The Forge Archives

Hello all.  Just picked up ROS and love it.  I have a question about $$$ however.  

The monthly income from "jobs" listed in the Social Class section seem increadibly high compared to the annual income listed for each social class in the table in the equipment section.  Has anyone noticed this or am I nuts?  Which is correct?

Actually it seems about right. Take the Guard for example. On the Imperial Standard column, he receives 5-7 silver per month, which figures out to 3-4 gold per year, the same as a low freeman (3 gold).

No, he's talking about table 7.4 on page 203 (in my book anyway)

For example, according to 7.4, a Landless noble gets 20 gold a year income, but in the character creation section, it says D10x10 gold PER MONTH.

Likewise a landed noble gets 50 per year acording to 7.4, but 3d10x10 (that's an average of 165) per month according to the character creation section.

That's the case in my book anyway, although I have the original printing and it may be different in the new book. I'm assuming that table 7.4 is the correct one, but Jake can confirm.

Brian.

Quote from: BrianLNo, he's talking about table 7.4 on page 203 (in my book anyway)

For example, according to 7.4, a Landless noble gets 20 gold a year income, but in the character creation section, it says D10x10 gold PER MONTH.

Likewise a landed noble gets 50 per year acording to 7.4, but 3d10x10 (that's an average of 165) per month according to the character creation section.

That's the case in my book anyway, although I have the original printing and it may be different in the new book. I'm assuming that table 7.4 is the correct one, but Jake can confirm.

Brian.

7.4 was the table I was referring to...it has been revised. Slaves get 0/year; peasant's 1; low freeman 3 (as I had referred to); high freeman 10; landless noble (gentry) 20; and landed noble 50.

This came up a while back as, in my opinion, the greatest typo in the book. The values in Book Two are wrong--go with Book Eight's table. Sorry for the confusion.

Jake

Thanks for the reply re $$.  Is there (or will there be) a general errata sheet available?  I didn't see one on the web page.  

NT

There will be an errata sheet. Someone was throwing that together for me (I'm up to my ears in other things right now)...who was that...?

Jake

A Landed Noble only makes the modern equivalent of 50k per year?  I don't know about that...

Quote from: LyraxA Landed Noble only makes the modern equivalent of 50k per year?  I don't know about that...

I think the thing to keep in mind is that a landed noble is not necessary a duke, or even a baron, but can be a landed knight who has a tiny little valley. In my opinion, the latter would make rather less than 50k than more. A peasant is barely able to buy anything and lives mostly off his own production. The largest part of the income of a landed noble will likely be paid in food and livestock, and as such, have only indirect monetary value, the only exception being when there is a substantial town on his land with artisans who actually DO trade for money rather than barter, or alternatively a mine that the law allows the landed noble, rather than for example the king, to exploit and sell the ore of. In addition to that, the Landed Noble has expenses. He has to keep men-at-arms, has to maintain a manor, or, god forbid, a castle....

Quote from: Jake NorwoodThere will be an errata sheet. Someone was throwing that together for me (I'm up to my ears in other things right now)...who was that...?

That would be me (among others?).  I'm working on it.  Someone else might want to start one... redundancy would be a big help in such a project.

-Mark

Quote from: Irmo

Quote from: LyraxA Landed Noble only makes the modern equivalent of 50k per year?  I don't know about that...

I think the thing to keep in mind is that a landed noble is not necessary a duke, or even a baron, but can be a landed knight who has a tiny little valley. In my opinion, the latter would make rather less than 50k than more. A peasant is barely able to buy anything and lives mostly off his own production. The largest part of the income of a landed noble will likely be paid in food and livestock, and as such, have only indirect monetary value, the only exception being when there is a substantial town on his land with artisans who actually DO trade for money rather than barter, or alternatively a mine that the law allows the landed noble, rather than for example the king, to exploit and sell the ore of. In addition to that, the Landed Noble has expenses. He has to keep men-at-arms, has to maintain a manor, or, god forbid, a castle....

Irmo's right. I'm thinking of a noble with several small manors or one big one...something about the strength of a banneret or powerful vassal knight. A duke is do-able as well. Also remember that $50,000 goes a long way when the average peasant only makes $1,000.

Jake

Quote from: IrmoIn addition to that, the Landed Noble has expenses. He has to keep men-at-arms, has to maintain a manor, or, god forbid, a castle....

I usually make the Landed Noble pay for his expenses out of his pocket.  You want to train more guards to lower crime?  Take out a few gold pieces.  You want to buy armor for your men-at-arms?  Even worse.  You want to build a castle?

You see what I'm getting at?  I mean, if you assume that it all gets taken care of behind the noble's back, then 50,000 a year is more than enough, but what if we want to incorporate all those expenses into the noble's budget?  I am highly doubtful that 50 gold standard per year is enough to run a small fiefdom.

The purpose of a manor was originally to permit a minor nobleman (a knight) to maintain horses arms and armor and provide him with enough "free time" to campaign.  The standard of living beyond this varied widely.

If we assume the average peasant lives at about the poverty line on 1000 per year and we put the modern equivelent of the poverty line at 15,000 per year then we can extrapolate 50,000 a year to the modern equivelent of 750,000 per year.  Enough to qualify as the richest guy you're likely to know but not enough to stand up among the world's ultra elite.  They'll be a very big fish in the small bond, but pretty much the smallest fish worth recognizing in the big pond.

I won't try to defend the number with any degree of precision (but then precision in period economics is futile anyway) but it seems a reasonable ball park for the majority of nobility...i.e. folks other than the greater barons to be at.

I think an alternative mechanism for wealth should be introduced for people who don't want to keep track of wealth. The concept of money in some time periods that TROS is likely to be set in was a nebulous concept at best. Land, livestock, and other things were more likely to constitute wealth in these time periods. So a more abstract mechanism would simplify many things.

The mechanism I would use is borrowed from D20 Modern. In D20M you have a wealth bonus just like BAB and save bonuses. Every item has a Purchase DC representing the cost of the item. If you roll a d20 + wealth bonus > Purchase DC you bought the item. Unless there is some real need or desire to count money I think this would be a great mechanism to have.

Quote from: PosterXThe mechanism I would use is borrowed from D20 Modern. In D20M you have a wealth bonus just like BAB and save bonuses. Every item has a Purchase DC representing the cost of the item. If you roll a d20 + wealth bonus > Purchase DC you bought the item. Unless there is some real need or desire to count money I think this would be a great mechanism to have.

That has to be the stupidest thing I have read in a long while. What were Wizards thinking?

"Sorry ma, I failed to buy the gorceries because I rolled a 2. But I did manage to get a 17 to buy these magic beans."

Bah, and Humbug.

Brian.

If you want a sort of vague system (like that D20 one) you could just use common sense.  For example, one could use the current information to determine the daily cost of living for each social class.  The PC would simply deduct this cost each day unless he actually wanted to purchase something particular or bribe a guard etc.  The seneshal could simply decide whether this new expense was part of the standard of living for the PC or not.  For example, buying a NPC a drink in a tavern might be considered a standard (and uncounted) expenditure for a high freeman (when averaged out over time).  Purchasing a round of drinks would not.   Throwing a couple of feasts each year would be  considered normal for a noble.  War expenses would not.  

One thing to consider would be how much an individual's cost of living would increase by travelling.  A knight might live at 20G per hear when at home, but how do his expenses increase when travelling?  

Personally, I like keeping track of money--especially the weight of money.   PCs can't walk around with huge hoards of $$.  It is good, however, to have a quick way of calculating expenses over long unplayed periods, however.

NT

Quote from: PosterXI think an alternative mechanism for wealth should be introduced for people who don't want to keep track of wealth. The concept of money in some time periods that TROS is likely to be set in was a nebulous concept at best. Land, livestock, and other things were more likely to constitute wealth in these time periods. So a more abstract mechanism would simplify many things.

I disagree. Coins were made from noble metals for a reason: They could be evaluated by their weight even far away from where they were minted based on their material value. The concept of money is very well known in time period equivalents that TROS matches. Chief example would be the German Fugger merchant family, who financed not only the election of Charles V. to emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, but also his wars, to a degree that the Emperor became dependent on Fugger's goodwill. He was the largest creditor not only of the emperor, but of numerous other Dukes and Princes after buying the rights to mine the mountains of Salzburg and Tyrol for silver and, after  expansion to the copper in Hungary, became the leader in metal trade. He worked as a bank for rich clergy, paying them interest on their deposit and financed the catholic church and numerous counterreformation armies.
Even Maximilian I had Fugger as his largest creditor, and the fact that Fugger basically paid for numerous advisors and courtiers saw for it that Fugger stayed in business.
Through his dependencies all over Europe, with mining, smelting or smithing sites scattered across the map, Fugger was frequently better informed than kings and emperors as to what was going on in Europe.

Ok, you say, but what about earlier?

The Hanseatic League was a league of merchants, mostly german, with league members from the Netherlands to Sweden, and with economical and political influence from Portugal to Russia and Italy to Scandinavia at its height in the 16th century, but it had existed since the 13th century, when it started to dominate international trade in nothern Europe, without achieving monopoly, however. From the 14th century onward, the cities with Hanse afiliation tightened their relations to the political field to prevail against ambitions of the nobilities in the individual countries. This is best demonstrated by the fact that the Hanseatic League deployed troops (mostly militia) to fight wars with, for example Denmark. (A civilian organisation fighting a war against a King)

All of that thanks to money.

While that specific mechanic has some obvious flaws (as Brian so artfully pointed out), I do think that there is something to be said for a more abstract money system. I've been tinkering with ideas, but most of them lead to the above problem.

I'm happy to discuss alternatives, though.

Jake

I'm in the middle of a book called "Making a Living in the Middle Ages" (yeah I know...not exactly on the Times Best Seller list).  It would more accurately be titled Making a Living in Britain in the Middle Ages, but there is enough comparison to the continent that it has some broader application.

I can't recommend it enough for people interested in period economics.  I'm in the chapter on 850 to 1050 and learning all kinds of newly discovered facts that overturn some prior assumptions.

Such as:  The village system of British agriculture didn't exist in the 5th and 6th century as previously thought.  Following the departure of the Romans the importance of centralized population centers dropped dramatically.  Villages didn't return until the 9th century when the population had increased to the point that more efficient forms of organizing labor and land management were necessary.

Contrary to many assumptions about top down management from the aristocracy, much innovation stems directly from the commoners coming up with new ways to meet the demands of the aristrocracy and still have enough left over to improve their standard of living (the shift to villages being such a bottom up innovation).

A Coin based market economy is now (by this author) believed to be far more important to the common people than typically believed.  Not so much because of daily use of coins themselves, but because of what it enabled in the form of wider ranging transactions.  Medieval economy was greatly impacted when land began to change hands on the basis of cash payment (ususally purchases by monasterys) rather than strictly Lord to Vassal grants.

A Coin horde discovered near York dated to 920 contained coins minted in Samarkand...in Uzbekistan.  No doubt they had found their way to England via the Vikings and their tradeing contacts in Kiev.  This does speak to a wider knowledge of the world at large than often believed.

The book goes all the way through the 1400s IIRC so hopefully there will be some interesting nuggets closer to RoS period.

Quote from: Jake NorwoodWhile that specific mechanic has some obvious flaws (as Brian so artfully pointed out), I do think that there is something to be said for a more abstract money system. I've been tinkering with ideas, but most of them lead to the above problem.

I'm happy to discuss alternatives, though.

Personally I've moved well away from expecting characters to account for all their cash. Things generally fall in to four categories IME - affordable without a second thought, affordable with a bit of effort or deferred gratification, affordable if you are willing to take on significant debts/obligations and unaffordable no matter what.

To that end I incline towards wealth mechanics which abstract the bean counting and focus on where goodies fall on that four point scale for different characters. An example:

Ars Magica has some rules in Ordo Nobilis that provide for wealth management fairly abstractly without making players roll to purchase.

Basically characters can take virtues or a flaw to be wealthier/poorer than the norm for their social class and the combination of wealth level with social class gives you thresholds for on-hand petty cash, what can be raised with a bit of notice and what you need a serious loan to buy. The totals also provide a way for characters to invest in social advancement and feeds into how much time a character can devote to non-subsisdence activities such as training or practising skills, doing magical research etc (this is important for a game with a long term campaign focus like Ars).

Luke

In my experience, players either love counting up money or find it bores them to tears -- and a lot of the former breed died out when the amount of gold won stopped being a direct determinator of how much experience your character gained.  I too am not averse to an abstract system, although a randomizer mechanic isn't necessary if players don't want it.

Ideally the system should be two-tiered.  There should be a way of tracking ready cash by exact numbers for those transactions the PCs are making in person, right now, with whatever they have on them (this allows for the classic marketplace haggling scenes we all love as the PCs desperately scrounge for that last silver piece), and there should also be a way of handling them more abstractly -- if the PCs' fortress needs the services of two skilled masons and a load of quarried stone for necessary repair following the bandit siege, it's much simpler to handle that as a comparison of abstract Resources vs. Cost scores than it is to figure out exactly how much the stone costs, increased rates for poor roads, haggling with the masons, counting up how much gold, silver and copper is in the treasury, etc.

(Of course, some players may like this level of detail, but many more won't, and the option should be open.)

Dying Earth has a pretty cool system for wealth. Cugel class characters start each adventure broke. Turjan and Rhialto class characters have a wealth attribute they roll against. There is more to it than that, but it's a pretty slick system. I'd love to see a similar system adapted to TRoS. Personally, I hate keeping track of every character's assets. This is about storytelling, not economics.

Quote from: Roger EberhartDying Earth has a pretty cool system for wealth. Cugel class characters start each adventure broke. Turjan and Rhialto class characters have a wealth attribute they roll against. There is more to it than that, but it's a pretty slick system. I'd love to see a similar system adapted to TRoS. Personally, I hate keeping track of every character's assets. This is about storytelling, not economics.

But assests (or lack thereof) make for great stories. A party that's broke will be eager to find a way to make it to the next day, whereas a party that's bathing in gold will attract attention of people who'd like it. And seeing the coins trickling away creates quite a bit more intense feeling about where their assest are going. Also, coinage makes for great little bits and pieces of atmosphere....watch the moneylender in Fahal eye the stahlnish coins with suspicion and test them for their authenticity....

Quote from: Irmo

Quote from: Roger EberhartDying Earth has a pretty cool system for wealth. Cugel class characters start each adventure broke. Turjan and Rhialto class characters have a wealth attribute they roll against. There is more to it than that, but it's a pretty slick system. I'd love to see a similar system adapted to TRoS. Personally, I hate keeping track of every character's assets. This is about storytelling, not economics.

But assests (or lack thereof) make for great stories. A party that's broke will be eager to find a way to make it to the next day, whereas a party that's bathing in gold will attract attention of people who'd like it. And seeing the coins trickling away creates quite a bit more intense feeling about where their assest are going. Also, coinage makes for great little bits and pieces of atmosphere....watch the moneylender in Fahal eye the stahlnish coins with suspicion and test them for their authenticity....

This is exactly what I had in mind when we did all that crazy economic stuff. There's a lot of usable substance to the "realities" of money and economics that can make for really great stories. On the other hand, if it bogs you down (and I know it can), then ditch it. And let us know what you're using.

Jake

Quote from: Jake Norwood
This is exactly what I had in mind when we did all that crazy economic stuff. There's a lot of usable substance to the "realities" of money and economics that can make for really great stories. On the other hand, if it bogs you down (and I know it can), then ditch it. And let us know what you're using.

Jake

If you want to get real messy, let the party have some clipped coins, i.e. coins where a forger clipped a bit of the metal off to melt it, and filed the edges round. Too little a difference to be judged with bare hands, but wait till the party comes to a moneylender or merchant abroad and wants to exchange for local currency...he puts the coins on a scale, eyes the characters suspiciously...looks back at his scale....and then it's up to you if he gives them far less money than they are expecting or calls the guards ;)

Regardless of the reality of it,  the idea of the "wealth attribute" has been used in Marvel Super Heros and Donjon.  No, it is not a good simulative mechanic, but a quick one.  Obviously with common sense, it should be obvious about certain things players can or cannot afford.  If you want to look at TROS from a GNS standpoint, do it like so;

G/S-count those pennies, sell that silver fork you stole, plunder, er, I mean, bring back tribute to the king, yeah...

N-money is secondary and not something to be kept track of.  You're rich, poor, ok, and either just fine, doing exceedingly well, or about to drop a class and desperate for money.

Me personally, I only get stingy with the cash at the character creation, since that's when folks want to buy all kinds of nifty armor and weapons.  After that, I look at how much they have left, and just guestimate it from there.

Chris

Personally, I love tRoS's money mechanic, and wouldn't have the slightest idea what to do with a more abstract money system.

Even D&D has coinage. Come to think of it, every RPG I've played has a monetary system, though D&D's is entirely too clean for the pseudohistorical period it's set in.

tRoS's money just has a groovy 14th-Century feel to it, and I like it. Non-decimal conversions are cool.

Money is one of the realities of life. As such, I find it an indespensible part of roleplaying generally.

Though I would like a more in-depth accounting about how the Odeon "teeth" currency functions. :)

Quote from: Bob RichterThough I would like a more in-depth accounting about how the Odeon "teeth" currency functions. :)

Ha! Me too...

My thought is that Odeon works on barter and primitive trade, but the teeth are like jewlry, and traded as such...I mean in a place like that they're probably both rare and hard to obtain once found. Sounds like a decent currency to me (*and* everyone starts out with 32 of them).

Jake

So the question becomes:

"Do I smash out all of my teeth thus becoming rich but probably choking to death the next time I sit down to a steak dinner, or do I retain the ability to eat anything but be unable to actually afford food and thus starve to death?"

Wow.. harsh country. Must cut down on the tourist trade. :-)

Brian.

Quote from: BrianLSo the question becomes:

"Do I smash out all of my teeth thus becoming rich but probably choking to death the next time I sit down to a steak dinner, or do I retain the ability to eat anything but be unable to actually afford food and thus starve to death?"

Wow.. harsh country. Must cut down on the tourist trade. :-)

Brian.

Easy. Buy lots of oatmeal ;)

Quote from: Irmo

Quote from: Roger EberhartDying Earth has a pretty cool system for wealth. Cugel class characters start each adventure broke. Turjan and Rhialto class characters have a wealth attribute they roll against. There is more to it than that, but it's a pretty slick system. I'd love to see a similar system adapted to TRoS. Personally, I hate keeping track of every character's assets. This is about storytelling, not economics.

But assests (or lack thereof) make for great stories. A party that's broke will be eager to find a way to make it to the next day, whereas a party that's bathing in gold will attract attention of people who'd like it. And seeing the coins trickling away creates quite a bit more intense feeling about where their assest are going. Also, coinage makes for great little bits and pieces of atmosphere....watch the moneylender in Fahal eye the stahlnish coins with suspicion and test them for their authenticity....

later...

Quote
If you want to get real messy, let the party have some clipped coins, i.e. coins where a forger clipped a bit of the metal off to melt it, and filed the edges round. Too little a difference to be judged with bare hands, but wait till the party comes to a moneylender or merchant abroad and wants to exchange for local currency...he puts the coins on a scale, eyes the characters suspiciously...looks back at his scale....and then it's up to you if he gives them far less money than they are expecting or calls the guards ;)

I think this is one of those gamist/simulationist/narrativist things with me falling closer to the n-vertex than Irmo - this is rather suprising as I tend to gravitate to the s-vertex normally. Nevertheless I think that you can have all the funky goodness of dodgy coins, coin clipping and sweating, whacky exchange rates, primitive financial instruments and the like without having the players keep a detailed count of every quartered penny in their stash. Paradoxically I find that going the 'count every bean' route produces a *less* simulationist game as the load upon the referee becomes intolerable and cash issues get removed entirely from the game.

What has to be clearly flagged is the disconnect between the game mechanics (which should be as clean and simple as possible - but no simpler) and the narrative reality they are modelling which should be as obscurely byzantine and intentionally complex as you can can bear.

Returning to my earlier example Ars Magica does this by using the 'mythic penny' - this is an imaginary unit of currency ('money of account' - very common in medieval history) defined as a day's wages for an unskilled labourer. *Players* denominate general funds (a combination of social class modified by wealth within their class) in mythic pence, whilst *characters* are keeping track of hanseatic marks, bezants, rent-rolls, florins, last year's vintage, dhirams, commenda signed with Nicolas the Mercer so he could travel to the Champagne fairs and so on.

When the presence (or absence) of cash is important to the story then this stuff can come to the foreground, but most of the time it is (IMO) an unnecessary load upon the referee and can be relegated to a more abstract treatment. As always this a matter of personal style and I'm not attacking those who want to go the detailed route - I'm just trying to articulate why I prefer to hide the gnarly detail most of the time.

Regards
Luke

In the end, the money question really becomes one of style of play and to some extent, the story line.  No one running a landed noble really wants to keep tract of how much each servant is paid and that sort of thing.  Money is an issue when it comes to war, castle building etc.  However, a low freeman or poor adventurer $$ spent on a pint of ale becomes an issue.  Likewise, in an adventure where there is lots of $$ rolling around, keeping track isn't interesting except on a large scale.  It also probably depends upon whether or not the PCs have a source of income (such as a landed noble).  

I played Pendragon for a long time.  It's $$ system was, to me, quite good.  Each social level (Knight, Banneret, Baron, Earl, Duke, King) had a cost of living associated with it.  To maintain the appearence of a baron, one had to spend like a baron.   This expenditure basic things like upkeep, food, a certain number of feasts etc.   There was also a general description of what one got at that level of expenditure.  One did not have to worry about how many servants one had or whether one just bought a beer.

To me, the esiest thing would be to have a generalized cost of living index for each class with at least 2 values.  The first value would be living at home (some sort of permanent residence) and the second would be travelling (staying at inns etc).  PCs could just deduct this value from their $$ for each day unless they bought something out of the ordinary.  We more or less have the first values from the annual income listings in the TROS book.  

How much would traveling increase one's cost of living? x2? x1.5.    

NT

Quote from: toliNo one running a landed noble really wants to keep tract of how much each servant is paid and that sort of thing.  

I beg ta' differ!

I would, for one, and many of my players have quite enjoyed it.

The abstracted money systems being proposed are strange in that they're HARDER than tRoS's base monetary system. Nothing in the world is simpler than addition and subtraction. Load on the seneschal? None at all. I don't bother keeping track of my players' accounts. That's their affair.

OK I suppose some people like it.  I like it at a small economic scale.  It is certainly easy enough to keep tract of, say, a bachelor knight, his servant/squire and 3 or 4 horses.

At some level it becomes difficult not in terms of book keeping but in terms of knowing what one needs to actually spend.  What does an earl really need to run a castle?  How many servants to keep it clean and running, carpenters, bakers, hunt masters etc.  Blacksmith etc.   It is easier, I think, to have a generalized cost of living and go from there...

NT

Quote from: Bob Richter

Quote from: toliNo one running a landed noble really wants to keep tract of how much each servant is paid and that sort of thing.  

I beg ta' differ!

I would, for one, and many of my players have quite enjoyed it.

The abstracted money systems being proposed are strange in that they're HARDER than tRoS's base monetary system. Nothing in the world is simpler than addition and subtraction. Load on the seneschal? None at all. I don't bother keeping track of my players' accounts. That's their affair.

The funny thing is, this sort of attention to detail was extremely rare...so rare that a player wishing to do it should have to take some sort of Aptitude gift to even be allowed.

By this I mean that for the vast majority of landed nobles, running the manor themselves was the last thing they'd be interested in doing.  That sort of mundane thing was what stewards, reeves, and wives were for.  The idea of a knight or baron actually maintaining his own ledgers is not a very good simulation.  If you wanted to buy something you'd send for the money.  It would magically arrive...you'd spend it.  That's about as far into the nitty gritty you'd be likely to get.  If it failed to arrive you went out and beat the peasants until they coughed up the money (as a figure of speech).

So unless your character concept is actually a merchant or a reeve of somekind, abstract is a much better simulation of reality, IMO.

Quote from: Valamir
So unless your character concept is actually a merchant or a reeve of somekind, abstract is a much better simulation of reality, IMO.

Abstract is NEVER a better SIMULATION.

That's pretty much a "proof by definition" thing.
:)

Sure, nobles might not have kept close track of their estates (though many did,) but their estates still existed in real terms, not as a quantum waveform waiting on the roll of a die.

Those who lost track of their estates often lost said estates.

If a landed noble character wants to pay someone else to track his finances for him, that's going to mean an NPC. It's also going to mean a great possibility for such wonderfulness as embezzelment. Mm. Embezzelment...

Quote from: Bob RichterAbstract is NEVER a better SIMULATION.

That's pretty much a "proof by definition" thing.
:)

Actually that's completely wrong.  Its a very design for cause vs design for effect thing, both of which are completely valid templates for simulation.

In a design for cause simulation you attempt to detail out all of the inputs into a situation and structure them in such a way that they churn around and give you the output.

In a design for effect simulation you start with the range of possible outputs (the effect) and arrange the parameters such to generate that range of output...abstracting away all/most of the detailed inputs.

both are valid simulations though they tend to be used for different purposes.  If you are doing research (or desireing to run some "monte-carlo" exercise, the first is almost always the better way to go.  Almost because many times a group of inputs will be difficult to measure, or their interacts so complex and difficult to identify (making it impossible to build an accurate model).  When this happens a large portion of a design for cause simulation may include a design for effect component (often referred to as a black box)...to do otherwise would render the simulation inaccurate or impossible to perform.  So if the definition of "better" simulation is one that produces more accurate output...often the "better" simulation is the one that abstracts out relationships that cannot be known with precision.

Design for Effect is also used when the primary goal is not scholarly or scientific research but rather to engender a sense of suspension of disbelief.  This is certainly the goal of any simulation built into a role playing game.  Often Design for Effect yields a more powerful suspension of disbelief than Design for Cause.

We see Design for Effect used this way in TRoS's combat system.  The maneuvers list the ultimate effect for a successful maneuver...they abstract out all of the inputs that led up to that effect (inputs which no doubt Jake gets into in great detail when teaching his students) into a simple dice pool roll.  To design for cause the system would have to identify all of those inputs and build them into the the mechanics such that they lead to the desired output.  Inputs like center of balance, spacing between feet, differences in reach, angle of the blade, where on the blade contact is first made and probably a 1000 other things that Jake knows and does instinctively but could never hope to write game mechanics for and if he tried it would take an hour to make a single swing. Instead all of those inputs were abstracted out into something approaching "real time" combat.  I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is the better simulation of a sword fight.

Aside from the various statistical and modeling theory, the question is really about how much detail you want in running your estates and expenses.  

When you don't have a lot of $$, I think the detail makes things more interesting.  It makes poor players feel poor.  Etc.  If you are playing a noble, the level is different at which managing your money becomes interesting.  Basic expenses and upkeep are not so interesting but the ability to build castles and hire mercenaries is.  (Although lavish spending for presitge is also important).  

The point of a somewhat abstract system is to get rid of the small detail for PCs who have lots of money.  

The manor system in Harn is ok if you only have one manor to run and are really anal about those sorts of things (detail, detail, detail).  It would also be good for a setting that focused more on the knight's ability to run his manor.  I think this system rapidly becomes cumbersome for more than one manor, however.

The more abstract land management system in Pendragon's Lordly Domains makes running the lands of a higher noble much easier, yet still requires the PC to make important decisions like how many household knights to maintain vs. how much money to save or use  building...etc.

NT

Quote from: luke

I think this is one of those gamist/simulationist/narrativist things with me falling closer to the n-vertex than Irmo - this is rather suprising as I tend to gravitate to the s-vertex normally.

I know that this comes sort of close to blasphemy on this forum, but I never considered the distinction very accurate, but more like discussing whether an electron is a particle or a wave....

Quote
Returning to my earlier example Ars Magica does this by using the 'mythic penny' - this is an imaginary unit of currency ('money of account' - very common in medieval history) defined as a day's wages for an unskilled labourer. *Players* denominate general funds (a combination of social class modified by wealth within their class) in mythic pence, whilst *characters* are keeping track of hanseatic marks, bezants, rent-rolls, florins, last year's vintage, dhirams, commenda signed with Nicolas the Mercer so he could travel to the Champagne fairs and so on.

The problem is that this assumes a uniform standard which is not necessarily a given. Ars Magica limits itself mostly a restricted geographical area, which makes it a bit more practical, but in addition to that, you also have the issue that a forger would think twice about trying to cheat a covenant. The side effects would be quite unfortunate....

Quote
When the presence (or absence) of cash is important to the story then this stuff can come to the foreground, but most of the time it is (IMO) an unnecessary load upon the referee and can be relegated to a more abstract treatment. As always this a matter of personal style and I'm not attacking those who want to go the detailed route - I'm just trying to articulate why I prefer to hide the gnarly detail most of the time.

I don't think it is necessary for the referee to handle it at all. Since it's a task that as you say yourself the character occupies him- or herself with, it should be the task of the player. And for that matter, I think that having a grasp of the routines and duties of the character enhances putting yourself in character....

QuoteThe problem is that this assumes a uniform standard which is not necessarily a given. Ars Magica limits itself mostly a restricted geographical area, which makes it a bit more practical, but in addition to that, you also have the issue that a forger would think twice about trying to cheat a covenant. The side effects would be quite unfortunate....

Its pretty close to being a given...at least among the civilized lands.  Coins of the period were valued entirely on metal content.  What the printed denomination and name of the piece was was pretty irrelevant.  That was really a big part of a money changers job.  To determine just how much actual silver is in that big mess of coins (which could be from all over).  This meant knowing alot of regional history...who's Coins are more pure, what lord just debased his currency...etc.  Many merchant transactions were made in "Marks" long before there was an actual coin called a Mark.

So there really is good historical precedent to assume a universal standard of currency.  Just hit them up with rampant money changer fees and you'll be pretty close to authentic without needing to detail out 100 different denominations of Coins.

Quote from: Valamir
Its pretty close to being a given...at least among the civilized lands.  Coins of the period were valued entirely on metal content.  What the printed denomination and name of the piece was was pretty irrelevant.  That was really a big part of a money changers job.  To determine just how much actual silver is in that big mess of coins (which could be from all over).  This meant knowing alot of regional history...who's Coins are more pure, what lord just debased his currency...etc.  Many merchant transactions were made in "Marks" long before there was an actual coin called a Mark.

So there really is good historical precedent to assume a universal standard of currency.  Just hit them up with rampant money changer fees and you'll be pretty close to authentic without needing to detail out 100 different denominations of Coins.

You mistook my words completely. While money can be valued on the metal content, that doesn't mean there is a universal standard of PAYMENT for labor. Meaning that while in one region, an unskilled laborer will get one amount, he will get a different amount somewhere else. That makes transfer of wealth based on a salary-basis impractical. Totally aside from that, the salary for many unskilled laborers at comparable times is a meal and a bed, without any tangible possessions.

As for "Marks", the name comes from marks imprinted on the coins, delineating its value or weight. They were in no way uniform, and in fact many cities used several in parallel for various occasions, to the extent that in 1761, a numismatic congress in Augsburg, Germany, declared itself unable to declare the "true" mark of the city of Cologne, which had usually used three or four, but at times used as many as twelve in parallel. And not only did the marks of different cities, and different marks of a single city vary, but technical problems or deliberate changes even saw for it that you couldn't 100% rely on the marks of a coin for its weight even if you knew the mark well.

Add to that problems with people clipping coins, and you're frequently left with having to determine the raw metal contents. Which still doesn't give you a universal price, unless the metal is valued the same in both geographic areas.

You are correct, I did mistake what you were referring to by universal standard.

In any case when evaluating as a question of which makes for the better simulation...a detailed accounting of all of the factors you mention (and more besides) or an abstraction.  I come down firmly on the side of the abstraction.

There is no possible way for those of us who grew up in an environment of modern currency to comprehend (even if we read a bunch of books on it...which are fascinating) how this process really occured day to day.  So even if a huge amount of material was dedicated to describing it...it still wouldn't make for a very good simulation...i.e. The characters behavior as a result of the players fiddling with these rules wouldn't in the least resemble the actual behavior of period people in the same situation.  We just don't know.  

So given that all of that work doesn't make for a better simulation...I'd go firmly abstract with it.

An exception would be if the players were actually playing a group of money changers, or "jewish" lenders, or bankers (which in the early days was often synonomous with venture capitalist) and these factors were to be an integral part of the story.  But for the normal "adventuring soldier" types...I don't see a very high benefit to cost ratio.

Quote from: Valamir

So given that all of that work doesn't make for a better simulation...I'd go firmly abstract with it.

What your argument boils down to, though, is that every practical simulation is in and of itself an abstraction. The question is how far one wants to go with the abstraction. Abstraction also comes with a cost, or at least as risk. Let me use paintings at an example: Picasso's "Head of a Man" from 1913 is an abstract picture of a head of a man, obviously. Some can appreciate that, while others see merely a bunch of geometric forms. Everyone has a certain threshold of abstraction when he or she fails to connect with the object. I think that one needs to be careful not to make matters so abstract that it hinders the ability of the player to relate to the character....

Quote[Irmo]
The problem is that this assumes a uniform standard which is not necessarily a given.

I'm not sure I follow you here. What's the problem with having a standard based upon manual labour? Its not universal for all time, but its a pretty fundamental factor of production for any settled pre-industrial society.

[snippage]

QuoteI don't think it is necessary for the referee to handle it at all. Since it's a task that as you say yourself the character occupies him- or herself with, it should be the task of the player.

That's my ars magica history coming out I suspect - the distinction between referees and players is deliberately blurred if you play as a troupe. Plus if you have a saga with several dozen through characters (not difficult for most Ars Magica setups) then the administrative load quickly becomes such that you look for *anything* that will short-cut the record-keeping.

Don't get me wrong, I've spent a lot of time reading up on medieval monetary and fiscal systems and I love the details that you can tortu^H^H^H^H^Hchallenge characters with; however I still think that questions about cash for characters boil down to where does a proposed purchase sit on a 4-5 point spectrum from 'pocket-change' to 'unaffordable' - no matter how rich that character is. Game mechanics can therefore profit by streamlining things to the point where answers to such questions can be framed in those terms.

Regards
Luke

Quote from: luke

Quote[Irmo]
The problem is that this assumes a uniform standard which is not necessarily a given.

I'm not sure I follow you here. What's the problem with having a standard based upon manual labour? Its not universal for all time, but its a pretty fundamental factor of production for any settled pre-industrial society.

No, it is one that was valued differently by different societies, more, even within a society. What is an untrained worker? Is it the miner, who basically has this "job" due to a conviction for a crime and has to be happy that he is allowed to live? Is the freshling apprentice, who is paid in room and board? Is it the farmhand, who gets some bread and cheese and some hay in the barn? Is it the sailor who gets paid in port for several weeks in a row? What's the untrained worker in a tribal society? What's the untrained worker in a society practicing slavery?

Quote
That's my ars magica history coming out I suspect - the distinction between referees and players is deliberately blurred if you play as a troupe. Plus if you have a saga with several dozen through characters (not difficult for most Ars Magica setups) then the administrative load quickly becomes such that you look for *anything* that will short-cut the record-keeping.

But that's hardly representative for other games, including TROS.

Quote
Don't get me wrong, I've spent a lot of time reading up on medieval monetary and fiscal systems and I love the details that you can tortu^H^H^H^H^Hchallenge characters with; however I still think that questions about cash for characters boil down to where does a proposed purchase sit on a 4-5 point spectrum from 'pocket-change' to 'unaffordable' - no matter how rich that character is. Game mechanics can therefore profit by streamlining things to the point where answers to such questions can be framed in those terms.

Regards
Luke

And I think that while it certainly streamlines things, it also leads to an abstraction that distances the player from his or her appreciation for the character's relationship to his money. Earning that first coin of gold means little in your terms when you have been lingering slightly below that limit for quite a while. It doesn't change much about affordability. But for the character, holding that golden coin in his hands for the first time will, depending on his outlook on money, come close to an epiphany, or a new birth. The beggar who for the first time finds a silver coin in his bowl, the kid who grows up on the streets and for the first time crosses a certain threshold in the coinage earned, attribute more to their coins than just what they can afford. Of course you can still RP such things, but they become more or less arbitrary.

[snip query about manual labour standard]

Quote from: Irmo
No, it is one that was valued differently by different societies, more, even within a society.

I don't agree - just to recap and be clear about definitions the system I am talking about from Ars Magica uses simple, unskilled, manual labour as its basic denomination of value and the default social class assumes that this is the work your character does (characters can take social class and relative wealth virtues and flaws to change this default). One mythic penny is set to be equivalent to a day's wages for the work that people like this do. I will address your examples in the framework of this system.

Quote
What is an untrained worker? Is it the miner, who basically has this "job" due to a conviction for a crime and has to be happy that he is allowed to live?

No, he's a slave. Under Ars Magica's system he would have the 'prisoner/slave' social flaw and thus no effective income (the value of his work being taken by whomever has enslaved or imprisoned him).

Quote
Is the freshling apprentice, who is paid in room and board?
Is it the farmhand, who gets some bread and cheese and some hay in the barn?

These two are the same, as they are effectively getting room and board for their work. Given that both are unskilled at this time then the room and board they are receiving will be worth about one mythic pence per day under the ars magica mechanic. They would have the default social class (ie a zero rated social virtue). From the sound of things the farmhand is below par even for a basic peasant, so I'd probably assign him the 'impoverished' flaw which would mean he'd have few reserves to fall back upon in hard times; whilst the apprentice would probably have the 'obligation' or 'dutybound' flaw, to represent his lack of autonomy while he learns his trade.

Quote
Is it the sailor who gets paid in port for several weeks in a row?

Depends on the sailor :) Most are skilled workers however (especially those who go on weeks long-voyages) so they'd be getting more than one mythic pence per day when they get paid off. Personally I'd give them the 'Mariner' virtue (+1 background virtue lifts them above the social norm and justifies the increased income) paired with the 'Outsider' flaw - so they get quite a wedge of cash when they hit port and the locals aren't too bothered about skinning them for it once they are nicely mazed with drink - easy come, easy go.

Quote
What's the untrained worker in a tribal society? What's the untrained worker in a society practicing slavery?

Anyone doing basic manual labour that doesn't require hard to learn or otherwise rare skills. Digging ditches, cutting wood, hauling rocks, herding goats, threshing grain, twisting yarn, picking olives etc etc. These things don't change very much between the neolithic and the industrial revolutions. One mythic pence per day is what they get, whether that penny is an imperial denarius, a syrian fals, a C11th english penny, a C13th groat, a C15th sous or two square meals per day plus a bolt of homespun each quarterday and customary grazing rights on the common.

[snip my stuff about streamlining]

Quote
And I think that while it certainly streamlines things, it also leads to an abstraction that distances the player from his or her appreciation for the character's relationship to his money.

I concede that there is an abstraction - but what, realistically, is a character's relationship to money? Two or three times a week I withdraw £50 from an ATM to pay my way on a day to day basis. I don't spread out the notes disbelievingly, count and recount them, start imagining how I'm going to spend the money or worry overmuch about having it stolen. However if I gave those notes to the guy wrapped in a blanket and sitting in the doorway hard by the ATM, it would be entirely plausible if that's what he did.

Quote
Earning that first coin of gold means little in your terms when you have been lingering slightly below that limit for quite a while. It doesn't change much about affordability. But for the character, holding that golden coin in his hands for the first time will, depending on his outlook on money, come close to an epiphany, or a new birth.

You are describing a character receiving a sum that is significantly out of their everyday experience. Lets say that a 'gold coin' is equal to 2 mythic shillings (24 pence) and that the character is an default member of society who generally has a mythic farthing on his person, can put up a mythic groat if he raids his stash and can get a loan of a mythic shilling or two if he's willing to pawn his tools (take the 'indebted' flaw).

So in his sweaty little hand he is holding a coin that can clear his account with Big Usman (remove that indebted flaw if he already has it) or he can put it aside to save towards buying his market pitch (but he'll need another eleven before he can take the 'prosperous' virtue for his social class that this represents). Alternatively he can forget about working and just pay his way for a month, live well for a fortnight or go on the biggest blowout of his life (live as a 'wealthy' member of his social class) for a week - or he could continue with his trade and stretch those times out by a factor of two or three.

The character has the coin, the player has an appreciation of what this means to the character - time to start roleplaying.

[snip other examples]

Note that these other two cases are all pretty much the same as the first situation - they describe poor to impoverished members of society getting a chunk of cash that is significantly out of the ordinary for their situation. The fact that the asset in question is a coin of whatever denomination isn't the point IMO - what is significant is the effect it will have on their life going forward, the possibilities it creates.

However that same coin can sit alongside a dozen others in the purse of a merchant and represent nothing more than the costs of his youngest son's schooling this month. In the context of this character its pocket change and beneath his notice, he didn't even hand over the coin when the term started - the reckoning was handled by his wife and the balance for the year will be paid when the pack train of copper he is expecting arrives next month.

How do you create the same epiphany for characters such as this who sit at very different points on the social scale? These characters would need to see much more cash to respond in the same way as a beggar with a silver in his bowl, but how much should it be?

In Ars Magica terms I would note him down as being a +3 master in a guilded trade (social class) paired with the 'prosperous' virtue - from this I see that his household's average weekly turnover is five mythic pounds, that he generally has five mythic shillings to hand, a strongbox full of coin and a loan book worth ten mythic pounds and that with a bit of notice he can arrange loans, mortgages and entails for a further 90 mythic pounds. To get him to sit up and take notice in the same way as the beggar, I need to drop something worth 15 or 20 mythic pounds into his 'bowl' - this would be a significant step towards the additional 200 mythic pounds he needs to amass if he wants to have the time and resources (ie. acquire the 'wealthy' virtue for his class) necessary to make a serious showing in guild and communal politics.

If I've done my background reading and written up my campaign thoroughly then I will know that at the time and place I am running the game a mythic penny is actually a Tunisian dinar, that generally there are 20-30 (currently 24) of these to the dhiram (which is a gold coin that is essentially equivalent to a byzantine bezant) and that owing to the current turmoil in Sicily you can exchange a dinar for five or six adulterated Neapolitan deniers or two or three pence from the imperial mint in Milano. If I haven't done my homework then I can just  'fess up that I haven't done as much prep as I'd hoped, promise to have something worked up for next time and meanwhile could you note on your sheets that Achmed the Lame now has a coin worth 24 mythic pence hidden in his drawers, whilst Yusuf bin Ibrahim has inherited some olive groves worth 2400 mythic pence from his spinster aunt but his thice-damned brother-in-law has challenged the validity of the will and the case is to be heard by an Imam next month.

Quote
Of course you can still RP such things, but they become more or less arbitrary.

I hope that my example above shows why I think that it doesn't have to be arbitrary. The money system I describe is a framework for talking about wealth and a way to keep book-keeping simple. It is a tool for the referee to quickly assess how to pitch things for both beggars and barons and focus 'screentime' on the times when those characters have something that is worth roleplaying about. For the beggar its when he gets a golden bezant from the strange outlanders, for the merchant it is an inheritance that is now a pawn in the ongoing feud with his brother-in-law, for the Baron its the intrigue required to recover title to the fief that was lost during his minority. Each is the starting point (or the desired end point) for roleplaying; but if I am running a campaign that features both beggars and barons I don't want to require the player of the baron's character to account for every last bezant in his exchequer in order to give the player of the beggar the opportunity for a soliliquoy when one of those bezants come rattling into his bowl.

Regards
Luke

Quote from: luke

I don't agree - just to recap and be clear about definitions the system I am talking about from Ars Magica uses simple, unskilled, manual labour as its basic denomination of value and the default social class assumes that this is the work your character does (characters can take social class and relative wealth virtues and flaws to change this default). One mythic penny is set to be equivalent to a day's wages for the work that people like this do. I will address your examples in the framework of this system.

And you say nothing that moves me from my point that that is only practical while ruling out major traveling.

Quote

Quote
What is an untrained worker? Is it the miner, who basically has this "job" due to a conviction for a crime and has to be happy that he is allowed to live?

No, he's a slave. Under Ars Magica's system he would have the 'prisoner/slave' social flaw and thus no effective income (the value of his work being taken by whomever has enslaved or imprisoned him).

But he is NOT a slave. A slave owner PAID for the property. Nevertheless, he DOES receive a place to sleep and some  meager food rations.

Quote

Quote
Is the freshling apprentice, who is paid in room and board?
Is it the farmhand, who gets some bread and cheese and some hay in the barn?

These two are the same, as they are effectively getting room and board for their work. Given that both are unskilled at this time then the room and board they are receiving will be worth about one mythic pence per day under the ars magica mechanic. They would have the default social class (ie a zero rated social virtue). From the sound of things the farmhand is below par even for a basic peasant, so I'd probably assign him the 'impoverished' flaw which would mean he'd have few reserves to fall back upon in hard times; whilst the apprentice would probably have the 'obligation' or 'dutybound' flaw, to represent his lack of autonomy while he learns his trade.

The problem is precisely that the two are NOT the same, because, in fact, the material value of what they receive is quite different. The actual reserves of both are unlikely to differ, in fact. And when you merely look at them receiving room and board, then there is no difference between them and a slave. More, how much the apprentice actually gets will not be the same everywhere, but will depend on the average wealth of the region, and the individual wealth and generosity of his master, as well as who the apprentice himself is. (E.g. the son of a powerful individual will likely be treated somewhat more generously than a street kid) The apprentice might get meat on sundays, whereas the farmhand is glad if he gets eggs and cheese.  The apprentice has a real perspective at improving his situation, whereas the farmhand isn't far away from the above mentioned miner.

Quote

Quote
Is it the sailor who gets paid in port for several weeks in a row?

Depends on the sailor :) Most are skilled workers however (especially those who go on weeks long-voyages) so they'd be getting more than one mythic pence per day when they get paid off. Personally I'd give them the 'Mariner' virtue (+1 background virtue lifts them above the social norm and justifies the increased income) paired with the 'Outsider' flaw - so they get quite a wedge of cash when they hit port and the locals aren't too bothered about skinning them for it once they are nicely mazed with drink - easy come, easy go.

Um, sorry, but we're not talking 18th-19th century high sea sailing here. The employee of a hanseatic merchant is unlikely to be treated as an outsider in one of the numerous cities practically owned by the Hanseatic League. And I am not sure where you suppose them to have acquired their skills prior to going to sea.

Quote

Quote
What's the untrained worker in a tribal society? What's the untrained worker in a society practicing slavery?

Anyone doing basic manual labour that doesn't require hard to learn or otherwise rare skills. Digging ditches, cutting wood, hauling rocks, herding goats, threshing grain, twisting yarn, picking olives etc etc. These things don't change very much between the neolithic and the industrial revolutions. One mythic pence per day is what they get, whether that penny is an imperial denarius, a syrian fals, a C11th english penny, a C13th groat, a C15th sous or two square meals per day plus a bolt of homespun each quarterday and customary grazing rights on the common.

The TASKS don't change much, but the material wealth is quite different.

Quote
I concede that there is an abstraction - but what, realistically, is a character's relationship to money? Two or three times a week I withdraw £50 from an ATM to pay my way on a day to day basis. I don't spread out the notes disbelievingly, count and recount them, start imagining how I'm going to spend the money or worry overmuch about having it stolen. However if I gave those notes to the guy wrapped in a blanket and sitting in the doorway hard by the ATM, it would be entirely plausible if that's what he did.

See? And I'd be glad I could afford to withdraw that much two or three times a week. When I withdraw the equivalent from an ATM, I know I am going to do a major investment of some sort.

Quote
Note that these other two cases are all pretty much the same as the first situation - they describe poor to impoverished members of society getting a chunk of cash that is significantly out of the ordinary for their situation. The fact that the asset in question is a coin of whatever denomination isn't the point IMO - what is significant is the effect it will have on their life going forward, the possibilities it creates.

Which makes the point at which is happens quite arbitrary, and out of context with any other events. And by all means, the vast majority of the population is quite a bit away from riches.

Quote
However that same coin can sit alongside a dozen others in the purse of a merchant and represent nothing more than the costs of his youngest son's schooling this month. In the context of this character its pocket change and beneath his notice, he didn't even hand over the coin when the term started - the reckoning was handled by his wife and the balance for the year will be paid when the pack train of copper he is expecting arrives next month.

Which merely helps in illustrating the difference between the two.

Quote
In Ars Magica terms I would note him down as being a +3 master in a guilded trade (social class) paired with the 'prosperous' virtue - from this I see that his household's average weekly turnover is five mythic pounds, that he generally has five mythic shillings to hand, a strongbox full of coin and a loan book worth ten mythic pounds and that with a bit of notice he can arrange loans, mortgages and entails for a further 90 mythic pounds. To get him to sit up and take notice in the same way as the beggar, I need to drop something worth 15 or 20 mythic pounds into his 'bowl' - this would be a significant step towards the additional 200 mythic pounds he needs to amass if he wants to have the time and resources (ie. acquire the 'wealthy' virtue for his class) necessary to make a serious showing in guild and communal politics.

In other words, you would substitute bookkeeping of something concrete, namely monetary assetts, to bookkeeping something abstract, namely virtues and flaws.

Quote
I hope that my example above shows why I think that it doesn't have to be arbitrary. The money system I describe is a framework for talking about wealth and a way to keep book-keeping simple. It is a tool for the referee to quickly assess how to pitch things for both beggars and barons and focus 'screentime' on the times when those characters have something that is worth roleplaying about. For the beggar its when he gets a golden bezant from the strange outlanders, for the merchant it is an inheritance that is now a pawn in the ongoing feud with his brother-in-law, for the Baron its the intrigue required to recover title to the fief that was lost during his minority. Each is the starting point (or the desired end point) for roleplaying; but if I am running a campaign that features both beggars and barons I don't want to require the player of the baron's character to account for every last bezant in his exchequer in order to give the player of the beggar the opportunity for a soliliquoy when one of those bezants come rattling into his bowl.

The end result being that it doesn't matter whether you are a baron of a swamp fief in Russia or a Baron with a fief covering a major trade route throught the Alps. Both are quite a bit more wealthy than the average population in their area. But the austrian baron could buy the fief of the Russian. Likewise, there's quite a difference between being a peat cutter in Russia and a genovese dockhand.

I think I'm gonna side with Irmo on this one. Luke's made some very good arguments, but I think it's really going to come down to a Your Opinion-My Opinion stalemate. Some people would prefer to work with abstracts, others would prefer to work with concretes. I'm the latter, as it appears that Irmo is. As such, I am all for people creating an abstract system, or adapting one, for their own use in TRoS. For me, I'll go through the hassle of doing it with the existing system (and it is a hassle, I'll tell you..) because I like the grittiness of it. I find myself frowning in frustration because there aren't ENOUGH things in the price listing, rather than too many.

But I know others are different. For those, the system used by Ars Magica and Donjon are probably perfect. Donjon's system, while intriguing, would probably grate on me quickly, the first time I decided I really wanted something, and couldn't get it due to a flubbed roll. (Not a knock on the system, btw.. Just a difference in preferences).

I don't think you'll come to an agreement on this... But, by all means, continue your discussion. I'm interested in hearing further points.

As Wolfen said I think we are talking past each other and this is pretty much a personal preference thing. Nevertheless I'll try and respond to your points constructively.

This is a bit long I'm afraid - sorry.

[my definitional stuff snipped]

Quote from: Irmo
And you say nothing that moves me from my point that that is only practical while ruling out major traveling.

I would contend that my way is more practical for the group precisely if they are having to deal with a wide range of locales or times. Michael de Verteuil came up with the wealth mechanics I've been talking about because there is no way that you can come up with a price list for a game like Ars Magica that is remotely true to what we know from historical records. There are massive fluctuations in quoted prices because neither the monetary systems, the weights and measures, the accounting conventions or the markets were remotely stable in either time or space throughout the medieval period.

Faced with that fact you can either (i) ignore the issue completely (pretty much what Ars Magica did prior to 'Ordo Nobilis') (ii) devise price lists and detailed mechanics that attempt to model all the salient features for all the different locales you want to run adventures in (good luck) (iii) make something up to capture the essence of the situation, doesn't sweat the details and provides a starting point for whatever complexities your group will tolerate (what I think Michael achieved in Ordo Nobilis).

Fundamentally what are wealth and money mechanics intended to do in a game? IMO they are there so that a player can answer the following questions:

Can my character afford to buy [X]?
What does my character have to do to be able to afford to buy [X]?
Can my character afford to take time from their day-job to do [X]?
Is my character sufficiently {richer|poorer} than [X] that it will affect our social interaction?
If my character receives [X], how big a deal is it for them?

My point is that you can spend a huge amount of energy (both yours and your players) pursuing the massively detailed option (ii) and you will end up with something that is a huge drag on the game, doesn't help you answer those questions more effectively than option (iii) and actually isn't very historically accurate either.

Turning to your specific comments:

[snippage about miners]

Quote
But he is NOT a slave. A slave owner PAID for the property. Nevertheless, he DOES receive a place to sleep and some  meager food rations.

I beg to differ. According to you he's a miner because he's a convicted felon - he has no choice in the matter and he remains alive purely at the whim of the mineowner. That makes him a slave in my book. In ars magica terms he has the flaw 'slave/prisoner' - which pretty much sums it up. I agree that a 'bought in the market' slave might be treated better than a 'condemmed to the mines' felon, but the difference is miniscule - neither has any autonomy or opportunities to acquire property.

[snip 'farmhand and apprentice are equivalent' stuff]

Quote
The problem is precisely that the two are NOT the same, because, in fact, the material value of what they receive is quite different.

How so? They are both turning up for work and being paid in food and lodging. The money cost of that food and lodging would almost certainly differ, but since neither of them interact with a money economy very often this doesn't make for any meaningful difference between the two characters IMO.

Quote
The actual reserves of both are unlikely to differ, in fact.

Well they might differ and they might not. I think your example farmhand is precariously poor and thus will have few if any reserves. Thats why I assigned him the 'impoverished' flaw. The apprentice is a bit better off, he's got better long term prospects for a start, plus he's probably working in a household that's better insulated from the vagiaries in the economy than the farmhand and can probably tap his family or friends for a bit of cash if he gets into a scrape (ie he's not impoverished or indebted until he starts calling on these obligations), but basically he's no different to the labourer on a day-to-day basis.

Quote
And when you merely look at them receiving room and board, then there is no difference between them and a slave.

Well if we are talking about an abused galley/plantation/miner-type slave then there is the qualitative difference of actually having a blanket and mattress on your bed and food that isn't rotten. If we are talking about a houseservant-type slave who's reasonably well looked after, then I would say that there isn't much difference, no. The apprentice and the labourer have the freedom to walk away from their situation (and the corresponding freedom to starve).

Quote
More, how much the apprentice actually gets will not be the same everywhere, but will depend on the average wealth of the region, and the individual wealth and generosity of his master, as well as who the apprentice himself is. (E.g. the son of a powerful individual will likely be treated somewhat more generously than a street kid) The apprentice might get meat on sundays, whereas the farmhand is glad if he gets eggs and cheese.  The apprentice has a real perspective at improving his situation, whereas the farmhand isn't far away from the above mentioned miner.

This is all absolutely true. So the apprentice's clothes are nicer (hand me downs from a social class +2 household), he has a slightly richer diet (he eats below the salt in a class +2 household) and he lives in a north Italian commune (his mythic penny is worth 4 florentine deniers, but - suprise -daily cost of living is 4 deniers too). On a day-to-day basis however the apprentice is a kept man and has little disposable income. So he's effectively the same as the farmhand who wears second hand homespun; eats porridge, chestnut bread and onions most days and lives in a small hamlet in Corsica where the local mythic penny is only half a florentine denier (not that you see a florentine denier there very often - its mostly genovese money if anything).

[snip previous sailor stuff]

Quote
Um, sorry, but we're not talking 18th-19th century high sea sailing here.

Why not? You didn't say otherwise, but you *did* say that they were being paid off after several weeks at sea. I think that its perfectly valid to assume that the sailors aren't locals at a port that requires a voyage of several weeks to reach. Even if they regularly ply back and forth, that 'several weeks' voyage means that they'll spend very little time there - thus they will be 'outsiders'.

Quote
The employee of a hanseatic merchant is unlikely to be treated as an outsider in one of the numerous cities practically owned by the Hanseatic League.

But you do accept that sailors would often be in places where they are regarded as foreign and therefore 'fair game'? I mean, sure they have a home port (maybe several home ports if we're talking about the Hansa at their apogee) but I'm talking about career salts here - a lot of the time they are going to be fish out of water [sorry - couldn't resist].

Quote
And I am not sure where you suppose them to have acquired their skills prior to going to sea.

You stated they were being paid off after a several weeks long voyage. I took that to mean that they were skilled mariners (at least 'Rated Able' in the C18th parlance). If they are landsmen or day sailors then they don't have rare or 'otherwise hard to acquire' skills for their locality, so they get the unskilled rate of one mythic pence per day until they move up the scale as a result of their increasing abilities or somehow acquire a vessel and thus qualify for the 'prosperous' or 'rich' virtue. Alternatively they could move inland and find that their skills are now very rare. Completely useless of course, but extremely rare...

[snip manual labour examples]

Quote
The TASKS don't change much, but the material wealth is quite different.

How is this effectively different though? An Italian merchant wears fine velvets, whereas a Scottish merchant wears plain woolens and a Russian merchant wears furs? Social expectations and costs of living are also different. The Italian can get huge quantities of furs when he goes to Muscovy because they're dirt cheap up there; of course everyone wears furs up there because they're dirt cheap (and its -10 outside) so now he's dressed like a Muscovite carpenter. Of course to do this at all he's got to get to Muscovy with his wealth (which is the trick in medieval Europe) and anything he does in Edinburgh or Moscow is going to be at Scottish or Russian rates, not Italian ones - so the return on any trading he manages to do could quite easily not be worth the effort once he gets home (assuming he manages to keep the wealth on the way back as well that is) - then again furs from Muscovy were traded a long way, so he'll probably turn some kind of profit back in Italy.

[ATM example snipped]

Quote
See? And I'd be glad I could afford to withdraw that much two or three times a week. When I withdraw the equivalent from an ATM, I know I am going to do a major investment of some sort.

So for you £50 is above your 'going about expenses' threshold whereas for me (now) its not. Not long ago my routine ATM visits were for £20 and when I was a student they were for £5 or £10. Back then a £50 withdrawal was a significant event like it is for you now and only done when absolutely necessary (say to pay off a chunk of rent or perhaps to buy a bike) - now its a big thing if I'm taking out £200 (in advance of a holiday or something).

My point is that the behaviour patterns and emotional reactions we are talking about don't change and it is these which are significant for the roleplaying; whereas the quantity of money that triggers these behaviours is secondary and, to the extent that tracking every penny in fifteen different coinages with variable exchange rates slows the game, detrimental.

You don't need to know that its a purse of 50 venetian sequins (as opposed to 70 livres tournoise) that sparked avarice in a character's heart. The important thing is the avarice and how the character responds to it.

[much snippage of related points]

Quote
In other words, you would substitute bookkeeping of something concrete, namely monetary assetts, to bookkeeping something abstract, namely virtues and flaws.

Yes - and this bad because...???

Here's the thing - we are moderns and so we have modern assumptions - we live in a world of trusted fiat money that doesn't fluctuate in buying power very much and for the most part our societies are open, meritocratic and socially mobile. Your statement I've just quoted reflects those assumptions - money is concrete and measurable, but class or occupation is plastic and abstract.

The point I've been trying (and obviously failing) to get across is that none of this is true for premodern societies - monetary assets weren't fixed, they fluctuated wildly in their purchasing power - but 'intangibles' such as class, wealth within class, hometown and profession (all easily modelled and tracked with virtues and flaws or something similar) were incredibly hard to change and had massive influence on your progress in life (or in the event of disasters such as war or famine, whether you got to go on living at all).

For this environment I believe you risk missing the point if you go for hyper detailed, multi-currency models of wealth and insist that everyone tracks their income and expenditure to the last farthing. Cash is king in our world, but it was only a count or a duke back in the premodern world. Money was one of the ways that wealth expressed itself in premodern societies but a premodern character's wealth ultimately came from who he was, who he knew, what he knew, how he knew it, what he held, how he held it, who he trusted and who trusted him. Pounds, shillings and pence were part of that picture certainly, but if you focus all your energy on tracking the cash you risk missing that other good stuff and you have very little chance of getting your players to question their modern assumptions and maybe, just maybe, start thinking and reacting a bit like a premodern.


Phew! That went on far longer than I thought and as I said up top I suspect we are talking past each other. Feel free to respond to what I've written, but I'll be ducking out of this exchange from now on I think.

Regards
Luke