Carrying capacity: The ruling currency?

[Frostmarrow]

I was thinking that maybe carrying capacity is, or should be, the most important currency in the game. Problem is, historically, carrying capacity has been too granular and fiddly and thus too often neglected, so that it has lost its value.

The main problem has been carrying capacity being derived from strength. A low strength wizard, according to the rules has barely been able to drag his walking stick behind him. Also, the ridiculous amounts of treasure, "a small moon of gold", found during standard quests has made certain that carrying capacity has been hand-waved.

In the old days of computer games, and maybe even today, carrying capacity has been symbolized by item slots. Why has this not been ported to D&D, I ask? Why bother with longsword weighing 15 whatevers and not simply have it occupy one slot?

I suggest all characters, humanoids, having a carrying capacity of 12 (slots). Then, in order to make it worthwhile to be strong, some items, still plugging up one slot, also requires a certain power of strength to carry effectively. This means a dagger and a bastard sword both occupy one slot but the bastard sword also requires Str13+ to carry (or it will occupy two slots). Great swords might call for two slots and Str15. Such a system, if balanced properly could not only speed up play but also account for wizards not carrying heavy steel shields (making weapon proficiency rules redundant.)

A system like this could fill a lot of use in the game. For instance, goods could be a lot more readily available and it could be a lot easier to manufacture great things because balancewise characters are still limited by what they are currently carrying. The bones of a troll could be ground down and packed into handgrenades (since if you do so, something else must be left behind).

Naturally Bags of Holding must be nerfed in some way. Perhaps they can only contain gold or maybe only one item per turn can be produced from them.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Definitely not for me. I don't mind abstraction, and I think the modeling of "space" is a good idea, but it's a little too abstract for me (I also pay attention to carrying capacity, space, etc. in my games). I have a feeling it won't take off with most people, but we'll see what others think. As always, play what you like

 

[MarkB]

Inventory management puzzles are generally disliked in computer games, and I can't imagine them being any better received in a tabletop RPG.

Personally, it'd annoy the heck out of me if I had to contend with such a system.

 

[Li Shenron]

In the old days of computer games, and maybe even today, carrying capacity has been symbolized by item slots. Why has this not been ported to D&D, I ask? Why bother with longsword weighing 15 whatevers and not simply have it occupy one slot?

Technically the weights are already slots of 1lb each, but obviously what you mean is something simplified to using large slots.

I would definitely dislike a system where every weapon is just 1 slot, because I know that immediately I'd get complaints from players saying that it's too silly for a sling and a greataxe to use the same slot. But in general, a system where objects would take e.g. from 1 to 3 slots (some minor objects taking no slots) would be acceptable.

I agree overall that carrying capacity is commonly largely handwaved. For weapons and shields, I've sometimes seen it handled with a loose rule of thumb of "max N weapons + 1 shield in the equipment" and everything in excess is handled as treasure, meaning that is not retrievable on the fly in case of a battle.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Definitely not for me. I don't mind abstraction, and I think the modeling of "space" is a good idea, but it's a little too abstract for me (I also pay attention to carrying capacity, space, etc. in my games). I have a feeling it won't take off with most people, but we'll see what others think. As always, play what you like

Indeed it might not be for everyone. Still, I'd like to expand on the idea:

Say your capacity is not not 12 at first level. Say it's 6. Then we have room for carrying capacity level boons. That is, maybe fighters get another slot at 3rd level, and then another one at 6th. (Or whatever).
[MENTION=40176]MarkB[/MENTION]: I'm not talking about an inventory puzzle, though. Think of it as your equipment is limited to X number of cards, each representing an item, some of which also requires a set Strength score. That's it.
[MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION]: I agree that a sling and a great axe are pretty different in weight but they still occupy one hand. Now, I'm not suggesting we count hands but there we have a connection. Also the sling requires no Str but the great axe require 15 (for example).

Moreover: We already use slots when it comes to active magic items. That system could be rolled into this as well.

Alas, if you don't like it I guess the idea is useless. Thanks for chiming in!

 

[MarkB]

[MENTION=40176]MarkB[/MENTION]: I'm not talking about an inventory puzzle, though. Think of it as your equipment is limited to X number of cards, each representing an item, some of which also requires a set Strength score. That's it.

Inventory managed by slots + some items taking up different numbers of slots depending on strength is pretty much a textbook example of an inventory management puzzle.

It's not complicated on the face of it, but combine it with an entire party of different-strength characters trying to maximise both carrying capacity and convenience, and watch the ensuing juggling act.

Alas, if you don't like it I guess the idea is useless. Thanks for chiming in!

Sorry, it just seems like it'll cause more grief than it solves.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Inventory managed by slots + some items taking up different numbers of slots depending on strength is pretty much a textbook example of an inventory management puzzle.

It's not complicated on the face of it, but combine it with an entire party of different-strength characters trying to maximise both carrying capacity and convenience, and watch the ensuing juggling act.

This is a very good point. No item should take more than one slot. I realize things get complicated quickly.
Objects that are apparently larger than one slot, say a canoe, must be handled outside this model in the context of the scenario.

 

[3catcircus]

For me it is very very simple. I don't care where on your body you carry all your stuff. Just know that I want an accurate adding of the weight and you shouldn't plan on having access to all of it during combat unless you don't mind going last in the round because I've houseruled t hat medium loads impose a -3 to initiative and heavy loads impose a -6 to initiative. My players have adjusted to this - the most important stuff is on a bandolier or pouch and the backpack and sacks full of coins get ditched at first sign of trouble.

The only difficulty I've ever had with this is my players trying to determine if a particular item would be weight-limited or volume-limited when trying to shove it in a backpack (what do you mean I can't put this magical lute and 50 sunrods in my backpack, it weighs a total of 60 lbs?)

 

[Obryn]

I really prefer abstract encumbrance. "Keep it reasonable" is my only rule.

But again - as a module I can freely ignore, I could care less

-O

 

[Derren]

I am still puzzled by how people can have problems with simple additions.
I guess its the same issue as for why diagonal movement was "simplified" in 4E...