I admire the approach of starting from first principles and working through all of the implications to ensure everything is internally consistent. I wish more simulations took this approach. That said, I'm not sure I see how something like the price of olives or the production of wheat or the number of families to support a certain number of cobblers and so on is actually useful in play. It seems to me like this is kind of world building trivia? There is no position I can imagine a player inhabiting in the world that would actually grant them knowledge of most of these details, so I'm not sure what value there is in having the answers readily available. If somebody asks me how many families are in the region and produce olives from their estate, and how much land their estates take up, I'm going to cut to the chase and ask them why they're asking that (and how would they know?). Even if you're king of the world, I don't see how a pre-industrial society has proper insight into the hard numbers underlying their economy. Even in the modern world with all our surveillance and bureaucracy we more or less rely on estimates when trying to eyeball the potential industrial capacity of various sectors of the economy.

The more we lean on things like magic, the less certain I am that any model with hold up. Models can be fine for mapping to something like the ancient world, which actually existed, and where we have records we can use to populate the model. In that case, the model just needs to represent the real-world data. All the complex systems simulation was already done for us by reality. The idea that you can somehow understand the impact of magic on a dynamic system like an economy IMO strikes me as the kind of hubris that begets a command economy. The soviet system failed for a reason - it's not obvious how much anything should cost. Prices are neither arbitrary nor objective, and you need a complex market process to actually see the impact something like magic provides. The same argument could be made for things like computational systems or steam power or teleportation magic or matter replicators or whatever. There's no easy way to see how a ripple in one sector of the economy would affect anything else without actually having the complexity played out in reality. If it's not obvious, I'm skeptical of the predictive power of models which are based on historical data to try to predict the effect of hypothetical future events. Academics and others overstate their ability to understand and predict complex reality via a statistical or abstract model.

My personal approach to the economy is to just set tiers of economic/social class. the players belong to a class/caste. They still gain money, but that money is spent on things relevant to the game. Players can spend money in large amounts to climb the social ladder (a bit anachronistic, but I'm not trying to model the feudal world 1:1, and I think a little social mobility is more fun for the game). Everything else falls away, because it's not particularly interesting or relevant moment to moment. I'm not going to pause the game and crack open a book when somebody asks me about the price of ceramic pottery just to provide an answer, I'm going to just give a number that's ballpark acceptable (especially since the players are probably dealing with a local economy facing its own conditions, not a national/global economy). More likely, the player is asking about the price of ceramics because they have some other scheme in mind and we can just skip the price element and cut to the chase. Maybe they want to buy ceramic pots in large numbers to aid a smuggling operation they're running. Fine, easier for me to set a price on the smuggling operation and its potential impact on that activity than try to model the economics of everything that goes into the production of such pottery.

As for domain play, most of the useful numbers I'd think you'd get would be things like how many barons report to the duke and so on, and how many men they can field, as estimated by the land or population available to them. That sort of thing seems useful when answering common questions like "how big is the army I can field?". That's very play-oriented. I'm glad to hear ACKS has these numbers. I'd still probably need to build out a system to let me play out a conflict in a way that makes sense for the level of insight the players actually have though. I'd only be presenting estimates to the players anyway, and if we play it out in-game then exposing granular information at the game-level (imagining they're generals) somewhat breaks the immersion. If they're actively involved in the fight, there's no way they can keep useful tactical/situational awareness to have detailed control over the battlefield. If they're sitting, like generals or lords, overlooking the field and issuing orders via flags/horn/drum/whatever then they're only going to see the battle progress in general terms and can react as necessary. If they're sending orders to their generals in the field, they're only going to know the outcome when the generals send a report back. In virtually all such cases, I probably only need to know very general information about the battle to roll and determine the outcome. I can't imagine I'd actually count individual casualties in a battle or try overly hard to model the economic impact of some peasants not coming home.

Quote from: Old Aegidius on May 29, 2023, 06:43:55 PM
As for domain play, most of the useful numbers I'd think you'd get would be things like how many barons report to the duke and so on, and how many men they can field, as estimated by the land or population available to them. That sort of thing seems useful when answering common questions like "how big is the army I can field?". That's very play-oriented. I'm glad to hear ACKS has these numbers. I'd still probably need to build out a system to let me play out a conflict in a way that makes sense for the level of insight the players actually have though. I'd only be presenting estimates to the players anyway, and if we play it out in-game then exposing granular information at the game-level (imagining they're generals) somewhat breaks the immersion. If they're actively involved in the fight, there's no way they can keep useful tactical/situational awareness to have detailed control over the battlefield. If they're sitting, like generals or lords, overlooking the field and issuing orders via flags/horn/drum/whatever then they're only going to see the battle progress in general terms and can react as necessary. If they're sending orders to their generals in the field, they're only going to know the outcome when the generals send a report back. In virtually all such cases, I probably only need to know very general information about the battle to roll and determine the outcome. I can't imagine I'd actually count individual casualties in a battle or try overly hard to model the economic impact of some peasants not coming home.

And this is why I generally default to "common sense" in lieu of detailed rules. You're not really trying to simulate a kingdom, you're trying to simulate the sort of experiences a ruler would have because the PCs are the rulers, not the domain.

You're correct. The PC can either be in the middle of the battle, in which case the only relevant information is what's going on in their immediate area (what opponents and allies are in a 30' radius of them and what sort of shape each are in) -or- are at some level of "above the fray" in which case, yes, it's more about issuing orders and waiting for results (while the enemy commanders do the same) so all you really need to decide as GM are a few potential inflection points where the PCs orders may make a difference to the outcome.

Similarly, the size of the treasury down to the last copper might be of academic interest, but all a ruler generally cares about is "can I afford X?" (where X is something measured in 'peasant years'; a term one group I was in had for extremely flagrant purchases... ex. an everburning torch is 100gp or about three times the annual income of a peasant; i.e. 3 peasant years... past level 1 PC's barely think about any purchase that small; but it's beyond the means of probably 99% of the population and ideas like lighting all the city streets with them (including ongoing replacement costs for theft and vandalism) would break the bank of any domain not being supplemented by PC provided dragon hordes).

Okay, that got rambly.

The point is at the domain level, tracking individual arrow consumption isn't a concern for a PC ruler; setting the overall military budget and perhaps a training doctrine or hiring/training of exotic forces (ex. wyvern cavalry) is what matters in emulating the decisions a domain ruler has to make.

Alternately, you can just keep the domains small enough that the 30' radius of battle includes the PC's entire force (i.e. under a hundred men; probably only a few score) and they know (in the Dunbar's number sense) every adult (or at least head of household) on their manor such that they are involved in the specifics of its operation.

QuoteGreetings!

I have long held to my own "Three Pillars of RPG's."

My Three Pillars of RPG Campaigns are the following:

FIGHTING: Heroic combat. Lots of fighting, death, blood, and war. People and creatures need to be dying. Pile the bodies up! Unleash the vengeance! Men and women alike, most everyone loves violence. Violence is deeply satisfying to the beast lurking under the façade of civilization and polite society.

BOOTY: Lots of SEX. Men and women alike, everyone likes sex. The more, the better. Drown them in all the fine booty they can grab, with both hands. Later on, spouses, families, and kids become important. Otherwise filed under "Romance".

GOLD: Gold, baby. Piles of silver and gold, fine jewels. Crazy detailed toys. Epic, glorious magic items. Give it all out with a lavish hand, like candy.

In all the years I have been playing, these three pillars have kept players engaged, again and again. When a GM is stuck, or uncertain, unload the train of FBG--FIGHTING, BOOTY, and GOLD. It has never failed. It is these three primary elements that make a campaign interesting, dramatic, exciting, and fun. It is important to remember that all three of the pillars are like legs on a table; they are each more or less equally important. These are the three pillars I think that every GM should embrace. Your game and your campaign will always be better off with MORE FBG!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

So basically Seven Deadly Sins RPG, huh? Damn, maybe Jack Chick was right bout RPGs being Satanic.

Quote from: Wrath of God on June 14, 2023, 12:52:25 PM
So basically Seven Deadly Sins RPG, huh? Damn, maybe Jack Chick was right bout RPGs being Satanic.

  With things like the D&D Tarot Deck, Funko Pops of Asmodeus, and the Ouija board in the back of the 5E Ravenloft book, the concerns do seem more legltimate now than they did 40 years ago.

Funko Pops are definitely work of Satan, no doubt about it.
Although I always considered Tarot (and similar decks like Pathfinder Harrowing) to be nice random table of narrative and symbolic elements for campaign.

Quote from: Wrath of God on June 15, 2023, 05:06:27 PM
Funko Pops are definitely work of Satan, no doubt about it.
Although I always considered Tarot (and similar decks like Pathfinder Harrowing) to be nice random table of narrative and symbolic elements for campaign.

Ditto!  Tarot decks are one of my favorite themed randomizers for RPGs.  What makes them even more fun in the Domain game context is when you assign named NPCs to certain cards or suits to a specific kingdom.  This is a great way to introduce royal influence, NPCs, and unexpected encounters.

The Tarot is also something stolen from its prior context and given occult meaning...

Here's a blog post about it...
https://www.scifiwright.com/2023/05/the-christian-key-to-the-tarot/

So, if you're simply using it for a card game or as a randomizing tool in an rpg, there is nothing sinister or to fear about the Tarot. Its the use in divination (which could as easily be done by assigning meanings to the numbers and suits of an ordinary deck) that is illicit and sinful.

Still, knowing this fact and trying to explain this fact to every new fundamentalist looking for a fight are two different things... and a percentile-based table can provide even more elements than a tarot deck to build from as a randomizing tool with far fewer people trying to call you an occultist.

Math nerd time, a typical tarot deck has 156 permutations since right side or upside down has significance.  When shuffling, cut and rotate half the deck a few times to randomize position and orientation. 

I mean if I'd use it - then in prep time just so events were not based on my bias. It seems for me more suitable to influence grand schemes.

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 15, 2023, 07:14:23 PM
The Tarot is also something stolen from its prior context and given occult meaning...

Here's a blog post about it...
https://www.scifiwright.com/2023/05/the-christian-key-to-the-tarot/

So, if you're simply using it for a card game or as a randomizing tool in an rpg, there is nothing sinister or to fear about the Tarot. Its the use in divination (which could as easily be done by assigning meanings to the numbers and suits of an ordinary deck) that is illicit and sinful.

Still, knowing this fact and trying to explain this fact to every new fundamentalist looking for a fight are two different things... and a percentile-based table can provide even more elements than a tarot deck to build from as a randomizing tool with far fewer people trying to call you an occultist.

You (and the dude you're quoting) are making one critical mistake: you're assuming that "Christian" and "occult" are opposites. In the medieval world, almost all "high magic" was Christian.

Quote from: zircher on June 15, 2023, 08:23:01 PM
Math nerd time, a typical tarot deck has 156 permutations since right side or upside down has significance.  When shuffling, cut and rotate half the deck a few times to randomize position and orientation. 

Sorry to disappoint you, but "reversed readings" are a late 19th century invention. It's not traditional.

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 15, 2023, 07:14:23 PM
[...]
So, if you're simply using it for a card game or as a randomizing tool in an rpg, there is nothing sinister or to fear about the Tarot. Its the use in divination (which could as easily be done by assigning meanings to the numbers and suits of an ordinary deck) that is illicit and sinful.

Still, knowing this fact and trying to explain this fact to every new fundamentalist looking for a fight are two different things... and a percentile-based table can provide even more elements than a tarot deck to build from as a randomizing tool with far fewer people trying to call you an occultist.

Technically drawing lots was Biblically Allowed divination. But then we get into the joys of theological discussion, citing scripture, and defining what is a "lot" and the biblical way to "draw" it.  We agree on the point that using Excel and percentile-based  Random Tables will probably induce less consternation at a table. But it is sad that such tools cause such reactions.

PS: I vote Birthright for domain rules. 

Quote from: zircher on May 22, 2023, 06:47:40 PM
Kind of a funny thing, I find that this was a common retirement state for many PCs back in my AD&D days.  New blood would take over the adventuring and questing while the semi-retired high level characters were doing the domain play thing.  They all created fortresses, acquired lands, built towers, temples, and guilds.  One of them even made their own dungeon and stocked it with beasties.  (Kind of like a live fire exercise except you could be eaten.)

I have not seen that with later iterations of D&D players.

Ah, I miss that style of play. The retired adventurers would do stuff mostly in the background, between sessions, usually via informal chats with the DM. A player's own retired characters became a resource that their current adventuring PCs could tap.

Quote from: Wrath of God on June 15, 2023, 05:06:27 PM
Although I always considered Tarot (and similar decks like Pathfinder Harrowing) to be nice random table of narrative and symbolic elements for campaign.

   I love the Tarokka deck as a randomizer, myself, but marketing something as a Tarot deck in the present market is not marketing it as a resolution tool or campaign idea generator.

Quote from: Wrath of God on June 14, 2023, 12:52:25 PM

QuoteGreetings!

I have long held to my own "Three Pillars of RPG's."

My Three Pillars of RPG Campaigns are the following:

FIGHTING: Heroic combat. Lots of fighting, death, blood, and war. People and creatures need to be dying. Pile the bodies up! Unleash the vengeance! Men and women alike, most everyone loves violence. Violence is deeply satisfying to the beast lurking under the façade of civilization and polite society.

BOOTY: Lots of SEX. Men and women alike, everyone likes sex. The more, the better. Drown them in all the fine booty they can grab, with both hands. Later on, spouses, families, and kids become important. Otherwise filed under "Romance".

GOLD: Gold, baby. Piles of silver and gold, fine jewels. Crazy detailed toys. Epic, glorious magic items. Give it all out with a lavish hand, like candy.

In all the years I have been playing, these three pillars have kept players engaged, again and again. When a GM is stuck, or uncertain, unload the train of FBG--FIGHTING, BOOTY, and GOLD. It has never failed. It is these three primary elements that make a campaign interesting, dramatic, exciting, and fun. It is important to remember that all three of the pillars are like legs on a table; they are each more or less equally important. These are the three pillars I think that every GM should embrace. Your game and your campaign will always be better off with MORE FBG!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

So basically Seven Deadly Sins RPG, huh? Damn, maybe Jack Chick was right bout RPGs being Satanic.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Yep, Wrath of God, players are always attracted by the Seven Deadly Sins!

Players often like playing--how does it go now?--The EDGELORDS!?

I actually enjoy a lot of "High Fantasy" and noble virtues, righteous characters and epic heroism--but players always enjoy rolling in the mud!

So, I always have a strong foundation of FBG on tap--Nobility, virtue, and righteousness is always available, of course--but I have found having a foundation of FBG is a strong and sure-fire way to keep a campaign fun, dynamic, and interesting, that most everyone is enthusiastic about. Typically, only a few players enjoy getting hardcore righteous. The others, even many women, see that as being "Boring and too Goody Goody!"

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK