Inspired by the Mediaeval Prices (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/historical-costs-of-various-items-during-the-late-middle-ages/) thread.
The classic dungeon crawl, of course, always features coming back to civilization with chests and sacks of coins and jewels, and a lot of times the only acknowledgement the old-school rulebooks would note about this is that it would usually immediately cause drastic price inflation when the PCs start spending it -- the in-game goal, presumably, being to get the players to deplete their wealth as fast as they acquired it. In Barbarians of Lemuria this dynamic is even explicitly enshrined in the rules -- players don't track the currency value of their loot, it's simply explicitly assumed that it's all spent on luxury and riotous living and gone by the time of the next adventure, and its only real in-game value is that players can get an extra XP for entertainingly describing how it's wasted.
Well, in the real European Middle Ages, or analogous settings like Harn or Westeros where there's more attention paid to gritty bits like this, what actually would be the result of a small party of adventurers returning to a typical mediaeval city with a cartload of portable, fungible wealth? If they were not themselves nobles, could they reasonably expect the local ruler to allow them to retain their wealth? If they were nobles, how would they answer a liege lord who immediately bumped their taxes? Would they have to find the nearest major city with a banking house first? What are the options for non-aristocrats to permanently improve their economic situation? If they had to travel with the treasure, how long would it take for thieves and brigands to hear of this and descend on them? And so on and so on.
Both historians' speculations about actual situations like this, and creative suggestions for solutions and other actions in game, are welcomed.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 24, 2023, 04:19:52 PM
Inspired by the Mediaeval Prices (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/historical-costs-of-various-items-during-the-late-middle-ages/) thread.
The classic dungeon crawl, of course, always features coming back to civilization with chests and sacks of coins and jewels, and a lot of times the only acknowledgement the old-school rulebooks would note about this is that it would usually immediately cause drastic price inflation when the PCs start spending it -- the in-game goal, presumably, being to get the players to deplete their wealth as fast as they acquired it. In Barbarians of Lemuria this dynamic is even explicitly enshrined in the rules -- players don't track the currency value of their loot, it's simply explicitly assumed that it's all spent on luxury and riotous living and gone by the time of the next adventure, and its only real in-game value is that players can get an extra XP for entertainingly describing how it's wasted.
Well, in the real European Middle Ages, or analogous settings like Harn or Westeros where there's more attention paid to gritty bits like this, what actually would be the result of a small party of adventurers returning to a typical mediaeval city with a cartload of portable, fungible wealth? If they were not themselves nobles, could they reasonably expect the local ruler to allow them to retain their wealth? If they were nobles, how would they answer a liege lord who immediately bumped their taxes? Would they have to find the nearest major city with a banking house first? What are the options for non-aristocrats to permanently improve their economic situation? If they had to travel with the treasure, how long would it take for thieves and brigands to hear of this and descend on them? And so on and so on.
Both historians' speculations about actual situations like this, and creative suggestions for solutions and other actions in game, are welcomed.
I think a lot of it depends on how much money you are talking about that the adventurers introduce into the local economy and how big that local economy is.
If they bring in say 100 gold nobles to a small village and start spending like crazy, the locals would probably charge them more if they knew how much the party has. If they kept it quiet and just bought a bunch of stuff (and didn't corner the market on something), then inflation probably wouldn't be much.
If it's a major city, then 100 gold nobles might not even be a blip on how much money is flowing through the city on a daily basis.
The local governments will want a cut (probably 10% or so) and even a local church may want a cut (10%).
I do believe there were some laws about commoners not being allowed to own gold currency, but can't remember if it was during the Roman Empire, Middle Ages, or some other time period.
The best thing to do if you strike it rich is to keep your mouth shut about it and don't live the high life unless you want unwanted attention from the local governments and thieves/brigands.
Well, it's framing the question in a different way, but part of the reason I wanted to go to a silver standard in the first place, while using larger coins, was to wean the players off of large hoards. Specifically, I wanted them excited about more minor treasures, because I don't want to deal with the party turning up with bags of cold and then having to deal with the disruption. So I guess my answer is to frame things such that big treasure hoards don't readily happen.
With my economy, finding a bag of 200 silver coins is a valuable treasure. Or finding four gems worth 50 silver each. That's enough to upgrade the equipment of several starting adventurers.
The other way to do it, of course, to use the video game term, is to have plenty of "money sinks". Taxes and fess are obvious. Thieves are good if you don't overuse them. Inflation certainly works. Less good is magic item shops, though if you keep a lid on the worst excesses, selling a few potions can eat into a fund pretty darn fast. I like a small but significant chunk of coins changing hands as part of an otherwise barter deal. For example, the local mage will trade the information for one of his low-powered spells for one of your low-powered spells--if you'll toss in 30 silver as a sweetener for the deal.
From Dragon Quest, I've adopted having some costs associated with magic and rituals that are optional, but cause the spell to function somewhat more reliably and/or better. You can just cast the spell if you want, but if you grind up silver into a powder and spread it in a ring around the target, the spell is more effective.
There's the ever-popular training costs. The usual problem with training costs is that the rates are set purely as money sinks, i.e. game mechanics, instead of being built into the economy as logical things. Sink seem less contrived if there are several of them, ways to work around them, but the service you are buying has value. Of course, that frequently means that you need to make time matter, because then time is money.
Could also do like Greenwood did in Cormyr and require a charter for the adventuring group that costs money with an annual payment.
Could slide in a percentage take for the crown or something like that to lessen the amount of money.
Greetings!
Hey there Stephen Tannhauser! Good to see you my friend! You have some very interesting commentary here. Honestly, I think if a DM I thoughtful, and in fact seeking to run a more historically-grounded campaign--then yes, the task presents itself of needing to rethink the normal weird economy presented within the game books and modules. Gonzo campaigns, excepted, of course, they can indulge in all kinds of craziness, and have much less consideration for anything historical. Having said that, for a historically-grounded fantasy campaign, the "Economy Challenge" needs to be confronted.
As our friend Steven Mitchell chomps on the problem right away with instituting a *Silver Standard*. ;D I entirely agree with instituting a *Silver Standard* I don't think it is entirely necessary to go through all kinds of weights and measures, trying to figure every good and commodity and value down to the last ounce. That can have some attractions, but I tend to believe it is much more grueling effort and time than is worthwhile--for comparatively little "payback" or benefit for such an investment. (I know of what I speak of! ;D I've set out at different times to accomplish such a process for my own campaign...and concurrently, I also picked up on how the majority of my players really don't care about all of that minutia of detail. They just want a basically simple system that works, and doesn't bog game-play down, or also important--make what their characters do in the "downtimes" an epic headache of "Paychecks and Office Work".) So, having said that, I tend towards making a few pages of economy and bartering notes, and just eyeball things and go from there. Keeping things simple, quick, and relatively consistent. It's also very much OK I prices for goods "X" or "A, B, and C" to vary significantly from one place to another, especially when you travel to different tribal regions, or different civilized kingdom and realms. Just chalk up the varying prices to supply and demand, costs of procurement, climate, season, and rarity. Just like how economies have worked historically everywhere, really.
So, a *Silver Standard* is my baseline for the general economy. Pursuing realism, and remaining aware of my own judgment, and keeping things consistent, but fast and simple. Instituting a *Silver Standard* for the basic economy also has the advantage-immediately, of changing the player's beginning premise and frame work--their characters are not going to be swimming in fountains of gold and glittering jewels. Yes, Conan routinely grabs onto chests full of gold, and sacks o glittering jewels--but as a baseline assumption, players must be disabused of such expectations immediately, right at the beginning of the campaign--or whenever they have created a character, and are first getting equipped and all that. Later on in the campaign, of course, it is always allowable to drop in some super awesome treasures--because you have already established a firm foundation, such incidents of generosity or good fortune won't suddenly wreck your entire campaign.
Thus, from the beginning then, Players are confronted with the common expectations that their characters are typically dealing with modest amounts of coins and such coin-based economic wealth as composed of Copper and Silver coins. Gold is for royal governments, nobles, huge counting houses, caravan companies, and armies. It is not a form of currency typically seen--let alone used--by normal businesses, and normal people and citizenry. All of this really by itself does most of the heavy lifting for the DM and running the campaign's economy. Make just about everything cost in copper and silver, and smaller amounts of gold, based on rarity, technology, value, and craftsmanship.
THEN, once that is established and determined, I overlay that with a common and robust Barter Economy. Medieval and ancient people routinely traded goods and services--furs and a tool, for a pig, some eggs, and a chest full of bread, for example. Or Mr. Brogg's wife will cook you and your friends lunch and dinner for a month, in return for you and your friends helping him deal with his problem of wolf packs eating his goats from his goat herd. The variables and creativity are endless. Also, when you institute a Bartering system, you can readily see the differences from a "Subsistence Economy" to a "Capital Economy". I say that as a note towards what exactly people view as "profit" and how they even view what "profit" is to begin with. It also helps greatly that when combining a more modest *Silver Standard* as a form of coin-based economy, with that of a Barter Economy, I call it a "Mixed Economy". In my own Thandor Campaign, I have economic forms divided into three different kinds--Barter Economy; Mixed Economy; Coin-Based Economy, with Coin-Based Economy potentially having an additional qualifier of "Advanced Coin-Based Economy" which embraces paper currency, Letters of Credit, Interest Rates, Investments, and advanced banking systems. Advanced Economies are generally pretty rare in Thandor, limited to the largest, or otherwise very powerful empires and advanced kingdoms.
These principles, when embraced and instituted in the campaign, have HUGE waterfall effects on transforming the very idea of wealth, of success, or redefining everyone's *perception* of what wealth and success, as well as what profit looks like. These principles fundamentally change the practical definitions and meaning of wealth for everyone in the campaign society, including the Player Characters.
As a historical note, these kinds of real-world dynamics make a whole lot more sense when, with jaw-dropping awe, we read of Alexander the Great leading his valiant army against the mighty Persian Empire, and at the climactic storming of the great capital, Persepolis, when the treasuries were opened, and Alexander waved with his hands, and declared every man in his army could take whatever they wanted, they could keep for themselves all the treasures they could gather to themselves! Historians say as I recall, Alexander seized over 200,000 talents of GOLD, from Persepolis alone. To give you a staggering idea of the scope, something like 100 people could live a comfortable life on ONE TALENT IN A YEAR. Considering all the literal tons of gold, herds of animals, whole ships and caravans full of every fine thing and exotic treasure one could possibly imagine that Alexander captured during his 10 year conquest of the Persian Empire--it dawns on one to begin to comprehend how Alexander made each one of his soldiers mighty and wealthy princes. The lowest soldier then literally had for himself the treasures that only in the past princes, chieftains, and kings would have had. Truth be told, Alexander's conquests and the booty he gave to his men--not just his famous generals, either, but to all of his warriors--it becomes apparent that they represented a level of wealth that put all of their tribal noble's and kings back home to shame. They were paupers by comparison. The soldiers of Alexander had become an entirely new, unimaginably wealthy class of warrior princes.
Many of Alexander's soldiers were so astronomically wealthy from their victorious conquests, that they virtually *instantly* became if not kings, then a permanent and mighty part of any local aristocracy that they subsequently cared to join. (See references in Greek armies and nobility throughout Egypt, Persia, Central Asia, and also north-west India). These men established themselves as permanent noble aristocrats of king-making wealth and influence in all of these far flung countries which lasted for *generations*--and frequently, even *centuries* That is how much wealth was being embraced. Interesting stuff! Absolutely mind-blowing, my friend!
Alright. I digress. I'm currently enjoying smoking my pipe, and I just poured a fresh cup of French Roast coffee for my YETI Tumbler. So, when I have embraced these principles, I have discovered how much easier it is to manage everything, and anything in the economy. As for monsters and their treasures, well, this too, undergoes a transformation. Monsters have weapons, some fine clothes, a chest or wagon of tools, and God forbid, a barrel of PEPPER. Even a relatively modest quantity of a few one-pound sacks or coffers or urns of exotic spices--including mundane spices like Pepper and Salt--these are real treasures, that many people will be eager to trade goods or services, or both, for. Also, keep in mind too, the value of animals. Herds of goats, sheep, even a few cows. (Cattle was the main form of currency in Ireland tribal culture for centuries). Horses are extremely valuable, especially so to Steppe tribal peoples like the Mongols. Yes, horses were largely their form of common currency, too. Along with goats. In addition to many kinds of animals, people are valuable. Slaves, of course. But other forms of value exist as well. Trading or gifting bond servants, or the fruits of such craftsman's *labour* for example, for a particular period of time. Say, a local clothing merchant offers 25% of the work that his staff of weavers produce for a season, or two. Bartering is generally straightforward, but it can also embrace surprising levels of detail and sophistication.
Ah, yes. Another historical aside. In heroic mythology, we can see Celtic nobles, as well as Bards, Druids, and normal people like farers and craftsmen, trading goods and services, including trading their daughters hand in marriage to men they especially favoured and thought well of. Also, composing a story, or a poem, or formalizing YOUR family history an deeds, and sung or told about surrounding halls fires and hearths. That, too, was a great honour, and also a form of reward or payment for whatever. Giving as a gift o service the loyal service of a group of fighting men or warriors, that too, was a form of currency. Also, a good hunting dog, a guard dog, they too, were very valuable. Likewise, the Norse cultures were also very similar in this regard as well. Then you also get into rewards and currencies of Love, of Loyalty, Marriage again, and things like Friendship and Honour. To our modern society, we might think it is quaint--but I've read of what normal Norse farmers and warriors thought of being declared another man's friend or brother really meant. It meant they were willing to share almost anything with each other, share their wealth, newly found good fortune, their food, helping each other with labour or other projects, besides of course, fighting and defending each other. The Norse customs also included your friends arguing for you in court tribunals, for whatever kind of dispute you may have had. And, of course, such friends and "brothers"--were heavily encouraged to marry each other's sons and daughters, or sisters, cousins, and so on. These men were at the top of the list for even more close bonds of blood and kinship. These considerations were also not necessarily done either based on the person's individual wealth, per se, but as importantly on their honour, their character, for their loyalty as friends, even from years long past. Honour itself and loyalty, and honesty, and hard work, these things too, were extremely valued, and a form of bonding, reward, and kind of currency.
I'm reminded also of how Ghengis Khan, when he was but a young warrior--gave to the young girl Bortei a fine black Ermine fur, as a bride-price. Her father was immediately impressed, and also granted his consent and blessing. Bortei--young and beautiful Bortei--treasured her black Ermine fur forever, and became a fiercely loyal and devoted wife to Ghengis Khan. Later, when Ghengis Khan had been made a slave and was imprisoned in the Xia Empire--in a tower prison in the capital--Bortei traded her body to a traveling merchant for weeks, to take her to the city where Ghengs Khan was enslaved. Bortei negotiated with his guards and bribed them, being able to slip Ghengis Khan a key to free him from his shackles. Bortei then helped Ghengis Khan to escape, and they made their way out of the city, and back to his tribes, hundreds of miles to the east. Bortei then helped Ghengis re-establish his authority over the tribes, and he raised new armies from being previously defeated by his blood-brother years earlier. Bortei knew she was destined for greatness and eternal glory. Ghengis Khan eventually returned to the Xia Empire like seven years later, accompanied by his now mighty army. An old Buddist priest that had helped Ghengis by taking word to Bortei of where exactly he was imprisoned, and foretold that Ghengis would come again, and bring the "Terrible Times" of wrath and fire. The old priest asked that Ghengis would remember him in kindness.
Ghengis Khan returned, and the Xia Empire was utterly annihilated in a storm of wrath and fire. Everything was slaughtered and burned. Except the temple where the old priest was. Ghengis Khan ordered that the old priest was to be given a Yurt next to his own yurt, and a hundred horses. All obeyed the mighty Khan, and Ghengis remembered the old priest and honoured him.
So, those are some of my thoughts on organizing and changing the campaign economy to an economy based on a *Silver Standard* and also a Barter System, with varying added levels of Tribal honour customs and kinship.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on February 24, 2023, 10:39:56 PM
Greetings!
...
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Really excellent read. Coming at it from a modern perspective, it's obvious how a lot of this understanding was lost in TTRPGs over the past few decades, and how earlier games (without trying, really) captured aspects of this rich social fabric much more capably.
Mansa Musa was king of Malian Empire during the fourteenth century. He travelled to Mecca on pilgrimage, and decided to be generous along the way. However, since he was one of the richest people in history, and he took tens of thousands of followers and slaves, along with dozens of camels weighed down with gold, he had quite the economic impact.
The gold-based economies of Cairo, Mecca and Medina were wrecked by the spending of a man who gave out gold bars to beggars, and they didn't recover from the hyperinflation for a decade. If gold can have that impact on a city, adventurers spending it in a village would be even greater. I imagine that farmers and like would be OK, but moneylenders in nearby towns would see their value pretty much wiped out.
As to putting it in a single bank? The bank owners have now become vastly richer than their business could make them. They might well declare their own fiefdom, hiring the muscle to back up their claim.
Don't forget that all the adventurers friends and family will just happen to come out of the wood work and look them up. They'll be all too happy to forgive old grudges and, "hey, just for old times sake could you spot me a few coins for my grandma's surgery?" Everyone will be their friend and nobody will be trustworthy. They will be drowning in con men and gold digging lovers and relationships they thought were based on love will turn out to be more about the money afterall. Theivery and murder and robbery will dog their steps and eager young adventurers will be breaking into their homes looking to score some treasure.
Quote from: SHARK on February 24, 2023, 10:39:56 PM
Greetings!
...
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Well said, Teufelhunden. Way to sound off!
Semper Fi
Quote from: Krazz on February 25, 2023, 10:25:47 AM
Mansa Musa was king of Malian Empire during the fourteenth century. He travelled to Mecca on pilgrimage, and decided to be generous along the way. However, since he was one of the richest people in history, and he took tens of thousands of followers and slaves, along with dozens of camels weighed down with gold, he had quite the economic impact.
The gold-based economies of Cairo, Mecca and Medina were wrecked by the spending of a man who gave out gold bars to beggars, and they didn't recover from the hyperinflation for a decade. If gold can have that impact on a city, adventurers spending it in a village would be even greater. I imagine that farmers and like would be OK, but moneylenders in nearby towns would see their value pretty much wiped out.
As to putting it in a single bank? The bank owners have now become vastly richer than their business could make them. They might well declare their own fiefdom, hiring the muscle to back up their claim.
Really fun idea for a villain - Bad guy who causes chaos by just giving everyone too much wealth. Hard to pull off as it's a subtle theme and you'd need to really build it over time, but would be very cool to execute successfully.
Quote from: Zelen on February 25, 2023, 03:06:43 AM
Quote from: SHARK on February 24, 2023, 10:39:56 PM
Greetings!
...
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Really excellent read. Coming at it from a modern perspective, it's obvious how a lot of this understanding was lost in TTRPGs over the past few decades, and how earlier games (without trying, really) captured aspects of this rich social fabric much more capably.
Greetings!
Thank you, Zelen! Thank you very much. I'm glad that you enjoyed reading!
So much understanding has been lost over the past few decades! Oh, damn yes, that's right for sure, my friend!
Honestly, listening to many gamers and DM's nowadays, not to be mean or insulting, but damn, so many of them just sound hopelessly lost and ignorant. I want to say illiterate, even though I know damn good and well they can read, but you get my point. It's like they don't really comprehend the same language when I'm when talking about campaign principles and design foundations.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Feratu on February 25, 2023, 02:26:24 PM
Quote from: SHARK on February 24, 2023, 10:39:56 PM
Greetings!
...
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Well said, Teufelhunden. Way to sound off!
Semper Fi
Greetings!
Hey Feratu! Thank you, sir! OOH RAH! And welcome to the boards, man! We need more Marines, brother! What did you do in the Corps, Feratu? I was a SAW GUNNER. 03 forever! (0311, but you know how it goes...hey, you! HERE Marine! You get to train with THIS from now on!). Good times!
I hope my commentary about campaign principles are helpful, too!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Shark,
Thanks for the warm welcome.
I was also 0311, however after SOI at Pendleton, I was voluntold to go to Mare Island
Naval Shipyard where we had Marine Corps Security Force Battalion, Pacific.
We did a Close Quarters Battle and Combat Pistol course with .45 auto's so old, mine had the "Singer" brand stamped on the receiver. We did additional training for Fleet Antiterrorism Security Teams. After that, I was given a B-billett assignment, MOS was changed to 0311-8152 (Basic Security Guard), placed in the Personnel Reliability Program, and sent to do security work at the Limited Area on a submarine base off the hood canal in Washington State. Sometimes we escorted Soviet inspectors for START. Yeah, I said Soviets lol. Where's my Geritol? You kids get off my lawn!
Nothing glamorous, and not horrible.
Edit: START, not START II. Can't remember my treaties these days.
Quote from: Zelen on February 25, 2023, 04:24:13 PM
Really fun idea for a villain - Bad guy who causes chaos by just giving everyone too much wealth. Hard to pull off as it's a subtle theme and you'd need to really build it over time, but would be very cool to execute successfully.
Sounds like a great sceme for Poppy the Death Slaad. I'm stealing it.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 24, 2023, 04:19:52 PM
Well, in the real European Middle Ages, or analogous settings like Harn or Westeros where there's more attention paid to gritty bits like this, what actually would be the result of a small party of adventurers returning to a typical mediaeval city with a cartload of portable, fungible wealth? If they were not themselves nobles, could they reasonably expect the local ruler to allow them to retain their wealth? If they were nobles, how would they answer a liege lord who immediately bumped their taxes? Would they have to find the nearest major city with a banking house first? What are the options for non-aristocrats to permanently improve their economic situation? If they had to travel with the treasure, how long would it take for thieves and brigands to hear of this and descend on them? And so on and so on.
If the property they acquired was originally taken by force, then they'd presumably be expected to return it to its owners or be branded thieves themselves.
Quote from: rusty shackleford on February 25, 2023, 09:36:48 PM
If the property they acquired was originally taken by force, then they'd presumably be expected to return it to its owners or be branded thieves themselves.
Which is actually the quite well-done plot of the Mithgar novel
Dragondoom: a clever party of Human treasure-hunters, led by the crown prince of a northern kingdom, manages to kill a Dragon and recover much of the hoard it stole from a Dwarven mountain-hold ... but his kingdom is immediately visited by descendants of the Dwarves who once inhabited that hold, demanding the treasure back and triggering a war between the two realms. (The argument between the two sides even brings in the cultural differences produced by the differing peoples' lifespans: the Dragon conquered the original Dwarfhold over fifteen hundred years ago, which was only four or five lifespans of the Dwarven folk but nearly sixty generations of Men's -- so the idea that the Dwarves could still consider their grudge and their entitlement to their forebears' property just as valid even after fifteen centuries simply didn't make any sense to the Humans.)
Other people showing up to take said loot. See everything that happens in The Hobbit after Smaug dies.
In the middle of nowhere it's mostly a non-issue; rolling into a village where most people will never see a gold piece in their entire lives with bags of gold might be funny, but they'd have little the party would want in the first place, so there's little to nothing to actually spend money on. In order to be disruptive to the economy, there must be motion through which the treasure is actually entering the economy. Consider Bilbo; he came home a man of great wealth by the local standard, but he didn't seem to spend it on much. He hired some of the locals to care for his property, he gave occasional lavish gifts and lived comfortably in retirement. The potential for damage really only arises if people are actually throwing the money around; if a party came into town with thousands of gold and gave ten to every last person, the value of money there would immediately plummet.
All valuation systems must reset, the challenge is how big of an impact crater would this level of valuation swing be to a given time/space economy. If it is hard enough the system resets and then new holders of power are shaken out of the chaos. Basically SHARK's historical recounting in a nutshell.
Humanity kind of just does a social accounting of communal graces, social mercies, and abstraction debt accounting. It seems an innate function of what we do, like humans and language, akin to like corvid birds and gifting (especially "shiny things"). Currency (the abstracted debt's representation) can be anything; the concepts of debt, favors, interconnected social expectations, legacies, intertwined familial ties, monuments, etc. has been elaborate beyond easy summation; similarly legendary graces and mercies litter historical & ethnographical records. Gold pieces and life's "common daily base rates" is a mere nerdy hobby's delusional short-hand searching to reduce the world to a ledger.
Go read stories. Countless ways upset the standard expectations. In fact, I recommend starting with "Debt: the First 5000 Years" for a delightful anthropological collection of anecdotes (along with a wonderful sundering of economic sand castles upon quicksand). e.g. Did you know several Congo and Chadian tribes would be 'offended' by people saving their lives? Because to be grateful is to be indebted, and that is to risk losing your allegiance to the lord you swore to serve, and thus be an oath-breaker atop it all. So saved people expected you *to reward them*, to harm you for your 'insult' in saving their life, or at least allow your gift to be rejected, so that they can save face for themselves and their leaders.
The world's too big and unconstrained by our finite expectations of 'believability'. Have fun. The fact that you're even interested in ways how it can affect your fictional world means you are several steps ahead of the average n00b or rote Org Play official adventures GMs. Part of the fun is dreaming how your world breathes, for you are its Frankenstein giving it life.
How do YOU want it to be "realistic"? And how far can you and your table believe? Earth alone witnessed far more that is already forgotten, so you cannot surprise actual reality. Go. Dream. Play.
Another thing to think about would be how many coins are actually in circulation.
You can see below how much the actual coinage may shift over time and if the party dumped a large percentage into the market, then it might cause massive issues (which might be another adventure hook).
The volume of the English currency, 1158-1470. The volume of the currency is an important factor underlying economic change in medieval England. The author estimates the size of the currency at fourteen dates from 1158 to 1470, using recorded mint outputs, estimated outputs of dies, and coin hoards. The English silver currency, which was supplemented by foreign gold, increased from less than £0.1 million in 1158 to nearly £0.5 million in 1247 and at least £1 million in 1290. It rose to a peak of about £1.5-£2.0 million in 1310-31, falling to less than £1 million in 1351 and a fraction of that in the fifteenth century. The English gold coinage, introduced in 1344, increased from about £0.1-0.2 million in 1351 to approximately £0.8 million in 1422, declining to about £0.4-0.5 million in 1470.
Quote from: Opaopajr on February 26, 2023, 07:57:57 AM
All valuation systems must reset, the challenge is how big of an impact crater would this level of valuation swing be to a given time/space economy. If it is hard enough the system resets and then new holders of power are shaken out of the chaos. Basically SHARK's historical recounting in a nutshell.
Humanity kind of just does a social accounting of communal graces, social mercies, and abstraction debt accounting. It seems an innate function of what we do, like humans and language, akin to like corvid birds and gifting (especially "shiny things"). Currency (the abstracted debt's representation) can be anything; the concepts of debt, favors, interconnected social expectations, legacies, intertwined familial ties, monuments, etc. has been elaborate beyond easy summation; similarly legendary graces and mercies litter historical & ethnographical records. Gold pieces and life's "common daily base rates" is a mere nerdy hobby's delusional short-hand searching to reduce the world to a ledger.
Go read stories. Countless ways upset the standard expectations. In fact, I recommend starting with "Debt: the First 5000 Years" for a delightful anthropological collection of anecdotes (along with a wonderful sundering of economic sand castles upon quicksand). e.g. Did you know several Congo and Chadian tribes would be 'offended' by people saving their lives? Because to be grateful is to be indebted, and that is to risk losing your allegiance to the lord you swore to serve, and thus be an oath-breaker atop it all. So saved people expected you *to reward them*, to harm you for your 'insult' in saving their life, or at least allow your gift to be rejected, so that they can save face for themselves and their leaders.
The world's too big and unconstrained by our finite expectations of 'believability'. Have fun. The fact that you're even interested in ways how it can affect your fictional world means you are several steps ahead of the average n00b or rote Org Play official adventures GMs. Part of the fun is dreaming how your world breathes, for you are its Frankenstein giving it life.
How do YOU want it to be "realistic"? And how far can you and your table believe? Earth alone witnessed far more that is already forgotten, so you cannot surprise actual reality. Go. Dream. Play.
Greetings!
Really nice exhortation, Opaopajr! I always love the way you chew on these things so philosophically, my friend. Your analysis often seems to have one foot in history, one foot in philosophy, and...maybe another foot in literature. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!
I'm also reminded of the example in Ancient Sparta. The Spartans, beyond the royal government, refused to even use money. Coinage was deemed as being decadent, unmanly, and corrupt. They used a system that was built entirely on Barter. Individual Spartans didn't own money, and didn't use coin money. There was nothing to buy, because coin money was not recognized as being legitimate or in any way legal. Coinage was ultimately just useless baubles and trinkets to the Spartans. As "valuable" as any common seashell.
That's also another way of guarding against a campaign being totally trainwrecked from mountains of gold and jewels. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Any time I'm trying to inject realistic economics into an RPG, my go to is always Richard Cantillon's Essai Sur La Nature Du Commerce En Général. And I recommend the more recent translation edited by Mark Thornton, as the aim in that one was to preserve the economic meaning of Cantillon's writing, where the earlier translation was aimed at preserving the linguistic style. My usual selling points on this work are:
1) This is the world's first full treatise on economics, pre-dating Adam Smith,
2) Cantillon was no mere ivory tower academic--he worked in finance and made a vast fortune putting his theories to use speculating on the rise of the Mississippi Bubble, and then a second vast fortune accurately predicting and short-selling its crash.
3) He was writing in pre-industrial times, but his theories also hold up in a post industrial-revolution world a lot better than more modern theories of economics, indicating he's zeroed in on some things that can be applied regardless of time or place of the game world setting,
4) It's especially well-suited for the fantasy campaign because as the oldest full-treatise, it's also the one closest in time to anything resembling such game worlds, and the ideas are abstract enough to apply to a world that never was.
5) The opening chapters almost read like an RPG world-builder guide.
Now as it pertains to the specific question at hand here, the first thing that needs mentioning is, it is not the case that doubling the money supply just means a doubling of the prices. The actual effects are not so uniform. Economists even have a term for these ripple effects that result from a change in the supply of money. They are actually called Cantillon Effects.
Cantillon's Essai has three chapters on the increase and decrease in the quantity of hard money. He traces through the effects of mining operations that introduce a large amounts of gold, silver, and copper into society. And the way it goes is, those things the miners increase their spending on will be the first prices that increase. In turn, where those beneficiaries increase their spending will raise their prices next. Those who receive the new money last are at a disadvantage. As well as those who have locked-in rates, such as lessors who must wait until the lease expires before raising their prices.
One other problem arises. When it comes time for artisans to raise their prices, it can become less expensive to import goods rather than buy from the artisans. So even in the longer run, it produces asymmetric changes. Although through import, money is sent out in the exchange. This would suggest if we're talking about a one-time infusion, such as the dumping of a single vast hoard of treasure, there would eventually be some return to normalcy. It's a different matter if new money is being introduced perpetually via a mining operation, or a series of treasure dumps from adventures exploring the same set of caves with several trips over a long period of time. Then the problem could potentially persist.
The prince taking their cut doesn't really solve or negate the problem at all. Because there's still the Cantillon Effects of the cut they didn't take. And then there's the cut they do take, and how they spend it, and what those Cantillon Effects are. And Cantillon does likewise write about what happens when subsidies are paid to the state by foreign powers. Their cut of a vast hoard of treasure will work fairly similarly.
Quote from: SHARK on February 26, 2023, 07:47:53 PMThe Spartans, beyond the royal government, refused to even use money. Coinage was deemed as being decadent, unmanly, and corrupt. They used a system that was built entirely on Barter. Individual Spartans didn't own money, and didn't use coin money.
That may be more part of the myth than the reality. Legendarily Spartan warriors were forbidden to own gold and silver coins, but iron bars were used as a form of currency (this to discourage hoarding). In practice, the city-state was minting its own currency by 250 BC, and the wealthier Spartans made a practice of owning artworks of bronze and ivory and precious jewelry which could very likely have served as a medium of exchange too.
While individual Spartans might have been forbidden to accumulate private wealth, the kings and the
gerousia (elders) might well have seen some political value in taking state control of any convenient hoards that fell their way, the same way the state owned all the
helots (slaves) of the nation; I imagine the warriors who brought that wealth back could no doubt have earned their own rewards of political status in compensation.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 26, 2023, 08:14:57 PM
Quote from: SHARK on February 26, 2023, 07:47:53 PMThe Spartans, beyond the royal government, refused to even use money. Coinage was deemed as being decadent, unmanly, and corrupt. They used a system that was built entirely on Barter. Individual Spartans didn't own money, and didn't use coin money.
That may be more part of the myth than the reality. Legendarily Spartan warriors were forbidden to own gold and silver coins, but iron bars were used as a form of currency (this to discourage hoarding). In practice, the city-state was minting its own currency by 250 BC, and the wealthier Spartans made a practice of owning artworks of bronze and ivory and precious jewelry which could very likely have served as a medium of exchange too.
While individual Spartans might have been forbidden to accumulate private wealth, the kings and the gerousia (elders) might well have seen some political value in taking state control of any convenient hoards that fell their way, the same way the state owned all the helots (slaves) of the nation; I imagine the warriors who brought that wealth back could no doubt have earned their own rewards of political status in compensation.
Greetings!
Quite right my friend! Yes, for the Spartan officer that was victorious on the battlefield....bringing back lots of foreign loot...*Laughing* it makes perfect sense for the Kings to say, 'Well, for contributing to the glory of Sparta, you should be rewarded! How does General sound?" ;D
Good point, Stephen!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
If you're researching historical sources for a semi-realistic economy, it's worth mentioning that the English treasury have kept financial records going back almost 900 years now, referred to as the "pipe rolls". There's also the Domesday Book, a 1086 survey of wealth in every shire of England at that time.
Perhaps disregard anything you know about modern taxation though.
Quote from: Lunamancer on February 26, 2023, 07:56:36 PM
Any time I'm trying to inject realistic economics into an RPG, my go to is always Richard Cantillon's Essai Sur La Nature Du Commerce En Général. And I recommend the more recent translation edited by Mark Thornton, as the aim in that one was to preserve the economic meaning of Cantillon's writing, where the earlier translation was aimed at preserving the linguistic style. My usual selling points on this work are:
1) This is the world's first full treatise on economics, pre-dating Adam Smith,
2) Cantillon was no mere ivory tower academic--he worked in finance and made a vast fortune putting his theories to use speculating on the rise of the Mississippi Bubble, and then a second vast fortune accurately predicting and short-selling its crash.
3) He was writing in pre-industrial times, but his theories also hold up in a post industrial-revolution world a lot better than more modern theories of economics, indicating he's zeroed in on some things that can be applied regardless of time or place of the game world setting,
4) It's especially well-suited for the fantasy campaign because as the oldest full-treatise, it's also the one closest in time to anything resembling such game worlds, and the ideas are abstract enough to apply to a world that never was.
5) The opening chapters almost read like an RPG world-builder guide.
Now as it pertains to the specific question at hand here, the first thing that needs mentioning is, it is not the case that doubling the money supply just means a doubling of the prices. The actual effects are not so uniform. Economists even have a term for these ripple effects that result from a change in the supply of money. They are actually called Cantillon Effects.
Cantillon's Essai has three chapters on the increase and decrease in the quantity of hard money. He traces through the effects of mining operations that introduce a large amounts of gold, silver, and copper into society. And the way it goes is, those things the miners increase their spending on will be the first prices that increase. In turn, where those beneficiaries increase their spending will raise their prices next. Those who receive the new money last are at a disadvantage. As well as those who have locked-in rates, such as lessors who must wait until the lease expires before raising their prices.
One other problem arises. When it comes time for artisans to raise their prices, it can become less expensive to import goods rather than buy from the artisans. So even in the longer run, it produces asymmetric changes. Although through import, money is sent out in the exchange. This would suggest if we're talking about a one-time infusion, such as the dumping of a single vast hoard of treasure, there would eventually be some return to normalcy. It's a different matter if new money is being introduced perpetually via a mining operation, or a series of treasure dumps from adventures exploring the same set of caves with several trips over a long period of time. Then the problem could potentially persist.
The prince taking their cut doesn't really solve or negate the problem at all. Because there's still the Cantillon Effects of the cut they didn't take. And then there's the cut they do take, and how they spend it, and what those Cantillon Effects are. And Cantillon does likewise write about what happens when subsidies are paid to the state by foreign powers. Their cut of a vast hoard of treasure will work fairly similarly.
That's interesting as one of the books/papers that I've been reading for England made the statement that due to customs put on wool by the English King, traders quit exporting the wool and kept it in England which then started a new industry of making cloth from the wool.
Quote from: rusty shackleford on February 26, 2023, 09:06:55 PM
If you're researching historical sources for a semi-realistic economy, it's worth mentioning that the English treasury have kept financial records going back almost 900 years now, referred to as the "pipe rolls". There's also the Domesday Book, a 1086 survey of wealth in every shire of England at that time.
Perhaps disregard anything you know about modern taxation though.
The other thread that I'm posting data to is from the "close rolls". I'll have to look up the "pipe rolls" and see if they can contribute anything that I'm missing.
Quote from: LordBP on February 26, 2023, 09:36:39 PM
That's interesting as one of the books/papers that I've been reading for England made the statement that due to customs put on wool by the English King, traders quit exporting the wool and kept it in England which then started a new industry of making cloth from the wool.
There could be any number of reasons for that not having to do with any influx of hard money. Although if exports exceed imports, it will result in some influx of money into the state.
The big thing, though, is there are very different effects of exporting commodities versus manufactured goods. Exporting commodities does indeed enrich the state with an influx of gold and silver, however there will be a tendency for population to decrease. Because wool and other commodities are primarily production of the land, and there is only finite land within a state to support the population. Manufactured goods, on the other hand, are mostly a product of labor rather than the land.
I think something like Count of Monte Cristo could be a good example IF the party has a real haul on their hands. The best method would be to petition for or forge some sort of patents of nobility, buy a manor or the like and set up a vault to keep their wealth somewhat confidential. I guess another method would to allow for guilds similar to what we see in the game Skyrim where more or less the guilds operate under local control but all contributing to a central power that pays fees to the government/rulers of the areas each guild house is set up in. This sort of cuts out the taxation/local lord getting handsy with treasure. The reality is though, if you have lots and lots of money available (as in not underground guarded by horrors that keep cautious and superstitious people away) some mercenary/bandit/lord might decide to gamble 50 or so of his men on liberating that treasure from the party. I dont think inflation can be too big an issue simply from the perspective there just that isnt much to buy in a small economy. Now they could substantially grow a local economy if they want to invest in it, but I dont think they destroy the area with inflation too easily, mainly because the sorts of buying of common goods that could do that would be unlikely just because most parties are not that many people doing that much buying of household goods.
Quote from: SHARK on February 26, 2023, 12:48:43 PM
Greetings!
Really nice exhortation, Opaopajr! I always love the way you chew on these things so philosophically, my friend. Your analysis often seems to have one foot in history, one foot in philosophy, and...maybe another foot in literature. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Bless you, good buddy SHARK. :) I was once authoritatively told that last foot was somewhere in the clouds... around pre-school, I believe. Oh dear, no, I misremember, that was my head. ;D
Quote from: Opaopajr on February 27, 2023, 05:39:28 AM
Quote from: SHARK on February 26, 2023, 12:48:43 PM
Greetings!
Really nice exhortation, Opaopajr! I always love the way you chew on these things so philosophically, my friend. Your analysis often seems to have one foot in history, one foot in philosophy, and...maybe another foot in literature. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Bless you, good buddy SHARK. :) I was once authoritatively told that last foot was somewhere in the clouds... around pre-school, I believe. Oh dear, no, I misremember, that was my head. ;D
Greetings!
Thank you, Opaopajr!
*Laughing* "Somewhere in the clouds!" ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!
Stephen, another thought. If changing the economy to a *Silver Standard* and embracing a more Barter System model as a companion dynamic doesn't work for you or your campaign, I think you can also approach the situation with some other ideas, too.
(1) Ignore economics entirely, and just embrace the Conan-model of GOLD AND JEWELS! ;D
OR
(2) Make sure characters involved guard, protect, and carefully transport such a vast treasure to elsewhere, some secure location. From which, introducing *modest* spending within the economy, and go from there. Having them actually also travel elsewhere, to more distant foreign markets or cities, buying stuff from A, then stuff from B, and son on can act to "spread the wealth around" and otherwise not crash and burn a particular local economy. That way, the characters can still enjoy some ungodly wealth, while still maintaining some plausible sense of economic stability for the campaign as a whole. This option also opens the door to potentially *many* interesting game sessions, just dealing with the mere presence and security of such a treasure horde. Yes, indeed, this can also easily require or bring into conflict one or more armies. Wars can even start from this. Lots of diplomatic opportunities, old hatreds and grudges, weird treaties, blood oaths made by firelight....yeah, all kinds of fun drama!
Lots of excellent potentials here!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
The simple reply is that everyone will want that treasure and they will try to get it by whatever means they have available. How that works in individual cases will vary a lot, but the end result is similar. Bandits will try to just take it. So will urban criminals. Applicable churches will ask for a tithe. The government will want a tax. A despot might simply seize it. Merchants will charge as much as they can get away with. Swindlers will flock to the party, as well as those providing legitimate or not-so-legitimate goods and services. Folks will appear out of the woodwork and claim, truthfully or otherwise, that the loot was part of their family's property. Or stolen from their ancestors. Or created by their ancestors and is thus rightfully theirs.
There are a lot of modern and historical examples to look to, I've read the gold rush miners generally didn't get rich even when they found gold - the merchants who supplied them with gear and food managed to capture most of it. The Spanish stole gold from the Aztecs and Incans, and so on, but a lot was then re-stolen from them by privateers and pirates. In the case of Nuestra Senora de las Merceds, an American treasure hunting company found an enormously valuable shipwreck in international waters off the coast of Portugal, a Spanish galleon sunk by an English warship full of Peruvian gold and silver. The US courts ruled that the treasure be turned over in toto to the Spanish government. US taxes on found treasure, if you're luck enough to be allowed to keep it, can take over half of your findings.
I think this is what would really happen. In a game, the more important question is if the players would enjoy this kind of anti-dungeon where they're trying to keep their treasure while everyone else tries to get it away from them. If yes, then I would add some complications. If not, then I'd skip it - it goes in the bank and it's on to the next adventure.
oops
It is true that when big money shows up the "middle men" who all want a slice come right after. I do think in a setting where the treasure holders are able to inflict big violence in a short time might mitigate how heavy handed or pushy said middle men would be. I do think attaching some problems with a big haul can be interesting, but I hate the IRS enough in real life I do not care to over role play the party having to deal with their fantasy mirror image.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 28, 2023, 05:43:33 AM
It is true that when big money shows up the "middle men" who all want a slice come right after. I do think in a setting where the treasure holders are able to inflict big violence in a short time might mitigate how heavy handed or pushy said middle men would be. I do think attaching some problems with a big haul can be interesting, but I hate the IRS enough in real life I do not care to over role play the party having to deal with their fantasy mirror image.
That's fair. When I run a game with big hauls, I tend to put my thumb on the scale for the players on the resolution, though, instead of the facts. That is, if they make some modest effort to keep a low profile, with the idea that they don't want the middle-men after their haul, I'll probably just rule that it works. Or at the very least, give them highly favorable odds. I won't have the King's tax agents chasing them for the rest of their lives. That's no more fun than 21st century Seattle views in a fantasy game. On the other hand, if the players are just showing off, anything could happen. The threat of middle-men is more valuable than the reality.
There's nothing that's necessarily sinister, adversarial, gotcha-ish, or screw-over-the-players about a substantial tax on a treasure haul.
Look, if you're farming, and you've got one guy who owns the land, one guy with the know-how to know what and when to plant and who bears the risk if the yield underperforms, and another group of people who do all the work, nobody is going to be astonished that the land-owner is going to get a cut just like the risk-taker and the laborers.
Well, if you're delving into a dungeon that happens to lie within the borders of a kingdom, why wouldn't that be presumed de facto owned by the king, and why wouldn't the king get their cut? One-third is perfectly fair. One share for the landowner, and the PC party gets two shares as both the risk-takers and the ones carrying out the actual labor of the task.
If the king is demanding half, okay, then he's being a dick. And that wasn't necessarily an uncommon thing. But if he's asking for just a 10% tax, then he's being a push-over.
When the party clears out a hex, then any dungeon within that hex they can plunder without paying the king.
If you're gaming in a medieval setting, banking is going to be primitive and unreliable. That is a defining characteristic of a medieval economy. Establishing more reliable banking, and sophisticated financial institutions like a stock market, is what takes you into the Renaissance.
Also: an adventurer who comes back with wagon-loads of gold is in a position to BECOME the bank.
What would the realistic effects be? Not too different from what the Knight of the Dinner Table results would be.
Antics would ensue.
1. Where'd they get the money, and who is going to claim it was stolen from them?
2. What form is it in? Some Nemedian Scholar might spend good Gold Dragons for some Acheronian Nickel pieces, but 10,000 of them?
3. How are you going to cart it? If you can't carry it hidden, almost no point to try and get it back to civilization.
4. Hey, the King granted you a 1000L a year estate, that you can't afford to upkeep because he took most of your treasure. But at least you can grant it to a Church, who will Title you Defender of the Faith, and let you live on and manage your land for them...as long as you adventure for them for the rest of your life...or until you can't pick up a sword anymore, then it's off to a dirt poor monastery.
5. Battle of the Five Armies.
Stuff like this is just automatic stuff the GM should think of. What are the players going to do?
Every day will look like the craziest episodes of Sopranos, Breaking Bad, The Shield, Ozark, and Sons of Anarchy simultaneously as they attempt to become business owners, crime lords, pillars of the community, an Estate of their society, etc.
The things that happen to your average Lottery winner are so bad it's launched a cottage industry of helping people avoid the pitfalls.
Basically, the best thing to do is "tell no one until you have a plan the logistics of which make D-Day look like a Potluck", or else you're gonna lose it all.
It doesn't even have to be forged. Titles and lands that have no heir typically revert to the crown, but at some point it might be advantageous to hand them out again.
But noble titles are just 'up for purchase' (though it does happen). A canny king might offer an adventuring group a deal: a land grant, in exchange for a cut of the windfall. No government ever complained about having too much money. Said king might sweeten the deal with a proposal that any further windfalls found on the land would be untaxed (figuring that once the adventurers have cleared out the riff-raff, they'll have to plow any gains back into restoring said lands and buildings).
Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 28, 2023, 04:03:44 PM
It doesn't even have to be forged. Titles and lands that have no heir typically revert to the crown, but at some point it might be advantageous to hand them out again.
But noble titles are just 'up for purchase' (though it does happen). A canny king might offer an adventuring group a deal: a land grant, in exchange for a cut of the windfall. No government ever complained about having too much money. Said king might sweeten the deal with a proposal that any further windfalls found on the land would be untaxed (figuring that once the adventurers have cleared out the riff-raff, they'll have to plow any gains back into restoring said lands and buildings).
Greetings!
Ghostmaker, your commentary inspired me to also chew on this more. The Royal Government nearby, of all the potential flies and assorted people eagerly flocking to interfere with the player character's newly acquired fortune--is perhaps uniquely in the strongest position to actually get the players to eagerly cooperate with the agents of the King.
The government can greatly assist in all of the logistics involved in transportation of such a vast horde. Likewise, the government has exceptional abilities to help with the security, and even helping to maintain storage and site security for the treasure horde as well. Most kingdoms likely have a good number of fortresses, fortified and well-guarded dungeons, besides temples, monasteries, and wizard towers. Such governments really can make so many of these details much easier--and through their own authority, power, knowledge, and resources, the kingdom can also handle the security better.
Besides offering noble titles and aristocratic land-grants, the Royal Government can provide *Legitimacy*. Real Power. Real Prestige. The Royal Government can very much set you up for *Genrational Success*. Educational opportunities, laboratories, libraries, control of monasteries and temples, besides fortresses and castles, but also ports, harbours, mines, all kinds of things--but also on a *BIG SCALE* Stuff that can alter your entire family's social and financial position literally for generations down the line. The scope is staggering, and extremely persuasive for any such player characters to willingly engage with such a royal government.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Hey SHARK,
If I recall you had a campaign once where the adventurers conquered an ancient dragon's mountain lair, and it was essentially like conquering a small nation. After defeating the hordes of monster servants, soldiers, and draconic vassals, the party came into possession of a vast hoard not unlike Smaug's. Literally mountains of gold coins, magic, fabrics, rare artifacts, artworks, etc... ;)
Quote from: Dragonblade on February 28, 2023, 05:00:01 PM
Hey SHARK,
If I recall you had a campaign once where the adventurers conquered an ancient dragon's mountain lair, and it was essentially like conquering a small nation. After defeating the hordes of monster servants, soldiers, and draconic vassals, the party came into possession of a vast hoard not unlike Smaug's. Literally mountains of gold coins, magic, fabrics, rare artifacts, artworks, etc... ;)
Greetings!
Hah! Dragonblade! How are you, brother? Yes, that campaign you remember was *EPIC*!!! Mountains of treasure! I used many complications for dealing with such a vast treasure horde as well! Such awesome fun!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: crkrueger on February 28, 2023, 08:53:24 AM
Stuff like this is just automatic stuff the GM should think of. What are the players going to do?
Players are equally greedy and clever. If they even get a whiff of taxes, they'll hide their treasure, sneak it around, or camp outside the city and send one player into the town for supplies. And once players get a hold of Teleport, Fly, or a bag of holding, you can forget about anyone in power ever learning what the player's actually possess.
Also, what games are you guys playing where the party is getting large amounts of spendable cash in a dungeon delve? In D&D, at least the older ones, the vast majority of treasure value will be magic items or jewelry. Both of those have issues with converting to cash outside of the current discussion.
Quote from: Lunamancer on February 28, 2023, 08:21:49 AM
There's nothing that's necessarily sinister, adversarial, gotcha-ish, or screw-over-the-players about a substantial tax on a treasure haul.
Look, if you're farming, and you've got one guy who owns the land, one guy with the know-how to know what and when to plant and who bears the risk if the yield underperforms, and another group of people who do all the work, nobody is going to be astonished that the land-owner is going to get a cut just like the risk-taker and the laborers.
Well, if you're delving into a dungeon that happens to lie within the borders of a kingdom, why wouldn't that be presumed de facto owned by the king, and why wouldn't the king get their cut? ...
When the party clears out a hex, then any dungeon within that hex they can plunder without paying the king.
When Cortes returned to Spain with the gold he got from kicking Aztec ass - he gave the king 1/5th of the haul.
This solved a lot of problems for him, as he had a few enemies that would have made some serious trouble if he came back empty handed...
The old King's Fifth, or 20% is rather interesting, as modern studies have shown that when tax rates etc, start to go above 20%, that's seems to cause people to really exert themselves to "avoid" paying the higher tax rates.
One reason to cut a nearby monarch in, even if you are clearing out a hex in the wilderness - Favor and Protection/Patronage...
Contrary to what most of us learn in school, most noble rulers had lots of incentives to keep their people relatively happy, and to show favor to those that fill their coffers with gold.
Quote from: SHARK on February 28, 2023, 04:21:58 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 28, 2023, 04:03:44 PM
It doesn't even have to be forged. Titles and lands that have no heir typically revert to the crown, but at some point it might be advantageous to hand them out again.
But noble titles are just 'up for purchase' (though it does happen). A canny king might offer an adventuring group a deal: a land grant, in exchange for a cut of the windfall. No government ever complained about having too much money. Said king might sweeten the deal with a proposal that any further windfalls found on the land would be untaxed (figuring that once the adventurers have cleared out the riff-raff, they'll have to plow any gains back into restoring said lands and buildings).
Greetings!
Ghostmaker, your commentary inspired me to also chew on this more. The Royal Government nearby, of all the potential flies and assorted people eagerly flocking to interfere with the player character's newly acquired fortune--is perhaps uniquely in the strongest position to actually get the players to eagerly cooperate with the agents of the King.
The government can greatly assist in all of the logistics involved in transportation of such a vast horde. Likewise, the government has exceptional abilities to help with the security, and even helping to maintain storage and site security for the treasure horde as well. Most kingdoms likely have a good number of fortresses, fortified and well-guarded dungeons, besides temples, monasteries, and wizard towers. Such governments really can make so many of these details much easier--and through their own authority, power, knowledge, and resources, the kingdom can also handle the security better.
Besides offering noble titles and aristocratic land-grants, the Royal Government can provide *Legitimacy*. Real Power. Real Prestige. The Royal Government can very much set you up for *Genrational Success*. Educational opportunities, laboratories, libraries, control of monasteries and temples, besides fortresses and castles, but also ports, harbours, mines, all kinds of things--but also on a *BIG SCALE* Stuff that can alter your entire family's social and financial position literally for generations down the line. The scope is staggering, and extremely persuasive for any such player characters to willingly engage with such a royal government.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
While governments and kings can be a royal pain in the ass (SWIDT?), there is a certain... cachet that can be gained, for being the King's friend. Just as the man who loses the King's colors loses the King's friendship, so too a man who enriches the crown can count on the crown's generosity.
Titles of nobility, land grants, writs of passage and licenses (remember, this ain't the U.S.A. -- not everyone has the right to bear arms), even marriage and adoption prospects. A newly titled Baron and his company may be 'jumped up scoundrels' -- but even a scoundrel has to be reckoned with when he has royal favor.
Quote from: Jaeger on February 28, 2023, 06:56:46 PM
When Cortes returned to Spain with the gold he got from kicking Aztec ass - he gave the king 1/5th of the haul.
This solved a lot of problems for him, as he had a few enemies that would have made some serious trouble if he came back empty handed...
The old King's Fifth, or 20% is rather interesting, as modern studies have shown that when tax rates etc, start to go above 20%, that's seems to cause people to really exert themselves to "avoid" paying the higher tax rates.
There's the Laffer Curve. The idea being at 100% taxation, there's no incentive to produce, and hence no taxes will ever be collected. At at 0%, obviously no taxes will ever be collected. Apart from voluntary contributions in either case. And so somewhere in the middle there was some key point where tax revenue could be maximized. Art Laffer had surmised the maxima point was somewhere around 25%.
Cantillon has it at one third. There were some places where it was as high as 50%, but those societies all became impoverished. But Cantillon isn't necessarily talking about one tax rate by one entity. He's tracing where production is flowing. And so I thought it was interesting when I noticed that in the US after WWII, total taxation on all levels--combined federal, state, and local, was always equal to 33% of GDP. It would fluctuate plus or minus a few points, and those fluctuations tended to correlate to the boom-bust cycle. But it's an amazingly steady ratio. And it held even under a massive variety of different tax schemes, including when Laffer himself was serving as economic advisor to President Reagan. The only thing that significantly changed over the various different tax schemes is how much of the pie state and local governments got vs the federal government. It doesn't seem to matter who gets it. The ratio converges to one-third.
It wasn't always that way. Earlier on in US history, taxation had typically been at or under 10% of GDP. So it can be less, for sure. It just can't seem to go much higher on a sustainable basis.
Quote from: Lunamancer on March 01, 2023, 12:12:35 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on February 28, 2023, 06:56:46 PM
When Cortes returned to Spain with the gold he got from kicking Aztec ass - he gave the king 1/5th of the haul.
This solved a lot of problems for him, as he had a few enemies that would have made some serious trouble if he came back empty handed...
The old King's Fifth, or 20% is rather interesting, as modern studies have shown that when tax rates etc, start to go above 20%, that's seems to cause people to really exert themselves to "avoid" paying the higher tax rates.
There's the Laffer Curve. The idea being at 100% taxation, there's no incentive to produce, and hence no taxes will ever be collected. At at 0%, obviously no taxes will ever be collected. Apart from voluntary contributions in either case. And so somewhere in the middle there was some key point where tax revenue could be maximized. Art Laffer had surmised the maxima point was somewhere around 25%.
Cantillon has it at one third. There were some places where it was as high as 50%, but those societies all became impoverished. But Cantillon isn't necessarily talking about one tax rate by one entity. He's tracing where production is flowing. And so I thought it was interesting when I noticed that in the US after WWII, total taxation on all levels--combined federal, state, and local, was always equal to 33% of GDP. It would fluctuate plus or minus a few points, and those fluctuations tended to correlate to the boom-bust cycle. But it's an amazingly steady ratio. And it held even under a massive variety of different tax schemes, including when Laffer himself was serving as economic advisor to President Reagan. The only thing that significantly changed over the various different tax schemes is how much of the pie state and local governments got vs the federal government. It doesn't seem to matter who gets it. The ratio converges to one-third.
It wasn't always that way. Earlier on in US history, taxation had typically been at or under 10% of GDP. So it can be less, for sure. It just can't seem to go much higher on a sustainable basis.
The rate varies a lot by country. Many European countries have tax rates about 50%. It's mainly about how much of the economy a society chooses to have run by the government versus private enterprise. I'd like to see the US rate under 20%, because private enterprise is much more efficient with providing goods and services.
If I was in a game where a king wanted to tax my treasure, a couple of things would figure into my willingness to cooperate. If I'm in my home kingdom and the rate is not much more than 20% I'd prolly play ball. Otherwise I'd be considering if we could sneak it out or if we could take whatever forces the government sends after us, either on our own or by using part of the treasure to hire mercenaries etc. My POV would be that it (in most scenarios I've played in) it was never the king's or government's money in the first place, so they shouldn't have any particular right to it. If they wanted it, they had every opportunity to get it before I got there, so tough luck, schmuck.
If you want a lot of fun introducing the local nobility in the mix, right off the bat with a new campaign, and maybe even new players, then:
- Have the nobility sponsor the characters.
- Provide them the map to the dungeon.
- Hire the mercenaries, link boys, mule drivers, etc.
- Provide the characters their starting money and equipment.
- Even more fun if this kind of money-grubbing isn't proper for the nobility. So they get a merchant guild to act as their agents, for a cut of the action.
If you aren't careful, that can devolve into a rat race without much escape from real life. But it can also turn into a group of players highly motivated to get a stake of their own, sponsor themselves, and head out into the wilderness. It establishes up front why being an adventurer is dirty, thankless work in a dirty, thankless world--while also giving those same adventures some experience that might let them claw their way out of it.
Quote from: Mishihari on March 01, 2023, 04:08:18 AM
The rate varies a lot by country. Many European countries have tax rates about 50%.
Yeah, and as I already mentioned, tax rates varied by a lot just within the US during the time period I'm talking about, including a top marginal tax rate of 90% in the 1950's. And it didn't really move the needle. Because tax rates are not even remotely the same thing as examining who gets the goods.
A slave has 100% of the value of their labor taken from them. But they get their basic needs met. So if you do an audit of the plantation, you're going to find a significant chunk of the production did in fact go to the slaves. The 100% takings is misleading. Just as a 50% takings is misleading in a system that provides for some of those basic needs, such as guaranteed health care.
QuoteIt's mainly about how much of the economy a society chooses to have run by the government versus private enterprise. I'd like to see the US rate under 20%, because private enterprise is much more efficient with providing goods and services.
The problem is the king doesn't always fit neatly into that dichotomy. We're not just talking about the figure head of a political system ruling over a geographical region of unowned or publicly-owned land. We're talking about a large land-owner. Perhaps one who either personally or whose forefathers conquered the land through armies paid for out of their own coffers. That is privately funded ventures to attain private property. There is nothing contrary to principles of private enterprise to then charge rent to others living off that land, even if you just so happen to call that rent a tax.
QuoteIf I was in a game where a king wanted to tax my treasure, a couple of things would figure into my willingness to cooperate. If I'm in my home kingdom and the rate is not much more than 20% I'd prolly play ball. Otherwise I'd be considering if we could sneak it out or if we could take whatever forces the government sends after us, either on our own or by using part of the treasure to hire mercenaries etc. My POV would be that it (in most scenarios I've played in) it was never the king's or government's money in the first place, so they shouldn't have any particular right to it. If they wanted it, they had every opportunity to get it before I got there, so tough luck, schmuck.
But you're assuming it's about the treasure and ignoring the issue of the ownership of the land. Someone can own a claim on a mine full of gold. Claim jumpers aren't the rightful owners of the gold they extract just because they get to it before the rightful owner does. And there's nothing illicit about the rightful claim owner allowing a more skilled, better equipped mining operation who is more willing to take risks to have at their claim while expecting a partner's cut of the proceeds.
You're perfectly welcome to shop around for a land owner partnership that will take a lower cut if you like half-price sushi. Otherwise, you can just clear a hex and owe nothing to no one.