How do wandering merchants survive?

Mirtek said:
The PoL commuters set out for small hillbilly village with 12 shanties, a small wodden wall, 70 human and 7 animals. Nothing to get their that justifies the costs of raising your own private army just to get their alive.

Nope. Based on real medieval demographics for the English midlands (Hilton 1966), which would be a good basis for a PoL world due to village nucleation and large size, merchants would be setting out for a string of villages of 300-800 people, several thousand animals, and a well-defended manor complex housing the aristocratic lord and his household. Each village would produce a very valuable surpluss in grain that would most certainly be worth getting to: about 12 or 13 shillings per average peasant landholder (Gies & Gies 1991), quite a substantial amount of money in the middle ages, and that's without magic to aid agriculture.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mirtek said:
A big city who needs lot of grain it can't produce in it's immediate surrounding will extend it's influence until it covers a large enough area to safely produce it's food. That's how city states are born.

Its influence, yes. Its protection? Again, you need an astoundingly poor grasp of medieval economics to imagine that a city could effectively protect a network of villages and roads supplying it.
 

Mirtek said:
And any sensible city will extend the protecting of their army to the villages it needs. The romans needed to import a lot of grain too and they did raise huge armies to protect their trade corn champers as far away as egypt.

Outside of Rome, you very, very few standing armies in Europe until the Renaissance. The idea that each city will be fielding a standing army to protect its food sources isn't historically supported.

Again, PoL doesn't mean that every road is contested by slavering hoards constantly. That wouldn't function for any length of time. It just means that there is a significant chance that travel between Points will be contested. Signficant can easily be 10% to make travel extremely dangerous.
 

Mirtek said:
These traveled far and wide in a world that wasn't dark in a D&D sense and even then only did it because they expected an exotic wondrous world goal at the end of their journey where they would get the most exotic things to bring back home.

This sure as hell sounds like a PoL setting to me.
 

Hussar said:
why oh why is anyone surprised to learn that 4e concepts are not based in world building? Considering the strongly gamist bent of pretty much each and every bit of flavor or crunch, why do people insist on trying to shoehorn new previews into a simulationist preconception?
People are still used to having rules shoulder some of the believabilty-load. Now, they don't, and GMs/worldbuilders suddenly have to carry all that themselves. These concerns don't just go away because the rules stop addressing them. I mean,
If the GM want's players to be able to sell off their magic stuff easily, there happens to be a travelling merchant in town
is certainly how you'd do it. But you also have to sell it. And the rules aren't there to lean on – or restrict – you anymore. Which is fine, but not without pitfalls.
 

FireLance said:
I think it was stated in World and Monsters that the darkness between the points of light wasn't all that dark. Yes, most people prefer to live within cities, towns and villages, and yes, the uncivilized areas between the points of light could be dangerous. However, stepping into the wilderness is not automatically deadly, or 1st-level PCs would never survive their first adventure.
Yes! The darkness is not a meat grinder waiting to chew you up! It's dangerous, yes. There are monsters, yes. But if you don't want monsters hiding under every rock and behind every tree, don't put them there.
 

I plan on detailing two or three specific merchants who will conduct their business across the primary region the PCs will be operating in. I'm a big fan of trying (not always successfully) to turn questions of "how" into tools for use in the campaign. Each one will be different, have a different "method" behind his success, and will serve various other purposes. And, of course, the quirks and methods of each are an extra layer the PCs can peel back down the road. I like dropping little revelations in odd places and letting the players realize what and who they pertain to and what the ramifications are.

The first is the retired adventurer who is pretty powerful in his own right who has connections with the ruler of the region so can serve as Eyes for the crown and as a good source of political knowledge to the PCs--he's going to rely on himself and several highly trained guards. He's going to have solid information on various areas, will be generally honest, reliable, and has the authority to issue and collect Warrants for the crown (bounties). Of course, anything he knows the ruler will soon know as well. He gets fresh pigeons at most of his stops.

The second is probably going to be half-lunatic wizard (who I have plans for later, I think, just to tie in an idea down the road to the PCs' beginnings) who also sometimes trades with many of the monster tribes of the region since he doesn't view them as being any less a potential customer than anyone else (and likes seeding them with items for destabilization reasons). He relies on his contacts and goodwill the various monster tribes for passage and falls back on escape magic. His most noticeable trait will be that he always, always lies when it comes to his schedule, destination, and route. He happens to be searching for a very particular item ...

The last will be an underworld type who travels as a merchant to help mask the fact that he's also collecting "fees" from small timers for a larger organization (debts, loansharking, gambling) while also delivering contraband, drugs, outlawed poisons, slaves, and stolen objects. He will serve as a means into the criminal element of the region should the need arise. His means of getting from place to place is a large number of guards, not so highly skilled, who use poisoned blades, explosives, and trails which (through bribes) have not been marked on any common map. He can, and will, buy most anything and will be greasy-friendly but capable of getting his hands on most anything given time.

Eh, just rambling because it's late. I just like the idea of the PCs running into basically the same merchants over time and seeing how they take to each one and where the possibilities go.
 

Hussar said:
why do people insist on trying to shoehorn new previews into a simulationist preconception?

Because that's what DMs do. They build the world and game for the players to play though. Without that, all you have are modules, and those get boring fast.

When the setting is poorly built around "That sounds cool!" over "That's actually vaguely plausible," the DM's workload rises exponentially. Which is REALLY ironic, because I see a lot of the pro-4e people going "Awesome, now I don't have to worry about things like realism or rules!"

The more time I spend on this board, the happier I am with my group. They actually pay attention to DMing and do it themselves, and all of us have a good appreciation for a well built setting...which must be INCREDIBLY rare.
 

Hussar said:
Considering the strongly gamist bent of pretty much each and every bit of flavor or crunch, why do people insist on trying to shoehorn new previews into a simulationist preconception?

There's nothing wrong with a gamist attitude in the rules, but economics has everything to do with the campaign setting.
 

ProfessorCirno said:
Because that's what DMs do. They build the world and game for the players to play though. Without that, all you have are modules, and those get boring fast.

Which has nothing to do with "the rules underpin the world".
 

Remove ads

Top