[Ironshanks]

I was wondering if it would make sense to base encumbrance for inventory in an RPG not on the weight of an object, but on a combination of the weight and the size. For instance, while a bowling ball might be heavy, it's a lot easier to stuff in a back pack than say, a quarter-staff.

Is this actually the usual way of deciding on the encumrance rating of an object? I seem to recall it being based on weight, since strength is what usually determines how much one can carry.

Would this also entail that a bigger container could increase the availability of inventory as well as becoming stronger would?

Inventory management is problematic for me.
_________________
That's not a broken link, it's a PICTURE of a broken link. It's really very conceptual.

[Ninkazu]

Make some formula up to mix between two or three variables, such as weight, size, and possibly irregularity of shape.

[Modanung]

You could do something like in Diablo, but then with added weight to every object.
For exaple, if you (able of carying 10 lb) have a backpack of 2 by 3 squares... and you would like to take the bowling ball (2 by 2, 20 lb), you can't take it because it's too heavy. The quarterstaff (1 by 4, 5 lb) can only be equipped and not put in the backpack.
Equipment slots do not have a limit of size, but only of weight.

[Bjorn]

My general opinion is that inventory should not be in the way of gameplay. So either go with an unlimited inventory to totally remove the hassle, or introduce weight, which I think is generally a nice way to limit the amount you can carry, or go the Diablo way (though of course Diablo wasn't the first using this scheme) but then in my opinion weight has become unimportant or at least too much to think about in addition to organising the items in a nice way.

But that's just me, other people might enjoy more realism. :-)

[ThousandKnives]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of systems that try to put "realism" into inventory. Whatever you do, its still not going to be entirely accurate. There simply isn't any way of making a system that takes into account all of the attributes an object might have (weight, shape, form). How can you define the various pouches, pockets, straps, cases, and packs that a character/party might carry? I mean, your statement about a bowling ball being easier to carry than a quarter staff is nonsense. A quarter staff can be strapped to the outside of a pack and takes up virtually no space, whereas a bowling ball is filling your bag quite awkwardly and in a back-breaking way, and its crushing the rest of your stuff! The Diablo-like system is absolute garbage. Carrying 6 rings is the same as carrying a suit of armor? Oh really? I could have sworn I have at least 10 fingers, and I only have 2 rings "equipped." Can a ring be carried on a finger without being equipped? I dont know- but these are the mysterious questions that start popping up when you take an inventory system too seriously.

Personally, I like a bottomless space for collecting all the cool stuff I find. Although a DW/Mother style simple item # limitation combined with a bottomless vault works alright for me. As long as the vault is easy to get to. At certain points, the player has to be asked to accept things that aren't "possible" but that will make the experience more fun. As for fun- in some games, inventory management is PART of the fun, but keep the system from getting bogged down in pointless details. If you want to limit the player in some way, go for it, but don't beat yourself up about the details, because NO system actually "makes sense."

[Jihgfed Pumpkinhead]

Agreed. Make the inventory system part of the gameplay, such that the player will enjoy using it, or make it just a limitless and unintrusive thing.

Complex inventory systems are really only necessary if you have a number of diverse, useful, specific-purpose items. This way, choosing what you set out with does become part of the actual gameplay, and can be entertaining.

Also, make sure that you've got some sort of bottomless vault of the sort ThousandKnives mentioned. Somewhere, at least, to put all the items which you're pretty sure are useless, but don't want to get rid of permanently just in case.

And I rather liked the inventory system in Diablo; I mean, I certainly wouldn't have wanted Diablo's gameplay any shallower or simpler.

[Rainer Deyke]

I hated the Diablo inventory system (which predates Diablo by at least five years). Not only is it completely unrealistic, but it's a pain in the ass to reorganize your inventory every time you find an object with an awkward shape.

I say go either with either an infinite inventory or some simple weight/bulk system. Oh, and sort the inventory automatically. I hate searching for items in the inventory.

[Ninkazu]

A thing about the rings.... in D&D, the magic in the rings has to be separated into... I don't know the whole bit, but it's just one ring per hand :P

[Sirocco]

As noted by someone (perhaps more than one) above, realism isn't always a *good* thing when it comes to inventory management, but regardless...

I think a great compromise would be a system like Arx Fatalis uses. Basically, you have a grid that represents space in your pack. Each item takes up so many grid blocks. A staff could occupy 1x5 blocks, because it's tall. A sword might take up 1x3, and a potion 1x1. Shields could be 2x2 or 3x2, or whatever. This allows the game to take into consideration both WEIGHT, and physical SPACE.

So, you want to reward the player with a larger pack? Knock yourself out. Just give the player a larger grid to work with.


Not the *best* screenshot, but it works. I guess.



.

[white_door]

I quite like the pack size method myself.. I sort of figured.. have you ever had a suitcase and tried to get all your stuff in to it? Some times you have to reorder it.. to make everything fit.. but for sure having one that resized depending on packsize is a good idea. As for small items you could aways make them take up less than 1x1 slot, if you drop a ring in your pack.. you would get another 1x1 slot added to the pack. Or you could have a pouch for small less than 1x1 items... that used wieght.. had a heap more space for your small items.

ThousandKnives: Yeah I liked how Ultima 7 had a slot for 'behind' your back. You could get a shield... or a big weapon (like a bow or a staff.. etc..).. or a sleeping roll and carry it on your back. ;)

Neverwinter nights uses a grid system + a wieght system... but they give you so much space in the general inventory, I aways run out of weight first! In fact I've never run out of space, except with in a bag or pack. But I guess that deals with the tiny item issue... it seems stupid that a suit of full plate armor takes up the same space as a pile of clothes, but its never an issue becuase you would only be worrying about how to fit that plate armor inside a small magical bag of other big heavy items. (the magical bags are used since they make items wiegh less) The clothes you just dump in your huge inventory.

So I guess it doesn't come down to realism.. but to giving the player another resource that they have to handle wisely.. which of course adds another strand of strategy and gameplay ;)