Kenneth Gauck
12-29-1998, 06:16 AM
I have no problem with a GB equalling 10,000 gp's. D&D economics and BR
economics is not meant to be scrutinized, and scrutiny by knowledgeable
persons is likely to result in a complete reworking. I too am bothered by
how cheap things like military units are. Although I would prefer to keep
the GB 2,000 gp's and agree that: "A unit of elite infantry (200 heavy
infantry with banded mail, long sword, medium shield) would cost 44,400gp to
outfit". The 22 GB elite infantry has a certain appeal.
Here is why: Many regents earn 20-30 GB's per season, and most medieval
armies comprised 500 men. It seems obvious that if one's purpose was to
immitate late medieval Europe, regents should be raising two units, and
taking one or two seasons off from campaigning.
Now, I am disposed to grant that there is a limited number of troops that
are self supporting, and so have not sought to tinker with the larger (5-8
units) armies found in most domains. I do think there are problems of scale
here though, and I applaud your grappeling with them. Certainly a perfect
solution has eluded me.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net
(some comments are included below)
- -----Original Message-----
From: Gary V. Foss
>Changing the value of the GB also better reflects the standard AD&D costs
of
>constructing castles and mustering troops. A castle of the largest
possible
>size in BR terms, a castle (10), costs 100GB or all of 200,000gp to
construct if
>a GB is worth 2,000gp. If you've ever used The Castle Guide to construct a
>standard AD&D castle you know you can spend that 200,000gp in a snap
>constructing just a rather small castle. 1,000,000gp more closely
represents
>the cost of constructing the castle described in the Ilien Sourcebook (or
any of
>the other castles in any other sourcebook, for that matter).
>
No question about it, both the time and financial costs suggests
fortifications in BR amount to earth works.
>
>First of all, I don't think it's actually true that troops were 100%
responsible
>for their own equipment, as the example seems to be based upon the large
armies
>raised only seasonally and disbanded almost immediately after the
relatively
>brief "fighting season" was over so they could get back home for summer
>harvest. Troops in BR and AD&D are not those kinds of soldiers, they are a
>standing military force, so I don't think using them as an example is very
apt.
>
This depends on whether troops are considered abstractly, and what the
customs are (according to the DM) regarding booty, and so forth. I could
argue that the same troops may not be in the field all for seasons, only
that the same numbers are in the field. But I won't bother. The
Renaissance saw the advent of standing armies (as expensive as Gary
suggests) and the Roman Empire, which serves as a model for many of Anuire
has standing armies. All of which suggests a standing army model is just as
viable for the BR setting as the medival levies and scuttage. Either way a
DM has to consider the implications of either choice.
>So what's my point in all of this? Well, I want to smooth over the gaps
between
>the standard AD&D rules and the BR domain action rules. Changing the value
of
>the GB is just one method of better reflecting the AD&D core rules in the
BR
>domain rules. That way I can translate the BR system into a non-BR setting
or
>the AD&D core rules into the way I run my BR campaign which is a sort of
blend
>of a typical "domain rules dominated" BR campaign and a traditional
adventure
>oriented campaign.
All of which is probably long overdue by many campaigns. Wraith/Hjelme
noted that trade was covered lightly. I would suggest all economics in
role-playing games is inadequate to running a game where the game pays
attention to economics. Its really hard to DM a guilder player's activities
without revising the rules heavily. D&D was not intended from the get go as
a model for anything but a combat & magic system.
economics is not meant to be scrutinized, and scrutiny by knowledgeable
persons is likely to result in a complete reworking. I too am bothered by
how cheap things like military units are. Although I would prefer to keep
the GB 2,000 gp's and agree that: "A unit of elite infantry (200 heavy
infantry with banded mail, long sword, medium shield) would cost 44,400gp to
outfit". The 22 GB elite infantry has a certain appeal.
Here is why: Many regents earn 20-30 GB's per season, and most medieval
armies comprised 500 men. It seems obvious that if one's purpose was to
immitate late medieval Europe, regents should be raising two units, and
taking one or two seasons off from campaigning.
Now, I am disposed to grant that there is a limited number of troops that
are self supporting, and so have not sought to tinker with the larger (5-8
units) armies found in most domains. I do think there are problems of scale
here though, and I applaud your grappeling with them. Certainly a perfect
solution has eluded me.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net
(some comments are included below)
- -----Original Message-----
From: Gary V. Foss
>Changing the value of the GB also better reflects the standard AD&D costs
of
>constructing castles and mustering troops. A castle of the largest
possible
>size in BR terms, a castle (10), costs 100GB or all of 200,000gp to
construct if
>a GB is worth 2,000gp. If you've ever used The Castle Guide to construct a
>standard AD&D castle you know you can spend that 200,000gp in a snap
>constructing just a rather small castle. 1,000,000gp more closely
represents
>the cost of constructing the castle described in the Ilien Sourcebook (or
any of
>the other castles in any other sourcebook, for that matter).
>
No question about it, both the time and financial costs suggests
fortifications in BR amount to earth works.
>
>First of all, I don't think it's actually true that troops were 100%
responsible
>for their own equipment, as the example seems to be based upon the large
armies
>raised only seasonally and disbanded almost immediately after the
relatively
>brief "fighting season" was over so they could get back home for summer
>harvest. Troops in BR and AD&D are not those kinds of soldiers, they are a
>standing military force, so I don't think using them as an example is very
apt.
>
This depends on whether troops are considered abstractly, and what the
customs are (according to the DM) regarding booty, and so forth. I could
argue that the same troops may not be in the field all for seasons, only
that the same numbers are in the field. But I won't bother. The
Renaissance saw the advent of standing armies (as expensive as Gary
suggests) and the Roman Empire, which serves as a model for many of Anuire
has standing armies. All of which suggests a standing army model is just as
viable for the BR setting as the medival levies and scuttage. Either way a
DM has to consider the implications of either choice.
>So what's my point in all of this? Well, I want to smooth over the gaps
between
>the standard AD&D rules and the BR domain action rules. Changing the value
of
>the GB is just one method of better reflecting the AD&D core rules in the
BR
>domain rules. That way I can translate the BR system into a non-BR setting
or
>the AD&D core rules into the way I run my BR campaign which is a sort of
blend
>of a typical "domain rules dominated" BR campaign and a traditional
adventure
>oriented campaign.
All of which is probably long overdue by many campaigns. Wraith/Hjelme
noted that trade was covered lightly. I would suggest all economics in
role-playing games is inadequate to running a game where the game pays
attention to economics. Its really hard to DM a guilder player's activities
without revising the rules heavily. D&D was not intended from the get go as
a model for anything but a combat & magic system.