PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

[Kabluey]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

I'm not using it as an argument for combat trained peasants - I find the whole concept of wandering monsters to be ludicrious and purile to exist outside of CRPGs.

 

At least on this point we certainly agree.

[LoresLost]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

Reading this thread it occurred to me that also a peasant/serf in European tradition, as I understand it, are "bound to the land". In a 'high' magic (or even a low magic setting depending on how magic works) the peasants may actually be bound to the land and/or lord through a geas or other magics that either force their loyalty or channel their desires subtly to the culturally 'correct' way of life for their class (And the Geas may be a two way street with the lord of the area being under one as well to enforce cultural norms...)

 

This would create a very orderly society with some unusual issues.

 

Most adventures would not be under such a compulsion (they are naturally immune to the spell or are some form of freeman that does not get geased) so they might be considered a danger to these communities and thus always under threat from the some the very people they are trying to help (Hey, a little angst in a campaign can be a good thing.)

 

Edited Spelling Errors

[mayapuppies]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

...scarecrows that actively chase pests away...

That would so freak me out!

[OddHat]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

As a GM, I'd also consider how and why the Nobles are Nobles when deciding on how peasant life actually works.

 

If the Nobles were conquering foreigners a few gernerations ago, they're likely to brutalize some segments of the peasantry, while favoring colonists from their own nation and any decendants of allies and colaborators.

 

If the Nobles are just rich land owners from the same ethnic groups as those they rule, the life of the peasantry mught be much more tollerable.

 

And yes, there are many other factors.

 

I'd also think about an actual Divine Right to Rule. What if the gods really did choose these noble families to rule? What if the king is a vile, deranged idiot, and his nobles no better than brigands, and yet killing him really would rob the land of it's fertility?

 

Of course, that would be a pretty dark campaign.

[Frenchman]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

AI'd also think about an actual Divine Right to Rule. What if the gods really did choose these noble families to rule? What if the king is a vile' date=' deranged idiot, and his nobles no better than brigands, and yet killing him really would rob the land of it's fertility?[/quote']

 

Funny! Could make for a great adventure plot.

 

SupremeSerpent and LoresLost also had good points. In general I don't consider too deeply how magic would affect them, because it's effect has no upper limit of potential.

In most settings creating food and water with magic is easier than altering the weather and most other uses people think up for agricultural magic. If so, then Magic Picnic Baskets could eliminate the need for farmers entirely and essentially create a world of lesiure-seeking artists and craftsmen. Assuming magic isn't used for creating other things as well - then everyone's an artist or a mage.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

Unless the fantasy game is actually set in Real Life Dark Ages times (which, in retrospect, means it's not a fantasy game, it's a historical game, and you get to roleplay out scratching out a living as a dirt farmer before you die at age 20 from the plague), I don't make a setting that's 'Dark Ages Europe plus monsters'.

 

Magic changes things.

Nonhuman civilizations change things.

Magic changes even *more* things.

Whether one considers secular authority separate, superior, or subservient to religious authority changes things.

 

I had (well, have, but I think I've convinced him otherwise) a friend who insisted that his character *had* to be illiterate, because 'In Medaeval* Europe, only a few people who were nobles were ever taught to read because (historical fact, historical fact, historical fact, possible historical interpretation)." He would make arguments on the basis of 'that's the way it was back then'.

 

My argument: "This isn't the real world. None of that happened. There's been no plague to stifle the population, magic helps the crops grow so you have time to learn to read without having to worry about crop neglect, and there's no huge monolithic church that's leaning on the nobility and peasants saying that you do things our way or burn in hell. It's not a matter of 'back then', since this game did not take place in the history of Real Life Earth. It's more of an 'over there', if you wish to think of it as an alternate historical timeline".

 

Add to that my tendency to create worlds with generally optimistic lookouts, and peasants can, in fact, be quite upwardly mobile.

 

*Yes, I know I can't spell that word.

[OddHat]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

My most recent Fantasy campaign world was mostly stollen from David Gemmel, with touches of Tom Holt (in Historical Fiction mode). It worked out well. Actual slaves were rare outside of cities, and were treated at Roman standards (i.e. in theory had some hope). The peasantry had considerable hope of advancement thanks to underpopulation, an open frontier, and the fact that magicians could be born into any class and tended to become very influential.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

I really don't see what the problem is. What constitutes a peasant and what their role is in a particular society would vary by region and nation even within the same setting.

 

But not even getting into that, unless you are just hellbent to run a realistic simulation of a particular period of actual history -- which ceases to be Fantasy HERO in any event and turns into Simulationist HERO -- the purpose of peasants, serfs, nobles, and every other sort of person is simply to support the fabric of the world pursuant to telling a good collective story and having a good time.

 

Regardless of society youve got people that are privileged and have some measure of power, some other people that do all the actual gruntwork and have a relatively crappy lot in life, and all the other people that fall somewhere in between to differing degrees.

 

The rest of it is just details and labels.

 

The "haves" and the "have nots" is a story as old as time, and the dynamics of it isnt exactly rocket science. And ultimately its all just fodder for the story mill.

 

 

 

But to address the question:

 

What kind of things would a lowly worker person know?

 

Whatever they need to know to do their job and survive from day to day at an obvious minimum, and perhaps more information stemming from some background element on an individual basis. In some areas this will equate to basic substinence farming, in others it will equate to more advanced farming techniques, in others to fishing, in others to woodcrofting, and so on.

 

They must know whatever they need to know to eke out a living in whatever environment and circumstances exist in their area of the world. Anything else is possible if it serves the story or adds color to a scene but can otherwise be dispensed with.

 

Can adventurers originate from the lowly? Of course they can; the peasant hero is a staple archetype. It's not just possible, its common in much of the source material and the genre in general. Its a trope, even.

[keithcurtis]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

Response repped.

 

Keith "where credit is due" Curtis

[garou]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

It is traditional in fantasy gaming circles to look down on those farmers as ignroant hicks. However, keep in mind that if you are of European extraction you almost certainly have some of these "serfs" in your family tree if you could trace back far enough ( yiou pribably can;'t because of the the fact that feqw people bothered or needed to keep records of such things in the 11th century, but there you hafve it).

 

Actually, there are some records - churches kept a passably fair accounting of births, marriages and deaths. The dates are a little spotty, but you can trace lineage. (My dad's hobby is genealogy - he's managed to get some parts traced back to the 11th century or so, but he's constrained by the fact that most of the records he needs are in Europe, and no readily available.)

 

So who are peasants, and what do they know? And can one emerge from the ranks of the Peasants to become an adventurer, or even a true hero, under the right circumstances?

 

Well, a peasant farmer is going to know (under normal circumstances) whatever skills are necessary to provide a livelihood for him and his family. Animal husbandry, farming, shearing, carding, spinning, carving, cooking, animal handler, local heraldry, local history, local politics, etc, plus WF: knife/dagger, and possibly WF:Axe or even WF: Spear/polearm (since many pole weapons were derived from agricultural implements). Most of it, however, could be covered by PS: Peasant.

 

As Frenchman points out, however - there is a lot of free time in being a peasant (or even a modern farmer). For example - my family owns a Christmas tree farm, so, from Dec 25 until April or so, there is no work which needs to be done, or even can be done. Once the ground warms up, the stumps need to be pulled, new trees planted, then pruning and mowing - but really, from mid-June or so until October, mowing and weeding is about it, neither of which can be done after dark, and there is a tendency not to work during the hottest part of the day during the summer. So, learning other skills is certainly a possibility, as long as there is someone around who knows them and is willing to teach.

 

It is worth noting that many peasant weapons probably would not have reduced penetration or normal damage - chain mail is no defence against a sharp pitchfork*. What really worked to the peasant's distadvantage in a revolt was (1) lack of training (peasants are at base OCV of, say 3, vs the trained warriors base DCV of 4 + 3 levels of DCV - so fewer real hits); (2) support from other local nobles (to prevent a possible rebellion from spreading); (3) lack of armor of any sort (since even boiled leather can provide some defence); and (4) the general unsuitability of farm impliments for warfare. A lone combatant, wielding a scythe, is a potentially dangerous opponent. Several dozen of them, in close order, are more a danger to themselves than anyone else - those things take room to swing.

 

 

* Full plate armor (or even plate mail) was a pretty good defence against most agricultural impliments. A sledgehammer, while it may not penetrate plate, certainly can do a number on the soft and squidgy person inside. I recall (but cannot recall the source) that hatchets, mallets and the like were used successfully against unhorsed French knights at Agincourt by English archers.

[Frenchman]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

It is worth noting that many peasant weapons probably would not have reduced penetration or normal damage

 

I should have been a bit more clear - the reason I'd give farm implements reduced pen comes not from their design, but from game design - if you don't want peasants revolting every 12 weeks, then make the 'weapons' they have access to inferior.

My second line of reasoning is one you pointed out yourself:

(4) the general unsuitability of farm impliments for warfare.

While I'd find it reasonable that an individual (especially a PC) build a pitchfork or scythe as a devastatingly effective weapon in their hands, I wouldn't allow average peasant Joe Serf to wield one that could come close to comparing with a knights sword.

[garou]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

I should have been a bit more clear - the reason I'd give farm implements reduced pen comes not from their design, but from game design - if you don't want peasants revolting every 12 weeks, then make the 'weapons' they have access to inferior.

My second line of reasoning is one you pointed out yourself:

 

While I'd find it reasonable that an individual (especially a PC) build a pitchfork or scythe as a devastatingly effective weapon in their hands, I wouldn't allow average peasant Joe Serf to wield one that could come close to comparing with a knights sword.

 

I don't think it would be much of an issue. All you have to do is presume that a typical Knight has a Spd of 3, vs a peasant 2 (even if the Knight has the extra Spd with the lim "Only for attacks"), and it's not a contest. You could stack an extra -1 OCV penalty on all peasant weapons - they're not balanced, etc, or consider them to be "inferior quality" (or both).

 

If Knights also know "Follow-through attack" (from Fantasy Hero, basically, a 4d6 HKA with the trigger of "kills opponent in battle"), then our Knight swings at, hits and probably kills our poor unarmored peasant in a single hit. Knight then gets a free hack at the peasant's nearest friend, kills them, and makes a PRE attack, with big bonuses for violent action. Results should slow down the other peasants, if not cause them to bolt in panic.

 

Oddly enough, the military fork and the trident are considered Reduced Pen in Fantasy hero, and I must confess that I do not see the logic there. I've used a pitchfork, and practiced with a sword, and it was much, much easier to drive the pitchfork through a straw target. (I wouldn't give them AP, just remove the RP on them.)

[Curufea]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

* Full plate armor (or even plate mail) was a pretty good defence against most agricultural impliments. A sledgehammer' date=' while it may not penetrate plate, certainly can do a number on the soft and squidgy person inside. I recall (but cannot recall the source) that hatchets, mallets and the like were used successfully against unhorsed French knights at Agincourt by English archers.[/quote']

I have noticed, wearing plate myself (and even if it tended to happen accidentally) that the reverse can be true as well. A person in plate is equivalent to a hammer. If you elbow, knee, fall on, or just punch someone - there is more mass involved and a much harder surface.

A knight falling off a horse, onto someone would most likely damage them. Possibly equivalent to a club or warhammer.

 

Other annoyances include a lack of articulation - badly made suits won't allow you to touch your head (so you can't eat in them).

[garou]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

I have noticed, wearing plate myself (and even if it tended to happen accidentally) that the reverse can be true as well. A person in plate is equivalent to a hammer. If you elbow, knee, fall on, or just punch someone - there is more mass involved and a much harder surface.

A knight falling off a horse, onto someone would most likely damage them. Possibly equivalent to a club or warhammer.

Oh sure. One oddity (but not a huge one) in many fantasy systems is that, although your movement rate might be reduced when wearing heavy armor, your maneuverability remains the same. I can get to a decent sprint while wearing chain mail, but there is no way that I can start, stop or turn quickly; whereas in most fantasy games, I should just be slowed up 3" (or whatever).

[Curufea]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

These kinds of details should be written up.

While they don't have much bearing on the simulation part of the system - I think they really add flavour to the setting and increase its immersiveness.

The details should be mentioned as something that can be used, but not statted out/simulated.

[The Monster]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

My thought is that one thing peasants would know is their area - having been born and raised within a few miles of the same place, and being outdoors most of the time, they would know the terrain, the waether, the critters, and the plants to a level that would surprise anyone thinking of them as ignorant slobs. They'd know where the wandering monsters go (especially since they'd follow water or game as a general thing), where they don't go, and see warning signs (flights of birds, animals leaving an area, etc.) when something new comes nearby. Locations within a few days' walk they'd know very well, or someone in town would; someone would have been to just about any given square foot of territory you could walk to in two or three days, so they'd know where the fords are, where the poisonous carnivorous mushrooms grow (and where that new bunch of them appeared just last spring), and so forth.

Extend that to social networks. Eveyrone knows everyone, by name by face and by reputation (not mention by family) - and probably has a pretty good knwoledge of the next village down as well, and then regular contacts among those who go to regional market days. If you can get them to talk to you, they can tell you who's honest, who's competent, and who they wouldn't mind seeing fall on a sword (though they may tell rumors about those they just don't like; witches and vampires, anyone?).

Consider how well you know people in your life, say at work. My work group includes some 20 people, who I recognize at a glance, and I know at least a little about their family, their marriages, hobbies, etc. - and these are people I don't really care all that much for, and with whom I only spend eight hours/five days a week.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

These kinds of details should be written up.

While they don't have much bearing on the simulation part of the system - I think they really add flavour to the setting and increase its immersiveness.

The details should be mentioned as something that can be used, but not statted out/simulated.

 

I dunno ... I'd prefer to leave that sort of stuff out as being too big a pain in the butt for too little return. Of course, I assume that, in a setting with known, extant magic, decent blacksmiths may know a spell or two to help them craft better armor so it is easier to move around in.

[Curufea]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

It's the difficulties in life that help define it and make it more real. There's nothing more galling than absolute paradise with no challenges or inconveniences.

However - this is only for detail-type games. I don't use it for my game, because it's high melodrama and would get in the way of the plot.

If I was running street-level, I would use it.

[assault]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

Relatively free peasants could have access to a lot of things. See your average Viking for more details... Or your English yeoman with a longbow, or a Swiss peasant with a halberd or pike. Come to think of it, check out the Hussites.

 

It's quite conceivable a less free peasant might have some experience in hunting and related skills.

 

Furthermore, they are likely to have at least some familiarity with their own religion. Even if Holy Books and the like are unavailable to them, they are likely to be aware of the "folk" version of their faith. In particular, that might mean that they are aware of the local "saints" and protective spirits, and be able to make offerings to them that are actually magically effective.

 

In addition, they may also be part of extended social networks along the lines of, say, the Scottish clans. Even if they are at the bottom of the heap, they may be able to call upon the aid of their more prosperous kinsmen, who may be considerably more militarily formidable.

 

There are also likely to be local dignitaries, who may have access to magic in a fantasy setting. Witches are obvious enough, but priest types are also likely. Village priests aren't necessarily all that socially distinct from their parishioners, may be literate, and have at least some access to divine magic. Also, there may be wandering holy men - friars and the like - who may or may not be integrated into the status quo. You could probably add some "Gypsy" type conjurers and soothsayers.

 

There's potentially lots of lower class magic around.

 

There can also be lower class fighters. Many rank and file mercenaries are likely to be from the lower classes. Foresters and the like can also be efficient combatants too.

 

The wonderful old ICE "Campaign Classics" series included a Robin Hood book, which focuses on more or less lower class characters, if you can track it down. Its character stats aren't all that useful, but it's full of chunky goodness. More usefully though, just go back to the source material.

[Frenchman]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

Oddly enough' date=' the military fork and the trident are considered Reduced Pen in Fantasy hero, and I must confess that I do not see the logic there. I've used a pitchfork, and practiced with a sword, and it was much, much easier to drive the pitchfork through a straw target. (I wouldn't give them AP, just remove the RP on them.)[/quote']

I agree, I usually make them a smaller attack (1/2d6 to 1d6+1, depending) and autofire. Makes sense to me, since you could spear someone with just one tine.

[Teflon Billy]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

While we are on the subject of farming.

 

What are the usual growing seasons and how much time/care do they usually take?

 

In my world I've been trying to come up with a reasonable level of education and social mobility for everyone. That is, allow for 18/19th century economics in a 11/12th century society, with 14/16th century technology, all in a high magic AD&D style High Fantasy campaign. To do this plausibly, I need to know how much down time during the day in the growing seasons they would have, and what types of jobs/work they would have to do during the non-growing times of year. Basically, how much time during each part of the year, would children need to work in the fields to properly keep a peasant's farm going (keeping in mind that their parents will be working the fields, along with other hired hands)

 

That being said: Are there significant differences in how grains are grown from vegetables (particularly in the amount of time needed to tend them)?

 

When do most crops start to be planted?

 

 

In the middle ages, what were the common/semi-common crops in Western Europe/England, or other areas of similar latitude?

 

TB

[Frenchman]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

What are the usual growing seasons and how much time/care do they usually take?

 

Growing seasons have to do with climate (duh) - meaning temperature and rainfall. The warmer is is (up to a point) and the wetter it is (again, up to a point) the longer the growing season is. A climate with an especially long growing season can be said to have two (or more) of them if a crop can bear yield more than once.

Unless you want to become an agricultural expert, you can consider the growing season to be from early spring (as soon as the ground thaws in places that freeze) to late fall (after the harvest, when plants start dying anyways). Every plant/location combo has it's own particular planting and harvest dates for ideal yield, but you can find generalized ones by looking on the back of seed packets.

As for the amount of time/care/devotion expended upon the plants, lets divide this up into four parts - Planting, Growing, Harvest, and Storage.

Planting - Sowing seeds is work, for many crops, it is a lot of work. It usually involves breaking up the soil (tilling or plowing) and planting each individual seed into its own hole, or several seeds to a hole (depends on the plant). Thats the part the children get into, since they don't have to bend over quite so far and there's lots of 'em.

Growing - The amount of work devoted to the crops in this part of the cycle varies a lot from plant to plant and culture to culture. All fields will need to be weeded and protected from vermin - usually this is fairly easy (if mind-numbing) work that takes only a few hours (max) each day. Some plants, especially fruit, will need culling - the removal of excess fruits so that the fruit each plant yields is bigger, tastier, and more valuable. Nevertheless, even the most vigilant farmer will lose some of his crops to bugs, vermin, or disease - even the traditional Japanese rice-farmers, who spent long hours each day and night in their field inspecting each stalk of rice for bugs and fungus, could expect to lose 10-15% of their planted seeds - but since each seed yeilds several hundred (a guess) more, this isn't a great loss.

Harvest - The most work of the year, but over a very short time, often less than a week. Work is pretty much continous until the whole field is brought in, because at this point the crop will gain nothing, and possibly lose flavor or palatability, if it stays out longer.

Storage - All foods need to be stored somehow. Fruits are jammed or preserved, grains are socked away in bags, barrels, or barns until needed. The smart farmer will only rarely have to worry about doing any work for this part of the cycle, having kept the food protected from rain/flood and animals until the planting begins.

 

Basically' date=' how much time during each part of the year, would children need to work in the fields to properly keep a peasant's farm going (keeping in mind that their parents will be working the fields, along with other hired hands)[/quote']

 

Work comes in spurts, so during planting and harvest the work is non-stop until it's finished (working from sun-up to sun-down or longer), and very little work in between - this is all assuming a one-crop family with no animals. Most farmers grew more than one kind of crop and kept animals, so they would be kept busy by these.

 

That being said: Are there significant differences in how grains are grown from vegetables (particularly in the amount of time needed to tend them)?

 

Grains are grown in huge fields, while vegetables (until the advent of the supermarket) were grown in smaller, individual plots. If you know anyone with a vegetable garden in their side yard, then you know about what I'm talking about. Tending to a vegetable garden was about the same as it is today, except the pesticides weren't too advanced - they tended to kill the people and plants too - so there was a bit more time and effort spent on keeping things out of the garden.

 

When do most crops start to be planted?

 

Mid-Spring to Early Summer. If you want something more specific, go to a garden store and look on the back of seed packets - they usually tell you when to plant.

 

In the middle ages' date=' what were the common/semi-common crops in Western Europe/England, or other areas of similar latitude?[/quote']

 

If you haven't allready read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jarod Diamond, I'd highly recommend it.

Now, Europe had an unusually large variety of crops available, bute these are the grains: Wheat, barley, millet, rice, each in several varieties. In the Americas there was corn and quinoa, as well as a few other poorly developed grains.

Other types of major food crops around the world are beans, nuts, grasses, potatos & tubers, fruits, and melons/squash. A completly comprehesive list would be insane, but I hope I've given you some idea of the range of possibilities.

For most games, I'd just sang hang the sense and put whatever you feel like on your world's menu, but if you want to go the extra step then consider the size of the continent your game takes place on, and the variety of climates and cultures it has. A good rule of thumb I've found is that for each foundation culture (like egypt, babylon, china, etc in real world) you should have one or two grains, one to three bean-like plants, and a handful each of fruits, nuts, and veggies.

[Markdoc]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

Other things to take into account is that different crops give different yields - Northern Europe supported greater population expansion through the medieval period than Southern Europe in part because of fertile lands with plenty of water - but also because of extensive use of water meant that they could sometimes squeeze two crops - grain and a frost tolerant vegetable out of the land (that's why beets and cabbage feature prominently as you go north ). Potatoes (not medieval, but hey, neither is a fireball) give you between 8-16 times the food from the same land as most grains. Fruit gives you about a quarter. Play with those numbers and you can shape your population density to fit.

 

So you can make a rough gauge of the years activity (note, based on your question I'm focussing on what you'd expect from a relatively prosperous late medieval region):

 

Spring - dying time. Late winter/early spring is the worst time of year, when the stored food starts to run short and sickly old people shuffle off the mortal coil. People start spreading manure onto the fields. Hard work and nasty, but usually only about 4-6 hours a day. The rest of the time is spent checking your seed stocks to select out any that have gone bad (those you eat) and repairing tools and stuff for working in the fields. The kids are sent out to find green stuff that you can eat. Nettle soup with ragwort anyone?

 

Summer. You start digging up and planting in spring and early summer. planting is hard work and everyone is involved - the adults dig, the kids stick the seeds in and cover them up. Summer work is weeding, killing bugs and watering. All in all 6-10 hours a day, depending on fertility and availability of water (and number of people). Animals are sent away from the houses to graze, and encouraged to breed, watched over by the kids and that's usually the full day. Collect the animal dung and pile it up for later use.

 

Autumn. This is actually party time. Harvest is hard work but usually a short period (you're talking 10-16 hours a day, though). If you have a winter crop, you plant those straight after, so that's another few weeks of hard work. If you have grain crops, you clean up the grains and get them packed (carefully so they don't spoil) and save all the stalks (pluck the leaves off) - that was used for roofs, for shoes, for clothes to make floor covering and (in Japan) damn near anything. That's evening work, as is boiling or pickling fruit and vegetables to preserve it, or fermenting it to make alcohol. Last of all, the animals are gathered, you select the ones you will keep and slaughter the rest, or drive them to a nearby town and slaughter them there. Party! Eat yourself stupid, test the results of the first fermentation and then preserve the rest of the meat (butchering salting, pickling, etc).

 

Winter. Early winter, harvest the second crop if you have one. Otherwise scour the woods for mushrooms and nuts. Outdoor activity winds down and if you want to travel, late autumn or early winter was the time, while the weather was still OK. There's still lots of work, though. Most small farmers made all their own stuff or traded it with neighbours - tools, preserving jars, plates, etc and often painted or carved the hell out of anything they made - that could be sold or swapped (mostly men's work). There's wool or fur to card and spin to yarn and clothes to make (Women's work). If there are animals, they need to be fed, which often means hauling feed by hand. Last of all repair your tools and make new ones ready to start spreading much on the fields again. Start taking bets if Granma will make it through to St Bede's day again

 

With all of that, evening times or non-farming time were used for:

Lessons. By late medival times, total illiteracy was not the general rule. A farmer needed to be able to read and calculate a little to keep track of his debts. Kids (and some adults) went to church schools for a few hours a day in winter and early spring

Making cheese - most farmers kept a few animals, even if they weren't herders and you can get milk out of most of them

Making stuff (as mentioned above - pipes, shoes, tools, lanterns, clothes, kitchen implements, floorboards, furniture, you name it)

Cutting firewood and carrying water.

 

One thing that strikes me reading accounts of the time is that farmers were almost always doing *something*. The modern idea of leisure didn't really exist. Mealtime was a big deal and took up a chunk of time - families might pray or read together afterwards - but when dad was reading, mum is going to be spinning thread with the daughters, while the sons polish a hoe handle or carve an eaveboard for the house. Or something. Most people were pretty busy 12-14 hours a day.

 

cheers, Mark

[Roland]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

I'm not using it as an argument for combat trained peasants - I find the whole concept of wandering monsters to be ludicrious and purile to exist outside of CRPGs.

 

In the real world, wandering monsters are a real problem that peasants have to be able to deal with. Examples:

 

Wolves, foxes, and big cats poach livestock.

Elephants trample crops.

Bears, raccoons, and deer raid gardens and orchards.

 

Even when hunting is restricted, peasants will circumvent the law to protect their food supplies. In Africa, farmers sometime run afoul of laws protecting elephants. And in the U.S., gardeners sometimes discreetly kill raccoons, contrary to state wildlife laws. Ranchers around Yellowstone often complain about wolves and grizzly bears, but they can't do much about it under the close scrutiny of federal officials.

 

And in the real world peasants often made up the bulk of the infantry. In England during the Hundred Years' War, all able-bodied men were required to practice archery every Sunday.

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: PS: Farmer in a Fantasy Campaign

 

Of course they were. If they didn't, they'd never be able to wield an English bow.