Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: Hundreds and Liege

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    426
    Some more notes on how to deal with Critalot.
    - No dice rolls. In my games I expect my players to roleplay their characters. So if sir Honest is asked to lie he will have a hard time of it, and may even flatout refuse. Even without any dice rolled. It will focus the game on roleplay in stead of roll play. If during those encounters I feel a PK acts a certain way he may get a check for the apropriate trait or passion. So I rewarded the PK who kept telling the rest that those Saxon ambassadors were devious and would betray them. He acted out of his hatred for them, but I also gave him a check for his suspicious.
    - Personal quests. In my games quests are almost always personal. One PK gets a quest to slay Big Bad and the others accompany him and help out where needed. But it is the PK who needs to fulfill the quest. So when they meet the Big Bad its the PK who goes first and has a chance for glory, before sir Critalot comes along and ruins it for everyone. If the PK succeeds he gets the most glory.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by womble View Post
    Aye. It's a great motivation. But it's not going to happen quickly, and so your first generation of knights might be 6-10 years getting there, which means there will be an interregnum between them becoming too old to adventure and their firstborn son getting old enough to knight/inherit. That is, if they survive the years it takes to get enfeoffed - any player who's character dies is going to be starting over on the 'getting enough notice to earn a fief' ladder, pretty much. For a concrete example, the GPC I'm in at the moment, my first (batchelor HK) knight died at Terrabil, and so my second knight (also HK) didn't even get married until a couple of years before Arthur cropped up. He's pushing 40 and his eldest is 4... The only successor knights-of-the-blood coming into play as the first generation (including a couple who got started a couple of years in as replacements for early casualties) are one who was already born to a Lady-becomes-a-Knight when the game started, and the son who got Changelinged and is chronologically about 9, though has lived his full 21 years (mostly) in Faerie.

    For my money, as a player looking forward to the Dynastic aspect of the game, I'm a bit sorry to have missed out this time.



    You're not wrong There has been an amount of discussion about how that affects the supply of Noble sons to replace losses to War and Age, and that I think is where the spinster-Lady's Maids were brought into the thought-experiment


    I think it would still be Ordinary; there's a lot of 'economy of scale' to suggest that the cheaper 'Maid upkeep' wouldn't mean the knight would have to be Poor instead of Ordinary.
    I think maybe what's causing a mental hiccup for me on this question is the disconnect between the activity cycle of your "average" household knight, who is really just an up-jumped cavalryman with a label that lets him hang with certain social circles, and landed vassal knights with inheritance concerns. The former are a dime a dozen and replaceable by raising up valiant (or at least loyal) men-at-arms. This changes in Arthur's middle years, because by then the land was at peace long enough that it groaned with excess knights who would have otherwise died in battle.

    The latter are a special class by virtue of offering something through marriage: money and power. They have to ensure that the fief continues in the family name, and need to marry early and well and produce heirs. Even so, landed knights are a minority among the ~2000 knights in all of Logres, and if the rest of those knights are not marrying and producing heirs to the title then the family will go extinct in a few generations, tops.

    So there must, realistically, be a lot more side-marrying going on with maids and the like. Which is more realistic since the lower-class girls will want to marry asap--they gain status and ability to manage men by doing so, and if they hit 25+ spinsterhood their fathers will want them "off the books" quickly. The alternative is having a large number of roudy fighting men about all the time, seducing said maids and creating bastards the family has to acknowledge in order to perpetuate itself... unless non-knight members carry on the banner, which is also possible.

    But I'm causing a digression again, and apologize.

    For Sir Critalot, yes, the other excellent suggestion is in a small group to assign quests explicitly to each PK so they won't step on each other's toes. This is a bit harder to justify in DnD, but for KAP it makes perfect sense as it works off family and loyalty ties. The group goes along for the same reason and backs up the primary actor. Everyone has their moment of Glory and can pursue their own niche in combat or court.

    --Khanwulf

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Khanwulf View Post
    I think maybe what's causing a mental hiccup for me on this question is the disconnect between the activity cycle of your "average" household knight, who is really just an up-jumped cavalryman with a label that lets him hang with certain social circles, and landed vassal knights with inheritance concerns. The former are a dime a dozen and replaceable by raising up valiant (or at least loyal) men-at-arms.
    I see what you're saying, and I think that was true at the start of the institution of Knighthood, but I get the impression that by 485 that's well beyond starting to change: the Noble class has consolidated its hold on being Kinghts, and your birth (i.e. being the son of a knight, and hence a Noble) is by default more important than the proven valour/skill of a commoner retainer. Why else would Knights be made out of callow 21 year old youths, rather than the combat-honed 30 year old sergeant? I think by the time of the GPC, a Knight is expected to be more than a jumped-up Cavalryman.

    But even if Noble blood isn't that important a prerequisite for Knighthood, for the game's Dynastic element to take hold, if you start with Bachelor Knights, it's probably a good idea to let them marry if they want, even before they get their own lands, in order to get the Dynasty started.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by womble View Post
    I see what you're saying, and I think that was true at the start of the institution of Knighthood, but I get the impression that by 485 that's well beyond starting to change: the Noble class has consolidated its hold on being Kinghts, and your birth (i.e. being the son of a knight, and hence a Noble) is by default more important than the proven valour/skill of a commoner retainer. Why else would Knights be made out of callow 21 year old youths, rather than the combat-honed 30 year old sergeant? I think by the time of the GPC, a Knight is expected to be more than a jumped-up Cavalryman.

    But even if Noble blood isn't that important a prerequisite for Knighthood, for the game's Dynastic element to take hold, if you start with Bachelor Knights, it's probably a good idea to let them marry if they want, even before they get their own lands, in order to get the Dynasty started.
    I think you're right, and that the default assumption is that by the time Ambrosius returns and re-formalizes the landowning warrior class one of the reactions--purposeful or otherwise--was to emphasize the noble nature of the class as opposed to relying entirely on "might" to carry authority. After all, Ambrosius could have gone down hard were he not led by a ferocious public relations campaign that survives to this day! (Vortigern basically handed him a kingship as soon as he showed up in an effort to buy him off... of course, he had 2000 [Alan/Sarmatian] cavalry looking to get paid, too, which probably figured in.)

    Then Uther, who loved might-make-right, but only if it was HIS might and HIS right, would have had even more reason to push the culture to limit free acceptance of merit knighthoods. It wouldn't limit him, anyway.

    ANYway, I think there's some interesting avenues to run a KAP campaign emphasizing that vassal holding makes you really special, and that you (the PK) need to balance the natural urges with your extended family's interest in having you marry for advantage, and your lord's interest in keeping costs down. It's a nice triangle, that, and keeps every pence important.

    Then some PK wacks Gorlois and the world turns on its head.

    --Khanwulf

    PS. One of the side-effects of all this is that in the early period if you want to play a special flower, jumped-up dirt-farmer come knight because you've shown your lord extreme loyalty and competency in his Hour of Need, then you can... and enjoy some of the ill-natured ribbing that we'd imagine female knights would get--only from the class angle.

    Later periods would have the same character become a rather-less-poor dirt farmer, or perhaps be provided a fine office, instead.
    Last edited by Khanwulf; 08-09-2018 at 12:58 AM.

  5. #35
    Agree with Khanwulf here in regarding Aurelius. Son of a high king, fled to Brittany at a young age, he learned there all about knights, types of fighters including cavalry, and when he returns in 466 and destroys Vortigern, he goes about instituting knighthood, or as some would say, reintroduces it back into Britain.

    BobS.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •