I've a bit of a pickle, that admittedly may be due to my own lack of understanding of the rules (we just got BotE and haven't used it yet, but I want to head off any potential issues that may come with it). Our group has knights of notably different status, with one banneret holding an estate of Wilton and Laverstock, a few vassal knights holding 1-2 manors, and a few bachelor knights. We're currently in Anarchy, and paying tribute to the Saxons is a very important part of the economical situation. However, there are no rules in the BotE about tribute and how it is handled, or how it impacts knights of such disparate statuses. I don't imagine the bachelor knights really need to be too concerned (correct me if I am wrong), but the rest deal with tribute very differently. In the main rulebook, tribute is 3£ so one grade of income. Would this translate to 3 Lots of damage? Temporary, or permanent (probably temporary). Wouldn't this unfairly punish larger landowners? Same goes for raiding. From what I understand, larger estates would take a bigger hit? Or no?

Also, looking at the Winter Phase step 4, it seems that all knights are Rich now by standard, is this correct? Then wouldn't Rich be the new Ordinary (obviously they would be Rich compared to most other people in the land, but I always imagined this was in comparison to the other knights?).

Thanks!

I've a bit of a pickle, that admittedly may be due to my own lack of understanding of the rules (we just got BotE and haven't used it yet, but I want to head off any potential issues that may come with it). Our group has knights of notably different status, with one banneret holding an estate of Wilton and Laverstock, a few vassal knights holding 1-2 manors, and a few bachelor knights. We're currently in Anarchy, and paying tribute to the Saxons is a very important part of the economical situation. However, there are no rules in the BotE about tribute and how it is handled, or how it impacts knights of such disparate statuses.

You are not the first one who has asked:
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

That is how I would deal with it.



I don't imagine the bachelor knights really need to be too concerned (correct me if I am wrong),


You are.

GPC, p. 13 (bolded for emphasis):
"Tribute: Tribute, such as that paid to the Saxons
throughout much of the Anarchy and Boy King Periods,
drains about £3 per manor for one normal tribute pay-
ment. In effect, this reduces the result from the Harvest
Resolution Table downward by one category per tribute
paid that year."

Remember that GPC predates BotE. There were no estates then. You just collected manors, so the £50 estate (supports 5 knights) equivalent was a collection of 5 manors (supports 5 knights). So you'd calculate the tribute in Lots, as suggested in the above thread.



but the rest deal with tribute very differently. In the main rulebook, tribute is 3£ so one grade of income. Would this translate to 3 Lots of damage? Temporary, or permanent (probably temporary).


Yes and Temporary.



Wouldn't this unfairly punish larger landowners?


Heck no. They are the ones who have the most land and most to lose if they are raided. They can pay their fair share, which is in Lots. This is a good medieval custom, too. Land is what the wealth is measured on, and you pay a share of that. Arguing that your £50 estate is 'just one manor' wouldn't cut it with me. See previous about GPC text.

You try charging your 1 manor vassal knights £3 per head and only charging the same £3 from the banneret knights, and £6 for the 2 manor knights, and see how fair your players feel that this is! :P



Same goes for raiding. From what I understand, larger estates would take a bigger hit? Or no?


Larger estates need larger groups to raid them or more time to gather all the loot, assuming that they defeat the defenders, of course. See the Raiding rules in BotE. But if a large enough group hits the estate, yes, it does LOTS of damage (pun deliberate).



Also, looking at the Winter Phase step 4, it seems that all knights are Rich now by standard, is this correct?


No. ESTATE HOLDERS are Rich (from £40 onwards, BotE's default is £50), but regular vassal knights are not. Read Standard of Living on page 14. It is explained there, and the formula repeats elsewhere, too.



Then wouldn't Rich be the new Ordinary (obviously they would be Rich compared to most other people in the land, but I always imagined this was in comparison to the other knights?).


It is still in comparison to other knights, as you can see from the preceding answer. Normal vassal knights and household knights are Ordinary, estate holders (£40 - £79.9) are Rich, rich estate holders and minor barons (£80+) are Superlative, and barons and great barons are Spectacular.

You are not the first one who has asked:
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

Cool, thanks. One sentence confused me though: "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". Isn't this then also the case with tribute, that you can fix one Lot straight away?

Also, would you allow the players to dip into their treasury of candle holders and books to pay the 1-3£ (or more, if there are multiple tributes to be paid) rather than take Lots of damage (god I love puns)? I see no reason why not, the Saxons surely appreciate gold, silver and furs just as much as anyone (though paying them in books may not work...).

Cool, thanks. One sentence confused me though: "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". Isn't this then also the case with tribute, that you can fix one Lot straight away?

That is a good question and made me think. Thank you for that.

Frankly, the way supply replacement is currently presented in Book of the Estate leads to that question. It clearly implies that this is something doable by the steward, it just requires some extra work and effort. Which then logically leads to asking why this resource management enhancement is not done EVERY YEAR?

I see three solutions here:
1) Remove the Supply Replacement altogether. No more problem. The only downside is that it removes a possibility of doings something about the raid damage, which is a bit annoying.
2) Allow it every year, which means more money for the successful steward-owning PKs. Alas, this does double the discretionary funds which is a bit of a problem. This is clearly not what was intended in BotE.
3) And my choice: rewrite (in my head canon) the Supply Replacement a bit to emphasize repairing the damage cause by the Raid. In short, it is not so much that the steward is able to come up with more food out of the blue by reorganizing the supply chain, but it is recovering the damage strewn about by the raiders. It is restocking the fishponds and husbanding the dovecotes, fixing the sheds and fences and rounding up the animals, gathering up trampled grain and straw, etc. Thus, you cannot do it without the Raid, since there is no damage to be fixed, and everything is working just fine.

Thus, following from 3, the reason you cannot do this with the Tribute is that you are gathering the tribute peacefully, so no damage is done, again. Otherwise, you could claim that you are paying 1 Lot of Tribute to yourself, and then roll stewardship to recover it (see option 2).



Also, would you allow the players to dip into their treasury of candle holders and books to pay the 1-3£ (or more, if there are multiple tributes to be paid) rather than take Lots of damage (god I love puns)? I see no reason why not, the Saxons surely appreciate gold, silver and furs just as much as anyone (though paying them in books may not work...).

I definitely would allow for that (well, probably not the books, although they might be able to sell the to someone for money and/or goods). I would agree that the Saxons would be even happier with readily transportable (and status-enhancing) silver and gold rather than farm animals that they'd have to slaughter anyway in order to not overgraze their own pastures.

That is a good question and made me think. Thank you for that.
You're welcome :) .


3) And my choice: rewrite (in my head canon) the Supply Replacement a bit to emphasize repairing the damage cause by the Raid. In short, it is not so much that the steward is able to come up with more food out of the blue by reorganizing the supply chain, but it is recovering the damage strewn about by the raiders. It is restocking the fishponds and husbanding the dovecotes, fixing the sheds and fences and rounding up the animals, gathering up trampled grain and straw, etc. Thus, you cannot do it without the Raid, since there is no damage to be fixed, and everything is working just fine.
This is how I explained it to my players when we got the book, and everyone was ok with it.


Thus, following from 3, the reason you cannot do this with the Tribute is that you are gathering the tribute peacefully, so no damage is done, again. Otherwise, you could claim that you are paying 1 Lot of Tribute to yourself, and then roll stewardship to recover it (see option 2).
But wouldn't this make being Raided preferable to paying tribute in all cases, save for Tribute being 1 Lot? If tribute is 2 Lots, you may want to risk being raided since you can defend against it, and you have an above 50/50 chance of recovering at least 1 damage anyways (2 with crit). If tribute is 3 lots, then being raided is the obvious choice for the same reasons.

But wouldn't this make being Raided preferable to paying tribute in all cases, save for Tribute being 1 Lot? If tribute is 2 Lots, you may want to risk being raided since you can defend against it, and you have an above 50/50 chance of recovering at least 1 damage anyways (2 with crit). If tribute is 3 lots, then being raided is the obvious choice for the same reasons.

Yes, IF AND ONLY IF you can be sure that it will be just a raid! But it can be worse than that, a pillaging, a plundering or a ravaging. Or even a full scale invasion.

Note that you can mix and match. You can have Saxons demanding 1 Lot one year and 2 Lots in another year. Essex might be wanting 1 Lot to abstain from Raiding, while Sussex might demand 2 Lots. These differences can be Saxons' own internal deliberations how likely Salisbury is to pay. Essex, being farther away, has much more of a hassle to send a raid to Salisbury than Sussex does, for example. Or this year Sussex is only demanding 1 Lot, since they know they will be fighting Kent / Anglia and won't have that much to spare to raiding Salisbury: best to keep the demands low and get something. But if Salisbury doesn't cough up that 1 Lot, next year it will be 2 Lots for sure, or even 3 Lots to make up for the non-compliance.

In the thread I linked, my summary was:
"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"

Note how I argue that if the tribute is 2 Lots, then not paying should be a Raid OR WORSE.

My thinking has also evolved a bit from the time I posted in that thread. One way for the GM to control if the PKs are feeling constrained to stay at their manors or doing something else is to vary the Tribute amount, as suggested at the beginning of this reply.

One way for the GM to control if the PKs are feeling constrained to stay at their manors or doing something else is to vary the Tribute amount, as suggested at the beginning of this reply.

I really dislike the manorial aspect of the game, and garrisoning a bunch of manor that are far apart doesn't make for the best adventures IMHO. If for story reasons I want the players to be present when the Saxons raid, they will be. If on the other hand I want them to be gone, well then the Saxons raid when they are off in Rydychan or Dorset or sneaking into Levcomagus' cabbage patch or something. If a player misses the adventure, I will run a solo where he and he alone can defend against the raiders, whereas otherwise the players will need to make due with their paltry defenses and garrisons without a knight to lead them.

EDIT: Maybe the knights have sons or nephews that will take up arms in defense of the manor, to lay the groundwork for the PK's inevitable demise.

I really dislike the manorial aspect of the game,

Easily enough fixed, either by just having household knights in the game (no manors), or just avoiding everything to do with the manors, including everything mentioned in BotE & GPC. The complexity is there for those who enjoy it. Those who don't, it can be handwaved away.

I can't help but wonder why you got BotE and are looking to implement the rules and why did you let the PKs become bannerets (estate holders) if you hate the manorial aspect so much?


and garrisoning a bunch of manor that are far apart doesn't make for the best adventures IMHO.

They are supposed to support a household knight per extra manor to bring to the army muster and, in the meantime, to help in safeguarding the place. These could be the sons & nephews (if old enough), but more usually cousins, uncles, younger (or bastard) brothers or just some knights whom the PK has taken into his service.



If for story reasons I want the players to be present when the Saxons raid, they will be. If on the other hand I want them to be gone, well then the Saxons raid when they are off in Rydychan or Dorset or sneaking into Levcomagus' cabbage patch or something.


Fair enough. However, I would be a bit miffed as a player if my character had every reason to believe that Saxons are raiding this year, and wanted to stay home to guard it, and the GM over-rules what my character is doing since he wants to run an adventure in Forest Sauvage. Granted, if the liege lord/lady commands my knight to go and help out in Rydychan, or go to the Forest Sauvage to find X because it is needed to save Robert's life or some such, then fair enough, that is a command from a liege and one has to obey. I'd try to make sure that there would be a knight to look after my manor in that case, too. But the GM tossing my character around willy-nilly would break my immersion.



EDIT: Maybe the knights have sons or nephews that will take up arms in defense of the manor, to lay the groundwork for the PK's inevitable demise.

See my earlier comment. :)

Easily enough fixed, either by just having household knights in the game (no manors), or just avoiding everything to do with the manors, including everything mentioned in BotE & GPC. The complexity is there for those who enjoy it. Those who don't, it can be handwaved away.

I can't help but wonder why you got BotE and are looking to implement the rules and why did you let the PKs become bannerets (estate holders) if you hate the manorial aspect so much?

It's a bit of a compromise. Some of the players are interested in the land management aspect, and I am too to an extent, but felt that the Book of the Manor was too detailed and complex. I enjoy the simplicity of the BotE system when it comes to land management. The reason one of the players got to become a banneret is a combination of 1) I didn't think it would be this much work and 2) his character did some truly thrilling heroics. Lesson learned, no one will be a banneret (or at least an estate holder) ever again :P (mostly because land management on that scale seriously limits the adventuring option in my opinion).


Fair enough. However, I would be a bit miffed as a player if my character had every reason to believe that Saxons are raiding this year, and wanted to stay home to guard it, and the GM over-rules what my character is doing since he wants to run an adventure in Forest Sauvage. Granted, if the liege lord/lady commands my knight to go and help out in Rydychan, or go to the Forest Sauvage to find X because it is needed to save Robert's life or some such, then fair enough, that is a command from a liege and one has to obey. I'd try to make sure that there would be a knight to look after my manor in that case, too. But the GM tossing my character around willy-nilly would break my immersion.
Adventures in our games usually spontaneously happen when the knights are riding patrol or at the court, after which the Countess tells them to go and do. I'm keeping Forest Sauvage in reserve for later periods (or if I come up with something spectacular that I want to do), and am trying to encourage the players to build defenses and hire garrisons to watch over their lands, but so far they've been less than enthusiastic about it. Maybe a few raids will change their minds...

but felt that the Book of the Manor was too detailed and complex. I enjoy the simplicity of the BotE system when it comes to land management.


I can't really blame you for finding BotM to be a bit too complicated, and I am glad I find BotE more agreeable to your level of complexity. That is one of BotE principle goals, to keep the landholding simple enough, while also giving the tools to make it more complicated if the gaming group wants. :)



I'm keeping Forest Sauvage in reserve for later periods (or if I come up with something spectacular that I want to do),


I quite obviously approve of this plan:
http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?2589-Anarchy-Some-GMing-advice-(especially-about-the-Sauvage-Forest)&p=22222&viewfull=1#post22222



and am trying to encourage the players to build defenses and hire garrisons to watch over their lands, but so far they've been less than enthusiastic about it. Maybe a few raids will change their minds...

Or flatten an NPK manor close to theirs. Manor burned down, villagers scattered, family slaughtered, any pretty girls kidnapped... That ought to emphasize the danger, too.

I have a bit of an opposite 'problem'. Since during Uther years we played up the Levcomagus Salisbury feud with some raiding on both sides, and the PK manors were right at the border, they tended to spend quite a lot of money to building up their defenses. With Anarchy, they started building defenses even more. Now I have a Maginot line of sorts across the border, with each manor fortified almost to a castle level and two of them starting to build stone curtain walls! On hindsight, I probably should have put a stop to it, but on the other hand, not like that small increase in DV will do anything, and I can even have Arthur demand that they demolish those walls since they are 'adulterine castles', built without royal permission, if they really bother me.

I have a bit of an opposite 'problem'. Since during Uther years we played up the Levcomagus Salisbury feud with some raiding on both sides, and the PK manors were right at the border, they tended to spend quite a lot of money to building up their defenses. With Anarchy, they started building defenses even more. Now I have a Maginot line of sorts across the border, with each manor fortified almost to a castle level and two of them starting to build stone curtain walls! On hindsight, I probably should have put a stop to it, but on the other hand, not like that small increase in DV will do anything, and I can even have Arthur demand that they demolish those walls since they are 'adulterine castles', built without royal permission, if they really bother me.

Just watch them kidnap the Yellow Priest and have him build them cannons :p

Just watch them kidnap the Yellow Priest and have him build them cannons :p

Given that after all those years, Prince Mark managed ONE, just ONE, huge monstrosity of a cannon that took forever to operate, I doubt I have to worry about the single-manor knights managing a gunpowder revolution on their own. :)

3) And my choice: rewrite (in my head canon) the Supply Replacement a bit to emphasize repairing the damage cause by the Raid. In short, it is not so much that the steward is able to come up with more food out of the blue by reorganizing the supply chain, but it is recovering the damage strewn about by the raiders. It is restocking the fishponds and husbanding the dovecotes, fixing the sheds and fences and rounding up the animals, gathering up trampled grain and straw, etc. Thus, you cannot do it without the Raid, since there is no damage to be fixed, and everything is working just fine.


Very nice thread, and only one additional comment to this:

Supply Replacement would also emphasize squeezing the peasantry for additional contributions, help in repairs and the like. The peasants are likely not going to complain too much if this is in response to a raid, but they will if it's done annually or without some form of estate duress. This also illustrates the need for the steward, in that he has to motivate them to greater degrees of service and sacrifice.


--Khanwulf

Yes, a good point, Khanwulf.

So the Supply Replacement would be a lighter form of Squeeze? Makes good sense to me :-).

BTW, how does weather work with the BotE? Same as before? Where do the negative modifiers come from, since curses and bad weather cause Raid/Pillage/Plunder? How does this impact regular manors, since the manor holders are Ordinary to begin with, and it would seem odd to allow them to pass the shortage on to their staff. Tribute doesn't (or at least hasn't yet) caused a problem, since they've been paying it from treasure, but shortages can't be made up with treasure (you can't eat gold and during Anarchy all trade has ceased)

BTW, how does weather work with the BotE? Same as before? Where do the negative modifiers come from, since curses and bad weather cause Raid/Pillage/Plunder? How does this impact regular manors, since the manor holders are Ordinary to begin with, and it would seem odd to allow them to pass the shortage on to their staff. Tribute doesn't (or at least hasn't yet) caused a problem, since they've been paying it from treasure, but shortages can't be made up with treasure (you can't eat gold and during Anarchy all trade has ceased)

Normal 'bad weather' just means that the peasants suffer (a bit, since the burden is shared by up to hundred or so families); the rent payments are in absolute values, not in percentages. So the Lord will simply collect what he is due and his income doesn't suffer. Note that you DO NOT have the harvest rolls as you did in BotM, for exactly that reason. The weather listing is really meant for extraordinarily bad weather, like droughts or floods or the Wasteland.

The regular manors get impacted as well as the estates, of course. Like said above, this is usually not a problem at all, since it is so rare that the weather would continue so awful for subsequent years. In other words, you can ignore weather, unless there is a story reason why there is a minor famine. However, in an instance where the manor gets raided or something, I would not hesitate to drop the knight and his family to Poor at 3 Lots of shortage. Note that Poor for a knight is still much better than what the servants get: Poor for a kitchen maid is almost starvation rations. Also note that BotE survival rules are MUCH more forgiving of Poor economic circumstances than KAP 5.1 are, where Poor is a death sentence to any kids that the knight might have, if it continues for more than a couple of years. Finally, if this is an isolated incident (one manor got raided, the rest of the county is doing fine), then the knight can (and probably should) appeal to his liege lord, who would be likely to help by adding some support from his own coffers/stores, restoring the knight to Ordinary and further cementing those ties of reciprocal loyalty. Now if the whole county is in dire straits (tribute, invasion), then it is possible that the liege is unable to offer additional support (his own household knights are already subsisting on Poor, for example), but this again would be up to the GM to decide.

As for eating gold... Again, if it is a single manor that is suffering (curse, raid) rather than the whole county, it is likely that there is enough food for sale. While LONG-DISTANCE trade has ceased during Anarchy, the internal markets on county level usually still work (at least once stability is restored on local level, probably by 496 or 497). Also, unless this is a chronic problem with harvests, it is likely that there is still some stores left from the previous year that the liege lord is happy to get rid off, and you'd eat that first. So in conclusion, I would allow the use of treasure to buy food, unless it is a famine situation, in which case I would increase the price to reflect the shrinking supply. But still, you could buy food if you are rich enough. There has always been inequality and people wanting to make money and letting the poor to starve. In the final pinch, the knight could simply take his sword and force peasants to give him and his family food (squeezing). Trust me, in a famine situation, the knight is much less likely to suffer than an old peasant widow, even if the widow has her own, well-gardened vegetable patch...


EDIT:
Just to add, BotE default is very much intended to keep the estate management streamlined and easy. Unless something special happens, you get £1 per £10 land (a default manor) to spend as you please, and your Standard of Living stays the same, too. So the whole economic step of the winter phase pretty much boils to recording your extra treasure or if you want to spend the extra income on a hireling next year. That is all. There are no harvest & weather rolls, no manorial luck, no Hate Landlord.

I'm making some houserule adjustments to the BotM and BotE systems, will post result soon(ish) if anyone is interested. I don't find anything about being Poor, Impoverished (or Rich or Superlative) that would impact horse or child survival rolls, is this correct? I think its well established by now that I can't apparently read, or else my Ctrl+F-Fu blows :p

I'm making some houserule adjustments to the BotM and BotE systems, will post result soon(ish) if anyone is interested.


In case you are interested:
http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?2554-Simplified-Estate-amp-Warlord&highlight=Manor
http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?2234-Harvests-Raids-Pestilence-and-Wasteland&p=18892&viewfull=1#post18892



I don't find anything about being Poor, Impoverished (or Rich or Superlative) that would impact horse or child survival rolls, is this correct? I think its well established by now that I can't apparently read, or else my Ctrl+F-Fu blows :p

Reread 'Standard of Living' and 'The Estate in the Winter Phase' on page 14. If no changes are mentioned, then the rules are unchanged.
(Hint: Child survival roll modifiers ARE changed, horse survival are not. Although my personal view is that both modifiers should be cut out, and the Poor Horse maintenance would be better reflected by -3 CON and -1 Movement or some such. Otherwise, you'd be an idiot to try and 'save' £0.75 money by skimping on your extremely expensive £20 warhorse's fodder. Not to mention that horses die a bit too easily still, although I could see rolling for survival after each battle, too, even if the horse wasn't deliberately targetted. They do go down fast when the enemy aims for them, though.)