Treasure

[Otaku-sempai]

No, there's no rule in the rule book that starts you off with treasure.

That's right. Most Player-heroes can be assumed to be carrying at least a bit of money, but the game using RAW does not require that they keep track of it.

[Butterfingers]

Speaking of treasure, the slipcase edition of TOR mentions cursed treasure, and the GM screen has a table about it, but I couldn't find a closer description in the book itself? Is there one?

I got Rivendell and Adventurer's companion ordered and on their way, those probably have more on this subject, right?

I am a noob myself, but reading the rules about raising your SoL temporarily seemed like it was made exactly for this type of thing, raise it temporarily to get all those cool armours etc? Otherwise, what would be the use of raising your SoL temporarily except to live large for a time and throw that money around? There are more useful and sensible ways to spend your treasure, after all.

[Stormcrow]

The text of The One Ring says "Frugal adventurers can rarely afford to pay for anything," not "Frugal adventurers can rarely afford to pay for anything out the ordinary."

So the wording is a bit different between TOR and AiMe, with the latter including a slight elaboration.

That's not a slight elaboration; that's a huge difference. In TOR you can't buy anything; in AIME you can buy anything that's "ordinary," where "ordinary" is apparently left up to the referee. Ponies are ordinary, right? A room at an inn is ordinary, right?

[Otaku-sempai]

That's not a slight elaboration; that's a huge difference. In TOR you can't buy anything; in AIME you can buy anything that's "ordinary," where "ordinary" is apparently left up to the referee. Ponies are ordinary, right? A room at an inn is ordinary, right?

Okay, I'm not sure how "Frugal adventurers can rarely afford to pay for anything" equates to "Frugal adventurers can never afford to pay for anything". There has to be some differentiation between Frugal and dirt-Poor. An adventurer from a Frugal culture is likely to have at least a few coins of lesser value on his person--some copper and maybe a little bit of silver (local denominations might include coins of tin, maybe bronze). He might not be able to afford a private room at an inn, but he might opt to sleep in a common room rather than be forced to sleep in the stable. A poor meal is not beyond his means. He might be more likely to carry what personal possessions he has in a gunny sack rather than a backpack.

Is a pony an ordinary purchase? It's all relative. It's ordinary if a person can afford it, otherwise it isn't. A little common sense can go a long way.

[Stormcrow]

Speaking of treasure, the slipcase edition of TOR mentions cursed treasure, and the GM screen has a table about it, but I couldn't find a closer description in the book itself? Is there one?

"Tainted Treasure" did not appear in the original Loremaster's Guide except as a single-line reference of "Taking possession of a cursed or tainted item or treasure" as a source of corruption. It was added to the hardcover edition of the rules, and is included in the Clarifications and Amendments document.

I got Rivendell and Adventurer's companion ordered and on their way, those probably have more on this subject, right?

Rivendell has a bit more on the subject, but the Clarifications and Amendments document has the main rules.

I am a noob myself, but reading the rules about raising your SoL temporarily seemed like it was made exactly for this type of thing, raise it temporarily to get all those cool armours etc?

And paying for other goods and services you might need during your adventure. They may not be listed in the rules, but a Loremaster might incorporate such things into an adventure, or players may make requests. ("We absolutely HAVE to hire a smith to come with us to this site in the mountains to do some work there. Can we afford to?")

[Stormcrow]

That's not a slight elaboration; that's a huge difference. In TOR you can't buy anything; in AIME you can buy anything that's "ordinary," where "ordinary" is apparently left up to the referee. Ponies are ordinary, right? A room at an inn is ordinary, right?

Okay, I'm not sure how "Frugal adventurers can rarely afford to pay for anything" equates to "Frugal adventurers can never afford to pay for anything".

Now you're just playing with semantics. I'm speaking generally, since we're dealing with abstract rules: when you're Frugal, you generally can't buy anything, even if it's ordinary.

There has to be some differentiation between Frugal and dirt-Poor.

No, there doesn't, because no adventurers ever qualify as Poor. If they did, the difference would be that Poor characters could have no gear of their own: "They struggle every day to find what they need to survive, and have no time or resources to look for anything beyond the bare necessities, let alone equip themselves for adventure."

An adventurer from a Frugal culture is likely to have at least a few coins of lesser value on his person--some copper and maybe a little bit of silver (local denominations might include coins of tin, maybe bronze). He might not be able to afford a private room at an inn, but he might opt to sleep in a common room rather than be forced to sleep in the stable. A poor meal is not beyond his means. He might be more likely to carry what personal possessions he has in a gunny sack rather than a backpack.

And a Poor adventurer would not be able to afford any of this. That's your difference.

A Frugal adventurer can get basic services. He can't get replacement gear or rentals; he probably won't be able to barter with anyone of a higher standard of living.

Is a pony an ordinary purchase? It's all relative. It's ordinary if a person can afford it, otherwise it isn't. A little common sense can go a long way.

That's circular reasoning. You're defining "ordinary" by what someone can purchase, then saying that if they can purchase it that makes it ordinary.

And it's unnecessary, anyway. We have a table that tells us who can afford ponies (and boats). Poor and Frugal can't; Martial may rent one; Prosperous and Rich may buy (rent?) two or three, respectively. So even if Frugal can buy whatever is "ordinary," renting a pony is officially beyond "ordinary."

[Otaku-sempai]

Okay, I'm not sure how "Frugal adventurers can rarely afford to pay for anything" equates to "Frugal adventurers can never afford to pay for anything".

Now you're just playing with semantics. I'm speaking generally, since we're dealing with abstract rules: when you're Frugal, you generally can't buy anything, even if it's ordinary.

Well, I don't think that I'm playing with semantics, and I could just as easily claim that you are doing the same. I don't want to prolong our argument (civil discussion?) unnecessarily, but I do feel that there's a bit more to say.

There has to be some differentiation between Frugal and dirt-Poor.

No, there doesn't, because no adventurers ever qualify as Poor. If they did, the difference would be that Poor characters could have no gear of their own: "They struggle every day to find what they need to survive, and have no time or resources to look for anything beyond the bare necessities, let alone equip themselves for adventure."

This is actually addressed in AiMe (not so much in TOR) with the statement: "The equipment of adventurers from such [Poor] cultures generally represents the entirety of their family's wealth and may very well be all they own."

An adventurer from a Frugal culture is likely to have at least a few coins of lesser value on his person--some copper and maybe a little bit of silver (local denominations might include coins of tin, maybe bronze). He might not be able to afford a private room at an inn, but he might opt to sleep in a common room rather than be forced to sleep in the stable. A poor meal is not beyond his means. He might be more likely to carry what personal possessions he has in a gunny sack rather than a backpack.

And a Poor adventurer would not be able to afford any of this. That's your difference.

See, we can agree on this. Our opinions are not so far apart.

A Frugal adventurer can get basic services. He can't get replacement gear or rentals; he probably won't be able to barter with anyone of a higher standard of living.

The RAW allow for replacing lost or damaged war gear at friendly settlements. The LM might determine that certain items cannot be readily replaced because they are culturally inappropriate, but that is a separate issue.

Is a pony an ordinary purchase? It's all relative. It's ordinary if a person can afford it, otherwise it isn't. A little common sense can go a long way.

That's circular reasoning. You're defining "ordinary" by what someone can purchase, then saying that if they can purchase it that makes it ordinary.

That's relativism for you. However, I would concede that, in my own opinion, acquiring a horse or pony goes beyond a standard purchase for the average individual (which is probably what I should have stated in the first place).

And it's unnecessary, anyway. We have a table that tells us who can afford ponies (and boats). Poor and Frugal can't; Martial may rent one; Prosperous and Rich may buy (rent?) two or three, respectively. So even if Frugal can buy whatever is "ordinary," renting a pony is officially beyond "ordinary."

I look at those as guidelines rather than hard rules, though still useful. A hero with a Martial standard of living might find it much easier to rent a mount rather than buy one, but he could probably manage to purchase one if he really wants one badly enough (and if he rolls well for it).

I was actually a bit surprised that the Wild Hobbits of the Anduin Vales are not considered to be a culture with a Poor standard of living. They, if anyone, should qualify.

[Stormcrow]

The RAW allow for replacing lost or damaged war gear at friendly settlements.

But the RAW also state that the acquisition and replacement of war gear is not governed by the Standard of Living rules. "[W]eapons and other war gear are not covered by the following rules [Standards of Living], as acquiring such prized possessions is a different matter entirely..." They can be replaced automatically because they are considered part of the character, and the rules just want to let you gloss over that. You can't look at war gear to examine how the Standard of Living rules let you buy things.

And it's unnecessary, anyway. We have a table that tells us who can afford ponies (and boats). Poor and Frugal can't; Martial may rent one; Prosperous and Rich may buy (rent?) two or three, respectively. So even if Frugal can buy whatever is "ordinary," renting a pony is officially beyond "ordinary."

I look at those as guidelines rather than hard rules, though still useful.

They're as much guidelines as anything else in the book. If we're talking rules as written, we're including that table. If you want to understand what Standards of Living let you buy, you need to look at every data point you have, and that table provides some.

I was actually a bit surprised that the Wild Hobbits of the Anduin Vales are not considered to be a culture with a Poor standard of living. They, if anyone, should qualify.

I thought that too, but a Poor character would have no war gear. The justification that their grandmothers keep treasures comes from Gollum's mouth and is untrustworthy; Gandalf didn't believe it. In the interest of making playable characters, the writers made more of Wild Hobbits than Tolkien supposed—especially that they still exist during the game's period and still live in the Gladden Fields. Part of Gollum's tragedy is that, even if he were cured of what the Ring did to him, he could still never go home. Not just because his family and friends are long dead, but because his entire people don't exist anymore. So if you're going to add some Wild Hobbits where Tolkien had none, you may as well make them playable—i.e., make them Frugal.

[Otaku-sempai]

But the RAW also state that the acquisition and replacement of war gear is not governed by the Standard of Living rules. "[W]eapons and other war gear are not covered by the following rules [Standards of Living], as acquiring such prized possessions is a different matter entirely..." They can be replaced automatically because they are considered part of the character, and the rules just want to let you gloss over that. You can't look at war gear to examine how the Standard of Living rules let you buy things.

Fine, though as I was specifically referencing war gear I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. I wasn't talking about other gear at that time, nor was I arguing that other supplies or equipment could be replaced for free.

And it's unnecessary, anyway. We have a table that tells us who can afford ponies (and boats). Poor and Frugal can't; Martial may rent one; Prosperous and Rich may buy (rent?) two or three, respectively. So even if Frugal can buy whatever is "ordinary," renting a pony is officially beyond "ordinary."

I look at those as guidelines rather than hard rules, though still useful.
[/quote]

They're as much guidelines as anything else in the book. If we're talking rules as written, we're including that table. If you want to understand what Standards of Living let you buy, you need to look at every data point you have, and that table provides some.

...a Poor character would have no war gear.

I've already shown that that is not necessarily the case, though such gear might represent all or nearly all of a Poor family's wealth. Alternately, such gear might have represented family heirlooms or even been scavenged from a barrow or a battlefield.

[Stormcrow]

But the RAW also state that the acquisition and replacement of war gear is not governed by the Standard of Living rules. "[W]eapons and other war gear are not covered by the following rules [Standards of Living], as acquiring such prized possessions is a different matter entirely..." They can be replaced automatically because they are considered part of the character, and the rules just want to let you gloss over that. You can't look at war gear to examine how the Standard of Living rules let you buy things.

Fine, though as I was specifically referencing war gear I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. I wasn't talking about other gear at that time, nor was I arguing that other supplies or equipment could be replaced for free.

I didn't say you were arguing that. I'm saying that your Standard of Living describes the stuff you can buy except war gear. The question is what the difference is between Poor and Frugal. The difference is (a) that Poor characters start with no war gear or other gear, and Frugal characters do, and (b) Poor characters can't buy anything at all; Frugal characters can buy the most basic and meager services only. Poor characters literally have only the rags on their backs.

...a Poor character would have no war gear.

I've already shown that that is not necessarily the case, though such gear might represent all or nearly all of a Poor family's wealth. Alternately, such gear might have represented family heirlooms or even been scavenged from a barrow or a battlefield.

You claimed that, but you haven't shown it. The book tells a different story: they "have no time or resources to look for anything beyond the bare necessities, let alone equip themselves for adventure." They cannot equip themselves for adventure. They have no war gear.

Maybe Adventures in Middle-earth is different. I dunno. We have already seen some difference. But The One Ring seems fairly clear.