Hi everyone,

I'm running a campaign in medieval Japan and I'm using The Book of the Manor to manage the samurai PCs holdings.

On our last session, one of the samurai PC had bad luck: when rolling on the Manorial Luck Table, he got a "Property Destroyed" result. Then, when he rolled on the "Property Destruction Table", he rolled a 20, so he had to roll twice. He got "lucky" on the first roll, since he hadn't built that yet. However, on the second roll he got a 7: "1D3 random investments". He rolled 2 on the D3.

My question is: how do you randomly decide what investments have been destroyed?

This is what I ruled at that moment: I turned to page 60, where you can see a table of all investments and their build costs and everything. I made the player roll 1D20 to see which of those had been destroyed, starting from the Apiary. First he rolled a result he hadn't built yet, but he got an "8" on his second roll "Horse Herd early". So I determined he had lost many horses to some horse pestilence and the rest had been stolen. The player was appalled, as that meant a loss of 80L.

But, did I do it right?

My question is: how do you randomly decide what investments have been destroyed?

My GM style is that the raids and such are a counterbalance to the otherwise extreme basebuilding that may occur. IMHO, the random investments are what have already been built. While a horse herd exists already based on the rules, it is not an 'investment', but part of the manor's normal workings (note that the PK in question hasn't gained any money from the horseherd, even if he hasn't needed to replace any horses). As such, the destruction of the non-investment horse herd would be a bit too much. Instead, I ask the PK what actual investments he has built and then just roll the dice between them. If it is 2 investments destroyed and he only has built dovecote, then the dovecote is destroyed but nothing else. If there are no investments to be destroyed, then nothing is destroyed.

This has some advantages, as said:
1) It prunes back excessive investment building.
2) It doesn't cripple the non-investment building PK.
3) And thanks to the two above, it may even encourage the PKs to go out and spend the money, rather than hoard it for investments and such. (Alright, a bit of wishful thinking there.)

Personally, I would revisit the horse herd decision you made based on the above. The player was rightly appalled: £80 is an insane amount of money for a vassal knight, and he is at a serious disadvantage if he doesn't get the replacement horses.

While a horse herd exists already based on the rules, it is not an 'investment', but part of the manor's normal workings (note that the PK in question hasn't gained any money from the horseherd, even if he hasn't needed to replace any horses).

Wait a second. In the list of investments on page 60 you can see how a horse herd provides a certain income roll. We roll for this income and maintenance every year! :eek:


As such, the destruction of the non-investment horse herd would be a bit too much. Instead, I ask the PK what actual investments he has built and then just roll the dice between them. If it is 2 investments destroyed and he only has built dovecote, then the dovecote is destroyed but nothing else. If there are no investments to be destroyed, then nothing is destroyed.

I agree. I think I will make him reroll and see what other of his investments is destroyed.

Thanks a lot for your reply, Morien.

We had this happen last session. Just count how many "Investments" are on the sheet, roll a d[thatmany] and that's the one that goes under. Rinse and repeat with a d[thatmany-1] for the second and a d[thatmany-2] for any third.

I'd say "Investment" means any of the extra stuff that has been built, rather than "assumed" assets which all knights have. If they aren't (going to be) rolling the extra income for something, it's not an "Investment", I'd say. It would be a harsher result if it said "Assets" destroyed, because that might include all the assumed stuff like Manor House and Horse Herd (that abstractedly produces the knight's replacement horses, and which is part of the cashflow of a Manor in the £10 current model).

Wait a second. In the list of investments on page 60 you can see how a horse herd provides a certain income roll. We roll for this income and maintenance every year! :eek:


You shouldn't, IMHO. That income is for an extra horse herd that the knight is able to sell off. His 'manorial' horse herd is abstracted away and is simply providing him with replacement horses, just like womble said below.

In p. 27, it says that the maintenance is already accounted for in the running of the manor, and the benefit is keeping the horses in use replenished. Granted, this could be stated more clearly, although the maintenance part is spelled out. But the EXTRA horses that are sold are coming right after the statement of DOUBLING the horse herd. And that, IMHO, is the investment. While it does mention afterwards that the (implied original) horse herd could be damaged in a raid, this is such a huge loss that I would not impose it on a PK without very, very good reason and some way for him to recoup that loss (generous lord or something).



I agree. I think I will make him reroll and see what other of his investments is destroyed.

Thanks a lot for your reply, Morien.

No worries, that is what this Forum is for. :)