Money question

[luke silburn]

[snip query about manual labour standard]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

[Irmo]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Lance D. Allen]

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.

[luke silburn]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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).

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]

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'.

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].

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]

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]

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]

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