Results 11 to 20 of 29
-
09-27-2006, 07:27 PM #11
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.
-
09-27-2006, 07:51 PM #12
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.When you play the game of thrones you win or you die.
George R. R. Martin - A song of Ice and Fire
-
09-27-2006, 08:36 PM #13
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally Posted by ploesch
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.Duane Eggert
-
09-27-2006, 08:55 PM #14
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.Last edited by ploesch; 09-27-2006 at 09:04 PM.
When you play the game of thrones you win or you die.
George R. R. Martin - A song of Ice and Fire
-
09-28-2006, 01:56 AM #15
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.
-
09-28-2006, 04:18 AM #16Originally Posted by nagebenfro
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.When you play the game of thrones you win or you die.
George R. R. Martin - A song of Ice and Fire
-
09-28-2006, 11:18 AM #17
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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.
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.Duane Eggert
-
09-28-2006, 11:57 AM #18
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Location
- california
- Posts
- 317
- Downloads
- 2
- Uploads
- 0
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.Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
-
09-28-2006, 03:38 PM #19
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.When you play the game of thrones you win or you die.
George R. R. Martin - A song of Ice and Fire
-
09-28-2006, 08:10 PM #20
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
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks