Silly economics of DnD

[drnuncheon]

Now, in DnD, *everyone* has some form of education. These are represented by those handy things, skill points. The average human peasant has 12 skill points. Given the commoner skill list, it is highly likely than he will end up putting at least a few into Craft and/or Profession.

I'm not sure you can make that jump, first of all - from 'everyone has 12 skill points' to 'everyone has education', I mean.

The average human peasant isn't going to be able to put skill points into most Crafts or Professions because the DM says "no, you don't have anyone to teach you that".

"Why can't I ask Joe the Blacksmith to teach me?"

"Because he's teaching his son, and he doesn't want competition."

So most people are going to practice the trade of their fathers, and the people who aren't lucky enough to get into that kind of apprenticeship for whatever reason have to spend their points elsewhere.

Remember, they don't get to optimize. Opportunity is part of it too.

Aside from numerous references to other professions earning 1sp per day (cook, maid, labourer, porter);

Laborer, porter - what else would they mean by "unskilled labor"? "You go over there, lift heavy thing, carry it over here." Note that any profession that requires any degree of skill earns more.

basically, my whole point is that, about 1 in 100 people are going to have an 18 in either Strength of Dexterity (actually 1 in 108 unless I'm missing something, which I may be

That's assuming that the 3d6 method is how people really are distributed rather than a convenient way to make stats quickly.

But yeah, a commoner could have an 18 strength. He'd be a real asset on the farm, or a great unskilled laborer. Without someone to teach him how to fight, he's never going to even become a warrior, let alone a fighter. Even if he had an 18 intelligence, the spellbook fairy isn't going to show up one day and say "Just look at your stats! You're optimized for being a wizard! Here you go!"

It's about opportunity just as much - if not more than - your raw talent.

So, if 'normal people' are making the kind of crap wages that they supposedly do, I would think a lot more people would be taking up adventuring than there are normally assumed to be, which of course would ruin the economy, or turn the land into a wartorn mess.

Most first level commoners don't do well on adventures. They tend to die off quickly. The other first level commoners see this, and decide that their lives are better spent in abject poverty as opposed to 6 feet under.

Are all PC's born into nobility? They must be, or nearly so, to start out with the kind of 'starting wealth' that they have.

If a PC is from a poor peasant family, I will want to know how he got that shiny new greatsword and mail hauberk. Heck, I'll want to know how they learned to be a fighter. But then, I'm all in favor of, y'know, roleplaying and stuff.

Remember when I said it was about opportunity as much as talent? That's what makes the PCs special. They got the opportunity. Why the PCs? Because 'Dirt Farming & Dunghills' won't sell books.

(Fans of the PS2 game Harvest Moon, my apologies.)

J

 

[Storminator]

Storminator:

Most of the manufacture in the medieval period was not done by the guilds, who did not resemble modern corporations (and certainly did not resemble the Mafia)

Snipped a lot of the other points to focus on this one:

All references to the mafia style guild in my post specifically refer to the guild in my campaign, and the situation the PCs are in. Like I said in the previous post, lets not mix the general discussion with the specific examples.

My game is not a typical D&D game, for a variety of reasons (not medieval, not polytheistic, no wizards, etc). So don't go taking examples from my game and extrapolating them across the D&D universe.

PS

 

[seasong]

Oops! Better rethink that. The tension and wars between church and state in medieval times was considerable and frequent. Both sought to rule the other.

In no wise have I denied that (although I might point out that tension and wars between aristocrats of all stripes, not just clergical vs temporal, was considerable and frequent).

From the perspective of the economy, however, church and state behaved almost identically - both took economic force in, and both spent that economic force on much the same things (impressive architecture, militias, political exertions, decadence).

Again, I'm looking at this purely from an economic perspective. Politics were, and I agree with you on this, heavily influenced by who the specific factions were, and whether any given faction was believed to have God on their side.

(and honestly, I'm not sure we're disagreeing - you seem to be talking more about politics than economic roles?)

Were the model for the various deities of the various mythological and fantastical pantheons based on your assumptions as stated, I would have to agree in general.

I made no assumptions, although I did give an example of one possible option which I felt you were ignoring. One which is present even in the medieval church! I suggested that the presence of real deities would not necessarily result in "the same Church structure as without, only more powerful".

Also, while I feel that any deific reality would result in more power among the priesthood (whatever form that priesthood takes), I don't think it would result in rich priests who fulfilled a different role than the aristocrat.

As they are not, I can freely say that the matter will most likely not resemble what you suggest, other that the fact that the priesthood exercising considerable powers of supernatural and readily observed sort will be most influential, for they are the voice of potent deities who might just send down some plague, a thunderbotl, or the like on the heads of the people who offend.

Well, in the first part, I do not suggest that they would resemble any one thing - I suggested, instead, that no blanket statement would suffice if we are to assume real deities, unless we first make a blanket statement about the exact nature of those deities.

And in the second part, a prevalance of plagues, thunderbolts and the like may result in a different selection of aristocrats, but is not likely to change the economic meaning of the aristocrat...

In all, the prevelence of clergy shoould be skin to the medieval model, their activities and role expanded because the deities of the fantasy world are manifold, manifest, and their ecclesiastical servants on the world exercise great power.

This assumes again that the deities merely enhance the current structure - that is, they provide priests power, but in no way require that the power be used in a way other than how the priests were using their already impressive social powers. I find a deity with such a completely hands-off managerial style about as believable as the human equivalent... which is to say it could happen, but it's not likely.

And, again, even if the assumption is true, it does not change my statements about economic roles.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

[vast snippage!]

to cut to the chase, I was speaking both economically and politically, but not referring to any model based on the medieval christain one, other than to use it as a reference point for the frequency of clerical personnel and their influence.

I concur that the common people would greatly benefit from the priesthood.

The ecclesiastics would, however, not have greater power in the political or economic afairs of state because of mutliple deities in a pantheon, and the annointing of the temporal rulers by the same deities that the priesthood serves--or more likely the chief deity of the pantheon in regard to the head of state. Thus, as with temporal rulers in history, the head of state would wield some spiritual authority on his own.

Anyway, take a look at my thesis on all this in the EVERYDAY LIFE work when it hits, and then have at me

Cheerio,
Gary

 

[Al]

All references to the mafia style guild in my post specifically refer to the guild in my campaign, and the situation the PCs are in. Like I said in the previous post, lets not mix the general discussion with the specific examples.

Okay, sorry about that.

The average human peasant isn't going to be able to put skill points into most Crafts or Professions because the DM says "no, you don't have anyone to teach you that".

Well...if he isn't going to put them into Craft or Profession skills, then what is he going to put them into? Go through the peasant skill list. Climb? No. Handle Animal? Perhaps, but then he'd get a job as a Groom. Jump? Not likely. Listen? Again, unlikely. Ride? Highly unlikely considering price of horses vs. peasant wage. Spot? Unlikely. Swim? Historically no: most people in medieval period could not Swim. Use Rope? Perhaps. So unless he is an expert in Listening, Spotting and Use Ropes (in which case he'd probably be a scout or some such), then he's more likely than not to put skill points into Craft, Profession or Handle Animal, making him 'skilled'.

Remember, they don't get to optimize. Opportunity is part of it too.

Granted, but then skill points should reflect opportunity.

Note that any profession that requires any degree of skill earns more.

Clearly incorrect. Cook requires Profession [Cook] (or at least, I'd hope so) and yet nets only 1 sp.

Guilds and Companies certainly were powerful and enforced their will by the end of the medieval period and into the Renaissance

I'm certainly not attempting to refute that. What I am trying to say is that 'strongarm guilds' did not exist: the type described as those who would break the arms of rivals.

Even if he had an 18 intelligence, the spellbook fairy isn't going to show up one day and say "Just look at your stats! You're optimized for being a wizard! Here you go!"

Perhaps not. But there are numerous opportunities. For one, he would have so many skill points that he'd be nigh forced to put ranks into Craft or Profession, enhancing his chances of earning higher wages. He may be co-opted into the church or another institute of learning. He may win a scholarship to an institute of higher learning (most European countries had early institutes by the 13th/14th century). Failing that, he has a respectable default value on skills.

That's one point overlooked: defaulting. Assuming a six-day week, the average peasant labourer can increase his wage rate MORE THAN EIGHT TIMES simply by defaulting Craft skills. And whilst the capital may be prohibitive in cost, he can always work for a large guild or company (since they seem to be oh-so-prevalent) as an apprentice labourer. Even using 'improvised' tools he can increase his wage by between six and seven times. That's my fundamental problem: the huge dichotomy between the Craft skill/Profession skill earnings and the listed wage rates. Multiplying by five brings the latter into line with the former.

 

[drnuncheon]

Well...if he isn't going to put them into Craft or Profession skills, then what is he going to put them into? Go through the peasant skill list. Climb? No. Handle Animal? Perhaps, but then he'd get a job as a Groom. Jump? Not likely. Listen? Again, unlikely. Ride? Highly unlikely considering price of horses vs. peasant wage. Spot? Unlikely. Swim? Historically no: most people in medieval period could not Swim. Use Rope? Perhaps. So unless he is an expert in Listening, Spotting and Use Ropes (in which case he'd probably be a scout or some such), then he's more likely than not to put skill points into Craft, Profession or Handle Animal, making him 'skilled'.

Who says he has to put it into class skills? The peasant doesn't get to minmax, remember? Maybe he's got some Wilderness Lore - I bet a lot of peasants did. Knowledge (local), unless he never leaves his house. Intimidate, if he's a bully.

And why not Climb or Listen or Spot? And why does Handle Animal mean he'd get a job as a groom? How many grooms do you think a settlement needs? Again, opportunity.

Granted, but then skill points should reflect opportunity.

That's pretty ridiculous. I know the Declaration says "all men are created equal" but, really. Why do you think everyone, especially in a medieval setting, is going to have equal opportunities?

Perhaps not. But there are numerous opportunities. For one, he would have so many skill points that he'd be nigh forced to put ranks into Craft or Profession, enhancing his chances of earning higher wages. He may be co-opted into the church or another institute of learning. He may win a scholarship to an institute of higher learning (most European countries had early institutes by the 13th/14th century). Failing that, he has a respectable default value on skills.

All of which means he's probably not a commoner, not an unskilled laborer, and not making 1 sp/day. That doesn't mean that Joe Commoner without an 18 int should be making more money though!

That's one point overlooked: defaulting. Assuming a six-day week, the average peasant labourer can increase his wage rate MORE THAN EIGHT TIMES simply by defaulting Craft skills. And whilst the capital may be prohibitive in cost, he can always work for a large guild or company (since they seem to be oh-so-prevalent) as an apprentice labourer.

What makes you think that anyone will pay money to go to Joe Default when they can go to someone with training? When was the last time you hired a complete novice to perform a service for you or to make something for you?

What makes you think the guild will hire him as an apprentice, when the guild members have children and such of their own to fill the apprentice slots?

There are not an unlimited number of jobs, after all.

J

 

[Al]

Who says he has to put it into class skills? The peasant doesn't get to minmax, remember? Maybe he's got some Wilderness Lore - I bet a lot of peasants did. Knowledge (local), unless he never leaves his house. Intimidate, if he's a bully.

Wilderness Lore is not particularly likely as most peasants don't leave the home much. Intimidate is not particularly likely. He may, I concede, have a few cross-class ranks in Knowledge (local). Remember, though, that class skills exist because those are the skills most associated with the character archetype: hence, the ones most frequently used by that character.

That's pretty ridiculous. I know the Declaration says "all men are created equal" but, really. Why do you think everyone, especially in a medieval setting, is going to have equal opportunities?

I didn't. I said that skill points reflect opportunity. It is important not to blur the lines between the DnD peasant (who has skill points) and the medieval peasant (who is, by and large, unskilled).

All of which means he's probably not a commoner, not an unskilled laborer, and not making 1 sp/day. That doesn't mean that Joe Commoner without an 18 int should be making more money though!

Fair point, but I was responded to your point that even characters of 18 int cannot/do not make much of life. The rest of your argument is dealt with it my other points.

What makes you think that anyone will pay money to go to Joe Default when they can go to someone with training? When was the last time you hired a complete novice to perform a service for you or to make something for you?

Fact is that they can charge one-quarter the price of the average craftsman, and still double their wage. And I don't tend to go to novices because I can afford to hire professionals. That's another big contradiction: on the pittance wage, how can the peasants afford to support the craftsmen in their respective jobs. If a 'defaulter' charged one-quarter the price of a pro, then Joe Peasant, on his meagre 1 sp/day, is going to go to him irrespective of the quality dropping a tad.

What makes you think the guild will hire him as an apprentice, when the guild members have children and such of their own to fill the apprentice slots?

True, but bearing in mind that the guild can hire him at quarter the price, it will probably be worth their while to have him in addition to their sons etc.

There are not an unlimited number of jobs, after all.

In real life, no. In DnD, yes: and highly lucrative ones if you have ranks in Craft or Profession.

 

[darth]

I am wondering:

Who exactly wrote up the 3e wage system and price sheets, and what was the rationale used? I rather suspect that less time and effort was put into it than is being put into it here. (I love the PHB, but books do have deadlines.) I think the current system works fairly well for dungeoncrawling, but like so much in the DnD world, it falls apart if you peer at it closely.

What makes THIS quirky thing different from, say, hitpoints, is that it's an easily replacable system. It's just a list of costs. There are many books available on the topic. It's true that we won't have a good resource for determining the cost of magic, but remember: The cost of magic is in comparison to product costs that don't make any sense anyway. If your DM makes up his own new system, the odds are it won't make any LESS sense than the current 3e costs.

I have a question. What are some good, easy-to-use-for-gaming pricelists out there? I heard ..and a 10 foot pole mentioned. Is it really any good? Or perhaps gurps has some crackerjack things out there I don't know about. Anyone have something I can bring to the gaming table on this?

 

[Tarek]

Serfdom

Here's how serfdom worked:

Joe Peasant, having left his old village due to (whatever), decides to settle down and approaches a lord to farm some land in order to support himself. The lord gives him some land to farm, and says "you owe me x weeks of work every year on those lands that support me directly." Joe peasant agrees to this, because land = life and a secure future for his family.
Joe Peasant is now a serf. He cannot leave his village and lands without the lord's permission, he owes the lord labor, and his heirs after him are ALSO serfs. If he's particularily successful, he can "buy out" the requirement to work the lord's fields by hiring someone else to take his place.
The serf still owes some taxes in addition to the labor requirement, too, but it's much much better than starving to death.

If he wants to become a free man again, he must approach his lord, basically give up at least half his worldly goods (and the land that the lord granted), and hope that the lord finds this agreeable. Or he can try to run away and head for a "charter town," where the town charter states that "anyone, of good character, who lives and works there for a year and a day is a free man."

Further, if you were born a serf and not freed, even if you are a blacksmith or miller, you still owe the lord service, which basically means working for the lord with no compensation.

The Brother Cadfael series of mystery novels by Ellis Peters is a great source of information on how this stuff played out in history. Also, there's "Life in a Medieval Village" and related books by Charles and Francis Gies.

Tarek

 

[Dragonblade]

Instead of everyone going through great pains to "explain" the wealth disparity and problems with the DMG standard of wealth, why don't we just acknowledge that its numbers are totally WRONG and work from there.

A D&D world would be NOTHING like medieval Europe. The introduction of magic has such and awesome and profound effect on everything that you have to throw away the entire medieval paradigm and rethink everything.

Why do people hold to this notion of peasants living in abject poverty or serfdom in a D&D world. This would not happen except in a country ruled by the clerics of a tyrannical pantheon or something.

Just think of the profound effect that something as simple as magical lighting offers. The everburning torch costs a wizard or sorcerer NOTHING to create and he can do it instantly. Every home in the land would have 24 hour lighting.

And don't even bring up the tired excuse that the wizards wouldn't mass produce them. The demand for such a product would be so incredibly high that some enterprising young mage would produce them. By the barrel load, until they were so common or so many other wizards had joined the market, that it no longer became profitable for him to do so.

And now with 24 hour lighting, you have a 24 hour society that doesn't necessarily go to bed when the sun goes down. You could double the economic activity of a town.

Furthermore, what lord wouldn't soon have his wizards or druids or whatever, creating spells or implements to improve agricultural production, etc.

Throw in a D&D church which can offer BETTER healthcare then we have in the 20th century and you have a huge population explosion!

Magical or magically enhanced industry would be everywhere.

Many of the prices in the D&D are totally out of whack with the logical economic reality of a world with magic and gods. The true D&D world would look a lot like ours and would be totally different from medieval Europe.