Carrying Capacity & Encumbrance

[Turkey Lurkie]

So with the idea of a living world in mind, what systems/games do you guys find works well for handling gear selection and load/encumbrance?

No, I just eyeball it based on Str and what and where they are carrying. Using a Light, Medium, Max type system

 

[Fenris-77]

In a general way I prefer slot encumbrance as a baseline (10 plus a STR bonus if any). It's easy to manage and doesn't have a lot of overhead. I don't much care for calculating specific weight but that kind of system does certainly have it's place for games where resource management and verisimilitude are important factors. I don't find that encumbrance comes up all that much as important outside of fantasy games. Other genres tend to have vehicles to carry stuff and I'm mostly with Raleel that some idea of concealment is often more important than carrying capacity.

 

[Sharrow]

As a player, in any system with encumbrance I sort out a standard load-out that matches what I think is a tolerable amount of weight vs useful stuff vs what the character can afford. If it looks like there's be several different and important environments (dungeoneering, sneaking across a cities' rooftops at night, etc.) I'll sort out several load-outs. They'll include how much encumbrance is 'spare'. Unless it really, really matters how much you dudes are carrying, I just make sure mine doesn't pick up more than the spare load, eyeballing it.

As a GM, I expect roughly the same thing - sort out a normal load-out, and stop worrying about it unless things change significantly. One of my players obsesses over this sort of fiddly stuff, which would be fine if he kept his records up to date. The problem is that he doesn't, and doesn't bother learning/checking all the numbers himself, so every couple of sessions he suddenly wants to know just how much that longsword they looted four sessions ago weighs. Arrrrgh!

For those who really like detailed encumbrance systems, I suggest Aftermath!, which gives items 'ENC' based on their bulk and weight (in units down to something like 0.01 ENC, though to be fair usually only to two significant digits). It also has rules for whether or not things are properly stowed in load-bearing gear. And then it has a nice list of locations you can carry stuff, so when someone decides they want two swords on their back, Deadpool style, and an assault rifle, and an SMG, and... the GM can just point to the section of the character sheet where this stuff is noted down and say "Show me where you're carrying all that shit." Not appropriate for a lot of campaigns, but for a game with detailed combat that's about post-apocalypse survival, it seems well suited, to me - the list of locations you can carry stuff in, that is. The very detailed encumbrance numbers, that's more of a taste thing.

 

[ffilz]

There are two questions here.

1) What gear does the character have on them?
The best solution is already out there, loadouts/backpacks/etc.. Sure, provide an equipment list, but also provide a list of remade packages of gear based on the author's experience with the setting/genre.

As for tracking quantity, to me, it has always been obvious when it would matter. Basically, when the group is in a situation cut off from normal resupply, like in a dungeon or traversing the wilderness. Even then, I only have them track what is relevant to the situation, food, ammo, etc. Part of my campaign's appeal is living the life of one's character, and when supply matters, tracking quantities comes into play. Otherwise, it assumed that the players replenish their supplies throughout the normal course of the day.

2) The amount of gear the character has on them
If you have a system with loadout defined, then you have a yardstick by which to judge when a character is encumbered. I have found throughout the decades, Players as a rule, don't like to play accountants tallying their load. In life it is a rare situation (space exploration, extreme adventuring, etc.) where the exact weight of one's gear is accounted for. Most of the time, it is done ad hoc; just keep putting on stuff until it is too heavy or bulky, then adjust.

So that what I do for my Majestic Fantasy rules. For those who want to tally, I provide the numbers. But what I do is eyeball the gear the players are carrying, and when it looks to be too much (like after some major looting), then I will say the characters are penalized for encumbrance. If there is a dispute with my call then we do the tally. But since I tend to err on the player side those disputes are few and far between.

That method, by far, is easiest to implement on an ongoing basis. Having a traditional list of gear with weight and an encumbrance rule is just there to handle the thankfully rare edge cases. A system using slots, while easy, is bullshit, in my opinion, as they are extremely artificial. Most referees I played under using these systems wind up ignoring them except for certain pieces of gear like weapons, armor, magic items, and treasure.
If a player wants to keep a tally and wring out every last bit of advantage from the gear they carry, that's fine. But even those players generally stop after the first few sessions of playing my campaign as they find it is not necessary in most situations to be that exact. Also when there are ready solutions for carrying excess gear like porters and mules.

In my campaigns, I have moved to simpler gear lists from the peak of AD&D and the later several pages of small print price lists showing details like prices of apples and pears (actually, this level of detail pre-dates AD&D with Chivalry & Sorcery).

You're right that the most important thing is the combat load out. Common sense can take care of treasure hauls, with some numbers to back up evaluating edge conditions. Of course you also need some level of information about exploration equipment, but "adventurers pack" can handle much of that.

RuneQuest 1/2 has something between slots and load tracking with weapons being rated from 1 to 3 ENC (originally a 1-handed weapon was 1 and a 2-handed weapon 2, refinements make pole arms and spears 3, also 1/2 and 1/4 is added on the other end) and armor specified. Other gear isn't really tracked.

Cold Iron has a pretty granular system with ENC roughly being weight related (though not exactly for weapons). The total load is divided by STR and then depending on what "row" you land in, there are different penalties and fatigue rates. Additionally, potions have significant encumbrance. Back in the 80s, I had people calculate their encumbrance with and without pack, allowing a pack to be quickly dropped as combat started (I even had pack counters so we could track where each PC's pack was dropped). These days, I have dynamic calculation in a spreadsheet character sheet and it tracks if you are on horse or not (armor doesn't encumber a character riding), if you have your pack on or not, and then it ALSO tracks the horse encumbrance. The sheet has multiple rows for listing items, and each item gets a location code (carried, pack, or horse). A future refinement would be to manage encumbrance of pack animals. It's bean counting, but mostly automated.

I think both of these systems work well and we aren't constantly dealing with them. Dealing with how to haul treasure encouraged the players to secure some pack animals.

 

[Taelin]

This brings to mind the very simple Enc system in the Joe Dever Freeway Warrior books:

Spoiler: Backpack

and

Spoiler: Missile Weapons

It only really works like that in the context of an adventure book in which Stealth is a regularly recurring check but I like its elegance.

 

[Sharrow]

In my campaigns, I have moved to simpler gear lists from the peak of AD&D and the later several pages of small print price lists showing details like prices of apples and pears (actually, this level of detail pre-dates AD&D with Chivalry & Sorcery).

I like C&S' detailed pricing of things like that. It can result in things like "I'm tired of small beer, so this time I'm buying the good stuff, and to hell with the budget!" At least it also told us what it assumed a normal monthly cost of living was, so you could skip this stuff if you didn't want/need it.

 

[opaopajr]

I love counting encumbrance because I got tired of Final Fantasy bags of holding ("I got 99 of every potion and expendable item imaginable! Bring it, Big Bad Evil Guy! I have the power of overwhelming logistics!"). But I don't want to play Tetris (a la Diablo backpack) or do algebra 2 to figure it out. So yeah, stat times whole number integer in lbs. (kgs.) is perfectly fine with me.

I just need a reasonable limit, not a mini-game.

 

[Turkey Lurkie]

I love counting encumbrance because I got tired of Final Fantasy bags of holding ("I got 99 of every potion and expendable item imaginable! Bring it, Big Bad Evil Guy!

Just don't give them out to PCs

 

[lgm]

For my planetary post apoc game, the back of the character sheet has a list for large, medium and small items that one can carry. There's additional space to list additional items for conversion (I.e. trade off a large slot to carry more medium items)

Below that, I made lists for sacks and a backpack. So if you list backpack as a medium item, you can use the list ("slots") under backpack then. Same for getting sacks or a belt pouch. Belt pouch carries less but instantly accessible unlike sacks. It's the closest I was able to get to all the old computer game inventory slotting I've always been fond of.

It can be made more complex to take strength and size into account or intentional overburdening a character. But it's been more fun for the players to swap items with each other for space, go find pack mules (more slots!) and hire porters. It's made encumbrance interesting for us.

 

[sharps54]

For my planetary post apoc game, the back of the character sheet has a list for large, medium and small items that one can carry. There's additional space to list additional items for conversion (I.e. trade off a large slot to carry more medium items)

Below that, I made lists for sacks and a backpack. So if you list backpack as a medium item, you can use the list ("slots") under backpack then. Same for getting sacks or a belt pouch. Belt pouch carries less but instantly accessible unlike sacks. It's the closest I was able to get to all the old computer game inventory slotting I've always been fond of.

It can be made more complex to take strength and size into account or intentional overburdening a character. But it's been more fun for the players to swap items with each other for space, go find pack mules (more slots!) and hire porters. It's made encumbrance interesting for us.

Slight tangent but I like the idea that if you just have something inside a sack or open pack you might need to roll to be able to grab something immediately as opposed to just being able to grab it from a dedicated pouch on the pack.

 

[Sharrow]

Slight tangent but I like the idea that if you just have something inside a sack or open pack you might need to roll to be able to grab something immediately as opposed to just being able to grab it from a dedicated pouch on the pack.

GURPS says it takes 2d6 turns/seconds to find a loose item in a bag or pack.

One game (I forget which) had the GM choose a die roughly representing the number of things in the bag, and you rolled each turn until you found the thing you wanted. Logically, if you tossed each 'fail' out of the bag the die would get smaller over time, potentially speeding things up. Of course, then your shit is scattered all over the place... Interestingly, if you bag all the stuff in a big bag into little categorised (and individually coloured or otherwise clearly marked) bags, finding stuff under this rule will be faster, though you might lose time from having to open the big bag and then the little one.

Aftermath! had the GM make a hidden roll with a die of size equal to the number of 'things' and that determined how much digging the character had to do. Being nimble made the search go faster, as did being fast. Having your stuff in a good pack with quick-release catches and lots of pockets was a great idea. Of course, getting a good pack wasn't easy.

 

[Exploderwizard]

I am moving to using a modified encumbrance system from theCarcass Crawler zine. I am tweaking it a bit, creating an encumbrance stat (STR+CON/2). Encumbrance levels to be based on this stat with bonuses or penalties for certain races. Still working on, and fine tuning it.

 

[ffilz]

I like C&S' detailed pricing of things like that. It can result in things like "I'm tired of small beer, so this time I'm buying the good stuff, and to hell with the budget!" At least it also told us what it assumed a normal monthly cost of living was, so you could skip this stuff if you didn't want/need it.

I've never had a role playing session improved with a detailed tavern menu. They're fun to create and read, but they really don't do anything in play. That doesn't mean exactly what is being drunk or eaten never comes up, just choosing from a menu doesn't factor into play. It also doesn't mean someone can't narrate a purchase of an expensive drink or meal.

But that's also a play style. Others may get more value from those details.

On a related note, while I have sometimes had different gear price lists for different locations, ultimately most gear is purchased at character creation time with maybe some weapon and armor upgrades, or magic item purchases. To this extent, again, I actually haven't seen much actual value to different price lists.

That said, if the setting has them, we'll use them. That said, when my RQ PCs were in Pavis, I don't think anyone purchased anything other than animals so the fact that Pavis has it's own price list was almost irrelevant.

 

[swzl]

I've never had a role playing session improved with a detailed tavern menu. They're fun to create and read, but they really don't do anything in play. That doesn't mean exactly what is being drunk or eaten never comes up, just choosing from a menu doesn't factor into play. It also doesn't mean someone can't narrate a purchase of an expensive drink or meal.

But that's also a play style. Others may get more value from those details.

On a related note, while I have sometimes had different gear price lists for different locations, ultimately most gear is purchased at character creation time with maybe some weapon and armor upgrades, or magic item purchases. To this extent, again, I actually haven't seen much actual value to different price lists.

That said, if the setting has them, we'll use them. That said, when my RQ PCs were in Pavis, I don't think anyone purchased anything other than animals so the fact that Pavis has it's own price list was almost irrelevant.

In my campaign halflings have to make a wisdom save to avoid over indulging in food and drink. They also suffer a morale penalties if not provisioned to 1 1/2 times the human standard rations. The player who chose the halfling has leaned into this. So questions of food quality and quantity are a regular feature. He has paid a lot more than his human companions to maintain his standards. But his character has never had to make a wisdom save or suffered from insufficiency.

 

[Skarg]

I like C&S' detailed pricing of things like that. It can result in things like "I'm tired of small beer, so this time I'm buying the good stuff, and to hell with the budget!" At least it also told us what it assumed a normal monthly cost of living was, so you could skip this stuff if you didn't want/need it.

Most people I've played with seem to enjoy playing out shopping and food selection, at least sometimes. As with the rest of the game, they like taking such details as if they were real-ish situations, and expect there to be logic and detail if/when they want it, and sometimes when as PCs they don't want it, but as players they enjoy having it cause complications and occasional issues.

And it can and does sometimes matter, due to all the potentials causes & effects of such situations. e.g. Overconsumption, or choosing food that spoils, or eating spoiled food, or indulging in too much alcohol, or buying fancier or cheaper stuff and having that get noticed in one way or another, leading to appropriate reactions from NPCs, as well as ongoing conversations between PCs (and maybe NPCs) about such things.

 

[TJS]

Like all things in rpgs sometimes the players will be into it and sometimes they won’t but if you want stuff like food selection to matter you have to make it matter.

Which means you have to link it in some way to some kind of manful decision point.

A pot of Garvian stew on the menu becomes more meaningful when the characters recognise it’s extremely unusual in this part of the world AND they have or may have the opportunity to find a scroll in old Garvian in need of translation.

 

[Skarg]

Like all things in rpgs sometimes the players will be into it and sometimes they won’t but if you want stuff like food selection to matter you have to make it matter.

Which means you have to link it in some way to some kind of manful decision point.

A pot of Garvian stew on the menu becomes more meaningful when the characters recognise it’s extremely unusual in this part of the world AND they have or may have the opportunity to find a scroll in old Garvian in need of translation.

I'd say that's an option rather than a requirement.

Particularly when the players are just interested in what's in the world, and deciding for themselves what's interesting or not, and often finding interest in things just being what they are.

And for some of us, it's actually a requirement that the GM NOT have mundane details linking to some conventionally-"significant" thing, at least not often, because we want the game world and situations to feel believable, and requiring most things to be conventionally significant is not believable, to us, so a GM making almost every detail they mention "significant" can actually backfire.

 

[Triumvir]

I'm currently running Hyperborea. Between 2e and 3e, it ditched detailed item-by-item encumbrance in favour of a common-sense light/medium/heavy system. L/M/H armour is very likely to be the decisive factor.

The other week, the PCs found a flamethrower that is -20 to Movement. Given heavy armour takes you to 20 MOV, in principle a heavily-armoured character strapping on the flamethrower becomes immobile (at least that is my read of the RAW).

The system makes no allowance for strength that I can find, which is a little unsatisfactory.

My players have little appetite for tracking encumbrance... Up until the point where they want to know "can we carry it". As GM it sort of defaults to me. So, I am in the market for better solutions.

Some great ideas upthread, especially the "hands" system. Seems specific enough but not too much, while also being intuitive.

 

[TJS]

I'd say that's an option rather than a requirement.

Particularly when the players are just interested in what's in the world, and deciding for themselves what's interesting or not, and often finding interest in things just being what they are.

That was literally the first sentence in the post you're replying to.

And for some of us, it's actually a requirement that the GM NOT have mundane details linking to some conventionally-"significant" thing, at least not often, because we want the game world and situations to feel believable, and requiring most things to be conventionally significant is not believable, to us, so a GM making almost every detail they mention "significant" can actually backfire.

Well don't do that then.

But as a GM you are always selecting the details you present to the players.

And sometimes as a GM you want players to care about the things that you are interesting to you.

 

[Skarg]

That was literally the first sentence in the post you're replying to.

Well don't do that then.

But as a GM you are always selecting the details you present to the players.

And sometimes as a GM you want players to care about the things that you are interesting to you.

Seems like you missed the distinction I was trying to make, which maybe you meant, but I still see your post as suggesting otherwise.

That is, the GM doesn't "have to make it matter" because if the players are interested in the details for their own sake or their own reasons, the GM doesn't need to "link it in some way to some kind of [meaningful] decision point."

Also, as both a player and as a GM, I get interested in many things that have no other meaning or decision intentionally baked in.

 

[TJS]

Seems like you missed the distinction I was trying to make, which maybe you meant, but I still see your post as suggesting otherwise.

That is, the GM doesn't "have to make it matter" because if the players are interested in the details for their own sake or their own reasons, the GM doesn't need to "link it in some way to some kind of [meaningful] decision point."

I said "if you want to make it matter". That clearly applies it's a choice whether you want to make it matter.

Also just because players are interested, doesn't mean it matters. You can spend the whole game coming up with elaborate menus for a game and you may have an unusual group in which every player finds that endlessly interesting but that doesn't mean it matters if it's completely unconnected to everything else in the game.

Also, as both a player and as a GM, I get interested in many things that have no other meaning or decision intentionally baked in.

Yes that's fine. But I'd be wary about what the everyone else is interested in. I have about five minutes tolearance as a player for role-playing shopping trips before I start wanting to see if I can see skewer eyeballs with chopsticks. And the whole stereotype of the GM with the meticulous worldbuilding and backstory which everyone forgets and ignores is a steretype for a reason.

My experience is that these kind of tangential largely inconsequential things are usually only selectively interesting, which doesn't mean they shouldn't be throw in as colour, but does suggest they should be used judiciously.

 

[Sharrow]

And it can and does sometimes matter, due to all the potentials causes & effects of such situations. e.g. Overconsumption, or choosing food that spoils, or eating spoiled food, or indulging in too much alcohol, or buying fancier or cheaper stuff and having that get noticed in one way or another, leading to appropriate reactions from NPCs, as well as ongoing conversations between PCs (and maybe NPCs) about such things.

Speaking of - as I recall, Rolemaster's lists of such things included the chances of a meal giving you food poisoning, and it changed depending on the quality of the meal. Chivalry & Sorcery 1e & 2e had rules for cooking and how good/bad the results were, mainly so that players could be entertained by their characters' culinary disasters around the campfire.

 

[swzl]

I'm currently running Hyperborea. Between 2e and 3e, it ditched detailed item-by-item encumbrance in favour of a common-sense light/medium/heavy system. L/M/H armour is very likely to be the decisive factor.

The other week, the PCs found a flamethrower that is -20 to Movement. Given heavy armour takes you to 20 MOV, in principle a heavily-armoured character strapping on the flamethrower becomes immobile (at least that is my read of the RAW).

The system makes no allowance for strength that I can find, which is a little unsatisfactory.

My players have little appetite for tracking encumbrance... Up until the point where they want to know "can we carry it". As GM it sort of defaults to me. So, I am in the market for better solutions.

Some great ideas upthread, especially the "hands" system. Seems specific enough but not too much, while also being intuitive.

I like the system from Knave 1E. You have slots equal to your constitution. Five pounds equals a slot. I went through my equipment list and changed weight for slots and we're off to the races. Increase slot values for extra bulky or awkward things. Less than 1/2 slots filled, unencumbered. 1/2 to 2/3 slots filled, light load. More than 2/3 slots filled, heavy load. And the type of load you carry effects your movement rate. My player have learned to invest in donkeys and camp guards because they like to travel with options.

 

[Skarg]

I said "if you want to make it matter". That clearly applies it's a choice whether you want to make it matter.

Also just because players are interested, doesn't mean it matters. You can spend the whole game coming up with elaborate menus for a game and you may have an unusual group in which every player finds that endlessly interesting but that doesn't mean it matters if it's completely unconnected to everything else in the game.

Yes that's fine. But I'd be wary about what the everyone else is interested in. I have about five minutes tolearance as a player for role-playing shopping trips before I start wanting to see if I can see skewer eyeballs with chopsticks. And the whole stereotype of the GM with the meticulous worldbuilding and backstory which everyone forgets and ignores is a steretype for a reason.

My experience is that these kind of tangential largely inconsequential things are usually only selectively interesting, which doesn't mean they shouldn't be throw in as colour, but does suggest they should be used judiciously.

Yes, I quite agree. With different players, and/or at different times, players may not care for any such details, and may even want to pass weeks or months and only abstractly handle where they go and what they do in that whole time. Other times, they may want to focus on minor details.

Just about anything, though, can start to matter, if the PCs focus on it enough, just by it's nature and their choice to be interested in it. If they're fascinated by the available food someplace, at the very least, that means they're not doing or even observing something else somewhere else, which can "matter". And if they decide they want to get some particular food or drink item, that could change when and where they travel to next, for just one example.

 

[zcthu3]

Rate items as Light, Easy, or Heavy. A character or creature has a Carrying Capacity (item slots) based on their size - Tiny (1), Small (5), Medium (10), Large (15), etc.

Heavy items take 5 slots, Easy items 1 slot, light items- 1 container of 10-20 per slot. If all slots are filled, the character is Encumbered and takes a -1 modifier to any physical actions.

This is similar to what most Year Zero games do, it’s just heavy = 2 slots (some items are more), normal = 1 slot, light = 1/2 slot. Number of slots is based in Strength doubled (Strength on a rating of 1-5 (typically). There’s also tiny items which don’t count.

Dragonbane is similar (slightly different way of calculating slots as works in a 3-18 attribute scale) but adds a ‘weapons at hand’ group which don’t count towards encumbranc.

 

[Dr Jack]

Generally speaking I think planning out equipment is boring bookkeeping, unless the game really, really leans into it. At the same time, I don't like characters to simply walk around with vast collections of stuff.

So for most games I like the compromise position of "quantum" equipment systems: you have a backpack, it has X uses, with each use you can pull a relevant useful item out of it. Other than that you can carry an item in each hand, and two small items on your belt, or some other simple, small, list of items. That does away with the accountancy of planning, but also limits what characters have on hand.

 

[sharps54]

Generally speaking I think planning out equipment is boring bookkeeping, unless the game really, really leans into it. At the same time, I don't like characters to simply walk around with vast collections of stuff.

So for most games I like the compromise position of "quantum" equipment systems: you have a backpack, it has X uses, with each use you can pull a relevant useful item out of it. Other than that you can carry an item in each hand, and two small items on your belt, or some other simple, small, list of items. That does away with the accountancy of planning, but also limits what characters have on hand.

But the quantum backpack gives the characters an ‘I win’ button for those X uses as opposed to having to improvise and use what they brought to problem solve and McGyver up solutions to things they encounter.
I don’t think either way is wrong but they lend themselves to slightly different game play.

 

[Dr Jack]

But the quantum backpack gives the characters an ‘I win’ button for those X uses as opposed to having to improvise and use what they brought to problem solve and McGyver up solutions to things they encounter.
I don’t think either way is wrong but they lend themselves to slightly different game play.

I've never seen it function as a "I win" button but, yeah, I agree it's different game play - that's the point - but most of the time equipment, IME, is less McGyver and more spend a boring half session adding stuff up and then discover you forgot you needed an ink pot with that quill.

 

[ffilz]

Generally speaking I think planning out equipment is boring bookkeeping, unless the game really, really leans into it. At the same time, I don't like characters to simply walk around with vast collections of stuff.

So for most games I like the compromise position of "quantum" equipment systems: you have a backpack, it has X uses, with each use you can pull a relevant useful item out of it. Other than that you can carry an item in each hand, and two small items on your belt, or some other simple, small, list of items. That does away with the accountancy of planning, but also limits what characters have on hand.

That certainly is one way to handle things. I actually prefer to minimize the different bits of equipment needed. Playing "medieval" fantasy with a downplay of dungeon exploration, PCs mostly just need weapons, armor, food, and magic items. I have a few tools listed, but my "adventuring equipment" list currently has 35 items, including rations (for people and horses), saddles and tack, some other travel gear, and a handful of other skill kits.

I have found that one of the things that turns me off from modern and future settings is the ever expanding gear lists. If something exists in the modern world, players are going to at some point want to have it, and they expect their star ship to have a lot of stuff.

As to the detail on food and drink... Well, I have a number of references, and if a player does ask for something specific, I can accommodate them, but the game isn't going to be about "what's the menu at this tavern?"

 

[E-Rocker]

The only encumbrance system I've encountered that I've actually liked is the one from The Black Hack version 1.2. You have a backpack with slots equal to your strength & you can carry up to that many items without being encumbered. Carry more items than your strength score and you are encumbered.

I'm sure that's too abstract for some folks in this thread, as it only accounts for the number of items and not the weight or volume of those items, but it's the perfect amount of encumbrance rules for me.

 

[Nobby-W]

Also, real medieval money is a lot smaller than folks might think, for example -

A groat (the predecessor of the shilling) weighs about 6g, typically about 92.5% silver, although other silver coins had different compositions. A groat was 4 pence when silver pennies were in circulation. Base metal currency wasn't always minted, and tended only to appear after inflation made it a necessity. Another larger silver coin was called a thaler (the origin of the word dollar). These were a trade coin - essentially bullion denominated in a certain amount of silver and weighed a little under 1oz each. Traditionally, thalers were 5/6 silver by weight.

Gold wasn't common in Europe, and gold coins tended to be quite small. In fact, Charlemagne had such a downer on gold coins that he refused to have any minted at all. The first widely minted gold coin (post-Roman) in Europe was the ecu d'or, first minted in the 13th century. Florins and Ducats were the most widely minted coins of th era, but were still non-circulated trade coins denominated as a certain amount of gold. These coins weighed about 3.5g each, and were about 2cm across and quite thin. There were some larger gold coins minted (e.g. the original medieval sovereign and noble) but these were in a minority. Ducats actually became a sort of informal common currency, with about 30 polities producing them to the same specification.

Gold became more widely available as richer deposits were discovered in west Africa (hence the name 'Guinea'), and in the new world. Silver was so plentiful in the Americas that trade coins such as the 8 Reales (Pieces of 8) were minted in large numbers in Mexico from about the 16th or 17th century.

 

[sharps54]

Also, real medieval money is a lot smaller than folks might think, for example -

A groat (the predecessor of the shilling) weighs about 6g, typically about 92.5% silver, although other silver coins had different compositions. A groat was 4 pence when silver pennies were in circulation. Base metal currency wasn't always minted, and tended only to appear after inflation made it a necessity. Another larger silver coin was called a thaler (the origin of the word dollar). These were a trade coin - essentially bullion denominated in a certain amount of silver and weighed a little under 1oz each. Traditionally, thalers were 5/6 silver by weight.

Gold wasn't common in Europe, and gold coins tended to be quite small. In fact, Charlemagne had such a downer on gold coins that he refused to have any minted at all. The first widely minted gold coin (post-Roman) in Europe was the ecu d'or, first minted in the 13th century. Florins and Ducats were the most widely minted coins of th era, but were still non-circulated trade coins denominated as a certain amount of gold. These coins weighed about 3.5g each, and were about 2cm across and quite thin. There were some larger gold coins minted (e.g. the original medieval sovereign and noble) but these were in a minority. Ducats actually became a sort of informal common currency, with about 30 polities producing them to the same specification.

Gold became more widely available as richer deposits were discovered in west Africa (hence the name 'Guinea'), and in the new world. Silver was so plentiful in the Americas that trade coins such as the 8 Reales (Pieces of 8) were minted in large numbers in Mexico from about the 16th or 17th century.

Which is cool and useful if you playing a historical or alt history game set on our Earth. If someone is playing a fantasy RPG like D&D the money is totally different. Unfortunately as we saw in the guns in D&D thread some gamers can't understand that fantasy worlds may not be the same as our world. I'm not saying that is the case with you Nobby, this just seemed like a good place to mention it.

 

[Nobby-W]

Which is cool and useful if you playing a historical or alt history game set on our Earth. If someone is playing a fantasy RPG like D&D the money is totally different. Unfortunately as we saw in the guns in D&D thread some gamers can't understand that fantasy worlds may not be the same as our world. I'm not saying that is the case with you Nobby, this just seemed like a good place to mention it.

More specifically, if you're playing D&D. Some other games did try to do something closer to actual currencies, but actual medieval currencies are pretty underwhelming if you look at them up close.

 

[robertsconley]

Unfortunately as we saw in the guns in D&D thread some gamers can't understand that fantasy worlds may not be the same as our world. I'm not saying that is the case with you Nobby, this just seemed like a good place to mention it.

Gun involved gunpowder which means a decision on what technologies you are allowing in your fantasy campaign.

Which is cool and useful if you playing a historical or alt history game set on our Earth. If someone is playing a fantasy RPG like D&D the money is totally different.

It not the same type of decision that underlies whether gun/gunpowder in your setting. In a nutshells, 10 coins = 1lb. of weight. An example of a DM, Gygax, being a dick to his players because he didn't like how easy they were moving the treasure they found in his Greyhawk dungeon. It is not based on any type of setting or real-world logic. It is just so he can just have the pleasure of revealing that they found a 10,000 gp horde, but they have to find some way of carting 1,000 lbs out of whatever underground hole they are currently in.

For the most part I enjoy reading up on the history of how RPGs and D&D developed, but there are times where it is clear that one of the folks involved was being a dick to their players.

Now that D&D fantasy is its own thing and "10 coins per 1 lb" yardstick has become one of its conventions. But it doesn't change the fact that it originated to spite the players.

Classic D&D does not break if you adopt a more realistic setup of 250 coins per lb. The coins will roughly be about the size of a US dime.

 

[Acmegamer]

Also, real medieval money is a lot smaller than folks might think, for example -

A groat (the predecessor of the shilling) weighs about 6g, typically about 92.5% silver, although other silver coins had different compositions. A groat was 4 pence when silver pennies were in circulation. Base metal currency wasn't always minted, and tended only to appear after inflation made it a necessity. Another larger silver coin was called a thaler (the origin of the word dollar). These were a trade coin - essentially bullion denominated in a certain amount of silver and weighed a little under 1oz each. Traditionally, thalers were 5/6 silver by weight.

Gold wasn't common in Europe, and gold coins tended to be quite small. In fact, Charlemagne had such a downer on gold coins that he refused to have any minted at all. The first widely minted gold coin (post-Roman) in Europe was the ecu d'or, first minted in the 13th century. Florins and Ducats were the most widely minted coins of th era, but were still non-circulated trade coins denominated as a certain amount of gold. These coins weighed about 3.5g each, and were about 2cm across and quite thin. There were some larger gold coins minted (e.g. the original medieval sovereign and noble) but these were in a minority. Ducats actually became a sort of informal common currency, with about 30 polities producing them to the same specification.

Gold became more widely available as richer deposits were discovered in west Africa (hence the name 'Guinea'), and in the new world. Silver was so plentiful in the Americas that trade coins such as the 8 Reales (Pieces of 8) were minted in large numbers in Mexico from about the 16th or 17th century.

Having to explain that to players back around 1978-83 was amusing to me. I'd go to the library and check out a book or two to bring to the game shop just to point out that reality after Gary's whole take on coins and weight.

Yeah I was that kind of player when I saw what I felt were stupid mechanics. Give me a break, 10 coins to a pound? What are they fucking Melnibonean Wheels? My house rule to keep it simple was 100 coins per pound, yeah I could have gotten more exact but I was trying to use a easy to use but more logical HUGE COINs rule.

 

[sharps54]

Having coins that weigh 1/10 of a pound forces players to problem solve, how do we get this loot back? I maybe we need to hire someone to go with us for that very purpose…
But you are right, it doesn’t break the game to change it but I’ll never understand the desire to make D&D’s world match ours when it simply isn’t the same. No one complains about elves and dwarves existing but they bitch that the coins are too heavy or there is a gold standard and the economy doesn’t match real world earth’s historical periods.
Something else that might have been done to be a dick but made the game better was OD&D not letting player characters see in the dark. That was a mistake when they opened the floodgates by giving demi and semi humans night vision.

 

[Acmegamer]

Having coins that weigh 1/10 of a pound forces players to problem solve, how do we get this loot back? I maybe we need to hire someone to go with us for that very purpose…
But you are right, it doesn’t break the game to change it but I’ll never understand the desire to make D&D’s world match ours when it simply isn’t the same. No one complains about elves and dwarves existing but they bitch that the coins are too heavy or there is a gold standard and the economy doesn’t match real world earth’s historical periods.
Something else that might have been done to be a dick but made the game better was OD&D not letting player characters see in the dark. That was a mistake when they opened the floodgates by giving demi and semi humans night vision.

Sure, but the unrealistically huge coins were not the way, at least for me it was immersion breaking and I promptly went about correcting. Games I ran, the players quickly learned that henchmen, donkeys, carts and wagons were an important part of the game play. All it took was a few times where they had to leave behind a bulk of the loot to know that. I wanted to challenge while immersing the players. I wanted them to have to make hard choices, to learn from their errors and get out there and explore.

Also I quickly did away with the whole Ultra-vision and Infra-vision mechanics as written and ended up doing what amounted to GURPS did years later when it released with GURPS 1e/2e. Which required "some light" to really be useful. Total darkness and you weren't seeing shit. Also I didn't allow you to see colors etc with light intensification aka Night Vision, everything was more washed out color wise. You could see though to a point.



A couple years later when I had extensive experience using various types of night vision sights and goggles in the military, GURPS version of night vision really rang out for me. No more heat source based vision etc (except for a few nasty critters I had for player characters to deal with once in a while).

The newest and latest tech for such devices is pretty fascinating compared to the light intensification goggles and sights I used back in the 1980s and 1990s. Or the thermal sights which were fascinating but less detailed back then. Now they're amazing and old AD&D infravision felt like that, like thermal vision but more exact detailed.

TLDR: Use closer to 100 coins per pound.
Use GURPS Night Vision versus the crazy over the top Infravision or Ultravision of AD&D.

 

[Nobby-W]

I did like ICE's attempt to move to silver - throughout the middle ages, silver was the major standard for currency; the gold standard came about in the 19th century when using silver for trade coinage started to get unwieldy. It died with WWI when the pound inflated to the point that the bullion value of sovereigns exceeded their face value. They were never introduced back into circulation after WWI, although they continued to be produced in large numbers as bullion until 1932.

 

[Acmegamer]

I did like ICE's attempt to move to silver - throughout the middle ages, silver was the major standard for currency; the gold standard came about in the 19th century when using silver for trade coinage started to get unwieldy. It died with WWI when the pound inflated to the point that the bullion value of sovereigns exceeded their face value. They were never introduced back into circulation after WWI, although they continued to be produced in large numbers as bullion until 1932.

That's something else I did as well for all my fantasy based campaigns. Silver was the main currency where only the wealthy tended to have gold.

Edit: When I returned from Europe with all that foreign currency the first time, I showed various friends/players at the time. I loved the size of the Deutsche pfennig for an example of what I considered the size of most stamped coinage.

 

[Nobby-W]

A groat would be about 80 to the lb, or about 320 silver pennies (1/4 the size of a groat). So, for convenience, one could have 100 silver pieces to the lb. As to the buying power, I do have one data point.

One livre was originally 1lb but got inflated down to about 80g (say 15sp) by the 14th century or so. There is a document that states that to put a knight in the field cost 150-250 livres. This included his horse(s), armour, weapons, horses and kit for his squire and whatever pack animals and logistics went with it. Ergo, the value of silver currency would be such that a large amount of wealth could still be pretty unwieldy.