Compensating Farmers for Collateral Damage

[sabrinathecat]

Well, the burned crops may make the field more fertile.

I had Dragon Empires have a system for compensating farmers for devoured cattle when they were flying long distances and felt a little peckish. Hard part was catching the farmer long enough to pay the compensation--the farmers seemed to insist on running away or shoving a pitch fork into the nose of the dragon attempting to talk to him. And at that point, all bets are off. If you try to offer someone money, and they punch you in the nose, well, maybe his successor will have better manners.

See this. Start at post 489.

 

[Greatwyrm]

What if he has crop insurance? With the additional "adventurer damage waiver" that all farmers really should opt for, along with Accidental Death & Dismemberment (AD&D) coverage if they're rocking it old school.

The value is still a valid question. If we could prove the adventurers were the proximate cause of loss, we'd almost surely make a subrogation claim against the adventurer (or adventuring company).

The other thing to consider is "with the farmer's permission." Just about any property/liability coverage assumes an accidental loss, with the insured acting to limit damage as much as possible.

 

[Ferghis]

We had to be a bunch or rules-lawyers, didn't we?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I'll try to help with that, 1000x500 feet translate to roughly 11.5 acres, lets round it up to 12 for ease of use.
One acre will yield about 10 bushels of wheat, so 120 bushels of wheat for the entire field, every 8 bushels equal a quarter of wheat (about a quarter ton or 480lb) so the entire yield of the field will be 15 quarters of wheat, according to the Assize of Bread and Ale and going by the assumption that 1 medieval English penny = 1 D&D sp; 1 English shilling = 12 pennies = 12sp; and 1 English pound = 20 shillings = 240sp = 24gp we can come to the conclusion that one quarter of wheat is worth 4gp each so the yield of the entire field will amount to 15*4 or 60gp.

There is a great explanation in here: http://www.autarch.co/blog/starting-ground-upliterally

I bought ACKS just for the economic model.

Warder

Thanks. This is a reason why I dislike the D&D economy. 60 gp for burning away 12 acres? A low-level PC puts off buying a potion and the farmer's paid.

And I wonder though if there would be additional costs, since the above assumes sale, not burning the field.

If you burn his field, you need to find him a new field.

Of course you still have a span of scorched earth to face. That can be a challenge.

Well, the burned crops may make the field more fertile.

This is where my personal knowledge fails. I would think burning the field would cost the farmer more than the sale value of entire crop.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

...especially if the fire gets out of control...

 

[Sunseeker]

I would think burning the field would cost the farmer more than the sale value of entire crop.

It may not, actually. In the long-rung, it might save him money.

Lets assume that the farmer has a variety of costs to be paid.
Lets say 30gp for yearly land rent.
10gp for household costs(tools, food, etc...)
10gp for paying "protection money"
5gp for misc costs and maybe another 5 gp that he saves every year.

Normally, the farmer must grow a crop each year, this entails sowing, tending, and harvesting the crops. That's a LOT of work. It damages his tools and it must be protected from vandals, the desperate poor, kobold raids and so on. Further, there's no guarantee that his crop will grow well and leave him enough to sell to cover his costs and pay the local land baron(who may take payment in the form of crops, or gold). The market is unknowable. Perhaps James down the road had a much better crop, harvested slightly earlier or something that would cause Farmer John to see poor business.

By destroying his field and paying him the full value of his crops, Farmer John can now pay his landlord, he will likely save on costs due to not needing to tend the field, or may be able to plant a new shorter-term crop(Pumpkins perhaps?) or find a second source of income. He no longer needs to risk his life defending his field from vandals and kobolds, and might even be able to skip his protection money. Because of these factors, Farmer John both saves money, and has the ability to earn more money than he normally would. Possibly allowing him to buy a horse or even purchase the land he's on!

 

[Derren]

It may not, actually. In the long-rung, it might save him money.

That assumes a rather modern economy.
In a feudal society things would look very different. The lord has a claim on everything the land produces. And while technically the gold does not come directly from the land most of it will still go into the lords poket. After that comes the church who traditionally also takes 10%.

With the few gold coins he has left (still quite a treasure for a commoner) he now has to buy food for him and his family instead of living from what his land provided. He also has to buy seeds for the next season to sow.

And don't forget the danger of having so much money. Wealth automatically draws envy, and coins are easily stolen.

 

[Funkmaster Rick]

One should also consider the local economy, in the sense of the question "Can this village still eat without this farmer's crop?" In normal times, not so much of an issue. In times of drought or scarcity, it could mean starvation for some.

If you REALLY want to be mean, the farmer's crops could be owned by a lord of some kind, who owes his crops to the king, who owes them via treaty to another entity. I would LOVE to see the look on a player's face if they ever found out that their desire to burn some field might have caused a war or something. ^_^

 

[Umbran]

That assumes a rather modern economy.
In a feudal society things would look very different. The lord has a claim on everything the land produces. And while technically the gold does not come directly from the land most of it will still go into the lords poket. After that comes the church who traditionally also takes 10%.

With the few gold coins he has left (still quite a treasure for a commoner) he now has to buy food for him and his family instead of living from what his land provided. He also has to buy seeds for the next season to sow.

And don't forget the danger of having so much money. Wealth automatically draws envy, and coins are easily stolen.

If he's an idiot, and tells someone how much the adventurers paid him, that's all true. If he has half a wit, he'll say that, upon hearing his cries of dismay, they tossed a handful of silvers at him. He pays what he (supposedly) can, pockets the rest, and the lord and/or church can then go take the rest out of the adventurer's hides. Which they won't, because 60 gp in grain just isn't enough to tangle with adventurers for...

 

[Sunseeker]

That assumes a rather modern economy.
In a feudal society things would look very different. The lord has a claim on everything the land produces. And while technically the gold does not come directly from the land most of it will still go into the lords poket. After that comes the church who traditionally also takes 10%.

In response to that, there's umbran's point of "well hopefully the farmer isn't a complete moron."

With the few gold coins he has left (still quite a treasure for a commoner) he now has to buy food for him and his family instead of living from what his land provided. He also has to buy seeds for the next season to sow.

Farmers generally didn't "live from what the land provided" anyway, and if they did, that livelihood was not dependent on whatever crop they were growing. You can't eat corn forever, or rice, or potatoes(well, you can but really, who wants to?). Most farmers grew one or two primary crops, and then grew a smaller garden of crops for their family(cabbage, corn, tomatoes, potatoes, etc...). It was generally accepted that this was THEIR food, as opposed to the landowners. Barring that, the farmer would have had to trade or sell his crops anyway with the other farmers selling their food.

While seeds could be harvested from most crops, they often weren't because you have to remember that for the vast majority of foods, the seeds are being eaten. Every crop that he pulls seeds from, is one crop he can't sell, and often landowners took seeds too and resold them back to the farmer anyway.

Likewise, if the season is still good, he has plenty of time to grow other crops. If he chooses to let his field lay fallow, he can also do other work around town to earn food for his family without having to spend gold.

And don't forget the danger of having so much money. Wealth automatically draws envy, and coins are easily stolen.

Assuming be blabs yes. But again this is also a problem with adventurer income in the gold by level system, a party of 4-6 adventurers could easily end world hunger and poverty with the amount of gold they sit on and regularly discover.