Creating a fantasy $ system

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Markdoc

Here's a useful link:

 

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

 

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.

 

Actually, fancy dress cost a lot less. And as far as the cost of a nobleman's armor - that seems about right.

[farik]

I think the cost of "Fancy dress" is highly variable since it's really a matter of art. I mean you can buy a poster for $10 but you can't exactly find the Mona Lisa at the local mall.

 

Any feature the buyer desires is a feature that can increase the price regardless of how useful that feature really is.

 

Remember the economic model is called

 

supply and "demand"

not

supply and "need"

[Mutant for Hire]

Don't forget that local availability of materials is a *big* factor. The fact of the matter is that iron tends to be cheaper in a mining town, wool is cheaper where there are sheep pastures, and wherever you have a local specialty in something, those particular goods are going to be somewhat cheaper. Of course, this tends to be more raw materials than anything else. Local is always cheaper than imported, especially in an era of bad transportation.

[Markdoc]

Yep, I chose the fancy dress example to make the point how arbitrary things could be (and also to make the point how huge a gulf there was between rich and well-off in many societies).

 

I've seen a dress in the Victoria and Albert for which a spanish prince reputedly paid 10,000 nobles. OK, it's covered in pearls, but to put that in perspective, that's enough to equip 60 knights with armour and weapons, or several hundred years income for a reasonably affluent small-holder. And for all we know, it may only have been worn once or twice (it clearly was not worn a lot). And it is by no means unique.

 

That's what I meant about having alot of latitude. If you work out prices for common items like food and a few weapons, you should have a feel for how much money common folk use. But for wandering mercenaries and nobles, both of whom are expected to have loose cash, the price is whatever can be extracted.

 

cheers, Mark

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by farik

I think the cost of "Fancy dress" is highly variable since it's really a matter of art. I mean you can buy a poster for $10 but you can't exactly find the Mona Lisa at the local mall.

 

Any feature the buyer desires is a feature that can increase the price regardless of how useful that feature really is.

 

Remember the economic model is called

 

supply and "demand"

not

supply and "need"

 

First of all, I'm not basing my prices on speculation. There are plenty of historical records - including receipts and merchant records - to determine the average price of fancy dress. I've used mutiple sources in determing the exact averages, based on these sources.

 

Second of all, I'm work with a economist (Ph.D.) in my work as a marketing director. Both the economist and I have a fervent interest in Medieval History, and we have talked about this issue at length - including the guild system, feudalism, the emergence of mercantislim, villienage and other factors of economics.

 

Third of all, if we're going to talk economic systems, you have to determine which economic system you are talking about:

• 
  1. Capitalism.
  2. Command economy (socialism/communism/some feudalistic systems)
  3. Mixed economy (feudalism proper (w/ freemanry)/some socialist systems).

 

The above factors will determine the prices for such an item, including other factors:

• 
  1. Labor rates.
  2. Titheage.
  3. Tribute
  4. Taxation.

 

Fact is the real consumers in the feudal system were the nobles, and some clergy. Nobles were, by and large, the consumers of extremely fine garb. Keep in mind the some bishops were also nobles, as well - foreign as this concept is to the American mindset.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Mutant for Hire

Don't forget that local availability of materials is a *big* factor. The fact of the matter is that iron tends to be cheaper in a mining town, wool is cheaper where there are sheep pastures, and wherever you have a local specialty in something, those particular goods are going to be somewhat cheaper. Of course, this tends to be more raw materials than anything else.

 

This is called supply.

 

Local is always cheaper than imported, especially in an era of bad transportation.

 

This is called availability, which is part of the supply schematic.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Markdoc

Yep, I chose the fancy dress example to make the point how arbitrary things could be (and also to make the point how huge a gulf there was between rich and well-off in many societies).

 

I've seen a dress in the Victoria and Albert for which a spanish prince reputedly paid 10,000 nobles. OK, it's covered in pearls, but to put that in perspective, that's enough to equip 60 knights with armour and weapons, or several hundred years income for a reasonably affluent small-holder. And for all we know, it may only have been worn once or twice (it clearly was not worn a lot). And it is by no means unique.

 

See my response above. Averages (mean) have already been determined, if they are somewhat inexactly determinable. Nobles were a later developing currency in the Middle Ages (15th Century), so now we have inflation factors.

 

That's what I meant about having alot of latitude. If you work out prices for common items like food and a few weapons, you should have a feel for how much money common folk use. But for wandering mercenaries and nobles, both of whom are expected to have loose cash, the price is whatever can be extracted.

 

O.K. mercenaries and nobles are somewhat the exception - an exception I think most FRPGers would know. And don't forget letters of credit - loose coin was available, but letters of credit were common from the 12th century onward, and before the 6th century (Roman period). So, I don't think nobles carried around all their gold on their person.

[farik]

Marcdok(sp?) said "fancy dress might cost x"

not

"a fancy dress historically cost."

 

I'm not challenging the details or reasons of your campaign setting. I'm just saying since we're talking about fantasy games the GM should think about a variety of factors when setting prices and they may not have any comparable historical reference. I'm reminded of the Xanth novels at one point a person had the ability to turn lead to gold, after a short time lead became more valuable than gold, until another person surfaced who had the ability to turn gold to lead and eventually the market stabilized.

[Legendsmiths]

Everyone seems focused on the medevil economy. I would argue that most fantasy settings are actually closer to renaissance or even pre-industrial 17th&18th century economies. Why?

 

Healthcare (magic)

Substitute for electricity (magic)

Cottage industry (depending on magic)

 

Plus other issues.

 

I believe the FH price list is fairly accurate. It puts the unskilled laborer (almactan, sp? said this earlier) in a position of having the entire family work.

 

Other prices can extend from that. FH does include the time to craft items (weaponsmith and armorsmith).

 

I built a spreadsheet that takes into account the craft penalty, cost of materials, and time to come up with pricing. My prices for armor are a little higher than FH, but overall the pricing in FH is fair, and certainly a step above most fantasy economies.

 

"And a 10' Pole" is a good resource, but like many such books the author takes liberty with the data. Is it accurate? Certainly more than I could make up BUT does that fit my economy? Given the impact of magic and alchemy on supporting technologies, would it really take the historical length of time to craft a sword? Only you as a GM can answer that.

 

The important thing is to be consistant, to ensure that the average SKILLED laborer can survive in the economy.

 

One thing to consider is that like calendaring systems if you make the fantasy setting too foreign your players won't enjoy it. I'm not saying to price everything in dollars and have everyon pay 30% income tax, but if you model your economy after a modern setting, substituting magic for industry, you can come up with a conversion for your favorite currency and the fantasy currency. That way a GM can easily come up with pricing models that translate into the setting directly.

 

Player: "I'm looking for a cheap, quick meal before we head to the dungeon."

GM: "A street vendor you pass is selling meat and bread for 3 sp". (converts $6 to the local currency)

 

The best price list is one everyone knows.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by farik

Marcdok(sp?) said "fancy dress might cost x"

not

"a fancy dress historically cost."

 

I'm not challenging the details or reasons of your campaign setting. I'm just saying since we're talking about fantasy games the GM should think about a variety of factors when setting prices and they may not have any comparable historical reference. I'm reminded of the Xanth novels at one point a person had the ability to turn lead to gold, after a short time lead became more valuable than gold, until another person surfaced who had the ability to turn gold to lead and eventually the market stabilized.

 

O.K., if you want to create you own system, roll 3d6 and multiply by 100 dollars. That's the dollar value of your gold piece, then round down. I mean if this is the way you want to determine monetary value,then go right ahead.

 

If you want a historically-based monetary system as a springboard for determining your campaigns monetary system, that's another story. If you want to run all economic variables for your campaign, determining supply and demand as a roleplaying event - then go right ahead. I have other elements of the campaign that are much more interesting to me right in my campaign - like magic.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by mudpyr8

Everyone seems focused on the medevil economy. I would argue that most fantasy settings are actually closer to renaissance or even pre-industrial 17th&18th century economies. Why?

 

I agree, the monetary values are much to low for medieval monetary values. In the 18th century or so in England, they even got rid of the half-penny and farthing, because they were basically worthless.

 

Keep your eye peeled at Digital Hero in the coming months, you may see an article that is very relevant and helpful.

[Legendsmiths]

Sounds good, Galadorn. We're also incorporating these ideas into our official FH setting.

[keithcurtis]

Originally posted by Galadorn

O.K., if you want to create you own system, roll 3d6 and multiply by 100 dollars. That's the dollar value of your gold piece, then round down. I mean if this is the way you want to determine monetary value,then go right ahead.

 

If you want a historically-based monetary system as a springboard for determining your campaigns monetary system, that's another story. If you want to run all economic variables for your campaign, determining supply and demand as a roleplaying event - then go right ahead. I have other elements of the campaign that are much more interesting to me right in my campaign - like magic.

 

You could just as easily say, if you want to do hours and hours of research to duplicate a monetary system that has little relevance to a fantasy world then go right ahead.

If you just want some roughly balanced prices so you can get on with playing that's another story.

I have other elements of the campaign that are much more interesting to me, like role-playing, or drawing characters, or designing martial arts or armor or weapons or cultures or languages or... well you get the idea. You put in the effort where it's necessary and noticed and most importantly, you have fun doing.

 

Keith "Biggest bang for your buck" Curtis

[Legendsmiths]

That was my thought as well.

[assault]

Originally posted by keithcurtis

I have other elements of the campaign that are much more interesting to me, like role-playing, or drawing characters, or designing martial arts or armor or weapons or cultures or languages or... well you get the idea. You put in the effort where it's necessary and noticed and most importantly, you have fun doing.

 

Well, maybe I'm a sad weenie, but I find economics is one of the more useful areas to spend time on. It's _the_ way of ensuring that your fantasy world isn't just Kansas with another name. (K'ansas?)

 

As a GM, I like to know that everyone who is supposed to be able to eat is able to eat. As a player, one of my goals is usually to end up as owner of really really large estates, or even an entire country...

 

Economics underpins a lot of the cultural stuff. It tells you who owns what, who gets what, and who defers to whom. Yes, noble/serf, patron/client and similar relationships are economic relationships.

 

Money and prices is a secondary aspect of these broader considerations. I'm actually inclined to downplay money, almost to the point of eliminating it entirely... This gives players a good solid hint that this ain't K'ansas.

 

And for the record - my worlds are low-magic. Magic has very little economic effect. At least as long as the gods are happy...

 

Alan

[Legendsmiths]

I guess that sums it up, Assault. Economics are a very subjective thing. "A fantasy $ system" is certainly not one-size-fits-all. Every GM has to either:

 

a) take into consideration all of the economic elements of his/her game (i.e. magic or lack of it, industry, disease, communication, travel, etc.)

 

buy into an established world where these issues have been thought out or ignored (as the case more often is).

 

A cool product would be "And a 10' Pole" but with useful price lists built on a variety of economic models.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by keithcurtis

You could just as easily say, if you want to do hours and hours of research to duplicate a monetary system that has little relevance to a fantasy world then go right ahead.

 

You could also say, learning economic theory, and studying the history of Medieval Monetary Systems, makes you better qualified to determine what factors would affect money valuation.

 

If you just want some roughly balanced prices so you can get on with playing that's another story.

I have other elements of the campaign that are much more interesting to me, like role-playing, or drawing characters, or designing martial arts or armor or weapons or cultures or languages or... well you get the idea. You put in the effort where it's necessary and noticed and most importantly, you have fun doing.

 

Some people have fun roleplaying economic dynamics - such as guild trade wars in different cities. And these trade wars may lead to assassinations and subterfuge politically - such as the duke being done away with, since the dukes trade policy is effecting the profit margins of the leathermaker's guild, who are quite sore about it.

 

Also, I believe, based on the content of posts to this thread, these people are a little more interested in monetary systems, then you are.

[keithcurtis]

Originally posted by Galadorn

 

You could also say, learning economic theory, and studying the history of Medieval Monetary Systems, makes you better qualified to determine what factors would affect money valuation.

[/b]

???

My statement was to reflect the fact that I thought your original response was a little flippant. Maybe even condescending. (Tellign someboady they could in essence either randomly crreate prices, micromanage their economy, or do it your way). If this was not your intent, my sincere apologies. No intent to insult, just a little light sarcasm.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this response.

 

Originally posted by Galadorn

Some people have fun roleplaying economic dynamics - such as guild trade wars in different cities. And these trade wars may lead to assassinations and subterfuge politically - such as the duke being done away with, since the dukes trade policy is effecting the profit margins of the leathermaker's guild, who are quite sore about it.

 

Also, I believe, based on the content of posts to this thread, these people are a little more interested in monetary systems, then you are. [/b]

 

True enough. I was just trying to point out how ultimately, arguing about fantasy world's economics has no bearing on a medieval economy. There no such thing as one single medieval economy. You're talking about hundreds of years over thousands of miles. Anyone can pick out any examples they want to bolster their claim.

My point was, pick something that works for you. If you are not playing in 11th century Britain, don't bother modeling it. Pick something that works for the factors in your campaign. Set up some logically-derived basic rules and prices and go.

 

In my Savage Earth campaign, I reasoned pretty much the way FH suggests. (Note, this was years before FH saw print). I decided how much I wanted a common laborer to be able to afford and worked out from there. Your welcome to look at my price list and rip it to pieces. It has zero bearing on historical Europe because my world has zero bearing on historical Europe. 99% of fantasy games do.* For instance, all weapon prices are modified from their DCs, same with armor. It's balanced for a game, not a real world. If for genre reasons, I wanted more people to use crossbows, I'd lower the price. If pressed, I could make up some in-game logic about why they're cheaper, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it until it's important.

YMMV

 

Keith "As always, no flames implied" Curtis

 

*99% of fantasy games have magic of some kind. And I suspect the majority are not set in historical medieval Europe.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by keithcurtis

???

My statement was to reflect the fact that I thought your original response was a little flippant. Maybe even condescending. (Telling someboady they could in essence either randomly crreate prices, micromanage their economy, or do it your way).

 

That's your perception and perception is a very subjective dynamic.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this response.

 

I'm trying to say that economic principles are universal, as long as your using basic psychology. Yes, you may add variables, but the basic principles would still apply.

 

Example: Even though you have magic, maybe you allow the selling of magic in your world. Guess what, we still have the law of supply and demand - except in this case the product is magic.

 

THAT'S my point. The PRINCIPLE of supply and demand still applies, even though the product has changed. How can we be sure about this?

 

Try transcultural economics. Do the same economic theories and principles get taught in Japan as they do in the West? You bet your booty they do. So even in other dimensions the same economic theories and principles apply, even if lizard men are selling jaba fruit to the wookies. We still have a seller, a product and a consumer - it doesn't matter who or what are involved in the three factors, the same principles apply.

 

 

True enough. I was just trying to point out how ultimately, arguing about fantasy world's economics has no bearing on a medieval economy. There no such thing as one single medieval economy. You're talking about hundreds of years over thousands of miles. Anyone can pick out any examples they want to bolster their claim.

 

I guess fantasy would be your principle when examining economics then? And I do mean fantasy.

 

My point was, pick something that works for you. If you are not playing in 11th century Britain, don't bother modeling it. Pick something that works for the factors in your campaign. Set up some logically-derived basic rules and prices and go.

 

You still didn't dissprove my point, the same principles apply.

 

In my Savage Earth campaign, I reasoned pretty much the way FH suggests. (Note, this was years before FH saw print). I decided how much I wanted a common laborer to be able to afford and worked out from there.

 

Which is fine, as long as you use sound economic principles.

 

Your welcome to look at my price list and rip it to pieces. It has zero bearing on historical Europe because my world has zero bearing on historical Europe. 99% of fantasy games do.* For instance, all weapon prices are modified from their DCs, same with armor. It's balanced for a game, not a real world. If for genre reasons, I wanted more people to use crossbows, I'd lower the price. If pressed, I could make up some in-game logic about why they're cheaper, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it until it's important.

 

*99% of fantasy games have magic of some kind. And I suspect the majority are not set in historical medieval Europe.

 

That's fine, but please don't assert that your economic theories are true and would hold up under scrutiny if you're not trained in economics. I find people who want to assert their POV authoritatively, without any training in the subject area, arrogant in the extreme.

[keithcurtis]

Galadorn, I don't think we're hearing each other. I never cast aspersions upon your economic knowledge. I merely meant that using specific prices (i.e. how much a dress costs at a particular time and place) is not helpful. Giving economic theory is.

 

Your comment on my perception being subjective is also true. I still perceive your tone as high-handed. Not meant as an insult, just my perception. Examples include your implication that someone might as well roll their prices randomly, or the emphasis of the word fantasy. This is followed by touting your cred.s I stated that my price list was based on game considerations. If you feel that it is arrogant for me to say this, well... go ahead and feel that way.

To me, your posts sound arrogant. My perception, and of course, the only thing I can act on.

If you don't want to hear the opinions of anyone but yourself or those with the approriate education, please feel free to put me on your ignore list.

 

I have apologized for the tone of my first post. You seem to continue to construe my posts as an attack. They are not intended as such.

 

Keith "Trying to keep a silly argument civil" Curtis

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by keithcurtis

Galadorn, I don't think we're hearing each other. I never cast aspersions upon your economic knowledge. I merely meant that using specific prices (i.e. how much a dress costs at a particular time and place) is not helpful. Giving economic theory is.

 

Giving specific prices is helpful. It helps those GMs determine a norm. Based on this norm they can see how their campaigns measure up to Medieval prices.

 

Using this schematic, they can then get a general sense of what prices were in the Middle Ages. Then with this pattern of prices, they can project how money works in real worlds and project those monetary values onto fantasy worlds.

 

This is the most simple way to figure out prices. If you don't agree, then fine - you can project a fantasy value on money if you want, but don't complain when people criticize your monetary system.

 

Point is, stop trying to criticize those who have more knowledge, humility is knowing one's own educations true value. And this definition cuts both ways...

 

I don't try to flout my education to my Ph.D. economist consultant friend, he knows more about economics then me. But then I don't put up with people who try to spout off about more then they know either. THATS arrogance, trying to be more then you are.

 

Enough of this conversation, I can't deal with ego inflation anymore today.

[Legendsmiths]

Keith, for the record, I appreciate your attempts at civility.

 

I didn't realize it was necessary to establish ones credentials before making comments on this forum. Good thing... I would imagine that there is a hefty amount of learning floating around that chooses not to comment on what is fundamentally a matter of:

 

a) personal preference and sense of the dramatic

well, more of A really.

 

I hope the slaughterj got what he was looking for.

[Alcamtar]

Originally posted by Galadorn

And don't forget letters of credit - loose coin was available, but letters of credit were common from the 12th century onward, and before the 6th century (Roman period). So, I don't think nobles carried around all their gold on their person.

 

I have decided that in my fantasy campaign, letters of credit do not exist (or are very rare), for the reason that they are easily forged magically. Gold and silver are two metals that cannot be permanently created or altered by magic and thus provide a stable economic base. Copper does not have this property, so "copper pieces" are really just smaller denominations of silver coinage.

 

My motive is that I don't want PCs to easily carry around a king's ransom in their purses like in D&D (should they somehow manage to acquire such wealth), paying cash for castles and armies and stuff. I'd also like the freedom to have golden thrones and dragon hoards and stuff without worrying about having them easily looted. (We'll see if it works...) If they do loot a huge treasure, it'll be bulky and obvious enough to attract attention. I also like the "wagon trains loaded with gold" idea.

 

Credit does exist, but is based on personal trust and honor, rather than a blind letter. If a noble shows up in person, or sends a known representative, he gets pretty much what he wants on credit; there'll be an account written on paper to keep track of it, but the paper itself is not authoritative.

 

Mike

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by mudpyr8

Keith, for the record, I appreciate your attempts at civility.

 

I didn't realize it was necessary to establish ones credentials before making comments on this forum.

 

It's not necessary to establish your credentials, but it's a whole other thing to try to be more then you are.

 

Good thing... I would imagine that there is a hefty amount of learning floating around that chooses not to comment on what is fundamentally a matter of:

 

a) personal preference and sense of the dramatic

well, more of A really.

 

I hope the slaughterj got what he was looking for.

 

Your choice, check the previous posts. Alot of posts did demonstrate learning, and criticize ignorance. And while Keith states hes not attacking, the tone of his posts speak for themselves, and his explicit comments:

 

Originally post by KeithCurtis

 

I still perceive your tone as high-handed.

 

My statement was to reflect the fact that I thought your original response was a little flippant. Maybe even condescending.

 

Case closed.

[Legendsmiths]

It's not necessary to establish your credentials, but it's a whole other thing to try to be more then you are.

 

Aren't RPGs are all about being more than you are?

 

*sigh* apperently the case is closed and we can return to our discussion of fantasy $ systems.