Hello all,

I would like to introduce some record sheets for the player manors and have started
comparing the Honour Record Sheet with the Estate Record Sheet, from BoW and
BoEstate.

From the text in both books, I gathered that Lots are always worth 1/10th of
the holding in question, regardless of the total value.

But, in the Honour Record Sheet, there are two entries.

Lots Value (each): ____________

Current Value: ________________


This confuses me, as it would be much easier to simply have a damage counter
or even a single value. Since BoW is newer than BoEstate, I assume that there
must be a reason for this. Could anyone enlighten me?

Also, the Honour Record Sheet dropped the mantainance column for improvements.
Am I missing a rule change?

Similarly, if any one has sucessfully filled out any one of these sheets, I'd be very
greatful for some examples.

Cheers,
rcvan

By my (quick) reading:

Lots Value (each): 1/10th of the undamaged Caput Major or a Parcel
Current Value: Total Value - Lots of Damage

If you are asking why it is not the whole Honour, but broken up per parcel, that is because the Honour is geographically dispersed. It is extremely unlikely that a raid to, say, Caercolun, where you have say £20 Parcel, has any effect whatsoever to your £100 Caput Major in Rydychan. Hence, the raid would damage only that £20 Parcel, reducing its value by a small amount, which the whole Honour probably wouldn't even notice.


Missing maintenance:
It was decided that since we went from randomized income and maintenance to fixed income and maintenance, it was easier to go straight to net income = old income - maintenance. Easier all around. So if an improvement earlier was £4 income, £2 maintenance, it should be now (£4-£2=)£2 income. At least that is what I think it was all about. Been a while.

I see. Personally, I think this is more confusing than useful, but it's also a very minor issue.

On the msintenance issue, this means that improvements without income (torture chamber, jousting arena) would result in a negative icome. Makes sense.

Thanks for the clarification!

I see. Personally, I think this is more confusing than useful, but it's also a very minor issue.


Having the Lot values per parcel, you mean?

It is a big deal. Lets say that I have a £300 honour, of which £10 manor is in Caercolun and the rest elsewhere.
You have a £300 honour that is £290 in Caercolun and £10 elsewhere.

Caercolun gets hit by a -20% raid. Should we both suffer 2 Lots (£60) of damage, even though I have only £10 manor there? Of course not! I'd suffer mere -£2 of damage (1/15th of a lot, insignificant), while you'd suffer -£58 (about 2 Lots). And this is why it is important to keep track of them separately.

By contrast, an estate is geographically concentrated (at least as a default) and hence it is enough to keep track of just the total estate. An estate is comparable to the Caput Major, not the whole Honour.



Thanks for the clarification!


You are welcome! :)

Ah, no, sorry, that's not what I meant.

I fully understand and appreciate the need for separate trackers of Lots per parcel, because an Honour consists of parcels in disparate locations and of different size. You made that crystal clear in your replies, thanks for the the precise examples.

What I meant was really just nitpicking on the sheet itself: It has two trackers per parcel, while a single tracker with "% Lots damaged" would have done the job just fine.

In general, I think that the record sheet might be the weakest point of the otherwise excellent supplement, because it's more complex than needed, which kind of goes against the overall current rule simplification. Some of my players tend to judge a book by the record sheet. It supposedly answer's the question "what can my knight achieve with this supplement" at a glance.

Again, sorry for nitpicking. The book is fantastic! :)

What I meant was really just nitpicking on the sheet itself: It has two trackers per parcel, while a single tracker with "% Lots damaged" would have done the job just fine.


Ah, I see. I guess it is one of those design issues. The Value of Lots is unchanging (unless you build improvements), so you can calculate that well in advance, whereas the Current Value is the actual value right now.

The fact is that the Lots sidebar in Estate is great for the Estate. But for Honour, it would not even be enough to have a similar Lots sidebar for each Parcel. You need numbers in order to calculate how badly your whole Honour was hit, if one parcel gets hit, as I explained in my example. Now that I think about it, it would have been better to rename 'Current Value' as 'Damage taken', since that is an easier number and more useful one, actually. I do agree that calculating 10% from the full Value SHOULD be trivial even in your head (just shift the decimal point, £61.3 becomes £6.13 = £6.1), but you'd be surprised how many people have a problem with math, and I think that is the reason why Lot Value is there as an entry, so that it can be calculated in advance (and thus saving brainpower for later). With an Estate, you didn't need that, since you didn't need numbers, everything was in Lots.

Anyway, my point that it actually would have been better to have 'Damage Value' or some such is this:
Lets say I have a honour of £300, of which a £60 parcel gets plundered for 7 lots of damage. It is easy enough to calculate that this is £42 in damages (although if the starting value is £61.3, it becomes a bit harder to do in your head), leaving the Current Value at £18. But I am not actually interested in current value, am I? I am interested how many Lots of the Honour that is, and for that, I only need the damage. There is no reason to go to 'Current Value'. This way, you just sum up the Damages and then divide by a Lot value of the full Honour, in this case:
(£42 damages) / (£30 honour lot value) = 1.4 -> rounds to 1 Lot.

Or, lets say I have two parcels of £30 and £80 both pillaged for 5 lots of damage -> (£15 + £40)/£30 = £55/£30 = 1 5/6ths = 2 Honour Lots of damage.

Going to Current Value is an extra step that is unnecessary, and actually even 'harmful' in a way, as it may point people to calculating the Honour Value again to get the damage in lots. Like (taking the second example):
(Current Honour Value) / (Undamaged Honour Value) = (£100 + £60 + £30 + £15 (damaged £30) + £40 (damaged £80)) / £300 = £245 / £300 = 8 1/6th = 8 Lots Remaining => 2 Lots of damage

It is obvious that calculating the Honour Lot damage straight from the Parcel Damage is much, much easier. Hope you will find the above useful!



Again, sorry for nitpicking. The book is fantastic! :)


Nitpick away! That is how mistakes and better ways of doing things are found! And I am glad you like the book. :)

One of my nitpicks: Going to £0.1 in the parcel & honour values is way too nitpicky for me. I would have been happy enough to round parcels & honours to nearest £10, or at the very least, nearest £1 (actually, round to the nearest second digit is my preference: £124 honour becomes £120 and £56.7 estate become £57, and £12.1 Manor becomes £12). This would have made the calculations somewhat easier, at the sacrifice of some of the accuracy, but frankly, I have yet to encounter a situation in Pendragon where numbers smaller than £1 would have played a significant role. As you see in my examples, I am happily using £10 rounded numbers and basically counting 'manors'. It is not a major issue when you have a spreadsheet doing your calculations for you, but they are a pain in the fundament to do on pen and paper.

One of my nitpicks: Going to £0.1 in the parcel & honour values is way too nitpicky for me. I would have been happy enough to round parcels & honours to nearest £10, or at the very least, nearest £1 (actually, round to the nearest second digit is my preference: £124 honour becomes £120 and £56.7 estate become £57, and £12.1 Manor becomes £12). This would have made the calculations somewhat easier, at the sacrifice of some of the accuracy, but frankly, I have yet to encounter a situation in Pendragon where numbers smaller than £1 would have played a significant role. As you see in my examples, I am happily using £10 rounded numbers and basically counting 'manors'. It is not a major issue when you have a spreadsheet doing your calculations for you, but they are a pain in the fundament to do on pen and paper.


Agreed!


T.

I admit it. I round everything exactly as Morien suggested... and I am also using a spreadsheet! Generally speaking, I try to break everything up into blocks of 10 libra if possible. They did a really good job on the economy and everything scales nicely when you do it this way. It just keeps the pace of the game flowing a little more IMHO.

A fix for the next edition perhaps. Simple is better.


T.

[quote author=rcvan link=topic=2946.msg22498#msg22498 date=1444976589]
One of my nitpicks: Going to £0.1 in the parcel & honour values is way too nitpicky for me. I would have been happy enough to round parcels & honours to nearest £10, or at the very least, nearest £1 (actually, round to the nearest second digit is my preference:

I understand that, but it eliminates some of the important data points
Tenths are only important if there are ten of them, but when the Count of Salisbury adds up all the tenths of his hundred fees, for instance, it becomes substantial

I understand that, but it eliminates some of the important data points
Tenths are only important if there are ten of them, but when the Count of Salisbury adds up all the tenths of his hundred fees, for instance, it becomes substantial


Actually, the more there are, the more it averages out. If the distribution of the tenth of a librum is random, then on average you round up as often as you round down to the nearest librum, and the end result is closely the same as the unrounded one. (Hah, I had the old spreadsheet for Roderick's holdings that I used to check the numbers for mistakes & assign the servitium debitum. Rounding each of the 'blocks' in Roderick's holdings, like the whole Salisbury block, the Conquest block, etc, ends up with £1630. Unrounded blocks? £1630.2, a difference of £0.2. I didn't have individual parcels typed out, so I didn't bother to check what happens if you'd round each manor. It should average out, though. Same thing for Ulfius results in £1312 (rounded) and £1311.4 (unrounded), a difference of £0.6.)

Even if, at worst case, you'd do ten parcel roundings up from £0.5 for a honour (which is very unlikely), this would still be only £5, which is insignificant compared to a £300 honour.

If you round up to the nearest ten libra, then I admit that in the case of parcels, this is a bigger effect and might even be a substantial increase in the honour's value (like 10%, but we already have that kind of +0-20% or so depending on the final roll of the parcel). But I wouldn't have any problem using £1 in parcels and then simply rounding the final honour to nearest £10, for example from £315 to £320 and claim that it is 32 knights and 96 foot soldiers, instead of 31 knights and 98 foot soldiers.

EDIT:
I'll take the rest of this to the house rule section (link: http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=2947.0), since it fits better there than here. I'll just say that I really, really like the way that everything scales proportionally in BotW & BotE, and that you can be -exact- if you want to be. At the same time, on the macro level of honours, rounding would not be the end of the world, and keeps the numbers somewhat easier to use during the game. There are a lot of switches that can be flipped in BotE/W to make it easier and less math-heavy to use if the GMs and players want to. And I think it is one of the strengths of the books: they have the full system there for those who want it, but it can be simplified without issues for those who like to keep it simple.

I am also not blind to the lot of work that has gone into coming up with all those exact manor values, and I apologize if I seemed to denigrate that effort, Greg.

I also take issue with the fractions in BoE and BoW, but for entirely different reasons.

In book of entourage, you mostly deal in full pounds or half-pounds (although there are a few exceptions). In estate, the lowest fraction used in the detailed expense tables is 1/4, and most important numbers like the improvement costs are full pounds. There's also the 10L manor to L1 disposable income rule.

All these numbers are internally consistent, and seem to follow the same level of abstraction.

When dealing with land value, however, this suddenly changes. The examples used in BoE and BoW have very detailed land rents, up to one decimal point. There is no indication about how these numbers came up. The only reference point available is the domesday book, but then again the BoE rules clearly state that the economic model in Pendragon differs from it. The result is that the land values used in the examples feel arbitrary, and detached from the rest of the rules. As a gamemaster, you're totally on your own when it comes to the economy.

The best solution, in my opinion, would be to keep the examples as they are, but maybe also include a more generic example for a "gamemaster made estate", with simpler numbers, along with some indication about how to come up with them.

When dealing with land value, however, this suddenly changes. The examples used in BoE and BoW have very detailed land rents, up to one decimal point. There is no indication about how these numbers came up. The only reference point available is the domesday book, but then again the BoE rules clearly state that the economic model in Pendragon differs from it. The result is that the land values used in the examples feel arbitrary, and detached from the rest of the rules. As a gamemaster, you're totally on your own when it comes to the economy.


I am not quite sure how you come to that conclusion? The typical manor is around £10. Just because one manor is £12.1 and another £8.4 doesn't make them totally alien to the economics; they are pretty similar, and all would be enough to support a knight. Would the land values have felt more 'justified' if the amounts had been £12.25 and £8.5 instead?

Is it that you would have looked for even more detailed synopsis from where that income comes from? How many peasants are working the fields in the £12.1 manor as compared to the £8.4 manor, for instance? How many hamlets to a £10? The truth is that it probably varies a LOT based on the area. For instance, in p. 93 under Sheep Herd it says that roughly half of the income of Salisbury manors comes from sheepfarming, since that is what the area is famous & well-suited for. Other manors in other parts might get most of their income from farming (most common case), others from fishing (coastal/marshy areas), forests provide timber, firewood, charcoal and pig-farming. What is the exact ratio for each manor would be a Herculean task (which Greg seems to have done, since he has the numbers). Or, to be a bit more correct, the Assized Rent is what the peasants pay to the lord, rather than everything they manage to do.

I'd argue that the exact origin of that Assized Rent is background color that varies from manor to manor. The AMOUNT of that Assized Rent is rather well constrained, and the economics themselves work out: you have how much money it takes to support a knightly household, individual knights and servants, there are price lists (KAP, GPC) and improvements and investments. Sure, you don't have a system in place where you can look at how much charcoal Manor X is producing and how much more worth that charcoal is if you have a smeltery nearby that needs the charcoal, or anything like that. But then again, the game is about knights, and not about merchants (and even then, there is the trade bonus to model the more developed trade economy around cities and market towns and ports). :)

Or am I totally misunderstanding your comment?

I also take issue with the fractions in BoE and BoW, but for entirely different reasons.

In book of entourage, you mostly deal in full pounds or half-pounds (although there are a few exceptions). In estate, the lowest fraction used in the detailed expense tables is 1/4, and most important numbers like the improvement costs are full pounds. There's also the 10L manor to L1 disposable income rule.

All these numbers are internally consistent, and seem to follow the same level of abstraction.

When dealing with land value, however, this suddenly changes. The examples used in BoE and BoW have very detailed land rents, up to one decimal point. There is no indication about how these numbers came up. The only reference point available is the domesday book, but then again the BoE rules clearly state that the economic model in Pendragon differs from it. The result is that the land values used in the examples feel arbitrary, and detached from the rest of the rules. As a gamemaster, you're totally on your own when it comes to the economy.

The best solution, in my opinion, would be to keep the examples as they are, but maybe also include a more generic example for a "gamemaster made estate", with simpler numbers, along with some indication about how to come up with them.


I don't mind the fractions, mainly because I convert them to pounds, shillings and pence. Sometimes directly to pence so that the player understands it better. If the value includes anything smaller than a penny, I usually round off. Half pennies and farthings are only used in game play if specifically asked about. I never remember exactly what a mite is, so I never use it.

I guess I should probably start a new topic for this but I don't think it worthy of one. My first blush complaint of the new books was that there was no chart to roll on to see what your manor or estate was worth. Then I read the part about the on-line Domesday book and use the Geld and families from the manors listed there to come up with the values using the average to be a 10 libra manor.

But then again, the game is about knights, and not about merchants


My point precisely :)


The typical manor is around £10. Just because one manor is £12.1 and another £8.4 doesn't make them totally alien to the economics; they are pretty similar, and all would be enough to support a knight. Would the land values have felt more 'justified' if the amounts had been £12.25 and £8.5 instead?

Why are they different at all? How does the difference come up?

The answer is that it's because the examples use a very fine grained economic model, which does not try to be in line with the other examples in the book, and which the players are not supposed to replicate in the same level of detail. As you said, a normal vassal knight will still hold a normal £10 manor, not a £10.1 manor.

My point is that the examples are not detailed because the gaming itself requires the details, but for the sake of realism. I'm not sure how I feel about that.


As a side note, I actually like the sense of realism of the examples. I'm just unhappy that I can't replicate them by rolling on some random table. :)

Why are they different at all? How does the difference come up?


Historical reasons. One knight got handed a piece of land that was worth more/less because the liege lord felt like it. Another knight got a £8.4 plot but developed it into a £11.4 with improvements, that are now part of the manor's Assized Rents (having been re-assessed for his heirs), while another was a drunkard who sold the sheep herds and now his £12.3 manor is worth only £10.3. Another manor gets broken up when the heirs are all women, and break it up equally, taking those shares to their husbands and children, and other manors merge in the same way...

You can come up with any rationale that you want, if you need it for your game.



The answer is that it's because the examples use a very fine grained economic model, which does not try to be in line with the other examples in the book, and which the players are not supposed to replicate in the same level of detail. As you said, a normal vassal knight will still hold a normal £10 manor, not a £10.1 manor.


That is the typical, average-value manor, yes. Very easy to use. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it represents the Platonic Ideal of a Pendragon manor... As you point out, almost none of the example manors in BotW come to exactly £10. But their average might very well be close to that.



My point is that the examples are not detailed because the gaming itself requires the details, but for the sake of realism. I'm not sure how I feel about that.


Ah, so you want things to be a bit more messy, since life is messy? You can easily add that, you know... (see below)



As a side note, I actually like the sense of realism of the examples. I'm just unhappy that I can't replicate them by rolling on some random table. :)


Manors: £8+2d20*£0.1 (gives a spread from £8.2 to £12, centered on £10.1, perfect for your starting manor customization; and if that 0.1 offends you, just add -1 to the 2d20.)
Estate: £28+2d20+1d20*0.1 (gives a spread from £30.1 to £70, centered on £50, perfect for your average £50 estate; too big a spread? Use £38.5+3d6+1d20*0.1 instead, £41.6 to £58.5.)
Honours: BotW should already have 5d20+50 for the Caput Major customization. Just add 1d20*0.1 to the final numbers and you'll get your final digit no problem. The rest of the parcels should take care of themselves.

If you mean listing it down all the way to the £0.1 where the income comes from (hens, chickens, cows and ducks, oh my), I'll refer you to the HarnManor. :P

I also take issue with the fractions in BoE and BoW, but for entirely different reasons.

Thanks for your input


In book of entourage, you mostly deal in full pounds or half-pounds (although there are a few exceptions). In estate, the lowest fraction used in the detailed expense tables is 1/4, and most important numbers like the improvement costs are full pounds. There's also the 10L manor to L1 disposable income rule.

All these numbers are internally consistent, and seem to follow the same level of abstraction.

When dealing with land value, however, this suddenly changes. The examples used in BoE and BoW have very detailed land rents, up to one decimal point. There is no indication about how these numbers came up.

What kind of indicators would you expect?


The only reference point available is the domesday book, but then again the BoE rules clearly state that the economic model in Pendragon differs from it.

Generally speaking, the KAP values = 60% of the Domesday
But I do not think I published this anywhere, did I?
It is easier for me to not say that because every often there are differences that I made for KAP for various reasons, but mostly because this isn't Domesday


The result is that the land values used in the examples feel arbitrary, and detached from the rest of the rules. As a gamemaster, you're totally on your own when it comes to the economy.

The decimals came about because the court and other fees are based on percentages of the render
Are the percentages given in either BoW or BoE?
They are in the unpublished BoSalisbury, but that doesn't help anyone
Sometimes these difference are relatively small, but it just seems wrong to jack it up or eliminate it for the sake of using full numbers


The best solution, in my opinion, would be to keep the examples as they are, but maybe also include a more generic example for a "gamemaster made estate", with simpler numbers, along with some indication about how to come up with them.

The problem would not be addressed by that, I think, since the estate owners almost never get the court and other fees
Would an explanation of where the decimals come from do as well?

Generally speaking, the KAP values = 60% of the Domesday


Thank you! :)


What kind of indicators would you expect?

I'm not sure. A small paragraph with an explanation would be nice, but my real expectation would be to keep the numbers aligned with the random generation tables in BoE.


They are in the unpublished BoSalisbury, but that doesn't help anyone.


Nonono, I think that does help!

I suspect that once it comes out, BoS will be perceived as a more important supplement than others, because the information matters more for beginning campaigns than BoE or BoW. My guess is that players will buy BoS first, BoW or BoE later. In a way, BoS is the *perfect* place to explain this matter. Including some explanation about economics there would solve this matter entirely.

You see, I'm not addressing this issue because it's a game-stopper for me, but because I'm a bit fond of the new material. My personal problem is that while I really appreciate the depth and feel the new books bring to Logres, I'm also a bit afraid that the new level of detail could detract from the simplicity of the core game. The examples in BoE do have a bit of a "Harnic" feeling about them, which makes me feel a tiny little bit uneasy in the context of Pendragon.

Ooooh. Come to think of it, Greg, could we get some "Random Hundred" table in BoS? Not for Salisbury, obviously, but for all the other counties?

That might limit the amount of material containing pretty maps, but it would make the game very playable.

The decimals came about because the court and other fees are based on percentages of the render
Are the percentages given in either BoW or BoE?


Book of Warlord has the following:

Hundred Court: 3% of Assized Rent
Share of the County Court: 2% of Assized Rent (other 2% for the sheriff and 2% for the King, if I recall correctly = total 6%)
Each lump of 'other liberties': 1% of Assized Rent
All 'other liberties': 6% of Assized Rent
Total: 15% of Assized Rent

I'm not sure. A small paragraph with an explanation would be nice, but my real expectation would be to keep the numbers aligned with the random generation tables in BoE.


You mean Tables 4.4 - 4.6 in Chapter 4. Building an estate?

So if I get this right (and please correct me if I misunderstood again, I am actually not a native speaker of English)... you want ALL manors/estates/honours listed (examples, or in the Manor & Hundred tables in BoW) to be a possible result from the random generators provided in BoE and BoW? This is not what those generators were FOR. It says right there in the beginning that they are intended to create some typical £50 and around £300 value estates and honours, not all of them. You are putting the cart before the horse here, if you don't mind me saying...



I suspect that once it comes out, BoS will be perceived as a more important supplement than others, because the information matters more for beginning campaigns than BoE or BoW. My guess is that players will buy BoS first, BoW or BoE later. In a way, BoS is the *perfect* place to explain this matter. Including some explanation about economics there would solve this matter entirely.


You know, after thinking about it for a moment, I'd probably agree. The BoS will be of more 'immediate' use than the more abstracted & larger scale BoE and BoW. But yeah... we will probably have to repeat some basic economic information there, too. (Darnit, I just lost an argument with Greg!)



You see, I'm not addressing this issue because it's a game-stopper for me, but because I'm a bit fond of the new material. My personal problem is that while I really appreciate the depth and feel the new books bring to Logres, I'm also a bit afraid that the new level of detail could detract from the simplicity of the core game. The examples in BoE do have a bit of a "Harnic" feeling about them, which makes me feel a tiny little bit uneasy in the context of Pendragon.


Wait a minute... now you want LESS detail? But, but, but... didn't you just ask for more detail a few posts ago? (<- confused now)

Ooooh. Come to think of it, Greg, could we get some "Random Hundred" table in BoS? Not for Salisbury, obviously, but for all the other counties?


Could you explain what this "Random Hundred" table would contain? IANG (I Am Not Greg), but I doubt it would fit into the theme of BoS, which is about Salisbury specifically, not other counties. However, a single table might be easy enough to do as a website post (he says, knowing he won't have to do it).

Just a note


I'm also a bit afraid that the new level of detail could detract from the simplicity of the core game.

The core game is the core game
everything else is a supplement, voluntarily used if used at all
But I understand what you are saying
especially about Harn complexity

As Morien says,
probably not for BoS


Ooooh. Come to think of it, Greg, could we get some "Random Hundred" table in BoS? Not for Salisbury, obviously, but for all the other counties?
That might limit the amount of material containing pretty maps, but it would make the game very playable.

However, I am not really clear on what purpose you wish this to fulfill

So if I get this right (and please correct me if I misunderstood again, I am actually not a native speaker of English)... you want ALL manors/estates/honours listed (examples, or in the Manor & Hundred tables in BoW) to be a possible result from the random generators provided in BoE and BoW? This is not what those generators were FOR. It says right there in the beginning that they are intended to create some typical £50 and around £300 value estates and honours, not all of them. You are putting the cart before the horse here, if you don't mind me saying...


Sorry, my fault entirely, I was not making myself clear.

The examples in BoE are in the middle of the chapter "create your estate", but don't seem to follow the rules established in that same chapter. As a result, the examples feel detached from the rest of the rules and arbitrary to me. Of course, I might also have misunderstood the rules.

For example, some estates have additions from the the "improvements" chapter which would not be allowed according to the space usage rules. Boarshead is the worst offender here, with L8 assized rent, but 5 sheep herds (yes, the income might be so low because of these herds, but it's not clear from the example alone). "Same county" bonuses should be 10% according to the rules, but are often different in the examples. Same for hundred court profits. The examples sometimes have special features from more than one of the three bonus tables, and also some additions not listed there at all, such as woodland.

If the examples were in a different chapter, I'd probably take less issue with it.





Wait a minute... now you want LESS detail? But, but, but... didn't you just ask for more detail a few posts ago? (<- confused now)


Hey, you mentioned Harnmanor first, not me ;)

But yes, my own feelings are ambivalent here. I really like the detailed examples, with the pretty maps and the little stories in them, *however* it also reminds me of other games where the description of the game world takes up the majority of the material. I think it's good to keep some "grey areas" to be explored, also to avoid having players who know the material better than the game master.

However, I am not really clear on what purpose you wish this to fulfill


I saw the PDFs of the two hundreds on your website, and thought that it'd be great to be able to generate something similar randomly. Ideally, it would be a set of tables and rolls to populate a hundred with villages, hamlets, and special features, and to come up with the total land rent. This would give game masters the opportunity to recreate the samples seen in BoE and BoE using random rolls (random tables seems to be a common theme in the rules anyway).

The BoS will contain descriptions like Ambrius and Swans for all of Salisbury, if I read your past posts correctly. This is why I think that this random generator would fit well in the appendix of the BoS, as a guideline on how to recreate the same level of detail in other counties. After all, if BoW contains a super sophisticated heraldry generator, why shouldn't BoS contain a random hundred generator?

I really like the idea, and I think I'll tinker with such a generator myself. Cheers!

The examples in BoE are in the middle of the chapter "create your estate", but don't seem to follow the rules established in that same chapter. As a result, the examples feel detached from the rest of the rules and arbitrary to me. Of course, I might also have misunderstood the rules.


Ah, thanks for explaining. Yes, the examples are more detailed and multi-faceted than the 'generic' £50 estate. You'll find that they do follow the rules, more or less.



For example, some estates have additions from the the "improvements" chapter which would not be allowed according to the space usage rules. Boarshead is the worst offender here, with L8 assized rent, but 5 sheep herds (yes, the income might be so low because of these herds, but it's not clear from the example alone).


Boarshead is an example of 'this land not suitable for farming, so use it for something else'. Like it says in the description: "located
on a narrow strip of marshy land called the inner fenland ridge". As far as the rules are concerned, it doesn't actually matter so much what improvements and such are already there. The space rules is the rule of thumb for ADDITIONAL improvements that the PKs might build. For example, if you look at the sheep herd improvement, it already says that roughly 50% of the Salisbury Assized Rent is actually coming from sheep herds. So technically, each £10 Salisbury manor would actually be Starting Assized Rent £5 + 5 sheep herds £5. But it is just easier to treat it as a Salisbury Manor £10, since those sheep herds add to the Assized Rent. Similarly, Boarshead's final Assized Rent, with all those improvements built on land not suitable for farming, is £44.

By the way, are you using the unrevised Book of the Estate? I am asking since I am looking at the revised version, and it has 10 Sheep Herds at Boarshead. The unrevised version had quite a lot of typos that we have TRIED to correct (but see next).



"Same county" bonuses should be 10% according to the rules, but are often different in the examples. Same for hundred court profits.


You took into account that the Same County bonus increases the improvements, too? For instance, Bran's Town has Final Assized Rent £35.8+£3 from weirs = £38.8. 10% of this is £3.9 (Londinium) and 20% is £7.8 (Market Port Town). Similarly, the Hundred Court Profits are USUALLY 3% (check p. 56, the "usually" is in there) of the WHOLE Hundred, including 'Held by Others'. That being said, there seems to be some variance from the 3% rule-of-thumb in the sample estates (in the book -> what 3% would give):
Banswall: £2.5 -> £2.4
Boarshead: £2.3 -> £2.8
Cherinsford: £3.8 -> £3.7 (assuming that the Held by Others already includes city and market town bonuses)
Bramblefield Hundred (in Greenhome): £1.4 -> £1.3
Lilystream: £1 -> £1.1
Dryford Hundred (in Wheatfield): £0.3 -> £0.4
Woodland: £2.8 -> £1.5

Those £0.1 shifts MAY come from the fact that we changed the rules a bit in v1.0 of BotW, so some of the Assized Rent values changed, and I guess no one (i.e. me, since I was the math guy in the revision) thought to re-check the Court income. For something like Woodland, I have no explanation, other than for some reason it is a lot different from the 3%.



The examples sometimes have special features from more than one of the three bonus tables, and also some additions not listed there at all, such as woodland.


GMs have the right to bend the rules. :)



If the examples were in a different chapter, I'd probably take less issue with it.


Unfortunately, they had to be there. But note that these are actually NOT examples of the RANDOM estate generation system, but SAMPLES provided for the STANDARD estate generation. They are not supposed to follow the RANDOM generation, but represent handpicked samples by Greg's fertile imagination.

See p. 55, Step 1. It lists different ways of creating the PK estate. I am more than willing to admit that having those different ways mixed together in the subsequent steps wasn't the best layout choice, but we were limited by what we could do in the revision, which was mainly focused on bringing the rules to match BotW. I much prefer the way the similar section in BotW is laid out, even though the honour generation is more complex.

I saw the PDFs of the two hundreds on your website, and thought that it'd be great to be able to generate something similar randomly. Ideally, it would be a set of tables and rolls to populate a hundred with villages, hamlets, and special features, and to come up with the total land rent. This would give game masters the opportunity to recreate the samples seen in BoE and BoE using random rolls (random tables seems to be a common theme in the rules anyway).


Ah, I see now. Interesting idea... It shouldn't be impossible to do, although I'd probably prefer to write a program to do it for me, and thus avoid all the adding up. One problem of course is that the hundreds differ greatly in size and complexity, but you can address that with a big enough random roll, like 5d20+10 (value from £15 to £110, with average £62.5). Decide on the distribution of towns, villages and hamlets and then roll away until you reach the aggregate value (or go over a bit). Bundle them up to manors, and it might be good enough.



The BoS will contain descriptions like Ambrius and Swans for all of Salisbury, if I read your past posts correctly. This is why I think that this random generator would fit well in the appendix of the BoS, as a guideline on how to recreate the same level of detail in other counties. After all, if BoW contains a super sophisticated heraldry generator, why shouldn't BoS contain a random hundred generator?


Hmm. Definitely food for thought, although it is Greg's call. I think if it is a a random table kind of thing, it might have to be a top-down approach, rather than the above bottom up computer program.

Hmm. I better stop here, in case I come up with something worthy to put into a book. :P



I really like the idea, and I think I'll tinker with such a generator myself. Cheers!


Good luck!