Chap 5,6 & etc- alternative Cost/Maintanance denominations

[Cuchulainshound]

I had been mentioned in an unrelated thread that the fractions in the money system drove me crazy, and there were several voices of assent. It strikes me that, altho' any one of those fractions is not overwhelming, all of them tossed together is an unecessary headache. I'm not bad at math, and some say "good", but I dread working with the current system.

Between finding a "lowest common denominator" (and here many start to blanch and back away, memories of grade school math creeping up their spines) and various rules that then further modify those amounts, finding a "user-friendly" alternative would both reduce an obstacle to new players, and make all players' lives easier, especially the GM's.

The various fractional costs to buy and support elements in the game gives us the following spectrum of fractinal values to consider:

1/2's, 1/3's & 1/4's
1/6's (road maintenance)
1/12's (maintanance of most Domain Assets, relative to cost, naval vessels)
1/24's - naval vessels docked in home port

So, at the smallest, (unless I'm forgetting something!) multiples of 1/24 of a Gold Bar can represent any expenditure needed in the game (4/24 = 1/6, 6/24 = 1/4 etc).

(The Admininistration skill's use to reduce maintanance to 3/4 is not a consideration- a note in the skill description says to round down the final amount saved, so we don't need to worry about 1/96's.)

----

One immediate solution would simply be to do the first half of the brainwork for the players, and list all fractional values as "twentyfourths". This would change nothing in the math/mechanics, and be a huge labor-saving gesture. Stone bridge maintance would then cost 12/24, not 1/2, but that's hardly intimidating. Folk would still have to add

7/24 + 9/24 + 2/24 + 1/24 + 1/24 + 1/24 + 6/24 + 4/24 + 7 Gold Bars (= 8 & 7/12 GB)

but some sort of addition's gotta happen somewhere in there, and that beats the alternative:

7/24 + 3/8 + 1/12 + 1/24 + 1/24 + 1/24 + 1/4 + 1/6 +7,

right?

---

A simpler version would be to smile, create an accounting coin (that may or may not exist in the Game World) called the Gold Twenty-fourth, the GT, 1/24 of a Gold Bar, and list all maintanance in GT's. It would get rid of the fractions (and folks' innate resistance to/fear of them) entirely, at least until the math was done.

7gt + 9gt + 2 gt + 1gt + 1gt + 1gt + 6gt + 4gt, + 7GB = 7 GB + 31gt, = 8 GB, 7 gt = 8 7/24 GB.

---

The only other real alternative to fractions is... a decimal system.

1/24 (.0416666...) is acceptably close to .04 GB (1/25), (only 4% smaller.*) This would reduce maintanance by that same amount, 4% less than the current system using 1/24's.
(* Actually, it's .0416666... smaller, which makes sense if you think about it.) (But don't.)

(tables are beyond me in vB code, apologies)
Costs in .04's of a GB, with notes on original fractional monetary value in parentheses:

Table 5-4: asset maintenance costs in .04GB/1GT increments
Asset _____ Build _____ Maintenance/
Type ______ cost ______ season

Bridges:
(wood)________3__________ .24 (1/4)
(stone) _______6__________ .48 (1/2)
Ferry_________1__________ .08 (1/12 = .08333)

Fortification:
(province) ____8 GB x level__ .64 x level (2/3/Lvl)
(holding)______4 GB x level_ .32 GB x level (1/3/)

Highway (cost by terrain)
(plains, etc)___ 2___________ .16 (1/6 = .16666)
(desert, etc)___ 4___________ .32 (1/3)
(swamp, etc)___ 6__________ .48 (1/2)
(glacier, etc)___ 8___________ .64 (2/3 = .66666)
Palace_______ 6 GB x level__ .48 (1/2)
Seaport______ 6 GB________ .48 (1/2)
Shipyard_____ 4 GB x leve___ .32 (1/3)

Now, looking at those values, I'm not sure that would help anything, and might be worse. Using the identical values from above (7/24 + 9/24 + 1/24 + 1/24 + 1/24 + 1/24 + 1/24 + 6/24 + 4/24 + 7), that would be adding:

.28
.36
.08
.04
.04
.04
.24
.16
7.0
8.24, or 8 6/24*
(We added about 30 twentifourths, and that .04 difference per added up with them. This doesn't "break" the new system, only reduces the maintance costs by that .041666% compared to the old system, saving 1/24 of gold spent in comparison between the two.)

Observation: IMO looks like the /24's, and especially "GT's", would be far easier than wrestling with multiples of .04, altho' either would be better than "lowest common denominator", as it now stands. I only include this since folk would be thinking of it, and to compare it to below.

---

As a slightly more aggressive solution, 1/20 of a GB would make the math child's play, as adding ".05's" is easier still, and I, for one, would recommend that it would be worth it, but that would require a bit more shifting of the costs.*
(*I'm going to guess that there are some opinions as to the need to shift costs for game balance. If this were indeed considered, this would kill two birds with one stone.)

Table 5-4: asset maintenance costs in .05GB/1GT increments
Asset _____ Build _____ Maintenance/
Type ______ cost ______ season

Bridges:
(wood)________3__________ .25 (1/4)
(stone) _______6__________ .50 (1/2)
Ferry_________1__________ .10 (1/12 = .08333)

Fortification:
(province) ____8 GB x level__ .60 x level (2/3/Lvl)
(holding)______4 GB x level_ .30 GB x level (1/3/)

Highway (cost by terrain)
(plains, etc)___ 2___________ .15 (1/6 = .16666)
(desert, etc)___ 4___________ .30 (1/3)
(swamp, etc)___ 6__________ .45 (1/2)
(glacier, etc)___ 8___________ .60 (2/3 = .66666)
Palace_______ 6 GB x level__ .50 (1/2)
Seaport______ 6 GB________ .50 (1/2)
Shipyard_____ 4 GB x leve___ .30 (1/3)

That same long calculation (faking the actual items represented) might then look something* like this.

.30
.35
.10
.05
.05
.05
.25
.15
7.0
(* Unlike the consistancy of .04 vs 1/24, the differences here vary depending on rounding off at the source of the maintanance; there is no way to compare final outcomes, but care would be taken to ensure it would be similar.)

This would be something any gamer could live with.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In Game Color/Considerations:

If a Gold Bar = 2000 GP*, then 1/25 of a bar would be 80 gp, 1/20 would be 100. (For reference, BTR 1 gp = ~1/3 oz, or ~50 to the pound, or 110/kg, so we're talking about something of about 1.5-2 pounds of gold.) Been trying to think of a nifty name for such a thing (that doesn't start with "b" or "p"), something that only merchants or the wealthy would usually employ, but GT (gold twentieth/twentifourth) seems to work.
(* Actually, one Gold Bar has a "value equal to" approximately 2000 GP, as most treasuries are not purely comprised of vast stacks of coins. But for the coins that are there, GF's would be far easier to count/handle/maintain.)

If round like (an exceptionally large!) coin, it could be a Crown (gc) or Sun (gs), or if more like a modern book or paving tile a Gold Flat, GF, if the GT is not used. Either way, they are probably stamped with various marks and certifications, and possibly a scene from Anuire's history.

As a storyteller I like the image of flat, formed, stackable, transportable, stealable slabs of gold better than any other shape, because IG they could be described in those stacks, and transported/handled/bundled more easily as such.

(There is a cinematic image that I've always liked, that of the medieval Japanese custom of wrapping pre-counted stacks of money in paper for presentation. This could be incorporated into the "colour" of Cerelia, or of some of her cultures, that of a baron or guilder sliding a thick wrapped stack of GT's over to a character during a reward or negotiation...)

The GT is also a valuable and recognizable "coin" for RP purposes, whether for one regent to send a cash payment to another, or for PC's to find in their adventures. Whether a chestful in a wagon, or one in the vest of an assassin, GT's speak of regent-level wealth, of a fraction of a Gold Bar that you can hold in one hand.

Thoughts?

[DanMcSorley]

On 9/11/06, Cuchulainshound <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> The only other real alternative to fractions is... a decimal system.

Yes. It probably should have been written in 10ths and 100ths to begin with.

> In Game Color/Considerations:
> If a Gold Bar = 2000 GP*, then 1/25 of a bar would be 80 gp, 1/20 would be 100. (For reference, BTR 1 gp = ~1/3 oz, or ~50 to the pound, or 110/kg, so we`re talking about something of about 1.5-2 pounds of gold.) Been trying to think of a nifty name for such a thing (that doesn`t start with "b" or "p"), something that only merchants or the wealthy would usually employ, but GT (gold twentieth/twentifourth) seems to work. If round like (an exceptionally large!) coin, it could be a Crown (gc) or Sun (gs), or if more like a modern book or paving tile a Gold Flat, GF, if the GT is not used. Either way, they are probably stamped with various marks and certifications, and possibly a scene from Anuire`s history.
>
> Thoughts?

Conveniently, D&D already has a decimal system for money. Rather than
inventing new units, realms might denote large amounts of currency
smaller than Gold Bars in Silver Bars and Copper Bars. Like Gold
Bars, an actual physical bar being transferred to someone would be
remarkably rare, since no one has that kind of liquid cash laying
around*. Most currency transfer would be in the form of notes of
credit or other financial instruments and documents.

*Historically, kingdoms and empires did sometimes use actual physical
Talents of gold or other precious metals, so it`s not unprecedented.
A talent would be around 33 kg of gold, so even larger than the
hypothetical Gold Bar of Birthright.
--
Daniel McSorley

[irdeggman]

One thing to keep in mind is that the GB is not equal to 200 gp. What I mean it is not "hard currency" it represents the "equivalent" of gp but actually is comprised of grain, trade goods, etc. Things that are more or less "intangeable" but not actually hard currency.

Tithes were not usually given in gold but in goods that were used for other purposes.

Using decimals has crept up before. I am not hard locked on the present numerical system for maintence even though I know why it was done the way it was. That was to better represent the importance of "seasons" in how a domain functions.

[Cuchulainshound]

It's a long article (apologies), but I made sure to emphasize that point about "value" rather than "2000 gold coins" in the lower section on "color".



Conveniently, D&D already has a decimal system for money. Rather than
inventing new units, realms might denote large amounts of currency
smaller than Gold Bars in Silver Bars and Copper Bars.
Nice idea, but unfortunately not practical for this excercise. In keeping w/ D&D standards, 1 SB = 1/10 GB, and 1 CB = 1/100 GB.

Altho' full and half SB might work in lieu of the .05GB system, I avoided decimal places of .01 for a reason.


...an actual physical bar being transferred to someone would be
remarkably rare, since no one has that kind of liquid cash laying
around*.
Depends on the GM and their view of the game world. In my games, Province Regents do have warchests of gold and valuables, tho' they are not equal to the full value of "GB" available to that regent to spend. They are merely a colorful RP plotdevice for certain scenes, considerations and complications.

I mean, every decent ruler has a treasure room, and every good treasure room has got to have its treasure chests, neh?

[ploesch]

The OP hit on the perfect solution.

Redefine the GB. Instead of having a GB be roughly 2000, make it roughly 100.

Then Maintenance can go like this:
1/2 = 10 GB
1/4 = 5 GB
1/6 = 3 GB
1/12 = 2 GB
1/24 = 1 GB

A galleon would cost 300GB to muster, A unit of Infantry 40GB to muster.

All incomes would be multiplied by 20.

It's not as exact, but is close.

A simple round all fractions down will fix the rest.

I used 20 instead of 24 to further simplify the math.

It's a rough thought right now, I haven't done all the math to see if it would be truly better.

[ploesch]

I have to admit, I am still interested in some type of change to the way maintenance is handled. The 2E rules were pretty clean, and so the GB being what it was worked.

With addition of fractional maintenance, the paperwork involved in maintaining a domain gets complicated. It just seems to me that simply redefining the GB to a smaller number (80GP (1/24) or 100GP (1/20)) Would be a simple, elegant and easily made conversion. I also don't think the community would fight about it too much, as everyone loves having Big numbers.

Another consideration, having the GB be 100GP would follow along completely the current 3E coinage. 100GP = 10PP.

1 CP = 1/100 GP
1 SP = 1/10 GP
1 GP = 1 GP
1 PP = 10 GP
1 GB = 100 GP

I know the first 2 chapters are now sanctioned, but I think this is a worthy change.

[kgauck]

Should a Gold Bar represent a fantastic amount of money, or is 100 gp sufficient?

I use a hex grid and convert the province maps to these based off the distances on the published maps. So these should reflect the size of the realms imagined in the box set. My hex grid is six miles across and so 31 sqm in size. Supppose each of these hexes represents one fief, which is a fair assumption. Using the figures from Magical Medieval Europe, let's see what happens.

Looking at the Taelshore, I make the following assumptions: chilly climate
(-33% of base), druidical Plant Growth (+33% of base), agricultural hexes
are 40% arable, 20% forest, 20% waste, and 20% pasture. Some comment:

20% forest is a bit high, 15% was found in England, &c, but given the cult
of Erik, I think it makes sense
20% pasture is likewise high, but less so in a colder climate, England had
25% of its land set aside for pasture. Italy was closer to 5-7%.
20% waste is typical for Europe.

The population for such a fief is 4000 people, half are adults, the other half are either too old to run things themselves (1/2 labor) or too young (1/2 labor). So we have the labor of 3000 adults (effectively) to cultuvate 5333 culivated acres.

Again, using the figures from Magical Medieval Europe:
income from agriculture = 38,398 gp
income from forests (as acreage, not as a cash crop) = 16,000 gp
income from livestock = 113,339 gp
30 mills = 17,250
15 millponds = 450 gp
30 ovens= 4150 gp
60 carpenters and 30 smiths = 1035 gp
manorial rights for 2000 adults =43,000 gp

This gives us a total of 233,621 gp per 6 mile hex of full agricultural land. Typically of this, 20% ends up in the hands of the overlord. That's 46,000
gp per hex, and Saerscap has 23 such hexes. This means Saerscap makes 1,074,657 gp of income for the Eorl, not counting any demense he has or any hexes that are non-agricultural, and there is a nice little wood there.

BTW, 23 agricultural fiefs times 4000 persons gives a population of 92,000 people plus what inhapitants live in the forested area, plus what might dwell in urban areas consuming the agricultural surplus in exchange for specialized trades. If one seeks a population density that strikes one as similar to medieval Europe, one must multiply the population figures from the boxed set by 10. These population figures would be toward the bottom of the estimates (100,000 people), which makes perfect sense.

So the population makes sense, the income based on Magical Medieval Society suggest an income for the eorl (as direct overlord) of nearly one million gold peices. Even for those who prefer the unadjusted figures, you still have an income of 100,000 gp. The game originally postulated a value of 2000 gp per GB, which would give the unadjusted population an income of 5 GB per year. Those would adjust the population up by a factor of ten would no doubt increase the conversion to GB up by a factor of ten as well, and call 1 GB 20,000 gp. Although one should note that reducing the population density by 10 should increase the amount of herding going on, since herding is labor effecient and land is plentiful. As you can see above, herds provide a disproportionate income to the lord.

For those who find the math cumbersome, if I leave out herds and forestry income (which should be calculated per acre), and only calculate the agricultural income, the lord makes about 1gp per person in the fief. (I got 1.07 but I also reduced food processing costs, since the surplus food is being processed for people who live in towns, they pay.) If I assume all of the surplus is sold, 11 sp (1.1gp) is more accurate.

If the total value of fief income in Saerscap is just over five and a third million gp, and the eorl is the direct overlord of these fiefs, and gets a million and change gp's, he would then pay just over 200,000 gp to King Varri. If Varri aquires just one fief in Saerscap, of course he doubles his income there.

It should be obvious that either a GB must be worth significantly more than 100 gp, or some radically different kind of economics is at work here. I am ruling out the option of changing the costs of everything, and suspect that of all the variables to adjust, no one will favor radically changing what every action costs.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

[Cuchulainshound]

What are you babbling on about? Never mind- I don't want to know. (In fact, I do know, but just don't want to.)

You entirely miss the point, your erudite study (and respect for that, btw) unfortunately has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. No one is suggesting changing what actions cost, nor what the income is from provinces.

What is being suggested is changing what one denominative unit of money represents.

----------------------------
Example:

Let's say you make $50,000 a year.

Now, would you rather call that "5 TKB" (Ten-Kilobucks), and have to buy a $75 dinner for 1/13 TKB (more accurately 3/40 TKB),
OR
would you rather make "5000 DB" (dekabucks), and buy the same dinner for 7 1/2 DB?

More significantly, which you prefer at the end of the month when trying to balance your checkbook?

(Me, I'd rather go with the latter, thanks.)

----------------------------

Instead of receiving 1 GB per whatever, a Regent would receive 20 for the same thing. But, to balance "all that money", instead of something costing 3/16 GB, it'd cost (x20) = 60/16, or 3 3/4, or maybe just 4.

Same proportional cost to income, but far easier math, and far easier addition than all those fractional GB's.

(If you find this math not cumbersome enough, feel free to read up on the German Hyper-Inflation post WWI.)

[kgauck]

The question from my point of view is not whether we're spending 1/13 of a GB or 7.5 GB, its a question of 650 GB.

If a GB is worth 100 gp, and Saerscap gives the king 200,000 gp, then they pay 2000 GB's. Well in such a denomination, what is the cost of a diplomatic action? 650 GB? Does a unit of knights cost 2250 GB?

The incomes of rulers and the costs of actions should be measured in tens and ones. I think fractions, while not challenging math, are an indication that we're an order of magnitude too big (or too accurate), and costs being measured in hundreds and thousands are likewise a sign that we're orders of magnitude too small.

[ploesch]

The point of this conversation was not to address population density, and if the sanctioned BRCS handles that properly. That is worthy of conversation, but is academic for our purposes.

No matter what the income is, as things stand now a ferry costs 1/12 a GB, or ~167 GP to maintain per season. That cost would remain the same no matter what the population. There is a case to be made for more ferries for more population, although I would argue the free market would take care of additional need, I don't like ferry maintenance for this reason, but that is another conversation.

The point here was to simplify the math to make things more manageable.

See, even if we increase the population density, and increased the incomes, would still be left with ferry's costing ~167GP per season to maintain, and Highways at ~335GP and so on. This would be made worse if the GB were made a magnitude larger 1/120 for Ferry's and 1/60 for Highways.

Once again though, what we are proposing is to simplify the math, say multiplying all incomes, muster and maintenance costs by 24 GB and making the GB worth a 24th it's current value. to maintain the status Quo. As I said, I'd prefer using a 20th as the math is a little easier, and it fits better with the 3E monetary system where each next "coin" is 10 times the previous.

[kgauck]

Its much simpler to keep the GB large and just ignore small change. Paying attention to tiny costs like this is obsessing over a few petty costs while ignoring other, often far larger costs. Especially since a ferry should be a source of revenue far exceeding costs. This level of attention is like the old 2e suppliments that identifed eight kinds of rope and their particular characteristics. All weapons more or less worked the same way, but a page of rules can be used to distinguish between two ropes. Its one thing to like a hyper-articulated world where everything is super-detailed. Its great as well to want simplicty and just round everything off to the nearest quantum figure. But being too detailed on a hand full of things and ignoring the majority of other factors that reasonable should be considered at a certain level of detail just doesn't make sense. I am quite capable of calculating a province's GDP. I've done it three times in various places around Anuire and Rjurik to get ball park figures and make corrections to the basic system. Normally I round everything off to the first or second digit to the left and am quite happy to use a counting system that makes GB's as large a demonination as I can get away with. Clever people have suggested using the d20 Modern system and just assigning realms a Wealth Bonus and getting on with the game.

[ploesch]

I can see we may not see eye to eye on this, but I am making a suggestion based on the rules as presented. The change I propose has no effect on populations, or what is and is not considered maintenance.

All I am looking for is to have the official rules present a more simplified version of income and maintenance, to make the math as simple as possible.

Discussions about what should and should not create maintenance cost, income or have muster costs, as well as population sizes are all worthy topics deserving of attention, but that isn't the focus of this thread. We are discussing the possibility of changing the presentation of the current official ruleset, while leaving the underlying reasons for the rules untouched. The Authors felt Ferry's, Highways, Castles, Troops, on and on should have maintence costs, they should be expenses, and I'm sure through playtesting and discussion there are good reasons for this.

What I am trying to accomplish is a simplified way of representing these costs while not effecting the underlying rules in any way, or at least in as minor a way as possible.

To this end I feel that redefining the GB as a smaller unit serves well. The underlying reasons for the costs and incomes remain the same, and the math is simplified.

if we redefine the GB to 1/20 (or 1/24th) it's current value, then at the same time increase all costs and maintenence by 20 (24), we simplify the math into whole numbers, and do not effect actual incomes, populations etc.

1/20 is simpler and makes the value of a GB more in line with 3E money.
1/24 would not change the underlying rules in any way.

I'm really not going for house rules here, I am trying to come up with something we, as a community, can make official, and all be happy with.

[irdeggman]

if we redefine the GB to 1/20 (or 1/24th) it's current value, then at the same time increase all costs and maintenence by 20 (24), we simplify the math into whole numbers, and do not effect actual incomes, populations etc.

1/20 is simpler and makes the value of a GB more in line with 3E money.
1/24 would not change the underlying rules in any way.

I'm really not going for house rules here, I am trying to come up with something we, as a community, can make official, and all be happy with.

The only problem with this system is that many people have pointed out that the current GB cost of troops, ships and the like is much greater than what the extrapolation of the PHB costs would be for groups of that size. So increasing their "costs" would only excerbate the problems that soem people have.

What I see happening is that one system becomes easier but the other causes more questions and "issues".

Not to say that there isn't merit to this discussion only to point out things that have been said before.

[ploesch]

But there wouldn't really be an increase in cost.

If a troops muster cost is 3GB now, that would be ~6000GP.

if we redefine the GB to 1/24 it's current value, and adjust all incomes and costs accordingly.
The Muster cost would be 72GB, but that would still be ~6000GP.

Instead of getting 2/3 GB per Guild level of income you would get 16GB per Guild level, but a Guild level 3 would still have an income of ~6000GB per season.

Essentially, we aren't changing anything, except how big a GB is.

Also, I always thought the argument was that troops were too cheap? Personally, since a GB doesn't represent actual cash on hand, I always assumed the muster cost was less because over time that GB worth of goods could become more, and instead of buying food, you pull grains from stores, and equipment was used by refining ore from stores, and making the armor and weapons, or using gear that was given in lieu of cash for taxes, etc.

Edit:
With the smaller GB unit, you could be more exact. This means that the cost of troop mustering and maintenance could be made to better reflect an extrapolation from the 3E text without overcomplicating things.

Guess I'm just not ready to let this one go. :)

I do plan on talking with my players, and if they agree, and don't see any issues, we will playtest through using what I've proposed.

[nagebenfro]

While perhaps not the most articulate of reasons for keeping gold bars large, when I think of a gold bar, I think of a big chunk o'gold. Now, with 2,000 gold coins melted together, you can have a large bar that is quite satifying to imagine. 100 gp, not so much. Lowering the value of a GB would prevent the occurance of 100 Gb wedding gifts (such as i just recieved in our game), where players have troube visualising just how much money that is, however, I thnk is important to keep the numbers small. Plus, *not* fitting into the standard D&D currency system helps re-inforce that this is a seperate system, and you have to think about your realm, and helps allow it to also be an abstract unit of goods, not just wealth in coins.

[ploesch]

While perhaps not the most articulate of reasons for keeping gold bars large, when I think of a gold bar, I think of a big chunk o'gold. Now, with 2,000 gold coins melted together, you can have a large bar that is quite satifying to imagine. 100 gp, not so much. Lowering the value of a GB would prevent the occurance of 100 Gb wedding gifts (such as i just recieved in our game), where players have troube visualising just how much money that is, however, I thnk is important to keep the numbers small. Plus, *not* fitting into the standard D&D currency system helps re-inforce that this is a seperate system, and you have to think about your realm, and helps allow it to also be an abstract unit of goods, not just wealth in coins.

Good Point!
I totally understand that view point. Cuchulainshound brought up the concept of an accounting coin. I was against it because of the extra layer of complication. Perhaps that is the best solution all around. All incomes handled in GB, but all Muster and Maintenance costs would be expressed in the accounting coin to avoid the annoying math.

[irdeggman]

I feel that I need to point out again that a GB is not a piece (or pieces of) actual currency. It is not a "bar of gold". It never was in 2nd ed nor is it in the BRCS.


Ch 5:


A domain's treasury is measured in gold bars (GB). A gold bar abstractly represents things of worth owed to the regent, be they in cash or commodity, in service or in kind. The default gold bar is roughly equivalent to 2,000 gp in coin value if quickly disposed of, but this value may differ regionally. The things of worth represented by a GB varies by the nature through which the revenue is generated – generally through taxes on commodities, but also in part direct seizure of such (the lord’s share of corn, ground wheat, etc.), and extraction of certain feudal services (including military obligation or scutage). A GB of value often consists of a wide variety of things of value. The exact nature of these things is usually irrelevant, as GBs are only used to finance domain level actions and pay for domain actions. A regent who wishes to use GBs for another purpose must do so using the Finance domain action.



Ch 8:


It should be noted, however, that a Gold Bar is not just a measure of monetary assets; it is a combination of many factors that is expressed in a term for use on domain-level spending/value. Typically a GB is a combination of coinage (sp, gp, etc.), valuable assets (gems, artwork, etc.), or owed services and goods (weapons, armor, food stuff, cloth, etc.). The assets represented by a GB may vary based on both culture and time; for example, in the winter months a collected GB probably represents worked goods, not foodstuffs (which might be represented at harvest-time). The Gold Bar is a game abstraction and can be anything the DMs deems reasonable.

IMO if using am accounting coin or treating GB the same as gp in any way will further confuse this issue.

GB represent "value" in many forms, actual coinage, food, artwork, "promises" (this one is really vague and could lead to a lot of abuse if gone into that much detail), etc.

Troops and workers are not always paid in coinage - they may receive food shares or other "goods" instead. This needs to be remembered.

To this extent keeping the domain level economic system operating at a "different" mechanic than normal currency will serve to reinforce this issue.

The 2nd ed (and current BRCS) rules require a domain level action to exchange finance types. IMO it could be a "free" action to exchange personal level assets to domain level usage but to go the other way should definitely require a domain level action since the character is atempting to exhange things like pallets of grain into readily spendable currency (e.g., gp).

It is very, very important to not think that GB are the same as hard currency. If the two concepts are intertwined then things get much muckier.

[The Jew]

the simplest method is just to change all income and costs into tenths of a gold bar. Curretly most assets upkeep is 1/12 of the construction cost, change that to 1/10 and and they all become between .1 and .7 GB. This would only have a slight impact on balance sheets, since the change is minimal and would not effect army maintenance or action costs which make up the majority of expenditures.

Incomes could also be altered, maybe .7 GB's for guilds and temples and .4 GB's for law holdings (since landed regents will be the most effected by the asset maintenance changes they will also get a slightly bigger increase in law holding income). All these changes are minimal and would probably equalize to virtually no change in the amount of GB's floating around the lands, but with a slight reaportionement between the various regent types.

[ploesch]

I do understand that a GB isn't supposed to represent actual coin, but an abstraction of the value of goods owned. I was using the GP value to illustrate that what I propose isn't to change the quantity of incomes, but just to change the quantity of coin/goods that a GB represents.

There have been some very good points brought up in this thread about why a GB should be as it is. But I'm still not convinced. If the idea of changing the value of a GB is so distasteful, then I still feel some type of change is necessary to make the math less cumbersome. Giving decimal values is a workable option also.

[geeman]

At 04:18 AM 9/28/2006, irdeggman wrote:

>IMO if using am accounting coin or treating GB the same as gp in any
>way will further confuse this issue.
>
>GB represent "value" in many forms, actual coinage, food, artwork,
>"promises" (this one is really vague and could lead to a lot of
>abuse if gone into that much detail), etc.
>
>Troops and workers are not always paid in coinage - they may receive
>food shares or other "goods" instead. This needs to be remembered.
>
>To this extent keeping the domain level economic system operating at
>a "different" mechanic than normal currency will serve to reinforce this issue.
>
>The 2nd ed (and current BRCS) rules require a domain level action to
>exchange finance types. IMO it could be a "free" action to exchange
>personal level assets to domain level usage but to go the other way
>should definitely require a domain level action since the character
>is atempting to exhange things like pallets of grain into readily
>spendable currency (e.g., gp).
>
>It is very, very important to not think that GB are the same as hard
>currency. If the two concepts are intertwined then things get much muckier.

GB are abstracted on many levels in the domain system already (the GB
cost of domain actions has no bearing to the gp value of the
goods/services received for them) so I don`t think people are really
missing this particular distinction. It`s all over the system. When
it comes to using fractions of the GB in the domain system, though,
it doesn`t matter how people think of the GB. It`s the fractions
that are the problem. GB weren`t used in fractions before the 3e
update, and their use is all the more peculiar now that 3e has
standardized its monetary system into decimal values. It`s like
using the metric system up until meters, but then going with miles
and acres after that.

I guess I can see the relevance in that it will force people to do
some math where the system requires they note the transition between
the adventure level coins and the domain level abstracted monetary
system, but it`s an odd way of getting people to do that. After all,
the original value of the GB was 2,000gp, so the exact same error
could have been made in the original system... but it never came up
as a problem that I recall hearing about.

Gary

[Cuchulainshound]

There's "doing some math", and then there's pointless torture. The one and only time I tried to run a full game online, I lost about 33% of the applicants because they just boggled at the fractions. Not that they couldn't all do it, but it just wasn't worth the effort for a significant minority.


Its much simpler to keep the GB large and just ignore small change. Paying attention to tiny costs like this is obsessing over a few petty costs while ignoring other, often far larger costs...
Ignore the smaller costs??? Man, I wanna play in a game run by YOU!

Please, no one is "ignoring" the larger costs, that's very pretty, but completely false. And those "petty costs", the 1/12 and 1/16, all add up into GB's and more GB's. And 23/24 is just as big a pain to track as 1/24.

Ignore the rules on upkeep if you want- I prefer to think of them as there for a reason.


While perhaps not the most articulate of reasons for keeping gold bars large, when I think of a gold bar, I think of a big chunk o'gold. Now, with 2,000 gold coins melted together, you can have a large bar that is quite satifying to imagine.
That would weigh about 40 lbs/17 kg ("50/lb"). While that's a nifty image in James Bond films, as irdeggman points out, it is not part of the BR world, as defined. Nor would "bullion transfers" be a likely part of Regency (exception- See Seizures.)
;)


I feel that I need to point out again that a GB is not a piece (or pieces of) actual currency. It is not a "bar of gold". It never was in 2nd ed nor is it in the BRCS.
And yet, folk like the above, and far less astute, CONTINUE to think of it as such! Could it be because they are, in fact, called "bars"?

Maybe it's time to accept the fact of the matter, and not the (flawed) theory, and take this opportunity to address the issue in some constructive way that actually corrects this all-too-common misunderstanding.

There are endless examples of "simplifying" world concepts- groups that ignore material components, or encumbrance, or whatever - it's all up to the GM and gaming group as to how much "reality" they are worried about in their campaign. If they don't want to imagine oxen and wheat and quarries and lumber rights and so forth, a 2000 gp unit or a 100 gp unit won't change that, not one little bit.

A smaller, 2 lb bar (~100 gp) would still be impressive, and could actually be incorporated into the world, to be used cinematically in a number of ways. Call it an RP- one Regency Piece. While too large for normal transactions, it would be impressive when placed on a table. A chestful speaks of Regency level payments, something that "a caravan of cowhides" just doesn't. And, at a personal level, they'd be hard to spend without drawing attention.

If the GM wants to use them, there they are, ready and waiting. If they want to talk herds of warhorses or wagons of copper ore, that's fine too.

Meanwhile, the players and the GM will be spending less time in obscure and loathesome remedial math excercises, and more time being creative.

Bottom line-
Do you want the new edition of the game to be "user friendly", or remain unnecessarily complex? The only difference seems to be inertia.

[kgauck]

Quoth Cuchulainshound:

> Please, no one is "ignoring" the larger costs

What penalty do you impose on incomes when the ruler takes an adventure action?

What do you charge for debt? Or do you run a game about government without debt?

What penalty to court costs do you impose when a PC marries? Has children?

Does war cost 10x what peace costs?

Court costs (household expences) vastly outweigh all other domestic expenses. War vastly outwieghs court costs. Prolonged wars create huge debts to be serviced.

But, I'm glad you're making sure to charge for ferry expences.

This is like attempting to play d20 Modern, ignoring the costs of vehicles, and medical care, but scrupulously attending to the costs of garden hose and athletic socks. Of course it would be absurd to players if they had unquestions access to helicopters, but a length of hose became a serious cost issue which consumed valuable game time. The problem is, no one has the faintest idea how medieval expenditure accounts might have looked so while the d20 Modern example is obviously absurd, a pre-modern situation is a mystery.

You are welcome to give reverence to the maintenance rules. They make no sense, and apparently strike you as torturously cumbersome, but to each his own. They don't seem to put players in interesting dilemas about spending, create role play opportunities, or seem to serve any function other than to create bookwork. But I am sure they are there for a reason too. I just have no idea what it is, and that's not because I'm entirely ignorant of what expences were like in pre-industrial societies. Alas it would be worth it if some game purpose could be offered in their defense, or magical conditions could justify their nature, or they created good opportunities for meaningful choices. But without these, I see no reason to pay them any attention. YMMV.

I will also point out that losing players because of book keeping is the DM's fault, not the game system's fault. People play games to make interesting choices and effect a game world, not to enage in arithmatical torture. Why inflict that on players when it can all be tracked simply and reliably in easy to use software? In charater advisors can present final financial information, answer querries about costs and benefits while keeping the mechanics in the hands of machines.

As a final note, I suggest you consider the possibilities of rounding numbers off. 23/24ths is just as easiy to run off to 1 as 1/24th is to 0.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

And yet, folk like the above, and far less astute, CONTINUE to think of it as such! Could it be because they are, in fact, called "bars"?

Or when you introduced the terms

"gold twentieth" and compared it to a currency type

or when you introduced the term "regency piece".

I think that the "tone" of using a concrete item for GB was set early on in the thread and people just followed along.

While I understand the issue with math and am not locked into any sort of non-decimal system of domain level economics - I do feel that there are other things to consider when looking at a conversion.

Several other gaming systems have already "taken" terms that could be used instead of GB. Build Points has been taken, I don't remeber what the term used in Fields of Blood is (I'll check my book later today) nor what the term used in the newly issed Conan book is either. This is another consideration- that other systems have already "taken" the term, and some are not OGL and attempting to "conscript" the same term for roughly the same usage would, IMO, definitiely violate their IP.

[irdeggman]

This is like attempting to play d20 Modern, ignoring the costs of vehicles, and medical care, but scrupulously attending to the costs of garden hose and athletic socks. Of course it would be absurd to players if they had unquestions access to helicopters, but a length of hose became a serious cost issue which consumed valuable game time. The problem is, no one has the faintest idea how medieval expenditure accounts might have looked so while the d20 Modern example is obviously absurd, a pre-modern situation is a mystery.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

Except that d20 Modern uses "wealth" and purchase DCs instead of actual "costs" for items. The entire concept of the system is so very different that when someone attempts to compare the 2 systems invariabley things get mucked up.

For example the GM in our d20 Modern game attempting to introduce gambling and had a $ amount assigned to the PCs who were boxing as part of their purse. Well that doesn't translate well at all.

He had those of us who weren't in the match be able to wager Wealth as part of the bets. Well my 2nd level PC ended up with a wealth rating of 24 when this was all said and done. Hmmm seems kind of broken to me.

[irdeggman]

There's "doing some math", and then there's pointless torture. The one and only time I tried to run a full game online, I lost about 33% of the applicants because they just boggled at the fractions. Not that they couldn't all do it, but it just wasn't worth the effort for a significant minority.

Without a doubt the domain level math is an issue, although the newer system is easier than the one in 2nd ed was - if only because of the elimination of the random rolls and rolls for "claims" against other holdings.

We need to recognize IMO the fact that most people now are using PCs routinely and have access to spreadsheet programs that can routinely handle these "difficult" calculations. So the "problem" realy isn't as large as it was in 2nd ed when the access and use of PCs was much more limited.

This doesn't mean that a way to make the calculation simplier for an "eyeballing" effect shouldn't be explored though.

[kgauck]

Except that d20 Modern uses "wealth" and purchase DCs instead of actual "costs" for items. The entire concept of the system is so very different that when someone attempts to compare the 2 systems invariabley things get mucked up.

My comparison only adopted the modern setting, if you used the BR expenditure system in a world familiar to all RPG players, with cars and guns, rather than one, as I suggested might be useful several posts ago, a wealth bonus.

[geeman]

At 06:18 AM 9/29/2006, kgauck wrote:

>My comparison only adopted the modern setting, if you used the BR
>expenditure system in a world familiar to all RPG players, with cars
>and guns, rather than one, as I suggested might be useful several
>posts ago, a wealth bonus.

I really like the idea of a wealth score system. There`s something
about it going back to I think when I used to play using DC
Heroes/MEGS that just appeals to me, and when I saw the D20 Modern
system I initially liked it quite a bit. There`s got to be some way
of accounting for inventory and cash without tracking every coin and
pair of shoes. Unfortunately, all the wealth systems I`ve seen for
abstracting wealth have some sort of breaking point where they fall
apart. At least, that`s always been my experience. Now whenever I
see a wealth score system I always flash to Flounder from Animal
House. "May I have ten thousand marbles, please?" That seems like
something one would/could ask for when making a wealth check.

Still... I do like the idea of a wealth score, or at least some sort
of value that can account for the simple reality that some PCs have
access to financial resources that are unusual. I just can`t figure
out how to implement it. I wrote up a wealth score document for D20
a few months ago--it`s all nicely formatted and everything--but I`m
just not happy with it, so it`s never been used.

Maybe it should be a series of feats or feat-like special
abilities.... D20 Star Wars has a cute system of determining extra
income based on such values for nobles and crime bosses. I thought
those rules were the kernel of a good idea.

Gary

[irdeggman]

Hmmm Gary, Kenneth, you've got me thinking on this one.

there is a lot for switching to a wealth system for domain level play. It is abstract enough to cover things without too much detail and yet flexible enought to account for changes.

It would require a paradigm shift in thinking for a lot of people since the entire wealth process is very, very different than the "normal" way things work in RPG games (especially D&D).

There are also a lot of interface issues that would need to be addressed - like how to handle troops and "assets", how to handle troop training, how to handle using GB (present system) to modify domain action success checks and so one.

But the system is different and so would most definitely keep the domain level of income/expensives separated from the personal level.

IMO this is probably worth some focused discussion. I'll start a different thread to keep the discussion more focused on pros and cons and possible ways to work it.

[ploesch]

Without a doubt the domain level math is an issue, although the newer system is easier than the one in 2nd ed was - if only because of the elimination of the random rolls and rolls for "claims" against other holdings.

We need to recognize IMO the fact that most people now are using PCs routinely and have access to spreadsheet programs that can routinely handle these "difficult" calculations. So the "problem" realy isn't as large as it was in 2nd ed when the access and use of PCs was much more limited.

This doesn't mean that a way to make the calculation simplier for an "eyeballing" effect shouldn't be explored though.

One of the issues I had was that 1/12 and 1/6 maintenance costs. Fractions don't exchange well to PC's. A decimal system would be fine.

Let's explore the wealth option though, and see where that goes.