Treasure

[Rich H]

...however, an adventurer might still be personally reduced to the status of Poor.

And the information on such a standard of living explicitly states they do not have the resources for adventuring equipment. In other words the rules around the replacement of lost war gear infer that the items lost are of a person's culture, therefore representative of a culture's standard of living, and therefore can be replaced without any need for the LM to adjudicate (as they are within the 'purchasing power' of such cultures). That's what the rules are getting at when they state war gear can be automatically replaced if lost. As there are no cultures with a Poor standard of living this does not apply as such a standard of living cannot obtain such gear and therefore cannot replace such items.

Well, I'm not trying to make any trouble. I do feel strongly about a new Loremaster asking a question and getting advice that seems very wrong to me. I do not wish to offend, and I had no intention of engaging in such a prolonged discussion on this subject.

I know you're not (trying to make trouble) but the opposing view to yours is not "very wrong"; and that's really the problem right there. It's a valid interpretation of the rules as I've just shown in previous statements. The inability to replace missing gear is not being applied to existing cultures just to the exceptional times when a PC is reduced to being Poor. A Poor person doesn't have the resources to acquire adventuring gear so how does he get replacements? If he has some gear and loses it then how does he acquire other gear when such a standard of living cannot resource them? The rules about automatically replacing lost gear refer to player Cultures, all of which have a living standard higher than poor and can therefore replace their (cultural) war gear without issue. Poor isn't a cultural living standard so it doesn't make any sense to apply those same rules, particularly when the book states such a living standard cannot fund the purchase of such gear.

Thinking this through I'd now state that my interpretation (and Stormcrow's - again, don't want to speak on his behalf) is a perfectly valid application of the RAW and doesn't contradict it. It also, critically, stands up to common sense scrutiny. I don't think I need to state anything more on this matter as my above and previous statements are there to see and I really can't add to them.

[Stormcrow]

Thinking this through I'd now state that my interpretation (and Stormcrow's - again, don't want to speak on his behalf) is a perfectly valid application of the RAW and doesn't contradict it. It also, critically, stands up to common sense scrutiny. I don't think I need to state anything more on this matter as my above and previous statements are there to see and I really can't add to them.

Your interpretation is the same as mine.

[Rich H]

Your interpretation is the same as mine.

Appreciate the confirmation, thanks. Always a bit leery about stepping in halfway through an online discussion. Its not the same as a real conversation, so I don't think it's rude, but I also don't want to tread on other peoples' toes - however hairy they may be!

[Otaku-sempai]

...however, an adventurer might still be personally reduced to the status of Poor.

And the information on such a standard of living explicitly states they do not have the resources for adventuring equipment. In other words the rules around the replacement of lost war gear infer that the items lost are of a person's culture, therefore representative of a culture's standard of living, and therefore can be replaced without any need for the LM to adjudicate (as they are within the 'purchasing power' of such cultures). That's what the rules are getting at when they state war gear can be automatically replaced if lost. As there are no cultures with a Poor standard of living this does not apply as such a standard of living cannot obtain such gear and therefore cannot replace such items.

But that is just it, replacement war gear is not acquired in the same manner as other gear and Standard of Living plays absolutely no part in it according to RAW. The rules really are quite explicit on this exact matter: "At most, a small favour may be demanded if the settlement is not of their own culture, such as the performance of a task, or simply a song or tale." I don't know how it could have been made any more clear.

I know you're not (trying to make trouble) but the opposing view to yours is not "very wrong"; and that's really the problem right there. It's a valid interpretation of the rules as I've just shown in previous statements.

I think my statement above shows why I must disagree. By RAW there is no correlation between a character's Standard of Living and the replacement of lost or broke war gear. To state otherwise is completely false, not just a different interpretation.

The inability to replace missing gear is not being applied to existing cultures just to the exceptional times when a PC is reduced to being Poor. A Poor person doesn't have the resources to acquire adventuring gear so how does he get replacements? If he has some gear and loses it then how does he acquire other gear when such a standard of living cannot resource them? The rules about automatically replacing lost gear refer to player Cultures, all of which have a living standard higher than poor and can therefore replace their (cultural) war gear without issue. Poor isn't a cultural living standard so it doesn't make any sense to apply those same rules, particularly when the book states such a living standard cannot fund the purchase of such gear.

Again, this is taken directly from the core rules regarding the replacement (not acquisition!) of gear of war: "If a hero loses or breaks any of these items, they can be replaced automatically, at the next friendly settlement they reach or other appropriate moment in the narrative. At most, a small favour may be demanded if the settlement is not of their own culture, such as the performance of a task, or simply a song or tale."

Thinking this through I'd now state that my interpretation (and Stormcrow's - again, don't want to speak on his behalf) is a perfectly valid application of the RAW and doesn't contradict it. It also, critically, stands up to common sense scrutiny. I don't think I need to state anything more on this matter as my above and previous statements are there to see and I really can't add to them.

You are, of course, free to rule as you want to in your own game, but you cannot honestly claim that your position is supported by the rules as stated. It does, in fact, directly contradict those rules. I wish that I did not have to continue to oppose you on this, but I cannot reconcile your statements and what is in the book. I don't think that this can be resolved by anything less than an official ruling from the design team.

[zedturtle]

Alright. At this point I'm not sure that much more will be accomplished than folks agreeing to disagree, rather than continuing on this path...

[Rich H]

The standard of living of each culture is absolutely implied within the rules of replacing war gear as the character is still acquiring items through a transaction, albeit automatic ones; villages/town/etc do not simply give away gear to anyone who passes by. If you cannot see that then I don't know what to say; it's like asking someone what the weather is like and them replying "sausages".

... you cannot honestly claim that your position is supported by the rules as stated.

I can and I have.

YIt does, in fact, directly contradict those rules.

No it doesn't; as per my previous statements as to why being Poor is an exceptional case.

I wish that I did not have to continue to oppose you on this, but I cannot reconcile your statements and what is in the book. I don't think that this can be resolved by anything less than an official ruling from the design team.

Honestly, I don't really care what you do but don't quote me directly any more as there really isn't any point in further debating this; I've said all I need to on the matter. And I wouldn't want to waste the design team's time in ruling on this as it is such a minor and almost non-existent edge case it isn't worth their time. But here's something similar to what they'd say:

"A PC who is Poor does not usually exist within the rules as written. In such rare circumstances as a player-hero being such a status then each individual Loremaster needs to decide how a character replaces their equipment as such a standard of living cannot acquire such items through usual means. Such characters are effectively destitute so obtaining equipment relevent to adventuring would likely mean falling back on previous favours and their reputation or carrying out tasks or commitments applicable in scope to the items they are trying to procure; spending a Fellowship Phase (and an undertaking) with such a settlement would be applicable in such cases."

This is a really tedious discussion.

[Rich H]

Alright. At this point I'm not sure that much more will be accomplished than folks agreeing to disagree, rather than continuing on this path...

A-men to that. My response above cross posted with yours, Zed. I'm done with this daft debate.

[Otaku-sempai]

Alright. At this point I'm not sure that much more will be accomplished than folks agreeing to disagree, rather than continuing on this path...

On that, agree we can.

[Grey Seer]

Well, I have to say that I think my original question was thoroughly answered and I wanted to thank everyone who contributed. I think it is a testament to this board to see how several people who clearly think the other is missing the point can have a discussion without it devolving into a mud slinging contest. Despite being slightly heated, all sides seem to still respect each other even while in disagreement. I don't think that would have happened on some other major RPG forums I've been on.

Having said that, I have some follow-up questions about Treasure, but I feel maybe it's best for me to start a new thread.

Thank you again everyone for your help!

[Jon Hodgson]

I've had a couple of PMs about this - and yes, well-done everyone for being so civil.

So unfortunately in this instance, millions of pixels have been spilled over an impossible hypothetical in the rules as written. In TOR there are no adventurers from a Poor standard of living, and unless we're forgetting something, there are no mechanisms to reduce an individual's standard of living in TOR.

Here's what Francesco had to say:

The description given for each standard of living summarises in very broad strokes the economical standard of an entire folk. The detail given under the Poor standard of living about an impoverished people being unable to equip a hero for adventure is the reason why there are no heroic cultures at that level - a Poor culture cannot afford to ‘produce’ adventurers (at least in the number we consider to be minimal for a culture to be considered ’heroic’).

Speaking for myself, losing one's gear, and needing to replace it, regardless of the character's standard of living, is the perfect opportunity to create some plot and roleplaying. The various passages being compared in the thread offer a nice triangulation of guidance - the hero will need to do something in order to have their gear replaced if they aren't at home, and if it makes sense within your game to play it out.

Other times it makes more sense to simply consider the gear replenished, with some short description of how that comes about from the LM, (or the player if you have that kind of group) and get on with the quest.

It is the perfect potential hook for side-quests, or some interaction that relays more about the setting. You might create debts, or bonds, or NPCs to revisit later. Gifts can be hugely symbolic, and come with obligations.

For me, the rules offer guidance here, but the fun is in the play at the table. But yes, don't worry about Poor Adventurers. There are none in the rules as written. If you want to house-rule a downward change in SoL, then go for it - but that will be up to you how it is implemented.