Oddities in Monthly Pay Table

[Celjabba]

Yes, Harn is great - and for settings that are similar in economy and society to medieval/european history, it give great results. Better than the generic GURPS system.

For Luxembourg city in 2024, Naboo at the start of SW 1 or Ecbatana in 600 BC ... , Harn won't help.

For Luxembourg, I could easily get real world data.
(Assuming I care about that level of detail in a game - for a campaign, almost certainly. For a quick one-shot.. probably not.)

For fictional worlds, or obscure/atypical earth times/places ... that's another story :)

But we are drifting off-topic - sorry :)

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Yeah, this is my assumption, particularly at something like TL 0. Jon isn't out there working a 9-5, his "Job" is hunting, gathering, building tools and shelter, etc, and his wages are a full belly, a warm fire, a primitive roof over his head, and the means to protect himself (and his tribe/family) from predators (including other humans).

At that level of civilization, taxation is "being available when someone needs help" and "giving a share of food to the folks who have been less lucky." Government services are "having people available when you need help" and "having people willing to share with you when you're less lucky."

Later they added things like "paying a portion of your production into the common pool" and "having somebody specifically tasked with making sure there's plenty of beer."

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

Status 0 is the status with no penalties or advantage for an character.
It is neither the average or the median of a population.

"No penalties or advantages" means "has the same modifiers as an average person".

Originally Posted by Celjabba

As for the sStarting wealth/CoL/jobs rules.

You use these when you have a setting with "settled" wealth (wealth is a social advantage and the majority of what people own is not in cash) and you don't want/need to determine your setting economics but are content to use generic values and ratios that are "realistic" enough even if they don't match specific time/places economics (except perhaps suburb Montreal in 2006).

The problem is that the CoL rules are not 'realistic' enough, they're essentially unusable.

[hal]

Originally Posted by Anthony

"No penalties or advantages" means "has the same modifiers as an average person".

The problem is that the CoL rules are not 'realistic' enough, they're essentially unusable.

Hmmm - let me try this for size...

A player character whose attribute totals are totally average, can be built garnering level 0 wealth for zero points, level 0 social status, despite the fact that historically, status 0 (or middle class) was occupied by about 10% of the population in medieval England circa 1200 AD - but is representative of the normal person because it costs zero points? That is essentially circular logic - using something to define itself as it were.

Putting it differently, if the abililty to specify right handed or left handed were to cost character points - would it then necessitate that right handed individuals be treated as a zero point thing, and left handed would either be an advantage or disadvantage depending on what you're trying to model?

In fencing, a right handed fencer who goes up against a left handed fencer is on unfamiliar ground, whereas a left handed fencer who is used to fencing a right handed opponent, has a bit of an advantage - so are we to charge being left handed as an advantage? No - GURPS is too granular for that.

Do we charge what the sum effects of Combat Relexes should cost based on a tool box approach, or do we keep it at the 15 points that it currently has had since day one of GURPS 1st edition on up to GURPS 4th edition?


As Sean has stated in the past, things cost what they cost for play balance issues or for some other criteria other than strict "appearances" would necessitate. In short? Pricing of advantages are often pulled out of thin air. Want proof? Take something as simple as Turning Undead. In a campaign where you are facing a lot of undead - it is worth the many points it costs. In a campaign where undead are relatively rare or non-existent - it is not worth what it is priced at.

So, why is wealth level 0 worth zero points? Because Steve Jackson decided it to be such - not because he got some college student or Department of Taxation mogul to run the numbers and, using analysis, decide what/where the common data points were and design the system from the ground up.

Put it succinctly, there is zero evidence that a zero point trait is common relative to everything else or should be the default condition. In fact, as far as relative wealth is concerned, the bulk of people tend to be barely making it (Strugging) to the point where they're hurting badly when the prices of food goes up, but their funds remain fixed. A bad harvest 1 year in 4 was enough to result in starvation. A series of bad harvests year after year, could result in a death toll of up to 10% - and these events are memorable in their own wait (witnessed by the Patato Famine in Ireland for example). These are NOT people who have a lot of discretionary spending funds or assets for when the food prices rise. These are people whose lifestyle is a bad harvest away from serious privitation.

**shrug** But, that's just my opinion. I'm not a rocket scientist, nor anyone big in any of the sciences. I'm just the guy who takes an idea and works on it - adding it to my house rules as needed. ;)

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by hal

Hmmm - let me try this for size...

A player character whose attribute totals are totally average, can be built garnering level 0 wealth for zero points, level 0 social status, despite the fact that historically, status 0 (or middle class) was occupied by about 10% of the population in medieval England circa 1200 AD

Status 0 is not middle class. Status 0 is no modifiers (though a 'default' character also has no social stigmas, so in most ancient culture it really means no modifiers for a young adult male). In medieval England in 1200 it's probably a free peasant (status -1 is a serf, status -2 is a slave).

[hal]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Status 0 is not middle class. Status 0 is no modifiers (though a 'default' character also has no social stigmas, so in most ancient culture it really means no modifiers for a young adult male). In medieval England in 1200 it's probably a free peasant (status -1 is a serf, status -2 is a slave).

This is where you and I disagree then. It happens.

[ravenfish]

To bring the discussion around from what we think the rules should imply to what published GURPS authors have thought the rules should imply, Fantasy (p.137) says "Historical fantasy settings often have a triangular pattern of wealth. Most people are peasants, with a Status -1 standard of living. Smaller numbers of people are at Status 0 or higher. Status 0 is still 'average,' but that average includes a few incredibly rich people and many poor ones. Being Status 0 makes adventurers better off than most people."

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by ravenfish

To bring the discussion around from what we think the rules should imply to what published GURPS authors have thought the rules should imply, Fantasy (p.137) says "Historical fantasy settings often have a triangular pattern of wealth. Most people are peasants, with a Status -1 standard of living.

The fact it references 'cost of living' there is indicative. The concept of status has gotten badly twisted in 4th edition because $600 per month at TL 3 is so obviously insane, so they've resorted to cheating on status.

In any case, CoL shouldn't be based on status anyway, unless status is based on wealth in the society (which in reality it often is) -- CoL should be based on the wealth level you're living at.

[hal]

Originally Posted by ravenfish

To bring the discussion around from what we think the rules should imply to what published GURPS authors have thought the rules should imply, Fantasy (p.137) says "Historical fantasy settings often have a triangular pattern of wealth. Most people are peasants, with a Status -1 standard of living. Smaller numbers of people are at Status 0 or higher. Status 0 is still 'average,' but that average includes a few incredibly rich people and many poor ones. Being Status 0 makes adventurers better off than most people."

For what it is worth: When I run any medieval based campaign, I have the following "classes"

Peasants - individuals whose right to a land is by means of rent or ownership
Serfs - individuals under contract for the lands they hold, binding on them and their blood, binding upon the Lord and his blood (blood being descendants)

After that, then it boils down to relative wealth for those farmers:

• 5 acres and under are the poorest of the poor - but doable for a single man
• >5 acres and less than 15 is a half-villien. There are other names for this class
  15 to 30 acres are villiens
  Greater than 30 acres are very wealthy individuals who likely sublet their lands
  
  After that you're now starting to deal those indivuals who are not pure farmers, but are either craftsmen or are yeomanry in service of their lord in lieu of rents or a paid down rent recognizing their service.
  

After that, you're starting to reach the higher social levels that include landed knights, Parish priests, Bishops, Barons, and other higher Nobility. Each of those mentioned had a fair amount of income that is definitively higher than that of "Wealth level 0".

For now, I'll bring this to a close... time to hit the hay.

[hal]

Ok, I lied... (about hitting the hay)

I knew I had posted this to the Harn Forums, and a quick successful search found precisely what I was looking for.

wages for the various people working at building castles for the King of England while in Wales...

Hal Note on Currency:

• 1 pence is 1 silver penny
• 1 Shilling is 12 Silver pennies
• 1 Pound is 20 Shillings or 240 silver pennies

01 Master Mason - 7.5 pennies per day (a touch over 4 shillings per week)
01 Deputy to Master - 3 shillings per week
12 Masons
4 at 2 shillings per week
5 at 1 shilling 8 pence per week
3 at 1 shilling 6 pence per week
10 Workmen clearing the land and stone breaking - 9 to 12 pence per week
04 Mortar Makers - 9 pence per week
10 Mortar Carriers - 9 pence per week
04 Sand throwers - 9 pence per week
04 water carriers - 7 pence per week
34 Hodmen - 7 pence per week
30 diggers - 8 pennies per week
20 barrowmen - 8 pennies per week
03 carpenters
2 - 3 pence per day
1 - 20 pence per week
02 Smiths
1 - 24 pence per week (that's 2 shillings)
1 - 20 pence per week
02 Foremen - 20 pence per week
03 Carters - 10 pence per week
36 Women laborers - 6 pennies per week (even then women got paid lower!)
--------------------
140 laborers total

Note here, that the wages of a Blacksmith at 2 shillings per week, is 14 pennies higher than unskilled laborers. In GURPS terminology, that is 3.4x the wage of a Struggling job. But oddly enough? if Struggling is 1 silver penny, then ordinary income is 2 pennies per day, and comfortable would be 4 pennies per day. This places the Blacksmith's income at just shy of 2x the income of ordinary wealth.

So:
Struggling 1 pence per day's labor
Average: 2 pence per day's labor
Comfortable: 4 pence per day's labor
Wealthy: 10 pence per day's labor

Not even a Master Mason was making "Wealthy" income, but instead - was between Comfortable and Wealthy (5 vs 7.5 for comfortable, or 7.5 vs 10 for wealthy).