Creating a fantasy $ system

[slaughterj]

For those of you who have set up prices for a fantasy world or thought much about it, I had a few issues:

 

1. It seems the basis should be as FH has it, setting a rate for manual/unskilled labor rates for a day's work, and then pricing everything else accordingly, i.e., basic food/drink/lodging/clothing must be affordable for that rate (lodging may be tight with family/roommates, and food may be pretty basic, but more than mere bread and water, and occasional extras like clothes (or at least materials to make them), containers for water/food/etc., and minor other objects need to be available). It seems that prices for adventures for these things would generally be higher, e.g., temporary lodging is always more pricey than long-term lodging, especially with privacy desired, food is prepared hot at the inn rather than bought at a market and self-prepared or is prepared for traveling, etc. All that reasonable? Any additional thoughts?

 

2. I think it would be useful to know how long it takes to make certain items, from a shirt to a sword, and the costs of materials involved, in order to properly set prices for the sale of such items - any good place to get that sort of info?

 

3. Certain items like swords or horses often can be priced to a point in a system that it is an incentive for PCs to take them and sell them (e.g., kill 2 thugs in the alley, take their swords and sell them), which seems not very heroic, fantasy-literature-oriented, exciting, etc. This seems to be a factor of (1) such item's prices, (2) the amount of loot handed out, (3) trade-in / sale values of such items (especially as they are used), etc., but other than those, does anyone have any suggested controls for such? One can't have the guards showing up everytime and running them off before they can collect the swords...

 

Any other thoughts?

[Sociotard]

Re: Creating a fantasy $ system

 

Originally posted by slaughterj

3. Certain items like swords or horses often can be priced to a point in a system that it is an incentive for PCs to take them and sell them (e.g., kill 2 thugs in the alley, take their swords and sell them), which seems not very heroic, fantasy-literature-oriented, exciting, etc. This seems to be a factor of (1) such item's prices, (2) the amount of loot handed out, (3) trade-in / sale values of such items (especially as they are used), etc., but other than those, does anyone have any suggested controls for such? One can't have the guards showing up everytime and running them off before they can collect the swords...

 

You mentioned the "used" factor, which I think would play a big role. If they're mere thugs sent to give them a hard time, they probably have simple dinged up equipment that wouldn't sell for much more than scrap Iron. The law is another factor. If characters would like to use the law to their advantage (No, constable, I've never seen these two before in my life. But, erm, have you? Or might you know who they might work for?) This would be a factor because nobody likes evidence stolen from the crimse scene.

 

If it was, however, an elite assasin with a jeweled daggar wrought with magic, and an official investigation would just complicate things, body robbing and a quick trip to the woods with a shovel might be a splendid idea.

[Bartman]

First remember that 90%+ of the people in a 'realistic' pre-modern setting won't deal with currency at all. They will spend their entire lives without having so much as a single copper penny. They live in a largely barter economy. And most peasants won't barter much either. They generally will produce most or all of the the items used in their lives themselves. An ancient or medieval peasant had virtually nothing and little chance of changing that. Here are some highlights of the average person's economy.

 

Food - This would of course be grown entirely by the peasant. 99%+ of the calories would come from grain. And most of that was in the form of some sort of gruel. Most villages had a central bakery as the firepits in the average home were too crude to bake properly. This bakery charged a fee (again generally paid in barter not coin) which most locals would only be able/willing to pay once or twice a week. So the standard was two meals of gruel a day. This would be suplimented by vegitables and occasionally whatever might be locally availible and in season (nuts and berries). Ocassionally some bread, milk and or eggs would be added and very occasionally a little meat (generally only on feast days).

 

Clothing - The medieval European peasant changed clothing only twice a year. In some places this wouldn't even be fully removable. The clothing would be sewn into place around the individual. And six months later they would be cut out of it. This was more likely in winter than summer. If the peasant took a bath at all, the semi-annual changing of the clothing is when they would take it. This clothing would generally be made by the owner or a family member and would be made from locally availible materials.

 

Lodging - The peasant was once again responsable for building and maintaining their own. Generally this would be a single room building as small as possible. Think 4m x 2m. They were kept small because it took a lot of work and energy to build them, and because they were vastly easier to keep warm if if the space could be limited. Very little was actually done in the building. Anything that climate and weather allowed was generally done outdoors.

 

Furniture and other belongings - First virtually nothing would be metal. Everything from the utensils to the plow would be made of wood. The hovel itself would have a single table (maybe), at most, a couple of stools and a blanket covered straw 'nest' on the floor that would be used as a bed. The only likely metal objects, for an entire household, would be a knife or two and a cooking cauldron. Everything would be made as needed, so there would be very little in the was of goods. But there may be a small trunk which would hold the handful of family posessions. This trunk would likely be used as a stool as well.

 

Moving on from the peasants to the townspeople results in a great deal of improvement. But only because there the barrier is set so low. They account for almost all the rest of the people in the setting. Most of their economy is driven by barter as well. But in general they will have a few coins and be able to pay and charge in monetary terms.

 

Food - Unlike the peasant the townsman is likely to buy much of their food. But not all. Most towns had plenty of space for gardens and animals within their wall. And most families will grow their own vegitables and have chickens, goats, and or pigs. Cows would only be availible to the wealthier townspeople. The daily staple however would still be gruel and or bread. This would not be prepaired by the townsperson themselves though. The dangers of fire meant that individual fireplaces were generally regulated by law. Cooking would be done by in central bakeries and most meals were eaten cold.

 

Clothing - Although better off than their village cousins, most townsmen still relied on what could be made by the family. Tailors were only really availible to the burghers. Journeymen had to rely on family for clothing and would only buy a change or two a year.

 

Lodging - Most townsmen rented not owned their homes. Rent was usually very modest, the equivalent of a days pay per month or thereabouts. Inns of course were all but unheard of. If one was travelling, one was expected to have made arangements with family or friends. Most homes were situated on the second floor, generally above the shop operated by the resident. These were down right roomy in comparison to the hovels in the countryside. Think 4m x 6-8m.

 

Furniture and other belongings - Pretty much the same thing. A single family bed in the corner. A single table. And a collection of stools and a couple of trunks. Metal is more likely to be used. But most things would still be wood. In any case the room would look completely barren to a modern eye.

 

Above this you find the wealthy. They live in unspeakable luxury in comparison to the other two groups. Any PC almost inevitabley comes from this group, namely because nobody else can afford to adventure. They may be "second sons of second sons" with no lands or future beyond what they make for themselves. But in comparison to the above they are unimaginably wealthy and well connected.

 

These are the people who will be paying for goods in a FH campaign because nobody else has the coins to do so.

 

That said let me address your specific points.

 

1- I think pricing things according to a day's unskilled labor is a bad idea. An unskilled laborer can buy virtually nothing. He will work 25-26 days in a month and will have absolutely nothing left over after paying for a space on the floor of a hovel to sleep on and 60 meals of gruel. And in fact he is unlikely to be payed directly anyway. He probably will be payed in food and board rather than coin.

 

2- I don't know of any single place that lists a broad variety of how long it takes to do something. But that isn't a very good reference for determining prices anyway. Even if a shirt takes as long to make as a sword there are many other things that will make the sword much more expensive. The raw material is more expensive and the training required is much more specialized. Any goodwife of the period could make a shirt, only a very skilled smith could make you a sword.

 

3- If your players are killing people for their goods there are better ways to resolve the issue than changing the prices of goods. In fact a sword or horse were very rare and expensive items. Their prices should reflect that. Society will have a system in place to resolve who gets them. Even if a killing is justified by law the dead man's property will generally go to his heirs or the state (inheritance tax don't ya know), not his killers. Looting bodies was pretty much universally a hanging offense. If someone is killing people and looting their bodies. It won't take much for the 'officials' to figure out who did it. After all a very large city like London, Paris or Florence had fewer than 10,000 people. There won't be many people in town trying to hawk the dead men's horses and weapons. They do this even once and they are likely to end up outlaws and/or in a noose pretty quick.

[assault]

Bartman overgeneralises wildly, but his essential point is correct. Money is something that only happens to the wealthy.

 

Then again, a great deal of fantasy literature tends to follow the social patterns of the renaissance rather than earlier periods. Money, commodity production and exchange were rather more widespread then. Even so, unskilled labour would mainly be paid in kind rather cash. Most peasants, even if they weren't serfs, would have a well defined place in a mostly self reliant village community. Journeymen, apprentices and the like would be servants dependent on their masters for their livelihoods.

 

Of course, there were people who were paid in cash - mercenary soldiers, for starters. On the other hand, mercenaries were notoriously fond of looting, and for good reason!

 

I guess you probably should start with some kind of notion of equal exchange. After all, a cow (for example) was generally recognised as being roughly as valuable as a certain quantity of, say, cloth. Subsistence for a day's labour is as good a starting point as any. On the other hand, a vagabond's life was precarious, to say the least. In at least some societies, in fact, vagabonds weren't _supposed to_ work for hire, but were, instead, supposed to live on charity, on the grounds that this was morally superior, and less harmful to social order.

 

Workhouses and such things only began to emerge when the number of vagabonds began to increase as land began to be enclosed by landlords, rather than rented out to peasants.

 

I used the word "vagabond" deliberately. Waged and salaried work in the modern sense was very, very rare. Really only a few varieties of such work existed: mercenaries and some sailors. Anyone else who engaged in modern style work was a beggar.

 

Alan

[Bartman]

Originally posted by assault

Bartman overgeneralises wildly, but his essential point is correct. Money is something that only happens to the wealthy.

Hey. It was 1200 words as it was. To be more specific, even in the most general terms, would have required a book. There are of course wild variations from place to place and time to time. Even 100 miles or 100 years could result in a markedly different outlook. But for most of Europe, for most of the medieval period, say about 800 AD to 1100 AD, it is a reasonable picture.

[farik]

I'd encourage you to consider very carefully your ratio of Fantasy to History. While the economic factors described are very important in a historical setting most Fantasy settings emulate an economy that is very modern but simply lacks Industrialization so all good are hand crafted. Now in a diversified economy where labor and services are no longer a simple matter of subsistence basing the economy on a day of skilled labor is a good guideline and I think the FH price list generally does this. But another factor to keep in mind is it doesn't matter how long it take to make something so much as how quickly you can sell it in relation to how quickly you made it. A peaceful kingdom will generally sell weapons for more money since the weaponsmith doesn't get much business and he still needs to feed his family (OTOH: he can take his time and make fine quality weapons for the discriminatingtraveler) meanwhile in the war ravaged kingdom weapons are cheap since smiths have to compete with each other fiercely for large sales of multiple weapons (and as a result the weapons are hastily made and generally a poorer quality since the smiths are trying to keep up with demand). My advice is use the equipment list during character creation and from that point forward all purchases should be roleplayed if the characters want an assortment of equipment quickly suggest they hire an underling to run their errands for them.

[ZootSoot]

Re: Creating a fantasy $ system

 

Originally posted by slaughterj

For those of you who have set up prices for a fantasy world or thought much about it, I had a few issues:

 

1. It seems the basis should be as FH has it, setting a rate for manual/unskilled labor rates for a day's work, and then pricing everything else accordingly, i.e., basic food/drink/lodging/clothing must be affordable for that rate (lodging may be tight with family/roommates, and food may be pretty basic, but more than mere bread and water, and occasional extras like clothes (or at least materials to make them), containers for water/food/etc., and minor other objects need to be available). It seems that prices for adventures for these things would generally be higher, e.g., temporary lodging is always more pricey than long-term lodging, especially with privacy desired, food is prepared hot at the inn rather than bought at a market and self-prepared or is prepared for traveling, etc. All that reasonable? Any additional thoughts?

 

Remember also that much of one's labor is compensated directly through food (you grow) housing (you build it) etc rathr than through wages. Another reason why you can charge more is that adventurers are, quite often, in a non-mercantile setting and what they want may be disproportionately valued because it is necessary for the locals. I avoid fixed price lists and instead set ranges and require appropriate skill rolls (though I always make Haggling an everyman skill in this sort of setting).

 

 

 

2. I think it would be useful to know how long it takes to make certain items, from a shirt to a sword, and the costs of materials involved, in order to properly set prices for the sale of such items - any good place to get that sort of info?

 

I am sure there are, but some things are simply not going to be available at any price or at any budget. Importing goods is rare and many communities might have either no one with the skills to make a particular weapon or lack the necessary raw materials (or both). Also time, quality and price are interrelated; to some extent manipulating one can effect the other two. Again, Haggling skill is useful for identifying the difference between actual difficulties and negotiating techniques.

 

3. Certain items like swords or horses often can be priced to a point in a system that it is an incentive for PCs to take them and sell them (e.g., kill 2 thugs in the alley, take their swords and sell them), which seems not very heroic, fantasy-literature-oriented, exciting, etc. This seems to be a factor of (1) such item's prices, (2) the amount of loot handed out, (3) trade-in / sale values of such items (especially as they are used), etc., but other than those, does anyone have any suggested controls for such? One can't have the guards showing up everytime and running them off before they can collect the swords...

 

Any other thoughts?

 

Swords are expensive in more ways than simple monetary value. They require considerable training to use, so anyone openly carrying one probably knows how to use it. Don't give thugs expensive weaponry for the players to barter off. Also, swords are difficult to craft (in most tech levels where they are used) each one can be fairly unique and identifiable so that they can't be easily pawned (particularly if the only person likely to buy them in a particular area is the person who probably forged them in the first place). Swords that are cheap aren't worth selling, more valuable swords are harder to take off their rightful owners and harder to sell.

[ZootSoot]

Originally posted by Bartman

First remember that 90%+ of the people in a 'realistic' pre-modern setting won't deal with currency at all. They will spend their entire lives without having so much as a single copper penny. They live in a largely barter economy. And most peasants won't barter much either. They generally will produce most or all of the the items used in their lives themselves. An ancient or medieval peasant had virtually nothing and little chance of changing that. Here are some highlights of the average person's economy.

 

This is an exagerration. Archeological evidence shows that currency was widespread in many pre-industrial societies. Pennies are pretty common throughout twelfth century British sites. But, yes, many times individuals would be more willing to trade something of obvious utility than simply accept currency (which might be clipped or debased in some form anyway).

 

Food - This would of course be grown entirely by the peasant. 99%+ of the calories would come from grain. And most of that was in the form of some sort of gruel. Most villages had a central bakery as the firepits in the average home were too crude to bake properly. This bakery charged a fee (again generally paid in barter not coin) which most locals would only be able/willing to pay once or twice a week. So the standard was two meals of gruel a day. This would be suplimented by vegitables and occasionally whatever might be locally availible and in season (nuts and berries). Ocassionally some bread, milk and or eggs would be added and very occasionally a little meat (generally only on feast days).

 

This varies according to particular environments. Some locations will have natural surpluses. Also, in northern Europe, beer was probably at least as common as gruel as a form in which grains were consumed (and much safer than the water available, too).

 

Clothing - The medieval European peasant changed clothing only twice a year. In some places this wouldn't even be fully removable. The clothing would be sewn into place around the individual. And six months later they would be cut out of it. This was more likely in winter than summer. If the peasant took a bath at all, the semi-annual changing of the clothing is when they would take it. This clothing would generally be made by the owner or a family member and would be made from locally availible materials.

 

Lodging - The peasant was once again responsable for building and maintaining their own. Generally this would be a single room building as small as possible. Think 4m x 2m. They were kept small because it took a lot of work and energy to build them, and because they were vastly easier to keep warm if if the space could be limited. Very little was actually done in the building. Anything that climate and weather allowed was generally done outdoors.

 

Furniture and other belongings - First virtually nothing would be metal. Everything from the utensils to the plow would be made of wood. The hovel itself would have a single table (maybe), at most, a couple of stools and a blanket covered straw 'nest' on the floor that would be used as a bed. The only likely metal objects, for an entire household, would be a knife or two and a cooking cauldron. Everything would be made as needed, so there would be very little in the was of goods. But there may be a small trunk which would hold the handful of family posessions. This trunk would likely be used as a stool as well.

 

Moving on from the peasants to the townspeople results in a great deal of improvement. But only because there the barrier is set so low. They account for almost all the rest of the people in the setting. Most of their economy is driven by barter as well. But in general they will have a few coins and be able to pay and charge in monetary terms.

 

Food - Unlike the peasant the townsman is likely to buy much of their food. But not all. Most towns had plenty of space for gardens and animals within their wall. And most families will grow their own vegitables and have chickens, goats, and or pigs. Cows would only be availible to the wealthier townspeople. The daily staple however would still be gruel and or bread. This would not be prepaired by the townsperson themselves though. The dangers of fire meant that individual fireplaces were generally regulated by law. Cooking would be done by in central bakeries and most meals were eaten cold.

 

Clothing - Although better off than their village cousins, most townsmen still relied on what could be made by the family. Tailors were only really availible to the burghers. Journeymen had to rely on family for clothing and would only buy a change or two a year.

 

Lodging - Most townsmen rented not owned their homes. Rent was usually very modest, the equivalent of a days pay per month or thereabouts. Inns of course were all but unheard of. If one was travelling, one was expected to have made arangements with family or friends. Most homes were situated on the second floor, generally above the shop operated by the resident. These were down right roomy in comparison to the hovels in the countryside. Think 4m x 6-8m.

 

Furniture and other belongings - Pretty much the same thing. A single family bed in the corner. A single table. And a collection of stools and a couple of trunks. Metal is more likely to be used. But most things would still be wood. In any case the room would look completely barren to a modern eye.

 

Above this you find the wealthy. They live in unspeakable luxury in comparison to the other two groups. Any PC almost inevitabley comes from this group, namely because nobody else can afford to adventure. They may be "second sons of second sons" with no lands or future beyond what they make for themselves. But in comparison to the above they are unimaginably wealthy and well connected.

 

These are the people who will be paying for goods in a FH campaign because nobody else has the coins to do so.

 

That said let me address your specific points.

 

1- I think pricing things according to a day's unskilled labor is a bad idea. An unskilled laborer can buy virtually nothing. He will work 25-26 days in a month and will have absolutely nothing left over after paying for a space on the floor of a hovel to sleep on and 60 meals of gruel. And in fact he is unlikely to be payed directly anyway. He probably will be payed in food and board rather than coin.

 

2- I don't know of any single place that lists a broad variety of how long it takes to do something. But that isn't a very good reference for determining prices anyway. Even if a shirt takes as long to make as a sword there are many other things that will make the sword much more expensive. The raw material is more expensive and the training required is much more specialized. Any goodwife of the period could make a shirt, only a very skilled smith could make you a sword.

 

3- If your players are killing people for their goods there are better ways to resolve the issue than changing the prices of goods. In fact a sword or horse were very rare and expensive items. Their prices should reflect that. Society will have a system in place to resolve who gets them. Even if a killing is justified by law the dead man's property will generally go to his heirs or the state (inheritance tax don't ya know), not his killers. Looting bodies was pretty much universally a hanging offense. If someone is killing people and looting their bodies. It won't take much for the 'officials' to figure out who did it. After all a very large city like London, Paris or Florence had fewer than 10,000 people. There won't be many people in town trying to hawk the dead men's horses and weapons. They do this even once and they are likely to end up outlaws and/or in a noose pretty quick.

 

On the other hand, it was a tradition in war to loot the bodies of the slain and the equipment that made a man a "knight" was traditionally forfeit to the individual who defeated him in single combat, even when such combat resulted in one combatant's death. And an outlaw, by definition, was outside the protection of the law.

[Markdoc]

Several quick points:

 

Bartman's "No currency and eating gruel" peasant is a common view but is based on outdated ideas of history. It really only holds for impoverished areas.

 

Here in Copenhagen one of our gaming student works for the national museum - her speciality is pre-industrial agriculture. A relatively small town like Copenhagen in the 12th century - it was not the capital or even a very large town then - imported roughly 500 tons of meat a month, much of which was paid for in coin. Coin hoards are routinely found on even quite small farms. So many/most peasants used coins, even if their daily business was carried out by barter. And this was in a small city or large town on the edge of Europe. Business was far better evolved in France, Germany, Italy - even Spain and Britain - at the time. Also not all cities were small - at the same time, Palermo and Constaninople had populations in the hundreds of thousands, with trade netrworks stretching from Africa to China (indeed, indian and chinese coins have turned up in the hoards from some small scandinavian farms....)

 

So... the easiest thing to do is decide what your specific area looks like - squalid poverty and widespread barter (Say, Ireland in the 14th Century), a moneyed, literate mercantile and noble class built on a large, relatively affluent peasantry (Say, England in the 15th century) or a sophisticated society with widespread literacy, a preponderance of cash transactions and continent spanning travel and trade (Augustan Rome or Han China) and then base your currency system off that, with appropriate tweaks.

 

Cheers, Mark

[ZootSoot]

Originally posted by Markdoc

Several quick points:

 

Bartman's "No currency and eating gruel" peasant is a common view but is based on outdated ideas of history. It really only holds for impoverished areas.

 

Here in Copenhagen one of our gaming student works for the national museum - her speciality is pre-industrial agriculture. A relatively small town like Copenhagen in the 12th century - it was not the capital or even a very large town then - imported roughly 500 tons of meat a month, much of which was paid for in coin. Coin hoards are routinely found on even quite small farms. So many/most peasants used coins, even if their daily business was carried out by barter. And this was in a small city or large town on the edge of Europe. Business was far better evolved in France, Germany, Italy - even Spain and Britain - at the time. Also not all cities were small - at the same time, Palermo and Constaninople had populations in the hundreds of thousands, with trade netrworks stretching from Africa to China (indeed, indian and chinese coins have turned up in the hoards from some small scandinavian farms....)

 

So... the easiest thing to do is decide what your specific area looks like - squalid poverty and widespread barter (Say, Ireland in the 14th Century), a moneyed, literate mercantile and noble class built on a large, relatively affluent peasantry (Say, England in the 15th century) or a sophisticated society with widespread literacy, a preponderance of cash transactions and continent spanning travel and trade (Augustan Rome or Han China) and then base your currency system off that, with appropriate tweaks.

 

Cheers, Mark

 

Absolutely, also (and this is one reason for the presence of "exotic" coins in obscure locations) coins were not "money" in the way we think of it; instead, they were an aspect of the barter economy and relly had no more fixed value than anything else someone might be tying to trade.

[Markdoc]

>>>Absolutely, also (and this is one reason for the presence of "exotic" coins in obscure locations) coins were not "money" in the way we think of it; instead, they were an aspect of the barter economy and relly had no more fixed value than anything else someone might be tying to trade.<<<

 

That's actually a really good point - although coins usually did a have a fixed value in the area where they were issued, which wasn't necessarily related to their metal content. Once you got outside that area though...

 

One of my favoured GM tricks for parting playes from their cash is to send them somewhere else where their coins are not recognized, forcing them to trade them away at a low rate.

 

That's not being unfair - historically, it happened a lot. Also odd and difficult to dispose of items like statues of precious metal are normally bought by merchants "under the table", no questions asked, for a fraction of their value. After all, most of my players strenuously objected to declaring and paying tax on things they had dragged out of evil temples and the like, but I have yet to see a ruler who didn't want to tax anything valuable that was being moved about.

 

cheers, Mark

[slaughterj]

Wow, thanks for all the "thick" responses, some good info! I think the Fantasy setting vs. Historical setting has to be kept in mind for purposes of this exercise. I'm specifically working on setting up a price list for the Lankhmar setting, in case that helps in people's responses as to what I'm trying to do.

[Bartman]

Originally posted by Markdoc

Several quick points:

 

Bartman's "No currency and eating gruel" peasant is a common view but is based on outdated ideas of history. It really only holds for impoverished areas.

 

No offense, but I do know what I'm talking about. I received a minor in history in '96. The focus was on medieval Europe. I have repeatedly said this was general and many exceptions could be found. Heck I could come up with a few hundred exceptions to what I wrote myself. But I stand by it.

 

Gruel/porridge/pulse was the staple dish of Europeans for a thousand odd years. Much like rice was, and still is, the staple dish of Asians for the last couple thousand years. The vast majority of calories consumed by people in pre-modern agricultural societies have come from grains or tubers. And in Europe this meant grains. And the most common way of preparing these was some form of porridge, with bread being a distance second. Certainly there were other elements in their diet. But meat was vanishingly rare. Just look at the standard diet of a Roman on frontiers about the 2nd century. They would have two meals a day both of which were a porridge/gruel. Only one of these would have meat and generally that was about a pound or so per contubernia. Each soldier got less than an ounce of meat per day. Nuts, fruits, vegetables, cheese, eggs and other local produce were added in season. But even that would generally provide less than 10% or so of the daily calories. And this was a great diet compared to most peasants.

 

Coins were also fairly rare. And the further you got from a political center the rarer they became. For much of the medieval period coinage wasn't being produced in large quantities. Roman and other coins were still in circulation because of this lack of new coinage. The overwhelming majority of transactions were done in kind not coin, especially outside the towns where over 90% of the population lived. That is not to say that coinage didn't exist. It definitely did. But it was generally used for out of economy transactions. Meaning a person would generally use barter for individuals within the community and coins for individuals outside the community. A traveling merchant would use coin almost exclusively and a village baker would use kind almost exclusively.

 

Here in Copenhagen one of our gaming student works for the national museum - her speciality is pre-industrial agriculture. A relatively small town like Copenhagen in the 12th century - it was not the capital or even a very large town then - imported roughly 500 tons of meat a month, much of which was paid for in coin.

Well that can't be right. It didn't receive any fortifications until Bishop Absalon, in 1167. And it didn't receive a municipal charter until the 13th Century. In the 12th century the population was, what 1000? Certainly not much more than that. That would mean every person in Copenhagen would have to be eating 17 kilos of meat a day. Now if I remember correctly Copenhagen means 'city of the merchants' or some such. Its wealth was based on trade and more specifically the trade of agricultural products. It may very well be that 500 tons of meat passed through Copenhagen a month, but they certainly wouldn't have consumed 500 tons a month.

 

Coin hoards are routinely found on even quite small farms. So many/most peasants used coins, even if their daily business was carried out by barter. And this was in a small city or large town on the edge of Europe. Business was far better evolved in France, Germany, Italy - even Spain and Britain - at the time. Also not all cities were small - at the same time, Palermo and Constaninople had populations in the hundreds of thousands, with trade netrworks stretching from Africa to China (indeed, indian and chinese coins have turned up in the hoards from some small scandinavian farms....)

The question is what kind of farms are these found on? I think you find that they are from the farm of a freeman, a descendant of Karl, to follow the mythology. I personally can't recall any that have been found in a village of serfs, the descendants of Thrall to follow the mythology. These freemen were the ones that 'went a viking' and had opportunity to gain coin. And upon returning they would be a kind of small business farmers. They would have an opportunity to buy and sell in coinage. Most serfs wouldn't.

 

You are picking your examples from the edges of what I was talking about, Europe - 800-1100. Yes, there are numerous exceptions to what I wrote, especially if you pick them from the 12th century and later. I have said so repetitively. But the problem is generally people assume too much affluence rather than too little. I'm just trying to swing the pendulum the other way. Life was filthy, brutish, frequently short, and in general everyone lived in what we today would consider abject poverty. Trying to paste a modern economy onto a medieval European setting is going to result in bizarre anachronisms. Even in a high magic world, pasting a modern economy on results in Steampunk rather than a pseudo-medieval setting.

[Bartman]

Originally posted by ZootSoot

On the other hand, it was a tradition in war to loot the bodies of the slain and the equipment that made a man a "knight" was traditionally forfeit to the individual who defeated him in single combat, even when such combat resulted in one combatant's death.

True. But other traditions have the gear of a slain knight or noble passed to his son. In other times and places the king overode tradition and just claimed goods and properties himself. And in other places the bodies of the slain were left for the local peasants to deal with. They got to keep anything of value, but were responsable for dealing with the bodies. Of course this never applied to the nobles just the common soldiers.

 

My point was in any case there will be a tradition or law which states who gets what. All slaughterj has to do is set his society with the rules he wants his players to obey. If they don't then they will deal with the legal consequences. All without having to change his economic defaults. Of course if the PCs routinely loot bodies, they may end up flooding the local economy with these goods. This would tend to force the value of these goods down. "Another sword? I haven't managed to sell the last dozen you sold me. And all those horses are eating all my stocks. I wouldn't pay a copper for another of either."

[AnotherSkip]

rather than disagree with bartman I would suggest the following:

 

Frankly arm the thugs with clubs and daggers (with lots of Skill levels to challenge/take out the good guys with)

 

Other things I would suggest for a good renassance/medeval differing views of economies (probably the same one though)

Would be to read "Take a Theif" byMecedes Lackey for your poor commoner townfolk lifestyles, "The Lark and the Wren" for thinking like a wandering musician, and "Burning Brightly" for relatively successful merchants (very evocative if not as "realistic" as some would prefer).

 

Often times Mercedes Lackey give suggestions on how to do something 'on the cheap' to either suppliment a larder or to make one appear more prosperous. as well as things her world does in order to keep things on a more modern standpoint.

[Markdoc]

quote:

>>>Here in Copenhagen one of our gaming buddies works for the national museum - her speciality is pre-industrial agriculture. A relatively small town like Copenhagen in the 12th century - it was not the capital or even a very large town then - imported roughly 500 tons of meat a month, much of which was paid for in coin.<<<<

 

>>>Well that can't be right.<<<

 

Funnily enough, that was exactly my reaction when I read the book that quoted the figures That's why I asked Bettina.

 

>>>It didn't receive any fortifications until Bishop Absalon, in 1167.<<<

 

That's what we used to think. But during the metro excavations in and around Kongens Nytorv, they found not only city wall faced in brick from just after/around Absalom's time, but the remains of older walls under it. We now know that he re-fortified it rather than fortifying it. (There's a nice book put out by Ørestadsselkabet, detailing the excavations with lots of photos, but it's only in Danish)

 

>>>And it didn't receive a municipal charter until the 13th Century. In the 12th century the population was, what 1000? Certainly not much more than that.<<<

 

A few thousand, but yeah, not very large. That was kinda my point. If a city of a few thouand had a trade network stretchingover thousands of square kilometers, how much larger the networks of richer, larger cities like Bremen, Lübeck, Hamberg, etc etc. We do know farms in Southern Jylland supplied food to Lübeck, which was a couple of hundred kilometers away...

 

>>>That would mean every person in Copenhagen would have to be eating 17 kilos of meat a day.<<<

 

Making them fat and happy, yes? Seriously though, it is assumed that a) people ate a LOT of meat (the old moat was completely filled in with tons and tons of discarded bones) and a fair deal of it was destined to be salted, pickled and shipped elsewhere. But that's also part of my point - a commercial network which stretches as far away as Jutland, organised enough to bring thousands of head of cattle and sheep to a large market, then transship the meat across the Baltic requires literate, moneyed merchants. You don't buy 500 head of cattle from Slagelse by barter. It is now clear that in this peripheral area of Europe, coin-using merchants and farmers had set up an extensive trade network.

 

In Andalusia earlier this year, my wife and I walked along a broad road carved over the mountains behind Zuheros (you could still drive a car along it if you really wanted) which had been built in gothic times to allow farmers to drive large herds to market. This, again, was (and to some extent still is) an economic backwater compared to much of Spain. So the idea of peasants staying at home eating gruel simply does not match the enormous effort that was made to facilitate the movement of meat. You don't make a 10 metre wide road, 450 km through the mountains to take 6 goats to the next village.....

 

Sure, people ate gruel - hell, a lot of Danes eat it today. And in bad times (which could come frequently, in some places) many peasants would be happy to get gruel. But that's only part of the story.

 

A good analogy would be the southern part of Ethiopia where I work a fair amount and which has not changed that much in the last 1000 years. Most of the time people live fairly well: most smallholders have a plot of false banana, a small herd of cattle and grain fields. A fair number own a horse or two - most own a donkey or three. Nobody's fat but they eat and live reasonably well (by their standards, not ours). But every now and then the weather plays up - and then things go to crap when the rains don't come. When all the false banana is eaten up and you can't plant grain, you eat your cattle and then that's it. Generally, farmers have a little extra food to sell for tools, cash or clothes. Most farmers can survive one bad year - but two can mean disaster. That's a pretty good picture of how things used to be, I think.

 

quote:

Coin hoards are routinely found on even quite small farms. So many/most peasants used coins, even if their daily business was carried out by barter.

 

>>>The question is what kind of farms are these found on? I think you find that they are from the farm of a freeman, a descendant of Karl, to follow the mythology. I personally can't recall any that have been found in a village of serfs, the descendants of Thrall to follow the mythology. <<<

 

At this period in history, there was no such thing as a village of serfs - or indeed a farm of serfs, or even serfs at all. But thralls were close enough, though thralldom was almost extinct in Sjælland by the time we are discussing. Landowners were, by definition freemen. So by a small farm, I mean precisely that: holding one extended family with perhaps 2 or 3 families of associated servants/workers. The coin hoards in question are definately not viking loot - the age of the vikings had been over for 100 years by this point and many of the coins were minted in Copenhagen or Roskilde. And these things were not rare - they are literally piled up in the museums around here by the thousand: and these of course are just those hat were lost and then found again - a tiny fraction of those that were minted.

 

I know that the general picture of Europe in the dark ages/Feudal period is one of poverty, illiteracy and peasants staying close to home. That's what I was taught in University too, and you still find that image in much popular non-fiction. But it really does not appear to hold true for Europe as a whole and it certainly does not apply to say contemporary West Africa, China, Korea or Japan, either.

 

It DOES apply to some areas - the Eastern Baltic, Northern Scotland and the boundaries of Eastern Europe, southern Africa and the Pacific, much of the Americas. But such "frontier" areas - though typical sites for adventuring - are not representative of mature economies of the time.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Alcamtar]

Re: Creating a fantasy $ system

 

Originally posted by slaughterj

1. It seems the basis should be as FH has it, setting a rate for manual/unskilled labor rates for a day's work, and then pricing everything else accordingly

 

I agree. However, one thing you have to take into account is cost of living. I sat down with FH, made up a job table for various income levels, and included cost of living, in order to determine what folks *really* make and what things really cost in terms of buying power.

 

I wrote this all up in a document, but my starting assumptions were:

 

Minimum wage is 312 sp/year (1 per working day)

Average living expenses are 500 sp/year for a family.

That means peasants are (a) going hungry, and ( everyone is working to help make ends meet.

 

I made up a job table, and figured this roughly at:

Minimum wage = 1 sp day (unskilled/apprentice)

Average wage = 2-3 sp day (craftsman)

Good wage = 4-5 sp day (blacksmiths, etc)

Wealthy make a LOT more.

 

I also did a lot of calculations to break down the living expenses between food, shelter, taxes, tithes, and so forth. If you want a modern American equivalent, I came up with a ballpark equivalence of 1 sp/day = $20,000 annual, or 1 sp = $64. Remember that many modern families are two-incomes, and $20,000 household income is equal to 2x $10,000...

 

Living expenses scale with income; the wealthy shop at more expensive stores, consume large quantities of very expensive food, have servants, etc. Surplus income (after living expenses) is probably a fixed percentage; I put it at 20% for anyone making 2 sp/day or more, but scaled it down gradually for the extremely wealthy on the assumption that a large part of their wealth is tied up in business and investments; Bill Gates is the richest man on paper, but he can't really spend all that money. So, I also added a column on my job table for "disposable income". Anyone who buys the Money Perk gets the listed disposable income instead of the total income for that wealth category. (4 pts of Money Perk is 18sp/day, 5616sp per year, but has a disposable income of 90sp/month after cost of living and business expenses.)

 

A craftsman family making 2 sp/day will earn 624 per year, giving them a surplus of 124 they can use to buy "meat" and luxuries.

 

The base figures in FH are actually a decent match for wages and prices in 14th century England; expensive stuff like weapons and armor and horses is way too low however. You can find historical price lists on the web. (d=penny=sp, s=shilling=12 sp, L=pound=240 sp). Here's a common list:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/medievalprices.html

Some examples:

Cheap Beer: 4 cp/gallon (restaurants always charge more)

Cinnamon: 12 sp/pound

Velvet Silk: 90 sp/yard

Cheap Sword: 72 sp

Suit of Chainmail: 600 sp

Draft Horse: 120-240 sp

Fancy Riding Horse: 2400 sp

Knight's Warhorse: 1200-19200 sp (wow!!)

Craftsmans House: 3000 sp buy, 20 sp/month rent.

Merchants House: 10000 sp buy, 600 sp/month rent.

Keep: 137,000 build (incl. labor)

Small Library of 7 books: 1200 sp

Large Library of 126 books: 27120 sp

Weapons and armor got a lot cheaper as more efficient manufacturing techniques were developed. So with dwarves in my world, and thousands of years of history, I'm not too worried about this stuff being cheap.

 

Most workers will be paying long-term rent at low rates, or have housing provided. Some will have food provided; others will buy food at low prices from local farmers markets. Travelers and adventurers will pay much higher prices for everything

 

2. I think it would be useful to know how long it takes to make certain items, from a shirt to a sword, and the costs of materials involved, in order to properly set prices for the sale of such items - any good place to get that sort of info?

 

Well, you could work backwards from the price... If a blacksmith earns 5 sp per day and a sword costs 16 SP, then he's taking about two days to make it (allowing for the price of raw materials.) If that seems a bit fast, up the price. Or treat this as a "low quality" sword that is cranked out by the hundreds to arm peasant militia...

 

Otherwise I don't know. That's a lot of research! ICE published a book called "And a Ten Foot Pole" which (IIRC) had item creation times and prices in it, but I think someone said it was way off. Still it's fantasy and any standard can work if it is believable and consistent. I think Steve Long is planning to cover this in The Ultimate Skill, but you may have to wait a few years for it!

 

3. Certain items like swords or horses often can be priced to a point in a system that it is an incentive for PCs to take them and sell them

 

I don't think you can fix this easily. If you make the items really cheap, PCs will treat them like dirt and never be without one.

 

With respect to guards, swords and horses and armor may be "issued" and someone will come looking for them. Also, it looks bad if the PCs claim to have defeated someone in "self defense" but then loot the bodies and run. Law abiding citizens would report a slaying to the authorities and turn themselves in, and would also turn in the deceased possessions to be given to the next of kin. Those that kill-loot-run are generally seen as bandits. In war, looting may of course be acceptable, but then too there is a difference between being an authorized representative of your government, and being a vigilante.

 

Some other things to take into account:

 

Silver and gold are common as coinage, but copper was not common in all areas at all times. Romans used copper/bronze, but I don't think medieval england did. (I could be wrong). But, you can have different "sizes" of silver coins. IMC there are large gold coins and large silver coins (gold being worth 10x as much for the same weight), and also smaller silver "pennies" (1/10 the weight and value of a "silver piece") that take the place of coppers.

 

A world with dwarves (or other efficient and fanatical miners) may have more available gold and silver than earth. This will tend to make coins more common and worth less. Historically gold is worth 20+x as much as silver; IMC I debased it to 10x for convenience and just said "there's a lot of it around".

 

Also, in a world with dwarves, iron may be much more common, and iron items (swords and armor) may be made faster and more cheaply.

 

Mike

[Bartman]

Markdoc, I think the problem is that we are talking about different periods. I absolutely agree with what you are saying about the 12th century and later. The changes that took place in trade, education, population etc. in the 12th century invalidate everything I've been talking about. Just look at universities. There were what, a half dozen universities in all of Europe in 1100? A century later there were dozens. The 12th century wasn't the renaisance, but it did provide the foundations for it.

 

I'm talking about the 9th through 11th centuries. I'm talking about when thralls were still plentiful, raiders were common and there were 4-6 towns in all of Denmark. This is a period where it took months to ride from Calais to Provence. The Dark Ages, if you will excuse the expression.

 

I will have to try to look up the newer info on Copenhagen though. I simply don't have the time to keep up with such stuff anymore. And if it's not in English or Portuguese I generally have to wait a decade or so to get a good translation, if it ever becomes availible.

[Count Zero]

Originally posted by farik

I'd encourage you to consider very carefully your ratio of Fantasy to History.

 

Actually, I would make a point to favor history over fantasy.

 

Mainly because it requires the players to think and it breaks the standard mold. The thing this creates is a connection to people. They simply can't move town to town like a cowboy with swords and sorcery. Many fantasy games are modeled after the western. Try to break the cliche.

 

Players being bound to a lord creates many more gaming possibilities than the traditional adventurer. First they have some stake in seeing thier lord be successful. His success effects them. Second, it is a good starting point which allows them to get together with out any strange and often cliche convention (i.e. tavern barfight, random person calling them all together, etc.). More than likely they would have grown up together in the lords lands. They will be even more connected because you can introduce all kinds of NPCs from thier past and have the random reoccuring person that is a hinderence or benefit and it doesn't seem odd they are there. DNPC's are very useful and would make much more sense. That sick mother won't be someplace far away. They will be just outside the castle walls when the orcs or evil creature attacks the town.

 

Also, having a limited money system creates a focus on something else. The story. Players far too often worry about money rather than the story. In a barter society where they have everything provided by the lord, you get players to stop talking about money on focus on the job at hand. They don't refuse a job because of loyalty. They are bound to their lord and do it out of duty. They actually care about things. Even if they choose to be adventurers they have to barter to survive. They are effectively killing the orcs so they can get a place to stay and food to eat. They have more of a connection because their survival depends on it.

 

Also keep in mind culture. The average medieval person traveled no more than about 3 mile from home. That is a small world. The players being sent to other places will seem more exciting. Especially if you focus on how different it seems to them.

 

Also social class is a big deal Peasents are the lowest class and then you have the lords. There are many things which can be done with class. Think about where adventurers would be. They are wanderers who kill things for profit. They often drink alot and sleep with hores. They get into fights all the time and carry lots of weapons. They are effectively thugs... who want to be a thug. They would be below a peasent. You could even have the beginning of the merchant class and the conflict between money and heritage. You could place the game after an equivilant of the Black Plague (what is believed to have caused the rise of the merchant class) and have many stories associated with it.

 

Just some ideas,

 

Jonathan

[farik]

Please note I didn't say "you should avoid history" I'm just saying when you set up your economy make sure your group is going to enjoy how it works. Some players hate haggling other players when faced with a harshly historical setting will constantly ask "Why do we bother adventuring? Our last job paid us enough money to start our own fief and we get no respect as mercenaries." If your players like the idea of playing the character driven by wanderlust that's one thing but others want to seek fame and fortune something hard to achieve in a very strict historical perspective.

 

All I'm really saying is rather than argueing the historical facts we should be presenting cause effect economic relationships and theories as they could apply in a Fantasy setting.

 

Points like

"Standard currency implies X about the setting"

 

are generally more useful than

"Historical City" imported 5000 "product" per "time period"

 

while these detailed facts can demonstrate a point I know the reason I'm keeping an eye on this thread is to get new ideas for fantasy economies instead of reading a historical reference like "Start with a thousand eggs" (FYI: This is a cool cookbook of recipes from the middle ages)

[slaughterj]

Re: Re: Creating a fantasy $ system

 

Originally posted by Alcamtar

The base figures in FH are actually a decent match for wages and prices in 14th century England; expensive stuff like weapons and armor and horses is way too low however. You can find historical price lists on the web. (d=penny=sp, s=shilling=12 sp, L=pound=240 sp). Here's a common list:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/medievalprices.html

 

Kick asp link, got any more?

[assault]

In the end, you have to decide what kind of setting you are designing. The economics will be shaped by that.

 

If your game features merchants and cities, you will have relatively large amounts of cash. If your game is about knights or huscarles in the service of a local lord, it won't. Vagabond adventurers could be anywhere in between - they could either be chicken thieves, impoverished knights, unemployed mercenaries, or any other kind of bandit. Just staying alive could be a problem, but they could also end up as commanders of mercenary armies, or even rulers in their own right.

 

Personally, any character I am likely to play is going to try to become some variety of landowner - a lord, or even a king. Of course, they may not succeed in hanging on to any little empire they build up, but that just means that they will try again...

 

Actual personal power levels (magic, etc.) are distinctly secondary to this. In fact, the need for this can actually be a campaign spoiler, in my experience. This is most obvious in DnD, where a character who is empire building is likely to end up underpowered compared to level hunters.

 

So what does this have to do with economics? Well, the amount of cash floating around will impact on the campaign style. Is land a commodity that can be bought? If not, will some powerful figure grant you land and a title in exchange for a really large bribe? Can you afford to sustain a mercenary army long enough to secure your control over the territories you have grabbed?

 

Those are fairly cash heavy options - but the amount of cash overall doesn't have to be that high. (You can also hire mercenaries who will fight for land grants, BTW.)

 

On the other hand, the knight/huscarle option is perfectly fine, too. In fact, you could very easily end up with a land grant this way, too. And if you marry an heiress... This is actually a more respectable and traditional way of gaining a kingdom.

 

In general, my feeling is that money is for shopkeepers. Sure, lots and lots of treasure is nice - but keeping track of it down to the last copper coin is for merchants. Or for those for whom armed robbery isn't an option.

 

Alan

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by assault

So what does this have to do with economics? Well, the amount of cash floating around will impact on the campaign style. Is land a commodity that can be bought? If not, will some powerful figure grant you land and a title in exchange for a really large bribe? Can you afford to sustain a mercenary army long enough to secure your control over the territories you have grabbed?

 

Oh no we have an economist around. LOL. Just ribbing you, I'm an MBA student. Economics is pretty interesting to me, but I'm not sure how it could play into fantasy.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Bartman

First remember that 90%+ of the people in a 'realistic' pre-modern setting won't deal with currency at all. They will spend their entire lives without having so much as a single copper penny.

 

Depends on where they live. About 90% of people did live in a village or countryside. And yes, they owned goods more then possessed coin, but Town and city people, (about 10% of the population) dealth with coin almost exclusively. Certainly the small businesses did.

 

The reason urban dealt with coin quite often is one simple reason - trade. Towns and cities were the center of trade, though barter was used occassionally, coin was just easier to handle.

 

They live in a largely barter economy. And most peasants won't barter much either. They generally will produce most or all of the the items used in their lives themselves. An ancient or medieval peasant had virtually nothing and little chance of changing that. Here are some highlights of the average person's economy.

 

This part is true, and I'm not going to spend time on the other parts. Generally village people didn't barter or trade much. Though freeman in villages, did do far more trade than villiens - and would probably have more coin on them. What about town and city people? That's another story...

[Markdoc]

Here's a useful link:

 

http://www.regia.org/costs.htm

 

As to the earlier point of the discussion about trade, the only real thing to take away is that you can do pretty much what you like in terms of economies - as long as you build your society to fit. There is plenty of historial justification for large sprawling economies, complete with economists, as well as for areas where trade (and therefore cash) was of limited importance.

 

One last point: don't get too hung up over costs. The one thing there wasn't much of in pre-modern societies was cost control (Grain in Han-era China and pre-Augustan Rome being two prime exceptions). So a suit of plate armour might cost 10 pounds while a suit of armour for a noble might cost 400 pounds - and a truly fancy dress might cost 200.

 

You have a certain degree of freedom here.....

 

cheers, Mark