Holdings and Minimum Scores

[beckett]

This might be stupid a question but what happens if a player-hero's Standing is reduced below the Minimum Score required for his Holding? Does he lose the Holding or does the value of the Holding (the Rating) change to match the new Standing value?

I guess the next dumb question is, if the hero's Standing is reduced from 1 to zero does he lose his Modest (Rating 9) Holding?

[Rich H]

Well, if someone loses their Standing (ie, falling to 0) then the lands given to them can be reclaimed so if it fits in with what's occurred in your campaign then I'd certainly say it's feasible/possible. I suppose it's up to the LM and the specific circumstances in question. Perhaps a mission/undertaking could be accepted in order to keep the land and improve the PC's Standing back to the previous level?

If someone's Standing has fallen then the Holding could decrease to match it. Logic would suggest that this has occurred because the PC doesn't have the funds to maintain their Holding at the previous level so buildings and so on degrade or fall into disrepair.

[Morgoth]

But if that was the case, wouldn't getting a Gandalf Rune on your upkeep be trivial? Because you wouldn't have the standing to keep your holding at that level and it would go back to where it was before. (ie, you have a standing of 3, and a holding of 7. On your upkeep you roll a Gandalf, and the holding goes to a 6. But wait, you don't have 4 standing, so it goes back to a 7. This wouldn't really make much sense.)

Also, you can't have standing high enough to have a holding rated at a 3, yet you can get a holding of 3. To me, this suggests that the minimum standing to get a holding is only when you acquire it.

[Mytholder]

I'd say he keeps the Holding, but should face regular problems until he gets his standing back up. Stuff like:
[*]Local rivals try to take the Holding
[*]Accusations of being a miser
[*]Tensions with local rulers, if any
[*]Bandit attacks, as his neighbours won't support him
[*]Dwindling of the Holding itself, unless the character takes action during the Adventuring Phase

[Rich H]

But if that was the case, wouldn't getting a Gandalf Rune on your upkeep be trivial? Because you wouldn't have the standing to keep your holding at that level and it would go back to where it was before. (ie, you have a standing of 3, and a holding of 7. On your upkeep you roll a Gandalf, and the holding goes to a 6. But wait, you don't have 4 standing, so it goes back to a 7. This wouldn't really make much sense.)

Also, you can't have standing high enough to have a holding rated at a 3, yet you can get a holding of 3. To me, this suggests that the minimum standing to get a holding is only when you acquire it.

I see what you mean. I'm not a fan of the Holding rules, there are lots of areas lacking clarity, and there isn't really a lot of meat to them as they currently stand. I think they are a great idea but they come across as, shall we say, a little underdeveloped? There are also some odd statements in the text. For instance, this bit:

If the roll result is equal to or less than the holding’s rating, then the holding produces just enough wealth to keep the character at his Standard of Living.

So, what happens if you don't have a Holding? The statement above implies that having a Holding (or something similar) is required to maintaining a PC's Standard of Living - eg, Rich, Prosperous, etc but that is tied solely to Culture.

I think if I ever use Holdings I'll develop my own rules. Some high-level thoughts at the moment are:

1) Tying Holding to Standing - ie, when Holding rating increases so does Standing. That way it supports the idea that the status of a Holding matches the owner's material reputation to a degree. I'd think that a Holding improving in it's rating should logically increase a PC's Standing, but it doesn't as written.

2) Standing affects Standard of Living - ie, a Lord of Dale would have a higher standard of living than a tradesman. Thoughts around this would be that the Standards of Living stated for each Culture are the base levels and if Standing is low then it can reduce the PC's Standard of Living or if it is in the high range it can increase it.

3) Impacts to Standing, Standard of Living, or the Holding would affect the other two elements in interesting ways.

Currently though, my players and their PCs aren't particularly interested in them - I think they were spoilt playing Knights in Pendragon where the rules for Manors etc carry far more weight and fit in with the drivers for the campaign - eg, dynasty building, etc.

[aramis]

I see what you mean. I'm not a fan of the Holding rules, there are lots of areas lacking clarity, and there isn't really a lot of meat to them as they currently stand. I think they are a great idea but they come across as, shall we say, a little underdeveloped? There are also some odd statements in the text. For instance, this bit:

If the roll result is equal to or less than the holding’s rating, then the holding produces just enough wealth to keep the character at his Standard of Living.

So, what happens if you don't have a Holding? The statement above implies that having a Holding (or something similar) is required to maintaining a PC's Standard of Living - eg, Rich, Prosperous, etc but that is tied solely to Culture.

It comes across to me that the missing item is that some combination of:

1. a mechanical "holding" typically isn't in one's homeland
2. It should be Social Level not Standard of Living
3. Standard of living should drop if one doesn't return home, in addition to Standing

[beckett]

If someone's Standing has fallen then the Holding could decrease to match it. Logic would suggest that this has occurred because the PC doesn't have the funds to maintain their Holding at the previous level so buildings and so on degrade or fall into disrepair.

I was thinking along these these lines as well, Rich.

I'd say he keeps the Holding, but should face regular problems until he gets his standing back up. Stuff like:
[*]Local rivals try to take the Holding
[*]Accusations of being a miser
[*]Tensions with local rulers, if any
[*]Bandit attacks, as his neighbours won't support him
[*]Dwindling of the Holding itself, unless the character takes action during the Adventuring Phase
Gareth Hanrahan

These are great ideas, Gareth! I shall use them. I think some of these points fall in line with Rich's idea above that the Holding's Rating would decrease to match the fall in Standing.

Thanks everyone!

[beckett]

I think if I ever use Holdings I'll develop my own rules. Some high-level thoughts at the moment are:

1) Tying Holding to Standing - ie, when Holding rating increases so does Standing. That way it supports the idea that the status of a Holding matches the owner's material reputation to a degree. I'd think that a Holding improving in it's rating should logically increase a PC's Standing, but it doesn't as written.

2) Standing affects Standard of Living - ie, a Lord of Dale would have a higher standard of living than a tradesman. Thoughts around this would be that the Standards of Living stated for each Culture are the base levels and if Standing is low then it can reduce the PC's Standard of Living or if it is in the high range it can increase it.

3) Impacts to Standing, Standard of Living, or the Holding would affect the other two elements in interesting ways.

I love these ideas as well, Rich. Thanks for the input!

[Rich H]

No problem.

[Stormcrow]

I'd say he keeps the Holding, but should face regular problems until he gets his standing back up. Stuff like:
[*]Local rivals try to take the Holding
[*]Accusations of being a miser
[*]Tensions with local rulers, if any
[*]Bandit attacks, as his neighbours won't support him
[*]Dwindling of the Holding itself, unless the character takes action during the Adventuring Phase

[*]The holding and all its contents are auctioned off by Messrs Grubb, Grubb, and Burrowes.