Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dogbrain" data-source="post: 1297795" data-attributes="member: 14980">Not a system, but something to build a system with:First, we must accept the necessary silly assumption that the conventional fantasy roleplaying setting would have any similiarity to our own medieval period of history.&nbsp; Refusing to accept that means that there is no need to bother with an actual self-consistent model based on anything that resembles any part of our own world or history.&nbsp; Once that is out of the way, then there's no problem.Okay, now that we've swallowed the elephant, the rest should be easy.A few things to consider:&nbsp; The majority of people in pre-industrial societies do not live on a &quot;cash&quot; basis.&nbsp; They get &quot;paid&quot; in ways that would probably be illegal in the modern USA (mostly due to difficulty of levying taxes under our money-based system).&nbsp; The majority of people in our (assumed) medieval society are peasants.&nbsp; That means that they don't get &quot;paid&quot; at all.&nbsp; Instead, they are sharecroppers in a semi-communal system.&nbsp; They owe their masters some portion of their crops, the wool from animals, and their labor.&nbsp; In return, their masters &quot;protect&quot; them (think &quot;protection racket&quot;).&nbsp; Law, custom, and religion all work in concert to maintain this system.&nbsp; Thus, not only would it be illegal to demand a &quot;modern&quot; system of payment, it would be immoral and foreign to do so. It's like trying to tell a college sophomore Marxist that communism just won't work in the real world--you run up against a brick wall.&nbsp; Anything that a household does not directly create (clothing, vegetables from the garden, the annual pig slaughter) is acquired by barter.&nbsp; An example:&nbsp; Grow grain.&nbsp; The master gets his cut.&nbsp; Bring grain to the mill.&nbsp; The miller gets a share of the flour he grinds from the grain.&nbsp; You get the rest of the flour.&nbsp; The flour gets stored, turned into bread, gruel, etc.&nbsp; You give some of the flour to the blacksmith for a knife, to the potter for cooking pots, etc.&nbsp; There is no fixed &quot;value&quot; for any of this, but nearly all adults have a rough idea of what is &quot;fair&quot;.&nbsp; The wandering peddlar comes by and you trade some shirts your wife has made from cloth she's weaved for things your village doesn't have.&nbsp; That is the life for the vast majority of people.&nbsp; But most people know everybody else around, so a promise broken or a cheat on a trade will haunt one for years.The cities have less than 10% of the population.&nbsp; Money is more important here.&nbsp; Here are lawyers, doctors, and others who insist upon cash payment--when they can get it.&nbsp; Likewise, the markets very often trade in currency, since, unlike the villages, people do not know each other.Okay, so, what is the scope of this minority &quot;money economy&quot;?&nbsp; My sources say that, in the 1300s (the earliest period I have information for), a &quot;laborer&quot; could expect no more than two pounds in wages per year (a pound is 240 pence).&nbsp; However, at the same time, an infantryman (not mercenary, but &quot;on staff&quot;) was &quot;paid&quot; up to 3 pounds per year (at least 2/3 to 3/4 of that would be &quot;witheld&quot; for clothing, housing, food, etc.), an archer 4.5 pounds, and heavy infantry up to 9 pounds per year. A master carpenter or master mason could expect to see between 4-9 pounds per year, but that would then have to be used to support his business, his household, and his apprentices. A chantry priest would make as much as a master carpenter or mason.&nbsp; Kitchen servants might see up to 1/5 a pound in cash a year--maybe.&nbsp; Servants were presumed to have all their needs taken care of.At the other end of the spectrum, English Crown revenues for the same era were about 30,000 pounds per year--but they had to support all royal castles, armies, etc. off of that.&nbsp; A baron could see up to 500 pounds per year--which then goes out the door to support their demesne.But what would that buy?&nbsp; A knight's armor (not defined further) was commissioned and purchased new for 16.5 pounds during that period.&nbsp; &quot;Best wool&quot; cloth was one pound a yard--in a city.&nbsp; About 100 serf's tunics could be had for a pound but a well-off yeoman (peasant) might pay twelve times that for what he would consider appropriate to his station (were he to pay cash for the item).&nbsp; A London house (with a courtyard) could be bought for 100 pounds or more.&nbsp; A similar house in York would go for 1/10 that price.&nbsp; Purchased in an inn, ale would be at least 1 penny per gallon, but that would be with the markup one associates with an inn rather than the much cheaper method of making ones own, and even Londoners made their own quite often, up to the 16th century.&nbsp; As for weapons, the only figure I have is for a &quot;cheap sword&quot;, which would have been 120 per pound.Do what you'd like with that information.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dogbrain, post: 1297795, member: 14980"] Not a system, but something to build a system with: First, we must accept the necessary silly assumption that the conventional fantasy roleplaying setting would have any similiarity to our own medieval period of history. Refusing to accept that means that there is no need to bother with an actual self-consistent model based on anything that resembles any part of our own world or history. Once that is out of the way, then there's no problem. Okay, now that we've swallowed the elephant, the rest should be easy. A few things to consider: The majority of people in pre-industrial societies do not live on a "cash" basis. They get "paid" in ways that would probably be illegal in the modern USA (mostly due to difficulty of levying taxes under our money-based system). The majority of people in our (assumed) medieval society are peasants. That means that they don't get "paid" at all. Instead, they are sharecroppers in a semi-communal system. They owe their masters some portion of their crops, the wool from animals, and their labor. In return, their masters "protect" them (think "protection racket"). Law, custom, and religion all work in concert to maintain this system. Thus, not only would it be illegal to demand a "modern" system of payment, it would be immoral and [I]foreign[/I] to do so. It's like trying to tell a college sophomore Marxist that communism just won't work in the real world--you run up against a brick wall. Anything that a household does not directly create (clothing, vegetables from the garden, the annual pig slaughter) is acquired by barter. An example: Grow grain. The master gets his cut. Bring grain to the mill. The miller gets a share of the flour he grinds from the grain. You get the rest of the flour. The flour gets stored, turned into bread, gruel, etc. You give some of the flour to the blacksmith for a knife, to the potter for cooking pots, etc. There is no fixed "value" for any of this, but nearly all adults have a rough idea of what is "fair". The wandering peddlar comes by and you trade some shirts your wife has made from cloth she's weaved for things your village doesn't have. That is the life for the vast majority of people. But most people know everybody else around, so a promise broken or a cheat on a trade will haunt one for years. The cities have less than 10% of the population. Money is more important here. Here are lawyers, doctors, and others who insist upon cash payment--when they can get it. Likewise, the markets very often trade in currency, since, unlike the villages, people do not know each other. Okay, so, what is the scope of this minority "money economy"? My sources say that, in the 1300s (the earliest period I have information for), a "laborer" could expect no more than two pounds in wages per year (a pound is 240 pence). However, at the same time, an infantryman (not mercenary, but "on staff") was "paid" up to 3 pounds per year (at least 2/3 to 3/4 of that would be "witheld" for clothing, housing, food, etc.), an archer 4.5 pounds, and heavy infantry up to 9 pounds per year. A master carpenter or master mason could expect to see between 4-9 pounds per year, but that would then have to be used to support his business, his household, and his apprentices. A chantry priest would make as much as a master carpenter or mason. Kitchen servants might see up to 1/5 a pound in cash a year--maybe. Servants were presumed to have all their needs taken care of. At the other end of the spectrum, English Crown revenues for the same era were about 30,000 pounds per year--but they had to support all royal castles, armies, etc. off of that. A baron could see up to 500 pounds per year--which then goes out the door to support their demesne. But what would that buy? A knight's armor (not defined further) was commissioned and purchased new for 16.5 pounds during that period. "Best wool" cloth was one pound a yard--in a city. About 100 serf's tunics could be had for a pound but a well-off yeoman (peasant) might pay twelve times that for what he would consider appropriate to his station (were he to pay cash for the item). A London house (with a courtyard) could be bought for 100 pounds or more. A similar house in York would go for 1/10 that price. Purchased in an inn, ale would be at least 1 penny per gallon, but that would be with the markup one associates with an inn rather than the much cheaper method of making ones own, and even Londoners made their own quite often, up to the 16th century. As for weapons, the only figure I have is for a "cheap sword", which would have been 120 per pound. Do what you'd like with that information. [/QUOTE]

Verification