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.

BrianL wrote: 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.

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...

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

Jake Norwood wrote: 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...?

Irmo wrote:

Lyrax wrote: A 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 wrote: 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....

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.

PosterX wrote: 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.

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

PosterX wrote: 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.

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.

Jake Norwood wrote: 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.

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.

Roger Eberhart wrote: 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.

Irmo wrote:

Roger Eberhart wrote: 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....

Jake Norwood wrote:
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

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. :)

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

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.

BrianL wrote: 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.

Irmo wrote:

Roger Eberhart wrote: 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....

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 ;)

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

toli wrote: No one running a landed noble really wants to keep tract of how much each servant is paid and that sort of thing.

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

Bob Richter wrote:

toli wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote:
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 wrote: Abstract is NEVER a better SIMULATION.

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

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

luke wrote:

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.

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.

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....

Valamir wrote:
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 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.

Valamir wrote:

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

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

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.

luke wrote:

[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.

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

[snip query about manual labour standard]

Irmo wrote:
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?

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.

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

luke wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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