TheRPGSite

I was thinking on a topic the other day - that of many fantasy RPGs and their requirements for vast sums of coinage. Whether that coinage is required for training, translates directly to XP gain, or is just used to buy cool stuff (magic items at Ye Olde Magic Shop, or whatever). And, why this economic bloat annoys me.

This was brought on by a thread of Pundit's (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=25134) and from reading the Treasure section in the DCC RPG (page 393). For those unfamiliar, that section stresses the importance of maintaining the verisimilitude of a feudal, medieval economy, by limiting the loot found on monsters. And it cautions that doling out a monty haul of goodies "reveals a logical disconnect to this medieval world". (paraphrased). In other words, if so much wealth abounds, why the hell would someone bother tending their flock if they take a gamble (with their life) and pull in a jackpot to set themselves up for life? Why would any member of a civilization bother?

One of my current-RPG-favorites, Chaosium RuneQuest, relies heavily upon finding fat stacks of cash - thousands of lunars which are necessary to train-up skills through guilds or cults, as well to learn spells from cults. (Skill growth is also gained through direct use of one's skills). A RQ character benefits by acquiring 10s of thousands of coinage over the course of his career to reach the peak of his abilities. There are times that I want to hack the entire RQ economy (starting wealth, armor/weapon/equipment costs, training costs, and the cost of spells) - divide every value by a factor of 10, or something - to bring it down to more sensible levels. So that there's not a need to distribute so much coinage.

I'm sure that many would answer, "it's just a dumb elf-game. why waste time thinking about this garbage?", or "that's just the way it is with [insert fantasy rpg]". It's a niggling thought for me, one that I feel compelled to 'correct'. Thoughts?

You are totally correct. someone I suspect it was one of the denners had doen the math round how much gold would have to exist in the world based on 10 GP to the pound as the standard means there are about 720 Million Gps worth of gold in the whole world today.
Enough to get 750 fighters to 12th level, in the whole world.

Anyway the training costs in AD&D are merely a sop to rid the PCs of treasure if you actually thought about it then PCs would spend all their time training folks as its far safer than adventuring. The towns where trainign occured would be like gold rush towns where everythign was 10 -20 tiems over priced due to inflation and weapons masters woudl be richer than kings.

Not just gold though if magical healing was so available the villagers would effectively had medical facilities far in advance of what we have today. A farmer who was severly injured in a threshing acident loosing 5 out of 6 hp would be back up in the field tomorrow  after a quick heal light and a night's kip. Far better than Medicare or the NHS. etc etc ....

Quote from: K Peterson;633419This was brought on by a thread of Pundit's (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=25134) and from reading the Treasure section in the DCC RPG (page 393). For those unfamiliar, that section stresses the importance of maintaining the verisimilitude of a feudal, medieval economy, by limiting the loot found on monsters.  

There were people in the middle ages who, were their wealth adjusted for inflation to modern dollars, would be billionaires.  Granted a whole bunch of it tied up in land.  But billionaires nonetheless.  The notion that there were not extremely wealthy people in the middle ages is wrong.

Quote from: K Peterson;633419In other words, if so much wealth abounds, why the hell would someone bother tending their flock if they take a gamble (with their life) and pull in a jackpot to set themselves up for life? Why would any member of a civilization bother?

There is easily a billion dollars in currency within a 15 minute drive from where I am sitting right now.  I could potentially become fabulously wealthy by going on a crime spree.  But yet, I still work my day job.

Part of the problem, at least so far as D&D is concerned, is that a lot of advancement concepts are tied up in wealth.

Look at pre-2e, with wealth giving you XP, and was - apparently, so I've heard - the primary means of level gain. In such a system, you have to be willing to hand out giant hoards of cash, because it's the only reasonable way for characters to gain advancement.

3e and 4e both had horrid economic systems, but that was - I think - largely related to their attempts to control magic items. It didn't work, either economically or in game balance, but that was the idea.

Honestly, I think that if you want a game to have a reasonable economic system, you'd have to (1) divorce character wealth from direct mechanical advancement, and (2) rewrite all pricing from the ground up. There's a lot more work that needs to go into it, but honestly, as a starting point, those two are necessary and already quite a bit of work.

Quote from: K Peterson;633419There are times that I want to hack the entire RQ economy (starting wealth, armor/weapon/equipment costs, training costs, and the cost of spells) - divide every value by a factor of 10, or something - to bring it down to more sensible levels. So that there's not a need to distribute so much coinage.

I'm sure that many would answer, "it's just a dumb elf-game. why waste time thinking about this garbage?", or "that's just the way it is with [insert fantasy rpg]". It's a niggling thought for me, one that I feel compelled to 'correct'. Thoughts?

Seems to me the disjunct with CRQ, as with most games, is that the economy of the game mechanics (equipment, training and spell learning for example) are built one way and the economy of the mundane (cost of living, wages for regular jobs etc) are built another way. IMHO it simply stems from the desire to present 'treasure' as shiny bullion loot and to regularly reward with same and to link that to progression, or simply ensure the game mechanics have a way of burning through PCs' winning quickly.

So far as cracking the relationship between realistic (ancient style in my case) economics and game worlds I had a crack at that with an article for Legend/MRQ2 that you can find here:

http://draconianpress.net/ageoftreason/?p=224

The work I did there was the basis for the economics chapter in my setting books (for Legend), and you can find The Iron Companion on Drivethru in PDF. The reason I mention is not as a pitch but because in there I have related that to a rewrite of the game mechanics for training costs, henchman wages etc. However if you are an RQ fan, I'm doing a setting book for RQ6 right now which will be out later this year - same world as my Legend books, different civilisation in focus, and with an economics chapter.

As it happens I also like people to feel that a stash of 12SP is a good find (you can live off that for best part of a month!) rather than get into massive treasure/price inflation. Parking SPs as your main currency (as CRQ did with Lunars) is a good start.

Quote from: Old One Eye;633432There is easily a billion dollars in currency within a 15 minute drive from where I am sitting right now.  I could potentially become fabulously wealthy by going on a crime spree.  But yet, I still work my day job.

Yeah but it's no good to you with nowhere to spend it. Not without living the rest of your probably short life on the run anyway. Dungeons on the other hand, well why not raid a dungeon, your community will even applaud you for it.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;633446Honestly, I think that if you want a game to have a reasonable economic system, you'd have to (1) divorce character wealth from direct mechanical advancement

Like the dungeon complaint above, if you do that we get not-D&D. Better off to just accept it's a shit system that lots of people have great fun with and leave it at that.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;633446Part of the problem, at least so far as D&D is concerned, is that a lot of advancement concepts are tied up in wealth.

Look at pre-2e, with wealth giving you XP, and was - apparently, so I've heard - the primary means of level gain. In such a system, you have to be willing to hand out giant hoards of cash, because it's the only reasonable way for characters to gain advancement.

3e and 4e both had horrid economic systems, but that was - I think - largely related to their attempts to control magic items. It didn't work, either economically or in game balance, but that was the idea.

Honestly, I think that if you want a game to have a reasonable economic system, you'd have to (1) divorce character wealth from direct mechanical advancement, and (2) rewrite all pricing from the ground up. There's a lot more work that needs to go into it, but honestly, as a starting point, those two are necessary and already quite a bit of work.

For basic economics i just use relative prices now. So generally 1sp = 1 GPB (Uk pound) .
then the Players immediately know what is a reasonable price a reasonable wage etc. How much should my PC get for a day's dangerous work.... hmm... well £300 sounds like a good start so if we say 10sp = 1gp (we can adjust the weights of those by the way so that a gold coin is small say nickle size comparted to a SP being a quarter) then 30gp is a wage for a dangerous day's work. a meal with a beer will cost 1gp etc etc
If you want to make the values more "medieval" then swap out sp for copper piece or put 20sp to the gp etc etc So a days dangerous work might be 300 cp = 30 sp or 1 1/2 gp .The point is you don't need a price guide because you already know how much things cost.
Magic you use like high tech stuff but 10 times as rare. So a Crystal ball in a world where such things are D&D levels of commonality is like a top end 3d Plasma TV so £1000 x 10 = 10,000 GP

It really works out much easier for everyone especialy dealing with the mundane items and means players know what to ask to kill a guy or guard a wagon train or rob a merchant or rescue a princess.

Quote from: The Traveller;633450Like the dungeon complaint above, if you do that we get not-D&D. Better off to just accept it's a shit system that lots of people have great fun with and leave it at that.

That's certainly one way to look at it.

However, when the economics start getting in the way of believability or even plausibility, that's where it starts to become a concern. Most of my group was willing to move away from D&D partially because of it's insane economics.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;633455However, when the economics start getting in the way of believability or even plausibility, that's where it starts to become a concern. Most of my group was willing to move away from D&D partially because of it's insane economics.

That's what I'm saying, when it comes to D&D you pretty much just have to wince and look the other way. I haven't played D&D for many years and have no intention of ever playing it again for this reason. Other systems give me what I want in a better way.

The mad economic questions, the invincible superheroes, the money as personal and spiritual progression, the labyrinths containing room by room individual monsters that in reality would need a range of hundreds of miles to support themselves and somehow have accumulated sacks of bullion, wizards unable to don a shirt of chainmail, and endless list of suspension of disbelief busting "features" - no thanks. It can't be fixed because fixing it makes it something different rather than a better version of itself.

Well, the thread title is about the fantasy economy, not just the D&D one.

And one thing I agree with is that magic often makes this difficult, as well as the related concept of political/social power being tied to being 'level-capable'.

One thing to remember about adventurers is that in classic (OD&D, B/X, BECMI, RC) is that they start off with 30-180 GP. So it's not like any schmuck off a farm is going and doing this, they are probably disinherited second or third sons in a family with primogeniture or something like that.

I do currency by rough equivalence and weight. Being interested in ancient numismatics, I just can't bring myself to run a game where PCs actually are running around with coins weighing 45.4 grams. I use a standard of 1/100 of a pound, so a gold piece weighs the same as the solidus in the late Roman empire and a silver piece weighs the same as a classic denarius. These coins weren't contemporary to one another, but I typically just excuse it by giving the amount by rough weight.

There was a note in GAZ1 The Grand Duchy of Karameikos that there's way more gold in the D&D world than in the real world. So there's that as well. But I prefer to do it by dividing gold weights by 10.

Quote from: Old One Eye;633432There is easily a billion dollars in currency within a 15 minute drive from where I am sitting right now.  I could potentially become fabulously wealthy by going on a crime spree.  But yet, I still work my day job.

Yes, but that's a bit of a weird analogy compared to what DCC suggests. That's akin to a peasant/townsfolk sneaking into a lord's castle, thieving some valuables, and then fleeing to another land. (And facing the consequences when the lord's knights catch up with him). I'm talking about a situation like this:

Let's say you drive in to your job at McDonald's (or other minimum wage job), and Bob, your coworker, tells you about an 'adventure' he recently had. He snuck into the extensive steam tunnels under a local university and found a 'treasure' - a 5 grand wad of bills - and he shows you the proof, flashing the cash in your face. He's certain that there's more down there. But he barely made it out of there, because some gang members hang out down there who won't hesitate to murder or maim trespassers on their turf. (This analogy's getting a bit silly but you get where I'm going with this).

Bob shares this information with you and some other coworkers. How long would it take before someone took a gamble to get some of that treasure, himself? If that 5 grand represented 6 months of your regular salary at Mickey-D's. If the only obstacle to that 'treasure' were the 'monsters' that resided in the tunnels.

Quote from: Iron Simulacrum;633448Seems to me the disjunct with CRQ, as with most games, is that the economy of the game mechanics (equipment, training and spell learning for example) are built one way and the economy of the mundane (cost of living, wages for regular jobs etc) are built another way. IMHO it simply stems from the desire to present 'treasure' as shiny bullion loot and to regularly reward with same and to link that to progression, or simply ensure the game mechanics have a way of burning through PCs' winning quickly.

I totally agree. And thanks for the link to the article and the PDF release.

Quote from: The Traveller;633457That's what I'm saying, when it comes to D&D you pretty much just have to wince and look the other way. I haven't played D&D for many years and have no intention of ever playing it again for this reason. Other systems give me what I want in a better way.

Yeah, I'm not picking on D&D specifically here. There are many published fantasy systems that have this divide between "the economy of the game mechanics" and the "economy of the mundane." I'm just making examples of D&D and RuneQuest because that's what I'm most familiar with.

Quote from: K Peterson;633505Yeah, I'm not picking on D&D specifically here. There are many published fantasy systems that have this divide between "the economy of the game mechanics" and the "economy of the mundane." I'm just making examples of D&D and RuneQuest because that's what I'm most familiar with.

Oh yeah sure I was responding to one particular post there, if people want to play D&D more power to them.

For myself I just don't hand out so much fungible currency, financial rewards might be coinage but more often might be bales of semi precious cloth, statues valuable only to a particular noble house (after you've explained why they should pay for something rightfully theirs), well preserved books (worth a bit prior to the invention of the printing press), livestock and so on.

Currency and gems etc are there but they wouldn't be lying about at the bottom of your average abandoned mine. This creates opportunity for adventure and limitations on the actual amount of wealth the group can haul about at any given point simultaneously, while allowing the emulation of a reasonable pre-industrial economy.

"Treasure" in the D&D sense would reputedly exist more in remote and very dangerous locations, usually needing quite an expedition to claim, as per The Hobbit, or more readily in some nobleman's house under heavy guard as per Conan. Looting settlements is also a time honoured method of gaining lots of jingly coins in a hurry, well-off human ones anyway, much like the real world - a good rule of thumb is if you want riches, go rob some rich people, see also the crusades and that little jaunt which took place prior to the Battle of Agincourt. Starveling goblin camps aren't good for much more than nicking your blade.

Of course in my game system (ARR) skills are advanced by using them, and less tangible advancements come about by completing character, group, or campaign goals. Puzzling out the normalisation of an economy where the currency is also the means of advancement in every sense, phew, well.

Commenting in Pundit's other thread. Yes, it never made any sense even back then, but I do remember some houserules from back then such a 1gp = 10xp rather than one to one ratio that some people used to get around PC having to deal with tons of coins.  

I was working on something similar for a Pathfinder campaign for a more Warhammery where coinage doesn't just become a medium for buying and selling magic items.

https://workspaces.acrobat.com/?d=p65p*prITvg50ZfhR7EiRQ

It does require one to tweak encounters, but you are usually doing that anyways. I could take two groups with the same characters in a purely RAW game - one set of players are much more casual and the other set of players are much more savvy. An challenging encounter for the first set of players will be cake walk for the second.

I have read lots of pretty dry history books on trade and currency in the ancient and medieval world, and I still dont feel I could comfortably simulate a real world historical economy. For me, I am fine with the game keeping that stuff simple. In a given group, I may have a single player who places much value on that, but the rest tend to get annoyed if we are overly detailed or worried about the history. Still my hat is off to anyone who puts in the time to hash this out int heir campaign.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;633516I have read lots of pretty dry history books on trade and currency in the ancient and medieval world, and I still dont feel I could comfortably simulate a real world historical economy. For me, I am fine with the game keeping that stuff simple. In a given group, I may have a single player who places much value on that, but the rest tend to get annoyed if we are overly detailed or worried about the history. Still my hat is off to anyone who puts in the time to hash this out int heir campaign.

I don't think you have to go all complex and/or realistic just to have something different than the pattern of mounds of coins along with pages and pages of price lists.  For example, here is the system I used for my Vinland game:

http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/vinland/rules/wealth.html

Everyone automatically had gear appropriate for their station.  If they wanted something different, it'd just be eyeballed.  Everyone tracked their wealth level with decimals (like 4.5), and I'd bump them up a few or bump them down a few for significant events.  A successful raid would bump them up a few, for example.

Quote from: The Traveller;633509Oh yeah sure I was responding to one particular post there, if people want to play D&D more power to them.

For myself I just don't hand out so much fungible currency, financial rewards might be coinage but more often might be bales of semi precious cloth, statues valuable only to a particular noble house (after you've explained why they should pay for something rightfully theirs), well preserved books (worth a bit prior to the invention of the printing press), livestock and so on.

Currency and gems etc are there but they wouldn't be lying about at the bottom of your average abandoned mine. This creates opportunity for adventure and limitations on the actual amount of wealth the group can haul about at any given point simultaneously, while allowing the emulation of a reasonable pre-industrial economy.

"Treasure" in the D&D sense would reputedly exist more in remote and very dangerous locations, usually needing quite an expedition to claim, as per The Hobbit, or more readily in some nobleman's house under heavy guard as per Conan. Looting settlements is also a time honoured method of gaining lots of jingly coins in a hurry, well-off human ones anyway, much like the real world - a good rule of thumb is if you want riches, go rob some rich people, see also the crusades and that little jaunt which took place prior to the Battle of Agincourt. Starveling goblin camps aren't good for much more than nicking your blade.

Of course in my game system (ARR) skills are advanced by using them, and less tangible advancements come about by completing character, group, or campaign goals. Puzzling out the normalisation of an economy where the currency is also the means of advancement in every sense, phew, well.

Yeah, one of the reasons I bailed from a lot of trad systems was the issues with the economy vs class vs magic (I loved the first section of the old Goblins comic when they were protecting the chest full of treasure they did not use....classic).  
My main system is more like yours, where skills are learned by using them.  However, esoteric skills, especially when you have to learn skills (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955580/General%20Costing%20of%20Skill%20Kits), are not cheap.  Nor is magic.

So you need to make sure that the economy works, and even the presence of the cash flow makes sense.  Banking has existed for a while, and most of the PCs use writs of worth covered by banks...but finding old stuff is a big deal.
Hell, my poor Steel ISle group has been hauling out statuary out of a certain sets of Ruin for some 160 sessions.

Well, I think I'm going to find it interesting running something like DCC, where treasure is completely removed from experience.I may even have it set up as a mostly primitive barter economy.

RPGPundit

I respectfully disagree with the notion that a fantasy economy cannot realistically have adventurers who earn large amounts of wealth by looting.

Entire kingdoms and empires were founded on looting. The Roman Empire was a plunder-based economy. So were the Hun Empire and the Mongol Empire. Or consider the vikings conducting hit-and-run raids on monasteries filled with valuable relics. Scandinavia didn't stop having poor people, farmers, or a middle ages economy during the time period when viking activity peaked.

Historical tombs really were filled with valuable grave goods and these really were targeted by tomb raiders throughout antiquity. The reason King Tut's tomb was such an amazing find is not because of its riches - those were run of the mill for a pharaoh. It was because the riches hadn't been plundered yet after 3,000 years. Somehow the Egyptian economy survived despite the fact that the peasants knew there that the tombs of the wealthy were filled with riches!

Adventurers, raiders, and pirates existed throughout antiquity. Most led sad, short lives. Those that succeeded became nobility. In D&D, the amount of gold that adventurers find is high relative to peasants, but it is not initially that high relative to kings and merchant princes. At the point where PC wealth and loot begins to approach that of the nobility, the PCs should be joining the nobility themselves.

But, yes, you really should change the weight of the coins to 100 per pound. When you do that, 1 copper piece is the equivalent of a Greek copper obolus, Roman copper ass, or English copper farthing. 1 silver piece is equivalent to a Greek drachma, Roman silver denarii, or English silver penny. And 1 gold piece is equivalent to approximately a Roman gold quinarii (half-Aureus) or English shilling (1.2gp per shilling).

For the more mathematically inclined, based on the calculations I made for ACKS:
1. A vague translation into today's currency is 1cp = $1, 1gp = $100. Please do not take this literally; it's relative.
2. The average commoner earns 3gp per month and has assets totaling 70gp (including value of land, livestock, clothing, stored harvest, etc.). This yields an average income of about $10 per day, or about 80 cents per hour; equivalent to a worker in a developing country. 78% of the population is in this range.
3. The average 1st level character earns 25gp per month and has a 770gp net worth. He earns an equivalent of $2,500 per month; comfortably middle class. This would include wealthy yeomen, craftsmen, and so on. About 14% of the population is in this range.
3. The average 2nd level character earns 75gp per month and has a 2,300gp net worth. He earns $7,500 per month, putting him in the upper class. This would include patricians and knights. 5% of the population is in this range.
4. The average 3rd level character earns 150gp per month and has a 4,620gp net worth. About 1% of the population sits here.
5. The combined number of all characters 4th level and above constitutes the remaining 2%. At the high end, they are incredibly wealthy.

When Alexander the Great conquered Susa, he plundered 50,000 gold talents. 1 talent is 60 pounds, meaning 6000 coins. In other words: 300,000,000 gp. That's the scale at which the emperor of the known world thinks.

When Richard the Lion-Hearted was captured, his ransom was 150,000 marks. 1 mark was about 160 silver pennies. 1 silver penny = 1 sp (per my notes above), for a total of 2,400,000 gp. That's the scale at which your realm's king thinks.

So what does the Emperor think when your 7th level party kills a dragon and finds 100,000gp? He'd like to be paid his cut in taxes, and he appreciates your efforts on behalf of the kingdom. But he doesn't get all worked up about it. You didn't "ruin the realm".

Sure, you're in the top 1% of the wealthy. But you already were by the time you got to 4th level. You already could retire and live better than 99% of the population. If you're still adventuring it's because you want temporal power, or you're a thrill junkie, or you're a duty-bound hero-type.

The biggest issue I see with fantasy economics is that they assume gold is the only commodity. In truth, it should be soft commodities like foodstuffs. Hard commodities like copper and gold, while important, shouldn't wholly drive the economic model.

There is a simple change any enterprising GM can make. You don't have to emulate a real-world economy, delve deep into medieval economics or even do a lot of reading to assimilate a vastly-improved model. Simply pick up Grain Into Gold (http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=BEN3610). There are numerous charts in the back of the book for both mundane and fantastic goods. From there, you can make educated decisions how to derive the price of items and services not covered.

Quote from: amacris;6340931. A vague translation into today's currency is 1cp = $1, 1gp = $100. Please do not take this literally; it's relative.
2. The average commoner earns 3gp per month and has assets totaling 70gp (including value of land, livestock, clothing, stored harvest, etc.). This yields an average income of about $10 per day, or about 80 cents per hour; equivalent to a worker in a developing country. 78% of the population is in this range.
3. The average 1st level character earns 25gp per month and has a 770gp net worth. He earns an equivalent of $2,500 per month; comfortably middle class. This would include wealthy yeomen, craftsmen, and so on. About 14% of the population is in this range.
3. The average 2nd level character earns 75gp per month and has a 2,300gp net worth. He earns $7,500 per month, putting him in the upper class. This would include patricians and knights. 5% of the population is in this range.
4. The average 3rd level character earns 150gp per month and has a 4,620gp net worth. About 1% of the population sits here.
5. The combined number of all characters 4th level and above constitutes the remaining 2%. At the high end, they are incredibly wealthy.

This is a well reasoned post and to be honest I've changed my mind as a result, advancement-by-money type game economies are not neccessarily prone to massive inflation and the resultant social turmoil.

Quote from: K Peterson;633502Bob shares this information with you and some other coworkers. How long would it take before someone took a gamble to get some of that treasure, himself? If that 5 grand represented 6 months of your regular salary at Mickey-D's. If the only obstacle to that 'treasure' were the 'monsters' that resided in the tunnels.

This is a narrative issue, and different settings deal with it in different ways.  The biggest gap in your analogy is that you're assuming those 'gang member tunnels' exist in a relatively safe urban area.  In the fantasy world, they really don't.  Those tunnels are a constant threat to the livelihood of the nearby citizens, and people frequently die because they haven't been cleared.  Many stories don't deal with this aspect, but a lot do.  E.g. some of the treasure you find is on the rotting body of one of your peers.

In your example, Ricky should come over from the drive-up window and tell Bob about his cousin Louise who tried it.  He only went in there because the gang bangers killed his fiance Maria.  Nobody has seen him since, and the cops refuse to go looking for him.  (With a hook saying if you find Louise's so-and-so and return it to the family, they'd hook you up with something.)

They're still there because they are deadly.

Now, there's a whole separate discussion to be had around what happens when you start adjusting the default assumption around the number of available adventurers...

Quote from: amacris;634093The reason King Tut's tomb was such an amazing find is not because of its riches - those were run of the mill for a pharaoh. It was because the riches hadn't been plundered yet after 3,000 years. Somehow the Egyptian economy survived despite the fact that the peasants knew there that the tombs of the wealthy were filled with riches!

Yes, very this.  All that gold came from somewhere, and all that gold went somewhere from those other tombs that were plundered successfully.

I'd also underscore that Tut's tomb was thought to be deadly (specifically cursed), as above.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;634131The biggest issue I see with fantasy economics is that they assume gold is the only commodity. In truth, it should be soft commodities like foodstuffs. Hard commodities like copper and gold, while important, shouldn't wholly drive the economic model.

This isn't how we did it, and from the blue book on, land and castle became the biggest weath mechanism.  I also nixed the thousands of coins concept, for all but dragons, from the very start.  Lots of gems, statues, etc, instead.

And let's not forget magic items...

Quote from: amacris;634093Sure, you're in the top 1% of the wealthy. But you already were by the time you got to 4th level. You already could retire and live better than 99% of the population. If you're still adventuring it's because you want temporal power, or you're a thrill junkie, or you're a duty-bound hero-type.

A couple of comments here. I have punted my economics to using what is detailed in Harn. N Robin Crossby and the rest of the Harn crew devote far more time than I could into making a economic system that hangs together. An for those who are not familiar with it is a silver based system with gold coins being rare.

My experience is that it works fine with the loot based mentality of D&D like Amacris points the sums kings, nobles, and even minor manor nobles deal with pale in comparison to the richest hordes. While the lowest rungs of nobles may be cash poor, the value of goods they deal with on a yearly basis is in thousands of silvers. Multiply that by the dozens or hundreds of holding of the greater lords. 100,000 GP is quickly exhausted by building a few holdings.

In my Majestic Wilderlands the plundered hordes generally represents only the starting point of what the character build on later in the campaign.

In my most recent campaign the player are just starting to build an inn and have quickly exhausted their 32,000 silver.

The idea that a "fantasy economy can't hold up to massive amounts of treasure" depends on just how much that economy looks like Europe in the middle-ages.  

RPGPundit

One word - Inflation.

Fundamentally, at the table, this is all effects based right?  You take the situation at hand and figure out the results and present the new situation.  You don't need to be simulating an economy in the background.  You only need to worry about it when you actually want to worry about it.

I understand that getting the feel of a medeival economy is important to a lot of people, apparently, but it seems like something that you should be able to deal with with a simple ruling in the moment, unless play actually ends up being about acting in the economy.  Then you may need something more robust, but still maybe not.

Quote from: K Peterson;633502Yes, but that's a bit of a weird analogy compared to what DCC suggests. That's akin to a peasant/townsfolk sneaking into a lord's castle, thieving some valuables, and then fleeing to another land.

(...)

But he barely made it out of there, because some gang members hang out down there who won't hesitate to murder or maim trespassers on their turf. (This analogy's getting a bit silly but you get where I'm going with this).

So, just to be clear here, you think that everyone at McDonald's is likely to quit their job as soon as they figure out that all their problems could be solved by stealing money from drug dealers?

Seems doubtful. I mean, they could do that tomorrow. But I'm guessing there'll still be somewhere there to take my drive-thru order tomorrow.

Historically, however, there have been periods where this sort of thing did happen. For example, the Norman conquest of Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_southern_Italy) can make for very interesting reading for those looking to run OD&D. (The Norman Centuries (http://normancenturies.com/) podcast is really nice for more detail on this.) But even during those periods of time, there were still plenty of people back in Normandy tending the farms.

As others have previously pointed out, the typical D&D adventure is high-risk and requires a lot of investment capital.

In OD&D, for example, a heavy footman makes 36 gp per year. The average D&D adventurer starts with 100 gp (virtually all of which will be spent on their gear). So, basically, three years of salary. If we equate the heavy footman to a minimum wage salary in the modern world, Bob's proposal looks a little different: "I think there's more down there. Here's what you need to do: Get $50,000 and spend it on equipment. Then we can go back in there and strike it rich. I mean you'll probably die, but it's worth the risk, right?"

Quote from: Justin Alexander;634726In OD&D, for example, a heavy footman makes 36 gp per year. The average D&D adventurer starts with 100 gp (virtually all of which will be spent on their gear). So, basically, three years of salary. If we equate the heavy footman to a minimum wage salary in the modern world, Bob's proposal looks a little different: "I think there's more down there. Here's what you need to do: Get $50,000 and spend it on equipment. Then we can go back in there and strike it rich. I mean you'll probably die, but it's worth the risk, right?"

But you are equating 2 things that don't equate

The D&D economy is broken the starting money for PCs is equally broken and so are mercenary wages.

So your point is somewhat moot.

You can either struggle to make a 'medieval' economy, factoring in the effect of magic and the economic impact of adventurers.

Or you can try to roughly mirror a modern ecomony, based on the premise that at least its real and all your players are familiar with it.

I prefer the later becuase its easier.

A real medieval economy - http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/medprice.htm

in 1346 an english bowman earned 3d a day - ie 3 copper in British curreny 12 copper pennies to a silver schilling - 20 schillings to a pound  (240cp = 20sp = 1gp)  = 91sp per year
A knight with his horse and armour charged 4 schillings  = 73gp


However unlike the price lists in D&D which are at best bollocks and at worst used to limit power (An Enlish bowman would make his own bow and arrows and would not pay 60gp for a longbow) can be ignored.

Examples

Wine - best Gascon Red in London - 4pence a Gallon
Masons tool  - 3 pence
Spinning wheel - 10 pence
War Horse - UPTO 80 pounds - typical knights warhorse 10 pounds
draught horse - 10 - 20 schillings
To build a stone gate house - 30 pounds

Suit of Chainmail 100 schillings
Plate armour c 9 pounds
Cheap sword - 6 pence

You can look on the list for more detail

So to kit a guy to adventure would not cost 3 years salary ...probably

My point is that the Pcs are familiar with prices today. Why break the role play and make everyone have to reference a list and compare to average earnings to work out prices. Easier just to say 1USD = 1cp (or 1 sp it matters not) and work out all your prices in modern terms.

In which case an adventurere would need to spend about $2000 to get a mail shirt, a decect Axe, tools, helmet, backpack, rolpe etc etc ...
Basing your economy on a modern day one is just far easier because it stays out of the way and all the players get it immediately.

Uh, the idea of debt, credit, allegiance, leverage, and favors (boons), et al. is as old as history. GP is an abstraction, even Gygax and Cook wrote noting it so. How is anyone confusing themselves?

Surely no one here is assuming NPC people are walking around paying everything in precious metals and waiting years to amass X amount under their matress to actually DO anything. Well, maybe if the setting is designed around that weird conceit, but still... To think when the game talks about taxation all over PHB and DMG that the foundational rest of such a conceptual framework disappears is rather odd. The details may differ, but humanity has never been all that different.

Quote from: jibbajibba;634730The D&D economy is broken the starting money for PCs is equally broken and so are mercenary wages.

Ah. Circular logic. Nice.

Quote from: jibbajibba;634730in 1346 an english bowman earned 3d a day - ie 3 copper in British curreny 12 copper pennies to a silver schilling - 20 schillings to a pound  (240cp = 20sp = 1gp)  = 91sp per year
A knight with his horse and armour charged 4 schillings  = 73gp

Yes but everyone supplemented their incomes with looting, ransoming and pillaging.

Quote from: The Traveller;634743Yes but everyone supplemented their incomes with looting, ransoming and pillaging.

possibly but as the wage referenced from the DMG to get 36gp a year only assumed hireling rates per day its kind of moot ...

Quote from: Justin Alexander;634741Ah. Circular logic. Nice.

Just pointing out that saying an adventurer needs 3 times the average annual wage to start adventuring is only valid if you accept the price guide in the PHB and the wage guide in the DMG have any bearing to either a reality or each other which they don't.

As you can see from the historical price list I referenced a man at arms could actually buy a sword for a weeks wages not 6 months (1e D&D longsword is 15gp if I recall) so the extrapolation you made is moot.

Not circular logic just logical logic.....

OK, for clarity, I actually tabulate room and board into debit/credit social framework with "wage" being the discretionary income above and beyond room and board net average. So, for example, the wage one is paid to be on retainer does not count the additional wealth going into keeping them alive.

i.e. An irregular footman of 1GP/mo. might cost an additional 19GP/mo. r&b. Someone pays that; socially he needs to belong somewhere. He is essentially credited land use/herd/housing/etc. in exchange for service with a retainable 'wage' largess of 1GP/mo. after taxes/obligation/fealty/etc., or some other setting appropriate analogous method. Given that people can then leverage/free agent/etc. themselves accordingly, thus explaining starting funds, training costs and other such things.

It's just players are assumed to not want to role play all those gritty details to know exactly where there GP is coming from or how training is grinded out.

That said, I now want to run a game where players' starting GP is actually leveraged with interest. Which it does not have to be exactly interest as we know it per se, but represented as expected return on favors, future boons, obliged gifts, etc. It may suck to have your PC called to stop adventuring and instead go home to crush a silly goblin lair so as to reimburse your neighbors the cost of your first sword, but it'd make for a great player choice.

Quote from: jibbajibba;634730But you are equating 2 things that don't equate

The D&D economy is broken the starting money for PCs is equally broken and so are mercenary wages.

So your point is somewhat moot.

You can either struggle to make a 'medieval' economy, factoring in the effect of magic and the economic impact of adventurers.

Or you can try to roughly mirror a modern ecomony, based on the premise that at least its real and all your players are familiar with it.

I prefer the later becuase its easier.

A real medieval economy - http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/medprice.htm

in 1346 an english bowman earned 3d a day - ie 3 copper in British curreny 12 copper pennies to a silver schilling - 20 schillings to a pound  (240cp = 20sp = 1gp)  = 91sp per year
A knight with his horse and armour charged 4 schillings  = 73gp


However unlike the price lists in D&D which are at best bollocks and at worst used to limit power (An Enlish bowman would make his own bow and arrows and would not pay 60gp for a longbow) can be ignored.

Examples

Wine - best Gascon Red in London - 4pence a Gallon
Masons tool  - 3 pence
Spinning wheel - 10 pence
War Horse - UPTO 80 pounds - typical knights warhorse 10 pounds
draught horse - 10 - 20 schillings
To build a stone gate house - 30 pounds

Suit of Chainmail 100 schillings
Plate armour c 9 pounds
Cheap sword - 6 pence

You can look on the list for more detail

So to kit a guy to adventure would not cost 3 years salary ...probably

My point is that the Pcs are familiar with prices today. Why break the role play and make everyone have to reference a list and compare to average earnings to work out prices. Easier just to say 1USD = 1cp (or 1 sp it matters not) and work out all your prices in modern terms.

In which case an adventurere would need to spend about $2000 to get a mail shirt, a decect Axe, tools, helmet, backpack, rolpe etc etc ...
Basing your economy on a modern day one is just far easier because it stays out of the way and all the players get it immediately.

I think my issue here is the fundamantal duality you start with.
"You can either struggle to make a 'medieval' economy, factoring in the effect of magic and the economic impact of adventurers.

Or you can try to roughly mirror a modern ecomony, based on the premise that at least its real and all your players are familiar with it. "

Thre are many, many other places to start from, in terms of setting design, ain terms of the affects of magic on society, availability of resources and political, cultural and social factors.  

Fundamentally, your goal is to create an economy that is setting-consistent, so that it makes sense within itself, and one that stands up to long-term use and allows for the accrual of wealth that comes from  longer term play.  Making it model well from any historical basis actually is a negative for me unless your setting is that historical time and geography you are modeling.

Rob mentions Harn, and I think it a good example for this reason.
My PCs in the Igbarians know all the taxes in Igbar (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955655/Igbar%27s%20Taxes), and I consider this a good thing, and even with that decade-long campaign, no one is closed to really stockpiling money.

Quote from: LordVreeg;634775I think my issue here is the fundamantal duality you start with.
"You can either struggle to make a 'medieval' economy, factoring in the effect of magic and the economic impact of adventurers.

Or you can try to roughly mirror a modern ecomony, based on the premise that at least its real and all your players are familiar with it. "

Thre are many, many other places to start from, in terms of setting design, ain terms of the affects of magic on society, availability of resources and political, cultural and social factors.  

Fundamentally, your goal is to create an economy that is setting-consistent, so that it makes sense within itself, and one that stands up to long-term use and allows for the accrual of wealth that comes from  longer term play.  Making it model well from any historical basis actually is a negative for me unless your setting is that historical time and geography you are modeling.

Rob mentions Harn, and I think it a good example for this reason.
My PCs in the Igbarians know all the taxes in Igbar (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955655/Igbar%27s%20Taxes), and I consider this a good thing, and even with that decade-long campaign, no one is closed to really stockpiling money.

I agree with you but ... the problem you hit is that knowledge of the economy which PCs would have by default the players have to acquire.
In your setting which you have been playing for 20 + years that's fine.
If you want a shorthand way then saying "1 silver piece is worth about a dollar at today's prices" and suddenly all the players who have been in your setting for 20 minutes not 20 years know that when a guy says that mug of vinigary wine is 60 sp please they know he is taking the piss, when the dark wizard says "I  will pay you 10,000 silver to fetch me the giant's head and anything you find you can keep apart from an old lamp...." they can immediatey relate that to their experience and so they can make a decision based on knowledge.

To most of us the economy is transparent. We know how much stuff costs, we don't know what macro economic factors lead to an increase of 56% in the prices of maize. Most of the PCs would be in a similar position.
If you do IT for example you know that a training course to learn Oracle 11g system tuning will last 5 days and cost about $4,000 that is a great extrapolation for PC training in esoteric skills.
Etc etc.
If you build a unique economy then the game starts to feel like a Cudgle the Clever adventure, nothing wrong with that, but the economy becomes a character in the game. This works when the PCs arrive in a new place but if they are locals its much trickier.

Quote from: jibbajibba;634785I agree with you but ... the problem you hit is that knowledge of the economy which PCs would have by default the players have to acquire.
In your setting which you have been playing for 20 + years that's fine.
If you want a shorthand way then saying "1 silver piece is worth about a dollar at today's prices" and suddenly all the players who have been in your setting for 20 minutes not 20 years know that when a guy says that mug of vinigary wine is 60 sp please they know he is taking the piss, when the dark wizard says "I  will pay you 10,000 silver to fetch me the giant's head and anything you find you can keep apart from an old lamp...." they can immediatey relate that to their experience and so they can make a decision based on knowledge.

To most of us the economy is transparent. We know how much stuff costs, we don't know what macro economic factors lead to an increase of 56% in the prices of maize. Most of the PCs would be in a similar position.
If you do IT for example you know that a training course to learn Oracle 11g system tuning will last 5 days and cost about $4,000 that is a great extrapolation for PC training in esoteric skills.
Etc etc.
If you build a unique economy then the game starts to feel like a Cudgle the Clever adventure, nothing wrong with that, but the economy becomes a character in the game. This works when the PCs arrive in a new place but if they are locals its much trickier.

You just have to give them the right data... :)
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14956687/what%20money%20can%20buy
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/44074324/More%20on%20the%20Economy%20of%20the%20Cradle
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955581/General%20Costing%20of%20Spells
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955580/General%20Costing%20of%20Skill%20Kits
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14956537/Transport%20in%20Celtricia


But to your point in relatating to players, I agree that having this stuff in front of them early helps them relate.

"The Scarlet Pilum's Militia pay their beginning recruits 13 silver children a day, and a buck seargent makes 3-5 Goodwives a day.   Remember that the military houses and feeds these people, as well.  There is no tax on income in Trabler or the Grey March, so I always use a rule of thumb for income only think of an electrum as being 50 american dollars. It's 6.25 per hour in todays world (literally.  50 dollars a day, *5 days, *52 weeks is 13k per year. 250 for a week/40 hours is 6.25).  It is also very important that the normal Celtrician Work week is 5.5 days in town of the 8 day hawaak, though that is for the upper working class.  Business owners and blue collar workers put in 7 out of 8 days (reserving Fastak only), and the truly poor of course work everyday.

So the most common coin in the central Cradle are is the electrum goodwife, followed by the silver Child, followed by the Gold Horn, followed by the copper Strip. Bars, restaurants, and most normal businesses use Electrum Goodwives and Silver Children almost exclusively.  Northern use the Orbic or Marcher coinage more often.  Though I still price things in my head automatically in gold, I have gotten better at responding to all price inquiries in terms of Goodwives, when they are speaking to a merchant. After once glass of wine too many, it gets hard, but answering that 'a new suit of Studded Leather will cost a hundred Goodwives, less 19 goodwives for the ripped-up old suit you are trading in' is the way to go.

It also important to take a partially Age of Reason, partially gilded age approach to money, in that there is a tremendous range of incomes, a tremendous range of prices, and a lot of people trying to make money.  At first glance, those two time periods are far apart, but the cradle area of Celtricia has a huge lower and lower middle class, a new and growing middle class, but still, 95% of the wealth of the world is placed in 1% of the population.

So while 750 Goodwives in a  year is the low end for a houshold income in Trabler, the actual average Household income is probably around 1800 goodwives.  Furthermore, in Igbar , it is probably closer to 2500 goodwives of actual income per family due to the communication, the proximity to trade, and the concentration of Factions.  Understand that in the math, the paragraph above affects this average.

And if an 'average' family makes 55-56 goodwives in a hawaak, that means someone making 100 goodwives in a hawwak is pretty well off, and a shopkeeper who makes 150-200 goodwives a hawaak is doing very well.  A lesser landed nobleman who has estates might find his estate income nets him 400-1500 goodwives a hawaak, if it is well run and profitable, and the ROI for a large caravan can be a loss, up to 100,000 Goodwives.

These numbers are most useful to a GM when a group of PC's wander into Igbar or SteelIsleTown with 500, 2000, even 5000 goodwives a piece.

There are flophouses in Igbar, places where a bed is paid for by the night, where they pack 6-10 beds in a room and charge between 5 copper strips and a silver child per bed per night. A crappy room rented for a hawwak (the eight day week) near the docks will be a 10-15 Silver children for the week (1-1.5 electrum goodwives).  Beers (http://http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14956691/What%20to%20Drink) in a low end place, Like Baywick (a cheap rice beer) from Strakford may run a strip per class, while at the Sweet Retreat you might buy a bottle of Castle Ellis Burqunt Red (from the GreyMarch, 13% Red Chias/Chervendel blend) which might run 120 goodwives.

A decent Teque Guild Inn rents rooms (with 2 beds) for 5-10 silver Children per night, Hostem's House of Hospitality has rooms from one to seven Goodwives a night, and the Upper Crust's room rates are between ten and forty goodwives a night."

One reason the Harn economy worked out for me is that is basically boiled down to two coins. A low value silver penny used for everyday transactions and a high value gold crown worth 320 silver pennies. There are some other coins but I use those for exotic treasures and they are all equated to their value in silver pennies.

The advantage of this is that the players really don't get lost knowing the value of items. One silver penny is like a cheap meal or a drink or two and it goes up from there. When they get to the point of managing estates and making commercial deals then they use gold crowns.

The other benefit of a low coin/very high coin system is that when gold crowns (or whatever high value equivalent) are found it is nearly always appreciated. The players feel like that gained something of great worth. AD&D's 20 sp to 1 gp setup doesn't do that not even with the occasional platinum piece.

Quote from: estar;634827One reason the Harn economy worked out for me is that is basically boiled down to two coins. A low value silver penny used for everyday transactions and a high value gold crown worth 320 silver pennies. There are some other coins but I use those for exotic treasures and they are all equated to their value in silver pennies.

The advantage of this is that the players really don't get lost knowing the value of items. One silver penny is like a cheap meal or a drink or two and it goes up from there. When they get to the point of managing estates and making commercial deals then they use gold crowns.

The other benefit of a low coin/very high coin system is that when gold crowns (or whatever high value equivalent) are found it is nearly always appreciated. The players feel like that gained something of great worth. AD&D's 20 sp to 1 gp setup doesn't do that not even with the occasional platinum piece.

It's actually one of the reasons I hate systems that handwave/partially handwave wealth.  In Igbar, the New Legion (syndicated through the Grounds of Dismissal) are really rock stars.  Yes, there are wealthy families, trading syndicates, etc, but when a crew of adventurers start saving the twon and come in spending a normal family's yearly income in a night (and tipping well), hell, yes, the people note it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;634785If you want a shorthand way then saying "1 silver piece is worth about a dollar at today's prices" [...] they can immediatey relate that to their experience and so they can make a decision based on knowledge.

This is something GURPS (3e, at least) made ubiquitous. Everything was priced in $, even in fantasy worlds.

I prefer your approach, doing the same thing one step removed. 60 silver lucre may be 60$, but "silver lucre" is more interesting and evocative than $$ (or sp).

Of course, I also like Hell on Earth's "bullets as currency" approach. I've never seen an economic analysis of that, but it'd be worth reading at least once.

(Metro 2033, the video game, did something similar, with respect to pre-apocalypse bullets, which were superior to post-apocalypse shells.)

Quote from: estar;634827One reason the Harn economy worked out for me is that is basically boiled down to two coins. A low value silver penny used for everyday transactions and a high value gold crown worth 320 silver pennies. There are some other coins but I use those for exotic treasures and they are all equated to their value in silver pennies.

The advantage of this is that the players really don't get lost knowing the value of items. One silver penny is like a cheap meal or a drink or two and it goes up from there. When they get to the point of managing estates and making commercial deals then they use gold crowns.

The other benefit of a low coin/very high coin system is that when gold crowns (or whatever high value equivalent) are found it is nearly always appreciated. The players feel like that gained something of great worth. AD&D's 20 sp to 1 gp setup doesn't do that not even with the occasional platinum piece.

Since I base things in a copper abstraction base economy, the gold and platinum abstractions work out fine for me. That and Birthright has Gold Bars, where 1 GB equals 2000 GP, something only landed-level movers and shakers deal in. That would be the nearest D&D analogy to Hârn that I can think of offhand.

But your point, which corresponds to jibbajabba's, is important. Without meaningful and obvious differentiation it's all just a bunch of shifting decimal places and inflation (as noted price progression through D&D editions show). It becomes like Final Fantasy where you have to explode the planet to deal 500 HP, to a creature that has tens of thousands HP. Detached abstractions tend to devalue meaning.

Quote from: One Horse Town;634641One word - Inflation.

Yes, exactly. Any local region where a group of adventurers come back with chestfuls of thousands of gp is a region that will go through some serious economic instability and price-raising (unless the economy is already made to build that in...of course in that case, a sudden absence of adventurer-treasure would be a trigger for economic collapse..

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;635329Yes, exactly. Any local region where a group of adventurers come back with chestfuls of thousands of gp is a region that will go through some serious economic instability and price-raising (unless the economy is already made to build that in...of course in that case, a sudden absence of adventurer-treasure would be a trigger for economic collapse..

RPGpundit

No, I thought like that too but then someone else made the very good point that groups of adventurers often did come back with chestfuls of gold in the real world - large scale raids and wars were commonplace in medieval times, and these were accompanied by looting on an industrial scale. All of the events leading up to the battle of Agincourt were basically the English pillaging French countryside for money.

Maybe the missing link is that there was less gold looted than valuable objects, trade goods, and livestock, so currency inflation wouldn't have been as much of an issue. Still though, even if it was all gold the amounts adventurers could return would pale in comparison to the influx of wealth injected into an economy by returning armies (if victorious).

Quote from: The Traveller;635342No, I thought like that too but then someone else made the very good point that groups of adventurers often did come back with chestfuls of gold in the real world - large scale raids and wars were commonplace in medieval times, and these were accompanied by looting on an industrial scale. All of the events leading up to the battle of Agincourt were basically the English pillaging French countryside for money.

Maybe the missing link is that there was less gold looted than valuable objects, trade goods, and livestock, so currency inflation wouldn't have been as much of an issue. Still though, even if it was all gold the amounts adventurers could return would pale in comparison to the influx of wealth injected into an economy by returning armies (if victorious).

No there was actually massive inflation.
The prices in Venice for everything skyrocketed because it was the location where knights heading the holy land went to equip and where knights coming back landed with all the treasure they had pinched.
Of course very quickly they were hauling nothing back from the holy land except mud, dead relatives and the true blood line of jesus.
Then the templars stepped in and suddenly you could cash all your chips in in Jerusalem get a promisary note to the sum of XXX then cash it in in London or Paris or  whereever without the risk of getting fleeced by every two bit grifter from Damascus to Avingon.

One of my points in using real modern values for your base economy as opposed to trying to mimic a hisotrical period is that your PCs know when inflation hits. Suddenly a bed in the inn's shared dorm cost 200sp a night (10gp - $200 modern ) If there is no point of reference they might think that was totally fine, and off course once they have 200,000 gp (aka $4M) they will think so again and so inflation.

Quote from: jibbajibba;635347No there was actually massive inflation.
The prices in Venice for everything skyrocketed because it was the location where knights heading the holy land went to equip and where knights coming back landed with all the treasure they had pinched.

Yeah but you're talking about the spoils of a decent swathe of the Middle East being dumped into one city over a short period. Even the richest dungeon couldn't come close to that kind of wealth.

Also a factor to consider is that while some cities of the time were reasonably economically egalitarian, the same couldn't be said of much of Europe's population. There were often laws regarding what people could and couldn't own or buy even if they had the money, which distorted the economy considerably.

The nearest modern equivalent would be a place like the Philippines or other developing country, where you have a lot of poor people who are staying poor, and a very few extremely rich people who want to keep it that way. Most influxes of capital into those economies lands in the pockets of the rich, in the absence of a middle class or some sort of socialised government.

Quote from: jibbajibba;635347One of my points in using real modern values for your base economy as opposed to trying to mimic a hisotrical period is that your PCs know when inflation hits. Suddenly a bed in the inn's shared dorm cost 200sp a night (10gp - $200 modern ) If there is no point of reference they might think that was totally fine, and off course once they have 200,000 gp (aka $4M) they will think so again and so inflation.

Short term and in a small area I could see it, if the PCs dumped all their wealth in one town, but things would stabilise again pretty rapidly.

Fair point, an adventure party is not the equal of armies in terms of carrying capacity. Further, dungeons just don't carry the loot at the level of multiple cities or whole nations/regions. And any town where they spend their loot only works with what credit reserves they have available (unless the head of sovereignty is there as well to directly inflate currency by fiat). Things will generally level out quickly or the adventurers won't be able to convert high value goods for appropriate value (trade at massive loss for basic necessities).

Outside of Birthright at war, or similar from another game, this sort of large and impactful regional inflation is just not going to be that prevalent.

Quote from: The Traveller;635350Yeah but you're talking about the spoils of a decent swathe of the Middle East being dumped into one city over a short period. Even the richest dungeon couldn't come close to that kind of wealth.

Also a factor to consider is that while some cities of the time were reasonably economically egalitarian, the same couldn't be said of much of Europe's population. There were often laws regarding what people could and couldn't own or buy even if they had the money, which distorted the economy considerably.

The nearest modern equivalent would be a place like the Philippines or other developing country, where you have a lot of poor people who are staying poor, and a very few extremely rich people who want to keep it that way. Most influxes of capital into those economies lands in the pockets of the rich, in the absence of a middle class or some sort of socialised government.


Short term and in a small area I could see it, if the PCs dumped all their wealth in one town, but things would stabilise again pretty rapidly.

actually a lot of the inflation occured when they arrived in Venice from arse-end of nowhere and got kitted out to GO to the Holy Land in the first place, and the venician merchants fleeced them for every penny.
You are mostly right about it being one dungeons worth though except when we think about all the gold in the world ever mined versus the D&D weight of a gold coin :) but I digress.
A typical large 5th level dungeon might yeild 20,000gp of monetary treasure in various forms. On top of which you have exotic items like art and statuary if the PCs can carry it. Or magic items and bits of animals if there is a market.
So take typical small town in the midwest. Then have a bunch of bikers turn up with $400K to blow on wine, women, gadgets and esoteric training courses and see what it does to the economy.
As for the Philippines being a place where there is a massive economic guff between rich and poor you obviously missed the Occupy Movement.
In the US 1% of the population now owns 70% of the wealth :D

Anyway you are basically right. In general massive inflation of the type we mention occurs in a small area and then ripples out. Well without macro scale economic justification at least.

When I said "local region" i meant a very local region, as in the border villages near where the adventuring area is.  I think the phenomenon would not be unlike the Gold Rush in the 19th century.

RPGPundit

The more I think about it the more it seems like dungeons are basically a direct drop-in substitute for cattle raids, wars, and looting neighbouring countries/towns.

Interesting, pretty clever if you don't want a really dark game.

While the rest of those are interesting in their own particular doses, I think the dungeon is a bit more than that, there's more details to it for play.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;635807While the rest of those are interesting in their own particular doses, I think the dungeon is a bit more than that, there's more details to it for play.

I'd be interested in digging into it a bit further, just out of curiosity. Who came up with the idea of a dungeon, and would they have been sufficiently conversant with history to realise that these were basically the crusades writ small so characters wouldn't have to go on actual crusades to gain wealth and XP? Plus no one can point a moralising finger when there really is ojective evil in the game world, especially in the menacingly titled "dungeon".

A dungeon is more than just "crusades writ small".  Its a combination of the crusades, the thief of baghdad, the legend of the Minotaur, and a bunch of other stuff.

Its brilliance is that its not "just like raiding a village" or something, its that the dungeon is the distilled essence of heroic myth and fantasy adventure, its a combination of a bunch of elements from all kinds of fantasy stories and religious legends.  That's why it endures.

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Traveller;635816I'd be interested in digging into it a bit further, just out of curiosity. Who came up with the idea of a dungeon, and would they have been sufficiently conversant with history to realise that these were basically the crusades writ small so characters wouldn't have to go on actual crusades to gain wealth and XP? Plus no one can point a moralising finger when there really is objective evil in the game world, especially in the menacingly titled "dungeon".

The first dungeon was Dave Arneson's Castle Blackmoor. From that campaign sprang Castle Greyhawk and all the other dungeons we known since.

In Chapter 2.5.1 "Mazes with Monsters" of Jon Peterson's Playing at the World. There isn't a truly definitive answer but he feels, based on Arneson comments, that it was a combination of reading Conan (for example the escape from a dungeon in the Hour of the Dragon), other Swords & Sorcery tales, combined with the fact historical dungeons were a underground prisons of a castle. Along with the idea of using graph paper for mapping siege mines from Chainmail.

In short the Dungeon Adventure is the result of Dave's inspiration culled from the fantasy stories and legends he knew in the early 1970s.

Much I like Pundit, I feel the dungeon endures because it is a very approachable way of creating a fantasy adventure that successfully combines a lot of mythic elements into a compelling experience.

Stories of archaeological expeditions are also a pretty important antecedent of the D&D dungeon, both directly and via their influence on D&D's pulp fantasy source material, I think. I definitely think the whole approach where you comb rooms with 10' poles and manipulate wall sconces has more to do with finding King Tut's tomb (and lurid fictionalizations thereof) than it does with Theseus & the Minotaur, etc.

Quote from: RPGPundit;636097Its brilliance is that its not "just like raiding a village" or something, its that the dungeon is the distilled essence of heroic myth and fantasy adventure, its a combination of a bunch of elements from all kinds of fantasy stories and religious legends.

Oh sure but in a direct 1:1 comparison with reality, the PCs don't go raiding nearby settlements and joining armies because an alternative exists - the dungeon. Looters and pillagers are typically seen as the bad guys in D&D, whereas in medieval Europe it would have been an honourable profession in most places, or it was if you were successful anyway. If there were no dungeons off they would go a'viking with the rest of them if they wanted to advance in level, where else would they find the ready swag?

Quote from: The Traveller;636191Oh sure but in a direct 1:1 comparison with reality, the PCs don't go raiding nearby settlements and joining armies because an alternative exists - the dungeon. Looters and pillagers are typically seen as the bad guys in D&D, whereas in medieval Europe it would have been an honourable profession in most places, or it was if you were successful anyway. If there were no dungeons off they would go a'viking with the rest of them if they wanted to advance in level, where else would they find the ready swag?

Looting and pillaging was almost under no circumstances seen as an "honorable profession".

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;636503Looting and pillaging was almost under no circumstances seen as an "honorable profession".

Really, you think the Vikings came home to scorn and ridicule? These weren't knuckledragging barbarians. Or that English longbowmen were anything but respected members of society? Because the same people that did Agincourt spent the time preceding slaughtering their way up and down the French countryside, in fact the shambles the French nobility made of that battle has been blamed in part on the depth of atrocity inflicted on the country by the raiders, as they hastened for revenge.

Every war back then was paid for in part with loot, of course it was respected and aspired to.

Quote from: The Traveller;636505Really, you think the Vikings came home to scorn and ridicule? These weren't knuckledragging barbarians. Or that English longbowmen were anything but respected members of society? Because the same people that did Agincourt spent the time preceding slaughtering their way up and down the French countryside, in fact the shambles the French nobility made of that battle has been blamed in part on the depth of atrocity inflicted on the country by the raiders, as they hastened for revenge.

Every war back then was paid for in part with loot, of course it was respected and aspired to.

I have to agree with Traveller. Looting and pillaging other people was in most eras that provide inspiration for ROPG settings a mark of success - it brought treasure home and marked the looter as a victor and winner. Nothing dishonourable in that. It's a Homeric ideal too - Achilles' achievements prior to the action of the Iliad is described through his tally of sacking of cities. Booty in treasure and human captives was paraded through the streets of Rome by a Roman triumphator. Again, that's showing the proceeds of looting and pillaging as a mark of achievement and honour. Looting and pillaging your own folk, now that's a different matter. In the case of Vikings and homeric heroes, whom we could categorise as RPG 'barbarians', there's not even much in the way of niceties like declaring war on people before you burn their cities and seize their treasure, wives and daughters.

There's always two sides.  The one that has been looted and pillaged will demonize the attacker.  The people to whom the loot is brought home will lionize the same.  Choosing NOT to loot is a very modern principle, and one of the things that the United States can be proud of regarding the conduct of war.  Not that it doesn't happen (it does, as does rape and all kinds of other bad things) - but they're actively discouraged and seen as unpleasant and preventable.  

Dungeons can be a good place for adventure, but I'm not a fan of 'mega-dungeons', no matter how many interesting things and dynamics may happen.  Small dungeons can be great, and the fact that they're more-or-less self-contained is a major draw.  A dungeon like that portrayed in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is really only a few rooms, designed to guard a treasure.  Even doubled or tripled in size (to account for living defenders), it's not that large.  

From 3.0 published adventures, the dungeon of Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury are about the largest dungeons I TRULY enjoy.

Quote from: The Traveller;636505Really, you think the Vikings came home to scorn and ridicule? These weren't knuckledragging barbarians. Or that English longbowmen were anything but respected members of society? Because the same people that did Agincourt spent the time preceding slaughtering their way up and down the French countryside, in fact the shambles the French nobility made of that battle has been blamed in part on the depth of atrocity inflicted on the country by the raiders, as they hastened for revenge.

Every war back then was paid for in part with loot, of course it was respected and aspired to.

The vikings are really a fringe-case, and were really a pre-medieval remnant, and many did think of them as barbarians, in fact.

As for the actual medieval armies: there was honor in winning tribute or ransom from war; but "looting and pillaging" was what unwashed peasants did, and were often forbidden to do by the nobles and knights in command of their armies.  For the latter groups, wanton looting was pretty much dishonorable (even if it was still something that happened with some frequency).

Well, of COURSE the nobles discouraged looting and pillaging by the peasant levies and yoemen (and the Samurai by the Ashigaru...), because the peasants weren't about to get paid a ransom for capturing that knight, but they sure as hell would get paid if they butchered him and sold his arms and armor.

Which they totally did.  Someone (Trollman?) had a really excellent breakdown of how the various rules of honorable conduct are designed largely to support the ruling class, and anyone with aspirations to join the ruling class tended to agree, since they'd totally be in the hotseat if they ever succeeded.

I don't always agree with Trollman's (I'm SURE it was one of his), especially on socio-political analysis, but that one I thought was spot on.  

So depending on your social class the whole looting and pillaging thing was probably pretty variable. The guys who wrote, or paid people to write about them, were generally gonna be anti-looting, and the pro-looting guys? Never got a fair hearing.



Of course, we (RPGers) are in good company here. I've lost track of how many video games with some form of wealth that started with me unable to buy basic necessities and inevitably ended with me having the most wealth possible in the game code (some variation on a long string of nines, usually...) with a quarter of the game left to play through.  There is a reason that upgrading a pistol in Mass Effect 3 costs tens of thousands of 'credits' or whatever. Its not because its a realistic price point for a fractional percentage upgrade, its because you need a way to burn of the literal millions of credits you can earn in the game.  The alternative is things like ME2, where there is a very specific, finite amount of wealth you can earn in the game, no matter what you do, and it is deliberately scaled to 'not be enough' to buy everything in the game (as there also happens to be a fixed number of 'things' to buy, rather than some random assortment...).

Seeing as they have a much faster turn around, vastly more money and a generational advantage (that is: generations of video games are much shorter than generations of RPGs...), they STILL haven't managed to come up with a good solution for wealth and a game.

Mind too: video games can also use a computer's processing power to handle all sorts of table rolling, complex equations and other math bugaboos that would scare the bejezzus out of most players and GMs, not to mention bogging down the game every time the party tried to buy a drink. Ditto taxes and tariffs and all those little beurocratic fees that no one wants to bother with in a game setting..



Of course, I think a fun treatment of how a high level adventurer looks to the ordinary people can be found in Steven Brusts later Taltos books. While certainly not the focus of the books, Brust breezily demonstrates quite well how ordinary villagers (of various stripes) handle a high level adventure and his deep pockets in at least two of his books, almost as an aside.

Which makes sense, since (as I've heard numerous times) Vlad Taltos is, in fact, Brust's old D&D character in his own house campaign world.

If I ever meet the guy, I'll be sure to verify that bit of apocrypha, but I've never seen reason to doubt it in the books.

Quote from: RPGPundit;636948The vikings are really a fringe-case, and were really a pre-medieval remnant, and many did think of them as barbarians, in fact.

As for the actual medieval armies: there was honor in winning tribute or ransom from war; but "looting and pillaging" was what unwashed peasants did, and were often forbidden to do by the nobles and knights in command of their armies.  For the latter groups, wanton looting was pretty much dishonorable (even if it was still something that happened with some frequency).

I think you might do well to study your history more carefully.  Since by numbers, most medieval armies were made up of 'unwashed peasants', looting was extremely common.  Many nobles actively encouraged it, and even if they didn't participate themselves, they encouraged their men to do so on their behalf.  

But even the term 'medieval' can be questioned.  Are we talking the early medieval period, or the late?  

I think you could do to read some of Bernard Cornwell's books.  He has a serious about the Saxons (called the Saxon Tales) that take place around 1000 AD.  For a more interesting take on the looting that was expected as part of a 'standard wage', you might be surprised.  The 'Archer's Tale', which covers the period of time when the English were dominating in the 100 Years War, looting is dealt with in a historically accurate way.

Bear in mind that most warfare is 'romanticized' in stories.  Even the people that ADVOCATE for looting seldom actually talk about what they successfully looted.  It's like 'cash under the table'.  A lot of people like getting it, but not very many people accurately report it.  

Outside of the medieval period, looting was extremely popular among the Romans - and of course, they were an inspiration to a lot of medieval regimes.  It's said that the sack of Jerusalem in 80 AD is what paid for the Coleseum in Rome.

Quote from: RPGPundit;636948The vikings are really a fringe-case, and were really a pre-medieval remnant, and many did think of them as barbarians, in fact.

As for the actual medieval armies: there was honor in winning tribute or ransom from war; but "looting and pillaging" was what unwashed peasants did, and were often forbidden to do by the nobles and knights in command of their armies.  For the latter groups, wanton looting was pretty much dishonorable (even if it was still something that happened with some frequency).

Those Viking 'barbarians' managed to build a ten foot thick wall across the whole of Denmark to protect their own land from reprisals and raiding on trade routes, just for perspective, not to mention sailing some of the most advanced seagoing vessels of the age.

I think you may have a somewhat romanticised view of premodern warfare, your standard medieval army would leave a swathe of pillaged land ten miles wide in unfriendly territory, and the nobles were up to their necks in it. Especially during the mercenary period when things really got out of hand.

The ransom system was to a great extent responsible for the cycle of raiding and warfare at the time - nobles were protected both by heavy armour and by the fact that they were worth more alive than dead. So they conducted wars with relative impunity while the peasantry died in their droves. Nobles really weren't all that noble.

From an account of the 100 Years War here http://www.historytoday.com/anthony-tuck/why-men-fought-100-years-war

this is particularly relevant ....

It is much less easy to quantify the profits from loot and booty, though there can be little doubt about their importance. The chronicler Thomas Walsingham wrote that in 1348 there was no woman in England who did not have some booty from Caen, Calais, and other overseas towns. After Poitiers the English ransacked the French camp, and according to Froissart 'they found plate and gold and silver belts and precious jewels in chests crammed full of them, as well as excellent cloaks, so that they took no notice of armour, arms or equipment'. Lancaster's army returned from a raid into Poitou in 1346 'so laden with riches that they made no account of cloths unless they were of gold or silver, or trimmed with furs'. Walsingham probably exaggerated the extent to which booty from the war was distributed amongst the people of England. Even for the combatants, there could be no certainty of profit: the attraction was the possibility - the chance that the revolution of Fortune's wheel might bring riches - even though only a small number of those who enlisted enjoyed big winnings and a permanent improvement in their wealth and status.

With the profit motive so important a reason for enlistment, it is scarcely surprising that during Edward III's reign rules were established governing the sharing out of ransoms and booty. Each company had an official known as a butiner whose duty it was to control the division of the loot taken on campaign; and in the fifteenth century each garrison in Normandy had a controller attached to it who was responsible to the receiver-general of Normandy for ensuring that the share of ransoms and booty due to the king was handed over. By the 1360s a series of conventions governing the sharing out of profits had been evolved which, with a few exceptions, held good for the rest of the war. In the early stages of the war, some commanders, such as the Black Prince, expected one half of the gains of their subordinates; but by the 1360s the so-called rule of thirds had evolved, under which the soldier making the gain could expect to retain one third of its value, with a third going to the captain of his company and one third to the king. These rules for the division of plunder were sometimes written into the indentures under which men agreed to serve in a lord's retinue, an indication of the importance ordinary soldiers attached to the possibility of profit and of the need to ensure that the rules for the division of the spoils of war were clearly understood.

So not only common but actually codified and put into contracts of employment (this can also be seen in examples of the Pirates Code by the way)

I'm trying to add new types of coins for my campaign...with additional types of coins made of brass, bronze, and billon (copper or bronze, with a small amount of silver). I'd like a gold piece to have much more value, being enough to purchase a cheap potion or suit of armor. This means that people would usually be fiddling around with smaller denomination coins. Still working out the details...

Quote from: jibbajibba;637092So not only common but actually codified and put into contracts of employment (this can also be seen in examples of the Pirates Code by the way)

Indeed, things came to a head in the thirty years war with the policy of Raubwirtschaft, or robber economies; bellum se ipsum alet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War), "the war will feed itself", resulting in whole areas being wiped out.

While the regiments within each army were not strictly mercenary, in that they were not units for hire that changed sides from battle to battle, some individual soldiers that made up the regiments were mercenaries. The problem of discipline was made more difficult by the ad hoc nature of 17th-century military financing; armies were expected to be largely self-funding, by means of loot taken or tribute extorted from the settlements where they operated. This encouraged a form of lawlessness that imposed severe hardship on inhabitants of the occupied territory.

A few dozen soldiers could come apon a village of a hundred or so people, thoroughly trash the place, abuse the women, steal everything portable, and kill a few of the inhabitants, and no one would know about it except the surviving villagers and, eventually, other villages in the vicinity. The soldiers, if they kept going, would literally get away with murder (not to mention theft, rape, arson, and assault).

Medieval soldiers knew this, as did the civilians. Unless the leader of the army the troops belonged to was keen on protecting civilians, nothing would be done to discipline the marauding soldiers. The prospect for "plunder" was used to attract men to military service. If a general had a hard time meeting his payroll, and many did, the troops could be kept in service by providing ample opportunity for plunder. This solved the payroll problem, as well as the logistical one.

No one is trying to claim that looting and plunder wasn't happening.  What I was disputing was that it was in any way "honorable". It was not. Not by any meaningful definition of that: the Church forbade it, the Crowns tried to pretend it wasn't happening or they were controlling it, Shakespeare wrote about it in such a way that it was clearly seen as a seriously dishonorable act, painting a character who did it as dishonorable, and the one who punished him as honorable for punishing him for it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;637550No one is trying to claim that looting and plunder wasn't happening.  What I was disputing was that it was in any way "honorable". It was not. Not by any meaningful definition of that: the Church forbade it

This would be the same Church that not only allowed but overwhelmingly encouraged the greatest series of lootings and pillagings in medieval European history, aka the Crusades? Doesn't get much more honourable than a sanction from god almighty.

Quote from: RPGPundit;637550the Crowns tried to pretend it wasn't happening or they were controlling it, Shakespeare wrote about it in such a way that it was clearly seen as a seriously dishonorable act, painting a character who did it as dishonorable, and the one who punished him as honorable for punishing him for it.

Yeah, you know who was in charge at Agincourt, and hence was responsible for the preceding rape/slaughter/pillage-fest? King Henry V. The same King Henry V of Shakespearian play fame.

These lads weren't out for a genteel picnic in the French countryside when a gang of loutish Frenchmen came upon them, they were committing what by any modern standard would be called war crimes, then coming home to boast about it. Of course it was honourable. Had they lost it would have been less so.

Anyway, to get back to my original point, I found it striking how dungeons became a drop-in replacement for that sort of behaviour, and was merely wondering if it was deliberate or not. Apparently not, which does diminish the cleverness somewhat but is nonetheless interesting.

What a curious way to describe Agincourt? I mean, I'm 'Merican! (fuck yeah! 'Merica!!! or whatever), so its like I barely know a thing about Agincourt to begin with but my understanding is...

English king sends an army to claim Normany on account that his Ancestor(s), eg William and his lads, had owned all those lands when they founded England.
French guys say 'no way, Jose' and kick his ass up and down most of France, killing a bunch of englishman on the way.

Starving remnants of the English army (who probably looted a bunch of food along the way to keep from starving, since MRE's hadn't been invented yet) get stuck camping near Agincourt, a little pastoral French town with some trees and junk, and the French nobility snickers into their pockets and musters an army of knights that outnumbers the Englishmen by like ten to one and then lose badly... after the English king gives a famous speech, and the French apocryphally threatened to cut the middle fingers of the Yoemen archers so they couldn't bow no more (thus the bird... untrue, but amusing).

So.

Which war crime?



I'm actually more curious as to why you are offended/outraged by the pretty much universal military practices of an army that did their thing seven hundred years ago than anything else.  I'm reasonably sure (if reluctant to speak on their behalf) that most Frenchmen living near Agincourt today are more embarrassed about losing than upset over looting... if they even think on it at all.

Quote from: Spike;637635What a curious way to describe Agincourt? I mean, I'm 'Merican! (fuck yeah! 'Merica!!! or whatever), so its like I barely know a thing about Agincourt to begin with but my understanding is...

English king sends an army to claim Normany on account that his Ancestor(s), eg William and his lads, had owned all those lands when they founded England.
French guys say 'no way, Jose' and kick his ass up and down most of France, killing a bunch of englishman on the way.

Starving remnants of the English army (who probably looted a bunch of food along the way to keep from starving, since MRE's hadn't been invented yet) get stuck camping near Agincourt, a little pastoral French town with some trees and junk, and the French nobility snickers into their pockets and musters an army of knights that outnumbers the Englishmen by like ten to one and then lose badly... after the English king gives a famous speech, and the French apocryphally threatened to cut the middle fingers of the Yoemen archers so they couldn't bow no more (thus the bird... untrue, but amusing).

So.

Which war crime?



I'm actually more curious as to why you are offended/outraged by the pretty much universal military practices of an army that did their thing seven hundred years ago than anything else.  I'm reasonably sure (if reluctant to speak on their behalf) that most Frenchmen living near Agincourt today are more embarrassed about losing than upset over looting... if they even think on it at all.

Close but the english won most of the battles leding up to Agincort as well..... and of course it hurts the French and every Six nation victory rubs a bit more salt in the wound...

Quote from: RPGPundit;637550No one is trying to claim that looting and plunder wasn't happening.  What I was disputing was that it was in any way "honorable". It was not. Not by any meaningful definition of that: the Church forbade it, the Crowns tried to pretend it wasn't happening or they were controlling it, Shakespeare wrote about it in such a way that it was clearly seen as a seriously dishonorable act, painting a character who did it as dishonorable, and the one who punished him as honorable for punishing him for it.

RPGPundit

This still feels narrow as a comment on ancient history.  Caeser wrote a series of books (likey as campaign pieces) bragging about his campaign and Gaul (and including the looting along with the rest).  Christians could occasionally be squeamish about such things among themselves, but the El Cid stories are filled with loot from the moors (so much so that it makes the text annoying to read).  And it seemed pretty clear that nobody was too upset about plunder during the crusades and, instead, would brag about it.  Heck, the looting of Byzantium was justified by them being a different branch of the faith.

So I think that we should distinguish between these different cases.  Context is important in these determinations.

Quote from: Spike;637635English king sends an army to claim Normany on account that his Ancestor(s), eg William and his lads, had owned all those lands when they founded England.
French guys say 'no way, Jose' and kick his ass up and down most of France, killing a bunch of englishman on the way.

A more accurate way to put it would be that Normans conquered England. Not for nothing are the majority of English words directly taken from modern French, compared to other roots. Anything ending in 'ion', you're talking French. Henry V was the first English king to use English rather than French in his personal correspondance for 350 years. Also the French only caught up with the English at Agincourt, so I'm not sure how they were kicking ass before that. They were definetely hunting and harrassing the English, who only reached Agincourt in the first place because they found a way to ford the Somme by questioning a local.

This (http://dave-harris.hubpages.com/hub/Military-History-Agincourt) is one of the more charitable recountings of the events preceding Agincourt.

QuoteLooting and the spoils of war was a free-for-all. The English soldiers were there not only for the honour and the glory of war, but also for pillaging whatever they could carry, there was even specific rules of war permitting this action to take place.

Two thousand of the townsfolk were escorted out of the town and were left to roam the land beyond the gates, to survive by whatever means they could, effectively becoming gypsy-like refugees in an instant.

Anger and Vengeance

All across France, the attack on Harfleur had triggered an overwhelming resentment of the English and the French king's war banner was raised, heralding a chivalric crusade against these impertenant invaders. In the city of Rouen, France's noblemen amassed in readiness for war. The presence of an invading king and his army, rallied the French as thousands upon thousands of nobles assembled to the cause.

There's a certain amount of whitewashing out there about looting and the execution of prisoners being forbidden, but that's all nationalistic bollocks as the events themselves indicate.

Quote from: Spike;637635Starving remnants of the English army (who probably looted a bunch of food along the way to keep from starving, since MRE's hadn't been invented yet) get stuck camping near Agincourt, a little pastoral French town with some trees and junk, and the French nobility snickers into their pockets and musters an army of knights that outnumbers the Englishmen by like ten to one and then lose badly... after the English king gives a famous speech, and the French apocryphally threatened to cut the middle fingers of the Yoemen archers so they couldn't bow no more (thus the bird... untrue, but amusing).

The use of "galling arrows" meant to wound and disorientate fired into the French flanks angered the French nobility and caused them such haste to get down the embankment and join battle that they didn't even allow their mercenary crossbowmen to retrieve their shields from the baggage train, a key factor in the French failure. Ironically by the way the English managed to pick up their dysentry at Harfleur.

Quote from: Spike;637635Which war crime?

You could start with the execution of 1500 prisoners of war.

Quote from: Spike;637635I'm actually more curious as to why you are offended/outraged by the pretty much universal military practices of an army that did their thing seven hundred years ago than anything else.

Then you mistake my tone. I am dryly amused at the idea that looting, rapine and plundering were anything but a central feature of medieval warfare, or that nobles didn't encourage and participate in it, or that local populations didn't hail returning heroes with the booty of far off lands.

Quote from: jibbajibba;637638Close but the english won most of the battles leding up to Agincort as well..... and of course it hurts the French and every Six nation victory rubs a bit more salt in the wound...

My exact reading from the single history I've read was that the english were running around France trying to avoid the French army on account of knowing they were probably going to lose.  Then again, that was several years ago and I could be misremembering it.

Quote from: The Traveller;637643A more accurate way to put it would be that Normans conquered England. Not for nothing are the majority of English words directly taken from modern French, compared to other roots.

Forgive me for taking a slight liberty with my choice of words.  Would it have gone over better if I'd said 'William the conquerer and his lads founded England', so that you knew I was only slightly... ah... taking the piss I belive its called?

My exact point there was that the kings of England had a claim (legitimate? Who cares at this point...) to Normandy on account of William and his lads, so I was pretty sure you weren't saying that the English Invasion was the War Crime.

QuoteAlso the French only caught up with the English at Agincourt, so I'm not sure how they were kicking ass before that. They were definetely hunting and harrassing the English, who only reached Agincourt in the first place because they found a way to ford the Somme by questioning a local.

Allow me to suggest that if you're entire army is running around doing everything in its power to avoid a fight (being hunted and harassed as you phrase it), then you have either got your ass kicked or are about to if you stand and fight.  

The real point is that the English Army weren't exactly stomping around France destroying everything they could find on account of their being utter bad-asses, and that Agincourt was not merely one in a long list of devestating English victories against a hopelessly, desperately outclassed French Army that nobly sacrificed itself in a desperate, and obviously futile, quest to buy the hapless french widows and orphans a chance to flee before the mad dogs of england who were out to exterminate them.

Better?

;)

QuoteThe use of "galling arrows" meant to wound and disorientate fired into the French flanks angered the French nobility and caused them such haste to get down the embankment and join battle that they didn't even allow their mercenary crossbowmen to retrieve their shields from the baggage train, a key factor in the French failure. Ironically by the way the English managed to pick up their dysentry at Harfleur.

As far as legitimacy of tactics, I'm not sure I can be overly concerned. I mean, the English army was outnumbered ten to one, more or less. As I recall the French were also outraged that mere peasants would pull a Knight (nobility) out of the line and proceed to butcher him five to one (or more) with peasant weapons... during the battle.  Because it would be dishonorable for the other knights to lower themselves by going to help out... seeing as they'd be fighting mere peasants.

Losing because you're idiots doesn't mean you have a legitimate cause to complain that the other guy didn't fight according to the rules that would have favored your side, doubly so if 'favoring your side' would have meant the one sided slaughter went the other way instead.

QuoteYou could start with the execution of 1500 prisoners of war.

Sure. That sounds pretty bad. Just out of curiousity though: What do you think the French army would have done to the English if they'd won?

QuoteThen you mistake my tone. I am dryly amused at the idea that looting, rapine and plundering were anything but a central feature of medieval warfare, or that nobles didn't encourage and participate in it, or that local populations didn't hail returning heroes with the booty of far off lands.

Why... carry on then.

I'm merely... outraged?... that you think its appropriate to apply a very modern (seventy year old more or less) concept such as 'War Crimes' to a battle that happened that long ago.

Or I'm just bored and starting internet slap fights to keep from utter disinterest.

Quote from: Spike;637658Forgive me for taking a slight liberty with my choice of words.  Would it have gone over better if I'd said 'William the conquerer and his lads founded England', so that you knew I was only slightly... ah... taking the piss I belive its called?

Sure why not, 'great britain' in the original French after all was 'Grand Bretagne', Greater Brittany. :p

Quote from: Spike;637658As far as legitimacy of tactics, I'm not sure I can be overly concerned. I mean, the English army was outnumbered ten to one, more or less. As I recall the French were also outraged that mere peasants would pull a Knight (nobility) out of the line and proceed to butcher him five to one (or more) with peasant weapons... during the battle.  Because it would be dishonorable for the other knights to lower themselves by going to help out... seeing as they'd be fighting mere peasants.

Most accounts agree on five to one in terms of numbers, and the outrage was fairly high long before battle was joined. Not sure where you're going with the legitimacy of tactics, the French fucked up badly in numerous areas, but establishing a defensive position with stakes and archers was par for the course by that stage. This is why the French brought along mercenary crossbowmen, to keep the archers ducking. Had they used them properly the outcome might have been different, but of course as I said they didn't allow them to take their shields out.

Quote from: Spike;637658Sure. That sounds pretty bad. Just out of curiousity though: What do you think the French army would have done to the English if they'd won?

An educated guess would be select executions and ransom for the rest. Henry's forces looted so much from the field at Agincourt that the army couldn't move; as a result Henry ordered the loot collected and burned. I assume it was for similar reasons that the prisoners, who had a high value, were executed rather than ransomed. Your lives or your loot, lads - that I suspect was the most stirring speech given during the event.

Quote from: Spike;637658I'm merely... outraged?... that you think its appropriate to apply a very modern (seventy year old more or less) concept such as 'War Crimes' to a battle that happened that long ago.

Or I'm just bored and starting internet slap fights to keep from utter disinterest.

Seems likely, as I did qualify the comment by saying "if they were done today". The anger of the French forces played a large part in their defeat, and as such it is worth emphasising the outrages inflicted on France by marauding Englishmen.

Quote from: The Traveller;637664Sure why not, 'great britain' in the original French after all was 'Grand Bretagne', Greater Brittany. :p

I did almost use Britain in the first post, had to go back and edit England in just before posting, so there is that.

QuoteMost accounts agree on five to one in terms of numbers, and the outrage was fairly high long before battle was joined.

I dunno. I keep thinking 40k french knights, and 3500/1500 or so (yoemen/knights) for the English, but then too, I'm 'Merica (fuck yeah, or whatever) and I haven't read up on it in years. That's closer to 8 to 1, certainly, but no where near 5 to 1.

Still, clear advantage to the French, either way.

QuoteNot sure where you're going with the legitimacy of tactics, the French fucked up badly in numerous areas, but establishing a defensive position with stakes and archers was par for the course by that stage.

Specifically, you brought up the 'Galling Arrows' in a fashion that made it seem... illegitimate, possibly related to your war crimes charge.  I argue that if you bring five guys to fight me, I'm not going to attempt to use the marquis of queensbury rules to fight back. I might even bite at that point, if I think it will let me win.

The more specific incidents of 'illegitimate tactics' was allowing the mere peasants to 'gang up' on the poor French Knights (who did have, after all an overall numeric, and equipment, advantage over said peasants...), which was totally unsporting. That's what I recall, anyway, from Keegan.  

QuoteThis is why the French brought along mercenary crossbowmen, to keep the archers ducking. Had they used them properly the outcome might have been different, but of course as I said they didn't allow them to take their shields out.

Again, Keegan (my source... now a decade!!! in the past (yikes!), suggests that the knights, by chosing to ignore the yoeman archers almost entirely in order to focus on the much smaller number of English Knights, was the single biggest problem they had (thus the English line having small wedges of knights scattered throughout the Yoemen, rather than grouped up in a mass for the French to engage).

QuoteAn educated guess would be select executions and ransom for the rest.

I rather suspect that no Yoeman would have been ransomed. While my apocryphal tale of the origins of the middle finger salute was included for human (I believe it is accepted by experts that the middle finger is much older and more universally 'rude' than that...), I doubt they would have been let go with a mere maiming.

QuoteHenry's forces looted so much from the field at Agincourt that the army couldn't move; as a result Henry ordered the loot collected and burned.

Sure. I'm pro-looting in general, at least on the battlefield. Then again, I live in a pro-recycling neighborhood, leaving fine swords and armor to rot in the rain is just wasteful.

But if you want to make 'Warcrimes' a charge, tell me (I honestly don't know...), did the English Army move into the village of Agincourt and begin looting there?  Were they forever after plagued with English sons... and if so was is rape, or do french milkmaids like winners regardless of what language they speak?

QuoteSeems likely, as I did qualify the comment by saying "if they were done today".

Don't mistake the rhetorical use of the question-mark. I don't deny it. :)

QuoteThe anger of the French forces played a large part in their defeat, and as such it is worth emphasising the outrages inflicted on France by marauding Englishmen.

I would rather think it was the ridiculously stupid emphasis on martial honor, beyond any reasonable thinking man's standard, that led to their defeat.  

Beyond that, I'm not sure the French Nobility needed any more outrage than 'some dirty englishmen are stomping around our french countryside claiming they own it'.  Seriously.

Quote from: Spike;637672I would rather think it was the ridiculously stupid emphasis on martial honor, beyond any reasonable thinking man's standard, that led to their defeat.

The English were merely relearning a lesson taught by the Spartans almost two millennia preivously, that it doesn't matter how large the opposing army is once they are happy to run onto the ends of your spears in a nice orderly fashion.

French failures at Agincourt can be summed up fairly simply - they channelled their forces into a bottleneck, compounded the mistake by running them across deep, damp, slippery clay so tightly packed that they couldn't even swing a sword, and delivered their own coup de grace by removing their own covering fire. Once again we learn that the best way to defeat someone is by letting them mess themselves up.

It's fascinating how often throughout history the same mistakes are made, speaking as a student of warfare in all of its forms as the ultimate expression of the voice of the Demos, political power in the raw as it were.

The use of galling arrows may have been a deliberate attempt to provoke the French by Henry, he was certainly savvy enough to try it, particularly given that in the main injuries would have been sustained by horses and unarmoured retainers. It would have been annoying but no more illegitimate than dropping beplagued corpses over a fortress wall to break a siege, also an established tactic.

I thought the french left their horses behind in Agincourt, due to the slippery clay?

Quote from: Spike;637682I thought the french left their horses behind in Agincourt, due to the slippery clay?

Not according to Jehan de Wavrin, son of a Flemish knight of the time:

Quote...The French had arranged their battalions between two small thickets, one lying close to Agincourt, and the other to Tramecourt. The place was narrow, and very advantageous for the English, and, on the contrary, very ruinous for the French, for the said French had been all night on horseback, and it rained, and the pages, grooms, and others, in leading about the horses, had broken up the ground, which was so soft that the horses could with difficulty step out of the soil.

And also the said French were so loaded with armour that they could not support themselves or move forward. In the first place they were armed with long coats of steel, reaching to the knees or lower, and very heavy, over the leg harness, and besides plate armour also most of them had hooded helmets; wherefore this weight of armour, with the softness of the wet ground, as has been said, kept them as if immovable, so that they could raise their dubs only with great difficulty, and with all these mischiefs there was this, that most of them were troubled with hunger and want of sleep.

[The French knights] struck into these English archers, who had their stakes fixed in front of them... their. horses stumbled among the stakes, and they were speedily slain by the archers, which was a great pity. And most of the rest, through fear, gave way and fell back into their vanguard, to whom they were a great hindrance; and they opened their ranks in several places, and made them fall back and lose their footing in some land newly sown; for their horses had been so wounded by the arrows that the men could no longer manage them.

In any case it doesn't matter, thousands of men or horses will ultimately have the same effect on boggy ground. Funny how the writer bemoans the loss of horses without a concern for the lives of the men; a sign of the times, I suppose.

Well, who you gonna belive: Me or the lying eyes of someone who was there?

Rather than bog down economics by further, unnecessary, debate on Agincourt, which I doubt even we happy few care about anymore...

Let us instead question how the arrival of the English Survivors, bogged down with loot as it were, affected the English Economy at the time?

Quote from: RPGPundit;637550No one is trying to claim that looting and plunder wasn't happening.  What I was disputing was that it was in any way "honorable". It was not. Not by any meaningful definition of that: the Church forbade it, the Crowns tried to pretend it wasn't happening or they were controlling it, Shakespeare wrote about it in such a way that it was clearly seen as a seriously dishonorable act, painting a character who did it as dishonorable, and the one who punished him as honorable for punishing him for it.

RPGPundit

I still have to question your basis for this claim.  

Providing comfort for your enemy is dishonorable.  By depriving your enemy of food and supplies (as well as valuables), you decrease their ability to wage war.  

If you had an army and you found a dozens chests of gold in a village you had just 'captured', what do you do with it?  Leave it there?  

That money will just be claimed by the other side to hire more mercenaries.

Not only was looting EXPECTED, it was considered honorable in that it made your side more likely to win and the other side less likely.  The problem, as it were, was that the church wanted to discourage fighting among 'Christian Princes'.  

That wasn't an issue with the crusades (since the enemy wasn't Christian) and it wasn't really an issue after the Reformation (when the Church was actively encouraging Catholic rulers to go to war with Protestant rulers).  

Methinks you have a very white-washed view of the realities of warfare.

Quote from: Spike;637658I'm merely... outraged?... that you think its appropriate to apply a very modern (seventy year old more or less) concept such as 'War Crimes' to a battle that happened that long ago.

Welcome to the modern world. Virtually every modern critique of the past consists of hating our ancestors for not holding the same ideological positions or cultural beliefs we do. (Or falsely believing they did believe the exact same things we do, just so we don't have to hate them.)

I call it chrono-centrism, it's ethnocentrism towards people in the past.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;637726Welcome to the modern world. Virtually every modern critique of the past consists of hating our ancestors for not holding the same ideological positions or cultural beliefs we do. (Or falsely believing they did believe the exact same things we do, just so we don't have to hate them.)

I call it chrono-centrism, it's ethnocentrism towards people in the past.

Oh I don't hate them, my own Norman ancestors did more and worse quite gleefully. Just striking a chord....

Quote from: The Traveller;637729Oh I don't hate them, my own Norman ancestors did more and worse quite gleefully. Just striking a chord....

I didn't mean to imply you were committing chrono-centrism. (Even though I see now I totally did.) "Hatred" couldn't fairly be used to describe your position or statements.

Apologies.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;637731I didn't mean to imply you were committing chrono-centrism. (Even though I see now I totally did.) "Hatred" couldn't fairly be used to describe your position or statements.

Apologies.

Ah no not a bother, just clarifying the sentiment.

Quote from: Spike;637687Well, who you gonna belive: Me or the lying eyes of someone who was there?

Rather than bog down economics by further, unnecessary, debate on Agincourt, which I doubt even we happy few care about anymore...

Let us instead question how the arrival of the English Survivors, bogged down with loot as it were, affected the English Economy at the time?

From the article I linked to earlier (worth a read by the by)

The impact on English society of the wealth won from war has never been fully analysed, and indeed perhaps it cannot be. For it was essentially the lucky individual who gained; for each soldier who made money on the scale of Sir John Fastolf there were many who made nothing at all, and a few who lost everything by being captured themselves or, like Sir John Grey, did not live long enough to enjoy their profits. Some of the wealth won from war was invested in land: the Earl of Arundel's systematic purchase of manors in Surrey and Sussex in the 1370s probably represented the investment of the profits of war. Some money, as Leland realised, was spent on that most conspicious of all forms of consumption, building. Sir John de la Mare thought to have financed the building of Nunney Castle in Somerset out of wealth gained in France, and there is little doubt that Fastolf used his income from France in building his castle at Caistor-by-Yarmouth. Most conspicuously of all, Edward III spent some of the ransom of John II on building works at Windsor Castle, where the remodelled royal apartments represent one of the most enduring monuments to the wealth the English won from war in France. Some individuals greatly enhanced their social status by means of their gains in war and their rewards from a grateful king for their deeds of valour on the battlefield. The prospect of gain was a powerful incentive to serve in the king's wars, and did perhaps more than anything else to sustain popular support for the war; but when set beside the long-term effects of demographic decline and economic contraction it would be hard to show that the wealth won from war, however powerful a motivating force on individuals, had more than a marginal impact on English society in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

Worth nothing that when William the Conqueror conquerored he wasn't French. He was a Norseman who was living in France :) Rollo who first set up Normandy was a Viking and its only 6 generations to William.
Anyway for we English we have to hold onto the notion that William was a Viking that spoke French as opposed to a Frenchman because hte idea of being conquered by a Frenchman is beyond the Pale :D

Quote from: jibbajibba;637751Anyway for we English we have to hold onto the notion that William was a Viking that spoke French as opposed to a Frenchman because hte idea of being conquered by a Frenchman is beyond the Pale :D

I know, it's a source of ongoing entertainment for us celts. Happy Paddy's day! :D

Quote from: The Traveller;637821I know, it's a source of ongoing entertainment for us celts. Happy Paddy's day! :D

Slainte!

(and the welsh just trounced us at rugby as well....)

I never claimed William and his lads were French, merely that they had a claim to Normandy.  

On the other hand, the article itself, or the exerpted portion of it, was extremely fascinating from the perspective of showing how a loot based shadow economy would work, with real world examples.  

I don't think there is a fine distinction to be made between loot made on the battlefield and loot gained in dungeon crawls, except for the potential political aspect, as battlefield loot was probably gained in direct service to the local lord, with all that implies.

We can essentially write off the comments about the losers in the loot game in the article for our purposes. One might suggest that in the battlefield loot senario, that looting's impact on the economy is roughly offset by the looting and ransoming done by the other side, but unless we are setting up Team Monster as a political entity opposed to, and regularly warring with, Team Civilization that doesn't really apply to our cause.

It is the examples of Sir John Falstof and Nunnery Castle that are indicative of what happens in a loot based shadow economy.  Only, we don't know much more of Falstof in the exerpt, other than he hit it big in the loot game.


The suggestion is that getting wealthy by looting is both legitimate and disruptive, a threat to the local lord's power. To reduce the threat the looter's social status is enshrined, making him a part of the power elite, and in return he spends his wealth freely on things like castles and men at arms in service to the local lord for the next legitimate war.


One thing that is under-discussed in conversations about the disruptive effects of an adventurer loot economy is what exactly are the demographics of success... or rather, how many failed, presumably killed, adventurers are their for every guy that makes it to fifth level (say), with a fat purse of gold?

The reason your average McDonalds guy doesn't go hunting drug dealers to escape his woeful existance is that it is extremely dangerous (coupled with the sad fact that, while he is actually doing a societal good, even if he were successful he himself would be jailed for murder and his wealth confisticated, adding a second significant risk factor...).

Ditto adventuring or going to war. THe chances of wild success don't have to be great to have an impact, but the chances of painful death, or even just miserable failure, are high enough to make it an unattractive option for MOST people.  Presumably too, most people are also at least partially shackled by social constraints, as our drug dealer hunters above.

The real economic question as to, e.g., training costs in RQ or AD&D, is what else can the currency buy?

The piles of coin originated in D&D for two reasons:
A) Sheer effect, which may be weaker at extended length than in a single fairy tale.
B) Game challenge, as hundreds of pounds of loot are not as easily hauled off as a few ounces.

Quote from: Spike;637909I never claimed William and his lads were French, merely that they had a claim to Normandy.  

On the other hand, the article itself, or the exerpted portion of it, was extremely fascinating from the perspective of showing how a loot based shadow economy would work, with real world examples.  

I don't think there is a fine distinction to be made between loot made on the battlefield and loot gained in dungeon crawls, except for the potential political aspect, as battlefield loot was probably gained in direct service to the local lord, with all that implies.

We can essentially write off the comments about the losers in the loot game in the article for our purposes. One might suggest that in the battlefield loot senario, that looting's impact on the economy is roughly offset by the looting and ransoming done by the other side, but unless we are setting up Team Monster as a political entity opposed to, and regularly warring with, Team Civilization that doesn't really apply to our cause.

It is the examples of Sir John Falstof and Nunnery Castle that are indicative of what happens in a loot based shadow economy.  Only, we don't know much more of Falstof in the exerpt, other than he hit it big in the loot game.


The suggestion is that getting wealthy by looting is both legitimate and disruptive, a threat to the local lord's power. To reduce the threat the looter's social status is enshrined, making him a part of the power elite, and in return he spends his wealth freely on things like castles and men at arms in service to the local lord for the next legitimate war.


One thing that is under-discussed in conversations about the disruptive effects of an adventurer loot economy is what exactly are the demographics of success... or rather, how many failed, presumably killed, adventurers are their for every guy that makes it to fifth level (say), with a fat purse of gold?

The reason your average McDonalds guy doesn't go hunting drug dealers to escape his woeful existance is that it is extremely dangerous (coupled with the sad fact that, while he is actually doing a societal good, even if he were successful he himself would be jailed for murder and his wealth confisticated, adding a second significant risk factor...).

Ditto adventuring or going to war. THe chances of wild success don't have to be great to have an impact, but the chances of painful death, or even just miserable failure, are high enough to make it an unattractive option for MOST people.  Presumably too, most people are also at least partially shackled by social constraints, as our drug dealer hunters above.

I completely concur. This is exactly the historical model that applies, and it's very much what we tried to implement in ACKS. The notion that the existence of adventuring loot "breaks" the fantasy world and makes it totally unlike the real historical world is simply false.

Quote from: amacris;637917I completely concur. This is exactly the historical model that applies, and it's very much what we tried to implement in ACKS. The notion that the existence of adventuring loot "breaks" the fantasy world and makes it totally unlike the real historical world is simply false.

In traditional D&D, it does absolutely break the game - particularly in 3rd edition.  If wealth can be used to purchase magical items, they can multiply force much more powerfully than a castle or man-at-arms.  For example, purchasing an item that allows the bearer (along with items carried) to become incorporeal for a few minutes per day easily allows someone to walk into Fort Knox and steal ALL the treasure.  

It's no longer a question of how many orcs you can kill for 2d10 SP each; it's a question of what's stopping you from using this newfound power in the most abusive fashion (even against just 'the villains').  

The problem with most campaigns is that they never consider these ramifications until the PCs acquire said abusable item (or the wealth to purchase such an abusable item).  Suddenly every 'Fort Knox' type location includes 'walls of force' and guardians capable of dealing with incorporeal opponents, even if it was never a consideration before.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;637943In traditional D&D, it does absolutely break the game - particularly in 3rd edition.  If wealth can be used to purchase magical items, they can multiply force much more powerfully than a castle or man-at-arms.  For example, purchasing an item that allows the bearer (along with items carried) to become incorporeal for a few minutes per day easily allows someone to walk into Fort Knox and steal ALL the treasure.  

It's no longer a question of how many orcs you can kill for 2d10 SP each; it's a question of what's stopping you from using this newfound power in the most abusive fashion (even against just 'the villains').  

The problem with most campaigns is that they never consider these ramifications until the PCs acquire said abusable item (or the wealth to purchase such an abusable item).  Suddenly every 'Fort Knox' type location includes 'walls of force' and guardians capable of dealing with incorporeal opponents, even if it was never a consideration before.

It is not the problem in most campaigns, it is the problems in most systems.  You mention it yourself above.

It is a poorly thought out system, when you add in economics.

Long-time lurker's first post, fascinated by this thread's 'hands-on' approach to history :D

Quote from: deadDMwalking;637943In traditional D&D, it does absolutely break the game - particularly in 3rd edition.  If wealth can be used to purchase magical items, they can multiply force much more powerfully than a castle or man-at-arms.  For example, purchasing an item that allows the bearer (along with items carried) to become incorporeal for a few minutes per day easily allows someone to walk into Fort Knox and steal ALL the treasure.  

So the real economic problem seems not to be loot as such but magic power bought with loot (and the difficulty of assessing the ramifications of magic in an ancient/medieval setting.) Is there something in the DMG or other D&D books (could also be D20) about such ramifications? As in: how does magic change economy, power structures etc. Would lead to a different thread, I guess...

There already is a different thread about the eventual troubles with a magic shop and how TSR D&D repeatedly warned about them (in the DMG core of both 1e and 2e no less). If you can do a search for it you should be able to find it. Needless to say it's the structural problem of WotC D&D allowing such ideas without thinking them through, or giving appropriate caution to GMs about the likely consequences.

Oh, and welcome! We seem a gruff bunch, but we're all big softies after you've weathered a share of verbal abuse. Like sailors speaking instead of Victorian aunts.
:)

Quote from: Riordan;638048So the real economic problem seems not to be loot as such but magic power bought with loot (and the difficulty of assessing the ramifications of magic in an ancient/medieval setting.) Is there something in the DMG or other D&D books (could also be D20) about such ramifications? As in: how does magic change economy, power structures etc. Would lead to a different thread, I guess...

Welcome to theRPGSite Riordan! There's a good thread about magical items here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24434), do comment if you want, resurrecting ancient threads is positively encouraged around here. :D

On the whole I'm fairly comfortable with the economic effects of dungeons on fantasy economies, ie not much, although I initially thought otherwise.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;637943The problem with most campaigns is that they never consider these ramifications until the PCs acquire said abusable item (or the wealth to purchase such an abusable item).  Suddenly every 'Fort Knox' type location includes 'walls of force' and guardians capable of dealing with incorporeal opponents, even if it was never a consideration before.

There are alternatives other than escalating power/defense arms race. For one thing there is the power of divination along with the the fact that whatever one side can do the other side can do. Plus alongside of this is the power of the divine in the form of religions, churches, and clerics.

All this combines into a standoff where yes there is a lot of magic floating around that appears to make stealing easy, but the perpetrators are just as easily found out. And thieves have to not only consider their immediate target but the culture and the religions that they are part of which would definitely not condone lawlessness.

Remember in our own history security for the individual wealthy owner was likewise paltry compared to what a determined thief could bring to bear. Not just the traditional take it by stealth but also thief by looting and pillaging.

While there were bad times throughout history, by and large people managed to keep a hold of their wealth by the fact they have friends, family, and patrons that could bring similar force down on the thief.

The same with a society with magic readily available.  Even if defenses (magical or mundane) are poor compared to those of the thieves the fact that everybody exists in a society and a culture means that much of outright thievery would be checked by the fear of retribution.

In the end anybody can get away with anything ... once. It is the consequences that are a bitch.

Thanks for the welcome, the gruff sailor talk has not gone unnoticed. Strangely (or not), this is one of the more civil and mature rpg places I've seen - I blame free speech for that, and the Pundit's righteous anger.

(Although there ARE some victorian aunts and uncles here as well who seem not to be bothered at all by the legions of potty-mouthed unwashed harbour rabble around them. More Elizabethan than Victorian, perhaps.)

Thanks also for the link, that one's almost as educating.

Quote from: Opaopajr;638050There already is a different thread about the eventual troubles with a magic shop and how TSR D&D repeatedly warned about them (in the DMG core of both 1e and 2e no less). If you can do a search for it you should be able to find it. Needless to say it's the structural problem of WotC D&D allowing such ideas without thinking them through, or giving appropriate caution to GMs about the likely consequences.

Oh, and welcome! We seem a gruff bunch, but we're all big softies after you've weathered a share of verbal abuse. Like sailors speaking instead of Victorian aunts.
:)

You can't just blame wotC in quite so an offhand manner Monty Haul games have always been about and the TSRs modules are as much to blame for that as anyone.
All WotC did was deal with a possible real world outcome of what was inherent in the system already.
It doesn't really matter if 10,000 gp can buy you a wand of smacking stuff about or pay for an army of 3000 mercenaries to help you on the next dungeon delve. It still creates a power imbalance.
there are creative ways of dealing with the wealth, Xp for money you SPEND rather than find, although what you spend it on hits lots of RP issues if only forced carousing gets you XP then what about paladins, monks and the like.
D&D's favorites are training and spell research/components but if PCs routinuely walk out of dungeons with carts of magic treasure then it has to end up somewhere.

Oh and Riordan , welcome, though with a name like that you do sound suspiciously Irish..... :D

If WotC did not talk through the ramifications on why those would be disruptive ideas, assuming the GM is new to this process and being considerate about potential pitfalls for seemingly innocent decisions, then hell yes I can drop that criticism at WotCs doorstep.

A lot of old TSR modules warranting this complaint were RPGA tourney affairs, and a painful test of pixelbitching with a vomit of treasure to bother with its hoops. That's why I routinely have an extremely bad perception of modules. Mercifully those products are wholly optional, outside core, and not standard recommendation for new learners of the system.

However WotC does not go out of its way to explain the issues of such a generous economy design decision. Monty Haul is talked about, but then magic shop economy of scale is then mentioned without explaining any major pitfalls. In fact 4e works with the expectation of appropriate magic gear to keep up with the game's mob stat progression and the DMG recommends players to hand in wishlists.

The hell I can't wag my finger at WotC decisions. They've earned it.

Quote from: estar;638060There are alternatives other than escalating power/defense arms race. For one thing there is the power of divination along with the the fact that whatever one side can do the other side can do. Plus alongside of this is the power of the divine in the form of religions, churches, and clerics.

Absolutely, but that's not always easily done.  It absolutely makes sense for the DM to allow the 'theft' (or whatever) and then have the game world respond appropriately.  Too many DMs automatically respond 'you CAN'T DO THAT' and then make arbitrary judgements to prevent it.  But I can understand it from their perspective.  

Sometimes, if the PCs are REALLY good, they can come up with an 'unbeatable' plan.  Oceans 11 isn't THAT difficult with spells.  Obviously, if that's what the PCs find fun, I'd think the game should go that way, but I can understand why the DM might not want to run that kind of game.

But the worst response is to suddenly upgrade the rest of the world with hundreds of thousands of gold pieces worth of 'mass produced' equipment.

Is there even an (implied or spelled out) economy in Wotc/Paizo dnd?

What happens outside the dungeon/plot seems generally as fixed as what happens within, and that includes prices. There simply are no ramifications to be pondered if there is no living world outside of players' actions. Looting cannot overturn the local economy if there is none, just price lists and magical mall-marts. That may well have started in 2e (I got that impression from skimming through some borrowed books recently), but in 3e-as-played it's the norm, isn't it? (Please correct me if I'm way off.)

I have to confess that my own old school/sand box experience stems more from RQ = little loot, less coins, CoC = loot you don't want to have and coins that are, at the very least, cursed, and Vampire = it's the BLOOD bank you loot.

I've only just started a casual OD&D campaign, having a blast so far, though the B1 loot they took out wouldn't even wreck the puniest village economy. "Nice tapestry, sir. 'Bit mouldy on the edges, though. I'd trade you this saddle for it, if you add the broken elk trophy and the little gem that looks suspiciously like coloured glass."

I only encountered the strange concept of gold = xp after almost 30 years of roleplaying, and am, right now, completely in awe of it :D

2e talks about currency, how it is an abstraction, how the GM is expected to translate that into setting -- often with greater complexity and expected loss: differing coinage/cash objects, exchange rates, taxation, inflated prices in large cities, etc. It starts that conversation in PHB and gets more involved in DMG. It further gets into the differences for differing settings, like Dark Sun, Birthright, etc. Just like 1e, 2e talks about currency quite openly and asks the GM to pay attention to its design in the world.

Ah, makes sense that this is handled in depth in the 2e setting books - I mainly skimmed the rule boxes of the licensed german version. The company responsible for that version made a whole lot of separate boxes out of the DMG and PHB, and I must have overlooked the economical guidance stuff when skimming those.

Here's a goofy tidbit:

In Forgotten Realms setting is Lands of Intrigue, a sourcebook I'm reading about two major southern countries of Amn and Tethyr. Inside they state how Amnian trade cartels and hyper mercantilism, along with colonial conquest of parts of Maztica, now leaves goods costing 300+% the PHB price in the major cities. Tethyr, it's neighbor, 'suffers' from this colonial largess and the hot trading between their neighbor Amn and Calimshan (another gigantic trade power). The result is its major cities are enduring 150% cost increases, with lesser 130% or 110% PHB item cost in smaller communities.

Basically trade is normalizing the influx of colonial and cartel mercantilism wealth, but causing regional price inflation for PCs as a result.

They then go into lengthy discussion of currency, coinage, the die's heraldic meaning, its history, metal content, and conversion rates with neighbors.

All delightful filler to use or toss at GM discretion. But actually useful if the GM wants to ground the economy in something more than abstract "gold pieces." I'm sure there are similar 3e or 4e examples out there, but like anything it takes a core recommendation to spotlight why such details are important and not just 'fluff.'

As i said way back - Inflation will happen if you flood an economy with a large influx of external funds.

Quote from: One Horse Town;638312As i said way back - Inflation will happen if you flood an economy with a large influx of external funds.

My main game is much more Age of Reason,  but with Magic replacing much of technology.  So there are trading cartles and syndicates, and banking exists.
But it was sort of funny when the PCs rolled into a small village recently..they were thrilled how low many of the pricing was, though the selectin was bad...until they realized that there was no office for the Bank of Stenron and their writs of worth were worthless.

Quote from: The Traveller;637579This would be the same Church that not only allowed but overwhelmingly encouraged the greatest series of lootings and pillagings in medieval European history, aka the Crusades? Doesn't get much more honourable than a sanction from god almighty.

Infidels were a special case.

QuoteYeah, you know who was in charge at Agincourt, and hence was responsible for the preceding rape/slaughter/pillage-fest? King Henry V. The same King Henry V of Shakespearian play fame.

These lads weren't out for a genteel picnic in the French countryside when a gang of loutish Frenchmen came upon them, they were committing what by any modern standard would be called war crimes, then coming home to boast about it. Of course it was honourable. Had they lost it would have been less so.

In the first place, it wasn't a war crime, it was an English king trying to recover the territory that was his by right.

Second, regardless of what actually happened, had looting been "honorable" then Shakespeare would certainly have penned a scene in Henry V where Henry would have been all "Fuck yeah, looting!!", and not one where he was hanging looters and singing hymns of thanks after the battle.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;638583Second, regardless of what actually happened, had looting been "honorable" then Shakespeare would certainly have penned a scene in Henry V where Henry would have been all "Fuck yeah, looting!!", and not one where he was hanging looters and singing hymns of thanks after the battle.

Shakespeare wasn't a historian, he was a playwright, whose only prerogative was to entertain audiences. If you're looking at that for evidence of anything you're looking in the wrong place.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;637723Methinks you have a very white-washed view of the realities of warfare.

No, I don't.  The rest of you, however, have a typical post-modernist cynical view of what western civilization was saying.  You want to imagine Grim'N'GrittyWorld where no one gave a fuck, scratch that, where they though you were awesome, if you stole relics, slaughtered choirboys, or fornicated with the frenchman's goat.  And that was NOT how it was. That was not what society considered good, that was not what was suggested in the rules.  The fact that it happened anyways is beside the point of what I'm talking about here.

RPGpundit

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;637726Welcome to the modern world. Virtually every modern critique of the past consists of hating our ancestors for not holding the same ideological positions or cultural beliefs we do. (Or falsely believing they did believe the exact same things we do, just so we don't have to hate them.)

I call it chrono-centrism, it's ethnocentrism towards people in the past.

and both of these are exactly what's been happening in this thread.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;637731I didn't mean to imply you were committing chrono-centrism. (Even though I see now I totally did.) "Hatred" couldn't fairly be used to describe your position or statements.

Apologies.

There are various forms of "hatred".

Quote from: deadDMwalking;637723I still have to question your basis for this claim.  

Providing comfort for your enemy is dishonorable.  By depriving your enemy of food and supplies (as well as valuables), you decrease their ability to wage war.  

If you had an army and you found a dozens chests of gold in a village you had just 'captured', what do you do with it?  Leave it there?  

That money will just be claimed by the other side to hire more mercenaries.

Not only was looting EXPECTED, it was considered honorable in that it made your side more likely to win and the other side less likely.  The problem, as it were, was that the church wanted to discourage fighting among 'Christian Princes'.  

That wasn't an issue with the crusades (since the enemy wasn't Christian) and it wasn't really an issue after the Reformation (when the Church was actively encouraging Catholic rulers to go to war with Protestant rulers).  

Methinks you have a very white-washed view of the realities of warfare.

You are not talking about the same thing as the RPGPundit is. You are right, looting and all the other ills of warfare happened. However the society of the time (and even in prior eras) did not approve of it and tried to eliminate or minimize whereever and whenever they could?

Why because of enlightened self interest. It the whole reason that the rule of law developed. It why the earliest legal codes were so draconian. People did not want to live in a dog eat dog world.

But starting with the Neolithic agricultural revolution and the expansion of human population humans being playing catch-up. The evolution of religion, philosophy and law are the some of the responses folks have come up with.

The deep time of history has shown many periods where life was nasty, brutish, and short. But what people forget that when those occurred the folks tried like hell to change things to live a better life.

The laws of warfare and what considered honorable conflict was part of that. What happened in the Hundreds Years War was that a weak French Crown, allowed a well organized English society to take advantage of the situation. But the Hundred Years war wasn't constant warfare but rather various scattered campaigns that occurred over the hundred years that the English crown was actively pursuing their claim to the French Throne.  The English Kings wanted to rule a intact France so it was their interest to limit the looting and not have English soldiers roam like a pack of lawless brigands.

There are rules for living within your 'society', but that term can be loose and amorphous.  Throughout the medieval period in Western Europe, those 'outside' the society were expected to have terrible, terrible things happen to them.  The 'infidels' weren't only near Jersusalem.  Campaigns against the Germans and later Poles and other Eastern Europeans had this same impetus.

But even 'cattle raids' were a interesting feature of Celtic society.  Depending on whether you want to consider any portion of the 'dark ages' as the medieval era, stealing cattle from your neighbors was not only fun and diverting - it was honorable and celebrated.  

So, if you really don't think looting was 'honorable', let's play the game of picking a time and place and finding out if we can find examples to support either position.  If we're focusing on Henry V's battles in France, I can find examples where looting was considered Honorable.  

I could also provide examples for Edward 'the Black Prince', but this line between 'acceptable' and 'honorable' (or 'dishonorable) seems pretty thin.  If everyone accepts it, encourages it, and celebrates it, that seems like 'honorable' to me.  Agree or disagree?

Quote from: The Traveller;638591Shakespeare wasn't a historian, he was a playwright, whose only prerogative was to entertain audiences. If you're looking at that for evidence of anything you're looking in the wrong place.

WRONG. Shakespeare's plays provide considerable evidence of what was considered the "morality" of their times.  
In a similar way to how watching "The Patriot" will tell you next to nothing useful about the events of the American Revolution, but will tell you a tremendous amount about late 20th century American mainstream values.

We can certainly infer from Henry V that:

a)looting was common enough that no one pretended it didn't happen.
but
b) it was the conventional moral value of the times to consider looting an immoral act, and not something Honorable people would do or condone.

You seem desperately determined to keep trying to twist my argument to something it wasn't: I never claimed looting and pillaging wasn't very much a reality of medieval warfare. I am, rather, refuting YOUR claim that it was seen as honorable, or indeed even acceptable.

RPGPundit

Quote from: estar;638698Why because of enlightened self interest.

When you have an entrenched noble caste alongside an untouchable religious caste, the self interest of the vast majority of the population doesn't come into it because they didn't get a say.

I mean what do you and the Pundit imagine, comely maidens dancing at the crossroads with summer flowers braided in their hair, dashing young knights and wise old kings guffawing at the antics of the much loved court jester? They don't call them fairy tales for nothing.

It absolutely was a dark time for most people. Not unrelenting oppression every hour of the day, but racism, misogyny, and violence were part of the routine alright. Why does it strike you as so offensive then that looting and pillaging was encouraged at a high social level? One social more is different to the other?

And to head off any further exclamations about modern sensibilities, I don't hold these attitudes against the people of the time, as I've already said. That's just how things were.

Quote from: estar;638698The laws of warfare and what considered honorable conflict was part of that.

Yes, and the thirty years war buried almost half of Germany.

Quote from: RPGPundit;638703WRONG. Shakespeare's plays provide considerable evidence of what was considered the "morality" of their times.  
In a similar way to how watching "The Patriot" will tell you next to nothing useful about the events of the American Revolution, but will tell you a tremendous amount about late 20th century American mainstream values.

Really, that's... demented. Shakespeare was no more a moral demagogue than he was a historian, he was an entertainer. His plays were meant to entertain, in the same way that 'The Patriot' and 'Braveheart' were meant to entertain. What he chose to focus on towards that end was entirely at his own discretion.

Several posts in the thread have already pointed out that looting was in as many words an organised affair, in fact most armies couldn't have existed without it, given the almost nonexistent understanding of logistics the knuckleheads had.

Here are a few more thoughts:

QuoteThe knights were drawn to battle by feudal and social obligation, and also by the prospect of profit and advancement. Those who performed well were likely to increase their landholdings and advance in the social hierarchy. The prospect of significant income from pillage and ransoming prisoners was also important. For the mounted knight Medieval Warfare could be a relatively low risk affair. Nobles avoided killing each other, rather preferring capturing them alive, for several reasons—for one thing, many were related to each other, had fought alongside one another, and they were all (more or less) members of the same elite culture; for another, a noble's ransom could be very high, and indeed some made a living by capturing and ransoming nobles in battle. Even peasants, who did not share the bonds of kinship and culture, would often avoid killing a nobleman, valuing the high ransom that a live capture could bring, as well as the valuable horse, armour and equipment that came with him.

There's your nobility. Or as Falstaff put it in regard to peasant levies:
FALSTAFF. Tut, tut, good enough to toss; food for powder, food for powder. They'll fill a pit as well as better.

Quote from: The Traveller;638706When you have an entrenched noble caste alongside an untouchable religious caste, the self interest of the vast majority of the population doesn't come into it because they didn't get a say.

While nothing like the freedoms we enjoy today, the peasantry was not as benighted as you are making them out to be. They would not use as sophisticated terms as the clerics or the nobles but there was an expectation that custom will be followed and if repeatably not followed there were consequences for the nobles.

Again while not merrie olde england of poem and song it was not the mud splattered nasty brutish and short society of Jabberwocky either.

Quote from: The Traveller;638706I mean what do you and the Pundit imagine, comely maidens dancing at the crossroads with summer flowers braided in their hair, dashing young knights and wise old kings guffawing at the antics of the much loved court jester? They don't call them fairy tales for nothing.

The were times where there were wise old kings, dashing young knights, and maidens dancing at teh crossroads with summer flower in their hair. That imagery was not developed in modern times but a product of the people who lived then.

But you are right that was not the normal circumstances, for  most it was a mix of the good, and the bad. The situation much like today. While the slums of inner city Detroit with the half of the home vacant and crumbling exist, poke around the rural byways you still will find a Mayberry. But for most the places they live is a mixed bag that for the most part filled with people who abide by the law.

Quote from: The Traveller;638706It absolutely was a dark time for most people. Not unrelenting oppression every hour of the day, but racism, misogyny, and violence were part of the routine alright. Why does it strike you as so offensive then that looting and pillaging was encouraged at a high social level? One social more is different to the other?

Because based on the people writing at the time and the archaeology what you say it not the whole picture. It is a partial view as inaccurate as stating that the United States of the present era was like inner city Detroit.

Racism, misogyny, violence, poverty, and disease flourished in all time periods, and it only since the enlightenment that we have developed the sense of humanity as a whole as having worth.  But despite that people lived, played, loved, had kids, created beauty, and even prospered at all levels. In short they lived the life of their time as fully as we live ours. We wonder how they managed but the fact remains they did and thrived.

And if you look at the sweep of the history the dark times are memorable  because of the contrast of the eras preceding them and those that come afterwards. One benefit of the technology of the modern era is the diversity and ease that scholars can share their finding. As a consequence we learned there is a Carolingian Renaissance, that the rapacious Vikings contributed important elements of our legal system, the High Middle Ages of the 12th and 13th century were not a benighted dark age as population and the economy expanded beyond those of Rome at its height.

Quote from: The Traveller;638706And to head off any further exclamations about modern sensibilities, I don't hold these attitudes against the people of the time, as I've already said. That's just how things were.

Except that not just how things were. It was more than what you are stating it was to be. And by doing present a misleading picture of how it was back then. Again there was the bad and there was good.

Quote from: The Traveller;638706Yes, and the thirty years war buried almost half of Germany.

And the reaction was the sovereignty of the nation state, and near disappearance of religious war from Western Civilization. When they sat down and hammered out the Treaty of Westphalia their intent was to prevent a repeat of the horrors of that war. And by and large they succeeded, wars of religion became a thing of the past for Europe.

Of course as time went on people found other reasons compelling enough to wage total war.

Quote from: estar;638715Again while not merrie olde england of poem and song it was not the mud splattered nasty brutish and short society of Jabberwocky either.
....


Except that not just how things were. It was more than what you are stating it was to be. And by doing present a misleading picture of how it was back then. Again there was the bad and there was good.

I know a fair amount about 'day-to-day life' in the medieval period.  And you're absolutely right - it's not always that bad.  But we're not talking about 'general life' - we're talking about warfare.  

If you happened to live in a time and place where an invading (or traveling) army came through, you should expect bad things to happen.  Not the least of which is that any valuables that you have that are not well-hidden enough will be confiscated.  

You will not have legal recourse, nor would you expect any different.  If you were on the opposing side, you'd do the same and feel much better about it.

Looting is really celebrated by the side doing it.  As the Muppet Treasure Island observes:

'Now take Sir Francis Drake
The Spanish all despise him
But to the British he's a hero
And they idolize him
It's how you look at buccaneers
That Makes them Bad or Good'

Quote from: estar;638715While nothing like the freedoms we enjoy today, the peasantry was not as benighted as you are making them out to be. They would not use as sophisticated terms as the clerics or the nobles but there was an expectation that custom will be followed and if repeatably not followed there were consequences for the nobles.

You mean customs like the droit du seigneur?

Quote from: estar;638715But you are right that was not the normal circumstances, for  most it was a mix of the good, and the bad. The situation much like today. While the slums of inner city Detroit with the half of the home vacant and crumbling exist, poke around the rural byways you still will find a Mayberry. But for most the places they live is a mixed bag that for the most part filled with people who abide by the law.

Now this is what bullshit modern equivalency looks like. Yes people lived their lives, maybe even happily because they didn't know any better. But to compare a poor person in western society today with a medieval peasant is a whole other kettle of fish.

Quote from: estar;638715Racism, misogyny, violence, poverty, and disease flourished in all time periods, and it only since the enlightenment that we have developed the sense of humanity as a whole as having worth.

Yes, stop ducking the point, which is that if racism, misogyny and violence are considered bad today but were perfectly acceptable and indeed encouraged back then, what makes looting any different? Why does that upset when the rest of it doesn't? The facts are very much on the side of looting being quite respectable for the most part, playwrights notwithstanding.

Quote from: The Traveller;638722You mean customs like the droit du seigneur?


Now this is what bullshit modern equivalency looks like. Yes people lived their lives, maybe even happily because they didn't know any better. But to compare a poor person in western society today with a medieval peasant is a whole other kettle of fish.

droit du seigneur

Quote from: The Traveller;638722Yes, stop ducking the point, which is that if racism, misogyny and violence are considered bad today but were perfectly acceptable and indeed encouraged back then, what makes looting any different?

You are not getting the point. The point is that for the most part people didn't consider themselves racist, or a misogynist. What happened between now and then is that our definition of who deserves to be treated humanely has expanded. But for one's fellows you had to operate within the bounds of law and custom. The same with violence, when you operated withing custom and law you were OK outside of this you got trouble.

The same with looting. When your captain gave permission it was OK and you had to share with your company and commander. Your captain gave permission because his commander said OK, and so on up to the king. Looting was a tool of war with laws and custom attached to it. Outside of those the looters were treated as criminals by their own force.

What happened in the latter part of the Hundred Years War is that English looting as became highly lucrative. But there again that permission to loot was attached to a body of custom and law that give those troops permission to loot for specific reasons or specific targets.

Now it was very loose to what we are accustomed too. Soldier could and did loot whenever they could. But they also tried to hide it when they did this. You can see some of this with hings when they get pissed and sacked a town for the hell invariably they came up with some fig leaf to justify their cruel actions. If they truly glorified it as you said why go through the bother?

You see this pattern throughout western history since the adoption of Christianty. Under the influence of the various churches it was no longer good enough because you had the might. You had to have a reason. That was the start of the road that lead to what we have today. The middle ages were not the beginning but a waypoint along that path.

Quote from: estar;638726You can see some of this with hings when they get pissed and sacked a town for the hell invariably they came up with some fig leaf to justify their cruel actions.

So you're saying that if they had sufficient justification, they could nobly enjoy the righteous spoils of war (loot).  

Of course looting isn't automatically 'noble' (though to be honest, it tends to be highly romanticized - Pirates and Robin Hood are good examples), but that was never the contention.  Only looting from 'justified' targets is noble.  

Just like murder.  You murder the wrong person and it's a crime.  But you kill a person while sanctioned as part of a military offensive and it's considered heroic.  

There is no difference here.

Quote from: estar;638726You are not getting the point. The point is that for the most part people didn't consider themselves racist, or a misogynist.

That's what I said and have been saying. They saw none of these things as bad, and saw looting in the same light.

Quote from: estar;638726The same with looting. When your captain gave permission it was OK and you had to share with your company and commander. Your captain gave permission because his commander said OK, and so on up to the king. Looting was a tool of war with laws and custom attached to it. Outside of those the looters were treated as criminals by their own force.

There are a multitude of sources in this thread saying that looting was very often the main reason people went to war.

Quote from: estar;638726Now it was very loose to what we are accustomed too. Soldier could and did loot whenever they could. But they also tried to hide it when they did this. You can see some of this with hings when they get pissed and sacked a town for the hell invariably they came up with some fig leaf to justify their cruel actions. If they truly glorified it as you said why go through the bother?

Sacking a city is different to looting and pillaging, it has overtones of wanton slaughter and not leaving a stone upon a stone. Sacking means destruction for its own sake.

Quote from: estar;638726You see this pattern throughout western history since the adoption of Christianty. Under the influence of the various churches it was no longer good enough because you had the might. You had to have a reason. That was the start of the road that lead to what we have today. The middle ages were not the beginning but a waypoint along that path.

Once again, all very grand but it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

I see you continue to very efficiently slay the strawman no one was proposing.

Meanwhile, the fact that people needed to make up excuses to loot demonstrates that medieval society did not have the "looting, fuck yeah!" mentality you want to pretend it did.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;639150I see you continue to very efficiently slay the strawman no one was proposing.

Meanwhile, the fact that people needed to make up excuses to loot demonstrates that medieval society did not have the "looting, fuck yeah!" mentality you want to pretend it did.

RPGPundit

And I see you're still waiting for threads to hit page 2 before you contribute a rejoinder, regardless of how much it drags out an already lost argument.

I'm not about to repeat myself regarding the difference between sacking and looting.

Isn't there a bit of a time issue with using Shakespear to report on contemporary attitudes circa Agincourt?

Quote from: Spike;639189Isn't there a bit of a time issue with using Shakespear to report on contemporary attitudes circa Agincourt?

You mean that fact that it was written 185 years after Agincort based on a history itself written 150 years after, so its a bit like a modern play about the Amereican Civil War so we should treat with with as much historical accuracy as the Blue and the Grey or the Good the Bad and the Ugly?

Medieval armies had no logistical system. The troops were expected to "forage" for their supplies. What does "forage" mean?  From the official US Army Quartermaster website, Medieval Logistics:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/medieval_logistics.htm

"What exactly is foraging? To the local populace, foraging equated to looting and plundering.  Soldiers used force to take food, water, fodder and whatever else they wanted from the peasants.  Armies foraged, at the farthest, 60 miles from their lines of march. Within each unit, a mounted group of soldiers would ride forth to steal all the food they could find and defeat any opposition to their quest. As a result, a medieval army would create a path of wasteland of 10 or more miles in its wake. Because of the time invested in foraging, this method of logistics would slow the army's progress to 5 to 10 miles a day.

Armies on the move killed far more civilians than soldiers, and the troops did that by moving about and eating up all the food they could lay their hands on. - Medieval Warfare – Logistics, DENO Partnership

     In enemy territory, looting and pillaging was seen as part of the damage inflicted upon the enemy. In friendly territory, a general would sometimes send ahead a herald to tell residents to provide a certain amount of food and fodder at a designated place and time. In return, the army's soldiers would not be allowed to forage. Public hanging was often the penalty for soldiers who violated a general's order against foraging. This arrangement would leave more food for the local population. With good management, a town could support an army equal to its population for a week or two without undue hardship."

In other words: Looting the enemy populace wasn't a crime. It was a logistics system.

Read any textbook of war written prior to the modern conventions of warfare and looting and plunder are systematically assumed. This has nothing to do with "morality" and everything to do with the limits of the logistical systems of the day.

Quote from: Spike;639189Isn't there a bit of a time issue with using Shakespear to report on contemporary attitudes circa Agincourt?

Shakespeare was writing on contemporary attitudes circa Shakespeare; I think most of the people on this thread would be claiming that these attitudes had not meaningfully changed from Agincourt to this time, what with people citing the 30 years war and all right alongside Agincourt. So what's good for the goose...

RPGPundit

Back to the original topic:

I think the best way to set prices in a game is haggling among players. That was a bigger deal in the pioneering games of the 1970s than in most paper and pencil games today, because the campaigns involved more players.

The second best is haggling between players and well-played NPCs. The value a particular NPC places on something will be informed by the value placed on it by a larger market.

Since a complete model is impractical, most things reduce to so many farmers supporting so many miners, smiths, soldiers and so on.

Unless there's a major event (such as a war, plague or disaster and consequent migration), we can assume a fairly steady labor pool. A big change in longevity or birth rate might take 15 to 20 years to show full effect.

Village life tends to fall into self-sustaining patterns, enforced by convention or even law. Cities fluctuate more, but tradition is still a bigger factor than in modern societies today. Tribes, clans, castes, cults, guilds and the like exercise strong influence.

In any case, it will take time (and possibly other things) for people to switch occupations. Some (e.g., magical professions in most games) will require rare aptitudes.

In old D&D, attaining a level requires XP regardless of training costs. The main source of XP is treasures. The bulk of those are also currency; other treasures must be *exchanged for* currency to score points. The main source of treasures is monster lairs.

The DM's placement of treasures thus largely determines the potential availability of characters of various levels. A million gold pieces can produce four Fighter Lords or 125 Heroes, and so on.

Immediately, we can see that inflation will result as ever more treasure moves out of the dungeons and into circulation. Moreover, this typically means that as PCs get cash poor, NPCs get cash rich!

The requirements for becoming able to provide training should be set so that players can meet them. Their behavior should serve as a guide to NPC behavior.

"Dumping" cheap training on the market is likely to drive down other people's fees to some extent. Going the other way, if players won't pay the prices they themselves ask, why should other figures?

Quote from: Phillip;639894Back to the original topic:

I think the best way to set prices in a game is haggling among players. That was a bigger deal in the pioneering games of the 1970s than in most paper and pencil games today, because the campaigns involved more players.

The second best is haggling between players and well-played NPCs. The value a particular NPC places on something will be informed by the value placed on it by a larger market.

Since a complete model is impractical, most things reduce to so many farmers supporting so many miners, smiths, soldiers and so on.

Unless there's a major event (such as a war, plague or disaster and consequent migration), we can assume a fairly steady labor pool. A big change in longevity or birth rate might take 15 to 20 years to show full effect.

Village life tends to fall into self-sustaining patterns, enforced by convention or even law. Cities fluctuate more, but tradition is still a bigger factor than in modern societies today. Tribes, clans, castes, cults, guilds and the like exercise strong influence.

In any case, it will take time (and possibly other things) for people to switch occupations. Some (e.g., magical professions in most games) will require rare aptitudes.

This is a good post.

RPGPundit

If I'm running a game where it bothers me (1e AD&D, typically) I'll

1) Divide weight by 10 - 100gp to the lb.
2) Divide treasure values by 10 - eg a 1,000gp gem becomes a 100gp gem. I don't find that the gold amounts in the AD&D treasure tables need dividing though - I think by the time you've hacked through 30-300 orcs you can expect a few thousand gp!
3) Multiply XP awards for gold by 5 or 10.
4) Reduce training costs by a factor of 10 or more; typically I use 100gp per level.

If I'm running 3e/Pathfinder or 4e I don't find these issues come up; in those editions they use 50gp to the lb which is close enough; no XP for treasure, lower gem values, and no training costs.

With Moldvay B/X D&D (etc) there are no training costs; treasure values sometimes need reducing for credibility, but I've rarely seen a big issue - the treasure tables are not that generous. The main thing there is that I'll give extra XP, because I don't like the "You spent a night adventuring, risking death several times, and gained 22 XP" result, which I've experienced when playing B/X 'by the book', eg in Dragonsfoot chatrooms.

Summary: I think the main thing if you have a problem with the D&D economy is (a) reduce the weight of coins and (b) be willing to give XP for things other than gaining gold, and/or give more than 1 XP per gp. (b) removes the need for hundreds of thousands of gp in the local dungeon.

Quote from: S'mon;640043If I'm running a game where it bothers me (1e AD&D, typically) I'll

1) Divide weight by 10 - 100gp to the lb.
2) Divide treasure values by 10 - eg a 1,000gp gem becomes a 100gp gem. I don't find that the gold amounts in the AD&D treasure tables need dividing though - I think by the time you've hacked through 30-300 orcs you can expect a few thousand gp!
3) Multiply XP awards for gold by 5 or 10.
4) Reduce training costs by a factor of 10 or more; typically I use 100gp per level.

If I'm running 3e/Pathfinder or 4e I don't find these issues come up; in those editions they use 50gp to the lb which is close enough; no XP for treasure, lower gem values, and no training costs.

With Moldvay B/X D&D (etc) there are no training costs; treasure values sometimes need reducing for credibility, but I've rarely seen a big issue - the treasure tables are not that generous. The main thing there is that I'll give extra XP, because I don't like the "You spent a night adventuring, risking death several times, and gained 22 XP" result, which I've experienced when playing B/X 'by the book', eg in Dragonsfoot chatrooms.

Summary: I think the main thing if you have a problem with the D&D economy is (a) reduce the weight of coins and (b) be willing to give XP for things other than gaining gold, and/or give more than 1 XP per gp. (b) removes the need for hundreds of thousands of gp in the local dungeon.

Frankly, the money thing for xp is being increasingly problematic for me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;640350Frankly, the money thing for xp is being increasingly problematic for me.

How so?

Quote from: Bobloblah;640359How so?

I started a new thread about it; basically, its really suitable to certain types of games, not so much to others.

RPGPundit