D&D 5E 5E economics -The Peasants are revolting!

[Micah Sweet]

I don't care about how our real-world human society works. I don't want to replicate it. It's horrific. I don't want to go into religious/political rants, but our real world power structures have never been good, or truly representative of good ideals. It's just a mask. The power behind it all is corrupt to the bone. It's like Vecna actually rules our world behind veils of secrecy.

I want to play in a fantasy world that makes sense in the context of the backdrop of the fantasy world. Good and Evil and afterlives exist and are quantifiable and traversable. What does that look like in implementation? That is what I'm playing around with.

Fair enough. I want my fantasy true to life as far as I reasonably take it (magic notwithstanding), and that means organizations are true to human nature. Otherwise I just can't buy into it. I'm not certain that gods and afterlife being demonstrably real would change that calculus as much as you think, and for that matter how many people in a setting even know and believe the truth of it.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Fair enough. I want my fantasy true to life as far as I reasonably take it (magic notwithstanding), and that means organizations are true to human nature. Otherwise I just can't buy into it. I'm not certain that gods and afterlife being demonstrably real would change that calculus as much as you think, and for that matter how many people in a setting even know and believe the truth of it.

That's a valid way to play the game in one's own campaign, where there are no truly good gods, just advanced powerful beings that are just as flawed as humans, who are able to dispense wrath on a whim, like the Greek pantheon. But none of that matches with the measurable good and evil that is represented in the books.

Paladins that crusade around justifying harm and oppression based on unjust laws or religious differences are not good. "You broke the law by stealing, so I am dispensing the law of the land by chopping off your hand..." is not good or just.

If a "good" religion ignores suffering, and holds succor hostage for faith and tithes, they aren't "good".

 

[Piperken]

A few things to consider came to my mind while reading this, which I feel some have rightly alluded to but not stated outright:

Setting aside magic (tm) along with the understanding how difficult it can be to ground in game how economics in a particular =time frame might work, there's a tendency to give short shrift to what peoples knew a long time ago, and what constitutes being skilled or not. For example, you could make a strong case for simply taking a peasant along with you as a hireling. Why?

• Many could farm, which requires knowledge about local soils, being able to tell the weather by looking at the sky, being able to diagnose different kinds of crop diseases, and how to best handle those.
• Many raised animals, which required skills in husbandry, and in the cases where pens or basic enclosures were required, basic construction.
• Some could hunt.
• They made their own clothes and knew how to mend them.
• They were knowledgeable about how to launder clothes, could dye them, and were aware of how to best remove stains from them.
• They could make soap. Do you know how to make soap from memory? I don't!
• Folk medicine (practiced primarily among women) was wide spread; one can argue how effective prayers to God, or reciting spells were, but there was rudimentary knowledge of herbs for many common ailments.

And so on.

We also have a tendency not to credit the organizational capacity of poor/lower classes in history, reserving it as something that is learned say, in school, or in business, or in the capacity of employment. On the contrary, folks who're impoverished can be quite capable with management and developing networks, because of the necessity to do so; more so, they were able to do it with a lack of resources available.

Last, I offer a summary of a brief fact from a recently translated England und Italien (1787 expanded edition), which may spark some additional contexts to think about. It was written by Johann Wilhelm von Archenholtz, who was a German who lived in England for roughly 6 years (1769-1779), and who spent nearly 17 years wandering the Continent. His purpose in writing this book was not as a entertaining piece of journalism, or as a travelogue as was popular at the time, but in light of the attention being given to England by the French philosophical writers, particularly Voltaire. It more falls under what we'd consider social-political commentary today, focused on describing customs, people, etc.

While the time frame is not medieval/Renaissance: at one point Archenholtz notes that the English poor, wear shoes. Which is an unusual fact to mention... why note shoes are being worn, unless in other places you have been, the poor can not afford them?

 

[Ancalagon]

Well one of the dangers is assuming all prices in a campaign are relationally the same as they are today or in any other particular period in history. For example, in the 70's salmon was fairly expensive and you might have it on occasion but often when we had something like "salmon cakes" we were really having Tuna cakes. That is not at all true now. Salmon is fairly cheap.

That's a fair point, but in no way shape and form does it invalidate the economic yardstick principle. This problem exists with or without the use of a yardstick.

Keep in mind, I am not advocating using the yardstick to redo the entire price list! That's a huge effort, and one with limited gains. The yardstick is a tool for the GM for when you do need to really firm up price info

The only way to model prices is to figure out how many hands had to touch a product to get it to market. In those days, milk is probably fairly cheap because no one touches it besides the farmer and the consumer. Maybe if it's an inn or tavern that serves meals it's one more hand. A spice on the other hand might cost a small fortune because of the travel just to bring it to market.

The number of hands a goods has to bass between the producer and buyer is 100% an important consideration, but it is but one of several. Again, redoing the entire price list is not a productive use of time.

 

[Ancalagon]

This is exactly how my favored RPG economic system in ACKS II does it. They use historical pricing data from Late Antiquity as the baseline.

Isn't this directly contradicted by @Emerikol 's keen observation?

Well one of the dangers is assuming all prices in a campaign are relationally the same as they are today or in any other particular period in history.

What made that particular period/location more "valid" than another? You have the exact same problem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Isn't this directly contradicted by @Emerikol 's keen observation?



What made that particular period/location more "valid" than another? You have the exact same problem.

It's not more valid, but you have to start somewhere, and historical data for that period was available.

 

[haakon1]

I want my fantasy true to life as far as I reasonably take it (magic notwithstanding), and that means organizations are true to human nature.

Me too. And I think the standard D&D economics are a good starting point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Me too. And I think the standard D&D economics are a good starting point.

D&D economics are not standardized across 50 years of editions. What standard do you mean? 5.5?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I thought the economy was standardized as being non existant.

To answer the thread title, yes, peasants are revolting, but we need them to grow our cereals and vegetable, so we must stand their crass, odor and unsettling sight when they come to our castle to pay their taxes.

 

[haakon1]

D&D economics are not standardized across 50 years of editions. What standard do you mean? 5.5?

The 1 sp per day standard for unskilled labor.

Which means 1 sp in D&D = $1 in the Old West, which of course was a silver coin.

I’ve been using that method since the 1990’s when I was running Boot Hill and AD&D.

I don’t remember the source. Perhaps the original DMG.