I am failing to find a rule that prevents a player from wearing as many backpacks as they want to increase their encumbrance to crazy levels.
Is this possible, is it in an errata anywhere?
Thanks
infinite backpacks?
This is one of those things that a little common sense helps a long way. And just remind a player who does this what it would look like to wear infinite backpacks.
There isn't a rule that says you can't wear 8 shoes on 2 feet either. Clearly an incomplete broken system.....
When I was in school I used to wear two backpacks, schoolstuff on the back (up to 10 kg on a good day) and a smaller with ice skates in front, also quite heavy at 12. But it looked ridiculous and running after the train was very, very, VERY difficult.
If a players runs around with multiple backpacks or a sailors bag thats not a big problem. You would suffer quite some strain on longer trips and a lot of setbacks or difficulty during a firefight, but you can drop the backpack as soon as combat starts and pick it up later. One of those "Don't say no, say yes but..." situations imo
But in short: Infinite Backpacks? No, I would asume if a person is old enough to partake in an RPG they would know how a backpacks works
. "All rules are subject to GM approval in short." is a general rule in rpgs.
I would keep it to an absolute maximum of 2, and use setback dice in combat for using a second one.
If you have a kind of players that makes you feel like you need concrete rules on the number of bags they can carry, you might have a bigger problem than encumbrance abuse.
I am failing to find a rule that prevents a player from wearing as many backpacks as they want to increase their encumbrance to crazy levels.
Yeah, the rule is "The GM tells the player to knock that nonsense off".
I am failing to find a rule that prevents a player from wearing as many backpacks as they want to increase their encumbrance to crazy levels.
Yeah, the rule is "The GM tells the player to knock that nonsense off".
Or "Stop being a moron. Use some common sense. We don't have rules for blinking or going to the bathroom either. people can only reasonable carry 2 backpacks"
I wouldn't even allow 2. The whole point of a good pack is distributing weight smarter on our bodies. That's done by using our back and hips. Wear one pack and your fresh outta back and hips. Could you carry 2? Sure. Is that going to help carry weight, no.
Edited by 2P51The best thing when people try cheezy bs is to ask does it make sense in starwars. Can a storm trooper have a military back pack sure can a storm trooper have 2 military back packs well maybe if he is wearing one on his back and holding another one but wait no we never see that.
So yeah you get 1 backpack.
Now can you wear a backpack and a utility belt well sure that makes sense
What about 2 utility belts see first point.
If you really want to carry a lot of stuff have a backpack built bender style into a droid you buy now it might not be starwars but its futurama enough for me to laugh and allow it.
My character wears a backpack, load bearing gear, and a utility belt. Is that too much? Would it look weird?
Edited by Jack of All TradesMy character wears a backpack, load bearing gear, and a utility belt. Is that too much? Would it look weird?
This I think is totally reasonable. you could probably add 2 military pouches...
My character wears a backpack, load bearing gear, and a utility belt. Is that too much? Would it look weird?
As described in the description, the load bearing gear may or may not incorporate a utility belt. So, would it look weird? No, it would look pretty standard. Take for example:
That's a fully kitted out bit of combat webbing. If you tried to add a utility belt to that, you're out of luck since it incorporates one into the design.
is essentially a bandoleer and would work with a utility belt.
I have the base rule of "You can do that thing, if you draw me a picture of how it would work."
I have the base rule of "You can do that thing, if you draw me a picture of how it would work."
*Gets out crayons*
Challenge accepted.
I wouldn't even allow 2. The whole point of a good pack is distributing weight smarter on our bodies. That's done by using our back and hips. Wear one pack and your fresh outta back and hips. Could you carry 2? Sure. Is that going to help carry weight, no.
The only way that two backpacks would work is if it's not so much a weight thing but a volume thing. A brawn 5 character would be able to fit some straps to a 500 pound Refrigerator and haul it around no problem, but that same character would have some extreme difficulty hauling around 500 pounds of loose marbles.
I would say that you can only have 1 backpack. I might consider allowing a player to use a Spacer's Duffel (p. 53 Enter the Unknown) with a backpack - something they could carry along with a backpack and drop when they need to (whether they can come back and pick it up depends on the circumstances). But I'd remind them that it has the Cumbersome 3 quality and this might be grounds to add a setback die or two to Athletics and Coordination checks if they're going to attempt to carry it with the backpack whilst they attempt those checks as it's not properly situated to carry the weight properly.
Inane player questions? Automatic difficulty upgrades for the rest of the session.
Two backpacks?* Automatic difficulty upgrade for any physical activity, no DP required.
* True story: my son was on a two week canoe trip, age 15. They had a long portage with lots of gear. Thinking to save time, he strapped a pack on his front, and then to keep it in place strapped one on his back. Shuffled for half a kilometer or more through the bush to the next lake. Getting to the landing required another hike 50 meters or so down a gentle slope, or...he could take a shortcut and get there in 5 meters. Hmmm. Took one step, tipped over, and proceeded to roll head over heels, like a bean bag chair with live stuffing, down to the lake. Came down, pinned like a tick under a boulder, just centimeters shy of the water, and had to wait until somebody returned to free him of his burdens.
Luckily he was short and the packs were higher than his head, protecting his skull (Triumph!), but he made a risky decision (Despair!).
In terms of physically being able to carry things, many people have strapped 2 backpacks on, sometimes even more. I personally have carried 2 massive hiking rucskacs and 2 smaller "handluggage" rucksakcs around on occasion, and the best way to describe my condition at the time would be the word "encumbered".
I would allow only the encumberance reduction from one rucsack. If someone wants to have multiple ruckaskcs or over-fill their rucksack then they can in terms of explainging how they physically carrying loads of stuff around, but the encumberance reduction caps at -4.
As far as increasing encumbrance goes, as a GM I only allow things that "fit." So, 1 backpack (of any kind), 1 utility belt, and 1 load bearing gear. Add all that up and you can raise your encumbrance capacity by up to 10, depending on the backpack. In addition to that, I would also allow a player to carry a spacer's duffel, but in that case I would say the duffel requires the player use at least one hand to carry it around. After that, if you still need more encumbrance capacity, go buy a labor droid to follow you around and carry some stuff.
Just remember: It is not a 'purse'. It's a Surveyor's Bag!
I would only allow a single backpack, primarily for the "use some common sense" reasoning, but there are two other reasons as well: Multiple identical bonuses tend not to stack, and what encumbrance actually represents.
The game seems to have a pretty solid precedent not allowing multiple identical bonuses to stack. Multiple defensive weapons don't stack (at least right now, apparently they're revising how defense works), multiple armors don't stack, etc. You get the bonus for a backpack once , whether you're wearing 1, or 2, or 20. You could extend that logic to only getting one bonus to encumbrance, be it utility belt, backpack, or whatever, but I think it's reasonable to allow bonuses from difference sources to stack in this specific case.
Encumbrance isn't just weight, per the rules: "Encumbrance doesn't strictly represent weight; it also represents mass, bulk, and how easy items are to carry." (EotE Core p152) Wearing a front-facing backpack won't increase your encumbrance rating because the extra weight it could let you carry is offset by the bulk that gets in the way.
I use all of these points combined to shoot down players trying to exploit what's not explicitly disallowed in the rules, like multiple bonuses from multiple backpacks. It's just absurd IMO. It would have been great to have a single sentence to clarify this, but apparently the devs couldn't be bothered...
Edited by LethalDosebut apparently the devs couldn't be bothered...
To be fair to them, this is already extensively covered in the "Use Your **** Common Sense" portion of the rules.
but apparently the devs couldn't be bothered...
To be fair to them, this is already extensively covered in the "Use Your **** Common Sense" portion of the rules.
If it was so well covered, we shouldn't see this issue (specifically and generally) come up time and time again, but I said my peace about this issue in particular 3 years ago in the beta.
I'm honestly curious, though, what passages you would specifically point to support your claim that the common sense is extensively covered in the rules.
Reasonableness.
Common sense.
Even, sanity.
All are words that provide an answer to the question.
Sometimes rulings, rather than rules, are required.
Edited by Vondy