (their sons are around 15 years old, but would surely be put to Saxon slavery if they lose...).

B) Salisbury attacks the Saxons: Again, what are the army stats for BoB? This may be foolish without allies, and a Saxon counter-attack would result in the same questions asked above (A). However, at this time in the campaign it is rumoured that many of the Saxons are not working well together, so my players hope to capitalize on this.

Really, it all comes down to this: the players may foolishly refuse tribute OR attack the Saxons. Are the consequences of these actions so dire that they could ruin the campaign? I (GM) have thought so, therefore I have made Ellen refuse the player's advice up to now...

A) Saxons invade Salisbury for not paying tribute: Surely the county would raise its army to defend itself. Do we just play this out using the Book of Battles? If so, what are the sizes of the armies? What if Salisbury loses, won't that mess-up a lot of the GPC timeline? Some PCs will probably die in the defense (their sons are around 15 years old, but would surely be put to Saxon slavery if they lose...).

Why would it necessarily result in a battle? The saxons are in diplomatic contact with eachother, if they refuse all then a joint venture wouldn't be unlikely (unless your players do something to split them up). So the saxons show up with a force that easily outnumbers salisbury, you should simply throw in double whatever the players got. You want it to be obvious that any fighting in the open is futile. But the saxons don't want to throw away men on a bloody battle/siege if they don't have to. So demand weregeld and tribute. So now Ellen would have the option to either surrend and pay up, or to defend sarum while the saxons ravage the land. The choice is simple.


B) Salisbury attacks the Saxons: Again, what are the army stats for BoB? This may be foolish without allies, and a Saxon counter-attack would result in the same questions asked above (A). However, at this time in the campaign it is rumoured that many of the Saxons are not working well together, so my players hope to capitalize on this.

Salisbury attack the saxons? That is ridicilous. The saxons must be assumed to have scouts in the area, if they see salisbury muster for an attack then whoever they are not attacking will simply sack sarum for the loot. (If PK attack A, then B & C attack Salisbury, one raiding and one sacking/plundering)
This would only make sense if they payed tribute to two out of three and then attacked number three.

Why would it necessarily result in a battle? The saxons are in diplomatic contact with eachother, if they refuse all then a joint venture wouldn't be unlikely (unless your players do something to split them up). So the saxons show up with a force that easily outnumbers salisbury, you should simply throw in double whatever the players got. You want it to be obvious that any fighting in the open is futile. But the saxons don't want to throw away men on a bloody battle/siege if they don't have to. So demand weregeld and tribute. So now Ellen would have the option to either surrend and pay up, or to defend sarum while the saxons ravage the land. The choice is simple.

Not simple at all. First, the Saons have to do something. And they are not all friendly with each other. Keep in mind that they are not even all Saxons. There are Angles and Jutes and they fight with each other.

Throwing in double what the players got is not an assured victory either. That's just a -5 modifier. It's makes thing more difficulty, but not automatic. Frankly I don't thing the Saxons could muster a larger enough force to ensure a victory, or else they would have done so already.

That makes the choice far from simple. The Saxon have been rading the land for the past few years and it really hasn't hurt that much. Not surprisingly really, since the modifier for a raid in the GPC is less than the loss for tribute. The only way the Saxons are going to get anythout out of these people is to hit them hard.







Salisbury attack the saxons? That is ridicilous. The saxons must be assumed to have scouts in the area, if they see salisbury muster for an attack then whoever they are not attacking will simply sack sarum for the loot.

Yeah, right. The Saxons can manage to:
1) See Sarum Muster a force
2) Muster a force of thier own
3) Bypass the the Salisbury army without being detected
4) sack arum, despite the walls and footmen who would be left to guard it
5) Make it back to thier own lands while still avoiding the Salisbury army.

I don't think so. The Saxons are not supermen. Assuming that they could somehow spot the attackers and raise an force faster than the invading army could move into the region, they would need to use that force to fight off the invaders, or else their homes would get raided, pillaged or what not. It's a two way street. The Saxons would have all the same problems as the Salsibury knights, plus they would lack the fortifications.

An invasion from Salisbury isn't ridiculous at all. It's just very difficult. The Salisbury army would be outnumbered, and defenders tend to have the luxury of being able to bring more of their forces to the battlefield because they don't need to leave as many warriors behind to guard their homes, since that is where they are in toe first place.

I do thing that the time for the players to have tired that sort of tactic was probably a few years back, when they had money and could possibly have hired to meres to bring along to battle. Now they are probably going to start seeing their income drop from raids until they will have trouble maintaining the armies they have.





But, if I were one of the PCs, I'd see about finding an ally, ASAP. Allies can help watch each other's backs and/or mass their armies for war. And I'd rather take my chances on a British ally like Nantelod or Ulfius than one of the Saxons.



I have a sneaking supicioun that my players are going to try an tough it out too

...Okay. This is about the point when at least one Saxon king needs to get his stuff together and squash these arrogant churls who have been refusing tribute. Probably more than one.

It may look amusing to the Salisburyans when Cerdic, Aelle and Levcomagus arrive in Salisbury and start fighting each other over who gets to take it, but the Saxons need to make an example of them. Next year, don't put it off. The Saxons have been entirely too lenient with Salisbury and their cashflow is suffering for it.

If they actually manage to fight off the force that lands on them, it's time to start the War For Britain. Salisbury has shown that the Saxons can be beaten, and other British lords will stop paying tribute and maybe ask if the Little County That Could would like to send its knights to help them become High King. The Saxons will respond by electing a Bretwalda and get Cornwall on their side. Accelerate the timeline for Netly Marsh.

I don't think so. The Saxons are not supermen. Assuming that they could somehow spot the attackers and raise an force faster than the invading army could move into the region, they would need to use that force to fight off the invaders, or else their homes would get raided, pillaged or what not. It's a two way street. The Saxons would have all the same problems as the Salsibury knights, plus they would lack the fortifications.


That's right that one Saxon kingdom can't do both things (attacking Sarum and defending their stolen land). But, when Salisbury attacks, for instance, King Cerdic in Sussex (this is perhaps the better choice, because they are the nearer Saxon from Salisbury), the scouts of all other kingdoms will see that the defence are low in this County... and so, perhaps the Saxons of Portland, Sussex or Kent (not too far armies) will attack them to show others counties what they do to people that not pay tribute...

I'm pretty sure that Saxons will not attack a County with a huge defense (too many lost for a very difficult victory : raiding is the better choice), but, if all the forces are away, that's too simple for them...



And, for the raids, if you apply the Book of Manor, don't forget that each raid means one roll in the Property Destruction Table (Table 5 p41) : if all the players have a mill to rebuild (£15), plus some houses and so on, I think they will see raids a bit differently...
I'm playing in 502, and none of my 5 players have a entire village (some lacks a mill, others 1/4 of the village, others have no bakery or 1 or 2 fields burned...), and I'm pretty good with them (just 1 roll a year in the table, though they are raided by 3 or 4 Saxon kingdoms...). And don't forget that each construction builded when there is a raid is automatically failed and half of the money is lost (p 16)... so, it's impossible to rebuild if they are raided...

Not simple at all. First, the Saons have to do something. And they are not all friendly with each other. Keep in mind that they are not even all Saxons. There are Angles and Jutes and they fight with each other.

Isn't 502 the year when all the other saxons gahter their forces to go fight the Angles? One of them being Port, joining king Aelle.
So whatever happens a saxon army is going to pass eiher salisbury or silchester. I mean if salisbury so far has refused tribute and not allied with anyone, then they have a lot of cattle to spare and the saxons might have it as a muster point for king Aelle before moving to face the Angles.
The point still stands, for the sake of the tale the saxons can't seem to be weak in this period. Otherwise much of their threat later is not going to be scary for the PK.


Throwing in double what the players got is not an assured victory either. That's just a -5 modifier. It's makes thing more difficulty, but not automatic. Frankly I don't thing the Saxons could muster a larger enough force to ensure a victory, or else they would have done so already.

If they face down that and take the losses for such a choice then they have deserved to be free of tribute so far they have not. Also I said the choice for Ellen is simple. While the players are gung-ho she should be more prudent.


Yeah, right. The Saxons can manage to:
1) See Sarum Muster a force
2) Muster a force of thier own
3) Bypass the the Salisbury army without being detected
4) sack arum, despite the walls and footmen who would be left to guard it
5) Make it back to thier own lands while still avoiding the Salisbury army.

Please read my post again, there was a reason why I used the A-B-C example.Here it is again:
(If PK attack A, then B & C attack Salisbury, one raiding and one sacking/plundering)
So if the player knights muster the army and attack saxon land A, then the saxons of saxon land B or C should attack, both should not have time to muster fully so only one would raid, while one closer should be able to mount an attack.
What you are missing is that 2 they are already mustering every year the only question is where to attack 3 the salisbury army is going in the other direction no need to bypass 4 no need to sack sarum if you get the same result by sacking its surroundings, sacking sarum would only be if king Aelle decides to make an example of the non-tribute payers 5 again not the same saxons



I don't think so. The Saxons are not supermen. Assuming that they could somehow spot the attackers and raise an force faster than the invading army could move into the region, they would need to use that force to fight off the invaders, or else their homes would get raided, pillaged or what not. It's a two way street. The Saxons would have all the same problems as the Salsibury knights, plus they would lack the fortifications.

The point of saxons is that more able bodied men join in the attack. That is the threat, a larger part of their people are warriors compared to cymri/briton culture. So they simply muster faster, also them not having so many horses is a great advantage in these types of fights. They don't need the supply train and they can much more easily hide or evade by going through a wood/forrest.
So of course they are not supermen, but you are belittling them when they should be the villains and the bogeymen of the era. That is no fun. In the anarchy era the players should fear the saxons, if you as a GM let the players get away with anything vs the saxons because you play them as ignorant savages then they will not be the grand adversaries they are supposed to be.



An invasion from Salisbury isn't ridiculous at all. It's just very difficult. The Salisbury army would be outnumbered, and defenders tend to have the luxury of being able to bring more of their forces to the battlefield because they don't need to leave as many warriors behind to guard their homes, since that is where they are in toe first place.

An invasion on saxon lands from salisbury alone without any allies is ridiculous and futile. The saxons are the hydra of the day, if you kill one of the tribes off then there are instantly two others to fill the wake with a vengance.

Also if they where lucky enough to actually succed in their invasion then kin Aelle must take them as a serious threat the year after. The britons can not be allowed to join under a strong ruler that would be doom for the saxons (que arthur). So he must wipe such resistance out. Which king Aelle should do in 502 when the other tribes join with him, if he does it before or after defeating the angles doesn't matter.

Now mind you if the players do something fantastic like split the saxons or get silchester or king nanteleod to join them that would be a different scenario, but so far they are just obstinate and should be punished.
Burning down those who refuse them should be top prioritu.

One thing that springs to mind is that Uther commanding the knights of several counties united didn't do all that well against Saxons in most battles. Stand off and minor victories, but nothing decisive.

How will Salisbury stand alone, without a military leader of Uther's calibre?

This, BTW is a really nice discussion - just what I hoped to see. Thanks, all!

Let me enumerate some practical restraints on my choices, as I go forward.

* I have the book of the Manor, and the book of battle, but we are slowly phasing them in. I am still using the bad weather rules for Manors in the GPC, and have yet to go over the new battle rules with my players.

* I know there is a big showdown coming in 507 or 08 (according to the GPC), so I want to try to get to that.

What I need to know is how do I implement the guidelines that Greg takes about in the intro to the Anarchy Phase where I track tribute and grudges, and what are the mechanical effects in the game for the consequences?

I think I may have figured out an answer, at least to my satisfaction, and when I post later today (sorry, have to go soon) I will write up what I decided.

What I need to know is how do I implement the guidelines that Greg takes about in the intro to the Anarchy Phase where I track tribute and grudges, and what are the mechanical effects in the game for the consequences?

There are no explicit mechanics in the rules for how to translate the grudges into in-game events.

There have been others on this board who have suggested starting with a raid (ie +1d6 to weather) on the first year of missed tribute and then escalating to a pillage (+2d6) and then to a plunder (+3d6) for each year of defiance - which seems like a good, not too involved, way of handling it. A full scale invasion to properly break them to the yoke may well occur at some point as well, tho' that should probably arise as a result of the campaign timeline or role-played action.

Of course, as an evil GM, I would suggest that this would be for each Saxon king thus defied; so you could build up quite an impressive weather modifier once you've got Sussex, Middlesex (aka Silchester :o), Wessex, Portsmouth, Kent and Essex lining up to take their portion.

The main thing is to make the raiding mostly unamenable to a player knight response - basically the anarchy is all about least worst options and negative sum situations. Which sucks of course, but you need it to be grim to make the successes under Arthur more sweet.

Regards
Luke