100 days of B/X (part IV - B15 to B18) - spellcasting

Continued from here.

In B15, we’ve reached one of the hardest parts to convert to my minimalist system, which is magic. This happens for several reasons.

First of all, it’s impossible to make a system that is both balanced and compatible with the original, because the original isn’t balanced at all. Fireball is a 3rd-level spell that causes 5d6 damage (save for half) for a bunch of foes, but gets stronger each level. Cure Serious Wounds is a 4th-level spell that cures 2d6+1 HP, never getting stronger. For a 5th level cleric spell, you can creates enough food fora  dozen men and their horses for one day... or raise the dead.

So the first difficult choice here is between changing something that I notice in practice, in my games, isn’t balanced, or keeping something original to the game that I like, which is basic D&D.

My tendency is to try to do a bit of both, giving the player the option to use spells from the original or from other places, while also offering my own selection of spells. I’ve already done this multiple times in my book Alternate Magic. So I won’t analyze every spell carefully, just go through them quickly.

Before starting the analysis, let’s begin with B15’s own description, which says that spells need to be cast with gestures and voice. I think that’s something interesting to keep, in order to impose some limitation on magic-users.

Notice that, in B/X, clerics are extremely powerful, more so than magic-users, since they can have access to all the spells. On top of that, they can resurrect the dead very early, which I’ve criticized many times. 

In AD&D, this cleric progression is corrected, and material components are also introduced, which creates a more serious limitation on magic-users. But most people simply ignore this, and even if they didn’t, it wouldn’t make sense to choose your spells every day without having all the components to choose from.

Curiously in B15 is said "Spells must be memorized before an adventure begins", which is more sensible than choosing everyday IMO, but this means (apparently) "one spell per adventure (or per day, if the adventure is longer than one day)" as written in the Clerical Spells section. 

Also in B16 it is said "the DM may choose which spells a character has in the book, or may allow the player to select them", which, of course, makes a HUGE difference, but the book doesn't tell which one to use.

Maybe it would be better to combine these requirements so that some limit is placed on magical power while, at the same time, there isn’t so much bookkeeping.

Even if I were to redo every one of the spells, which I honestly feel like doing, I would have to choose which line to apply to each one.

I could include spells that get progressively stronger, like the infamous fireball. I could include spells that are replaced later by slightly stronger spells, like Cure Light Wounds, which becomes Cure Serious Wounds. Or I could include spells that become gradually obsolete, like Sleep, which at first is extremely powerful for dealing with the typical groups a first-level character can face, but which later is completely set aside to make room for more powerful spells.

The same applies to Magic Missile, which has a somewhat dual nature: it’s relatively weak at any level, even though it’s iconic.

We can assign each spell at least two characteristics: starting power and scaling, and that’s without even getting into their applicability.

Of course, whichever of these lines I follow, whether spells that scale with level or spells that are easily replaced, it requires a completely different magic system, because it changes the balance of the entire system.

The fact that I prefer unlimited D&D over limited D&D makes everything even more complicated, since the number of spells, and even of magic systems and settings, is potentially infinite.

For a minimalist RPG, offering many magic system options is counterintuitive, so I’ll choose (or create) one, and leave the existing spells (as well as Alternate Magic) for those who have other preferences.

So, first, let's write a minimalist version of the spellcasting system WITHOUT rewriting the spells.

---

Spellcasting

A spell is a technique that certain creatures (usually possessing the Spellcasting skill) can use to produce magical effects through special gestures and words. This ability is acquired through study, meditation, and some measure of innate talent. Casting requires the caster to be able to speak and to have at least one empty hand.

A spellcaster can learn a number of spells of their choice equal to their spellcasting bonus. The player chooses his spells on creation and upon each new level. If the PC discovers a grimoire, scroll or tutor while adventuring, he can also swap known spells for new ones when he gains a new level.

Casting spells costs mana points (MP), which is a measure of magical “stamina” of sorts. A spellcaster has a number of MP equal to their spellcasting bonus times 2, but cannot spend more than half their maximum MP on a single spell (round up, minimum 2). MP recovers at a rate similar to HP. In addition, once a day, a spellcaster may recover 10% of the maximum MP (round up) in one hour of study or meditation. To recover any MP, the spellcaster must possess his own grimoire or magic symbol (creating or consecrating a new one takes one day per spellcaster level).

An unwilling target of certain spells can ignore some or all of the effects with a saving throw (representing dodging or enduring the spell, or sheer luck), if explicitly described in the spells.

Being reduced to zero MP has dangerous effects. [Magic mishap table to be added]

Spells from other books and games

In this game, spells have no levels. If you are using spells from other books, a spell costs 2 MP per spell level to cast. Optional rule: if the spell in question becomes more powerful with caster level, the cost is equal to the caster’s level instead, but the caster may choose to cast it as a spellcaster of lower level to save MP (which cannot be smaller than the original cost). For example, a 5th-level caster uses 6 MP to cast a 5d6 fireball, but a 10th-level caster can cast a 10d6 fireball for 10 MP or a 7d6 fireball for 7 MP and so on.

---

Now, for minimalist spells. Well, the spells in B/X are pretty terse, but we can make them shorter... adn fewer.

Choosing purely by my personal taste, and trying to keep some balance between the need to let magic-users grow ever more powerful, which is cool, and not allowing them to simply be superior to everyone else, especially fighters who, particularly in B/X, have somewhat limited powers, I would choose the following points for my magic system:

• Make first-level magic-users a bit more powerful and high-level magic-users a bit less so.
• Get rid of spell levels being separate from the magic-user’s level. For example, Fireball could keep gaining extra damage per magic-user level, but without being a third-level spell, instead being a spell usable at any level. Maybe a few spells like wish should be gatekept as rituals, not sure.
• Get rid of spells slots while we're at it.
• Use "known spells" instead of "memorized spells", perhaps allowing spells to be swapped when you gain a level, with a decent amount of study time, etc., but not letting magic-users choose their spells every day, and greatly reducing the number of spells, so that you can create themed magic-users, for example, one more focused on fire spells, other in healing, and so on.
• Keep the idea that spells get more powerful as the magic-user gets more powerful.
• In fact, 1d6 per caster level sounds good and could be used for fireball, sleep, and even charm.

---

A spell’s range is 120' unless otherwise noted. A 0' range indicates the spellcaster can only affect himself or a target he touches. Duration is one hour unless otherwise noted (after the duration is nearly over, the spell can be cast again to maintain the effects). 

Spells that cause or restore damage take effect immediately and are permanent.

HP affected. Some spells affect a number of HP, which is the total rolled. An affected creature must have current HP equal to or lower than that total. If the target makes a successful save and the spell says “save halves”, the total is halved for that target (rounded up) before comparing. 

Example: a spell that affects 30 HP does not affect a creature with 20 HP that saves (30 halved is 15), but a spell that affects 40 HP does (40 halved is 20), whether or not it saves. Each creature affected uses up HP from the total equal to its current HP, so a spell that affects 30 HP can put to sleep creatures with 10 and 20 HP.

Multiple targets: certain spells can have multiple targets. Unless otherwise noticed, the caster decides the main target, and nearby targets are affected if there is any damage (or HP) left. 

The expressions "save halves" and "save ignores" mean that a successful save by an unwilling target halves or ignores the effect.

• Charm: one humanoid creature within range, up to a maximum of 1d6 HP per MP spent (save halves), regards the caster as a trusted friend. It won’t act against its own life or its nature, and it can make a new save whenever it is ordered to do something against its interests. After the duration the creature knows it has been charmed.
• Cure Wounds (Range: 0). Heals 1d6 HP+1 per 2 MP spent, up to the target’s max HP.
• Detect Evil Intentions: the caster can “feel” evil intentions of living and undead creatures nearby, but not precise thoughts. The specifics are up to the GM.
• Detect Magic: each nearby item, person or place that is enchanted or currently affected by magic glows faintly.
• Fireball. A burst of flame explodes at a point within range and fills a 20' radius, causing 1d6 damage per MP spent (save halves).
• Light: creates a source of light similar to a torch, without heat. If cast upon an object, it moves with it. If cast upon the eyes of a foe, the target is blinded for a minute (save ignores).
• Magic Missile. One or more (one per 2 MP spent) bolts of force strike targets the caster can see, causing 1d6+1 damage each. The caster divides the dice as they like among the targets, and each target takes the sum of its dice. No attack roll or save is needed.
• Protection from Evil (Range: 0). Gives a target creature +1 to AC and saving throws against evil creatures (e.g., all non-human chaotic creatures). In addition, summoned and artificial creatures (demons, elementals, golems, etc.) cannot touch (even with melee weapons) or possess the target unless the target touches them first (even with melee weapons). Ranged weapons do not affect this limitation either way.
• Resist Cold (Range: 0). The target takes no harm from normal cold (cold weather, etc.) and halves the damage (rounded up) from other cold attacks, including magical ones.
• Resist Fire (Range: 0). The target takes no harm from normal fire (up to a bonfire, but excluding lava, etc.) and halves the damage (rounded up) from other fire attacks and other effects.
• Sleep. All living creatures (not including undead, automatons, elementals and creatures that do not sleep) in a 20' radius fall into a magical sleep, up to a maximum of 1d6 HP per MP spent (save halves). While unconscious they can be easily slain. They wake after one hour, or sooner if wounded or shaken awake.

---

So, there you have it: B15 reduced to half or less, paragraphs reduced to a line or two. Most other spells can easily receive a similar treatment, because that is all I need for my games.

There are also several good lists out there, including CC stuff from Cairn and similar games, but these are slightly closer to B/X.

Single saving throws

It's been a while now that my D&D-style games have used a single saving throw.

Original D&D's saving throws, with their more concrete categories like spells, death ray, and petrification, always seemed a bit limited to me, and since the 2000s (with 3rd and later 4th edition) the idea of having a save for reflex, another for willpower, and another for physical resistance made more sense. 5th edition, with its ability-based saves, seems even more direct, removing the need for the reflex/will/fortitude "middlemen."

But even that distinction eventually became somewhat pointless to me.

First, let's discuss the method behind saving throws against dangers such as like petrification, spells, etc. Contrary to what many claim, they don't actually distinguish well between classes. Thieves, for example, are NOT particularly good against breath weapons, but they are against spells, and dwarves, with their short legs, once they reach high level, end up dodging dragon fire better than they resist spells.

Also, paladins have better saves dues to divine favor, and dwarves/halflings because they are small/hardy. So you can barely tell what the saving throws really are within the game-world.

Without actually looking at the tables, you cannot explain the rhyme or reason for saving throws. Even if you can, it is a rationalization rather than a reason.

Even in Basic and AD&D, saving throws were eventually affected by ability scores, adding yet another layer of complexity (first by Wisdom, than by Dex etc.). The idea of using a dexterity check as a saving throw also shows up very early in the game's history.

Optional rule in the Rules Cyclopedia

But let's say the original saving throws actually did something closer to what the classes suggest: maybe fighters more resistant to petrification, thieves dodging breath weapons, and wizards avoiding enemy spells.

The first problem would be edge cases like fireballs, which are spells AND supposedly can be dodged (and probably avoided by armor too).

The second is that this simply doesn't match the fiction found in Appendix N. Conan resists spells not by "blocking magic," but by being tough. Likewise, a dragon's breath can be dodged by a thief, but it can also be blocked, at least partially, by armor or a shield, or avoided with a spell. Remember: in Chainmail / OD&D, it's powerful fighters, not intelligent characters, who are able to detect invisible people (which could ALSO be a saving throw IMO).

In short, dangers don't correspond, in any precise way, to how characters actually avoid them, neither in fiction nor in reality.

On top of that, the differences between saving throws within the same class are minor, and can be summarized, as pointed out long ago on Delta's blog, as a bonus ranging from +0 to +4 applicable across all classes (which is roughly equivalent to a DC in contemporary D&D). So the tables are an unnecessary complication.

Of course, saving throws organized by danger category also fail to explain edge cases like avoiding falling into a pit, crossing a river with a strong current, or dodge a falling rock (which maybe should be handled as a trap instead, an altogether different mechanic). I'd also have to consider how PCs would deal with the lasers, radiations and psychic powers of my current setting.

A single saving throw also helps resolve several difficulties in one roll. For example: can you spot the trap before reaching it? And if you do reach it, can you avoid falling in? Or if you're bitten by a snake — can you see it coming, dodge during the attack, resist the venom in your own bloodstream through natural antibodies, or even mystically alter your breathing, power through it, and so on.

While I don't remember the exact 3e or 4e rules on the matter, I like that in 5e they at least tried to give the Fighters better saves altogether with the Indomitable feature.

My last attempt at having more than one save was diving then into Mental and Physical, but even that was not necessary. Does armor help or hinder your physical defense against dangers that can be dodged? Most D&D editions do not seem to take this into account. Do we even need a physical defense other than AC?

Well, maybe for poison. But even then, unless you use "save or die" poisons you don't need Constitution to affect it. Just save "save or lose 3d6 HP" and your Constitution and level are already taken into account to see if you'll survive or not. What about a form of radiation there bypasses HP? Well, is there any reason to think bulky fighters would resist radiation any better than mages?

Maybe we need a mental save for Charm etc.? Not a great idea either. In which setting or game would it make sense to a mage or other creature to easily mind-control a T-Rex of limited intelligence?

So, basically now I got every PC to have a single saving throw number. They are not always the same: fighters get a +3 bonus, thieves +2, wizard +1 (and yeas that means they are frailer against fireballs). Monsters work similarly to fighters, most of the time (so we barely need the 5e thing where monsters can resist 3 times, or the AD&D thing where monsters have a chance of ignoring spells - which might be an issue for another post).

It is been working very well so far, and that's probably what I'm going with from now on.

My question: do you see any advantage in having several saves?

Minimalist Magic Item table

I've spent a lot of time trying to finish this table. Probably too much time, honestly. It’s one of those things that works exactly as I wanted once it’s done, but just by looking at it, you can’t really see the amount of effort I put in. This is my Dark Fantasy Magic Items in minimalist form (although I think that book is still worth a read at $1.49; it has some additional stuff). 

After polishing it quite a bit, I am almost satisfied with the result.

The idea is this: anyone can create a table with 1,000 magical items (a single d1000 table or d10 versus d100 etc). Since you’ll never use more than a few dozen (maybe not even that many) in a campaign, you’ll never really know the true value of the table. If the results don’t make sense to you, you’ll just think you got unlucky when rolling.

What I wanted was a table that could be easily judged by anyone at a glance. For example, you can easy see how common is a magical dagger compare to a magic ring or rope.

I could also have a table meant purely for inspiration, with a completely abstract and open format, where you combine an effect with an item, no direct relation between the two. The problem is when the effects often don’t fit the items very well, so you end up with armor that deals extra damage or axes that make you move faster, etc. 

I had the impression this was the case in Shadow of the Demon Lord.

Or, ideally, I'd have a big list of common, uncommon, rare, legendary magic items... with sub-tables and elaborate descriptions, maybe prices too. I think this is what 5e does, maybe AD&D too. But it wouldn't be really "minimalist", would it? Anyway, I want to fit mine in a page or two.

The table below boils down to about 10 categories of objects and 20 categories of effects. Since the objects are divided in practice, we end up with more than a thousand possible combinations of effects and items. The difference is that I tried to make it very clear which effects fit best with which objects, so that most of the items you generate using the instructions will actually make sense, and "common" magic items will be, well, actually common. In fact, I toned don't some of the more fantastical and looney tunes effects (e.g., portable hole) to fit my favorite genres of fantasy (low fantasy, dark fantasy).

To illustrate the tables, I included a few items as examples at the end of the post.

---

Magic Items

The most common magic items are listed below with their usual effects. You can replace the effects (or alter them, if you roll 1-4) using the effects table, below. It is recommended you do that when you roll an odd number in the first d20, at least until you need more variety.

 

1–2. Apparel. A piece of clothing. Sometimes it only affects an specific part of the body. Examples [1d8]: 1 amulet (+1 to all saves), 2 belt (your Strength becomes 18 or gets a +3 bonus, whichever is better), 3 boots (+10’ movement, i.e., walk 25% faster), 4 bracers (like belt), 5 cloak (+1 AC and saves), 6 gloves (+4 to manual tasks such as picking locks, pockets, etc.), 7 helmet (+4 vs. mind effects), 8 GM's choice.

3–4. Armor or shield. +1 AC. Roll 1d4 for type: 1 light, 2 medium, 3 heavy, 4 shield.

5–6. Potion. Restores 1d6+1 hit points.

7–8. Ring. Rings can do almost anything. Roll on the effects table.

9–10. Scroll. Contains a common random spell, anyone can cast. Roll 2d6, keep the lower die, for its level.

11–12. Tool. A magic tool that resembles an ordinary object but is supernaturally more efficient. Examples: Roll 1d6: 1 rope (you can command it to climb walls, tie itself, etc.), 2 lantern (burns without fuel for up to 10 hours on command), 3 bag (weighs one unit but holds 10 units without changing size or weight), 4 key (once a day, it can open any ordinary lock), 5 tinderbox (creates flame on command like a strong modern lighter), 6 waterskin (creates water on command, up to a gallon a day).

13–14. Wand / rod / staff. Cast one spell (see Scroll, above). Roll for maximum charges (wand 1d6, rod 2d6, staff 3d6). Casting spends charges equal to the spell's level; regain one-third of maximum (round up) at dawn.

15–16. Weapon. +1 to attack and damage. Ammunition comes in a bundle of 3d6 pieces, each expending its magic on a hit. Weapon type: 1 axe, 2 spear, 3 hammer/mace, 4 bow or crossbow, 5 ammunition, 6 polearm. See below for size if needed.

17–18. Sword. +1 to attack and damage. Roll for size if needed: 1 dagger (1d4), 2–3 medium (1d6), 4–5 long (1d8), 6 two-handed (1d10).

19–20. Special. Either roll 1d20 on the Effects table, then invent an unusual object to carry it (19) or roll for the object, then give it a remarkable or combined effect (20).

 

 

Magic Item Effects (d20)

Some effects fit some items better. Entries 1-4 can fit almost anything (if you don’t have an obvious effect, a roll of 1-3 might require you to roll twice); 5-6 are ideal for weapons; 7 (spells) are better left for scroll and wands, although magic swords can sometimes cast spells; 8-15 are mostly passive defensive and they can work well for armor or potions or apparel; 16-17 are more “mental” and better suited to helmets, necklaces and similar; 18 and 19 are rare and are only an easy fit for scrolls (summoning) and big apparel or amulets (transformation). 20 is for all items.

If the effect does not fit the item, decide what to do, randomly or otherwise.

E.g.: 1d6: 1-2 be creative and make it fit or allow it to be weird, 3-4 roll again, 5-6 fall back to the ordinary effect.

 

1. Cursed. The item carries a curse that may manifest at the worst possible time.
2. Temporary. The item becomes mundane after being used 2d6 times.
3. Powerful. The item is unusually strong. For a numeric bonus, roll 1d20: 1–10 the effect is +2, 11–16 +3, 17–19 +4, 20 +5. Similarly, a d6 becomes 2d6 to 5d6, and a 50% reduction becomes 1d20 × 5% (minimum 60%).
4. Conjuring. The item seems to return or appear from out of nowhere, as the owner conjures it with a word or gesture. Alternatively, it is very easily concealed, foldable or very light. If it’s a thrown weapon, it returns to your hand instead.
5. Elemental attack. Deals an extra 1d6 damage of one type. Roll 1d8: 1 acid, 2 cold, 3 fire, 4 lightning, 5 necrotic, 6 poison, 7 psychic, 8 radiant.
6. Hatred. Deals an extra 1d6 damage against one type of creature. Roll 1d12: 1 aberration, 2 beast, 3 celestial, 4 construct, 5 dragon, 6 elemental, 7 fey, 8 fiend, 9 giant, 10 humanoid, 11 monstrosity, 12 undead.
7. Spells. Cast one type of spell. Roll 2d6 and keep the lower die for the spell's level, the higher die for maximum charges. Casting spends charges equal to the spell's level; regain one-third of maximum (round up) at dawn. Alternatively, simplify "magic missile, three charges" to something like "cast magic missile three times a day" when desired. Best left to rings, wands, staves, and scrolls.
8. Protection from element. Reduces incoming damage of one type by 50%. See entry 5 for type.
9. Protection from creatures. Reduces damage or attacks from one type of creature. See entry 6 for type.
10. Protection (saving throws). +1 to all saving throws.
11. Defense. +1 to Armor Class.
12. Augmentation. Raises one ability score by +3, or sets it to a fixed value (18), whichever is better. The stat affected is usually physical and adequate to the item in question. If necessary, roll 1d6: 1 Strength, 2 Dexterity, 3 Constitution, 4 Intelligence, 5 Wisdom, 6 Charisma.
13. Resilience. 50% resistance to a hazard or condition. Roll 1d8: 1 poison, 2 fear, 3 charm, 4 sleep, 5 exhaustion, 6 disease, 7 petrification, 8 an environmental hazard (hunger, thirst, drowning, suffocation).
14. Movement. Move faster or in new ways. Roll 1d8: 1 fly, 2 climb any surface, 3 swim, 4 burrow, 5 walk on water, 6 ignore difficult terrain, 7 leap great distances, 8 slip free of grapples, shackles, and cages.
15. Misdirection. Disguise yourself, your movement, or your actions. Roll 1d6: 1 invisibility, 2 silence (move without sound), 3 impersonate someone, 4 create illusions, 5 leave no traces, 6 pass as another kind of creature.
16. Perception. A supernatural sense. "Keen" versions of ordinary senses grant advantage. Roll 1d8: 1 darkvision, 2 keen hearing, 3 keen smell, 4 blindsight, 5 detect invisible, 6 see auras or magic, 7 detect lies, 8 truesight.
17. Communication. Understand or speak across barriers. Roll 1d8: 1 all humanoid languages, 2 all spoken languages, 3 all written languages, 4 one exotic tongue (celestial, infernal, draconic, sylvan), 5 speak with animals, 6 speak with plants, 7 telepathy, 8 understand any language you hear.
18. Summoning. Call or create a creature to serve you. It looks friendly and possibly loyal but is not enslaved. Roll 1d6 for HD, 1d6 for number of creatures (limit total to 10 HD), and see entry 6 for creature type.
19. Transformation. Turn into a creature, usually an animal. Roll 1d12: 1 insect or spider, 2 rat, 3 owl, 4 snake, 5 wolf, 6 fish, 7 cat or tiger, 8 ape, 9 bear, 10 hawk or eagle, 11 boar, 12 a monster (see entry 6 for type).
20. Special. Roll twice and combine, invent something unexpected, or make the item especially noteworthy with multiple functions.

---

Examples:

- Cloak: grants flight.

- Heavy armor +1 AC.

- Potion of cold resistance.

- Scroll holding a 2nd-level spell and a 3rd-level spell with 5 charges (this is a special result; I'd probably change this to a single 5th level spell, or replace it by two separate scrolls)

- Spear +1, +1d6 lightning damage.

- Two-handed sword +1 (1d10).

So far, these are cool if a bit ordinary. I haven't changed a thing. Let's try a few more:

- Helm that allows the wearer to see magical auras.

- Light armor that raises Dexterity by +3 (or sets it to 18) [I could change this, but since its is light armor, I think the Dex boost makes sense].

- Potion of healing.

- Belt of Strenght.

- Scroll of Levitate

- Shield that reduces damage from fiends by 50%.

I didn't even need to re-roll anything. Last pass, with some die rolls:

- 19, 6, 11 - Now this requires some input. I'd say it is a holy symbol that makes you a monster slayer (+1d6 damage to monsters) while you carry it. Maybe a sigil, tabard, etc.

- Level 1 scroll.

- 6, 2, 13 - We could stop at 6 and make it a healing potion, or roll on the second table and make a potion with 2d6 uses that protects you from fear.

- 8, 13, 5 - A ring of protection from disease.

- 16, 6, 17*, 11*, 14*, 6, 12 - A "mace of communication" sounds funny but doesn't quite work for me at first, so I re-rolled three more times (roll with asterisks were discarded) until I got a mace that causes additional 1d6 damage to undead. I could have stopped at a +1 AC weapon, come to think of it.

- Ring of Constitution.

As you can see, no "Legendary" status items, these would require rolling more 20s. But almost all the results are perfectly usable with little effort. I'll probably tinker a bit more with it before I finish my Old School Minimalist PDF (if I ever do), but at least I think I've found the right path here. Or almost...

Did I miss any obvious cool item or effect?

Currency, precious metals, taxes, and training

I'm currently writing the equipment section for my "minimalist OSR" game. I've recently gone back to XP per gold spent. Hopefully, that will encourage PCs to donate to church, sleep indoors, carouse, or whatever is appropriate to their alignment and personality. But that's a whole other discussion.

What I want to talk about today is precious metals, and specifically a problem I keep coming back to: gold's value is severely degraded in D&D. On one hand, I want to be more or less faithful to the original rules. On the other, I like to maintain at least a minimum of internal coherence, and I can't shake my discomfort with the idea of any common weapon being worth almost its weight in gold (or, in the case of a bow, more than its weight in gold). At that point, gold is too heavy to even be considered a viable currency, and copper starts to feel less like medieval coinage and more like the Weimar Republic, with people hauling wheelbarrows of coins just to buy bread.

I've heard various explanations for this, the most common being a kind of gold rush that inflates prices across the board, so a sword ends up costing ten to a hundred times more than it would in actual history. Then there's the coin size problem: ten coins weigh about a pound, which is absurdly impractical (in my current system I am considering 100 coins to weight about a couple of pounds, which improves things somewhat).

The other issue is player wealth. If characters earn more than half their XP from gold, a fighter reaching level six might already be sitting on 10,000 gp or more. He can essentially buy every piece of available equipment (and wagons to carry it, with horses to pull it...), even at inflated prices, and hire several retainers on top of that (which isn't necessarily bad). The problem is that my players, specifically, start treating wealth accumulation as the point of the game. They stop spending, the pressure to go out and find more treasure starts to feel increasingly artificial and forced, and the whole economy becomes more and more implausible, even if the adventures keep coming.

There are several standard fixes for this. Many people suggest draining gold through taxes, maintenance fees, making PCs targets for bandits, or (as AD&D recommends) requiring them to pay for training to level up. 

None of that appeals to me. I can hardly imagine Conan or Elric paying for a trainer (although they must have been trained according to their culture in status in the past). And my players, being perfectly rational (and I mean this is a fantasy, setting, of course...), will dodge every tax and respond to any tax collector with disproportionate violence. Worse, constantly handing out gold just to take it back makes me spend even more time focused on wealth, which is the opposite of what I want.

Then I read some Gorgon's Grimoire posts about the subject (like this), and an idea clicked into place; one that solves several of these problems at once, by letting the things I dislike cancel each other out.

Here's how it works: imagine that the legitimate local currency is whatever is stamped with the official seal of the local lord or empire (as suggested in conversation by Gorgon's Grimoire - thank you!). The coins the PCs pull out of dungeons are "frontier" coins; recovered from lost empires or inimical creatures, unregulated, unofficial, not recognized within current civilization. Any merchant who accepts them still has to exchange them for official currency before they can use them to buy anything inside the normal economy, which means they'll charge a heavy premium to cover that conversion cost.

This explains inflated prices without requiring an extreme gold rush. It's not only that goods are (notably) more expensive, it's that the PCs' money is worth less because of what it is and where it came from. They can't be bothered paying taxes or regularizing their hoard, and the prices they pay reflect that. Some merchants might try to smuggle the coins or find workarounds, but that's not the PCs' problem. Most will simply take the treasure to the appropriate authorities, pay the conversion fees, and pass the cost along.

It's a solution that feels organic rather than punitive, and it actually fits the fiction.

Of course, the occasional tyrannical ruler might start thinking the PCs are still not paying enough taxes, and some criminal guilds might consider a heist followed by forgery to make the coins legit... but then again, only occasionally. Money is not the main focus of the PCs or the game.

EDIT: BTW, these big costs include some upkeep too, so I can also ignore those...

Minimalist (?) turn undead, plus a reflection on playtesting

Here is my minimalist version of turn undead, which precludes the need for a turn undead table, and uses 1d6 instead of 2d6 plus another 2d6 plus table:

Turn Undead: Clerics can repel or destroy undead. Turning is attempted once per turn, in lieu of an attack. Turned undead flee by any means available and will not harm or contact the cleric. To turn undead, roll 1d6, add the cleric's level, and subtract the target's HD (e.g., 2 for zombies). A result of 5+ succeeds; 10+ simply destroys them permanently. The roll result also indicates the total HD of undead affected (minimum one creature, maximum 20 HD affected). For example, if you roll 11 against zombies, 5 of them are destroyed; against skeletons, 11 are destroyed.

This is the type of rule I want for my game; maps reasonably close to the original B/X (at least to my liking), but a bit simpler, faster, leaner, easier (it also expands to RC levels).

(BTW I can take no credit for it as apparently Delta wrote something similar more than a decade ago; since I take much inspiration from his blog, I might have read it at some point).

In practice, however, I found that this is not enough for even the simplest games. If using this rule (or even the original B/X rules), the players will certainly ask simple questions like "how often can I turn?", "how far", "for how long", etc. It happened in my last campaign.

And the text simply doesn't say. The Rules Cyclopedia adds a much longer text (and table) - but not many answers either. Same in the AD&D PHB.

5e D&D, on the other hand, clearly answers all these questions (30-foot radius, 1 minute or until the creature takes damage, etc).

I'm probably adding such details to my own game since they were obviously needed at my table. So my version might even look a bit longer than B/X, which wasn't my original goal. 

Old school D&D seems to work very well in practice; people often say it is because Gygax etc. had immense wargaming playtesting experience. But I have a feeling that old school GMs often relied on their experience and rulings over having things spelled out in the book, which some people may appreciate but certainly brings endless problems when you don't have much experience with a system and need to learn from the book.

In other words, these games were likely playtested by people who were familiar with wargames, instead of given to newbies to see how understandable they were.

Modern D&D is much more complex (and even verbose and repetitive at times) but often better explained. And, to be honest, I don't think you can get "minimalist points" by omission and incompletion. If the book needs a "good GM" to work, it is not a great book, as most GMs are average by definition (or, at the very least, the book cannot take much credit for the rules if the GM has to create most of them).

Anyway, I keep looking for my ideal D&D - say, something as simple as B/X but as clear as modern D&D. This, I hope, is one step in that direction.

Minimalist treasure 3: superfast treasure generation

I really liked the last post. I think it opened my eyes to several circumstances that will be very useful in my games. For example, regarding the fact that each of copper/silver/gold/platinum is worth ten times  than the other, but especially that gems/jewelry are worth ten times more than gold on average, and that magic items are not far from ten times more valuable than gems. 

Even so, the result, although satisfactory, still ended up being quite complicated (and a bit abstract) for the game I want to call OSR Minimalist. I realized that by reducing the types of treasure to a 2d6 table similar to a reaction table, you could keep the roll simple while at the same time producing varied and concrete results for quickly describing treasure.

| Roll        | Result                          |

|-------------|---------------------------------|

| 2 or less   | Heavy objects, Copper, Silver   |

| 3–5         | Copper, Silver, Gold            |

| 6–8         | Silver, Gold, Platinum          |

| 9–11        | Gold, Platinum, Gems            |

| 12 or more  | Platinum, Gems, Magic Items     |

A lot, some, a few

This treasure is immediately easy to describe with "a lot, some, a few". So 6-8 means "a lot of silver coins, some gold, a few platinum pieces".

But how many, exactly?

| Roll        | Result         

| 2 or less   | d6×10,000 Copper, d6×1,000 Silver, Heavy objects

| 3–5         | d6×10,000 Copper, d6×1,000 Silver, d6×100 Gold

| 6–8         | d6×1000 Silver, d6×100 Gold, d6×10 Platinum

| 9–11        | d6×100 Gold, d6×10 Platinum, d6 Gems

| 12 or more  | d6×10 Platinum, d6 Gems, d6×0.1 Magic Items

So, each item in the list has the same value on average.

Also, each line is worth slightly above 1,000 gp on average.

So if you find a hoard worth 5,0000, just multiply every result by five.

Neat, right?

Now, following the intuition from the last post (that larger hoards should be more weight-efficient, the "nobody buys a Ferrari with dimes" point), let's assume the table is calibrated for a 1,000 gp hoard. Roll with −1 for hoards under 500 gp, +1 for over 5,000 gp, +2 for over 10,000 gp, and +3 for over 20,000 gp.

This is optional, of course. If you don't apply the modifier, a dragon might end up sitting on piles of copper, which is fine.

Alternatively, if you want more variety, you can roll on the table multiple times for a large hoard, treating each roll as a separate component.

Bjorn Pierre (unsplash)

A note on heavy objects and magic items

I added some heavy objects to the table because I like the idea of some hoards containing statues, pelts, rugs, clothes, etc., but you can easily ignore it.

Magic item, OTOH, are d6×0.1 per each thousand GP. If the hoard is smaller than that 10,000 gp, you can treat it as a small chance of having a magic item, a low value magic item, etc.

Even more variety?

I am tempted to add a secondary table of "special effects" that take effect if you roll the same number on both dice. But that is just for extra flavor. To keep the minimalist vibe, that 2d6 table is all I need.

Minimalist treasure 2: generating hoard types

Continuing from the previous post, I wanted a way to generate treasure without complicated tables. The goal: a single roll that tells you not just how much treasure there is, but what kind — and how much of it is worth carrying.

Introduction (designer's notes)

Modern economists, following Aristotle, identify (at least) three qualities of sound money: portability, divisibility, and durability. In D&D, coins are certainly durable, but portability and divisibility are more situational. Few millionaires keep a significant share of their wealth in one-dollar bills — and no one with fifty thousand dollars in assets holds it as a single diamond. The denomination also has to match the transaction. Nobody buys a Ferrari with piles of dimes.

Put simply, the wealthier a person is, the more efficient their treasure tends to be per pound.

A handful of silver coins offers more divisibility than gold, but the gold is more portable. A gem offers more portability still, at the cost of divisibility, since dividing a ruby makes it lose most of its value.

In D&D, perhaps only a dragon — a compulsive hoarder by mythological nature — would accumulate the kind of mixed, inefficient pile that the encumbrance system is quietly designed to punish. Everyone else, given the choice, gravitates toward the top of the table.

This system takes all of this into account. If I may say so, it ended up being a lot easier to use than I expected.

The system

You already know the total value of the hoard (roughly 100 gp per HD, as discussed before; a lair of 100 bandits has a hoard worth about 5,000 gp). This roll tells you the composition — what the treasure is made of, and how efficiently it's packed.

Roll d20, then add +1 for every 1,000 gp in the hoard, up to a maximum of +20 (corresponding to a 20,000 gp hoard). Larger hoards should be broken into smaller parts and rolled separately. The result determines treasure type from the table below.

Roll	Treasure type	Value density
0 or less	Low-value or heavy objects (junk, pelts, tools)	= gold / 1,000
1	Reroll -10	—
2–9	Copper	= gold / 100
10–11	Reroll ±10	—
12–19	Silver	= gold / 10
20–21	Reroll ±10	—
22–29	Gold	= gold
30–31	Reroll ±10	—
32–39	Platinum	= gold × 10
40–41	Reroll ±10	—
42–49	Gems & Jewelry	~ gold × 100
50–51	Reroll ±10	—
52–59	Magic items	~ gold × 1,000
60	Reroll +10	—
61+	Legendary item or artifact	~ gold × 10,000

A quick note on the value density column. Each tier is roughly 10× more efficient per pound than the tier below — a clean order-of-magnitude progression that makes the table easy to understand.

And this progression looks very reasonable and not that far from the original. Consider:

Gems and jewelry in B/X are worth about 1,000 times their weight in gold (the 100× figure in our table is a deliberate simplification). In the real world, everyday jewelry is worth only slightly more than its gold content, but gems span an enormous range — common stones are worth a fraction of gold per gram, while fine rubies and emeralds can reach 2,000–5,000×.

Magic items vary immensely in price and weight, but 1,000× their weight in gold is not absurd as a round number. The spread is enormous: a Ring of Invisibility is roughly 3,300 times more valuable per pound than +1 plate armor, which works similarly to the gem range — the same category contains both a pebble and a diamond.

Because of that, gems and magic items might deserve their own sub-tables (which are already in B/X, AD&D etc.).

Treasure composition

The digit at the end of your result — the ones place, from 2 to 9 — tells you how heterogeneous the treasure is. This is where Pareto comes in: if a player takes only 20% of the treasure by weight, how much of the value do they recover?

• Digit 9: 90% of the value is in the top 20% by weight. Highly varied — gems scattered among coins, a magic item wrapped in cloth at the bottom of a chest of silver.
• Digit 5: roughly 50% of the value in the top 20%. Moderately mixed.
• Digit 2: 20% of the value in the top 20%. Nearly homogeneous — a chest of nothing but copper pieces, uniform all the way down.

A result of 24 (gold, digit 4) means: the treasure is worth its weight in gold on average, and taking the best 20% by weight recovers about 40% of the value (this 40% is mostly platinum pieces, some gems, etc.). A result of 27 (silver, digit 7) means: it's heavy and low-value on average, but picking carefully gets you 70% of the value in 20% of the weight — there's some gold in there.

Results ending in 0 or 1 are rerolls: 0 means roll again and add 10, 1 means roll again and subtract 10. This preserves the natural 20 as a potential windfall and the natural 1 as a setback, while keeping the table open-ended in both directions. The +20 cap means most large hoards cluster in the gold-to-platinum range, with gems and magic items requiring either a lucky roll or a genuinely exceptional hoard.

Treasure appearance

Homogenous treasure (i.e., digit 2) is easy to describe. For example, result 22 is basically a big pile of gold, etc. Mixed treasure, however, will look mostly as one tier below. E.g.,  result 25 is maybe almsot half silver, around 20% gold, around 20% copper, and only a bit of platinum.

Pocket money

Individual creatures carry roughly 1% of the lair's total value on their person, in the same denomination as the main hoard, provided they can carry it. A gnoll lair worth 3,000 gp in silver means each gnoll carries about 30 gp worth of silver coins — enough to be worth mentioning, not enough to change the logistics. This also gives the party a small preview of what's coming: creatures carrying gold suggest a gold hoard ahead; creatures carrying gems suggest something more interesting.

Outliers

Even a very small hoard can contain gems and magic items. This isn't usually a problem — as noted above, both categories vary enormously in value. A potion might be worth 50 gp, a semi-precious stone even less.

If you roll gem and magic item values separately, you face a choice: fix the results to match the hoard's overall scale, or let the dice fall and accept that a lone goblin might be carrying a ring of inestimable value. Maybe that deserves a table of its own... but that's a post for another day.

Carrying mixed treasure

The digit makes it possible to record treasure concisely and make decisions about it later. A player might note "30 pounds of platinum (34) Treasure" — meaning the hoard is platinum-tier (so, it is worth 3,000 gp) and the digit is 4. Back in town, or at a bottleneck in the dungeon, they can decide to keep only the best 20% by weight: that recovers roughly 40% of the value, or about 1,200 gp, at one fifth the encumbrance. If they have a cart, they take it all. If they're fleeing through a collapsing corridor, they know exactly what to grab first and what to leave behind — and they have a number to justify the decision at the table rather than an argument.

Pareto to infinity?

The system can recurse. A gold-tier hoard contains a platinum-tier sub-hoard — roll again to find what share (the digit, as before). That platinum sub-hoard may itself contain a gem-tier portion, and so on, until you've identified the single most valuable in the pile. Stop whenever the detail stops being useful, or when the digit is 2 (meaning a uniform pile of coins, homogeneous all the way down). In theory you could choose the best gem in a handful... But few adventurers are wealthy enough to leave any gems behind!

Time is money

One thing I haven't analyzed here (nor have I seen it addressed in any D&D rulebook) is the time required to sort a hoard. A disorganized dragon hoard could take hours to sift through properly. Most human-administered treasures, by contrast, will have at least some organization and can probably be assessed and selectively looted in a few minutes, depending on size. In a rush, however, PCs might be forced to carry a few random bags and trust their luck!

But does this actually make sense?

Yes!

For example, if you rolled 24, this is what a treasure could look like. This is mostly AI-generated but fixable by adding more copper and gems, and probably a human with excel could do a similar job.

Hoard: ~10,000 gp total, result 24 (gold tier, digit 4)

Item	Weight	Value	% of value
30,000 cp in copper coins	300 lb	300 gp	3%
40,000 sp in silver coins	400 lb	4,000 gp	40%
3,000 gp in gold coins	300 lb	3,000 gp	25%
120 pp in platinum coins	12 lb	600 gp	6%
5 gems (avg 80 gp each)	0.1 lb	400 gp	4%
2 pieces of jewelry (avg 200 gp)	0.2 lb	400 gp	4%
1 magic item	0.5 lb	1,000 gp	10%
Total	~1,013 lb	~9,700 gp	100%

The top 20% by weight is ~203 lb. That's:

• the magic item (0.5 lb, 1,000 gp)
• the jewelry (0.2 lb, 400 gp)
• the gems (0.1 lb, 400 gp)
• the platinum (12 lb, 600 gp)
• and about 190 lb of gold coins (1,900 gp)

Total: ~203 lb, ~4,300 gp — about 44% of the value in 20% of the weight.

Minimalist Treasure

I'm working on my minimalist OSR doc again, and this time I think I'll actually publish something before the end of 2026. 

Today, I tackle treasure.

---

A Note on the B/X Economy

Analyzing the treasure tables was a somewhat frustrating experience. Things don't seem to make much sense, even after years of forcing myself to accept that D&D's economy doesn't work like the real world. When trying to make sense of treasure weights, I kept noticing that many simple objects — knives, swords, bows — are worth their weight in silver or more. This could, at first glance, be justified by imagining a world where gold and silver are extremely abundant but skilled craftsmanship is rare. But when you start relating this to specific creatures and thinking of commerce across towns, the logic doesn't hold up.

Take kobolds. Their treasure is mostly copper, and often they carry no treasure at all. Maybe the game doesn't want you to get rich by robbing them. Yet a kobold armed with a shortbow is, by the standards of this economy, extraordinarily wealthy, since a shortbow is worth almost its weight in gold. A spear is worth roughly its weight in silver.

Copper, as a whole, serves almost no function in the game's economy. It appears in treasure tables, weighs the same as any other coin, and is worth one hundredth of a gold piece. The average adventurer  (or kobold) would accumulate and transport weapons and simple manufactured objects rather than copper coins, even accounting for depreciation and indivisibility, since the value-to-weight ratio is up to a hundred times better. The fact that travelling is not easy or safe in most D&D worlds makes the whole issue more obvious - the cost of moving copper around would probably vastly surpass any gain you can make. The wages of hirelings/retainers would hardly pay for that service, maybe not even their food.

Aristotle listed portability, durability, and divisibility as the essential characteristics of money. Copper fails the first test badly enough that it feel useless as currency in a D&D world.

And now I can't unsee this. It simply doesn't make sense. 

Before giving up completely: in my last campaign I divided the weight of all coins by ten. I don't know if this actually fixes the underlying problem, but with some good will it seems to work well enough at the table. I also prefer to use: 1000 cp = 100 sp = 10 gp = 1pp, just because it is simpler.

With that brief aside, let's move on. I'll analyse the system as originally written, but keep in mind by the end I'll still coins that are much lighter.

---

Let's do this anyway!

I started by giving each creature 100 gp of treasure per Hit Die in another post. Dragons are a different case entirely; they double, triple, or multiply both value and weight. They are, in the most literal sense, hoarders of useless coins.

The other half of the equation is weight. In B/X, every coin weighs (about) one tenth of a pound, and the encumbrance system punishes anyone who doesn't think before filling their pack. With this ruler it's possible to calculate the value density of each treasure type (how much each pound the adventurer decides to carry is actually worth). Before presenting the three groups, I must add that about five treasure types (I, L, M, N, and O) that exist in the tables aren't assigned to any monster in the entire canonical B/X (neither in Moldvay's Basic nor Cook's Expert), so I ignored them for now.

With the remaining types (those actually used in the bestiary) ranking by gp/lb reveals three groups with sufficiently clean boundaries. I used AI for some of the math, so please correct me if I'm wrong - I had to revisit it several times.

BTW, OSE's Treasure Types, reproducing the logic of B/X, have been invaluable to this post.

---

Group 1 — Heavy treasure

Types P, J, Q, K, B, C · average ~3 gp/lb

The weight of this treasure is dominated by low-value coins. Type P is pure copper (0.1 gp/lb). Type J, the kobold lair, mixes copper and silver to reach 0.3 gp/lb. Q and K are small amounts of silver and electrum. 

Bugbears, ghouls, wights, gargoyles, ogres, all varieties of lycanthrope, minotaurs, owl bears, harpies,  hold treasure with a density between 3.5 and 3.7 gp/lb. As inefficient per pound as a kobold lair, just heavier. Types B and C are dominated by copper, silver, and electrum, with only a small chance of gems and an even smaller chance of a magic item. 

---

Group 2 — Mixed treasure

Types R, H, E, D, S, F, G, A · average ~11 gp/lb

Gnolls, hobgoblins, lizard men, and orcs (type D, 9.5 gp/lb) sit alongside elves and doppelgangers (type E, 8.5 gp/lb), medusa and shadows (type F, 15.9 gp/lb), dwarves (type G, 17.3 gp/lb), and at the top of the range, troglodytes and bandits (type A, 20.1 gp/lb). The treasures balance coin volume with gems, jewelry, and platinum in a way that converges on the same efficiency band — roughly 5 to 20 gp/lb.

The most noticeable member of this group is the dragon. Type H — exclusive to the six dragons in the bestiary — has only 8.0 gp/lb, virtually identical to a gnoll lair, and well below the dwarves and medusa sharing its group. 

B/X really is a game about killing dragons: few things make you richer faster than finding a sleeping dragon on its hoard! 

The problem is carrying it... Type H includes 50% chances of 1d100×1,000 silver coins, 1d4×10,000 electrum, 1d6×10,000 gold, dozens of gems and jewelry, and a handful of magic items at the top — producing an expected weight of ~6,180 pounds, more than an adult African elephant. The dragon hoards incomparably more, accumulated over centuries, mountains of low-value coins with rare items buried somewhere in the middle.

---

Group 3 — Value-dense treasure

Types U, V · average ~92 gp/lb

OSE call these two types "group treasure".

Type U (66.5 gp/lb) covers a sprawling list of apparently unrelated creatures: acolytes, normal humans, bears, great cats, giant lizards, bandits, pirates, merchants. What they share is that their treasures are light and proportionally rich in value per pound, with small chances of gems, jewelry, and magic items that punch far above their weight.

Type V (121.9 gp/lb) the best "pound-for-pound" treasure assigned for monsters belongs to the cave bear, the sabre-tooth tiger, the gelatinous cube, the halfling, the medium, the noble, and the veteran. Silver, electrum, gold, platinum, gems, jewelry, occasional magic item — in quantities so small that the total weight is nearly negligible, but the composition so clean that almost every ounce counts.

Why do wild animals have such great treasure? The most common interpretation in the OSR community is that these are the remains of what the animals ate — previous adventurers, merchants, unlucky travelers. The gelatinous cube dissolves organic matter and low-denomination coinage, leaving behind only what's worth carrying. Apparently monsters do not eat copper and silver, maybe because it is worse for your health... 

BTW, here is an odd comparison. A fight with a 4 HD black bear is not a great deal when a 4 HD gargoyle will give you almost ten times more treasure — though that treasure weighs more than 100 times more. 

This assumes both treasure are in their lairs; since the treasure is not individual, we can also assume that a group of gargoyles will be twice the size of a group of bear in the wilderness. The gargoyle's treasure is still better because of Pareto.

---

Pareto in the dungeon

Vilfredo Pareto observed in the 19th century that 80% of wealth belonged to 20% of the population, a power law that repeats across complex systems. In any mixed B/X treasure, if the adventurer ranks items from highest to lowest gp/lb and starts carrying in that order, the first 20% of the weight typically delivers between 60% and 80% of the total value. 

So all these complex treasure types and logistics to bring the treasure to the city are a bit useless.

Copper is just not worth carrying, except apparently buy a few poor or hoarding monsters. Silver probably becomes obsolete after few levels, then gold. But you can just ignore tons of treasure and still get most of the value from a few gems and magic items.

This, in my opinion, is far from ideal; too many complex subsystems of rolling treasure that have no significant consequences.

---

A minimalist version?

This kind of pointless complexity is one of my least favorite aspects of classic D&D. Twenty-two treasure types, five coin denominations, weights, probabilities, magic item subtables — all of it rewarding spreadsheet thinking more than adventure. Which parts actually make the game more interesting?

The analysis suggests the answer is simpler than the tables imply. Strip away the unassigned treasure types and three groups cover everything a DM actually needs.

The bottom tier — around 1 gp/lb — is for savage monsters and humanoids, undead, and the creatures that accumulate wealth without understanding it: kobolds, berserkers, bugbears, ghouls, wights, harpies, lycanthropes, ogres, owl bears, gargoyles. Their treasure is dominated by copper and silver, heavy for what it's worth.

The middle tier — around 10 gp/lb, roughly equivalent to its own weight in gold — covers organized humanoids and higher monsters: goblins, gnolls, hobgoblins, orcs, elves, dwarves, medusa, doppelgangers. This is the baseline of the game's economy, the chest-full-of-gold-coins standard. Dragons sit here too, which is the most counterintuitive result of the entire analysis: a dragon hoard is not more refined than a gnoll's, just incomparably larger. Moving it is the adventure.

The top tier — 50 to 100 gp/lb — belongs to the chests/lairs of wealthy individuals: merchants, nobles, knights, pirates, acolytes, high-status NPCs. Gems, jewelry, platinum, the occasional magic item, almost no dead weight.

A clean minimalist rule falls out naturally: 1 gp/lb for savage monsters, 10 gp/lb for organized humanoids and most monsters, 50–100 gp/lb for the hoards wealthy and powerful. The 100 gp per HD heuristic handles value; these densities handle weight. Between the two, any treasure can be improvised in seconds without opening a table.

And, again, since few creatures are travelling with more treasure that they can carry, a sufficiently large group may have a few leaders (with extra HD) carrying more valuable treasure, including magic weapons. Likewise, a high-level NPC will likely carry valuable stuff. This has an interesting side-effect of naturally making high-level PCs uninterested in pillaging anyone but the highest-level foes, which I really like.

Individuals will only carry a fraction of the treasures on themselves. Like in the originals, maybe give them a handful of coins (say, 3d6), with total value of around 1 GP per HD (meaning everyone carries silver, mostly, with some copper or gold). IF they have no lairs — for example, travelling nobles and merchants — they must carry all their treasure amongst themselves. Assume few would carry enough treasure to slow them down, so the either have horses, donkeys, and so on, or a few valuable gems.

As for wild beasts carrying high-value treasure because they've eaten adventurers — it's a fun image, especially for the gelatinous cube, but it doesn't hold up. Such creatures would devour goblins and peasants far more often than merchants and knights, which would predict copper-heavy loot, not platinum. Simpler to say wild creatures have no treasure at all (except in lairs) — or assign a value to their pelts and parts instead.

Which leaves the question of lairs. As a rough heuristic, we can try using the same 100 gp per HD we used for most creatures. Honestly, I'd divide the treasure of wild creatures by 10 or something similar; a lion's den is simply not that full of valuable treasure.

Dragons are a special case and should stay that way. They are the only creatures that genuinely deserve complex, idiosyncratic treasure — it fits their mythological origins, their centuries of accumulation, their sheer scale as opponents. Keep them as written. A dragon hoard should feel different from everything else, because it is.

Finally, to put some variety back without restoring the full complexity: a couple of short random tables for special cases.

Maybe this is easy to do with a dice pool - roll 1d10 for each 100 gp expected. In the main table, poor creatures get -1, rich ones get +1. Add other types of coins if you want. For example:

Main table

d10
0–1	Copper coins
2–4	Silver coins
5–7	Gold coins
8	Platinum coins
9–10	Special (roll below)

Special — d10

d10
1	Platinum coins
2	Gems
3	Magic item
4	Potion
5	Scroll
6	Map (treasure, dungeon, or secret route)
7	Art or jewelry
8	Single incredible gem (x10 value)
9	Document (deed, letter of credit, incriminating secret)
10	Pelt, trophy, or caged creature

This way you can keep the treasure "mini-game" if you want, and even have some rare events... A kobold carrying a gem he doesn't know the value of. A pirate ship with a crate of stolen art. The skeleton of a hero in the smilodon's lair, still gripping his magic sword. Treasure maps, unidentified potions and forgotten artifacts. These exceptions are what make individual encounters memorable — and they work precisely because the baseline is simple enough that the exception stands out. 

I'm not 100% happy with this yet, but it is a start.

How minimalist can D&D characters be?

As I've said before, this is the amount of information I'd like D&D characters to have — and that would have to be enough in actual play for something like 80% of the rolls, to minimize the time spent doing math and checking the book:

Nice, huh? Class, level, abilities, a couple of magic items or spells, and you're good to go. Most PCs have a little more than a dozen pieces of information (Name, Alignment, Level, Class, 6 abilities, AC, HP, weapons, and armor), plus spells for some.

Realistically, however, even the lightest versions of D&D need more information than that. For example, can you recall each saving throw from memory? Unlikely, but this is easily solved by reducing all of them to a single saving throw (say, roll 1d20 + level, target 20, or 16, etc.).

What about THAC0? Same thing. I'm happy with leaving the attack bonus equal to level for fighters, half level for everyone else, which is a huge simplification from D&D. But that's two extra bits of information. And usually, you need ranged and melee values, which rely on more information than just level (so you need to add strength modifier).

And ability scores? You have the six of them, but you need modifiers. You could commit the modifiers to memory, but you use them often enough that is is easier if you write them down. Well, maybe not all of them; since you already have AC, HP, and languages, you can ignore Dex, Con and Int modifiers most of the time (which is, by itself, an interesting idea - why keep these modifiers in the character sheet?). But you need Charisma mods for reaction, at least in theory, and Wisdom for saves.

Strength modifiers are needed to attack and damage - and in AD&D, this can mean two additional numbers. Notice these stats lack weapon damage too, something you'll use all the time.

Notice tat at the very least we could ignore all "+0" modifiers so we'd only need to add two or three digits, not six new ones.

We do not have much equipment here either; it is likely that a real PC has at least half a dozen items or more, not only weapons and armor. I'm counting "sword +2" as a single piece of information, not two.

[On a side note, maybe in a low magic D&D setting, "sword +1" could be a personal trait for a warrior instead of a magic weapon. This could incorporate your strength bonus and make "weapon specialization" a lot easier.]

So maybe we'd have a minimum of 30 pieces of information for each PC... but there is more!

Spellcasters have spells, which is straightforward enough (if not for the fact that they could in theory pick new ones every day, and clerics have access to their whole list - notice that the cleric here has no spells memorized). Thieves have skills - again, a bit hard to memorize, but can be easily replaced by rolling 1d20 and adding level (once you get some customization, more information is needed). Fighters have their weapons specializations and extra attacks - and they need this stuff.

And that is assuming each PC can only have one class.

In the end, we could have more than 100 pieces of information. Look at this AD&D sheet:

Of course, much of it is redundant, or rarely used, but it still muddles the sheet.

Sigh.

In the end, this post ended up doing the opposite of what I intended when I wrote its title...

The answer, I think is that D&D characters could be a lot more minimalist than they are, but it is not an easy task.

We could start by cutting all ability scores in half (only one number, no modifier), reducing all saves to one single save, and streamlining all skills... but I've been to this road before. There is no end to this, other than ending with something that doesn't resemble D&D anymore.

Maybe this much complexity is fine if I let the players handle it. 

I guess I have no easy answers today.