Wood and Silver or Iron and Gold? – Historical Inaccuracy in FRP, Part 2
This is the second half of a two-part guest article by Phil McGregor. To anyone who doesn’t know who he is, check the brief bio at the bottom of the article.
Silver or Gold
The other thing I find really interesting in almost all D&D descended/inspired FRPs is the 1/10th (45.4 grams* gold (or any other) coin that is the “standard” by which all value is measured.
* assuming a standard [~454g] rather than an avoirdupois [~373g] pound.
Now, to anyone who has any knowledge of history, or the history of economics, or indeed, of economics itself, this assumption is a surprising and unsupportable one… and, oh my, the problems that flow from it!
This makes gold coins, as such, and, indeed, coinage in general, almost worthless as a medium of exchange in your typical FRP game on a practical basis… assuming an average sort of character who can carry, say, 80 lbs (not unreasonably for a WW1/WW2/Modern grunt, so certainly realistic)… well, he has 800 gp, maximum, in walking around money.
Or, consider it another way, that 75gp Bow (or Sword, if you took the point) mentioned in Wood or Iron, well, you need 1.25 pounds of gold to buy it.
Hmmm. Current gold price is around US$1500-1600 per ounce.
So, in something resembling (if you don’t look at it too closely) real purchasing power, that bow costs US$300-320,000 (assuming a standard pound, or US$22,500-24,000 if pound avoirdupois)…
Sorry. Not even remotely believable.
Real Coins
So, what did historical (western european) coins weigh?
Well, the Romans typically coined gold at the rate of 72 coins per Roman pound (327g), making them about 4.54g apiece… around 1/10th of what D&D and its descendants would have you believe.
Roman silver coins varied, but 96 per pound was the late Republican/early Imperial figure, for around 3.4 grams apiece…
A Medieval silver Penny, English, was minted at the rate of 240 per pound (Troy), making them around 1.55g each, while a gold Sovereign massed 8.5g, and was worth ~392g (1.05 lbs avoirdupois) of silver.
What Price A Longbow?
So, let’s look at that Bow again – 75gp is about 1.7 pounds avoirdupois, or more than US$30,000! Even worse than before, cost wise, but now, at least, you can carry around about 4272gp in your 80lb pack. So a slight improvement.
Of course, you’ll also note that 1 D&D gp is worth only 10 D&D silver pieces. Typically a roman Denarius Aureus (aka a Solidus) was worth at least 20 silver denarii in late Republican/Early Imperial times. And the gold Sovereign was worth 21 shillings, or 252 silver pennies, making gold worth around 45 times silver by weight.
So, let’s try the Bow again. But this time, assume it is 75 silver pieces. Which makes it worth 1.667 gp by the above ratio. Which makes an 8.5g gold coin worth US$730 or so in relative purchasing power.
Better, but still way over the odds for a chunk of wood, whereas that 15gp sword costs only US$146.
Much better, of course, if you assume the $146 Bow vs the $730 sword.
Looking Beyond To The Wider World
What are some of the more obvious game related flow on problems from the economic tomfoolery of D&D and D&D descended or inspired games?
Well, many of them attempt to get around the problem of Player Characters needing to carry around their portable wealth, er, portably, by issuing higher value (but still 1/10th pound, as often as not coins, such as Platinum or they include gems as more or less standard and easily assessable means of exchange or some such.
The problem with Platinum is that it is even more rare that gold. So rare that it is not mentioned in any European source until the middle of the 16th century AD – and then only as a native alloy with gold that could not be refined. In fact, Platinum was not reliably smeltable until the late 18th century AD.
So, not likely as a coinage metal in a medieval analog world.
Gems? Not a sparkling solution.
Gems are even more problematic.
See, before the 17th century AD gems were not faceted, or, at best, had a single flat surface cut… they were either polished or simply left raw. Their value was much less, in absolute and relative terms, compared to bullion, than it is now… of course, faceting doesn’t require a lot of high tech tools, even today, so it is possible to assume that an FRP world could have faceting and that, therefore, the value of faceted gems relative to bullion would be something more like the modern relativities.
The problem is, of course, that what we regard as the really valuable gems are really uncommon, and not easy, as often as not, to mine or find – unless you do it on an almost industrial scale. But that has its own problems – the only reason diamonds, for example, are worth more than a fraction of their actual price is because the DeBeers Cartel (and its supposed competitors) release only a fraction of yearly production for sale each year in one of the oldest and most successful price fixing operations in modern history!
So while, yes, you could use gems as a means of exchange you would have to bargain, and bargain hard, each time you wanted to “cash one in”… and you’d have to haggle over the price of each and every single one! Not a role playing experience most of us are interested in!
So, where are we so far?
Well, it should be obvious that 1/10th pound coins are ridiculous. It should be equally obvious that prices for goods should be, at the very minimum, assumed to be in silver coins rather than gold – and that gold should be worth a lot more than 10 x 1/10th pound silver pieces for a 1/10th pound gold piece. This makes a direct conversion difficult, since there is no realistic way you can keep that 1-to-10 ratio.
Still, converting all gp values to sp values is a start – and it makes carrying around a significant chunk of the PC’s wealth much easier.
Ah. If ’twere only that simple.
Piles Of Silver, Hoards of Gold
That’s where we get into the other problem related to gold and silver in FRP games.
There’s too damn much of it!
It should be obvious but, in case it isn’t, let me explain.
Before the discovery of the New World, estimates on the total mined bullion stocks in the Old World are on the order of 5,000 tons of gold and 50,000 tons of Silver. The bullion stock of the New World was easily equal to that, eventually.
Sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? Step back a minute. Medieval Europe had, at the height of its population, around 100 million people. Now, assume all the Old World’s bullion was in Europe (it wasn’t, of course – India and China have been gold sinks since ancient times).
- 5000 tons of gold = 50 grams of gold per person. Or about 6 gold soveriegns.
- 50000 tons of silver = 500 grams of gold per person. Or about 320 silver pennies.
Double those figures to add in the New World allocation. Sound like damn all? Right….
One of the major problems facing pretty much all ancient and medieval (and renaissance and even pre-20th century) societies was the lack of enough bullion to represent economic activity. In short, there wasn’t enough cash to go around. The inevitable result was periodic, nasty, economic crises.
Now, consider the average Tomb, or Monster Lair – multiply by the number of Tombs/Monster Lairs that you think is likely in the typical FRP world.
Now do you see the problem?
A Dire Prognosis
Almost all of the entire world’s supply of bullion is likely tied up in such gold sinks. Which makes gold and silver coins far, far, far more valuable than they were historically… and, well, it means that economic crises are far more common and far, far worse in such a typical FRP world.
And that doesn’t even begin to consider the inflationary pressure that all that ill gotten bullion the PCs found in the Dragon’s Lair will put on the entire Kingdom/Empire’s economy.
If you want a really nasty picture of what happens in such a case, have a look at Spain. All that New World Bullion right royally stuffed the Spanish economy – to the point where she slumped from being a world power to an also ran has-been that is barely a regional power. And it was pretty much inevitable – though, yes, the Spanish nobility were complete screw ups when it came to rationally spending the money. They beggared the peasantry and middle classes largely and spent the money on art and, mostly, failed imperial/military adventures for which they ended up with… well, some really nice art. And a totally stuffed economy that is really still stuffed compared to the rest of Europe, the rest that didn’t have all that gold.
And you really think the local FRP nobility are going to be any better?
In search of solutions
There is a sort of solution. One that Europe was grappling with from the 14th century AD onwards.
Paper money. At first it was Bills of Exchange, sort of like a cross between a Promissory Note and a Traveller’s Cheque. But they fell down because, in the end, they had to be redeemable, and the economic crises caused (in large part) by the above mentioned bullion shortage and noble mismanagement meant, inevitably, the whole arrangement was a giant economic house of cards.
Only when governments started to issue paper money, or backed private or semi–private banks who did, and only when they learnt that it didn’t have to be redeemable in bullion, but had to be acceptable by the government at something close to face value, did these problems become, well, lessened (look around at Global Financial Crisis 1.5 at the moment and see the mess that you can still make!)…
Still, this doesn’t help us with what’s in all those Tombs and Lairs, does it?
One suggestion? Artwork. Artifacts (no, not like the Head of Vecna… just really old and really sought after artworks). That sort of thing. An ancient Ming (or local equivalent) Vase. A handful of coins from a forgotten empire worth a small (or not so small!) fortune way over their actual bullion value.
This brings us back to the haggling issue, doesn’t it? So, either the PCs have to have a reliable agent who can, slowly, turn their gains into cash (or land, or whatever) or they need to have the appropriate market related skills (and have lots of time) to do it themselves.
That, plus realistically valuable and realistic weight coins, plus Bills of Exchange to keep the wheels of commerce turning at something like a reliable level and you’re set!
Suggested Reading
To get an overview of life in the Middle Ages:
Life in a Medieval Village, Life in a Medieval Castle, and Life in a Medieval City by Joseph and Francis Gies are, though dated and very much centered on England, a good start.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Civilisation & Capitalism, 15th-18th Century by Fernand Braudel in three volumes (!) is more than you’ll probably ever want to know about, well, Civilisation and Capitalism!
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
More focussed, and more easily digested, are (shameless commercial plug) the following, from Phalanx Games Design (me) –
by Phil McGregor which provides some of the underpinnings – the limits, if you will – that applied (and have to apply) to civilisations at various levels of technological development). Written specifically with GMs as worldbuilders in mind. Click on the link or cover illustration below to visit the product page at RPGNow.
by Phil McGregor which contains a more focussed examination of the real Middle Ages, at least for the British Isles and, to a lesser extent, France. Includes something approaching a realistic(ish) and detailed price list where you won’t find 75 gp Bows! Click on the link or cover illustration below to visit the product page at RPGNow.
Displaced: Lost in Time and Space and by Phil McGregor which, though focussed on one-way time or dimensional travel, has all sorts of useful nuts and bolts things about how things work that easily and valuably supplement FF&S and Orbis Mundi. Click on the link or cover illustration below to visit the product page at RPGNow.
Click to purchase from RPGNow |
About The Author
Phil McGregor is a moderately well known (if you’re old enough!) writer of Role Playing Game material who started wargaming in the early 1970’s, moved on to the very first edition (White Box) of Dungeons and Dragons when it came out in 1975 and was hooked!
Being in the right place at the right time, he managed to get a co-author gig with Ed Simbalist and Mark Ratner writing Space Opera (1980) as well as a couple of supplements/adventures for it, and for Chivalry & Sorcery while being published by Fantasy Games Unlimited.
Along the way he wrote the very first Rigger Black Book for FASA’s Shadowrun (1st Edition) and, in recent years, has published a number of RPG books on RPGNow under his own Phalanx Games Design imprint, including Farm, Forge and Steam, Road to Armageddon (for BTRC’s EABA), Orbis Mundi, Displaced and Audace ad Gloriam (2d6 based Exploration/Survival Gear Catalog for SF RPGs).
In real life he is a History teacher (Years 7-12) of over 30 years experience, currently teaching in a High School in the Northern Suburbs of Sydney, is semi–active in union politics for the NSW Teachers Federation, plays RPGs most Saturdays and Computer Games (mostly wargames) many other nights.
Discover more from Campaign Mastery
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
July 21st, 2011 at 8:03 am
I’m enjoying the series so far. A quick correction, though: the English penny was 240 to the Tower Pound (about 349.91g, making the coin about 1.46g), not the Troy Pound (about 373.24g). Not a huge difference, but if you’re going to the trouble to mention the type of pound, might as well get it more exactly. For those playing along at home, the standard US pound is about 453.59g.
July 21st, 2011 at 8:14 am
Okay, time for this debate – part two. Fictional accuracy vs. historical accuracy.
Exactly how many monster lairs do you think there really were in history? You look at all the grave goods of the tombs kings and emperors of the world, and you are looking at a minor percentage of what is featured in your average fantasy campaign. This is because, and this is important, it’s not realistic – it’s fantasy. The stories only feature one adventure, one quest, and then when the heroes have the riches or whatever, the story ends. yet, in fantasy roleplaying games, this is never the case. There has to be another adventure. This means that there is, generally, more wealth in a fantasy game, and adventurers are a viable source of income in such situations.
As for gold vs. silver – that’s just maths. 1 gold as 10 silver is easier to remember, and is the mean reason behind decimalisation for most major currencies today. There are systems that use more realistic currency to the period, for example Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay used Gold Crowns, Silver Shillings, and Brass Pennies, with 12 bp to a ss, and 20 ss to a gc, as was used in the UK prior to decimalisation, but many players found this awkward and too complicated to bother with. Therefore, it’s an issue of convenience over realism.
You are talking about a setting where dragons exists, and there are towering cities that can be built entirely out of white marble, and arguing that there wasn’t enough gold to use gold as a standard for an economy therefore the gp price of bows are way off. It’s definitely a case of exactly how much realism do you want in your games.
Gold was the economy of kings and nobility, and they were the only ones that bothered with the economy. Merchants and burghers used the economy of silver, because that’s all they had. Everyone else basically made do with copper and sustainable living. That’s not too far from what D&D currently emulates – although it might only be 10x scales, rather than the actual scales of difference, because that keeps the numbers easier to handle.
Adventurers are always special cases, and all genres have treated them this way. They are either independently wealthy, make enough to get by, are subsidised by another agency, or otherwise don’t actually need wealth at all. In virtually every case, wealth is never an actual factor in the stories, it remains in the background. In most games, however, it becomes important only for balance to prevent players from simply buying their way through everything – because wealth is a resource. What’s normally important isn’t whether a PC can afford something, it’s whether they can afford something when they need it – that effectively turns wealth into a check rather than a physical value.
The ultimate question here is – how easy is it for the PCs to get bows compared to swords?
Da’ Vane recently posted..Back to the Drawing Board?
July 21st, 2011 at 8:47 am
Da’ Vane: The reason for duodecimal currencies is one that can still be effective in games. We are used to decimal currencies, it is true, but the duodecimal currencies existed to make some simple fractioning easier. After all, it is difficult to divide a dollar into thirds, but a Pound Sterling is easy (4 shillings or 80 pence). Halving and quartering are easier, as well. Using these currencies should, therefore, also add to verisimilitude and immersion, as the players may begin to approach money from these convenience-oriented concepts rather than the modern Capitalist-oriented ones.
July 21st, 2011 at 8:57 am
You know…though the economics is still not necessarily sound on this one, A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying does a decent job of shrugging the typical D&D tendencies. One “Gold Dragon” is worth 210 “Silver Stags”, and most equipment prices for stuff like clothing or weapons are displayed in Silver Stags. For instance, a simple hunting bow goes for 100 silver, and a longsword goes for 500 silver, or roughly 1/2 a gold for the bow, and 2ish gold for the sword.
Of course, they don’t have -everything- quite squared away, as longbows cost 900 silver…possibly justified by the need for particular skill to craft a longbow, as compared to a standard bow?
Andy recently posted..Vote for Old School Hack!
July 21st, 2011 at 9:02 am
I’ve always been bugged by the amount of currency floating around in FRP games. My latest experiment is using the d20 Modern wealth system in a 3.5 setting. I’m still working on balancing out prices, and thanks to the previous post in this series I’ll be going back over prices rather than doing straight conversions. However, from the behind-the-screen play testing I’ve done so far it looks like it will work well, so long as the players buy into it.
I find it odd that the d20 Modern system uses a barter-friendly system based around conceptual wealth, while the medieval 3.x systems use concrete currencies with a highly stable economy. It would seem to me that the reverse should be true. My hope in the experiment is to create a medieval setting based much more on bartering than a fixed currency, where one might trade furs, spices, art, or similar for goods rather than relying on the purchasing power of gold.
The added benefit being that each kingdom, temple, and bank can mint its own currency without too much concern over exchange rates for the players. All the local colour and none of the complicated economics.
July 21st, 2011 at 9:39 am
While I agree with you on almost all of these points, having been using a silver based economy and small coins in my campaigns for decades, there is also the point where realism must give way to ease of play. Depending -of course- on what the players are interested in.
Sean Holland recently posted..Wandering the Web [11]
July 21st, 2011 at 9:44 am
I don’t think any of the economics are ever truly going to be sound, for the simple fact that fantasy rpgs are simply not historical. There are far too many factors in fantasy rpgs that deviate from history that make adherence to an historical basis far too unrealistic.
If you are playing a historical RPG, then you can have an historical economy and other realistic features, with fairly sound basis that things are going to work. It might not be heroes, but that’s not the point. Nobody expects to be fighting dragons in an historical RPG. Nobody expects the fantastic, they expect realism. They expect castles, they expect Robin Hood, Dark Age Arthur, and bandits. Fighting Saxon marauders, helping peasants, fighting bears, and robbing barons. The height of magic would be a witch’s curse or a priest’s ministrations in their local monastery. That’s about it.
Step beyond that, and it’s not historical any more. It’s fantasy, and your historical basis as a guideline only. Things are going to be different, and if you try and keep forcing certain aspects to remain historical, you are going to see the cracks. When you’ve got big flying magical lizards as the predators of humanity and mankind’s best defence is the Castle, there’s a problem. You have a dragon in your kingdom, and you know those forests where you get all that cheap wood? It suddenly burns and suddenly there’s a shortage. Prices go up because there’s no wood for them cheap bows and arrows any more. Arrows being the weapon capable of taking down that flying lizard. That’s economics for you. Of course, the king can always send a few heroes after the dragon, but there’s always more dragons…
It depends upon your setting, but things are going to be different. The iconic fantasy roleplaying game is Dungeons and Dragons, which features Dungeons and Dragons. The clue is in the name. It features big complexes full of loot and big flying lizards renowned for hoarding lots of loot, so no matter what, if you are playing an iconic fantasy RPG, chances are you are dealing with a skewed economy that has to deal with the fact that it is operating under some very different conditions than history did, and trying to constrain such an economy under historical conditions is just going to break it. It’s like trying to play a modern warfare game using rules designed for prehistoric technology roleplaying. It’s ill suited for the game you are trying to play.
Historical and Fantasy roleplaying games are different, and this would be one of the main reasons for the differences between the genre. Medieval roleplaying is fine – I quite enjoy it myself, but I don’t confuse it with fantasy roleplaying games. Likewise, it is okay for fantasy games to be based on historical periods, but that does not remove the fact that they are fantasy interpretations of those periods, which is different from historical roleplaying.
This is very important – especially given my latest project with DVOID Systems and the D-Jumpers series, and I would like to thank you Phil for helping me resolve a few things I was going over in my head that needed to be done.
Da’ Vane recently posted..Back to the Drawing Board?
July 21st, 2011 at 11:58 am
@Svafa: It’s actually quite easy to understand when you look at the two genres in the context of how they are handled in terms of fictional rather than historical accuracy.
In general, fantasy games are commonly the genre where acquiring wealth is a motivation for characters, so even though economically it makes absolutely no sense, in order for that motivation to be possible within the genre it needs to be possible to acquire wealth, and that makes a concrete currency useful, since it’s basically an arbitrary means of keeping score. It’s not necessary to do anything with the wealth you get – you just need to be able to get wealthy.
Yet, in modern games, wealth isn’t important at all. Wealth is a resource and it’s about how you use your wealth. Being wealthy isn’t about Scrooge McDuck-ing it into a pile of bank notes, but having the equipment neccessary for your next adventure. Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark use their wealth to fund their adventures. Others are backed by agencies like the Mission Impossible Taskforce or MI6. Failing that, they use their contacts to get what they need when they need it, and wealth just lets them do it – they don’t need to worry about whether they’ve got the $5 for a coffee or whatever. It’s not in the genre. Likewise, they don’t loot the bodies for their weapons and sell them at the local mart. If they come across stuff they want, they take it with them if they can carry it, and use it, but they don’t sell it for cold hard cash. They either have a job, a trade, survival skills, or some other means to get by.
It’s a major flaw with CRPGs that’s infesting all RPGs – players don’t play like heroes any more, we all play like we’re in a game, and we’re going to go and strip the place bare and take anything that isn’t nailed down. You want a real life economy – deal with that one. I don’t mind scavenging for ammo and supplies in a post-apocalyptic genre – that’s expected because supplies are supposed to be scarce. But seriously, the looting in most RPGs just gets silly at times.
Sometimes, it’s just easier to have the GM give me a total and get it over with, because most of the time, I really just don’t care…
“Look, I have a sword of prestige +2!”
“What’s that do?”
“It’s worth more gold…”
Da’ Vane recently posted..Back to the Drawing Board?
July 21st, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Actually, if one prefers a D&D Modern type generic wealth system, then Fantasy Craft’s system is well worth looking at.
As for the reality vs “just a game” debate, well, if that’s what floats your boat. Justify being gamist – and no-one has so far, because it’s as impossible as justifying being “simulationist” … to the converted.
Like I said, the hobby is a broad church, and gamists will have no trouble finding like minded people to game with, just as simulationists will have no trouble finding like minded people to game with them. And, of course, no more difficult than it will be for those who don’t think of themselves as being in either camp.
the purpose of the article is to make the readers think about things they may not have thought about … not,as some seem to think, to TELL them what they MUST do … so look at in that light.
Phil
July 21st, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Some of the earliest Roman “coins” were quite large — easily a pound of bronze — so there’s one way to play games with your players. Also, I’ve read that Cleopatra issued coins with denominations on them — same size, different values. The composition may have varied, which is another way to adjust the amount of coinage in the game world.
July 21st, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Enough already. I find this whole discussion, as it relates to RPG’s, totally irrelevant. What about Dwarven smiths? Can’t we, in the context of an RPG, suspend disbelief a bit and assume that they can mine the ore, smelt is and crank out weapons way faster than average humans in 1225? Come on, D&D and other FRP’s aren’t supposed to be historically accurate or we’d all be re-enacting historical battles instead of fighting beholders with our magic swords… and what about that? How do you attempt to overlay actual historical economics and social reality against a game structure that includes magic and is clearly not trying to portray actual reality?? This is an excercise in historical self-indulgence.
July 22nd, 2011 at 8:39 am
I’m afraid I can’t agree with you, Matt. Setting aside entirely the whole simulationist-vs-narrative debate, which is fundamental to the design of RPGs and the rules that they contain, the relationship between history and the games that are (at least in part) based apon it – and that’s every game out there – is always worth understanding, if only so that you know what has been changed and can think about why.
That said, your points concerning the capabilities of non-human societies and races are well-taken. But you cannot fully assess the impact that they have, and hence the role they should play within the game, until you can compare the situation as it is within the game with the situation as it was historically. If you don’t know what the economic and social impacts of unlimited trade with the Dwarves are – which is the basis of the proposal you put forward – how can you possibly adjudicate the effects of a disruption of that trade?
For everyone like yourself who is tired of the debate or doesn’t see the relevance, someone else gains insight both into history and into their game. That makes it worth continuing.
July 22nd, 2011 at 2:57 am
Loving this series. The fact that a PC can only carry 800 gp at a time is eye opening (you’re supposed to get that much treasure every encounter by fourth level). All the more reason to make gold as abstract as experience points, the way Final Fantasy does it.
There is a misplaced comma or something in the sentence
So, in something resembling (if you don’t look at it too closely) real purchasing power, that bow costs US$300-320,000 (assuming a standard pound, or US$22,500-24,000 if pound avoirdupois)…
That should be $30-$32,000, not $320,000.
July 22nd, 2011 at 4:10 am
Oops. Sorry about that! Piss poor proofreading.
Phil
July 22nd, 2011 at 6:39 am
Andy: Longbows. As far as I am aware it doesn’t really take any special skill – beyond a general Bow Making skill – to make *any* sort of Self Bow (= Bow made of one piece of springy wood, as opposed to the more complex Composite Bows, made of mixed materials). There isn’t even a huge difference in materials required … the best English Longbows were made from wood from specific types of tree, but the difference in performance, given that they were never intended to be used exclusively as weapons for shooting at specific single targets, was, effectively, minimal.
The French tried to create their own corps of peasant archers, but they failed miserably for several reasons, one of the major ones (if not *the* major one) being that they never figured out how to train them (the English made training compulsory by disallowing pretty much any other recreational activity after Church on Sunday) … it certainly had nothing to do with the relative cost of the Bows they used compared to Longbows.
Phil
July 22nd, 2011 at 6:44 am
@phil: People play games for many reasons. That’s what makes the hobby vibrant and interesting. Like you say, it is indeed a broad church.
However, when you put forth claims, you should at least be able to see other viewpoints and argue from their perspective, and not just dismiss them because they do not interest you.
You are a historian, and so history is an area of expertise, and this means you are well versed in historical accuracy. However, I am a social psychologist – my expertise in people, games, and stories. This makes me well versed in fictional accuracy and genre conventions. It’s about the symbolism and the way people think things should work because of the way they think. For many, the tales of Robin Hood and the Legend of King Arthur have had a greater impact than the actual history, because those tales were tales they wanted to hear and wanted to tell, where as history simply wasn’t all that exciting in comparison. Only the best bits of history get told, and they become warped into tales and stories, because that’s how we think and share information – in stories. We believe in a narrative context, in causality, in patterns, and we creates these stories to pass on how to recognise them to the following generations.
You’ve made people think and put forward a claim, yet you only use one type of evidence that has a very poor basis in fantasy RPGs – historical accuracy. If you were arguing the physics of a bow compared to a sword, you might be on more solid ground, because unless there’s a significant change in the nature of reality of the world physics won’t change. However you are arguing economics based on real-world factors in a social model based on historical fact. These are highly mutable models, and when you take into account all the differences that fantasy RPGs put into such models, there will be some changes, and they will be significant. This undermines the validity of using historical accuracy as evidence – unless you are playing in an historical setting, rather than a fantasy one, the models are not likely to be any more than guidelines at the very best. A place to start before you start working out the differences because it’s a fantasy RPG.
I still strongly believe both the gamist and narravist aspects have some merit to the argument, and I would like to see if you have any arguments to back up these aspects of your claim, rather than just have them ignored. However, even if you don’t, there’s more than enough fuel to make this a completely simulationist based debate.
I’m pretty sure that the peasants of the medieval era didn’t have to cope with druids, treants, elves, and other natives of the forest who took offence at all these humans trying to chop down their trees for all that “cheap” wood. I’m sure that aspect of the danger involved might have driven prices up a bit as well…
Da’ Vane recently posted..Back to the Drawing Board?
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:11 am
@Matt, Mike: Indeed, this is what makes such debates interesting, and why there should probably be a different genre for Historical and Fantasy RPGs. I have been thinking about this over the last few days, and indeed, they should be two different genres.
Phil’s arguments are very pervasive for the historical basis, but the moment you put fantasy into the equation, it falls apart. He started off with the idea that it was strange that we use terms and ideas from history in settings that don’t share that history, yet this entire argument is about historical accuracy in fantasy RPGs, which basically makes it a question of just how much fantasy do you have in your Fantasy RPG?
It reminds me of an early issue of Dragon Magazine, where they focused on Robin Hood as a theme shortly after the release of D&D 3e, and they basically described three types of campaign. The historical campaign, the pseudo-historical campaign, and the fantasy campaign. It’s basically a spectrum from pure history to pure fantasy, depending upon the amount of fantasy and magic you have in your games.
Personally, I see the point of both types of game, because I have an interest and enjoy both historical and fantasy RPGs. However, I think it’s time that we stopped lumping these two together. Fantasy RPGs can take place in a lot of time periods, not just the dark ages or medieval period of Europe.
Da’ Vane recently posted..Back to the Drawing Board?
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Da’Vane: I have made the points I wish to make. I don’t discount your point of view, I just pointed out that it you have, according to your requirements, justified your version of things no better than I have. So I see no point in arguing beyond that … as I said, you’ll find plenty of players who wouldn’t be caught dead in any game I might run, but the reverse is also true.
Flogging a dead horse and avoiding the issues raised, whichever of us may be seen to be doing it by the “oppositioon” is simply a waste of time.
Feel free to have the last word and prove my point.
Phil
July 22nd, 2011 at 8:02 pm
Various People: It might surprise some posters to know that, over the years, I have run a variety of quite successful FRP campaigns … just not based on any version of D&D beyond the original edition …
The most successful was actually based on a Roman Successor state in Britannia and northern coastal Gaul, ruled by the Ambrosius (whose son and heir was Artorius) facing off a Frankish state in the remainder of Gaul, assorted nasty Angles, Saxons and other Germans over the narrow seas in Germania, assorted Picts and Scotti in Hibernia, and assorted Scotti and Irish in the Summer Isles.
Some of those barbarian tribes were Orcs, some were various Goblin(oids), most were human. There were also the occasional other, nonhuman mostly, “monsters” … even rumours of Dragons, which the players never actually encountered .
The majority of the “enemy” were, of course, other Humans … barbarian raiders, the barbarian “kingdoms” (who were co-ordinating their efforts against Britannia in the loose sort of ad hoc way you’d expect poorly organised and economically depressed feudal states to do), internal conspirators (as a Roman successor state, Britannia still really hadn’t solved the problem of succession any more than the Romans themselves ever did … which is to say, *never*) and, of course, agents of the Roman Empire (wrongly known by most of you as the Byzantine Empire) who took a dim view of unauthorised upstarts claiming any Roman territories, especially if they also claimed Roman titles and continuity.
(In any FRP game, the majority of the real enemy will, or should, be humans or humanoids, just as in real life … regardless of whether one is a gamist or simulationist).
There were Elves, still mostly voluntarily isolated in the great forested areas that still covered most of Europe right through into the late Medieval period, and there were also Dwarves, also living mostly isolated from humans in their mostly underground holds.
Neither race was present in large numbers in the primary campaign area of the British Isles and NW Europe, simply because, as is implied in much fantasy literature, neither is as fecund a race as humans (there were, without consulting my notes, a couple of thousand of adult Elves and perhaps 10-12,000 adult Drwarves scattered through the prime campaign areas … compared to a human population in the two million (give or take) range for the British Isles and several million in the Imperial provinces still held in Gaul.
The Elves produced better Bows than the Imperials (or Barbarians), assumed to be Compound Bows (which were mostly better, and usually a lot more expensive, than Self Bows), but the Imperials mostly relied on Solenaria (late Roman Crossbows) rather than Self Bows. Dwarves produced watered steel and superior iron weapons, compared to the merely workmanlike ones the Romans produced and the generally crap ones the Barbarians managed.
Economically, Bows cost lest than Swords … unless you were happy to buy a crap run of the mill Frankish soft iron sword that would need to be straightened against your knee after several blows … unless you wanted a superior Solenarion, which, being mechanical at least in part, was more complex and therefore more expensive than a Self Bow … unless you wanted an Elven Compound Bow, which were works of art and, at the very least, had nonmagical bonuses To Hit/Damage.
Coins were typical late Romans, Solidii (Gold, 72 per Roman Pound, sometimes minted in double value or more denominations), Denarii (Silver, 96 per Roman Pound, also sometimes minted in double value or higher denominations). The Franks used Silver Pennies (generally 96 per Roman pound, in imitation of the Romans) and the Barbarians used anyone’s coins or, perhaps, gold or silver rings or armlets and the like.
Gems were jewellery, not coinage. If any were found as treasure, then you either kept them as personal adornment or for gifts or you had to haggle with traders to get a fraction of their theoretical value, which generally wasn’t high as not even the Old Single Cut method of faceting had been developed … though there *were* exceptions, ancient Dwarvish or Elven work, perhaps, of which the characters only ever found a few pieces.
If you wanted to carry a lot of money around, I (anachronistically) allowed the existence of an Imperial “Note” which could be purchased at any major Imperial financial office (main towns, major military posts) for a premium, and cashed likewise … but they were only usable inside Britannia. Outside? Something like a cross between the Medieval “Bills of Exchange” and the Muslim “Hawalla” system existed.
Magic existed, but was relatively rare … more so than in D&D, for example … but *artifacts* of the ancient past were more common, but generally less powerful overall than in most D&D games. The Dwarves had “magical” missile artifacts that were basically wheel-lock pistols … available at considerable initial expense, and costly in terms of ammunition (available only from certain Dwarven settlements!).
Yes, there were Dungeons, but a lot of the adventuring was in the form of “Wilderness” Adventures … I ran several very successful campaign arcs using a mix of (heavily modified!) “Behind Enemy Lines” missions and some “James Bond” RPG missions, interspersed with modified ICE LOTR Modules.
The players still remember it fondly from time to time as it was, they seem to think, the perfect balanced of history and fantasy …
Of course, most of them also play D&D 4e, while I prefer the lest overtly gamist 3.5 or Pathfinder for my current FRP needs as a *gamer* rather than as a GM. For my needs as a GM? Currently I am running a “Fading Suns” campaign using the stock standard rules … and, when the next campaign arc is finished, I intend to run either an improved “Road to Armageddon” (see my product page at RPGNow for some details) campaign or a “Post Apocalypse Biotech/Nanotech as Magic” campaign, or, possibly, a 1920’s/30’s alternate history Pulp campaign … all using Greg Porter’s EABA system
So, as things stand, I feel I practise what I preach. And, even though some have missed the earlier post, these two articles are meant to get people to think about the inconsistencies in most FRP game backgrounds … but if they are rigid gamists and inconsistencies don’t matter, that’s fine!
Phil
July 23rd, 2011 at 7:36 am
@Phil: I have not justified things any more than you have? What sort of justifications would you like, exactly Phil? At least I’ve acknowledged the existence of other viewpoints and argued from their stance, rather than just routinely ignored them because they are “uninteresting” to me or because these are not the points I wish to make. You have argued a historical basis, and only an historical basis, which only truly makes sense in an historical setting. Stepping beyond that, your arguments lose their validity the further away from the historical accuracy your games get. This is the very nature of fantasy games – to go beyond historical accuracy and into the realms of imagination.
The fantasy setting that you describe would actually be considered low fantasy, Phil. You replace barbarians with Orcs easily enough, because there’s not really much difference between one savage humanoid species and another. Orcs don’t make fantasy – they just allow for the idea of monsterous humans without declaring humans as monsters, so that the game doesn’t become about killing other humans when getting it past the censors for the young children to play. It’s always easier to kill things when they are monsters rather than people, so killing orcs rather than humans makes this a great deal easier, because orcs are monsters, and humans are people. It’s simplistic, but that’s the point. Orcs are them, humans are us, but other than that, they operate exactly the same way, and it allows an easy metaphor that replaces specism for racism.
The very assertion that the majority of any enemy in a fantasy RPG should be human just shows that you prefer low fantasy games and historical games. In fact, in fantasy games, the enemies should be whatever is appropriate for the campaign at hand – a war in the lower planes isn’t likely to feature mostly humans – but demons and devils as opponents, for example. This is still fantasy however. You might be a historian, but you are using your personal preferences to make assumptions about what fantasy is and should be, and narrowing the field. The fact is that your preferences are but a small part of the fantasy genre – low fantasy is a subgenre of fantasy overall, compared to epic fantasy, high fantasy, dark fantasy, and sword and sorcery, all of which are different, and discrete genres.
I have no doubt your campaign was interesting, and I’d certainly enjoy playing in it. But I also enjoy the other genres of fantasy too. Just as like science fiction RPGs and western RPGs and other types of games. I don’t just limit myself to one type of game and say this is what all games should be like – I am, however, aware of the type of game I am playing when I am playing it, because genre IS important, and genre is what provides the basis of fictional accuracy that you seem to scoff at so much.
But genres themselves, particularly in tabletop RPGs, are a means of classification of the types of stories being told by the games. There are stories which favour historical accuracy, and those which favour the heroic epic. These are different genres.
These articles have got many people thinking, including myself – but the main thought that occurs to me is that the main inconsistency in most fantasy RPGs is because unless you are playing a low fantasy campaign, historical accuracy becomes increasingly less and less relevant as you add more and more fantasy aspects to your game. History is a good place to start from, but it’s only a starting point in most cases.
This means that seeming inconsistencies may, in fact, be the result of deliberate changes made to the setting or system, and this leads to the question of why these changes were made. They may have been deliberate design decisions – gamist decisions – or even narratavist decision to emulate the genre. However, there may also be changes in the actual setting itself to explain such diversion from historical accuracy. D&D itself has a design history, and the original materials were not designed in a void, without a setting. There may have been a reason in there that got carried along as part of the legacy. What about Chainmail – did that have a default setting at any point?
If you are really interested, I could ask a few people who would be able to have the last word better than either you or I, as to why bows really cost more than swords in D&D…
Da’ Vane recently posted..Back to the Drawing Board?
July 23rd, 2011 at 3:07 pm
[…] Wood and Silver or Iron and Gold? – Historical Inaccuracy in FRP, Part 1 […]
July 23rd, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Chainmail. Hmm. As I said in the original blog, it was designed as a set of Medieval Miniature Wargaming rules which had a character-like system and magic tacked on.
That is, it was a *medieval* and *historical* system to which extremely sketchy “character” and “magic” elements were added. The core system was the basis for OD&D, system wise … OD&D developed the character and magic rules, which was the difference.
But, if you had *read* my original blog post, you would have seen that … it is all there, plain as day.
Phil
July 24th, 2011 at 6:28 am
@Phil: Sorry to disappoint you, but it isn’t there, plain as day. Just like the fact that you never actually proved your point about the balance between swords and bows, instead switching your point to the balance between bows and spells, and then assuming that this somehow proves your point between swords and bows when it is in fact a different argument.
I ask, because I am in contact with people who were part of the original design team for OD&D, and many fans who work diligently to archive the original settings for the early editions of D&D, and would in fact be able to to provide many of the answers that could only be trumped by the late Gygax or Arneson themselves.
OD&D actually had a setting, and was developed from Gygax’s personal campaign. In addition, the version of Chainmail that Gygax developed the character and magic rules for was also set in this very world. These worlds may have had differences that set them apart from medieval history which could account for the inaccuracies which you describe.
You may have mentioned it, but others have covered the subject in greater detail than you have, and I am deferring to their expertise in this aspect of the debate. History is a good starting point, but we are talking about fantasy RPGs, and it would be interesting to see just how much fantasy there was originally planned in D&D that could account for the inaccuracy.
It may be what you see as inaccuracy may actually have been planned because D&D is not, and never was, intended to be a historical representation of the middle ages in Europe, but this knowledge was somehow forgotten or lost over time.
Da’ Vane recently posted..Back to the Drawing Board?
July 24th, 2011 at 10:36 am
There have been secrets behind many of the design decisions that have long vexed anyone trying to understand “What were they thinking?” when it comes to OD&D, and many of those stories have only recently started coming to light, so it would nor surprise me if either Phil or Da’Vane were right in terms of the history of the game mechanics. Or both, or neither!
July 24th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
@Mike: Indeed, that’s what makes things so interesting. It would be folly to assume that Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax were ignorant of historical economies, even if many future fantasy roleplaying games developers are. Both were considerable historical wargames buffs prior to designing OD&D.
Check out this site: http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/Archive_OLD/ori.html
This is an archive of the old Dave Arneson site which contains a lot of what Dave Arneson describes as his version of the origin of D&D. He refutes that Chainmail is the direct course of OD&D, something which, as we all know, he was rather bitter about, and led to the split that saw the separation of the OD&D and AD&D product lines before Arneson left the company. If this claim by Arneson is true, it would create possible doubt that the issue with swords and bows was actually taken from Chainmail. Even so, both Arneson and Gygax had established campaigns – Blackmoor and Greyhawk respectively, which could account for possible diversions for any historical precedent.
Also, the AD&D 1st Edition DMG specifically states that the economy takes into account the fact that it has been inflated by adventurers and treasure hordes.
Da’ Vane recently posted..Back to the Drawing Board?
July 25th, 2011 at 1:08 am
DaVane: I get it. I really do.
You have no interest in what was actually said, except inasmuch as you twist it to mean what you say it means, which bears no relation to actuality.
Just as you have no interest in actually providing any believable support for any of the many statements of opinion you have made. Deliberately sidestepping requests to do that.
The articles were obviously not written for people such as your good self who have very firm opinions about all and sundry, whether relevant or not.
They were written to get people thinking about things that many people take for granted, but which they may find interesting.
It is sad for you that you cannot see that.
Bye.
Phil
July 25th, 2011 at 3:13 am
@Phil: Sorry, Phil, but you do NOT get it, at all. You appear to be one of those people who do not like having their arguments challenges, even though this is the process of all critical thinking and academic discourse. You provided a claim with an argument that has a weak basis on many fronts, and you don’t like the fact that it has been called out on that basis. I have routinely asked you to provide more information and evidence, and further arguments to strengthen your claim, which is the normal course for discourse of this kind, except you refuse to do so, in the firm believe that I am not interested in what you have to say. You have already deemed me unreasonable, and therefore have no intention of being reasonable, just because I have questioned you. That is what is sad, Phil.
As for evidence for my “opinion” – I am gathering it as we speak, since I draw on rather a more extended pool of sources than you, it seems. However, I believe I provided a link direct to Dave Arneson’s archives website – that would count as a source of evidence from the man himself in this case. Alas, it seems that gaming history is not yet considered as much of an academic topic as medieval history, and actual sources of evidence can be hard to find if they are not preserved. Many fans dedicate themselves to projects of preservation of gaming history, copyright issues be damned, but being spread out all over the internet with little or no formal backing or recognition and hindered by people who fear losing their Intellectual Properties over preserving gaming history in previous formats, it can be a very tough challenge indeed.
I have posted this article on such forums for possible discussion, but it appears that you haven’t made much of an impression over there, and none have bothered to come here and comment. The idea of moving to the silver economy isn’t exactly new – it’s been used a few times, but the game uses the gold economy because of the vast amounts of wealth that adventurers have. Pathfinder switched to the silver economy for the Craft skill (previously it was gold divided by 10 in 3e). There has also been mention of the “Ale Economy” which was discussed in an old article of White Dwarf (Issue 29) but that’s way before my time. In general, most people agree with the ideas you present about economy but they aren’t new ideas and have been around for a while – it is just understood that the economy of gold isn’t the economy of the people but the economy of the game.
By the way, the idea that there were 10 coins per lb. was a mistake and was quickly fixed in all editions to the current 50 coins per lb. That puts it roughly historical, on the assumption that the coins are bigger and contain more precious metals than their real world counterparts.
In a setting where dragonscale and meteoric iron are smelted, I don’t think platinum is too much of a problem. Once again, this is a question of just how much realism do you want in your fantasy. Originally, however, platinum pieces were rare coinage to be found only in treasure hordes and were not minted.
Economy aside, you still have yet to resolve the many weak arguments from the first part of the article. The claim that rather than bows costing more than swords, swords should cost more than bows. You never fully proved this claim.
You provided historical evidence why bows may have been more prevalent and therefore cheaper than swords on the basis of two factors – the relative abundance of trees, and therefore wood, and the relative scarcity of iron. Yet, in a fantasy setting this is not always the whole picture.
Dwarves are a common feature in most fantasy settings, and with their extensive mining capabilities they are renowned for increasing the metal, and thus weapon, supply of the setting. However, they do not make bows. In addition, you neglect to mention that the process of curing the wood for making a longbow can take up to four years, even though the bow itself may be made in a few hours from such wood.
From Wikipedia: “The traditional construction of a longbow consists of drying the yew wood for 1 to 2 years, then slowly working the wood into shape, with the entire process taking up to four years.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Longbow
Therefore while there may have been a lot of trees, they had to be specific parts of specific trees, specifically treated in order to make what we regard as the traditional English longbow, which is a self-bow which works as a natural compound bow. This is why it is so expensive, because it IS made of special wood.
The Longbow entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longbow) is about the modern equivalent of the English Longbow. However, it does add this to the detail of the English Longbow discussion: “The demand for yew bowstaves was such that by the late 16th century, mature yew trees were almost extinct in northern Europe.” That means that demand was fairly high for English Longbows even without all the threats seen in Fantasy RPGs and even the abundant forests of Northern Europe almost didn’t provide enough yew wood for the demand for the period of time. They didn’t even have to deal with Yew treants, forest spirits, elves, green dragons, fey, or a host of other natural defenders of the forest while looking for yew wood, or the fact that most settings actually contain significantly less forests than northern Europe to allow for a wider range of adventuring terrain within the region.
I can’t say for sure these are definitive answers, but I would say these are all factors that both Arneson and Gygax would probably have considered when they designed OD&D. Others may also have considered these factors over the past forty years since the game’s original release.
I think you need to bear in mind what you take for granted – all of this is a question of just how much realism you want in your fantasy RPG. Perhaps if you expanded your thoughts to include that concept, rather than believing all fantasy RPGs should be low fantasy, then maybe you could help share your knowledge and passion of history and relate that to how history would change under the influence of fantasy, rather than rejecting it wholesale because it’s not realistic enough for you.
Now that series would be interesting, Phil. This series is just a case for the superiority of low fantasy over other types of fantasy, simply because you find the other types of fantasy uninteresting. Don’t tell us what we’re doing wrong by playing other types of fantasy. Help us make other types of fantasy right by taking into account the effects the aspects other types of fantasy have over these elements.
We want to add to our games, not take away from them, and that’s what you are advising people to do here – you are advising they take away the fantasy. That may work for you, but not for everybody.
Da’ Vane recently posted..Back to the Drawing Board?
July 25th, 2011 at 6:52 am
@Phil & @Da’Vane – I think that it’s time for both of you to step back a bit and get a little perspective – some of the comments are starting to get into personalities, which are neither helpful nor relevant. You both have valid points of view, but are getting locked into seeing things only from the corners of the boxing ring that you have staked out. So before it actually reaches the point of incivility, and creating ill-will where none exists, I would like you both to take a deep breath. We have a fairly open policy when it comes to accepting comments here at Campaign Mastery, but there are limits and this conversation is now approaching them.
Phil – the articles were written, as you say, to get people thinking about things that they took for granted, and which they might find interesting. Other comments to both parts have shown that they achieved that objective admirably. Even if some of your assumptions eventually turn out to be flawed, undermining the arguements on which the articles are based, that will STILL have been achieved.
Da’Vane – The point about bows taking years to cure and the divestitiure of the continent of Yew trees as a result of demand for the longbow is an excellent one. Once again, there is nothing wrong with the basic economic model of D&D and related games, but it is enlightening and educational to identify the circumstances that can make the prices appear rational. By enabling other GMs to understand how cause relates to effect, they can allow for the repercussions of events and decisions in their own campaigns. In my Fumanor campaign, for example, I had made allowances for the absence of Dwarves and the resulting scarcity of high-grade steel and so on, but had not properly allowed for the impact of the political changes relating to the Elves and Druids of the campaign driving up the price and the scarcity of bows other than shortbows (which are less fussy about the material of manufacture).
I don’t think Phil is advising people to take away the fantasy – he is inciting them to understand its underpinnings and foundations. And your posted comments are facilitating that understanding – so, from at least one point of view, you are both on the same side, and arguing with each other is counterproductive and a waste of energy.
But the debate itself has been extremely worthwhile.
July 25th, 2011 at 11:47 am
@Mike: Arguing and debate are the same thing, as this is the process through which all civilised discourse occurs. I cannot say I harbour any particular ill-will or uncivility towards Phil. There are no attacks made towards him, just insights and understanding into how and why he is arguing the way he is arguing with these articles and his comments. I apologise if at any point this was unclear in any of my comments.
History is a good starting place to work from when it comes to designing fantasy settings. Nobody has disagreed with that. Yet, with all claims regarding fantasy elements, these have been dismissed as uninteresting or irrelevant, although if these fantasy elements are a key part of your setting, this is not going to be a suitable attitude.
Indeed, we are both on the same side, in many ways. We are both gamers, for a start. There may be differences in what we enjoy, although I feel that Phil may find there are fewer differences that he actually realises, since I am extremely versatile in my games, and extremely well-versed in my genres, especially since a lot of this was needed as research for an upcoming project at DVOID Systems.
There does, however, need to be an understanding that fantasy is a spectrum that deviates away from history as we put more fantasy elements in, because those elements did not exist in history. There isn’t just one fantasy genre there are many – D&D is currently sword and sorcery or high fantasy, but also get’s used for a lot of epic fantasy games as well. It doesn’t do low fantasy really well. This is an evolution of the system and settings, because it has slowly increased the amount of magic and fantasy over the years. Dungeons and Dragons contains aspects of planar fantasy in there as well, particularly in the default settings and cosmologies regarding magic.
There’s still a fairly big following of players that really want the Spelljammer mythos to be core as well, and many of the elements from Spelljammer did become core, even if the idea of being able to sail between the worlds on magical sailing ships didn’t make the cut. That wasn’t unique to AD&D either, there was a character with one in OD&D’s Known world who used it travel between there and the Hollow World for many adventures in the early modules.
With ideas like this in full abundance in the Dungeon and Dragons game and it’s various settings, the question remains: Just how real do you want your fantasy? It’s not a case of throwing out realism wholesale because it is fantasy – but a case of upgrading your existing models to account for the new variables and situations.
The history may be correct for medieval Europe, and it may work well for roleplaying in medieval Europe. But when you’re on the Savage Coast and encountering strange new red metals, things are going to be a little different. We can look towards history to see examples what happened in similar situations and guess, for example, the Red Steel would represent a powerful resource and could create a “gold-rush” type attitude and environment.
Another rare mineral was discovered in the Known World that increased spellcasting ability, resulting in a similar situation and inflated prices in the region around where the mineral was discovered. However, this “gold-fever” ended when it was discovered that prolonged use of the mineral caused spellcasters to permanently lose their spellcasting abilities – it still had use as a long-term poison and drug against the unwary, but within a few weeks a lot of the early adopters learnt, to their cost, it’s true nature and it’s actual worth dropped to almost nothing, decimating the economy of the region.
This is an interesting storyline, regarding economy and magic. Could something like this have occurred in history? Resource rushes and resource wars have certainly occurred, and regional economies have collapsed when resources have dried up or industries changed without warning. There’s plenty of examples to draw from for that side of things – to use history as basis, and then change it to suit the fantasy of the setting.
While Phil continues to advocate ignoring or reducing the fantasy in fantasy RPGs, and Phil is advocating this – comments such as the idea that the majority of opponents in fantasy RPGs should be human would point towards this, alongside his refusal to talk about fantasy aspects affecting the arguments he has presented because they are uninteresting or unrealistic, he is not doing the second part the above process. This is fine for players of low fantasy or historic RPGs. But, if there truly are inaccuracies or issues in fantasy RPGs like Phil suggests, then ignoring the fantasy and assuming they work for all they different types of fantasy will just propagate and exaggerate those issues and inaccuracies even further.
It is important to understand history, and this article helps with that, and joins the many respected articles on the topic which does the same. However, it is important to also understand fantasy, and I don’t know whether Phil does understand fantasy or if he even wants to. Not the sheer scope, wealth of imagination, or diversity of fantasy. That’s fair enough if you prefer historical or low fantasy RPGs. Everybody has different tastes.
In hindsight, I suggest that a better title for this article would have been “Historical Divergence in Fantasy RPGs.”
Da’ Vane recently posted..Beyond Spyredelve
July 25th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
@Da’Vane – maybe I was reading too much into it, but both of you seemed to be at the point of suggesting that the other had not read what they had written, and I sensed – rightly or wrongly – that the levels of frustration was rising. It’s only a short step from that to hot tempers. I still think that you are reading things into Phil’s post that he didn’t put there. His article at no point suggests that the majority of opponants should be human, though he does describe such a situation as the basis of one of his most successful campaigns in one of his comments.
I would not agree that arguing and debating are synonymous, though they are related. When people argue, they stop listening to what the other person is actually saying and start listening to what they think the other person is saying.
Ultimately, the article is about understanding history and where the majority of FRP games diverge from it – “why” was considered too extensive and elusive a question for articles of the length proposed. It raised questions in an area which Phil’s professional background made him better qualified and informed than most of us – I could not have written it without months of research, for example [possibly you could have, because you admit to having done those months of research :) ]. The title reflects that limited purpose. It’s also worth noting that I added the “Historical Inaccuracies” part of the title at the last minute in an effort to ensure that people could tell what the subject matter was going to be from the title alone. And split Phil’s article into two parts because I felt they were talking about two different subjects.
July 25th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
@Mike: I am using the term “arguing” literally in the sense of putting forth an argument. This is the academic usage of the term, and is the one that is relevant here. No other use of the term is implied.
We’re talking about historical inaccuracy in FRPGs yet this begets the question of why they exist, should they exist. It is definitely an extensive topic. However, why is definitely an important aspect that probably should not have been left out – as without the discussion of why, this just becomes an historical exercise and as such seems only half an article that really should have been extended further to cover the other half.
While I have no doubt of Phil’s professional expertise as a historian, the discussion of why does fall into the area that would be better covered under my own expertise – expertise I shared in the comments for both parts of this article, but was roundly rebuked by Phil because it was deemed uninteresting and unimportant.
The articles raised questions but did not answer them, and the majority of my comments have been to try and provide possible answers to the questions raised, and justify why those answers may be the correct ones. I maybe be wrong.
Despite your attempt to split the article into two parts, Mike, they still relate to each other, because the second part still refers to the first. Arguments can be like dominoes – once the first has begun to fall, it can undermine the whole argument, but you can still look at each piece of the argument individually for merit and discuss it on that worth.
There is no frustration on this side of the “ring”, as far as I am concerned. I cannot speak for Phil, but I would hope he has the respect to do me the honour of treating me as a reasonable person, capable of civilised discourse, just as I am treating him. Nobody wants to see flames in this discussion.
Da’ Vane recently posted..Beyond Spyredelve
July 25th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
@Da’Vane, I do believe you missed the point of Mike’s post. He was noting that you very specifically -are- arguing, as per his definition.
“When people argue, they stop listening to what the other person is actually saying and start listening to what they think the other person is saying.”
It would seem that there’s a lot of that going on.
Andy recently posted..Dystopia and Giant Robots: Onwards to Adventure!
July 26th, 2011 at 7:17 am
@Andy: No, I am listening, and I am responding. I have done so, many times. However, it seems to me that if the general consensus is that I have STOPPED listening, then the general consensus is also that I have STOPPED being reasonable. This would therefore cause the debate to end and bring things to an end. However, I assure you, I am still listening despite what assumptions you are making, so whenever you feel like continuing this discussion, I will be happy to do so.
Da’ Vane recently posted..Beyond Spyredelve
July 26th, 2011 at 11:12 am
@Da’Vane – I stand by what I said, ie that you weren’t yet at the point where you had stopped being reasonable, but that some of the paragraphs you had written to Phil seemed to be heading in that direction (and vice-versa). Andy’s comment, and the comments of others, would seem to support that impression. It’s better to end a debate without reaching a resolution than it is to continue one past the point where a resolution is no longer possible because the central parties are no longer listening to each other, and that’s where I felt the debate between you was headed.
You’re a lady of strong opinions and, when aroused by those opinions, forceful presentation. That can create unintended friction – it’s happened between us in the past when we have disagreed, but we have managed to steer a course through it to arrive at a point of mutual understanding and respect, often to find that we weren’t really disagreeing at all – simply employing terminology and common principles in different ways. The resulting dialogue between us clearly enhanced and clarified those subjects being discussed, to the benefit of those reading the articles in question, which is why we value your willingness to write those epic responses here at Campaign Mastery.
It was because I saw no prospect of such an accommodation being reached, instead percieving an increased defensiveness in the attitudes of both yourself and Phil towards the points of view that you each were defending, that I wrote my comment of July 25th. Arguably, since things had not yet reached the point where commitment to those points of view was so total that the validity of any other perspective was considered automatically suspect, the debate was ended prematurely – but I would rather do that while everyone is still talking to each other than permit a damaging flame war to develop. Both parties in such engagements always feel they are right and the other side is not listening, after all, and that is the origin of the quote that Andy has given.
Mike recently posted..Objective-Oriented Experience Points
July 26th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
@Mike: I am aware of my forceful presentation and my opinions, however, all too often many people assume, somewhat incorrectly, that I am unreasonable and not willing to listen to arguments long before they even start trying to make them. This is in no small part to my epic responses I write on Campaign Mastery and on other various websites and forums.
It should be understood that I am a natural writer and academic by trade, and that writing long, well-thought out responses with pervasive arguments is natural to me. There is nothing epic about it. It’s what I do. We may live in a society where the majority prefer the “tl;dr” generation, but that isn’t reflective of me. I know the value of the written word and how to use it, and when it comes to discussing and sharing information, I am more than happy to write it down regardless of length. I write long because I include a lot of information, not because I am ranting, roused, or agitated.
What is epic is that I write as well as I do despite being dyslexic, which is why I am not as organised as I like. This is not an article piece – it’s not planned. It’s pretty much real-time comments based on what I can remember and what I have to and as I can find it, which will always be weaker.
Phil had time to do his research, and structure a very good historical piece, there is no doubt about that. But by refusing to take into account or answering questions, criticisms, or commentary about the increased fantasy aspects of games and how they affect the historical side, they have demonstrated a weakness on his part. That is a shame, because even a best guess would have better than simply stating these as irrelevant and turning this article into “historical self-indulgence,” as Matt commented.
I thank your efforts for trying to avoid a flame war here, Mike, and be a diplomat as normal. I don’t know who is responsible, if such a term is applicable in this situation, but this seems like very much a wasted opportunity here. Although there was some discussion on how history and fantasy interact in the commentary, Phil’s continued refusal to take part in this aspect of the discussion (let alone refer to the other aspects to back up issues of his arguments – such as gamist or narrativist aspects of game design which he ruled out of the discussion in the first part of the article) has basically undermined the usefulness of this article for many, particularly those who prefer other types of fantasy besides low fantasy set in those based around medieval Europe.
Since it appears that Phil has stopped listening, this discussion is indeed over, but should Phil or anyone else wish to continue this discussion, I will more than happily continue this discussion.
Da’ Vane recently posted..Beyond Spyredelve
August 10th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job, indeed.
August 18th, 2011 at 1:27 am
I just wanted to share this thread over on The Piazza which is a follow up and discussion of these articles.
http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/bb/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=6754&start=0
It contains both a mixture of comments and criticisms about the articles themselves, as well as discussion of the elements contained within, from a variety of stances and gameplay preferences.
Da’ Vane recently posted..Patrons and Price Drops
August 18th, 2011 at 8:20 am
Unfortunately, the link comes back “The requested topic does not exist”.
Mike recently posted..By The Seat Of Your Pants: Adventures On the Fly
August 18th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
That’s strange… because the topic clearly does exist, even when I follow the link from here…
Da’ Vane recently posted..Patrons and Price Drops
August 18th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Very strange, because now it’s showing up for me as well. Maybe I had the misfortune to try and read it during an update cycle or something. Oh well, Thanks for the link, Da’Vane.
Mike recently posted..By The Seat Of Your Pants: Six Foundations Of Adventure
August 19th, 2011 at 6:41 am
I checked with the forum admin, who I happen to know personally, and she said that there was some unscheduled forum downtime which was probably the cause. I wanted to check that the forums weren’t members only or anything – especially since they have only recently gone through a server move.
The Piazza has a number of industry professionals who post and comment there, including one Frank Mentzer, and is a great source for exactly the type of discussions that this article aimed to promote. There’s some serious world builders there, who care dearly about their favourite old D&D settings.
Da’ Vane recently posted..Patrons and Price Drops
August 19th, 2011 at 6:56 am
The “members only” possibility had also occurred to me, but when you commented that it was showing up for you, I decided to give the link one more try before suggesting it. Fortunately, it was functioning this time! Thanks for the effort and input.
September 26th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
This is funny to me because my game has been on the silver standard for nearly 17 years now. To make it simple I have just converted the prices in the players handbook into sp instead of gp. When treasure is found I either change denominations down a rank or divide it by ten. I will admit I preferred the 1st edition coinage of 20cp to 1 sp giving 1gp to 200 cp ratio. I actually have different silver coins of different sizes minted by different countries, with the exception of a single coin they share the same value because they are debased to greater and lesser extent ( I am not playing bookkeepers and smelters so I feel that having a different coin for flavor with the same approx value suffices). Gold coins have a standard size of 1/50th of a lb or about .9 grams. Silver pieces may or may not be bigger. I also still have electrum pieces in game, the worlds very first coins were made of electrum I see no reason to get rid of it as a fantasy coin.
This makes economics much more “realistic”. Now as for volume of money, first monsters are part of the economy, orcs, goblins, elves etc make up a significant portion of the worlds population, they should have a significant portion of the worlds wealth. I don’t see this as a problem. Further in FRP games there is usually a significant possibility that some of this wealth is extra planar in origin, finally most FRPG’s have many subterranean races some of which live very deep under ground, this would make mineral wealth much more available than in our own world, where only in the last century have we been able to dig as deep as dark elves, deep, dwarves and deep gnomes live.
September 26th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
By the by, I find the Geis’ books to be okay but certainly not a source I typically recommend. There are numerous inaccuracies in their books.
September 26th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
oops I noticed a typo, obviously that is supposed to be 9 grams, not .9 grams.
November 4th, 2013 at 12:50 pm
“One of the major problems facing pretty much all ancient and medieval (and renaissance and even pre-20th century) societies was the lack of enough bullion to represent economic activity. In short, there wasn’t enough cash to go around. The inevitable result was periodic, nasty, economic crises.”
No that never happen, there was never an economic crisis because of there being not enough money to represent economic activity. That’s because whatever amount of whatever you’re using for money, is, in an even close to free market, enough.
Suppose a medieval world much like the historical one but with gold 1/10 as common. What happens? Well people can’t get as much gold for their produce. So they make less money. Then they go to buy, and the sellers can’t charge as much as they did in the real world because the buyers don’t have as much money. However much the supply of money is, prices adjust so that the supply of money (M), times how fast it is exchanged (it’s “velocity” V) equals the general level or prices (P) times the quantity of goods sold.
So;
MV = PQ
This is why the Spanish ruined themselves with their bullion imports, the only thing they produced by importing all that money was inflation. While lots of people found they had more money, few found they were actually able to buy more goods and services. The primary effect was to divert resources away from actually making what people wanted and into stealing from the natives, transporting and guarding money.
Low prices by themselves don’t cause problems, any more than measuring distance in meters instead of feet cause problems, it doesn’t change the underlying economic facts. Changes in the supply of money, particularly if they are sudden and unexpected can cause problems, because people planned on particular prices and now their plans don’t work.
Another thing that causes problems is the old enemy of economic sense, price controls. Legally mandated minimum and maximum prices were a plague from the earliest known legal codes. When economic circumstances changed, for instance production decreased but coinage didn’t, then maximum prices caused shortages. So a harvest failure that could cause hunger and poverty caused starvation instead.
Rare bullion/coinage metals can make it hard to make small change, but that’s not so bad.
November 4th, 2013 at 6:00 pm
@Michael: An interesting counterpoint, and one that accords with my understanding as well. You’ve articulated it very clearly. However, there’s a big difference between an actual economic crisis and a percieved crisis leading to a panic – and there were several of those (usually quite localized). I’m not sure that I completely agree with your comments about price controls. Maximum Price didn’t cause the shortage, the downturn in production did. The problem is that it then becomes easier for what little of the product is available – food in the example cited – to be bought out, so even though the price may be affordable, there is nothing there to be bought. The alternative – letting the price rise to a true market value – may keep availability of the product higher, but it puts it out of reach of the lower classes just the same. Either way, they starve.
Fixed prices when there is plentiful supply ensure that the producer does well, since the product is priced above a true market value. Fixed prices when there are shortages shortchange the producer’s earning potential in (hopefully) equal measure while maintaining affordability of produce for others; if necessary, a rationing system shares out what little there is.
The real problem with fixed prices is not automatically increasing them in line with inflation, which erodes that point of balance by decreasing the purchasing power of the producer’s income. This is what causes farms to go bankrupt.
It’s also worth remembering that all of the above is true only of a floating currency. Without that, there is no such thing as inflation. If prices never rise, and there is no inflation, wages never have to rise, and there is no need to increase prices (production costs never rise, only fall with technological improvements). In this situation, the discovery or obtaining of more wealth adds wealth to the economy – but since there is nothing more to buy with it, it doesn’t circulate, instead being frozen. Add in the effects of other reasons for money to be lost to circulation (trapped in religious decorations, for example) and you can get a shortage of currency that makes it look like the country is running out of monwy. This encourages people to stick their money under their mattresses rather than spend it, and before you know it, you a percieved economic crisis has become a genuine one.
November 6th, 2013 at 6:34 pm
Well no, maximum prices do cause shortages. They discourage people from producing more in good years to sell at high prices in bad years. Since there are losses in storage if you can’t get a speculative gain why store anything?
They also discourage people bringing in produce from places outside the local area. Most crop failures are local.
Fixed prices when there is a surplus doesn’t help producers, since it just means there is a high price you don’t sell your goods for. What I describe is true of an currency. If there is more of it the value goes down, less value goes up. An attempt to fix prices while ignoring changes in money supply just means a lot of people break the price laws. Historically price control laws have been broken consistently even when they have the death penalty.
Sticking their money under the mattress doesn’t cause an economic crisis without the price controls. All it does is transfer spending power to those who are prepared to spend. The more that is under the mattress, the lower prices are. The lower prices are, the more other people can buy.
November 7th, 2013 at 12:45 am
This presupposes that people have the technology to store goods for years. Since we’re talking about crop failures, the goods we’re talking about are food, and food storage is a huge issue in the time period in question.
Why store anything: because there is barely enough food produced in an average year to last all year, and the bulk of it is produced at the end of the spring/summer harvest. Food has to be stored and gradually released from the storage through the course of the winter months; and enough seed has to be held back to sew the next year’s crops. Storage in this era has nothing to do with profit and everything to do with being able to eat all year round – and the year after that.
What you describe is true of a currency only if the value CAN go up and down, and by definition, that’s a floating currency, ie one without a fixed value. It is important to remember that a fixed currency value has no bearing on the purchasing power of a currency; it simply means that a currency denotes a fixed quantity of a commodity to which the currency has been pegged. A US Double-Eagle gold coin, the largest denomenation of coin ever produced by the US Mint, was worth exactly $20 worth of gold. How much $1 would buy could fluctuate, but the value of the dollar didn’t change.
This means that when the price is also fixed, the value of the commodity being purchased is fixed. The more you grow of something, the more money you have, potentially. The problem then becomes one of matching demand with supply – if you grow more of something than there is demand for it, the value of a quantity of it does not go down, but there are simply no purchasers. There is a maximum income possible.
Overflow can sometimes be absorbed by moving the excess produce to another market where there is both unsatisfied demand and sufficient wealth to purchase the excess. In an area suffering from crop failure, there is demand but the lack of trade goods equates to a lack of wealth – that is why there is no incentive to move product there.
Which brings us back to whether or not an influx of foreign gold adds to the pool of money in the economy, which is the whole point of the debate. If prices are not fixed, then you have to assume that the price will go up to absorb the excess ‘wealth’ being generated – this is inflation. Prices become inflated relative to the currency, and the value of a unit of the currency is devalued. If prices are fixed then you can buy twice as many potatoes (or whatever) as before – you have $200 instead of $100 and potatoes still cost the same number of $ per kilo. But: why would you buy more potatoes than you need? You wouldn’t. After a while, you have to find something else to do with that excess cash. Like buying luxuries, and ships to go and get more gold, and soldiers to stop anyone stealing it from you. Exactly what happened in Spain.
November 6th, 2013 at 6:42 pm
I think part of the FRPG problem with hoards of gold and silver is that they tried to recreate the adventures of people like Conan the Barbarian or the hoard Smaug had. That’s fine if you’ve got a group of level 20-plus monster stompers. It’s not as realistic for the average starting group of fools who think they can be heroes. When you kick around the group of bandits who were terrifying an average village, you should expect to get about as much as the village could pay. Only when you get up to the level where you’re dealing with barony/nation/world threatening level monsters should you be able to jump into the gold pile and not be seen.
November 7th, 2013 at 12:49 am
Now this comment I agree with, at least in part. Unrealistic expectations are defintely part of the problem. But tagging the wealth of the ruins to the wealth of the village makes no sense either, because it assumes that the wealth of the ruin is dependant on the economic activity of the village. The two are completely independant of each other, because the village didn’t make the dungeon – it can exist completely independantly. If anything, you can argue that places with a lot of dungeons should grow, because of all the wealth being added to the local economy relative to other settlements from expeditions into the dungeons.
November 13th, 2013 at 12:44 am
“Why store anything”
Because bad years happen. The biblical story of Joseph talks of seven good years and seven bad years, neccesitating huge silos to be built. While it’s a myth, bad years and even several bad years in a row happened. The techology to store goods for years existed since the Pharohs, although at the cost of quite a large amount of wastage. That’s why if you couldn’t make a speculative profit, it just wasn’t worth it.
“What you describe is true of a currency only if the value CAN go up and down, and by definition,”
Any currency can go up and down in value, relative to any good it’s not based on. Gold standard currencies go up and down all the time. They buy a fixed amount of gold, they don’t buy a fixed amount of wheat, petrol, magic swords or anything else.
Areas that had crop failures could still buy food if it was avaialable, they still had plenty of stuff to trade, and if they didn’t they could borrow (at horrible interest rates naturally but usury beats starvation). The problem is that it costs money to transport food to the area and to store more than is needed to feed your own community. Both of these are significant cost, as little as 100 miles of bad roads can double the cost of grain. When prices adjust nobody has an incentive to ship food to these areas. If prices can go up and down then in good years areas can ship food to where it’s more in demand, instead of just pigging out a bit more. That means when they have a crop failure they can simply sell the stuff they got in the good years, wether coinage or luxuries.
“Which brings us back to whether or not an influx of foreign gold adds to the pool of money in the economy, which is the whole point of the debate.”
Not really, it’s whether the lack of money is bad for an economy, which was Phil’s original claim. An influx of foreign gold does add money to a gold based economy, but it doesn’t add wealth. Trying to fix prices fails because although there is more money the resources to create potatoes do not increase. There are not more peasants, more land, more fertilizer. There is more money chasing the same amount of goods. Nobody can actually buy the goods at the fixed price, because at that price too many people want and can afford it. So there is a black market, people get imprisoned, even executed for illegal trades, and prices go up even more. The ability to buy things over the necessities comes from production exceeding the ability to produce them. More money doesn’t add to that. Money isn’t wealth. It is a token you exchange for wealth. When there are more tokens and not more wealth the value of the tokens must go down. The money is enough to buy the goods and services, always.
So to reiterate forget about how much money there is, what matters is how much a person/family/class has compared to the rest of society. Those who have 1% of the money can afford 1% of the production of that economy. Price fixing has never worked.
November 13th, 2013 at 1:38 am
This was your comment, not mine. I agree with what you’ve said.
Which doesn’t change the value of the currency, it changes the price of the commodity being purchased. The ‘fixed amount of gold’ is the value of the currency, by definition. My point is that if the price of wheat is also fixed, then a fixed-value currency always buys the same amount of wheat. If the price of wheat (or whatever) is not fixed – which I agree is the historical and traditional norm – then you are correct, which I was not disputing.
Again, assuming that we are talking about a floating price for the various commodities in question, I agree with your next paragraph.
That was what you were disputing in Phil’s article, a question on which I was not taking sides – I don’t know enough about economic history. By “The debate” I was referring to the point of disagreement that I had with your comment, i.e. the debate between you and I.
I agree completely, and this was the point I was trying to make. But it’s only true if the economy is a closed system, ie the increased money can be used to add wealth to the system by buying produce from outside the domestic economy. The rest of your paragraph is only true if this is not possible, because buying foreign produce (in effect) does increase the resources to create potatoes – more peasants, land, fertilizer, and water.
Germany, post WWII (or was it WWI) when people used wheelbarrows to carry enough money to buy a loaf of bread – only to find that it wasn’t enough due to hyperinflation. They couldn’t print and distribute the curerency fast enough, the prices couldn’t keep up, and the whole economy pretty much collapsed. But that (and a couple of other cases of hyperinflation since) are the only cases I can think of where this statement isn’t correct, and even then, it’s wrong on a technicality, not principle.
November 13th, 2013 at 2:27 pm
“Which doesn’t change the value of the currency, it changes the price of the commodity being purchased. ”
But the price of the commodity being purchased is the reciprocal of the value of the money in terms of that commodity.
“But it’s only true if the economy is a closed system, ie the increased money can be used to add wealth to the system by buying produce from outside the domestic economy. ”
Ok, I see the problem here. Yes it adds resources to the area that can use the gold to buy imports. So if you’re measuring “the economy” by an arbitrary line, either the border of a nation, or some geographical area, yes. But if you consider “the economy” of a larger area, where the gold remains, my point is true. So if the Spanish import a lot of gold, then buy a lot of stuff from the British, French and anyone else who can shove stuff on a boat, get more resources. But that means that the British, French etc. have less resources to actually satisfy their needs. So the Spanish did, as I said, merely import inflation, but they managed to export some of it to nearby countries.
Even in Wiemer Germany the stuff still got sold, so the rule still stands. The economy collapsed because it was impossible for business to make meaningful production plans in that environment.
November 13th, 2013 at 7:53 pm
…”in terms of that commodity.” Yes, exactly. But the defined value of the currency is not measured in terms of that commodity.
I think we’ve achieved a meeting of the minds on everything else.