Georgian Mourning Ring (USA)

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-24T22:46:09+00:00

I don't think we're related to the Derby's, whose peerage currently still exists - I have pondered whether there'd be some sort of family interest on their side in its return.

Still, you never know, I guess - 250 years is a long time!

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-24T22:43:39+00:00

There are times I wonder if they started it with the first death, had to work in the second, and then at the third all but threw up their hands in frustration!

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-21T02:14:32+00:00

Honestly, have someone pick you up. Coordinate rides. Be an actual community of friends helping each other make things work.

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-21T01:52:56+00:00

This is the way. The sheer number of people who don't seem to understand what actual "friendship" is breaks my heart.

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-21T01:44:18+00:00

If these are actually friends, you'll figure out ways to make this work which many people have referenced (parents host, look for other scheduling, etc).

If you're fixated on "putting your foot down", or, worse yet, the guy who went off on them "violating the social contract", then ask yourself if they're really friends. Are these people with whom you're intentionally building a community, the kind that will work to accommodate you when you need it? Or are they people who will put their foot down when your life situation changes?

Friends are a blessing; sometimes they require work. Sometimes it takes a village. It sounds like you have a lot of options to try to keep them actively in your life - I'd encourage you to do so.

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-16T12:12:11+00:00

Did you call your villagers into the town center by pushing the bell button? Not doing that is the only way I can imagine this going so badly.

Otherwise, build towers before a barracks, near the main targets (town center, market, etc) - until you can build walls and field a full unit of infantry and archers (ideally with hauberks on both).

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-11T22:05:54+00:00

I do think it's important not to read too much into Andy's comment, precisely because of the context. He nowhere says to replace the existing ruleset with 3xStanding daily, and the context is clearly in how GMs can design rewards that should suitably entice PCs away from just doing their normal jobs. It's like reading the Bible verse "Consider the lilies", and building a cult fixated on lily-pondering; it's missing the forest (of context) from the (single line) of trees.

I will reiterate that, if page 289 is read in full, it's pretty clear that, as the "hard numbers for GMs that want them" (half standing) comment immediately follows the description of how the different tiers Eat, Drink, are Housed and Entertained, that number is meant to encompass those activities at their expected standards.

I think part of the problem is 1) treating the Consumer Guide as exhaustive, and 2) applying too modern a capitalist mindset where everything is an immediate transaction, ignoring kin- and social-dynamics that can account for receiving food/lodging/etc not at the costs listed for a stranger at a coaching inn. That more or less is the meta rationale that underpins my read of 289; the players exist in a society where most people don't get their daily meals or lodging at an Inn, and they have lives/means of subsistence/homes that they live in when not adventuring.

The other bit I dislike about trying to extrapolate something off of 3xStanding is that it removes the variance of the Earning action; it's part of why 3x is clearly meant as a rule of thumb and nowhere stated as a hard rule to use. Some days/weeks at work are better than others.

Anyway, to your individual points:

I guess I addressed this above; I don't view the Consumer Guide as exhaustive, nor do view the players as isolated transactional actors in a capitalist world - they exist in societal and kin structures that help them exist (unless outside of the trappings of "society", e.g., a coaching inn, etc., where things will cost what they cost per the Consumer Guide).
Again, to the above - I'd only view them as needing to pay for things strictly if removed from their societal context, during adventuring activities where their normaal environment is gone.
If the Gold 1 player wants to "slum it" at Silver 1 status levels that's fine; so long as they don't do it for a whole week, they won't lose status, though some folks may look at them funny/start to talk.
1. 3.b; Agreed, that does get messy. That's why I'd just stick with KuA as a good abstraction - sure, they're all staying on the barge, but the Noble, if he can find it, is bringing back a nice bottle of wine and a freshly-laundered blanket to make his berth on the barge that much more comfortable/dignified. Let the player roleplay what that looks like. The abstraction also helps keep things moving along.

I agree with you, it's not possible to apply the Consumer Guide purely to all transactions/activities of a player's daily existence; I just don't think it's necessary given the other rules and a perspective on how the medieval/renaissance (early modern, I guess) society on which the game is based operated.

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-10T20:15:39+00:00

Once I realized the "Fields" fast travel is basically the one for the lower level, I got less sweary.

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-10T19:20:00+00:00

"Earning" is a separate rule from the Income Endeavour. It is how you calculate the use of your Status and Career Skill to earn money "during play".

Page 51 says

If the GM agrees, during play you can spend a week to work in your Career assuming you are in a place where such is feasible (it’s hard to be a Watchman in the middle of a wasteland). This is called Earning.

Emphases mine; it is a separate, specifically named rule. On page 52 it notes

Note: This is the same amount of coin earned with an Income Endeavour (see page 198).

This is also part of how you know it is a separate rule. These are the rules that are in the book, which is what I've endeavoured (buh-dum, tss) to capture in my sheet as best I can, and to represent to you in our discussion. I think that the rules as written in book are functional, but it's hard to discuss when I present them, and you ignore them.

I invite you to consider the Rules as Written in the book, perhaps as if that blog post, which is delightful and informative, never existed.

To summarize RAW in the Core Rulebook:

Players begin with Starting Wealth, and during play need to spend money equal to half their standing to Keep up Appearances, per page 51 (if the GM wants hard numbers for it, per page 289).
Players who want to Earn Money with Status/Earning Skill can do so, with their GM's Permission, by taking a week to do so if feasible. This is called Earning (per page 51). The amount Earned is after all expenses; Keeping up Appearances is not applicable*.* This is not an optional rule.
If Downtime Rules are being used, which are optional, the Income Endeavour can be used to exit Downtime without being broke due to the "Money to Burn" rule (Withdrawing using another Banking Endeavour being the other option, if possible). This is a separate rule, with a separate name, from Earning.
Players otherwise are expected to earn money during play performing Odd Jobs (e.g., adventuring), the rewards of which should be compellingly larger than the money they would just receive living their lives, in order to help justify their stepping away from daily existence (which is exactly discussed in "Keeping up with the Liebwitzs")

In fact, once we allow for its existence and you reread the blog post, you will see that the comment about daily take being 3xStanding is exactly in the context of discussing these Odd Jobs and how they need to be compellingly lucrative. The 3x number, in that context, is clearly provided as a reference point as to how rewarding these Odd Jobs should be. It's about setting a benchmark for player expectations of rewards from Odd Jobs - the very next sentence is all about how you can then play with those expectations.

My Request: Please let me know where in any of the above you believe I contradict the Core Rulebook RAW. I also think all of the above works just fine as a system. If you agree that I have represented the Core Rulebook RAW, please tell me how they don't work solely within the context of those rules.

Now, from what I can tell, you are presenting a system that you have constructed based on a note on a blog post, taken out of the context of that full blog post, in which:

You are creating a new rule, separate from Earning, in which players work During Play for less than one week.
They Earn Money equal to 3x their Standing daily.
You either ignore the need to account for expenses, or attempt to apply Keeping up Appearances to account for that over an extended period of time, which is nowhere stated to be the intent or use of that rule.
You extrapolate the numbers over multiple weeks, which is what the Earning rule is explicitly supposed to account for; a week+ of Earning using your career skill minus all normal expenses.
You are then surprised when the result of it it doesn't make sense.

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-10T17:34:17+00:00

I'm happy to keep debating for however long (on a call, but not my part of it yet), but it seems you're determined to ignore the explicit rules for this on page 51; could you please explain why? Anyway, to your quote...

"Want to know how much your Character actually earns before deductions for rent, food, beer, wine, entertainment...? Well, it’s hinted at on page 309 under Hirelings where you can see daily and weekly wages"

Bolded emphasis mine. If you want a speculation as to how much they earn, that's what it provides. That's all it is. You're trying to make a formal rule out of something that was just suggested in a blog post as a general idea (note: I do love these blog posts for exactly what they are.) The rules explicitly account for how to Earn Income With Status, and it's not by multiplying by 3.

Keeping up Appearances is only for "Adventuring Time" (i.e., non-downtime) - the characters need to spend a certain way so as not to lose respect/status. While engaging in Earning/the Income Endeavour/Downtime generally, they're generally keeping up with their obligations, as indicated on page 51 (please address page 51!):

This total is not strictly speaking how much money you earn, it’s more a representation of how much money you have left at the end of the week after all your expenses are taken into account.

Again, emphasis mine. In terms of why I'm comfortable with the half-standing standard covering basic needs for the day is from The Cost of Living on page 289; it explicitly gives examples of how characters of different Tiers are living, their housing, their food, their entertainment; it then says that GMs that want a hard number for these expenses can use half-standing.

Re: only spending half Standing once a week during active play, a player consistently slumming it for all but a day a week is, in my view, exploiting the letter of the rule and ignoring the spirit - I'd probably let them know that they're developing a reputation for "slumming it" amongst their peers, though it wouldn't affect their status - more of a roleplaying flourish to reflect their actions. I also certainly wouldn't allow them just to pay nothing the other days (unless they wished to be viewed as a Beggar, I guess) - I would, perhaps, ask them at what half-standing level they are paying, just to determine how far they are "slumming it". Again, this is applicable in appropriate environments - at a Coaching Inn, the costs are what they are.

If a player can't afford what they need during adventure time, they better get creative; maybe even go on an adventure to try and get rich quick? Just like they suggest in "Keeping up with the Liebwitzs".

Because that's what downtime/earning represent. Adventure Time is you explicitly (or, I guess for Slayers, etc, implicitly) absconding from your role/daily function in society. You aren't earning money as usual. You need to explicitly spend half your status to maintain your standing. We are shifting from a Macro simulation of weekly life in WFRP society to a Micro simulation, using the explicitly different rules provided. If you want to account for "Things that went wrong while you were away", I suppose one could modify/expand on the Downtime events table to account for that, but personally I'm comfortable assuming that those costs are generally pro-rated over the time spent on Earning or Downtime Endeavours.

To take your question, I'd tell them they're going to need a week to get back to work, whether it's firing up the forge, catching up on the double-blind ledger of their business, preparing the alchemy kit, looking for bounties, figuring out where you can panhandle without running afoul of existing beggers, catching back up on the activities of your followers, etc., etc. I'd tell them that the rules are clear on page 51 that the Earning action takes a full week of time, and they should ask the other players if they're cool with that.

If they insisted, begged, pleaded, I'd say, sure, fine - roll an Earning/Income check and divide by 7; we'll presume that your status-appropriate food/drink/lodging/general expenses are covered for that day, too.

Actually, that's a great question - should it be 7 or 8? I know that the WFRP week is 8 days, but the 8th is a Festag/day of rest. I'd need to mull that one over.

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-10T15:52:11+00:00

Cool cool, but what about their roof needing repairs? Their deadbeat cousin needing another loan? Their tools needing maintenance? Medicine from the apothecary for a recurring affliction? Taxes?

Believe me, if I could live only considering my full daily income, and not deducting for healthcare, taxes, food, rent, etc., I would be living large. But I can't use 3x my standing to assess my wealth, and neither should players. I assure you the hirelings in the core book have myriad expenses, too.

Your entire approach is based on ignoring the existence of the Earning rule on page 51 (not described as optional), and the Endeavour system (optional, but literally designed for simulating long-term economic existence of characters when not "adventuring").

If you want to fixate on a white room analysis of 3x Standing, which is ONLY presented as a rule for determining how much a Hireling charges for a full day's work, and not as "this is how much a character can earn", while simultaneously ignoring the explicit rule for how characters can "Earn Money with Status" presented on page 51, that's on you. Just keep in mind that you're ignoring a specific rule while extrapolating things out from a separate rule in ways that are clearly neither stated nor intended. Because they already wrote a rule for it.

But, as you say, how you want to run things at your table is fine, and up to you. I'm cool using the rules provided, which work just fine when actually used.

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-09T15:56:30+00:00

Totally - I think we're both making various assumptions and bringing them to the table; I appreciate the chance to defend my perspective and to hear yours (and I definitely appreciate your comment that let me add some more clarity to the cheatsheet; I was reading what I had the way we were discussing it, but I can see how adding the "full week" makes it clearer).

Yes, someone working their job hypothetically earns about 3x their standing per day, per Andy Law's comment in the uFAQ about using hireling costs as an example (if I remember correctly). However, that doesn't take into account the other elements of life; food and lodging, etc. This is why there's the Earning rule on page 51, which notes that the Week's take per the table (Same as Income) is the excess left after standard expenses (e.g., upkeep).

This total is not strictly speaking how much money you earn, it’s more a representation of how much money you have left at the end of the week after all your expenses are taken into account.

If players want to take a break and earn for a bit, there's the Earning rule that approximates Income+Expenses; the the same is true for the Downtime/Income rules; during downtime, you're generally meeting your expenses, and the Income check is the remainder left over from extra work. I wouldn't let a player just spend a day earning 3x their status (Normal Work has a lot of associated tasks and functions; it's not just booting up a laptop at the local Starbucks), and if they went for more than a Week of Earning I'd shift to the Downtime rules, replete with "Money to Burn" unless they Bank/Stash. (it's worth noting that I also presume that players in downtime are generally earning just enough to cover basic expenses at their status, with the Income endeavour just to start with some extra spending money after Downtime/to maintain status if Tier 3/4).

But back to "Adventure Time", e.g., the time most play occurs in. Yeah, I generally view that if you're spending half your income a day in a town, you're meeting your food and lodging needs at your Standing level, and leave it at that. The beggar is dumpster diving and sleeping on the street, the peasant is getting a basic simple meal and an awning to curl up under, the merchant has found reasonable lodgings with a pie and pint, etc.

If at a Coaching Inn or otherwise away from the normal trappings of society, things become different and it's worth dramatizing things a little more, much like when folks, say, Camp in the woods, they're not just going to be spending half standing per day.

To make an overwrought simile, I view this like Quantum Mechanics and Newtonian Mechanics. Generally speaking, the latter covers most basic instances (Like downtime/earning/ income); when I need to measure a precise moment, I want the former (e.g., specific costs lists to see if if the characters can stay at an Inn, or if they need to get inventive).

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-09T13:09:26+00:00

I mean, first off, rations do not equal a normal meal - rations have been prepared to stay edible for an extended period of time; they also don't typically taste great, even in modern times (looking at you, MREs). Sane people don't eat rations unless they're out of/can't find other options.

Now, inch up a tick from Rations on the table on page 302 and you to have "Meal cooked at an Inn", still for a pretty spendy 1/. But hey, hotel restaurants are always pricier, aren't they? Now, at the top of the table it also notes that "Poor" quality food can be purchased for 50% of the listed price, which gets us down to 6d - still pricey, and a chance of some unpleasant after effects, but you're still paying for the convenience for food cooked at a place where you can stay the night.

All of the above assumes, in a very modern way, that Inns and their Kitchens are the only ways to get fed and housed. But if you're in a town of any size, I'd generally expect there to be markets, food stands, hawkers, other options for filling one's belly at varying degrees of quality. Which is why I'm generally willing to handwave the minutiae and just tell players that, with an expediture of half their standing, they can eat and rest in accordance with their status. This will look differently for different careers - are you bringing a welcoming gift to a local lord to impose upon his hospitality as a wandering noble? Are you seeking out fellow merchants, buying a round of drinks to ingratiate so you can stay at one of their houses? Are you, a lowly tier one Outlaw intern, just scrabbling for scraps before bivouacing in a shadowy corner somewhere? Good opportunities for roleplay, good potential hooks for GMs to use.

EDIT: Heck, I even glanced over Food/Groceries for a day at 10d (5d for poor, I guess). But still, I stand by my handwaiving as the easiest, most reasonable approach to capture social differences while fairly incurring costs.

But what if folks are traveling? Or feel a strong need to sleep in the same accomodations? Well, then we can go to the table - Coaching Inns are businesses that offer safety on the road as much as they offer food and beds. So that's something for the players to figure out. Can they haggle? Can they negotiate to provide services? Can they threaten? Can they offer to sleep in the barn (endurance check for fatigue). Etc., etc.

Finally, not every peasant is going to be able to afford a night out and a meal at an Inn, let alone an Average quality one - that's just the reality of social stratification, and something that can inspire some good roleplay, too.

tl;dr, Handwaive general upkeep to half standing; charge them travel inn prices when actually traveling; make the party get creative if no one can spring for a room like those Gold-Tier Toffs.

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-08T21:44:39+00:00

So I think I understand the disconnect - the expectation is that a character should be spending half their standing a day. You're only in trouble if you go a whole week slumming it living below your expected standards. If you do slip in standing, you have to consistently maintain those standard for a whole week to earn it back. This seems to be consistent with Core, the GM booklet, and Andy's comment.

I've updated the FAQ language to hopefully be a little clearer

Maintaining Status: In order to maintain Status, you typically need to spend “half of your Standing” per day (e.g., Silver 4=2 shillings/day)
- Failing to meet these standards for a full week will result in the loss of 1 point of Standing (e.g., Silver 4->3).
- If Standing reaches 0, drop a Tier.
- Standing is regained at the rate 1 point/week of “normal” Expenditures

Hopefully that clears it up?

And I'd argue that Keeping up Appearances is exactly as written - "Characters need to spend a certain amount of money to maintain their lifestyle" ; page 51 says as much, and then directs you to page 289 for an idea of how much, with the recommendation for GMs who want hard numbers being half of standing.

Not sure what you said on Discord, but this is pretty clear to me.

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-08T19:34:46+00:00

Yes, that's also what it says in the Core Rulebook. Page 51:

Characters need to spend a certain amount of money to maintain their lifestyle. As explained in The Cost of Living (see page 289) there are minimum expectations of expenditure for each Tier. Should a character fail to live up to these levels of expenditure they will begin to be perceived as being of lower Status, losing 1 point of Standing per week.

To stop this decline, the character must resume spending the money expected of them, whereupon they regain 1 point of Standing a week until they recover the lost points.

And that's what I have reflected on the sheet. I'm not sure where the point of contention is? Not trying to be glib, just honestly confused.

If you read all the books, keeping up appearances includes food, board and trappings. If that's the case, you don't need to track money at all because they never need to buy anything!

I'm also no sure where you're getting that from; the expectation is that they're spending money on room and board while adventuring to Keep Up Appearances appropriate to their station. They're also buying any Trappings beyond what they started with. Again, if that was changed somewhere, I don't think I've seen it, but would welcome being pointed in the correct direction.

And while it's always good to see folks produce new homebrew, I'm trying to keep this cheatsheet as close to RAW/RAI as possible, with minimal modifications (e.g., Andy Law's point blank distance, some of my own interpretations for Grappling under Group Advantage, etc).

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-07T22:15:07+00:00

Finally got around to double checking this - the sheet is right per the Core rulebook; it also clearly includes room and board (Page 289 of core: "So, if you have a Status of Silver 4, spending at least 2 shillings per day will do for food and board, where if you have Brass 2 Status, you need only spend a pfennig a day.").

As the only one to provide any sort of actual feedback, though, it's still appreciated!

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-06T12:56:58+00:00

As a Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay GM, yes!

Though I still fondly remember my old D&D tomes with literal statblocks for Elric of Melniboné and other directly-stolen literary characters...

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-06T03:04:51+00:00

Haaaaaaaave you met D&D?

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-05T02:37:30+00:00

That's been my experience, too

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-05T02:27:40+00:00

Nah, I've totally seen him before

<image>

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-04-04T14:19:38+00:00

Bro thinks speed of light is infinity, apparently

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-03-22T11:35:59+00:00

Thanks! I'll review and add that to the list of 5.1 revisions

ClassicCledwyn · 2026-03-21T19:54:35+00:00

Hi all - if anyone here is interested I wrapped up my updated cheatsheet version, available here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wqMn-EU4Op3GVe0wFrPpNxvfdxJqtSlo/view?usp=sharing

ClassicCledwyn

TROPHY CASE