forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

So while playing yesterday with my friend, we stumbled across a little problem which we'd been neglecting: Treasure Encumbrance. We'd just completed Of Leaves and Stewed Hobbits, and our saddlebags were swelling proud with the nice stash of Treasure the Goblins so kindly entrusted us with. Thing is, we each had some treasure already, and our characters Fatigue ratings would have shot up drastically using the 1 Treasure = 1 Encumbrance rule. To my friend and I (it was just us two, and I was Loremastering while running 2 NPCs) this seemed a bit over harsh, as well as... odd. We'd retrieved the torque from the little pest in the ruins of the city (I forget the name), which was worth one treasure or so... yet weighed as much as a short sword? And a guitar or drum weighs nothing?
In the end we decided that a good compromise would be for Treasure to start to weigh once the bearer had an amount equal to or greater than the character's Body score. So a character with Body 5 could cary 5 Treasure, then gain 1 Encumbrance, etc. What do you guys think of this? Do you think the 1 Treasure = 1 Encumbrance works, or have any of you tweaked it?

Cheers

Beleg

Should 1 Treasure cost anything when it is being carried by a pack animal? Or, at least, should it count against the adventurer's Endurance only when he is carrying it upon his person?

Otaku-sempai wrote:Should 1 Treasure cost anything when it is being carried by a pack animal? Or, at least, should it count against the adventurer's Endurance only when he is carrying it upon his person?

I think Francesco gave the reason that all Treasure counts to a character's encumbrance not because of the weight solely but also because of its 'value' and the fact that a character checks that it is safe and secure more than he would another item that could be replaced easier than the treasure in question - ie, it's more fatiguing than just its weight alone because a character is conscious of how easy it is to lose/misplace/have stolen/etc.

... Interestingly, it also makes things like the One Ring extremely encumbering rather than 'just' its corruptive qualities.

The problem with the Treasure = Encumbrance rule is reconciling it with the books. Biblo returned from the Wild with "two small chests, one filled with silver, one with gold." and per the rule books that was 500 Treasure points. Now, Bilbo had a pony, but did that poor pony actually have an encumbrance rating of 500? Especially since a weeks clothing, food, musical instruments and such are only at 1 encumbrance (2 if it is winter).

ThrorII wrote:The problem with the Treasure = Encumbrance rule is reconciling it with the books. Biblo returned from the Wild with "two small chests, one filled with silver, one with gold." and per the rule books that was 500 Treasure points. Now, Bilbo had a pony, but did that poor pony actually have an encumbrance rating of 500? Especially since a weeks clothing, food, musical instruments and such are only at 1 encumbrance (2 if it is winter).

The encumbrance isn't just physical weight and so as it's on the pony it isn't worth 500 encumbrance as the pony isn't burdened by other elements that the encumbrance value represents.

For what it's worth though I do play loose and fast with the rules in my campaign, I just haven't codified it as treasure hasn't come up much. Actually, it's hardly come up at all.

Out of interest Rich, what exactly do you mean when you say Treasure hasn't come up at all? Do you mean your players haven't questioned the encumbrance, or they just don't have any?

Beleg wrote:Out of interest Rich, what exactly do you mean when you say Treasure hasn't come up at all? Do you mean your players haven't questioned the encumbrance, or they just don't have any?

The latter reason, mostly. They have been awarded treasure once but then I forgot to apply the encumbrance rule to it so it hasn't come up in the way you've described. I have played with the idea of changing the lower couple of points of treasure though. The RAW's as follows:

1 point: enough for one adventurer to spend one month at a Prosperous standard of living
2 points: enough for one adventurer to spend one month at a Rich standard of living

And I've thought about making those values based around a year, so:

1 point: enough for one adventurer to spend one year at a Prosperous standard of living
2 points: enough for one adventurer to spend one year at a Rich standard of living

... That way you're carrying more gold for the encumbrance cost so it feels a little more realistic and also the lowest treasure value would then relate to a year which with regards to raising a character's Standing matches the duration players are interested in.

Like I say though, my campaign hasn't had to deal with the issue yet, but it will whenever I decide to run "... Stewed Hobbits".

.
.
.


The system's very subjective and abstract for Treasure though and it does produce what look like strange outcomes when analysed.

Hmm, interesting. I find it brilliant how easy it is for the game to be so different amongst different people.
I definitely agree that Treasure, along with some other aspects of the game, do generate odd outcomes when you analyse them too closely though :/

Rich H wrote:
1 point: enough for one adventurer to spend one month at a Prosperous standard of living
2 points: enough for one adventurer to spend one month at a Rich standard of living

And I've thought about making those values based around a year, so:

1 point: enough for one adventurer to spend one year at a Prosperous standard of living
2 points: enough for one adventurer to spend one year at a Rich standard of living

... That way you're carrying more gold for the encumbrance cost so it feels a little more realistic and also the lowest treasure value would then relate to a year which with regards to raising a character's Standing matches the duration players are interested in.

Rich H, I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that you're thinking about making 12 Treasures = 1 Encumbrance?

Prosperous Standard of Living = 12 Treasures upkeep per year = 1 Encumbrance
Rich Standard of Living = 24 Treasures upkeep per year = 2 Encumbrance

That would allow 2 Encumbrance to maintain a Standing of 2 during a Fellowship Phase, and 1 Encumbrance to maintain a Standing of 1....very easy to remember.
If that is what you are saying, I think that makes a lot of sense.

Yeah, the latter.

For me the RAW scale/value of what 1 and 2 points of Treasure can do are too small as people are only really interested in raising Standard of Living on a yearly basis (incidentally, I think there should also be rules to raise it permanently as investing enough treasure into it should allow an effectively permanent change) so I effectively increased what 1 point and 2 points of treasure could do. I kept the other examples of treasure rating as the aren't really explicit and defined - eg, how much/what is a "Princely Gift"?

... Like I said though, I've not tested it out as my players' characters are more motivated by duty and I also use my Renown rules rather than just Standing, so increasing it [Standing, and living standards] and Treasure in general don't really have a focus in my game. In fact, I've started PCs on higher Standing than stated in the RAW - eg, one of my player's wanted their character to be an envoy to King Bard so I started him with a higher Standing.