Contra: Treasure Encumbrance Matrix
Yelling At Clouds
Sean’s blog doesn’t have a comment section, so it gets its own blogpost instead.
Original article: https://www.failuretolerated.com/treasure-encumbrance-matrix
Here’s the relevant bit of the (very short) article:
[…] See if you can create a good variety of treasure that is easy to sell vs hard to sell and easy to carry vs hard to carry.
[…]
Too much treasure that’s hard to sell makes the whole endeavor disheartening. Too much treasure that’s hard to carry makes the dungeon crawl feel like a waste of time. Too much treasure that’s easy to carry makes encumbrance not a thing. Too much treasure that’s easy to sell makes the economy of the world seem out of whack.
We’ve defined two gradients, a portability gradient and a liquidity gradient. The graph shows that scrolls are easy to carry and mediumish to sell, antique furniture is hard to carry and hard to sell, and gems are easy to carry and easy to sell.
This is the sort of thing that’s digestible, easy to recognize as wisdom and nod along with. “Oh! Yeah you’re right - this makes sense!”, you might find yourself thinking.
I have two issues here; one surface-level and one that’s deeper and, I think, idea-invalidating.
Surface: Categories are Wide
These are categories! Magic daggers are a whole heck of a lot easier to carry than magic ballista. Sword+1s are a whole lot easier to sell than Holy Sword+5s. 50g peridots are easier to sell than 10000g Eye of Thoths.
Breaking this down a little further, there’s important thresholds. To use B/X as an example, where everything is measured in coin-weight, we’re concerned about:
the value-to-weight ratio. copper has a 0.01x ratio, silver has a 0.1x ratio, gold has a 1x ratio, platinum has a 5x ratio, a 200g emerald has a 200x ratio, and a 400g necklace has a 40x ratio (gems weigh 1cn while jewelry weighs 10cn).
The bulk itself - a backpack fits 400 coin, so if you find a statueette worth 1000g but that weighs 500cn (2x ratio), it’s more valuable than gold for the weight, but it won’t fit in a backpack. The relevant thresholds vary by the game, but for B/X it’s 400cn (backpack), 600cn (large sack), 4000cn (cart), 8000cn (cart w/ 2 horses), 15000cn (wagon w/ 2 horses) and 25000cn (wagon w/ 4 horses).
Deeper: What Liquidity Rules?
Check out the graph again. Gems are slightly easier to sell than Armor, which is a bit easier to sell than Scrolls, which is decently easier to sell than Magic Weapons, which are slightly easier to sell than Antique Furniture.
By Which Rules?
Taking a brief tour of my games library:
OD&D: Absolutely zero guidance about liquidity
1e: Absolutely zero guidance about liquidity
B/X: Absolutely zero guidance about liquidity
LotFP: Different availability for city/rural but otw no guidance
Simulacrum: Absolutely zero guidance about liquidity
Hyperborea 3e: Absolutely zero guidance about liquidity
Dolmenwood: Has liquidity for hiring specialists (available in towns/cities/villages), selling gems, jewelry, and art is explicitly infinite liquidity in towns. (ty medievalcat)
ACKs: Has explicit liquidity rules based purely on the price of the item (more expensive items are less liquid)
Seven Voyages of Zylarthen: Absolutely zero guidance about liquidity
White Box FMAG: Absolutely zero guidance about liquidity
WWN: Has an explicit trade skill and ‘Dealmaker’ feat that imply that sometimes selling stuff is hard.
Mork Borg: Absolutely zero guidance about liquidity
Mothership (Sean McCoy’s own game): Absolutely zero guidance about liquidity
Knave 2e: Liquidity guidance for buying but not selling (<=5c items are found in villages, <=20c items are found in towns, <=100c items are found in cities)
His Majesty the Worm: Liquidity is explicitly not a problem; treasure converts in the city phase at face-value.
Basic Fantasy: Absolutely zero guidance about liquidity
So what gives?
The assumption baked into the chart is that different items are easier or harder to actually sell than each other, and we’re able to place them on an axis. Where are the rules for this? Is it just some assumed GM fiat that no one (except Macris, apparently) has ever bothered to mechanically express?
Food for thought: Pathfinder 2e and D&D 5e both have liquidity rules (though they don’t map at all to the graph; nothing I’ve found does).
I love these kinds of game theory/design rabbit holes. This is exactly the kind of blog content that got me hooked on OSR play.
Also, I once ran an adventure where the most valuable item in the dungeon was an armoire. There was plenty of other loot, but there was a major payday available if they managed to get that out in good condition. They did not. One of those players has bought a block and tackle on every D&D character he has played since.
Is "trying to sell treasure with low liquidity" fun? If not why play it?
I'm a big fan of realism, so "Too much treasure that’s easy to sell makes the economy of the world seem out of whack." is an argument I can accept. Except: everything is easy to sell if you decrease the price enough. PCs should sell treasure that's "hard to sell" at a discount to some entrepreneurial dirt farmers. They can then haul it to the big city and haggle with potential buyers. The PCs can go on adventuring.
In my own game, I tend towards these philosophies https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2017/06/osr-death-taxes-and-death-taxes.html . Big treasure isn't just "hard to sell", it's politically impossible and very dangerous to sell. Big treasure must in practice be gifted away to powerful faction leaders. The leaders will give gifts in return. This keeps the game believable, adds faction play early and also creates a nice gold sink.