Hey guys,

Since the release of 5th edition, we have seen a few different economic systems for manor & land management. From the top of my head:

-the one in the core rulebook: a few automatic checks, some justice events, a quick d6 roll for economic circumstances
-the one in the GPC: more focus on weather/yearly events, adds tributes & co
-the one in BotM: narrative GM centric one or very detailed, step by step approach to land management, harvests, etc...
-the one in BotE: quicker, more fixed results

So my question is: which one do you prefer to use and is any of these systems now the "canon" one? I know that the system described in BotE/BotW gets Nocturnal support, but does that mean that all the others are invalidated?
I personally find the one from BotM very long and cumbersome (since Winter Phase has to run quickly at the end of our games), but I picked the improvements and some stuff I liked and mashed one system up with bits from the core book.

How do you guys manage it? What are your experiences?

-the one in BotE: quicker, more fixed results

Which is the same as the one in Book of Warlords, thanks to the scrutiny and hard work of Morien and others. And I, for one, do not plan to change it.

Right, so Greg you would say it supercedes even the one in the GPC?

How would you work tribute into the BotE system?

I am not Greg, but...



Right, so Greg you would say it supercedes even the one in the GPC?


It (implicitly, at least) does. In GPC, harvest affects the income. In BotE, this explicitly is not so. The rule of thumb is also that the newer supplement trumps the older one.

That being said, if you like using the GPC system in your campaign, feel free.



How would you work tribute into the BotE system?


The rules in GPC regarding tribute are BRUTAL. £3 per manor means that you'd rather risk the Saxons raiding you, since those raids have actually very little impact on your actual harvest. Usually, there is either no effect or drops you to Poor, but that is where you are ending if you DO pay, so why pay? Better to take your chances. Worse, the implication in GPC is that not every 'defaulted tribute' results in a Raid, at least not from first, so you are looking at a certain drop of £3 if you pay, versus a probable drop of nothing if you don't pay. It is a foolish choice to pay in that system.

Using 'vanilla' BotE, I'd be tempted to make it 2 Lots per tribute. This means you can afford the first one (just lose the Discretionary Funds), the second one drops you to Poor and the third one drops you to Impoverished, if you are a £10 manor knight (ordinary maintenance) rather than an estate holder (rich maintenance, as default). This matches the INTENT of the GPC rules: -1 maintenance step per tribute (except we are now giving the first one as a loss of DF).

The problem with 3 Lots per tribute is that a Raid causes 3 Lots, and you probably can fix one of those straight away. So you are only taking a 2 Lot hit per Raid. Sure, a Pillage might cause 5 -> 4 Lots (two of which are long-term), but not all the Saxons are Pillaging you every year straight away, as mentioned in the previous. On the other hand, -1 Lot in vanilla BotE has less teeth. The players will happily pay single and even double tribute, and just lose the DF. Sure, annoying in itself, but very little else. So they won't feel the sting until the triple tribute, which is very rare, and even then only drop one level.

In our house-ruled BotE, we don't use Lots and I don't let the players reduce the upkeep of the staff. Instead, they'll have to pay the money themselves from DF and loot, or from squeezing the peasants. Thus, I have reduced the tribute to mere -£1 per manor per tribute, because otherwise it is too much (these are, in effect, £6 manors since all the money needs to come from the knight's own funds). This tallies nicely with the Raid damage, which for us is -£2. So paying every year is a better choice than getting raided every other year. This makes it an actual choice: shall we risk getting raided or shall we pay this small fee that is constantly bleeding us and strengthening the Saxons? When do we say 'enough'?

To summarize, the perceived damage if you don't pay has to be in balance with the payment.
Lethargic Saxons, letting the Grudge Score tick up (raids are rare): -1 Lot tribute
Belligerent Saxons, not paying is almost a certain Raid or worse: -2 Lot tribute
Zerg Saxons, not paying means a full scale invasion: -3 Lot tribute

In our campaign, the PKs are paying Wessex and Sussex off, but not Kent and Essex (after one time). Essex raided after two skipped payments, causing Pillaging damage to the manors that their river-borne attack reached (which on whole Salisbury scale would have been closer to a Raid). After the next two skipped payments, whilst Essex was busy conquering its neighbors, Essex came back with a full invasion since obviously the Raid wasn't enough to teach the lesson. Kent has so far been too busy with Sussex to bother them apart from a couple of demands for knights and tribute.

I am not Greg, but...
It [The Book of Warlords or Book of Estates(implicitly, at least) does. In GPC, harvest affects the income. In BotE, this explicitly is not so. The rule of thumb is also that the newer supplement trumps the older one.
That being said, if you like using the GPC system in your campaign, feel free.

Yes, of course
Gamemasters have the right to change anything

An explanation of why I prefer the BoW/BoE system is simple.
In the brutal reality of the Middle Ages Landholders will extract their due no matter what the harvest is.
If the commoners go hungry, well, that is their lot in life
Towards the end of the campaign as lords take more and more land under their personal care variable effects will occur.

On the one hand I prefer the new system because it fills in more of the details of the holding without increasing, and even decreasing, the drudgery of handling the manor in play.

On the other hand, I prefer the old system because it feeds the player's needs to be the benevolent landlord of happy, prosperous peasants (producing prosperity for the Lord too). The new economic view is much less tainted with C19th bucolic fantasy. :) I'm a simulationist, anachronism-permissive, builder kinda player and making the world a better place, one improvement at a time is a very satisfying part of being a Feudal Lord.

On the other hand, I prefer the old system because it feeds the player's needs to be the benevolent landlord of happy, prosperous peasants (producing prosperity for the Lord too).


Have you looked at this house rule thread?
http://forum.nocturnal-media.com/index.php?topic=2589.msg19414#msg19414

[quote author=Morien link=topic=2965.msg22702#msg22702 date=1446216607]
Towards the end of the campaign as lords take more and more land under their personal care variable effects will occur.

Speaking of which, is there any newer material covering the phases after the boy king period? I mean, newer than the GPC?

I remember reading somewhere that you plan to have the type of economy evolve along with the campaign phases, just like customs and weaponry evolve. Not sure if you actually said that, or if it's conjecture on my part.
I've been introducing a lot of detail into my own campaign since BoW came out, and I'd love to be able to keep that level of detail in the middle and late campaign phases.

I think Greg may have said something like that in the past.

Personally, I'd like to have any landholding adjustments in the Arthur's reign as part of a hypothetical Book of Arthur, rather than having two overlapping books (like Book of Uther and Book of the Warlord). Of course, it depends how complicated tweaks would be needed to Book of the Warlord.

Speaking of which, is there any newer material covering the phases after the boy king period? I mean, newer than the GPC?

I remember reading somewhere that you plan to have the type of economy evolve along with the campaign phases, just like customs and weaponry evolve. Not sure if you actually said that, or if it's conjecture on my part.
I've been introducing a lot of detail into my own campaign since BoW came out, and I'd love to be able to keep that level of detail in the middle and late campaign phases.

I am actually surprised you have heard this!
It's not ready by any means.
I have much on my plate at the moment and no time to do this job properly, and if it's not properly done, I won't release it.

Finally managed to track that reference down:
http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?1857-The-BOOK-OF-THE-ESTATE-is-here!&p=16513&viewfull=1#post16513
and its follow-up:
http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?1857-The-BOOK-OF-THE-ESTATE-is-here!&p=16529&viewfull=1#post16529

Thank you Morien

I recently ordered Book of Estates and Warlords. In the BoE it states Manors/basic landhold bring in 10L. But, I cannot find out where any modifications on the Knight's upkeep are. Still 6? Up to 8? I really hate the fact that the book goes from huge land holds to smaller instead of starting with the most basic (single manor and town) and building from there to the next level. It makes looking up what you want difficult. I could not find that in the Book of entourage either.

I recently ordered Book of Estates and Warlords. In the BoE it states Manors/basic landhold bring in 10L. But, I cannot find out where any modifications on the Knight's upkeep are. Still 6? Up to 8?


Same £6 for a knight with a family and £4 for an unmarried household knight. Inclusive of horses and a squire.

The Grade of Maintenance (upkeep) has not changed, and it is mentioned explicitly and repeatedly throughout the books:

BotE, p. 2:
"The maintenance cost for a single knight, in-
cluding his squire and horses, is still £4. Other
previous maintenance costs are likewise still valid."

BotE, p. 3:
"In this new system, a standard manor
supplies £10 income per year, not £6. Upkeep
and benefits are the same."

BotE, p. 14, under "Standard of Living":
"... Rich Knights (£9+), ... Superlative Knights (£13+)...
Each step down (to Normal £6, and Poor £3)..."

BotE, p. 38 (£10 Manor):
Standard of Living
Lord Knight + Squire -£4
Lady Wife + Children -£2
TOTAL -£6

BotW, pp. 168 - 169, Appendix D:
"Standard of Living: The quality of life for the lord
and his family. It is determined by Family Ex-
penses plus a pay bonus, if the lord gets any from
his liege. The Grade of Maintenance is found by
comparing this amount to values in King Arthur
Pendragon 5.1, p. 156-157."

BotW, p. 169, £10 Manor -box, Appendix D:
"Standard of Living for the Lord Knight
(including one Squire and the horses), Lady
Wife and Children is £4+£1+£1 = £6."

BotW, p. 186, Appendix J:
"The most notable change is that this book does
not use the “money you never see” system in
the Book of the Manor. Thus an ordinary manor is
valued at £10, not £6, as explained in Appendix D,
but apart from an additional £1 of Discretionary
Fund, the two models are consistent: the knight
still derives £6 from the manor for his and his
family’s Standard of Living."



I really hate the fact that the book goes from huge land holds to smaller instead of starting with the most basic (single manor and town) and building from there to the next level. It makes looking up what you want difficult. I could not find that in the Book of entourage either.

Funny you should say that, since that is exactly how the New Economics was done:
Take one £10 manor, make sure that it has everything deemed 'necessary' and then simply use the same proportions in larger estates.

You can see the £10 manor on BotE p. 38, and BotW p. 169, Appendix D.

The "extra" £4 goes on:

£1.5 for three foot soldiers (two for campaigning, one for the king's garrison)
£1.5 for "Court" costs (a lady's maid and a chaplain)
and (the good bit :) )
£1 of discretionary spending.

You can't shake much, if any, additional "cash" loose from the holding because, for example, even if you don't have a wife, you have to have someone do the sewing of all the clothes you owe your staff, so the maid becomes a seamstress. The discretionary "fund" (like all the income) is in "render" which can't be saved "as-is", being largely in perishable foodstuffs and the like, but can be sold to a merchant for half its market worth, so if you haven't got any upkeep to spend it on, don't want the extra Glory, and need to save for your son's Relief, you can save a half Librum per year.

The best place to look in BotE is p38, I reckon, but that might just be the way my mind works.

The discretionary "fund" (like all the income) is in "render" which can't be saved "as-is", being largely in perishable foodstuffs and the like, but can be sold to a merchant for half its market worth, so if you haven't got any upkeep to spend it on, don't want the extra Glory, and need to save for your son's Relief, you can save a half Librum per year.

Whoa. Is that right? Even your render income gets converted to coin at 50%? Morien? I don't recall us saying that. I'm fine if that's correct, but I just don't recall us putting that bit it...


T.

Whoa. Is that right? Even your render income gets converted to coin at 50%? Morien? I don't recall us saying that. I'm fine if that's correct, but I just don't recall us putting that bit it...


womble is correct. All income is Render, which means it is perishables. Discretionary Funds are (by default) included. You are free to ignore it in your campaign of course (I do).

BotW, p. 51, Treasure -box:
"No banks exist, and saving is impossible when wealth is mostly perishable food. To keep profits
(Discretionary Fund), a baron must sell the food to a licensed merchant who will transport it to
some urban center for resale. The merchant pays one half of the market value, and his payment
is in whatever form of Treasure the baron desires."

This was deliberate to discourage the barons from hoarding wealth (which Greg felt was ahistorical) rather than spending it on more servants or feasts or what have you.

By the way, I would allow 1:1 of render on horses, since horses are 'perishable', too, and anything that encourages PKs to buy horses is a good thing (they are so expensive already that I seldom see the PKs buying them). But like said, I don't actually follow the above rule myself... I have enough on my mind to start splitting hairs about the treasure/render with the players. :P

The big question in my mind would be, at what point does the treasure become accepted coin? As a rule of thumb, armor and other loot have a resale value of 50%, so in our campaign, it would not be 'treasure' in the coinage sense: you can't go to a horse trader, slap a partial plate down, and say you want a charger, or vice versa with an armorer. In fact, in our campaign, pretty much all non-coin treasure (save for precious metals and such) have this 50% resale malus slapped on them. So in our campaign, I am happily allowing the full use of the render to buy stuff. It makes it easy for me & the players, and the 50% malus comes if they try to sell the stuff onwards. But if they are knighting their son, good for him! It keeps things nice and consistent: no matter what you are selling, you get 50% in coin. Might not be historical, but works just fine for us.

There is also one little thing that a lot of the Production would actually be classed as Treasure under the strict reading of the rules (constabulary herd, cloth, weapons from armorer), and while you could claim that it all goes to support the household... In short, you can easily do it the other way. We decided that the coin is the true universal currency, and all other items get that 50% penalty when being resold (unless you manage to barter with someone or find someone who really, really needs a horse right now, for example).

The big question in my mind would be, at what point does the treasure become accepted coin?
In Logres, Romance Period

I want to revise/clarify that statement
The increased use of coinage comes in the Conquest Period
Arthur didn't invent coinage, he got it back on its feet in the Boy King Period
Fortunately for him, it was functional when he had to pay all those armies during the conqurst period

Not quite what I meant with my question, Greg. :)

Since this might be something that people find interesting, but which is verging off from the main question in this thread, I am going to start a new thread with a more descriptive title, so that people can find it easier.

Link here:
http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?2619-Musing-about-Render-Treasure-and-Coinage&p=22414&viewfull=1#post22414

I could not find that in the Book of entourage either.

And just to complete the set:

BotEnt, p. 4, Updates to Published Material, under £10 Manor:
"The average knight’s manor is now valued at £10 instead
of £6. However, £3 of this income goes to supporting a
Chaplain, a Lady’s Maid and three foot soldiers that are
part of the knight-service of the manor. This leaves the
main rulebook’s £6 to support the knight and his family,
and an extra £1 for the knight to use to support an addi-
tional follower or more from this book."

I have a question, my group is going from Uther into Anarchy, I see that tribute is on avg 3L per manor. As I'm slowly going from Book of the Manor to Book of the estate (with most have 10L estates, a couple 50L), now that we are no longer rolling on income, how do I factor in 3L of tribute?

I have a question, my group is going from Uther into Anarchy, I see that tribute is on avg 3L per manor. As I'm slowly going from Book of the Manor to Book of the estate (with most have 10L estates, a couple 50L), now that we are no longer rolling on income, how do I factor in 3L of tribute?

See the post #4 of this self-same thread:
http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?2571-What-economic-system-do-you-prefer-Which-one-is-now-quot-canon-quot&p=22114&viewfull=1#post22114

Ah thanks Morien, I did do a search for "Tribute" and Tribute and Anarchy, yet the post did not some up on search topics. It just looked like the best place to ask my question and lo and behold, here we are. :)