This, in a round-about way, reminds me of a few years back when a buddy and I were tweaking with the Deathwatch combat system to try to moderate the whole "he who striketh first, also striketh last" phenomena. We sat down and tweaked this, and that, and after a trip to the local Mexican place for lunch, we came back and discovered, to our everlasting horror, that we had more or less just reinvented THAC0. We trashed our work and went back to the RAW and spoke of it no more. I think this reminds me of that dark time because of how we ended up with like 5 or 6 pages of notes that marked our descent into madness.

Dunno, seems like the GM job description pretty much covers it for me. If a rule needs adjudicating, a dispute resolved, or something in the book interpreted, ask the GM, they make a ruling. Done. Point being there are going to be cracks no matter how complete a set of written rules are and that's a big part of what a GM is supposed to do. So there is a written rule that covers it, it's right there in the GM job description and it's in the front of the CRB. p.8-9 in EoE for any that missed it...

This can't be right. People aren't actually arguing rule books have to be able to answer every possible situation that could ever come up in-game ever or add an errata to cover it, right? This must be performance art or something.

OP, If a player really wants to say they can wear infinite backpacks because there's no rule against it, sit them down and talk to them about how wildly ridiculous that request is. If they want to pursue it, have an ancient Red Dragon pop out of the middle backpack and kill them. There's nothing in the rules saying you can't. I'll stat one up for you if you want. 6's across the board, 5's in every skill, 100 soak, 200 WT, 300 ST. Auto-fire breath weapon, activates on 1 advantage. Then ask if the player's next character also wants infinite backpacks or some other such silliness.

This can't be right. People aren't actually arguing rule books have to be able to answer every possible situation that could ever come up in-game ever or add an errata to cover it, right? This must be performance art or something.

OP, If a player really wants to say they can wear infinite backpacks because there's no rule against it, sit them down and talk to them about how wildly ridiculous that request is. If they want to pursue it, have an ancient Red Dragon pop out of the middle backpack and kill them. There's nothing in the rules saying you can't. I'll stat one up for you if you want. 6's across the board, 5's in every skill, 100 soak, 200 WT, 300 ST. Auto-fire breath weapon, activates on 1 advantage. Then ask if the player's next character also wants infinite backpacks or some other such silliness.

... what kind of loot does the dragon drop?

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.

It is still a precedent, and it is not the only section mentioning how the GM is the final judge of what can or can't be done. I'm not gonna re-read the whole rulebook and write them all, but they are there, you just have to understand how the system is intended. And honestly, as I said earlier, if this is really a problem at your table, then maybe it is telling of a far greater issue. I have good players that would never even think this possible, because they all possess a healthy dose of Common Sense ^TM . I wouldn't suffer players trying to pull stuff like that, because it is the manifest trait of a bad player (in the sense of having a negative influence on your experience), and you don't want those ruining a good time between friends playing a hobby they all love.

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.

This is why. When you have to write a page about the fact you can't wear an infinite backpack, you need to add a whole lot more of useless rules, and those will add up pretty quickly.

This can't be right. People aren't actually arguing rule books have to be able to answer every possible situation that could ever come up in-game ever or add an errata to cover it, right? This must be performance art or something.

OP, If a player really wants to say they can wear infinite backpacks because there's no rule against it, sit them down and talk to them about how wildly ridiculous that request is. If they want to pursue it, have an ancient Red Dragon pop out of the middle backpack and kill them. There's nothing in the rules saying you can't. I'll stat one up for you if you want. 6's across the board, 5's in every skill, 100 soak, 200 WT, 300 ST. Auto-fire breath weapon, activates on 1 advantage. Then ask if the player's next character also wants infinite backpacks or some other such silliness.

... what kind of loot does the dragon drop?

A dragon-egg sized thermal detonator that destroys the entire galaxy. You really don't want to kill that dragon.

If they want to pursue it, have an ancient Red Dragon pop out of the middle backpack and kill them. There's nothing in the rules saying you can't. I'll stat one up for you if you want. 6's across the board, 5's in every skill, 100 soak, 200 WT, 300 ST. Auto-fire breath weapon, activates on 1 advantage. Then ask if the player's next character also wants infinite backpacks or some other such silliness.

If you stat it they will kill it or try to anyways.

If they want to pursue it, have an ancient Red Dragon pop out of the middle backpack and kill them. There's nothing in the rules saying you can't. I'll stat one up for you if you want. 6's across the board, 5's in every skill, 100 soak, 200 WT, 300 ST. Auto-fire breath weapon, activates on 1 advantage. Then ask if the player's next character also wants infinite backpacks or some other such silliness.

If you stat it they will kill it or try to anyways.

Thus my fail safe mentioned above.

A dragon-egg sized thermal detonator that destroys the entire galaxy. You really don't want to kill that dragon.

That reminds me of some old DnD 3.0/3.5 combo involving a Lich's phylactery being some sort of soul trap for a terrarasque or something like that.

If they want to pursue it, have an ancient Red Dragon pop out of the middle backpack and kill them. There's nothing in the rules saying you can't. I'll stat one up for you if you want. 6's across the board, 5's in every skill, 100 soak, 200 WT, 300 ST. Auto-fire breath weapon, activates on 1 advantage. Then ask if the player's next character also wants infinite backpacks or some other such silliness.

If you stat it they will kill it or try to anyways.

I'm thinking it's still no match for a Star Destroyer (since it operates on personal scale)...

You know, I remember we had a whole spate of 'how many suits of armour can I wear at once' threads pop up at one time...

This (completely insane) thread is really just the bastard offspring of those conversations...

I was a big fan of the old 'Lone Wolf' solo gamebooks when I was a girl. They really were excellent in terms of action and story and world-building... but they had an odd obsession with describing exactly how your character (a kind of Jedi in a high-fantasy world) wore his gear. So they had stuff like 'Helmet: this is worn on the head' . Seriously, just in case someone tried to put it on thinking it was a pair of pants or something...

If they want to pursue it, have an ancient Red Dragon pop out of the middle backpack and kill them. There's nothing in the rules saying you can't. I'll stat one up for you if you want. 6's across the board, 5's in every skill, 100 soak, 200 WT, 300 ST. Auto-fire breath weapon, activates on 1 advantage. Then ask if the player's next character also wants infinite backpacks or some other such silliness.

If you stat it they will kill it or try to anyways.

I'm thinking it's still no match for a Star Destroyer (since it operates on personal scale)...

Nope, ancient red dragons operate on galactic scale, which is actually 10x planetary scale.

You know, I remember we had a whole spate of 'how many suits of armour can I wear at once' threads pop up at one time...

This (completely insane) thread is really just the bastard offspring of those conversations...

Much....that one and the 'limited ammo on grenades means they can be reloaded' argument had a one night stand and this is their beast child....

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.

Caveat: I am playing devil's advocate.

PC 1: Brawn 2, Encumbrance Threshold = 7, wears backpack, load bearing gear, and a utility belt, ET = 15. PC carries 14 ET worth of gear and suffers no penalties since they are under their ET.

It is quite reasonable to impose setbacks and upgrades to Agility and Brawn checks for a PC being loaded down in this way but a PC is going to fight it with the RAW backing them up.

Edit. I'm also playing devils advocate because I have this situation in my game and I know there will be an argument about it.

See I don't think it is reasonable though, because your PC falls under their threshold and the setbacks aren't supposed to kick in until they're above it RAW and then they add up quickly. Honestly in this game, 15 enc worth of items really isn't that much stuff and already errs on the side of unfair imo.

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

Because if you don't have the discretion to handle this situation without an explanation, you won't have the discretion to handle much else.

If you think of 15 different encumbrance 1 objects, all around the size of a hand, then I can see that being distributed among a bunch of gear, especially if that's the point of backpack and stuff.

On the other hand, if it's really an issue to some, just start applying the Cumbersome quality if a PC starts carrying over X number of 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.

This makes sense to me. Yes you can pick up that Stormtrooper's backpack, but it isn't going to grant you a second bonus to threshold since you've already got one from the backpack you are already wearing. So expect the added encumbrance of the items in the backpack (and the backpack itself?) to be added to your encumbrance without any added benefit at all. Goes along with picking up a second set of armor when you are wearing one already. You can carry it but you aren't going to get the worn bonus to reduce it's encumbrance.

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

Because if you don't have the discretion to handle this situation without an explanation, you won't have the discretion to handle much else.

There you go OP, if you had to ask this question, you apparently can't handle much else. At least according to this guy.

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

Because if you don't have the discretion to handle this situation without an explanation, you won't have the discretion to handle much else.

There you go OP, if you had to ask this question, you apparently can't handle much else. At least according to this guy.

Not at all. I assumed the OP was new at this, which makes it a valid question. Probably the most important point people have made is "use common sense". Players are often pretty loud about how they want to game the system, and presumably the OP is capable of learning this, adjusting to it, using their own judgement, and putting their foot down when necessary.

However, if you continue to argue against using common sense, and continue to insist that all such situations (and they are legion) need to be codified, then it suggests you have no discretion.

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

Because if you don't have the discretion to handle this situation without an explanation, you won't have the discretion to handle much else.

There you go OP, if you had to ask this question, you apparently can't handle much else. At least according to this guy.

Not at all. I assumed the OP was new at this, which makes it a valid question. Probably the most important point people have made is "use common sense". Players are often pretty loud about how they want to game the system, and presumably the OP is capable of learning this, adjusting to it, using their own judgement, and putting their foot down when necessary.

If this is a valid question, then the rules would be improved by addressing the question explicitly and only supports what I've said above; The inclusion of a simple paragraph that clarifies that things that are not explicitly disallowed by the rules may still be disallowed. If it's as critical to playing this game as so many here are claiming, then it bears mention in the rules. This isn't codification, and it wouldn't take 300 pages. It's simply clarification and would be a major quality-of-life improvement for a lot of GMs.

Who here is arguing *against* common sense!? Or even arguing, or even insisting, that every situation be codified. I certainly never said that, and I don't ever recall reading that. Someone who would try to interpret what's been said here as "insisting every situation be codified" would seem to be similarly lacking in discretion...

I like to know what is in a fast draw holster, what is on my back under a poncho, what is in the backpack buried-in-the-bottom-that-will-take-12-maneuvers-to-dig-out-after-removing-the-poncho, and so on.

Let them carry their 15 encumbrance, but don't let them carry all of it in their left hand ready to use.

This can't be right. People aren't actually arguing rule books have to be able to answer every possible situation that could ever come up in-game ever or add an errata to cover it, right? This must be performance art or something.

OP, If a player really wants to say they can wear infinite backpacks because there's no rule against it, sit them down and talk to them about how wildly ridiculous that request is. If they want to pursue it, have an ancient Red Dragon pop out of the middle backpack and kill them. There's nothing in the rules saying you can't. I'll stat one up for you if you want. 6's across the board, 5's in every skill, 100 soak, 200 WT, 300 ST. Auto-fire breath weapon, activates on 1 advantage. Then ask if the player's next character also wants infinite backpacks or some other such silliness.

... what kind of loot does the dragon drop?

I see a guild raid coming up....

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

Because if you don't have the discretion to handle this situation without an explanation, you won't have the discretion to handle much else.

There you go OP, if you had to ask this question, you apparently can't handle much else. At least according to this guy.

Not at all. I assumed the OP was new at this, which makes it a valid question. Probably the most important point people have made is "use common sense". Players are often pretty loud about how they want to game the system, and presumably the OP is capable of learning this, adjusting to it, using their own judgement, and putting their foot down when necessary.

If this is a valid question, then the rules would be improved by addressing the question explicitly and only supports what I've said above; The inclusion of a simple paragraph that clarifies that things that are not explicitly disallowed by the rules may still be disallowed. If it's as critical to playing this game as so many here are claiming, then it bears mention in the rules. This isn't codification, and it wouldn't take 300 pages. It's simply clarification and would be a major quality-of-life improvement for a lot of GMs.

However, if you continue to argue against using common sense, and continue to insist that all such situations (and they are legion) need to be codified, then it suggests you have no discretion.

Who here is arguing *against* common sense!? Or even arguing, or even insisting, that every situation be codified. I certainly never said that, and I don't ever recall reading that. Someone who would try to interpret what's been said here as "insisting every situation be codified" would seem to be similarly lacking in discretion...

I personally think you both have valid points...

First, if a GM needs a Specific statement saying something that is common sense isn't allowed in the game, then perhaps they ought not be Gming... and Likely the OP is New to this so it isn't exactly a Dumb question. (though I find it interesting that they haven't since responded since they posted the question)

But, Yes, a Simple statement of advice to GMs(and players) at the beginning of the book helps Smack down those problem players who like to try to argue against common sense just because it isn't explicitly stated.

I GM another game system which actually did this. (I happened to be part of the Alpha and Beta of the book creation and was there during the discussion of it addition to the book, For which I was on the For adding it side of he argument.)

The Language that was eventually agreed upon was this. (Bold part ephasized for the point.)

RULE ONE: In XXXXXX, any rule ambiguity related to character creation and PC powers is construed against the player character. If you, as a player, find yourself arguing that a rule is ambiguous, your GM must simply weigh both side's benefits to your player character and choose the most logical choice in his opinion. If one choice seems too heavily in favor of your PC and not directly stated in the rules , he has no choice but to rule against your character.

The point here being, that if the rules don't state it, use common sense and likely that which is not in favor of the Players benefit is likely the case.

One thing is certain. If we are arguing over backpacks we need a beefy product announcement(s) really really F-ing bad....