It would have been great to have a single sentence to clarify this, but apparently the devs couldn't be bothered...

Thank goodness. If we actually needed a ruling on those kinds of things, the core book would be a tome 50 times thicker.

This question always reminds me of a trip I took with a girlfriend her sister and a friend we have about an hour for connecting flight everyone gets a drink chats for a bit and then the three ladies I was traveling with all need to make a bathroom run. I take four pieces of carry on luggage and begin to make my way to our gate so they can run ahead to the bathroom. Was it possible? Sure it was but I had to stop and readjust something several times, it was awkward made me very clumsy. So could a character carry 4 or more backpacks sure. Would they be in any way useful while doing so. No. All I had to do was walk in a straight line from point A to point B and having 3 additional pieces of luggage made that difficult. That my friends is why the airport rents those luggage carrier things.

So I am firmly in the camp of no you cannot wear 10,000 backpacks to have virtually limitless carrying capacity. Because well physics.

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.

Do we really need to, now? We really need the devs to explicitly write "use your common sense" somewhere in the rulebook so that we can actually use our common sense?

"****, my players are breaking the game with their infinite and illogical backpacks, I sure wished the devs gave the players the right to use their common sense, or at least gave me the power to intervene against it in this roleplaying game for which I am the Game Master. Sadly, the rulebook never specify it, so going by RAW it is not, in fact, permitted for my players and I to use our common sense."

I can't believe that we're entertaining the idea that this is a real issue.

I've often used two backpacks (one on chest) when traveling. Sure, one is my bag and the other is my wife's but I end up hauling them both through the airports. Still, I've found it to be rather balanced when both bags are roughly the same size and weight (about 40 lbs. or so for each of these bags).

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.

Do we really need to, now?

I'm not saying I disagree with the tenant, I'd just like to see the support of the claim made by Desslok, this "extensive coverage" in the rules (quoted above). If it's so well covered, it should be very simple to point to a reference. And since he's liking the comments, he's obviously aware I'm asking the question...

And, since I have to say things three or four times on these forums, I'm not saying using common sense is wrong. I went through the book tonight and honestly didn't see anything that even rang of "common sense is important", the closest I found is reminders that the GM adjudicates.

The OP very directly asked for clarification, and if the community is going to respond by claiming it's obvious in the rules, well, I think they should be able to provide a reference to those obvious rules.

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.

Ah, you caught me. In a cooperative story telling game, you are right there is no ruling against that. I guess that means that you are indeed free to have 400 backpacks on your character so you can carry around a Gundam in your pocket. You are absolutely right.

Do we really need to, now? We really need the devs to explicitly write "use your common sense" somewhere in the rulebook so that we can actually use our common sense?

"****, my players are breaking the game with their infinite and illogical backpacks, I sure wished the devs gave the players the right to use their common sense, or at least gave me the power to intervene against it in this roleplaying game for which I am the Game Master. Sadly, the rulebook never specify it, so going by RAW it is not, in fact, permitted for my players and I to use our common sense."

I can't believe that we're entertaining the idea that this is a real issue.

I'd retort further, but really everything that needs saying is contained in the statement above.

It always amazes me how many pages a fairly simple question can generate.

*sigh* I think you're missing the point re: why asked "where is the rule".

The OP asked for clarifications about the rule, the claim was made there was "extensive coverage in the rules" on this topic.

However, if there *is* no clarification in the RAW, extensive or otherwise, this is frustrating

These responses will make the OP think they missed something obvious and feel foolish and discouraged from asking questions in the future. In reality, they're worrying about missing something that isn't there. Hell, *I* thought I was missing something in the rules and went back to them several times to look.

The point is just to watch the rhetoric. I'm not trying to play "gotcha" or anything else, and I meant it when I wrote "I'm honestly curious about where this is" because I was hoping to have something to point to in the future and learn about the game. If you bothered to read the entirety of my earlier post which was quoted, it's clear I agreed with that position from the beginning.

All I got was snark, hostility, and condescension? Because I asked for a reference?

You read way more into what I wrote ("hey, where's that extensive coverage?") than was ever there. WHY?!?

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 can't believe that we're entertaining the idea that this is a real issue.

..........and yet, here we are........

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.

Wait till you see what I come up with.

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.

Wait till you see what I come up with.

Sadly, I was not able to find a suitable video meme to use in reply to this message.

And animated GIFs, etc… are not going to work — for obvious reasons.

About the best I can do is this: ROTFLMAO

The Star Wars equivalent of this guy:

Remember, kids, THIS is what happens when you handwave the Encumbrance rules!

I could allow two since I recall being told to carry two duffel bags as big backpacks in the military: A & B deployment bags one on back and one on chest you could barely see around. BUT, it was very, very cumbersome. You could shuffel along but you weren't going to do anything athletic, have a chance in combat, etc. RAW has Cumbersome being added for very large bags, but I never liked that since Cumbersome only affects shooting weapons. RAW also has adding Setback to Agility for cumbersome armors, so I would go with something like that as a penalty. Perhaps upgrading difficulty for any agility or brawn related actions while wearing two bags/backpacks?

I could allow two since I recall being told to carry two duffel bags as big backpacks in the military: A & B deployment bags one on back and one on chest you could barely see around. BUT, it was very, very cumbersome. You could shuffel along but you weren't going to do anything athletic, have a chance in combat, etc. RAW has Cumbersome being added for very large bags, but I never liked that since Cumbersome only affects shooting weapons. RAW also has adding Setback to Agility for cumbersome armors, so I would go with something like that as a penalty. Perhaps upgrading difficulty for any agility or brawn related actions while wearing two bags/backpacks?

See, this is a perfect description of what happens when you go over your Encumbrance threshold. It proclaims to the world that even if you're wearing two backpacks you only get the mechanical benefits of the one on your back - sure, you can still move around with all the "overflow" Encumbrance, but you're suffering lots of setback dice to the appropriate skills.

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"

Yep...the rule of common sense. Or, the "stop try to game the system and play the game," rule.

I blame FFG for things like this coming up over and over. How dare they leave stuff like this to common sense. Do they not realize how uncommon it actually is? There will always be those "players" that will take advantage of it "not being spelled out" with GMs that either don't know any better due to inexperience or just have no backbone.

I could allow two since I recall being told to carry two duffel bags as big backpacks in the military: A & B deployment bags one on back and one on chest you could barely see around. BUT, it was very, very cumbersome. You could shuffel along but you weren't going to do anything athletic, have a chance in combat, etc. RAW has Cumbersome being added for very large bags, but I never liked that since Cumbersome only affects shooting weapons. RAW also has adding Setback to Agility for cumbersome armors, so I would go with something like that as a penalty. Perhaps upgrading difficulty for any agility or brawn related actions while wearing two bags/backpacks?

See, this is a perfect description of what happens when you go over your Encumbrance threshold. It proclaims to the world that even if you're wearing two backpacks you only get the mechanical benefits of the one on your back - sure, you can still move around with all the "overflow" Encumbrance, but you're suffering lots of setback dice to the appropriate skills.

While I agree, players are going to argue that this is not the case per RAW. A backpack, load bearing gear and a utility belt, seems like some sort of penalty should be imposed, but...

Perhaps a review of what Encumbered already means RAW. For every point above your encumbrance threshold you suffer a cumulative setback for every point to all Agility and Brawn checks. If you exceed your threshold by more than your Brawn score you lose your free maneuver and must pay strain for all maneuvers.

I blame FFG for things like this coming up over and over. How dare they leave stuff like this to common sense. Do they not realize how uncommon it actually is? There will always be those "players" that will take advantage of it "not being spelled out" with GMs that either don't know any better due to inexperience or just have no backbone.

I don't think we can blame FFG for not adding 300 pages to the rulebook just in case players with no common sense decide to pick up the game. Players will learn to play the game instead of being power gamers, or else they'll move on (or you kick them out of your gaming group because who needs those kind of players at their table), and the Game Masters will get more experienced and will learn how to better channel their players. This is a step everyone has to take, whichever system they choose, and as such we can't consider this an inherent flaw of this particular system. Actually, the books mentions on multiple occasions that:

"The GM must interpret the game rules and be ready to apply them in a fair and consistent manner" (p.287)

"The GM should want to adjudicate the rules and run the best game possible" (p.287)

"When the GM hits an unexpected situation or needs a ruling on a game mechanic, making a quick judgement call and assessing the results later is perfectly acceptable" (p.287)

The devs intended the game to be cooperative and interactive, but the GM still holds the power in the end. Heck, there's even a whole section titled "Common sense" (p.316) telling the GM that he's the only one that can decide if something is reasonable or not.

I don't understand how a simple explanation in the form of a sentence or two would fill 300 pages, but alright.

And really, this system was written in a way that was such a departure from previous Star Wars RPGs, an brief explanation of their "omission by intent" style would have greatly improved the books, and could have been done in less than a page. It would have eliminated a lot of the questions on these forums, not just this one.

The devs intended the game to be cooperative and interactive, but the GM still holds the power in the end. Heck, there's even a whole section titled "Common sense" (p.316) telling the GM that he's the only one that can decide if something is reasonable or not.

The section you're quoting here is describing a way for GM's to adjudicate the use of Destiny Points. It's pretty specific to just that topic, and while I appreciate the demonstration of the general precedent, this section isn't really applicable to the specific situation being discussed in the thread.

I don't understand how a simple explanation in the form of a sentence or two would fill 300 pages, but alright.

Because it just starts there. One sentence turns into 5 sentences turns into 10 and so on until you've added many pages. Not just about this but about this and more that seems unclear because FFG decided to leave some things to GM discretion and common sense.

*sigh* I think you're missing the point re: why asked "where is the rule".

In summary, OP, ... "No, because the GM says so."

Because it just starts there. One sentence turns into 5 sentences turns into 10 and so on until you've added many pages. Not just about this but about this and more that seems unclear because FFG decided to leave some things to GM discretion and common sense.

"It seemed to me," said Wonko the Sane, "that any civilization that had so far lost it's head as to need to include a set of detailed instructions for use in a package of toothpicks, was no longer a civilization in which I could live and stay sane."