Feudal Rank/Status and Cost of Living

[AlexanderHowl]

Political Rank is probably a better rank system than Feudal Rank. In general though, cost of living is based on Status not granted by Rank (or Rank if Rank replaces Status). So, a Status 8 individual who possesses Military Rank 8 and Political Rank 8 would only need to pay $3000/month while a Status 8 individual who possesses Courtesy Rank (Military) 8 and Courtesy Rank (Political) 8 would pay $600 million per month.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Rank only grants a bonus to Status when Rank coexists with Status. When Rank replaces Status, which is what you're doing, there is no bonus. If you assume that this includes the Cost of Living table, then the cost of living is just the normal table, replacing Status with Rank.

(Feudal Rank is not at all realistic. Feudalism doesn't operate as an organization with a hierarchical structure. There is a hierarchy, but it's ad-hoc, transient, and not a simple tree.)

On the other hand if you pay for your status by taxing your peasants perhaps that is better represented by ranks "the organization pays for your cost of living" than treating it as a job you have pay for your army and castle out of.

[thom]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Rank only grants a bonus to Status when Rank coexists with Status. When Rank replaces Status, which is what you're doing, there is no bonus. If you assume that this includes the Cost of Living table, then the cost of living is just the normal table, replacing Status with Rank.

Hmmm, if we follow this, then I should separate Status and Feudal Rank to allow FR to benefit my player's Cost of Living.

(Feudal Rank is not at all realistic. Feudalism doesn't operate as an organization with a hierarchical structure. There is a hierarchy, but it's ad-hoc, transient, and not a simple tree.)

Perhaps...but that's the advantage of running my own game; I can choose to handwave the whole "Feudal Rank is not realistic" by deciding that it is perfectly realistic in my game <evil grin>

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by thom

I can choose to handwave the whole "Feudal Rank is not realistic" by deciding that it is perfectly realistic in my game <evil grin>

Sure, but then you have to build your society to actually resemble this. In a typical feudal structure, the king enfeoffs vassals of all different ranks: dukes, earls, barons, knights, and these vassals might be able to parcel out their land to even lesser vassals. A duke might enfeoff a baron. But this baron owes service or scutage to the duke, not the king. And nobody has enfeoffed landless peasants, serfs, or slaves, and these do not owe service or scutage to any lord directly, though they may be drafted into a general militia, and some of them may owe rent or service to whoever owns the land, regardless of their Rank. All this just doesn't lend itself to a simple Rank level.

On the other hand, Status has no hierarchical structure imposed on it. It's just a measure of influence and cost. It covers everything important about feudal titles without imposing an artificial command structure on top of it. Whether you're actually called a duke, earl, or knight doesn't matter in game rules as how much influence and expense you have. "Who owes you service or scutage" is just one component of your "influence and expense."

Does your game world's social order actually look like a hierarchical command structure? Describe it for us, and we can better advise you.

[thom]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Sure, but then you have to build your society to actually resemble this. Does your game world's social order actually look like a hierarchical command structure? Describe it for us, and we can better advise you.

Well, I originally started with Status as the basis for everything in my world (as you pointed out), and I intended to add Feudal Rank only for the people who were actually in the command hierarchy of each kingdom, presuming that one or more of my players would want to follow this route eventually. And the replies overall are making me strongly consider returning to this way...

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by thom

Well, I originally started with Status as the basis for everything in my world (as you pointed out), and I intended to add Feudal Rank only for the people who were actually in the command hierarchy of each kingdom, presuming that one or more of my players would want to follow this route eventually. And the replies overall are making me strongly consider returning to this way...

What you are describing sounds to me like it would be best modelled by having a normal feudal Social Status system plus separate heirarchies of Burueacratic Rank for each sovereign entity.

[Apollonian]

I feel like treating a feudal kingdom like a command hierarchy is maybe not the best way to do it. I would treat it as a network of allies and commitments instead. The king has Status 7, and allies in the lords who owe him fealty. (You could treat that as actual Ally, and have the frequency modifier for just how loyal that ally actually is...) The lords in turn have their own Status rating, and allies and wealth and so on that determine how powerful they are. Giving and taking orders then comes down to status, persuasion, and possibly Law rolls.

Each household, though, would have a Rank system; so at the royal level you'd have officers whose rank in the king's household translates to a significant position in the kingdom in addition to any Status and power they have as nobility in their own right. Whether the king has Rank in his own household... I'm not sure. I think it's there with that contentious question of whether the POTUS has military rank in addition to political rank.

Basically, I imagine a typical feudal system (if such a thing ever existed) as a lot closer to a collection of mob families than a working state. The rise of the state happens when those families lose their power.