Traveller wrote:
Castles & Crusades for the most part does not fail, except when it comes to encumbrance. It is perhaps the one game mechanic that gets the most press on these boards. A game mechanic that was truly simple would not be getting so many questions about obvious things that should have been explained in the first print of the PHB. Saying "the ad-hoc system covers that" is a cop-out. It should have been explained. Therefore, encumbrance fails in regards to simplicity.
The system isn't intuitive mainly because it is never defined what 1EV actually is. Is it equivalent to a gallon of water (12"x12"x7", 8lbs.), half gallon (10"x5"x4", 4lbs.) or something else entirely? Unless a real world measurement is defined, the system will never be as intuitive as it could be.
Gary using coins in D&D as a unit of encumbrance was a stroke of genius, because he tied encumbrance to a real world measurement that was both simple and intuitive. In labeling 1oz. as a coin gave he gave encumbrance a universal appeal, since much of the world uses the metric system and may not know what an ounce or pound is. The coin system is simple and intuitive, which the C&C system is not.
As to why it gets in the way of the role playing, that goes back to my mention of its inconsistent application throughout the rules; something the Trolls are already aware of from my mention of it on another thread pertaining to encumbrance. The question is, even after the Trolls address the inconsistent application of encumbrance will it ever get out of the way of the role playing? Will it ever become simple and intuitive to the point that we're going to stop seeing threads regarding the encumbrance system?
I don't believe so.
Traveller, the GP system that Gary used was abstract... And it even states so in the rules, as I pointed to in other posts http://www.freeyabb.com/trolllordgames/ ... llordgames. It to took weight and bulk into account, just as EV does today. The two big differences is the size of the number used (gp equivalent was much higher than EV), and actually defining that a 10 coins weigh 1#, not a coin weighing 1oz. which would result in 16 coins per pound. The end result with a two-handed sword (250GP encumbrance value) means that it ends up "weighing" 25#, hrm? To be considered unencumbered, you must have less than 35# (yes listed as pounds not GP) before strength modifiers. So that means 350GP equivalence. So, to measure that against EV, EV rating starts at 10, to be unencumbered you must have a total EV of 10 or less. Using these as base lines 1EV=3.5#. Now you have the same way to calculate as you did in 1E, just using different values.
The listed weight for the two handed sword in C&C is 15#, with an EV of 5, meaning it's weight equivalent is 18.5#, not to far off. I am not an expert in the weight of ancient weapons, but a quick search on the web shows they typically weighed 6-8#. So on bulk and weight alone, the EV would be 6, but it is a balanced weapon, so it gains a -1 modifier, resulting in an EV of 5. The 1E two-handed sword at 250GP weight, 25# is approximately the same ratio of discrepancy discrepancy between it's encumbrance value and the actual weight of the item. In each system the weapon would range between 2x and 3x the weight when determining encumbrance.
So if you want to argue the weight of items listed, or that some EV's listed look wrong, great. I think quite a few would concur in many areas. But, when saying that EV is more complex than GP based Encumbrance, it is my opinion, you are incorrect. As the PHB states, you can't codify every possible item and you must compare items against things you know. As written, "how big is a tapestry?" Further, there are no guidelines on how to apply GP to include bulk as well as weight; whereas C&C does. As such, as I referred above, the only thing that was missing was a baseline of EV=Weight, and using the calculation shown (35# from 1E is unencumbered, 10EV in C&C is as well) thus 35/10=3.5, 1EV=3.5# equivalent, or in 1E terms, 1EV=35GP. In the end the two systems have far more in common than I think you have considered.
