|
Post by darkling on Dec 26, 2011 17:50:30 GMT -6
So, thus far the encumbrance system presented in the LBB has worked well for my group. But we are thinking of a new campaign using a home-brew world that has a little more size variation among the player races. Rather than trying to define an encumbrance scale for each different race my plan was to find a semi-universal system.
This is what I was thinking: -the maximum load a character can carry would be equal to (strength x 10) taken as a percent of character body weight. Up to this amount the character moves as Armd. Foot. -below half this amount the character moves as Heavy Foot -below 1/4 of this amount the character moves as Light Foot.
For instance a 200 lb human with a strength of 13 would have an encumbrance profile of Max: 260 lbs; Heavy: up to 130 lbs; Light: up to 65 lbs.
There would probably also be some kind of multiplier for quadrupeds and some kind of penalty for weight that can be carried while flying or swimming.
And you could obviously set an average race weight if doing the calculations individually would tempt your players to play exploitatively heavy characters.
What do y'all think?
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 26, 2011 19:31:22 GMT -6
I think that some RPG I looked at converted weight into "Stone", which is a British unit of some sort. They used a x10 rule (I believe) so that a person with a stat of 10 could carry roughly 100 stone.
I don't remember a pounds to stone conversion, so my numbers may be waaaaay off.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 26, 2011 20:10:54 GMT -6
One stone is 14 pounds. Half a stone is called a clove, which is 7 pounds. It works really neatly to say that any character can carry as may cloves as his strength, unencumbered. I.e., a character with 13 strength can carry 13 cloves unencumbered. Leather armour is equivalent to 2 cloves, chainmail 4 cloves, and plate armour 6 cloves. Pretty much any other item that is worth worrying about is close enough to 1 clove. I.e., swords, axes, shields, helms, bow & arrows, lantern & oil, a week's rations, etc. are all equivalent to 1 clove in terms of mass, bulk and overall encumbrance. A sack of 100 coins is also 1 clove. You might call two-handed swords and full-sized shields 2 cloves. There is also another measure called a hundredweight. A hundredweight is 8 stone (or 112 pounds, which I guess must have been near enough to 100 pounds in medieval math). A hundredweight was the maximum load an ordinary labourer could be expected to bear day in, day out. Which tells us that 8 stone (16 cloves) is the maximum encumbered load an ordinary man could carry. Let's say our "ordinary man" might have 8 to 13 strength, then men with 8 strength could carry up to 8 cloves unencumbered, and up to 16 cloves encumbered. Finally, a ton is 20 hundredweights. This is equivalent to 160 stone, or 320 cloves, or 32,000 coins. This tells us that we would need a work crew of 20 men to haul away a dragon's hoard of 32,000 coppers. A horse, by the way, could typically haul the equivalent of what 6 ordinary men could haul.
|
|
|
Post by Geiger on Dec 26, 2011 22:53:06 GMT -6
we are thinking of a new campaign using a home-brew world that has a little more size variation among the player races. Probably in a different thread, would you care to talk more about your campaign?
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Dec 26, 2011 23:27:48 GMT -6
Basically the direct relationship between strength and a particular weight (or even the static system in the LBB) is great when working with a range of PC races that are all roughly man sized. It can also work when you use the ability scores as an unbounded scale (like most later D&D editions). But we do neither.
The 3d6 bell curve is an absolute measure in our games. The ability score denotes your position on the bell curve compared to an average specimen of your race. So a human with a strength 18 is among the strongest possible humans. Likewise, a dragon with strength 18 is among the strongest possible dragons. But it would be silly to say that the strongest human and the strongest dragon could carry the same load!
Anyway, two races being tossed around as potential player races in our new campaign world are naga, who outweigh normal humans by a fair bit, and pixies, who are the complete opposite end of the spectrum weighing about five pounds on average. Now we could go the route of giving plusses and minuses to strength and letting things fall outside the 3-18 boundary. But to my mind that ruins the parsimony that really draws me to classic D&D. So we need a rule that is flexible depending on race. Thus assuming that they all had a strength of 10 a 350 lb naga would have a max load of 350 lbs, 200 lb human 200 lbs, and the 5 lb pixie 5 lbs (possibly even less when flying!). That way we don't have a 5 lb pixie lumbering around with 70 lbs of gear...
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Dec 27, 2011 5:45:48 GMT -6
Confession: In the 30+ years of gaming.... we've never given a hoot about encumbrance aside from mere "common sense" type rules of "dude, there's no way you could carry that around." I always thought it would be good to use and add to the games, but nobody cares for the extra accounting. True story.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 27, 2011 6:33:52 GMT -6
Confession: In the 30+ years of gaming.... we've never given a hoot about encumbrance aside from mere "common sense" type rules of "dude, there's no way you could carry that around." I always thought it would be good to use and add to the games, but nobody cares for the extra accounting. True story. Honestly, that's the way I do it, too! One stone is 14 pounds. Half a stone is called a clove, which is 7 pounds. It works really neatly to say that any character can carry as may cloves as his strength, unencumbered. I.e., a character with 13 strength can carry 13 cloves unencumbered. That sounds like what I was thinking of. Any idea which RPG version it came from? (I like to give credit where possible to cool ideas.)
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Dec 27, 2011 7:44:35 GMT -6
I spent most of my RPG days with AD&D, which has its system rooted in OD&D. I would just track the "base" equipment (i.e. armor, weapons, backpack... essentially what you entered the dungeon/adventure with) just to get a handle on the movement rate, and then just use "common sense" for the rest (aka the Haul). We just used movement to gage time and the relative movement between the party and anything they encountered. Worked well enough when we paid attention to it. I'd have a look at the system used in Jim's LotFP. It's a very easy-to-use substitute for all of the book-keeping some folks aren't too fond of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2011 10:14:07 GMT -6
I never had a particular problem with the OD&D encumbrance system, but I liked Raggi's encumbrance alternative so much I added it to my house rules.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Dec 27, 2011 12:55:58 GMT -6
For our current game, I did a quick estimate of PC loads at the start using the M&M rules, no Strength adjustments. I then guessed loads afterwards. My on-the-fly encumbrance system needs work, but here's what I do:
A character's move is the worst move based on armor, weight carried, or bulk carried. Armor-based move is pretty standard. Weight is based on the character's approximate weight: more than one-third your body weight slows you to Move 9, more than half your body weight is Move 6, and carrying your full body weight is Move 3. Bulk works kind of the same way, except that it's rated according to an "idealized human" who is six feet tall instead of relative to the PC; items with a total bulk equal to one-third of a human slow Move to 9, half a human lowers Move to 6, a full human lowers Move to 3.
There's no upper limit to bulk. For weight, there's a chance to lose an hp (5+ on d6) if you carry more than your weight or skip rest periods; extra weight adds 1 to the roll. This damage is fatigue; if you drop to 0 because of fatigue, you pass out rather than die, and you recover from fatigue loss faster than actual damage. If the weight is really huge (adjustment is 5 or more,) damage is real (strain) on an unadjusted roll of 5+.
Strength doesn't affect move or weight limits, at least not directly; it affects the fatigue and strain rolls. This lets weak Strength 3 characters haul the same weight as strong ones, but they have to rest more, and can kill themselves more easily by straining too hard.
|
|
Aplus
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 353
|
Post by Aplus on Dec 27, 2011 15:24:18 GMT -6
Here's the new rules I've been using. I've only been using them for a few sessions, but so far it seems fine and I've had no complaints.
Movement is independent of encumbrance unarmored or leather = 12" chain = 9" plate = 6"
Each PC can carry up to 20 items and up to 1,000 coins.
The two limits are independent. Carrying less of one does not allow you to carry more of the other.
All you need is a backpack or large sack to do this, but a backpack is better, for obvious reasons.
A mule with proper bags can carry twice this amount.
Worn armor and a single in-hand weapon do not count towards the limit.
The rest, is just common sense - i.e. a quiver with 20 arrows counts as one item, and no, you cannot carry 20 dressers.
Is it realistic? Hell no, but it seems to do a nice job with having a generous limit to keep things from getting too out of hand, and doesn't get in the way of fun.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 27, 2011 19:41:04 GMT -6
One stone is 14 pounds. Half a stone is called a clove, which is 7 pounds. It works really neatly to say that any character can carry as may cloves as his strength, unencumbered. I.e., a character with 13 strength can carry 13 cloves unencumbered. That sounds like what I was thinking of. Any idea which RPG version it came from? (I like to give credit where possible to cool ideas.) I first saw something close to this on Delta's blog. I don't recalling seeing it in any "proper" RPG, but there are tons of those I haven't seen. FWIW, I use it in my own (unpublished) OD&D supplement, and also in my two pbp games on these boards.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 28, 2011 12:30:26 GMT -6
.....The 3d6 bell curve is an absolute measure in our games. The ability score denotes your position on the bell curve compared to an average specimen of your race. So a human with a strength 18 is among the strongest possible humans. Likewise, a dragon with strength 18 is among the strongest possible dragons. But it would be silly to say that the strongest human and the strongest dragon could carry the same load!.... I can see that working okay for you but think that few of us would want to get so complicated. There really is no need to make custom tailored 3-18 strength scales for each creature. If you simply assume that 1 point of strength = the ability to lift x pounds then your pixie character might have a strength range of 1-3 and your naga might have a range of 6-36. Why try to make everything 3-18? Waysofearth's 7 pounds is a good way to go. I settled on 8 pounds for Champions of ZED for a whole bunch of little reasons, but mostly cause it was closer to the "translated" AiF weight allowance and not far off the 1/2 stone. (Okay to explain, AiF gives 2 pound per point on a 1-100 scale as the maximum weight anyone can carry and this is also listed as being 150% of a characters normal strength stat. This translates to 13.2 pounds per D&D strength point which is 150% of 8.8. So if you wanted to go with pure Arneson, you would use 8.8 pounds per point as the amount a character can normally carry unencumbered and 13.2 as the maximum allowing encumbered movement.)
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Dec 28, 2011 23:25:55 GMT -6
I can see that working okay for you but think that few of us would want to get so complicated. There really is no need to make custom tailored 3-18 strength scales for each creature. If you simply assume that 1 point of strength = the ability to lift x pounds then your pixie character might have a strength range of 1-3 and your naga might have a range of 6-36. Why try to make everything 3-18? For the bell curve! 3d6 neatly forms a simple distribution delineating how far the character is removed from the average and in what direction. Only taking a slice of this or expanding it beyond eighteen makes such a scale meaningless (this is one of my major peeves with later editions of D&D). Now I might scale things back to the 5 levels of gradation: 3-4 far below average; 5-8 below average; 9-12 average; 13-16 above average; 17-18 far above average. I might even drop the direct relationship to strength but I don't see another good way to have one simple rule to scale carrying capacity by player size. Having to make special consideration for each race is exactly the type of clutter I hope to avoid. And encumbrance has always been a big part of our games. I think it adds a nice logistical challenge, not to mention encouraging players to pick up men-at-arms, hirelings, pack animals, and to manage their wealth intelligently (e.g. using moneychangers, investing in merchants or banks, carrying gems rather than coins, etc.). I can't imagine playing without it.
|
|
Aplus
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 353
|
Post by Aplus on Dec 29, 2011 0:30:41 GMT -6
I don't know, it's easy for me to conceptualize that average strength for a human might be 9-12 while average strength for an orc would be 10-13 (i.e. +1 racial modifier).
Conceptualizing that a naga with 10 strength is stronger than a human with 10 strength is a bit muddier, but maybe that's just me.
What's wrong with giving racial bonuses, but still saying that the max is 18? Who's really gonna get a 19 anyways? If you're using 3d6 and just adding or subtracting modifiers, the bell curve is exactly the same, it's just shifting in one direction or the other.
Also, there's nothing wrong with just making a table and saying these races can carry this much. There's no requirement, especially in OD&D, that you have to be able to reverse-engineer some rule using math. Plus, it's easier to look up a table than to do complex calculations anyways, and it could speed up play.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Dec 29, 2011 1:04:46 GMT -6
I do something like darkling, but without any specific meaning assigned to scores at all. Strength, for example, is scaled to size; if two individuals are the same size, then the one with the higher Strength score has the advantage; if two human characters tackle a creature that is twice the mass of a human, they have the advantage if their average Strength is higher than the larger creature's Strength. That's it. No attempts to equate 10 Strength for a human to 10 Strength for a dragon; I'd probably use base HD as a guideline for *that* (every +1 HD doubles power, maybe?)
Similarly, animal intelligence is on a different scale than human intelligence, so you can have Int 15 wolves outsmarted by Int 3 warriors.
I dislike equating ability scores to physical measurements. It leads players to think they can't play a Strength 3 character, because he would be too feeble to lift a feather. You don't have to be a cripple in my games unless you *want* to ... or unless something happens in the dungeon...
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 29, 2011 11:53:19 GMT -6
I can see that working okay for you but think that few of us would want to get so complicated. There really is no need to make custom tailored 3-18 strength scales for each creature. If you simply assume that 1 point of strength = the ability to lift x pounds then your pixie character might have a strength range of 1-3 and your naga might have a range of 6-36. Why try to make everything 3-18? For the bell curve! 3d6 neatly forms a simple distribution delineating how far the character is removed from the average and in what direction. Only taking a slice of this or expanding it beyond eighteen makes such a scale meaningless (this is one of my major peeves with later editions of D&D)...... Bell Curve. Hmm. How is that useful for ability scores aside from creating a weigted average when first rolling? Actually, even then its most useful for generating NPC's since most players will want to have better than average characters. What I mean is, when applying ability scores in play, is there any reason or advantage to the fact that they are generated with a bell curve? In the end, they are equal integers and can be treated as such. I see no disadvantages, or why it makes the scale meaningless to say a dragon might have a strength score of 60 (or what have you). It would mean, at a glance, that the dragon in question is about 7 times as strong as the average man. It seems to me that actually makes the human scale very meaningful. Using the scores this way is also very useful when encountering objects where a required strength is given to move or lift them (like, to lift this portcullis requires 36 combined strength points, ala B3) it makes sense that 2 trolls with 20 strength each could lift the thing, or one giant, etc.
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Dec 29, 2011 18:55:12 GMT -6
Bell Curve. Hmm. How is that useful for ability scores aside from creating a weigted average when first rolling? Actually, even then its most useful for generating NPC's since most players will want to have better than average characters. Wait...why would you ever just let players have better than average characters And I generally don't roll stats for NPC's save in special circumstances. They are assumed to be average members of their race and relevant values are derived from HD. What I mean is, when applying ability scores in play, is there any reason or advantage to the fact that they are generated with a bell curve? In the end, they are equal integers and can be treated as such. I see no disadvantages, or why it makes the scale meaningless to say a dragon might have a strength score of 60 (or what have you). It would mean, at a glance, that the dragon in question is about 7 times as strong as the average man. It seems to me that actually makes the human scale very meaningful. The bell curve allows for the classic bands of ability into far below average, below average, average, above average, and far above average; which I think is a more useful and parsimonious system than the later (score -10)/2 mods to infinity of later editions. It allows for modifications based on ability score to match up to the bell curve rather than be linear (e.g. once you open the top of your system the difference between a 16 and an 18 is the same as the difference between an 10 and a 12). Most importantly it is closed. Saying that a human is at 10 and a dragon is at 60 on the same scale means that your players will want to know how to get to 60 and, in my experience, that sentiment encourages power creep. Saying that humans and dragons are measured on different scales entirely circumvents this problem. (And oh it is a legit problem, multiple separate occasions in 3E as both player and DM I had to deal with characters who could at least temporarily break 40 on one of their ability scores using only WOTC sanctioned rules. Which to me seems a meaningless value when you are still a medium sized creature). As a bonus, when dealing with discrete systems, magic items that let you transcend them become more valuable. Gauntlets of Giant Strength that give you a flat +5 or something to strength are less cool and feel less legendary than gauntlets that assure you are stronger than any mortal man can naturally be (although perhaps still weak for a giant...). Using the scores this way is also very useful when encountering objects where a required strength is given to move or lift them (like, to lift this portcullis requires 36 combined strength points, ala B3) it makes sense that 2 trolls with 20 strength each could lift the thing, or one giant, etc. Where was that in B3? Was that one of the things they revised out of later printings? The only portcullis I recall in my copy was magically sealed. And I don't see how it is any easier than saying: "The portcullis weighs X. Can you lift X?"
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 29, 2011 22:01:45 GMT -6
Last first Using the scores this way is also very useful when encountering objects where a required strength is given to move or lift them (like, to lift this portcullis requires 36 combined strength points, ala B3) it makes sense that 2 trolls with 20 strength each could lift the thing, or one giant, etc. Where was that in B3? Was that one of the things they revised out of later printings? The only portcullis I recall in my copy was magically sealed. And I don't see how it is any easier than saying: "The portcullis weighs X. Can you lift X?" Checked - is the original orange cover version. Here's the section (page 9) Portcullises, Double Portcullises and Doors Portcullises and double portcullises are not like doors. These are gates made of crossed iron bars spaced 3” apart, blocking passageways. They must be lifted by the players and this can be done by either physical strength using strength points or by a knock spell. To raise a portcullis physically will require more brute strength than one player character will have. At most encounter areas blocked by a portcullis, a required total of strength points will be given. These strength points are the total points needed to raise the portcullis. Example: Rodney has a strength of 16, and Tedjulon the dwarf has a strength of 13. Together their strength equals 29. They need only 20 to raise a portcullis, so they lift it with ease."
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 29, 2011 22:33:47 GMT -6
Wait...why would you ever just let players have better than average characters <shrug> I'm not dictator, I'm a referee. I let players have thier fun, whether its high or low stat characters is up to them. I adjust and entrap accordingly. Usually I have them roll using Arnesons method of roll 2d6 +6 throw out high and low. The bell curve allows for the classic bands of ability into far below average, below average, average, above average, and far above average; which I think is a more useful and parsimonious system than the later (score -10)/2 mods to infinity of later editions. It allows for modifications based on ability score to match up to the bell curve rather than be linear (e.g. once you open the top of your system the difference between a 16 and an 18 is the same as the difference between an 10 and a 12). Yes that's a good description of a bell curve, however I'm not following on what you mean by modifications matching up to the curve. Modifications only affect PC's and are, as far as I have ever seen, a fixed number tied to a subrange of the score. It is irrelevant in play how the score was generated; all that matters is where it actually is. Most importantly it is closed. Saying that a human is at 10 and a dragon is at 60 on the same scale means that your players will want to know how to get to 60 and, in my experience, that sentiment encourages power creep. Saying that humans and dragons are measured on different scales entirely circumvents this problem. (And oh it is a legit problem, multiple separate occasions in 3E as both player and DM I had to deal with characters who could at least temporarily break 40 on one of their ability scores using only WOTC sanctioned rules. Which to me seems a meaningless value when you are still a medium sized creature). I don't see how it circumvents anything and I don't see the problem in the first place. First, no PC race can have more than an 18 strength or intelligence or whatever, naturally, any more than they could naturally grow extra arms. Power creep, in the sense of the fairly limited way ability scores affect an OD&D game, is limited to magic - over which you have complete control. Of course a player will want to find a girdle of giant strength, and sooner or later somebody will get one. <shrug> That's not a problem, its an opportunity. As a bonus, when dealing with discrete systems, magic items that let you transcend them become more valuable. Gauntlets of Giant Strength that give you a flat +5 or something to strength are less cool and feel less legendary than gauntlets that assure you are stronger than any mortal man can naturally be (although perhaps still weak for a giant...). Agreed. Anyway, the players don't need to know the nitty gritty of the mechanics you are using.
|
|
|
Post by Necropraxis on Jan 11, 2012 16:33:19 GMT -6
I second (third? fourth?) the recommendation to check out the LotFP encumbrance system. And it's included in the free Rules and Magic book. It fits very nicely into the OD&D rules (makes the same assumptions about the types of armor) and requires minimal math (nothing you can't do with your fingers). Basically, you just count the number of things your character is carrying, add a big penalty for every oversized item, and adjust for armor; that tells you what the character's mobility is. It's really slick, and it's the first encumbrance system that I have gotten by players to actually use. I also allow players to put more than one item of a single type in an entry (within reason), so something like "3 daggers" might take up one entry. www.lotfp.com/RPG/uploads/downloads/GrindhouseRulesMagicFree.zipAlso, it's the first rules-related Google autocomplete for lotfp, so that says something:
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 29, 2017 12:43:43 GMT -6
Reconsidering the OP of this thread, I came up with a response taking a closer look at some of the numbers in Men & Magic and ended upi working up a couple tables which are a pain to try to recreate here so I just posted it too my blog for anybody interested LINK
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Mar 31, 2017 18:34:41 GMT -6
|
|