Treasure and Load

  • 10 Replies
  • 4044 Views
Treasure and Load
« on: September 12, 2012, 03:49:26 PM »
So, Load is determined by a character's full strength score.
http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=3763.0

This makes me wonder; what is the rule of thumb for the weight of treasure?

With the full score, our paladin has a max load of 21. It seems to me like there need to be an awful lot of treasure in play, before the encumbrance rules will see the light of day. Or am I underestimating the weight of treasure? Or am I underestimating the weight of ordinary adventuring gear?

Re: Treasure and Load
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2012, 04:03:45 PM »
It's not just about load, it's about volume too.  As a player, it's about looking for portable valuables.  As a GM, I'd look to the fiction and keep asking questions.  "Are you going to carry the chest of coins in both hands or are you going to carry it between the two of you?" 

Re: Treasure and Load
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2012, 05:32:10 PM »
I'm down with that. But if you only look at the fiction, then what is the point in having Load?

Re: Treasure and Load
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2012, 05:57:38 PM »
Play with both.  Load gives you another variable to use in moves, for example. 

Re: Treasure and Load
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2012, 08:16:04 PM »
I'm pretty sure load will see other tweaks before the end of the editing. Items with adjusted weight, and maybe less if any class bonus to load.
Oh, the things we tell ourselves to feel better about the long, dark nights.

*

Scrape

  • 378
Re: Treasure and Load
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2012, 11:48:13 AM »
I think of Load like the old encumbrance rules- it's not just weight, it's how bulky or inconvenient something is. So carrying statues and full chests and stuff becomes the realm of hirelings, those poor saps.

Re: Treasure and Load
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2012, 12:12:54 PM »
To be honest, I really liked the super low encumbrance threshold.  I mean, you could carry your weapons/armor, adventuring gear, and maybe some treasure with no problem.  Beyond that and what you were doing was carrying stuff and not doing other things (for example two people lugging a chest between them or carrying a statue in both hands that you have to put down/abandon to do anything else) or you had to make arrangements for portage such as a hireling or pack animal.  It kept equipment lists short and adventuring gear meant you didn't need to specify/track a bunch of what-if-I-need-it items and kept the emphasis on the fiction rather than your equipment list.

Re: Treasure and Load
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2012, 12:34:24 PM »
Alternative to tracking Load:

When you pick up something inconveniently heavy, roll +strength. On a 10+, you're good! On a 7-9, you're good, but take -2 ongoing to this move until you put something heavy down. On a miss, you hurt yourself trying to carry all that weight, and needless to say drop whatever it was you were trying to pick up, if not a few other things.

Re: Treasure and Load
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2012, 02:54:05 PM »
To be honest, I really liked the super low encumbrance threshold.  I mean, you could carry your weapons/armor, adventuring gear, and maybe some treasure with no problem. 

That's the issue though - not all characters could carry their basic equipment, never mind treasure as well.

Re: Treasure and Load
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2012, 03:09:49 PM »
That's right, I had forgotten about the equip packages (my brain is obviously a version behind).  Generally, though, I think less is more.  Too often in games, physical objects are interesting in the fiction until you take possession of them and then, suddenly, they drop out of the fiction and become weightless/volumeless line-items on your character sheet.

Re: Treasure and Load
« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2012, 05:52:58 PM »
To me it feels like it has gone from "not quite enough" to "far too much" spare capacity, and the weight of everything needs a rework to get the correct balance. It's also made Unseen Servant somewhat redundant.