Replacing the economic system

[Michael Cule]

My problem isn't with the fact that there will be up years and down years so much. It's the fact that for all except (maybe) the nobles and upwards, every year is likely to be bad. You earn enough money to sustain your lifestyle if you make a normal roll and then on top of that tithes and taxes and the lord knows what. (If that isn't intended to be the case then it's another rule that needs rewriting so elderly gentlemen of advancing years like me can understand it.) 

My feeling is that unless campaign considerations are deliberately imposing bad times for all most people should be able to keep their heads just about above water. (If that isn't the case, then gods dammit it all, what did we rebel against the Lunars for? Eh? Eh/ Answer me that!) (Sorry, a bit of in-character waffle bursting through there.) 

Another point that worries me is the multiple player character households when those are the household of a noble and the other players are their retainers.

Now I'm attempting to write the rules, it is of course turning out a lot harder... Never mind: they're only in Fire Season at the moment....

[Akhôrahil]

Hmm… most professions have some leeway, though. The archetypical farmer earns 80L and needs to pay 60L for SoL, and with 20% temple tax starts ahead by 4L. At 80% Farming, you’re ahead (you can fail, but you can also roll special). And Farmers in particular benefit massively from the easily available and shockingly powerful Bless Crops, that upend the entire calculus (I would let herders and ranchers gain a similar benefit from Bless Animals, even though it’s not explicit).

Augmentation matters quite a bit here, too.

Edited July 4, 2021 by Akhôrahil

[Ali the Helering]

It might be worthwhile researching the lives of subsistence farmers in the ancient world.  You will find that for many breaking-even each year could be classed as a major success.  If you are dealing with relatively well-irrigated river lands, such as the Nile, things become different, but even in the present day survival as a farmer is often marginal.

Organised societies often flourished by making farming a more communal feature, which could even out the bad years with better crop storage, thus the large landholding temples so prevalent in the Levant, Egypt and Mesopotamia.  Rome communalised through large privately owned villa estates, usually assisted with industries and crafts.

It would take a miracle for an independent farmer to become financially successful.  Sorry, but that's ancient economics for you.

[Joerg]

Strictly speaking, no metal-using culture will be completely subsistence-farming, and already neolithic farmers would import stone tools, or stone for tools, and salt. Cash crops like fruit, wine, olives, wool, linen, cotton, sugarcane or dyes (like woad) are bound to spring up alongside agricultural surplus feeding the elites.

As long as the elites include the wealthier farmers, marginal survival will hit the entire culture rather than just subsistence farmers.

Define "breaking even" - do you mean harvest as much as you sowed, consumed, and lost in storage? Few subsistence farmers practice monoculture. While they will have a main crop that may decide about welfare or hunger, it takes more than one crop failure to cause desperation. Droughts, unseasonal inundations, locusts or warfare will be such factors. Climate change, soil degradation or over-consumption of water are long-term deal breakers which lead to dwindling populations and/or migrations.

 

Malnutrition leaves traces in the bone structure, and there are plenty documented cases of periods of malnutrition in cemetaries that left enough bones to analyze. Cultures practicing cremation rarely leave such evidence behind.

Often, there are cycles of trial and wealth. The pioneers clearing the land or ameliorating it rarely are well-fed throughout their careers, with the possible exception of the Frisians recovering marshlands from the North Sea as rich pasture. Cultivating wetlands or sandy heath for subsistence proverbially brought death to the first generation, need to the second and bread to the third. Some form of cottage industry or cash crop cultivation still was required for survival when gaining subsistence from such marginal land.

But then, cultivating such marginal land usually only occurred when there was a surplus population, and surplus populations result either from land (quality) loss or from surplus production, from socially caused marginalisation, or from ethnic or religious persecution.

 

The Migration Age Angles have quite a bit in common with the Quivini. There is evidence that their ancestral home on the eastern shores of the Cimbrian peninsula and Fyn saw increasing military pressure in addition to increasing soil degradation a century before they appeared in Britain, apparently leading to an exodus into northwestern Lower Saxony. There they joined the Saxons in their piecemeal conquest of Britain.

In their wake, Anglia and Jutland mostly lay fallow for a few centuries, although some settlements persisted after the departure of a majority of the population. Over time, the region became repopulated as part of the Danish kindom(s).

Something similar could be going on in Dragon Pass. There is this 600 years cycle, which the Orlanthi usually start at strength but then meet decline. I wonder whether the rhythms of soil degradation and recovery are somewhat linked to that.

 

Dragon Pass had been depopulated in the Dragonkill, except for a few areas of (comfortable) subsistence farming in wetlands by the durulz, and possibly by Kitori. While there is no reason the Grazelander pony breeders did not use the Quivini lowlands as part-time pasture, they don't appear to have sought the neighborhood of the former lands of their Pure Horse People ancestral lands outside of the Inhuman Occupation, and their presence appears to have been rather sporadic. 200 years after the dragonkill farmers pushed into the land again, and a generation later they had claimed three quarters of the arable lands for themselves, with the Grazers defending the last quarter by discouraging or suppressing the immigrant farmers for about a century before officially establishing them as serf population.

At latest by 1400, the farmers in Dragon Pass were producing comfortably. The farmers in Tarsh already supported a royal and religious elite that controlled most of the humans of the Pass region, while the still independent Quivini squabbled among themselves. Then the big Praxian raids under Jaldon began as the other local symptom of the Seleric Empire alongside the Battle of Quintus Vale, which led to the formation of the Pol Joni from Quivini, Praxian and Grazer volunteers and a seedstock of Opili nation cattle.

Tarshite supremacy faltered despite Yarandros' success against the Opili as he had alienated the Grazers and presumably also the Quivini (at least that's what the raid on Bagnot in 1440, the year of his demise, suggests). His successor recovered enough to lead a big expedition into the north, possibly trying to claim Saird for his throne from the Sylilan Lunar dynasty.

Five generations of intensive land use may already have taken their toll at the time. The Tarshites under the Illaro dynasty apparently turned to blood magic for renewal of their lands while the Quivini repopulated the losses that Jaldon's raids and the exodus of the Pol Joni had left behind, giving the lands some respite. So did the Telmori invasion that affected all the northern and eastern tribes.

The southern Quivini war that Sartar and Wilms mediated probably was a war of overpopulation without starvation (yet). The new institution of a confederate city did take care of some of the population pressure and initialized the rise of the mercantyle elite. The already existing Balmyr salt trade expanded into all of the Quivini lands and the proceeds allowed the establishment of an artisan industry in Wilmskirk. (Lack of salt is a possible source for malnutrition, too, as is lack of iodine - whether such a thing as iodine exists in Glorantha is another question, though.)

Other cash crops in what would become Sartar bloomed, too, whether wine, cider, wool or linen. The clans mostly moved away from subsistence farming to supporting the new economy. The greater treaties Sartar forged as King of Dragon Pass offered more pasture to feed the cities with meat, by reducing the distance to the dragonewts, and by joining the Pol Joni to the Sartarite economy, exchanging herd beasts for weapons and armor that brought them superiority over their Praxian neighbors. Allowing the Grazeland Vendref to profit from the trade with Esrolia moved them away from exploited subsistence farming, too, while Lunar Tarsh overcame previous harvest problems with the introduction of maize cultivation (and even more blood rites).

 

The Lunar occupation (and possibly already Terasarin's reign) may have coincided with the onset of soil deterioration in Sartar. While the bloodshed in warfare may have mitigated those problems somewhat, it is possible that Ernalda was already weakened when the fall of Whitewall sent her sleeping. With Lunar taxation and the Windstop, there is a clear scapegoat for harder times for the population of Sartar, even if part of the problem might have been their own success.

The liberation and upcoming conflicts offer plenty bloodshed to mitigate some soil degradation, and there are quite a few major causes for enforced fallow periods in the Hero Wars, too.

[Lordabdul]

On 7/3/2021 at 5:09 PM, Akhôrahil said:

Hmm… most professions have some leeway, though. The archetypical farmer earns 80L and needs to pay 60L for SoL, and with 20% temple tax starts ahead by 4L.

Looking at the list of professions, people at 60L income will struggle to keep a "Free" standard of living, but anybody above that (there's indeed a lot of 80L+ occupations) should be fine most years assuming they have a good professional skill. There's also a bit of narration that can go into the "down years" when the PCs come up with only 54L out of a 60L base... I'd say they can pay up the difference by selling a few personal possessions (remove that total from your personal wealth) or getting a loan from their wealthy cousin (roll for Love (Family) or Loyalty (Clan) and owe a couple of favours, aka "adventure opportunities with less/no loot"). There's quite a big gap between "Poor (15L)" and "Free (60L)" so there's a lot of wiggle room IMHO.

More importantly... what's the big deal? Am I missing something in the sense that falling down to "Poor" for a year isn't a big problem? It lowers your ransom (yay! time to get captured!) and affects the Child Survival roll, none of which look like big deals to me, but you also pocket a huge amount money as the difference. Narratively speaking you wear last year's clothes and sandals, and you eat less meat and fancy cheese, but none of that is terrible -- these are story hooks.

Edited July 6, 2021 by lordabdul

[Akhôrahil]

7 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

More importantly... what's the big deal? Am I missing something in the sense that falling down to "Poor" for a year isn't a big problem? It lowers your ransom (yay! time to get captured!) and affects the Child Survival roll, none of which look like big deals to me, but you also pocket a huge amount money as the difference. Narratively speaking you wear last year's clothes and sandals, and you eat less meat and fancy cheese, but none of that is terrible -- these are story hooks.

There’s probably a problem that if you keep slipping, you might lose your Free status for good, but since (oddly!) Poor people can save a lot more money, you shouldn’t get more than the occasional Poor year.

[Joerg]

IN the end, your free status is decided at the wapentake, whether you can qualify as a voting member of the clan or tribe by presenting your wealth and willingness to serve the clan. Note that women have it easier to get a vote, although getting it means cold meals for the family left behind.

[Lordabdul]

4 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

There’s probably a problem that if you keep slipping, you might lose your Free status for good, but since (oddly!) Poor people can save a lot more money, you shouldn’t get more than the occasional Poor year.

Yeah, exactly, but even if you loose your Free status... so what? Like I said: am I missing something, or does it have very little mechanical consequences? Even maybe only minimal social consequences?

Narratively speaking, there's a whole gradient between "daily bread, cheese, and eggs" and "sparse diet of root vegetables and gruel", or between a new set of clothes each year and minimal clothing. It's easy to add a "Struggling Free" level at, say, 30L/year, with "weekly bread, cheese and eggs" and "years old clothes that can pass for Free-level if well maintained".... or something.

[Akhôrahil]

3 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Yeah, exactly, but even if you loose your Free status... so what? Like I said: am I missing something, or does it have very little mechanical consequences? Even maybe only minimal social consequences?

Social consequences are large - you lose your right to vote, you may be reassigned as a cottar (which is super bad for your kids with the absolutely enormous child mortality), it’s a huge drop in status, and so on.

[Joerg]

In a way, status of a household is assigned by the chief and the clan ring. A household failing to uphold the status may be the perennial topic of gossip and badmouthing, and that may reflect on whoever put them into that position.

Status of an individual may be economic - i.e. assigned by clan or guild, unless there is another source of wealth for the individual from adventuring or outlawry - or political, which requires enough wealth to show up as a militarily equipped member of the clan or tribe. Which may be loaned, or inherited, or purchased with the meagre status money the household can spend in a year. These hallmarks of a freeman may be some of the few items in personal possession, even if the clothes a person is wearing are loaned or charity issue.

 

Imported luxuries do show status, but making an effort with home industry can make up at least for freeman ostentation. Tapestries and woodcarving go a long way to show sophistication, and may even bring in cash or be swapped for other ornamentation. Household dyes can be made from various combinations of leaves, roots or berries and curing agents. Stuff like woad or madder.

With the prevalence of linothorax as affordable armor, there must be a significant cultivation of flax in Orlanthi agriculture. Flax can be harvested unripe (for textile fibre) or ripe (for seed and linseed oil). Likewise weaving (and spinning, and presumably dyeing) is a signature social and productive activity among Orlanthi women, rather than embroidery.

 

Getting assigned a cottar's farm with rent puts a stop to your discretionary spending of income before you have paid off your rent. On the other hand, in times of bad harvest the tenants are fed before any rent is passed on to the recipient of that rent.

 

Child mortality as per the rules may be exaggerated. In cases where a freeman's farm has a cottar family or two on the stead, providing manpower to the operation of the farm, doing some usually specialized home industry and quite a bit of gardening or possibly cash cultivation and sharing in the farm's pool of childcare, should exempt those children from that mortality trap quite a bit. An isolated shepherd's or charcoal-burner's cottage will be a different proposal, though.

 

Actual death by starvation would be rare, and only in crises (not that those are that rare). Malnutrition will affect constitution, though, whether in development, as temporary deficiency, or as a permanent penalty. This will increase the risk of damage from injuries or diseases, though.

 

Given the Ernaldan magics for blessing conception or births, I wonder that none of this has made it into the creation of adventurers - parents (or grandparents) receiving a boon which results in such a blessing being assigned to a character. But then, there is no "Central Casting Glorantha" yet.

[Lordabdul]

7 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Social consequences are large - you lose your right to vote, you may be reassigned as a cottar (which is super bad for your kids with the absolutely enormous child mortality), it’s a huge drop in status, and so on.

You're right about child mortality: that, Ransom, and Reputation are the only things that seem to be mechanically affected by the Standard of Living. There's no mention of the right to vote or not, so unless I missed something in the RQG material, you may be mixing things up with HQ. For instance, "cottar" isn't a term anymore AFAICT.

Judging from the phrasing in RQG, you *have* to take from the personal wealth to maintain your Standard of Living. It *looks* to me like the worst thing about failing to maintain your Standard of Living is that it leads simply to losing your job. I assume that most players who fail one year will (1) train/research the appropriate skill to not fail next year, and (2) ask around for story opportunities/loans/adventures/etc. to rebuild their personal wealth. That's definitely a thing to be handled in story and not mechanics, but the mechanics are there to support the story.

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

You're right about child mortality: that, Ransom, and Reputation are the only things that seem to be mechanically affected by the Standard of Living. There's no mention of the right to vote or not, so unless I missed something in the RQG material, you may be mixing things up with HQ. For instance, "cottar" isn't a term anymore AFAICT.

Judging from the phrasing in RQG, you *have* to take from the personal wealth to maintain your Standard of Living. It *looks* to me like the worst thing about failing to maintain your Standard of Living is that it leads simply to losing your job. I assume that most players who fail one year will (1) train/research the appropriate skill to not fail next year, and (2) ask around for story opportunities/loans/adventures/etc. to rebuild their personal wealth. That's definitely a thing to be handled in story and not mechanics, but the mechanics are there to support the story.

And that is exactly the purpose of the Sacred Time Occupation rolls. It is not to create some sort of SimBronze Age - rather it is to either create a little surplus (which lets your adventurer have a little more to work with) or to threaten their Standard of Living, and thus force them to look for opportunities to make wealth. 

• You want to go on that extended adventure into Prax? Hope it is lucrative, because your farm will suffer.
• Bad harvest? Good thing you did all that work for the Earth Temple - now is the time for Bless Crops, baby!

This stuff is intended to all tie into game play, but it gives mechanics that you and your players can put your teeth into and mesh with loot and gifts gained through adventures.

[Michael Cule]

"What's the big deal?"

Well, I'd like to know that too. 

Thing is Da Rulz Say (p 422 under Standard of Living) "An adventurer must maintain their standard of living..." 

What happens if they can't? 

What happens if they can't pay their Cult Tithes in the paragraph above? 

What happens if they can't pay any taxes? 

If this is a thing you must do... why is there no clear guidance for the consequences if the mandatory becomes impossible?

I'm more than a little tempted to throw away the whole economic system and handwave everything... Except that I need something to give my players a sense of what they  can and can't afford, when they are doing well and doing badly. Ah well, back to the drawing board.

I note (incidentally) that except for Priest and Noble most of the professions that PCs are going to come from are at 60 basic income or less. Not many Crafters volunteering to be Bloody Great Heroes. But plenty of Warriors, plenty of Hunters and a few Thieves. 

To answer a few more questions: 'breaking even' means having enough resources to maintain your Standard of Living and pay all your tithes without cutting into savings. 

I can see that in some circumstances the economic situation can provoke adventure or opportunity but that's not the primary reason characters are going adventuring. That's Honour and the other Passions and a desire to keep their people and families free. 

And though in my current game the PCs aren't married in my attempt to do the DORASTOR campaign with RQ:G it mattered enormously whose family was growing and healthy and whose was withering under the dual attacks of Chaos eruptions and the Lunar taxgatherers. 

Edited July 6, 2021 by Michael Cule
Clarification

[Eff]

I am somewhat unsure in what situation you would run into not being able to pay tithes or taxes. The way I read the rules, these are paid first, then standard of living, then any surplus or deficit. Some occupations have no base income, but... they don't pay taxes either and they presumably pay tithes to their temples/fences as wealth is available. 

I feel that the simplest approach here would be to add a flat 10% to base incomes or an elimination of the tithe/tax -10%, which are mathematically equivalent. This keeps the basic possibility of feast or famine but eliminates the slight deficiency that produces an economic motive for adventuring. 

Alternatively, you could probably extend Rune Magic between the core book and RBoM to allow for augmentation of occupations like Bless Crops does, if you want to possibly give players a choice between having magic for adventuring and having magic for boosting the barley. 

I'd probably not really treat standard of living as massively important, in that I doubt I'd be running games where the players are deeply concerned with their finances and chances of losing their status as free citizens because they had to put their plow in hock. I think the most I'd do is possibly make it a lead-in to an adventure: 

"Erlandakev the Ernalda priestess stops by the longhouse and makes it known gently over beer that your outstanding debts are becoming something of a problem. She speaks of an opportunity to have your debt to the Asrelia-women negated, at least, by doing a favor for her Goddess." 

That sort of thing. 

[Akhôrahil]

6 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Judging from the phrasing in RQG, you *have* to take from the personal wealth to maintain your Standard of Living.

I believe so. The system is taken from Pendragon, where this is explicitly the case. Knights like their bling.

[Bill the barbarian]

2 hours ago, Eff said:

I am somewhat unsure in what situation you would run into not being able to pay tithes or taxes. The way I read the rules, these are paid first, then standard of living, then any surplus or deficit. Some occupations have no base income, but... they don't pay taxes either and they presumably pay tithes to their temples/fences as wealth is available. 

 

During the Lunar occupation, which is when I run, this would happen more often as the adventurers will be double taxed. And the bastiches might well tax out of season just to catch the taxpayers short so they can enslave them and take the hide.

[Lordabdul]

4 hours ago, Michael Cule said:

Thing is Da Rulz Say (p 422 under Standard of Living) "An adventurer must maintain their standard of living..."
What happens if they can't? 

Story happens. Depending on what made them fail to pay off their SoL:

• Failed occupation skill roll:
  • Business dries up, their martial superior tells them they haven't been pulling their weight lately, they lost sheep or cows to diseases or raids and the chieftain is unhappy with them, etc.
  • Make them play a scene or a short adventure to "fix" their problem, regain trust from their peers and superiors, or whatever. For instance, they need to seek out a risky business partnership that turns out to be more dangerous than they thought, or they have to volunteer for a shitty mercenary assignment, or they have to lead (and be responsible for) the next cattle raid. Maybe they get a small bonus next year out of this scene or adventure.
• Successful occupation skill roll but their personal wealth wasn't enough to pay the difference:
  • Did they spend all the gains they acquired during the past few seasons of adventuring, not saving enough? People will talk behind their back, mentioning all the bling they wear or parties they throw or whatever, but "I hear that in his home everything's falling apart". Rival NPCs will take this opportunity to get ahead.
  • Did they adventure a lot for their community, but didn't get much out of it, or gave everything away, explaining the low personal wealth? Have them appeal to the community leaders (Loyalty rolls and such) to get a loan from them. It shouldn't be too hard if they "donated too much" originally.

If these story hooks don't sound interesting, either (1) I suck at coming up with story hooks or (2) it's not your thing and you can just skip the SoL rolls and assume everything's fine.

Given the price of a used broadsword, though, it would be *really* hard to not find your missing 6L just lying on the ground after the first adventure of the year.

 

4 hours ago, Michael Cule said:

What happens if they can't pay their Cult Tithes in the paragraph above? 

It's impossible to not be able to pay your cult tithes since, IIRC, all tithing is done as a percentage of your income. As an initiate, you give 10% of your income to your temple, whatever that income was that year (not 10% of your "theoretical" income). So if you fail your yearly occupation roll and get only 30L out of 60L for a year, you only pay 3L -- not 6L. At least that's how I play it.

 

4 hours ago, Michael Cule said:

What happens if they can't pay any taxes? 

What taxes? If you're playing under the Lunar Occupation, then you get a nasty visit from the Lunar Tax Collector. That's a great opportunity to kill him and his bodyguards, flee to Prax, awaken an ancient bovine-related spirit, raise an army to liberate Pavis, and so on. I hear cool people got started by killing a Lunar Tax Collector!

Edited July 7, 2021 by lordabdul

[Lordabdul]

On 7/1/2021 at 9:04 AM, 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.

By the way, I had to think for a while about this... I was conflicted about it but in the end I agree with David that augments would work.

• First, you can augment with another skill (no need to always reach for Passions and Runes!). For example, a Merchant might augment "Manage Household" with, say, "Fast-Talk" to indicate that they spend a whole bunch of time bullshitting people that year! (but it does not mean that they bullshitted everybody...)
  • By the way, the choice of skill used for augmenting is a great way for the GM and player to come up with a short little narrative, which sometimes leads to something meaningful for the campaign.
• Second, lots of people use some kind of "inspiration" for a fair amount of time throughout the year to stay focused or motivated. Someone fighting against climate change, helping at-risk-kids, or bringing medicine and clean water to isolated villages in developing countries will probably frequently remind themselves why they're doing this, and this will often be a Passion. A fisherman on a gruelling 4-months long trip in the arctic might think of his family to get through it. I mean, it's the stereotypical thing from war/action movies where Secondary Soldier Character #2 shows the heroes a picture of his kids ("This is who I'm doing it for! Only three more days in this six month tour! I can't wait to go home and hug them!") just a few scenes before the act 2 climax in which they die horribly.

[Joerg]

3 hours ago, lordabdul said:

What taxes? If you're playing under the Lunar Occupation, then you get a nasty visit from the Lunar Tax Collector. That's a great opportunity to kill him and his bodyguards, flee to Prax, awaken an ancient bovine-related spirit, raise an army to liberate Pavis, and so on. I hear cool people got started by killing a Lunar Tax Collector!

Said cool person killed the tax collector after their stead being burned.

In the end the Sartarites may be revolting at times, but the Lunars regularly are taxing.

[Kloster]

10 hours ago, lordabdul said:

It's impossible to not be able to pay your cult tithes since, IIRC, all tithing is done as a percentage of your income. As an initiate, you give 10% of your income to your temple, whatever that income was that year (not 10% of your "theoretical" income). So if you fail your yearly occupation roll and get only 30L out of 60L for a year, you only pay 3L -- not 6L. At least that's how I play it.

Same for me.

[Joerg]

A tricky case about tithing is how to tell apart "replenishing the herd" and "having surplus herd animals". The shepherds of the Pyrenee village of Montaillou went into spiritual rebellion when the church wanted to tithe all lambing, taking away any profit and probably some of the substance of their economy.

[French Desperate WindChild]

20 hours ago, Michael Cule said:

What happens if they can't? 

they get a lower status / standard of living. they may starve if there is no  lower level

20 hours ago, Michael Cule said:

What happens if they can't pay their Cult Tithes in the paragraph above? 

spirit of reprisal (if they are not bad guys, herpes, spots, .... CHA - 3 )

social issues with the priests,

20 hours ago, Michael Cule said:

What happens if they can't pay any taxes? 

social issues with the leaders (oups they are priests too)

• working for the clan to pay there debt (dirty work, dangerous  / suicide mission )
• be sold
• become slave (temporary or not)
• be banned (temporary or not)