View Full Version : Gold Collection Table

Raesene Andu
10-11-2003, 12:23 AM
As I've been setting up my pbem, I've worked out the GB collection for various levels of holdings, rounded down to the nearest 1/2 GB. Might be of use to people out there.

1.............0 GB.......0.5 GB
2.............0.5 GB....1 GB
3.............1 GB.......2 GB
4.............1 GB.......2.5 GB
5.............1.5.........3 GB
6.............2 GB.......4 GB
7.............2 GB.......4.5 GB
8.............2.5 GB.....5 GB
9.............3 GB........6 GB
10...........3 GB........6.5 GB

As these collections are a little lower than were expected during the original rules, I'm using the following optional rule.
+0.5 GB to guild and temple collection in provinces of level 4-5
+1 GB to guild and temple collections in province of level 6-7
+1.5 GB to guild and temple collection in provinces of level 8-9
+2 GB to guild and temple collection in provinces of level 10+

That brings it a little closer to the original.

For example: A level 5 holding in a level 5 province used to collect up to 6 GB, now it collects 3 which is about right, but a level 1 holding in a level 5 province used to collect 1-2 GB, but now collects only 0.5. Adding the +0.5 GB bonus, would give the level 5 holding a collection of 3.5 GB, and the level 1 holding 1 GB, which is about the same as the old average collection.


10-12-2003, 04:19 AM
I'm of teh school of thought that thinks gb revenue and cost should be times by 12 and reduce a gb's value to 1/10 its current value. or 200gp instead of 2000gp. This doesnt change gold bar costs amd maintinance nor does it effect anything else but make book keeping easier as all maintiance and revenue is in whole units. and since all revenue is based on a multiple of 12 its easy to determine their revenue per turn
province = 12 per level
law = 4 per level
guild = 8 per level
temple = 8 per level

looks alot but when things cost 12 times as much it works out to be 100% the same as the current system but has the advantage of being easier to use in the book keeping phase.

While this is very very different from the original it is superior. Original doesnt equal better nor does new equal better but a system that uses whole numbers for all maintance and revenue creates a superior system than one that has 1/12 of a gb maintance for a ferry.

But the system that I presented (I'm not the originator) is one that doesnt have to be offical as any compedent GM/DM can either use the offical sytem or this system.

The disadvantage of your system is that it reduced revenue to 1/2 GB levels and thus costs alot of GB over just a few turns. And as far as I can see the only reason for your system is nostalgia. Since it doesnt deal with the fractional maintance costs of bridges and such and so you have made revenue collection only marginaly easier at the cost of revenue and yet havent dealt with the more difficult process of the book keeping phase and that is maintainace and if you round things off to 1/2 gb you will likely increase the cost of many items and so you will create a system the reduces revenue and increases maintance and thus create an imbalance that didnt exist before.

Your system adds a level of complexity with your level adjestments and yet I beleive you wished to create 1/2 gb increments to make the system less complex. So I just dont think its a good change. Is there another reason for such a change that I have been remiss in noticing?

Raesene Andu
10-12-2003, 05:18 AM
Actually revenue increases slightly for some regents.

Take the Copper & Coke guild for example. If you go with the original rules they should get 5.4 GB a turn, with mine they get an even 6. Looking at the Master of the Hunt (Lluabraight). In original rules he gets 5.9 GB, under mine he gets 3, which I prefer to see (I didn't like the high law collection, so this system cuts it). Another example if The White Hand, a small temple with only 5 levels of holdings. Under standard rules they get 3.4 GB a turn, under mine they get 3.5. So guild and temple regents work out about the same, law regents are about 1/2 normal.

As for the complexity of a system, reading the values off a table is a hell of a lot quicker that having to calculate each one seperately (as you needed to with the original BRCS system). As for the fraction maintenance of highways etc, I altered all of that as well.

Note: None of this is offical BRCS material, this is just something I'm using for my pbem to make the resolution of turns run faster. If it works, I might propose some of the ideas for the BRCS, if not then I'll just go back to the original rules.

10-12-2003, 06:43 AM
are you referint to teh 2e values? or teh d20 values? I think you refer to the 2e values of which I am only limitedly familiar with it. But as of the current d20 system you could create a tale just as easy with the 1/3 or 2/3 system.

Level -- Law----Temple/Guild---- province

1 _____1/3______2/3__________1
2______2/3______1 1/3________2
4______1 1/3_____2 2/3________4
5______1 2/3_____3 1/3________5
7______2 1/3_____4 2/3________7
8______2 2/3_____5 1/3________8
10_____3 1/3_____6 2/3________10

There you go a simple table to look at without the added complexity of the adding a 1/2 gb here for this size province/holding or teh like. And this is the standard d20 ruleset currently. not even the proposal I gave to you the eliminates fractions all together. In both revenue and mantinance.

The tables for that is as follows

Level -- Law----Temple/Guild---- province

1 _____4_________8__________12

this appears like a huge amount of Gb but when you look at the maintance/build table(p.90) you see that its just a perceptual change the ratio of revenue and maintance is 100% the same as the current rule set.

Asset type ------ Build cost ------- maint./season
Bridge (wood)____36______________3
wondrous structure___300xlvl________24xlvl

Ships and units are variable and cost x12 their listed value in chapter 6 and spell componant costs are x12 their listed value in chapter 7.

These values are all just simply 12 times their listed values on page 90 of teh current rule set and this made all book keeping 100% easier than any system that adds fractions to it. As you can see its easier than your current system because you dont have the province size factors to it and the maintance aspect is all in whole numbers.

So is there a reason why you feel your system would be an improvement to these two tables? Because any improment to the system is important. But I havent seen any system that is better than this system. Some people dont like the high integer values but that is more an astetic complaint than a complexity complaint. As it easier to add and subtract whole numbers than to deal with 6 different fractions and converting them.

10-12-2003, 01:31 PM
When using BRCS collections, I just add up all levels of holdings before calculating income. Much easier that way when determining seasonal maintenance. Thus, 30 levels of temples earns 20 GB (level x 2/3). Fractions aren't so bad when you don't have to add tons of them together. Generally, I just round to the nearest whole GB for the final maintenance and collection costs. It's worked OK for me, but then again, I don't mind the math. In truth, the math is far less than any real-world costs and figures, and already massively simplified.

Raesene Andu
10-12-2003, 02:15 PM
I was referring to the 2E (original) rules for collection. Under that system the gold collection for temple and guild regents was higher as the level of the province increased. I quite liked that rule, which is why I introduced it for my pbem.

I quite like the table set up for 1/3 GB or 2/3 GB collection you have there. I might see if we can't include it in the revised BRCS, just as a quick reference.

I'd have to say that I'm one of those who doesn't like the higher values, they just seem a little big... :)

I guess the main reason I'm using my system is that my calculator is on the blink and I wanted to use something that is easier to work out. Your system works fine, but the numbers are too large for me to quickly add up in my head, unlike the system I use. I know the addition of collection bonuses for temples and guilds in high level provinces adds a level of complexity, but it was necessary for the pbem to balance out the PC realms against the NPCs, and counter some other house rules I'm using (which I'm not going to mention here because some players from the games are likely to be reading).

As for why I'm rounding all collections off to .5 GB, I think your table shows that it doesn't make a huge difference, and by rounding ALL fractions in the game down to the nearest 1/2 GB, it makes everything nice and simple, at least for me.

Adding all the levels together and then calculating the GB collection from the total is how I'm working out the GB collection for realms and organisations in the Atlas of Cerilia. It is by far the easiest way.

However, because I'm using the seizure rule for law regent, as well as some other varitations to GB collection, I wanted all the province/holdings seperated so I could see how many GB each collected. Makes it easier to change something in this case.

10-13-2003, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Osprey@Oct 12 2003, 01:31 PM
When using BRCS collections, I just add up all levels of holdings before calculating income. Much easier that way when determining seasonal maintenance. Thus, 30 levels of temples earns 20 GB (level x 2/3). Fractions aren't so bad when you don't have to add tons of them together. Generally, I just round to the nearest whole GB for the final maintenance and collection costs. It's worked OK for me, but then again, I don't mind the math. In truth, the math is far less than any real-world costs and figures, and already massively simplified.
I just hate it when GM round up for maintiance and/or down for revenue collection. I want every 1/12 of a GB i can get! I dont mind the fractions myself because i can convert them in 2 seconds but many a GM just hates them. And yet rounding tends to hurt the player.

10-13-2003, 06:49 PM
I've always done accounting to 2 decimal places, but would like to see an income (and expenditures) table that is geared to 1/4 GB increments...

Temples and Guilds get 3/4 GB, Law gets 1/4 GB per level. If all income and expenses were in 1/4 GB increments, math would be quick and easy for new players.

Of course I'm an old SFB player using fractional accounting, so I've seen people tracking 1/32 points of power on Andro ships....

10-13-2003, 09:25 PM
I still donīt see what is wrong with the corrent system! Fractions are only a probelm if you are use to working with a calculator! Hey I bet that if you use the system you get the hang of it with in one playing setion.
But if you bust up all values, like someone sugjected to times 12, you dimines the the value of money in your mind. It is just like the italian currency, it was so ridiculue amounsts of money you where paying that one lost all sence of the value, even if one would allway callculat to dollars or some outher curency in me case Krone.

10-13-2003, 09:26 PM
I agree - thirds and quarters just don't mix very well. It's the one complaint I have about the current system. And if guilds and temples make a little more, while law makes a little less (not including collections, which work pretty well in the current system IMO), I think that's fine.

On the other hand, as has been discussed recently, guilds and especially temples often end up having way more gold than they know what to do with...they could definitely use more temple-specific assets that have maintenance costs. Most landed/law regents are happy to tax guilds and demand tribute from them, but demanding tribute from temples is a much stickier situation...most don't take too well to that sort of thing.

10-13-2003, 09:34 PM

True, you wind up with Guilds and Temples getting a bit too much gold in alot of campaigns. What if Temples were reduced to 1/2 GB income, and Guilds had to pay for the maintenence of roads and ports? (also adding some ships to alot of the guilds would help to drain their coffers through the maintenence there...

10-13-2003, 09:49 PM
I honestly like that solution better, although "requiring" guilds to maintain roads and seaports isn't something I'd make mandatory. If I were writing the book, I'd write in a section that mentions the fact that "guilds typically pay for the construction and maintenance of roads and seaports, as these are necessary to establish trade routes."

Landed regents might build roads for military purpose, and they might build roads and seaports and then tax any guilders using them for trade. I like to leave such things open for players and DM's to decide how to handle, while writing in suggestions and "the ways things typically are" in the campaign setting.

Given the profit generated by trade routes, I wouldn't mind if both temples and guilds made only [1/2 x level] GB per season. Having less money floating around in the the campaign world would be a good amendment to the revised BRCS, in my opinion. Thanks to the removal of maintenance costs (compared to the 2e version), most regents seem to wind up with more money than was previously true. So the armies get bigger and more elite, castles spring up everywhere, and stronger regents with big treasuries get unrealistically generous because "Hey - what else am I gonna' do with all this money?" Such is the problem in my current BRCS campaign.

10-14-2003, 10:01 AM
"What am I going to do with all this money?"

Well, typically the guilder used the money by "loaning" it to the realm regent in order pay for his armies. This was done in exchange for "favorable taxation" or "favors to be named later". This system led to a lot of the intrigue that is inherently a part of BR. Balancing things out isn't necessarily a good thing, if all regents end up being independent of each other and not "forced" by situations into kind of codependency.

A realm regent can set up special usage fees for roads, and typically does. If he wants, the realm regent can "shut down" the road at pretty much any time and choke the life out of a trade route.

Raesene Andu
10-14-2003, 01:28 PM

If a guild or temple is collecting vast sums of gold and the ruler of the provinces is poor then said ruler isn't going to sit by and let all that gold go to waste (or at least he shouldn't). He will raise taxes and start using the extra money to fund more armies or ships and buildings for his realm.

It is true that guilds and temple do end up with a lot more money than a king, but this is not that unrealistic when you consider that the guild control most of the mercantile activing in a kingdom and the priests own land, farms, etc and are given money by the citizens. All the king has are his taxes, and you know how much people complain about them.

It is the DMs job to find something for all that nice gold the temples and guild collect to be spent on, or to find ways of taking it away from them without them realising that is what you are doing. The easiest way to do this is through conflict, either war or a battle with another major guild or temple. Nothing eats through your treasury like a war. A wealth realm is always going to the target of those who seek its wealth.

Other ideas could include a natural disaster, where the regent is forced to spend some of his wealth to help the people. How about a rebellon, something like the French revolution. No one likes to see a wealthy merchant sitting there in his palace while the poor suffer and if your regents have huge treasuries then that is going to cause some friction with the people who will start demanding a share of the wealth. If a lot of regents have huge stashes of gold then this rebellion could grow and spread across a wide region, not only upsetting the PC realms, but also NPCs. If the people fell in behind a charasmatic blooded leader and the military started deserting (they are promised a share of the plunder when the evil grasping PCs are driven from power) then you have a major problem and it could be something that carries on for turn after turn, as the PC strive to reclaim their realm from the rebels.

Corruption is also a good one to use, starting small with just a few hundred gp going missing, but soon large amounts of gold start vanishing from the treasury.

Then you can look at new things for regents to spend their money on. If a temple has a big treasury its priests might start asking for a new, grand temple to be built, one that will cost oddles of gold. And of course, then you have all the problems associated with building the great temple, labour shortage, material shortages, earthquakes, and so on.

How about giving your regents something to spend their gold on that they actually want. If they are wizards or priest and have item creation feats, then you can suck away quite a few gb that way without upsetting your players. New spells to research for wizard (although they don't usually have gold problem). How about new assets, as someone already mentioned. There was a post on the forums recently about specially holdings, let them build some of those. Or maybe a spy network, let them set up one of these, they are always expensive to run with bribes etc.

The posibilities are endless, if I thought about it long enough I could probably come up with a hundred completely different ways to take money away from regents who have too much, enough to keep the game fresh and interesting for a long while.

10-15-2003, 03:37 AM
Its ironic in most games that i've seen along the lines of a DM controlled strategy game, I have never seen teh problem with too much money. Landed regents as suppost to tax people who live in their realm. So while guilds and temple to pay maintiance they do that "fees" to pay and that is taxes.

Also I have come up with 100 hundreds of ideas of spending money that are not covered under the conventional rule set. Thats why BR should have a DM. You say I want to do X and then the Dm says it will cost you Y. You then can increase the regency spent and/or gold and get Z result. The regancy rules are just a guild line to ajudicating each turn. Hell I've had more then one player come up with the idea of small elite units used to disrupt things in a war yet there really inst a rule for the creation of such units as they are more military in scope than espionage. The key is a DMs role is to determine what effects and what cost such "non-standard" action incure.

If players have no imagination then its really their fault. And if DM dont allow non-standard action then they really shouldnt be DM for this style of game.

10-15-2003, 11:11 AM
Airgedok writes:

> Also I have come up with 100 hundreds of ideas of spending money

> that are not covered under the conventional rule set.

Care to list any? We probably don`t need hundreds, but a few dozen might be



10-15-2003, 04:18 PM
One possible way to allow for increased spending is to allow GB to be spent to increase bonuses to domain actions other than just Agitate. Airgedok alluded to this in his post, and I have allowed it from time to time when it makes sense.

The problem is that the rules flat-out don't allow it, yet this makes very little sense other than saying "Regency is king, not gold."

But the reality is that allocating extra resources to nearly any project is bound to increase its chances of success. This is basic economics of investment - more capital allows more options.

A house rule I decided on, though was to say that regents could match their RP expenditures with extra GB (1:1, after base GB cost), based on the idea that extra cash was only useful if properly allocated (represented by RP). Naturally, Rule Province remains the exception in my BRCS-based game.

A quick example: the landed regent of a 4/1 province has a Law(3) holding, and an opposing regent has a Law(1) holding there. The landed regent wants to clear the bandits out of the province, and spends 5 RP and 6 GB to Contest the Law(1) holding (including the 1 GB base cost), giving him a net +10 to the Domain Action check.