Say you build a brothel...does the "state" or "kingship" own it?
You put up a noble villa....can you live there? Or does it mean you entice nobles to come spending BP to entice them?
Or do you literally have the Kingdom make a building and give it away..AP is not clear on this
I think that's up to you, and even your players.
In my campaign, it's a combination. The castle that they built they used for themselves. The caster's tower they also gave to their magister. Soon (he doesn't know it yet) the Diplomat will ask her husband the General to move out of the castle and into a noble's villa, which hasn't been built. (She's pregnant and about to give birth, and thus wants her own home.) But they also have built an inn, which is owned and operated by a dwarven NPC, a smithy, two cathedrals, a stable - none of which are state property, and whose owners would go apeshit if they tried to treat it like state property.
Welcome to the classic fun with any management sim - whether or not it's actually a command economy or just looks like one under every term except players who'd #$*( fire and brick over treating a command economy as something other than a mortal sin.
So, fall back on something safe and medieval-ly. The King here is the owner and ruler of all the land and most everything on it, except for a structure or two that get built independently. Everyone else is a tenant. But that's not quite the same as state ownership, because the state rests in one person, and those tenants tend to have Very Specific Rights by custom to explain their relation to that one person. In a highly legalistic sense the King owns all the real estate and fixtures, but, for law and pragmatism, it's not all like his living room.
As such, part of the income and BPs is caught up in rents and the like, much how part of the BPs of construction is consists of finding tenants for the noble villa, getting the starting capital for the inn, drawing up contracts for the dock workers, et cetera.
Therefore, there's a sense that letting a PC live in something she's built is actually reducing the kingdom's income by some fraction, but there's less in the ways of better ways to deal with it.
|
BP does not belong to the PCs, per se. It is a measurement of the economy “spent” at the direction of the rulers. Also, as stated above, it is not a single building, but a “neighborhood” of several buildings in a 750x750 area for a single 1 x 1 “block.”
So, not to be snarky, but the actual ownership of the buildings depends on who owns it.
The ownership of the major herbalist shop in the herbalist’s neighborhood belongs to the herbalist. The ownership of the various inns in the inn neighborhood belongs to the innkeepers. Are some of these state-owned inns or mills or granaries? Maybe--depends on your game and your city and how you run your government. It’s certainly more likely that things like monuments, barracks, and castles belong to the kingdom than caster’s towers, etc.
So people have money and materials, the kingdom has money and materials, maybe guilds/organizations have money and materials, and they want to build things. The rulers say where. This is the “spending” of BP to make buildings.
Hope that helps. :D
I should point out that, despite letting certain NPCs (and soon PCs) live in certain buildings, those characters don't actually consider themselves the owners of the buildings. For example, I would never allow my PCs to sell their castle - or at least, if they do sell it, they're not going to see a single dime of that money, as it disappears into the kingdom's economy.
|
I should point out that, despite letting certain NPCs (and soon PCs) live in certain buildings, those characters don't actually consider themselves the owners of the buildings. For example, I would never allow my PCs to sell their castle - or at least, if they do sell it, they're not going to see a single dime of that money, as it disappears into the kingdom's economy.
I for the most part agree with all of you. The characters started to act like they litteraly owned everything and it somewhat bothered me.
BP does not belong to the PCs, per se. It is a measurement of the economy “spent” at the direction of the rulers.
This is not quite right but I suppose it's a bit of a nit-pick. BPs are spent at the direction of the players rather than the rulers. It's an important distinction since, as you say, the resources that BP measure come in many different forms including labour, supplies and perhaps cash. The people of the kingdom are building whatever they feel like and the rulers often don't have any say in it. The black market is probably the best example. It boosts the economy and increases the availability of rare items, but is by definition illegal. A ruler would not want one in his kingdom, but the players would for the mechanical benefit. Of course, once things like this exist in the kingdom, the ruler may not go out of his way to shut it down, but rather just keep it "contained" so as to reap the greatest reward without actually condoning such acts.
Heck - we see this sort of thing all the time even today. I live in BC, Canada and our second largest industry is the drug trade (behind forestry and just ahead of tourism). It's definitely illegal and the government doesn't support it, but at the same time it would be devastating to the economy if it was suddenly wiped out.
|
|
BP does not belong to the PCs, per se. It is a measurement of the economy “spent” at the direction of the rulers.This is not quite right but I suppose it's a bit of a nit-pick. BPs are spent at the direction of the players rather than the rulers. It's an important distinction since, as you say, the resources that BP measure come in many different forms including labour, supplies and perhaps cash. The people of the kingdom are building whatever they feel like and the rulers often don't have any say in it. The black market is probably the best example.
You make an excellent point, and one that takes BP even more out of the PCs’ hands (hooray!).
This distinction does not preclude “government zoning,” or government-owned buildings (which can still happen along with people/organizations putting up their own stuff). Taking that one step back into the Meta does better illustrate that the PCs just live here (like everyone else)—they do not own the kingdom. Nice catch, Tem! ;D
Creative Director
|
The buildings of a kingdom are, as a general rule, owned by those who build them and pay for them. Build Points are intentionally NOT gold pieces for many reasons, but one of those is so that we can combat the perception that the PCs own everything that they build in a kingdom.
In fact, who owns the buildings in your kingdom can be something that the PCs decide. If they decide that they own everything, the GM would, I expect and hope, start giving out some points of unrest every turn since that's a pretty dictator thing to do.
Building on what James wrote, I would look carefully at the alignment of the kingdom they are starting. Owning everything themselves smacks of dictatorship to me, LE or at least LN. I do start with the premise that the PCs "own" the land in the name of the kingdom, but that they give grants of free land to people willing to improve it by building useful structures. That's one way to encourage the immigration necessary to populate the land, similar to the way the U.S. helped populate some parts of the West by giving free land to farmers and others.
The castle is theirs, at least for as long as they are rulers. In my campaign they have also kept direct control of the gold and silver mines, but this has not gained them any benefit (and in fact has been a bit of a headache). One of my players has used his own money to set up a small blacksmith's shop, and has just hired someone to run it for him while he is out. That does not, however, give them the benefits attached to the Smithy improvement in the kingdom building rules, as the kingdom did not spend the BP necessary for that. It will give the potential for a small income stream (which will pale in comparison to what he makes adventuring), but will also leave him vulnerable to theft, arson and other potential disasters. Another player is considering opening a magical items shop of some sort, when the city is large enough to support it. I like them getting involved deeply in their city, but they should have to spend their own cash to "own" things directly.
To summarize, players should be free to set the legal framework of their own kingdom, including how much they directly own. However, their choices should have consequences, in terms of Unrest as James suggests, or alignment, or the ability to continue recruiting settlers to come, or on the Economy (serfs don't work any harder than they have to, but people running their own businesses and keeping the profits are very energetic and productive).
|
One thing I would like to point out is this, there is a difference between owning a Restaurant and owning the BUILDING said restaurant is in. And believe it or not, but this sort of thing existed for a long time and applied to more then just obvious businesses like stores and restaurants. For example, I have an ancestor who owned a 'church' building but did not own and run the actual church itself. This was back in the Revolution war, but I know similar things date back to the renaissance.
Not sure if anyone may take this and apply it to kingmaker, just a different perspective to look at things with.
good call. people could be 'leasing' the buildings.
And believe it or not, but this sort of thing existed for a long time and applied to more then just obvious businesses like stores and restaurants. For example, I have an ancestor who owned a 'church' building but did not own and run the actual church itself. This was back in the Revolution war, but I know similar things date back to the renaissance.
Actually they likely date back to the 8th century and the development of fiefs, where the lord (landowner) would give the vassal the rights to use a building for... whatever.
Which I guess is quite relevant to Kingmaker. :)
|
One of my players has used his own money to set up a small blacksmith's shop, and has just hired someone to run it for him while he is out. That does not, however, give them the benefits attached to the Smithy improvement in the kingdom building rules, as the kingdom did not spend the BP necessary for that. It will give the potential for a small income stream (which will pale in comparison to what he makes adventuring), but will also leave him vulnerable to theft, arson and other potential disasters. Another player is considering opening a magical items shop of some sort, when the city is large enough to support it. I like them getting involved deeply in their city, but they should have to spend their own cash to "own" things directly.
Not to necro, but I was curious how this played out for you. I have a player who is looking to do this (more the magic item shop part) and have been wondering on how to play it out. How much did it cost? How did you cancel the whole improvement for 1 building out of a 750' by 750' block? With magic items, crafting then selling them to a shop for 50% cancels each other out, but what about being the shop and selling it full price?
Yes, it's more craftsmen than adventurer at that point, but even the more 'railroad' APs have given 'time off' between books for the characters to do pretty much what they want, including crafting. The profession: weaponsmith skill isn't designed to cover magic items; there's no way you could make a roll that'll grant you a 4k profit from that +2 longsword. I also understand it could potentially spit in the face of WBL, not to mention cause a huge disparity in party resources.
All of that isn't specific to Kingmaker, either. Adding that to the mix, mass quantities of BP for pretty much nothing. RAW mentions things found, and seems to steer clear of mentioning crafted items, but I don't know if it was just left of, or purposely avoided to prevent players doing that. It doesn't say 'crafted items cannot be included in the income phase'. I know I can put kingdom consequences in, but Kingmaker issues aside, I can't really determine a reason to tell my player he can't use built-in rules to make some cash while on adventure breaks...
How about because the built-in rules specifically say you can't 'make some cash' by crafting magic items. The Core Rulebook says PCs may only sell a magic item for half its purchase price - which is (not coincidentally) the cost to craft an item.
Fine, maybe the store they own sells it for more - maybe even full price - but the PC only realizes the standard 'half value' for it. The rest is eaten up as sales taxes, advertising, special security precautions to prevent the theft of such valuable (and easily portable) items, pilferage, and so on.
If a PC wants to make money, tell 'em to roll (or take 10 on) a Craft or Profession check. If one of them insists on scribing dozens of scrolls (for example) and flogging them all over town, chasing down people who might be interested and attempting to persuade them to buy, then let them make a profit equal to what they'd get for the same time spent on Craft (Tailor) checks, or whatever.
And if your PCs object, and insist they absolutely, positively need to make and sell magic items for 100% of book price, replace the treasure and/or quests rewards from their adventuring with 'business opportunities'. For example, instead of a group of merchants getting together and offering a 5000 gp reward for a quest, a single noble offers to buy a 10,000 gp magic item for full price in exchange for the PC/party performing the quest.
|
|
I have a problem with that idea. You're basically making it so that running a business cannot succeed. Why not use a business as a modifier to a profession ( or craft ) skill to determine profit. Base the bonus on the cost of the structure.
Weeks the player actively manages the shop they get their skill+shop bonus. Weeks they are away it is just the shop bonus.
Price it as you would a skill enhancing magic item.
What do you think?
Zje topic is a very nice one, because it offers many opportuinties of RP outside of the AP to happen.
e. g. my players - who are the Founders - have decided that with achieving the Duchy state, every founder 'owns' 2 hexes as a personal feud while all NPCs in the 'crown council' - all NPCs with a leadership role- have one hex as a personal feud. All other hexes are ruled by a low noble NPC because they decided to have an aristocratic rulership.
I ruled that one hex produces 10 x tax level (none => 0 to overwhelming => 3) gp per month of tax income for personal use of the owner.
They also decided that the Capital and the surrounding lands (7 hexes) and the Abandoned Ferry Station at the Shrike are crown land and give the ruler an income of 5 gp per tax lvl per hex.
So as long as one of the PCs has the Ruler leadership role, s/he will get additional money.
I did some ruling for all leadership roles and their additional income (Grand Diplomat gets 'gifts' from merchants, the magister has the opportunity to answer a very specialized 'science' question to wealthy requesters and don't ask about the spymaster :D )
So the PCs 'own' not all of the land but certainly have some privileged estates. And certainly they can house one building a house, mansion or noble villa for free if they decide to build those in their cities.
The major is that they don't own everything but also are not the beggar princes of their own land.
Additionally all members of the crown council have a free Extravagant lifestyle when stying in the Capital or rich when in any hex of their kingdom.
|
|
Zje topic is a very nice one, because it offers many opportuinties of RP outside of the AP to happen.
e. g. my players - who are the Founders - have decided that with achieving the Duchy state, every founder 'owns' 2 hexes as a personal feud while all NPCs in the 'crown council' - all NPCs with a leadership role- have one hex as a personal feud. All other hexes are ruled by a low noble NPC because they decided to have an aristocratic rulership.
I ruled that one hex produces 10 x tax level (none => 0 to overwhelming => 3) gp per month of tax income for personal use of the owner.
They also decided that the Capital and the surrounding lands (7 hexes) and the Abandoned Ferry Station at the Shrike are crown land and give the ruler an income of 5 gp per tax lvl per hex.
So as long as one of the PCs has the Ruler leadership role, s/he will get additional money.
I did some ruling for all leadership roles and their additional income (Grand Diplomat gets 'gifts' from merchants, the magister has the opportunity to answer a very specialized 'science' question to wealthy requesters and don't ask about the spymaster :D )So the PCs 'own' not all of the land but certainly have some privileged estates. And certainly they can house one building a house, mansion or noble villa for free if they decide to build those in their cities.
The major is that they don't own everything but also are not the beggar princes of their own land.Additionally all members of the crown council have a free Extravagant lifestyle when stying in the Capital or rich when in any hex of their kingdom.hmm, I'm just now getting ready to star RR so I'm very curious on how the rulers get paid. It seems kinda weird that they have to 'adventure' to get paid. Being 'beggar princes' is absolutely not fun. When they run the kingdom put themselves on line when the baddies come and merchants and nobles have more money than them. I understand that they have to do the adventures or its game over for the campaign, but it just seems kind of dubious. I know that there were royalty that always borrowed money, but it also was understood that they probably didn't have to pay it back. It can come in handy for a noble or merchant to have royalty owe them a huge favor.... I'm just saying.
|
Welcome to the classic fun with any management sim - whether or not it's actually a command economy or just looks like one under every term except players who'd #$*( fire and brick over treating a command economy as something other than a mortal sin.
So, fall back on something safe and medieval-ly. The King here is the owner and ruler of all the land and most everything on it, except for a structure or two that get built independently. Everyone else is a tenant. But that's not quite the same as state ownership, because the state rests in one person, and those tenants tend to have Very Specific Rights by custom to explain their relation to that one person. In a highly legalistic sense the King owns all the real estate and fixtures, but, for law and pragmatism, it's not all like his living room.
As such, part of the income and BPs is caught up in rents and the like, much how part of the BPs of construction is consists of finding tenants for the noble villa, getting the starting capital for the inn, drawing up contracts for the dock workers, et cetera.
Therefore, there's a sense that letting a PC live in something she's built is actually reducing the kingdom's income by some fraction, but there's less in the ways of better ways to deal with it.
You are English? It sound like the tenant system in England, but it is not how it worked in Italy.
My opinion is that the BP represent partially the taxes paid to the kingdom and partially the investment by the local population.
The smithy give a Economy bonus and that translate in BP. That mean that after a time one or more of the smiths is rick enough to buy/construct a house.
The Rulers and councillors have the right to some extra perch paid by the taxes (after all in the real world they would receive a stipend for the role they cover) but generally not one as big as a whole noble villa unless the kingdom was very rich.
My idea is to give them an actual stipend based on a fraction of the BP normally produced, with edicts changing the percentage.
|
|
Welcome to the classic fun with any management sim - whether or not it's actually a command economy or just looks like one under every term except players who'd #$*( fire and brick over treating a command economy as something other than a mortal sin.
So, fall back on something safe and medieval-ly. The King here is the owner and ruler of all the land and most everything on it, except for a structure or two that get built independently. Everyone else is a tenant. But that's not quite the same as state ownership, because the state rests in one person, and those tenants tend to have Very Specific Rights by custom to explain their relation to that one person. In a highly legalistic sense the King owns all the real estate and fixtures, but, for law and pragmatism, it's not all like his living room.
As such, part of the income and BPs is caught up in rents and the like, much how part of the BPs of construction is consists of finding tenants for the noble villa, getting the starting capital for the inn, drawing up contracts for the dock workers, et cetera.
Therefore, there's a sense that letting a PC live in something she's built is actually reducing the kingdom's income by some fraction, but there's less in the ways of better ways to deal with it.
You are English? It sound like the tenant system in England, but it is not how it worked in Italy.
My opinion is that the BP represent partially the taxes paid to the kingdom and partially the investment by the local population.
The smithy give a Economy bonus and that translate in BP. That mean that after a time one or more of the smiths is rick enough to buy/construct a house.
The Rulers and councillors have the right to some extra perch paid by the taxes (after all in the real world they would receive a stipend for the role they cover) but generally not one as big as a whole noble villa unless the kingdom was very rich.
My idea is to give them an actual stipend based on a fraction of the BP normally produced, with edicts...
How much of a stipend?
My characters are currently earning one CR-equivalent treasure (from the table on pg. 399 of the Core Rulebook) per month.
|
|
I think the 'we don't make any money unless we go and kill stuff even though we're ruling a kingdom' might be part of the underlying problem. I do very much like the stipend idea.
I'm thinking whatever I do, I'll divide it by the party number. Otherwise it might just break the craft=sell value non-coincidence.
|
|
I think the 'we don't make any money unless we go and kill stuff even though we're ruling a kingdom' might be part of the underlying problem. I do very much like the stipend idea.
I'm thinking whatever I do, I'll divide it by the party number. Otherwise it might just break the craft=sell value non-coincidence.
I believe it's lame that the rulers have to kill stuff just to make money.
|
|
I believe it's lame that the rulers have to kill stuff just to make money.I think the 'we don't make any money unless we go and kill stuff even though we're ruling a kingdom' might be part of the underlying problem. I do very much like the stipend idea.
I'm thinking whatever I do, I'll divide it by the party number. Otherwise it might just break the craft=sell value non-coincidence.
I do as well. Honestly, it was only a passing though when we started book two, and since none of my players (at the time) mentioned it, I kinda just forgot about it. It's what all my players are used to. This running a kingdom thing is new, and even when they donated all their party pool just to keep the kingdom afloat, it never occurred to them to wonder why they weren't making any money ruling the kingdom. A new player just brought it up recently, which got me thinking about it again. So, inject the stipend, see how it goes.
|
|
I do as well. Honestly, it was only a passing though when we started book two, and since none of my players (at the time) mentioned it, I kinda just forgot about it. It's what all my players are used to. This running a kingdom thing is new, and even when they donated all their party pool just to keep the kingdom afloat, it never occurred to them to wonder why they weren't making any money ruling the kingdom. A new player just brought it up recently, which got me thinking about it again. So, inject the stipend, see how it goes.I believe it's lame that the rulers have to kill stuff just to make money.I think the 'we don't make any money unless we go and kill stuff even though we're ruling a kingdom' might be part of the underlying problem. I do very much like the stipend idea.
I'm thinking whatever I do, I'll divide it by the party number. Otherwise it might just break the craft=sell value non-coincidence.
Keep us posted to the results of the stipends.
|
|
Keep us posted to the results of the stipends.I do as well. Honestly, it was only a passing though when we started book two, and since none of my players (at the time) mentioned it, I kinda just forgot about it. It's what all my players are used to. This running a kingdom thing is new, and even when they donated all their party pool just to keep the kingdom afloat, it never occurred to them to wonder why they weren't making any money ruling the kingdom. A new player just brought it up recently, which got me thinking about it again. So, inject the stipend, see how it goes.I believe it's lame that the rulers have to kill stuff just to make money.I think the 'we don't make any money unless we go and kill stuff even though we're ruling a kingdom' might be part of the underlying problem. I do very much like the stipend idea.
I'm thinking whatever I do, I'll divide it by the party number. Otherwise it might just break the craft=sell value non-coincidence.
Will do. They're out exploring/trying to take care of some of the wanted posters right now. They'll have to come back in for their 'week in office' shortly.
|
|
How much of a stipend?
My opinion is that the BP represent partially the taxes paid to the kingdom and partially the investment by the local population.The smithy give a Economy bonus and that translate in BP. That mean that after a time one or more of the smiths is rick enough to buy/construct a house.
The Rulers and councillors have the right to some extra perch paid by the taxes (after all in the real world they would receive a stipend for the role they cover) but generally not one as big as a whole noble villa unless the kingdom was very rich.
My idea is to give them an actual stipend based on a fraction of the BP normally
I haven't jet started the PA, my players are completing a previous campaign and will start afresh with Kingmaker in a few weeks, so I can't speak from experience.
I am thinking to apply something like this:
Ruler and leaders stipend edicts:
Stipend loyalty penalty
as % of BP
produces
none 0
1% -1
2% -2
3% -4
4% -8
and so on.
The BP produced by the kingdom should be evaluated at 4.000 and the % of BP used by the people in the leadership roles should be removed from the kingdom treasury (FRU, so even a small % will remove at least a BP).
The actual money received as a stipend will be divided between the different people in the leadership roles as they see fit.
It is not a optimal solution, but at least it should give a passable income linked to he kingdom prosperity.
A alternate option would be the stile of living expenses:
Destitute (0 gp/month) or Poor (3 gp/month): Income for leadership before anything is build
Average (10 gp/month): Stipend for the major of a very small town, maybe 10-20 building in size
Wealthy (100 gp/month): Stipend for a Baron or Major of a seizable town
Extravagant (1,000 gp/month): Stipend for a duke
Extravagant+ (2.000 gp/month): stipend for a King
and so on with each new level doubling the stipend.
The other leadership positions should get about half of what the highest titled leadership position get.
Using this as a baseline, you can add edicts lowering the stipend by one level (+1 loyalty) or rising it by one (- 2 loyalty), two (-4 loyalty, -1 economy) or three (-8 loyalty, -2 economy) levels.
So a Baron that wishes to like like a King will issue an edict rising
the stipend by 2 levels, get -4 loyalty and -1 economy as he is taxing the town resources to live a better life.
the effect on economy is lesser than the effect on loyalty as a good percentage of the money will be spent for local services, so it will fuel the local economy.
One of my players has used his own money to set up a small blacksmith's shop, and has just hired someone to run it for him while he is out. That does not, however, give them the benefits attached to the Smithy improvement in the kingdom building rules, as the kingdom did not spend the BP necessary for that. It will give the potential for a small income stream (which will pale in comparison to what he makes adventuring), but will also leave him vulnerable to theft, arson and other potential disasters. Another player is considering opening a magical items shop of some sort, when the city is large enough to support it. I like them getting involved deeply in their city, but they should have to spend their own cash to "own" things directly.Not to necro, but I was curious how this played out for you. I have a player who is looking to do this (more the magic item shop part) and have been wondering on how to play it out. How much did it cost? How did you cancel the whole improvement for 1 building out of a 750' by 750' block? With magic items, crafting then selling them to a shop for 50% cancels each other out, but what about being the shop and selling it full price?
Yes, it's more craftsmen than adventurer at that point, but even the more 'railroad' APs have given 'time off' between books for the characters to do pretty much what they want, including crafting. The profession: weaponsmith skill isn't designed to cover magic items; there's no way you could make a roll that'll grant you a 4k profit from that +2 longsword. I also understand it could potentially spit in the face of WBL, not to mention cause a huge disparity in party resources.
All of that isn't specific to Kingmaker, either. Adding that to the mix, mass quantities of BP for pretty much nothing. RAW mentions things found, and seems to steer clear of mentioning crafted items, but I don't know if it was just left of, or purposely avoided to prevent players doing that. It doesn't say 'crafted items...
Sorry, RL intruded and I was off on a business trip and didn't get back to this thread for a while. Since I made the post you quoted, a lot has gone on in the campaign. They have since invested in the smithy improvement, so my dwarven general's smithy is now part of a small smithy district that also includes a pewtersmith, a silversmith and another blacksmith. The addition of another blacksmith has allowed the general to concentrate more on arms and armor, which was his original intent, rather than basic tools, nails and horseshoes, which is what the market demanded originally. He's also expanded, taking in two journeymen dwarven smiths and four apprentices, and hiring a human manager to run the place when adventuring or other duties interfere. Rather than go through a large and boring (at least for me) exercise is determining costs and income to determine profit, I just have him roll a d10 each month. On a 1 or 2 he lost money, on a 3-5 he broke even, and on a 6-10 he made money. I started small with a 1 meaning he lost 20GP and a 10 meaning he made 50GP, but have since tripled the numbers to count for the expansion of his business and the move into higher risk, higher profit items. He also put in a 500GP investment to start up, and had to plow in another 500GP to expand. Personal money, not kingdom funds. His smithy did not provide any kingdom benefits until they invested in the Smithy improvement, creating a smithy district with multiple businesses. This is how I handle most city improvements. For example, a Shop doesn't imply just a single store, but rather a small shopping district with multiple stores.
As for the magic shop, the Baroness still has not followed through on her plans. If and when she does I will handle it slightly differently, but following the same principles. The magic shop will not give kingdom bonuses unless they also invest in the city improvement. The initial investment will probably be at least 1000GP, to reflect the higher value of the shop. Rather than random rolls, it will produce whatever she or the people she hires craft. She will be able to sell them for full price, but the additional GP is not pure profit. She will have operating costs. I'll probably allow her to keep a 10% profit, although I might institute some sort of random roll to give it some variation to represent fluctuations in the market. Her items produced will not go into the city stock unless she chooses to donate them, and cannot be sold for BP unless they are donated.
Anyway, those are my houserules. They work for me and mine.
Here are some views by Jason Nelson, spoilered to save space.
Tony Stark has invented the Iron Man suit. It's the best weapon in the kingdom.
The government has Important Stuff (TM) that it wants to do. Therefore, it wants to borrow/take the best weapon in the kingdom and use it for what it wants to do.
Should the government be able to just go confiscate the Iron Man suit "for the greater good?"
I assume in the movie Tony Stark is not too keen on the feds just yoinking his prize creation that (a) he's worked really hard and invested a lot in making and (b) is also a dangerous weapon that he doesn't necessarily trust in the hands of just anybody.
The government could try to take it by force, in which case he would be justified in resisting with force, right? Especially in a land like the River Kingdoms.
If you are looking for a "realistic in-game rationale" try this:
The government can get away with taking something. ONCE. But once they do, whatever building made the item immediately closes up shop and disbands (perhaps all BP investment for the building lost, or perhaps it can be converted to a half-price Watchtower or Shop or Library), and no further buildings of that type will can be built in their kingdom.
It's a perfectly rational response - no caster is going to waste their time in a Caster's Tower pumping out magic items to get rich if the king shows that he is willing and able to just go and steal their stuff, or even just borrow it without asking.
Really, if you think about it, in order for these kind of magic item generation buildings to work, shouldn't there have to be high-level SPELLCASTERS inside those buildings actually MAKING the items?
So, really, think about it. You have a 4th level party. They've built a "minor items" building and get a +1 animal bane longbow - are they really going to be *ABLE* to go shake down an 8th level wizard or cleric (plus whatever other assistants are working there) to take it?
They'd probably get their butts kicked.
Heaven forbid they want a spell storing weapon (min CL 12th).
True, not every item is going to have a caster level above the party's level, but a LOT of them will, especially the Medium items. These things aren't just getting spontaneously generated in an in-game sense. SOMEONE is making them, and it's not the PCs. Those people in their kingdom are also not making items FOR the PCs. They don't take requests. They don't fight to protect the kingdom or the city if it's attacked. Wouldn't it be nice if that apparently friendly/neutral caster up in the tower could be called upon to do other things?
Then again, maybe it's a good thing that the people in the academy and the caster's tower and the temple don't decide to just kick the low-level doormat PCs to the curb and take over the kingdom for themselves, since they may be double or triple the PCs' level.
The trade in these items is what is generating the flow of resources in the kingdom (= BP). People come through town to look the items over. They and their retinue spend money at the tavern, buy other things at the shop. More traffic attracts more commoner citizens looking to make their way in the world, etc.
Put bluntly, these people are running a business... THEIR business. They are selling things through the local economy, which makes the kingdom as a whole prosper. They are not owned, operated, or controlled by the PCs/the government, and the things they create are not the property of the PCs/the government. They just happen IN the PCs' kingdom, so that commercial activity is part of the economy of the whole kingdom.
The items are owned by undefined people who make them and who play no other role in the kingdom.
But here's the thing I think is confusing for people:
BP is *not* a pile of money in the kingdom's vault.
BP represents all of the human and material resources and the economic activity of the kingdom.
So, when you have no unrest and you make a Stability check, someone doesn't roll up to your palace with a wagon load of 1 BP worth of gold ingots and drop it in the vault. It just means that the combined productivity of the people of your kingdom increases by 1 BP worth of productivity. More logs are sawn into boards. More chickens are raised and laying eggs. More wandering peddlers move from tiny unmarked hamlet to tiny unmarked hamlet selling penny whistles and moon pies. There is peace and order and happiness and prosperity...
... which adds up to the NET WORTH of your kingdom's human and material wealth increasing by 1 BP in equivalent value.
Magic item sales operate on the same principle EXCEPT for the fact that they are attached to specific object--"this wand of darkvision that my Luxury Store rolled up for one of its minor items." Its owners are undefined NPCs. They may have created the item. They may have bought it from someone else. They may have gotten it in trade. The point is that they are buying and selling items all throughout the month, and the BP realized from making your Economy roll to "sell a specific item" is the abstracted form of representing the commerce in magical trinkets and all of the micro-industries that support that trade that this business has been doing all month long.
Your magic item creating buildings are attracting clients coming through town who patronize other businesses, who engage in under-the-table deals for items that don't come up in the public "store window" and they keep other people in business. The caster's tower is employing other people to gather skunk cabbage leaves and eyelashes and gum arabic and sulfur and bat guano and amber rods and wolf fur and all manner of magical stuff, to create flasks and alembics and vials, to chop firewood, to make pots in various sizes and metals, to build new tables and workbenches to replace ones incinerated when experiments occasionally explode, and on and on down the list. Heck, they are hiring bodyguards and trapmakers to defend their valuable stashes and vaults!
The point is this: Selling a magic item for BP is not a one-time over-the-counter transaction. It *looks* like that because that's the way the rules are written - as an abstracted representation. You sell a +2 shield, you get the BP. But the abstraction *REPRESENTS* the whole work of buying and selling magic items and everything around that trade FOR THE ENTIRE MONTH. And...
... the BP that are gained from selling magic items are not gold bars to stick in your vault. It is increased economic and building activity all across your kingdom for the whole month.
It is NOT: "I, King Bob, took this Medium Item from MY caster's tower and sold it to [nameless NPC] for 8 BP. I took 8 BP out of my wallet and went down to the Building Store and bought myself a new Library in Bobville, and look I have 2 BP left over to stick back in my wallet."
It IS: "The citizens of Bobovia work within the magic trade all month long. Many items are bought and sold, including the public sale of Medium Item. The citizens are happy and productive, and at the suggestion of King Bob and his ruling council, over the course of the month have been working on building a library and collecting books for it over in Bobville, surrounded by a new neighborhood* and maybe even private tutors who can educate the citizens of Bobville. It has required much hard work but the citizens are happy and proud of it and are already planning their next project (i.e., have 2 BP yet to spend, even though the final purpose to which it will be put)."
* Remember that every "building" is presumed to include a number of homes scattered around the city "square" where the building is built - a Library is not a 750' x 750' building; it means that this city square has a library per se, but that the neighborhood around it is also generally dedicated to the purpose of education.
|
|
Sorry it's been so long since I returned to inform of the progress with stipends.
tl;dr Not really necessary, don't do it (or at least find a different way).
I based the stipend on APL, then checked the WBL chart, dividing the number by the number of party members. Seemed okay at first. Then a book ended and there were the 'years of downtime' between adventures. I hadn't considered the selfishness of the party, and thought maybe some of the money would go into the kingdom, bolstering their treasury. Well, no. Aside from the two who died last session, the remaining members are outfitted with a WBL roughly 2 levels above themselves. And one had saved up the equivalent in BP to buy himself a mansion.
In any case, due to issues NOT related to the stipend, we've moved to "Kingdom in the Background". Hopefully things will pace out over the next few levels.
Then a book ended and there were the 'years of downtime' between adventures.
Oooh, I'm glad you came back and posted that. I had been considering using something based on Rossi's system above, but I hadn't even thought of the "We take a year off and let the money build" aspect. I'll need to account for that if I do anything.
the remaining members are outfitted with a WBL roughly 2 levels above themselves. And one had saved up the equivalent in BP to buy himself a mansion.
Two very interesting things here.
First would be that it cause a disparity in WBL and needs to be dealt with. Typically I would suggest changing the treasure given out in adventures to make this even out over the next three levels (with less treasure gradually). However, in the case, you next line, "...one had saved up the equivalent BP..." makes me wonder if the better idea isn't to ask the players who are over wealthed to turn the extra into BP and spend it that way (not as gold for personal power).
I guess I don't see someone getting a mansion as a bad thing (or wizards tower, or whatever). As long as the extra wealth isn't affecting their adventuring ability then it is just fine.
Then I would change all further stipend to BP (or fractions of BP) to be used to create their own personal wealth that doesn't effect their ability to adventure.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
Then a book ended and there were the 'years of downtime' between adventures.Oooh, I'm glad you came back and posted that. I had been considering using something based on Rossi's system above, but I hadn't even thought of the "We take a year off and let the money build" aspect. I'll need to account for that if I do anything.
It was definitely something that slipped my mind during the initial consideration, and really didn't punch me in the face until it happened. Then they hoarded to save up for things well beyond their stage of the "Christmas Tree". In all reality, if I'd gone through and compared, I likely would've noticed that only really book 2 seems 'treasure light'. Book 3 has enough to fill a wizard's spellbook,(or anyone who can learn from spellbooks) and that doesn't count other treasures found throughout or gifted inside the book covers. Actually, the spellbook smorgasbord is located in a single dungeon, and either in a different part of book 3, or possibly book 2, there even more spellbook stuff.
|
|
the remaining members are outfitted with a WBL roughly 2 levels above themselves. And one had saved up the equivalent in BP to buy himself a mansion.Two very interesting things here.
First would be that it cause a disparity in WBL and needs to be dealt with. Typically I would suggest changing the treasure given out in adventures to make this even out over the next three levels (with less treasure gradually). However, in the case, you next line, "...one had saved up the equivalent BP..." makes me wonder if the better idea isn't to ask the players who are over wealthed to turn the extra into BP and spend it that way (not as gold for personal power).
I guess I don't see someone getting a mansion as a bad thing (or wizards tower, or whatever). As long as the extra wealth isn't affecting their adventuring ability then it is just fine.
Then I would change all further stipend to BP (or fractions of BP) to be used to create their own personal wealth that doesn't effect their ability to adventure.
Sean Mahoney
There is a disparity between both halves of the party because two of them lived, and gathered the gear and gold from the two that died. The two that died came back with WBL during character creation. There is a bit of 'sharing' going on, but based more on necessity, since the old party members don't really know these newbies they found. I expect things to even out, both intra-party and with WBL, by the end of book 4.
|
|
Then a book ended and there were the 'years of downtime' between adventures.Oooh, I'm glad you came back and posted that. I had been considering using something based on Rossi's system above, but I hadn't even thought of the "We take a year off and let the money build" aspect. I'll need to account for that if I do anything.
Now that I am actually Gming the AP and playing the second module I have chosen to use the second solution I suggested, i.e paid up lifestile for the characters.
As Lord of a burgeoning kingdom the PC that are member of the government (all of them) currently get a Average lifestile paid. Same thing for the NPC in the government.
[Average (10 gp/month): The PC lives in his own apartment, small house, or similar location—this is the lifestyle of most trained or skilled experts or warriors. He can secure any nonmagical item worth 1 gp or less from his home in 1d10 minutes, and need not track purchases of common meals or taxes that cost 1 gp or less.]
If they want to live a more luxurious life they would have to spend money from their pockets.
The paid lifestile go up to wealthy reasonably fast with the expansion of the kingdom.
[Wealthy (100 gp/month): The PC has a sizable home or a nice suite of rooms in a fine inn. He can secure any nonmagical item worth 5 gp or less from his belongings in his home in 1d10 minutes, and need only track purchases of meals or taxes in excess of 10 gp.]
Further increases in lifestyle will depend on the kingdom size and wealth.
If the PCs start some moneymaking activity in the weeks they aren't spending ruling the kingdom they will get an appropriate income.
This way they get some nice perks for them being part of the kingdom elite without giving them money that will be spent in magic items.
|
|
Did you charge them living costs during the downtime?
I did. Some took the "cost of living" 1 time pay route, one decided to track. His ring of sustenance kept him fed, he lived in the castle, but he tracked the hell out of his boozing and whoring, spending most of his time between the tavern and the brothel.