|
Post by murquhart72 on Jun 10, 2010 19:22:38 GMT -6
"Player/Characters must pay Gold Pieces equal to 1% of their experience points for support and upkeep..." ~The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures
Was this supposed to be once a week (when 'adventures' took place), once a month (when mercenaries got paid), or yearly (when taxes were collected)? Being a percentage, did it even matter? I'd love to indulge in this aspect of the game to keep the adventurers thirsty, but how often should I hit them? What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Jun 10, 2010 23:45:16 GMT -6
Isn't that quote in a section talking about annual income from territory owned? I interpreted the upkeep rule as annual cost, but it would be easy to divide that by 52 for a weekly amount. Having said that, xp's could change greatly from the start of a year to its end, making any annual calculation a bit dodgy.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jun 11, 2010 4:39:09 GMT -6
I suspect that a lot of the stronghold etc. building stuff came from Arneson, as it was apparently a much more prominent part of Blackmoor than Greyhawk and he devotes 4-5 pages to it in FFC. So in FFC such things are all yearly calculations "Personel Cost in GP for 1 year, Pay and Upkeep" for example.
|
|
|
Post by Morandir on Jun 11, 2010 10:50:37 GMT -6
I don't remember where unfortunately, but someone a while back made a decent argument for monthly upkeep fees, which is what I use. The thing is, 1% of XP isn't really that large an amount when you're dealing with characters who have thousands of GP laying around, and if you only do yearly the cost to players is going to be minuscule relative to the treasure they find. I've started doing 2%/month to give it a little more bite.
Mor
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 20, 2015 18:46:32 GMT -6
I thought this old thread was worth revisitng. It's another element of the game that I think is overlooked because it's misunderstood. PC Support and Upkeep (p.24 U&WA)- a formula for proper player motivation. PC’s must pay 1 gp per 1% xp “until such a time as they build a stronghold”. This is not a maintenance fee. It is a tax or tribute to the district or Baron. It does not include additional fees such as room and board or equipment repair and replacement. Obviously, failure to make payments would have consequences. Equivalent tax in gold for PC classes by level: Fighter: Magic-User: Cleric: 1st- 0 0 0 2nd- 20 25 15 3rd- 40 50 30 4th- 80 100 60 5th- 160 200 120 6th- 320 350 250 7th- 640 500 500 8th- 1200 750 1000 I do not consider these to be exorbitant fees even if they were collected monthly. Nor do I consider this to be a tool for the GM to use in order to exercise their players from their excess wealth. Instead, this is meant to be a motivation for player’s to gain enough wealth and experience to build a stronghold. Why should we build a stronghold? You should build a stronghold in the wilderness because: 1. Support and upkeep tax will cease. 2. You will gain control over the surrounding countryside which will attract settlers. 3. You will then be able to collect tax revenue from these settlers ( 2000-32000 gp annually). 4. This tax revenue will help you rise in xp (and level) more rapidly . 5. Increase your populace, influence, and holdings. *a territory is an area 40 x 40 miles= 1600 square miles 6. Conquer other territories to capture their wealth and expand your territory. Go up in xp more rapidly. In order to be able to build a stronghold you must: 1. Go on adventures to gain the finances necessary to clear land and build. 2. Clear the surrounding countryside of monsters. *This requires hiring a force (army) large enough for the task. 3. Have the finances to hire specialists. 4. Return to p.20 U&WA Construction of Castles and Strongholds. If your players do not get the hint that they should strive for this goal, you could incorporate some guidance into your campaign without overtly telling them point blank, “build a stronghold yo-yo”. Have them encounter a kindly Baron who welcomes them into his Keep and tells them of his past travels when he was as they were. This benefactor can bestow his years of wisdom to the PC’s of all to be gained. If you want to move your campaign in this direction, give your player's the right motivation. The goblin hoard are amassing on the borderlands just waiting
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 19:20:06 GMT -6
Or just have them be snubbed by all the landowning nobility. Non-landowners were looked down on in the Middle Ages.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 21, 2015 15:09:31 GMT -6
If we're doing pseudo-medieval, the players should be excluded and snubbed by anyone with a title until they get their own, regardless of tax or upkeep.
1% per month is to keep your swords sharp and belly full in between adventures. Tax on adventuring wealth could be considerably higher- setting up a situation where the characters pay or become hunted outlaws.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Mar 21, 2015 16:50:07 GMT -6
As I recall, there was a discussion here about whether this was a per month, per week, or per adventure cost. AD&D, as I recall, made it monthly, but then AD&D adds training costs as an additional expense.
I think it is partly a tax, but not solely a tax. Fighters who establish baronies collect 10 gp/year, so this expense is much, much higher. And it does say Player Character Support and Upkeep.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 21, 2015 19:41:14 GMT -6
By the sound of it “Support and Upkeep” certainly suggests the idea of maintenance. I would argue that’s because it is intended for the use of maintaining a village or cities defense. It was assumed in the early game that PC’s would take up residence in such and use it as a home base, a place to prepare for expeditions, buy equipment, find rest, collect rumors and information, and acquire hirelings. None of these things fall under “Support and Upkeep” and actually have additional costs attached to them.
If this was meant to be a personal maintenance fee, the text should raise a few questions. Why would such a fee increase with experience? Why does the fee only cease when building a stronghold “in the wilderness”, yet continues “if it is in a village or town not controlled by the PC”? Who are the PC’s paying this 1% fee to?
The reality is that a PC will continue to pay support and upkeep even when they establish their own stronghold in the wilderness. Instead of it going to another in authority for a territories defense, it will go directly to the maintenance of their own territories forces. The difference is that the costs will be calculated based on the size and type of troops (see p.23 Men-at-Arms) which the PC wishes and can afford to hire. Interestingly, these are monthly costs.
Of a different nature, the tax revenue established on p.24 is an average that, I assume, is meant to represent 5% of the typical 0-level craft man, laborer, farmer, shop keeper, and peasant citizenries annual income. How this tax revenue is used will be up to the PC whose territory they reside in. We know support and upkeep of his forces is necessary, but alternative investment options are also given.
The exception to all the above is of course the Cleric (see p.7 M&M), who will truly not need to pay any support and upkeep once establishing a stronghold and will receive tithes of 20 gp per inhabitant annually (double what other classes collect). Since this is a “tithe”, I assume it is an average meant to represent 10% of the typical inhabitants annual income.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Mar 21, 2015 20:05:28 GMT -6
I recently had a conversation with austinjimm about the support and upkeep fee, especially the frequency issue. What we realized over the course of the conversation was that it would be fair to run the game where an in-game time unit such as a week, month or year didn't really matter. Basically, the PC just has to pay out 1% every time they accrue XP. So, they are out of the dungeon, back in the tavern. "He ref, can you calculate our XP?" Sure. Once calculated: "okay, everybody got 2K XP and, unless you have a stronghold, don't forget to knock off 20 gp for your general upkeep. Gotta maintain that dungeon lifestyle! Players gotta play!" I also agree that it does NOT cover room and board or taxation or tithe. Every time my players make a major haul the exchequer and the local highest ecclesial authority always somehow seem to make a showing at the tavern. "Ah, noble adventurers, we are so grateful for your services. We know, of course, your nobility means that you will gladly make your tithe to the church now. Our taxes on found fortunes is usually 30% but, because you are such a fine addition to our village we will grant you a welcome-new-comers discount. Please pay the city only 20%. Many thanks!" If this doesn't drive them into the wilderness, well, I just don't know what will. (And I do make it clear to players that wilderness adventure, land-clearing and fortress building is just part of the game. I have found in my personal campaign, so far, that they are on-board with this from the beginning. In austinjimm's campaign, there are a lot of folks coming to 0e from later editions and the "end game" just isn't on the menu for many.)
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Mar 22, 2015 4:06:05 GMT -6
Besides; food in OD&D is ludicrously expensive : think of the price of a single garlic bud !
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 22, 2015 7:57:31 GMT -6
The rule was a bit clearer in the BTPbD/Dalluhn draft:
"Players must pay living expenses and wages for themselves and hirelings. Costs in the Underworld are assesed on a weekly basis, but in the Upper Land the same cost applies on a month~y basis. Some "hazerdous duty" pay should also be given when retainers from above serve for any length of time below ground. Creature naturally inhabiting the Underworld will live there at a lower rate but serving in an active capacity will accrue the higher rate automatically." (Book II:7)
The practice extends that of the Blackmoor Campaign (FFC 77:5) where personnel expenses and upkeep were assessed yearly.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 22, 2015 10:56:42 GMT -6
What we realized over the course of the conversation was that it would be fair to run the game where an in-game time unit such as a week, month or year didn't really matter. Basically, the PC just has to pay out 1% every time they accrue XP. That's sensible. It's a tax based on earned XP, not a regular fee calculated on total XP.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 22, 2015 10:58:46 GMT -6
The rule was a bit clearer in the BTPbD/Dalluhn draft: "Players must pay living expenses and wages for themselves and hirelings. Costs in the Underworld are assesed on a weekly basis, but in the Upper Land the same cost applies on a month~y basis. And does it say what those living expenses are, O He Who Has a Copy?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 22, 2015 13:15:49 GMT -6
I can appreciate others approaches to this subject. It's definately open to interpretation in how a GM would want to implement it to their campaigns, if at all.
I took the opportunity to look at the FFC to see what it had to say. It does not seem to give any individual directive about percentage of wealth going to upkeep, that I could find. What is there is similar to what's found in U&WA for Baronies.
It offers the following investment areas (those found in U&WA are underlined):
Canals, Roads, Air Transport, Sea Trade, Land Trade, Inns (Accomadations, food, and entertainment), Armories, Horse Breeding, Tarn Breeding, Slave Breeding, Farming, Fishing, Cattle, Ship Building, Housing, Fortifications, Education, Religion, Tourism, Magical Research, Exploration.
There is also the following chart (I only included the most relevant items):
Personal Costs (in GP for 1 year pay and upkeep) *compare to p.22 U&WA Specialists
Engineer 100-500 Horse Trainer 200-1000 Animal Trainer 400-2000 Ship Captain 350-2500 Assassin 400 (per mission) Armorer 450-900 Seaman 10-50 Scholar 20-200 Alchemist 100-5000
Horseman 10 (no equipment) Pikeman 45 (NE) Archer 15 (NE) Infantry 10 (NE) Slaves 10-250
All these upkeep costs are associated with a Baron, or more specifically, a land owner. How does a Baron pay for these costs of upkeep? taxes, investments and conquest.
I'll also point out that these upkeep costs have a direct relation to wargaming and point values. Point values weren't only a way of creating relatively balanced opposing forces for a battle, they were also meant to be the monthly or yearly upkeep cost of maintaining a standing army in a larger campaign.
I have a hard time accepting Support and Upkeep as an imposed cost for the individual player and his hirelings who are not land owners, simply because it would seem to side step and/or compound the rules found in M&M p.12-13 for advertising, attracting, and negotiating with hirelings.
As for the Dalluhn manuscript, obviously I can't speak for it's content, though I would love to see the document in full.
In the context of how I read the rules found in U&WA, if a PC really wants to side step the Support and Upkeep tax there is a simple solution, enter into the employ of the Baron.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 22, 2015 17:31:58 GMT -6
The rule was a bit clearer in the BTPbD/Dalluhn draft: "Players must pay living expenses and wages for themselves and hirelings. Costs in the Underworld are assesed on a weekly basis, but in the Upper Land the same cost applies on a month~y basis. And does it say what those living expenses are, O He Who Has a Copy? Same 1% of Exp, and hireling pay. Here it is continuing from previous quote: "All players must also pay 1% of their minimum XP for taxes, excepting clerics who pay what money they have to their monastery fund or to their order's treasury. Thus, a Lord would pay 1500 GP a month. Magic-Users who belong to a Guild must also pay an additional 5% to it a month. Thus a Conjurer would wind up paying 10 GP a month in taxes, and 50 GP a month to his Guild, for a total of 60 GP a month." So I'd say Derv is right about the XP% representing taxes. Note that in Dalluhn, a Lord has 150,000 xp, and a Conjuror (lvl 2 Mu) has 1000 xp. Also note that the conjuror's tax applies every month, just as do hireling costs. Now the thing about Clerics is interesting since it basically means all Clerics give up all their money (this is something I've noted with Blackmoor Clerics too).
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Mar 22, 2015 18:10:43 GMT -6
Besides; food in OD&D is ludicrously expensive : think of the price of a single garlic bud ! Oh look, its those stupid adventures again, harr harr, I charged that guy 10 gold pieces for his lunch yesterday- what an idiot!
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 23, 2015 15:33:49 GMT -6
The Gold for XP idea is an abstraction to make wandering monsters dangerous; if a PC claimed that they should get XP for tax revenues I'd just laugh at them. You don't get XP for things that aren't difficult. Well, I think it depends on whether a GM wants to incentivise this element of the game or not. Also, how do they want to incentivise it? Do you want to use the hammer or the carrot? It’s expensive to build a stronghold. From a players perspective, what’s the benefit of building one if you aren’t going to reward XP’s for the effort? Is the tax revenue, itself, a real benefit? GM: “You know you can avoid paying 1% support and upkeep if you build a stronghold?” Player: “Oh hell, I’m just going to pay the measly 1% and continue to delve. At least I know I’m still gaining XP for each piece of gold I gather. It’ll cost me 50-100,000 GP to build a stronghold, plus clearing 1600 square miles just to attract inhabitants, and I have to support my army over that period. All that to gain 2000-32000 GP in annual tax revenue, which won’t even give me any XP, why?” I can see a number of different methods in approaching this. Since there’s no inherent danger or difficulty in collecting taxes, why not offer a fraction of the value in XP? What’s the down side to this? It’s possible that a GM might want to encourage the idea of taxation, so 1 GP = 1 full XP and a landowner can raise or lower the tax rate if they choose. If we go on the assumption that the 10 GP per person is equal to a 5% tax rate, a GM might allow the player to raise or lower it in 5% increments. We could then use the existing Reaction Table to see how the populace reacts. Every time the tax is raised 5% apply a -1 modifier. So, for example, an increase of taxes by +20% would modify the reaction table roll -4. Poor reactions might have a multitude of affects such as unrest, revolt, or migration. Lowering the tax rate would give +1 modifiers per 5% and still require a reaction check. You could even give the general populace a Loyalty score that would modify the reaction checks. This way there is both risk and reward, as well as real game consequences. One more approach might be to adopt Arneson’s ideas and only reward XP for money spent on investments that benefit ones territory. Take that tax money and make it work for you.
|
|
|
Post by chrisj on Mar 24, 2015 6:49:40 GMT -6
For my Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea campaign I've adopted the following system: 1 session generally equates to a calendar month. I like time to pass in the campaign. At the start of each session each character (PC or henchman) must pay 1% of their accumulated XP for support and upkeep. I assume this expense covers equipment maintenance, mundane spell components, and food in town. It also covers lodging in the boarding house. (Players have the option to upgrade to nicer digs.) Players only pay upkeep for sessions they participate in.
I use a downtime system derived from 5e to determine what players can do when they are not adventuring (between sessions).
chrisj
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Mar 24, 2015 9:51:57 GMT -6
Players only pay upkeep for sessions they participate in. So you have to ante up before the deal?
|
|
|
Post by chrisj on Mar 24, 2015 10:20:45 GMT -6
Players only pay upkeep for sessions they participate in. So you have to ante up before the deal? I guess that's a way of looking at it. I used to charge upkeep per month of game time, but that didn't work well when people missed a few sessions. I want to make it easy to drop in and out of the game. Thus you only pay upkeep for sessions you participate in. I should mention that my sessions always begin and end at a home base.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 17:19:08 GMT -6
We were all historical medieval wargamers. We didn't need anybody in-game to tell us that non-landed people were regarded as little more than wandering mercenaries.
We didn't WANT to be wandering sellswords all our lives. We wanted to be Major Players, and the only way to do that was to become landed.
Plus as I've said before, take wargamers and give them each a castle and an army and wars WILL result. And who wants to get left out?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 24, 2015 18:34:28 GMT -6
We were all historical medieval wargamers. We didn't need anybody in-game to tell us that non-landed people were regarded as little more than wandering mercenaries. We didn't WANT to be wandering sellswords all our lives. We wanted to be Major Players, and the only way to do that was to become landed. Plus as I've said before, take wargamers and give them each a castle and an army and wars WILL result. And who wants to get left out? I can appreciate that Michael. It's just not something that can be taken for granted anymore. My feeling is that mindset all changed with the advent of the officially published module series that allowed characters to advance up the ranks without a thought about sprawling wars between kingdoms. As a result, most players are very content being wandering sellswords. It's how they've come to understand the game.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 24, 2015 22:55:16 GMT -6
Having a stronghold is COOL. Being a baron is COOL. Putting mechanical pencil to graph paper and designing your own castle is COOL. Having a place to store your treasure that's safer than an old foot locker behind the petrified stump is COOL.
I'm frankly surprised that people need to see characters motivated towards building THEIR OWN CASTLE. Come on people, a castle? COOL.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 25, 2015 17:11:50 GMT -6
I saw that talysman had a blog post on Support and Upkeep. I hope he doesn’t mind me sharing the link to the article. It’s another approach to consider. Nine and Thirty KingdomsI still would like to hear a well reasoned suggestion for why Support and Upkeep only ceases when building in the wilderness, yet it continues if a player would build on an empty town lot. To me, the reason is clearly because the player can skimp on providing men-at-arms for his stronghold. Instead, he can rely on the town or city militia. So, he must continue to pay the tax to support the existing army that aids in his defense in a territory not under his control.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 25, 2015 17:27:39 GMT -6
Having a stronghold is COOL. Being a baron is COOL. Putting mechanical pencil to graph paper and designing your own castle is COOL. Having a place to store your treasure that's safer than an old foot locker behind the petrified stump is COOL. I'm frankly surprised that people need to see characters motivated towards building THEIR OWN CASTLE. Come on people, a castle? COOL. Yeh, it’s COOL. I’m with you. But, it also takes time and effort on both the GM and players part. So, let’s not paint too rosy a picture. You have to have an idea of how it’s going to play out in your campaign, or why do it? Because it's cool doesn't quite cut it. Which leads to the question of how much minutia one wants to incorporate. There’s only a hint of guidance for resource management in the LBB’s and the FFC doesn’t offer much more. Some might decide to hand wave all this and simply say, if you have the cash you have a castle. It could also be assumed that the land has been surveyed for resources (wood, stone, water, clay, iron, etc.) when it was cleared. This quote of Gary from the DMG strikes me as relevant- “You cannot have a meaningful campaign if strict time records are not kept”. Consider that it could take 5-12 years to construct a stone castle in the Middle Ages and involved thousands of skilled and unskilled laborers. A simple Motte and Bailey would require considerably less labor and could be built in around 40 days. Most major construction in Europe took place from April till November and was dependent on weather conditions. In a fantasy world, it’s conceivable that construction might be accelerated through the use of mythical beasts. How does this all fit? Does it matter? Regardless, strategically I find hand waving the time element of construction flawed. If one player decides to construct a large castle of stone because he has the cash and resources, yet another chooses to quickly erect a wooden palisade and a couple houses on an earthen mound while more heavily investing in hardened troops, should these structures be considered to take the same time to complete? No, the wooden structure should take a fraction of the time to build and allow that player to mount an assault on the other before he even gets his outer walls up. There’s one more thing to consider about this element of the game. D&D has come to be considered a cooperative game. Player’s work together as a team to conquer monsters and take their treasure. Once you move to the end game level of play, this all changes. As Gronan suggests, the game now becomes competitive and adopts a similar atmosphere to Diplomacy and, of course, Chainmail. “Hey, Lord Pimplezit, thanks for helping me clear my land and getting my stronghold started. Good luck with yours, I’m too busy running my territory now to help you. Of a matter of fact, I still have an extra 2000 GP’s of disposable income. I think I’ll take a ride into town and…..see ya later"(conversation trails off as he briskly mounts his steed and gallops off to town to hire an assassin). Why not get the jump on this end game thing, I really don’t need the competition. Now that’s playing dirty pool, but all’s fair in love and war. Maybe a GM wouldn’t permit that. It’s possible that the whole clearing land and building strongholds should really be done as separate solo games with each PC. This would require more time and book keeping, of course. Since I’m starting to drift far a field from the topic of this thread, it would be nice to start a separate one where others on the forum could share how they have approached this in their campaigns and how it turned out. The response might give us a pretty good idea of it’s commonality, frequency and the general interest of this part of the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 25, 2015 18:33:44 GMT -6
Derv. Download the pdf of treasure hunters and look at chapter 4. It's all there and it runs like a Rolex. The key is to do much of it away from the table.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Mar 25, 2015 20:01:03 GMT -6
derv, I read you. But what if, as PCs progress, they stick together at each play lvl. By so-called "end game," they share the marches along the boarder lands, coming to each other's aid and rallying against the demon hoards, the undead throngs. Etc. Treasure gets bigger. NPC encounters get bigger. But the party stays together.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Mar 25, 2015 23:15:31 GMT -6
derv, I read you. But what if, as PCs progress, they stick together at each play lvl. Treasure gets bigger. NPC encounters get bigger. But the party stays together. The only issue is that as the rules were developed, the optimal play style was 1:1 or 1:2. The idea of the "large party" was a by product of its popularity in relation to those who knew how to play the game. Much of the early play reports aren't about "nuclear parties" of 3 fighters 1 cleric 1 MU, 1 thief. It's about Gygax's adventure with robilar and Otto or whomever. Ad&d and the convention modules distort the play style the original rules were written for. There may have been 9 players-characters in the campaign, but they didn't all adventure together at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 26, 2015 0:03:25 GMT -6
Gary had 50 (!) players in his game at one point. but not all playing at once.
|
|