Having presented that prolog, the author explains why this matter concerns him:
The easiest way out is to reiterate that it's only a game and isn't supposed to be totally realistic. What's realistic about fire-breathing dragons or alignment languages? How does that accord with the laws of biology and physics? There are quite a few of us out here in the boondocks who feel perfectly comfortable with basilisks, fireballs, illusions, the fact that a spell called "continual light" produces continuous light with nothing intermittent about it, and even the rule that clerics can't use edged weapons, but who balk at the idea of a world where platinum, gold, electrum, silver and copper all weigh precisely the same for a given volume. And if we do say that all coin metals weigh the same, we are still faced with the volume question.The bulk of the article that follows then concerns not so much the weight of individual coins, which Godwin admits would give the referee a nervous breakdown to track, but with the size of coins. His interest in this question is in how many of a given coin will fit into a given container. So, if a chest is 18" x 30" x 18" in dimension, how many gold coins can it contain? How many silver? What about a mix of gold and silver? By recourse to formulae involving the specific gravities of each metal, Godwin is able to offer a small table that gives the weight, volume, and thickness of typical coins of precious metal in AD&D. Armed with this table and the size of any container, the referee can, with comparative ease, determine how many coins of any type can fit within it.
As these kinds of articles go, "How Many Coins in a Coffer?" isn't very math-heavy. Godwin kindly saves most of the math for himself, but, even so, the idea of having to spend much time calculating how many silver pieces actually fit into an adventurer's saddlebags seems a needless complication. Working the other way – figuring out many and how large the containers holding a given volume of treasure must be – is not better in my opinion. But then I prefer to keep most things in Dungeons & Dragons fairly abstract, from hit points to experience points to encumbrance. Worrying about such things has never been an obsession of mine (I'd prefer to obsess about other things), but, back in 1983 and beyond, such obsessions became commoner in the pages of Dragon. The drive toward "realism," whether in encumbrance, weather, linguistics, population density, or some other area, was the tenor of the day and Dragon's content reflected that.
There is a part of me that's sympathetic to Godwin's position -- it seems like knowing at least *roughly* how much treasure a container can contain would be a pretty good idea. I can't, however, think of a single instance in all my years of that actually being relevant to the play of the game. I don't track encumbrance and never have, I don't care about the weight of the coins in his pouch... do I really need to know their volume?
ReplyDeleteThe only situation in which I'd actually care *during play* (as against "in theory") if if the players just discovered a huge hoard they're trying to haul away. Did they just slay a dragon sitting atop tens of thousands of loose coins, plus gems, artwork, swords, and table 104: Miscellaneous Magic (the Weird Stuff)? They need to care then, but still only in a very abstract sense. They'll go back to town to hire men to help them carry, and I'll give them a cost for hiring "enough men" with "enough equipment." I will not task them with calculating the total cubic feet of carrying capacity they'll need.
Jim Hodges---
ReplyDeleteI'm an arch-nerd, and even I say obsessing over the size and weight of coins is too nerdy for me!
My favorite thing about this article is that Godwin gets pedantic about the meaning of "continual".
ReplyDeleteIn a game where mechanical progression (i.e., level gain) comes primarily from retrieving treasure, it definitely makes sense to have rules about the logistics involved in retrieving said treasure. I suspect the "10 coins per pound" number was calculated with the goal of making coins bulky enough that bringing them back out of the dungeon could present interesting challenges and tradeoffs, rather than in any attempt at historical verisimilitude. (That's probably also why treasures in early D&D are so absurdly large.)
I think 2e and later editions went to 50 coins per pound, which is a bit more reasonable (although still larger than most actual medieval coins).
These days I use a slot-based encumbrance system similar to Dolmenwood's, counting 200 coins as an "item". I think that's abstract enough to eliminate most of the math, while not completely handwaving away the issue and thus allowing the potential for interesting tradeoffs and complications.
You are correct, at least as regards 2e. DMG, page 134:
Delete"Coins (regardless of metal) normally weigh in at 50 to the pound."
About 15 years back: One of my players has a son and a daughter (both in grade school) who ask if they can play a game of AD&D with their dad and me. So I run a one-shot for the four of us.
ReplyDeleteAt some point, the son realizes how heavy coins must be, so I tell him (based on my memory of this article) that the average coin is the size of an Eisenhower dollar. That's when I discovered most kids that age had never seen an Eisenhower dollar.
I keep an Eisenhower dollar coin in my dice bag now. Damn kids, making me feel old.
As others have pointed out, the economics of D&D/AD&D is absolutely ridiculous, with weird hyperinflation pricing based on the most expensive coin, and ginormously oversized coins as standard.
ReplyDeleteMore interesting is how the later clones and retroclones are *mostly* unwilling to abandon the status quo for something more sensible.
D&D 5e (2024, and perhaps 2014 as well) does not directly specify how much coins you can carry, but it does specify the weight of coins (about a third of an ounce, so fifty coins weigh a pound) and how much weight you can carry based on your size and strength modifier (for example, a 'medium' sized creature can carry "Str. x 15 lb.", and a large creature "Str. x 30 lb.") Our group chooses not to bother with any of this though; one player carries all our gold, no matter how heavy it becomes. We usually refer to this player as 'the bank'.
ReplyDeleteI don't mind the idea of encumbrance though I don't always apply it. But when I do use it, it should be a single metric, in this case weight. Each coin is assumed to be 1/10th of a pound. What volume it is is irrelevant (but I imagine the denser the metal the thinner the coin to keep weight constant). Same goes for any other items the characters might try to carry - I only look at weight.
ReplyDeleteI always attributed the uniformity of mass to alloys and plating, like most modern coins (especially the ones advertised on late night TV) ;-)
ReplyDeleteIndeed. How much does a single BitCoin weigh, exactly ?
DeleteIt should be heavy, on one's conscience
DeleteI've always thought the notion of any coin weighing a tenth of a pound was preposterous, and it invalidated the D&D encumbrance system as far as I was concerned. When you see ancient coins firsthand in a museum, it makes D&D encumbrance seem even more ridiculous. My group has always handwaved it. I do like slot-based encumbrance systems, though.
ReplyDeleteI'm running AD&D 1e right now with the intention of sticking to the rules as much as possible. I have no problem telling the players to count their coins and that they can't carry more than their Strength would indicate in addition to their basic equipment, weapons and armor. The magic user buried his share of the 1000 s.p. they won from a giant spider lair, while the dwarf with the highest strength in the party was able to carry his.
ReplyDeleteI long ago came to the conclusion that copper, silver, and gold pieces were generally not coins -- they were *pieces of value* one might find in a post-apocalyptic fantasy world. Swag. Cheap jewelry, small statuary, tchotchkes, baubles, paste jewels, bowls, goblets, plates, silverware, hacksilver -- all the "common" sorts of petty treasure beneath the level of the true "valuables" rolled on the gem and jewelry table.
ReplyDeleteCopper "pieces" are items that the Lower Class could afford. Silver "pieces" are items that the Middle Class could afford. Gold "pieces" are items that the Upper Class could afford. And "gems" and "jewelry" are the items that the Elite could afford.
So when you are filling that small sack with 200 cn, or backpack with 400 cn, or large sack with 600 cn, it is mostly not *coins* -- it is swag.
I wonder what happened to Dave. Probably became an accountant.
ReplyDeleteLong therapy sessions dealing with pronounced OCD?
DeleteI didn't have much of an interest in encumbrance back in the day, but I do now as it forms part of my real world job experience. It low-level annoys me that it doesn't make sense in the game, and every time I try to hide a treasure I always wonder whether it can fit into the nook or receptacle I've written in to the key.
ReplyDeleteThe Roman denarius was around 80 coins to the pound, very roughly. I usually go with 50 coins to the pound (make ‘em a little heftier). 10 coins to the pound always seemed ridiculous to me.
ReplyDeleteAfter that, it’s pretty damned easy: pack can hold 40 lbs = 2,000 coins.
Anyone who is going to sweat the atomic weight of silver vs copper is probably a super-fun person to hang-out with on a Friday night playing D&D……
Deep dives into esoterica is exactly the kind of thing RPGers are known for...
DeleteTrue. I did once figure the volume of a character and his gear and then convert that to the weight of granite. He had been turned to stone by a medusa and the party was trying to get him out of the dungeon and back to town.
DeleteSo, guilty as charged. :D