I'm finding that Standing is a bit rough to gain.

Part of this is because treasure isn't as plentiful as it could be. I've run Marsh Bell and the first two adventures from Tales from Wilderland, and the characters receive 6 treasure at most an adventure.

At that rate, it would take six years to get to Standing 2, which is "Respectable Citizen." Another six years gets you to Standing 3, and then you have two years before you retire. This assumes that you are always home at the end of the year, and don't need to spend treasure for upkeep, or ever want to spend treasure on anything else.

There are a few solutions I'm seeing here.

1. Hand out more treasure
This would probably be the easiest one. It would result in characters having stashed hoards all over the Mirkwood, since the encumbrance would add up fast (which is odd, since according to the Laketown book, 1 treasure = 1 gold coin = 20 silver. That seems a bit heavy.)

2. Adjust the cost to raise Standing
It is strange that a "Goblin's Hoard" of 10 treasure can't even buy someone up to Standing 1, "Ranger." Maybe the costs need to be adjusted down.
Maybe halve it to: 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36.
If the last two are too cheap, then pad them out a little: 6, 12, 18, 27, 36, 48.

3. Start characters at Standing 1
I this is something to consider even with one of the above. Why are starting characters treated the same as foreigners? Adventurers may not have the best reputation, but it can't be that bad.


Any thoughts, issues, or better ideas? I'm interested to hear if anyone else shares this view.


Thanks

Especially hard for Hobbits, who would have to travel back to The Shire. I'm treating Standing more as a "public renown". The characters get awarded Standing if they do something for a community where the lord publicly recognises their efforts and thanks them in front of the crowd. I'm separating Standing in to each culture, not just the home culture, so characters can gain Standing with a culture that is not their own.

They can still buy Standing - back room deals, doing good with their treasure, etc. But it's not the only way they gain Standing.

It only takes one really good adventure - just ask Bilbo!

If anything, Bilbo lost Standing on his adventure. He went from an upstanding citizen to outcast (or barely tolerated mad-Hobbit). He did, however, gain what should be Standing with the Dwarves of Erebor, the Elves of Mirkwood and the Men of Dale.

So, you're saying he gained Standing with everyone that matters...

The rules, as written, only allow Standing with your home culture. My handing out Standibg for other cultures is a house rule.

I think his Standing actually went up a good deal with the Hobbits. People called him eccentric...but he was popular enough many decades later to have to limit his party to "one gross" of people. Plus, the hobbits that are in the area the game is set (the Wilderlands) all idolize him. Granted, a large part of why he has a high Standing is his wealth...but I think that's the point.

Fedifensor ... Now there's a name form D&D days of yore! Nicely done

Valarian, I have also decided that Standing should apply to all cultures... though so far none of my players have even got a Standing of 1 :/
I've decided to take it as the reputation across all cultures though.

Also, doctheweasel, does the Laketown book really say that a 'Goblin Hoard' is only 10 gold pieces? That seems a bit off to me

The Adventurer's Book says the Goblin Hoard part. The table on pg. 116.

The Laketown book gives some optional information to how much treasure is. One treasure is one gold piece. Of course, a gold piece is not your D&D level of cash. Six gold can handle your person's food, lodgings and incidentals for a year at Martial level (I don't have my book here, but I seem to remember it that way).

I was wondering how long the game could go before an "economic" system was included. I understand the Treasure Point system was to stop D&D Monty Haul games, but it does still throw up some problems.

Good point.

Yes, he did lose standing among the Hobbits of the Shire. But as Fedifensor goes on to comment, it didn't stop anyone from attending his Birthday Party. Of course, with the Hobbit culture giving out gifts on birthdays (rather than receiving them), I would have made like a Sackville-Baggins and crashed the party of a rich, eccentric as well.


The out-culture Standing should probably be called Reputation and, as suggested, is probably a cross-cultural value.

It's not much of a system. It's more of a guideline to narrate what was being represented. There is no cost listed for weapons or armor or anything like that.

In total, it's a half-page sidebar.

"...it didn't stop anyone from attending his Birthday Party."

Even though Bilbo wasn't thought of as highly of after the "incident with the Dragon" do you really think it would have caused the other Hobbits to turn down free food and drink?

Bilbo didn't start his adventuring career with 0 Standing. This is an area where the game does not allow a player to recreate the book, unless you artificially increase Standing.

The Standing rule turns all player-heroes into nameless, wandering adventurers until they do something to change that.

Remember that while a hero’s Standing represents his position amongst the members of his own folk, members from other cultures measure the heroic stature of an adventurer by his Valour and Wisdom


Amado A.

You're showing your age as well, if you remember Dragon Magazine #67 (November, 1982)....

Well, if I was Tolkien-as-gamemaster, Bilbo's Standing could be whatever the player wants as part of his background. Once he goes adventuring it drops to 0...but it doesn't matter until Bilbo actually goes back to the Shire. By that point, he can use his vast wealth during the Fellowship phase to increase his Standing until it reaches the level desired by the player.

So ... no thoughts about the system itself (outside of how it did or didn't impact Bilbo)?

Not sure this will be to everyones' cup of tea but I tie Standing more to story/in-game achievements than to spending wealth as I also don't hand out treasure very often and prefer strong elements of duty and honour - which is what I see Standing as representing*. I don't really have any hard and fast rules for handing it out (GM handwaiving really + player justification) so that may be anathema to some peoples' playstyle - works for me and my group though. Standing can still be purchased with Treasure though - if that's the way someone wishes to go. In addition, like others have already mentioned on this thread, I've also played around with rules for having variable Standing ratings in other cultures besides a PC's own culture. Again nothing hard or rigorous (and it therefore may not be to everyone's cup of tea) but take a look:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/79541775/Additiona...ing%20Rules.pdf

Its worth noting that if you use the above then it will change how starting Tolerance within encounters is calculated. This may be something you like or not depending on your style of game and the scenarios/plots you have in mind, so bear that in mind.

* Although I suppose we could always create a separate 'Renown' trait instead.

I see that as being represented by Wisdom and Valour. Standing is, for me, more about social status, and in Middle Earth that can be bought. It's part of the moral economy of the fiction that the best people aren't always the most respected and those at the top of the heap not always the best.

Yeah, RAW you're indeed correct, but like I said 'it may not be to everyones' cup of tea'. Works for me though, YMMV and all that! ... And others may find it [the download doc] useful.

I can't really elaborate at the moment because I haven't really considered it fully. But I guess my suggestion of using Reputation (or Renown if you prefer that term) as a cross-cultural type of Standing, separate from Valour & Wisdom.

I see V&W as being active, like using a skill, during Social Encounters. I see Rep as being more passive.

So Brob the Slayer (Brigands) enters a tavern and the keeper asks his name and preference. After saying "I'm Brob, I'll have an ale." their is a quiet but steady exodus of bodies. It's nothing the character did per se, it was more about the perception and decision of the listener based on other facts they know, or think they know.

Again, it's kind of tentative and it's nothing I've implemented. Just a stray thought.

... Hmmm. I may hack something together over the weekend to allow for Standing and Renown as I see Valour and Wisdom solely as internalised character traits rather than being based upon reputation - ie, like you said, Garn, they can be used in an active way as they are part of a character's personality but they aren't really reputational in the same way that fame/renown is.

I see Wisdom and Valour both as internal qualities and also as measuring how someone's experiences have left a mark on them. It's quasi-Victorian physiognomy, in a way. A warrior with high Valour not only is more fearless but also gives the impression of being fearless, even to people he newly meets. Hence their willingness to hear him out, if Valour is something they value.

Standing is entirely different and is only indirectly related to that. I like the idea of the Standing system a lot, but am not so sure it's applicable as the RAW have it, especially for Hobbits.

EDIT WITH FURTHER THOUGHTS RE. OP:

I think this is the best solution - it solves the issue without fiddling with the mechanics too much. I don't think the last two levels are too cheap, if only because the cost is cumulative. There's also the cost of upkeep to consider - getting to Standing 6 costs 36 Treasure and then 6 Treasure per year to maintain. That's a lot.

As for the Hobbit problem, I'd suggest an extra Cultural Blessing for them: Bilbo's Legacy. Stories about Bilbo's bravery have made Hobbits welcome wherever they go. As a result, they're allowed to invest their Treasure for Standing in any Wilderland culture they choose. Theoretically, they can even invest it in multiple cultures, but that would quickly become prohibitively expensive.

Okay, thought I'd 'strike while the iron was hot', as it were. The link below details a draft attempt at altering the Encounter rules to include a Renown trait (and so Standing is sort of left as-is). Not sure how it reads (or plays out) as I've just this minute put it together!

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/79541775/New%20Ren...ter%20Rules.pdf

I do like the fact that Standing is only for one's own culture. It's a nice bit of niche protection, that keeps say a Hobbit from being more important to Beornings than another Beorning.

Part of the theme of what is happening in Wilderland is that the alliances are drifting apart as the Battle of Five Armies becomes more of a memory. Having Standing represent only your own culture reinforces that cultural isolationism.

I don't disagree and with the renown rules I've just put together such ratings with other cultures can erode so as Loremaster you'd be able to control that to a large degree based upon the setting, what's happening within it, and the themes you want to focus on.

I'm not seeing what Renown does that Valour and Wisdom don't in the RAW. Someone renowned for deeds of Valour isn't going to impress someone who values Wisdom, so why should it count?

As it is, you have to build in an awkward fix to take account of Wisdom and Valour, adjusting TNs for different ways of interacting, although that aspect of an Encounter is already covered by using different skills, like Awe and Riddle.

EDIT: Added further clarifications and reasoning now that I have more time on my hands than earlier.

I have a problem with how Standing, Valour and Wisdom are used to set Tolerance, that's all, for a few related reasons:

* Standing appears to be to tied into socio-economic and/or political achievements

* Standing is largely increased/maintained through spending Treasure, which is something I don't really hand out, so my playstyle largely makes this trait of the system redundant. It therefore limits the players' ability to increase Tolerance for interactions

* Valour and/or Wisdom affect Tolerance but only the highest rated one from in the PCs' group

* Valour and Wisdom, to me, feel more like internalised personality traits of a character rather than something that is used to set Tolerance at the beginning of an interaction - eg, how brave someone is. They feel like they should affect the interactions within the encounter on a character-by-character basis rather than group Tolerance. Also, I don't feel they effectively measure the exploits within a character's lifepath as they can be increased in the game through just spending XP. I want something that's increased in a different way, so...

* I went with something similar to Glory in Pendragon where characters are measured through their exploits and achievements, I therefore use Renown and award this to characters based on what they do/achieve in the game, independent of XP spends. I think Standing is fine as one measure of a character but I prefer something else

* I also wanted this Renown trait to be variable across differing cultures as I think that's an important facet of the game universe. This is allowed in the RAW but I wanted more granularity and control.

* I use Valour and Wisdom as more of a personality bonus so, rather than allowing for more failed attempts at interaction (ie, Tolerance), they add (from the point of view of the player) to the possibility of the success of an interaction, and for each player in question on an individual basis - eg, when that particular character is communicating then their high Valour helps them as that facet of their character shines through. I much prefer this to the general application of the RAW where only the highest PC's Valour/Wisdom is used and only used to increase Tolerance (for the whole group)

The above works for me - it isn't fiddly and applies straightforward penalities or bonuses where I think they should occur and specifically in an interaction rather than to general Tolerance at the beginning of the encounter. It also brings in a trait measuring renown/fame/reputation based on character exploits - for me, as mentioned above, Valour and Wisdom don't logically do this and I wanted something that was solely used for doing that and would be an artefact of achievements within the game and not controlled through XP spends. I suppose I could have not allowed Valour/Wisdom to be increased through XP spend but only through in-game deeds but this would have only addressed one of the issues I have with how they work in the RAW.

For you, this may not be needed, but this area was the one major part of TOR that I really didn't like and prefer how Pendragon deals with it (ie, Glory and personality traits of Valorous and Temperate/Prudent) - which is pretty much what I've ripped off to get to the house rules I now have (obviously tweaked to fit in with TOR's game mechanic). I remember Francesco on a number of occasions acknowledging that the encounter rules are more like guidelines so I'm more comfortable altering those (and the system facets that support it) more than other parts of the system as the nature of structured social mechanics in RPGs are a relatively new development compared to other parts (eg, combat, task resolution, etc) and I think the tolerance (!) for them within gaming groups varies largely which is why I've said right from the start in this chat that YMMV (and more so than usual).

I think that your point was pretty well stated Rich.

Cheers Garn, that's appreciated.

I didn't mean to give the impression it wasn't well stated. Sorry if I came across as hostile. I don't agree that the changes are necessary, but that's obviously dependent on how each person runs their game. So, IMO XP are awarded for achievements, so do have an effect on social encounters when they're spent on Valour or Wisdom, which in turn aren't just internal, etc.

I would be interested in how you handle infamy, though - where someone is famous, but for the wrong things. There's potential here for calibrating Renown and Infamy similarly to Hope and Shadow, where everyone has both and it depends on the balance.

And if you downplay Standing as something separate from good deeds, how do you handle someone like Grima Wormtongue, who has extremely high Standing and can demand the Tolerance to go with it, even though people have contempt for him as an individual?

I think that I find myself in agreement with Ovid about this. The quasi Victorian Physiognomy notion is precisely how I viewed Valour and Wisdom. Both of these work on multiple levels. They do represent an internalized personality trait on one hand but also represent the outward (but not necessarily overt) manifestations of that internal trait.

They are, in effect, measures of standing (and types of Renown or Reputation) in themselves. The implication in TOR RAW is that these two forms of Renown/Reputation are the only ones that gain you respect(standing) outside your own community.
A character with Valour 2 would effectively have a standing of 2 while amongst a folk that value that particular trait. That's my take anyway.

Overt displays of generosity outside your own kith and kin are likely to be viewed with suspicion and so, Standing is treated somewhat differently.

I didn't get that from you Ovid, and your queries were important as they allowed me to explain my issues and reason things out.

In Pendragon an 'evil' character can have high Glory due to infamy so Renown can be read as fame or infamy - it depends on how the Renown was obtained. Personality traits (eg, Valour/Cowardly, Mercy/Merciless, Temperate/Reckless) come into effect when the character interacts. Which is why I split out Renown and Valour/Wisdom in my house rules as I think its more elegant than the RAW and allows for more variation of character build.

Personally, I only really use it currently as a trait to measure positive elements though.

I could see an argument for Grima (assuming he's a PC) having high Tolerance in certain situations so in my houserules I would apply his high Standing in that respect rather than his low Renown (which is something I stated in my houserule document as an option). Then within the interaction his low Valour would not affect rolls being made. I think its debatable if he has even a significant Wisdom score so won't comment on that aspect.

I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree with it, nor do I like the lack of granularity and prefer the separation as I've described above for the numerous reasons. They aren't a set of houserules to fix something that's objectively wrong, but something I don't like and prefer to be different.

Ovid,
I didn't perceive hostility either. I just thought that Rich stated his case for including renown quite well.

I've gone ahead and halved the cost for raising Standing. One session in, it's no big whup.

I will update the thread if the world comes to an end.

Given that Standing level 6 is described as that of a King, I think the game is correct in making it difficult to buy status using Treasure. However, the lower levels are still attainable if the character acquires a sizeable hoard.

Level 1 is only 12 Treasure, which is described as being enough for a prosperous lifestyle for 1 year. That doesn't sound too much to me - perhaps double average annual salary in today's terms. It's within the reach of ordinary people with decent jobs such as doctors or school head teachers. It's the sort of money you could blow on a couple of lavish weddings or a really nice car.

I think the idea is to make levelling up in Standing something you have to build towards over years of adventuring, by saving 3 or 4 Treasure at the end of each adventure. By the end of your first year of adventuring you might gain Standing level 1. By then, you will be a seasoned adventurer, and future adventures could be tougher, and also more rewarding in terms of larger amounts of Treasure. I would imagine reaching level 3 or 4 should take several years of active adventuring, which seems about right to me.

Of course, if you hate the whole idea of Treasure equating to Standing, you could substitute other things that have an equivalent Treasure value. An example might be an honour awarded by a local dignitary, a medal of some sort, etc. For example, you might be awarded a ceremonial "Key to The City" by the local Mayor, which is deemed to be equivalent to 12 Treasure. Some sort of honorary title such as "Warden of the Mark" might be worth another 12, etc.