I don't grant you that assertion. There's no reason to assume they would be useless.

Buying a rule book full of rules I don't want to use is not an ideal condition.

The rules are inefficient because they are clunky and convoluted. Yes YMMV, that goes without saying, however it is hard to argue cogently these are objectively efficient rules.

You don't have the power on an internet message board to grant of deny assertations. You by no means have to agree with them however. There's no reason to assume that they're useful either

So don't buy it. Reviews of the product exist, this message board is full of people talking about the system and the pros and cons that they see.

How are they anymore clunky or convoluted than 1st Edition?

I don't grant you that assertion. There's no reason to assume they would be useless.

Buying a rule book full of rules I don't want to use is not an ideal condition.

The rules are inefficient because they are clunky and convoluted. Yes YMMV, that goes without saying, however it is hard to argue cogently these are objectively efficient rules.

You don't have the power on an internet message board to grant of deny assertations. You by no means have to agree with them however. There's no reason to assume that they're useful either

So don't buy it. Reviews of the product exist, this message board is full of people talking about the system and the pros and cons that they see.

How are they anymore clunky or convoluted than 1st Edition?

They're not. We just got through identifying the OP on the other thread as a troll looking to stir the pot so it's moved over here!

As to encumberance, I believe Sign is deliberately misinterpreting the point..I once had a player go ballistic because I told them they couldn't carry all their basic gear plus an Assault cannon and not be encumbered. They went Ballistic! "I had never enforced the encumberance rules specifically before! Why now?" they said. This is why you need some set of quantifiable mechanic in place. Whats so bad about the average anyway? According to the rules: An average person can carry nearly 100lbs w/o encumberance! Thats pretty good if you ask me! About the same as a fully kitted out US Marine!

As to encumberance, I believe Sign is deliberately misinterpreting the point..I once had a player go ballistic because I told them they couldn't carry all their basic gear plus an Assault cannon and not be encumbered. They went Ballistic! "I had never enforced the encumberance rules specifically before! Why now?" they said. This is why you need some set of quantifiable mechanic in place. Whats so bad about the average anyway? According to the rules: An average person can carry nearly 100lbs w/o encumberance! Thats pretty good if you ask me! About the same as a fully kitted out US Marine!

A player of mine wanted to be a Heavy Gunner, I said fine, as long as we worked out the weight. This was purely a mechanical decision as heavy guns are devastating in nearly every aspect. We eventually worked out he could only have his basic kit without a side weapon and he had to have drum loaders for the ammo. He was slightly hindered but he got what he wanted overall and we were all happy.

I think it's hilarious that you all called 'troll' on the OP who asked a question and then never posted again. Maybe he got scared away by the people answering? Totally possible he saw the level of discourse on this forum and decided to post somewhere better.

Or the less pessimistic view would be: the OP got his question answered, just like that.

It's weird that he didn't come back at any point, especially since he was a beta tester before.

He could still relate with stuff, based on his experience.

Him being a troll is probably a bit far fetched, but, who knows.

I feel like the big issue with the encumbrance system is how it is both unintuitive (how much people can carry on an individual level is based on unwieldiness and other factors; using army statistics meant for generalizing huge groups doesn't work for a game about playing individuals) and pointlessly restrictive (the reasoning for having encumbrance seems to mostly be having a codified rule to prevent someone from carrying 1000 pounds and to force players to do bean counting in a game that is not about carrying travel supplies). Encumbrance really should have been abstracted out to just be something like having "slots" in which to carry items or being able to carry 1 heavy/2large/3 medium/4small items. The problem with making a "modular" game system is that it both dilutes the focus of the system AND that the implementation of those modules can still enforce gameplay that goes against the goals of the system.

In other words, the current encumbrance system is more like planning a backpacking trip than playing inquisitorial agents. The reason for objecting to a rule like this is because it sticks out as sloppy or un-unified game design. Sure, you can ignore it, but you could fast forward through parts of a movie that you don't like and that doesn't mean those parts stop being a part of the movie. It's better for a game system to have a unified goal that may not appeal to some people than for it to have a bunch of half-asses attempts to appeal to everyone.

In other words, the current encumbrance system is more like planning a backpacking trip than playing inquisitorial agents. The reason for objecting to a rule like this is because it sticks out as sloppy or un-unified game design. Sure, you can ignore it, but you could fast forward through parts of a movie that you don't like and that doesn't mean those parts stop being a part of the movie. It's better for a game system to have a unified goal that may not appeal to some people than for it to have a bunch of half-asses attempts to appeal to everyone.

That seems like a solid design to me. The fact that an inquisitorial team has to plan their kit to fit to any situation or dependent upon the mission parameters.

I really don't see how it's half arsed, it's a functional encumbrance system that can be ignored if you don't like it. You're right that it doesn't remove it from the game, but does it's still being in the game ruin the ability for people to enjoy it if you are ignoring the rule and it's understood you're simply ignoring it?

Let's see what the rulebook says on page 248:

Everything (except Cthulhu°) needs stats and rules in case the players and/or GM lack common sense. That is often the case.

But some of the weights for certain items feel wrong (overly heavy) to me, making me think FF didn't do their homework or the imperium produces some seriously cluncky devices.

* yes, I know several games have statted Cthulhu...They should never have done that.

In other words, the current encumbrance system is more like planning a backpacking trip than playing inquisitorial agents. The reason for objecting to a rule like this is because it sticks out as sloppy or un-unified game design. Sure, you can ignore it, but you could fast forward through parts of a movie that you don't like and that doesn't mean those parts stop being a part of the movie. It's better for a game system to have a unified goal that may not appeal to some people than for it to have a bunch of half-asses attempts to appeal to everyone.

That seems like a solid design to me. The fact that an inquisitorial team has to plan their kit to fit to any situation or dependent upon the mission parameters.

I really don't see how it's half arsed, it's a functional encumbrance system that can be ignored if you don't like it. You're right that it doesn't remove it from the game, but does it's still being in the game ruin the ability for people to enjoy it if you are ignoring the rule and it's understood you're simply ignoring it?

The issue is less of an inquisitorial team figuring out what to bring on a mission and more about how much they can carry. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. It becomes less about binging equipment an more about calculating weights. As I said, this is very unintuitive. You don't see people in action movies or detective stories or even 40K fiction taking time to weigh out weapons and saying "well this is 1kg over my weight, so I'm 10% worse at everything now." It just serves to restrict players rather than really add anything to the story

And again, just because I can ignore something doesn't mean it's still worth including.

You as a GM are the master of your own game. Discard these rules and use common sense then.

You are missing the point.

You're also missing the point. It being, it's much easier for you to discard the encumbrance rules than it is for someone who likes encumbrance rules to make their own when they're missing from the book.

Now you're being childish. It's not a game of 'i know you are but what am i'.

The point of creating rules is not that they are to be ignored. This is a dubious position to design from. If i have to change or ignore rules then something has gone wrong. There shouldn't be a problem to have to fix to begin with. Arguing that there is no problem because I can ignore rules is fallacious at best.

You're putting words in my mouth, I never said it's not a problem if you can houserule it.

Things like having detailed encumbrance rules vs not having them aren't really problems, or at least they're not fixable, because they boil down to individual preference. You don't like encumbrance rules. As a matter of fact, I don't like them either - definitely not my style of play. But some people do like them and will feel the game lacking if it doesn't have them.

Now, no game can please everyone, but it's nice for a game that plans to sell a lot to avoid alienating potential customers.

Now, if the game has no encumbrance rules, and you happen to want encumbrance rules, you have to make them yourself, which can be time-consuming, or at least search the net for someone who already did it for you, which is a considerable inconvenience.

But, if the game has encumbrance rules, and you happen to not need/want them, your only inconvenience is having to carry those extra 5 g of paper whenever you pick up a book, which is as minor as it gets.

Thus, by having encumbrance rules, the game is more accessible to a larger number of players.

There's a world of difference between "if it doesn't work, fix it by yourself" and "if you don't like it, change it", and the existence of encumbrance rules falls squarely into the latter category.

You don't see people in action movies or detective stories or even 40K fiction taking time to weigh out weapons and saying "well this is 1kg over my weight, so I'm 10% worse at everything now." It just serves to restrict players rather than really add anything to the story

Encumbrance IS a restriction, it restricts the amount of stuff people can carry. Also, anything that happens adds to a story, even restrictions. However, you shouldn't be calculating weight all the time, only do so when it actually matters.

So what do you expect? A more gradual "restriction" making it more "realistic"? Like no clear boundaries, you just gradually become worse at everything the more you carry? That will just overcomplicate stuff and make it even more restrictive.

You can do your item slots, but then you're also restricting players and on top that you'll probably get a bunch of borderline cases because of the discrete solution you've picked. So a solution with a bunch of exceptions most likely.

Let's say you're decked out, all your item slots filled. But then you need to add a small pack of gummybears. Sorry dude, no more slots available for you to do that. Or the total realistic weight amount in your items slots fall far below the amount a normal person would be able to carry.

You as a GM are the master of your own game. Discard these rules and use common sense then.

You are missing the point.

You're also missing the point. It being, it's much easier for you to discard the encumbrance rules than it is for someone who likes encumbrance rules to make their own when they're missing from the book.

Now you're being childish. It's not a game of 'i know you are but what am i'.

The point of creating rules is not that they are to be ignored. This is a dubious position to design from. If i have to change or ignore rules then something has gone wrong. There shouldn't be a problem to have to fix to begin with. Arguing that there is no problem because I can ignore rules is fallacious at best.

You're putting words in my mouth, I never said it's not a problem if you can houserule it.

Things like having detailed encumbrance rules vs not having them aren't really problems, or at least they're not fixable, because they boil down to individual preference. You don't like encumbrance rules. As a matter of fact, I don't like them either - definitely not my style of play. But some people do like them and will feel the game lacking if it doesn't have them.

Now, no game can please everyone, but it's nice for a game that plans to sell a lot to avoid alienating potential customers.

Now, if the game has no encumbrance rules, and you happen to want encumbrance rules, you have to make them yourself, which can be time-consuming, or at least search the net for someone who already did it for you, which is a considerable inconvenience.

But, if the game has encumbrance rules, and you happen to not need/want them, your only inconvenience is having to carry those extra 5 g of paper whenever you pick up a book, which is as minor as it gets.

Thus, by having encumbrance rules, the game is more accessible to a larger number of players.

There's a world of difference between "if it doesn't work, fix it by yourself" and "if you don't like it, change it", and the existence of encumbrance rules falls squarely into the latter category.

On the topic of Encumbrance rules, I must say that I've never played a game in which Encumbrance rules were enforced - however, having them is important if only to settle just exactly why it's ridiculous that character X think he can haul around two lascannons or eighteen artillery shells.

It's by far easier to disregard rules when unwanted and then point to them when needed, than to homebrew them because you want them.

You don't see people in action movies or detective stories or even 40K fiction taking time to weigh out weapons and saying "well this is 1kg over my weight, so I'm 10% worse at everything now." It just serves to restrict players rather than really add anything to the story

Encumbrance IS a restriction, it restricts the amount of stuff people can carry. Also, anything that happens adds to a story, even restrictions. However, you shouldn't be calculating weight all the time, only do so when it actually matters.

So what do you expect? A more gradual "restriction" making it more "realistic"? Like no clear boundaries, you just gradually become worse at everything the more you carry? That will just overcomplicate stuff and make it even more restrictive.

You can do your item slots, but then you're also restricting players and on top that you'll probably get a bunch of borderline cases because of the discrete solution you've picked. So a solution with a bunch of exceptions most likely.

Let's say you're decked out, all your item slots filled. But then you need to add a small pack of gummybears. Sorry dude, no more slots available for you to do that. Or the total realistic weight amount in your items slots fall far below the amount a normal person would be able to carry.

Enforce Encumbrance when it's needed and players are being stupid, and keep it narrative. I personally keep it written down for my own characters, how things are distributed, but no way have I ever kept track of actual weight.

The issue is less of an inquisitorial team figuring out what to bring on a mission and more about how much they can carry. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. It becomes less about binging equipment an more about calculating weights. As I said, this is very unintuitive. You don't see people in action movies or detective stories or even 40K fiction taking time to weigh out weapons and saying "well this is 1kg over my weight, so I'm 10% worse at everything now."

What...what? It's not a difference they're inherently combined. You have to know how much you can carry to understand you'll have to pick and choose what you might need for your kit.

On the topic of Encumbrance rules, I must say that I've never played a game in which Encumbrance rules were enforced - however, having them is important if only to settle just exactly why it's ridiculous that character X think he can haul around two lascannons or eighteen artillery shells.

It's by far easier to disregard rules when unwanted and then point to them when needed, than to homebrew them because you want them.

That's my attitude as well - even though I don't force my players to keep track of encumbrance most of the time, it's nice to have those rules for when I feel the players are going overboard with their loadout.

Actually, that's how I approach most of the rules in most games I run - even if I'm not using a rule on a regular basis, I may need it at some point in the future, so I don't mind it sitting somewhere in the rulebook.

I feel like I'm repeating it a lot lately, but there really is a big difference between saying "I don't like/need this rule" and "This rule is bad/unnecessary". Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it's bad, and just because I don't use it doesn't mean it's unnecessary - it's clearly not necessary at my table, but my table isn't all there is, is it?

On the topic of Encumbrance rules, I must say that I've never played a game in which Encumbrance rules were enforced - however, having them is important if only to settle just exactly why it's ridiculous that character X think he can haul around two lascannons or eighteen artillery shells.

It's by far easier to disregard rules when unwanted and then point to them when needed, than to homebrew them because you want them.

That's my attitude as well - even though I don't force my players to keep track of encumbrance most of the time, it's nice to have those rules for when I feel the players are going overboard with their loadout.

Actually, that's how I approach most of the rules in most games I run - even if I'm not using a rule on a regular basis, I may need it at some point in the future, so I don't mind it sitting somewhere in the rulebook.

I feel like I'm repeating it a lot lately, but there really is a big difference between saying "I don't like/need this rule" and "This rule is bad/unnecessary". Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it's bad, and just because I don't use it doesn't mean it's unnecessary - it's clearly not necessary at my table, but my table isn't all there is, is it?

Easily 50-60% of the rulebook is not used regularly. An average first-time player can easily get through a game by just reading the Character Creation, How to Play the Game and Combat sections once, and then simply absorb the rest through playing, or referencing when needed.

...although I do love the ones that learns the rules long time.

You don't see people in action movies or detective stories or even 40K fiction taking time to weigh out weapons and saying "well this is 1kg over my weight, so I'm 10% worse at everything now." It just serves to restrict players rather than really add anything to the story

Encumbrance IS a restriction, it restricts the amount of stuff people can carry. Also, anything that happens adds to a story, even restrictions. However, you shouldn't be calculating weight all the time, only do so when it actually matters.

So what do you expect? A more gradual "restriction" making it more "realistic"? Like no clear boundaries, you just gradually become worse at everything the more you carry? That will just overcomplicate stuff and make it even more restrictive.

You can do your item slots, but then you're also restricting players and on top that you'll probably get a bunch of borderline cases because of the discrete solution you've picked. So a solution with a bunch of exceptions most likely.

Let's say you're decked out, all your item slots filled. But then you need to add a small pack of gummybears. Sorry dude, no more slots available for you to do that. Or the total realistic weight amount in your items slots fall far below the amount a normal person would be able to carry.

A slot system would just address the funny bears problem by asking "okay where do you keep them" and then wiring that they're in a pocket somewhere. Basically have the slots be ones described by the players so that all items have physical space rather than being kept in a pocket dimension. I imagine an item slot system would have a number of free or extra slots that would correspond to clothing (with all other slots having to correspond to something) so that players can write about a dagger in their boot or a secret pocket in their skin with matches or something like that.

And yes, this would be restricting players, but would do so in a more intuitive and easy to track way. Having people just add up item weights is boring and adds nothing to the story beyond an excuse to not let Steve carry around 5 loaded rocket launchers. People can use common sense, and if the system is so convoluted that its breaking common sense and leading people to think they can just stretch the rules out, then it's an issue with the system.

And anything that happens adding to a story is a pretty dumb statement, given tht I could just throw out my taxes on the table for the players to do and by your logic it would add to the story. The issue of adding rules "because someone somewhere wants them" is that they are either going to be connected and balanced with the game system as a whole (in which case they can't be ignored) or they are completely detached from the game system, in which case why bother having rules rather than just letting players and GM make things up. You either rules that are integral to the game or rules that add nothing to the game. Neither of these are great if they're not actually contributing to the goals of the system. Basically, everyone would start with X number of slots, and would need to write where on their person they are keeping items in these slots. If someone gets a satchel, given them another slot but maybe say they're starting to be weighed down. This would make more sense than worrying about the 3kg flashlight suddenly giving you -10.

The issue is less of an inquisitorial team figuring out what to bring on a mission and more about how much they can carry. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. It becomes less about binging equipment an more about calculating weights. As I said, this is very unintuitive. You don't see people in action movies or detective stories or even 40K fiction taking time to weigh out weapons and saying "well this is 1kg over my weight, so I'm 10% worse at everything now."

What...what? It's not a difference they're inherently combined. You have to know how much you can carry to understand you'll have to pick and choose what you might need for your kit.

The difference is that people figuring out what to take with them aren't weighing out every item and comparing it to exactly how much weight they can carry. That kind of thing is used for supplying thousands or millions of soldiers, not for one person equipping himself. What to bring for a mission should be more about "how can I conceal this/carry it around than "how many kg can I carry at once." That's the difference. What you're bringing and how rather than doing a math problem.

I disagree with this, because there can be rules which are balanced and valuable, yet completely optional. They are neither integral nor do they add nothing to the game. They might not add anything to any given game, but they are completely integral to another game. At the same time, since they are balanced to fit with the rest of the game, they are better than most house rules (which don't get enough play testing / have unintended interactions with less often used parts of the game) and saved the GM and players a lot of work.

Prime example here being, once again, GURPS: The game is centered around a tool shed philosophy, where you are given an enormous amount of rules, 90+% of which are optional. By picking the ones that apply to your game, you can tailor your game to your wishes. Is it cinematic Wuxia? Is it low-down, deadly Cyberpunk? High Fantasy, but with extra deadliness?

Yet because all of the rules are built and balanced for the same system, it works extremely well in almost any combination. Trying to combine, say, Shadowrun and Dark Heresy rules to play on a high-tech hive with a Matrix would, in comparison be a lot of effort.

That's why I think you're just wrong about rules being either integral or pointless, Nimsim.

You're right that in a toolbox system, you can have optional rules that can be slotted in and out. However, dark heresy is a very specifically themed game, not a toolbox system. In the context of designing a game for a specific purpose, optional rules tend to just dilute things. It's no longer the 80s when every propietqry system has to be designed to to totally run any kind of game (because we learned that this design goal results in crappy systems). GURPS is well balanced (if the GM knows how to very tightly run the system), but it's not what dark heresy is trying to be at all.

Yet because all of the rules are built and balanced for the same system, it works extremely well in almost any combination. Trying to combine, say, Shadowrun and Dark Heresy rules to play on a high-tech hive with a Matrix would, in comparison be a lot of effort.

Worst example ever . It took my gaming group a lazy weekend and an afternoon to convert the WH40KRPG rules for a post-cyberpunk grimbright setting with hacking, cybernetics, psytech and all sorts of futuristic stuff.

Yet because all of the rules are built and balanced for the same system, it works extremely well in almost any combination. Trying to combine, say, Shadowrun and Dark Heresy rules to play on a high-tech hive with a Matrix would, in comparison be a lot of effort.

Worst example ever . It took my gaming group a lazy weekend and an afternoon to convert the WH40KRPG rules for a post-cyberpunk grimbright setting with hacking, cybernetics, psytech and all sorts of futuristic stuff.

Yeah, though, percentile is fairly easy to mod/balance, given the math is extremely simple. The point itself is sound, though, when you take stuff where you really have to grab a calculator.

Even in a tightly themed game optional rules can totally have their place. You can have detailed rules for bleeding or poisoning or hacking for example, with the default rules being a simple skill check. That doesn't take away from the theming or means that the optional rules are useless, it's just that for most people they aren't central or necessary (or perhaps only sometimes).

I didn't realize that the encumbrance rules were meant to be mostly optional, and I think that they're fairly annoying because of the ridiculous item weights, but that doesn't generalize to "optional rules are bad".

And dangnabit, should've gone for the psychic blueberry muffin or the old standby of

And Savage Worlds!

Nothing beats sending your Harrowed gunsliner on a Belgian Colonial Rocketship to Pluto to fight the Mi-Go on their home soil.

You don't see people in action movies or detective stories or even 40K fiction taking time to weigh out weapons and saying "well this is 1kg over my weight, so I'm 10% worse at everything now." It just serves to restrict players rather than really add anything to the story

Encumbrance IS a restriction, it restricts the amount of stuff people can carry. Also, anything that happens adds to a story, even restrictions. However, you shouldn't be calculating weight all the time, only do so when it actually matters.

So what do you expect? A more gradual "restriction" making it more "realistic"? Like no clear boundaries, you just gradually become worse at everything the more you carry? That will just overcomplicate stuff and make it even more restrictive.

You can do your item slots, but then you're also restricting players and on top that you'll probably get a bunch of borderline cases because of the discrete solution you've picked. So a solution with a bunch of exceptions most likely.

Let's say you're decked out, all your item slots filled. But then you need to add a small pack of gummybears. Sorry dude, no more slots available for you to do that. Or the total realistic weight amount in your items slots fall far below the amount a normal person would be able to carry.

signoftheserpent, do you even read what I write?

I'll make it easy for you: