Economics & Small Urban Settings

gizmo33 said:
In fact, though I've concentrated mainly on historical generalizations, a DnD setting can (and probably should) go in some very interesting un-historical directions on this subject.


I wouldn't even say should, I would say it has too.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think a big part of the problem is that the NPC wealth table is skewed with NPCs having more wealth at low levels (900 gp vs 100 to 300 for PCs) and propotionately less at high levels. For any non adventureing types I'd either cap it out at PC levels or call that 900 gp to be the household wealth of a family not the individual funds.

Secondly as has been pointed out the NPCs are not going to be unarmed. They will be armed in proportion to their distance from threats and from central controls. A hamlet on the edge of orc lands with no local nobility will be heavily armed. A village that hasn't been attacked in 5 generations that is in the center of a kingdom will probably have little more than knives, slings and farming implements.

Thirdly much of the wealth of the thorpes inhabitants will be land, bulk goods, animals, and hidden.

Land? If the PC wanted some they'd have to pay for it, why shouldn't it be factored into the NPCs wealth?

Bulk goods. These are farmers. Their wealth is going to be tied up in tools, tack, farming implements, and seed.

Animals. Horses, oxen, mules, chickens, pigs, goats and dogs will all add up pretty quick if you pay PHB prices.

Hidden? You betcha. Historical peasants were pretty famed for managing to keep some of their food stores hidden away against the demands of the taxman, and that's bulk goods too.

And then of course you've got large non-portable investments. Who was often the richest guy in a farming community? The miller. Probably that level 3 expert. So how much of his wealth is tied up in his mill? Good luck moving that grindstone guys.

So you have a lots of large, heavy, mooing, and dispersed wealth owned by people who can either fight back or summon help. And who can you sell it too? If a thorp gets knocked off and the PCs show up in the next town over with a thorpload of drygoods, tack and livestock, someone is probably going to put two and two together and get a bounty on the PCs.
 

They didn't intend you to be giving Commoners 900 gp worth of gear. The NPC gear values are for PC class NPCs, though they might be useable for Aristocrats.
 

gizmo writes
I'd point you in the direction of a book on social and economic history for Medieval Europe.

I've read dozens of such books--got a particular one in mind? Last week I finished a particularly interesting one I recommend to you and anyone on ENWorld, Francis Pryor's "Britain in the Middle Ages : an archaeological history." That is, btw, why I'm concerned about some of the assumptions laid forth--albeit, this is a "fantasy" world. And, of course, Gygax says in 1st edition that prices reflect a "boomtown" economy. Clearly there were historical highs and lows--the Black Plague of the mid-14th century was awful and devastating, but one of the lasting consequences was the fact that many peasants and serfs in Western Europe did better in the long run, as lack of labor force gave them better wages, and, further, Guilds & schools for the first time starting admitting Commoners into their ranks. But for the most part, even in prosperous city states like Venice, most of the Commoners were so poor that they had to subsist on *gruel*. Most Commoners only ate meat a handful of days a year, and these were on major religious feast days.


In a traditional feudal environment, a few hundred villagers would be expected to support a knight, his warhorse, a fortified manor house, the knight's heavy armor and weapons, a few other armed relatives/retainers, and some local yeoman very proficient with bows and owning quality horses. This gives a basic estimate for the surpluses available from the labor and agriculture goods of the peasants. You could assign a gp value to this surplus, and instead figure out how much of a ranger company or school of wizardry could be supported at the same level of effort.

Realistically, Gizmo, how much surplus is going to come from a Thorp of 20-80 adults? Or a Hamlet? Now I think it is realistic that small urban settlements could afford to pay for some soldiers (most of whom would be 1st lvl Warriors), pitch in to make ditches/pallisades, but a Ranger Company?! Even more absurd is the notion of supporting a School of Wizardry!?! Are you having a laugh? Much more realistic, in my view, would be that a high level Wizard wanting to "retire" and start a Wizard's school might look for a settlement her/himself, or perhaps found a settlement in some remote place, or else near a large city.


I agree with your assessment of $10=1sp to be as good as anything, better than a quarter.
In fact, I own a one ounce silver coin and experts tell me that the average value is in fact around $10, depending on the Silver Futures Market. These are the same folks who tell me that a similar gold coin is around $600-700 in today's market.

Modern production methods, labor laws, and such make it difficult to do too many comparisons though. I'm not surprised that people who regularly play DnD would think a sp is equivalent to $.25 though
Just look at the relative value of the British Pound through history...anyhow, one issue we've touched on is the relative value of silver vs. gold, and I understand that there have been times in history (especially before the discovery of the New World) when the value was closer to 10:1.


Historical records are available from peasants who had their goods confiscated by lords, and from those you can get a general idea of the kinds of goods that people owned at the time. Based on that, I'd say 200-300 gp per peasant household (and that's 5 peasants including women and children) would be a very high figure.
Given the fact that most of these people subsisted daily on gruel? That certainly makes sense to me. Why sit on 200-300 gp and not raise chickens, for example? Even if you were a peasant living in a city, you could raise chickens, as happens throughout the present day real world.


It would probably be easiest to divide peasants into their historical classes, generalized as cottar, half-villein, villein, and farmer/yeoman and asssign weapons, armor, and wealth accordingly. Only the upper 10% would have anything beyond a club, spear, or cheap sword (equiv. to DnD spear) for armaments.
Right, and of course one should probably apply the same sort of stratification to the middle and upper classes as well. A Knight or a Lord does not a Baron, Duke or Count make. For the middle class, if one was admitted into a more prestigious Guild (like the Mercers/Tapestry makers, or the Goldsmiths Guild), one is practically a member of the Upper Class. My understanding is Geoffrey Chaucer's coming from a Wine-Seller's family was one reason he was able to land some prestigious posts in English government, certainly not something he would likely have landed if his father had been a Fowler, Tinker or Scabbard maker.


In a fantasy setting, there is also the possiblity of friendly monsters in the area. Foo lions, brownies, gold dragons in invisible castles, watchful ki-rin in the clouds, etc. are all possible defenders of peasant communities.
Not bloody likely. I've noticed that you repeatedly side-step my point that most of the people in a Kingdom live in small urban settlements, and in a particularly large one, there will literally be thousands of Thorps, Hamlets and Villages. Albeit, many will be clustered near larger settlements, close to rivers, the ocean, roads and other conduits of transportation. But very many will be relatively isolated. Do you think it realistic that a large Kingdom will have droves of schools of Druids, Wizards, Clerics, Monks, Rangers, etc. and benevolent monsters, to the order of hundreds of these, all because of a very unlikely attack within the relatively peaceful interior of a Kingdom? Perhaps they are there to also make sure there's no one running games of three-card Monty, ensnaring uncunning peasants in dodgy pyramid schemes, standing on every village street corner selling fake gold Rolex sundials that stop working once money changes hands?


This is especially appropriate if the villagers are subject to depradations by roving bands of evil high-level wizards.
I was thinking more along the lines of bands of 5th-8th lvl Evil Adventurers. There's much better pickings for evil high-level wizards elsewhere.
 

taliesin15 said:
And, btw, historical values I think have little do with certain traditional D&D assumptions--has gold always been worth ten times the value of silver? Clearly not--their values have fluctuated wildly through history.

For what its worth, I think the value of gold historically fluctuated around 8-13 x the value of silver, up until the discovery of the New World. Then things began to get out of whack. So 10:1 seems to me a very reasonable number.
 

treebore writes:
I think looking at 900 GP as being "middle class" might work, because there are definitely a lot of people who are much poorer than that. Heck, first level adventurers start with a max of what? 250 gold?
Yeah, I think there's a consensus on this. This is why that rule looks shaky. Most of us agree that you're going to have some Commoners in particularly prosperous areas (near a silver mine, or say a particularly rich area for farming/ranching) with that kind of wealth. I would guess that most of us DMs probably ignore that and come up with something more sensible. Otherwise, macroeconomically speaking, I think this would have the effect of devaluing the currency. Even in Gary Gygax's paradigm of a boomtown economy, this seems awfully unrealistic.

I like Gizmo's idea of stratification of the classes. Maybe some kind of scale can be suggested for wealth of Commoners, the lowest having about 5 gp, the next 10-20, then 25-50?

One point I neglected to make earlier is one thing we lose from Gygax's 1st edition DMG to the 3rd edition is the presence of 0 lvl (well, there is that half lvl thing, but let's leave that aside). The point is he suggests that most of the Commoners are essentially 0 lvl characters. 'Course he didn't have Commoners, Experts, etc. I can help but thinking that a 1st lvl Commoner might not be one that has achieved some sort of status among the peasant class, and might not be of more means, whereas the ditchdiggers, dung-gatherers, bring-out-your-dead cart pushers (unskilled drones) might be more like the 0 lvl serfs of 1st edition?


Plus maybe taking into account that in the "old days" of our real world the middle class was a very small percentage of the population, and bout 80% were the lower class/poor.
3rd edition DMG suggests 91% Commoners--a figure I'm comfortable with. Of course, I would suggest that there would indeed be degrees within that class, as we all seem to think.


So about 80% of your general population outside of cities are "poor" (middle class was a city phenomenon, not a countryside thing).
Clearly, the Expert class is essentially modelled after the Medieval "Artisan." FWIW, even Renaissance masters like Leonardo considered themselves Artisans.


Figure poor earn maybe 20 gold per year, per family. After all taxes and expenses before food, clothing, etc... 900 GP would be for the few small land owners, and then it would go up from there for the major land holders.
Right. Also, this is all irregardless of land value (which the Commoner may or may not own; not, if rigorously based on the Medieval European paradigm)--the argument has to do with "NPC Gear Value." I do think, however, that 900 gp is realistic enough for the other NPC classes. OTOH, I think it is generally unrealistic vis a vis the Aristocrat class--900 gp sure, ok for petty Aristos, but most of them would have access to much more, in my view.


BTW, you do know that floating disks can carry only 100 pounds per caster level, are only 3 feet in diameter, and can only travel the mages "normal" speed per round?
Yep. Assuming the Wizard is 7th lvl, and has the means to make a bunch of scrolls ahead of time, that's quite a load.


Plus I would say having more than one in effect would cause a lot of problems. Especially since they would want to maintain the exact same distance and location with respect to the caster unless they are concentrated upon.
With all due respect, I think these are rather minor quibbles. Since the Wizard's role in the aftermath would be focussed on the coralling of the convoy of disks during the escape (note the duration of the spell, too), I don't think its a major issue.


Plus you see why farmers have lots of dogs. I have 5 myself.
Yes, and have come across references to the use of geese as warning animals, especially in areas subject to sudden Viking raids.
 

Andor writes:
I think a big part of the problem is that the NPC wealth table is skewed with NPCs having more wealth at low levels (900 gp vs 100 to 300 for PCs) and propotionately less at high levels.
Brilliant! You have articulated one of the reasons I've felt uncomfortable with the "NPC Gear Value" table. Yeah, the higher level values are particularly egregious--220,000 gp for a 20th lvl NPC? Every 9th lvl PC in my most recent campaign had way more than that in gear and gold.


A hamlet on the edge of orc lands with no local nobility will be heavily armed. A village that hasn't been attacked in 5 generations that is in the center of a kingdom will probably have little more than knives, slings and farming implements.
Speaking of which, does anyone else here have an issue with a Scythe (a typical tool employed by all Farming Commoners) costing more than most weapons? 18 gp for a Scythe, and 15gp for a Long Sword?!

Also, I don't know how other people feel about this, but I think some weapons would be much more common and easily made by many, in particular, the Spear. FWIW, I find that's an example of a weapon that's entirely mishandled in the charts--all spears should be considered Simple Weapons, in my view.


Thirdly much of the wealth of the thorpes inhabitants will be land, bulk goods, animals, and hidden.
We've previously covered the first three you list. I've mainly been concerned hear about what would fall under the aegis of "NPC Gear Value" and don't see how those could be considered "Gear." Though, in some cases, my Evil Adventuring party of Thorp Attackers might take some livestock.

Land? If the PC wanted some they'd have to pay for it, why shouldn't it be factored into the NPCs wealth?
That should be an entirely different thread. I've seen and heard of precious few attempts in D&D campaigns (I've gamed since 1980) to set up some sort of legal system that would encompass property rights, and so on. Though, if one wanted to maintain some semblance of RW versimilitude, it should be addressed. Course, I can easily see such endeavors sliding into more of a campaign of Brokers & Mortgages.


Hidden? You betcha. Historical peasants were pretty famed for managing to keep some of their food stores hidden away against the demands of the taxman, and that's bulk goods too.
This book I just read by Francis Pryor in fact discusses recent archaeological finds based on exactly that. Caches of goods and silver and other valuables, presumably hidden away from the prying eyes of the taxman.


And then of course you've got large non-portable investments. Who was often the richest guy in a farming community? The miller. Probably that level 3 expert. So how much of his wealth is tied up in his mill? Good luck moving that grindstone guys.
Yep. One of the most prosperous Expert/Commoners in most of my smaller urban settlements IMC is the Miller. FWIW, in Medieval England at least, the local lord owned the Mill, and the peasants had to pay him that much more just to grind their corn. This is one of the things that lead to the myth of Robin Hood, and to the Wat Tyler Peasant's Rebellion.

Also, keep in mind it was very common for ordinary people to have their own smaller grindstones--I'm under the impression from some scholars that is one of the things that the Romans did for England.


If a thorp gets knocked off and the PCs show up in the next town over with a thorpload of drygoods, tack and livestock, someone is probably going to put two and two together and get a bounty on the PCs.
I doubt I'll ever have a party of PCs with the cojones to try that tactic. This is more something for an evil mid lvl party of NPCs. And, believe me, they are going to be way smarter than to sell all the stolen gear *at the next town.* (LOL!)
 

S'mon said:
They didn't intend you to be giving Commoners 900 gp worth of gear. The NPC gear values are for PC class NPCs, though they might be useable for Aristocrats.
There's nothing in the DMG that makes such "intentions" clear--this is kind of the point of the thread. That, and the fact that spread out Thorps, relatively unguarded, might make an inviting target for marauders. Thirdly, its kind of to point out there's some issues of economics involved.
 

Kid Charlemagne said:
For what its worth, I think the value of gold historically fluctuated around 8-13 x the value of silver, up until the discovery of the New World. Then things began to get out of whack. So 10:1 seems to me a very reasonable number.
Yeah, that's my impression too. Kind of funny, the Spanish thinking it was Gold they were gonna get in South America, when it turned out to be mainly Silver.

An interesting footnote, I think before the current system of having our currency set by the Federal Reserve, we had the Gold Standard, and going back to the late 19th century, I understand if was all based on the difference between the value of Gold vs. Silver.

Another one: I recommend the film Lady Jane--who ascended the throne of England after the death of Edward (Henry VIII's son) briefly until quickly deposed by Bloody Mary. Apparently one of Jane's Protestant notions was to make the silver shilling actually worth its real value. This sent the English financial markets into a panic, and is one of the reasons Mary so easily wrested the crown from her.
 

taliesin15 said:
I've read dozens of such books--got a particular one in mind?

Yes - The Ties that Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England.
Barbara A. Hanawalt. A book mentioned in the bibliography of the "Magical Medieval Society" mentioned above. I haven't gotten that far into it, but I think it has some interesting things to say about peasant standards of living, in particular the "all gruel" diet that you suppose was the norm. But the best part IMO are the morbidly humorous anecdotes from court records.

taliesin15 said:
And, of course, Gygax says in 1st edition that prices reflect a "boomtown" economy.

Yes, but the 1 sp/day for labor costs, and the other commodity costs in the 3E PHB don't appear to be boomtown.

taliesin15 said:
But for the most part, even in prosperous city states like Venice, most of the Commoners were so poor that they had to subsist on *gruel*.

Perhaps, but are you sure about this? The book I cite above IIRC doesn't back this up. In fact, it's not the only book that raises questions about this. Protien is not an optional component in a human's diet - and in any case the statistics for livestock ownership of peasants is something that's been documented in several books I've seen - with numbers above '0' across the board. (Remember, those wolves are after *something*)

If the campaign setting that you're suggesting is really a series of isolated thorps, then I would think hunting would supplement the diet with a lot more meat than would even be historical. Or perhaps the villagers just abstain from poaching based on the honor system, because a band of sworn foresters that would enforce such laws would also be adversaries for the PC bandits.

taliesin15 said:
Realistically, Gizmo, how much surplus is going to come from a Thorp of 20-80 adults? Or a Hamlet?

20-80 adults worth of resources, of course. :-) How is the population of a single thorp relate to what we're talking about though? There would be many, many such places within a single day's slow oxcart ride of a central fortified location. I never meant to suggest the "absurd" notion that a school of magic be supported by a single thorp of people, but I'm not sure why that would have be relevant to the discussion anyway. I suggested that if you looked at the population needed to support a knight's fee, and the resources that it represented, that you could determine the equivalent values for a company of rangers.

Or look at it this way - say you've got 95% of the population able support the other 5%. That means 100 commoners could feed 5 rangers. Now maybe a ranger wants to live at 10 times the standard of living of a peasant. That means 200 commoners support a ranger. Could a band of rangers be 10 of them? That's 2000 commoners. In a 10-mile radius area (maybe a three-hour forced march/jog for the rangers) I think you can pretty easily fit 2000 commoners.

taliesin15 said:
Right, and of course one should probably apply the same sort of stratification to the middle and upper classes as well.

I guess you could. I thought the goal was to figure out what kind of loot you'd get from a peasant.

taliesin15 said:
I've noticed that you repeatedly side-step my point that most of the people in a Kingdom live in small urban settlements, and in a particularly large one, there will literally be thousands of Thorps, Hamlets and Villages.

First of all, side-stepping suggests something deliberate on my part. I don't really know why you said that, it strikes me as being rude and presumptuous but maybe I've misunderstood what you wrote. I've tried to address your points the best I can.

taliesin15 said:
Albeit, many will be clustered near larger settlements, close to rivers, the ocean, roads and other conduits of transportation. But very many will be relatively isolated.

What's "relatively isolated" mean. My general notion is that agricultural settlements will mostly be within a few hours ride of the local market town, for the obvious reasons. If it's a few hours for a farmer and his rickity cart full of produce, then it's a much quicker journey for a motivated patrol of rangers or wizards.

taliesin15 said:
Do you think it realistic that a large Kingdom will have droves of schools of Druids, Wizards, Clerics, Monks, Rangers, etc. and benevolent monsters, to the order of hundreds of these, all because of a very unlikely attack within the relatively peaceful interior of a Kingdom?

The presence of something like a Kirin may have nothing to do with a imminent attack. The amount of such monsters depends on your campaign, but angels, friendly fey, a wise Kirin don't confine themselves to war-torn areas in real world mythology, FWIW.

And who said anything about "droves" of adventurer type NPCs? I was just suggesting that such characters would be available at some level of defense. "Hundreds and thousands of square miles" may be the area, but response time is a function of linear distance, not area. Like I said, many thorps could fit within sight of a watchtower.

taliesin15 said:
I was thinking more along the lines of bands of 5th-8th lvl Evil Adventurers. There's much better pickings for evil high-level wizards elsewhere.

That's cool. I think that 5th-8th level adventurers would make reasonably successful bandits.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top