0. Introduction

Even if the main subject matter doesn’t interest you, or doesn’t fit the genre of your campaign, there’s still content of value for you within the article – look for the sidebars, they contain useful tools, techniques, and fascinating side-issues, and apply to D&D / Pathfinder / Cthulhu / Pirate / Western games (you name it) as much they do to Sci-Fi.

The setting itself is strongly Sci-Fi, but the content would also would in a Superhero campaign as an alien world, and could also be used in a high-level Fantasy campaign, probably located in another Plane.

1. Welcome to Azuria

This is the third, last, and longest, of the planned string of “strange places” created for my personal campaigns. You can find the others at Three Strange Places Pt 1: Cemetery Gates and Three Strange Places Pt 2: Mydas. I may come back at some point with another trilogy of strange places, though, as these have proven quite popular!

Those who have been reading my articles for a while will have already encountered Azuria and its’ inhabitants in some form, as it was certainly at least mentioned in Vortex Of War: A Dr Who campaign construction diary. Very little of the detail was worked out at the time, however; most of what follows was generated for the adventure (currently underway) which took the protagonist there for a visit. As usual in this type of campaign, however, something came up while he was there…

This article is NOT about that something. It’s about the place where the something occurs.

I’ll excerpt the adventure – heck most of the article is excerpted from the narrative and dialogue within – when it becomes illustrative of some point or another.

Azuria was once described as ‘what it would be like in a strange corner of heaven, had the Devil taken it with him when he was cast down.’ Even taken metaphorically, it is a not entirely inaccurate summation, and almost poetic in its own way.

Azuria is both beautiful and nightmarish, all at the same time. It is also one of the most remarkable places any visitor has ever seen

2. Azurian Traits & Capabilities

While each Azurian is different, they have a number of common traits and capabilities due to their fundamental nature. These include:

2.1 No physical bodies

Azurians have very little of what most species would consider a physical body. They are mostly electrical phenomena.

The circuits that form a television set or radio receiver don’t generally do anything in and of themselves (unless they are control elements, of course); they exist purely to direct, regulate, and manipulate the carefully-designed flows of energy within the device. It’s those energy flows that are the “true” television receiver, the circuits are just the trappings.

The same can be said of the electrical current within the brain – the physical structure is only important in that it provides the foundation for the complex electrical activity that is sentient thought. If one had some other means of regulating and manipulating those energy flows, the ‘hardware’ becomes more or less irrelevant.

In this way, Azurians can be said to be ‘intelligence without a biological brain’.

Physical structures tend to be lot more compact, however, and for this reason, it has been estimated that as much as 80% of an Azurial exists only to think.

2.1.1 Near 2-dimensional

Azurians are almost (but not quite) two-dimensional. They are about 1/4 of an inch thick, generally, but this shape can be wrapped around itself like onion layers to create an impression of a three-dimensional space. Some notable examples take advantage of this to “bulk themselves out” and look impressive – Meta-Lar for example (who you will ‘meet’ later in the article).

They can (temporarily) push themselves out to form a more three-dimensional shape, but this requires concentration.

2.2 Resistant to physical attack

Physical attacks will generally pass straight through, doing minimal damage What’s more, Azurians can all but vanish as a target simply by turning to one side. Being struck by a physical weapon or a fist is likely to do more harm to the attacker than to an Azurian.

2.3 Vulnerable to energy attacks in certain forms

Being something akin to plasma, however, intense magnetic fields, energy weapons that distribute electrical charge, electrical attacks of any sort – these weapons do disproportionate damage to an Azurian.

In particular, electrical attacks will follow the ionized trail of their internal electrical currents, which will lead the energy of the attack directly to their most vulnerable locations.

Furthermore, many of these attacks are, or can be, area-based and not single-target. Azurians are far from invulnerable – of you prepare for them specifically, or your weaponry already runs in that direction. That’s usually not the case, though.

2.4 Interface directly with high technology

Azurians can’t grip controls – they can’t turn knobs or flip switches or push buttons. Well, they can, and I’ll get to that, but it’s a lot more difficult for them. But they have an ability most beings don’t – they can electrically interface directly with the wires and circuits behind those controls and operate the ‘controls’ directly.

Some are much better at this than others. It requires an understanding of how electronics work without ever having seen the circuits in question, operating purely on general principles and on their capacity to sense when something isn’t having the desired effect.
.
Electronic locks, in particular, tend to open as soon as an Azurian looks at them sideways.

This ability can also interfere with electronically-triggered weapons, play havoc with clocks and timers, and be useful in all sorts of other ways.

For those skilled in it, they are often capable of greater precision and sophistication of operation than the “clunky old interfaces’ would have been, through the equivalent of biofeedback.

2.5 Psychic Abilities

Azurians, like all life on the planet, communicate telepathically because no other form of communications is possible there. From this beginning, they have evolved a number of Psychic Abilities (which are a lot less impressive than they sound).

They don’t have Psychometry – they aren’t solid enough to actually hold something in their hands for very long. They don’t have any sort of telepresence or astral projection capabilities or any such nonsense, either. They have zero precognitive abilities (but they tend to be fairly astute observers and logic can make sensible predictions that sound almost precognitive).

They have telekinesis – enough to life them into something that mimics flight (see below). Depending on how hard they concentrate and “push”, they might be able to exert anywhere from a few hundred grams of force to maybe 5-10kg of lifting capacity – very briefly, a time measured in a single handful of seconds, or less.

So they probably can turn “A” knob, flick “A” switch, push “A” button – with extremely limited control.

Get a reasonably heavy book and hold it in front of you – both hands – for as long as you can. With no more than thirty seconds to recover, add a second volume of similar weight and repeat the exercise.

The second time around, your arms were already tired, probably shaking with exertion, and you probably lasted for less than 1/4 the first time.

Within thirty seconds, add a third volume and repeat – and as soon as you can’t hold the books up any more, try to type a coherent sentence on a keyboard. Your arms will be shaking so much that you will find it almost impossible; you need time to recover.

That’s what it’s like for an Azurian to do things “the hard way”.

2.6 Inspiration by Douglas Adams

At this point, I need to tip a hat at the memory of Douglas Adams, the British sci-fi comedy writer. It was in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy” that he mentioned the Hooloovoo, a “highly intelligent shade of the colour blue” (note the British spelling!)

In the Doctor Who episode “The Rings of Akhaten”, in a throwaway reference to the above, the Doctor points out a Hooloovoo in the alien marketplace to new traveling Companion, Clara Oswald.

So such creatures (supposedly) exist in the Dr Who universe. The Azurians are my attempt to take that basic concept and embed enough “science” to make it sound almost plausible – enough for a space-opera type campaign, anyway.

2.7 The Color Blue

Azurites tend to be various shades of the color blue. Some oversimplified descriptions actually refer to them as “Sentient Shades of the color Blue”, but however poetic, this description is at least as inaccurate as it is accurate.

The blue coloration is due to the electrical discharges passing through our bodies at a greater speed than the speed of light within those bodies, what the humans call Cherenkov radiation, but in this case it illuminates the plasmatic biological material which has a natural blue tint – like seeing light through stained glass.

2.8 A Metagame Perspective

An awful lot of what the Azurians, and specifically, what Quasima, the NPC representative of the race, can and can’t do in-campaign revolves around the character’s role as a Companion to the titular character. Specifically, I didn’t want him to steak too much of the thunder from the one and only PC in the game, while still being useful enough to get involved in various ways.

The race was derived from that foundation.

This behind-the-scenes factoid may help the reader understand why some things in the world are the way that they are. It was, in essence, whatever was necessary to make the race viable in a fictional sense, plus a lot of ramifications and consequences of the decisions taken.

2.9 It’s not quite flying, but…

In particular, if they don’t have feet, I needed a way for the Azurians to get from place to place. They were already all but weightless, so telekinetic movement seemed the obvious answer. Similarly – no mouth, so how does he communicate? Again, Psionics was the obvious solution.

I was also amused by the general assumption that the inhabitants of a ‘heavy world’ would be short, stocky, possibly four-legged creatures, and how the Azurians, as pictured, were pretty much the complete opposite.

Excerpt in conditions approaching zero-G, like deep space, Azurians can’t fly per se. But they are so light that they can move around.

Some in-game background: The Origins of a species

It’s not strictly relevant because it may well be different in your game world, and this is very strongly integrated into the Dr Who campaign, but here – in a nutshell – is a very brief set of bullet-points describing the in-game origin of the species as the PC has discovered it to be:

• timestream shattered into shards
• each shard evolved as a parallel universe from that point on
• the doctor and the master combined forces to reintegrate them under extraordinary circumstances, making a few changes along the way
• each reintegration merged species worlds etc from that divergent timeline into the new mainstream reality, propagating backwards through time to create the logical precursors that would lead to the existence of the creatures inhabiting the shard at the moment of reintegration
• another Time Lord, the Rani, observed a strange species in the future of one of the shards and noted that something was causing them to evolve at a staggering rate (the Ood)
• she decided to see what would happen if she took their development to the logical extreme
• she created an artificial environment (Azuria) in which her ‘creations’ could live and function, seeding it long in the past
• these creations were eventually transfigured into beings of pure energy, the Azurians.

In essence, this is the in-game explanation for why there are so many things that the Doctor should have mentioned in old episodes, or that should have been involved, but weren’t. Answer: history got rebooted. The Doctor had to be involved because it’s a campaign about him, but he couldn’t be fully in charge, creating room for new discoveries and events and things that can surprise the character.

3. Azurians away from home

Azurites instinctively take on something of the appearance of those they are most frequently around, when away from home, because many humanoids overreact to their true appearance. This is something close to an instinctive defense to them.

If an Azurite spends a lot of time amongst humans, they will tend to present themselves as smooth-skinned and with most of the internal workings concealed. If they were to spend time amongst a feline race, they will develop a more fur-like surface texture, and the internals will once again be hidden from view, and so on.

There are limits to this camouflage capacity when it comes to size. With an ongoing effort, and Azurite can reduce himself to half his normal height, or increase his height by about 50%. With normal height being anywhere from 4 feet to 12 feet (depending on the individual), that’s a range of 2-18′ – but not all of it will be accessible by all members of the population.

4. Azurians at home

At home, they feel comfortable enough to drop this pretense, revealing a complex structure of chemical reactions and energy transfers, some of which manifest as a constant ‘halo’ of electrical discharges like those of a Jacob’s Ladder. Most of these are contained within the ‘epidermis’ but a few ground out harmlessly.

These reactions also cause light to shine from within when an Azurite opens its mouth to ‘speak’. Note that in many cases, these mouths are completely invisible when the Azurite is in ‘camouflage’ mode.

5. Individual Morphology

As is probably to be expected of a life form consisting of an impure form of energy bound together telekinetically, Azurites come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes. In adult life, this is partially deliberate and partially instinctive, while in younger examples, the child is still learning how to do this, and so has a greatly simplified form.

Also to be expected is the fact of an intermediate stage.

Even in those simplified forms – rather fat disk-shapes – each individual is visibly somewhat different to all the others.

Azurian physical forms are created by the thoughts of the individual and the internal structures that comprise their awareness of self. Because each individual sees his own existence through the unique lens of his experiences, each Azurian has his own unique body shape in adulthood.

5.1 Gender

Azurials in general do not have what humans would consider gender. They may or may not mimic external physical structures that are suggestive of one gender or another, but even these can be more often misleading than instructive.

6. Complex Internal Structures

Much of the differentiation in these early forms derives from the development within the individual of complex mental and physical structures. Each Azurite is different, mentally, and their internal structures are – to some extent – a reflection of that individuality.

Not all individuals will have need of the same internal biological processes, though there will be an overlap of commonality. Most individuals will mimic the internal processes of their parents or educators, but some are more wide-ranging, in keeping with the potentials designed into them by their ‘parents’. During the youngest stages of life, these distinctive differences are more generally on display.

In broad terms, there is a uniformity of external shape with differences expressed as unique patterns and – to a lesser extent – variations in hue and color.

During the interim stage, much of this individuality becomes hidden behind a facade of broad uniformity. Many of the internal processes are hidden from view as the individual constructs new layers around themselves to mimic a more functional form for tool use. For example, many will learn to extrude and maintain something approximating arms as they begin interacting more with their external environment and less with their internal processes.

When full adulthood is achieved, individual expression through morphologic variations becomes extremely pronounced; one could view two different Azurites and not even be sure they were of the same species. Some are wispy and almost immaterial; others more like storm clouds wrapped around an approximately humanoid form. Short, tall, big, small, spiky or smooth, thin or seemingly-solid, translucent or opaque – each of these is individualized to suit the needs and personality of the person contained within.

7. Azurian Life-cycle

The Azurian Life-cycle is equally complex. Only general approximations are possible, though social norms creates a measure of uniformity which gives those approximations some credibility. Individuals can vary from the broad general picture quite considerably.

The youngest stage of life is a “proto-Azurial”, the equivalent of an infant. It is incapable of maintaining its own existence and is literally held together by the will of it’s parents, who will often still be refining what potentials they want the eventual Azurian to posses.

When that constant act of psionic will is no longer needed, and the young can (given the proper care and environment) survive unassisted, it becomes an Azurial, the equivalent of a child. Curious and capable of exploring its environment, it spends a lot of time playing games that humans (and humanoids in general) would find instantly recognizable – tag, hide-and-go-seek, and hurdling each other (except that the Azurites being hurdled are all in flight). There is a constant stream of telepathic giggling and laughter as they play, and every now and then (should the opportunity occur), they will swarm some random adult and ask a seemingly never-ending series of simple questions. The social pecking order (see 9.2, below) is strictly observed under the authority of an older or more responsible Azurial.

Azurials can remain in this mental and physical stage of development for years or decades.

Eventually, all going well, the Azurial will begin considering important questions about their future lives and assuming responsibility for the choices that lie before him. He transitions into the equivalent of teenager, an actual “Azurian”. This stage of life can also persist; it usually takes a decade or so to complete the maturation process, but some precocious examples do so in a handful of years, while others (equally rare and extreme) may take half a century or more.

Characteristic of the stage is a form of indecisiveness, an unwillingness to give firm commitments or make permanent decisions in full awareness of the consequences of those decisions. As maturation continues, this slowly gives way to a certitude about what the Azurian wishes to do and be, and how that can fit into the broader tapestry of Azuria’s society.

When emotionally mature enough to make important decisions, and physically mature enough to have full control over his bodily form, the Azurian undergoes “Ascendance” and becomes an Adult “Azurite”. In this form they can exist for multiple decades or even centuries.

All three stages of development have the potential to fail, and eventually, even an Azurite” will enter the final stages of life as they undergo “The Wasting”, gradually losing control of their physical functions and mental faculties. This is frequently characterized by an abandonment of responsibilities that lie external to the family group and increasing introspection. In some cases, extreme moodiness or intemperance can occur, notable because in all other stages of life, an Azurian is unfailingly polite – the legacy of being reared in a telepathic society.

There are some key details to note within the Azurian Life-cycle.

7.1 Intentional Design of Potential

Emotional and mental traits and the mental processes that generate them are categorized by Azurials as though they were written on index cards. Each participating parent gets to add their own selections to the ‘mix’ (in consultation with the others, of course).

This does not guarantee that a given trait will manifest or dominate the personality; it merely creates the potential for it to do so. Some traits will remain untriggered for the entire lifetime of the resultant Azurian. Others may manifest at an early age and have a direct influence over the developmental path of the youngster.

As with any act of parenting, you never know exactly what the outcome is going to be – you just do your best and hope that it’s enough.

Azurians have one advantage over other species, however – their telepathic nature makes them instantly aware of any maladjustment or inappropriate thought processes, and – if necessary – corrective mental surgery can take place immediately. As a result, all Azurians are remarkably “well-adjusted” in human terms. This includes respect for others and an unfailing politeness.

Some species find these traits to be bland, even artificial. Others find the natural consequences to be endlessly amusing.

An example of the latter: An Azurite might (with deepest regret over the necessity) cause the weapon of a hostile party to explode within their grasp, inflicting terrible injuries. The same Azurite might then, with absolute sincerity, tell the once=hostile party, “I apologize for the inconvenience and hope that you enjoy the rest of your day.”

7.2 Strange Interactions of Components

Often, a combination of these potentials will interact in some unexpected way, manifesting in a surprising character trait, subject of fascination, or sequence of personal choices. Azurials are never afraid of following such choices to their logical conclusions. The personality is a gestalted compounding of potentials that have been actualized by opportunity of expression.

Parents can create the potential for something – say, a love of Jazz; can deliberately create opportunities for the potential to manifest – taking the individual to music classes and Jazz recitals – but none of that means that they will become a professional musician. Instead, a love of pattern within structured chaos may lead them into higher mathematics as a career, a different manifestation of the potentials that were built into their foundations.

7.3 Creation of a new Life

For the sake of description, let us assume that two or more Azurites decide to create a child. They combine their thoughts to form a cloud of structured matter that is held together by the mental force of those parent-Azurites. Two are the minimum necessary, but more are not uncommon, permitting the workload to be shared; until the child is self-contained and self-sustaining.

As [electrical and material] currents flow through the Proto-Azurial, the pathways and structures that shape and direct those currents are assembled by the Azurite currently monitoring the process, usually modeled upon their own, because the parent knows how they work.

In this way, each of the parents contributes to the mentality and potential of the offspring. The process is analogous to, but not even remotely the same as, the DNA of humanoids being recombined and passed on to descendants. For one thing, the choice of model upon which to base a particular thought-function is always a deliberate one, save only when a new mental contribution is required as a result of some sort of emergency.

7.4 Specialist Participation

Organisms are inherently complicated; designing a new one for each member of a race is a task beyond almost any parent. Much of the process is instinctive, as automatic as the musculature motions and adaptions needed to complete the task when a human decides to pick an object up for examination.

Sometimes, two ‘pathways’ within the Proto-Azurial are incompatible, contradictory, incomplete, or simply erroneous, and a Pseudologist is needed to graft an emergency correction into the mental structure of the child. And, tragically, sometimes that process cannot be completed sufficiently, or in time, and the nascent proto-Azurial dissipates, taking with it all the efforts and hopes of those who had contributed to its becoming.

The medical and psychological specialists who provide such support are known as Pseudologists. They specialize in knowing what processes are essential to continued existence and in identifying conflicts within the processes present that threaten the internal harmony that permits that existence. They can determine when a process can be safely removed, when an alternative that does not share the incompatibility can be introduced, and what the resulting consequences will be.

It is rare, but not unheard of, for such specialists to be consulted when the infant is being ‘planned’ by its parents.

7.5 Stages of Development



This image is almost entirely my own work because I couldn’t find exactly what I wanted. There are numerous elements (more than 200) combined in various ways – everything from bacteria under an electron microscope to dust motes, and all sorts of things in between. Three of the images are not by me, but have been extensively modified in various ways – they are all on the Azurite row (the bottom). There’s the thin lightning-figure in the middle, there’s the cloud-like figure second from the right, and there’s the rightmost storm-cloud figure. I wish I could give proper credit, but didn’t keep the notes. I do remember doing a lot of searches for “Lightning Elemental” and such. This one I think I can show you full sized, particularly since the text is barely legible at this smaller scale – (click on the image).

Prior to it becoming self-sustaining, the responsibilities of the parents are to the survival and well-being of the nascent young. When it becomes capable of independent existence, those responsibilities change, as the new life enters a series of stages of self-development..

7.5.1 Independent Existence

Parents of an Azurial are required to guide and protect the new life, to ensure its education and preparation for potential maturity. As it develops, the child will develop potentials of its own choosing, often ones that were not obvious to the parents, resulting in richer and more complex internal structures and an ever-greater self-control over its form.

Some of the paths and potentials created by the Parents are superseded or simply abandoned along the way. Maturity, and a mature personality, is as much about what you let go of as it is what you acquire. But those dead and dormant pathways remain engraved in the internal structures of the maturing Azurial.

7.5.2 The Wasting I

Eventually, the Azurial reaches a crisis point in which it has developed sufficient personality to take full control of its development, becoming an Azurian.

But it doesn’t have an unlimited time to reach that point; the dead and corrupt pathways left behind accumulate, and if the Azurial takes too long to develop, can do so to the point where it no longer has the evolutionary capacity to make the next step; its growth is poisoned by it’s own mental wastes.

The Azurial then remains as an eternal child, gradually sickening and failing as the light inside becomes obscured and dimmed, a process referred to as “the Wasting” – in this case, “The Wasting Of Potential”.

7.5.3 Azurian Stage

For a while, the new Azurian will seem to collapse into itself, becoming smaller and more condensed – but that is only because more of its currents are directed inwards, building new and more complex internal structures faster than it can grow. But eventually, it will begin constructing variegated external structures and learning how to develop a humanoid form.

The details are frequently modeled on non-Azurites with which it has associated. These may be ‘skin deep’, designed to do nothing more than lubricate social interaction with those surrounding it; because they share a physical environment, there may be some measure of practicality involved as well.

In some cases, a particular representative will be singled out as a role model, and the emulation will run deeper – see 7.7 The Mentor, below.

One defining trait of this stage of life is that the individual is considered mature enough to care for siblings and impaired older relatives, and generally take great pleasure in doing so. This creates a social and familial continuity that might otherwise be lost.

7.5.4 Approaching Maturity

Eventually, an Azurian reaches the point of maturity, where it can begin designing its exterior and interior to suit its needs, and shaping its capabilities to render it suitable to undertake a career – which are never pre-defined, they are always subjectively defined by the Azurian themselves.

Azurians take this approach because there are so many combinations of specialty that it is impossible to adequately define them all.

In fact, it is often the case that the Azurian themselves cannot adequately define or describe the scope of their professional life, and spends their entire mature life in the pursuit of that definition; they know only that there is such a definition that is possible.

7.5.5 Second Wasting

Once again, however, this is a race against time. The decaying and decrepit processes that are abandoned and ignored act as pollutants within the body, and if maturity is not achieved in time, they will prohibit it. In time, the accumulated decay products will leave the Azurian unable to maintain even its semi-humanoid form and it will collapse into an end-of-life Azurial. Mentally, too, it will revert into a second childhood, a form of senility.

For much of its life, those who endure the Second Wasting remain capable of functioning as an Azurian, caring for the young and infirm, for example, and they often take great delight in doing this. It is reasonably analogous to a grandparent taking children (or senior citizens) to a park or other activity.

In time, they become incapable of even this, and become an Ante-Azurial, indistinguishable from those who suffered from the First Wasting. This progression can be slowed, even reversed in the short-term through the development of new interests and personal associations; as with humans, mental activity is necessary to prevent sufferers from simply wasting away.

Because the sufferer was closer to adulthood, and it’s potential offerings to society at large better defined, the term “wasting” in this case is meant to imply “Wasting Of Opportunity”.

7.5.6 Azurites

Only those who have achieved maturity are considered Azurites. No two Azurites are alike. Every Azurite can be considered a professional of some sort, though some observers note that the society permits, even encourages, the study of ‘fringe subjects’. Frequently of little social or scholastic value, this is considered the price that needs to be paid for the occasional “from out of left field” discovery.

Earlier notes might also suggest that Azurites do not disagree with each other, or that such disagreements are without passion; neither suggestion would be correct. What is lacking in such discussions is disrespect. “You have been an able contributor to society in the past, but I find your current choices ethically questionable and morally exhausted. Give me your reasons for this behavior, and they had better be convincing, or I will seek to have you removed from office, forthwith,” might be typical of a confrontation. “Whatever possessed you to do such a thing, given the past history of failed attempts and the terrible cost of those failures?” is couched in even stronger terms – but the presumption is always there that the individual being raked over the coals knew what they were doing, and their motives were good (even if their reasoning is flawed).

Azurites continue to enhance themselves, adding intellectual and physical capacities as needed or as they capture the interest of the individual. Equally, dead and disused capabilities build up as the individual focused more and more precisely on their chosen careers, and eventually, the same problem manifests – these begin to get in the way of further growth, and the individual begins to first stagnate and then wither.

7.5.7 Post-Azurites

There are two primary manifestations of the Third Wasting – mental faculties may deteriorate, or physical skill and precising may deteriorate. The first is ten times more common than the second. It is normal for Azurites to begin planning for a retirement, voluntary or involuntary, in later life, usually after the last of their intended children have achieved adulthood. They begin focusing their efforts on completing tasks already undertaken as a priority over new tasks, which they will set in abeyance or hand off to up-and-comers within their profession (or something close enough to their profession).

This social behavior is frequently the first hint that an Azurite feels his time beginning to draw to a close. More tragic is when accident. injury, or distraction causes the symptoms of age to go unnoticed until the day come when they can no longer be ignored. It is usually not to late to implement a prepared succession plan, but will often require the aid of an Assistant or other ‘guardrail” to keep the failing Azurite focused and on-track if the problems are mental, or to actually complete activities on the Azurite’s behalf if physical.

There are obvious parallels to the three great Human failings, Alzheimer’s / Dementia and Parkinson’s Diseases, respectively, but there are also parallels with incurable (but usually slow-acting) cancers. GMs can often get a better handle on the personality impacts of the conditions by translating the human experience.

Inevitably, the point is reached where the Azurite is no longer fit to continue professionally. They may still be consulted on various matters (though their advice is weighed more cautiously), but – in general – they have only social activities and family with which to occupy themselves. A due course – months, or years, perhaps even a few decades in rare cases – some function critical to ongoing life becomes critically compromised and the individual dies.

7.6 Critical Moments

As the descriptions above make clear, there are a number of physical and mental milestones that an adult individual experiences in the course of their life. These are cause for celebration and social/family gatherings when they are reached. Often, the only person capable of determining that a milestone has been achieved, or is imminent, is the individual themselves; is is them who gets to set the terms and criteria of their achievements. (As noted, however, there is a terrible penalty for waiting too long).

In particular, there are four milestones that rank above all others (and there are many others – Azurials are a social species); three independances, and one retirement..

7.6.1 First Independence

First independence comes when an infant no longer needs parental mental support simply to exists; it marks the transition to a child. Not all Azurials achieve this, but 98% of the population do so. The responsibilities of parents change as a result.

7.6.2 Second Independence

Second independence comes when a child begins making personal decisions of a significant nature and convincing others of sound reasons for the choices being made. These decisions are often not permanent commitments, and are certainly not binding. The responsibilities of parents change again, but this transition is often a more gradual affair. At some point along the way, the parents will decide that the changes need public acknowledgment so that society in general can also begin to treat the Azurian with greater consideration and confidence.

7.6.3 Ascension – Third Independence

The third independence is the biggest one of the lot, the equivalent of coming of age. It is a declaration by the Azurial that they are willing and able to make their own life choices and abide by the consequences that manifest from those choices. It usually also involves a declaration of intent in terms of chosen career. From that point forward, the new Azurite is subject to no authority in personal matters save those dictated by Azurian law. They can choose to respect or ignore customs, they can choose to become parents in their own right, they can wear a silly hat (held telekinetically, of course) and call themselves a cowboy, should they wish.

7.6.4 Retirement

There are lots of reasons to retire. One may have completed what one considered their life’s work, satisfying the motivation that kept them professionally engaged; one may be forced into it by age; and so on. While no career path is considered more important any other, there may be pressure to choose a related occupation that is more socially-productive (retirement may be avoided in such cases through a part-time commitment, deemed a necessary act to obtain the resources needed to continue what is seen as the ‘primary’ occupation by the Azurite practicing it).

Retirements can be happy, or mournful. They are often reflective, even nostalgic, and it is normal for friends and family who may not have been around for many decades to reappear. Very little happens on Azuria by accident; while one of the retiree’s family will frequently be dominant in the planning and execution of a “retirement party” (to use the human vernacular), the retiree is also a highly-engaged participant.

In many respects, it’s like a reverse wedding – one or more of the family making arrangements for a key event in the life of a parent, instead of the parent helping the child plan the event.

7.6.5 Death

When death occurs, the mental force binding the individual together dissipates, and they simply vanish as though they had evaporated..There are no significant remains to bury, and hence the Azurians have no burial ritual skin to a human funeral (a common saying amongst Azurites is that “where there are remains, there can still be animation”; it took a long time for them to realize why this had such a triggering effect on many other species, but especially humans).

One human practice that has begun to catch on is The Wake. A more informal gathering of remembrance of the individual than a Retirement Ceremony, in which his personal and social achievements are lauded as loudly as his professional ones.

7.7 The ‘Mentor’

Azurians are not considered mature enough in my culture to be fully responsible for my own decisions. I am expected and required to attach myself to someone of greater maturity, as it were, and to approach them for guidance when necessary, and use them as a role model the rest of the time. These are known as ‘Mentors’.

Those selected to be a Mentor by an Azurian need not be consulted and are often not informed of this status. This is not a voluntary relationship on their part, it is the deliberate choice to utilize the Mentor as a role model in at least some respects of their development by the Azurian.

An individual can have a succession of such individuals in the course of their development; sometimes, a Mentor is accorded that status for the development of a specific trait or capability. It is possible, though rare, for a single Azurian to have multiple mentors at the same time; it doesn’t happen more often because of the potential for conflict between the lessons being absorbed from each Mentor. Better to master what one has to offer and integrate it fully into the personality and then move on – but opportunities should not be wasted, either.

Most Mentors are Azurites; it is uncommon (but not unknown) for an off-worlder to be accorded the status, and some Azurians who travel off-world so so specifically to find, and develop a relationship with, a suitable non-Azurian.

As an Azurian approaches Ascension, it becomes more common for the Mentor-Student relationship to be acknowledged. Although rare, it is even possible for a non-Azurian Mentor to be invited to participate in the Ascension ceremony. The rarity is a consequence of the environment of Azuria. This generally exposes them to the Parents of the Azurite-in-waiting; like parents anywhere under such circumstances, the Mentor can be expected to be probed for their fitness as a role model and any fault, however slight, can be amplified to cataclysmic proportions.

They do this out of care for their child, and not as insult to the Mentor – the first is all-important to them, and the second trivial, no matter how offensive their interrogation might appear.

Scene In A Park

Below is an excerpt from the Dr Who adventure, “The Coming Of Ageless”, from which most of the material in this article has been excerpted and compiled. It’s worth including here because of the way it illustrates much of the content of this section.

I did a specific image for the scene, but it didn’t quite come out as clearly as I wanted, so instead I have chosen to include (at the bottom of the excerpt) another composite of Quasima’s entire family group – with names.


Newly aware of the nuances of the Azurite definitions, you recognize that approaching you are one Azurite, one youngish Azurian, and a late-stage but still youthful Azurial. “Quasi-ma, welcome home. It is good that your journeys have completed your growth. Neo-Na awaits. Para-qua insisted on greeting his favorite sibling, and so I have brought Poly-Tra to watch over him should he wander off.”

The Azurial, with kittenish shyness, looks out at you from behind the shoulder of the Azurite. Presumably, this is ‘Para-qua’, one of Quasima’s most junior siblings, and it must be your presence that is inhibiting the enthusiasm that the Azurite’s welcome implies.

Confirming this impression, the Azurian, Poly-Tra, tells the younger specimen, “it’s all right to be curious, Para-Qua. This is Quasi-Ma’s chosen mentor, a humanoid – one brave enough to come here and celebrate your brother’s new maturity with us.”

“Is it really okay, Papa?” says the young ball of lightning, and at a nod, he erupts from his hiding place and begins swarming around Quasima and peppering him with questions. You get the sense that if the Azurites recognized genders, the young ball would be feminine, but they don’t. You realize that this is exactly the sort of gender-equivalence assumption that Quasima was warning you against.

The Azurite now addresses you directly. “I have no doubt that Quasi-ma would have intended to introduce us, but he will be busy for some considerable time with the enthusiasm of his sibling, who wasn’t really old enough to ask coherent questions when Quasi-ma left for the stars. I am Meta-Alto, one of two who cultured his initial patterns, and I must recognize from the outset that you do him much respect by attending his maturation ceremony.”
(reply)

“Neo-Na and I sought to cultivate a sense of curiosity allied with an analytic mind in Quasi-ma, but for a long time he turned his thoughts inward, as you might suspect from his chosen name. It was something of a relief when he finally chose to seek a mentor beyond this world. He did not find it stressful, mind; he seemed completely confident in his assessment that he had to adequately prepare himself to match any mentor who he would consider worthy before such a mentor would accept him. We often wondered what qualities he would seek in such a mentor. You must have come to know him well, by now – can you enlighten me?”

This question was capable of several nuanced interpretations. Meta-Alto might have been asking About Quasima, but what he really wanted to know is why Quasima might have chosen YOU as his mentor – what qualities do YOU have have that entitle you to have an Azurite apprentice (or whatever they call the relationship).

The scene continued from there, but that’s where we will leave it, and move on.



Unfortunately, this is also almost illegible. Rather than offering the larger image as a separate file, however, I’ve decided to transform it into a triptych (I think I have the spelling right)! – three panels, with a little overlap to show that they are parts of a whole.







7.8 Choice Of Careers

Azurians spend much of their phase of development in search of an answer to the question posed to virtually every teenager, ever – “What do you want to do with your life?” – and then preparing both themselves and the society around them for the assumption of this role.

All careers are subjectively and personally defined, but many are subject to broad general classification.

If there is no demand for a particular function, part of the career of the individual can be defined as creating such a demand so that they can then satisfy it.

Provided that society, and it’s stewards (the politicians) are satisfied that the individual is making a contribution to society in general, they will not judge the validity of the choice, but will support it by ensuring adequate professional workspace, minimal life needs – accommodation, food, etc – and then do their best to get out of the way. They do not consider themselves wise enough (in general) to make value judgments over people’s life choices.

7.8.1 A shortage of plumbers?

This system is not as unstable as it might, at first, appear. It could be argued that it would break down because not enough individuals want to choose a particular profession at some given moment, for example.

Australia is suffering at this very moment from a dearth of skilled tradespeople, but it is doing so because past governments de-emphasized giving trainees in such trades the support, income, and opportunities needed, perhaps because there seemed to be enough people doing the job already, perhaps because they were undervalued.

Well, there weren’t enough trainees to keep up with demand, a problem exacerbated by the Pandemic, which prompted many in an aging population to take an early retirement.

The consequences and ramifications are still playing out – there’s a new restaurant / takeaway across the corner from me that has now missed FOUR opening dates because there simply aren’t enough tradesmen to complete the fit-out of the shop, for example. Remedial action is being taken, but will take 5 years or more to make a significant difference.

What was expected to be a crisis ten years from now, if not promptly addressed, is here early.

There are attempts to bridge the gap with an immigrant workforce of tradesmen. But this is creating it’s own problems – having knock-on effects within the housing market, for example, and not having enough people working within the civil service to process all the applications. Government priorities are being shifted as a result – and the cascade of ramifications continues to grow.

So this is potentially a serious problem, at least in the short-term. The solution within this society is that a shortage is in itself a trigger for career desire when one career is not falsely valued over another.

So far as Azuria is concerned, a happy and productive citizen is part of a complex and interlocking web of responsibilities that collectively create the society.

Another part of the solution is the presumption of secondary responsibilities. If you are an archaeologist, for example, part of the job description is the education of other like-minded individuals – succession planning, in other words. This is a generally unspoken, but very real, part of the social compact of the culture.

7.8.2 Changing Occupations

Inherent within the complexity of people is the potential for someone to fall out of love with a career path, or grow overly frustrated at a lack of progress, or simply to begin finding that the career is not as personally rewarding as the individual expected.

When that happens, people always have the option to retrain themselves and enter a new, possibly related profession – or simply to change job titles if no retraining is necessary. Before they are permitted to do this in Azuria, however, they first have to satisfy the government that there is insufficient demand for their ‘former’ occupation, or that if there is a demand, that the supply of individual workers is adequate to that demand. If neither of those is true, then before the old career can conclude, the individual needs to implement a more direct and targeted succession plan.

This usually involves a deferment of the change for a few years, nothing more. And it has sometimes been the case that the search for potential replacements and their training and education, gives the individual a chance to further appraise their contributions to society and rediscover their love of the original career path.

8. The Azurian Environment

In some respects, the Galactic Core is analogous to a solar system. You have:
 

• A central mass, which emits huge amounts of radiation, the accumulation of every bright object that crosses the event horizon and appears therefore to linger, forever;
• Orbiting inner “worlds” (entire star systems) which are drawn toward the central mass, and may or may not collide with it eventually (noting that the mass is always increasing due to other objects being absorbed, so no orbit can be considered entirely stable);
• A belt surrounding the central mass like a halo in which the radiation emitted is insufficient to directly threaten life most of the time;
• A region outside of that in which orbits are comparatively stable save when acted upon by one of the millions of other masses surrounding the central mass (not so stable, then);
• An outer area where objects in long cometary orbits reach perihelion, and begin to plunge anew back into the chaos, eventually to become part of the central mass; and
• Clouds of dust and debris created when objects pass too close to the central mass and are torn apart, but not so close that they are completely absorbed.

The turbulence in the latter makes the core one of the prime locations in the galaxy for stellar and planetary formation, but such objects are frequently extremely short-lived.

8.1 Galactic Region

Just outside of this region of gaseous turbulence is a relatively safe zone, though passing stellar masses continue to create chaos on an astronomical timescale. That chaos can be considered an ongoing series of perturbations in the otherwise stable orbits of the star systems concerned. Each one that passes either adds or subtracts from the orbital velocity through gravitation, but over a longer time frame, the evenness of distribution means that such perturbations even out, statistically.

There is always a tipping point, however, beyond which the consequences of the orbit being perturbed become unrecoverable. Living on planets in this region of space is a constant risk.

Although rare, collisions between stars do occur, and there are so many candidates swarming in and around the area that they are a regular event.

8.2 Star

The star around which Azuria orbits is fairly typical. Azuria itself was not originally a part of its solar system; it’s an outsider that it happened to scoop up during it’s own travels around the galactic core. It’s stellar type is largely irrelevant – it can be anything from a Type A to a Type K sun, or anything in between (it’s unlikely that a dwarf star of any sort would work, however). In general, a bright star, perhaps even a giant like Rigel, would work.

These details are up to the individual referee. So unimportant is the star (in general terms) that I haven’t even specified it’s type in-game, and the player has had no need to ask for the information.

8.3 Planet

The Planet called Azuria is more complex. It’s a variation on a Hot Neptune, with some characteristics of a Cold Neptune. If those terms mean nothing to you, it simply means that you’re not keeping up with the discoveries of exoplanets and the revisions to stellar categories that are being necessitated to classify them.

The mass of the planet is fairly high – it is a gas giant, with an ultra-dense Neutronium core, formed around the remnants of a high-speed collision between two Neutron Stars. The bulk of the stellar matter from the collision condensed into a larger neutron star (perhaps even a black hole), but some of the ‘splash’ would have escaped the collision. It then passed through one of the many gas clouds surrounding the core, one with relatively little hydrogen and helium – plenty of carbon, oxygen, water, ammonia, and nitrogen, though – scooping up enough of this material to form a planet.

Azurials do not live on the planetary surface; they live amongst the clouds, at sufficient altitude that the gravity is earth-like, i.e. 1G. If you want to specify exactly what the mass of Azuria is in Earths, you can calculate this in earth radii – the Azurials live at an altitude above the core approximately equal to the square root of mass (in Earths) (all the other variables cancel each other out).

I didn’t think it was worth the trouble to calculate it.

8.3.1 Cosmic Origins

The two neutron stars must once have collided at high speeds almost head-on; while the bulk of the combined masses would have been combined and departed (causing another gravitational perturbation in their wake), there would have been remnants. Most of these would have been too small to sustain the internal pressures and immediately exploded. But there must have been at least one remnant that was just large enough to survive. Gravity would almost immediately have caused plastic flows to render the surviving stellar core material spherical.

Thus, the planetary core of Azuria itself has to be hollow, with a relatively tiny neutron star orbiting inside it, almost certainly spinning at incredible speeds (any normal matter present would have wrapped itself around the neutron star remnant – it might not have been sufficiently compressed by gravity to become more Neutronium, however).

The orbit of the neutron star is almost certainly not precise; there would be wobbles and the likelihood that it was in the same exact direction as the rotation of the rest of the planet is infinitesimal.

As it approaches just a little closer to the surface, the increased gravity would super-heat the remaining surface material through tidal stress, but inconsistently – there would be geysers of metal constantly thrusting upwards and cooling in the winds of the upper atmosphere. Some would then shatter and fall back down, ready to be super-heaated again on the next pass. Others would cool quickly, courtesy of the strong winds present, and become spires of metal pointing skyward.

These are hollowed out and used by Azurials as places to construct their homes.

8.3.2 Planetary Formation

It must then have drifted through the debris of the exploded fragments, consisting largely of metals and other exotic materials, and then through an almost-depleted planetary nebula; if it were not depleted in this way, the planet that was forming would have become a gas giant, and it didn’t – quite. Or perhaps you could say that it did, but one composed of gasses other than hydrogen, helium and methane – making it one of the rarest planetary bodies possible.

8.3.3 Primary

And then it must have somehow blundered its way not only into a stable orbit around its current primary, but one that was in =exactly= the goldilocks position for a planet of this unusual composition. And picked up a moon or two, which swept up asteroidal mass and sent it plunging to the surface, accreting a rocky mantle. These also skimmed away any remaining hydrogen and helium.

8.3.4 Asteroid Rain

The impacts of some of those asteroids threw molten metal and rock almost out of the atmosphere – but it must have cooled just enough in the process to form solid structures hundreds or thousands of kilometers tall. Atmospheric skimming by the moons then reduced the atmospheric content enough that most of the time, those structures project out of what atmosphere remains.

8.3.5 ‘Surface’ Conditions

Charged particles from solar radiation strike the exposed metal created by past asteroid impacts, which conducts the resulting electrical charge to ground level.

Atmospheric tides crash against the walls of the resulting mountains, creating incredible turbulence, which in turn would create an electrical differential between atmospheric clouds and surface. This produces the incessant electrical activity.

All this drives unusual chemical reactions, some of which produce great pools of bubbling polymers in the lower atmosphere. Heat transferred to the atmosphere from the hot-spots below would push this material upwards, and spread it out into relatively thin sheets that were visually indistinguishable from the clouds that blanket the planet. These are the ‘solid clouds’ that Quasima described.

These would produce relatively cool areas in the atmosphere by providing shade from sunlight and a shield against the radiated heat; islands of semi-stable cool air surrounded by heated atmosphere. More atmospheric turbulence, more clouds, more lightning.

Because different compounds have different melting and boiling points, they would settle out at different rates, layering the polymer clouds and strengthening them. From time to time, some of these pockets of relatively pure gaseous compounds would escape through the sheets, especially when one was punctured; the results would be jet streams in the air that travel at hundreds of kilometers per hour.

This is an environment in which nothing is fixed or permanent, but some features would have such long lifespans that they are all-but-eternal. And that includes floating polymer clouds with electrostatic coatings of metallic elements, thinner in some places than a sheet of cooking foil, thick enough elsewhere and sufficiently resilient for a vessel to land on them – with care.

8.3.6 ‘Habitable’ Environment

The gravity of Azuria is far too intense for the planet to have normal composition, but because visitors never go near the surface, it is not much different to Earth-normal.

In many ways, though, the planet is a Gas Giant in which atmospheric layers have been compressed to the point where they present as semi-solid surfaces – that are free-floating on other gas layers like streamers or ribbons.

Azurians weigh next to nothing, and can easily manipulate that next-to-nothing with their telekinetic abilities, limited though those capabilities are. That being the case, they do not live on the (uninhabitable, even for them) surface of the planet, but amongst its cloud layers.

Some of these are solid enough for humanoids to walk on, being constructed of naturally-occurring polymers, while others are insubstantial as fog or mist, and most of the latter are indistinguishable from the former with the naked eye. Humanoids constantly probe the ‘cloud’ ahead of them to ensure it has enough substance to function as a ‘surface’ for them to walk on.

That Azurians can (and do) walk upon a cloud-like surface is no indication that it is safe for a visiting alien to attempt to do so. Because the differences don’t matter to Azurians, only those consciously accommodating the solidity of visitors will even think to point out an area of insubstantiality unless the visitor brings the matter to the attention of a local.

Should one do so, most Azurians will attempt to be helpful and mindful, just as the visiting alien might attempt to help a handicapped or crippled individual who was struggling in some way. Most humanoids do not tolerate this attitude as well as, perhaps, they should.

Sidebar: About Clouds

Two of the most astonishing facts that I’ve ever encountered: 1) Any cloud that you see in the sky above the Earth is actually at least 10,000 much smaller clouds aggregating; without sufficient density, they are virtually invisible. 2) Any such cloud easily weighs as much as a full-grown Bull Elephant.

Put those thoughts together and add a higher gravity field and more substantial chemical compounds, and you can easily discern the inspiration here.

8.3.7 The Long Fall

When a humanoid falls through a section of cloud that is sufficiently unsubstantial as to be unable to bear their weight, they will fall. If they are lucky, they will encounter another ‘platform of cloud’ of sufficient solidity to arrest this fall before they accumulate enough momentum to break through such a surface.

Unless they encounter ‘semi-solid ground’ within a few meters of descent, however, their velocity and mass will be such that they will begin the kilometers-long descent to the ‘surface’ of the planet. They will never reach it; the atmospheric pressures of Azuria are such that they will be crushed like an eggshell long before encountering something solid enough to arrest their fall.

Both this problem and that of transiting from one piece of ‘solid ground’ to another are solved – partially – by the wearing of some form of jet-pack. Note that these can be very difficult to control without sufficient training and practice.

8.3.8 Uncontrollable Descent

Complicating this problem is the electrical environment, which tends to play hob with any sophisticated control circuitry. Brute-force mechanical controls are necessary, anything else will be completely unreliable unless massively shielded – and the weight of such would be prohibitive.

Think of it as like trying to cross some incredibly thin ice – the more you weigh, the more likely it is that the surface will give way under your feet.

This is a very tricky engineering balance to get right.

One ingenious solution is to place the humanoid in a large plastic balloon; this distributes their weight over a much broader surface and lets them roll from place to place. Downhill is easy, even fun – uphill is harder work.

Other buoyancy aids may also be successful. You had better hope so if you’re relying on them!

8.3.9 Azurian Solutions

As a general rule, there are none. They don’t need them, and the environment is such that they get few visitors, so they have seen no need to develop any.

8.4 Atmosphere

The Azurian atmosphere is a cocktail of exotic gasses, which float hither and yon in streams. Extracts from these different compounds are used as biological components to manufacture the internal structures and processes that permit Azurians to control the electrical plasma within their beings; they consume biological compounds as though they were food.

One of the compounds is oxygen, a significant fraction of which is in the form of Ozone.

Many of the gasses are poisonous to humanoids, and some would be corrosive, either chemically or because they have been super-heated by lightning.

8.5 Surface Environment – from a visitor’s point of view

The first discovers of Azuria described it as a place that both is, and is not, habitable.

Azuria is blinding. There is constant electrical activity.

The planet is deafening. Lightning produces Thunder- constant and deafening to humanoids. Only those protected against those (and other) hazards should exit the shelter of the conveyance that brought them to the planet.

Azurian Life is all telepathic to some degree as a result of needing to communicate within such an environment. No other form of communications is possible there unless cocooned in an extremely well-protected sanctuary.



This is an excerpt from the main Azuria image that started the article, which I don’t think contains any copyrighted elements. It illustrates not only the environment described above, buit the Azurian style of architecture. (I thought I needed something at this point to break up a large block of text).

8.6 Energy Cycles

Earth has it’s Nitrogen cycle and it’s water cycle – Azuria has energy cycles. The flow of energy around the planet. mostly in the form of heat and electricity, is paramount to life there.

8.7 ‘Plasmatic’ Biochemical Cycles

All life on Azuria is electrical in nature. In a sense, that is true of all life, everywhere, but it is more literally true of Azuria than anywhere else.

This is a consequence of evolving within an environment containing the energy cycles described. Just as human cells retain the chemical structure of the sea in which the chemical compounds first came together, so the electrical nature of their environment is part and parcel of the internal structures of all Azurian life.

Electrical discharges are, to an Azurian, akin to a summer shower.

8.8 Telepathic Noise

Azuria is not perfect, not even for Azurians. They are suffering from the telepathic equivalent of Noise Pollution, the consequence of a population that is outstripping the habitable region of their planet.

Because they are almost two-dimensional, you can pack a LOT of Azurians in a given volume their architecture – flattened tower-like spires thrusting several hundred meters into the sky, smaller in horizontal footprint than any human skyscraper, grown like crystals. One of the primary features of this architecture is that it removes a family unit of Azurians from the company of others, or at least puts them a suitable distance away.

At ground level, where there are billions of Azurians coming and going, it can be so overwhelming as to overload psychics from other races.

Although they are typically not sensitive to it sufficiently to be injured, even non-psionic visiting races find it almost impossible to sleep anywhere near the surface due to the constant hum of billions of simultaneous conversations that no ear-plugs can keep out.

During the day, when individuals are active, this noise can usually be tolerated by visitors; at night when trying to sleep, no. Since most material beings are extremely dependent on sufficient sleep, this poses yet another hazard to visiting aliens.

9. Azurian Personalities

While Azurials are more individual than members of most species, there are traits in common that emerge from the “biology” of the species as a member grows and matures.

9.1 Proto-Azurials and Newly-formed Azurials

Like all infants, these are comparatively helpless, physically. Intellectually, they are relatively advanced; first telepathic communications (of simple emotions) takes place almost immediately, and coherent thoughts are frequently just a matter of weeks, though this can vary from one individual to the next depending on the traits selected for inclusion by the parents.

9.2 Young Azurials

Azurian young in the Azurial stage are curious and playful. They may or may not be respectful. Think of them as being like puppies, always shoving their (metaphoric) noses into everything around them, exploring the limits of their universe and their capacities for interacting with it.

The new fascinates them. They will ask a lot of questions, and expect simple answers that enhance their understanding of the universe. Should they not understand something, they will deem that to be important and will ask other, older Azurites for clarification. Some find understanding such an answer to be their life’s work – so such answers are treasured, when they occur, and can be personally transformative.

When groups of young Azurials come together, they develop a pecking order that is strictly adhered to. There are three primary factors – Experience / Development; Relative Boisterousness; and Age, in that sequence – though a high level of Boisterousness can overcome a deficiency of Experience / Development. They do this largely instinctively, and use this ranking to determine leadership, responsibility, membership in group activities, priority sequence when interacting with strangers, and so on, even down to the sequence in which they get to ask a question – and then, to the back of the queue!

9.3 Older Azurials

It must be remembered when considering any individual that they are the sum of the expression of their potentials and the opportunities they have been given to develop those potentials. The emerging personality, in particular it’s likes and dislikes, also plays a role; one may have the potential to be a concert musician, but if you never awaken a love of music, it’s not likely to happen.

Parents can design their young to have unique combinations of traits, but what the end result will be is anybody’s guess – you could hand a different group exactly the same set of potentials and the maturing Azurial will be markedly different.

Sidebar: An analytic tool for characters

This is more akin to what goes on in human societies than most humans like to think. The initial part of the process is simply largely hidden from view, inferred by the demonstrated traits and abilities of the parents. These create potentials, and social status and educational opportunities present what opportunities the child has to express and develop those potentials.

The intersection between potential and opportunity provides a relatively strict ranking of developed abilities: (1) Both; (2) Interests with the Potential; (3) Interests without the potential; (4) Potentials without interest; (5) No interest and no potential but socially mandated; and (5) No, interest, No potential, no mandate.

Insight can be acquired into any character by assigning their skills into these different categories. The higher the net score in the skill, the earlier it should appear in the lists. Try to distribute them as evenly as possible – so if you have 10 skills, you should have 2 per category on average, and no more than three in any one category. Four would be exceptional.

This can create hard choices, but those are where insights are formed. What you are essentially doing is probing the question, “Why is this skill at this score? Why not higher? Why not lower?”

For a single skill, the results can be interesting, even insightful. For a more fully-realized character analyzed in full, they can be revealing, even revelatory.

The GM can’t really do this analysis of a PC without the player, but he can do NPCs. Players can analyze their PCs on their own, of course, but a collaborative effort with the GM will frequently yield a better understanding of the PC for both parties.

When you have these insights, put them in writing. They will serve as signposts to what the character should be developing, in terms of future skills and personal growth, and should signal the GM what opportunities he should make available to the PC, what type of individuals the PC will relate to, and so on.

Useful.

9.4 Azurians

The Azurian stage marks two developmental paths which generally occur in tandem, though development in one can be temporarily retarded in some individuals.

The first is a refinement of personality and self-understanding.

The second is a greater capacity to interact with the world, generally manifesting in a more complex physical form. While it’s not necessary for this form to be humanoid, it often is – from the ‘waist up’, anyway.

A third line of development is in education and vocational training; during this stage, this aspect of the individual’s life is under their control and not the control of the parents. Quite often, this is not apparent to the casual observer, but it can be a defining factor, if the Azurian choose to seek off-world experiences, for example.

Azurians are either thoughtful, quiet, and contemplative (but not shy), or they are boisterous, outspoken, and energetic (but not empty-headed). Neither nerds nor jocks, though there is a tendency for individuals to be misdefined by outsiders into those categories. “Jocks” can be studying higher physics, “Nerds” can be contemplating Internal Plumbing. Both groups will frequently surprise those outsiders mentioned.

9.5 Azurites

An Azurite has a self-defined career that they find compelling enough to direct their full physical and mental efforts toward, the result of the blend of education, training, and personality.

No matter what the career path, an Azurian understands and appreciates how his particular personality profile creates an advantage within that career, even if it’s just “I find ‘X’, fascinating.”

Other aspects of the individual’s potentials are relegated to the status of “hobbies and interests” unless directly related to, or secondarily important to, the primary career. They represent fallback positions should the individual’s career not be in demand, or be oversupplied with qualified individuals – and are a diversion from any stress and strain resulting from the primary career. It’s all very human, really..

10. Azurian History

Until they were discovered by human explorers, Azuria had little comprehension of the wider universe. Too much of it was washed out by the riot of change in the night sky, and none of it was constant enough to be placed within a logical framework that would permit them to deduce the existence of parts of a structure that were not so densely packed with stellar bodies in motion.

They named it for the color which dominated both the landscape and the inhabitants.

11. Azurian Culture & Society

11.1 Something New!

Most Azurians will never encounter a non-Azurian. Such a visitor will be “something new” and will be the center of attention for everyone they meet, at least for a while.

But there are always a few who have abnormal reactions to the strange and different – some will view the visitor as a threat, some will view them as a danger, and some will regard them as inherently inferior.

While most Azurians will be too polite to do more than grumble to the alien or about the alien, there are a few who may take stronger measures.

Fortunately, the precautions that must be taken against the environment also protect the casual from most of what these malcontents can inflict upon their person.

11.2 Children are the responsibility of all

Any passing Azurite who encounters one or more Azurials automatically assumes responsibility for and over them until another arrives to replace them. Adults can and do come and go as needed, but there is always an adult at the heart of such swarms.

There is little or no control exerted over the children; they are free to go where they will, and (in general terms) do what they want; unless their actions place themselves or others in danger, authority is not exerted beyond making sure that their games do not get out of hand. They may need to resolve some minor conflict, as might happen when supervising any playground, but such control is light and usually takes the form of a “lesson”, engaging the endless curiosity of the young and leading them to decide that certain behaviors are unacceptable or unsafe.

12. Azurian Politics

Azuria is led by the “Ascendant Chorus”, which occupy a building specifically designed for government function, the Chambers Of Chorus.

The landscape and architecture leading to the Chambers is quite remarkable – a single isolated mountain rising out of the clouds does nothing but exaggerate the epic scale of the Chambers, which rise out of a valley in the base of the mountain, managing to feel both manufactured and organic at the same time, serious and whimsical in parallel – much like the Azurians themselves, you note.

The Chambers are actually two towers, connected at both top and bottom of the smaller. You ascend through the lower parts of the towers by ramps, staircases, and vertical shafts (which may or may not have lifts in them depending on the technology level of your campaign).

The smaller tower contains administrators and clerks, or their local equivalents, while the Council itself and staff occupy the taller tower, ordered strictly by seniority, rank, and the importance attached to their post.

12.1 Appointment to the Chorus

Positions are never allocated ‘at large’ or by seniority, the way it seems to happen in human administrations; instead, prospective candidates for a given position must advocate their ideas for improvement within the division for which they are applying, and a select group within the Chorus, whose job it is to evaluate prospective members, determines whose ideas are most practical and useful, assisted by experts in the relevant field as necessary.

Once successful in achieving Appointment to the Chorus, a Chorus Member is also allocated a specific segment of the population for whose interests they must advocate, who they must represent, and to whom they must report, in addition to carrying out the functions of the bureaucratic position for which they have successfully applied.

Chorus members can be removed at any time by the Chorus for failing the latter, or by those they represent if that representation is inadequate, so neither duty can be neglected.

Political Exposure

This creates a political atmosphere that is both distinctively different and yet familiar, as this excerpt from the adventure shows:

“This matters,” Quasima told you telepathically. “By asking for outside help, Meta-Lar has exposed himself to ridicule and accusations of inadequacy that could cost him his career.

The only way that fate can be avoided is if the situation is seen as serious enough that not seeking such help when it is known to be available would be tantamount to an admission of the same shortcoming.

Whether or not the severity of the situation has been clearly and correctly assessed, the act of asking for assistance defines how seriously Meta-Lar views the problem.”

[Meta-Lar was the name given to the current Leader of the Chorus, in effect, the head of Government.]



The final illustration for this article is of the leader mentioned above and his Assistant, who features in excerpts that follow..

 

Overstepping Bounds

You arrived at a well-appointed office with lots of smoothly-polished blue marble slabs, 20 feet tall by 4 feet wide, mounted on walls of a muted gray-white color. Tastefully used as highlights here and there are gold trim and golden lamps. Entering, you were greeted by an Azurite you have never met before, who seems to still be more late-stage Azurian than Azurite in many respects, just barely able to maintain a sufficiently-humanoid shape with which to perform his duties, which are presumably receptionist-secretarial in nature.

“Welcome – you must be the Doc-Tor and Quasi-Ma. Meta-Lar is in gestalt at the moment, obtaining the latest updates. I am Part-Eth, and serve as manager of Meta-Lar’s schedule. He has asked Social Engineering Expert Quantum-Sanz to attend as well, but Quaze – as he likes to be addressed – has not yet arrived. It’s entirely likely that he is also participating in the Briefing. In the meantime, may I get you a serving of particulate Nickle-Hrydrate ions?”

[The Doctor didn’t think that would be all that compatible with his Biology.]

About 15 minutes later, Meta-Lar emerges from his inner office, his voice booming across the room like rolling thunder. At least partly, this has to be a professional affectation, he wasn’t quite so voluminous at the Feast. “Doc-Tor! Thank you for coming. Have your biological needs been provided?”

Quasima interjected before the Doctor could frame a polite response: “The offered refreshments were entirely appropriate – to an Azurite, not to a demi-human analogue.”

The room seems to brighten dramatically as Meta-Lar darkens and sprouts additional bolts of lightning. “Part-Eth, you were specifically warned that a demi-human analogue would be arriving for an urgent meeting and that he was to be shown full courtesy! Your Azurian-first philosophy often works to your advantage in performing your duties, but this breach of protocol and ill-manners places your position in jeopardy. I will discuss this with you again when time permits. Schedule a twentieth-cycle this after-zenith for a dressing down and performance evaluation. And if I were you, I would spend the intervening time considering carefully the value that you intend to offer in service to the Chorus, hereafter.”

Doctor, it’s clear that Meta-Lar wants to tear strips off his receptionist-cum-secretary-cum-office manager for this diplomatic faux-pas. While you were not particularly fussed, I expect, having provided your own refreshments just in case, the next non-Azurian with an appointment might be less casual about such things, to the diplomatic detriment of Azuria. At the same time, you probably don’t want to be the reason he loses his career as a civil servant, which is a real possibility when you filter Meta-Lar’s words through what Quasima explained to you earlier.

I then put the questions to the player: “Are you intervening? And, if so, what are you saying and who too?”.

 

A secured War Room

With the unpleasantness dealt with, Meta-Lar turns back to you, and at considerably more intimate volume levels, advises that “The information you will need to understand the crisis is extremely sensitive. It can only be imparted in a secured environment. I do not know it, myself, at this time, because I have placed it within a secured compartment within my mind. Quasi-Ma, not all Azurites are capable of this, and it is not a failing on your part not to be one of them, given that you only Ascended to adulthood yesterday. If you cannot do so, then you must remain here.”

Quasima replies, As assistant to the Doctor, I found the need to have such a capacity. It will present no difficulty.”

Nodding, the planetary leader – all 10 feet tall of him – leads you into the outer chamber, a hub leading to multiple office spaces. Approaching a blank wall, he pauses to warn, “This room is telepathically shielded, and swept for other recording devices four times daily. To those accustomed to the constant conversation of the world in general, the silence can be disconcerting. It tends to make Azurians ‘shout’ – probably to try and fill the space with noise. I suspect that you will have little trouble, as you’ve had considerable time away from the noise of home, but wished to warn you. Social Engineering Expert Quantum-Sanz is already within, waiting for us – or so I have been led to believe.”

With that, he opens a hidden door and leads the two of you through into a chamber that seems to have been tacked onto the side of the tower in such a way that its existence isn’t obvious from the outside – and then hidden from the inside. Doctor, you notice that it contains telepathic shielding of very high quality embedded within the walls; the constant hubbub of telepathic conversations stops abruptly, and silence seems to rush in, creating a void.

Waiting inside, standing at a huge round ring-shaped table with inset electronic controls of some sort and a ring of 10 elevated view-screens facing outward descending from the ceiling. The walls contain a series of 15 even larger screens, with a series of small alcoves in between them everywhere except where one has been left out in favor of the entrance. Each alcove also contains a small workstation of some kind. Even smaller screens are inset and angled next to the controls; there are 16 such stations. Also at each station, in the position you would expect to see a chair, metal poles about two inches thick rise about two feet from the floor, terminating in a T. These earthing stations evidently form comfortable seating for an Azurial. At one of the stations, a human stool-top has been fitted to the crossbar, obviously for your use. You hope that you don’t have to work out how to use one of the stations, or your reputation for infallibility (assuming you have one amongst the Azurians) will be seriously dented! Or perhaps that might be a gentler let-down than what might be about to transpire.

Before you can say or do anything, the Azurite in the room rises and approaches. “You can only be Doc-Tor and Quasi-Ma. I bid you greetings from the Azurian Institute Of Higher Learning. My formal name is Quantum-Sanz, but I prefer to be called Quaze to the maximum extent that informality is permitted. Congratulations, young Quasi-Ma, on your Ascension.”

Quasima replies, “Thank you, Respected Quaze. My brother sends his regards; he is a student within your department, one of many so I doubt that you would know his name.”

“You speak, of course, of Semi-Phran. Quite the prodigy, that one, which is obviously why his name has come to my attention on a number of occasions. I had to formally approve his occasional service on behalf of the Council; officially, he is not yet old enough for such responsibilities.”

Doctor, it’s dawning on you that the field on which Quaze is expert might be better described as “Comparative Xenosociology”, i.e. “Diplomatic Relations”. He is probably the head of the Diplomatic Corps of Azuria – and it’s worth taking a moment to recall that most Intelligence Services are run through such departments. ‘I prefer to be called Quaze,’ indeed!

Meta-Lar takes up a position with Quaze to his right and the Doctor to his left, with Quasima one station further around from the Time Lord. Touching one of the controls, his section of the ring-shaped table elevates about eight inches, as does his seating and the floor from which it emerges. A second ring around rises four inches to form a step. Of course, the psionic shielding must interferes with the Azurian ability to fly, too.

 

In a nutshell

I don’t think there’s huge value in actually describing the crisis in detail. Instead, here’s a very quick summary, highlighting those parts that might be relevant to an understanding of Azurian Society & Politics.

The uniqueness of their world means that there are very few suitable worlds for Azuria to colonize. They have made such attempts in the past, in fact, three times, and each has been a catastrophic failure. There are multiple theories as to why – the existence of someone making sure their experiment doesn’t escape the lab not being one of them.

Because any experimentation to test these various theories would have placed the participating Azurites at considerable risk, all such experimentation was banned at the same time that it became enshrined in their legal code that any further colonization attempts be illegal. This was all some significant fraction of a century in the past. Azuria has an annual day of remembrance for those who were lost in the past attempts.
.
Five years ago, Meta-Lar very quietly reversed that decision and established a colony on a distant world that was being artificially “Azuria-formed” around another neutron star fragment. Azuria, of necessity, resides in a volume of space that is inherently crowded and energetic. This causes numerous repeated incidents of extreme violence, sufficient that most species would deem it to be uninhabitable. It is simply too close to the galactic core and the super-black-hole that lurks there. Although the public remains unaware of it, there have been more than 140 documented near-cataclysms that threatened our world’s ongoing existence over the last 3500 years, since our recorded history began. Some were closer to catastrophe than others, but in all of them, there was a tangible risk of the destruction of the planet.

Collisions between stars occur at a rate 900,000 times more frequent in this part of the galaxy as they do out in the arms that are more comfortable for other species. Gamma-ray bursts are 10,000 times more common, as are nova and supernova. Orbital mechanics are disrupted or rearranged at more than one billion times the frequency. Stars age at a rate more than 5,000 times that of more benign areas of the galaxy. To one in [Meta-Lars’s] position, the risk posed is unacceptable and intolerable. For the preservation of Azurites in the face of planetary destruction, an interstellar colony is essential.

Meta-Lar is a leader because he considers himself fit to make the big decisions, even overruling the general population if he thinks they are wrong. This, naturally, risks his career should things not work out right. “The Buck Stops Here!”

The rest of the briefing dealt with the most credible causes of the past failures and how every conceivable precaution was taken to prevent a repeat.

13. Azurian Naming

Many things on Azuria are not quite what they seem to be, and this is reflected in their names. Many of them begin with prefixes like Quasi- or Semi- or Neo- or even Partly-, or any of a dozen alternatives, all of them reflective of this fact.

The name is carefully chosen to be reflective of the individual identity, and settling on a clear and permanent name is one of the signs of imminent maturity. Most Azurians choose a name fairly youthfully, and 40% change it a number of times before choosing a definitive expression.

Azurians borrow liberally and with abandon from other languages to derive their names.

Quasima

The NPC representing this species in the campaign is named “Quasi-Ma” – “Ma” being a human word from Albania which means ‘Me’. His name literally means “Almost Me” – a reflection of the philosophic quality of a personal name being both an identity, and reflective of that identity, and yet not the totality of that identity at all, not even symbolically.

But in this case, it was chosen because all of the career choices open to the Azurite didn’t quite seem to fit – several were close, but none of them were quite ‘Him’. The resulting uncertainty regarding life direction is unusual in an Azurite, and this distinctiveness manifested in a name choice.

Wrap-up

Azuria is a unique environment, which draws upon a wide range of literary and gaming sources and binds these elements together in a pseudo-science that sounds plausible enough to pass muster in a game environment. The individuals get to be fun and boisterous and polite all at the same time. They suffer from many (but not all) human failings, or have their own analogues of those failings, making them as fun to play as any other species you can name. They make good allies, and implacable enemies. As with the previous offering, an artificial ‘hidden origin’ hand-waves away a lot of potential inconsistency. I hope readers have fun with this creation!

First, A Correction (and some expansion)

I wasn’t going to be talking about this stuff today. I’ve done almost half of the third “Strange Places” article, and that was my intended post of the week.

But….

When I calculated how much a Gold Dime would weigh last week, I uses diameter instead of radius. This has a big impact, as you will see:

What if a dime were made of gold?

There’s a purpose to this. For a start, a dime is roughly the size that I think of when I think GP. It For another, it’s a fairly ubiquitous coin size – not far away from the Australian 10-cent piece for example. And for a third, if I can say that a GP is the size of a dime, but the weight of × dimes, everyone will be able to relate to the numbers.

Weight (real dime) = 2.268g
Diameter = 17.91 mm = 1.791 cm
Radius = 1.791 / 2 = 0.8955 cm (that’s the step that I missed)
Thickness = 1.36 mm = 0.136 cm

Volume in cubic cm = pi × r^2 × ht
= 3.1416 × 0.8955 ^ 2 × 0.136 = 0.3426 cm^3.

Density of pure gold = 19.3 g / cm^3

so weight = 6.6127 g
= 2.91 regular dimes.

Three dimes would be a fraction heavy – about 2.8%.

Value, 24 ct = 6.6127 / 313.54573 × 20067 = $423.21 USD.
Value, 18 ct = $317.41.
Value, 15 ct = $264.51.

But 15-ct gold would also reduce the weight – not all the way to 62.5%, because whatever impurities there are have to weigh something, but that’s a start. 6.6127 × 62.5% = 4.133 g = 1.823 regular dimes.

My instincts throughout the remainder of last week’s post were that the value of $1058.03 was too high, by a factor of around 10, and 1/2 cubed is 1/8th. So my instincts were right, but misinterpreted.

Let’s scale that up a little: Ten gp = 18.23 g = almost exactly 8 regular dimes. With (at 15-ct), 37.5% impurities – even if they weigh only about 20% as much as gold – that would add 8 × 37.5% × 20% × 1.823 / 2.268 = 0.48 additional dimes, 1.0938 g.

That’s the weight of a paperclip, or a 1$ note.

But, given that value is no longer the crisis that it appeared to be last week, let’s go back to 18-ct gold and see what we get.

Value, 18 ct = $317.41.
Weight, 18 ct = 75 × 4.133 g / 62.5 = 4.9596 g
     = 2.1868 standard dimes.
10 standard dimes = 4.573 gold dimes..
5 gold dimes = 10.933 regular dimes.

Now we’re getting somewhere!

Good Meal Test

So let’s see where we’re at with the Good Meal Test.

A really good meal for 1 will cost about 1 gp (I call this the “Good Meal” standard). It will also cost $50-100 modern Australian dollars at the extreme, but $18-$30 is more reasonable, and that’s what I’ve been using as my yardstick. If I convert those numbers into US dollars at last week’s exchange rate, I get:

$100 AUD = $63.76 USD
$50 AUD = $31.86 USD
$30.AUD = $19.13 USD
$18 AUD = $11.48 USD

So US $19-32 would be a reasonable first estimate for the value of a GP, and more probably at the lower end of that range. $20 or $25 would seem about right.

The common meal standard

.This works on a 1/10th gp conversion. A mid-quality bog-standard common meal, consumed by thousands of people a day both here and everywhere else, will cost $10-$20 AUD, and closer to the top end of that range.

Apply the same exchange rate:

$10 AUD = $6.38 USD
$20 AUD = $12.76 USD

So, the equivalence is suggesting that 1/10th of a gp is around US $9-12, and therefore a GP is going to be worth somewhere close to USD $105.

That’s a big difference, but it’s not as extreme as the factor-of-ten that we got last time. Let’s try to reconcile the two values using the math tricks from last week:

Mathematical Trickery

Average of $105 and $20 = $62.50
Average of $105 and $25 = $65

$105 × $20 = 2100, square root = $45.80.
$105 × $25 = 2625, square root = $51.20.

Average of $62.50 and $65 = $63.75
Average of $45.80 and $51.20 = $48.50
Average of $63.75 and $48.50 = $56.13

$62.50 × $65 = 4062.5, square root is $63.74.
$45.80 × $51.20 = 2344.96, square root is $48.42
$63.75 × $48.50 = 3091.875, square root is $55.60

We seem to be honing in on a value of around $55.50. We have much bigger margins of error than 50 cents, so lose that and we get a rough conversion rate of

I GP = $55 USD.

The values that we got to last week were $23.34, $40.59, and $18.77. This is 2-3 times two of those values, and about 20% higher than the third.

A lot hinges on how many gp you would pay for a really good meal, in-game. If 1-2 gp, the $55 value is going to be the sort of number you should pick. If 3-4, I would set it to about $25.

From last week’s article:

Once you have that number, you can take a gem result – be it 1 gp, 10 gp, 50gp, 500gp, 5000gp, or 50,000 – and get the USD equivalent. Once you have that, and the information contained in this post and last week’s, and you can directly determine the weight and dimensions of the gem.

Special gems are easily handled simply by multiplying the base value of a 1ct gem with those special characteristics by an appropriate factor – times 1.5? Times 10? Times 100? – it’s up to you.

What’s more, if you do a little prep work and save the results, you can define a standard gem – in your game world – and up-scale or downscale it as needed.

Value / base 1-ct value will always give you the square of the number of carats. So if the dice say a 10,000 gp gem, you can simply divide by your base value, take the square root, and you have the number of carats.

New Thoughts On Depreciation & Appreciation

The diagram above is a little hard to read because I had to fit it into Campaign Mastery’s column size. I was going to provide a link to download a larger version, but then I realized that I could simply show both halves – slightly larger than full sized!

So lot’s do that, then.

Depreciation Sequence

It might nor seem it, but this is actually a far simplified model of the process.

Depreciation isn’t really a constant change, despite all attempts to treat it that way by accountants. There are three phases –

• an initial phase in which the real value doesn’t decline by much, which I have named the “initial phase”;
• a middle phase in which real value is lost rapidly; which I have named the “decay phase”; and
• a period in which depreciation slows and almost stops.

Overall, we have a total of 50 years. The decay phase is 10-20 years in the middle, probably closer to the 20 end of the scale. That leaves just over 30 years to account for.

The decline phase is going to be about 1½ times the length of the initial phase, so dividing 30-plus-a-couple by 2½ gets us the length of the initial phase – 12-13 years. Yes, I’ve shown it as too wide and the decay phase as too short. Never mind that.

If we call it 12 years, that uses 20 years exactly for the decay phase, and leaves 18 years for the decline phase. But, let’s simplify further and call the phases 10, 20, and 20 years in length.

A more technical approach

If you wanted something less arbitrary, the initial phase persists until the object has lost 20% of it’s value, or 15 years have passed – whichever comes first.

The Initial Phase

In the initial phase, decline in real value is much less than the accountants would have us believe. They want a flat rate that erodes a certain amount every year, in other words a formula that reads:

V2 = V1 × r ^ (T / I), where

     V2 = the depreciated value,
     V1 = the starting value,
     T = the age of the object,
     I = the interval of measurement, and
     r is the depreciation rate over a span of the interval of measurement.

This is what I’ve been trying to use, and it’s a pain because it’s so sensitive to both age and to the depreciation rate.

Whatever your base depreciation rate is, in the initial phase it will be a lot less. Generally:

     R(i) = [ 2 + R(b) ] / 3

will be about right.

Let’s compare that against a 10% depreciation rate, commonly used for motor vehicles and a 20% rate used for more perishable objects like furniture:

We’ll start with an object valued at a nice round $1000.

R1 = 100-10% = 0.9.
R2 = 100-20% = 0.8
R3 = (2+0.9)/3 = 0.9667.

  1 year @ R1: v = 1000 × 0.9^1 = 900.
  2 years @ R1: v = 1000 × 0.9^2 = 810.
  3 years @ R1: v = 1000 × 0.9^3 = 729.
  4 years @ R1: v = 1000 × 0.9^4 = 656.10.
  5 years @ R1: v = 1000 × 0.9^5 = 590.49.
  6 years @ R1: v = 1000 × 0.9^6 = 531.44.
  7 years @ R1: v = 1000 × 0.9^7 = 478.30.
  8 years @ R1: v = 1000 × 0.9^8 = 430.47.
  9 years @ R1: v = 1000 × 0.9^9 = 387.42.
  10 years @ R1: v = 1000 × 0.9^10 = 348.68.

  1 year @ R2: v = 1000 × 0.8^1 = 800.
  2 years @ R2: v = 1000 × 0.8^2 = 640.
  3 years @ R2: v = 1000 × 0.8^3 = 729.
  4 years @ R2: v = 1000 × 0.8^4 = 512.
  5 years @ R2: v = 1000 × 0.8^5 = 409.60.
  6 years @ R2: v = 1000 × 0.8^6 = 327.68.
  7 years @ R2: v = 1000 × 0.8^7 = 262.14.
  8 years @ R2: v = 1000 × 0.8^8 = 209.72.
  9 years @ R2: v = 1000 × 0.8^9 = 167.77.
  10 years @ R2: v = 1000 × 0.8^10 = 134.22.
.
  1 year @ R3: v = 1000 × 0.9667^1 = 866.70.
  2 years @ R3: v = 1000 × 0.9667^2 = 934.51.
  3 years @ R3: v = 1000 × 0.9667^3 = 903.39.
  4 years @ R3: v = 1000 × 0.9667^4 = 873.31.
  5 years @ R3: v = 1000 × 0.9667^5 = 844.23.
  6 years @ R3: v = 1000 × 0.9667^6 = 816.11.
  7 years @ R3: v = 1000 × 0.9667^7 = 788.94.
  8 years @ R3: v = 1000 × 0.9667^8 = 762.66.
  9 years @ R3: v = 1000 × 0.9667^9 = 737.27.
  10 years @ R3: v = 1000 × 0.9667^10 = 712.72.
.
If these rates persisted for the full 50 years:

  50 years @ R1 = $5.15.
  50 years @ R2 = $0.01 (0.015 if you prefer).
  50 years @ R3 = $183.90.

Even a single percentage point can make a large difference as it compounds over the years.

I don’t know how others treat their possessions, but a year after I buy mine, unless something extraordinary has happened, they are still in almost new condition. No way have they lost a tenth of their value, let alone a 20th.

There are exceptions – computers, electronics, and high-tech of other sorts, and anything that sees excessive wear-and-tear or significant daily use, like mattresses.

The Decay Phase

This is where the full rate kicks in, plus a bit more to make up for the slower rates at beginning and end.

Essentially, at the end of the Decay Phase (should it persist for the full 20 years), the object will have lost sufficient value that it will be where the accountant’s formula would have predicted.

Technically, that means working out what that value would be and then reverse engineering to get the 20-year rate:

  V1 = V × r1 ^ (20+ITP)
  V2 = V × r2 ^ (ITP)
  V2 = (V2 – V1) × r3 ^ 20, so

  V2 / (V2 – V1) = r3 ^ 20
  log [ V2 / (V2 – V1) ] = 20 × log [r3], i.e.
  log [r3] = 1/20 × log [ V2 / (V2 – V1) ]

eg: r1= 10%, V = 1000, r2=3.33%, ITP = 12 years:

  V1 = 1000 × 0.9 ^ (20+12) = 34.34
  V2 = 1000 × 0.9667 ^ (12) = 666.04
  log [r3] = 1/20 × log [ 666.04 / (666.04 – 34.34) ] = 0.0011495;
r3 = 1.00265 — which makes no sense, the rate has to be <1.

Back to First principles:
  666.04 -> 34.34 in one step = x0.05156.

  in two steps: square root of 0.05156 = x0.22707.

  log Y =log [ 0.05156 ] ^ 1/2 = -0.64384;
  Y = 0.22707. Technique confirmed.

therefore in 20 steps: 20th root of 0.05156;
log [0.05156] / 20 = -0.064384; Y = 0.8622.

Check: 666.04 × 0.8622 ^ 20 = 34.33.

So the depreciation rate in the decay phase is 13.78% – that’s what we need to get the depreciation back ‘on track’..

A rough shortcut

0.79228 in one step = × (0.79228 / 666.04) = × 0.00119

  in two steps: square root of 0.000119 = × 0.0345

  therefore in 20 steps: 20th root of 0.00119;
log [0.00119] / 20 = –0.1462226; Y = 0.71413

So the depreciation rate in the decay phase is 28.587% – that’s what we need to get the depreciation back ‘on track’..

Using our shortcut: 20 × 1.4 = 28%.

  20 years @ 28.58%, start $666.04: $0.79
  20 years @ 28%, start $666.04: $0.93.

14 cents. But that’s close enough for me.

A premature end

The decline phase can finish early – basically, if the value of the object drops to less than 5% of it’s original value, or less than $1, whichever comes first, plus one more year.

V2 = 5% of 1000 = $50

Our 10% drop carried us to $34.33, which is below $50. The rate was × 0.8622.

  So the 19th year, we had a value of 34.33 / 0.8622 = $39.82.
  The 18th year, we had a value of 39.82 / 0.8622 = $46.18.
  The 17th year, we had a value of $53.56.

In this case, the decay phase ends after 18 years, adding 2 to the length of the decline phase.

Our 20% drop gave a value of $0.93, at a decline of – using the shortcut – 28%.

  Year 19: 0.93 / 0.72 = 1.29
  Year 18: 1.29 / 0.72 = 1.79 (okay, that’s enough of showing the working)
  Year 17: 2.49
  Year 16: 3.46
  Year 15: 4.81
  Year 14: 6.68
  Year 13: 9.27
  Year 12: 12.88
  Year 11: 17.89
  Year 10: 24.84
  Year 9: 34.50
  Year 8: 47.92
  Year 7: 66.55

So the Decay phase stops after a brutal 8-year run and a value of $47.92. And the decline phase gets an extra 12 years tacked on.

Still more technical nuance to ignore

If you want to get technical, the rate itself in the Decay Phase starts off at the initial rate and changes over time to get to the correct value. But that’s too messy. The product of a series of products – I did some of that stuff back when I was doing higher calculus. No thanks.

The Decline Phase

Fortunately, the decay phase is time-limited. The decline phase then takes over, in which the devaluation effect starts at what was initially specified for the overall rate and moderates back to the initial value.

Again, that’s too much like work. So let’s use another shortcut:

  [R1 × (T-1) + R2 ] / T

Let’s say it’s 22 years, the 10% example.

  T=22, R1 = 0.9667, R2 = 0.8622.

  21 × 0.9667 + 0.8622 = 21.1629
  21.1629 / 22 = 0.96195.

A more realistic calculation would be (2/3 × R1) + (1/3 × R2).

  (2/3 × 0.9667) + (1/3 × 0.8622) =
  0.6444467 + 0.2874 = 0.9318.

Since this is significantly different from the simpler calculation, it is the recommended technique.

The Appreciation Sequence

So, one way or the other, you’ve gotten to the bottom of the curve. The object (assuming it has survived) will never be worth so little again.

Although it looks more complicated, this is actually a much simpler side to things. Of course, it’s possible to complicate things, but if you don’t have to, why bother?

The value of the object starts at the minimum determined in the depreciation stage and starts to grow – just a little each year. I’ve been using intervals of 20 years, but this diagram is marked in 5-year intervals.

At first, there’s hardly any change. It will be barely noticeable at the 60-year mark. But significant differentiation can take place at the 15-year mark.

This graph illustrates four different rates of appreciation. I’ll get to them in a moment.

A critical value is N. This is the number of time-intervals at which all the losses due to depreciation have been reversed, wiped out by the increasing value.

As soon as you cross that line, you can set depreciation to zero and simply subtract 50-n from your object age. From that point on, it will only increase in value – all other effects notwithstanding, of course.

N is the date at which you can ignore depreciation entirely.

Clearly, each of the growth rates will reach that point at a different date.

It’s also not uncommon for an appreciation rate to change after that landmark value, but that’s an unnecessary complication.

Value Spikes and the Tangent

If you expect an item to rise in value over the next X years, there is a temptation to factor that growth into the price you’re willing to pay today.

This causes the “value” to spike. It may even appear to be following the dangerous growth curve!

Once this initial spike is registered, however, the value increase flattens into a straight line – the tangent – until it reaches the correct value-growth curve for this item, at which point, “normal” growth will resume.

This tangent can be (usually is) upwards; it can be flat; it can even be downwards, though that only happens in more extreme spikes.

Spike severity is measured in the number of years of anticipated growth are incorporated into the value paid / demanded for the item.

If the example above were to the “typical Growth” curve, for example, at around the 82-year mark, the value would match the purchase price shown at age 65 – so that’s 82-65 = 17 years of increase.

• 1-5 years of increase: a minor ‘bump’ in the price. Almost negligible. Expect a rising tangent.
• 6-10 years of increase: officially qualifies as a ‘speculative investment’, though a fairly conservative one. Expect a flat Tangent, or one that is slowly rising. The line shown above would be about the most extreme.
• 11-20 years of increase: speculative, and not entirely safe. The tangent will be flat, rising very slightly, or even falling slightly.
• 21+ years if increase: highly speculative and extremely risky. Tangents are almost certainly downwards, and between 30° and 45° in slope (50 years × 100% graph)..That generally means that in 10-15 years, the tangent will intersect the true value line.

Slow Growth

Slow growth is safe, steady, and stately. Everything eventually achieves this growth rate.

Precious Metals and Gemstones are usually slow growers. But so is real estate. “Safe As Houses”, anyone?

Typical Growth

Objects that were once valueless or mundane, if nicely decorated, tend to follow the typical growth curve, which takes about 50 years to erase the impact of depreciation. Adjusted for inflation, a 100-year-old vase will be worth roughly what it was worth when new.

That adjustment for inflation is a killer, though. Shrinkage in the value of the dollar can be a 30- or 40-fold change in a century. So a $30 object can be priced at $750 – and still not have reached its initial value ($900 equivalent).

Objects of especial merit or value can appreciate still faster – an N of less than 50, in other words.

Up to ten years early (an N of 40) is tolerable, and signals an object of active interest to collectors. Anything faster and you start taking risks, albeit small ones at first.

Typical Growth is not without its risks, largely in the form of collateral damage to some more extreme fall in value. Such effects are generally minor and temporary; in the long run, they are little more than a rounding error. Value growth may be delayed but will make it up in the long-term.

Dangerous Growth

The dangerous growth line is set to an N of 25 and this marks a threshold to be crossed only at your peril. Anything faster than this is almost certain to suffer a value collapse – possibly even within the 50-year appreciation span showing. The growth in value is (generally) unsustainable.

It is so fast that it will attract counterfeiters and thieves and the costs involved (provenience in the first case, protective security in the second) directly detract from the value. Not having an object on display because it’s too dangerous also subtracts from its value, both in a slower appreciation rate and losses in social desirability.

The red zone a roller-coaster – and it can plunge values to close to zero, no matter what they started at – all corrections always over-correct. Look at what happened to the Dutch Tulip market.

Over $1000 in the currency of the time (or it’s equivalent) for a single bulb? This way lies lunacy! I’m sure investors who were caught in the dot-com bubble-burst can empathize.

Everything that I’ve seen suggests that most cryptocurrencies, like Bitcoin, are following a similar trend path. Several of them have crashed in value and even ceased to exist over the last few years.

Artworks and Exceptions

But there’s an exception to this rule – artistic merit tends to be conserved. While a few artists have lost value over the years, the worst that tends to happen is that they stabilize onto a slow or even very slow growth curve.

Of course, such a curve might not keep up with inflation, causing a drop in real value. But even that is rare.

An exception to the exception comes in the form of signatures – these gain their value through the name recognition accorded the (former?) owner of the signature, and if that fame diminishes, so will the value – perhaps precipitously.

Practical Matters

So, set the rate according to the age that you care about, determine the N accordingly, and simply start your appreciation from Base Value at year / interval N+1. You have all the tools you need.

Wow, that sure looks more like a typical post than I was expecting! Hope it’s worthwhile…

It’s been a long time since I’ve just had a ramble on about assorted semi-related matters but that’s what’s in store today.

I’ll move from topic to topic with what may at times seem gay abandon, but it will all come together in the end.

This is all stuff that’s derived from, or been inspired by, last week’s article.

We start with this:

How Large Is A (Cut) Gemstone?

Let’s say you have a gemstone of a known value. How large is it? I’ll work with a Ruby, but throw in what you need to work out other gemstones along the way.

You see, I had listed as a treasure in an adventure a ruby worth $25,000 USD 2023 dollars, but was concerned that it might not be large enough to suit the purpose, which was as the centerpoint of a turban.

I was picturing in my mind something about the size of a hen’s egg.

Weight (in Carats)

From last week’s post, there’s the rough estimation,

Value = value of an equivalent 1-carat gemstone × size squared.

The words ‘equivalent’ are important because they take every variable other than size out of the equation.

We start, then, with a standard gemstone of 1 carat size. If it’s particularly brilliant or whatever, we simply apply a value factor to take that into account.

Last week, I listed the base value (in 2023 US dollars) of a typical 1ct Ruby as $4625

I didn’t want this ruby to be all that exceptional in any other way, so I’ll worth with that figure.

Value = 25000 so

weight squared is 25000 / 4625 = 5.4054 so

weight in carats is the square root of this, or 2.325.

Weight in grams

A metric carat is 0.2 g, so

2.325 × 0.2g = 0.4645 g.

Volume

To get the volume, I need to know two things: the volume of the shape (when cut), and the density of ruby.

Density of major gemstones:

Diamond = 3.5-3.53 g / cm-3
Ruby = 4.02 g / cm-3
Sapphire = 3.98 g / cm-3
Emerald = 2.69 g / cm-3
Jade = 3.3 – 3.38 g / cm-3

I got this information from Rocks And Co dot com, where they list a vast number of precious and semi-precious varieties of stone, their hardness, their refractive index (relates to brilliance) and – most importantly – their relative density.. From Actinolite to Zultanite, they’ve got it covered.

So, if my weight is 0.4645 g, and ruby has a density of 4.02 g per cubic cm, then

Volume = weight / density = 0.4645 / 4.02 = 0.115547 cm3.

Is that a lot? It doesn’t sound like it, but we’ll see.

Volume of a cut

Some cuts are easy to work out.

A square cut is length × breadth × width, less 3-10% for the beveling.

A sphere has the volume 4/3 pi time radius cubed.

A pyramid shape has the volume 1/3 times height times base area.

A cylinder is pi times radius squared times length.

A conical shape is 1/3 pi times radius of the base squared times height.

A hemisphere is half the volume of a sphere.

A prism is base Area time height.

Most of these are primary-school maths.

‘Diamond’ Cut

Some shapes are more complicated – the typical “diamond cut” for example:

Here, you have two cones with their bases touching, and the top lopped off the upper one. To get this volume you need:

• the volume of the cone defined by r and h1,
  to which you have to add
• the volume of the cone defined by r and (h2+h3),
  from which you need to subtract
• the volume of the cone defined by r and h2
  – except that the r of this cone will be smaller, as you can see.
• As a rough rule of thumb, use (r-h2).

so that’s 1/3 pi times (h1 times r^2) + (h2 times r^2) – (h3 times (r-h2)^2).

It would be nice if we could assume symmetry, so that h1=h2+h3, but I don’t think we can. In fact, I think h1 is less than the other two combined, but that’s just an artists’ impression.

In the diagram, I deliberately made the top and bottom symmetrical and the angle of the facet ‘ring’ seems too flat to me – it should be more vertical to look right.

Technically. too, you shouldn’t use the “radius” (r) at all – as the bottom part of the diagram shows, you should use the average of r1 (what we’ve been calling r), measured along the long side to the corner of each facet, and r2, which measures to the flat surface in between – but as you can see, the error is so negligible that it’s not worth the effort.

Hearts

Hearts are another problem. There are three ways to do hearts: the complicated and messy way, the even more complicated and messy way, or the easy way.

Method 1
The complicated and messy way is to do a cone with it’s base the radius of the heart at the point of it’s greatest width, divide the volume by the width radius and multiply by the thickness radius to account for the flattening, then add two halves of identical spheroids at the top – radius of 1/2 r, two hemispheres.

This will; work, more or less – most heart cuts actually have a curved surface and not the straight lines of a cone, so your calculated value will be a little low, but it’s a workable ballpark number.

Method 2
This uses overlapping spheroids. There’s a ring around the conical shape that shouldn’t be there, but that’s a minor problem and could even represent a correction of the difference between a heart and a flattened cone.

It’s working out the overlap between the two hemispheres that’s the real headache. Of course, it can be done – but it’s a complicated process involving the distance between the two radii relative to the size of those radii, and frankly, not worth the effort.

Method 3
The third image might look more complicated, but it’s not. I started with the ellipse (actually, it’s closer to a circle, but that may not always be the case), selected half of it, and skewed it vertically.

If you remember the formula for the area of a regular trapezoid – which is a square that’s been skewed – it’s still the base times the height. Skewing a shape doesn’t add area, it just moves it around.

And the same should be true of a 3D, flattened, heart cut gem – you aren’t changing the volume, just moving it from the bottom of the heart to the top.

Which means you can use the formula for the volume of an elliptical spheroid (which I haven’t given yet), take the measurements of your radius from the widest part of the heart, and treat it simply as a distorted shape.

Spheroids

Which brings me back to what I needed for my Ruby.

An elliptical spheroid basically has three measurements that we care about: the thickness, the width, and the height. Half of each of these gives the radius along each of the three axes.

And then it’s a simple variation on the volume of a sphere:

Volume = 4/3 pi r1 r2 r3

…except that I used a, b, and c.

There will be some minor errors from the mitering of the edges to create the shape, but they are too small to worry about.

The size of a gemstone, elliptical cut – reality check

To start with, I decided to work out the size if the ruby was cut as a sphere.

V = 0.115547 = 4/3 pi r^3

Multiply both sides by 3/4 and you get

0.08666025 = pi r^3.

Now divide by pi:

r^3 = 0.08666025 / pi = 0.0275848

My calculator has x^3 and inverse-x^3 functions, which makes the result easy:

r = 0.302 cm = 3.02mm.

Diameter = 6.04 mm,

or about 3.8 sixteenths of an inch. Call it 1/4 of an inch, more or less, and you won’t be far wrong. About the size of a pea.

The size of a gemstone, elliptical cut – assumptions about shape

That reality check gave me some perspective. A ruby the size of what I was imagining would be about 100 times the size and 10,000 times the value – it would literally be worth millions.

On that basis, I could take a more realistic view of the results that I was about to get.

First, I needed to make some assumptions about the shape – specifically, I decided that (as a rule of thumb), the height would be 1 1/2 times the width. Or, if you prefer, the width would be 2/3 of the height. These are dimensions that I know look good, not to spindly or too fat; a definite oval shape.

With that done, I could simplify the formula, because A × B would be 1.5 B^2:

V = 4/3 × pi × 1.5 × C × B^2, or B^2 = V × 3/4 × 2/3 / pi C = 1/2 V / pi C
actual B × 1.5 = actual A

The size of a gemstone, elliptical cut – first calculation

I started with a C of 1.5mm, because that’s about as thin as I though a gemstone could possible get.

B^2 = 1/2 × 0.115547 / pi / 0.15 = 0.1226 cm^2

B = 0.35 cm = 3.5 mm

A = 1.5 × 3.5 = 5.25 mm

Gemstone is 3 mm thick, 7 mm wide, 10.5mm tall
Gemstone is approx 1/8th of an inch thick, a little over 1/4 of an inch thick, and 7/16ths of an inch tall.

That suddenly seemed disappointing, for the obvious reason that these were radii, not diameters. They were describing a gemstone 3mm thick, 4 mm wide, and 6 mm tall. (1/8th thick × 3/16 wide × 1/4 ” tall).

The size of a gemstone, elliptical cut – further calculations

To get a feel for how changes in thickness were affecting the size, I decided to try thicknesses of 2 and 2.25 mm.

C = 2 mm, so

B^2 = 1/2 × 0.115547 / pi / 0.2 = 0.09195 cm^2

B = 0.3 cm = 3 mm

A = 1.5 × 3 = 4.5 mm

Gemstone is 4 mm thick, 6 mm wide, 9 mm tall
Gemstone is approx 3/16, still about 1/4 of an inch wide, and 3 eighths of an inch tall.

C = 2.5 mm, so

B^2 = 1/2 × 0.115547 / pi / 0.25 = 0.073556 cm^2

B = 0.271 cm = 2.71 mm

A = 1.5 × 2.71 = 4.07 mm

Gemstone is 5 mm thick, 5.42 mm wide, 8.14 mm tall
Gemstone is still approx 3/16 of an inch thick, 3/16 wide, and 5/16 inches tall.

Finally, having realized that I was thinking of the C radius as thickness and not the C diameter, I tried a thickness of 0.8 mm:

C = 0.8 mm, so

B^2 = 1/2 × 0.115547 / pi / 0.08 = 0.22987 cm^2

B = 0.48 cm = 4.8 mm

A = 1.5 × 4.8 = 7.2 mm

Gemstone is 1.6 mm thick, 9.6 mm wide, 14.4 mm tall
Gemstone is 1/16 of an inch thick, 3/8 wide, and 9/16 inches tall.

Halving the thickness (more or less) certainly let the gemstone grow in its other dimensions.

At this point, I reflected that the smaller size might be more appropriate to the game circumstances anyway.

The size of a gemstone, elliptical cut – final calculation

Ultimately, and with that in mind, I decided that the proportions of the first calculation were actually closest to what I wanted, anyway – maybe a thickness of 2.5mm instead of 3 would be better, but it’s on the right track.

C = 1.25 mm, so

B^2 = 1/2 × 0.115547 / pi / 0.125 = 0.14712 cm^2

B = 0.3836 cm = 3.836 mm

A = 1.5 × 3.836 = 5.75 mm

Gemstone is 2.5 mm thick, 7.672 mm wide, 11.5 mm tall
Gemstone is 1/8 of an inch thick, 5/16 wide, and 7/16 inches tall.

If you have trouble working with the above, there are two traps that kept catching me out – convert mm to CM by dividing by ten in the B^2 line (so 1.25 becomes 0.125), and remember that these are giving radius values and not diameters, you have to double them to get the physical height, width, and thickness of the gemstone.

Special acknowledgment to Ginfab.com and their mm-to-fractions-of-an-inch converter, which helped get me out of a real tangle!

How much is a gp worth?

Of course, for this to be really useful, we need values not in 2023 US dollars, but in D&D / Pathfinder Gold Pieces!

Dimensions of common coins

There are two real-life gold-coin denominations that I can recall of the top of my head – florins and doubloons. So let’s start with them.

A florin is a 28.5mm diameter British and Australian coin. The weight was 11.3 grams. But it turns out that they were silver, not gold. Scratched.

Doubloons were 2.32″ (59mm) in diameter and
0.13″ (3.3mm thick). That’s about twice the size in both dimensions to what I always thought of as a GP, to be honest, but it’s a start.

From last week’s post: 1 cubic inch of gold is 313.54573 g if pure, and worth about 20,067 USD 2023. I’m going to start by assuming this isn’t pure gold – maybe it’s 15 ct, maybe even 18 ct.

volume = area × height = pi r squared × height

= pi × (2.32/2)^2 × 0.13 = 0.55 cubic inches.

0.55 cubic inches = 172.45 g = 2023 USD $11036.85 if pure.
= 82777.64 if 18-ct
= 6898.03 if 15-ct.

That seems a bit big to be a common currency as ubiquitous as the GP is. By a factor of at least 10 and probably 20 or 25 or more.

Applying a factor-of-twenty

Because it’s the value in the middle of my guesstimate, let’s do a factor of 20 scale reduction first.

To keep life (relatively) simple, let’s assume that radius and thickness are both reduced by the same amount.

That means that:

volume / 20 = old measurements × f^3

0.55 cubic inches / 20 = 0.0275 cubic inches.
= pi × (f × 2.32 / 2)^2 × 0.13 × f
0.0275 / pi = 1.16^2 × f^2 × 0.13 × f
f^3 = 0.55 / pi / 1.16^2 / 0.13 = 0.05004 (i.e. 1/20th)
f = 0.3685

So r = 1.62 × 0.3685 = 0.59697 ”
thickness = 0.13 × 0.3685 = 0.047905″.

About 1.2 inches across and less than 1/20th of an inch thick, eh? I think the thickness is now too small, and the radius still too large.

Tell you what, let’s try a dime:

What if a dime were made of gold?

There’s a purpose to this. For a start, a dime is roughly the size that I think of when I think GP. It For another, it’s a fairly ubiquitous coin size – not far away from the Australian 10-cent piece for example. And for a third, if I can say that a GP is the size of a dime, but the weight of × dimes, everyone will be able to relate to the numbers.

Weight (real dime) = 2.268g
Diameter = 17.91 mm = 1.791 cm
Thickness = 1.36 mm = 0.136 cm

Volume in cubic cm = pi × r^2 × ht
= 3.1416 × 1.791 ^2 × 0.136 = 1.3705 cm3.

Density of pure gold = 19.3 g / cm3

so weight = 26.45065 g
= 11.66 regular dimes.

Value, 24 ct = 26.45065 / 313.54573 × 20067 = $1692.85.
Value, 18 ct = $1269.636.
Value, 15 ct = $1058.03

But 15 ct gold would also reduce the weight – not all the way to 62.5%, because whatever impurities there are have to weigh something, but that’s a start. 26.45065 × 62.5% = 16.53165625 g = 7.29 regular dimes.

Okay, so that’s got a reasonable physical size sorted. The value still seems high, by a factor of about 10.

Next, we need to think about relative value.

What’s a GP worth?

We need to think about the sheer number of gp in circulation. 1,000 gp is a high price but it’s well within the bounds of ‘reason’ for an adventurer to be carting that around with him. Or 10,000. or 100,000.

100,000 gp, if each one weighs 26.45065g = 2,645,065g or 2,645.065 kg. For those who aren’t thinking metric, that’s 5831.37 lb.

Okay, yeah. 2.917 US tons. I can see that… not happening.

But, if they weigh something more than 16.53 g instead of 26.45, that’s a weight of 3644.6 lbs. That’s better, a step in the right direction.

But it’s still arguing in favor of an even lighter, smaller gp – maybe by a factor of 3 or so.

But that not only screws up the value of the ‘golden dime’ but the nice simple comparison that we derived from it.

The size thing with the dime works so perfectly that I’m loathe to mess with it. But that means that we’re left with adulterated (lighter) coins, which will reduce the value but not by as much as seems necessary, or abandoning the dime standard.

If the value is reduced to 1/3, so is the gold content, and so is the volume that it makes up within the coin. So to keep the dimensions, we need 2/3 of the coin to be made of something lighter. Like 0 grams, but that’s going a bit far.

How about reducing the gold content 75% from the 15-ct mark – that would be 4-ct gold.

The table I presented last time doesn’t go anywhere near that far. But the difference per carat is about 4.17%, so 4-ct gold would be:

Value, 24 ct = $1692.85.
Value, 4-ct = $282.37.

Wt, 24 ct = 26.45065g
Wt of gold in 4-ct = 4.412g = 1.945 regular dimes.

Density Of Adulteration

So, let’s do this: make up the weight to a number of standard dimes in total, derive the density required to keep the same physical coin size, and see if there’s something on the periodic table or list of common compounds that matches.

3 standard dimes = 6.804g, -4.412g gold = 2.392g other.
volume = 1.3705 cm3, – 4.412g gold / 19.3, = 1.1419 cm3.
density required = 2.392 / 1.1419 = 2.095 g cm-3.

4 standard dimes = 9.072g, -4.412g gold = 4.96g other.
volume = 1.1419 cm3 (this isn’t going to change).
density required = 4.96 / 1.1419 = 4.081 g cm-3.

5 standard dimes = 11.34g, -4.412g gold = 6.928g other.
volume = 1.1419 cm3
density required = 6.928 / 1.1419 = 4.88 g cm-3.

6 standard dimes = 13.608g, -4.412g gold = 9.196g other.
volume = 1.1419 cm3
density required = 9.196 / 1.1419 = 8.05 g cm-3.

7 standard dimes = 15.876g, -4.412g gold = 11.464g other.
volume = 1.1419 cm3
density required = 11.464 / 1.1419 = 10.02 g cm-3.

8 standard dimes = 18.144g, -4.412g gold = 13.732g other.
volume = 1.1419 cm3
density required = 13.732 / 1.1419 = 12.0256 g cm-3.

9 standard dimes = 20.412g, -4.412g gold = 16g other.
volume = 1.1419 cm3
density required = 16 / 1.1419 = 14.012 g cm-3.

10 standard dimes = 22.68g, -4.412g gold = 18.268g other.
volume = 1.1419 cm3
density required = 18.268 / 1.1419 = 16 g cm-3.

Okay, let’s get busy with my SI chemical data…
…
…
…

Results, in order of increasing density:

Zinc 7.14
Tin (white) 7.3
Iron 7.86
Cadmium Oxide 8.1
Bismuth Oxide 8.9
Nickel 8.90
Copper 9.0
Lead Oxide, Red 9.1
Silver 10.5
Mercury Oxide 11.1
Lead 11.4
Tungsten Oxide 12.1
Tantalum 16.6
Tungsten 19.3

8.1 to 8.05 required is a fair match. In fact, it’s the only SINGLE additive that comes close.

If I assume a mixture, all sorts of possibilities arise.

(x%) d 1 + (100-x%) d2 = target…

Let’s take that old standby, Copper + Lead:

10% copper + 90% lead = 0.9 + 10.26 = 11.16
20% copper + 80% lead = 1.8 + 9.12 = 10.92
30% copper + 70% lead = 2.7 + 7.98 = 10.68
40% copper + 60% lead = 3.6 + 6.84 = 10.44
50% copper + 50% lead = 4.5 + 5.7 = 10.2
60% copper + 40% lead = 5.4 + 4.56 = 9.96
70% copper + 30% lead = 6.3 + 3.42 = 9.72
80% copper + 20% lead = 7.2 + 2.28 = 9.48
90% copper + 10% lead = 8.1 + 1.14 = 9.24

7 standard coins requires 10.02.

10.02 = an × 9 / 100 + (100 – a) × 11.4 / 100
1002 = 9 a + 11.4 (100 – a) = 9 a + 1140 – 11.4 a
1002 – 1140 = 9 a – 11.4 a
1140-1002 = 11.4 a – 9 a = 2.4 a
138 = 2.4 a
a = 138 / 2.4 = 57.5

So 57.5 % copper + 42.5% lead will nail the target exactly.

The limits of speculation

so, let’s be clear about this – having demonstrated that a solution is possible, that doesn’t mean that I am suggesting people adopt it. I’m certainly not recommending it.

This is simply a demonstration of how to get your own answer. Personally, I would have loved an 8-dime solution – dividing by 7 is a lot harder to do in your head! And maybe using Iron (low density) and Tungsten or Tantalum (high density).

Let’s take stock

So, 7 standard dimes = the weight of a single (adulterated) 4-ct golden dime – as a working solution – and has a value in USD $2023 of $282.37.

The value is still too high, but we’ve pushed the purity option about as far as is possible. We need something else to get that down to somewhere around the $20-25 range, ideally, but I could live with $30 or even $50.

Maybe I should attempt to nail that target a bit more precisely as my next step.

A really good meal for 1 will cost about 1 gp (I call this the “Good Meal” standard). It will also cost $50-100 modern Australian dollars at the extreme, but $18-$30 is more reasonable, and that’s what I’ve been using as my yardstick. If I convert those numbers into US dollars at today’s exchange rate, I get:

$100 AUD = $63.76 USD
$50 AUD = $31.86 USD
$30.AUD = $19.13 USD
$18 AUD = $11.48 USD

But, maybe I can get more traction by going down a step?

There are (the last time I checked) 10 silver pieces in 1 gp, and a moderately-decent meal will cost 1-5 of those (I guess I’ll have to call this the regular fair standard)!

So that’s 0.1 gp – 0.5 gp.

The sort of meal I’m talking about is $10 – $20 AUD. That’s a Chinese takeaway, or McDonalds, or Kentucky Fried Chicken, or a Pizza – something along those lines.

0.1 gp = AUD $10-20 = USD $6.38-12.76;
1gp = USD $63.80 – $127.60 USD.

0.25 gp = AUD $10-20 = USD $6.38-12.76;
1gp = $25.52 – $51.04 USD.

0.5 gp = AUD $10-20 = USD $6.38-12.76;
1gp = $12.76 – $25.52 USD.

The highest value – $127.60 USD – is 2.2 times our current gp value.
The lowest value – $12.76 USD – is 22 times our current value.

That says that we need to cut the value of the gp maybe 5-10 fold.

So, what else affects the value of gold?

Supply vs demand.

What happens to a commodity when there is a significant oversupply? The price crashes. I’ve already commented that there seems to be a lot more gold around in a fantasy game, so it would not be unreasonable to expect that to have some devaluatory effect.

The trick is getting the oversupply right. In the previous post, I talked about Tiger-eyes:

Tiger-eyes (sister to Cats-eyes) were highly esteemed from 1880-1890 and once sold for $6 a carat or about $11,200 per pound. Two speculators independently flooded the market in 1890, causing the price to crash to just 25 cents a pound – a loss of 99.997% of their value.

99.997% is too extreme for what we want. I don’t know if any economists have modeled the impact on price of oversupply, and I’m not sure what to search for in order to find out. But that’s not the sort of problem that’s ever stopped me before…

Hmmm… Back again.

“Competition among producers to increase sales leads to downward pressure on prices. You can show excess supply on a graph as the horizontal distance between the demand and the supply curves at a price above the equilibrium price.” — Pricing in mass markets, Kwanhui Lim

…
…
…
… I may be interpreting this all wrong, but:

Demand Curve – the change in demand with rising price
Supply Curve – the change in supply with rising price? rising cost? not sure.
Equilibrium point – the point at which they meet.

….more searching

(10 minutes later) …okay, I think I;me getting the hang of this. The theory seems to be that there is an optimum price at which demand matches supply, all other things being equal. If you have an oversupply situation, competition between sellers to be the one that actually makes a sale drives the price down. Most of the example graphs I’ve been seeing have used straight lines for both, but a few have used curves, which makes more sense to me.

The supply curve runs from bottom left (low units, low expenditure) to top right.

The demand curve runs from top left to bottom left. The higher the price, the fewer units people will want to purchase because of the expense. The converse is that the more units are available, the lower the price that people are willing to pay.

.

Wikipedia’s example chart shows an increase in demand for whatever reason – it shifts the demand line up and to the right. The point at which the supply and demand lines cross gives the relevant price and quantity that will be sold. The increase in demand means that both more units will be sold and the price per unit will go up.

If you put the price up without increasing supply, it shifts the supply curve up and to the left, so the intersection point will be at a higher price, but with fewer units sold.

Logically, increasing supply without increasing demand produces a supply curve that is down (lower prices) and to the right (more units available to sell, the definition of an oversupply situation). The two shifts might not be the same, I’ve assumed that they follow the demand line, so the greater the oversupply, the lower the impact per unit on price – diminishing returns, in other words, .I’ve modified the original graph to show the result, as I understand it.

One point to note is that eventually, your supply curve will drop below a price value of zero If you increase the oversupply even further, eventually the intersection point with the demand curve will get down to the irreducible minimum as well.

Salting the tail

So, if gold is more abundant, in a game universe, the value of gold will drop. How much, isn’t all that important – in fact, we’ve already defined (roughly) how much we want it to be.

It’s possible that we could even beat a hasty retreat and revert to 24-carat pure gold coins, and do it ALL with oversupply. That would probably be more in keeping with the vast amounts of gold floating around the game universe, anyway.

The combination means that we can set the modern value-equivalent of the gold piece to whatever we want so long as it’s less than what it would be worth in 2023.

Some mathematical trickery

There are three ways to get a value in between two known limits. The first and most obvious one is to average the two. In this case, we have 2.2 and 22 – which gives an average of 12.1.

When we’re talking about values that are to be multiplied by something else, though, I’ve often found that an alternate method yields better results: Multiply the two together and take the square root.

2.2 × 22 = 48.4, square root is 6.957.

A variation is to take that number away from the maximum result.

22 – 6.957 = 15.043.

I always try out the different results to see what best fits.

Base value of a gp = $282.37.

Oversupply: option 1: 282.37 / 12.1 = $23.34.
Oversupply: option 2: 282.37 / 6.957 = $40.59.
Oversupply: option 3: 282.37 / 15.043 = $18.77

How do these compare to our target values?

$23.34:

The Very good meal standard:
$50 – $100 AUD = $31.86 – $63.76 USD – not even close
$18 – $30.AUD = $11.48 – $19.13 USD – a little above

The regular fair standard:
$63.80 – $127.60 USD.- completely out of the ballpark.
$25.52 – $51.04 USD. – nowhere near it.
$12.76 – $25.52 USD – very close.

$40.59:

The Very good meal standard:
$50 – $100 AUD = $31.86 – $63.76 USD – right in the middle
$18 – $30.AUD = $11.48 – $19.13 USD – too high

The regular fair standard:
$63.80 – $127.60 USD- not high enough
$25.52 – $51.04 USD – right on target
$12.76 – $25.52 USD – too high

$18.77:

The Very good meal standard:
$50 – $100 AUD = $31.86 – $63.76 USD – definitely not
$18 – $30.AUD = $11.48 – $19.13 USD – just scrapes into the range

The regular fair standard:
$63.80 – $127.60 USD – nowhere near high enough
$25.52 – $51.04 USD – not high enough
$12.76 – $25.52 USD – right in the middle

I make that 2 votes for $23.34, two for $40.59, and two votes for $18.77.

An appropriate result?

In a way, I guess that could be seen as an appropriate result. So many other aspects of the game world are left to the individual GM to determine, surely something so fundamental should be one of them?

So here’s the upshot: decide for yourself what the “exchange rate” between gp and USD, even if you use it for no other purpose than this.

Once you have that number, you can take a gem result – be it 1 gp, 10 gp, 50gp, 500gp, 5000gp, or 50,000 – and get the USD equivalent. Once you have that, and the information contained in this post and last week’s, and you can directly determine the weight and dimensions of the gem.

Special gems are easily handled simply by multiplying the base value of a 1ct gem with those special characteristics by an appropriate factor – times 1.5? Times 10? Times 100? – it’s up to you.

What’s more, if you do a little prep work and save the results, you can define a standard gem – in your game world – and up-scale or downscale it as needed.

Value / base 1-ct value will always give you the square of the number of carats. So if the dice say a 10,000 gp gem, you can simply divide by your base value, take the square root, and you have the number of carats.

An Afterthought

Carats are divided into points, each 1/100th of a carat. If the smallest gem worthy of the name is (say) 10 points, or 10% of a carat, and that’s worth 1 gp, you’re ready to go.

A 10,000 gp gem? Divide by 0.1 and take the square root. Instant gem size: 316.23 carats.

Weight and size are right behind.

I was intending to deal with a third item – the value of an Ebony statue – but I’m completely out of time. So that will have to wait for another occasion. And maybe I’ll talk about Persian Rugs at the same time, who knows? And Tapestries. Tapestries would be good.

There are a great many objects of value out there. The better that you can define them, the more real you can make them seem to your players – no matter how outrageous those definitions might be.

It’s inevitable – there will be a “The Value Of Material Things” number III!

How much would this be worth if it were discovered in the American backwoods today? How much more if it had been found in the early 1700s, when no-one really knew the ancient Egyptian “style”?
Image by Artie_Navarre from Pixabay
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Two weeks ago, in the then-final part of the Economics in RPGs series, I presented the Asset Valuation Worksheet (Version 1.0, though I didn’t know that at the time).

I’ve since had occasion to use the worksheet extensively, and that has led to a number of revisions and improvements. So today’s post is to present you with the new and improved version.

There has been (by the time you read this) a slight delay in publication because of a Doctor’s appointment that I could not shift to a more convenient date.

An Introduction To The Changes

The infographic above was designed to introduce the changes.

• Revised Category Headings – the headings for “History” and “Antiquity” have been changed to the more descriptive “Maker Fame” and “Social Desire”.
• New Landscape Orientation – in addition to the old vertical orientation, there are now additional options in the form landscape orientation, which permits more items per page. Both the original A4 size and the landscape A4 size are pictured, so that you can make a direct comparison. The vertical version had room for 5 assets, the landscape holds 8.
• Version 2.0 has New Features: – the revised version has new features that make life a lot easier when using the form as a digital document.
  1. It’s now a single table instead of a series of three. This makes it easier to navigate as a digital document.
  2. Color Coding has been applied to all the headings within the table.
  3. The revision permitted Even more description space. The old space varied from adequate to insufficient.
  4. The Asset Identification details (especially the description) have now been centrally located so that when using the worksheet as a digital document, they can be seen while filling out both the top section (Inherent Value) and bottom (Appraised Value). No more scrolling back up to the top of the page!
  5. And, of course, the clarified headings already mentioned.
• Finally, there is a New Window-sized version – this is the one that I have been using. It’s not designed for hardcopy, it’s designed to fill the screen and be legible using my monitor (1396 pixels wide). The extra space allows for still more description and a massive nine entries – with the capacity for a tenth if you re-task the duplicate headings on the right-hand-side.

 
 
 
 

An Instruction Manual

To accompany version 2.0, I have compiled brief notes on using it into a short instruction manual. This is included in the zip file as a PDF, and I will be reproducing the contents below with some added notes in italics.

This is not the same content as appeared previously. It’s a lot more sparse and practical in orientation.

What’s the minimum normal retail price of a standard item to do this job? ie, what is the price for performing this function for the owner?

Always, in the currency of the time and place. Convert if you have to from some other standard.

If there is a wide variation, you can apply a genericized type. Instead of “What’s the minimum retail price for a hat”, you might need “what’s the minimum retail price for a Cowboy hat?”

 

Add the price of any materials, in local currency, at the time of purchase, in excess of the normal.

Treat precious metals and gemstones with care; it’s often useful to list them separately in the Factor column, adding the local / converted price each on a separate line in the box. Large or unusual gemstones should also be dealt with individually.

EG, I might list 600g of gold in the factor box, and 40 carats of rubies (or simply $20,000 USD 2023, the modern-day price) and the value of that 600g (plus everything already priced) in the Value column, and then the value of the rubies in the relevant era..

I’ve made extensive notes on the value of precious commodities relevant to the period of valuation. I’ll attach a redacted set of these to the article as an appendix, just to give you some idea of what should be done.

 

The retail price is assumed to include the basic costs involved in producing the minimum-quality item. This space is for any unskilled labor costs in excess of that.

If your function is “the price of a hat” and the item itself is a Crown, then there will be the labor of extracting enough precious metal, the labor of extracting the precious stones, and the labor of transporting those materials to the craftsman, and the labor of transporting the finished product to the seller.

As a rule of thumb, I count up man-days for this, then apply the minimum wage or its equivalent per day. If I don’t get too bogged down in fractions, a simple tally of man-days gets me a quick valuation for this element.

NB: Workers in a factory are also considered “unskilled” by the system.

It might take one man a day to chop down a big tree on his own. It might take two men with a saw 1/4 of a day each (total of 1/2 man-day). One man with a chainsaw might be able to do eight to ten in a day, so we’re talking 1/8th or 1/10th of a man-day.

Transport to the timber mill might take four men five days – but they are transporting a hundred logs at the same time, to that’s effectively 1/5th of a man-day per log.

The timber has to be dressed and turned into planks and panels. This is generally a fairly quick job unless it has to be done by hand, which might take a couple of man-days.

And so on. The more you can aggregate all this quickly in your head, using the Factor column to keep a running total, the more quickly you will get an answer and move on.

 

The retail price is assumed to include the basic costs involved in producing the minimum-quality item. This space is for any skilled labor costs in excess of that.

That includes the craftsman who gets paid more than most in his line of work because he’s good at this job, the craftsman who spends extra time to get this item just right, and the craftsman who has to bring skills outside the norm for this type of product.

Skilled craftsmen are usually paid a man-hourly rate, not a man-day rate, and it’s usually multiple times what an unskilled worker would earn in a full day. Five times is a good rule of thumb, ten times or more in an industrialized economy.

Again, think “hat” vs “crown” – the latter involves a jeweler, a gem-cutter, and a jewelry designer, none of which are involved in producing the basic “hat”.

 

A Maker’s Fame at the time of manufacture always adds value to an item. In the case of a document, the “maker” is deemed to be the person whose name appears on the document, and not any lawyers or functionaries who have worked on his behalf.

This can get tricky when there are several “Makers” involved. Don’t let yourself get bogged down – and remember that the Maker’s labor is already factored into the price.

 

No matter how skilled a cook you are, and how good the recipe, sometimes a pie comes out of the oven burnt. This category is not about the skill of the maker, it’s a valuation of how well they have used that skill.

Good workmanship can double the value of an item. Great workmanship can increase it tenfold.

The Maker’s Fame can be a good guide, as there is usually a reason that a maker becomes famous. But it’s not the be-all and end-all.

 

This will usually be where the owner obtained the item, but sometimes it can be more useful to list where it was originally manufactured, and not where it happened to be bought.

It can often be useful to list both – for example, “Cairo, Egypt (Roman Empire)” would describe a Roman item that just happened to be bought in Cairo.

“Babylon (Iraq) aka Mesopotamia” tells you everything you need to know, including the ancient civilization responsible for the item and the modern-day location.

 

Give each item a specific number to avoid confusion when referring to them. So important that it’s the only heading with a colon.

Some GMs may want to make this a global referent – items from adventure 21 will start being numbered one more than the last numbered item from adventure 20.

I’ve learned from cataloging images that you get a lot more usefulness and flexibility, if this is to be your approach, using a format of “Adventure number – Item within adventure”.

 

This should list everything that you need to know about an individual item to value it. You will need to be concise, though – no descriptive text, just raw facts.

An example:

“Scarab Brooch – Lapus Lazuli, Carnelian, Turquoise, Jade, 18 ct Gold, c.3210 BC. Tainted Provenience 10%. 1400, 120g.”

• It’s a Brooch in the form of a scarab.
• Lots of semi-precious gemstones, totaling $1400 modern value.
• 120 grams of 18 carat gold.
• It’s old, dating from c. 3210 BC – allegedly.
• Tainted Provenience can mean a number of things – suspected fake, suspected stolen, unproven claims, possibly looted. The percentage shows how much the item is worth as it stands (10% of what it otherwise would be).

Note that there’s no mention of exceptional workmanship. Doesn’t mean it isn’t exquisitely made, just that this was to be decided as you were valuing the item.

I will often base such decisions on what images I can find for an item. In this particular case, it was quite pretty, so I gave it a +100% value for craftsmanship.

 

Rarity valuation is a function of two things: How many of this item were made, and how many remain available? This excludes any factor for famous owners, it’s about the rarity of this type of item in general. Rarity should NOT take into account the actual age of an item.

There’s a temptation to label unique objects as “priceless”. Don’t do it. Apply levels of generalization until you find a definition that lets you assess the rarity – then inflate that factor for each level of generalization that you had to use.

To continue considering the Scarab example – Scarabs are one of the most commonly-found treasures of ancient Egypt, and they are usually a brooch. But it’s still from ancient Egypt, and that makes it rare. So I put x50 for the rarity, instead of x500 (a value that has been used for an alleged scroll from the Great Library of Alexandria).

Objects that are modern but still comparatively rare, like a gold armband, get a +% instead a multiplier.

 

Age represents an increase in value because an item is old. This shifts the basis of comparison from “all other items of this type” to “all items of this type and age.”

I usually work this as a factor – an increase of X% every 20 years (deliberately keeping the rate frequency fixed).

The sequence with my calculator is: (Age) / 20 =, Memory Clear, Memory Plus, (Age Value Factor per 20 years), x^y, Memory Recall, equals.

• The more fragile an item, the higher the factor.
• The more inherently valuable the materials are, the higher the factor.
• The more famous the maker, the lower the factor (it has to be presumed that they made lots of them, hence their fame).
• The higher the workmanship, the higher the factor.
• The older an item, the lower the factor (I’ll explain in a moment).

1. Each of these factors is rated between zero and five – but these aren’t linear assessments; a ‘1’ is typical, 2 is more than normal, and so on.
2. Add all four factors together, and divide by five, then divide by 10 to get a number between 0 and 0.5.
3. There’s also a sixth factor based on gut instinct and rarity, that’s worth up to 1 on it’s own. These results are percentage increases in value every twenty years.
4. Add 101 to the total and divide by 1000 to get the factor, a range of 1.01 to 1.03.

But once I have a ‘feel’ for what the results will be, I don’t follow the formal process – I’m quite happy to pluck a total out of thin air, based entirely on gut instinct for what the result will be. In some cases, I’ve even used a resulting factor of 1.05, going way above the usual limits.

• @ 10 years: 1.01 = +0.5%; 1.015 = +0.75%; 1.02 = +1%; 1.025 = +1.25%; 1.03 = +1.5%; 1.035 = +1.75%; 1.04 = +2%; 1.045 = +2.25%; 1.05 = +2.5%
• @ 20 years (obvious, used to check the math): 1.01 = +1%; 1.015 = +1.5%; 1.02 = +2%; 1.025 =+2.5%; 1.03 = +3%; 1.035 = +3.5%; 1.04 = +4%; 1.045 = +4.5%; 1.05 = +5%
• @ 50 years: 1.01 = +2.5%; 1.015 = +3.8%; 1.02 = +5%; 1.025 = +6.4%; 1.03 = +7.7%; 1.035 = +9%; 1.04 = +10%, 1.045 = +12%; 1.05 = +13%
• @ 80 years: 1.01 = +4%; 1.015 = +6%; 1.02 = +8%; 1.025 = +10%; 1.03 = +13%; 1.035 = +15%; 1.04 = +17%; 1.045 = +19%; 1.05 = +22%
• @ 100 years: 1.01 = +5%; 1.015 = +7.75%; 1.02 = +10%; 1.025 = +13%; 1.03 = +16%; 1.035 = +19%; 1.04 = +22%; 1.045 = +25%; 1.05 = +28%
• @ 160 years: 1.01 = +8.3%; 1.015 = +13%; 1.02 = +17%; 1.025 = +22%; 1.03 = +27%; 1.035 = +32%; 1.04 = +37%; 1.045 = +42%; 1.05 = +48%
• @ 200 years: 1.01 = +10.5%; 1.015 = +16%; 1.02 = +22%; 1.025 = +28%; 1.03 = +34%; 1.035 = +41%; 1.04 = +48%; 1.045 = +55%; 1.05 = +63%
• @ 300 years: 1.01 = +16%; 1.015 = +25%; 1.02 = +35%; 1.025 = +45%; 1.03 = +56%; 1.035 = +68%; 1.04 = +80%; 1.045 = +94%; 1.05 = +108%
• @ 400 years: 1.01 = +22%; 1.015 = +35%; 1.02 = +49%; 1.025 = +64%; 1.03 = +81%; 1.035 = x2; 1.04 = x2.2; 1.045 = x2.4; 1.05 = x2.7
• @ 500 years: 1.01 = +28%; 1.015 = +45%; 1.02 = +64%; 1.025 = +85%; 1.03 = +109%; 1.035 = +136%; 1.04 = x2.7; 1.045 = x3; 1.05 = x3.4
• @ 750 years: 1.01 = +45%; 1.015 = +75%; 1.02 = +110%; 1.025 = x2.5; 1.03 = x3; 1.035 = x3.6; 1.04 = x4.4; 1.045 = x5.2; 1.05 = x6
• @ 1000 years: 1.01 = +65%; 1.015 = x2.1; 1.02 = x2.7; 1.025 = x3.4; 1.03 = x4.4; 1.035 = x5.6; 1.04 = x7; 1.045 = x9; 1.05 = x11.5
• @ 2000 years: 1.01 = x2.7; 1.015 = x4.4; 1.02 = x7.25; 1.025 = x12; 1.03 = x19; 1.035 = x31; 1.04 = x51; 1.045 = x82; 1.05 = x132
• @ 4000 years: 1.01 = x7.3; 1.015 = x20; 1.02 = x52.5; 1.025 = x140; 1.03 = x370; 1.035 = x1,000; 1.04 = x2,550; 1.045 = x6,660; 1.05 = x17,300
• @ 6000 years: 1.01 = x20; 1.015 = x87; 1.02 = x380; 1.025 = x1,650; 1.03 = x7,100; 1.035 = x30,350; 1.04 = x128,825; 1.045 = x543,000; 1.05 = x 2,274,000

I could extend this table but it’s more than enough to make my points.

This process is an attempt to capture a non-linear process in a regular and simple progression. And, if you choose the right factor, it works perfectly – for a while.

Changes in value due to age are clearly not so straightforward; they are much faster than is reasonable over the longer term and then slower with increasing age. But trying to build that into the model makes it excessively complicated. So, instead:

You should Break The System. Deliberately choose a higher factor than you are supposed to for ‘younger’ time periods and scale it back with increasing age.

This requires you to note very carefully the rise in effect of regular increases in factor. It’s to make this clear that I extended the table as far as I did. Try something that seems about right, and if the results don’t feel right, modify it.

For the record, I got my best results by changing that flat 20-years interval to 15*log(age). But they still weren’t right.

Recommended Factors:

• 0 – 50 years: 1.2 – 1.35
• 51 – 100 years: 1.15 – 1.25
• 101 – 200 years: 1.2 – 1.25
• 201 – 250 years: 1.125 – 1.2
• 251 – 450 years: 1.11 – 1.15
• 451 – 600 years: 1.05 – 1.125
• 600 – 850 years: 1.05 – 1.1
• 851 – 1200 years: 1.045 – 1.1
• 1201 – 3000 years: 1.025 – 1.075
• 3001 – 4000 years: 1.015 – 1.05
• 4001 – 10000 years: 1.015 – 1.04
• 10,000+ years: Don’t calculate it, set it. 1.005 is too low, 1.01 is massively too high, and it’s too sensitive to small changes in factor.

 

If there are doubtful elements to the ownership or legitimacy of an item, this is where they get taken into account. There are several possible causes of such doubt, too many to go into in any detail. I use values of 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%, and 90% to indicate different levels of doubt as to the legitimacy of the item or the legality of its ownership.

On the other hand, even an otherwise unremarkable object – or even a somewhat dilapidated one – can accrue a massive boost in value because someone famous once owned it. Again, though, you have to be able to prove it.

Movie props actually seen on-screen are worth up to 1,000 times as much as ones that were legitimately made for the production but may have been used by a stunt double or as an unneeded backup.

A previously undiscovered Dead Sea Scroll? Until you prove it, it’s worth only 1% of what it otherwise would be valued at – and that much only because there’s a chance that it might be genuine.

In general, art and precious objects (Gold, Gems, etc) bump up to one step higher simply because they are innately valuable.

When assessing this adjustment, always think about what the seller could prove when the owner bought it / obtained it. And bear in mind the possibility that a Provenience can be flawed – you might not be able to prove that an item came from a fabulous Egyptian tomb but can prove that it is 4500 years old? It will lose some of its value, but far from all of it.

 

Deduct a percentage of the value for damage beyond that which would be expected of an item of this type of the claimed age.

One observation to note: Fools sometimes attempt to clean or repair such damage, in the process damaging Patina, i.e. the marks of natural time on the item. This can cut the value of an item by 90% or more, while the original damage only cost it 10% or less of its value.

This is also a good opportunity to round the value off to a neat round number.

Gems never lose value through damage unless subjected to extreme conditions – lava, fire, electrical damage, acid. Precious metals can be dented, and lose some of their value, but this loss is small. That’s why these things are popular – they hold their value except in extreme circumstances.

 

Deduct a percentage of the value for damage resulting from the age of the object. Depreciation only operates for 50 years. Over the 50-100 year range, it’s normal for depreciated objects to regain most or all of their losses.

Gems and Precious metals never depreciate. Art can depreciate through age, but this takes centuries and can be undone by professional restoration.

Unless the object is less than 100 years old, I tend to ignore depreciation.

When it comes to ordinary objects, Depreciation can be massive – a 50-year old walking stick or table is close to valueless, perhaps holding only a few percent of its original value. It’s not old enough to be valuable as an antique, and generally worn or damaged by age. Only 5% (at best) of such objects will survive long enough to reclaim their value, let alone become expensive.

The state in which an object is kept has a massive influence on losses through Depreciation. It is normally calculated based on the assumption of normal usage and normal wear-and-tear. If neither of those holds true, losses can be halved or even quartered.

But note that a lot of this ‘preservation of value’ is psychological, founded on the assumption that there will be a demand for it because it’s old. The antiquities lesson described in the Economics In RPGs final post – that the antiques market has largely collapsed – should be borne in mind.

 

Add a percentage increase or a multiplier for any increase in actual value. Most of the time, there won’t be any – the factors of rarity and age account for most such. But it can happen – the abilities of artistic genius can be underappreciated and then massively boost the value of one of his works.

There may be the prospect of cleansing a tainted Provenience, until this is actually done, the increase gets filed in the Appreciation space.

A critical role in history can add significant value – selling the crown jewels to finance a war, for example. This is a space in which to apply any adjustments not dealt with elsewhere.

FORGET most of what was written in the final post of the Economics In RPGs under this heading. It’s more trouble than it’s worth; the instructions here and in Depreciation, above, supersede them, and for good reason.

As a general rule, this category values the past history of the object. It’s a place to reflect any narrative that you want to add to the object, making the item itself more plausible and interesting. ANY SUCH NARRATIVE SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED SOMEWHERE – which is where the Source and Asset Number can be useful, linking the two pieces of information.

Contemplate, for example, a Viking Shield discovered in North America that can be proven to have been buried there for more than 500 years. Rarity would be sky-high (there’s only one of them); Age would add notably to the value; Provenience – you don’t know who owned it, but there’s no deduction for fraud, etc, either. Depreciation is irrelevant because of the age. Appreciation is where the tremendous historic value gets placed.

In particular, any object that extends historical knowledge, or that proves a suspected extension, gains massively in this area.

Whenever you have an artwork by a famous artist, you have to research them to discover when they became famous, and what they were famous for. A portrait by a notable landscape artist might be a curiosity but it’s unlikely to hold as much value as one the works for which he is famous.

It can be useful for narrative purposes / reference NOT to reduce Depreciation because of the condition in which something is kept, but to restore that value in the Appreciation space.

 

There are objects that people just want to own. A particular artist may be especially “Hot” in the market at the moment, for example. This space adjusts value for this sort of thing.

People didn’t really become fascinated by Egyptology until the major finds of the late 19th and early 20th century, for example; everyone knew it existed (you can’t hide the sphinx), but the discovery of the Valley Of The Kings (and other sites), with their treasures intact, caused a massive swell in interest, and that sent prices skyrocketing. As a conservative estimate, that lack of interest reduced the value of Egyptian Artifacts by 50%, and probably more.

This is where such ‘over the top’ value influences are incorporated. Add a percentage or a multiplier to the value, or subtract a value, to reflect social attitudes at the time of the valuation.

Wikipedia yesterday featured a book about the practice of covering books in Human Skin. Horrid and Compelling, both at once. A book covered in leather created in this fashion would increase in both Rarity and probably Provenience – but how many people would be comfortable owning such a tome? I suspect that the value in general terms, would take a bath.

 

Anything that is or was representative of, used by, or desirous of, a religion adds at least something to the value of an object. Adherents of that religion, or those who want to know more about such worshipers, will pay extra to obtain such items, and if anyone else wants the item, they will have to pay more, too.

The amounts can vary considerably – from 5% for a token from a faith that only experts have ever heard of (which can include those invented from whole cloth by GMs) to 100% or more.

I always remember seeing advertising on the early internet – “You too can own a genuine piece of the cross” or “…of the ark, just send $$$ to….” when thinking about this subject. These were (presumably) simple pieces of wood, perhaps old wood (if I give undeserved credit in case it’s due) – worth $1, perhaps less – inflated in value 50- or 100-fold because of the religious element. And people paid, I’m sure of it.

Initially, that was all that I had in mind for this valuation element. But then I remembered that to burn Beatles albums in the wake of the ‘Bigger than Jesus’ gaffe, people had to go out and buy them… And then there is the religious element of many of the Egyptian Treasures, which undoubtedly adds a little something to their cache in modern times…

Of course, if you really want to boost the value in this section of the worksheet, get the religion banned, and just watch how much the Black Market will charge for such objects.

The more I thought about it, and the more I worked with the Valuation Worksheet, the more I realized the simpler truth encapsulated in the directions above.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
I use these lines to make notes about factors that affect everything in a category or from a particular source.

For example, the 1860 valuations pages have the text:

     “NB: 2023 USD x6.07/2800 -> 1860 USD”

at the top of each sheet. If I estimate that an object has 25000 worth of gemstones (2023 USD), this gives me the conversion to the value to use in the chart ($25000 x 6.07 / 2800, which equals $54.1964 in 1860 money – which I would immediately round to $54.20.)

The 1938 pages that I’m working on at the moment update the 1860 values for another 78 years of history and technological progress. The notes on those pages reads:

     Inherent Value: 1938 [Inflation x1.7595. Gold x1.69328, Silver x5.31064, Plat x1.06796,
     Gems x46.6123, Unskilled Labor x0.7×2.5, Skilled x 0.5×5, Age +77

Let’s break that down:

• Inflation bumps the price of materials and labor up by a factor of x1.7595 unless otherwise noted.
• Gold has risen by less than inflation – prices in both 1860 and 1938 were fixed by government regulation. It adjusts by x1.69328.
• Silver has massively risen in value -back in 1860, it was worth about 1/80th of the equivalent weight in gold, now it’s more like one-fifth. Adjust the value of any silver in an item by x5.31064.
• Platinum has barely changed, which means that it’s fallen massively in comparison to inflation. $1 of platinum back in 1860 is worth $1.06796 in 1938.
• Gems have risen in price even more dramatically, almost fifty-fold- x46.6123.
• It takes, on average, an unskilled laborer 0.7 times as long to perform a task, but the basic wage level has risen by a factor of about 2.5, considerably more than inflation. Ordinary people have disposable income and the economy is re-engineering itself to the presumption that they will find something to do with it.
• Skilled workers are even better off; it takes them about half as long to achieve a task as it used to, but their basic income per hour has risen 5-fold.

which is the recommended practice.

 

These might seem pointless, especially if you are avoiding maths and updating the total values as you go, which is my recommended technique.

In modern times, Ancient Egypt is symbolic of fabulous wealth, both historical and material. That wasn’t always the case. The same is true of every source of legendary wealth.
Image by Thorsten Dittmar from Pixabay

I find that having a more prominent value draws attention to the bottom line.

You can, should you wish, use these to aggregate the value of multiple items across the page.

But there’s a potentially more important function: Objects are worth what someone will pay for them. Everything else is hot air and supposition, theory at best. The values recorded in these spaces do not have to be an accurate reflection of the totals to their respective points in the process.

Another point worth making is that the “Subtotal” is what the new owner can reasonably be expected to have paid (plus any after-purchase expenses, like postage, delivery fees, other freight costs, etc. Updating the subtotal to incorporate those extras gives you the number both ways – the “book cost” and the actual price that has to be paid for the item.

Most of the time, that won’t be of any value to you; it’s a dirty little technical detail that only bogs a game down. But there will be times when it’s a relevant factor – getting 100 tons of industrial machinery shipped interstate, for example.

 
 
 
 

 

So, what’s in the Zip file version 2.0?

Legacy Files:

• V1.0 – A4 Portrait Orientation – Word 97-2003 format
• V1.0 – A4 Portrait Orientation – Open Document format
• V1.0 – A4 Portrait Orientation – PDF Format
• V1.0 – Letter Portrait Orientation – Word 97-2003 format
• V1.0 – Letter Portrait Orientation – Open Document format
• V1.0 – Letter Portrait Orientation – PDF Format

New Files:

• V1.0 – A4 Landscape Orientation – Word 97-2003 format
• V1.0 – A4 Landscape Orientation – Open Document format
• V1.0 – A4 Landscape Orientation – PDF Format
• V1.0 – A4 Portrait Orientation – Word 97-2003 format
• V1.0 – A4 Portrait Orientation – Open Document format
• V1.0 – A4 Portrait Orientation – PDF Format
• V2.0 – Letter Landscape Orientation – Word format
• V2.0 – Letter Landscape Orientation – Open Document format
• V2.0 – Letter Landscape Orientation – PDF Format
• V2.0 – Letter Portrait Orientation – Word format
• V2.0 – Letter Portrait Orientation – Open Document format
• V2.0 – Letter Portrait Orientation – PDF Format
• V2.0 – Screen-sized – Word format
• V2.0 – Screen-sized – Open Document format
• Instructions excerpt- PDF

Value notes example (and other reference material

The following is an extract of the notes made for valuing precious goods etc in the Adventurer’s Club campaign, but they can be applied fairly universally with a little research. In particular, inflation calculators can be very useful.

A Cubic Inch Of Gold

1 cubic inch of gold
   = 10.013 troy oz
   = 11.06 normal oz
   = 313.54573 g

   = $206.96871 USD 1860 (fixed)
   = $350.455 USD 1938 (fixed)
   = $20066.92672 USD 2023 (26-10-23)

The Purity of Gold

Pure gold is 24 carats, meaning that it is 100% gold with no other metals added.

18-carat gold is 75% pure gold and 25% other metals, while 14-carat gold is 58.3% pure gold and 41.7% other metals. The higher the carat of gold, the more valuable it is, but it also tends to be softer and more susceptible to damage or wear.

To get value of impure gold, determine the weight of pure gold.

24 ct = 100%
22 ct = 91.6%
21 ct = 87.5%
20 ct = 83.3%
18 ct = 75.0%
15 ct = 62.5%
14 ct = 58.3%
12 ct = 50.0%
10 ct = 41.7%

Gold found in the wild is generally assumed to be 14- or 16-ct unless proven otherwise with an assay, which can cost USD $25-$50 1850s prices.

White gold has added Rhodium which adds strength and durability. It is normal for jewelers to add sufficient yellow gold to the alloy that the price matches i.e. 14-ct white gold is worth as much as 14-ct yellow gold.

The Silver Ratio

Long Term Trends gives the ratio of silver price to gold price over many decades.

Current = approx / 85.51
1938 = approx / 80.35
1860 = approx / 15.13

Platinum Ratio

Similarly, SDBullion gives the historic ratio of platinum price to gold prices (the page is less user-friendly though, be warned).

current = approx 1.996
1938 = approx 1.1
1860 = approx 1.03

Gemstones – General Notes

There has been very little study of the price of gemstones through the ages, notably because it’s a very hard subject to research. The most recent significant paper on the subject was published in 1934!

Three characteristics: determine gem value.

• Beauty (aka fire, brilliancy, or color)
• Durability
• Rarity

There is Fourth, artificial, characteristic:

• Perfection of Cut, aka the gem’s “Make”.

This is strongly responsive to changing tastes and other social factors.

Most Valuable Gemstones

From AD 26 to 1500, one-carat white diamonds were the most valuable gemstones. From 1501 to 1800, the ruby led; from 1801 to 1872, it was again the diamond; from 1872-1934, it was the emerald.

Rule Of Linchoten

A rule formulated by Linchoten gives a (frequently inaccurate but ballpark) valuation for exceptionally large gems:

Value = 1-ct price x square of size in cts.

This rule applies to all gemstones prior to 1874, and applies to all except diamonds post-1874.

The Carat – perils and pitfalls

Since 1907 the term Carat has referred to a Metric Carat, equal to 0.2 grams (0.00705 oz, 0.00643 ozt). The Carat is divisible into 100 Points.

It was originally a unit of weight equal to 1/1728 (1/12^3) lb.

While the term and concept spread from the ancient Romans and Greeks, it was normal until the adoption of the Metric Carat for each country to have its own definition.

An ‘international carat’ of 205 milligrams was proposed in 1871 by the Syndical Chamber of Jewelers, etc., in Paris, and accepted in 1877 by Diamond Merchants in Paris. This definition was used for Diamond sales exclusively; existing ‘national’ Carats continued to be used for other gemstones.

Notably, London and New York used the same measure of 205.303 mg and from 1887 on, 205.409 mg, while Paris and East India used 205.5 until the 1877 change.

Cyprus had the smallest Carat (187 mg), while Livomo in Tuscany, Italy, had the highest (215.99 mg). The United States adopted the metric carat on July 1, 1913, the United Kingdom on 1 April 1914. The Metric Carat is now used universally.

Measurement by Carob Seed

You read that right. Carob seeds have been used throughout history to measure jewelry, because it was believed that there was little variance in their mass distribution – but this was not true, and has caused significant reappraisals of some precious stones.

Uncut vs Cut

Up to 75% of a gem may be lost during the cutting process, depending on the flaws that have to be avoided. More typically, 1/3 to 1/2 will be lost.

Since cutting can greatly enhance the value, but can also completely destroy the gemstone being cut or reduce it to fragments, it is a very nerve-wracking process. Ironically, a steady hand is one of the most important factors in a successful gem cutting. In some eras and settings, the gem-cutter is responsible for any loss incurred during the process – which won’t help steady those nerves any. Particularly difficult stones may wait years or decades before anyone is brave enough to risk cutting them.

Especially large stones produce ‘Off cuts’ that are in and of themselves of gemstone size and quality. One of the crowns of England is decorated in diamonds that were off-cuts from the Star Of India.

Ease Of Cutting is second only to size in determining the value of an uncut gem. The most difficult cases are worth 1/25th of the cut gem’s value – bearing in mind the size loss. The easiest are worth about 1/5th. As a general rule of thumb, allow for cutting losses and use ten-to-one.

EG: A 1 ct cut ruby, worth about $4625 can be assumed to have been a 2-3 carat uncut ruby before cutting. That means the uncut gem would have been worth $4625×2-3 / 10 = $925 – $1387.50.

Valuation rule of thumb

As a general rule of thumb, exclude and manually calculate values of significant gems, and treat the rest by weight.

Diamond Notes

The most valuable (and rare) diamonds are deeply colored red, blue, or green. Next are white diamonds of unusual brilliance or size.

Diamonds are the gemstones with the highest Durability.

A Paragon Diamond is a flawless stone of at least 100 ct. in size.

Base 2023 prices: USD $4500-6000 / ct.

The price per carat does not increase linearly with increasing size. Instead, there are sharp jumps around milestone carat weights, as demand is much higher for diamonds weighing just more than a milestone than for those weighing just less. 0.99 carat diamonds are worth a LOT less than 1.01-carat diamonds.

Ruby Notes

Rubies of > 4 ct are especially valuable, worth much more per ct than smaller rubies. The largest run to about 9 ct. 1934 $3000-7000 per ct.

Rubies of 3-4 ct are the next most valuable per ct.

Rubies have high Durability, but are not quite as resilient as diamonds..

Base 2023 prices: USD $4625 / ct.

Sapphire Notes

Sapphires of exceptional quality are especially valuable relative to the more common stones. This is a more important factor than size, which is the second most-important factor in Sapphire value.

The largest Sapphire on record is the Star Of Adam at 1404.49 carats, mined in Sri Lanka in 2015 and owned anonymously. The previous record holder was the Black Star Of Queensland at 733 carats, mined in Australia in 1938.

Sapphires have the third-highest durability out of the major precious stones.

Base 2023 prices; USD $450-1600 / ct.

Emerald Notes

Emeralds of especially deep color, regardless of size, are the most valuable per ct.

Emeralds of unusual size and consistent (‘unblemished’) color are the next most valuable.

Both values are considerably greater than the base value of a 1 ct emerald.

Truly Flawless emeralds are practically non-existent [unless artificially produced by modern technology]. As a marketing device, gem dealers and Jewelers refer to any stone whose inclusions or imperfections are too small to be visible to the naked eye (assuming normal visual acuity) as ‘flawless’.

The largest emerald in the world is the Bahia Emerald at 180,000 carats (!), still uncut. It currently resides in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. It is allegedly Cursed.

Emeralds have the lowest durability of the precious stones, mostly because of the imperfections, which are points of weakness. It is sometimes claimed to be possible for a heavy emerald dropped from a height or struck with a hammer to shatter into numerous smaller stones of a mere fraction of the value.

Base 2023 prices USD $500-1100 / ct.

Semi-precious Stones Notes

Many of these have been overproduced which has devastated prices. EG: Tiger-eyes (sister to Cats-eyes) were highly esteemed from 1880-1890 and once sold for $6 a carat or about $11,200 per pound. Two speculators independently flooded the market in 1890, causing the price to crash to just 25 cents a pound – a loss of 99.997% of their value.

• SPINEL: Base 2023 prices USD $200-500 / ct
• AQUAMARINE: Base 2023 prices USD $100-200 / ct
• OPAL: Base 2023 prices USD $60-100 / ct
• AMYTHEST: Base 2023 prices USD $15-100 / ct
• TURQUOISE: Base 2023 prices USD $10-100 / ct
• PERIDOT: Base 2023 prices USD $50-80 / ct
• AGATE: Base 2023 prices USD $5-100 / ct
• AMBER: Base 2023 prices USD $50-60 / ct
• LAPUS LAZULI: Base 2023 prices USD $20-50 / ct
• JADE: Base 2023 prices USD $10 – 100,000 / ct
• QUARTZ: Base 2023 prices USD $8-65 / ct
• CITRINE: Base 2023 prices USD $10-30 / ct
• JASPER: Base 2023 prices USD $2-5 / ct

BONUS CONTENT:

Since I have the files open in order to extract the above, there’s some addition material that might be of use to GMs out there.

The Weight Of Rock

On average, a cubic foot of rock weighs 165.2 pounds, but depending on the type of rock it may weigh between 143.6 and 186.0 pounds.

Typical weights by size:

• Pebble: Diameter: 0.5 in., Weight .035 ounces = 1 g
• Landscaping Rock: Diameter: 1.25 in., Weight 1.41 ounces = 40 g
• Skipping Stone: Diameter: 1.6 in., Weight 1.41 ounces = 40 g
• Cobblestone (the largest it’s practical to throw): Diameter: 4.5 in Weight 2.6 pounds = 1.2 kg
• Basketball sized (most people can manage to carry these at least a short distance). Diameter: 9.5 in., Weight 42 pounds = 19 kg
• Yoga ball sized: Diameter: ~26 in., Weight ~920 pounds = ~418 kg
• Car sized: Diameter: ~10 ft Weight ~86,500 pounds = ~39,271 kg
• Bag of Landscaping Rocks: Weight: 50 pounds = 22.7 kg
• Pallet of Landscaping Rocks (50 bags): Weight 2,500 pounds = 1,136 kg

Density of rock types:

• Sandstone: Density: 1 ft3 2.30 (g/cm3) = 143.6 (lb / ft3) = 65.2 (kg / ft3)
• Limestone: Density: 1 ft3 2.70 (g/cm3) = 168.6 (lb / ft3) = 76.5 (kg / ft3)
• Shale: Density: 1 ft3 2.35 (g/cm3) = 146.7 (lb / ft3) = 66.6 (kg / ft3)
• Dolomite: Density: 1 ft3 2.60 (g/cm3) = 162.6 (lb / ft3) = 73.8 (kg / ft3)
• Granite: Density: 1 ft3 2.63 (g/cm3) = 164 (lb / ft3) = 74.5 (kg / ft3)
• Marble: Density: 1 ft3 2.71 (g/cm3) = 169.1 (lb / ft3) = 76.8 (kg / ft3)
• Basalt: Density: 1 ft3 2.90 (g/cm3) = 181.0 (lb / ft3) = 82.2 (kg / ft3)
• Quartzite: Density: 1 ft3 2.65 (g/cm3) = 165.4 (lb / ft3) = 75.1 (kg / ft3)
• Gabbro: Density: 1 ft3 2.98 (g/cm3) = 186.0 (lb / ft3) = 84.4 (kg / ft3)

Weight Of Paintings

A good quality canvas in a wooden frame weighs roughly the same as a typical canvas in a glass-front frame, i.e. 3kg for 60cm x 90cm.

Of this, 2/3-3/4 of the weight will be the frame.

This information can be used to derive the weight of most art, with or without frame, on good or typical canvas.

Standard Bricks – Of Gold

US Bricks were standardized (more or less) in the 1800s to 9×3.5×4.5 inches. What if you had one made of gold? And what if it fell on you from a height of about 2 feet?

It was to answer this question that I went looking for the weight and price of a cubic inch of gold.

• 1 standard brick has a volume of 141.75 cubic inches.
• x 313.54573 g = 44.88kg.
• …Worth 2,944,174.17 USD 2023, or 55,405.60 USD 1938, or 32,720 USD in 1860.
• Momentum = mass x velocity. So if such a brick fell on you from two feet overhead, it would be roughly equivalent to a 5lb crowbar hitting you at 125 km/h (77.64 mph). Ouch!

The Value Of Spices

Modern standards say 1-3 years lifespan, if properly stored, i.e. 1/2 value every 0.75 years.

Assuming sealed containers, you could maybe double this. = x 1/2 every 1.5 years – if the containers aren’t being opened regularly.

Standards in the past were less fussy (to put it politely), so assume 1/4 times the indicated rate of decay in value = x 1/2 every 6 years.

Cool, dark environments prolong spice life up to 4x, so if stored, decay becomes about x 1/2 every 25 years. And that’s giving the cache every possible benefit of the doubt.

EXCEPTION:
Saffron, in oil, can last for a century.

The oil itself becomes tinted and valuable in the process.

At the end of that century, though, it’s essentially worthless.

SECOND EXCEPTION:
Any spice mixed with honey will last for thousands of years. Good luck getting the honey back out, afterwards, though.

IN THEORY, a sealed container which is stored in another container that is filled with honey might be able to last longer, but I wouldn’t bet money on it.

Hopefully, all this will be of use to someone out there!

Okay, so here we go with #2 of three locations generated for my campaigns. This is definitely sci-fi in nature, and would especially suit Traveler campaigns, though it can be used more generally.

As usual, a bit of a preamble, but I’m setting it off in a text box so that those with no interest in it can skip to the good parts.

This world – Mydas – was created for my Warcry campaign, and the similarities in fundamental concept between it and Azuria (Strange Place #3, created for the “Dr Who: Vortex Of War” campaign, to be presented in another post) are too strong to ignore, and mostly coincidental – though it seems clear to me that Azuria served, at least partially, as inspiration for Mydas.

The final deciding factor – this world is scary, Azuria is not. And it is Halloween today, after all!

Reflecting on the choice has given me to muse upon the stylistic and tonal differences between the two campaigns.

For all that it’s a more “pure” Sci-Fi campaign, with lots of material that rooted in the real world cosmology that’s in our night skies, “Dr Who: The Vortex Of War” plays a lot faster and looser with the finicky details. It’s more “Soft Sci-fi with pretensions” than “hard”.

The Warcry Campaign has it’s roots in a blend of Superhero and Soap Opera and Space Opera. It takes occasional strange excursions into Sci-Fi oriented Fantasy, but the Sci-Fi strand within is also very strong, and much harder than that of the Dr Who campaign in many respects.

But that doesn’t preclude me from using Unobtainium or anything else necessary to get a plot over the line when necessary. Nevertheless, that’s the tonal difference between the two, and it will be important to keep it in mind when appraising both Mydas and Azuria.

Credit Where It’s Due Dept:

Parts of thie content below were inspired by the Gamma World Module, “Gamma Base”, by Kim Eastland, and especially the cover art by Clyde Caldwell.

Believe it or not, Amazon still has a few copies for sale (at exhorbitant prices, as you would expect when it comes to a module from 1987, 36 years ago!) Click on this link to contemplate purchase – I may get a small commission if you do.

Or, you can get it as PDF or even a physical copy at reasonable prices from Drivethru RPG – click on the cover or on this link.

Background

Space is big, like really, really, really big. And that means that it contains an awful lot of stars, like really, really, really a lot.

Galactic surveyors determine the targets that will be investigated according to a strict set of protocols.

1. Systems with indications of sentient life.
2. Systems that pose a potential threat to surrounding systems.
3. Systems with indications of life.
4. Systems with the potential for colonization.
5. Systems with unconfirmed or unassayed natural resources of value
6. Systems of specific scientific interest
7. Targets of opportunity.

If a system doesn’t land on that list, it might as well not exist. If exploring a system would bypass or delay the exploration of a higher-value target, it stays on the list – but the higher-value target gets visited by the galactic survey.

So it was not at all unexpected that System SG-134-12-158 came in for absolutely zero attention from anyone – at least at first.

SG-134-12-158 – remote observation

Just because no interstellar probe or galactic survey ship ever graced the system with a personal visit prior to the discovery of Mydas, it doesn’t mean that nothing was known of the system.

SG-134-12-158 is located near the inner end of one of the galactic spiral arms. It was regularly observed when astronomers studied the black hole at the center of the galaxy, without much attention being paid.

The primary is a white Dwarf star, a stellar type that is a dime a dozen. This particular example is located on the far side of an interstellar nebula, screening it from detailed observation. So far as could be determined remotely through this cloak of interstellar gas, the system had no significant planetary bodies, certainly nothing on the scale of a gas giant. Given the frequency with which stars have been found to have at least some planets orbiting them, this made the system a minor anomaly – enough to keep an eye on, but nothing more.

Over time, other anomalies began to crop up and stack into something more interesting. Gamma-ray observations showed that the nebula in question was being bathed in excessive gamma-ray radiation. Infra-red telescopes, at the same time, reported that the star seemed to be burning far hotter than was usual for stellar bodies of that size, for no reasons that could be identified casually.

The system itself was on a cometary orbit around the central black hole; so populated with stars is that region of space that it seemed extremely likely that the orbit was unstable, and the star would either end its days in the infinite well of the central hole, or would break free and escape to tell the tale.

So it was that SG-134-12-158 graduated from galactic background noise to ‘star of scientific interest’ – and stayed there for a century or so.

The Star at the heart of SG-134-12-158

A bored young cosmologist, afflicted with an excess of idle time on his hands, came across the different reported white-dwarf anomalies and realized that they were probably talking about the same system. It can sometimes be hard telling small stars apart from one another in that region of space.

Putting 2+2+2 together, he came to the conclusion that – impossible as it might seem – the primary of the star had to be composed of antimatter, not normal matter. That probably meant that it was actually an intruder from outside the galaxy, and the most probable path to reaching where it was found was coming in from Galactic North.

This theory explained all the anomalies by wrapping them into a far bigger anomaly, and raised all sorts of troubling questions – where there more like this out there? How many? What was their normal motion, relative to the galaxy? What kind of risk to the Empire did this example represent?

Many tried to lampoon the theory, but the improbability wilted in the face of the perfect fit between observations and theory. Soon, not only was SG-134-12-158 the subject of intense remote scrutiny and deep thought, it was reclassified to category 2 – potential threat – and earmarked for galactic survey at their earliest convenience.

Still, there seemed to be no urgency about that. The star had been there for thousands of years, it would be somewhere nearby for hundreds if not thousands more – it wasn’t going anywhere that they couldn’t watch it like hawks. There were always more demands on Galactic Survey Missions than they can hope to satisfy, anyway!

Calculations suggested that the star had to be constantly flirting with going nova. If it weren’t for constant radiation pressure limiting the influx of material – pushing it aside – it would undoubtedly explode catastrophically. But since that hadn’t happened, it had to be presumed that the radiation being put out by the star was at least enough to moderate the reactions to a tolerably-sustainable level. There might not be much safety margin – predictions differed – but clearly, there was enough.

The heat of SG-134-12-158

Slowly, theoretical models were built up. Assumption one was that any planetary system would be composed of the same elementary matter as the primary unless the rogue star had managed to pick the pocket of some other stellar systems along the way.

If they were made of antimatter, they would have been eroded into non-existence a long time ago. Just like a star has a solar wind, the Galactic Hub has a ‘galactic wind’, gasses and alpha- and beta- particles accelerated to a significant portion of the speed of light by falling toward the black hole but not quite crossing the event horizon. The passage past and break-up of stellar bodies created this particle soup, and gravity flung them away at varying speeds. Those that didn’t achieve significant velocity were doomed to fall back and re-accelerate; it was like a cat playing cruelly with a mouse.

But some would be slowed, but would escape, and would blast through nearby solar systems as sheets of particle radiation – which would bother no-one very much; they either had protective magnetic belts and ionizing upper atmospheres to deal with the problem, or they were a dead world anyway. The stars would experience somewhat accelerated life-cycles, ‘heated up’ by the extra gas and radiation, but it would not be all that significant – unless the system was made of antimatter, of course.

If that were the case, then things would get funky. Not only would the star burn a LOT hotter (as was already known), but even the occasional stray particle penetrating those planetary defenses would annihilate a particle of the planet, so it would be hellishly hot in both the thermal and radioactive senses, and would – over time – be completely erased from existence. Calculations gave such planets a lifetime of 10,000 years or so – at best.

Captive planets?

Ah, but what if the planets were captives, liberated from normal-matter star systems? Well, either they were gas giants in size, or they weren’t, and it was already known that there were no gas giants in the system.

And what of smaller bodies? Well, without a gas giant to sweep excess hydrogen and helium out of the system, any planetary body of significant mass would start picking up extra mass, and – over time – would become a gas giant (a smallish one, perhaps) whether it had started out that way or not.

And there weren’t any planets of such size – the orbital wobble would have been easily detectable. So, science decreed, there were no planets.

Expedition

Another cosmologist, going by the name Normal Huxley (don’t ask!) demonstrated that it was entirely possible for SG-134-12-158 to have substantially-larger asteroid belts than were normal, and – what’s more – those with certain desirable ores would possess unusually strong magnetic fields that would ‘warp’ particles and radiation away, an effect that should be detectable, making it easy to cherry pick the most desirable targets.

That speculation somehow reached the ears of Lord Maxwell Windsor-Brighton, Duke of a small cluster of stars on the safe side of the planetary nebula. The Windsor-Brighton domain wasn’t the only one that could lay claim to the system, but none of the others appeared to have heard of Huxley’s work, which suited Windsor-Brighton just fine.

In order to claim the system, and its potentially-valuable resources, the system had to be surveyed, any resources being claimed assayed and enumerated, the appropriate taxes and kickbacks paid to the right people, and if the claim landed on the right desk at the right time, the Emperor might be so moved as to grant the request, maybe – by proxy, of course. The trick was always to make a resource seem worth exploiting without making it so attractive that an Imperial Bureaucrat decided to expropriate it on behalf of the Emperor. A fine art that few mastered.

So Windsor-Brighton decided to commission a personal survey of the region – theoretically scouting out potential new colony worlds on newborn stars within the nebula (of course, none would be habitable, but he pretended that everyone knew it was a waste of time except him) – as a cover for the real expedition.

The sensitive nature of the potential trade coup demanded the highest discretion. so he placed his promising young son-in-law, Byron Windsor-Smythe, in charge.

Planets? At SG-134-12-158? You’re kidding, right?

Nope. Not one bit. Against all odds, the expedition to SG-134-12-158 discovered a dwarf planet, with a significant moon, orbiting contentedly within the goldilocks zone of the star. Not in what should have been the goldilocks zone if it had been a normal star, but in exactly the right orbit to be capable of sustaining life with this particular unique star.

They named the planet Mydas, a deliberate variation on the name of the King whose touch could turn anything to gold, for reasons that will shortly become obvious, and the moon, they named Goose – after the mythic layer of golden eggs.

Goose was almost exactly 1/7th the mass of Mydas, and showed evidence of repeated asteroid bombardment, and signs of having been heated to the point of having a molten surface any number of times. It was exactly what they would have expected a solid body of normal matter to look like in a system of this nature.

Introducing Mydas

Mydas was more remarkable. It’s magnetic fields were 1,200 times as strong as would be expected of a comparable planetary body. Virtually the entire core of the slightly smallish planet – about 78% the physical size of the earth – must be made of rare earth alloys and ores.

The crust was somewhat thinner, and seismic probes suggested that the mantle was somewhat thicker than would normally be the case. The mass and size made it clear that it was constructed with rather less iron in its makeup than would be expected. All of which meant that mining the ore would be a (comparative) doddle.

Jumping-off point #1

GMs can take everything above and stop at this point if they want this to be a world to be exploited by the PCs and or their patrons, without any of the complications that are about to be introduced. Make Mydas virtually atmosphere-free and it becomes a wild fluke, the results of one trillion cosmic monkeys typing at one trillion word processors, a world so improbable that there can only possibly be one of them in the Galaxy (and even that is not guaranteed). A curiosity, of great value – but nothing more.

Even if you choose to jump off the bandwagon at this point, it could still be worthwhile to finish reading, though – there are solutions to the improbabilities that the GM jumping off at this point may want to try to incorporate.

But there were complications. It had a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere, and – in some areas – a vibrant green biosphere. It was human-habitable. And it’s exceptionally rare to find such worlds without some form of indigenous inhabitants – sentient or otherwise.

The planet was heavily cratered – even more so than Goose – and many of those craters were clustered in improbable distribution patterns that made it near-certain that they were the results of a major exchange of weapons of mass-destruction at some past time.

Entering orbit created new complications; the magnetic field was so intense that any ungrounded metal became electrically charged, shorting out systems all over the ship. Emergency Jury-rigged repairs (that fail on a regular timetable) enabled the mission to continue – and there was no way in heaven that Byron Windsor-Smythe was going to let anywhere as extraordinary as this fall into anyone else’s hands if he could possibly avoid it. Not only was this going to be a grand adventure, it was the stuff of legends – none of the crew present would ever have to pay for a meal anywhere ever again!

Mydasians

Details scans from orbit revealed a number of decomposing ruins, blackened swamplands, and pockets of greenery. No electronic signals were directed at the explorer craft, which suggested that whatever civilization had been there had wiped itself out long ago. Degenerate remnants of the native population might or might not still exist somewhere, but they could be using nothing more sophisticated than stone axes.

There’s speculation (not entirely unfounded) that the Mydasians were humanoid and bipedal, and culturally not all that dissimilar to the citizens of 2023 earth. They were clearly slightly more advanced in some respects, based on the weapons signatures found on the surface.

Squeeze Bombs

In particular, they seemed to go in for subspace implosion devices (Commonly nicknamed Squeeze Bombs or Pinch Bombs), weapons that compress a region of space (and the matter accompanying it) out of local space-time, causing it to cease to exist; where it goes, no-one can say.

Unfortunately, this creates a short-lived discontinuity in reality, sometimes described as a ‘naked’ singularity, and that (combined with quantum uncertainty) meant that there was a chance that something would emerge from nothingness to replace the matter destroyed. It probably wouldn’t be Cthulhu – but there was no certainty of that.

Because of this unpredictability, the Empire banned such weapons long before they became obsolete; they were simply too dangerous.

To judge from the crater patterns, the Mydasians not only embraced Squeeze Bombs, they fought a war that utilized such weapons with gleeful abandon. An Armageddon, if you will.

Radiation signatures from the craters suggest that this final war (from the Mydasian perspective) was fought between 10,000 and 100,000 years before Byron and his team arrived – long before Humans were anywhere near this part of space.

Pathogen Payloads

Given that amount of time, the biosphere should have reasserted itself far more thoroughly that is the evident case. Speculation is that Bio-weapons were employed that sterilized large tracts of the surface, slowing the regeneration. It might be possible, following samples and analysis, to determine from the rate of reclamation, exactly how long ago the party kicked off.

The devastation was too wide-spread for a single pathogen to be responsible; multiple bio-weapon payloads must have been involved, to the point where it was fortunate that any life survived. Whatever was left would have to be much tougher than most in order to survive the devastation wrought on the ecosystem. Even non-sentient animal life might pose a significant threat.

These possibilities were factored into all mission planning forward of its being expressed – just in case something viable survived down there and could infect expedition members.

Mydas City

One structure appeared to have survived mostly intact – and detailed scans showed possible low-level energy use, suggesting that there may be surviving technology. Having ‘grown up’ on the planet, the Mydasians would have known a lot more about it than the expedition, and some answers could save lives or shed years from the exploitation schedule. Some intelligence regarding the weaponry that had been deployed – and in particular, anything that might still be dangerous – would also be exceptionally useful.

That structure was named Mydas City. It had been built on the top of, and probably into, a medium-sized mountain. Multiple enemy Squeeze Bombs had detonated on all sides of it, slicing great holes out of the mountain itself, but somehow, perched on the top of the apple-core that used to be a noteworthy peak, this structure had survived – or had been built afterwards.

In shape, it somewhat resembles a castle, and somewhat resembles a modern fortress the size of a small city.

Jumping-off point #2

There are a number of alternative plot destinations possible from this point.

It’s entirely possible that there are Mydasian survivors living underground beneath the fortress.

It’s also possible that those survivors are all in cold-sleep, awaiting only the arrival of an energy signature of sufficient magnitude to inform them that rescue is at hand.

Again, it’s worth reading on, even if you choose to take things in a different direction.

Planetfall

To investigate these matters and determine what could be gained in terms of knowledge of the original natives, and what threat they might still pose, House Windsor-Brighton obtained Imperial permission to send an expedition to the surface of Mydas.

All appropriate precautions were to be taken – full hazmat suiting for all, and as much of the work as possible to be carried out by remote-operated vehicles and drones.

Landing right on top of the fortress, with it’s suspiciously turret-like structures, was deemed too risky. Instead, a location a couple of kilometers away was selected, because it was close enough to a number of areas of interest to permit investigation, but shielded from all of them by intervening wasteland.

Jumping-off point #3

Again, this is a point at which different choices can be made by the GM to those that I have outlined, in whole or in part.

For example, you might decide that the fortress is far more ruined than it appeared from overhead, and center interest on the inhabitants of the Green Zone.

Or perhaps the swamp isn’t as black and dead as it first appeared. There are numerous possibilities.

Expedition Planning

The landing party split into a number of teams, each focusing on a different aspect of the environment. Daily briefings were scheduled at which each group would update the expedition as a whole with their findings and further plans.

Team one were the Atmospheric Research & Climatology team. They were to verify that the atmosphere was breathable (the work of less than a day), investigate any airborne contaminants or bio-threats, feeding any findings into the medical department, and then focus their attention on the climate and local weather events.

Team two gave their attention to the water sources. There was a river running not too far from the landing site – was the water potable, was it contaminated or home to pathogens, and so on. After that, there were the waters of a seemingly-dead swamp 2 km away. At the edge of that swamp was a lake fed by a different river with a waterfall; this was running out of one of the nearby ‘green zones’, where vegetation survived, and possible animal life.

Team three were to focus on the land, and on as many soil types as could be found. They were initially to retrieve rock and soil samples for later analysis from orbit if the whole expedition went pear-shaped.

That green zone and it’s plant life were the targets of Team four, while Team five searched for any animal life.

But the greatest activity was to revolve around teams Six and seven – Six were to conduct surveys and test digs into some relatively-intact ruins, while Team Seven devoted their time to the fortress and what lay within.

The medical group, Team Eight, were to have the greatest workload, and hence were bolstered in numbers beyond the trained medical staff. All the other teams were to feed bio-samples to them, and it would be their responsibility to determine how dangerous anything was, whether or not innoculants could be prepared, how to treat anyone who came down with anything and so on.

Finally, Team Nine were the vulcanologists and geoscientists; they were to carry on with a variant of the original mission, determining what ores were available, how much of them there were, how to extract them, what their values would be, and how to refine the ore.

Team Ten, command, were to keep track of everything that was going on, fix any problems with these plans as they arose, make sure everyone was working harmoniously, and pitch in anywhere that they could help out.

Survey Problems

Right away, there was a problem to be overcome: the magnetic fields were even stronger here at the surface. Anything metallic that moved through them quickly acquired a static charge that could only be dissipated through electrical displays that wrought havoc with electronics; the control systems needed substantial reinforcement to be able to cope.

This would limit the number of drones available to do this work, creating a bottleneck that would slow results, at least at first. Maintenance cycles that should have been completed annually were planned for every second day, to be adjusted once the expedition had actual data on the drone’s reaction to the environment.

It should also be borne in mind that this was the first planetary body ever found with such a high concentration of rare earth metals, and no-one knew even theoretically what impact that could or would have.

Another factor to be reckoned with was the fact that since no planetary bodies were expected, the expedition had not been equipped to deal with such – they were cobbling together bits and pieces to make do with what they had.

Initially, there were just two drones available, to be shared by all nine active teams. More would be brought online over the first week or two, but limited manpower resulting from the heavy maintenance cycle would chew up a lot of their time.

Communications soon proved to be another headache; there was enough radioactivity and ambient radio noise from the interaction of radiation and magnetic field that the ranges of their equipment were only 1/10th of what they should have been, at best, and a few hundred meters, at worst. That meant re-tasking one of the two survey drones to emplacing communications relays along a direct route between base camp and the area being surveyed.

Some time was saved by erecting some of these manually, creating a ring around the base camp and spokes leading out from it.

Initial Findings

Team Four quickly determined that the biosphere was slowly recuperating from the unnatural cataclysm that had engulfed the planet – so slowly that it must have been a hairs-breadth away from complete annihilation.

Certainly, no higher life-forms had survived. Team 5 was re-tasked to profiling the inhabitants and whatever could be learned about them.

The atmosphere was clean and viable. The water in the swamp was contaminated by heavy-metal oxides and nitrates and other nasties, and so was the river water nearby – but the water flowing out of the green zone was potable and reasonably safe.

There were a number of deposits of rare earth metals of sufficient magnitude to permit industrial-scale mining. Many were somewhat radioactive, but that could be dealt with.

Jumping-off Point #4

Different choices are possible here, particularly in regards to higher animal life. I chose not to distract the PCs with a side-issue.

Drone Failure

One of the drones detected a weak electronic signal coming from a small hillock at the edge of the swamp while on a flyby. It was immediately re-tasked to investigate – and immediately stopped reporting back to Command.

The other drone was sent out to retrieve the downed unit and bring it back for analysis. It, too, picked up the signals – some sort of digital data-stream – but was instructed to ignore them. Someone on the engineering team suggested plugging the good unit into the bad so that they could at least get some diagnostics to work on in the meantime, but this was vetoed as too risky; the engineers could wait the hour or so required to bring the faulty unit back.

As soon as the faulty unit was plugged into the diagnostic maintenance bay, systems began to go haywire. Activity levels shot up to 100% of capacity and stayed there, making the systems unresponsive to commands, and the problems spread from one system to another, even across supposedly air-gapped protections.

It’s getting way ahead in the story, but that story will make a lot more sense to GMs if I jump the gun on what was happening.

Most antivirus systems feature some sort of heuristic learning capability, permitting them to recognize threats that are similar to, but not the same as, a threat that they have already been designed to counter.

I combined that concept with the notion of emergent properties to create a computer virus that weaponized the antivirus software itself into the viral payload.

This not only got around any differences in computer architecture or programming, it essentially made all systems exposed completely vulnerable. A truly nasty idea that is, thankfully, well beyond our current capabilities – and I hope that remains the case for a very, very long time.

So this super-virus gets into the diagnostic software, jumps across into some bookkeeping / system resources software, into the common interface systems designed to give everything a similar look-and-feel, and from there is into the operating system.

It’s scorched-earth as applied to computer software.

Expedition Failure

The operators quickly realized that they were under attack from a worm / virus of some sort, and started shutting down systems, especially those that were critical, then reverting to backup copies and reinstalling. In the meantime, anything that used computer assistance – like maintaining a comms link back to the mother ship in orbit – was reduced to hit-and-miss manual methods.

Nevertheless, a commlink was established for long enough to appraise the mother ship of this development and send through their findings to date, as a precaution. Unfortunately, the virus piggybacked its way onto that signal and started wreaking the same systems damage on board as was being experienced by the landing party.

Mothership woes

Worse still, there are all sorts of things that you can survive on a planet, surrounded by breathable (if suspect) air, that leave you completely vulnerable in space.

Without warning, all the airlocks opened, and all the containment bulkhead hatches that were supposed to isolate areas against exposure to vacuum failed to lock down. 90% of the crew aboard the mother ship were killed almost immediately.

Next, the onboard security systems went haywire. Half the remaining crew – those who had been wearing vacuum suits as a redundant safety measure – were killed before this could be manually disabled.

The commander on board – Byron was leading the expedition to the planet – set an emergency beacon and hastily scrawled a handwritten report of the problem (something along the lines of “Computer failure – virus – everything down” – before the virus found its way into their suits’ onboard systems, leaving the mothership an orbiting graveyard and the expedition cut off.

That was thirty days ago.

Enter the PCs

The nearest vessel, by sheer coincidence, belongs to the PCs (or, at least, they are onboard). It gets commandeered by the Empire and sent to investigate, and rescue the expedition if at all possible.

Variations

Given the self-evident risks and dangers, it’s also possible that the PCs are NOT the closest help, but someone who has it in for them routes the assignment their way, anyway.

Any rivals out there? Anyone that the PCs have ticked off lately? Or who sees a potential advantage to getting them into trouble before they even know they have a hostile force against them?

For security reasons, they are given minimal information. Planetary survey, lost contact, nobleman and his expeditionary force in need of rescue, impossible star, improbable planet, details onboard the expeditionary vessel – and that’s about it.

I chose to break up the info-dump and give them everything down to “Planets? At SG-134-12-158? You’re kidding, right?”, and the first jumping-off point, which made it seem like the Empire was doing its best to be ‘helpful’.

PC arrival

When the PCs arrive, they should be in a state of extreme caution, for obvious reasons – the survey ship was a lot better equipped, with more resources and manpower and clever people on board to deal with any problems.

Any attempt to contact the mothership remotely will fail, it’s comms are offline. All they can get is the automated warning message, which tells them very little except that there’s something seriously wrong.

The onboard links to the ship’s computer are down. Any areas where suited individuals failed to manually compromise the security systems will attack the PCs. There are only a few places onboard where the mission logs can still be accessed, using computers that the PCs have brought with them. Wherever they choose to go, they will find that hand-scrawled warning.

Most people will respond by attempting to scan the computer system with the latest and greatest antivirus packages available to them. As soon as they plug in, the virus will attack those systems.

Unless the PCs are both brilliant and lucky, the computers they brought with them are now dead – but they may be able to get more / cannibalize more from the ship that brought them here.

Choices and Logic

Either the PCs choose to go in blind, not knowing where to look (unlikely), or they are stuck until one of them employs some logic – any manual backups to the mission logs that were made before whatever has happened took place should be safe.

This updates the situation with the discoveries made by the survey mission up to the point of failure of the first drone – that includes the first two paragraphs of “Drone Failure”.

Given their own observations, it should be possible to deduce what happened next.

There’s no-one left to rescue here – the PCs need to copy the mission logs and append their own investigations and deductions for safe keeping, forbid all attempts to contact the mothership (maybe even blasting it out of existence / out of orbit), and then head for the landing site on the planet.

Jumping-off Point #5

What’s happened below over the last 30 days plus PC transit time provides the next jumping-off point away from the main plot that I created to utilize this Strange Place.

They could all be dead. The computer virus may be the last remnant of a once-great (if planet-bound) civilization, equivalent to maybe 2050, maybe 2060, earth-equivalent.

They could be alive (mostly) and in need of rescue, their mission having ground to a resounding halt.

My PCs are of the ‘where angels fear to tread’ types, and the broader plot required that Byron be more capable, resilient, and resourceful than that; if that was all there was, it would have been very anticlimactic, and a waste of the opportunity presented by this location.

Alternative choices made earlier provide many alternatives at this point, too. Sleepers may have been awoken, for example, and the Citadel now an operating concern. They may have captured / rescued Byron themselves, or they may be hostile. These alternatives would certainly provide the ‘something more’ that I am suggesting is needed to complete the adventure.

Oh, and Before I forget –

Oh yes. There are certain possibilities inherent in the in-game physics that I made use of to ramp up the threat to levels appropriate for this campaign. Since your game physics is almost certainly different to something designed to accommodate superheros, those would not be appropriate to inject – so I have left them out of what follows.

Base Camp -What’s left of it

Landing near the Base Camp reveals that it has been destroyed by some sort of particle-disintegration mortar, something altogether more advanced than the Squeeze Bombs used thousands of years ago.

In fact, this weaponry is either somewhat in advance of that available to the Empire or at the cutting edge of such weapons research.

This suggests that something survived the attack, thousands of years ago, and has been conducting advanced weapons research ever since, but let the PCs draw their own conclusions.

It’s clear that someone survived this attack – by luck perhaps – because a number of casualties have been buried with crude religious symbols erected that match the dominant religions of the Empire> If the burials had not been performed by one or more expedition members, whoever did it would not have known that symbology, and would either have used their own or none at all.

Putting themselves in the shoes of such hypothetical survivors, the obvious place to go is the citadel. If there is any help to be had here, that’s the place it would be found.

Robot Down

En route, the team can observe the communications relays that have been set up by the Expeditionary Force. Near one of them, they find another of the robotic drones used by the expedition.

The antigrav-based scout-droid lay twitching on the ground, electrical energy arcing over its body. These were obviously very primitive devices; created out of spare parts but deliberately robust to permit them to function in this hostile environment. Most units would have been fried long ago, but this one is still at least semi-active.

Plugging in a diagnostic tool results in the Virus doing it’s thing to the diagnostic tool, making it clear what happened to the droid and confirming Mydas as the source. The virus seems in this case to have sent the power supply running wild, which had shorted out key components of the device.

Everything indicates that the expedition had either woken something up, or discovered something that had survived the conflict.

Approaching the Citadel

As they get closer, and obtain line-of-sight to the Citadel and the “apple core” on which it stands, a vehicle can be seen in the distance, and (with suitable vision zoom technology), a set of climbing ropers set nearby up to make the ascent to the top of the “Core”.

That seems to make the next target of investigation obvious.

As the PCs move closer to the vehicle, it quickly becomes apparent that it is not as intact as it looked from a distance. The far side is still relatively in one piece, but the far side has been struck by some sort of missile or exploding drone – and subjected to ‘small arms’ fire for a considerable period of time – enough to make Swiss cheese of the engine block.

A human body, deceased, remains in the passenger seat, but there is no sign of the vehicle operator.

Immediately someone gets close enough to the vehicle to notice these facts, they cross some kind of threshold. Turrets of some kind erupt from the turf, where they had seemed to be tiny hillocks, and short barrels extrude from those turrets. Other turrets mounting small automatic weapons (blasters?) rise to protect the larger ones from interference.

These weapons fire on the PCs, who should have just enough time to dive for cover. Suddenly, from out of nowhere, a wild man with several weeks of beard growth, and wielding an electrified whip, uses his weapon to disable the weapons platforms.

I used a photo of Indiana Jones (with whip) for a moment of light relief, but you don’t have to if you don’t want to.

Byron Windsor-Smythe

In a cultured accent, and no little urgency, the figure yells,

“Introductions later. Follow me, quickly – these weapons regenerate, but I’ll lead you through a path along which I’ve temporarily disabled them.”

Keeping low, moving quickly, and disabling more weapons as they emerge, he leads the PCs to a rock facade that proves to be a tarpaulin disguised with native rocks and dirt, concealing the entrance to a small man-made cavern.

Pulling the camouflage back into place once all are inside, he announces,

“I was expecting a rescue party who would need to be rescued. I am Count Byron Bartholomew Windsor-Smythe, last survivor of the expeditionary force to Mydas.”

“Call me Barry,” he adds.

Count Byron (Barry) then informs the PCs that the citadel above is vast, much bigger than it appears, and 90% underground. The fact that no ways in have been exposed by the Pinch Bombs (using their correct name), he explains, indicates that most of the complex was built after the initial bombardment.

Nevertheless, he – and three of his team – had made it to the entrance, forced entry, and managed to retrieve a data disc before being driven back by robotic security droids, obviously designed to operate in this electromagnetically-charged environment.

His three companions were killed during the escape, but he managed to create and conceal this cavern with a Plasma Disintegration Grenade, and use the covering and native materials laced with rare earth ores to shield himself from the sensors that detect approaching potential enemies.

Count Byron’s Story

The data disc was in an unknown file format, but digital is digital, and the Count had plenty of time on his hands. Most of the contents are indecipherable documents, but there were a number of video files; the alien language is completely unknown to him, but the video element could be played and interpreted.

The Mydasians are humanoids, but beyond that, everything is up to the GM – everything is possible from the ‘humans with strangely colored skin” to something much stranger.

I suggest starting with a Google Image Search for “Alien Concept Art” and picking something you like – being prepared for the likelihood that whatever you find is probably subject to copyright.

You may also find

• The Four Frontiers Of ‘Alien’,
• Alien In Innovation: Creating Original Non-human Species,
• Creating Alien Characters: Expanding the ‘Create A Character Clinic’ To Non-Humans
• >Thinking Alien Thoughts: Roleplaying First Contacts, and
• Studs, Buttons, and Static Cling: Creating consistent non-human tech

to be useful reference material.

The video footage shows:

Two different populaces, obviously of differing political persuasions. Rallies and denunciations of the enemy are fairly easy to interpret. Footage of the war from the perspective of the aliens in the Citadel. Increasing food shortages are indicated by images of meals that become more meager over time. Suggestions that the purpose of the Citadel was advanced weapons research. An uprising by the surviving personnel.

A leader emerges. Maps that suggest concern that occupying forces are potentially en route – clearly, the citadel-side won the war, but don’t know how total a victory was achieved. Footage of the devastated surface. Instillation of additional defensive systems as the leader looks on, smugly (or maybe you’re reading too much into his body language).

Plans presented to a gathering of the survivors, showing a vast complex built into the mountainside, powered by the abundant geothermal energy available. A vast computer installation being created, and some graphics indicating some sort of division within the circuitry. Which is where the recordings end.

Count Byron has had many hours to think it over while he consumed his ration packs. Within the mantle of the planet is a vast computer installation, constructed after the overt end of hostilities and the destruction of surface life. The occupants of the research facility had no way of knowing whether or not their enemy had also survived, or in what numbers. Assuming the worst, they used their latest designs to install additional defenses and then went to work on a long-term plan.

The computer would project and conduct weapons research in a digital (virtual?) environment, would assume that the enemy’s computers were doing the same thing, and would then research defenses against those weapons. Once some sort of protection was devised, the computer would assume that the enemy had also devised these defenses and begin designing new weaponry to penetrate the protections. Those who had set the program in motion had long since starved, leaving their legacy protected by an artificial intelligence doing exactly what it was designed to do.

War-world

Count Byron would ordinarily be consumed with the desire to get his hands on one of the AI’s hard drives – 10,000 years of weapons research for the taking? Who wouldn’t be? – but there are bigger fish to fry.

There’s every indication that this star system entered the Galaxy from the top, but it has clearly had a number of close encounters in this part of the Galaxy, and it’s plane of motion has been twisted until it now lies within the galactic plane. There are indications in the astronomical observations that it has now achieved escape velocity relative to the central black hole, and it – and Mydas – will be heading toward more habitable parts of the galaxy, right through the Empire, in fact.

The aliens seemed to have had no conception of life outside of their own world. Hardly surprising if they thought such conditions were what was needed for sentient life to emerge. Therefore, everyone the computer encounters will either be an ally or an enemy – and the allies would have defining characteristics that would need to be matched precisely.

To the computer, the Empire would be cast in the role of “The Enemy”, and the products of all that weapons research would pose a direct threat to the safety of the Empire. Already, the computer would be aware of the possibilities of space travel and would be designing its own such craft.

Mydas was a loaded plasma-cannon, pointed straight at the Empire. And it was up to him, as a member of the Nobility, to stop it, and to that end, he was conscripting the PCs into his service for the duration. Together, you have to take down the Computer, against everything that it can (and will) throw at you.

The significance of whether or not the War-world has weaponry that merely matches the best that the Empire can bring to bear, or is somewhat – even a little – ahead of them now becomes obvious.

Further speculation

The improbability of a planet existing in exactly the right orbit, with exactly the right composition, for life to develop in this star system with all it’s unique characteristics, so so high that someone is bound to wonder if it can all just be so by accident.

The answer is yes, but it’s not very likely.

Is it more probable to conclude that someone orchestrated the existence of Mydas deliberately, then stocked it with appropriate life for it’s own reasons? Quite possibly.

If you had done so, you might have been content to simply watch life develop in such a unique environment. But it’s far more likely that you would meddle, at least behind the scenes.

Once it became clear that the planet’s citizens were headed for a self-induced Armageddon, if you were already interfering, would you not make every effort to put the culture onto a different path? The only reason you would not do so is if this was exactly what you wanted to happen – which puts an entirely new spin on that “meddling”.

So you’ve created an improbable world and pushed it into a global war with advanced weaponry. Why? Is the (extremely improbable) survival of the Citadel another clue?

Could it be that this entire world was engineered to create a weapons platform to be utilized against an enemy, and the inhabitants just pawns?

It’s ruthless, treats the inhabitants as pawns, wildly improbable – but it explains all the anomalies and the alternative isn’t that much more likely (if it is at all).

Which brings me to the end of the second of this trio of Strange Places. I hope it’s been a fun ride! The third one will follow in a couple of weeks time.

A word of advice: Each part of the series builds heavily on the content from the previous one. While you may be able to get relevant information without doing so, to get the most of out of each, you should have read the preceding article. In this case, though, that “previous part” is actually the one before last, and a three-chapter set of quite lengthy posts. You might have to skim – just bear in mind that if anything is puzzling but not explained, it’s probably because it has already been explained earlier in the series.

Welcome & General Introduction

So here we are at last! The final part of what has been an epic series, far larger than I ever envisaged. Even before I start writing this final part (but with section titles in place) the total word-count is going to be over the 140,000 words for the series!

For this final part, I’m moving the table of contents to the head of the article; it’s been interesting to watch it change and evolve as the series has taken shape.

I’m hopeful of knocking this out in one hit, even though that may be impractical – I am going to lose precious writing time to bureaucratic nonsense tomorrow. It’s possible that the post will be delayed, as I won’t have time to prep anything else.

It’s possible that I will edit the series down into an e-book sometime next year. Would there be any demand for such a product? I may well find out.

A disclaimer: I am not an economist and I’m not trying to turn anyone else into an economist. An awful lot of this content will be simplified, possibly even oversimplified. Bear that in mind as you read.

A second disclaimer: I’m Australian with a working understanding, however imperfect and incomplete, of how the US Economy works, and an even more marginal understanding of how the UK economy works (especially in the post-Brexit era). Most of my readers are from the US, and number two are Brits. Canadians and Australians fight over third place on pretty even terms, so those are the contexts in which what I write will be interpreted. And that means that the imperfection can become an issue.

Any commentary that I make comes from my personal perspective. That’s important to remember. Now, sometimes an outside perspective helps see something that’s not obvious to those who are enmeshed in a system, and sometimes it can mean that you aren’t as clued-in as you should be. So I’ll apologize in advance for any errors or offense.

I’ll repeat these disclaimers at the top of each part in this series.

 

Related articles

This series joins the many other articles on world-building that have been offered here through the years. Part one contained an extremely abbreviated list of these. There are far too many to list here individually; instead check out

the Campaign Creation page of the Blogdex,

especially the sections on

• Divine Power, Religion, & Theology
• Magic, Sorcery, & The Arcane
• Money & Wealth
• Cities & Architecture
• Politics
• Societies & Nations, and
• Organizations, and
• Races.

 

General Principles – repeated from Part 3

Along the way, a number of important principles have been established.

1. Society drives economics – which is perfectly obvious when you think about it, because social patterns and structures define who can earn wealth, the nature of that wealth, and what they can spend it on – and those, by definition, are the fundamentals of an economy.
2. Economics pressure Societies to evolve – economic activity encourages some social behaviors and inhibits others, producing the trends that cause societies to evolve. Again, perfectly obvious in hindsight, but not at all obvious at first glance – largely because the changes in society obscure and alter the driving forces and consequences of (1).
3. Existing economic and social trends develop in the context of new developments – this point is a little more subtle and obscure. Another way of looking at it is that the existing social patterns define the initial impact that new developments can have on society, and the results tend to be definitive of the new era.
4. New developments drive new patterns in both economic and social behavior but it takes time for the dominoes to fall – Just because some consequences get a head start, and are more readily assimilated into the society in general, that does not make them the most profound influences; those may take time to develop, but can be so transformative that they define a new social / political / economic / historic era.
5. Each society and its economic infrastructure contains the foundations of the next significant era – this is an obvious consequence of the previous point. But spelling it out like this defines two or perhaps three phases of development, all contained within the envelope of a given social era:
   • There’s the initial phase, in which some arbitrary dividing line demarks transition from one social era to another. Economic development and social change is driven exclusively by existing trends.
   • There’s the secondary phase, in which new conditions derive from the driving social forces that define the era begin to infiltrate and manifest within the scope permitted by the results of the initial phase.
   • Each of the trends in the secondary phase can have an immediate impact or a delayed impact. The first become a part of the unique set of conditions that define the current era, while the second become the seeds of the next social era. There is always a continuity, and you can never really analyze a particular period in history without understanding the foundations that were laid in the preceding era.

 

THE COMPLETE TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part 1::

1. Introduction
2. General Concepts and A Model Economy
3. The Economics of an Absolute Monarchy (The Early Medieval)

Part 2:

4. The Economics of Limited Monarchies (The Later Medieval & Renaissance)
5. In-Game Economics: Fantasy Games

Part 3:

6. The Renaissance, revisited
7. Pre-Industrial Economics I: The Age of Exploration
8. Pre-Industrial Economics II: The Age of Sail

Part 4:

9. Industrial Economies I: The Age Of Steam
10. In-game Economics: Gaslight-era

Part 5, Chapter 1:

11. Industrial Economics II: The Age Of Electrification & Motoring

Part 5, Chapter 2:

12. Industrial Economics III: War & Depression
13. In-Game Economics: Pulp
14. In-Game Economics: Sci-fi
15. In-Game Economics: Steampunk

Part 6, Chapter 1:

16. The Pre-Digital Tech Age
17. World War 2
18. Post-war & Cold War

Part 6, Chapter 2:

19. Government For The People
20. Aviation

Part 6, Chapter 3:

21. The Space Race
22. Tech Briefing: Miniaturization
23. Behemoths Of Blind Logic (early computers)
24. The Promise Of Atomics
25. A Default Economy

Part 7

26. Economic Realities (Inflation & Interest Rates explained)

Part 8, Chapter one contains:

27. The Digital Age: Themes
28. The Digital Age: 70s-80s
29. The Digital Age: 80s-90s

Part 8, Chapter 2:

30. The Digital Age: 90s-00s

Part 8, Chapter 3::

31. The Digital Age: 00s-2010s

Part 8, Chapter 4::

32. The Digital Age: 2010s-2020

Part 8, Chapter 5:

33. The Digital Age: Pandemic
34. The Digital Age: Post-Pandemic
35. An Imminent Pivot? (the near future)

Part 9, this post:

36. IGE (In-Game Economics)
37. Future Economics I: Dystopian
38. Future Economics II: Middling
39. Future Economics III: Utopian
40. IGE – Look Beyond The Obvious
41. IGE at the personal scale

41. Valuing Possessions
    41.1 Avoiding Mathematics
    41.2 Basic Possessions: Value
    41.3 Inherent Value
    — Functionality, Materials, Labor, Skilled Labor, History, Workmanship
42. Appraised Value
    42.1 Rarity
    42.2 Age
    42.3 Provenance
    42.4 Wear & Tear
    42.5 Depreciation

    42.5.1 Inflation

    42.6 Appreciation
    42.7 The Antique Furniture Lesson: Social Factors
    42.8 The Religious Factor
    42.9 The Sentiment Factor
    42.10 Remember The Bottom Line

43. The Mathematics (or lack thereof)
44. The Worksheet

start=”45″>
1. Valuables Types
   — Land, Buildings, Vehicles, Simple Businesses, Mines, Livestock, Old Valuables, Old Rarities, Cultural Relics, Artworks, Basic Valuables, Mementos & Personal Treasures

46. Genre Notes
    — Fantasy, Pulp, Historical / Detective, Modern, Superheroics, Steampunk, Cowboy / Western, Sci-Fi – near future, Sci-Fi – Dystopian, Sci-Fi – Utopian, Pirates / Swashbuckling

47. Synthesis: A general process:
    47.1 Sidebar: On Old Problem – currency conversions and historic currency values
48. The End Of An Epic

IGE (In-Game Economics)

PCs begin interacting with in-game economics very quickly in most campaigns – whether it’s shopping for supplies, coming into possession of a vehicle (intended to provide carriage from one adventure to the next), or simply acquiring valuables, souvenirs, and other personal property.

When they acquire a bit of money or resources of other kinds, they will generally think about upgrades to their equipment – which raises the questions of what is available and how much it will cost – and that’s in-game economics, too.

Other rewards from adventuring start entering the picture not long afterwards – a better place to live, a business on the side, an “investment opportunity”, you name it.

Ultimately, at least in Fantasy campaigns, PCs thought about building castles and other more permanent installations. By now, they may have been granted noble titles and various forms of wealth-generation (which generally go along with the title).

In other campaigns, the PCs may headquarter themselves in the vehicle they possess, or may have been granted residence in a facility owned by someone else quite early on. This is common in superhero campaigns, for example.

PCs are perpetually interacting with the game economy – but the mortal sin is slowing the game down as a result.

IGE: A Plot-based foundation

But let’s start with a bigger picture perspective. My advice in this area is to make your economic situation fit the needs of the plot, and use the information provided in earlier parts of this series to get from A to B.

If you need a stock market crash – or a temporary “correction” – then have one happen. It’s that simple.

It’s also metagaming outrageously, in my book. The “pure” thing to do would be to go to a lot of effort to understand the economy and internal problems of the game world, and how the society is creating a trend toward this change or that, and yadda-yadda, then extrapolate, and then adapt the adventure to the economic ‘reality’.

Nope, rejected. Too much work for not enough gain.

That said, a good general principle is put the economy back the way you found it by the end of the adventure unless you know exactly what you’re doing.

IGE: Modern

The modern world complicates everything. People have (hopefully) more understanding of how the modern economy works, there are many more products available, there are usually multiple vendors and sources for everything, there are multiple currencies and policies and interactions between them… it’s easy to get sucked in too deep.

But it’s also a bigger part of life and harder to gloss over. My world doesn’t revolve around the strength of the Australian Dollar relative to the US Dollar, but it’s something that I have to pay attention to – and a change of a few cents can have spending ramifications at the personal level. So you have to pay more attention to it – it might not be as ubiquitous a subject as the weather and politics, but it’s third in the queue.

Fortunately, this also gives you more levers to pull in order to orchestrate the economic climate that best fits your plot needs.

Example: A flaw is discovered in the navigation systems of the most popular type of cargo vessel – they are ordered to drop anchor in the nearest port and stay put while a fix is prepared. Supply chains the world over grind to a halt, and the stock market writes down a number of companies in anticipation of the economic damage that will result.

Again, be careful not to get sucked down the economics rabbit hole, and make the time period work for you at least as much as it adds to the demands of your game.

IGE: A broader net

It’s really hard to write processes and mechanics for universal usage in an RPG. Like really, really hard. Once more, I apply the martial arts principle of using an opponent’s strength against them.

Being forced to consider both fantasy campaigns and modern-day campaigns, and recent-past settings, and both Utopian and dystopian futures, and being relevant to them all, is a great way to cut through the fog created by getting deeply into the economics of a setting.

Just pick one that’s very different to your own setting, and make sure that what you are doing translates into that genre in simple terms and you will get a reality check as to whether or not you are getting yourself bogged down.

In general, looking to the past is better than looking to the future because the situations are inherently simpler, but when you’re running a fantasy campaign that’s set in a pseudo-early-medieval period, you either have to go to the Roman or Greek Empires for your perspective, or look ahead in time. I find the second choice to be the easier one, simply because I know those periods better. Evaluate things in terms of the 1930s or 1950s if you have to.

The Background Of Choice

You can take this principle further during campaign creation. Pick one of the eras that I have detailed in the series whose economics and the social consequences thereof fit the adventures that you want to run, and model you in-game economy on something analogous.

You want dystopia? Model your economy on the Great Depression. You want a trend toward utopia? Model your economy on the wild Optimism that led to the Depression, or to the pre-WWI era of Empires, who thought their interlocking treaties made war between them impossible / unthinkable. And so on.

Some sci-fi games have been doing this for ages – the Swashbuckling influence over many basic Traveler campaigns is an obvious example; but it works for all genres.

I want to specifically mention Steampunk at this point – the principle architecture of the genre is late 18th to early 20th century. You can put a lot of spin and nuance on a specific interpretation of such a setting by modeling the economy on a different era, then translating the agency of change into steampunk terms – Steampunk meets 1970s post-scarcity, for example.

Future Economics I: Dystopian

Technology is mostly cosmetic in a Dystopia. Pick any past historic period and focus on the negative aspects – the workhouses of the early Industrial age, for example – and throw in a little tech on the top, for example to monitor production and boost productivity – at the cost of worker health and safety, of course. Throw in a society which considers this to be only reasonable, and hey presto – Dystopia.

To get a Dystopia, you only need politicians to consider their own self-interests (and the interests of those who fund the machine that keeps them in power), and a society in which privilege is answerable only to itself – and wait.

IGE: Dystopian Futures

Ultimately, most Dystopias function through the scarcity of resources, with workers considered one of those limiting factors. Economically, they all owe at least a tip of the hat to the 1970s, even if you use the campaign-setting tools and principles expounded.

Oh, and just because it’s a dystopia doesn’t mean that there’s no source of hope for the future.

Future Economics II: Middling

A late insertion into the contents, a future that – like today – is a mixture of both optimism and pessimism. Perhaps the most realistic type of sci-fi sub-genre. Think of sources like The Fifth Element, or the Marvel Comics Universe.

I tend to think of the Traveler Game Universe as falling into this category – there are historical allusions to the courts of Imperial Rome embedded within the background, and some elements of life in that environment can be pretty bleak and Dystopian, but the solution seems drawn from the Swashbuckling age in many campaigns – Trade being what makes the Empire go ’round. There can also be elements of the Western, especially out on the fringes of ‘safe’ society.

Some GMs don’t seem to realize that Trade can be more than boring purchasing and selling and counting the profits, it can actually be the driving force that delivers adventures to the airlock. That was a serious problem with the last such campaign that I played in – the GM wanted the PCs to take sides in a political conflict that he had orchestrated without giving any of us reasons to have skin in that particular game. We decided to go trading and leave the politics to others, as much as possible, and this threw his entire campaign plan into the wastepaper bin.

In response to that situation, i wrote up a game supplement that has been shared widely in the years since, Buy Low, Sell High – Trade In Traveler. Since it is clearly relevant, I’m offering another download link.

Click to download Buy Low, Sell High (LT and A4 sizes) in PDF format

Future Economics III: Utopian

Utopias can actually be harder work than you think. Star Trek is largely viewed as a Utopian Future, especially as presented in The Next Generation – but the replicator has eliminated scarcity and material needs, completely revising one of the fundamental assumptions of society.

What the writers found, as the series progressed, was that they hadn’t completely eliminated the concept of an economy. There were still financial limits on what people could do; they had simply replaced one constraining factor with another that had already existed but that had not previously been dominant.

You could replicate all the parts that you need for a starship, but you still needed dockyard space and skilled technicians to install and calibrate everything. So there was still a limit to production, it was just a different one.

Utopian futures are ones in which life is at least comfortable for most people and opportunities are unbounded by social, political, religious, or other reasons; if you put in the work, and have what it takes, you can be anything that you want to be. What’s more, no matter how dark things may become, there is justifiable optimism for the future.

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance” – so wrote Thomas Jefferson (or maybe it was Patrick Henry or Wendell Phillips or Junius).

Regardless of the source, it’s just as true in a Utopia as it is anywhere else – you can change the nature of Society (a human invention) but that does not change the nature of humans; they are still just as capable of being venal, cowardly, greedy, corrupt, or any of a dozen other character flaws. Those flaws might be rendered less prominent by the satisfaction of material needs and holographic companions, but that doesn’t eliminate them. Utopia is under constant attack from both within and without, and needs to be defended.

IGE: Utopian Futures

That means that most Utopian futures are variations on the basic economic theme and not the wildly different economic beasts that they initially appear. Nevertheless, there will be ramifications of whatever made / makes the Utopia possible, and those need careful thought.

Or no thought at all. A good line of patter and a semi-plausible rationalization is enough to hand-wave the whole question. The critical question then becomes, ‘what’s the rest of society like?’ – what is this an idealized reflection of, in high-tech dressing? Which places utopias on the same conceptual footing as any other genre, at least in economic terms.

IGE: Space Opera

Oh, my goodness, talking about hand-waving!

It’s a fundamental tenet that there is always enough money to build something big, and if there isn’t enough money, that’s always a solvable problem, a passing inconvenience, nothing more.

Need money? There’s a planet out there somewhere that has deposits of Unobtainium – you just need a clever way to find it. Immediately, Asimov’s The Currents Of Space come to mind (Limited copies at reasonable prices through Amazon – mostly second-hand, I get a small commission if you buy one) – and, problem solved. It’s just another adventure on the way to the next adventure.

Right away, that tells me that Space Opera has to be based on an optimistic technologically-savvy era, far removed from the cultural shift of the 1970s. No matter how dark, a Space Opera is inherently Utopian in premise – some examples just bury that premise very deeply. Star Wars is fundamentally Utopian.

It’s up to the GM to create that gung-ho attitude amongst his players, and the best place to start is with an example like the one offered, and a galactic economy that supports a nigh-infinite economic strength.

There’s an element of the Swashbuckling, as well – did you ever stop to think about where ships come from in Pirate games? They just appear in ports at the speed of plot, ‘gifts’ from the governments that build them – and there’s always enough money to buy / build another one.

IGE – Look Beyond The Obvious

I think that I’ve amply demonstrated both the power and usefulness of the general principle with the analysis above. If there are only two takeaways from everything in the post to date, it would be that principle and the corollary, Look Beyond The Obvious for your campaign’s economic foundations.

As originally formulated, that’s where this article was going to end.

But, shown by the table of contents, there’s a lot more to come. But first, a little backstory – heavily censored to keep secrets from players.

As part of an adventure that’s currently being worked on, a list of antiquities has been generated. Some are inherently valuable, some valuable because of who is referenced by them or who created them, some have cultural or historical value, and so on. Most were available to the purchaser relatively cheaply, and said purchaser had a canny eye for objects that would appreciate in value significantly.

Which begs the question, how much are they worth?

I put together a spreadsheet to attempt to answer that question, but hadn’t put enough thought into the mechanics that were to be embedded within the mathematics of the spreadsheet. And it started to get very complicated.

And then i thought of another approach – one that could be described, ready-to-implement, in this article, where it seemed to fit like a glove.

IGE at the personal scale

When you get right down to it, there are three basic types of possession:

• Basic – The possession, an object, just is, and won’t change significantly in value – ever – from a campaign perspective. It has an intrinsic value / replacement cost, that’s it. Simple examples include a character’s personal weapon, the clothes on his back, and so on.
• Depreciating – Anything that wears out or declines in value is a depreciating asset. The word simply means that it loses value over time. That’s normally too technical a matter to keep track of in an RPG, but there’s a way to use the information to your benefit, as you’ll see. The simplest example is a credit card or cheque account (remember those?), where fees and interest erode the balance.
• Appreciating – This means that it’s going up in value faster than it’s going down, for a net increase in value over time. The simplest example is a bank account that pays interest.

It’s important to keep the type of possession in mind when determining the value at some time other than the time of creation, or the current value of something created at some other time and place. I’ve helped out with a list of valuables a little later, but first, some general principles…

Valuing Possessions

Every GM needs to have a process for determining the cost / value of objects in their campaign. I remember in one of the early adventures in the Zenith-3 Regency campaign, the players stumbled over a bunch of high-end thieves (which I had modeled on

The Circus Of Crime
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix8/circus_of_crime.htm

). I renamed the leader Psyche, and made the Circus Assassins For Hire (who commit a little a lot of Robberies to cover their tracks amongst other motives. To create the appropriate sense of awe and anger amongst the PCs, I generated a list of unsolved major robberies – 5½ pages long, about 16 items per page, net value of 1701.7 Million 2055 British £.

Curiously, the thing that got them most worked up was the following entry:

Year/No: 2029/2
Report #: 2029598407
Victim: Adela Evangelina Love
Value: 44.5 £m
Object: Puppet – Original hand-puppet, “Kermit The Frog” (Children’s television Workshop/Jim Henson)

5½x16= roughly 88 stolen objects of considerable value. That’s a lot to invent off the top of your head, even doing it over time and in advance. And even once I had done so, and created the list of Victims, I had to try and come up with reasonable valuations for them all. How much should the original Kermit be worth, exactly a century after his first television appearance?

As I recall, I was running short of time and couldn’t devote deep thought to the question back then.

The Valuation process involves 6 factors to produce an Inherent Value, and a second set of 8 factors to get a final valuation.

Avoiding Mathematics

The basic premise behind the new approach is to avoid mathematics as much as possible. You decide on how much more something is worth, taking each additional factor into account, write it down and move on.

Choice

It’s the GM’s choice how big a role each factor should play and what the ultimate valuation should be. In fact, my original idea for the worksheet that I have generated was a simple checklist.

Random Choice

There may well be times when you have literally no idea. When that happens, roll 3d6 and record the result, divided by 10, in the appropriate space on the worksheet. The GM then gets to decide what that actually means in terms of the value.



3d6 was chosen because it delivers a genuine bell curve. 10 was chosen because it’s almost exactly the average and it’s a nice round number, making for easy maths.

To be honest, though, it gives extreme results a little too frequently; the ideal rate would be about half as frequently. But more dice is more inconvenient, and it’s just a guideline for the GM to interpret, so it’s not worth doing anything more complicated. 6d6/20 would be more accurate but not worth the extra effort.

I will be providing, with each factor, some sort of guideline for interpretation.

Maths for those who insist

While I’m going to avoid maths as much as possible, I will take a moment in discussing each valuation factor to describe the maths that would be involved, from a conceptual point of view.



I thought it might be useful to throw in a small-sized screen capture of the worksheet before I start digging into specifics. This image is now out of date, the worksheet has been completely redesigned. Much of what is written below will carry over, but not all of it. Click this link to open, in a new tab, the discussion post and download link to version 2.0 of the worksheet – for when you are finished reading here, of course!

Basic Possessions: Value

Most of what a character is carrying for use will have whatever value the “book” assigns them. That doesn’t mean that you can’t use this system to value them, just that you usually don’t have to.

On the other hand, if a character wants a jeweled pommel, and gold-inlaid motto, and other decorative touches, the possession starts to move beyond the basic valuation provided in the sourcebooks. That’s where this system comes into its own.

Always remember that the book value is the General price for a New version of the item. Second-hand will be worth half, or less. Rarity / Demand or other factors could double it or more. So even in these matters, the GM is required to make a few decisions based on the economy, both ‘globally’ and ‘locally’.

Inherent Value

The inherent value is value that can’t be eradicated.

Functionality

The object has a certain value because of what it does. In some cases and settings, this can be 75% of the total inherent value, for example firearms, swords, etc. In other cases, like jewelry, the functionality is often near-zero; the major exception is when the object has a socially-defined symbolic value. A wedding ring has a definite functional value to be taken into account, for example.

As a rule of thumb, assume that the functionality value includes the value of standard materials used in construction of the possession.

I have to admit that when I was adding this category, I was thinking about High-tech tools and such, and Magic within an object. A “Flame Tongue” sword has functional value because of the magical plus, and still more from the Flame Tongue ability.

You should never decide functionality value with a die roll. I can’t stop you, but you shouldn’t do it. That’s because the function doesn’t change, and so neither should its value.

Some readers may argue that demand for some functions will be higher than others, and that’s true – but already factored in, and with a later section (under ‘Appraised Value’) dealing with social desirability, this argument is moot.

Materials

Since standard materials are already taken into account, this category is purely for the exotic.

Materials includes gemstones and rare / precious metals and anything else along similar lines.

Purity is also a big factor – and value is not directly proportionate to purity, because some purity levels are rarer than others. 24-carat cold is not the most pure you can get – but it’s relatively rare, compared to both 22- carat (less pure) and 26-carat gold.

It’s complications (I’m tempted to say ‘perversions’) like this that complicate what should be a straightforward valuation.

A high roll could indicate that a rare purity of metal was used, or that there are some exotic materials, or something along those lines. And don’t neglect the possibility that the dice are telling you of a fancy scabbard or holster!

Labor

There’s a labor cost involved in turning the raw materials into the finished product, but in the case of standard materials, those will already be included in the functionality valuation.

This is for any extra work unskilled required to incorporate exotic materials or designs into the possession that isn’t already taken into account.

That’s an important point to note: if your materials includes the value of cut gems, then the cost of the gem-cutting is already included; if it doesn’t, for some reason, the gem-cutting would need to be included here.

A high roll here indicates that someone has taken extra care in manufacturing the object, or that a particularly labor-intensive process was used for some reason. A low roll indicates that the work was done in haste, corners were cut, and so on. Or, perhaps that the object was actually made by an apprentice – supervised or otherwise.

Skilled Labor

I thought about having just one category for Labor but realized that not all craftsmen are equal, and the ability to distinguish one labor source from another might be important.

For example, you could list the gem-cutting under ‘unskilled’ labor because it was done by someone far less skilled than the artisan who set the gems into a decorative brooch made of white gold, yellow gold (22-carat), and silver. Or it might be the other way around. Whatever – two or more sets of craftsmen are more easily dealt with by separating them out.

A high die roll here indicates exceptional use of skilled labor – some people insisting on being involved in the whole process, even those parts that can usually be trusted to others.

This isn’t so much about the skill of the artisans, it’s about the time that they have invested in the production, and how much more they expect in recompense..

History

This is about the Reputation / Name Recognition of the Crafter, not of any owner.

This can be a substantial contributor to value in the case of rare books, and – in the modern eras – of jewelry, for example. Some weapons manufacturers have a certain level of brand recognition that adds to the cache – who hasn’t heard of a Winchester Rifle, or a Colt .45? Or, for that matter, a pair of Adidas sneakers?

There can be cases when this is 95% or more of the valuation. One of the treasures that has been placed in the adventure that drove the creation of this section are Ostracon from ancient Greece. These are sherds of pottery in which a name has been scratched into the glaze.

In Classical Athens, when the decision at hand was to banish or exile a certain member of society, citizen peers would cast their vote by writing the name of the person on the shard of pottery; the vote was counted and, if unfavorable, the person was exiled for a period of ten years from the city, thus giving rise to the term ostracism.

— Wikipedia, Ostracon

Of course, some people carried prepared ‘votes’ around with them in case the opportunity arose to exile someone of whom they disapproved.



‘Plato’ in Greek (actually, ‘Platon’, a direct translation)

So, our treasure-hunter has acquired three of these bearing the name Plato – who, like all Philosophers, voiced unwelcome thoughts attacking the status quo from time to time, or so they were perceived. For all that many Greeks were enthusiastic supporters, he would have had enemies – people he had humiliated in debates, for example.

How much are they worth? A cent or so – until you add in the History and social purpose of the objects, and suddenly they shoot up in value. Maybe not very far, but high enough to be significant little treasures. That part of the valuation comes later, however.

I bring them up to ask: How much more would they be worth if it could be proven that they were owned by another prominent Greek who was contemporary with Plato?

That’s the value that gets encapsulated in this section.

The example should make interpretation of a random roll result fairly obvious, but it’s worth mentioning that even unproven or disputed claims can increase inherent value – not as much as authenticated value, but more than nothing.

One more example: Paul Revere (and his son) were famous as Silversmiths. Anything made by Revere is worth more than an identical object of identical vintage that was produced by a nobody. How much more? That’s for you to decide – but a factor of 10 wouldn’t be out of line, given his fame as both a high-quality Silversmith and a Founding Father.

Workmanship

Which brings me to Workmanship. Some objects can’t be ruined; others can be transformed by poor craftsmanship into scrap.

Before you can interpret Workmanship and factor it into you valuation, you have to decide into which of these camps the object belongs.

If a bronze statue comes out of the mold flawed, you simply melt the bronze down again while fixing the mold. But an unskilled baker can reduce flour, sugar, and eggs into a blackened mess of absolutely no value.

As a general rule, it’s the ability to undo or correct a flaw that separates one category from the other.

If a possession can’t be ruined, all you are looking for is the amount of value that gets added for craftsmanship. If a possession can be ruined, then poor craftsmanship should reduce the value of the object – while excellent craftsmanship should have an amplified impact on the valuation.

Putting it all together

There are two basic techniques, and either of them is valid. In the first, you write down the contributions of the factor to the total value; in the second, you take the previous line’s value and update it to include the influence of the factor in question.

Most of the time, I would expect to use the ‘as you go’ second option, but there may be time when I want the additional specificity of the former.

A third approach is possible – writing a multiplier in each space after the functional valuation, then doing a lengthy multiplication with a calculator. This is a more accurate representation of the effect of these variables, but it’s a very hard thing to get right, and it can be a right pain finding the one value that’s out of whack (assuming you only got one wrong)!

So this isn’t the recommended approach – but it remains possible if you insist on it.

Appraised Value

One you have an inherent value nailed down, it’s time to contemplate the broader factors that can influence the value placed upon an object.

I want to start by mentioning a factor that was in early drafts of the process and that has now been dropped, “Demand”. This is a driving factor in “Appreciation” and so has been subsumed into that heading.

Rarity

This is a can be a complicated thing to assess. Is something that was rare at the time it was made, but likely to have survived, rated more highly than something that was once present in large numbers but rarely survives?

Do you take age into account when deciding rarity, in other words?

The answer is no. This is purely an assessment based on how rare the possession is at the moment of valuation. And it’s always a value relative to similar objects.

The higher a die roll, the more one-of-a-kind the possession is. If that doesn’t tally with your description, you have multiple options:

1. you can amend the description to boost the uniqueness to match your roll.
2. you can interpret your die roll, not as an absolute, but as a point within a range of results that does tally with the description (my recommended approach).
3. you can re-roll, or just ignore the roll.

Age

I thought seriously about redacting the ‘random roll’ element for age guidance – if you can’t tell how old something is from the description, your description is incomplete.

But then I realized that descriptions might be incomplete, and that random roll used to discern one possible source period over another.

A low roll could indicate that the whole possession is a clever fake, wiping out almost all of the value.

And even if you know from whence a possession derives – be it 100 or 4000 years ago – there is going to be a fudge factor involved, a range. Whether an object dates from early in that period or late can also have an impact on the value.

So the dice roll in this category is not completely worthless.

An even bigger question is how much age should increase value? After devoting considerable thought to this question, I have come to the conclusion that it’s going to be different for every general class of object, and decidedly non-linear in all cases. A large question is going to be the lifetime of the possession and how far through that lifetime this particular example is.

To ensure clarity and consistency, I can only suggest that you process like possessions at the same time – and use past valuations as a guideline.

As a rule of thumb: from age 50 to age 100, antiques used to rise in value 10-20 fold – from a depreciated base price. From 100-1000 years, it’s 100-200-fold in most cases, relative to that depreciated base value. From 2000-4000 years, it’s 1000-2000 fold from the same base. But that’s a big variation.

An example to close out the sub-section: An object with an inherent value of $100 depreciates at the rate of about 2% a year, or about $2. If it was $2 per year, at the end of the 50 years, it would have an inherent value of 0 – but that’s not a correct assessment. The value is 98% of what it was at the end of each passing year, so the reduction gets smaller as the value drops. The formula is

100 x [ (1 – loss/100) ^ (N-1) ].

So, in this case, 100 x [ (1 – 2/100)^(50-1) ] = 100 x [0.98^49] = 37.16% of the original value. So the base value is $37.16 at the point it becomes an antique, and starts – theoretically – appreciating in value as a result.

Add another 50 years of age, and we’re talking $371.60 to $743.20. Call it $370-740.

Add another 100 years, and you’re into the lower reaches of a 100-200 fold increase – let’s use a factor of 105; multiplied by $37.16, that becomes $3901.80. 700 years later, and we’re in the upper reaches of the range – maybe a factor of 180, or a value of $6688.80.

Of course, technically, the object should have continued to depreciate for those additional years. But that’s a complication we don’t need right now.

Because here’s the thing – this increase is only a guideline. We’re not appreciating the value, that comes later; we’re trying to assess the increase in value because of rarity. The two questions are not unrelated, but you also have to take into account the rate of decay of the materials, state of preservation, and any similar factors. Since the estimated value impact doesn’t take any of these factors into account, it can be used as a base valuation, but has to be modified.

Note that 2% is relatively slow for a devaluation. Tech generally depreciates at 10-20% a year; non-tech at 5-10% if it’s relatively flimsy (cheap furniture, for example) or 2-5% if it’s sturdy.

Provenance

Was the object owned or used by someone famous? There are a number of gradations to such claims, and each one has a marked influence over how big a deal this is.

At the top of the scale, we have documented authenticated unquestionable proof. 1000 or more times the reference price is possible, but the amount has to be determined by you.

Below that, accepted as probably genuine. These can be hundreds of times more valuable than the reference price.

Then there’s contested, in which some experts say yes, and some no. This gets you about half of the potential increase – and that is something that you’ll have to determine.

Below that are untested claims. They rank higher than the next category down because there is an unknown possibility that the claim is correct. +10-20%, and more often toward the lower end of that value..

The second-lowest value is rejected claims. That happens when the authority doing the authenticating simply isn’t convinced. Note that this isn’t the end of the road – more evidence may be out there somewhere, prompting a reassessment. It doesn’t happen often, but it does happen. In the meantime, the object will lose up to half its reference value.

Below that are proven or presumed forgeries and fakes. These generally lose 90% or so of their value, and may even be ordered destroyed by the authority in question.

Note that this factor may already have been incorporated into rarity, in whole or in part.

Wear & Tear

Depreciation takes into account regular wear-and-tear; this category is for exceptional, out-of-normal damage. It always reduces the value of a possession. The question, as usual, is how much?

If the damage can be repaired invisibly, it might be a negligible amount.

If the damage can be repaired, but imperfectly, it’s going to be a more substantial reduction.

If the damage can’t be repaired, the loss can be significant – unless the damage itself is directly tied to the rarity of the object, and the historical significance is why repairs are out of the question, in which case the value can actually be increased. The Liberty Bell is a good example of the latter. The damage to the White House when the British set fire to it is another.

Depreciation

There comes a point at which a possession is considered valueless aside from any sentimental value.

But here’s the thing: the longer a possession depreciates, the smaller the impact of depreciation. In the earlier example, I calculated the effects of depreciation at 2% over 50 years as turning $100 into $37.60. Let’s expand that out:

50 years = 100*0.98^49 = 37.60%. Loss = 100-37.6 = 62.4%.
100 years = 100*0.98^99 = 13.53%. Loss: = 37.6-13.53 = 24.07%.
200 years = 100*0.98^199 = 1.79%. Loss = 13.53-1.79 = 11.74%
500 years = 100*0.98^499 = 0.0042%. Loss = 1.79-0.0042 = 1.7858%.

The loss per year is more informative:

50 years = 62.4 / 50 = 1.248% per year.
100 years = 24.07 / 50 = 0.4814% per year.
200 years = 11.74 / 100 = 0.1174% per year.
500 years = 1.7858 / 300 = 0.00595% per year.

Depreciation becomes a negligible factor after a while if a possession starts appreciating due to antiquity and increasing rarity.

The higher the depreciation rate, the more quickly this happens – and the above are the impact of just 2% depreciation. If the rate were 5% instead, you would expect it to happen at least 2 1/2 times as fast, maybe more.

Furthermore, it can be considered that the increases due to rarity compensate fully for those losses – so it’s the 50-year mark that is of concern.

2% at 50 years = 37.6% value.
5% at 50 years = 8.1% value.
10% at 50 years = 0.57% value.
20% at 50 years = 0.00178% value.

50-year old tech is essentially worthless – as tech. As a product, it may be worth thousands of times the original purchase price – a Ferrari sports car for example. Put a 50-year-old example up for auction and you can be certain of attracting interest!

Inflation
Another factor to consider is inflation – which, by making each dollar worth less, means that it takes more dollars to equal the value of a possession.

Inflation is like Depreciation in reverse. Except that the amount keeps varying.

Assuming a typical overall inflation rate is going to be a lot less accurate and a lot easier. In the bad years of the 1970s, inflation might well have a 10 in front of it, but most of the time, it’s a lot less. Maybe 3-5%.

So, let’s use 4% and see how that affects those depreciation values:

2% depreciation vs 4% inflation over 50 years = (1.04^49)*37.6% = 6.833 * 37.6 = 256.9208%.
2% depreciation vs 4% inflation over 100 years = (1.04^99)*8.1% = 48.56 * 8.1 = 393.336%.
2% depreciation vs 4% inflation over 200 years = (1.04^199)*0.57% = 2452.6 * 0.57 = 1397.982%.
2% depreciation vs 4% inflation over 500 years = (1.04^499)*0.00178% = 315,963,059 * 0.00178 = 562,414%.

Inflation grows more significant with increasing time. It more than compensates for the ongoing decline due to appreciation if it is higher than the depreciation rate – if I had run the above calculations with a 2% inflation rate, inflation would have exactly matched depreciation and I would have gotten 100% each and every time.

Inflation isn’t the same everywhere, and that’s what to read into any random die roll – how bad it was in a relevant location relative to the overall standard.

(Of course, by making the dollar smaller, Inflation also cuts earning power even as it puts prices up, a double whammy – which then becomes a triple whammy when pay rates go up in compensation, ironically pushing interest rates up or – at best – keeping it where it already sits.

Appreciation

So, we’ve covered how much value something gets from increased rarity. Now it’s time to talk about how much it increases in value just because it’s older – assuming that rarity doesn’t change.

This works in exactly the same way as inflation except that the actual value of the possession is increasing.

It’s often not as fast, at least for the first 50 years or so. In fact, it’s easier to assume that there is little or no appreciation until that time, then to load on a whole-dollar estimate rather than doing calculations.

Different types of possessions will have different appreciation rates.

The other factor to take into account in determining appreciation is supply vs demand. Demand higher than supply pushes prices up, demand lower than supply pushes them down.

We’re discussing demand for this particular object, or for anything similar enough to replace it, so bear that in mind.

Artworks can appreciate in value incredibly quickly, at least for a while. The values placed on some of these can be absolutely staggering – and, as they age, are only likely to go up in price.

The current record was set in 2017 (pre-pandemic, obviously) at $450.3 million (USD, presumably), for a work attributed to Leonardo da Vinci called “Salvator Mundi, the Savior of the World” (if the title is translated into English).

It is enormously helpful to have some idea of the degree of recognition an artist received and when. Some artists became famous while still productive; others found fame only after passing away.

The Antique Furniture Lesson: Social Factors

The other day, I read an answer on Quora stating that the bottom had fallen out of the antiques market. Furniture and objects that were worth $250K USD at the time of purchase were not worth the cost of having them hauled away (that’s what I call a collapse!).

The antique market, it seems, has been flooded by all the elderly people with their huge antique collections, dying, while – at the same time – younger, more affluent types were no longer interested in paying $20K for an antique dressing table.

Note that I have no knowledge of the situation either way – I am simply reporting it as an illustration of the profound impact on value of social factors.

Of course, the market has likely over-corrected, and a lot of the (ahem) less-valuable pieces will get destroyed, one way or another, driving up the rarity and desirability of what’s left until some rational equilibrium is achieved.

The answer referenced dates from October 13, 2023, but describes historical findings from about 20 years earlier. That’s plenty of time for the worm to have already turned – but you also need to factor Covid Lockdowns and the consequent social and psychological changes into account – living at home emphasizes functionality and purpose and comfort above all other considerations; so the situation may well have re-reversed itself, too!

I would recommend that any die roll results be evaluated with reference to some baseline; some things are always going to have incredibly high social value. If your instincts are that social valuation should at least double the value of an item, use the minimum roll result as indicating just that, and anything better as suggesting a valuation in excess of that doubling.

Beyond that, if the dice indicate an exceptionally low social valuation, you have to ask yourself why? The best answer is, no matter how exquisitely wrought, some objects raise uncomfortable questions for a prospective owner, and some are simply ugly or inconvenient in some way.

The opposite is also true – an amateur painter can paint a single breathtaking landscape throughout their ‘career’, never becoming famous; it will be worth a pittance in every way except social factors, where it gets a bonus for simply being pretty.

The Religious Factor

Religion always has the potential to mess everything up, and this process is no exception. Why? Because it inflates the value for some people massively while excoriating ti for others. The purely pragmatic will adopt a value somewhere in the middle, which is probably more correct than either extreme – but there are exceptions.

I remember, twenty-odd years ago, seeing adverts for pieces of the original cross. And for pieces of the original ark. And for an ‘original scan’ of the Shroud Of Turin.

Now, I’m not saying that any of these were fakes, or deceptions; nor am I suggesting that people didn’t get what they paid for. I’ll leave such implications to the imagination of the reader. But – how many pieces of the original cross were there that they can be sold over the internet at $20 a pop? I have my doubts…

But there are true believers out there, and they would and did buy such items indiscriminately, with boundless zeal. (Which did give rise at one point to thoughts of an adventure in which a believer was inadvertently shipped the real thing…)

The religious factor is an attempt to put a Conditional Adjustment on the valuation. It should be self-evident to whom the adjustment applies, but the GM is free to play with that in his plot – I remember a storyline (but forget the source) in which a collector of art buys a famous work, only to publicly destroy it before a horrified audience. Why? Because there were five, there are now only four, and he owns three of them – the appreciation for his remaining collection more than compensates for the loss…

More to the point, perhaps, I can easily say an enemy shelling out the premium price in order to destroy or suppress an object with the potential for undermining their own authority. Even a fake can be extremely valuable, if it raises the right doubts at the right time, and worth paying to eliminate.

(Suddenly, my mind is flashing back to the warehouse scene that concludes the original Indiana Jones movie…)

The Sentiment Factor

The final factor is the most nebulous of them all, because it is a function of the psychology of the prospective seller. Sentimental value can inflate a price five-fold or cause a seller to dispose of a possession at fire-sale prices. Neither option affects the true value of the object in question.

The Mathematics (or lack thereof)

The values that in combination yield the Inherent Value are additive, even if you estimate them based on a multiple of the prior value.

     Value X x factor Y = revised value Z

really means,

     ‘Add a value contribution equal to (value X x factor Y) – Value X to get revised value Z’.

That’s not the case with the Appraised factors – these are multipliers.

What’s more, in several cases, they are multipliers which derive from the principle of “A change every B years”. Again, the simplest example is a compound interest bank account.

The maths can quickly grow horrendously complicated. At one point, I thought it might be possible to establish a common foundation term (five years or ten years), determine a modifier over that time frame, take logarithms and simple add and subtract the results across all the different categories to get a net change over the lifetime of the object (less the initial 50 years).

It didn’t work; it bogged down, and got too technical for practical usage. I wanted a system that was simple enough for a GM to work in his head if he had to, using this article or the worksheet as a checklist.

Mathematics are used in the sections above purely to give a sense of what the scale of adjustments should be.

Remember The Bottom Line

And always, remember the bottom line: the valuation derived is purely theoretical, the real value of a possession is what someone else will pay for it – as modified by what they can afford to pay for it!.

The Worksheet

Okay, so I have been referencing the Worksheet throughout this article; it’s time to talk directly about it.



Click to download Campaign Mastery’s Free Asset Valuation Worksheet Click to read about and download version 2.0 of Campaign Mastery’s Free Asset Valuation Worksheet!

The Zip file contains the following:

• Worksheet, A4 size, PDF format
• Worksheet, A4 size, OpenDocument Text format (the original file)
• Worksheet, A4 size, Word 97-2003 format (.doc – an export that may or may not display properly)
• Worksheet, US Letter size, PDF format
• Worksheet, US Letter size, OpenDocument Text format
• Worksheet, US Letter size, Word 97-2003 format (.doc – note as A4 version).

…none of which is true anymore. This archive file has been removed and replaced. Go to Asset Valuation Worksheet 2.0 to read about and download the updated zip file (which still contains the legacy versions as well).

Usage

I am including the non-PDF versions because they can be filled out electronically and so provide maximum legibility. The chief danger of doing so is that you can overwrite your original. For that reason, I STRONGLY advise that the first thing you do is to ‘save as’ the file, renaming accordingly – or never open the original file at all, just a renamed copy.

Beyond that, usage is as described in the above text. The worksheet permits up to five valuations per page – I could have fitted more, but the description slot was the limiting factor. I thought about an ‘index’ section oriented differently to the current layout as an alternative, but by the time I’d added space for documenting any random rolls, I didn’t think I’d get many more across the page (my first draft actually had space for 7 valuations but felt too cramped).

Finally, if you don’t use the ‘factor’ column for 3d6 results, you can put a reference number in there, pointing to relevant notes on the reverse of the page.

Always, assume that at some future point, you may have to explain to yourself why you have made a valuation decision. This not only helps focus your mind into concrete terms right now, while using the worksheet, it can be invaluable when you have to revisit a valuation months or years later.

Valuables Types

As I was writing the preceding sections, I was always considering specific types of possession and how they would work within the appraisals process. This was largely so that I could make the process as universally relevant as possible, but it had the side effect of bringing various thoughts to mind as I went.

Consider this section as more of an appendix, providing specific notes regarding the valuation of specific types of valuable.

Land

Land never – well, almost never – depreciates. The caveat comes from traumatic events like damming waterways, redirecting rivers to new courses, etc. These events tend to be rare, tend to be the work of governments, and are often subjects for compensation claims.

The reason is that there is a fixed supply of conveniently-located land, and as populations grow, so will the demand for same.

Buildings

Buildings, on the other hand, DO depreciate.

It can be argued that there is a point at which the building is essentially valueless, and the point at which depreciation brings the net value down to that value defines the natural lifespan of the structure.

The corollary is that you can decide what the lifespan of a structure is intended to be (assuming regular routine maintenance), and determine the depreciation rate that matches.

Both are useful techniques to have in your back pocket.

Variable Lifespan, simple depreciation rate

Buildings in Australia are generally considered to depreciate at 2.5% every year for 40 years after construction, at which point they are valueless for rental properties. This is simple depreciation, based on the original valuation, not getting smaller each year.

But the US Rental market uses 3.636% each year for 27.5 years – which works out to a total loss of value if you use simple depreciation.

And the US Tax Office says that depreciation should be an equal share of the initial value divided over 39 years of aging – again, simple depreciation.

The reality is that all of these are simplifying the calculations to avoid confusing the lay public and make investment and tax returns simpler to complete and check.

And the underlying and unstated assumptions are that we’re talking about ‘modern’ buildings, i.e. those constructed in the last 40 (or 27.5) years.

In ages past, some buildings were built to last. Many medieval castles are still standing (if in need of substantial repairs) – they would have a lifespan on the order of 400 years. The exceptions generally come from warfare. 100-year-old barns are in a similar state. 50-year old log cabins, ditto.

Substantial renovations can ‘restart the clock’. That’s why there are old buildings in many cities that are still viable rental properties / homes.

All of which means that you need to take into account not only when the building was constructed but what it’s purpose was, and when it was last renovated top-to-bottom.

Simple depreciation doesn’t work for our purposes, but it does illuminate the basic settings.

Let’s set a ‘zero level’ – $2000 value remaining on a $50,000 initial investment. If the original was $250,000, the ‘zero level’ is a value of $10,000. These are the points at which it is more cost effective to remove the rubble and build anew.

The formula is:

y – 1 = log 0.04 / log [1-(D/100)]. But I’ve done all the math for you (I’ve only shown the working for the first value):

Depreciation Rate: 10%: y – 1 = log(2/50) / log [1- (2.5/100)]
     = -1.398 / log (0.9)
     = -1.398 / -0.0458
     = 30.5; so Y = 31 years.

More than anything else, this shows the stark difference between ‘real’ depreciation and ‘simple’ depreciation.

Depreciation Rate: 9%: Y = 35 years.
Depreciation Rate: 8%: Y = 39 years.
Depreciation Rate: 7%: Y = 45 years.
Depreciation Rate: 6%: Y = 53 years.
Depreciation Rate: 5% Y = 63 years.
Depreciation Rate: 4.5%: Y = 70 years.
Depreciation Rate: 4%: Y = 79 years.
Depreciation Rate: 3.5%: Y = 91 years.
Depreciation Rate: 3.25%: Y = 98 years.
Depreciation Rate: 3%: Y = 106 years.
Depreciation Rate: 2.75%: Y = 116 years.
Depreciation Rate: 2.5%: Y = 128 years.
Depreciation Rate: 2.25%: Y = 142 years.
Depreciation Rate: 2%: Y = 160 years.
Depreciation Rate: 1.5%: Y = 213 years.
Depreciation Rate: 1%: Y = 321 years.
Depreciation Rate: 0.75%: Y = 428 years.
Depreciation Rate: 0.5%: Y = 643 years.
Depreciation Rate: 0.4% Y = 804 years.
Depreciation Rate: 0.3%: Y = 1,072 years.
Depreciation Rate: 0.2%: Y = 1,608 years.
Depreciation Rate: 0.1%: Y = 3,218 years.
Depreciation Rate: 0.09%: Y = 3,575 years.
Depreciation Rate: 0.08%: Y = 4,022 years.
Depreciation Rate: 0.07%: Y = 4,597 years.
Depreciation Rate: 0.06%: Y = 5,364 years.
Depreciation Rate: 0.05%:Y = 6,437 years.
Depreciation Rate: 0.04%:Y = 8,046 years.
Depreciation Rate: 0.03%:Y = 10,728 years.
Depreciation Rate: 0.02%:Y = 16,093 years.
Depreciation Rate: 0.01%:Y = 32,188 years.
Depreciation Rate: 0.0032188% = 100,001 years.
Depreciation Rate: 0.001%:Y = 321,886 years.

Note that I’ve carried this far farther than would normally be needed, to accommodate realistic building lifespans, simply because magic in Fantasy campaigns (and superhero campaigns!) can have unusual applications. You want a dungeon to be 2000 years old? A depreciation rate of 0.05% means that it’s a crumbling ruin (perhaps granting access for the very first time), 0.025% means that it’s still got 1600 years or so on the warranty.

Predetermined Lifespan, derived depreciation rate

This is arguably the more useful value, though – one in which you pick a lifespan and calculate a depreciation rate to match.

The formula is

D = 100 – 10^[2 + (-1.39794 / (Y-0.5))]

Note that the “-0.5” is needed to correct a rounding error.

Unfortunately, this is a little more complicated than the previous formula. Again, I’m only going to show working for the first example.

Y=10: D = 100 – 10^[2 + (-1.39794 / (Y-1))]
     = 100 – 10^[2 + (-1.39794 / (9.5))]
     = 100 – 10^[2 + (-0.1471516)]
     = 100 – 10^[1.85285)]
     = 100 – 71.26 = 28.74%.

Y=15: D= 19.91
Y=20: D= 15.22
Y=25: D= 12.31
Y=40: D= 7.83
Y=50: D= 6.30
Y=80: D= 3.97
Y=100: D= 3.18
Y=120: D= 2.66
Y=150: D= 2.13
Y=200: D= 1.601
Y=250: D= 1.282
Y=300: D= 1.069
Y=400: D= 0.802
Y=500: D= 0.642
Y=750: D= 0.429
Y=1000: D= 0.322
Y=1500: D= 0.214
Y=2000: D= 0.161
Y=2500: D= 0.129
Y=3000: D= 0.107
Y=3500: D= 0.0919
Y=4000: D= 0.0804
Y=5000: D= 0.0644
Y=10,000: D= 0.0322
NB: doubling Y has halved D – a useful shortcut!

Y=20,000: D= 0.0161
Y=50,000: D= 0.0644
Y=100,000: D= 0.0322
Y=200,000: D= 0.00161
Y=500,000: D= 0.000644
Y=1,000,000: D= 0.000322
Y=10,000,000: D= 0.0000322
Y=100,000,000: D= 0.00000322
NB: increasing Y by a factor of 10 divides D by 10 – another useful shortcut!

Again, I’ve carried this table of results to ridiculous lengths to accommodate the most outrageous concepts. 100 million years ago, Earth was right in the middle of the Cretaceous period (66-145 million years ago); the dinosaurs of the era were reaching their peak in size, including Argentinosaurus and Patagotitan, which may be the largest land animals in history.



This stamp from Armenia depicts Argentinosaurus in what is believed to be its natural environment (most artists focus on the later days when Velociraptors and T Rexes were about). And yes, a number of the ‘creatures’ depicted in the Jurassic Park movies were actually from this period. Image Credit: Post of Armenia, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons (Summary of relevant Armenian Copyright law on the file page)

There was little or not ice at the North or South poles; at some points in the period, sea levels were 170 meters higher than today.

So that’s the sort of timescale we’re talking about with later entries on the table.

Vehicles

Cars can lose 58% of their value in three years, 49% in four, and 40% in five, according to Wikipedia. And right away, there’s a logical problem – those numbers might be what the value drops to, but there’s no way that’s a reasonable depreciation statement.

Ramsey Solutions (credit where it’s due) suggest 9-11% value loss the minute you drive it off the lot, 20% value loss in the first year, then 15-25% from that value each year until the 5-year mark – with no indication of rates beyond that. Other sites peg the rate at the maximum 25% thereafter.

Working vehicles presumably go down in value faster, because they are on the road more often and hence running up greater risks and wear-and-tear. Heavy vehicles would also suffer increased depreciation relative to passenger vehicles.

Boats – modern ones – lose 15-25% in their first year but then drop by smaller amounts until the 6th-8th year, when they are worth about half the replacement cost. After this, they decline in value quickly – 20-30% per year.

But would the rate be the same for a Spanish Galleon? Or a Viking Longship? I doubt it. As with buildings, you should base your numbers on a realistic assessment of intended lifespan, bearing in mind that it’s inherently wasteful to have a vehicle that lasts longer than its date of obsolescence.

Aircraft lose 5% to 20% per year, depending many factors including type, condition, and market demand, according to Latitude 33 Aviation. According to Forbes., 5-7% per year is typical, rising to 10-15% if heavily utilized. Since condition would be a reflection of usage and maintenance, that means that the remaining two factors – type and demand – must account for the other 5%.

Spacecraft — who knows? I’d probably use aircraft numbers.

Mines

Mine value depends on how much ore is delivered in a year, multiplied by the value given its purity, less the costs of extracting that ore, of transporting the ore safely to a market, and possibly less the costs of refining the ore.

Use the building depreciation techniques to decide how long it will be before the mine “plays out” – which may not mean that there’s no more ore, just that it’s more expensive to dig out than it’s worth.

Costs will rise with every year of production, which is the source of most of the “depreciation”.

Do some research on the value of precious metals and how they change over time. This is always useful info to have, but can be critical in valuing a mine.

Finally, note that there can be a world of difference between how long a mine is expected to be productive and how long it actually makes a profit – with the value of the ore one of the biggest factors, and the value of labor as the other.

Simple Businesses

Businesses can be the most complicated assets to value, so I make them the simplest – they cost X, they make Y per year, and they will last as long as the business, its facilities, and its products are in contemporary demand.

That last is a key point – most of the impacts on demand will blindside a business. Public tastes can shift unexpectedly, new technological innovations, rivals undercutting profits, loss of reputation, government regulation, and a dozen other possibilities can all spring from out of nowhere.

If the management and product development teams are on the ball, they can adapt with new products and the issue become a minor hiccough in corporate history – but the older a corporate entity is, the harder it is to maintain that flexibility.

As a general rule of thumb, a business should be worth the value of the buildings (depreciated for age), plus the value of the installations, plus a year’s wages for the whole company, plus five years of expected profits, less taxes to be paid in that period, and less any other liabilities.

This will almost never be an accurate reflection of the share value multiplied by the number of shares issued (in a public company), even though the two are theoretically identical. There are traders out there who make their living exploiting the difference.

Another key point is to ensure that ownership is a hassle commensurate with the profit levels. How big a hassle that is, is up to you. If it’s too much, the player has grounds for complaint; if it’s too low, it’s giving the player an in-game advantage.

Of course, this will not be a constant – misfortune and headaches routinely come in bunches. The longer smooth sailing persists, the more paranoid the owner has reason to be.

Livestock

Livestock are – if fed, watered, and cared for – money on the hoof. The life of any single beast is one of appreciating in value until adulthood is obtained, then declining value (except in the case of stud value). But to convert the potential value into reality, you generally have to get them to market – and that travel is quite capable of depreciating the value significantly.

But, when you accumulate a number of head, all this tends to even out into seasonal highs and lows, and sometimes specialist breeds and schedules can take advantage of periods of higher demand and lower supply.

There will be some natural depreciation, too, in the form of accidental deaths and criminal acts.

In modern times, profitability is a bare minimum over time; livestock are often a debt trap that can never be escaped. You are too dependent on everything going right over a significant period of time in order to achieve full potential profitability. That was less true prior to the mid-war interval, and far less true before the industrial revolution.

Old Valuables

Jewelry and the like from long ago neither appreciates much nor depreciates much. Most of the value is usually inherent, in other words, though social factors can still play a major role. There are fads in the jewelry market, the same as any other. There may also be some owner recognition that adds a little cream on the top.

What is likely to increase with age is rarity. Because of the potential to melt unwanted pieces down and rehouse gems, this is going to be a relatively slow increase.

What you do have to watch out for is the impact of supply and demand – if supply goes up, the value of past extractions goes down, and vice-versa.

Quite often, the base prices are adjusted to compensate for inflation, so that’s one headache you don’t have to deal with.

Old Rarities

Ah, the value of old furniture. I was discussing the Quora answer linked to earlier with my Pulp Co-GM, and pointed out that the perception of such antiquities always increasing in value was baked into both our experience banks – we were quite literally in a brand-new world if the story were true.

But here’s the truth – up until the mid-to-late digital age, once past the 50-year decline, furniture will still appreciate in value, so the old experience remains valid, and – in the longer term – the market will correct itself, as I suggested earlier..

Things get more interesting when you’re talking about antiquities of little inherent value but vast value from other sources. A signed order by Julius Caesar, for example – how much is that worth? The Ostracon described earlier?

These can essentially be treated as furniture without the value cliff that actual furniture has fallen down – at least somewhat. So you have a Ming Vase? It will go over the cliff, but make a soft landing, because (1) they tend to be very pretty, and (2) people will speculate that the value will eventually rebound. Quality will become more important – the better an item, the faster it is likely to rebound.

So the question becomes, where is the level of that soft landing? I would suggest that it’s between 20 and 30% of the peak value if the item has intrinsic attractiveness or historical or social or religious value, and 10% if it lacks all of the above – and half that much if its not pretty to look at.

Cultural Relics

It’s the same story with cultural relics, except that these are likely to be even slower to rebound, because they are often less visually-attractive. Other factors can make up the difference, though.

A huge differential will be whether or not the culture still exists – if it does, there will be an ongoing supply that will water down and slow any recovery (but which may have mitigated the decline in the first place); if not, finding more is increasingly unlikely with every year that passes, and so rarity will restore the value more quickly.

Artworks

I’ve talked about art elsewhere, but it’s worth reiterating: A painting that was $20 at the time of painting can be worth $200,000,000 today. Most of them aren’t.

Pick an artist who’s right for the time of painting – google can be quite helpful – then do a search for “Value of works by [name]” and proceed from there.

In a fantasy or future-set campaign, where artists and art movements generally have to be invented out of whole cloth, pick somebody to be a doppelganger and translate their careers into suitable events and terminology.

Don’t neglect the impact of historical influence in making this decision; if there was a war twenty years ago in your canon, pick an artist from a period about 20 years after a major conflict.

I also suggest that you use artists you’ve never heard of, saving those with name-recognition cache for when you need them specifically. How much more valuable will a Rembrandt be, should one survive, 100,000 years from now?

Basic Valuables

Your basic valuables won’t change very much from Inherent to Appraised value. The possible exception lies in social factors.

It is equally important to note where the character is attempting to buy or sell an item – location can have a profound impact on demand, which in turn has a profound impact on value.

Mementos & Personal Treasures

These will have (relatively) colossal sentimental value, which is just as well because they are otherwise fairly valueless – until the character that owns them starts getting name recognition and fame, or gets mixed up in historical events. Once that happens, they can start acquiring historic value beyond the base.

Genre Notes

Heading for the home stretch, I have some general advice for the way different genres should handle their economics. I’ll try to keep these brief.

Fantasy

According to the US Treasury Department,

Depreciation accounting, as we recognize it today, began in the 1830’s and 1840’s with the advent and growth of industries employing expensive and long-lived assets. Railroads, in particular, were concerned with problems of accounting for the deterioration, repair, and replacement of plant and equipment.

— OTA Paper 64 – A History of Federal Tax Depreciation Policy (PDF)

Which means that prior to the beginnings of the industrial age, values were deemed inherent – even when that wasn’t the case. Rarity, Social and Religious factors, the fame of past owners – these would still have been relevant even in that era.

To the greatest extent possible, keep your economics as simple as you can, at least until your campaign reaches the politics / strongholds phase. Use the system to set a value for possessions, but don’t break it down for the players. “It costs X, you think it’s worth Y” is as deep as you should go.

Pulp

The economics of Pulp are also better served by not bothering as much as possible. Value specific assets to get replacement costs, and to put dollar values on items where that’s likely to be significant – if something is to get stolen, for example – but beyond that, hand-wave as much as you can get away with. A thug, a mugger, or some unexpected light relief can often distract from impertinent questions.

Historical / Detective

These days this includes everything from a Hill Street Blues campaign to Sherlock Holmes. Because these tend to be a lot grittier, pay closer attention to lifespans, unusual wear-and-tear, and depreciation for everyday objects, while cherry-picking the occasional bauble to get the full treatment.

Modern

Modern-day settings tend to be a half-way house – there are some things that need to be valued fully, but a lot of it can be dumped into generic categories and assessed en masse. Don’t worry about individual pieces of unexceptional furniture, for example. Pay closer attention to vehicle values, those are something that most motorists are keenly aware of. And the value of homes. And the net worth of Businesses. Most of the rest can largely be hand-waved.

Of greater import are the political and social ramifications of economic changes, especially those of things like energy and fuel.

Superheroics

Superheroics can deal with extremely unusual objects on a regular basis. How much is a captured force-field generator worth? So some specific valuables will need to be given the full evaluation treatment. Beyond these objects rare or valuable, though, the Space Opera rule should apply as much as possible (with exceptions) – there’s always enough money.

More significant is the impact of superhero activity on the economy of others. DON’T beat your players over the heads with this, because it can get both boring and in the way of the fundamental premises of such campaigns – but subtly hint at it from time to time. What’s happened to the price of coffee and a danish in Superhero City lately? IF a character is renting, what’s the movement on the rental market? You get the idea :)

Steampunk

I still know less about the Steampunk genre than I like, though I’m addressing that.

If a possession is being supplied by a corporation, probably on loan for some specific purpose, there’s always enough money.

When it comes to personal vehicles, there’s always enough money – within reason.

Those at the bottom rungs of society may be Victorian or Georgian in the impact of the economy on their lives. Be harsh in a Dystopian variant, be generous in a Utopian one.

Governments are somewhere in between. Expect them to have greater outlays than is historically accurate, but they will also have greater incomes.

In general, the economy should proceed at the speed of plot.

Cowboy / Western

Depreciation is all-important. Everything is running down the clock – mines, livestock, fences, farmhouses, businesses. Poverty will be everywhere to some extent – and there’s always a strong implication that the only exceptions require villainy. But always, there is hope.

Sci-Fi – near future

Treat as modern. Extrapolate as necessary – if there’s some new wonder-gadget, treat the situation as analogous to the introduction of some other tech, for example the iPhone. Broader economic strokes will frequently be necessary, but try hard not to get too bogged down.

Sci-Fi – Dystopian

The bad guys always have enough money and resources, unless the good guys specifically block something. Depending on the variety of Dystopia, good guys may have practically nothing and that badly deprecated, or they may have moderate resources that they have to leverage. Money (or trade goods equivalent) will usually be in short supply and will need to be carefully valued. Be careful about giving away too much loot, and remember the second part of the basic rule – an asset is only worth as much as someone can afford to pay for it, no matter how much they might value it or want it.

Sci-Fi – Utopian

The space opera rule broadly applies, and what restrictions might exist are dependent on restrictions other than material scarcity. That can fundamentally impact on the inherent value of a possession.

Pirates / Swashbuckling

Loot loot loot – any questions? You weren’t going to buy that ship were you?

Supplies and treasures need to get the full treatment. For everything else, there’s either enough money or nothing at all.

Synthesis: A general process:

Okay, it’s time to wrap the whole series up with a general process that I recommend using – preferably during campaign creation, but its better late than never.

1. Use the period notes to get your mind into the perceptions of the time.
2. Adjust this core perception for genre
3. Determine the Intrinsic Value using the worksheet
4. Adjust for Appraisal Factors using the worksheet

1. Use the period notes to get your mind into the perceptions of the time.

What matters to the people? To the government? What are attitudes to economic matters? What’s changing, and where are efforts going? What’s more important (if anything) than the economy?

2. Adjust this core perception for genre

Since I’ve just run through the genre notes, this should be fairly self-evident.

2a. Sidebar: On Old Problem – currency conversions and historic currency values

Here’s a conundrum:

     USD 2023 to USD 1930 = / 18.43
     USD 1930 to AUP 1930 = x 0.2055

     USD 2023 to AUD 2023 = x 1.58
     AUD 2023 to “AUD 1930” = .x 01198
     AUD to AUP at currency changeover = / 2

The above are all verifiable facts.

If something cost, say, $200 USD 2023, how much would it have cost in Australian Pounds (we decimalized in 1966)?

Path One:
     USD 2023 -> USD 1930 -> AUP 1930
     = 200 / 18.43 x 0.2055 = 2.23 AUP

Path Two:
     USD 2023 -> AUD 2023 -> “AUD 1930” -> AUP 1930
     = 200 x 1.58 x 0.1198 / 2 = 18.9284

Both can’t be correct, and the difference is too much to ignore. So which one is correct?

In the Pulp campaign, we’ve had to confront this problem, in both directions, on more than one occasion. The difference stems from the inflation rate differing between the two countries over the years. That says to my co-GM and I that the problem lies in the combination of a fixed 1930s exchange rate and the “AUD 1930” value.

USD 2023 -> USD 1930 = 200 / 18.43 = $10.85, and apply the fixed conversion rate of the era to get Australian Pounds – x 0.2055 = 2 pounds 2.76 shillings, call it 3 for convenience.

You will confront similar problems whenever you have a value in one currency that a character wants to spend in another – do you start with the historical value, adjust for all the Valuation Factors, and only then convert to the target currency (Path 1)? Or do you convert the historical value and then adjust for all the Valuation Factors (Path 2)?

In theory the two end up in exactly the same place, but I don’t think they do, because of the psychological impacts of small amounts vs larger amounts. I recommend path 1 as the one with the fewest problems, but whatever you choose, make sure that you are consistent about it.

3. Determine the Intrinsic Value

Once you’re seeing the valuation process from the point of view of the economic model that you have chosen for your campaign setting, as modified by the genre,

Use random values as inspiration as you feel necessary.

4. Adjust for Appraisal Factors using the worksheet

The intrinsic value could be a major component of the final valuation or it could be largely irrelevant. If it’s important, made doubly sure that it’s correct and then apply the Appraisal Value factors. If it’s not, spend that extra time making doubly sure of your Appraisal Value factors.

Focus on what’s important, in other words.

5. The final adjustment: GM Fudge

The ultimate purpose of the worksheet isn’t to give fixed, absolutely correct, answers, it’s to guide your thinking. Ultimately, the value of any object or possession in your campaign is whatever you think it should be – under the current circumstances.

Those circumstances include the in-adventure status, the in-genre foundations, and the campaign background. But those are fairly broad concepts and sometimes hard to narrow down to specifics. That’s where the worksheet can help – getting you to think about a reasonably comprehensive suite of variables in isolation, undistracted.

At the very least, round off to something practical!

The End Of An Epic

Hey Ma, I made it – Top Of The World! Well, bottom end of the series, anyway.

Reactions have been mixed so far – some people have praised the whole thing (even hoped that I could extend it backwards to cover Classical civilizations); others have found it too long, or too detailed – most of them not having read the whole. And there have been a few that liked some parts and not others.

Hopefully, it’s now clear what I’ve been drilling toward all this time, permitting re-evaluation of those parts that didn’t grab a reader. It’s been an epic journey of 160,000 words or so, but I think it’s been worthwhile!

I’ve decided to wait another week before posting the final part of the Economics in RPGs series, because yesterday, I thought up a new article.

I immediately set about outlining the article.

I know from past experience that if the outline is not substantial enough, by the time I get to actually writing it, I will be all “What on earth did I mean by this?” – sometimes those thoughts can be reconstructed or recaptured, but more than one article has been deep-sixed because they couldn’t.

So, by the time I got to the end of it, I found that I had written more than 4000 words, completed about 1/2 of the article, and didn’t have enough time to write the Economics post.

The only solution: press on and complete the new post idea as today’s article….

Excellence In GMing

A Good GM creates a game that everyone enjoys playing. That’s the bottom line – anything less than that and the game is some shade or nuance of ‘tolerable’, and that’s all that the players can expect.

An Excellent GM occasionally elevates expectations and meets those elevated expectations at least some of the time.

And a Great GM occasionally elevates expectations, setting a new standard for their table which they achieve more often than not.

The degree of disappointment when a session falls flat is directly proportionate to the level of expectations that the players had, going in.

Seems fairly obvious, right? So let’s talk a little about expectations.

Expectations

There are lots of different areas involved in GMing. It’s not necessary to excel in any of them in order to be a Good GM, but the more of them that a GM excels in, and the regularity with which they do so, the more likely they are to transcend Good and achieve Excellence.

If there is one area in which the GM regularly excels, they start edging their way toward Greatness. The more of them in which they excel regularly, the closer they come to that status.

So let’s briefly break down the process of GMing – regardless of genre – and identify the primary tool or skill that the GM uses to create and satisfy expectations in that part of the overall skillset.

1. Vibrancy & Worldbuilding

The world that the GM creates is thrilling, exciting, and feels somehow larger than life. Like many aspects of GMing, this is divided into two areas: Creation and Execution.

Creation, aka Worldbuilding: you need the ideas to start with, a unified view of the world as a holistic place of existence. These can be yours, they can be someone else’s, they are frequently some blend of the two. Primary tools: (a) Creativity & (b) Structure.

Execution: you need to present this place you are creating to the players, exploring it with plotlines and populating it with people. Primary tools: (c) Vision, (d) Plotting (adventure creation) and (e) Narrative.

2. Story

Once you have the world, you need to be able to create stories that explore it, that reveal the depths, and that convey the vibrancy to the players.

And they have to be good stories – exciting and/or intriguing and/or compelling. Primary tools: (e) Narrative again, and (f) Storytelling.

3. Characters

Some GMs are great at creating characters with relatable depth. It’s not enough for a character to have complex and realistic or super-realistic personalities, they have to be encountered in situations in which the players AND their characters can immediately connect with those personalities.

There are two aspects to this: Entwining established characters with the plot (modifying the plot if necessary in order to do so); and creating new characters that fit seamlessly into the role demanded of them by the plot.

The primary tools for the first are Plot Deconstruction (the ability to break the plot down into encounters, a form of Analysis that is usually considered a part of (b) Structure and (d) Plotting, and Personality Entanglement (connecting one or more aspects of the personality of the NPC with the plot in such a way that the story is enhanced or advanced because of their presence within it, which is an aspect of (d) Plotting, (e) Narrative, and (f) Storytelling).

4. Characterization

Once you’ve got a great character, one that will fit the in-game circumstances like a glove, one that will advance or enhance the plot, and one that the characters can reliably be expected to interact with, you have to actually bring them to life.

The primary tools here are (g) Voice Acting, (h) Expression, (i) Visual Representation, and (j) Theater Of The Mind. Those last two are going to be the primary focus of today’s article.

5. Depth

The adventures themselves need to possess depth. They have to matter, at least to the PCs and their immediate world. The choices of the players have to have Agency, i.e. they have to make a concrete difference in that immediate world, even if that is not immediately apparent.

The primary tools for achieving all this come under the headings of (d) Plotting and (f) Storytelling – again, creation and execution, respectively..

6. Immersion

To the maximum extent possible within the confines of a rules-based simulation of the alternate reality created by your Worldbuilding, you need to bring the world and events within it to life within the minds of the players.

Actually taking it to the extent that they can no longer distinguish it from reality is going too far, but you need to take it to the point where they can think and act as if their characters were real inhabitants of the place, forgetting momentarily that they are in a rules-based simulation.

There are times when this is not possible, and the game mechanics haul people back to reality. The key here is to designate certain parts of the story as focused on delivering immersion to an extent that disbelief can be suspended in those sections of the plot, and that this suspension of disbelief can itself be suspended when you have to deal with the mechanics.

If that sounds tricky, it often is. These are advanced applications of (d) Plotting, (g) Voice Acting, (h) Expression, and (j) Theater Of The Mind.

7. Surprise

Some plots are as predictable as a stone rolling downhill, and if the hill and the stone are themselves interesting enough, a campaign can last quite a long time with nothing more. Real longevity comes when your plot, and the ongoing evolution of the game world that results from it, throw up unexpected surprises, entanglements, complications, consequences, and ramifications. These usually take the form of Plot Twists.

I am a big fan of parallel story threads interacting to form a new and broader layer of story. These interactions can be predictable, in fact should be predictable if complete information regarding both is known, but in the absence of that perfect knowledge, are usually surprises.

I have devised advanced plotting techniques – See

• Part Eight in the Basics For Beginners series (Depth In Plotting),
• and a key article linked to within, with a slightly misleading title, Back To Basics: Campaign Structures,

– for example – and I would also recommend

• Scenario Sequencing: Structuring Campaign Flow, and
• Directed Plots, Undirected Narrative, and Stuff That Just Happens, too)

— that are designed to structure these entwinings, to the point where the campaign has three, four, or even five layers of plot taking place simultaneously.

This builds in a lot of the desirable attributes already identified while keeping the process itself manageable.

Ultimately, the major tools required are (b) Structure, (c) Vision, (d) Plotting, and (f) Storytelling.

8. Mechanics

Game Mechanics perpetually get in the way. It’s no surprise that a lot of game systems proceed from the premise of eliminating or simplifying them as much as possible.

But there’s a downside to this – it can come at the expense of Realism, which doesn’t have the same definition in this context as it does in most real-world settings. Realism here is all about internal consistency of game physics and the understanding that if you do (A) in this fictional world and under the current circumstances, the result will be (B).

That can be a lot harder to achieve than many expect.

As a first rule of thumb, the less time that is required to complete any given interaction with the game mechanics, the less stress they place on suspension of disbelief and immersion, and the less they get in the way of in-game entertainment (there is a certain vicarious thrill to rolling a 20 exactly when you need it, or suddenly being dealt a roll of 1, too).

Sidebar: Metagaming To The Rescue

I employ metagaming a lot as a substitute for mechanics. For example, over the weekend, a player attacked a bot. His attack would do 20d6 damage; the bot had around 75 hit points
(it was essentially a re-tasked autonomous vacuum cleaner).

20×3.5 (the average result of a d6) = 70. That meant that unless the player rolled significantly low, they would do enough damage to take the bot out. I asked him to roll his dice to hit (he did) and then roll his damage – but to only tell me the number of 1s in the roll.

You see, unless there were a significant number of 1’s – four, five, or six of them – the odds were that he was going to meet the target, even if there were a high number of 2’s and 3’s in the roll.

Even if If eight of the twenty dice were 2’s or 3’s, that is about 20 points (on average) and assuming 20 / 6 = 3-and-a-bit – call it three 1’s – takes the total to 23. That leaves 52 to reach the target, on 9 dice that roll 4 or better. Call that an average of 5 per dice, giving 45 points of the 52 required. So he might not quite have succeeded – but the odds were very high that he would have done.

Look at it another (faster) way – 75 points on 20 d6 needs an average roll of 75 / 20 = 3.75. If there were only a couple of 1’s rolled, the average result of the rest would have reached the total fairly easily – and the bot was almost certainly going to be crippled, regardless.

So I ruled (virtually instantly) that the value of the dramatic impact of the metagamed (faster) damage handling mechanic exceeded the need for mechanical precision, and move the game ahead as quickly as possible.

I’ve built an entire game system – The Sixes System – on making such assessments at lightning speed.

So, where was I? Oh, yes…

The speed with which you can implement game mechanics, and knowing when you can shortcut the processes, can be critical. It does require a very strong working knowledge of what those mechanics entail to make it happen, though.

The tool used here is (k) Rules Knowledge and understanding of the underlying mechanics.

But wait, there’s more:

There are ways of structuring interactions with the mechanics that actually enhance storytelling and immersion, just as there are ways of interacting with the mechanics that are detrimental. The latter may be the default, but it’s not always necessary.

A fast character check and bam! – an immersive, plot oriented outcome delivered in (e) Narrative (f) Storytelling form, and you close-couple the game mechanics to both player agency and immersion.

To achieve this, you need to:

• Know the character’s capabilities;
• Have precalculated the values of any rolls and all adjustments;
• Have prepared outcomes;
• Have translated those outcomes into Narrative;

– all in advance. When this prep is done, the gameplay looks like this:

“Marito [character name], you have the highest [Skill name] of the group. Under these circumstances you need to roll [x]. Please make your check now – what did you roll, a 15? Okay, Marito… [convey narrative outcome].”

9. Pacing

The pacing of your plots, and your in-session gameplay, can be a decisive factor in the quality of the game. It can enhance it massively or destroy it utterly. I don’t quite go to the extent of scheduling breaks within a game session – human biology is too unpredictable – but will constantly be aware of how far away the next point in the adventure is that suits taking a break if one is needed.

This applies doubly to where the session of play ends for the day. There’s nothing worse than having to interrupt things in the middle of something for a week or more!

I’ve done two whole series on pacing, plus a few add-ons to it after the fact:

• The “Swell and Lull – Emotional Pacing in RPGs” Series – Part 1
• …and Part 2; and
• The Further Thoughts On Pacing series (4 articles).

The primary tools involved are all ones that have been listed before, like (d) Plotting and (f) Storytelling, with one addition: (l) Plot Awareness – knowing where you are in relation to the plot.

And if you have to say, “That’s as far as I was able to prep because I didn’t know what you would decide,” there’s nothing wrong with that – I’ve done it a time or two, myself.

But, if you’re aware of such a point approaching faster than would place it conveniently at the end of play, it can sometimes be worth turning down the pace a little and throwing in some random encounter just to ‘pad out’ the day’s play.

Your alternative is to Improv from that point onward – hopefully, based on broader plans that you already know and understand. There are times when that’s possible, and times when it’s not desirable. All such decisions are also elements of Pacing.

10. Pace

The last part of the puzzle here is Pace, and I touched on a real-world example in the sidebar above. The more you can avoid having the game grind to a halt for any reason not deliberately inserted by you, the better the game.

All the good things have more time to be experienced, and all the bad things, less opportunity to get in the way.

As with any general rule, of course, there can be exceptions. Using game mechanics as a delaying tactic to increase dramatic tension, for example.

In character-interaction plot sequences, I tend to try and slow the pace down to permit the characters to ‘smell the roses’. In action sequences, I try to pick up the pace. Some dramatic sequences are best served with a “stall / delay / delay / tease / delay / everything-happens-at-once-in-a-great-rush / let-the-gravity-sink-in” pattern.

All this makes game pace something that is controlled at a plot level, within the bounds of what your mechanics and your ability with the mechanics, permit.

Once again, the tools are (d) Plotting, (f) Storytelling, (k) Rules Knowledge, (l) Plot Awareness, and finally (m) Quick Improv Capacity and (n) Self-awareness.

The Essential Skills

Fourteen essential skills in all, manifesting multiple times in 10 aspects of being a GM. I’m going to look at each of them in more detail in a moment – but first, let’s go back to the abilities of a Good GM, an Excellent GM, and a Great GM for a moment.

Excellence, Revisited

You don’t have to excel in all of these to be a Great GM. Let me reinforce that – you don’t have to excel in all these skills to be a great GM.

You do need to excel in at least one, and preferably several of them, but virtually every GM will have some area in which they are deficient – they just have to be that much better in another to make up the deficit.

Nor is consistency a likelihood. Some weeks, you’ll be “on it” in one or more areas more than other weeks, even in areas that are nominally supposed to be your strength at the game table.

That’s why I was so careful in my phrasing of the descriptions of those three standards of GMing.

The more areas in which you excel, the more likely it is in any given game session that you will be at the top of your game in that area of the GMing art. Self-awareness may have been last on the list of GMing skills, but it’s by far the least important attribute. And having prepped workarounds for those days in which you are off your game in a given area is vital.

So, to the fourteen skills. Because all of this is context to the main subject of the article, I’ll be brief (I hope).

a) Creativity

A GM needs to have ideas. Ideas for plots, for situations that will enable plots to happen, for characters, for stories.

I’ve written a lot of articles on how to direct and focus creativity, such as The Backstory Boxes – Directed Creativity (and of course, the whole Breaking Through Writer’s Block series applies in general terms).

What might not have been stressed enough is that creativity is like a muscle – the more you use it, the better you get at using it. If you struggle in this area, use the tools linked to in this section and not only will you get better results (because of the focus) in the short term, but you will exercise and strengthen that ‘muscle’.

b) Structure.

Johnn, Campaign Mastery’s co-founder, once stated that he had never encountered someone who could keep their eyes on the big picture while focusing on the smallest details the way I could, or words to that effect.

It’s an ability that stems from my training as a systems analyst, many years ago, coupled with a natural knack, but it’s proven valuable through the years.

Well, I can’t gift you any natural ability, but I can let you in on the secrets that derived from my training. It’s all about the relationship between the two pictures.



This montage is derived from mountain-8190836.jpg by Christel from Pixabay.

The image above describes how I think about an act from an adventure, or an adventure within a campaign. On the left is the original, big-picture image.

It exists purely to get the adventurers to the summit of the peak, and that purpose is always kept in mind. The purpose is symbolized by the second image – every bit as big as the first, but more focused.

On the right are three images constructing a logical sequence from the big image, focusing on specific details. First, there’s the village (featuring the Swiss flag in this case).

Then there is the valley walled in by mountainous rises and trees that offer lots of concealment. This is the trip to the foot of the mountain.

And, finally, there is the ascent itself, depicted in the third image. The exposed face looks difficult, with a serious overhang near the summit; there is just enough to suggest that the part hidden by clouds might be easier, but the clouds themselves would add their own difficulties.

Each of these is at least one scene in the adventure, with its own narrative and encounters. I can focus on those details using the purpose as a guide and the relationship between the detailed passages, as defined by the big picture, to define and keep the purposes of each of the scenes clear.

It’s simple hierarchical thinking, where the purpose of each line of code is defined by the purpose of the section of code, whose purpose is defined by the overall purpose of the module or piece of software.

The ability to take an abstract or analog scene or situation and separate it into a structure of component parts for subsequent processing is an essential skill for a GM.

c) Vision

It’s one thing being able to come up with isolated ideas that have no connection to each other, and quite another to be able to see how two or more of them will interact when composited together into one game world, one campaign arc or plot thread, one adventure, or just a scene.

There can be tens of thousands of variables involved, if you are creating an original game world intended to sustain a whole campaign or more. Fortunately, you can use the Structure skill to break the bigger problem down into smaller parts.

Using the example from the section above, let’s look at some different approaches to the adventure sequence in terms of increasing Vision, and what I’m talking about should become more apparent:

• Option 1: Isolated encounters in each of the three areas (town, valley, mountain climb. Vision level: low.
• Option 2: A mini-adventure or side-quest within the main adventure, it starts in the town, builds in the travel through the valley, and concludes on the ascent. Vision level: moderate
• Option 3: A mini-adventure as above that provides additional background or context for the adventure as a whole, turning what would otherwise have been dry narrative into a reward for solving the ‘side quest’. Vision level: good.
• Option 4: A mini-adventure as per option 3 that also drops hints or otherwise advances or links to a completely unrelated plot thread within the campaign, tying the campaign more closely together. Vision level: High.

d) Plotting (adventure creation)

This breaks an adventure concept down into individual logical stages or acts, breaks each of those down into individual scenes, with a natural flow and alternative routes to critical information, then breaks each scene down into narrative, encounters, dialogue excerpts & extracts, directions and outcomes.

If you gave 100 different GMs the same adventure outline, they would come back with 100 different adventures with some common themes and motifs. Each of them would have come up with a different plot to execute the general adventure concept.

“Tree-like / Ent-like refugees from another plane seek to destroy a village of humans, fearing their mastery of fire.” – that’s an adventure concept, a plot premise, or any of a dozen other things that it can be labeled. Ultimately, it’s an idea.

Plotting takes that idea, turns it into a story, creates multiple outcomes for the story based on key decisions by the players (well, actually, those first two are Storytelling, and then breaks that story down into a logical sequence of some sort.

e) Narrative

Narrative is description, read to the players by the GM. It is the set-dressing, casting, and stage direction for the Theater Of The Mind.

At it’s most elemental, it’s effective communication, but that description leaves out an awful lot. It needs to be descriptive, it needs to convey mood and tone and nuance, it needs to be detailed but concise, and it needs to be understood clearly by those who hear it.

That’s not an easy recipe to follow, but there’s a series at Campaign Mastery that can help: The Secrets Of Stylish Narrative.

f) Storytelling.

Storytelling is both one of the easiest things to do and one of the hardest things to do well. It even gets referenced in the description of what Plotting is, above:

In The Challenge Of Writing Adventures for RPGs, I look at why writing for RPGs is different to writing for any other medium, though there are still object lessons that can be taken from how-to’s aimed at those other destinations.

Stories need to be distinctive – A Palpable Difference: 14 Points of Adventure Distinctiveness might be useful to reference.

Ultimately, one of the best resources on storytelling here at Campaign Mastery is probably Basics For Beginners (and the over-experienced) Pt 7: Adventures, simply because it’s pitched at beginners and is therefore usable by everyone. There are lots of articles that focus on different aspects of the craft of storytelling, but not many that look at the subject broadly (because those are very hard to write, too).

But storytelling is more than that – it’s the ability to take the plot (that you have broken your story down into) and reconstructing it at the game table to tell the story that evolves from the interaction of GM-created circumstances and Player choices of words and actions.

It’s about the ability to weave every part of the content that you have within the adventure into a coherent tale, full of excitement and drama and PC agency and risk and reward.

To be a GM at all, you have to have at least a minimal skill at this. It can only get better from that starting point.

g) Voice Acting

I am not a Voice Actor. I might be able to manage a “What’s Up, Doc?” but my abilities in this respect flat-line if you even glance at them with intent.

Accents are a little hit-and-miss unless I pre-script dialogue in advance.

What I can manage fairly well is pronouncing foreign words (with exceptions) in such a way that they sound (to those who can’t speak the language for real, at least) as though they were being spoken by someone who does speak the language ‘for real’.

Part of GM Self-awareness is being aware of your shortcomings and find ways to work around them.

For my techniques in this arena, see The Secret Arsenal Of Accents and the article to which I have linked in the next section, as well.

h) Expression

When an NPC has something to say, Expression is how they say it – their turn of phrase, the tone and emotional overtones, the hesitations (or lack thereof), and so on. When this is written in advance, it is called ‘Canned Dialogue’.

I covered this subject in Speaking In Tongues: Writing Dialogue & Oratory back in 2019.

Modes of expression can supplement descriptive narrative, convey information and nuance that would otherwise need to be described painfully slowly either before or after the fact, can bind a visual impression (either represented or theater-of-the-mind) to a personality, and a great deal more.

Voice Acting or Expression – an adequate GM will be at least okay on one of the two, but you really have to be fairly good at at least one of the two to be a Good GM or better.

i) Visual Representation

There are two types of visual representation. The first includes miniatures and battlemats; the second involves showing the players an image rather than having them construct their own mental image using Theater Of The Mind.

I use the first sparingly, in particular when a complex tactical situation is taking place. It’s also good when you have a map that you can’t show to the players. When the first reason isn’t a factor, I’ll often look for some way to get the map into the players’ hands.

I am a big proponent of the second kind of visual representation. There are lots of reasons for this, some of which I’ll go into later in the article; but for now, suffice it to say that such depictions are not necessary, can be flawed, but can also be essential.

• Not Necessary – To some extent, graphic representations do nothing that can’t be done with pure Theater Of The Mind plus narrative input.
• Potentially Flawed – It’s extremely unlikely that you will find exactly what you are looking for, even if you’re good at Image Searches. You will almost always have to compromise to some extent. Overcoming that requires skill at photo editing, even photoshopping, and that can take time and effort. So you continually have to assess whether or not the time lost is worth it.
• Possibly Essential – There are two really strong reasons why this is the case – first, your image can depict something that would otherwise be really hard to describe adequately; and second, a picture may be worth 1,000 words, but can usually replace 500 words of narrative – and that frees up pacing and time to play, massively.

j) Theater Of The Mind

I’ve read a number of discussions of Theater Of The Mind in which the focus is on enabling players to represent the situation in their own minds.

Very few of the sources I’ve read acknowledge that the GM has to do this, too – and then describe what he is mentally “Seeing” to the players, so that they can incorporate the new information into their own visualization.

Nor has there been very much that emphasized the need for both players and GM to keep this vision alive in their minds while they are doing something else – looking up something on a character sheet or running the game, for example.

The better you are at Theater Of The Mind, the more clearly you can see things. You still have to extemporize descriptions of the events and circumstances that you are visualizing, but a clear foundation is a good beginning; without that, your descriptions can’t help but be vague and fuzzy.

Thwo articles seem relevant:

• I see with my little mind’s eye: The power of Visualization, and
• Things Easier With Pixels, Things Not.

I’ll have more to say on this subject of Theater Of The Mind later. For now, let’s move on.

k) Rules Knowledge

It’s possible to run an RPG game without knowing any of the rules, so that’s our baseline for this ability.

Sometimes, it can be easier to do so when one or more of the players has the knowledge you lack, but unless they are highly honorable, you can also lose control very quickly in this circumstance.

The next step up would be to have a good working understanding of the layout and a vague but solid understanding of the rules – so you know the most common stuff, at least in general, and where to find anything else.

How far this can carry you depends on a combination of three things: how quickly you skim-read, how deeply you comprehend what you’ve skim-read, and how quickly you can make a decision based on what you’ve skimmed. For D&D 3.5, this is my level of expertise, and for Hero 4th ed, it’s not much different, and I’ve run multi-year campaigns using both of these game systems. How you rank my expertise as a GM is up to you!

I have greater facility with the game systems that I’ve actually written – though input from a contributing player sometimes trips me up, in the case of the Zenith system.

Beyond that, we start getting into various degrees of “expert”.

In Happy New Year! – Lessons from yesterday (posted in 2009), I discuss an off-the-cuff campaign that I had to invent out of whole cloth without notice.

I still remember most of the (very simple) game mechanics. To make a skill check, for example, you rolled 2d6 (or maybe it was 3d6?), with high being better than low. You could add any expertise you had in that skill to one of the dice, but could not get it to a contribution higher than a Six. Once you had Skill in something, you could buy specialty expertise within; these did the same thing with the other die. And virtually everything was done using the same mechanics – to shoot a laser pistol, you used your laser pistol skill. A specialty in aiming would help with the other die, a specialty in maintenance or repairs would not.

Character construction: 2d6 for stats, each point of stats let you take +1 in a related skill, but I don’t remember what the stats were – I may have simply used the D&D model. After that, I just kept feeding the players skill points in batches of 6 until all the characters looked reasonable. I’m not sure how equipment was handled – I think I just hand-waved the question because of the plotline.

It was all Fast and Simple – and not bad for off-the-cuff! But here’s the point: I used that “game system” two-and-a-half times in 1998. That was about 25 years ago! I qualify as an ‘expert’ in it, not because I wrote it, but because I can rattle off the core mechanics so readily.

l) Plot Awareness

How does a plot survive contact with the enemy (the PCs, I mean)? The answer is, the GM’s Plot Awareness.

This is essentially just that big-picture-to-detail forest-AND-the-trees skill that I illustrated earlier. If you keep in mind the purpose of a given scene, the players can do whatever they want – anything other than achieving that purpose is icing on the cake. You can let them go completely off-script so long as that box is ticked.

Less experienced GMs are likely to be less adept at improv – or, more accurately, at keeping control when improvising. It’s so easy to go so far over the top with a half-baked spur of the moment idea that you can completely derail everything you had planned for the rest of the adventure, and the results at the end of the day are probably going to be less satisfying than what you originally planned.

At the same time, there will be times when a plot blind spot has created a plot hole so massive that what you had planned can’t possibly survive intact; coming up with a new road map to the adventure conclusion is necessary.

It’s not enough to be good at Improv; you need to be able to moderate your creative impulses and connect your flights of fancy to the plot, and that’s what Plot Awareness does.

m) Quick Improv Capacity

I suspect that I’ve stolen a lot of the thunder from this section with the description above. Rather than repeat myself, I’ll offer a couple of quick links to articles about Improv here at Campaign Mastery:

• Improvising an Adventure, and
• An Instinct For Story: 10 requirements for successful Improv play

— and turn my attention to a related thought.

Any adventure content can be categorized into one of two possible types: content that is necessary to propel the adventure into its next stage, and everything else.

Look over any written adventure – it could be a commercial module, or one that you or someone else has written – and identify how much of it falls into the first of those categories, and how much, the second.

When you improvise, your goal should be to get the PCs to the next critical moment in the adventure. You don’t (usually) care how you do that, or how long it takes, or what they do in the meantime. There are limits, but it takes a deliberate effort (on their part) to trip over them.

Keep those objectives and purposes solidly in mind, use them to censor your worst instincts, and you will be fine. The adventure might not be your most shining hour, but at worst, it will be acceptable.

n) Self-awareness

The final skill that can’t be underestimated is GM self-awareness. There are some people who seem to think that all GMs are extroverts – my experience is that a significant percentage (at least 1/3rd) are more introverted, and I speak as one of them.

You need to be able to honestly evaluate your strengths and weaknesses as a GM so that you can play to the former and deal with the latter.

Some quick advice on the subject, which doesn’t really get enough coverage:

Covering Weaknesses

Having prepped workarounds for those days in which you are off your game in a given area is vital. But even more important is making sure that one of your normal weaknesses is going to have minimal impact on the day’s play.

You can’t do that if you don’t know what they are.

Prioritizing Self-Improvement

It’s an old dilemma: work on improving something you’re already at least half-good at, or work on improving something you aren’t?

The answer, to my mind, depends on the access and ability you have with workarounds. If you can achieve a reasonable standard of success with your weaknesses intact, improve something in your mid-range of expertise, especially if it helps cover one of those weaknesses.

Again, with an honest self-assessment – both good and bad points – you can’t determine where best to invest your time and effort.

Natural Self-improvement

Finally, it should be mentioned that simply GMing successfully, despite any handicaps that you might have, is in itself a source of self-improvement.

Playing, too, can be beneficial – you simply need to occasionally put your GM’s Hat on, and try to understand why the GM of your game has made the choices he has displayed. You don’t have to agree with them. You do need to identify them and understand the consequences within the game. This need only take a few seconds; not enough to disrupt your playing in the game. Over time, you will get better at all facets of the GM’s craft – even those that you are trying to avoid.

Those aren’t the whole list of skills a GM needs, it’s just a starting point, listing the skills that are relevant to this discussion. Other skills are ancillary to these tasks, for example being good at Research (Lightning Research: Maximum Answers in Minimum Time) or at Google Image Search (Finding Your Way: Unlocking the secrets of Google Image Search, though they have changed image search significantly since that was written).

So, with all that understood, let’s get back to expectations.

Expectations, Again

Expectations come in two forms – those deriving from superficial impressions and those deriving from past experience.

Superficial impressions are those deriving from observing from the outside. That includes before and after actual play.

Experience impressions come from actually sitting at the GM’s gaming table, and they can either reinforce superficial impressions or paint an entirely different picture.

The first part is a combination of the visual representations that you have set up, props you hand out, word of mouth, and overheard gaming – usually a piecemeal impression.

The second part contains more depth and is less about game prep and more about actual abilities displayed at the table – though game prep can and should feed into multiple categories.

Both come together in the mind of any given player – new or a long-standing participant in your campaign(s) – to create a set of expectations. The better the impression created by one or both of these sources, the higher those expectations will be. Even worse, you may have been talking up the adventure or your self-satisfaction with your work, raising expectations.

BIG mistake – even worse (but not by much) than talking down your abilities.

And, of course, every past game session tweaks expectations up or down.

How good a GM you appear to be to your players then depends on whether or not you meet, or exceed, or (horrors!) fail to satisfy, those expectations.

Theater Of The Mind

90% or more of the game actually takes place in the theater of the mind. Right away, there’s a potential problem there – one player’s theater of the mind can be very different from another’s, and all of them can differ significantly from the internal visualization of the GM. And the actual shared reality is not so much a consensus as a compromise.

It only takes one misheard word, one misinterpreted statement, one forgotten detail to completely transform a player’s understanding of where their character is, who else is there, and what is taking place.

Sometimes, those errors create a comedic moment and nothing more. At other times, the significance can be more profound, as players make what are potentially life-altering decisions on behalf of their characters based on a flawed understanding.

At times, those errors are entirely understandable – when the PCs are using assumptions in place of facts, or when an NPC is deliberately trying to deceive the PCs. See The Heirarchy Of Deceipt: How and when to lie to your players. These deceptions are just ‘steering events’, they shape the story but the story itself takes them into eventual account, reveals the truth, and offers a pathway forward. The revelation of what is really going on is one of those profound plot twists that I discussed in section 7 [Surprise] earlier.

They are not the subject of deep concern. Far more important are the accidental and unintended failures in constructing a scene in the Theater Of The Mind that inevitably take place every now and again.

It’s going too far to say that how good you are perceived to be as a GM comes down to how well you handle Theater Of The Mind; everything else is a secondary factor. There can be great GMs who excel at storytelling, or at narrative polish, or at any of several other things that all feed into the Theater Of The Mind, without the GM actually excelling in that department.

That results in a moderate rating in one area that is propped up by one or more others. No shame in that, and it can result in a very satisfactory game for all concerned – with the wheels coming off every now and then.

But, because it is ubiquitous, and everything from analysis to zeal feeds into it, improving your performance in Theater Of The Mind enhances your game and your GMing chops faster than anything else that’s not both a critical skill and an abject weakness.

“He makes cardboard cut-out characters but don’t he describe them purty” is not a recipe for being a Great GM. Adequate to Excellent (at best), maybe.

So let’s look at some techniques to improve your Theater Of The Mind.

Guarding Against Error

The more condensed and effective your Narrative, the less likely it is that something will be missed by a player – but the more impact it can have when something is missed. Stylish Narrative can mitigate and guard against error, but it can’t completely prevent them.

As a GM, you need to be constantly alert to a PC taking an action that only makes sense if they have misunderstood something important in your description.

Whenever you suspect a failure of Narrative, you need to confirm the player’s understanding and intentions, just so that you are clear in what they are trying to do in your own mind. This can create tension if not handled delicately, so be prepared and phrase your queries carefully. In particular, make sure to give the impression that you think it’s your problem, not theirs – “I’m not sure I fully understand what you are trying to do,” works fairly well.

A Confusion Of Detail

Excessive Narrative often becomes confusing. It’s better to siphon off the excess and position where you can add it to the description if a player wants to look more closely.

Insufficient Narrative creates fog and fuzziness, so it’s important not to cut too far. Relay the essentials, and leave the details out – until they are asked for. This enables players to assemble a mental image and then adjust it.

Efficient Narrative

Narrative, ideally, has to be no longer than absolutely necessary, but still comprehensive enough to set the scene. I discuss this in detail in The Secrets of Stylish Narrative (again), which offers techniques for compressing and enhancing Narrative (which is anything other than dialogue offered by the GM).

Assembling The Mental Picture

Not everyone paints every mental image with the same alacrity, and some players are better at it than others. This is yet another factor that can vary from one game session to another in any given case, and can have a material impact on play – and on the GM’s conversion of expectations into actual satisfaction.

Just because it’s completely out of the GM’s control, doesn’t mean that their reputations and ability to deliver on expectations are not affected.

It’s also worth noting that this can all cut both ways – the GM has to integrate what everyone (both PCs and NPCs alike) are doing into their visualization of events. One misheard word, one misinterpreted statement, one forgotten detail (now where have I heard that list before?), and the whole thing can derail.

Creating Theater Commonalities

There are all sorts of tools, aids, and props that can be used to speed entry into the Theater Of The Mind, and which help create consistency over the critical details of the scene amongst all participants.

Careful plotting can be very helpful. Good writing is paramount. Visual representations are very useful. Images can be profoundly beneficial. Visual reinforcement and reminders are frequently helpful, but harder to orchestrate. Some form of self-correction mechanism within the narrative structure can be a lifesaver.

Vectors Of Theater

Obviously, each of these needs further amplification, but this article is growing in length – 8600 words as I write this – so I’ll try to be brief.

Compatible Plot Sub-structures

Good plotting introduces scenes and situations simply and then builds layers of increasing complexity on top of them, one at a time. I think of the initial offering as an “opening scene”, a term from TV and movie production.

In that “opening scene”, at first, nothing of important is happening, but the major features of the landscape or interior are displayed as the camera pans this way or that. Eventually, it finds someone capable of action – and that acts as a springboard to the next passage. Note that the first narrative passage ENDS at this point – it can’t continue any further, so there is a strong implication that everything significant has already been mentioned at this point.

Focused and Efficient Narrative

The narrative needs to be as efficient as you can make it, for reasons explained earlier. Avoid going into details that don’t matter, or that can wait – if you need to, you can always drop a hint that there’s more to observe about something, or even simply appended – “Your gaze is drawn to the silver locket, which is opened; on one side is a photograph of the victim, the other is empty.”

Visual Representations

Visuals – either of the figures and battlemap variety, or something more basic like the maps I showed in By The Seat Of Your Pants: Adventures On the Fly– are shortcuts into the theater of the mind, and (literally) start everyone off on the same page. Referring back to them serves as a reinforcement and clarification.

One tool that I bought because it was cheap – I didn’t expect to use it much at all – is a whiteboard, a small one about 10″ x 14″. It’s become an absolute essential, because I can draw something on it to serve as the foundation and update it as things change.

One person I know suggested a sheet of clear plastic, reasonably heavy in thickness, taped or attached permanently to the back, so that I could flip the plastic to cover the working area and add details that could then revised or taken away, leaving the original. I haven’t had the opportunity to take the idea any further yet.

Images

Images serve the same basic function as other visual representations, but they can also be used to impact other areas – an image of a character can provide a massive narrative shortcut, as can an image of a general area. Depictions of objects are less profound, but no less valuable – because the object has to be important to warrant an image.

Visual reinforcement and reminders

More than that – if the images are consistent (which can be a big ‘if’), they not only reinforce the Theater Of The Mind visualization that you want to achieve, they can serve as reminders of past displays, and as clarifications. This enables them to be a source of error correction for peoples’ visualizations..

Self-correction mechanisms

Of course, careful use of references to past description can also serve as an error-correction mechanism.

For example, describing a body, you might mention that a button has been torn violently from the victim’s shirt and his fists are clenched.

After the PCs poke around for a while, and discuss things for a while, one decides to check under the sleeves for identifying marks and tattoos. When he does so, the GM tells him that he realizes something is tightly clutched in the closed fist.

Opening the fist reveals a brass button with elaborate carvings, just like the others on the victim’s shirt.

That passage in italics is critical – because it reminds the PCs of the image created earlier and then puts it into a whole new light.

The Satisfying Of Expectations

Every player has some sort of expectation of the game and the GM who is delivering it, every time they sit down at the game table. The better the GM is by reputation, the more visually slick the presentation, the more often a GM has met or exceeded expectations in the past, the higher the expectations of this game session are likely to be.

There are those who might advocate for lowering of expectations so that they are easier to meet, and if the GM genuinely doesn’t have any practical hope of self-improvement due to real-life circumstances, that might be the right approach to take.

Outside of that limited applicability, though, it’s just an excuse for not doing your best, and for not striving to do better. That defines a Good GM, and may even apply to an Excellent GM. But is that recipe something you would consider compatible with being a Great GM?

It’s not, at least in my book.

One Final Thought

Every campaign is different.

Every GM’s strengths and weaknesses has to be filtered through their relationship with the genre of the campaign, which can color some aspects of the GM’s ability, flatter others, and put still others under pressure.

Gerry X may be a great GM when it comes to Fantasy, but comparatively weak when it comes to Horror, or Sci-Fi. Paula Y may be brilliant at Werewolf, weak when it comes to traditional Fantasy, but have an unsuspected talent for Space Opera or Steampunk or whatever.

Expectations need to be filtered from one genre to another, and from one campaign to another within a given genre. Some ability sets will port across to their genre-equivalents quite readily; others may be more problematic, and their can be surprising twists along the way, too – I’ve met one GM online who has an astonishing facility for Narrative in a Fantasy setting, but who can barely string two words together in a more high-tech situation; the language required just doesn’t come naturally to him.

Every GM has the right to expect that the expectations of them will be realistic. Well, to hope for it, at least. Another, eleventh part of the GM’s task is to provide the foundations for the setting of those expectations.

But every GM also has the responsibility of living up to, or bettering, those expectations once they are set. What do the players expect of you when you sit in the Big Chair? Knowing the answer to that gets you half-way to the goal of at least satisfying them; not knowing leaves your performance to blind luck.

Confidence comes from being ready, from knowing what is expected and having a reasonable plan for satisfying those expectations. And confidence makes everything else easier.

And there we are – a mere 8,400 words or so, exactly double the “outline” that I was finished with last night!

This was originally going to be one monster post containing three locations that I have devised recently for different campaigns. I quickly realized that this was too ambitious, so this will be a trilogy of articles, one every 2 weeks.

This is an idea that hints at deeper connections in the game world, metaphysical relationships that tantalize with a glimpse of a more complex reality. It’s suitable for a wide range of campaigns but is, perhaps, most powerful in a Fantasy context.

Naming strangeness in Arkansas…

• Perryville is the county seat for Perry county, which makes sense.
• Lonoke is the county seat for Lonoke County, which also seems reasonable. But then we start tiptoeing into the Twilight Zone.
• Bentonville is the county seat for Benton County.
• Benton is the county seat for Saline County.
• Nashville is the county seat for Holland County – but there’s no chance of it being confused with it’s more famous namesake in Tennessee, is there?
• Russellville is the county seat for Pope County (not Russell County, there’s no such thing).
• Pope County is not to be confused with Polk County (where Mena is the county seat) or Pike County (County Seat of Murfreesboro – at least that’s fairly distinctive, isn’t it? Oops, there’s three of them – one in Tennessee, one in North Carolina, and this one in Arkansas. Oh well…)
• Clinton is the county seat for Van Buren County.
• Van Buren, on the other hand, is the county seat for Crawford County.
• Clarksville is the county seat for Johnson County, not Clark County (whose County Seat is Arkadelphia).
• Mountain View is the County Seat for Stone County, Mountain Home is the County Seat for Baxter County. But no-one would ever confuse the two, would they?
• Yelville is County Seat for Marion County but there is also a Yell County which has TWO county seats – Dardonelle and Danville.
• On top of that, there is also a city named Marion which is the county seat for Crittendon County.
• Marion County is not the only one with authority shared between two county seats – in the case of Franklin County, it’s Charleston and Ozark…
• … Boonville and Paris are both county seats for Logan County….
• … Carroll County shares power between Berryville and Eureka Springs…
• …I mustn’t forget Arkansas County, which has both DeWitt and Stuttgart as County Seats…
• …Sebastian County has Greenwood and Fort Smith…
• …and in the case of Prairie County (which has a lot of ghost towns and unincorporated communities), it’s DeValls Bluff in the south and, to the North, the unincorporated city (one of two in the county) of Des Arc.
  

  For those that don’t know, an unincorporated area or community is a region not governed by a local municipal corporation. They may have a town council or other form of local government, or not, and it may be considered ‘attached’ to a larger region for various official purposes like a census.

• Hot Springs is the County Seat for Garland County.
• Malvern is the County Seat for Hot Spring County.
• And, last (and possibly least), The County Seat of Sharp County is Ash Flat which should have anyone who knows anything about music deep in thought!

But those alone weren’t enough to get my creative juices flowing. Nor was it the long list of towns and cities who share a name with somewhere else (and are usually better known), like Nashville, Melbourne, and Paris. There are lots of these in Arkansas, but I don’t know if they are more prevalent there than they are anywhere else in the world (it seems to be a quite common thing in the US, but it’s far from unheard-of here in Australia, either.

The Midways

Maybe the idea started with the Midways.

Lots of places have places named Midway, especially in the US.

You can generally expect one place called Midway in a given state or country, or some equivalent thereof, maybe even two. But, when you discover three of them that are visible at the same time on the map, and you notice them, it gets your attention.

What I found out subsequently was that this was the tip of a much larger iceberg.

Wikipedia, on this page, lists 11 states with one place named Midway: Colorado, Delaware, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, plus part of the geothermal areas of Yellowstone.

The same list contains 23 more states with multiple places named Midway: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

According to this list, there are no less than 16 of them (including one ghost town)! Or maybe that’s not abnormal in the US?

Well, let’s see. Alabama has 5, California 4 (including a mountain), Florida 5, Illinois 8, Indiana 6 – so far, that 16-count is sticking out like a sore thumb!

Iowa has 5, one of them a ghost town; Kansas 3; Kentucky 5; Louisiana 5; Minnesota 2; Mississippi 7; and Missouri, 4. No, that list of 16 is definitely remarkable.

When I showed my players, they were equally intrigued. One made a comment about getting confused about where you were, and that planted the initial seed – but it would take further discoveries to bring it to bloom.

The Cemeteries of Arkansas

That was achieved by the cemeteries.

Arkansas is home to 4224 of them. A lot of these cemeteries share a common name, or could be mistaken for having a common name.

Somewhere on the internet misinformed me that this was the greatest number per capita anywhere in the world (excluding temporary grave sites in War Zones, and counting mass burials as only one site), but verifying that has shown it to be false – Tennessee has more graveyards per 100,000 people than anywhere else in the world, and a total of 33,000 of them within the state.

The Searchable Database

But let’s get back to Arkansas. As anyone who’s been reading me for the last year or two knows, the PCs in my superhero campaign are in the process of converting a Mansion that I have positioned in Royal, Arkansas, having spent a couple of days on an extended road trip exploring the state.

In The Power Of Basic Utilities, I discussed the process of creating a searchable database of businesses and localities and sites of interest. That list deliberately excluded churches, landmarks, and cemeteries, for reasons that are too complicated to go into right now.

The Second Pass

But, in making a second sweep through the various relevant localities, having discovered that the scale I had been using left out entirely too many of the things that I wanted to list, I decided that selected landmarks needed to be included, and so did cemeteries.

The Lost Cemetery

I was about 95% through my data acquisition for the resulting additional sites when I had trouble finding a particular cemetery for a second time (I no longer remember which one it was). I had found it once to put it on my list, but finding it a second time to actually gather information about it simply wasn’t happening.

Google Search

I tried all the usual tricks that I had developed without success, until I was at what had become my last resort: a Google Search.

This had tracked down businesses that I had misnamed (2 or 3), businesses that had closed, businesses that had relocated, and so on – why couldn’t it find this particular cemetery?

Well, it not only did that, it provided links to a couple of really useful resources –

• The Arkansas page of The US Cemetery registry, which sometimes has details about a site that you can’t find anywhere else,
• And Roadside Thoughts, which has lists of all the communities in the US and Canada, but also lists of all the Cemeteries, divided by state or province. The list includes the county in which the cemetery is located and clicking on an entry takes you to a page with more information, including – crucially – GPS coordinates that can be plugged back into Google Maps.

Lost Cemetery – Found

This allowed me to locate the “lost cemetery” and discover that of all the functional zoom levels showing businesses etc, there was only ONE that showed this cemetery; the rest of the time, the name and marker was covered over by other points of greater potential importance.

There’s more where that came from. A LOT more.

It also revealed that there were a LOT more cemeteries in the target zone that were simply not showing up through Google Search (and that Google had a few showing that this source did not).

A lot of those resting places had the same name as ones that I had already processed – but I might have found 4 or 5 when there were twenty or more.

For example, there are six Adams Cemetery listings, plus Adams / Singer Cemetery and the Adams Chapel Cemetery. Sometimes, one county would have two or three with the same name – for example, Newton County has three named Curtis Cemetery.

Flash Of Inspiration

I’ll get to the why of it in a moment, but a flash of inspiration demanded that I work my way through their list, adding those names that recurred (and the occasional one that was too distinctive and intriguing to ignore) to my list.

So far, these additions total about 6 times the length of my original list – and right now, I’m in the middle of the O’s (Oak Grove Cemetery to be more specific), so probably half the names are still to come!

Almost everything in the list of place-name weirdness with which I started this part of the article was compiled from my side-notes on the entries and noticing the strangeness of some of the names.

My entries look like this:

O’Neel Cemetery [Lincoln County], Star City [33.8787, -91.7646] (note spelling)

– the name of the Cemetery, the County, the County Seat IF it’s close enough to the location that Google might cough up a street address if I search for the name and locality, the GPS coordinates, and – in this case – a notation to myself, which most don’t have).

Portals Connected By Names

But now we get to the flash of inspiration – what if there was an arcane connection between places that are named the same that permits relatively easy instant transit from one to another?

What if this was also possible to places that had similar but not identical names, especially of the names (when spoken aloud) were the same?

And, What if the planet-spanning enclave of Mages that were insinuating themselves into the fabric of society at every level knew how to use this trick?

Not to mention, What if the uniformity of design of fast food franchise outlets were an attempt at creating a less contentious network?

Intended Usage

At some point in the future of the Campaign, someone will mention the existence of this network to one or more of the PCs.

Or maybe they’ll ask to meet the PCs at a particular graveyard and “port in”, giving a visual demonstration that leads to an explanation.

Right now, the PCs are having to get used to being without their “instant teleport into the heart of a problem” – by the time they learn of something, it may have been resolved by conventional forces or it will have developed significantly by the time they arrive.

One key element of the searchable database will be how long it will take the PCs to get to “X”. If and when they learn of an incident, they will have to decide whether they can get to it in time – something they have never had to do before.

Once they have gotten somewhat used to the notion that they can’t be everywhere, and can’t solve every problem, it will be time to loosen the restraints a bit. That’s when and where this concept will come into play.

And there may be the occasional encounter in a location whose name is too inspirational to be refused along the way!

But that’s what I intend to do with it.

Other Uses

Writing Campaign Mastery has taught me well. As soon as I come up with something for one of my campaigns, I assess it for potential value for others.

I could see this being a useful gimmick in all sorts of modern Fantasy campaigns (including Vampire and the like), in Pulp campaigns, in Horror campaigns, and so on.

But in straight Fantasy lies perhaps its greatest potential. Most places would have only one or two graveyards in such campaigns, but the fact that the network would be small only makes it more manageable for the GM. It won’t break the game world, but it might create a backdoor into adventures.

Thoughts about controls

Just because something is possible doesn’t mean that it’s easy. There are three sorts of significant controls to contemplate:

• Usage Limits
• Usage Cost
• Usage Difficulty

Usage Limits

This is a simply a matter of a restriction on how many times the network can be used in a certain time frame, or how long you have to wait before it can be used again, or possibly both.

There are all sorts of pseudo-scientific rationales that can be offered, from an accumulated charge of some sort of strange static field, to incompatibility between the living and the dead, to a limited energy supply within the Cemetery Network.

More sophisticated limits may be used – a total distance traveled, or a delay factor deriving from the total distance traveled. But these are rarely as much trouble as they are worth.

Usage Cost

Another way of ensuring that the network isn’t taken for granted, becoming so ubiquitous that it dominates gameplay and tactical considerations, is for there to be some sort of significant cost involved in using it.

There are three common usage costs that can be applied.

1. stat points – Frankly, I don’t like this choice, even though it’s one I’ve seen used for this purpose any number of times. It doesn’t impart much flavor unless you can convince your players to roleplay the (temporary) characteristic loss.

2. hit points – using the network costs 25%, 50%, or 75% of a character’s hit points. These of course are easily recovered through rest and healing magic, but until that happens, characters using the Network will be vulnerable.

This WILL have implications for usage – short trips are viable but there will be times when travel plus rest time is equal to or greater than conventional travel. The more rest that is required, the greater the value for long trips.

A variation might be to associate the loss with distance traveled, but this will erode those implications to some extent, and I’m not sure the added complexity is worth it.

But my preferred answer is #3.

3. attack & defense values – using the network causes some disorientation and dizziness. This is expressed as a temporary loss of attack and defense scores, and probably anything DEX related as well, the amount of loss to be determined by a roll of some sort – perhaps d6+2, or d6+log(distance[km]).

The last is worth taking a moment to clarify:

.0-9 km = d6+0
10-99 km = d6+1
100-999 km = d6+2
1000-9999 km = d6+3
10,000-99,999 km = d6+4
….

A further variation divides the log of the distance value by log(5), or 0.699. Instead of powers of 10, this sets the threshold at powers of 5:

0-4 km = d6+0
5-24 km = d6+1
25-124 km = d6+2
125-624 km = d6+3
625-3124 km = d6+4
3125-15624 km = d6+5
and so on.

Or perhaps you would prefer to use log(2.5)=0.398?

0 – 2.4 km = d6+0
2.5 – 6.24 km = d6+1
6.25 – 15.624 km = d6+2 (note that 3 significant decimals is as far as I’ll go)
15.625 – 39.062 km = d6+3
39.063 – 97.656 km = d6+4
97.657 – 244.14 km = d6+5
244.141 – 610.351 km = d6+6
610.352 – 1525.879 km = d6+7
1525.88 – 3814.7 km = d6+8
3814.701 – 9536.743 km = d6+9
….

But if I was going in this direction, I would step it down to the much more elegant powers of 2, using log(2) = 0.30103

<2 km = d6+0
2 – 3.9 km = d6+1
4 – 7.9 km = d6+2
8 – 15.9 km = d6+3
16 – 31.9 km = d6+4
32 – 63.9 km = d6+5
64 – 127.9 km = d6+6
128 – 255.9 km = d6+7
256 – 511.9 km = d6+8
512 – 1023.9 km = d6+9
1024 – 2047.9 km = d6+10
2048 – 4095.9 km = d6+11
4096 – 8191.9 km = d6+12
8192 – 16383.9 km = d6+13
….

In all such, the first value – the more convenient one – can be considered a threshold; exceed it and you step up to the next penalty step.

To my tastes, this last choice goes too far, and the one before it is too complicated to casually remember. On the other hand, the powers-of-five peaks too quickly, and the powers-of-ten WAY too quickly.

What is needed is some mechanism to push results back up the list toward the top. I’ll get back to that thought in a moment. First, let’s put those distances into context.

To do that, some distances might be useful:









All distances are shown in kilometers, and thanks to Google Maps, make full allowance for the curvature of the Earth. The maps are copyright free.

I should caution readers that they were assembled and compiled in some haste, so they may not be error-free – in fact, as I was preparing the above artwork, I spotted at least one number that seemed rather dodgy to me. And there were another pair where I think I transposed them in my research – so I swapped them on the graphic.

Okay, I got carried away working on these maps, I admit. I estimated it to be a 2-3 hour job – but then I added all the smaller-scale illustrations.

Using the maps

Decide what scale your campaign world is, in terms of how far the PCs are free to roam. Find the largest number on the map. Look at the different penalty levels listed for that distance and decide on the one that seems most appropriate to you.

Choose high rather than low – having up to 5 levels ‘in hand’ can come in handy.

Remember, the highest value on your chart is how far the PCs can
(theoretically) jump in a single action. You might decide that you want it to take three jumps to cover the distance if your campaign – i.e. to get from one side of your playable area to the other; in that case, divide the distance determined by three to get the ‘jump scale’.

For example: GM chooses a European scale. He selects the map that includes southern Scandinavia. It has two numbers showing: 3183 and 3398. As instructed, he takes the higher of these. But he wants Jumps to be less powerful, so he decides that it will take 6 of them to get from one side of the 3398 to the other.

3398 / 6 = 566 1/3 km per maximum jump. That’s a d6+2 modifier on the powers-of-ten chart, d6+3 on the powers-of-5 chart, d6+5 on the powers-of-2.5 chart, and d6+9 on the powers-of-2 chart.

The first two are too low. The powers-of-2.5 seems about right, the powers-of-2 charts gives too high a result. But, bearing the advice to choose high in mind (even though I haven’t explained why yet), ht selects the latter.

Recovering Jump Shock

Each round after arrival, the character gets a save against FORT or some similar check. If they succeed, they recover one or perhaps two of the losses. So some characters will recover more quickly than others.

Usage Difficulty

The final form of restriction is to require some sort of skill check in order to use the Cemetery Gates.

There are so many advantages and benefits to this that It’s practically a necessity, in my view.

It lets you decide on how difficult a Cemetery Jump is at all. It lets you factor in very similar names (good) or not so similar names (more difficult). As characters advance in power, jumps that were once very difficult will become easier, making the system progressive. You can throw in all sorts of other modifiers as you see fit – perhaps there are ways of warding cemeteries against such purposes.

You also get to decide what the roll represents. Do you have to haggle with the Dead Residents every time? Do you have to arrange something in some arcane pattern? Perhaps you have to manipulate arcane energies, somehow?

You should only choose one – of these options. But you can use a different one in different campaigns to give their Cemetery Gates a somewhat different flavor.

In a 3d6 or d20 system, for every 2 points by which the character activating the Cemetery Gate makes his or her roll, move their Jump Shock up the table one step. With a d% system, it’s one step for every 10% success, and the minimum jump shock is the “+x” listed against the original entry.

In the example offered earlier, a maximum jump incurred a penalty of d6+9. So the minimum jump shock is 9. If the character succeeds in his roll by 12 (a very good roll), he can reduce it to d6+3, minimum 9. Quite obviously, there’s no point in rolling the d6; he has reduced the Jump Shock to the irreducible minimum.

If he succeeds by 6 (a good roll), he reduces it to d6+6, minimum 9. This is still a good result – less than half the time, the total will be worse than the 9 minimum.

If he succeeds by 2 (a fair roll), he reduces it to d6+8, minimum 9 – and may as well not have bothered.

Note that the characters can choose to jump less than the maximum, reducing their Jump Shock accordingly. It would probably be reasonable to give a bonus to the skill check for doing so, too.

So, there you have it. There is just so much flavor that you can build into your world with this campaign element, and it has such wide utility in terms of genre, that it has to be worth noting!

Now Updated! –

Scroll to the bottom of the page (past the table of contents) for the additional content if you’ve already read the main article.

I usually write the bulk of these articles on Monday and publish them at Midnight that night or just a little after. The Monday juts past has all sorts of significance for Australians.

The first Monday of October – actually, technically, I think it’s the Monday after the first Sunday of the month – is a public holiday, making this a treasured Long Weekend.

I always liked to take four days of my annual leave in the following week, so that my weekend effectively lasted for 9 days!

It’s the start of Daylight Savings in the Eastern states of Australia (I’m not sure about the other states). So I got one hour less sleep last night before anything else gets factored in.

This weekend marks the end of the football seasons here in Australia (well, the two biggest ones, anyway) – both have just had their grand finals. That doesn’t bother me much, I don’t follow the football.

But it also signals one week until the crowing event of the (local) motorsport season, the Bathurst 1000 – typically 16-20 hours of coverage starting on the Friday and running through to the Sunday, and that is something important to me. Everything else stops that weekend – and to do that properly, I need to prepare properly!

It’s also significant in a number of more personal ways. A niece and a nephew both had Birthdays over the weekend. I’m meeting my mother today, as she travels to my Uncle’s funeral (her brother). My new TV arrives on Tuesday or Wednesday (and would probably be here today if it weren’t a Public Holiday). And this is the week that I have to start Christmas Shopping in earnest.

When you put it all together, it adds up to a significant disruption of the usual routine.

Normally, I don’t take public Holidays off. For one thing, my Tuesday is already pretty full. On this particular occasion, however, I am taking a significant chunk of that Monday away from the keyboard, for reasons already stated. That could mean a delay in completing this article – and since I’m already geared up to accept that, I’m feeling no deadline stress to even try and get it done in time. So when it will get published, I have no idea.

So, if it’s late, now you know the reasons why.

Wow, I can’t believe that I got this finished so close to deadline!

The Digital Age, Sixth Period: Pandemic

Sometimes, sub-eras are quite lengthy – a decade or more. And sometimes they are only a year or two long.

Everyone has a different perception and a different lived experience of the pandemic to the perceptions and experiences of everyone else. While there may be commonalities between particular populations, Florida was not the same as Washington which was not the same as New York; Los Angeles was not the same as Toronto, or Auckland, or Sydney, or London.

The experiences of my relatives still living in Nyngan are different to those of my stepfather and mother in Crookwell NSW, which are different to those of my father and stepmother in the Central Coast, which are different to those of my Sister living just a few miles away from them, and all of those are different to my own experiences, which are different from those of my neighbor across the street.

Commonalities?

Even when you assemble a national picture of these disparate experiences, there are distinctive individualities to the experience – Israel is not the same as Hong Kong, which is not the same as Canada, which is quite different to Venezuela, which bears little resemblance to New Zealand, which is quite distinct from the Australian experience.

Someone who is adept at sniffing out the commonalities and highlighting the distinctions will one day write the definitive book on the time period, and millions of us will buy it, simply because it helps us relate each other’s experiences to our own.

And yet, despite being Different, these experiences are all the same in some degree; the differences largely come down to timing and extent.

Timing

Timing deals in several related variables. When the first cases were recorded; when the problem escalated to a crisis in the minds of the governing authorities; when they acted to contain it; and when they began to reduce restrictions.

To some extent, these are controlled by two or three overarching factors:

• the severity of the pandemic in the local jurisdiction, which impacts both the severity of restrictions imposed and their duration;
• the degree of success of those restrictions in containing further infections;
• local politics.

Extent

This is all about preventing further spread, and ensuring that emergency services are not overwhelmed. The latter point is a criteria one – if there is no more hospital space, or no more ambulance capability to deliver new patients, or no more doctors to treat them, a 5% mortality rate can become an 80% or more mortality rate overnight. And it’s whichever of these is the lowest that controls the overall result.

Having (say) 100,000 cases in the local region, of which 5,000 (that’s 5%) require hospitalization, and the same again might or might not, of whom a given percentage cannot be saved – initially, perhaps as many as 20%, later as few as 3-5% (I’ll use 10% as a convenient figure midway through these extremes), gives 500-1000 deaths.

If that’s per year, it’s negligible though tragic. If that’s per month, it’s serious. Weekly, that’s an emergency. Daily, it’s a crisis.

Now, let’s say you only have capacity for 3,000 additional patients a week. If you’re getting 10,000 a month, that’s no problem, though the margins are closer than you would like. If you’re getting 10,000 a week, that’s very bad news – it means that a high percentage of the 7,000 that you can’t treat are going to die, and at least 6,000 of those could have been saved.

The more extreme the spread, the lower the margins before it’s safe to relax restrictions, and so the longer those restrictions should stay in place.

Local Politics

It takes a truly global event to turn national politics into ‘local’ politics, but the Pandemic was an event of that magnitude.

The Australian Experience

Let’s start with this quote from the previous chapter of this article:

On 23 January 2020, bio-security officials began screening arrivals on flights from Wuhan to Sydney. Two days later the first case of a SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported, that of a Chinese citizen who arrived from Guangzhou on 19 January. The patient was tested and received treatment in Melbourne. On the same day, three other patients tested positive in Sydney after returning from Wuhan.

— Wikipedia, COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia

Australia initially pursued a Zero-COVID “Suppression” policy, one of the largest places in the world that could reasonably even contemplate such an option. This policy held until late 2021, when it became clear that it was no longer tenable. In truth, it was probably always overly optimistic.

Combining strict controls over international arrivals and an aggressive response to local outbreaks with localized lockdowns and exhaustive contact tracing kept the case count low enough that most of the country could simply go about their business, unrestrained and unrestricted.

It couldn’t last, but it took a dog’s breakfast of confused lines of authority, miscommunications, and unwillingness to take responsibility for the wheels to come off.

On 8 March 2020, [the] Ruby Princess departed Sydney, Australia for a 13-night cruise around New Zealand.

— Wikipedia, Ruby Princess

The cruise was cut short on 15 March and Ruby Princess returned direct to Sydney from Napier

— Same source

…but no-one paid much attention to that at the time. I don’t remember it even being mentioned in the media.

On 19 March 2020, the ship arrived back in Sydney, New South Wales two days early from the New Zealand cruise, docking at 3am, as some COVID-19 swabs needed to be tested as an urgent matter.

The ship disembarked 2,700 passengers later that morning.
[emphasis mine]

The state health minister, Brad Hazzard, announced on 20 March 2020 that 13 of the people on the ship had been tested for the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, and 3 of them were positive. New South Wales health authorities asked all passengers to go into self-isolation. It was announced on 24 March that one passenger had died and 133 on the ship had tested positive for the coronavirus.

— Same source

By 30 March, 440 passengers had tested positive. One day later, the death toll was 5. The genie was out of the bottle; several returning passengers had been present at welcome-home parties and events, or had simply resumed a normal social schedule, spreading the virus far and wide. Ultimately, 900 deaths would be attributed to the Ruby Princess, either directly or indirectly.

This set the pattern for Covid in Australia – lockdowns and contact tracing would suppress the virus to an acceptable degree, restrictions would be relaxed, and someone would do something stupid and set off a whole new cluster. Schools and Aged Care facilities were particularly susceptible.

Even so, no-one realized just how profound these events were – not until the Australian Grand Prix was canceled in the second week of March, 2020. Since this event was to be telecast live – it’s not quite as big a deal here as the Indianapolis 500 is in the US, that’s reserved for the Bathurst 1000 – and the reporters had nothing to cover except the official confusion and eventual decision, it made headline news around the country.

To be fair, in most of Australia, nothing changed except the mood of the populace. But the sense of smug security was shattered completely, especially for those of us living in larger cities.

Australian borders were closed to all non-residents on 20 March, and returning residents were required to spend two weeks in supervised quarantine hotels from 27 March.

Many individual states and territories also closed their borders to varying degrees, with some remaining closed until late 2020, and continuing to periodically close during localized outbreaks.

Social distancing rules were introduced on 21 March, and state governments started to close “non-essential” services. “Non-essential services” included social gathering venues such as pubs and clubs but unlike many other countries did not include most business operations such as construction, manufacturing and many retail categories.

— Wikipedia, COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia

The Australian economic response

In terms of the economy, then Prime Minister Scott Morrison acted reasonably decisively, though his approach was (at least in part) guided by the criticism of his party of the methods (successfully) used to mitigate against the GFC.

Morrison’s approach was to support businesses on condition that they keep their employees ‘on the books’ regardless of whether or not they were engaged in any productive work for the business. There was also a relatively small support package for those on social welfare payments.

This approach was not without its critics, either. There was no allowance for profit levels, so some of the biggest beneficiaries were businesses that arguably did not need the support. Qantas Airlines also accepted the stimulus only to use legal trickery to fire its entire maintenance staff and send the operations offshore (they have recently been found guilty of this in the courts here).

Nevertheless, and despite the flaws and criticism, Morrison got a LOT of credit and political capital from his handling of the Pandemic. Which only makes it remarkable how precipitously he squandered it, and how total his fall from grace was.

The ultimate impact was to put the bulk of the stimulus money in the pockets of business owners, with a secondary amount finding its way into the hands of their employees, and a still smaller amount being provided to those who arguably needed it more. This largely diluted the spending of the stimulus, as trade was soon restricted to a much stricter definition of “Critical Services”.

In many ways, this parallel the approach taken in the US, so the post-pandemic effect has been similar in both countries.

COVID in the UK

I’ll admit up-front that aside from knowing it was very bad, I don’t know enough about the sequence of events in the UK to write intelligently about them. Local outbreaks took the headlines, and the tragedies in Italy and the US/Trump situation, filled most of what was left. Shoehorned in there somewhere was the rest of the news.

I suspect that this pattern will largely hold true everywhere – local first, terrible events elsewhere second showing how bad things could get, and everything else newsworthy scrunched into whatever broadcast time remained. The only exceptions would be the US itself and the scene of any of those tragedies.

In the US, the “local” would refer to the state or city, the national response and clown show would be second, tragedies elsewhere would be third, and anything else would be a remote fourth – but I wasn’t there, so I can’t say definitively.

But this principle is worth remembering by GMs – it won’t just apply to new coverage during Covid, it will apply to any high-impact local disaster.

Back to the UK:

The virus began circulating in the country in early 2020, arriving primarily from travel elsewhere in Europe. Various sectors responded, with more widespread public health measures incrementally introduced from March 2020.

The first wave was at the time one of the world’s largest outbreaks. By mid-April the peak had been passed and restrictions were gradually eased.

A second wave, with a new variant that originated in the UK becoming dominant, began in the autumn and peaked in mid-January 2021, and was deadlier than the first.

— Wikipedia, COVID-19 Pandemic in the United Kingdom

Once a vaccination program was underway, restrictions were gradually eased.

A third wave, fueled by the new Delta variant, began in July 2021, but the rate of deaths and hospitalizations was lower than with the first two waves – this being attributed to the mass vaccination program. By early December 2021, the Omicron variant had arrived, and caused record infection levels.

— Same source

A national Lockdown was introduced on 23 March 2020 and lifted in May, replaced with specific regional restrictions. Further nationwide restrictions were introduced later in 2020 in response to a surge in cases. Most restrictions were lifted during the Delta-variant-driven third wave in mid-2021. The “winter plan” reintroduced some rules in response to the Omicron variant in December 2021, and all restrictions were lifted in February and March 2022 as the Omicron wave continued.

— Same source

Economic Response and Impact In The UK

Parts of this have a very familiar ring to them.

Economic support was given to struggling businesses, including a furlough scheme for employees.

— Same source

The pandemic was widely disruptive to the economy of the United Kingdom, with most sectors and workforces adversely affected. Some temporary shutdowns became permanent; some people who were furloughed were later made redundant.

— Same source

Of course, no-one expected one of the casualties to be Boris Johnson’s position as Prime Minister!

COVID-19 in the USA – some observations and recollections

When the pandemic began, President Trump downplayed it to avoid a public panic. This was probably the right thing to do at the time – but he was too slow to then gear up when the true seriousness began to manifest itself.

What’s more, there was a shortage of protective equipment – there weren’t enough masks even for the doctors, never mind for the general public. Trump’s first really big misstep of the Pandemic was to play games in this respect – he should immediately have nationalized both a production facility and the existing supply, have distributed that existing supply according to need, and had that production facility churning out new PPE 24/7. he didn’t, and the only explanations can be

(1) that he had convinced himself that the downplay was the truth; or,

(2) that the need to continue the ‘no panic’ downplay was more important than the longer-term needs created by the pandemic.

Neither is particularly flattering toward his Presidency.

A Litany Of Disastrous Missteps

I can’t speak for residents of any other country, but here in Australia, the mismanagement of the pandemic has imposed a permanent pall over the Presidency of Donald Trump – not that he was all that popular beforehand, but it hit a new low in 2020. It’s not without reason that I referred to it earlier as the “Clown Show”.

One got the very strong impression (rightly or wrongly) that Dr Fauci was controlling the effective parts of the response, working around the interference of the Clown-In-Chief.

This impression started to form early on, when Australian news would describe the severe restrictions (including spending a week in quarantine in a third nation if traveling from a country that had an ongoing outbreak) and then cut to footage of US citizens breezing through customs – quarantine was only required of foreign nationals, according to the broadcasts.

Cue a collective face-palm.

And then the news would talk about the dire situation in Italy, and that in New York City, and the overall impression was that few (if anyone) was learning from the experiences of others, especially in the US administration. I remember commenting to someone at the time, “this can’t end well”.

It didn’t.

Next, Trump signed the ” Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act” into law, which provided $8.3 billion in emergency funding for federal agencies.

Which sounds very impressive until you realize that this is only about 12.9 Billion Australian Dollars – and the Australian Government’s first Stimulus package was 17.6 Billion Australian dollars – and that a second tranche of stimulus worth another 66 Billion AUD would be allocated before the first had even taken effect. To match this commitment per person, the US response would need to be 1.07 Trillion Australian dollars (about 690 Million USD).

If our government could do it, why couldn’t “the greatest economy on Earth”?

The Ivermectin nonsense. The “Bleach” incident. Putting his son in charge of the Vaccine – about which we then heard nothing until Biden came to office. Continuing to downplay the virus even after he was hospitalized with it. Exposing his Secret Service detail to the virus for a publicity stunt. The list just went on and on.

Ultimately, the US did step up and allocate significant funding to Stimulus packages. The question remained, how much worse was it because of all this nonsense?

Medical Economic Impact

By putting the available PPE up for auction to the highest bidder (which is effectively what Trump did, with the Government reaping the profits), Trump triggered a massive inflationary surge in the medical supplies industry of the US

This duly leaked into related fields. Trump can’t be fully blamed for that, the same thing happened in different forms everywhere.

Eventually, supply caught up with and even exceeded demand, and over time, an equilibrium was achieved.

It’s worthwhile spending a moment considering the mechanism by which this was achieved. It’s called competition – when all supplies are perceived as fundamentally the same, price differentiates. The business that is willing to forego some small part of the exorbitant profits demanded of the others gets all the customers, and all the profits. The others either have to lower their prices to match, or even try to undercut the competition to make up lost ground.

Assuming there is no collaboration to keep prices high by manipulating the market, competition drives profits down to a reasonable level.

A blended economy

I’ve already discussed stimulus payments, so I’ve excised the section which was to discuss them. Instead, let’s look at the results:

• Some businesses rely entirely on the Stimulus payments. They are effectively closed. If the stimulus runs out before demand returns, they will close, creating negative economic growth. The smaller the business, the more susceptible they will be to this.
• Some businesses rely partially on the Stimulus payments. They are split between activities that are deemed “Essential Services” and those that aren’t. If the stimulus runs out early, they face a choice: reopen fully, and shoulder the associated risks, or downsize and shrink. The first choice may see them pick up where they left off, better their positions, or collapse – depending on demand. Overall, this will stifle growth but not cause the economy to go backwards. Those that downsize because they anticipate a reduction in demand shrink the economy, as before.
• Finally, there are those businesses that are not reliant on Stimulus payments at all. They continue to contribute to economic growth (best case) or are economically neutral (worst case).

Put this together, and its the impact on the first and second categories, in combination, that is dominant. If it exceeds the growth from the third category, you have an economy heading into recession. Now, factor in the relative impact on the economy displayed earlier, and it’s easy to see that the first category will largely outweigh the other two in terms of impact.

The economy during a pandemic is a blend of all three.

An economy without stimulus payments is effectively the same as those payments having ended prematurely. That’s why there is a common element of such payments in most economies around the world – the amounts, the timing, the duration, and the delivery mechanism may vary, but the broader reality remains.

Reopening in a Blended Economy – Local Politics II

Politics on a smaller scale – the state level – also played into decisions about when and how to reopen. In particular, because Biden was now President, and advocating for caution, the Republican states pushed hard for a quick reopening.

It would be unfair and unrealistic not to acknowledge that they had a point to be taken into consideration – the shutdowns were undoubtedly bad for business, small businesses in particular. In fact, it’s fair to say that the impact was inversely proportionate to the business size.

And that’s the problem. The Republican initiatives favored large companies over small, because larger companies were better able to absorb a proportion of their workforce being ill.

If your business has 2 employees, and one becomes ill, that’s half you operation crippled. If you have 10, and one becomes ill, that’s bad – but if 9 of the ten have to stay home even though they are not yet sick, that’s devastating.

To get some sense of that, we need some sort of comparison of how many businesses there are of a given size. The following is an excerpt from a page at AskWonder.com, US Employers by Employee Count, research by Dagmawit W:

• Under 500 Employees: 71,720,729 businesses.
• 500-749 Employees: 88,334 businesses.
• 750-999 Employees: 58,930 businesses.
• 1000-1499 Employees: 75,754 businesses.
• 1500-1999 Employees: 54,095 businesses.
• 2000-2499 Employees: 41,738 businesses.
• 2500-4999 Employees: 143,141 businesses.
• 5000-19,999 Employees: 304,674 businesses.
• 20,000 + Employees: 600,947 businesses.
• Second biggest employer: Amazon, 1.29 Million employees.
• Largest single employer: Walmart, 2.3 Million employees.

(Data from 2018. Counts branches and franchises as separate businesses. The totals in the last 2 entries are over multiple operations centers, obviously!)

Let’s multiply those numbers by the average number of employees in the range, which should give a truer picture of the average economic impact of each scale of business:

• 250 Employees x 71,720,729 businesses = apr. 17,930 Million
• 624.5 Employees: 88,334 businesses = apr. 55 Million
• 874.5 Employees: 58,930 businesses = apr. 33.86 Million.
• 1249.5 Employees: 75,754 businesses = apr. 94.65 Million.
• 1749.5 Employees: 54,095 businesses = apr. 94.64 Million.
• 2249.5 Employees: 41,738 businesses = apr. 94 Million.
• 3749.5 Employees: 143,141 businesses = apr 537 Million.
• 12499.5 Employees: 304,674 businesses = apr. 3,808 Million.
• 20,000+ Employees: 600,947 businesses = apr. 12,019 Million.
• Second biggest employer: Amazon, 1.29 Million employees x 1 = 1,290,000. – but these will be included in the above.
• Largest single employer: Walmart, 2.3 Million employees x 1 = 2,300,000 – also included in the breakdown above.

It doesn’t matter where you draw the line between big and small – that 17,930 at the top of the list overwhelms anything else you can add. Even the combined power of the top 601,000 businesses (in terms of employees) doesn’t match up. In fact, if you total the numbers for businesses of 500+ employees, and throw in Amazon and Walmart as free extras, you get a grand total of 16,739.74 million – still short of the 17,930 million of the first category.

That’s always been the Democrat’s secret weapon for a healthy economy – don’t neglect the big businesses, but prioritize conditions that help small business flourish. It’s not as headline-grabbing, but it works.

Sidebar: A perception of “socialist” policies

Counties with a strong social safety net, like Australia, can be viewed as extending this general concept, on the basis that an unemployed person is essentially a business with zero employees.

The stronger the safety net, the more they contribute to the economy, which creates the conditions for greater employment, which leads to them leaving that category.

The different parties differ in the use of honey and the whip to get them to make that change, but the principle remains.

A similar effect takes place with socialized medicine – early intervention transforms those who would otherwise have become drains on the system into productive contributors. The net cost is not only lower, it gets defrayed, making it much lower.

At least, that’s how we see it. GMs should be familiar with this if they want to properly represent those nations in their games, or people from them.

Candor also compels me to admit that not everyone in those countries agrees – most of them align with the ‘cut off your nose to spite your face’ perspective of the Republicans. But they are a relative minority here (5-10% of the population at most.)

But It’s Not That Simple…

Is it ever?

Let’s say the economy reopens tomorrow after a shutdown.

• People stand ready to buy Product X from retail salesmen.
• Retail Salesmen stand ready to sell Product X, but they need some to be delivered.
• Delivery Drivers stand ready to deliver Product X, but they need some to be manufactured.
• The Manufacturers stand ready to make more Product X, but they need the parts to be delivered.
• Freight Companies are ready to deliver the parts, as soon as they are manufactured.
• Manufacturers are more than happy to make the parts, but they need the raw materials.
• More freight companies…. you know the rest.

This is a supply chain. It’s like a bunch of railroad cars hooked together – there’s some give between them. The first one starts moving, and then the second, and so on.

In the case of the salesman, whatever stock they have on hand has to last them until fresh Product X arrives. They have a problem if it’s perishable. The Product X manufacturer is similarly constrained by whatever parts inventory they have.

If all these businesses reopen simultaniously, someone’s going to get the short end of the stick. Ideally, you would want a progressive reopening in which each step only gets back to life as usual when the step below them has something for them to do.

But that’s impossible to organize, in practice. Especially if you throw in complicating factors like one or more of the parts manufacturers being overseas in a country that has NOT reopened.

Shutdowns disrupt an economy, and without stimulus, push negative growth on that economy. Re-openings are equally disruptive, and those disruptions have the same effect, usually worsened because stimulus payments have either been removed or reduced.

The Fall Of Trump, The Success Of Biden

Trump’s management of the Pandemic was a disaster. David W. Rudlin
points out on Quora that the US had 4.25% of the world’s population but 16.9% of the world’s deaths.

President Biden, at the very least, is an effective administrator. His hand may have been forced by Republican governors to some extent, but he successfully managed the reopening of the US economy despite the difficulties described.

Key to this is the development and successful distribution of the Covid-19 Vaccines. Despite a number of false starts along the way, we got there.

The Digital Age, Seventh Period: Post-Pandemic

Like most Pandemics, this one hasn’t really ended – it’s just sort of petered out as we have learned better to adjust to the new reality. We survived, individually, and are now trying to get on with life, collectively. But that collective deep breath has contained some unexpected wrinkles along the way, because trying to predict the future is never going to be wholly satisfactory to those who get their tails caught in the door.

Some post-pandemic experiences are shared fairly globally; others are distinctly local, a consequence of the distinctive individual experiences mentioned earlier.

For example, the governor of the Reserve Bank – the institution that sets interest rates here in Australia – made the mistake of forecasting little or no change in those rates in the course of reopening. Yes, he was eviscerated for the forecast; in hindsight, it was a fairly silly prediction, and one that was quickly proven inaccurate. In a nutshell, he should probably have known better.

Around the world, Inflation peaked at somewhere around the 7-8% mark, post-pandemic, and in many places, it has now fallen to a rather more comfortable 3-4%. At the same time, the jobless rate has fallen below what is considered sustainable. This series would be incomplete without look8ing at why that’s the case.

Supply Chains: Rebuilding Trade

The story starts with supply chains, and the problems with everything reopening at once described earlier. But supply is only part of the equation.

The other part is demand. This was suppressed during shutdowns, but in most industries, surged when lockdowns were lifted. And, because of the stimulus payments that were needed to avoid a recession (or worse, a Depression), people had the money to satisfy that demand.

When demand is high, and supply is low, prices rise. And that’s inflationary.

But it also creates a demand for employees to product the supply. So there is an immediate increase in the employment rate. And that means that even more of the population have money to spend and things they want to spend it on. Demand gets another tick up, so it still exceeds supply.

Workforce Decentralization

On top of that, a lot of businesses found that their employees were more efficient or more productive when they were working from home. That can only mean that the restrictions they had imposed on the workforce were counterproductive in terms of profitability.

This has created a trend toward decentralized workplaces. Demand for skyscraper offices has fallen in most CBDs, sometimes precipitously. The price of such real estate is falling, and falling fast.

That sounds deflationary, or it should. The problem is that a skyscraper concentrates real estate holdings by it’s nature; all the businesses that used to occupy skyscraper space are looking elsewhere for what central office space they still require, and the places they are looking are NOT concentrated to anything like the same extent. Rather than a floor of a skyscraper, they are looking for a building of their own.

Demand outside the CBD has risen by far more than the demand inside it has fallen – and that means that overall, this causes inflation to rise.

The full social and economic impact of this won’t be understood for years, possibly even a decade or more, but some predictions are possible. Eventually, CBD real estate will fall to the point where the cache of being in the heart of a city reasserts itself. A number of businesses will realize that they can sell their existing properties for a profit and buy that cache relatively cheaply.

CBDs will change in character somewhat, but equilibrium will be restored – especially if the CBD demands of these businesses are downsized to accommodate decentralization. Ultimately, we’ll end up with an even greater concentration of businesses in city centers.

Restricted Oil

On top of the factors already described, there’s the price of oil, or – more specifically – the price of petrol (what the Americans call gasoline), and the price of diesel as well. Let’s call it “fuel”.

During the pandemic, there was no demand for fuel, so prices went down. To sustain the oil companies – a cynic might say to sustain their profit levels – President Trump ‘persuaded’ Saudi Arabia to cut their production – but, as usual, there’s more to this story than a lot of people realize.

Domestic oil production was rising rapidly in the US, to the point that in October 2018, they exceeded 11 million barrels of oil production a day, becoming the world’s leading oil producer. That puts Trump’s ultimatum to the Saudis – cut production by 9.7 million barrels a day or lose the 75-year-old military alliance with the US – into a whole new context, doesn’t it?

But there’s another wrinkle – the Saudis had been engaged in an oil war with Russia, that had been increasing production and driving prices down. Trump’s demand was that the Saudis lose that conflict. Interesting point, eh?

See this article at Reuters for more information if interested.

The oil price rose – but there were other oil suppliers increasing their own production – Nigeria, for example. The Saudis began actively bidding up the price of oil supplied by other producers, including Australia, while adhering scrupulously to the agreement forced on them by Trump.

So the oil price rose, and so did the fuel price. And then the lockdowns ended.

International & Domestic Travel

There was little demand for international travel, and less supply was made available, keeping air fares at a record high. Denied that avenue for their pent-up thirst for travel, for being somewhere other than where they had been locked down, people turned to domestic travel instead.

Demand spiked, at much the same time as the Saudis were actively pushing the price of oil up.

Revenge? or Normality?

There was a lot of confidence about a Saudi increase in production once Trump’s deal expired. Instead, they announced a fresh cut, driving the price of oil (and fuel) even higher. This, of course, is inflationary, and some might be tempted to claim that the resulting economic damage was revenge for Trump’s blackmail.

I don’t think that’s warranted, for two reasons – (1) by now, Biden was in the White House and a lot of relationships had been reset; and (2) the oil war with Russia was over, and Russian oil supplies were increasingly threatened by the consequences of the invasion of Ukraine. In effect, despite Trump’s intervention, Saudi Arabia won the oil war. Why upset that with vindictiveness? Instead, further winding back the increases of the past meant that they kept more of what they have always regarded as a strategic commodity.

I could be wrong about this, but I think this is normal service being resumed, not revenge.

Paying The Piper

So you have excess cash in the economy (inflationary), high employment (inflationary), increased demand pushing princes up (inflationary), supply-chain problems pushing availability down and prices up even more (inflationary), increased heat in the real estate market (inflationary), and higher fuel prices (inflationary) which creates higher energy prices (inflationary) coupled with a war reducing the supply of oil and gas from Russia and food from Ukraine (inflationary)… is it any wonder that we’ve ended up with reasonably high inflation?

I think this litany of influences demonstrates why I thought the prediction of little change in interest rates to have been a silly one. Not everything on that list could have been predicted, but there was enough that should have been obvious to predict at least modest increases in interest rates.

Crystal-ball Gazing

Until the extra money in the economy washes out, interest rates will remain high. How long that takes depends on what people spend their money on.

Higher interest rates have an impact on that, too. Money is like water, it flows downhill; the interest rates charged by banks are taking some of the heat out of the real estate markets, but they will be stubborn; the first to go will be domestic debt. Paying off too much of that can also overheat an economy, but counterbalancing that is the inevitable increase in necessities.

Once a reasonable balance is restored, inflation will drop to an underlying value that reflects the things that are not susceptible to Interest Rate manipulation – workplace decentralization and fuel / energy costs.

The latter are being influenced by the drive toward Carbon Neutrality, which complicates the situation and is likely to keep prices relatively high. But outside of that, we are approaching a ‘new normal’. Some places – like the US – are already there. Australia is not, at least not yet. Our inflation rate is falling but not fast enough for comfort.

Wages Growth

The problem is that the longer inflation rages unchecked – even if it is less than the high-double digits of ages past – the more it fuels demands for compensatory wages growth, and that’s another inflationary cause. That’s how we got to those 18%+ values back in the 70s and 80s.

Governments the world over have a delicate juggling act, and each slip has potential global repercussions because we’re back in a global economy again.

Some slippage can be tolerated. Too much can be economically disastrous.

An Imminent Pivot? (The Near Future)

I can’t help but feel the world is approaching a critical point, where the course of history will be changed, one way or another. It might be in the 2024 elections – the choice between Trump and Biden seems pretty stark, but if Trump is forced to withdraw by his legal troubles, it might be any of a number of trump-lites on offer.

The possibility of an armed insurrection should Biden win reelection – however brief and certain to fail – presents another possibility.

But let’s presume for a moment – just in order to explore all the possibilities – that Biden doesn’t win, but the Republicans have managed to put someone relatively sensible up, or Harris takes over the top job. With relative inexperience, what are the odds of a significant slip on the economic side? Worse then with an old hand like Biden in charge, I think.

On top of that, we have climate change, and workplace decentralization, and changes to spending habits – there are already indications that shoppers are re-prioritizing, and retail is going to have to adapt in response, and more and more banks here are going cashless (is the same trend occurring world wide? I don’t know, but suspect that it is). Throw on top the potential chaos in the energy market and the potential collapse of the insurance industry, and… wait, you want me to explain that last one?

The Insurance Failure

Australia is closer to the edge of this change than many places in the world, along with Canada and the Western and Midwestern US. Why? Because we’ve all experienced climate catastrophes that can be attributed to climate change in recent times.

• The Record temperatures in the US
• Hurricane and tornado activity in the US
• The Canadian Bushfires (though maybe they call them Wildfires there, the way the US does?)

:

• The floods and bushfires in Australia (discussed in previous chapters
• The floods in India in 2019…
• And South Asia in 2020 and 2021, and 2022…
• And finally, the 2023 Dema Flood of Eastern Europe.

We are approaching a point where Failure to mitigate climate change sufficiently could be regarded as an act of war akin to the use of weapons mass destruction (because of the indiscriminate nature of the resulting damage).

Will we reach that point? I hope not, because global unity on the cause will inevitably be forced into a pre-existing matrix of alliances if that happens. But it could be the foundation of a new global unity, too. Either way, it’s one more potential transformation that – once it takes place, if it takes place, will completely change the world.

But I’ve wandered off-track. The simple fact is that people who thought they were insulated against the full impact of these disasters have discovered that they are not protected. Another point that we are approaching – at already, in some places – is that if you need insurance, you can’t afford it, and if you don’t (except in case of freak accident), you have no incentive to buy it (because freak accidents and ‘acts of god’ are also not covered).

If people no longer trust the insurance industry to be there when they need them, they will start to sequester emergency funds themselves. They will resist actually purchasing homes – let someone else take the risk. The social impact will be subtle but unstoppable, and economies are not geared up for it. What’s more, governments are increasingly expected – even required – to fill the gap, and that’s not baked into their budgets, either.

The increase in frequency of event currently perceived to be occurring (whether it really is or it’s just a statistical anomaly), coupled with the perceived increase in the severity and scale of these events are pushing this problem to a crisis point.

Generational Change

There’s one final factor that needs to be taken into account when discussing the possibility of such a transformative change – the rise of Gen Z.

People of my parents’ generation have been dying off at a serious rate for quite a while now. They are in their 80s and 90s at this point. My generation are about to enter the same phase of life – we’re in our 60s and 70s. Both groups are reasonably well balanced between conservative and progressive politics, and both are becoming increasingly irrelevant any political outcome.

In their place comes Generation Z – who are, from all reports, far more politically aware as a broad group than most of us were at that age, and most have been alienated by the partisan politics that conservative parties have been exhibiting for a while now.

It won’t take much of a shift for political landscapes to be rewritten. It’s been reported, for example, that Democrats actually won the popular vote in Texas at the mid-terms (or maybe it was the last Presidential election?) – that it was only the gerrymandering of the republicans that enabled them to stay in power there. Texas has so many vote sin the Electoral College that if it ever flips, the Republicans can forget about the Presidency for decades.

There are too many critical issues on which Generation Z have opinions and want action – and they will start electing those they think can deliver it.

There are too many changes afoot at the same time for this not to be the end of one era and the beginning of another.

Sidebar: What Unifies The Digital Era?

IT is all about taking DATA and transforming into INFORMATION through analysis and application of context.

• Data: You visited Website X.
• Context: Website X sells general product type Y.
• Information: You may be interested in buying Product Type Y. Other companies who sell product type Y will pay us to insert ads for such on other pages you visit.

This is the process that has made Google one of, if not The, biggest company on the planet.

Over the decades, we’ve gone from very poor at capturing data to very very good at it. In the course of that same period, we’ve gone from almost-inept at transforming it into something meaningful to being very, very good at it.

And as we have done so, our decision making – personal, professional, and political – has increasingly been driven by the efficacy of the results.

Impersonal, hard, facts. It’s worth remembering that when people protest progress, it’s usually the first of these that they have a problem with – and their second problem is with being told what to do by someone they don’t trust. Eventually, they’ll make the association between those instructions and a machine, and we’ll have a new batch of Luddites on our hands.

And this at the same time as Generative AI is becoming a thing…? Isn’t that food for thought?

The Downfall Of Scott Morrison

I’ve discussed his path through power over the last several chapters, I may as well close this post out by completing the story.

As the post-COVID election began to loom on the calendar, there was a clear mood for change. The instability of the Morrison government had seem minister after minister resign, the government was beset by scandal after scandal, and the never-ending failure to resolve and implement an energy policy combined to have the election balanced on something close to a knife-edge.

And then it emerged that, at the height of the Pandemic, Morrison had contrived to have himself sworn in as head of several ministries without informing the ministers already responsible for those portfolios.

This is like the President of the US secretly appointing himself Secretary Of State AND Secretary Of Energy AND Secretary Of the Treasury – without informing the people he had already appointed to those positions.

At first, it was only the Ministry Of Health, but then it grew to three ministries, and – after the election – two more came to light. And to this day, he refuses to acknowledge that he did anything wrong.

Generation Z in Australia gutted his party at the election. Morrison resigned the Prime Ministership but remains a back-bench member of parliament – like the President resigning, but remaining as a member of the House (there are unkind suggestions that he is so on the nose that no employer will actually hire him). And, in his place, we have a leader of the conservative coalition who is even less popular than Morrison was at the time of his defeat.

Instead of the usual (progressive) rival party, the Greens saw a significant upswing in their results, but even bigger were the rise of a group now known as the “Teal Independents”. These are conservative-oriented except when it comes to one key policy area – they believe climate change is real and demand stronger policy action to address the problem. It’s as though the conservatives had shed their centrist elements, becoming so extreme in the process that they were all but undetectable (sound familiar?)

Which direction Gen Z will force politics into, ultimately, I don’t know. But they are going to drive it, of that there can be no doubt.

One more break and then it will be the final chapter of this series – about how to use all this information in RPGs. But first, it’s time to update the Table Of Contents:

In part 1:

1. Introduction
2. General Concepts and A Model Economy
3. The Economics of an Absolute Monarchy (The Early Medieval)

In part 2:

4. The Economics of Limited Monarchies (The Later Medieval & Renaissance)
5. In-Game Economics: Fantasy Games

In Part 3:

6. The Renaissance, revisited
7. Pre-Industrial Economics I: The Age of Exploration
8. Pre-Industrial Economics II: The Age of Sail

In Part 4:

9. Industrial Economies I: The Age Of Steam
10. In-game Economics: Gaslight-era

In Part 5, Chapter 1:

11. Industrial Economics II: The Age Of Electrification & Motoring

In Part 5, Chapter 2:

12. Industrial Economics III: War & Depression
13. In-Game Economics: Pulp
14. In-Game Economics: Sci-fi
15. In-Game Economics: Steampunk

In Part 6, Chapter 1:

16. The Pre-Digital Tech Age
17. World War 2
18. Post-war & Cold War

In Part 6, Chapter 2:

19. Government For The People
20. Aviation

In Part 6, Chapter 3:

21. The Space Race
22. Tech Briefing: Miniaturization
23. Behemoths Of Blind Logic (early computers)
24. The Promise Of Atomics
25. A Default Economy

In Part 7

26. Economic Realities (Inflation & Interest Rates)

Part 8, Chapter one contains:

27. The Digital Age: Themes
28. The Digital Age: 70s-80s
29. The Digital Age: 80s-90s

In part 8, Chapter 2:

30. The Digital Age: 90s-00s

Chapter 3 of Part 8:

31. The Digital Age: 00s-2010s

Last week, Chapter 4 of Part 8:

32. The Digital Age: 2010s-2020

In this post, Chapter 5 of Part 8:

33. The Digital Age: Pandemic
34. The Digital Age: Post-Pandemic
35. An Imminent Pivot? (the near future)

Still to come, in the final part of the series:

36. In-Game Economics: A Plot-based foundation
37. In-Game Economics: Modern
38. In-Game Economics: A broader net (Fantasy +)
39. Future Economics I: Dystopian
40. In-Game Economics: Dystopian Futures
41. Future Economics I: Utopian
42. In-Game Economics: Utopian Futures
43. In-Game Economics: Space Opera
44. In-Game Economics – Look Beyond The Obvious

Addendum

A couple of thoughbts that I should have included in the “Near Future” section of the main article but didn’t think of at the time.

Third Party vote-stealing

One of the specters being raised in discussions of the 2024 elections is the prospect of third-party / independent candidates ‘stealing’ enough votes from the Democrats that Trump gains a narrow Electoral College victory.

Most of those I have discussed this possibility with, have poo-poohed it, and I’m the first to admit that it might not happen. But it has happened before (that’s one of the reasons we had President G. W. Bush instead of President Gore), and in a close election, anything that shifts voter balance, even just a little bit, can be decisive.

That’s why the Gen Z factor is likely to be vital. The usual argument that I am offered as rebuttal is that US politics is a two-horse race, no third-party candidate will ever win the Presidency. Which completely misses the point – under this scenario, they aren’t electing a third-party winner, but they are diverting votes that would otherwise flow to the more progressive candidate.

Thinking that it can’t happen because they can’t vote in a third-party winner is exactly what Scott Morrison thought about the coalition inner-city heartland at the last Australian Federal Election – and look at how that turned out for him.

Food Insecurity

One of the most troubling consequences forecast for climate change is food insecurity – where the crops you usually grow, and on which your nation relies, fail in whole or in part, because of the temperature change or associated weather events.

When people get hungry enough, wars have been known to start. I was thinking about that this morning and realized something. From day one, the Invasion of Ukraine has been put down to the vanity and ego of Vladimir Putin.

What if there’s more to the story? Ukraine is sometimes called the World’s Bread-basket – what if it’s not territory or oil & gas that is motivating Putin, but food insecurity? If this is the case, then he would have to view it as an existential threat to Russia in order for him to go to the lengths he has done – and that means not only that he won’t ever back down, but that he will throw everything he can muster at the situation, regardless of the national cost.

This is just speculation – but it’s very interesting speculation, and raises the prospect of the West having misread Russian intentions and motives from the outset, which in turn would hamstring any attempts to resolve the crisis. No peace overtures made thus far could be even contemplated by Putin, they aren’t telling him anything that he wants to hear.

I suspect that it will be decades, if not longer, before the whole truth of the matter is known – if it ever is – but it’s a possible angle on the Invasion that should not be forgotten.

How Long

I’ve indicated that I view 2024 as a watershed year, but there are so many thrusts toward change underway that most will be incomplete by the end of next year. In fact, I think it likely that it won’t be until 2030 that the shape of the ‘next era’ is fully understood, and it might not be until 2035 that the trends come to fruition.

A lot can change in 11 years….

As usual, I’m going to get right down to business. While I’ll try to have this post function as a standalone, You’ll get a lot more out of it if you have already read Chapter 8.1, Chapter 8.2, and Chapter 8.3 before continuing.

The Digital Age, Fifth Period 2010s-2020: The decade of fallout

The most recent decade to conclude was, in many respects, all about the fallout and legacy of the traumas that punctuated the period just concluded. And yet, it’s possible to more or less ignore all of that, giving rise to a revised perception of the period without that high fever masking the reality.

I’ve often found that time lends clarity and perspective. Without that, events often seem disjointed, and the interconnections that form the cohesive outlines of a bigger picture are that much harder to put together.

Careful study of the analyses of isolated events can get you part of the way there, but that takes additional time and effort, and quite a lot of it. The alternative is simply to apply a liberal layer of fuzziness – I know (as does everyone reading this) what happened, and even has some idea of why. If the big picture is a little faded and vague, so what?

The fundamental assumption – that everything that was already happening would continue, unless noted otherwise – holds true.

Beginning: Recovery

I ended the previous period with the beginnings of economic recovery from the GFC, and that recovery persisted almost all the way through to the end of the decade. With life getting better on a daily basis, it was easy to lapse into a casual daze, and simply drift along.

The problem with this sort of attitude is that it becomes habit forming, harder and harder to break. Mountainous problems seemed to have the foundations excavated from under them, and it was possible to ignore them in favor of minutia that seemed oh-so-important at the time.

Domestic Australian Political Turmoil

Australia started the decade with political turmoil to spare.

Kevin Rudd

Kevin Rudd was elected in 2007, and was a very popular figure at the time Unbeknownst to the Australian public, there was considerable division behind the scenes, Rudd’s autocratic manner putting more and more people offside.

During his first two years in office, Rudd set records for popularity in Newspoll opinion polling, maintaining very high approval ratings. By 2010 … Rudd’s approval ratings had begun to drop significantly, with controversies arising over the management of the financial crisis, the Senate refusal to pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, policies on asylum seekers and a debate over a proposed “super profits” tax on the mining industry.

— Wikipedia, Kevin Rudd

The opposition drew political blood over each of these issues. It nevertheless came as a complete shock to the public when his deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, overthrew Rudd in a party room spill on June 23. There had been ongoing speculation about some sort of image reform for months, all of it concluding that there would be no challenge for the leadership.

Julia Gillard

Gillard seemed to breathe new life into the Labor party, enough to at least stem the erosion of popular support. She sought to take advantage of this honeymoon period, calling the next Federal Election just 23 days after taking office.

This resulted in her government being returned to power but in a minority capacity, but she was able to reach agreement on confidence and supply with four members of the Greens party, the price being a carbon emissions trading scheme which directly contradicted the policies she had taken to the public during the election.

Nevertheless, life seems to steady down and the Gillard government made some significant achievements during this term of government. But once again, the opposition began to score body blows against the government.

Rudd Returns

By 2013, it was becoming clear to the labor leadership that unless something changed radically, the Labor government was going to lose the next election. In some desperation, they turned to a familiar figure: Kevin Rudd, who remained publicly popular because none of the behind-the-scenes complaints had been seen in public. One attempt to return the former Prime Minister to power had already failed. In March of 2013, there was a second attempt, aborted when Rudd refused to stand against Gillard.

Clearly, this was a government in turmoil. That never plays well to the Australian electorate, and the polls continued their unfavorable trends. On 26 June, Rudd was returned to power to lead the party to the polls in early 2014.

Although the policies promised by Rudd in the 20144 campaign appealed to a lot of traditional labor supporters, there was very little confidence in his ability to deliver on his promises.

As a result, Tony Abbott of the Liberal-National coalition became Prime Minister in 2013.

Tony Abbott

Anyone who thought that this would usher in a period of stability was about to receive a rude shock. Although his policies were disliked by many, there were also many who supported them, and him, in a fashion reminiscent of the adoration of President Trump in more recent times.

The first hint at what lay ahead came in March, when Abbott announced that without telling anyone in his cabinet, he had advised the Queen to reinstate the knight and dame system of honors in Australia, a wildly unpopular move with the public. The nation had been flirting with becoming a Republic for years, and although the model put forward by the pro-monarchy Prime Minister of the time had been defeated, many of the trappings of Monarchy had been removed, and the nation as a whole were comfortable with the half-way house at which it had arrived. This one autocratic decision upset this comfortable apple-cart, threatening to steer the nation back towards the Monarchy.

People were still digesting this when the 2014 Budget was announced. Harsh and austere to the point of being bleak, it contained measures that were condemned as “Un-Australian” (the harshest criticism one can make of an Aussie), measures that publicly broke election promises despite the polls informing Abbott prior to the election that they were “deal-breakers” with the Australian Public – some went so far as to claim the budget broke all his election promises.

The Abbott government plunged precipitously in public approval – Australians will forgive a lot, but broken promises on this grand a scale were seen as intolerable. The reality was that Abbott was following the usual electoral budget cycle – a very harsh first budget, one or two moderate budgets, and then a generous budget as the next election approached, paid for (essentially) by the first, harsh, budget. Abbott and his Treasurer, Joe Hockey, simply went too far too fast.

From the point of that misstep on, it seemed the Abbott government could not go two weeks without some fresh public policy disaster. From February 2015, Abbott had made one too many authoritarian decisions for even his own party to tolerate, and there was a leadership spill that he only narrowly won. He promised to do better, consult more widely, and reduce the role of his unpopular chief-of-staff.

The government limped on until September, setting new records for unpopularity amongst the voting public. Opinion poll after opinion poll painted the government as rancid. It came as no surprise that a second spill motion ousted Abbott from the top job in September of 2015.

By the time he was removed from premiership, Abbott was one of the most unpopular world leaders, and he has been regarded [since] by critics and political experts as one of Australia’s worst prime ministers.

— Wikipedia, Tony Abbott

Malcolm Turnbull

In his place, a moderate who was hopelessly compromised by the extremists in his own party, who actively undercut his authority and government on a number of occasions over a number of policies, notable energy supply and climate change.

Within some policy areas, he was viewed as weak; in others, he was seen as opinionated. He had won a lot of popular support for his role in the Spycatcher trial (Wikipedia, Spycatcher), and in some policy areas he was more liberal-left (in US terminology) than he was right-wing. (In Australia, politically Left and Right are reversed – the right are progressive and the left conservative).

The Liberal Party had always aspired to be, claimed to be, fiscally conservative but socially progressive, but the decades since the Whitlam government of 1972-75 had eroded that position. There were many who hoped that Turnbull was the beginning of a return to that position, one that had made Liberal Coalition federal governments the norm for many decades (from 1932-1941, and 1949-1972, and 1975-1983, and 1996-2007, Australia had conservative governments).

The problem was too many extremists in his own ranks who were unwilling to toe a new party line, and who actively sought to undermine and back-stab the new leader – our fifth since the start of the decade, if anyone’s keeping count.

These hopes, coupled with a honeymoon period and a repudiation of some of his predecessors more controversial policies, were enough to secure an extremely narrow victory in the 2016 Federal Election – by a single seat. They were quickly dashed, however, as the radical elements of the coalition continued their efforts to undermine his leadership, already threatened by the wearing off of the honeymoon period.

Throughout 2018, it felt as though the leadership was under siege – one spill attempt had taken place, and more had been threatened or expected without materializing. It was seen as a question of when, not if, there would be a successful move to oust him, probably to be replaced with the unpopular and controversial Peter Dutton (sometimes characterized as the Lord Voldemort of Australian Politics).

A preemptive move was initiated in August of 2018 that installed another seeming moderate (though one that leaned a little further to the Australian Left than Turnbull had), Scott Morrison.

Scott Morrison

Time has not been kind to the public perception of the Reign of Morrison. His honeymoon period, however, was lengthy and again proved enough to lead to a victory and improved coalition position within parliament than that achieved by Turnbull. This was considered an unwinnable election for the coalition, so Morrison was perceived by his party to have walked on water.

It’s possible that this license to do as he willed went to his head, but from a relatively controversy-free first term, Morrison’s second term was anything but. There was a widespread perception of corruption, of religious-based favoritism, of ideological extremism, and long-standing problems within the party of Misogyny repeatedly surfaced.

The second term got off to a bad start during the 2019-20 horror Bushfire season (Wikipedia), now known as the Black Summer.

In Intensity, Size, Duration, and Impact – whole communities being wiped out – this was the first murmur of what would become the end of the era. Morrison was on holidays with his family in Hawaii (no-one begrudged him that) when the fires broke out; but his office lied about where he was, and when exposed, he refused to return, offering a cavalier comment that showed him to be completely out of touch with the community.

Crisis after crisis followed. Allegations of Sexual Misconduct, a high-profile and still-controversial Rape allegation, another lukewarm response to the 2022 eastern Australia Flooding (Wikipedia) and the emerging Robodebt scandal were just the headlines; there were dozens of smaller crises along the way to see out the decade.

It didn’t help that these once-in-a-century floods then occurred again in 2023; even though Morrison was no longer in office, this cemented the popular zeitgeist for many.

Nevertheless, Morrison – the sixth Prime Minister of the decade – was still in power when this sub-period, and this era, came to an end, and he got a lot of credit at the time for his response to the Covid epidemic. More on that later.

Six Prime Ministers had seen Australia through from 1971 to 2007 (28 years). Six more (plus a 1-week caretaker PM) had been in charge from 1941 to 1971. That really puts into perspective how turbulent the 2010-20 decade was here, politically.

Consequences

For the most part, the economy trucked on without problems. Despite being controversial amongst the coalition, the rapid response with stimulus cheques to the lowest members of society economically (who spent almost all of it) had prevented a recession here during the GFC, or at least, that was the popular narrative.

That criticism shaped the response to Covid, by the way – something I’ll deal with, later.

It was the cost of those stimulus payments that had prompted the horror budget of 2014.

It might seem that this economic bloom contradicts the basic assertion of this article series, that the economy of a time reflects the social and political state leading up to that time and drives changes in those social and political realities in the years that follow.

The reality is that a mining sector boom, fueled by the growth in China, masked everything else that was going on; without that, this era would have been far more economically turbulent.

If you read Part 7 of this series, Economic Realities, you will realize that two things affect just about everything else in an economy – energy costs (especially electricity) and fuel costs. There is also a significant overlap between the spheres of consequence in which these factors play out. Something I don’t remember pointing out is that electricity costs increase the expense of refining crude oil…

The electricity price in Australia was unstable throughout the decade in question, a consequence of not only the political turbulence but the massive too-ing-and-fro-ing on how to address the climate change problem.

Another of those factors that have an octopus-like reach into multiple economic and social sectors is public and business confidence – in stability and prosperity, specifically – and that also experienced a roller-coaster ride in those years.

A superficial glance from the outside, and all looked rosy – but the reality was quite different for those caught in the middle.

The UK / Europe

I have to admit to not paying as much attention to the politics and economy of the UK as, perhaps, I should have. They started the decade with Gordon Brown and ended it with Boris Johnson, having experienced David Cameron and Theresa May in the middle.

Brown never made much of an impression here. Cameron was respected and viewed as a “typical” English Prime Minister, whatever that means! Theresa May was more controversial, but had little impact here. And Johnson was a maverick, good for entertainment value if nothing else; a huge part of the local impression stemmed from his appearance on Top Gear (UK) when he was Mayor of London, when he gave a very good impression.

But it was Cameron who promised a vote on what would become Brexit during the election campaign of 2015, after a 5-year buildup on the issue. That referendum took place in 2016, and implementation took effect on 31 January, 2020. So this was the decade in which Brexit went from a minor grumble to public policy to reality.

This instability may not have manifested in the high turnover of leaders that was experienced in Australia, but they did have a far more dire experience with the GFC, and then the Brexit economic debate to navigate. I suspect that the experienced reality on the ground was no less turbulent there than it was here – it simply manifested in a different form.

The United States

Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s first term ran from 2009 to 2013, and is considered part of the previous sub-era because it was dominated by recovery from the GFC. His second term was about building on that foundation, restoring the economy to full health.

In 2016, the American Public voted Donald Trump into office.

It doesn’t matter what side you are on, politically – no-one can dispute that the four years of Trump presidency were beset by controversy after controversy, a revolving door of staff in key positions, and a dramatic economic downturn even before Covid.

To about 1/3 of 42% of Americans, he is the greatest political leader the world has ever seen. To about the same number, he is personally distasteful as a leader, but they will vote for him anyway; Everyone else holds various shades of negative opinion about his Presidency.

If the Australian experience is described as turbulent, the Trump Presidency was white-water rafting while wearing a blindfold. The economy reflected that chaos and confusion and resulting lack of confidence in the future. Even without Covid, it was on a steep downward trend throughout the four years.

There are some who consider Trump to have been the worst President in US History; there are others who don’t quite rank him that poorly. And then, there are his fanatically-loyal followers.

In summary, then, if there was a dominant theme to the economic reality of the decade, a deathly economic illness (the GFC) had been thrown off, but in its wake was instability being masked by prosperity.

Beginning: Social Media

There’s a long trail of predecessors that lead to the rise of what we would recognize as social media. We had bulletin boards and chat rooms well before the start of this decade.

GeoCities was a precursor to the modern micro-blogging platforms like Facebook and Twitter (now “X”). I used it pretty much exactly the same way that I use Campaign Mastery these days, and have even recycled some of my old posts.(which I carefully archived at the time) for articles here.

Arguably, the first social media platform to make a splash in a very big way was Myspace, which started in 2003, but it was still focused on being a delivery system for whatever interested the account holder, and so closer to a traditional website.

Facebook was created in 2004, Twitter in 2006. Neither was an overnight success.

Facebook

Facebook opened to public users in 2006, available to anyone 13 years of age (or more) with an email address.

By late 2007, Facebook had 100,000 pages on which companies promoted themselves.

— Wikipedia, Facebook

Between 2007 and 2008, developers created 33,000 applications to run on the platform, and there were more than 400,000 registered developers.

What we would recognize as “Facebook” came into existence with a significant redesign of the user interface dubbed “Facebook Beta” in July 2008. A January 2009 Compete.com study ranked Facebook the most used social networking service by worldwide monthly active users.

The company announced 500 million users in July 2010. Half of the site’s membership used Facebook daily, for an average of 34 minutes, while 150 million users accessed the site from mobile devices.

— Same source

The creator, Mark Zuckerburg,

…announced at the start of October 2012 that Facebook had one billion monthly active users, including 600 million mobile users, 219 billion photo uploads and 140 billion friend connections.

— Same source

The decade of the 2010s was therefore one in which Facebook became a ubiquitous platform, and various users spent the decade learning just what that meant for society.

Twitter

Twitter also got off to a slow start. Created at about the same time as Facebook went public, it was not until 2007 that it really got noticed.

A key turning point was the 2007 South by Southwest Interactive conference.

During the event, Twitter usage increased from 20,000 tweets per day to 60,000. “The Twitter people cleverly placed two 60-inch plasma screens in the conference hallways, exclusively streaming Twitter messages,” remarked Newsweek’s Steven Levy. “Hundreds of conference-goers kept tabs on each other via constant twitters. Panelists and speakers mentioned the service, and the bloggers in attendance touted it.”

— Wikipedia, Twitter

From this beginning, growth was massive and continual. Over its first three years, Twitter rose from ranking 22nd amongst ‘social networking’ sites to be number 2, and it was still surging forward.

On November 29, 2009, Twitter was named the Word of the Year by the Global Language Monitor, declaring it “a new form of social interaction”. In February 2010, Twitter users were sending 50 million tweets per day. By March 2010, the company recorded over 70,000 registered applications. As of June 2010, about 65 million tweets were posted each day, equaling about 750 tweets sent each second, according to Twitter. As of March 2011, that was about 140 million tweets posted daily.

— Same source

Twitter’s usage spikes during prominent events. … A record was set during the 2010 FIFA World Cup when fans wrote 2,940 tweets per second in the thirty-second period after Japan scored against Cameroon on June 14, 2010.

The record was broken again when 3,085 tweets per second were posted after the Los Angeles Lakers’ victory in the 2010 NBA Finals on June 17, 2010, and then again at the close of Japan’s victory over Denmark in the World Cup when users published 3,283 tweets per second.

The record was [re-]set again during the 2011 FIFA Women’s World Cup Final between Japan and the United States, when 7,196 tweets per second were published.

When American singer Michael Jackson died on June 25, 2009, Twitter servers crashed after users were updating their status to include the words “Michael Jackson” at a rate of 100,000 tweets per hour.

The current record as of August 3, 2013, was set in Japan, with 143,199 tweets per second during a television screening of the movie Castle in the Sky (beating the previous record of 33,388, also set by Japan for the television screening of the same movie).

— Same source

From September through October 2010, the company began rolling out “New Twitter”, an entirely revamped edition of twitter.com. Changes included the ability to see pictures and videos without leaving Twitter itself by clicking on individual tweets which contain links to images and clips from a variety of supported websites.<./em>

— Same source


Like Facebook, the 2010s would be a period of Twitter dominance, then. Putting the two events together made this the decade of social media in the eyes of many.

Consequences

A lot of what follows are personal impressions, with which others may disagree.

Facebook always seemed to be a platform for more deliberate posts, while Twitter was more casual, more in-the-moment, more ephemeral.

Facebook largely killed email as a means of staying in contact with family and friends; the capacity to painlessly share photos and videos being an initial snare. To be clear, there were (and are) other solutions to that problem, but they require users to all have the same software just for that purpose; Facebook does all the heavy lifting for you.

Another difference between the two is the longevity of posts, which remain accessible for days after they are posted, even without you or anyone you know, adding to the discussion thread. Again, twitter seems far more immediate and ephemeral.

Event Organization

Protests and even attempted Revolutions have been organized through Social Media. Based on what I’ve written above, it should come as no surprise that events which demand spontaneity for security reasons are more oriented toward Twitter, while those which are deemed more publicly acceptable and hence can organize publicly, tend to be more Facebook oriented – at least until the event begins.

I can never think about such events without remembering the 1973 novella by Larry Niven, Flash Crowd. This looked at the social impacts of instant, practically free, teleportation:

One consequence not foreseen by the builders of the system was that with the almost immediate reporting of newsworthy events, tens of thousands of people worldwide – along with criminals – would teleport to the scene of anything interesting, thus creating disorder and confusion.

— Wikipedia, Flash Crowd

Instant transport is not necessary for such events; near-instant crowd-derived mass communications is sufficient. The resulting social activity can be pre-planned, or spontaneous, and has become known as a flash mob (clearly a tip of the hat to Niven’s story, IMO, though I am hardly the first to draw a connection between the two).

Here in Australia, the concept went largely unnoticed until a private party was gatecrashed by over 1000 party-goers, doing the sort of damage that such a large group of drunken revelers naturally commits. The host of the event, who had tweeted out an “all welcome”, had no expectation of the response. His parents home was largely destroyed, neighbors homes were damaged, there were noise and disturbance complaints for the entire street; when police arrived, some attempted to riot. He went to jail (I think for 24 months) as a consequence, and interviews following his release made it clear that his life had been forever changed by one thoughtless public tweet.

Echo Chambers & Political Polarization

Social media are built around the concept of interacting with a chosen social circle, but – unlike real life – social media users can choose to block or inhibit the display of content from sources with whom they disagree.

Studies have shown that, without contradiction, people become more prone to accept fringe reasoning that accords with their existing prejudices as factual, reorienting their belief structures to accommodate the new ‘truths’ that have been revealed to them. Once fringe content is accepted as factual, a new fringe opens for the user, and the process begins again.

This is what is meant by a social media “Echo Chamber” – someone posts a controversial opinion, and if they only get positive responses because they have curated those who receive the message to only those who support such thinking, it reinforces the original opinion.

Conspiracy theories, paranoia, and delusions are inevitable outgrowths if one is not careful. I’ve often described this as a rabbit hole down which rationality can vanish, never to be seen again – which is probably a little too strong on the hyperbole, but gets the point across.

Up until they embrace provable misinformation as fact, people in the grip of this particular form of mental aberration can be reasoned with, I have found; once that line is crossed, a form of induced psychosis takes hold, and the person becomes an adherent of a cult-like mentality. Outside their delusions, such people can be warm and friendly, opening the door for strangers, helping the elderly, being nice to dogs, you name it – but they have certain triggers that engage a break with reality.

It was quite rare for things to go that far until the latter end of the decade; it must be noted. The impact of the phenomenon is that political and social viewpoints become increasingly dogmatic and polarized.

In part to combat this, I wrote my 2019 article, The Olympian Perspective: Personal Opinions, Fake News, and the GM. The basic contention is that, as a GM, you need to be able to create rational characters who do not share your personal opinions and make them plausible to the wider audience (normally just your players, but some have greater reach).

Misinformation Manipulation

How much worse can the echo chamber effect get when it’s not just opinion and flawed reasoning being shared, but falsehoods deliberately designed to fog beliefs and promote social and political agendas?

That’s the difference between pre- and post- QAnon, when the flaws in rationalism began to be deliberately exploited, either for personal affirmation, or for entertainment purposes, or for political influence. That makes this extreme outcome of the social media experience a development that starts in 2017.

Things took an even more serious turn with the interference by Russia (and others) in the 2016 US elections, but this was not recognized until considerably later in history, with the publication of the Mueller Investigation report. I find it fascinating that there were no serious suggestions of similar interference in the 2020 presidential election or the 2018 and 2022 mid-terms, though it’s more understandable in the latter case – the Ukrainian Invasion and related disinformation efforts were clearly more essential.

But that’s getting ahead of myself.

Social Media: A box of matches?

I didn’t want to end this section on such a negative note. I’m well aware that I have focused hard on the problems of social media without giving equal emphasis to the positive aspects of the technology.

I can only really report these on a personal basis – I have made friends from all over the world through social media. I have regular readers and supporters who I would never have encountered, otherwise. I’ve complained elsewhere about the impact of social media on blog comments (Social Media, SEO, and the dying of comments, written all the way back in 2013), but for the most part, at least until recently, the social contributions of Social Media have been positive for the most part. Fire is useful too, we wouldn’t have a civilization without it.

Social Media is a box of matches. Used properly, it can enhance our lives and society. Mishandled, it can burn the house down. And no-one had read an instruction manual; we were all just figuring it out as we go.

I have tried very hard to separate recent events from this discussion. Everything that I’ve written about is relevant up to the point where Elon Musk purchased Twitter. Beyond that point… the jury is still out, but there’s a lot of yelling coming from the room where they deliberate.

Beginning: Wearable Tech

There was a time, at the start of the decade, when wearable tech looked like it was going to be The Next Big Thing. And then, for the most part, it went away, squashed flat by the smartphone.

Slowly, a decade later, it has started to reemerge – as data monitoring devices that feed to a smartphone. In particular, devices that continuously monitor blood sugar levels look set to take diabetes management into the 21st century.

But this tech doesn’t need to stop there. Consider the possibilities of wearable devices that monitor blood for reduced concentrations of chemotherapy drugs and release targeted medications in consequence. Or anti-psychotics, or dementia preventatives. Doses can be smaller and more targeted, reducing side effects while increasing efficacy. It’s not here yet, but we could be at the thin end of a medical revolution, one which changes the very concept of medication. Time will tell.

Beginning: Death Of A Visionary

Steve Jobs was controversial at times, treating apple more as a vehicle for his personal games with technological possibility than as a corporation seeking to make profits for its shareholders.

But those very qualities are what led to his second coming as Apple CEO, and the development of the iPad, iTunes, the iPod, and the iPhone.

Jobs died in 2011, about 8 years after being diagnosed with a far less aggressive variety of pancreatic cancer. While he initially refused conventional treatments in favor of alternatives, ultimately he underwent surgery in mid-2004 that appeared to successfully remove the tumor..

18 months later, his cancer had returned. Over the next three years, his health seemed to decline and his medical issues become more complex, and he began stepping back into the shadows.

A lot of people in the Tech community, and its more public fringes, treated Jobs’ passing as the death of innovation itself, and the decade seemed determined to justify that reaction. Certainly, Jobs had discovered a rare knack for uncovering technological innovations that would receive public favor and mass adoption.

That simply meant that it would take time for people to emerge to replace him, and to find the right niches for their talents. It seemed to me as unlikely that anyone would become so messianically-percieved for many years as it was that innovation would actually cease.

But it would slow for a while, and this contributed to the placidity of the early decade in a business and social sense.

Middle: The New Entrepreneurs

The middle of the decade seemed to invalidate that assessment, though, as a brand of entrepreneurs emerged to match those of past eras. Zuckerburg with Facebook; Jeff Bezos with Amazon; Elon Musk with Tesla, all promised revolutionary change to the way people lived their lives, and grew wealthy persuading others of their technological visions.

Many of these got their start well before this decade; Tesla was incorporated in 2003, Amazon in the 1990s. Arguably, though, it was in the 2010-20 decade that their times came and they delivered on the promises recognized a decade or more earlier.

As with most overnight successes, people paid little attention to the decades of preparative work involved.

Like their early 20th-century and 19th century forebears – see Section 6. Locomotives & Robber Barons in Part 4 of this series, The Age Of Steam – some of those individuals felt beholden to share their success with the broader community, while others did so for more cynical PR purposes.

Either way, and following the trail blazed by modern entrepreneurial archetype Bill Gates (the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was launched in 2000 and was reported in 2020 to be the second largest charitable foundation on earth, holding $69 billion in assets), they became modern philanthropists.

(For the record, the largest is the Novo Nordisk Foundation of Copenhagen, with $120.2 billion USD in its coffers).

These identities were regularly prominent through the decade sometimes due to controversies, sometimes due to their business operations, and sometimes for their charitable works, though the extent to which they embrace such publicity varies. Bezos, for example, it known to prefer to operate behind the scenes, while Musk is always willing to self-promote.

Climate Change: A Decade Of Lip Service

There are two events in recent times that have yielded a different experience in every nation on earth. One, quite obviously, is the Covid pandemic and policy reactions to same; and the other is Climate Change and the policy responses to that challenge.

Australia

Here in Australia, redneck refusals to acknowledge the danger caused attempts to derail public policies aimed at addressing the threat when there was a Prime Minister who wanted to act, and a willingness to pay lip service but little more when there was a Prime Minister who did not.

The Morrison government, in particular, tried to use clever bookkeeping to “meet” the carbon-emissions international commitments of others despite warnings that it posed an existential threat in the minds of many outside the home territories of those rednecks.

Furthermore, the Black Summer bushfires of 2019-20 and the flood emergencies of 2022 in the Eastern states. Remember the controversy of the Hawaiian holiday discussed earlier? Proving that he had learned nothing, Morrison campaigned in Western Australia while communities were ravaged by unprecedented flooding, which in turn caused a federal relief package for those affected to be delayed. There was strong public belief that both emergencies were either triggered by, or worsened by, climate change.

The fact that the Coalition Government, over its six year reign, had (1) dismantled an unpopular but effective carbon-tax system, and then (2) offered up no less than 22 energy policies, none of which it had succeeded in enacting, left his ‘climate credibility’ in complete tatters.

In the course of the catastrophic 2022 elections, the Liberal-National coalition was savaged at the ballot-box. winning just 58 seats – their lowest representation in government since first forming in 1946.

Six formerly safe Liberal seats in urban and suburban areas, most held by the party and its predecessors for decades, were won by “teal independents”.

— Wikipedia, 2022 Australian Federal Election

The Liberals also suffered large swings in a number of suburban seats that had long been reckoned as Liberal heartland. The Greens increased their vote share and won four seats, gaining three seats in inner-city Brisbane, the first time in the party’s history it won more than one seat in the lower house.

— Same source

All that, of course, falls on the far side of the pandemic, but it’s simply a measure of the ill-will and resentment that Morrison experienced on the environmental front, an arrogance which was duly punished at the post-Pandemic election.

The media had, of course, been dutifully reporting on the pronouncements of the various climate authorities, and the Bushfire/Flood/Flood trilogy created a sense that the Government had wasted a decade on inaction, or on actions that were subsequently undone.

Elsewhere

But, of course, everywhere else had its own distractions and problems. The US had been a world leader in the fight against carbon emissions under Barack Obama, but Donald Trump undid all that. Europe had Brexit on its plate. Both had the GFC demanding priority. The causes were different, though related, but the end result was the same – a decade came and went with no substantial progress to show for it.

End: Stirrings Of Alarm

The beginning of the end of the era was signaled by news reports in November and December 2019 of an outbreak of a new illness in China. These continued into January 2020, but caused no panic.

Past Epidemics

In part, the world was a victim of its own past successes. Scares like Bird Flu and had come and gone without a major international ripple. Lots of hand-wringing and moaning about how bad things could be, in the worst-case outcome – but those dire warnings never seemed to actually materialize.

Perceived Non-events

By 31 January, Italy indicated its first confirmed infections had occurred, in two tourists from China. But still, this was viewed as a minor incident – there might need to be some restrictions placed on travel from China, but there was little cause for panic.

In general, this was seen as a local Chinese problem, and a non-event elsewhere.

On 23 January 2020, bio-security officials began screening arrivals on flights from Wuhan to Sydney. Two days later the first case of a SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported, that of a Chinese citizen who arrived from Guangzhou on 19 January. The patient was tested and received treatment in Melbourne. On the same day, three other patients tested positive in Sydney after returning from Wuhan.

— Wikipedia, COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia

This Time It’s Real

And then that perception changed, and bodies began to pile up in New York and Italy. By now it was March. Too little, too late, serious travel restrictions were slammed into place.

The Pandemic changed everything. Anyone who thought we could just reopen and life would go back to normal had rocks in their heads.

The next part of this series will look at the two years of Pandemic and the years that have followed, and – to the best of my ability – consider what’s likely to happen over the next decade or so, at least in economic terms.

Last week, I promised readers something completely different from the Economics in RPGs series, and even though this is a different article to the one I had in mind at the time, I still think it delivers – in classic Campaign Mastery style :)

While working on the Adventurer’s Club campaign this week (as I outline this article), I was prompted to ask myself this question.

“Been in the family for x generations,” is an entirely valid statement that expects the listener to be able to decode the message.

“…and lay undisturbed for generation after generation, until the events had long ago faded into myth and legend,” lays less emphasis on unpacking the units, but the GM still needs to have some vague idea of what they mean.

And it’s not as simple as it sounds.

Prior Engagements

In the past, I’ve skirted around this issue as much as I possibly could. Nevertheless, there are at least two prior articles when I could not have fully avoided it (the first, in two parts):

• Growing The Perfect Family Tree Part 1
• Growing The Perfect Family Tree Part 2
• Throw Me A Life-line: A Character Background Planning Tool

There may have been others, but those are the ones that come most readily to mind.

A fixed number – 20? 25? More? Less??

There have been all sorts of fixed numbers thrown around by various sources through the years and marginal agreement between them. Four claimants of the definition stand out, in my opinion.

25?

Twenty-five years was the number that I first associated with the term, I’m not entirely sure why – this was long before I got into gaming. For many years, it was my default go-to interpretation.

It’s a convenient subdivision of a century, for one thing, and long enough to encompass most viable analysis-based interpretations.

Over time, a subtle difference crept into my interpretation of the term, “generation” – rather than a strict 25 years, it became an ‘average’ of 25 years. This attempted to reconcile function-based applications of the term with the simplicity of a numeric definition.

It made the whole term fuzzier, and potentially more useful.

30?

When I raised the question with my fellow GMs – because I had most of this article written already – one offered this up as his go-to interpretation, while admitting that he had never really put any thought into the meaning of the term..

He was no more sure of where his number had come from than I was of mine, but he justified it in functional terms. There was a hint of a suggestion that the term may have originally had a functional definition that was rounded and approximated by later users, clouding the whole issue – sometimes, a user would have meant the strictly functional definition, and sometimes, the generalized interpretation – and sometimes, they would have simply tossed the term out as a vague “long time” with no significant thought invested in the meaning at all!

I don’t know about you, but I found this line of thought fairly compelling, even though it clouded the issue more than a little. But then I realized that it could operate in the other direction too – starting with a vague definition, to which people like myself had tried to apply functional refinements, only to find that none of them quite fit the sources (in fact, it would be an astounding coincidence if they did line up.

More cloudiness, less clarity – both theories have a ring of plausibility.

An online source then suggested 33 years, using exactly the same logic as for the proposed 30-year units – my impression was that this was compromising the unit to get a simple fraction of a century (well, of 99 years).

20?

Another number that I’ve seen seemingly plucked out of thin air from time to time is Twenty Years. In modern times, this would be a reasonable fit for the usual functional definition, perhaps rounded to a convenient number.

We all know people who consign everything that happened before they were born to this vast dumping ground of “Don’t know, don’t care, don’t know why you care, either”. These are the people who allegedly ask about wooden aircraft carriers, and why Knights didn’t use rifles instead of swords – though I find those to be caricatures, not entirely divorced from reality but not truly reflective of it, either.

I suspect that this value is a vague compromise between a lot of numbers that have some element of plausibility, bolstered by the modern ‘fit’ and the convenience of being a nice, simple, number.

But this raises another complicating factor to think about – the possibility that the numeric value interpretation of a definition has changed over time with improvements in medical knowledge and changes in society.

18?

A functional definition is the age at which a set of generic parents could be replaced – I’ll examine that definition with more rigor later in the article.

The first time I remember encountering it, it was being used to justify a generational ‘unit’ of 16-18 years. The line of logic used was that you could marry at 18, and have two children before you were 19, if you really worked at it.

Actually, the definition used marked the next generation as being the birth of the first child, perhaps for simplicity. Yet another complication!

What’s more, the fact that people used to marry younger – historically, 16, 14, and even 12 were not unheard of – lends added credence to this value.

My personal suspicion is that this is simply the youngest legal age in modern times at which marriage, and hence legal childbirth, is permitted. So you couldn’t have a generation be anything less, and anything more sat in the difference between a theoretical future potentiality and the current reality.

But this brings in a whole raft of new complications – social factors, legal factors, and the difference between theory and application in reality.

It’s a lazy definition, but an illuminating one.

Age Of Consent?

In particular, this raises the question of legal age of consent, and whether it’s anything more than an artificial line in the calendar that most people observe – at least officially.

It’s tempting to toss this issue aside as an irrelevant distraction, but it seems unlikely that social expectations and behavioral demands can be completely divorced from the question at hand.

These social restrictions would act as a cut-off filter, setting a minimum legal value which is only loosely related to the biological elements of the definition.

Biological capacity, in other words, sets a range of values that could be acceptably associated with the term “generation” but social restrictions limit which of those possible answers are considered “socially acceptable”.

At best, this is a secondary factor – something to be taken into account, but not the primary foundation of a definition.

But it does point to one more complication: Perceived Value vs Reality. Just what you – and I – needed….

Complication Scoreboard

It’s probably worth rounding up all those complicating factors and questions at this point, and putting them all in a list.

1. Functional definitions may be compromised for simplicity.
2. A simple fraction of a century is an obvious and attractive arbitrary value.
3. Vague and arbitrary definitions may be compromised to fit a functional definition.
4. Definitions may have changed over time, so you can never be sure of the intended interpretation in any specific text or reference.
5. Modern interpretations can cloud and bias interpretations.
6. Applied medical knowledge is an obvious factor in ‘modern interpretations’ and is therefore an implied factor for other historical periods / game settings.
7. Social factors, especially those consequent to medical knowledge, are also an obvious factor in ‘modern interpretations’ and a factor to definitions in other historical periods / game settings.
8. Even if a constant, consistent definition is assumed, the numeric value associated with that definition can and will change over time (as a consequence of 6 & 7 at the very least).
9. The limiting end-points must be a part of any practical definition.
10. Legal factors can apply a bias, a socially-acceptable limit, or both.
11. There may be a disconnect between theoretical values and reality on the ground, because 7 and 9 have no impact on the biological reality.
12. There may be a disconnect between perceived values and theoretical or actual numbers.

It suddenly seems completely UNsurprising that there is so much confusion surrounding such a “simple” question.

Functional Generational Replenishment?

It takes (for most species) two adults to create an offspring. So replacing those two adults is a valid measurement of a generation.

This builds in all sorts of social factors. It re-frames the question to “What is the average age of a couple at the time of the birth of their second child who survives to adulthood?”

It’s a simple answer to specify it as “Age Of Consent plus two” – assuming human gestation periods and social structure.

If the Age of Consent is 18, that takes us back to 20. But if marriage is permitted at a younger age, as was common in medieval times, we get a different answer.

But that whole “+2” is problematic. Infant mortality in medieval times was appalling – I’ve seen values of 70%, 80%, and even 90%, depending on who you ask. In fact, that was a contributing factor to the lower consent age – where “consent”.is construed as “Consent to Wed”.

Mortality Impact

I tried running calculations to determine what the “+2” should be at different mortality rates, but got bogged down in detail to the point where I was no longer confident of the results. For the record, at a 90% mortality, I ended up with a value of +24.5. That’s huge, but is it right? I’m not sure. I can equally see it being half of 1.5+24.5, or 13 years – because we’re looking for the average, not the certainty.

The only thing I can state with confidence is that it’s going to be a LOT higher than +2.

Other Mortality Factors

This is another very real factor that should be taken into account. If the mother dies during one of these childbirths, then (to continue having children) the father needs to remarry, and that means that we are no longer looking for the second surviving child, but the third, because three discrete adult individuals now have to be replaced.

A man with extremely bad luck or judgment might need five wives to have five children.

It works in the other direction, too – if the man gets killed in a battle someplace, the widow needs to remarry in order to continue having (legitimate) children.

It’s entirely possible that BOTH parents will perish before having two children who will survive to adulthood. What do we do then?

Fait Accompli

For all practical purposes, it’s far better to presume a fait accompli and work backwards.

Current Generation

Let’s say the current date is 1210, and the current person of interest is 32 years of age. That means that they will have been born in 1210-32 = 1178.

Prior Generation

How old was this current person’s father or mother when he was born? Subtract that from our running date and you get the year in which the parent was born.

Let’s say that he was 22 years of age at the time. That means that parent was born in 1178-22 = 1156.

Grandparent’s Generation and older

Repeat for as many generations as you need, or until you reach the critical date in question.

What we were working on was a treasure hidden just prior to the US civil war, with a starting date of 1938. We ended up going back 4 generations – and this is not some nebulous generic “generation”, it’s the term as it applies to this specific family.

Age Of Death

If you know the age of the parent at which the heir to the family was born, and the year of birth of the parent, it’s then a simple matter to add X years to that age to get the age at death of the parent.

X is important here because that’s the number of years that the parent and child co-existed. You are essentially constructing a family narrative while and anchoring it to actual dates in your chronology.

What we found, when applying this concept, was that it was best to start documenting the family history with the earliest significant member and work forward.

We tried arbitrarily saying someone died at age Y but found that Y rarely married up to the chronology of events within the family; in effect, it was putting the cart before the horse.

Complications

We assumed that only one direct line of descent was important, even though we knew that this was inaccurate.

Every child has at least 2 parents. Every parent has at least 2 parents, who are grandparents to the child. Every grandparent has at least two parents, who are great-grandparents to the child, and so on.

A more complete (and much more complicated and tedious) approach would track each of these family links back using the same technique.

Then we get to the implied question of siblings – uncles and aunts, great-uncles and great-aunts, and so on.

And then we get to the question of their descendants – cousins and the like.

The guiding principle should always be the lived experience of the ‘child’ at the center of your family narrative. If they didn’t know relative Z, there is no need for you to mention relative Z, let alone place them on your growing family tree.

Integrated Histories

I’ve touched on this already, but thought it was worth explicitly considering: no family history should exist in isolation. No family is immune to the big events in the world around them – such as the US Civil War.

There are two general approaches that you can take to such integration.

The Fast Approach

The first is to have a list of the critical dates, in sequence oldest to most recent, and simply incorporate them as you are constructing the family narrative.

Much of the time, this will work seamlessly with no problems. Trouble arises when – for whatever reason – you need to alter the birth and death dates to marry up to the narrative that you are creating. Suddenly, you can find that an event that was supposed to impact a particular family member no longer touches them, or that an event that you thought you could avoid is suddenly very much a part of the family story of the generation in question. Any mistake in your arithmetic can tear your entire chronology apart.

The Second Approach

The alternative is to take a little more time and effort and actually map out a chronology:

xxxx Richard Randall born
     1832 Steven Randall is born
     1834 Efram Randall is born
     1835 Eliza Douglass is born
1853 Richard Randall dies
     1858 Steven & Efram duel for Eliza’s hand
     1858 Efram Randall survives but is disinherited
     1858 Steven Randall marries Eliza Douglass
1861 Civil War begins
     1861 Efram Randall joins the Confederate Army
     1861 Steven Randall joins the Union Army
     1862 Efram leads his unit on a raid on the family farm…

….and so on (note the careful use of indents!)

For the record, this example is completely fictitious and bears no resemblance to what was being developed for actual game use.

This shows that there is no need for the father, Richard, to be affected by the Civil War; he’s already dead and buried. But it shows the siblings, Steven and Efram, caught up within it as an extension of their pre-existing family feud.

If your narrative requires Richard to be (a) alive but (b) too old to serve in the Civil War, and so (c) in a position to repel the raid, or perhaps to be killed in the course of it, the date of his death will need to be altered, and possibly the date of his birth.

This can have ripple effects both up and down the timeline that are far more easily handled with a simple list like this – especially if you can use cut-and-paste to move a whole line and change the date.

If you stick to the principle of only listing those family members known or directly relevant to the current generation, you can invent and insert long-lost relatives and other chapters of the family history as you need them.

Lost To Living Memory

A similar technique can be used when you need to set events beyond living memory. I actually went into this in some detail in discussing the planning tool linked to above, so I’ll try not to belabor the point here.

• Generation 0 – directly involved.
• Generation 1 – first-hand accounts from parents
• Generation 2 – first-hand accounts from grandparents
• Generation 3 – possible first-hand accounts from great-grandparents,
           more likely 2nd-hand accounts (some distortion) from parents and grandparents.
• Generation 4 – 2nd and 3rd-hand accounts from grandparents and parents, respectively.
• Generation 5 – events become part of family mythology.

The Rule Of Threes

From that point on, the significance of the event (whatever it was) fades in relevance.

I always work on the principle of the rule of threes – at any given time, there are normally three living generations of significance: subject, parents, grandparents.

Anyone older is likely to be deemed an unreliable source.

That’s why, in the chronology-by-generation listed above, it is Generation 3 where the first-hand accounts stop. Generations 5 or 6 are where the second-hand accounts stop, and the story becomes a family legend. Somewhere around generations 8 or 9, that legend will be so vague and unsubstantiated that it is completely unreliable, if it’s remembered at all.

For example, one of my Grandfathers was killed in the Second World War; I never knew him. My father’s middle name commemorates him, and I was named for my father’s middle name, so I am concatenated directly to my grandfather’s life – but know very little about it beyond the simple fact of his service. He is a family legend to me.

A great-grandparent by marriage was in the first world war, but survived; I have personal memories of him and his stories of service. He survived the Gallipoly landing, for example. I can remember him telling me of the sense of wonder he felt as a child when reports of the Wright Brothers flight reached Australia. But going any further back? There are just fogs and mists. My living memory extends to second-hand reports of those early-20th-century events.

Application

One of the truths that I have gleaned from Who Do You Think You Are? is that the facts about the way the earliest actually-experienced generation were – personality etc – are known, but the reasons rarely are, and anything beyond that wall of time are lost, at best preserved in myth, folklore and rumor. In some cases, that earliest-generation is a parent; in some cases it’s a grandparent; and in only a few cases is it a great-grandparent.

Using this, and the preceding section, as a guide, you can determine how many generations forward you need to go before an event becomes an almost forgotten legend, or even gets lost entirely in the sands of history.

Once you know that, you can start assembling the family history from that moment forward, stopping when you get to the present day. Or you can determine that it was nothing more than a myth for X years and start your narrative from that point.

What stories were those who are alive today, told as a child? Who was around to pass on those whispers and murmurs?

Error

If you list four family tales from beyond that point of personal second-hand knowledge – stories from those who were actually there – you can break them down as follows:

• About 1/4 will be more-or-less accurate, though circumstances may be wildly different than expected and details will be wrong.
• About 1/2 will be, at best, half-truths and potentially misleading.
• And about 1/4 will be outright inaccuracies or willful falsehoods that have been perpetuated through the family history.

It’s usually helpful to the GM to at least have a vague outline of what the truth was, and then to apply these ratios to the stories known to the current generation.

Non-humans and Hi-Tech

Everything written above applies to humans and those who live on a time-scale that is something resembling that of humans. There clearly have to be modifiers applied to such considerations when you are talking about non-humans, and other modifiers that have to be applied to take into account the penchant of medical advance to meddle in the ‘natural’ state of affairs.

Fortunately, it’s not all that hard.

1. Start with the natural time-span. Derive a multiplier that can be used to transform a lifespan into human terms, or vice-versa.
2. Think about the life-cycle of the species, as modified by medical science. This can be considered to shorten some stages of life, lengthen others, and make still others more rigid (treating any variation as a potential ‘medical issue’ that needs to be ‘treated’). Derive an appropriate set of multipliers for these factors and apply to both the human scale and the non-human scale.
3. Think about the social structure of the species, especially in light of medical advance and the life-cycle impacts already defined. Modify accordingly, and add social restrictions on life-stage transitions.
4. Use the resulting modified human scale to sketch out the foundations of a family tree, ignoring anything not of direct relevance to the core of the modern family. This works because it’s easier for us to think about such things on the human scale, even a modified one – it takes away one more point of confusion. The answer will be in years relative to the birth of the focal character of the current generation. Go back one further generation than you think you have to.
5. Apply the human-to-alien scaling factor to get ‘real experienced years’ on the alien timescale. Translate the relative dating into actual dating using whatever the protocol is for such in your game world. Generate a list of the individuals and the dates of their births and deaths, and a timeline which lists those events in chronological sequence.
6. Starting from the earliest date on your timeline, work forwards through time, looking for key dates in the campaign background to define generational transitions and life-altering events experienced by the population of the family tree. Add each to the overall chronological sequence, and add each event to the “bio” of the characters that experienced it. As you do so, make a brief note as to the consequences / impact on the individual. NB: I always start with a snapshot of the ‘status quo’ at the time of the earliest family member.
7. When you reach the modern day, you have compiled a set of ancestors and milestones experienced. Some of these may be important enough to expand into a fuller biography – in particular anyone of special significance to the focal character, and anyone still surviving.

There’s a fair amount of work there, but none of it is especially difficult.

NB: you can also use the same technique to generate ‘histories’ of Kingdoms, of multi-generational businesses, of towns – anything you want. The use of a consistent campaign background creates the functionality of a checklist of important events. After you’ve done a few of these for the one game setting, that ‘checklist’ will start to make the whole process even faster and easier.

The same technique works in Sci-Fi, in Fantasy, in Steampunk – in fact, in any genre that you care to apply it to.

Wrap-up

Family histories are not always necessary, they’re not even useful a lot of the time. But, when they are relevant, they can provide a background narrative that makes a character more substantial, or create an adventure in uncovering the past or which has it’s roots in a part of history intimately and directly connected or a specific PC.

This article isn’t about when to create such histories; that’s best left to each GM and the circumstances of their campaigns. The purpose here is to offer a practical answer to the impossibly-vague question of how long a span of years comprises a generation, and how to employ that when it’s useful to do so.

Postscript Sidebar: Adventure style, tone, and sub-genre

Every player has a particular set of preferences and dislikes. One of the foundational players in my development as a GM loved Sherlock Holmes stories – and hated being ground zero of a mystery plotline. One of my current players hates “Big Cosmic” adventures – but loves Space Opera as a Sci-Fi sub-genre (just not in his RPGs, thank you very much). But it’s not just negative preferences – there are some “zones of subject matter” that are certain to bring certain players to life whenever they are encountered. Some players love major plot twists and surprises, some hate them.

More than at any other time, these preferences should be taken into account when constructing a plotline around the background of a particular PC. It does you no good to make a character the focal point of an adventure that won’t interest them – not unless that is the foundation of the whole adventure, at least!

On the other hand, setting such a background-based adventure in a genre that the player likes and enjoys boosts their interest levels, and makes both character and campaign more appealing to them – and, vicariously, to everyone else.

Bear those facts in mind and don’t be too clever for your own good :)

Lots still to get through, so as usual I’m going to dive right in. While I’ll try to have this make sense in a standalone mode, it would be preferable for you to have read Chapter 8.1 and last week’s Chapter 8.2 before continuing.

The Digital Age, Fourth Period 00s-2010s

Most of the decade that followed the beginning of the Millennium just seemed to coast on by without being particularly noticeable or significant. Everything seemed more personal in scope and less international and collective, or at least that is my impression in hindsight.

At the same time, I’m very well aware that this is a false impression that has been created by the epic buildup to the Sydney Olympics, which I wrote about in the previous post.

The goodwill and happy vibe that resulted from “The greatest Games of all time” endured until September 11, 2001 – exactly 22 years ago as I write this – diminishing the importance attached to all troubles and letting people just coast along.

Even the troubled election of George W. Bush (hanging Chads, etc) in late 2000 fitted this narrative, with his strong domestic agenda.

Beginning: Internet Awakening

One of the major challenges in constructing a series like this is trying to pick ‘mile markers’ for the end-points. In many respects, a strict chronology means the start of a period exactly matches the end of the previous one.

You can achieve a starker contrast by shifting those end points to a logical map rather than a strictly chronological one, and that’s something that’s been done throughout this series. But it frequently begs the question – move the dividing line forward or back?

Frequently, you need a string of different logical dates, which creates a fuzziness about the end/beginning points. So it is, this time around, but it’s worse than usual because one of the defining elements of the era is also somewhat fuzzy in its history, with no clear dividing line separating before from after.

Internet beginnings and early growth

While its roots trace back to the 1960s, it’s a certainty that the internet really began sometime in the 1990s. The starting point that I prefer the 1995 decommissioning of the NSFNet in the US, which removed the last impediment to full commercialization of the internet – an event so obscure that most readers will never have heard of it. But you might prefer the 1993 invention of the search engine with web crawler, before which all website indexes had to be manually curated.

By the end of the decade, the internet was doubling in size every year, while the number of users was increasing by 20-50% each year (Wikipedia, The Internet).

Here’s the thing with geometric expansions like this – the greater share of whatever you are measuring will always have ‘just happened’, only the precise numbers will change.

Consider the following sequence, which increases by 33% each year, starting (for convenience) with a value of 3:

2000 = 3
2001 = 4
2002 = 5.333
2003 = 7.110
2004 = 9.481
2005 = 12.641

growth, year-on-year:

2001 = 4 — 3 = 1 → 1 / 4 = +25%
2002 = 5.333 — 4 = 1.333 → 1.333 / 5.333 = +24.995%
2003 = 7.110 — 5.333 = 1.777 → 1.777 / 7.110 = +24.993%
2004 = 9.481 — 7.110 = 2.371 → 2.371 / 9.481 = +25.008%
2005 = 12.641 — 9.481 = 3.16 → 3.16 / 12.641 = +24.998%

The only reason these aren’t all +25% is because of rounding errors. So 25% of the total growth has always happened in the last 12 months, it doesn’t matter where you draw the line (those mathematically inclined will realize that this is the case with geometric expansion series, by definition).

Search Engines

But in this series, I’ve never been overly concerned with the existence of something compared to the ability to do something with it. You can create the greatest web page in the history of the world; it won’t mean a thing if no-one can find it to read it.

Early search algorithms were simple and unreliable (I can remember articles in computer magazines testing them and finding. that to be close to comprehensive, you needed to use at least two and preferably three. That led to Copernic (named for Copernicus) – a metasearch engine that aggregated dozens of search results. You can date it’s roots to 1996.

That was what eventually set Google apart – the algorithms that it used to rank results in an effort to bring the most relevant results to the top of the list. They have only gotten better at this in the years since, despite the best efforts of others to ‘game the system’.

Opinion: Google page ranking cheats

My take on such nonsense as ‘buying back-links’ and other google-ranking trickery: Yes, you might get a massive boost from trickery, but when it becomes apparent that you are gaming the system, you will be penalized – and such long-term pain is quite likely to exceed the short-term gain.

So I don’t go in for such – heck, I barely make a stab at SEO, preferring to put my efforts into better content, in the belief that it will pay off in the long run.

Or, to put it another way, you are only as good as your reputation – and that’s far more easily harmed than regenerated. The optimum approach is to avoid reputational harm as much as you possibly can, in the first place.

Web-based applications

Until potential customers can find your products, the internet is a plaything. The more effortlessly consumer and provider can find each other, the more significant the internet becomes. As someone once wrote (a deliberate rephrasing of the statement concerning the Bill Clinton presidency from 1992), “It’s all about the applications, stupid.”

And it’s the 2000s when web-based applications come into their own. Again, there were precursors, but the real development started during this decade, in two forms.

First, Cloud Computing – Amazon Web Services, in 2002, permitted developers to use Amazon’s hardware to build applications; in 2006, Google Docs was released in Beta Version. This was the ultimate in ‘smaller devices – using someone else’s hardware, so that all you needed was enough computing power to interface with that hardware.

Second, the first technologies to use the internet as a communications backbone rather than an end in itself – you had milestones in chat room development in 1971, 1973, 1980, and 1988. IRC (Internet Relay Chat) peaked in 2003, and has been declining since, overtaken by Social Media (and especially Twitter – which is now in decline itself).

Third, in the same vein, Peer-to-peer networked applications were one of the hot topics through the 2000s – most famously, because of Napster, which dates from May 1999. By popularizing the MP3 and MP4 digital file formats, modern-day streaming services are the legacy of these applications.

And, finally, E-Commerce. This started in 1994, and the first product for sale over the internet was Sting’s album Ten Summoner’s Tales.

Wine, chocolate, flowers, Pizza, and internet banking soon followed (see Wikipedia, Online Shopping). It is worth remembering that the creators of the 1995 film, The Net, had to actually explain (and demonstrate in the movie) online shopping for goods and services, in sequences that look incredibly clunky to those used to such services in the world of the 2020s. (I strongly recommend this movie for those trying to get a ‘feel’ for the state of the art around 1995-2000).

The 2000s were when online shopping hit its stride – Amazon may have started in 1994, and gone public in 1997, and started selling books and videos in 1998, but it was in the DVD era that it really exploded, largely because the products weighed less, reducing postage costs.

The 2000s were all about the Internet going from a toy with better things ‘on the near horizon’ to ubiquitously connecting everything and everyone – an astonishing rate of adoption. It took 25 years for mobile phones to achieve that level of market penetration, for example.

Mobile Telephones

That was because mobile phones got started earlier, and because the constraint was always the construction of a dedicated wireless network and other infrastructure.

While early examples were suitcases and bricks, the size problem was solved by the mid-90s.

In the year 2000, there were about 35 mobile phone subscriptions per 100 people in the developed world, and maybe 11 per 100 people in the developing world. By 2010, those numbers were 113 and 68, respectively. That was the year that numbers appeared to reach saturation in the developed world (only to start rising again in 2011-12), while the developing world would reach (by my estimates) 100 units per 100 people around 2017.

Shortly before the start of the decade, therefore, mobile phones were still expensive toys for wealthy and pretentious people – but the explosive growth in subscriptions from 1999 to 2000 signaled that for the decade to follow, that would no longer be the case.

Early adopters were mostly professionals (who could afford the devices) but by mid-decade, regular servicemen like electricians and plumbers were signing up as a business necessity.

Such rapid change means that the GM needs to “fingerprint” his representation of individual years within the period with an appropriate level of market penetration, and appropriate public attitude toward, mobile phones.

Beginning: 9/11: Shockwaves & Awe

So domesticity was the big ticket in 2000, and looked to be the focus for at least the first half of the decade.

Other people had other ideas.

At the time, it was common for Australian TV to affiliate itself with an American network; our ‘late night” TV was their morning shows. (This continues to some extent, even now).

Since these were preceded by the graveyard shift, to which the networks relegated the shows they didn’t understand the appeal of, like Sci-Fi, it was common for gamers and the like to at least get to see the start of the shows – and make up their minds on whether or not to stay tuned based on the promised content (sometimes yes, sometimes no).

The introduction to this days’ show talked about a “terrible accident” as a 747 had struck one of the World Trade Towers. I was still getting my head around that when a second plane struck. No-one on-screen said so, but it was immediately clear that this was a terrorist attack, and the most shocking one that the world had ever seen.

I had been doing prep for one of my RPG campaigns, I forget which, but all thoughts of that vanished as I watched the events from half-a-world away. There seemed an inevitability to the third strike, as though a sword of Damocles had finally fallen. At that point, I could bear inaction no longer, and started trying to encapsulate what I was seeing and feeling in music.

That was my personal experience of 9/11. That night, the world changed. Some of the outcomes were predictable – a massive increase in security at airports, a pointed investigation into the obvious failure of intelligence and new tools and resources for the agencies, and a hot war against anyone who was deemed to have been involved. Someone had poked the bear and was about to feel the Wrath Of God.

The next few days were confused. I couldn’t understand the increasing focus on Iraq when the culprits had been traced to Afghanistan, and to locations within that country that would experience relatively few civilian casualties. Eventually, I realized that Al Quida didn’t represent enough of an outlet for the “righteous anger” of some in the US – I couldn’t blame them for that, but this made it clear to me that unless calmer heads prevailed, and quickly, there would be consequences.

Sadly, no calmer heads emerged.

Consequences

Of course, these consequences and responses were not restricted to the United States. Security at airports everywhere was immediately ramped up, for example.

Domestic issues immediately became nothing more than an arena for consequences of the international relations arena to play out. Even sacred cows like personal liberty and human rights, long held to be sacrosanct, were set aside in the resulting paranoia.

The problem with doing the previously-unthinkable is that it weakens the commitment to everything else once held inviolable. Breaking rules can be habit forming, needing only sufficient motivation or perceived benefit to doing so. This was the slippery slope upon which the US – and to a lesser extent, the rest of the world – now embarked.

I see a direct connection between these developments in response to 9/11 and events like the attempted coup of January 6, 2021, the former normalizing radicalism sufficiently to permit the latter to be contemplated.

Middle: Mega-corp Services Proliferate

But the world kept turning, and a new normal soon established itself. And that new normal was the rise of four additional Mega-corporations, to join Microsoft: Apple, Amazon, Google, and Napster.

I’ve already touched on several of these and why & how they became significant. Ultimately, these were Utility and/or Service providers who simply happened to provide a capabilities that everyone wanted. As the sole suppliers of those services to that standard, they were all-but immune to the anti-monopoly laws that had broken up large corporate entities before they got to anywhere near the size of these “new” entities.

Like most overnight successes, these weren’t – they had taken years or even decades laying groundwork for their ultimate dominance.

Nor were any of them as ubiquitous as they seemed at them time; there were alternatives to all of them, or would be before long.

Nevertheless, the second half of the decade revolves largely around those mega-corporations and the products and services they offer.

End: Personal Tech

So much so that those products and services are also central to understanding the social patterns that obtained by the end of the decade.

All of those products and services can be characterized as belonging to a singular conceptual theme: Personal, or personalized, tech. Let me demonstrate by listing some – a few obvious ones and some less obvious examples.

• iPad / Tablet: This was all about portability, about being able to take your computer, and everything it provided, anywhere you went.
• Napster / iPod: The ultimate mix-tape, fueled by the most personal of choices, the music that you listen to. Leave out any tracks you don’t like or want, and curate only your personal selection – then take it with you everywhere you want. Approve or not, there’s’ no arguing with the outcome.
• Google Search: In seeking ways of making the search results more relevant to you, Google was also able to target you with advertising relevant to you – and that translates directly into increased sales for the providers of those products and services. That was the theory, and Google translated that into becoming the biggest corporation in the world. In 2010, it was worth about 400 Billion USD; at the high point in 2021, that had risen to 2,000 Billion USD, or 2 Trillion dollars. It’s value declined sharply through 2022 (down to about 1½ Trillion), but has been recovering in 2023. If the trend continues, it will fully recover in 2024.
• Amazon: This one’s a little less obvious, but a key part of the sales strategy at Amazon is to use the shopping of others to present the individual with additional products and services that are customized to their profile, or rather, to Amazon’s best guess as to your personal profile. Everything you buy on the site, everything that you put into your wishlist, anything you even look at – in theory, they all weight the selection of products to be offered, on the premise that getting you to buy anything is better (for Amazon) than you not doing so.
• GPS: The Global Positioning System became fully operational in 1993, following twenty years of development and ‘installation’ by the US Department of Defense. Initially intended to be a purely military application, civilian use was permitted by Reagan after the Korean Airlines Flight 007 disaster. Its civilian accuracy was downgraded in the early 1990s using technology intended to prevent other militaries using the system contrary to perceived US interests, which has led multiple nations toward developing their own Sat-Nav systems. This policy was discontinued by Clinton in May 2000. In 2004, linking GPS to mobile phones for civilian purposes was successfully tested; the facility for using GPS to locate survivors of a disaster having been mandated in 2002. GPS is all about taking you to where you want to go. Most early problems with Commercial Sat-Nav systems can be laid at the feet of completely artificial human traffic-control inventions like one-way streets; since these are all exceptions to the default assumption (two-way travel on a road), they all have to be manually coded within the navigational software – without slowing it down so much as to make it useless. In 2007, Toyota introduced Map On Demand, a technology for distributing updated maps automatically, and the popularity and scope of Sat-Nav systems has been increasing ever since. I even have an App that tracks the bus that I’m waiting for, continually revising its ETA at my stop.
• iPhone / Smartphone: January 9, 2007, saw Steve Jobs introduce the first generation iPhone. Although there had been mobile computing telephony devices like the Blackberry previously, the iPhone was the device that made the Smartphone popular. Rivals developed their own, and the iPhone now accounts for just 15.6% of the global market share (as of 2022) – but that is still enough for more than 2.2 billion of them to have been sold by Apple since that auspicious 2007 date. Because of their premium pricing, I’ve always regarded the iPhone as a luxury version of the smartphone. Because they can do so much more than a “standard” mobile phone, I’m inclined to treat these as a separate product category in their own right.

End: The GFC

The 2007-2008 financial crisis, known to most of the world as the GFC, marks the beginning of the end of the decade, insofar as all the other trends had made their debut and would encounter no significant development – just more of the same.

Most of us lived through it, and most of us have only a vague idea of what happened and why. Wikipedia lists three causes culminating in a “Perfect Storm”: Predatory lending targeting low-income home-buyers, excessive risk-taking by global financial institutions, and the bursting of the United States housing bubble (Wikipedia, 2007-2008 Financial Crisis) but I would add the subsequent international banking crisis, and prepend the US policy settings for affordable housing that enabled those predatory lending practices in the first place.

Affordable US Housing

The story starts here, with government policies in the US designed to promote the construction of housing that would be affordable by those on less than the median income. There is often assumed to be a greater risk to the financing of such housing purchases, which is used to justify higher interest rates – but those can elevate such housing out of reach of those intended to benefit from it.

Overcoming that problem often requires government support, and that support has taken many forms in many different countries around the world. Ultimately, most of them seem to be founded on the idea of the government sponsoring or co-owning the mortgage, effectively guaranteeing it against failure (or, at least, softening the blow). The most common alternative is some sort of home-buyer’s grant, especially those focused on first buyers, and the construction of low-cost rental accommodations.

The last were especially popular in the 60s and 70s, and contributed markedly to the deterioration of some urban centers as lack of adequate maintenance transformed them into slum tenements. Whenever demand for low-cost housing outstrips supply, the risk is that cheaply-built substandard dwellings will be erected to satisfy that demand; urban decay inevitably follows, with all the attendant social problems.

Correcting these problems can be difficult and expensive, and it’s easy for it to lead to gentrification, which drives out the original residents in favor of a wealthier elite – shifting the problem to somewhere else and pretending that it’s a solution rather than a temporary band-aid.

Subsidizing the construction and purchase of well-built dwellings is the alternative – but said purchase demands affordable loans. The provision of such loans either has to be direct government policy or the result of government policies that are sufficient to persuade commercial entities that there is enough profit involved to be worth the perceived risk.

In my experience, there are two types of low-income tenant / purchaser – those who, when presented with an affordable option, will move heaven and earth to meet their commitments, and those who equate the lowered price with lowered value, and who can hardly be bothered. The first group are generally as safe as houses, given a stable economic foundation; the latter are as reliable as the weather on a changeable day. Ninety percent or more will belong in the first category; but it only takes a few bad apples…. Telling one from the other is always the difficult part.

Anyway, to avoid these problems, in the 1990s, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) initiated policies that financed property purchases through the government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Evidence from a securities fraud investigation against six former executives of these entities suggests that in 2008, they held 13 million subsidized loans worth a total of more than 2 trillion dollars.

Several governments, both Democratic and Republican, had sought to limit the amount of government funds that were tied up in such loans by creating policies that encouraged the private sector to do more of the heavy lifting. In particular, various credit controls that were designed to prevent risky and questionable loans to low-income households that had been emplaced as a consequence of the Great Depression were successively watered down or removed entirely.

Predatory Lending

These policy changes permitted, even encouraged the pursuit of subprime lending. This is the provision of loans to those who may have difficulty keeping up the repayment schedule. They are generally characterized by higher interest rates, poor quality collateral, and less favorable terms in order to compensate for higher credit risk, as described above. Burt with perceived government backing, and terms that permit some flexibility in repayment schedules, they can be lucrative.

Some of the protections set up post-Depression included limits to how much risk any given institution could carry. This was designed to protect everyone involved – but a spot of creative accounting on the part of the banks issuing these loans and a weakening of the financial oversight regulations combined to undermine the protection.

Here’s how it worked, as I understand it: You’re a bank, you’ve issued (say) 50 million dollars worth of these loans, in the knowledge that in a stable economy, 10% of them will fail (costing 5,000,000 dollars), but 90% of them will eventually be paid off, earning maybe 20% interest along the way – so a net profit of 5,000,000 dollars.

Packing all of these into a bundle, you can sell this as an asset worth maybe 53,000,000 dollars to someone else, generating an instant 3M profit (instead of an eventual 5M profit), and wiping all those loans off your books – so you can issue another $50 million worth. Rinse and repeat.

These packages were ‘mortgage-backed securities’ and they were being tossed around the various financial institutions like confetti because they were so profitable. Each seller was advantaged by minimizing the risk of defaults and promoting the notion that these were good economic risks to take. The sellers of these ‘securities’ also made greater profits if they exaggerated the value of the properties to assume the ‘best-case’ outcomes of selling them. After all, property always increases in value in the long run, doesn’t it?

The problem is that if there is any sort of economic instability, you can quickly have 95% defaults instead of 10%, and when you repossess the properties, you’re likely to get maybe 10 cents on the dollar (or less) compared to that ‘best case’ valuation. Until the train-wreck, though, the policy appears to be working, especially if you are only looking at the headline numbers.

In the years leading up to the Wall Street Crash, subprime loans were being issued to low-income working-class people to use for speculation on the stock market, but the packages weren’t sold as ‘speculative’, they were safe as houses, and the booming stock market would ‘always’ pay more than the cost of the loan, wouldn’t it? People mortgaged their homes and personal possessions because it was easy money…. These loans amplified and expanded on what would have been a financial crisis by creating a housing crisis and property valuation crisis and banking crisis on top of the original troubles.

Guess what happened in 2007-8 when things went pear-shaped? The sub-prime loans acted as an amplifier, adding a housing crisis and property valuation crisis and banking crisis on top of the original troubles.

This has had an effect on modern-day US politics, too. Republicans were largely and broadly condemned for the GFC, because theirs had been the hands behind the ultimate deregulation, the removal of the financial guard rails. This helped get Obama elected President, and began the drift to a new political paradigm by the right-wing party – if you don’t have a policy, just an intention, you can never be blamed when something goes pear-shaped. It’s never your fault, it’s just an accident that things worked out that way. And sure, “Mexico will pay for the wall. I intend to make them.”.

My advice (for whatever it may be worth): Don’t elect a wish-list. Make people tell you exactly how they are going to achieve their promises and the things that they want to get done. And use your GMing hat to look for ways things might go pear-shaped.

It doesn’t matter what they promise if they are incompetent to implement it, or if you can’t trust them to keep their promises – at least, that’s how I see it.

The Housing Bubble

Every time property gets purchased, it gets inflated in value. There are lots of reasons for this, some good and some bad. Some increase is inevitable because of inflation, for one thing.

Mostly, it’s because there is no rigorous process for valuing a property. It’s all guesstimates and semi-educated guesswork. “Someplace down the road sold for X, but this property isn’t quite the same, so we’ll add Y and take off Z…”

As soon as a property goes up in value, so do all the properties around it, even a block or two away. And these increases can both stack and amplify each other, chains of property value inflation rippling up and down a neighborhood.

Mortgages and interest rates normally act as a brake on these price impacts, slowing the growth of housing bubbles and even occasionally letting some of the hot air out of the prices. After all, if you can’t afford a property because its price has been over-inflated, it won’t sell, and sooner or later the value will be cut back until it does sell.

Now apply the sub-prime mortgage securities situation described earlier to this valuation mechanism. Properties that shouldn’t sell get purchased (by people who shouldn’t be able to afford them). And the place across the road, and another down the street, and another around the corner. And all thee purchases are at inflated values. The result, inevitably, is a runaway housing bubble that is inevitably going to burst at some inconvenient time.

Financial Risk: Trading Sub-Prime Mortgage Securities

It gets worse. Even if the government is no longer keeping proper track of the debt levels and insecurity, you would expect the people buying these bundles of debts (and thinking they are an asset) would do some sort of due diligence to make sure that they really are worth what they are paying for them, right?

But the numbers they would get to see on which to base such an assessment are the very numbers subject to the hyper-inflating housing bundle. So it would look like you were buying property valued at maybe 80 million for your 53 million (to continue and extend the example). That’s 17 million in paper-profits right there – even if things go belly-up, you can sell that property and more than recoup your losses. You can’t lose, right?

Incestuous financing In The Banking Industry

We’re still not at the bottom. Many of the banks that were issuing these risky loans were also investing in credit default swaps and derivatives – essentially bets on the financial soundness of the loans.

A credit default swap is essentially a promise that, in return for a fee, should a particular loan go bad, another bank will cover the loss. Since the expectation was that relatively few defaults would be recorded, this was largely seen as being paid for doing nothing (by the bank offering the money) and a sure-fire insurance policy (by the bank offering the potentially shaky loan).

Derivatives are contracts that derive their value from the performance of an underlying entity. In essence, those buying the derivatives are investing their money directly in the underlying entity; if all goes well, they get an asset of greater value that they can liquidate or on-sell. It’s quite common for assets of this type to be reinvested at the end of the term – why wouldn’t you, it’s already proven able to earn you money and to be safe.

Nothing wrong with that if the underlying entity or operation is sound. Government bonds are essentially a form of Derivative. Put them into this economic climate, however, and they simply increased the stakes that everyone had invested in sub-prime mortgages.

It really was one house of cards built on another, built in turn on a third, which was itself built on an earthquake simulator.

The Enron Failure

It’s just possible that everyone involved should have had a better sense of the dangers involved after the Enron crisis in 2001, the last time deregulation and a lack of oversight combined with people who were being too clever by half.

The story of that scandal is really beyond the scope of this article (and outside the time available to finish it) so I’ll simply drop a link – Wikipedia, Enron scandal – and recommend people watch or read Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room:

• DVD / Blue-ray (limited availability)
• Streamed
• Book (last resort?) including Kindle

— I will get a small commission from Amazon.

Lehman Brothers Collapse

Far from reading any tea-leaves, or listening to any cautionary tales, the financial services sector seemed to have drunk the cool-aid. Lehman Brothers were the font-line example, but it could have been any of several institutions – they all borrowed money from other institutions to fund more sub-prime mortgages.

It was like a pyramid scheme in which each one was reinvesting their proceeds in the pyramid when they all should have known better.

Lehman brothers were so exposed that a 3-4% decline in the value of their assets would entirely eliminate the assets that underwrote their entire operation.

During the boom, this insane level of risk earned them and their stockholders monstrous profits, for obvious reasons, but once you start down that path, you are committed; any reduction in the practices that got you into that position completely decimate public confidence in your operation.

There were attempts to rescue them, of course. In August 2007, they bit the bullet and closed their subprime lending division, BNC Mortgage, eliminated 1200 staff positions in 23 locations, took a $25 million after tax charge, and wrote off a $27-million loss in Goodwill.

Unlike others, they didn’t repackage their subprime loans and on-sell them; they wanted the whole profit, and just because they were no longer issuing them doesn’t mean that they had eliminated any of the sub-prime loans that they had already issued – and that was what ultimately was their undoing.

They were simply lent too much money to survive when the bottom fell out of the overinflated housing market. Instead, the rot spread as a multitude of lenders had to write off the loans to Lehman Brothers, carrying them perilously close to the edge of their own financial cliffs.

Government Bailouts

The bankruptcy [of Lehman Bros] triggered a 4.5% one-day drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, then the largest decline since the attacks of September 11, 2001.

It signaled a limit to the government’s ability to manage the crisis and prompted a general financial panic. Money market mutual funds, a key source of credit, saw mass withdrawal demands to avoid losses, and the inter-bank lending market tightened, threatening [other] banks with imminent failure.

The government and the Federal Reserve system responded with several emergency measures to contain the panic.

— Wikipedia, Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers

There was a real risk of the entire financial system collapsing, so deep ran the rot

After the onset of the crisis, governments deployed massive bail-outs of financial institutions and other palliative monetary and fiscal policies to prevent a collapse of the global financial system.

In the US., the October 3, $800 billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 failed to slow the economic free-fall.

— Wikipedia, 2007-2008 Financial Crisis

International Scope

One question not answered so far in this summary of events is why the GFC was so global in scope. Everything so far points to a US Domestic Crisis; however serious, the rest of the world should have been insulated from it, or so the casual reader might think.

There are two problems with this perspective. The first is that it completely ignores how interconnected the finances and economies of countries are in the modern world; and the US is still the focal point of the global economy.

(China could have claimed the crown in more recent years, but didn’t want the responsibility and international scrutiny that goes along with it, and definitely didn’t want the increased transparency that would have been required. So they managed their economy to keep it just a little smaller than that of the US).

The other critical factor is that banks the world over like to invest in profitable enterprises, and like to loan money to people with the apparent ability to pay it back. Combining the two left them hip-deep in the septic tank of the American problems – they simply didn’t know it until the balloon went up.

On top of all that, there’s an additional consequence of the size of the US economy – it results from a lot of people all over the world doing business with the US. People like me, for example. That makes me, and people like me, elements of both the US and my local economy – if financial trouble in the US means that buying products costs me more, that means I have less money to spend locally. There’s an inherent spread of such economic woes beyond the shores of the United States.

Credit where it’s due

When Obama won the Presidential Elections of 2008, Bush went out of his way to ease the transition to the new Administration, inviting the President-elect and members of his team to important summits and meetings such as the G-20.

Bush allegedly told Obama that the GFC was going to be his to manage, and rather than derail attempts to resolve the crisis with an abrupt shift of policies on Inauguration Day, the two worked together crafting and implementing government responses. Much as President Obama gets credit for resolving the crisis, the outgoing President Bush deserves at least some of that credit.

Plenty Of Blame

There’s also plenty of blame to be apportioned. The Republicans may have pulled the final trigger, but the banking and finance sectors had been hard at work in the Clinton administration, persuading those with the authority that they could be trusted, and the whole country would benefit, from the ongoing easing of restrictions.

I vaguely remember it being suggested in one documentary or another that the erosion of protections began with Truman. I’m not sure I entirely believe it, but Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, or Ford? Could easily have been any of them if it wasn’t Truman.

Greed doesn’t like to be regulated.

Surviving The Storm: An Australian Perspective

Unlike most of the world, Australia did not experience a recession as a consequence of the GFC.

This was a consequence of generous stimulus payments designed to boost the economy, paid to the lowest income earners, including pensioners and the unemployed. Because they have so little, the theory went, they would pump virtually all of it directly into the economy.

The government pumped 11.8 Billion Australian dollars into the economy. They say the proof of the pudding is in the eating – it worked. It was neither too little nor too much (though pundits suggested both at the time); while there was a minor recession in the non-mining sector, overall, the economy grew at 0.4% in the fourth quarter of 2011 and 1.3% in the first quarter of 2012. (Wikipedia, Economy Of Australia – Global Financial Crisis).

The upshot: I think that I can offer a more Olympian perspective on the entire GFC, simply because I don’t have any vested interest axe to grind.

The Rise Of Obama

On November 10, Obama traveled to the White House and met with President Bush to discuss transition issues while First Lady Laura Bush took his wife Michelle on a tour of the mansion.

NBC News reported that Obama advanced his economic agenda with Bush, asking him to attempt to pass a stimulus package in a lame duck session of Congress before the inauguration.

He also urged Bush to accelerate the disbursement of $25 billion in funds to bail out the automobile industry and expressed concern about additional Americans losing their homes as mortgage rates increase again.

— Wikipedia, Presidential Transition of Barack Obama

In February, mere weeks after the inauguration, the Democrats put forward the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in response to the ongoing crisis, which

included a substantial payroll tax credit, saw economic indicators reverse and stabilize less than a month after its February 17 enactment.

— Wikipedia, 2007-2008 Financial Crisis

It’s highly doubtful if the new President would have been able to have all his ducks in a row this quickly if not for the assistance and cooperation of the outgoing President.

I should point out that, in part, President Bush’s treatment of Obama was a response to the events of 9/11; Bush had learned the hard way that these things can come out of nowhere at any time, and he wanted the country to be as ready to respond to an emergency on the evening of Inauguration Day as he could make it.

The economic relief was unfortunately temporary, as secondary effects sparked a recession – now known to Americans as the “Great Recession”.

In 2010, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was enacted in the US as a response to the crisis to “promote the financial stability of the United States”. The Basel III capital and liquidity standards were also adopted by countries around the world.

— Same Source

With these measures, the economy finally turned the corner.

I still have one, maybe two, chapters left to go in this penultimate part of the series. But I think that next week I’ll take a break from it to present something a little different.