Have we reached the part of the discussion where we hash out what happens if we put a bag of holding backpack inside a bag of holding backpack?

When you open the backpack within the backpack, a space slug comes out of it and eats you.

Speaking of backpacks. Isn't is silly that a backpack can hold only 4 grenades? Now I can understand there has to be a limit, the bag of infinite grenades would get real old for a GM. I rule that the encumbrance bonus is for combat accessible gear. Other things, like tents and tools can fit within reason.

Four? I guess it depends on the type of grenade... but anything from a modern M61 to the thermal detonator we see in RotJ should fit far more than 4 to a backpack.

Yeah, but probably some of that space is taken up with foam padding and protection. Well, unless you just want four thermal detonators rattling around loose in your backpack just waiting for a Despair to happen. . . .

OK, I admit it, I was just picturing a bag full of grenades...

Have we reached the part of the discussion where we hash out what happens if we put a bag of holding backpack inside a bag of holding backpack?

I imagine the result would be the same thing as if you materialized the TARDIS inside the TARDIS. It would get . . . ugly.

Speaking of backpacks. Isn't is silly that a backpack can hold only 4 grenades? Now I can understand there has to be a limit, the bag of infinite grenades would get real old for a GM. I rule that the encumbrance bonus is for combat accessible gear. Other things, like tents and tools can fit within reason.

Four? I guess it depends on the type of grenade... but anything from a modern M61 to the thermal detonator we see in RotJ should fit far more than 4 to a backpack.

I have sometimes used the concept of "stowing gear" if you want to be able to access an item with the "Manage Gear" maneuver then it uses up the whole amount of it's encumbrance value. If you are packaging it up for transport it uses up 1/5 of that much but you need to spend an action getting it out and ready.

Do you mean the packaged stuff only counts 1/5th towards Encumbrance Threshold, or the packaged gear only counts 1/5th if you are counting how much can fit inside a backpack? The first I can see being abused and making high Brawn characters carrying unbelievable amounts of gear around with no hindrance. The later I could get on board with IF you required the added detail from your players of noting where everything is carried (on-person vs. in-backpack).

The only time it came up was with a truckload of blaster pistols the players "Acquired". They were on foot and the disabled truck had hundreds of pistols but rules wise the players were only able to carry about 15 of them. It made sense to me that if they stuffed them into the backpacks the normal 3-4 enc that the packs provided could carry 15-20 pistols each. So I allowed them to load them selves up. But as I recall I also counted the backpack as being above their Enc Threshold because of the weight of the pistols.

Regardless of what abdication I apply to the rules I will never allow the player's to abuse it. I made the rule because it made more sense for the story that the characters were able to carry that many pistols. If it hadn't made sense it would not have happened.

Speaking of backpacks. Isn't is silly that a backpack can hold only 4 grenades? Now I can understand there has to be a limit, the bag of infinite grenades would get real old for a GM. I rule that the encumbrance bonus is for combat accessible gear. Other things, like tents and tools can fit within reason.

I think the silly part is really that, without injecting common sense, the above is true whether the backpack is sized to be worn by Yoda or sized for a rancor.

I like those stowing rules people mentioned. I'll mention it to my GM. My game is a solo game. I mean one gm and one player. Is that solo or two players? Anyway, it means I end up carrying more stuff tham when I had other pc's to be my beasts of burden.

wow, I'll refrain from asking dumb questions in the future

It wasn't dumb. The answer just got people talking. Some topics have legs right from the start. Others grow legs and start running later on.

My game is a solo game. I mean one gm and one player. Is that solo or two players?

Two of the players in my game are in the US, so they play via email, occasionally bumping into the other PCs (who play via email and by table-top meet-ups).

But mostly they have their own stories, and I love the one GM & one player format. It allows us to tell more personal stories, a very different pace and style to the tabletop games.

If i were a PC truly set on arguing for a second backpack (like the I wore as a kid), I'd say/offer that:

• The second one halves the encumberance value that fits into it, but I still count as encumbered, because that would be the most realistic approach.

Like carrying grocerys in bags, easier then carrying them seperately. But that is a part of realism that rarely comes up in an RPG because it is mostly unrelevant to plot.

Except you know, if you are sympathetic to your poor little players that need to carry all that _instert important plot stuff here_ to important plot location.

Speaking of backpacks. Isn't is silly that a backpack can hold only 4 grenades? Now I can understand there has to be a limit, the bag of infinite grenades would get real old for a GM. I rule that the encumbrance bonus is for combat accessible gear. Other things, like tents and tools can fit within reason.

I think the silly part is really that, without injecting common sense, the above is true whether the backpack is sized to be worn by Yoda or sized for a rancor.

I like those stowing rules people mentioned. I'll mention it to my GM. My game is a solo game. I mean one gm and one player. Is that solo or two players? Anyway, it means I end up carrying more stuff tham when I had other pc's to be my beasts of burden.

Actually, the backpack itself is not listed with any specific size limit to what can go into it. What it does is increase your character's encumberance limit by 4. That does not mean it can only fit encumberance 4 worth of items in it but that over all you can carry that much more. Potentially, many of your items could be inside that backpack. In the case of grenades for example... all of your grenades could be in there you can just now carry 4 more than you could before without penalty due to encumberance.

If i were a PC truly set on arguing for a second backpack (like the I wore as a kid), I'd say/offer that:

• The second one halves the encumberance value that fits into it, but I still count as encumbered, because that would be the most realistic approach.

Like carrying grocerys in bags, easier then carrying them seperately. But that is a part of realism that rarely comes up in an RPG because it is mostly unrelevant to plot.

Except you know, if you are sympathetic to your poor little players that need to carry all that _instert important plot stuff here_ to important plot location.

Overall, I would say that either 1) The encumberance bonus does not stack. So you can wear more but you still only get a net bonus of +4. Or 2) Once you put on a second backpack you've kind of destoryed the whole well balanced and positioned to be easier to carry and thus normal encumberance applies. Certainly, you carried two backpacks on you as a kid but I suspect that distribution infact made balancing harder than with just one not easier.

Speaking of backpacks. Isn't is silly that a backpack can hold only 4 grenades? Now I can understand there has to be a limit, the bag of infinite grenades would get real old for a GM. I rule that the encumbrance bonus is for combat accessible gear. Other things, like tents and tools can fit within reason.

I think the silly part is really that, without injecting common sense, the above is true whether the backpack is sized to be worn by Yoda or sized for a rancor.

I like those stowing rules people mentioned. I'll mention it to my GM. My game is a solo game. I mean one gm and one player. Is that solo or two players? Anyway, it means I end up carrying more stuff tham when I had other pc's to be my beasts of burden.

Actually, the backpack itself is not listed with any specific size limit to what can go into it. What it does is increase your character's encumberance limit by 4. That does not mean it can only fit encumberance 4 worth of items in it but that over all you can carry that much more. Potentially, many of your items could be inside that backpack. In the case of grenades for example... all of your grenades could be in there you can just now carry 4 more than you could before without penalty due to encumberance.

If i were a PC truly set on arguing for a second backpack (like the I wore as a kid), I'd say/offer that:

• The second one halves the encumberance value that fits into it, but I still count as encumbered, because that would be the most realistic approach.

Like carrying grocerys in bags, easier then carrying them seperately. But that is a part of realism that rarely comes up in an RPG because it is mostly unrelevant to plot.

Except you know, if you are sympathetic to your poor little players that need to carry all that _instert important plot stuff here_ to important plot location.

Overall, I would say that either 1) The encumberance bonus does not stack. So you can wear more but you still only get a net bonus of +4. Or 2) Once you put on a second backpack you've kind of destoryed the whole well balanced and positioned to be easier to carry and thus normal encumberance applies. Certainly, you carried two backpacks on you as a kid but I suspect that distribution infact made balancing harder than with just one not easier.

I think the 'wearing two packs' thing shouldn't boost encumbrance. I think all a PC does in that scenario is provide me a functional/narrative/reasonable explanation of how precisely they are carrying the 12 blaster pistols, med kit, and 5 grenades they looted. They're still going to be encumbered.

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.

Everywhere he went, he would be losing his marbles.

Speaking of backpacks. Isn't is silly that a backpack can hold only 4 grenades? Now I can understand there has to be a limit, the bag of infinite grenades would get real old for a GM. I rule that the encumbrance bonus is for combat accessible gear. Other things, like tents and tools can fit within reason.

Last I checked there was no defined capacity on any carrying equipment, just the encumbrance cap adjustment.

I always assumed actual capacity of things like backpacks was just a logical determination. So if running some kind of long range op you could pile the gear you don't need ready access to (tents, rations, climbing gear, entrenching tools) into the pack, and keep important gear (grenades, ammo, stimpacks) on your person. Load (or even overload a little) all the gear you'll need, and if you get in trouble drop the pack and everything in it to get your enc down to a better level...

Actually, the backpack itself is not listed with any specific size limit to what can go into it. What it does is increase your character's encumberance limit by 4. That does not mean it can only fit encumberance 4 worth of items in it but that over all you can carry that much more. Potentially, many of your items could be inside that backpack. In the case of grenades for example... all of your grenades could be in there you can just now carry 4 more than you could before without penalty due to encumberance.

Right. And this changes what?

Strap a backpack on a space slug and he can carry 4 points more without being encumbered. Slap a backpack on an ant and so can he.

If anything, the semantics make backpacks even sillier. A naked character with no other gear at all, unable to carry a similarly naked, gearless character could slip on a backpack and whisk him off to safety without breaking a sweat. It works in the case of carrying C3PO but I wouldn't want my character folded in half with her head on backwards!

I'm not advocating a rules change. The rules are written for a narrow range of possible character sizes even if they encompass everything from jawa to hutts and they work just fine. I am sure this would be an area that a gm's common sense would be called into play if a player's didn't already stop them from thinking that strapping a backpack on a space slug was ever a good idea.

Actually, the backpack itself is not listed with any specific size limit to what can go into it. What it does is increase your character's encumberance limit by 4. That does not mean it can only fit encumberance 4 worth of items in it but that over all you can carry that much more. Potentially, many of your items could be inside that backpack. In the case of grenades for example... all of your grenades could be in there you can just now carry 4 more than you could before without penalty due to encumberance.

Right. And this changes what?

Strap a backpack on a space slug and he can carry 4 points more without being encumbered. Slap a backpack on an ant and so can he.

If anything, the semantics make backpacks even sillier. A naked character with no other gear at all, unable to carry a similarly naked, gearless character could slip on a backpack and whisk him off to safety without breaking a sweat. It works in the case of carrying C3PO but I wouldn't want my character folded in half with her head on backwards!

I'm not advocating a rules change. The rules are written for a narrow range of possible character sizes even if they encompass everything from jawa to hutts and they work just fine. I am sure this would be an area that a gm's common sense would be called into play if a player's didn't already stop them from thinking that strapping a backpack on a space slug was ever a good idea.

Absolutely, common sense should definitely be applied. My statement was more in regards to the comments that it seemed strange that a backpack can carry only X amount of Y object.. that isn't the case. The backpack doesn't have an identified capacity or size. But I definitely advocate applying common sense.. like you mentioned.. strapping on a backpack wont let you carry your buddy to safety easier.. but it also wont be limited to 4 grenades.

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.

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

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.

And that, right there, is how it turns into 300 pages. There's a rule that syas the GM is the only one who can decide if something is reasonable or not, but right there, you argue that it only applies to the use of Destiny Points. So, that rule has to be included in each section, sub-section, and offshoot of each rule.

Or, you can acknowledge that the general, 'GM's ruling is final' rule (common across virtually every RPG ever made) is enough.

Since this has gone on a tangent:

I use a variation of the 10/neatly packed rule for 0 encumbrance items on larger items too. Essentially 5 of anything (ENC 1 or higher) packed neatly in a box/bag etc is ENC+1 of the item - 10 if it's a custom cargo box for shipping.

I admit I haven't read this whole topic but I have had this conversation before. It's important to understand what Encumbrance means in the context of this system. It's stated that:

I'm not advocating a rules change. The rules are written for a narrow range of possible character sizes even if they encompass everything from jawa to hutts and they work just fine. I am sure this would be an area that a gm's common sense would be called into play if a player's didn't already stop them from thinking that strapping a backpack on a space slug was ever a good idea.

Oh, Haley. You have no idea how much I love reading your posts, and seeing how far you’ve grown.

I mean, don’t get me wrong — I also loved to read your posts a long time ago, when I first discovered this forum.

But now?

I'm not advocating a rules change. The rules are written for a narrow range of possible character sizes even if they encompass everything from jawa to hutts and they work just fine. I am sure this would be an area that a gm's common sense would be called into play if a player's didn't already stop them from thinking that strapping a backpack on a space slug was ever a good idea.

Oh, Haley. You have no idea how much I love reading your posts, and seeing how far you’ve grown.I mean, don’t get me wrong — I also loved to read your posts a long time ago, when I first discovered this forum.But now?

I'm afraid to like this because it would be self serving but thank you (and I avoided saying tyvm so I'd maintain my air of maturity)!

Ha ha, wow 8 pages in and I just realized no one has mentioned the rule where bonuses from the same type of source don't stack. You could even say that the bonus you get from a Utility Belt is from an item, so the bonus you get from a backpack (also an item) does not stack on top of it.

deleted

Ha ha, wow 8 pages in and I just realized no one has mentioned the rule where bonuses from the same type of source don't stack. You could even say that the bonus you get from a Utility Belt is from an item, so the bonus you get from a backpack (also an item) does not stack on top of it.

I know I said I was out (regarding this thread), but I still have popcorn and some spare time. I think the stacking thing was mentioned early on page 2.

And now that I am looking for it I cant find it so please someone correct me.

That was LD talking about precedent in regards to Defense and Soak sources. There is no such specific rule in regards to Encumbrance. We have to fall back on poor ol common sense again.

There is a lovely line in the beginning of the Encumbrance section about Players and GMs typically not having to bother with what a PC carries on their person for Encumbrance. More or less, make it and issue when it needs to be an issue.

Oh, Haley. You have no idea how much I love reading your posts, and seeing how far you’ve grown.

I mean, don’t get me wrong — I also loved to read your posts a long time ago, when I first discovered this forum.

But now?

We've been a horrible, terrible influence on poor young Haley.

We've made her innocent little mind as sarcastic and smart-ass as the rest of us 'lifer gamers'.

I for one am thoroughly ashamed