Heh, good example. Over here, we had a psyker who ignored Psychic Phenomena/Perils of the Warp altogether because it fitted his character. Like, literally, the first time he rolled a double on the psychic test, the GM just shook his head and the game went on like nothing had happened.

Another example from out gaming group is the whole 01-autosuccess/00-autofail rule that we completely ignore. Or Fate Points. We don't use those things either.

You know, with all your house rules and particular special things you've mentioned about your game. What exactly is left from the book that you actually use. Not that you have to use a thing, but at a certain point you're ignoring a majority of the book.

And this is the issue of saying that bad rules can just be ignored. Sure, one or two rules being ignored is fine (if I'm contradicting myself from earlier, then I've changed my mind on it) But you get to a point where the game system basically becomes useless and becomes a philosophical "is a boat made of completely replaced parts the same boat?" situation.

It's fine if someone hates using any encumbrance to just say to ignore it (at least in a game as unbalanced as DH is). It's different when the rule itself is criticized as badly implemented, which the encumbrance system is. "Here's a half-assed implementation that you can just use whenever you want to," is not a good system for encumbrance. It could be much better, and it could actually benefit the game. Not liking the entire concept of a rule is one thing, but not liking how it's actually implemented is another thing entirely.

What do you think of the system that the Star Wars RPG uses in terms of encumbrance, Nimsim?

Isn't it just another "this weighs X pounds" and you can carry y pounds? If that's the case, I don't really like it that much. I actually rather like the encumbrance system used on mutant year zero, which just has lines on the character sheet and you write any item on a line and are limited by your number of lines. It has some rules for smaller items as well. I like it because the game is about scarcity and having to plan out expeditions, but it's also elegantly done and utilizes te character sheet in order to make accounting easier.

I really love wfrp3, but it's got a pretty meh encumbrance system. The nice thing about it though is that the numbers are kept small (1 weight rather than X kg) and I printed up a bunch of item cards to make tracking weight a lot easier.

It uses a more discrete system where the items a character carries has an encumbrance rating of 0 to 5. The number itself represents weight/mass/bulk, how easy it is to carry those items. Every character has an encumbrance threshold of 5 + their brawn rating. So it's easier to add the numbers together to see if you went above the threshold or not compared to maybe the bigger numbers used in case of the 40k RPG. Putting items in a bag for instance will lower that number. It's not that much different compared to the 40k encumbrance system overally though. So if it's about the bigger numbers, I can live with that.

I'm just going to throw this out here. If I were to ever play a game and houserule a majority of the system out I'd go play a different system because the thing I bought no longer reflects the goals I have in mind for the game being run. I doubt I'd like to participate in a game like that either but that's a personal choice thing.

It uses a more discrete system where the items a character carries has an encumbrance rating of 0 to 5. The number itself represents weight/mass/bulk, how easy it is to carry those items. Every character has an encumbrance threshold of 5 + their brawn rating. So it's easier to add the numbers together to see if you went above the threshold or not compared to maybe the bigger numbers used in case of the 40k RPG. Putting items in a bag for instance will lower that number. It's not that much different compared to the 40k encumbrance system overally though. So if it's about the bigger numbers, I can live with that.

Eh, I think it's kind of a waste, because it doesn't really reflect the Star Wars theme at all. A lot of the FFG Star Wars has cool innovative mechanics coupled with old school 3.5 D&D design that drags the ruleset down quite a bit. For dark heresy, rules on encumbrance should be more about hiding weapons and infiltration than how much to carry around. In my opinion, encumbrance ratings should just be replaced by Subtlety ratings that add to how much your character is sticking out. Like a stub revolver would be worth 1 point, a bolt gun 5, and a las cannon 10. Holsters or backpacks can allow you to ignore the rating of whatever you have stowed in it. Each point of you hae would give a -10 to subtlety related rolls. Weight capacity should just be a paragraph giving common sense rules and maybe a quick "you can carry about 2 heavy items worth of stuff" and then a talent like pack mule that allows an extra heavy items worth of stuff.

I'm just going to throw this out here. If I were to ever play a game and houserule a majority of the system out I'd go play a different system because the thing I bought no longer reflects the goals I have in mind for the game being run. I doubt I'd like to participate in a game like that either but that's a personal choice thing.

Well, if you think about it, the 40KRPG system is as 40k as you can get, so there is no real reason to play a different system. Especially since modding the current ruleset is child's play. Like, why would you settle with less if you can have more?

I'm just going to throw this out here. If I were to ever play a game and houserule a majority of the system out I'd go play a different system because the thing I bought no longer reflects the goals I have in mind for the game being run. I doubt I'd like to participate in a game like that either but that's a personal choice thing.

Well, if you think about it, the 40KRPG system is as 40k as you can get, so there is no real reason to play a different system. Especially since modding the current ruleset is child's play. Like, why would you settle with less if you can have more?

Literally none of this post makes sense.

I'm just going to throw this out here. If I were to ever play a game and houserule a majority of the system out I'd go play a different system because the thing I bought no longer reflects the goals I have in mind for the game being run. I doubt I'd like to participate in a game like that either but that's a personal choice thing.

Well, if you think about it, the 40KRPG system is as 40k as you can get, so there is no real reason to play a different system. Especially since modding the current ruleset is child's play. Like, why would you settle with less if you can have more?

Literally none of this post makes sense.

Yeah, writing from a tablet is a pretty big pain .

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that there is no reason to shy away from heavy modding in the case of the 40KRPG system because:

a) The basics of the system itself are solid.

b) It already has lots-and-lots of 40K content you can use.

c) Homebrewing new stuff is EZ.

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that there is no reason to shy away from heavy modding in the case of the 40KRPG system because:

a) The basics of the system itself are solid.

b) It already has lots-and-lots of 40K content you can use.

c) Homebrewing new stuff is EZ.

a) The same can be said for Gurps, and that's much more varied in it's range.

b) From what you've said you don't do very much 40k with it, but the books are good fluff. Mechanical or otherwise.

c) I could just homebrew the system if I didn't want to use the majority of the rules presented.

Again there's nothing wrong with what you're doing. I personally wouldn't.

I use the 40k for a lot of homebrew stuff I run as well. I'm very comfortable fiddling with it, and my players know the rules very well, which speeds up introducing them to my crazy ideas.

This is a double edged sword though. If a rule is in the book there's no guarantee people will ignore it most of the time. By default when reading the RULES of a game one would assume they should be in effect at all times unless clearly stated otherwise. Knowing when to step outside the rules is an acquired skill.

Or, OR, just spitballing here, we actually apply what is plainly stated in the book and repeated repeatedly during this discussion. Again, the rulebook makes it very clear that weight and such only need to be tracked when relevant.

It uses a more discrete system where the items a character carries has an encumbrance rating of 0 to 5. The number itself represents weight/mass/bulk, how easy it is to carry those items. Every character has an encumbrance threshold of 5 + their brawn rating. So it's easier to add the numbers together to see if you went above the threshold or not compared to maybe the bigger numbers used in case of the 40k RPG. Putting items in a bag for instance will lower that number. It's not that much different compared to the 40k encumbrance system overally though. So if it's about the bigger numbers, I can live with that.

But at the end of the day, I found it obstructive and contrieved. The WH40kRP model fits better into a narrative playstyle, where you are encouraged to only have it matter when relevant. In SW:EotE, it's an issue from the get-go, and either you ignore a rather important mechanic (because SW:EotE makes it one), or you find yourself going "But.. why can't I carry it? I'm practically a hauler-droid on legs...?"

SW:EotE gets plus points for making Encumbrance really matter. But the issue of making it gameist and interfering with a reasonable narrative far outweighs that.

I use the 40k for a lot of homebrew stuff I run as well. I'm very comfortable fiddling with it, and my players know the rules very well, which speeds up introducing them to my crazy ideas.

I believe the same thing applies to Star Wars, you only use the encumbrance system when it matters.

Maybe they changed it in the AoR book (page 165):

I believe the same thing applies to Star Wars, you only use the encumbrance system when it matters.

Maybe they changed it in the AoR book (page 165):

AGE OF REBELLION emphasizes sweeping stories, epic

tales, and fast action. Keeping track of the weight

of every stimpack isn't fun, but knowing that a hero

is loaded down with the weapons he just stole for the

Rebellion is an important story element; so is having

some idea of how many days' worth of rations a com-

mando can carry while on an extended operation.

In general, players and the Game Master won't need

to track a character's encumbrance (how much he's

carrying on his person). Occasionally, however, it may

play an important part in the story, and a player needs

to know if the weight, mass, and collective bulk of the

items his hero is wearing inhibits his actions.

In essence they're fairly identical though.

I have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to "a player needs to know if the weight, mass, and collective bulk of the ..." because if memory serves, the system completely abstracts those factors.

Maybe I'm mixing it all up and I'm just confused. I haven't played it in a long time and it wasn't for very long. Feel free to disregard if I'm not making any sense.

You could very well be right, I never did a Star Wars RPG session myself so you have more experience than me.

I don't think encumbrance is ever relevant. If people need to worry about it then i would humbly suggest that player or GM is bordering on the munchkin. There's no need at all just apply common sense. Are you a Space Marine? No. Can you carry ten Bolter Rifles while wielding a warhammer two handed? No. If you try and rule for every eventuality or every conceivable thing that's realistic or even reaosnable (such as weight) you'll create a rod for your own back.

I don't think encumbrance is ever relevant.

Exactly, you don't, and once again you aren't the only one playing the game. Again other people may find it useful in some situation regardless of you thinking them munchkining.

The main reason for encumbrance is to 1) give disadvantages for big items, which in the case of weapons are usually more powerful) and 2) to stop people just piling up with everything, largely because they learnt to do so from d&d (rudding looting mentality seems to be very hard to drum out of people).

Now, if you have a large capacity it just gets into a game of "how much can I fit into that allowance", so I actually like the SW and WFRP 3rd rules, which give you a limit which would basically fit your weapon and armour and a couple more items (which is basically all any adventurer should have). Now, it may be that the limits are too low on occasion. Yes, it does cause problems when you need them to carry anything else ("right, we have this create we need to carry home"), but seeing as it is so low you can argue "this is the weight allowance for your gear, which specifically allows you to carry those things you need to pick up during an adventure". By severely limiting the gear that characters run around with, you get to ignore the carrying rules the rest of the time.

I don't think encumbrance is ever relevant. If people need to worry about it then i would humbly suggest that player or GM is bordering on the munchkin.

But emcumbrance rules can also be used to counter munchkinry. Common sense is all well and good if everyone at the table has some, but that's not always the case. There's always going to be some guy who insists that he can strap a dozen multi-melta's to his back without hampering his mobility. The GM can use common sense to say he can't, but the player is just going to argue. It's a lot more decisive to be able to point to the carrying limits and the total weight of the weapons and say 'nope'.

That said, I don't use the encumbrance rules myself. Though I made it very clear to my players from the outset that they'd best be reasonable with the heavy equipment looting or I would enforce them.

I don't think encumbrance is ever relevant. If people need to worry about it then i would humbly suggest that player or GM is bordering on the munchkin.

But emcumbrance rules can also be used to counter munchkinry. Common sense is all well and good if everyone at the table has some, but that's not always the case. There's always going to be some guy who insists that he can strap a dozen multi-melta's to his back without hampering his mobility. The GM can use common sense to say he can't, but the player is just going to argue. It's a lot more decisive to be able to point to the carrying limits and the total weight of the weapons and say 'nope'.

That said, I don't use the encumbrance rules myself. Though I made it very clear to my players from the outset that they'd best be reasonable with the heavy equipment looting or I would enforce them.

I think that's the point of his statement. Why have a convoluted system of carrying weights and capacities and modifiers and whosamafudges when a simple "the players can carry as much as they want, limited by the GM. Like, the one major use of carrying stuff in dark heresy would be how things are being hidden, and that's not addressed at all in this system. It seems a waste of ink to write complicated rules that seemingly only come up when players are trying to game the system when those rules could instead actually contribute to gameplay and immersion. Seriously, has ANYONE here used encumbrance for something other than stopping players from carrying way to much? Anyone had a game where players were carefully planning out what they'd carry based on weights?

I don't think encumbrance is ever relevant. If people need to worry about it then i would humbly suggest that player or GM is bordering on the munchkin.

But emcumbrance rules can also be used to counter munchkinry. Common sense is all well and good if everyone at the table has some, but that's not always the case. There's always going to be some guy who insists that he can strap a dozen multi-melta's to his back without hampering his mobility. The GM can use common sense to say he can't, but the player is just going to argue. It's a lot more decisive to be able to point to the carrying limits and the total weight of the weapons and say 'nope'.

That said, I don't use the encumbrance rules myself. Though I made it very clear to my players from the outset that they'd best be reasonable with the heavy equipment looting or I would enforce them.

I think that's the point of his statement. Why have a convoluted system of carrying weights and capacities and modifiers and whosamafudges when a simple "the players can carry as much as they want, limited by the GM.

Because sometimes, you need to know how much exactly your character can carry around. For example, the party has to bring Plot Item from point A to point B - now, it is pretty important to establish whether the Sage can haul that thing around or the party has to sacrifice its Warrior to do the same thing.

Seriously, has ANYONE here used encumbrance for something other than stopping players from carrying way to much? Anyone had a game where players were carefully planning out what they'd carry based on weights?

I did. The game was explicitly with the intention of using the rules presented in the book (with what errata there was) as is. It was a Dark Heresy 1st edition game to be fair running through the Haarlock trilogy.

Again it's not whether you use them, Judging something like this based on individuality is odd to me. It is whether the rules are present for the situation in which they may be called upon when necessary.

Seriously, has ANYONE here used encumbrance for something other than stopping players from carrying way to much? Anyone had a game where players were carefully planning out what they'd carry based on weights?

I did. The game was explicitly with the intention of using the rules presented in the book (with what errata there was) as is. It was a Dark Heresy 1st edition game to be fair running through the Haarlock trilogy.

Again it's not whether you use them, Judging something like this based on individuality is odd to me. It is whether the rules are present for the situation in which they may be called upon when necessary.

Except the default assumption of a rule is that it's in effect at all times, not merely 'called upon when necessary'

Also what happens when the GM decides to only apply encumberance when it matters, you reach the moment when it matters half way through raiding a cultist lair and realize somebody was way over encumberance and had been for a while. What happens? Half his gear vanishes into thin air? He suddenly crumbles under the weight of stuff he had been carrying just fine for months/years? Nothig?

Seriously, has ANYONE here used encumbrance for something other than stopping players from carrying way to much? Anyone had a game where players were carefully planning out what they'd carry based on weights?

I did. The game was explicitly with the intention of using the rules presented in the book (with what errata there was) as is. It was a Dark Heresy 1st edition game to be fair running through the Haarlock trilogy.

Again it's not whether you use them, Judging something like this based on individuality is odd to me. It is whether the rules are present for the situation in which they may be called upon when necessary.

Except the default assumption of a rule is that it's in effect at all times, not merely 'called upon when necessary'

[...]

Except it's not. The game makes this clear. Seriously, is this record broken or something, because it keeps being repeated.

The game(s) specifically makes it clear that you don't need to bother with encumbrance when it's not relevant. How is this not getting through to some of you people?

Also, presumably the GM doesn't just roll a dice one session and say "Hey, time to do encumbrance!". Your "issue" is a matter of communication. Only an insane GM would apply rules so selectively in which case you have bigger issues.

It is true that the encumbrance rules are prefaced with "don't use these rules unless you need them," but what does that say about the rules? Would it be so bad to have a system of hard and fast rules that were always in effect? And not a mishmash of rules that only sometimes come up (in this case, to adjudicate disputes).

Like I get that it does say they're not to be used and checked all the time, but why is that a good thing?