Replacing the economic system

[Michael Cule]

I find the economic rules in RQG a bit... under playtested. I keep having questions from my players and it seems hostile to easy book-keeping. 

I'm planning on replacing them with something more like the Credit Rating rules from CoC 7th edition which allow for both handwaved background economic management and for particular expenses and financial crises when the GM wants to make that a focus of the story.

Has anyone already done this? 

[Bill the barbarian]

6 hours ago, Michael Cule said:

I'm planning on replacing them with something more like the Credit Rating rules from CoC 7th edition which allow for both handwaved background economic management and for particular expenses and financial crises when the GM wants to make that a focus of the story.

 

I have moved halfway there, spells weapons and gear are in Lunars and the rest are based on standard of living.

Edited June 30, 2021 by Bill the barbarian

[Godlearner]

1 hour ago, Bill the barbarian said:

I have moved halfway there, spells weapons and gear are in Lunars and thee rest are based on standard of living.

Same for me. It needs to cost at least 10 L (RQG or 100 L RQ3) to keep track of it.

[Nick Brooke]

1 hour ago, Michael Cule said:

Has anyone already done this? 

Chris Gidlow did exactly this over several pages at the back of Citizens of the Lunar Empire, although his spending examples probably aren't things a Sartarite would be interested in...

[Michael Cule]

Ah hah I've  got CITIZENS OF THE LUNAR EMPIRE somewhere... Let me go and steal adapt stuff....

[Nick Brooke]

1 minute ago, Michael Cule said:

Ah hah I've  got CITIZENS OF THE LUNAR EMPIRE somewhere... Let me go and steal adapt stuff....

Now, be aware that the main thrust of those economic rules is (a) kindling profound envy among the adventurer classes, and (b) demonstrating that there's roughly a 90% chance every season that player characters will have to do something they don't really want to do (aka "follow up an adventure opportunity") or else they'll have trouble paying that month's rent. If you have different goals in mind, tailor the rules to fit.

[Bill the barbarian]

12 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

Now, be aware that the main thrust of those economic rules is (a) kindling profound envy among the adventurer classes, and (b) demonstrating that there's roughly a 90% chance every season that player characters will have to do something they don't really want to do (aka "follow up an adventure opportunity") or else they'll have trouble paying that month's rent. If you have different goals in mind, tailor the rules to fit.

I have been saying that last piece for a while. Not that there is anything wrong with the first part's implications of keeping up wth the Harmasts!

[Michael Cule]

16 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

Now, be aware that the main thrust of those economic rules is (a) kindling profound envy among the adventurer classes, and (b) demonstrating that there's roughly a 90% chance every season that player characters will have to do something they don't really want to do (aka "follow up an adventure opportunity") or else they'll have trouble paying that month's rent. If you have different goals in mind, tailor the rules to fit.

I'm aware that the current rules are there to get the players into economic trouble... But if I want economic trouble to come their way I'll be the one to decide that as a story and campaign based matter. The current RQ:G rules seem to mean that most people will find themselves unable to pay for their needed lifestyle support and religious and secular taxation without dipping into savings and then assume that people will have savings because they have been out adventuring...

Nah, this is nonsensical. Also too much like accountancy to be fun. I'll go with the CoC model and see what I can do with it. Yes, there are hard times all around... But the rules are not only harsh but also insufficiently detailed. Consider that Nobles are supposed to have retainers. Such a noble as the Thane of Apple Lane needs some warriors at least. If PCs are on board with being retainers of the (PC) Thane it leads to some... peculiar self referential loops and questions I can't answer. How many retainers can a Thane have and still eat? How many do they need to maintain their status? Do they need servants as well? Or is that just Thanes who live in cities? 

I can take money from them at any time. Fees for healing and resurrection are commonplace. They also want to spend money on iron armour and weaponry... I want my life to be simpler and if that makes the players' lives simpler I'll just have to live with that. 

[Akhôrahil]

This should work, but the tricky bit is how to convert looted treasure into ”credit rating” values. Although I’m sure there are solutions out there already - for instance, if you earn loot, you could either spend it for some expensive one-off item(s), or invest/convert into a stronger base economy, i.e. the credit rating (if the loot is cattle, the only thing you have to do is keep them).

Edited July 1, 2021 by Akhôrahil

[Bill the barbarian]

5 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

This should work, but the tricky bit is how to convert looted treasure into ”credit rating” values. Although I’m sure there are solutions out there already - for instance, if you earn loot, you could either spend it for some expensive one-off item(s), or invest/convert into a stronger base economy, i.e. the credit rating (if the loot is cattle, the only thing you have to do is keep them).

Converting cash into credit rating... interesting, in my world I would prefer SoLs (Standards of Living units), a nice alternative to Lunars...

[Jeff]

I deliberately rejected Credit Rating for the rules. The RQG economic rules are pretty much the same as Pendragon's and use largely the same model.

[albesias]

CoC rules works in a capitalist context but maybe in a mythic world doesn't fit so well. 

[Ali the Helering]

Returning to a previous theme, though, the Credit Rating is not entirely dissimilar to the old Wealth rating in HQ, which indicates that it can truly work for a mythic world.  It is also a better approximation to the RW Bronze Age (duck and cover!) than is a cash-based society.

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, Ali the Helering said:

Returning to a previous theme, though, the Credit Rating is not entirely dissimilar to the old Wealth rating in HQ, which indicates that it can truly work for a mythic world.  It is also a better approximation to the RW Bronze Age (duck and cover!) than is a cash-based society.

The old Wealth rating in HQ never really worked that well if you wanted to deal with herds, harvest, and tangible things. There is a reason we moved away from that.

[David Scott]

18 hours ago, Michael Cule said:

I find the economic rules in RQG a bit... under playtested. I keep having questions from my players and it seems hostile to easy book-keeping.

My players have no problems with it. The Sacred Time system works very smoothly with no problems (most have twigged it's the same as the Pendragon Winter Phase)

18 hours ago, Michael Cule said:

I'm planning on replacing them with something more like the Credit Rating rules from CoC 7th edition which allow for both handwaved background economic management and for particular expenses and financial crises when the GM wants to make that a focus of the story.

It's pretty much hand waved already IMO. Cults supply materials relevant to their occupations. Patrons (Leika, Kallyr) supply most of the rest. The rest is subsumed into the Thane of Apple Lane's standard of living. My players have the equipment lists and market pages as a bodged PDF. The only person who really tracks money is the Ernaldan merchant who's income is based on 10% of his goods, but then that's his job. He also has a high Manage household. Everyone has realised that Manage household is a skill to build on. 

18 hours ago, Michael Cule said:

Has anyone already done this? 

I've not seen the need too.

[Michael Cule]

I recognised that the economic system is based on the PENDRAGON version... And I got into trouble with that one too. Too damn easy to spiral down into debt, despair and dead horses. 

If the system as presented is supposed to be handwaved... then why do the pricelists come in Clacks, Lunars and Wheels? Why is the base income that people make on a typical year not quite enough to live on after taxes and tithes? When my players tried to take the system seriously they inevitably ended up short and that's a recipie for starvation long term, not adventure. (Starvation is not fun.) And that's before the extra wartime taxes and general Lunar extortion.

Yes, you can take coin and turn it into Wealth rating. I'm thinking of starting out with a one way conversion rate of 20 L (or 1 Wheel) to a percentage point of Wealth. That may not work out right in practice but it feels right at the moment. Converting back isn't as easy because you're using the money you put into Wealth to buy capital investments like land, equipment, cattle and what have you and if you try to liquidate that you'll never get twenty Lunars to the Wheel. So you use the Wealth system, rolling and hoping you don't take too big a hit. 

I think there may be a basic difference of design philosophy  here. I'm not sure what it is but it's there. 

[Ali the Helering]

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

The old Wealth rating in HQ never really worked that well if you wanted to deal with herds, harvest, and tangible things. There is a reason we moved away from that.

Your experience may vary!

[Akhôrahil]

I'm thinking a "credit rating" system will work best for when your flow of income is mostly the regular kind - it establishes your typical amount of resources, and when your barn is burned down or you gain cattle from a raid, you adjust the credit rating down or up to reflect the new circumstances. If the campaign centers around running a farm for instance, a credit rating system will likely work a lot better than trying to balance accounts in Lunars. Your credit rating here will essentially be your standard of living as well as your "reserves" from your standing in the community (it has been noted that peasants with surplus often found that the best way of "investing" it was to throw a party or help struggling neighbors, thereby establishing a system of obligations that will save you in bad time - saved funds can be stolen, but debts can't). 

Meanwhile, a Lunar-counting system will work best when the PCs are more of the "adventurers" type, where they either live fully off of their adventuring, or at least where the income from adventuring makes up a large part of their economy. Regular costs of living, as well as shopping for improved arms and armor, new spirit magic, and training will consume the strictly limited money, and force them into new adventures. (By the way, this answers the question of why training is so incredibly expensive in RQ - it's supposed to be a money sink!)

Edited July 1, 2021 by Akhôrahil

[David Scott]

3 hours ago, Michael Cule said:

Why is the base income that people make on a typical year not quite enough to live on after taxes and tithes? When my players tried to take the system seriously they inevitably ended up short and that's a recipie for starvation long term, not adventure. (Starvation is not fun.)

You might find this helpful in the Q&A: Adventurer Income.

Quote

And that's before the extra wartime taxes and general Lunar extortion.

As RQG is set in 1625, there are no extra wartime taxes and general Lunar extortion.

Quote

I think there may be a basic difference of design philosophy here. I'm not sure what it is but it's there. 

See the Q&A link above.

Edited July 1, 2021 by David Scott

[Michael Cule]

My player characters are (and many player characters will be given the way  Chaosium has set things up) people who go on adventures but who also have responsibilities and assets. 

The Sacred Time roll is pointless for rootless wanderers: the adventurers in Pavis should have a pure cash account and should be driven by the need to pay rent, pay taxes and tithes, feed themselves. They have a huge pile of ancient treasure wrapped up in monsters and general danger to mind, body and soul right next door.

The Sacred Time totting up of how the year went is appropriate for the people who have lives even if they are going out from their normal lives and doing the things that need doing because they live in Interesting Times. They may be driven partly by economic need when bad things happen to the people they are responsible for and to but mostly they  will be driven by Duty and Honour. That's how you get them to take part in stuff. 

So, I think I'll try the Wealth stat as a mechanic. One more tweak: I think the one thing you can use to augment it is your Reputation. If you are willing to risk it you can say: "But will you not extend a little credit to the man who saved the Queen's life at the battle of SomewhereOrOther" and maybe the hard hearted bankers will take that into consideration... But if you fail or worse yet fumble your reputation drops when they start to gossip: "You'll never guess who's down on their uppers now..."

[Michael Cule]

5 minutes ago, David Scott said:

You might find this helpful in the Q&A: Adventurer Income.

As RQG is set in 1625, there are no extra wartime taxes and general Lunar extortion.

See the Q&A link above.

Yes, I've seen that and as I said, I'm unimpressed. 

And I think most people think that the bad times can come again. I agree. Argrath will want an extra pound of flesh from someone if the Lunars don't. 

My players (and I think I agree with them) think that you might be able to augment rolls with Passions and Runes for a particular action or sequence of actions... But nobody stays inspired for a whole year. Magic is different of course: the Bless Crops ritual is intended to last long enough to make a difference. 

[David Scott]

14 minutes ago, Michael Cule said:

Yes, I've seen that and as I said, I'm unimpressed. 

And I think most people think that the bad times can come again. I agree. Argrath will want an extra pound of flesh from someone if the Lunars don't. 

Just increase the income values by 10%

14 minutes ago, Michael Cule said:

My players (and I think I agree with them) think that you might be able to augment rolls with Passions and Runes for a particular action or sequence of actions... But nobody stays inspired for a whole year. Magic is different of course: the Bless Crops ritual is intended to last long enough to make a difference. 

That's also covered in the Q&A,

Is it possible to augment the occupation income roll (RQG p 422) with a skill (ex: augment Craft with Art for a crafter), with a rune (ex: water rune for a fisher), or with a relevant passion ?

It's in the same section as before, and yes you can augment.

[Akhôrahil]

And I imagine the idea is that some years, things will suck a bit. That year with the summer hailstorm and awful harvest? A lot of people will have to survive at a lower than regular standard of living. This will probably be the year you lose a child.

[Joerg]

How do you treat households that contain multiple player characters? (Such as married couples?)

Take for instance a couple with different social status according to occupation, one free, one semi-free (to use Blandistani terminology). Both are from the same household, both contribute to the household's situation through their toils throughout the year, both are given assets in character generation which should pay for a household's social upkeep (as food and housing aren't anything the clan charges for or not covered by 15 lunars per annum, that leaves clothing, make-up, perfumes, personal weaponry and similar fripperies).

[Akhôrahil]

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

How do you treat households that contain multiple player characters? (Such as married couples?)

I'm thinking of expanding the system to handle this in my campaign, but for the moment I simply force everyone beside the main roller to make an Augment to the Income roll, and then they get a joint income or loss (in both cases based on Free standard of living even though the party includes herders and hunters). This isn't ideal, but I haven't come up with any non-clunky solution yet. And modifying the income roll with +/- 20% feels a bit weak when the Bless Crops spell already pushed Farming up to 260% or so...

One thing I've considered is to have one roll for actual income, and then someone else roll Manage Household to modify expenses.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Akhôrahil