One of my players pointed out to me that the Book of Knights has characters start at age 15 before previous experience is added, whereas KAP5 (and the Book of Nights and Ladies) has the character at age 21. Couldn't characters generated under BOK (with a possible 11 years of previous experience) be signifigantly more powerful than those under the main rules? Should this be optional for PCs? Am I missing something that offsets the age difference?

I realize BOK is more an intro rule set than a supplement, but I tend to use is as a condensed rulebook, and I am under the impression several other people do as well.

My understanding is that BOK&L supercedes any earlier information since it is the most recent edition. If you still use some 4th edition mixed with 5th, then it is up to you which edition is correct. I agree that mixing them both probably gives advantage to the BOK over BOK&L. If it was me I would probably use BOK&L. Its simpler( you dont have to spend skill points from your fathers class ansd qualify for a position and all that). But some people like that specifically about 4th edition.

BoK&L gives you much higher starting passions.

Book of Knights & Ladies has characters start at age 21, just like the core rulebook. (Ladies start at age 16.)

There's an old 4th edition supplement called Book of Knights or Book of Squires or something that your friend may be thinking of - that's an introductory boiok, but is not balanced with the 5th edition rules (it's not balanced with the 4th edition rules either!)

Book of Knights ...is not balanced with the 5th edition rules (it's not balanced with the 4th edition rules either!)


That is my opinion as well. Its assumptions are philosophically different from my base Pendragon numbers and system. I don't feel it quite fits right.

--Greg

It's based upon the 3rd ed Knights Adventurous (which was included into 4th ed Core), but with the "Unplayed characters get 3 learning dice per year" added in 4th Ed Saxons, which balances against played squires and even NPC'd Squires. All those checks earned in play add up.

Essentially, BoK is 4.5ed, as is Saxons. It's a major change. It also made some changes to combat. I love it, and in running 4th, I use the 2 extra dice per year (with the caveats that only one may be used for combat skills, and each must be used on separate items, with the same option to replace 1d with +1 to a skill over 15, or +1 to a trait or passion.)

BTW, the actual numbers for it, as I showed almost 2 years ago, average pretty much the same as KAP5 CGen totals... BoK is the same power level as 5th. It's a different way of getting there.

It's based upon the 3rd ed Knights Adventurous (which was included into 4th ed Core), but with the "Unplayed characters get 3 learning dice per year" added in 4th Ed Saxons, which balances against played squires and even NPC'd Squires. All those checks earned in play add up.

Except it's not. It is possible for played squires to get the same experience as non-played ones in BOK, ut it's also possible to get radically divierging amounts. With BOK, you may (unlikely) be really unlucky and get very very bad, but your more likely to do much better than a played squire. If you go for things that aren't dependent on a die roll, like stats, passions, and traits, you can get much bigger improvements than characters in play - who have to rely on the fickle dice.

BOK characters do tend, on average, to be considerably more powerful than non-played 3rd/4th ed squires, for those reasons.


Essentially, BoK is 4.5ed, as is Saxons. It's a major change. It also made some changes to combat. I love it, and in running 4th, I use the 2 extra dice per year (with the caveats that only one may be used for combat skills, and each must be used on separate items, with the same option to replace 1d with +1 to a skill over 15, or +1 to a trait or passion.)

In that case, BOK is a good fit for your campaign, but for those using the standard rules, it's a bit too wild. Yes, I know Saxons! introduced it, but I owuldn't use it there either.


BTW, the actual numbers for it, as I showed almost 2 years ago, average pretty much the same as KAP5 CGen totals... BoK is the same power level as 5th. It's a different way of getting there.

It's possible to arrange the increases you get from BOK in a way that approoximates the KAP5 system. It's also possible to use the same increases and assign them in different ways,m and end up with a radically different result.

The advantage of KAP5 is, regardless of the choices players make, they are always capable of knighthood by age 21, and are reasonably balanced with respect to other characters designed in the same system. Both of those points aren't guaranteed in BOK. Though most characters will be knightable by 21, it's not certain - but at least it's more certain than the original 3rd edition system. But characters can be wildly different in terms of skills, stats, passions and traits levels under BOK.

[/quote]

And that "Always" is it's major flaw.

To put it bluntly, KAP4 is far more simulationist in the primary place that matters to me for simulationism: Character Generation.

BoK does away with the random rolls for where, and has some minor differences from KA and from 4th Ed core, but generally is compatible. BoK is essentially a rules upgrade to a 4.5 edition, which Green Knight was intending to release.

The average resulting character, given the 30+ die rolls, ?2σ, are within 10% of the total point gains of KAP5 characters, and are more flexible in the details, plus generates a form of back-history for the character by how those were spent.

KAP1-4 punished unplayed squires by not accounting for the 2-12 checks typically earned by squires in play. 4.5 didn't.

KAP5 prevents one from playing squires; the squires have always been a fun part of my KAP 4 games. I've had players choose to play professional squires.

KAP4 was nearly a fully realized game in the core rules alone; only landholding really was not in the core rules.

KAP 5 was a sore dissappointment on that score; no rules for the various other types of characters important to the setting: Squires, Churchmen, and the rare but feared witches. No ability to play the 16yo ho was knighted on talent, nor the 25 yo squire who never focused long enough to be knighted.

And there is a simple fix for narrowing the odds down on 4/4.5 generation: use a 1d4+1 instead of 1d6 for winter phase. Or use dAverage (d6 numbered 2,3,3,4,4,5), or even 3 points instead of 1d.

Fortunately, 4.5 works just fine with the GPC, as the characters are averaging the same overall competencies.

If one wants to run what is otherwise a KAP5 game using BoK characters, it's not going to break anything... except the warranty, which is non-extant anyway. Being aware of the difference in potential power levels is important, but it's not a game breaker, otherwise KAP1/2/3/4 wouldn't have survived.

I think Greg summed it up neatly on another thread (manors and enhancements) when he said (paraphrased), "is this something I want in my campaign?" There are many editions out there of KAP. Those are summed up neatly in character generation as posted by many. I also have played squires. We played each other's squires/knights. In instance, I had a commoner help me out, and as a reward, I made him a squire. If I remember correctly, he eventually became a knight. But, unknown to me at the time, the commoner was a local bandit leader. This did cause me problems. In KAP5, I have to agree, that playing a squire is hard (not impossible) as the system is setup to play knights.

And I think that is the central issue. What do the players/GM want in their campaign? It is unfair to think/say that KAP5 is the end of itself. I know Greg has a few plans in the works. One was magic, one was clerical, one is the Book of Battle, etc., so he is hoping to expand what is currently there. What will decide the future is the market. Is there enough interest out there to continue publishing Pendragon. I, for one, love the game and will continue to support it. I have taken the bull by the horns, so to speak, by introducing former D&Ders to this. So far,they have loved it.

Like everything else, it is personal flavor. i can see 4th edition's appeal. You might start out a warrior, squire mercenary, etc. U may have only 22 points to spend on your skillls while your friend rolled better and gets 35+ bonus' to traits etc. Also magicians abound and stuff, for those who like them. That is great. But in making the GPC it was a good idea to level everyone out and make everything more uniform. That way everyone has an equal ability to make the most of the narrative story and special events, etc..... Also I think Greg probably wanted to try to get back to the original LITERATURE( Malory). That means playing Knights! A lot of people say it is no fun for everyone to play the same class. Well I think other games get a little silly and are geared for people with limited Role-playing ability( gnome, assasin-magician-paladin berserker!!! Sweet) Now I am different! NO. All knights if played with even a little interest can be very enjoyable and different. Even in 5th edition. But I think 4th can be fun too. It will just( in my humble opinion) :-* Be a lot more work for the GM if u are doing the GPC. Certainly everyone can be involved on some level, but are they having the same amount of Satisfying game fun? If u have 4 players and one is a vassal knight, one a merc knight , one a squire and one a warrior, there is a neat and authentic feel to the game..... I just hope the vassal knight knows how to roleplay well AND isnt A complete DUCHE or when he leads the group( which he will) in most situations, it might not be as enjoyable and might end up changing game years in very significant ways! So for the GPC I think KAP 5th is a better way to handle generation and Book of Knights is perfect. There is a lot of variety, but still a lot of balance. But......To each his own. It is obvious that if u are playing any version of Pebdragon you are " Doing It Right!" . ;D

Like everything else, it is personal flavor. i can see 4th edition's appeal. You might start out a warrior, squire mercenary, etc. U may have only 22 points to spend on your skillls while your friend rolled better and gets 35+ bonus' to traits etc. Also magicians abound and stuff, for those who like them... ...That means playing Knights! A lot of people say it is no fun for everyone to play the same class. Well I think other games get a little silly and are geared for people with limited Role-playing ability( gnome, assasin-magician-paladin berserker!!! Sweet) Now I am different! NO. All knights if played with even a little interest can be very enjoyable and different. Even in 5th edition. But I think 4th can be fun too.

I quite agree here. I have played 1st, 3rd-5th editions. My longest campaign was in 4th lasting over 4 years and went from 490-519 or so. We played mercenary knights, household, vassal, a warrior or two, squires, children (our sons), a banneret, and magician. The biggest problem in it was after character generation, some of us scrambled through additional previous experience so that we could qualify for a level of knight. That problem was fixed in 5th. Overall, I think it was a good move. Do people want more? Do they want to play those other than knights? Fine, then ask Greg if there is room in 5th edition for them. Some can find a copy of 4th and update the system that way (or use 4th entirely). I think there are enough changes that makes 5th a superior product, albeit a limited one. KNIGHTS are the main characters in the game. So, think about the thrust of the game the GM is running and do some serious 21 questions. Would the additional of these other types of characters add or subtract from the storyline? Is the GM willing to take on the additional work to fit them in? Would they have equal game time/game spotlight? etc. If your group decides they want the others in, then by all means add them. And, if there is enough demand, and Greg can find/convince a company to produce them, then other supplements will be forth coming.

BoK does away with the random rolls for where, and has some minor differences from KA and from 4th Ed core, but generally is compatible. BoK is essentially a rules upgrade to a 4.5 edition, which Green Knight was intending to release.


I hadn't realized that GK was the publisher of BoK. That does explain a lot of the differences.

Green Knight.....They Suck!!!!!!!!!!! AAUUGGGHHHH!!!!!!! :D

I wouldn't go that far. You have to admit for as long as Pendragon has been around, it would be considered a niche game. (Many of Chaosium's games were, but that is what attracted me to them in the first place.) Now Green Knight tried to open it up a little. I liked Saxons! I liked that they tried to make the game more appealable to the general public. It had its own consequences (e.g., 3 previous experiences per year) and their version of Book of Knights (Bok) was an attempt to boil all rules down to 48 pages so players could play almost immediately.

Did they succeed?
Well, there's a 5th edition, and a new publisher (Well, sort of, they haven't done anything with KAP for awhile now with no plans to do so).

If we want to see things in print, then I think we need to do more by getting more campaigns going, get interest growing out there, etc.

Green Knight.....They Suck!!!!!!!!!!! AAUUGGGHHHH!!!!!!! :D


Actually, Green Knight sought and received a LOT of feedback for such a niche game, resulting in the changes in BoK and Saxons.

They kept the game alive in the market for several years, and produced several good books, plus reprinted many of the extant ones.

They were quick to answer questions, and quick to ask opinions.

If they sucked, then the almost the entire gaming industry does. I've seen few companies so interested in fan feedback, and none doing so with such a well established product. (The best, in my experience, have been GK, BWHQ, and BTRC.)

Without mentioning names, I've seen several companies solicit opinions, and then go the other way from the bulk of opinion. I've seen companies buy product lines simply to kill them off and reduce the market competition; even to the point of drawing the attentions of the Federal Trade Commission.

Green Knight wasn't perfect, but the Folks involved had a vision for KAP, and strove towards it. It doesn't match Greg's vision, but it really wasn't that far off, either.

BoK was very good for a $5 introductory edition, and was really quite compatible, and really did a great job at what it set out to do. I know people who've run games based solely on the rules in BoK.

I don't understand hostility towards GK. BoK seemed like a good supplement to me, the only thing I didn't like was that one rule about squires getting 2 extra advances, and they aren't the first games publisher to produce rules I've tweaked or ignored!

Easy......I was just kiddin/overreacting. I know some people like old green knight. Thats cool. I just never liked any of their products. That is just me. I just never found much use for them.

Someone gave me a copy of the Book of Knights. That was how I got introduced to Pendragon. I followed with the 4th ed book and other Green Knight published books and ran some of the best darn games in my life.

Even if you aren't a fan of the books GK put out (and I'm honestly confused as to why that might be) at least Green Knight clearly cared about the Pendragon line and continually worked to support the game. The same cannot be said about White Wolf.

True. I greatly despise WW. I was just in a wierd and funny mood when I cracked on GK. I dont hate or like them really. Just being silly :P I'm sure they tried I just Thought that it was they end and their product , unfortunately was inferior to what came before. But I dont dislike them. WW.... I actually detest, for various good reasons. >:(