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?

Exactly. Why have a rule whose sole purpose is "use this to resolve a dispute (rather than using common sense)?" Why make that rule in turn be so complicated and take up so much of the rulebook? Why include a rule for a game that is only meant to prevent loss of immersion, rather than a rule that would increase immersion or even do both ?

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.

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 use it all the time. It's very easy to do so on a virtual table or on paper. For Only War, marching across tundras or flatlands tires out characters and enforces fatigue and decisive actions. In Dark Heresy, being encumbered can spell death when swimming or climbing is important.

Generally speaking, using weights from the get go is fairly easy, and doesn't disrupt anymore than an acquisition check would.

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.

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 use it all the time. It's very easy to do so on a virtual table or on paper. For Only War, marching across tundras or flatlands tires out characters and enforces fatigue and decisive actions. In Dark Heresy, being encumbered can spell death when swimming or climbing is important.

Generally speaking, using weights from the get go is fairly easy, and doesn't disrupt anymore than an acquisition check would.

To be fair, I've been bringing up immersion/setting approrpiateness for the rules and playing a group Of soldier on the march actually IS an appropriate time to look at carrying weights. Thas not the system were talking about, though; were talking about dark heresy.

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.

How did you actually use the rules, though/when did they come up? Were players just expected to calculate for themselves, or was the GM constantly checking any time someone picked up extra gear? Did the times when it added a penalty or what have you seem like they improved the game for you/made it more immersive?

If you're playing in a game that keeps track of ammo, then keeping track of encumbrance isn't likely to hurt immersion. Of course, I had no problems with keeping track of Throne Gelt either, but that went away.

If you're playing in a game that keeps track of ammo, then keeping track of encumbrance isn't likely to hurt immersion. Of course, I had no problems with keeping track of Throne Gelt either, but that went away.

Again, it's not about whether the rule causes NO effect, it's about if the rule actually IMPROVES immersion. Why have the rule otherwise?

If you're playing in a game that keeps track of ammo, then keeping track of encumbrance isn't likely to hurt immersion. Of course, I had no problems with keeping track of Throne Gelt either, but that went away.

Again, it's not about whether the rule causes NO effect, it's about if the rule actually IMPROVES immersion. Why have the rule otherwise?

I think plenty of people have made clear the WHY the rule is there.

Maybe it doesn't affect immersion that much, but is that a problem? Common sense gives plenty of immersion.

Let's not create issues where there are none.

I have made use of both Encumbrance and the Weight/Lifting rules quite extensively in my campaign. If they really want to bring the cogitator along, despite it being the size of a vending machine and far heavier, the tables are extremely handy.

Exactly. Why have a rule whose sole purpose is "use this to resolve a dispute (rather than using common sense)?" Why make that rule in turn be so complicated and take up so much of the rulebook? Why include a rule for a game that is only meant to prevent loss of immersion, rather than a rule that would increase immersion or even do both ?

Encumbrance is so complicated and takes up so much of the rulebook ? It's like you live in a alternate universe where everything is at least 800% more complicated than anything needs to be and the smallest things become huge issues.

Again, it's not about whether the rule causes NO effect, it's about if the rule actually IMPROVES immersion. Why have the rule otherwise?

Rules, as far as I'm concerned, are there to ensure that everyone is operating on the same common sense, when needed. Common sense, subjectively speaking, ain't so common.

To anyone playing a roleplaying game, I can easily estimate that at least 50% of the rules - if not much more - are there as ******* reference material at any one time. None of it, none, is relevant until it is.

If you're playing in a game that keeps track of ammo, then keeping track of encumbrance isn't likely to hurt immersion. Of course, I had no problems with keeping track of Throne Gelt either, but that went away.

Throne gelt? Yeah, I want it back. The acquisition system is seriously bad.

If you're playing in a game that keeps track of ammo, then keeping track of encumbrance isn't likely to hurt immersion. Of course, I had no problems with keeping track of Throne Gelt either, but that went away.

Throne gelt? Yeah, I want it back. The acquisition system is seriously bad.

Yes, bring back the system where every npc gets turned upside down for any possible scrap of loot so the acolytes can get the necessary equipment to do their jobs for the inquisition properly.

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.

I stand corrected then, I have reread the part on encumberance and it does specify 'only use when relevant'

However, how does 'only use when relevant' work? If you're not recalculating everytime anyone picks up a new item, it's perfectly possible for someone to pick a few things up that take him over encumberange limit and hapily use them for quite a while until a 'relevant' time to check encumberance comes.

Also, but that's more of a tangent related to the way my group plays, more often than not, when told 'it's too heavy for you to carry' we took it not as 'leave it be' but as 'time to derail everything for several hours until we find a clever way to carry it around or decide it's not worth it after all'. I expect it's in the nature of most players though: if they want to do something and you point them at a rule that says they can't, they will spend some time exploring alternate ways to make it possible.

2nd also: 90% of the time, in my personal experience, encumberance issues come from systems that encourage looting. Sistems based on gold (or equivalents) like DH1 heavily encourage you to loot as much as you can carry. From my experience as both player and GM, if there is nothing to be gained by carring tons of stuff around, people won't. It's usually a suit of armor, 1-2 weapons they like and a few trinkets or tools.

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?

We applied the rule at character creation, because I had them start out at Rank 4 and had some better gear. We never ran into an issue where they went over encumbered because they didn't loot bodies and were supplied what they needed. Had they ever run into that situation i would've given them the appropriate penalty, at least I thought I remember reading there was a penalty for being overencumbered, until they dropped the necessary weight.

If you're playing in a game that keeps track of ammo, then keeping track of encumbrance isn't likely to hurt immersion. Of course, I had no problems with keeping track of Throne Gelt either, but that went away.

Throne gelt? Yeah, I want it back. The acquisition system is seriously bad.

Yes, bring back the system where every npc gets turned upside down for any possible scrap of loot so the acolytes can get the necessary equipment to do their jobs for the inquisition properly.

That's an issue with the players and (bad) GM:s. Relative costs and values are great for estimating the general value of objects, goods and services, and help with a wealth of perfectly reasonable situations, as well as acting as a balancing factor aside from Availability.

But we've been over that time and again, so I'm not going to harp on it. It's another one of those things that are good to have when it's relevant, but that can be completely ignored at other times.

Relative costs and values should've been included in all the lines from the start, so you can at least use them when it's relevant. It's the exact same reason Encumbrance should still be a part of the rules.

General principle is, it's simply better to have something, or both of something, than to scrap one in favour of the other, especially when its impact in game doesn't overlap 100%. I want relative prices for RP reasons, not necessarily because I like scrapping around with every penny. It helps me both display the setting better as a DM, as well as give me as a player a gauge for "Wow, that guy's rich" or "****,cleans up nice, but when you really look at it...what a hobo" and anything in between from an NPC's appearence alone.

It would have been nice to have an idea what an approximate price is for an item is, I agree, but I wouldn't want the current system to be replaced back with a pure currency based system either.

And in roleplay terms, there are differences in currencies as well depending on the planet where you are.

It would have been nice to have an idea what an approximate price is for an item is, I agree, but I wouldn't want the current system to be replaced back with a pure currency based system either.

And in roleplay terms, there are differences in currencies as well depending on the planet where you are.

You would need several lists depending on the type of currency, or perhaps one for each individual world even. Then again, maybe some conversion ratio is sufficient enough to transfer gelt into some other form of currency, although a lasgun on one planet might cost a lot (feral world?) while it wouldn't cost anything in case of a Forge world for example.

What is necessary is a list of relative cost and value. That is, what's the approximate value of A compared to B compared to C? How a GM chooses to present these values or abstractions is entirely up to them, likely along with a list of suggestions. Personally, in my own game, I made it very clear that the wealth my players acquired (gambling) was a jumble of different currencies, bank-notes, and value papers, approximately worth X Thrones.

It's an abstraction, and in the context of the implications of a cross-galactic economy, a necessary one. "Thrones" doesn't even need to be a currency that is presented as existing, it could merely be a system of measurement, a relatively static value to which eveything else is compared.

The "It's not a unified economy so a single currency doesn't make sense" never made any sense as an argument, because it's never been about that. It's about having a system of meaningful measurement when it comes to the value of individual items compared to all other items, relatively speaking. Availability is no difference, honestly - after all, the rulebook makes it clear that the relative availability of a given object is arbitrated by the GM based on location and resources (or at least it usually does).

Availability is just a general measurement. Value would be an approximation based on the same (or similar) assumptions. That, and it is an additional way to balance objects. Cost or Value is the arbiter as to whether you're going to go for Object B over Object A, since one might be more expensive than the other.

I personally still prefer the abstracted version that has been put into place. But yeah, in roleplay terms it might feel a bit off if you can't talk about an item costing a specific amount of currency and have to instead resort to rulebook availability scales. So yes, some idea of the approximate prices would have been a nice thing to have, not sure how they would do that in an accurate way without making everything overcomplicated, but yes.

The only situation where I'd count coppers would be in those situations where the players have to. Otherwise I frankly wouldn't give a ****.

Exactly like with Encumbrance.

If you're playing in a game that keeps track of ammo, then keeping track of encumbrance isn't likely to hurt immersion. Of course, I had no problems with keeping track of Throne Gelt either, but that went away.

Again, it's not about whether the rule causes NO effect, it's about if the rule actually IMPROVES immersion. Why have the rule otherwise?

I think plenty of people have made clear the WHY the rule is there.

Maybe it doesn't affect immersion that much, but is that a problem? Common sense gives plenty of immersion.

Let's not create issues where there are none.

People have not really made clear why there needs to be a weight value given for every weapon, an escalating table based on toughness and strength bonuses, separate entries for lifting/carrying/etc, and then multiple paragraphs of explanation on penalties. The only relevant situation that most people have mentioned is "well if they're carrying something really big I know what penalty to give them," which could be much more easily resolved with one line of "when relevant, give a -10/-20 penalty to players carrying large bulky objects." As for personal inventories, as I've said, the setting cares more about how/where you're carrying things than how much you're carrying. No one here seems to keen on enforcing penalties for going one kg over weight capacity because you picked up someone's lantern.

I have made use of both Encumbrance and the Weight/Lifting rules quite extensively in my campaign. If they really want to bring the cogitator along, despite it being the size of a vending machine and far heavier, the tables are extremely handy.

Handy how? The tables don't tell you how much the cogitator weighs. You're making that number up. Why not just make a penalty up at that point? You're already abstracting out the weight of clothing and items without listed weights in the book, why not just go whole hog on it?

Exactly. Why have a rule whose sole purpose is "use this to resolve a dispute (rather than using common sense)?" Why make that rule in turn be so complicated and take up so much of the rulebook? Why include a rule for a game that is only meant to prevent loss of immersion, rather than a rule that would increase immersion or even do both ?

Encumbrance is so complicated and takes up so much of the rulebook ? It's like you live in a alternate universe where everything is at least 800% more complicated than anything needs to be and the smallest things become huge issues.

Again, it's not about whether the rule causes NO effect, it's about if the rule actually IMPROVES immersion. Why have the rule otherwise?

Strictly speaking, if we're doing everything by common sense, we don't need rules at all.Rules, as far as I'm concerned, are there to ensure that everyone is operating on the same common sense, when needed. Common sense, subjectively speaking, ain't so common.To anyone playing a roleplaying game, I can easily estimate that at least 50% of the rules - if not much more - are there as ******* reference material at any one time. None of it, none, is relevant until it is.

I mentioned above how complicated the rules are relative to their expected/actual use. The book is too large to even hold together; perhaps it would be a good idea to consider which parts of the rules should have been cut instead of pasted? Again, I argue that at no point are the presented rules going to be relevant to the expected play in a way that much simpler rules would not do just as well.

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?

We applied the rule at character creation, because I had them start out at Rank 4 and had some better gear. We never ran into an issue where they went over encumbered because they didn't loot bodies and were supplied what they needed. Had they ever run into that situation i would've given them the appropriate penalty, at least I thought I remember reading there was a penalty for being overencumbered, until they dropped the necessary weight.

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?

I think it's a purely subjective thing in the end.

Why have a rule whose sole purpose is "use this to resolve a dispute (rather than using common sense)?" Why make that rule in turn be so complicated and take up so much of the rulebook? Why include a rule for a game that is only meant to prevent loss of immersion, rather than a rule that would increase immersion or even do both ?

The same reason they include it in dnd and quite a few other systems I've seen I'd suppose.

So it never really came up beyond giving your players extra homework to keep track of? Honestly, do you think it would change your game experience to just ignore those rules and just give a penalty when they are carrying something big? Do you think it was worth it for your game to spend the extra time calculating carrying weights?

As for "well it was there in D&D," this is the point I'm trying to make. These kinds of rules were in D&D for a reason. They prevented looting, and EVERYTHING, money included, had weight. This was part of the playstyle of D&D. Other games included these things because D&D did. It's as simple as that. The problem is that later games didn't take the time to ask WHY these things existed in the first place. A system doesn't exist just to be a system; it exists to encourage a certain type of gameplay. The kind of gameplay most people seem to be doing in dark heresy doesn't really need the use of a weight system tracking things down to the kilogram.

I feel like the only reason that people want these things in place is this fear of a GM who will arbitrarily screw over players, and the hope that if they just play within the rules they will be rewarded, and this idea that the GM won't be able to find loopholes around te rules or still isn't in control of everything. Again, this isn't Basic D&D; you're not in a competition to see how far you get. Everyone wants to see the players make it through the adventure and see the cool things. The rules should encourage that rather than restrict it.

The same reason they include it in dnd and quite a few other systems I've seen I'd suppose.

D&D actually has some very solid historical reasons for including encumbrance rules, even if the reasons for those rules are no longer as applicable as they once were.

The original version of D&D - being more a particular form of wargame than an RPG as we might understand them today - contained a number of basic principles no longer present in the game that heavily influenced the style of the game. The main one is very straightforward: you don't get XP from killing monsters, you get it from bring home the gold. Gold = XP. Overcoming and avoiding threats was the principal focus of the game, and you were never expected to enter a fair fight unless somebody made a mistake - you scouted out locations, used henchmen and hirelings to provide backup, and learned from past experience (the idea of metagaming - using out of character knowledge to influence in-character decisions - didn't exist, and players were expected to learn from their characters experiences with regards to which monsters were the biggest threats and how to face them). The likelihood of character death is so high because facing threats head-on with a plucky four-man-band of heroes is - in context - really, really stupid .

Gold as XP leads naturally to encumbrance - if gold and other treasures have weight and encumbrance, then there's a limit to how much you can carry before you're slowed down. Being slowed down meant that you faced greater risk on the return journey: more chances for a random encounter to spoil your day, because the journey took longer. So characters can only carry so much because it means they have to make meaningful decisions about how much to carry home (and thus how much they can gain from the adventure).

The game's tone and style has changed over the editions, which has made elements like the encumbrance system less relevant than they once were, and this impacts games which can trace elements of their style and tone to early D&D (which includes 40kRP games, as they're derived from WFRP which in turn takes a lot from early D&D).

As for "if it's not useful, don't use it"... honestly, that's been a part of RPGs since the beginning - D&D owes its roots to Free Kriegspiel, a form of wargaming where the players barely interact with the rules directly (the referee's job is to interpret player decisions within the framework of the rules, in order to speed up the game). As most RPG concepts, particularly more traditional ones like the 40kRPGs, owe most of their style to D&D, this seems quite relevant. Within that context, the rules are meant as a tool for the GM to use for resolving the players' actions and decisions - they're not like the rules of a board game, where they're procedures for play which are always applicable, but more akin to a set of guidelines to be adapted to whatever circumstances arise during play. Obviously, different games naturally approach things differently, but it's always worth considering the origins of the form.

The same reason they include it in dnd and quite a few other systems I've seen I'd suppose.

D&D actually has some very solid historical reasons for including encumbrance rules, even if the reasons for those rules are no longer as applicable as they once were.

The original version of D&D - being more a particular form of wargame than an RPG as we might understand them today - contained a number of basic principles no longer present in the game that heavily influenced the style of the game. The main one is very straightforward: you don't get XP from killing monsters, you get it from bring home the gold. Gold = XP. Overcoming and avoiding threats was the principal focus of the game, and you were never expected to enter a fair fight unless somebody made a mistake - you scouted out locations, used henchmen and hirelings to provide backup, and learned from past experience (the idea of metagaming - using out of character knowledge to influence in-character decisions - didn't exist, and players were expected to learn from their characters experiences with regards to which monsters were the biggest threats and how to face them). The likelihood of character death is so high because facing threats head-on with a plucky four-man-band of heroes is - in context - really, really stupid .

Gold as XP leads naturally to encumbrance - if gold and other treasures have weight and encumbrance, then there's a limit to how much you can carry before you're slowed down. Being slowed down meant that you faced greater risk on the return journey: more chances for a random encounter to spoil your day, because the journey took longer. So characters can only carry so much because it means they have to make meaningful decisions about how much to carry home (and thus how much they can gain from the adventure).

The game's tone and style has changed over the editions, which has made elements like the encumbrance system less relevant than they once were, and this impacts games which can trace elements of their style and tone to early D&D (which includes 40kRP games, as they're derived from WFRP which in turn takes a lot from early D&D).

As for "if it's not useful, don't use it"... honestly, that's been a part of RPGs since the beginning - D&D owes its roots to Free Kriegspiel, a form of wargaming where the players barely interact with the rules directly (the referee's job is to interpret player decisions within the framework of the rules, in order to speed up the game). As most RPG concepts, particularly more traditional ones like the 40kRPGs, owe most of their style to D&D, this seems quite relevant. Within that context, the rules are meant as a tool for the GM to use for resolving the players' actions and decisions - they're not like the rules of a board game, where they're procedures for play which are always applicable, but more akin to a set of guidelines to be adapted to whatever circumstances arise during play. Obviously, different games naturally approach things differently, but it's always worth considering the origins of the form.

Someone else has read Playing at the World?

I can't really accept that all Encumbrance rules should be dropped for common sense, because, as has previously been pointed out, 'common sense' varies wildly from one individual to the next- especially if one of those individuals stands to gain by pushing its limits. For example, I constantly argue with my players that a group of heavily armed and armoured individuals (one carries two rifles; another wears carapace armour and a riot shield) can't blend into a crowd of civilians simply by 'acting natural', yet because doing so would bring them situational advantage (at other times they take full advantage of their intimidating appearance), they gladly stretch their 'common sense' past the breaking point and claim they "don't see why not". 'Official' Encumbrance rules save me far more time in arguing 'common sense' than it takes to simply add up weights.

That said, I'd be fine with an abstracted/simplified system that achieves the same end. For example, instead of specific weights, you could give items an 'Encumbrance Class' value (a stub pistol counting as Class 2, say, and a Lascannon counting as Class 10), with Strength determining the total value a character can carry before accruing penalties.

-And speaking of abstracted/simplified systems, please Emperor do not bring back hard currency! Chasing coins should be limited to treasure hunting games, and not built into systems where, according to the fluff, purchasing power is almost never an issue.

So it never really came up beyond giving your players extra homework to keep track of? Honestly, do you think it would change your game experience to just ignore those rules and just give a penalty when they are carrying something big? Do you think it was worth it for your game to spend the extra time calculating carrying weights?

As for "well it was there in D&D," this is the point I'm trying to make. These kinds of rules were in D&D for a reason. They prevented looting, and EVERYTHING, money included, had weight. This was part of the playstyle of D&D. Other games included these things because D&D did. It's as simple as that. The problem is that later games didn't take the time to ask WHY these things existed in the first place. A system doesn't exist just to be a system; it exists to encourage a certain type of gameplay. The kind of gameplay most people seem to be doing in dark heresy doesn't really need the use of a weight system tracking things down to the kilogram.

I feel like the only reason that people want these things in place is this fear of a GM who will arbitrarily screw over players, and the hope that if they just play within the rules they will be rewarded, and this idea that the GM won't be able to find loopholes around te rules or still isn't in control of everything. Again, this isn't Basic D&D; you're not in a competition to see how far you get. Everyone wants to see the players make it through the adventure and see the cool things. The rules should encourage that rather than restrict it.

Nim whenever I read your replies I always feel like you're trying to make people feel bad for doing what they want. It wasn't homework, we did it once and no one had a reason to try and pick up a rogue trader ship. Yes I do think it would've impacted the experience because the point was that it was important in the beginning.

What kind of people do you get the privilege of playing with? The people I play with loot everything unless told to let it be.

So it never really came up beyond giving your players extra homework to keep track of? Honestly, do you think it would change your game experience to just ignore those rules and just give a penalty when they are carrying something big? Do you think it was worth it for your game to spend the extra time calculating carrying weights?

As for "well it was there in D&D," this is the point I'm trying to make. These kinds of rules were in D&D for a reason. They prevented looting, and EVERYTHING, money included, had weight. This was part of the playstyle of D&D. Other games included these things because D&D did. It's as simple as that. The problem is that later games didn't take the time to ask WHY these things existed in the first place. A system doesn't exist just to be a system; it exists to encourage a certain type of gameplay. The kind of gameplay most people seem to be doing in dark heresy doesn't really need the use of a weight system tracking things down to the kilogram.

I feel like the only reason that people want these things in place is this fear of a GM who will arbitrarily screw over players, and the hope that if they just play within the rules they will be rewarded, and this idea that the GM won't be able to find loopholes around te rules or still isn't in control of everything. Again, this isn't Basic D&D; you're not in a competition to see how far you get. Everyone wants to see the players make it through the adventure and see the cool things. The rules should encourage that rather than restrict it.

Nim whenever I read your replies I always feel like you're trying to make people feel bad for doing what they want. It wasn't homework, we did it once and no one had a reason to try and pick up a rogue trader ship. Yes I do think it would've impacted the experience because the point was that it was important in the beginning.

What kind of people do you get the privilege of playing with? The people I play with loot everything unless told to let it be.

I don't want you to feel bad so much as I want to divest people of this sort of Stockholm syndrome for bad game mechanics. Ill level with you and say that there are plenty of games I've played that are objectively bad and that I've still enjoyed, but I still recognize them as unfulfilling and able to be improved. I don't want YOU to feel bad for having players use the mechanics, I want the designers to recognize that they published bad mechanics. I want mechanics to be designed with playability and theme in mind rather than because D&D did it. The only thing I want you to change is not sticking up for bad/mediocre mechanics when you could have better. Like, I get that you have your own opinions and preferences, but I imagine that they're not far from those I used to have and that if you experienced better things your preferences would change.

And yeah, my player like to loot things. I either just let them have it or present a cost "oh yeah that heavy machine gun is over there but it's in enemy line of fire." Try letting your players loot things off enemies. They'll enjoy having super weapons, but enemies will still be able to respond in kind. Seriously, post about your players behavior and I'll give my best advice on how to fix/improve it and make things more fun for everyone.

You're trading one "bogging down" for actual bogging down. I'd have to look up each npcs loot table and read of each individual piece and look up what those things do if the players don't know. Where as with encumbrance, which I don't feel took much time at all because we all did it at once, required some multiplication and addition.

We can't all be you and reach gaming nirvana by coming to some enlightening realization that all the mechanics we use are apparently grox pucky and that will somehow transfer to the people you game with as well because regardless of how your personal opinions change on gaming you won't be able to change everyone's mind at the table.

I don't use encumbrance because it's from DnD I never use it in DnD because it doesn't fit the tone of the game to me. It fits the tone of Dark Heresy to me however so I use it, and I'm going to assume (I know, dangerous) that it's the reason other's use it as well.

You're trading one "bogging down" for actual bogging down. I'd have to look up each npcs loot table and read of each individual piece and look up what those things do if the players don't know. Where as with encumbrance, which I don't feel took much time at all because we all did it at once, required some multiplication and addition.

We can't all be you and reach gaming nirvana by coming to some enlightening realization that all the mechanics we use are apparently grox pucky and that will somehow transfer to the people you game with as well because regardless of how your personal opinions change on gaming you won't be able to change everyone's mind at the table.

I don't use encumbrance because it's from DnD I never use it in DnD because it doesn't fit the tone of the game to me. It fits the tone of Dark Heresy to me however so I use it, and I'm going to assume (I know, dangerous) that it's the reason other's use it as well.

There aren't loot tables for dark heresy. I assume by looting you meant "taking weapons and armor" which are pretty handily available for most enemies. A single gun or melee weapon, maybe a knife or grenades, low grade armor, and an insignificant amount of money. Anything else you can just make up, like having a clue on one of them. If your players are expecting treasure, I think they're trying to play a different kind of game. You can either adjust/change what you're playing, or try to adjust their expectations. I don't know why you'd think "let your players loot NPCs tey kill" translates to "have a full equipment list for every NPC to check from." All that the players will care about is weapons/armor and clues.

You kind of sound like you dislike the people you're playing with. Or at least that you want to play a game that's different from what they want to play. No game is going to fix that. Even with that, you'd be better served playing a game that specifically works toward a certain style of play rather than something as neutral toward playstyle as the DH ruleset. If you want to run things with more investigation and less body looting, a game that is still working as a successor to D&D 3.5 is not going to do what you want.

What tone do you think dark heresy has that makes tracking encumbrance fit? Is it the whole grittiness=tracking minor things aspect? If so, the game also smashes this tone by having super powered weapons, armor, combat, and talents. There is this sort of hint of a zero to hero progression, but the game has little guidance on how to make this narratively make sense in the setting. Something to be said for DH2 is that they recognized the gulf between call of cthulhu investigators, D&D 3.5 based mechanics, and the fact that this setting is based on a WAR game. So in DH2 the characters are pushed to be more along the lines of heroes to start with rather than zeros. The encumbrance system is a legacy mechanic from original D&D that was kept in 3.5 for no reason than it had been there before, then ported over to DH1 along with other mechanics because D20 was the big thing, then carried over to DH2 because it was in DH1 and "realism" is gritty, right?

There are better ways to make the game gritty than the encumbrance system. There are better ways to make items feel gritty. Limit player items heavily and have the ones they do have be fantastic, but require heavy attention from the priests to keep functioning. Something like a lasgun doesn't have amazing performance, but also isn't as finicky. Instill that setting-based sense of wonder at technology in the players by having the mechanics reflect it, rather than just making everything into just another equipment list.

[...]

What kind of people do you get the privilege of playing with? The people I play with loot everything unless told to let it be.

This is funny, because the people in my group are terrible at looting. They flat-out ignore trying to loot stuff sometimes for no reason, even when I'm like "These stormtroopers look decidedly- for lack of a better word - futuristic , and their helmets have a sleek design to them" .

I had to literally drop a helmet into one of the character's lap in order to be able to narrate that these things are spectacular things of unknown make and model, distinctly Imperial, yet utterly strange.

They also managed to completely ignore a psychically reactive runesword that one of the psykers managed to lodge into the floor of a ship's bridge, then promptly ignore.

What is wrong with my players?! Why are they not rampant loot-whores?! Q_Q