Worlds of Design: The Cost of Trade

This is related to world building, and also related to player characters when they choose to invest in or participate in trading activities in your world/campaign. In some rulesets the characters need lots of money, in others they don’t. Trade has the potential to make lots of money.

merchant-pull-1398066_1280.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

If you don’t take a hard look at risk, it will take you.
--Larry Hite

Trade in general is a mysterious thing. When the trading is between different nations, usually both are better off for it. In other words by some alchemy nations trade and both increase their wealth. Think about that for a minute, and you won’t be able to think of many other things where two nations (or even individuals) can do a simple activity that benefits both, sometimes massively.

The key to trading between nations is the cost of production. Nation A can produce good A cheaply, but it costs a lot to produce good B. Nation B can produce good B cheaply, but producing good A is expensive. The difference may come from the skills of the workforce or from natural resources readily available or from differences in infrastructure. When nation A trades their good A to nation B for their good B, both are better off. They both acquired a good for much less than it costs them to produce it themselves.

Trading was a big road to national wealth in the ancient near East, and countries fought over trade routes. One example of trade was the Assyrian trade in textiles to the Hittites in return for certain metals. The Assyrian population produced textiles easily, kind of a national industry, while the Hittites had many metal resources available in Anatolia. Everyone benefited. We can name many more recent examples, of course.

The cost of transportation had to be figured into this. In the modern world the cost of transportation by sea is so ridiculously cheap that we can have even the simplest things produced in China or Mexico and shipped to the USA, more cheaply than producing them in the USA (the difference is in the cost of labor and the cost of living). Transportation for the Assyrians and Hittites was human and four-footed pack animal, but still cheap enough to make the trade worthwhile.

The same forces are at work whether trading in the modern world or trading in a fantasy world or science-fiction world. Where one side can obtain a good cheaply, the other side will trade their own cheaply produced goods for it, assuming there’s demand. The Romans traded wine to the Germanic barbarians (who could not at that time grow grapevines owing considerably to climate) in return for slaves, which the tribal chiefs acquired in their wars with one another. This is after the Romans no longer engaged in aggressive wars and consequently no longer collected prisoner of war slaves in large numbers.

So in your world building or your campaign the first question is always what can be produced cheaply in one place and traded to another place that has a good that they can provide cheaply in the trade, assuming both want/need the cheap goods. But a question nearly as important is the cost of transportation. Keep in mind that transportation by water is always much cheaper than other forms of transportation, but is subject to availability, warfare, storms, and piracy. Yet even when pirates were rampant there was lots of sea trade because the profits could be so great, when you traded for something that was in great demand such as spices or even just tea from the Far East.

If player characters want to trade then you’ll have to decide how dangerous the transportation is, whether they go along or not. If they go along on the trip then it’s obviously an opportunity for adventure. For example, Sinbad’s famous stories (which are pretty innocuous for modern readers, but weren’t innocuous a millennium ago) derive from his trading voyages. If the characters are not going along then you can estimate the percentage chance that the trade and voyage will be successful and roll the dice, and either the characters benefit or they lose some or all of their money (depending on whether the ship/caravan makes it back it all). The origins of the company as an institution are tied with trading, where a group of people pooled their money to support trading ventures while reducing their individual risk.

Trading profit margins are much smaller today because there’s little risk and cheap long-distance transportation. But that was not generally true in the ancient and medieval worlds, the risk was quite large, so the returns tended to be quite large or the trade wouldn’t happen.

For science-fiction worlds, many people believe there would be very little interstellar trading because the cost of transportation much exceeds the cost of highly advanced means of production. For example, if you need a particular metal you’d be able to set up factories that could convert one metal, or even just rocks, into another, and every solar system is likely to have lots of large bodies that can be mined for ordinary materials. (Think of 3-D printers even today.) Why trade in that situation?

Trade may not always be exciting, but under the right circumstances it can be profitable for everyone involved. My question to readers is, how often have you seen player characters get involved in trade, especially long-distance trade?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

Von Ether

Legend
Tell that to the widget-makers whose market just got flooded with cheaper, foreign widgets. And tell the environment. Then tell it to the foreign country that decided to invest too much in wealth-creating widget-making, when your bigger country decides to start importing from another, cheaper, widget-making country.

That was called the end of the Bronze Age, though it was more likely that said was environment striking back.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Ulfgeir

Hero
Before railroads went transcontinental in the 1860s, all of the cities that were big for their time were port cities, either by river or sea. Chicago (Grand Lakes and Lawrence River), New York (The Hudson), St. Louis (Missouri River), New Orleans (Mississippi), Kansas City (Missouri River), Minneapolis–Saint Paul (Mississippi, Minnesota and St. Croix Rivers). And while barges and riverboats are not the trade superstars they once were, they are still in use today.

I would argue that if one looks at old cities (pre-industrial era), then most cities would be near water (rivers, lakes, the sea), given that that was then a good place to start settlements. If they are NOT near water (and there wasn't water there back when it was started), then it probably had its start as a military fort (where someone though it had good defensive capabiliites, or they could control the surrounding land from it), or it grew up around a place where there were some kind of resource that was considered valuable. A mine for example.

My hometown for example is built due to trade (it will celebrate it's 400th birthday next year). The farmers in the area, made textiles and other things that they went around and sold all over the country. The king didn't like that, so he ordered them to stop unless they would build a town. Sales were only legal in towns (where they could be taxed and controlled)...
 

Erekose

Eternal Champion
I adopted a version of Traveller's trade system for my D&D game. Paul Elliot did a better job in Traveller LBB format, called Mercator, of trade in the ancient world using Traveller rules and produced it (for free) as a PDF back in 2010. It should still be available. Expeditious Retreat Press did a book called The Silk Road on that trade route and trade in a fantasy world. Depending on the level of detail desired there are two good options.
Small world - back in the day Paul ran our original Traveller campaign while I ran D&D!
 

Sounds like you're thinking of a westward expansion over an area where the rivers generally (generally, mind you) ran north-south.

Once a nation is settled, rivers are great.

You might refer to US Grant's campaigns to take Vicksburg, for a single famous example. It is still studied at West Point.

Or by the ongoing debate in the USA about infrastructure, which centers on bridges. Rivers are barriers. They are also highly useful, but they are first and foremost a barrier.
 


Von Ether

Legend
You might refer to US Grant's campaigns to take Vicksburg, for a single famous example. It is still studied at West Point.

Or by the ongoing debate in the USA about infrastructure, which centers on bridges. Rivers are barriers. They are also highly useful, but they are first and foremost a barrier.

When not talking about trade and economics before transcontinental railroads, that is a correct statement. No argument there.

But the article is about economics and trade between nations that exist on a faux earth, non-North American continent, pre-railroad era that's already highly settled and humming with their version of commerce.

Again, your Alexanders and kings will grumble about how rivers suck for armies (always true) but the merchants that come after the armies (the stars of this article) will love using them to transport goods.

If I recall correctly, they used to say something to the effect that rivers where what connected pieces of land, and forests were what kept them apart.
We don't quite see it the same way today.
Whoever they were, they were wrong. Much of the history of the New World is based on finding ways across rivers.

When not looking at 1800s North America, I can wrap my head around that concept ... as long as I own barge full of goods and not an army.
 

When not talking about trade and economics before transcontinental railroads, that is a correct statement. No argument there.

But the article is about economics and trade between nations that exist on a faux earth, non-North American continent, pre-railroad era that's already highly settled and humming with their version of commerce.

Again, your Alexanders and kings will grumble about how rivers suck for armies (always true) but the merchants that come after the armies (the stars of this article) will love using them to transport goods.

Well, even a faux earth, the rivers will tend to run in the same direction on a continental shelf. Most will only be navigable for specific distances before natural issues kick in. There could be a Nile or Mississippi per continent, but they only have (relatively) fast traffic in one direction, and slow in the other, and are subject to seasonal droughts (the nile) and flooding (both). And they will require dredging, stump-cutting, and other post-Steam Age work to keep fully navigable for their length.

Pre-industrial use of bulk long-haul on rivers is not as easy or common as you would seem to think.
 

Dioltach

Legend
Not every river is a Mississippi, a Nile, a Rhine or a Danube. There are countless other rivers that allow for transport, pretty much year-round (except in the harshest of winters - I've seen the Danube and the Rhine both at least partly frozen). And if the Ancient Egyptians managed to use the Nile to transport the building blocks for their temples and pyramids, I'm pretty sure others could do the same with lighter goods over shorter distances. (I mean, besides the fact that we know rivers have been used for long-distance trade for thousands of years.)
 

dragoner

KosmicRPG.com
If I recall correctly, they used to say something to the effect that rivers where what connected pieces of land, and forests were what kept them apart.
We don't quite see it the same way today.

Not totally, except where I was born, Moscow, the forest were exactly as you said, a barrier. Boreal forests, taiga, has a tendency to have soft ground in places. When I took my wife on a river cruise from St Petersburg to Moscow, she commented on how rustic and wooded areas still were, with log cabins along the shore, and such. Of course now it only takes about half a day to drive from Poland to Moscow, and it took the Germans 5 months to get there in 1941.
 

Hussar

Legend
I'm not sure how you could argue that trade wasn't done by water primarily. Even a relatively small ship can still hold several tons of goods. Barges, such as you would see on rivers, with a fairly low draft, could still transport tens of tons, if not hundreds of tons of goods, depending on the size of the ship.

Transporting the cargo of a single large barge overland takes hundreds of draft animals and people. It's massively more expensive.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top