Topic: Cost of Land
Started by: toli
Started on: 1/7/2004
Board: The Riddle of Steel
On 1/7/2004 at 8:49pm, toli wrote:
Cost of Land
Mokkurkalfe in another thread brought up the notion of PCs being homless, having spent all their $$ on equipment. This got me thinking about the cost of buying land and the income likely from that piece of land.
For example, suppose one wanted to make a yeoman type character (High Freeman) who owned some land (perhaps rented out) but also served in the local lord's guard for extra $$ (or what ever). Likewise a landless gentry character who came into some $ might want to acquire estates. This would have any number of historical precidents in the real world.
What would be a reasonable base cost for land? Obviously prices would vary somewhat with availability and demand. I'm just thinking of a general guideline. For example, what percentage of your investment would one expect to receive in annual income? What would a basic set of 'household goods' cost (by social level)?
If all the land were rented out, what would the % income be etc...
anythoughs...NT
On 1/7/2004 at 10:54pm, kenjib wrote:
RE: Cost of Land
I'm not sure about buying, but land title could also be bequeathed for valorous services rendered, dubious backs scratched, and/or political exploitation - a pretty cool in-game reward and plot-point because in addition to having the land, you also have a new implied obligation to the person who gave it to you. There is no such thing as a gift outright...
"For honor in service I grant you the fief of Shaddickshire."
A week later...
"Oh, I forgot to mention that it's on the border of my rival neighbor, with whom I am feuding? What a silly ommission! Well, I expect that you will defend your titled lands as per your obligation to me, your liege-lord. Oh, and by the way, I am declaring war with him tomorrow."
On 1/7/2004 at 11:07pm, toli wrote:
RE: Cost of Land
kenjib wrote: I'm not sure about buying, but land title could also be bequeathed for valorous services rendered
Oh sure, a PC could receive a benefice from a lord, but I was thinking of a more allod type piece of land. That is one without feudal obligations.
On 1/8/2004 at 12:38am, Prince of Thieves wrote:
RE: Cost of Land
It would really depend on where in Weyrth the characters wanted to buy land. The Feudal system that many of the countries follow wouldn't allow for much. Only a Lord in big money trouble would sell land; and if said lord is replaced the new lord may again claim the land as his own, divine right and all. Freeholds are pretty rare. Of course in a place like Xanarian with no real Nobility those with wealth and power fill the role.
But here some guidelines I'd use for value. Try and assign the land that will be sold a social class. Then you take the yearly income (pg 203) times 10-30. Thats alot but it sounds about right to me.
A humble and cozy roadside inn = Low Freeman(3gx15=45g)
A ranch of green pastor and fine stables to breed horses = High Freeman?(10gx20 = 200g)
A wealthy, famous vinyard. *Hic!* = Noble (50gx20= 1,000g)
Land, even undeveloped, should not be cheap. However under a feudal system true ownership always belongs to the king, at best you are purchasing the right to develope and make a living off of the king's land. The divine are just nice that way. Watch out for the tax man.
Hope that helps some.
On 1/8/2004 at 2:35am, Ingenious wrote:
RE: Cost of Land
I thought of this issue before once, and did not receive so many positive responses as I would have liked.
Regarding Prince's post about the income and such of a business or piece of land... it is my view that the yearly income of the first year of 'business', renting, breeding of horses...etc... not be as profitable as the next year, or the next, or the next, etc. As is the case with reality, a starting company does not make in its first year what it does in the second, the 6th, or even the tenth year of business.
I guess for reasons of sheer simplicity one might decide to average the yearly income of a plot of land, or a house.. but it is far more feasable and realistic to have it vary from year to year. Also this raises the question of stewards.. usually you would have on in your employ if you owned a business and were out and about for long periods of time. This can bring NPC's into the picture further... possibly into the plot itself.. as maybe a dumb steward takes control of your company for you while you are away and turns it into the biggest financial fumbling of his life... You would then be broke-ass poor... in serious debt most likely.. and be seeking out this person in order to 're-pay' his efforts. Or this plot-line could be used by a seneschal if your business becomes far too profitable.. so as to cause problems with his story. Or the steward might take over for you at the start so that you don't have to muck with the financial side and daily life of the business or whatnot and have it make a steady profit.
*shrug*
-Ingenious
On 1/8/2004 at 1:34pm, Half-Baked wrote:
RE: Cost of Land
Oh sure, a PC could receive a benefice from a lord, but I was thinking of a more allod type piece of land. That is one without feudal obligations.
In a feudal society there was very little land that came without some sort of feudal obligations. It does not have to be labour or military obligations as a peasant might have. Your obligation might be just taxes paid to your feudal lord. You could purchase a long-term Leasehold with a lumpsum. However, you would still be obliged to pay taxes to your lord. Enough to exempt you from military service. This might be what you are looking for.
The closest thing to exemption from feudal obligations were towns and cities. Most were given self-governance by the King in return for taxes. This was the King's main source of income independent of his vassals.
Value of the land depends on many things, the most important are the income from the land, population pressure, restrictions on ownership, discounts for other obligations, taxes. Note that there is no income tax as we know it. A land tax based on the value of the land was more common. They might be about 6-12% of the value, more in a highly taxed society. Income would be between two to fours times that. That is income if you are working the land yourself.
This is just a rule of thumb, mind you.
On 1/8/2004 at 5:31pm, toli wrote:
RE: Cost of Land
Half-Baked wrote: In a feudal society there was very little land that came without some sort of feudal obligations.
That is and isn't true. In France in particular in the early middle ages one might own 'allods', for which one did not owe feudal obligations (excepth the general obligation to the King). The plague also changed things quite drastically in terms of society etc. Similary, many soldiers who got rich in the 100's war bought land upon their return. If you think of Weyrth as sort of rinascimento, feudalism was pretty much caput in terms of military obligations. I don't think there were any effective feudal levies in England after the 1200s or France after the 1300s. Likewise in a non-feudal area like Italy (Xanaria) there would be private ownership of land. Granted many forms of ownership would owe some sort of obligation to the government in terms of taxes or military service.
Anyhoo...NT
On 1/8/2004 at 5:54pm, toli wrote:
RE: Cost of Land
Ingenious wrote: I guess for reasons of sheer simplicity one might decide to average the yearly income of a plot of land, or a house.. but it is far more feasable and realistic to have it vary from year to year.
*shrug*
-Ingenious
Granted income would actually vary from year to year, but I wasn't really looking for this type of detail. I was mostly thinking of an average income like the landed noble's income of 40-50 gp per year. I was not thinking of the income as a plot device but just a way of providing support outside of actual roleplaying. I was also generally thinking of it as passive income (ie steward of some sort). Thus a gentry character might purchase a small estate to provide the 20 gp year for his standard of living and add to it from adventuring income. Or perhaps a starting gentry character might purchase enough land to gain 10 gp year and and adventure for the rest. I like the 10-30x suggestion. 20x would just be 5% per year....
On 1/8/2004 at 8:39pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Cost of Land
Baked says that feudal lands have feudal obligations. Toli points out that Wyerth doesn't have to be strictly feudal. I think the key is to look at the area, and decide how it works for your game. For example, in Taveruun, my thought was that it would be late feudal in part because of the threat of the Marluks (and the fact that it obviously hasn't moved at all towards nation-state status).
But even in post-feudal Europe taxes remain an important drain on landowners profitability. Sure they might not have to raise military troops, but taxes are unaviodable pretty much everywhere, and in any age.
Interestingly, if the model is at all Medieval or even early renaisance, the income wouldn't take the form of cash. Cash was rare, even for nobles. What you had was what was likely to be taxed first. So that income based on your starting rank would seem to me to be a generalization of wealth obtained in other ways. Which is to say that the big advantage of being a noble, wealth-wise, is that you have a nice house, nice things, and servants.
That's not to say that nobles never have cash, just that they don't often have piles of it. So, unless the noble in question really makes his lands profitable in some way, consider him just to have a lot of non-liquid wealth. Sure this year his estate has 30 more cows than last year. Now how to make that translate into a new fine sword...
I'd definitely try to find a way to make the character's investment in time, effort, wealth, and good die rolls into improving his land's outcome. And lots of fun things in terms of events that are trying to remove his income. Think pestilences, threatening neighbors, brigands, etc. Lots of sources of problems for a noble trying to make his estate funcion properly that can be turned into interesting play.
Mike
On 1/8/2004 at 11:16pm, Half-Baked wrote:
RE: Cost of Land
That is and isn't true. In France in particular in the early middle ages one might own 'allods', for which one did not owe feudal obligations (excepth the general obligation to the King). The plague also changed things quite drastically in terms of society etc. Similary, many soldiers who got rich in the 100's war bought land upon their return. If you think of Weyrth as sort of rinascimento, feudalism was pretty much caput in terms of military obligations. I don't think there were any effective feudal levies in England after the 1200s or France after the 1300s. Likewise in a non-feudal area like Italy (Xanaria) there would be private ownership of land. Granted many forms of ownership would owe some sort of obligation to the government in terms of taxes or military service.
I'm feeling a little sheepish, as I should have known about Allods. I did a university paper on whether Feudalism existed in medieval europe. It included reading the excruciatingly dull book by Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted. If you have a spare lifetime to waste, enjoy the read. Anyway, she spends 400 pages arguing feudalism does not exist because of all the exceptions that escaped her narrow definition of Feudalism. All she needed to say was no two historians ever entirely agree on the definition of Feudalism. Without general consensus of a definition you can never prove your argument to anyone else. They all just say your definition is wrong so your entire argument is critically flawed.
Reynolds does prove the existence that medieval society was very complex, dynamic, flexible and vivid. It was a society without any abstract authorities but with a lot of natural and personal links. Hence, you cannot rely on a landholding free of obligations being maintained as personal relationships are more important than a particular legal right.
A bit off topic there. What I was trying to say was that throughout most pre-modern periods land ownership rarely came without some sort of obligations. Maybe I should say is "what I should have been trying to say".
Anyway, it is up to your Seneschal about his society. It is quite possible that the freehold land with no obligations other than tax could be available. The right social, economic and political conditions could exist. It should be rare though in a pre-modern society.
The cost of between 10-30 times the pre-tax income sounds about right. I think three factors should influence what side of the range it is:
1. Cost of Capital - how hard is it for others to raise cash to buy land
2. Social desirability of being a landowner
3. Rarity of that particular type of landholding you want (e.g Allods became rarer in medieval France than in Germany)
On 1/8/2004 at 11:44pm, toli wrote:
RE: Cost of Land
Half-Baked wrote:
A bit off topic there. What I was trying to say was that throughout most pre-modern periods land ownership rarely came without some sort of obligations. Maybe I should say is "what I should have been trying to say".
You are right as far as I know that most form of land ownership came with some obligations...and still does...I pay property tax for my house. That's not really what I was getting at. I agree that the obligation included taxes and often some level of military obligation to a higher authority (hence all the rules about what weapons some one had to own based on his assetts.
I guess the point about the allods was more the private ownership aspect of the title to the land. The owner of alloidial land was free to dispense of it (sell, give it to the church) without permission from a higher authority. A benefice would require the enfeoffing lord's permission for a transfer...if you know what I mean.
Even in a totally feudalized society with no real private land ownership you would still be able to "buy" land. The "purchase" of the land might come in the form of a gift to the lord for rights to the land. In fact, heirs were often required to pay an indemnity (sp?) for access to their inherited feudal lands. Likewise, a gentry level character might be able to "buy" the hand of an heiress and gain an estate...
anyway...the 10-30x number sounds reasonable.
I agree that running the estate could make an interesting campaign focus, but I was looking for something much simpler...NT
Thanks..
On 1/9/2004 at 8:07am, Half-Baked wrote:
RE: Cost of Land
I agree that running the estate could make an interesting campaign focus, but I was looking for something much simpler...NT
Why don't you just purchase an interest in a business. You could be a silent partner in any number of businesses, including an estate. Income with no responsibility except to ensure you are not being swindled.
On 1/9/2004 at 10:16am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Cost of Land
toli wrote:
I guess the point about the allods was more the private ownership aspect of the title to the land. The owner of alloidial land was free to dispense of it (sell, give it to the church) without permission from a higher authority. A benefice would require the enfeoffing lord's permission for a transfer...if you know what I mean.
This is true, but it is also historically particular. That is, European fuedalism arises out of the Barbarian kingdoms that brought down Rome. One of the features of this highly multi-ethnic society was the existance of personal law, that is, a person was subjevct to a particular law based on their ethnicity rather than on their location or service or whatever. And this meant that many people had inalienable rights to certain land inherited from prior arrangements. But these allodial lands were a constant thorn in the side of those attempting to centralise and regularise the monarchy, and many monarchs directed strenuous attention to eliminating allodial rights. Chief among such devices was the control over heiresses, and the default of lands without heir to the crown, thus making any prior allodial status vanish. Equally, many fuedal magnates directed strenuous efforts to preserving their allodial claims, as they had more rights there than in the lands held in feof from the monarch. An attempted seizure of an allodial territory could give a vassal a legitimate cause for war against their lord.
You certainly could say: my vision of this fictional society is much like that of the Goths and Franks and exhibits a high proportion of inalienable allodial rights. This would be entirely plausible, if not perhaps strictly an echo of (most) feudalism.
On 1/9/2004 at 1:48pm, Hugin wrote:
RE: Cost of Land
Not to get into the debate about how to get land in Weyrth, but anyone wanting a (reasonably) simple system for manageing a feudal holding and dealing with the viccisitudes of yearly life (markets, droughts, raids, plague etc.) could do worse than look at Lordly Domains for Pendragon, produced by Chaosium (usually a good sign), or it's earlier print, simply called the Nobles Book I believe. Out of print at the moment, it comes up on eBay occasionally.
It gives info on different sized holdings with different sources of income, and also has rules for year-on-year management. It uses Pendragon's 20d system (not D20) but shouldn't be that hard to convert.
Harn has something similar I believe but tends to get overdetailed (of course if you want to know exactly how to plant a particular strain of turnip in light alluvial soil on a broad flood plain in a temperate climate using nothing but a wooden spoon, this could be for you!*)
Dave
*It will also probably give you the field boundaries for 2 miles in each direction, the size and shape of the hedges and the construction technique used to make the gates. I hate turnips!
On 1/9/2004 at 4:07pm, toli wrote:
RE: Cost of Land
Hugin wrote: look at Lordly Domains for Pendragon, produced by Chaosium (usually a good sign), or it's earlier print, simply called the Nobles Book I believe. Out of print at the moment, it comes up on eBay occasionally.
I have Lordly Domains. It is quite useful. It divides income into coin and food and allows for some fluctuation from year to year. I also recommend it. The Harn stuff is way too detailed for me.
On 1/9/2004 at 4:21pm, toli wrote:
RE: Cost of Land
contracycle wrote:
This is true, but it is also historically particular. That is, European fuedalism arises out of the Barbarian kingdoms that brought down Rome.
True but one does need to allow for some variation in country and make a distinction to separate the high middle ages from the rinascimento. Alloidal holdings never really disappeared from Spain and southern France and were really the norm in Italy. The Plague had a large effect on society (generally giving peasants more influence because of a lack of labor force) as well. By the historical time period Wyerth pseudorepresents, feudal oblicagations were very different and private land more common. As an example, knights or gentlemen who made $ in the hundred years war generally bought land. For John Fastolf (*aka Falstaf), who would have been around in the 1400's, 75% of his income came from lands purchased with the proceedes from his adventures in Frances and only 25% from lands he either inherited or got through marriage. In Italy, some families developed large landholdings as they bought land in that city's contatdo (the surrounding country controlled by the city) from the contadini (farmers). In general land issues related to cities would be some what different to the feudlal norm.
As for investing in a business or civic real estate that is fine...the same general general question pertains, however. What is a reasonable profit for an investment? Again I don't mean to use this 'investment' or land as a plot mechanism, just passive income. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to set some variation around that income, but one still needs an expected starting point...5% seems to be ok. Not too much, not too little. I might allow a better return during character generation.
NT
On 1/9/2004 at 9:03pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Cost of Land
I think that 5% is a fine figure as an average, but that it would fluctuate fairly wildly. I'm thinking that the norm would be from -30% to +40% or something like that. Meaning that you have to be very frugal with your profits to ensure continuing "cash flow". But sure, otherwise I think that 5% is a reasonable ROI for real estate.
Mike