Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgbrowning" data-source="post: 376227" data-attributes="member: 5724">well-------------------------------------------------------------------------------2nd paragraph. barter is often MORE useful than coin. here's a historical example. kings would often accept payments in kind for taxes rather than coin because then they have to count the coins, keep the coins safe, and then distribute the coins to the person they need goods from. example.. peasant A gives me 10 sp as taxes. i then count the sp, keep it safe, transport it and then give it to another peasant so i can buy his grain. just simpliler to get the grain from peasant A in the first place.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Again, that's fine if you are playing in a realistic game. But what about the 'typical' D&D game?"the typical D&D game will have the same.  It makes more sense, given the difficulties of transportation, record keeping, etc.. that a medieval society faces, even a D&D society.  It is a better decision to accept taxes in kind than in currancy.  It helps keep down the amount of currancy the king/ruler has to pump out into the market and allows an economy to surpass a flat out currancy system.  And it fits the general socity assumptions of D&D.Also the typical D&D game has mostly to do with PC's running around accumulating wealth, magic and power in a "vacum packed" undefined relationship with food production <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------3rd paragraph. craftsman are outside the realm of commoner. craftsmen "practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your check result in GOLD pieces per week of dedicated work." PH under CRAFT skill. ditto for profession.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"As Green Knight pointed out, commoners have access to these skills, not only making the point moot, but also adding strength to the argument that 'commoners' do, in fact, earn more than 1 sp/day."Well, thats up for the DM. to decide.  just because a common has access to these skills doesn't mean they will have them.  Giving the commoner access to those skills was to provide for a multiplicity of commoners.  Most will just farm and know nothing of anything else.  Commoners DONT min/max like a PC does in skill selection.  The DM guide says 1/8 to 1/15 of the population lives on farms, it says the average wage is 1 sp a day, and it says the "commoner class should be reserved for everyone who does not qualify for any other class."  To create an assumption that directly contradicts the preponderance of the information just because you CAN use craft/profession for every commoner is not be best decision.quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------and overall, you are really just not understanding the crushing poverty that was common during the middle ages. Visit a 3rd world country today and you'll understand why it does cost so much to purchase a bow. People are lucky to be able to afford enough to feed themselves, let alone have the luxury of their own house. about 20% of the population during the middle ages were destitute (without a home)... wage labourers, beggers, small vendors, etc.. that lived on the streets. Again go to a 3rd world country and you'll still see the same thing.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"In fact, you are wrong in guaging my supposed ignorance; in fact, I am well aware of the crushing poverty that most people faced in the real-world middle-ages. I'm suggesting that for most D&D campaigns, the majority of the people are not living in such utterly squalid conditions. That would be a gritty setting, not typical for a 'normal' D&D setting, if you ask me. For examples, look at most of the best-selling campaign settings out there. Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms have never made bartering a common trade practice, to my knowledge. Nor have they emphasized that all commoners live in squalid conditions, with barely enough money "to get drunk at the end of the day.""sorry for any offense, didn't mean it.  honestly i've always assumed every D&D setting was "gritty."  there's no reason to assume it isn't.  As to why they dont address it?  Why should they... the point of the game is to have fun and its not fun to think about the realities of the situation.  The PC's move through the world of the wealthy, not through the world of the common.I dont know much about FR... but bartering and squalidness for the commoners has been mentioned several times for greyhawk (gord the rogue books <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />).  The basic setting concept for both campaigns is a late medieval/early reanassance magical setting. To me, assuming the typical squalidness that went along with all the other assumptions.. (cobblers, castles.. etc) was not unreasonable.quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I just went to india and whenever you have to catch an early train or bus you'll go though streets that are packed full of sleeping people, im not kidding, you'll see hundreds.... these people even run food stalls, peddle small trinkets.. etc.. and they STILL live on the streets. People live, eat, deficate, and die on the streets.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Yeah but I don't see that kind of lifestyle mentioned in WotC-produced modules or city-settings, do you?"What i do see is their mentioning all of the other aspects of a late medieval/early rennasance society.  I think its rational to assume the "unpleasant" aspects as well as the pleasant ones. joe b.</blockquote>

Verification