Money question

[luke silburn]

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.

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...

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

[toli]

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

[Bob Richter]

No 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.

[toli]

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

[Valamir]

No 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.

[Bob Richter]

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...

[Valamir]

Abstract 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.

[toli]

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

[Irmo]

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....

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....

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....

[Valamir]

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....

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.

[Irmo]

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.

[Valamir]

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.

[Irmo]

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....

[luke silburn]

[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]

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.

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

[Irmo]

[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?

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.

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.