How to equip a TL3 knight?

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Further more his mistaken Unlanded to mean no home and unsteadily. You Can be unlanded and still be settled and claim the 80/20 even if you you renting and painy in sevice instead of cash.

A Modern Renter still get to have 80/20 settled life even if technical that can be forced to move at the end of any given mount because the land lord deiced not to renew the lease. And eve if you Job require a lot of Travel, does change the fact you can maintain a 'base' that you call home an claim the 80/20

In Gurps speak, and over-simplifying, a landed individual have independent income and loyal manpower available within severe limits.
As Roguebfl said, It have nothing to do with the 80/20.

Celjabba

[doulos05]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

That fits neither the historical reality of crusader knights, the situation for most younger sons of medieval nobility historically, nor the romantic legendary view of knights-errant.

It most certainly fits the historical reality of crusader knights and younger sons of medieval nobility IF you assume that their 80% investment in the social structure does not represent owned land but rather social investment in the form of favors owed, "family friends" whom you've maintained relationships with, a relationship with a liege who provides you the things I listed in exchange for serving in his retinue, etc.

Nor does it represent the actual circumstances of mercenaries, warlords, carpetbaggers, tinkers, and so forth throughout history.

Quite the contrary. Mercenaries were, for large parts of history, on the fringes of society and generally outcast despite the fact they were regularly hired. Warlords (and mercenary captains) WERE invested into the society, they held social position. Their 80% represents time and money spent maintaining and establishing relationship within the society to allow them to maintain a given status level.

Carpetbaggers quickly, and deliberately, inserted themselves into the social structure of their destination society quickly. They spent considerable time and effort and money doing so, represented in GURPS by 80% of their starting wealth.

It also implies that anyone who relocates suddenly acquires the status of a vagabond for the duration of their settling in.

No, it doesn't. The 80% they invested at the beginning of the campaign buys them a spot in society that follows them. Unless they are moving to a society so completely detached and removed from their previous society that NONE of their social advantages transfer. While on the road, they have access to credit (In TL3, that represents trade and barter for future goods and services) and 'favors' such that they can sustain their social standing using the cost of living rules from Basic. Once they arrive, by dent of their social status (purchased, in part, through their 80% Starting Wealth), they are able to settle into a place in society roughly analogous to where they were at before.

It kind of begs the question what a Status 0, non-farmer, non-settled person is.
But it's your campaign.

A Status 0, non-farmer, non-settled person is, depending on the job, a person who, by investing 80% of his starting wealth into the trappings of social life, has access to favors, goods, friends, and such as is fitting for a Status 0 person who doesn't live on a farm.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Because he's making misleading points, and using the hobo analogy to bolster his argument. There really isn't much else to add, though. "Armed hobo" is just not a phrase that contains a useful amount of truth with regard to discussions of unlanded knights, whether self-made, mercenary, lowborn, or late born. Being a knight means you have wealth or some enshrined privileges of nobility (in the absence of wealth) and a level of martial training readily comparable to the professional training and network advantages of the modern upper middle class.

I'm making misleading points? Let me see if this clears it up: "It would not be uncommon or remarkable for an 11-12th century Knight, of the sort who would take up Crusading, to be a landless man with little more than his personal possessions", is that clear and direct to the point? That said men were often involved in violence and theft when not in the direct employ of a lord, and many times even when in the employ of a lord.

Is this all knights? No, but a Knight who has land back home pays for settled possessions, he's not going to be able to get them in the holy land. You're amongst a strange land, you're months away from home by messenger, your wealth, money, prestige based on land? It's meaningless and doesn't exist, because you can't have any settled possessions if you're away. In the society in question, being an armed man on horseback meant you could be accepted into the ruling elite rather quickly if there is a war or battle, but find yourself without employ otherwise.

A modern craftsman who travels between working locations across the country and lives out of hotels and his truck, he doesn't have a settled lifestyle, he carries everything he owns and if someone steals his tools off his truck, he's effed. But he isn't a non member of society, and he still pays for his cost of living. A wandering knight of the 11th and 12th century would do the same, and should still have social ties and bonds according to the status and wealth he has. He is not a poor vagrant, even if he has little to his name but a horse and the armory of a knight. He has a name to call on that identifies him as the kin of some great man, and he has the skills to prove himself as a warrior.

I'm not saying that you can't be a Very Wealthy Knight: you can be one, and you can have your money in settled possessions or your can be a Wealthy Knight and have your money in what you carry, and both remain knights. They may be treated differently in game, but not so drastically that if you don't have a settled life(and hence, possessions) that you are seen as a social outcast and pariah and without a place in society. Because the society we're looking at, it does have a place for those sorts of men, and it's a fairly prestigious position.

I am saying that you can't expect to field a decent credible Knight with Wealthy and the 20/80 split without making making status a very powerful advantage in comparison to wealth(i.e. allowing the status to cover weapons and armor as well as horses), which is not a road I'm willing to take with gurps status and wealth interactions. I don't mind when status gets you mainly non mobile or alienable gear, stuff you can't just turn into cash and walk off with it. That's why it's a 0pt difference between settled and non settled wealth: settled wealth, while giving your more bang for your point, has bits of responsibility that means you cant use it all for adventure. Non settled wealth, on the other hand, isn't restricted in it's use, but there's not as much of it to go around, so you have to account for everything you have, and thats what you get. You can't assume that you have something, you have to account for everything.

Generally, I wouldn't allow more than Status 2 to be non-settled, but the Crusades are a special period: the princes of the first crusade hocked their territories in Europe, and most of them were not coming back. They couldn't rely on the independent income or the fact that their land back home had a bountiful or bad year. It doesn't matter, it's gone it's not available.

There is not a universal answer to this, but there are a number of different answers in gurps to achieve the goal of aristocratic cavalry. Settled Wealthy is not a good one, because it gives us a guy with barely any armor or weapons. Suitable for a mounted serjent or squire, but not a Knight. This means we either go Very Wealthy and settled, or Wealthy and not settled. There are rules describing what the difference between the two is and they make for varied roleplay opportunities, even among knights built off the same template.

[Whyte]

Originally Posted by doulos05

I know. I didn't say he had land. I said, in that block you quoted, that most everything he had was provided by his Liege. He should also take Patron and Duty to account for these facts. And possibly some debt as well (which might explain why this particular liege is his liege). His 'quarters' are a room (probably a common room) in the keep. But his quarters are in a keep, not on the side of a road. His wardrobe is largely provided by and owned by his liege, but when he gets dressed (by his liege's servants, by the way, not on his own) he's not limited to his armor or 'the court outfit my father gave me when I was 5 years younger and 8 inches shorter'. And this landless knight has, at most, 1 servant he brought with him, but that's not the only person who serves this knight. That's just the only servant he gets to take with him if he leaves. Basic Set accounts for this when it says that some levels of status come for free, by virtue of being in a certain job or position. It notes that such status should include a Patron and/or duty on the character sheet, but emphasizes that POTUS is not personally responsible for financing the upkeep of Air Force One.

YMMV, but here is how I'd do it...

Household Knight, 100% / 0% split

Patron/Duty: Definitely, part and parcel why you are a Household Knight instead a Knight Errant

Wardrobe: You have what you have bought with your money. Nothing else. You can try the Patron roll to have something provided by the Lord for the big occasion, or you might get assigned to wall duty in your armor while the rest of the knights party (as to keep you from embarrassing your lord with your shabby wardrobe, and hence keeping you from schmoozing with the higher nobility and even your peers).

Servants: Part of your CoL that is your 'pay'. You don't get a salary per se, instead the Lord supplies you with the CoL appropriate to your status, and an occasional gift, which in GURPS terms is transformed into a job and a salary for the ease of play. Note that similarly the adventurer would get served in an inn by the staff if he has the money to pay for it.

Spare Horse: Did you buy one? What was the frequency of the Patron again?

Housing: Sleeping in the floor/table/benches of the Great Hall with your saddle as your pillow.


Household Knight, 20% / 80% split

Patron/Duty: Definitely, part and parcel why you are a Household Knight instead a Knight Errant

Wardrobe: You have Status appropriate wardrobe for all occasions, no need to worry about embarrassing your Lord by looking like, if you will excuse me, a hobo. This is the flexibility the 80% pays for.

Servants: You are likely to have your own servants to help you, and they have loyalty towards you rather than towards the Lord. A small difference, perhaps, but an important one if you are engaged in a bit of courtly romance towards the Lord's wife/daughter.

Spare Horse: Sure, makes sense. Of course you can try the Patron roll, too, to see if the Lord replaces your dead horse for you.

Housing: A nice little townhouse in the town, with a comfortable bed and rooms for servants/friends, courtesy of that 80%. Which you get to keep even if the Lord finds out about that courtly romance... Well, depends how he finds out, as you might want to move sooner rather than later. But even then, you would be able to get a new townhouse somewhere else quite easily.


My point is, if the comforts are something you own, then you pay for them by selecting the 20% / 80% split. If they are something you 'rent' by paying (with your service, in the case of the household knight) someone else to provide you with them, then you don't own them, they are not part of your assets, and hence you can select 100% / 0% split to reflect that.

I don't see it fully as a lifestyle choice (settled vs wandering), either, but more of a book-keeping one. By saying 'and 80% of my starting wealth in miscellaneous stuff' you have an implicit agreement with the GM that you will be able to pull status-appropriate stuff out of that 80% should the situation warrant it. Such as a spare mattress for a friend to sleep on, or a TV or what have you.

On the other hand, you can declare that you want to list all your assets in your equipment list and use all your starting wealth to do it. In that case, you don't have any 'soft money', but you have what has been listed, nothing else. You could easily use 80% of your starting wealth to buy status-appropriate stuff that is not that useful in adventuring, and end up with only 20% in 'adventure gear'. Cool. No argument from me. But I hope you bought couch bed or a spare mattress for your friend to crash on, when he needs a place to stay, because otherwise you don't have one.

20% / 80% is a convenience, not a shackle, IMHO.

Hmm. I think I just realized what your argument is, doulos05. I hope I got this right... You are saying that if the household knight does get all the comforts of home for living in his Lord's place, then it is only fair that he pays for it with the 20% / 80% split? Because otherwise, it is unfair if he gets to spend 100% to his 'adventuring gear' and then claim that all the comforts come from his CoL? I'd agree with you there, except... My counter-argument, as seen in the beginning of this reply, is that the situation is not equal. If you do spend 80% of your starting wealth on 'settled style', then you have your own place to call home. You can invite guests over, no problem. You can't do that while sleeping on the Lord's floor. And so forth.

Granted, the lines can get blurred. From my personal experience, I just spent a month in a fully furnished rental apartment; heck, I had more and better furniture than I did in my own previous home (which was a rental as well, but what do you expect)! But I didn't own any of it. But comparing the rent made a big difference: it was about 50% more expensive than an unfurnished one. So for a long-term stay, it would have been smarter to get an unfurnished apartment and buy the furniture: the lower rent would more than make up for it in long haul (within a few months, even). So I wonder if this would work:

1. 20% / 80% split: You have all the comforts of home and are in control of them. You have soft money to pull appropriate stuff out of your closet, with GM's approval.

2A. 100% / 0% split: You have used your starting wealth to catalog all of your possessions. Hope you have a comfy bed in there somewhere. (Note also that you need to have 'status-appropriate' comforts, or risk 'slumming it'.)

2B. 100% / 0% split: You don't have a comfy bed in your inventory, but you claim you are renting a room in the inn long-term. Surely the inn has a bed? Sure, but it is a lot more expensive, too. Increase your CoL by 50% (or some such). You might consider buying a bed and getting a rental apartment ASAP. Or you might try 'slumming it' with one lower Status CoL, but if you keep it up, this might have some adverse effects on your Status.

2C. 100% / 0% split: Your housing is provided by your employer in some manner. Usually, this comes with some in-built limitations as to comfort/privacy/space/use. Examples include: many armies/navies, Roman Legionnaires, Household Knights, (potentially) oil-rig workers... I guess some airline pilots and stewardesses might qualify, too, what with staying in different cities and hotels night after night (although usually they do have their homes, too, as do the oil-rig workers). Mind you, I could see an argument that the quality of the housing would be of lower Status, but this would be without adverse effects due to social reasons.

After writing that, I can see why you prefer a simple wanderer/settled person cut for the starting wealth; it is much simpler! :)

EDIT: And while writing this, you clarified your point, doulos05, that you are really talking more about your houserule than anything else. Mind you, I can see where you are coming with it; I don't agree with it, but then again, I am not playing in your campaign so... Your campaign, your rules. :)

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by doulos05

It most certainly fits the historical reality of crusader knights and younger sons of medieval nobility IF you assume that their 80% investment in the social structure does not represent owned land but rather social investment in the form of favors owed, "family friends" whom you've maintained relationships with, a relationship with a liege who provides you the things I listed in exchange for serving in his retinue, etc.

These are traits that are available in GURPS. Claim to Hospitality(all Hautevilles, Nobles of this country, nobles of that) of 5 or 10 points, and now, even when destitute, your Knight has family he can call on to give him a place to sleep. With Patron, you have a lord who may demand a Duty("favors") from you, but he also provides you will a lot of power and authority that can help to counter-act your lack of settled possessions. Independent income can represent small lands that your knight rents out and receives a modest fee for. This is more than just a 0pt feature of wealth(which Settled/non settled is). Reputation, another aspect of social standing, is again a trait you can take to fine tune your knight. But these are points based traits that have costs, not 0pt features that you turn into crippling disadvantages.

Quite the contrary. Mercenaries were, for large parts of history, on the fringes of society and generally outcast despite the fact they were regularly hired. Warlords (and mercenary captains) WERE invested into the society, they held social position. Their 80% represents time and money spent maintaining and establishing relationship within the society to allow them to maintain a given status level.

Ahem, horse squat. Mercenaries of different period varied. Spartan soldiers(and Kings) served as mercenaries. They're not part of their society? They may not be a part of the society or ruling order of their place of business, but they still have an established role in society. Knights of the 11-12th century have heavy mercenary traits.

No, it doesn't. The 80% they invested at the beginning of the campaign buys them a spot in society that follows them. Unless they are moving to a society so completely detached and removed from their previous society that NONE of their social advantages transfer. While on the road, they have access to credit (In TL3, that represents trade and barter for future goods and services) and 'favors' such that they can sustain their social standing using the cost of living rules from Basic. Once they arrive, by dent of their social status (purchased, in part, through their 80% Starting Wealth), they are able to settle into a place in society roughly analogous to where they were at before.

No, the 80% represents investment in non adventuring stuff. You know, a house, land, wardrobe, servants, all that stuff. Their social traits determine their social standing in society, not just the 0pt settled decision. Settled vs Non settled is a feature of wealth, and there are outcomes involved on both sides. But you are really forcing a lot more onto a man with non-settled wealth than the rules imply: treating a landless knight as a vagabond because the only things he owns are his weapons and horse, that's not Status 1, Wealthy(Non Settled), that's Status -1 or -2 with Wealthy.

Non settled means that you have to account for everything you own, and that's what you own, while settled gives you fudge factor, and lets you concentrate on what is just important for adventuring, and allowing you to skip tedious book keeping. For a non settled guy, if you knock him over the head and take his stuff, it's GONE. A settled guy has a bit more plot protection. You might take his armor and weapons, but he can get another horse, and he's got reserves to tap on. Non settled guy can't do that.

[Sword-dancer]

Originally Posted by doulos05

As, I think, the one who first made the jump to hobo, let me clarify what I meant.

When I said 'armed hobo', I meant 'guy with weapons, but no established place in society.' Now, in a game I'm running (Note, this is not RAW, this is my interpretation of the interplay of Cost of Living, Status, Starting Wealth, and the 80/20 vs. 100% SW choice), I would not allow someone to purchase status other than Status -2 without allocating 80% of their starting wealth into the trappings of a settled life. .

This is to put it mildly a very TDE kiesowian way to make it, a noble - gentry born knight is a member of the knightly class, he may be poor as possible and speak to king as an equal, because he may be the master of an order or kings would be honored to´ve him as a guest.
Jacques de Lalange for example..
OTOH he may be an crusader or his fief could be a yearly stipend from his Lord or a part of an tax etc etc

The hautecourts fought their way from lowly knight errants or knight mercenaries to the kings of sicily and South Italy, or part of an invading army.

Guard or house(hold) knight is a job , it isn´t 80% tied into belongings, room and board is part of your pay, you´ve a duty(including a vowperhaps ) to your Lord , as well as he has to you.
Maybe your Lord is your Patron, maybe not, maybe your Lord must replace things you lost in service...
Maybe both can end the service annually

[doulos05]

Originally Posted by Sword-dancer

a very TDE kiesowian way to make it

I'm missing the reference.

[mhd]

I assume he's referring to the German "The Dark Eye" game (former main author Ulrich Kiesow), which had since its earliest edition a "Fighter" class consisting of graduates of military academies.

Not that I'm aware of any special guest rights of those – considering that they basically where a somewhat modern, almost burgoise competition of the old established noble, knightly gentry.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by mhd

I assume he's referring to the German "The Dark Eye" game (former main author Ulrich Kiesow), which had since its earliest edition a "Fighter" class consisting of graduates of military academies.

Not that I'm aware of any special guest rights of those – considering that they basically where a somewhat modern, almost burgoise competition of the old established noble, knightly gentry.

Sounds a bit like Swiss pikemen, Zouaves, and the like.