In RAW, items like the Utility Belt and the Backpack simply add to your Encumbrance Threshold. So sometimes you'll end up with players who look like pack mules, and yet suffer no penalties. And sometimes you may end up with a Brawn 4 player wearing a backpack so that they can carry their tricked-out LRB of 10 Encumbrance.

This is intended to be a simple fix to these issues by making the Backpack or whatever have a certain Encumbrance and then a capacity itself of items that don't count to your Encumbrance Threshold.

So, for example:

Backpack: 2 Encumbrance. Can hold a total of 6 Encumbrance worth of items weighing 3 Encumbrance or less, subject to GM discretion,* without contributing to the wearer's total carried Encumbrance.
Utility Belt: 1 Encumbrance. Can hold a total of 2 Encumbrance worth of items weighing 1 Encumbrance or less, subject to GM discretion, without contributing to the wearer's total carried Encumbrance.
Load-Bearing Gear: 1 Encumbrance. Can hold a total of 4 Encumbrance worth of items weighing 2 Encumbrance or less, subject to GM discretion, without contributing to the wearer's total carried Encumbrance.
Under-Barrel Micro-Rocket Rack: 3 Encumbrance. Mounted Micro-Rockets do not contribute to the wielder's total carried Encumbrance.

So, an LRB with an Under-Barrel Micro-Rocket Rack weighs 10 encumbrance. In the base game, someone with 4 Brawn would need a Utility Belt to carry this. Here, they'd need the Burly talent, Repulsor-Assisted Lifting, or an attachment that reduces Encumbrance.

*All that means is that the GM could rule that, for example, a particular Encumbrance 3 item does not make sense, or that an Encumbrance 4 item does.

What do you think?

Here's what I finally went with:

Each item for carrying equipment has an associated Encumbrance value, and allows you to carry a certain amount of Encumbrance without contributing to your carried Encumbrance.

Examples:

Utility Belt: 1 Encumbrance. Can hold 2 Encumbrance worth of items without contributing to the wearer's total carried Encumbrance.
Load-Bearing Gear: 1 Encumbrance. Can hold 4 Encumbrance worth of items without contributing to the wearer's total carried Encumbrance.
Backpack: 2 Encumbrance. Can hold 6 Encumbrance worth of items without contributing to the wearer's total carried Encumbrance.
Imperial Army Military Pack: 3 Encumbrance, Cumbersome 2. Can hold 9 Encumbrance worth of items without contributing to the wearer's total carried Encumbrance.
Military Modular Backpack Storage Unit: 0 Encumbrance. Can hold 3 Encumbrance worth of items without contributing to the wearer's total carried Encumbrance
Under-Barrel Micro-Rocket Rack: 3 Encumbrance. Mounted Micro-Rockets do not contribute to the wielder's total carried Encumbrance.

From here, extrapolation should be quite simple.

Notes:
At GM discretion, certain items may not fit, but the GM should take into account the option of mounting items externally.
To clarify, the listed amount of Encumbrance that can be held by an item is not a hard limit, but rather a measure of how much can be carried before the items' Encumbrance starts to count against the character's Encumbrance Threshold.

If I was going for a universe simulator, yeah.

If I was going for a movie simulator, no

Star Wars is a movie/multimedia franchise, so I'm not sure it's a great fit. Using these rules for a different universe.... definitely.

Just now, EliasWindrider said:

If I was going for a universe simulator, yeah.

If I was going for a movie simulator, no

Star Wars is a movie/multimedia franchise, so I'm not sure it's a great fit. Using these rules for a different universe.... definitely.

What in the media would contradict this?

If anything, this encourages players to behave in ways more consistent with the movies and other media as we generally don't see people carrying around boatloads of gear, or using a backpack to help them fire their LRB.

I don't see how this is against the spirit of Star Wars.

Hmm,

I dont see the current system as a big issue really. Its a game, and its nice as a player to have a modest inventory of things while not carrying a totally ridiculous amount of gear and loot.

I tend to feel (For the Majority) that a difficult and micromanaged game is not what people generally look for. Thats why most groups wont track food and water usage, or fuel and ship rations. These things while fun for some, become tiresome for most.

Movies are light and fast in terms of action, too many fiddly bits doesn't feel movie star wars. Coming from someone who wrote the nubian design collective"s whole vehicle crafting handbook this may seem odd... but my goal with that was the minimum neccessary complexity/departure from RAW needed to replicate 95% of official ships at a 95% quality match. And I think I did a good job at keeping it as simple as possible. Also star ship design happened of camera so...

Just now, EliasWindrider said:

Movies are light and fast in terms of action, too many fiddly bits doesn't feel movie star wars. Coming from someone who wrote the nubian design collective"s whole vehicle crafting handbook this may seem odd... but my goal with that was the minimum neccessary complexity/departure from RAW needed to replicate 95% of official ships at a 95% quality match. And I think I did a good job at keeping it as simple as possible. Also star ship design happened of camera so...

It's really not all that fiddly when it comes right down to it.

You've got your carried items (backpack, rifle) and your stored items. I suppose the most fiddly bit would be specifying which items are where and making sure they are small enough to be carried, but most of that is really simple judgement calls.

Also, in my experience, inventories don't usually change that much aside from using and replacing consumables so there isn't a lot of "recalculation" necessary.

In the movies, if we look at Han Solo, he had a total Encumbrance of probably 3 or 4 at a max. Luke had maybe climbing gear, lightsaber, comlink, utility belt, and E-11 (some of the time) so that's 6 Encumbrance and an incidental out of 9. With my houserule, you drop the climbing gear, lightsaber, and comlink in the utility belt (which is 1 encumbrance) and then you've got an E-11 for 5 Encumbrance total out of 8.

So the player's total encumbrance is actually going to change less with my method than in the RAW since you're just dropping items into slots rather than tallying them up.

So if you've got a backpack, utility belt, and blaster rifle, that's going to be 7 encumbrance. any fluctuation in your backpack/utility belt stores isn't going to affect how heavy an item you can carry, so you don't have to worry about the minor calculations.

I'm pretty sure you've heard the expression "death by a thousand cuts", every bit of complexity cost something, any individual cut can be ignored, but they add up. So in terms of game design, every bit of complexity has to buy you something worth the cost of speed/ease of play.... I'm not sure the trivial benefit of this house rule outweighs the trivial cost for a star wars rpg.

Encumbrance is supposed to be abstract anyway and something light but large can have a high encumbrance because it awkward to use. The more concrete you make encumbrance the less well it does it's job.

1 minute ago, EliasWindrider said:

I'm pretty sure you've heard the expression "death by a thousand cuts", every bit of complexity cost something, any individual cut can be ignored, but they add up. So in terms of game design, every bit of complexity has to buy you something worth the cost of speed/ease of play.... I'm not sure the trivial benefit of this house rule outweighs the trivial cost for a star wars rpg.

Encumbrance is supposed to be abstract anyway and some light but large can have a high encumbrance because it awkward to use. The more concrete you make encumbrance the less well it does it's job.

The cost, to me, seems pretty much non-existent, and I value the benefit. I don't get this "for a Star Wars RPG" I don't see how this at all violates the theme of "Star Wars." I'm not really even changing numbers or the nature of numbers, I'm just adjusting one aspect how you carry things so that it makes more sense (and honestly, nerf some of the more goofy pieces of pack mule gear).

In a couple aspects, it makes it a little more complicated. In others, it actually simplifies matters. Like I mentioned earlier, you no longer have to keep track of the fiddly fluctuations in Encumbrance because it stays the same. So if you want to pick up that PC who's just fallen off a ledge, you don't need to go through and remove the grenades and stimpacks you've already used to reduce the difficulty by one or two. Instead, you take 2 Encumbrance for the backpack and 1 Encumbrance for the utility belt. You drop your blaster, and now you're at three. Regardless of what's in the backpack or utility belt. Then you can do any rejiggering of how much encumbrance is carried in the backpack or utility belt when you are doen with the session or restocking.

I know encumbrance is supposed to be abstract, I'm not doing anything to change that. You have actually fallen into that as you said that we can't have a total encumbrance greater than 8 and still use a jetpack.

I can't remember any scene from any star wars movie where a character mentioned that they were carrying a lot... it was a narrative handwave.

But if you derive value from this... more power too you.

Just now, EliasWindrider said:

I can't remember any scene from any star wars movie where a character mentioned that they were carrying a lot... it was a narrative handwave.

Because they never were carrying a lot.

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Because they never were carrying a lot.

5+brawn or less in unencumbered/not a lot.

Just now, EliasWindrider said:

5+brawn or less in unencumbered/not a lot.

Yes..?

What's your point?

That not carrying a lot isn't a very meaningful statement.

Look if you derive value from these rules more power to you.

Personally I can't remember the last time I've built a character that carried more than 5+brawn of gear, and if I had a backpack it was just a narrative place to put a bunch of small items... I didn't need it to carry the enc. The more detail you add the less narratively bbn useful a place to stuff small things (like a change of clothes) a backpack is so I don't derive value from these rules, therefore I wouldn't use them. But ymmv and if it does good for you.

Just now, EliasWindrider said:

That not carrying a lot isn't a very meaningful statement.

Okay, then I disagree. A soldier carrying a rucksack, a rifle, and a ton of extra gear is carrying a lot. Per the rules, he is likely unencumbered given how backpacks work. That's "carrying a lot."

If a farmboy is walking around with a comlink, a grapple, and a lightsaber, that's not carrying a lot.

I'm not talking mechanical carrying a lot, I'm talking actual carrying a lot.

3 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Personally I can't remember the last time I've built a character that carried more than 5+brawn of gear, and if I had a backpack it was just a narrative place to put a bunch of small items... I didn't need it to carry the enc. The more detail you add the less narratively bbn useful a place to stuff small things (like a change of clothes) a backpack is so I don't derive value from these rules, therefore I wouldn't use them. But ymmv and if it does good for you.

Well when you play Jedi, you need a lot less gear and Encumbrance. If you took a look at your PCs, you'd see that most of them have more encumbrance than Brawn+5 (even the Jedi, but especially the clones).

You have a point regarding it becoming less narratively useful, but when I put a number on how much a backpack can carry, that's in broad mechanical strokes for the sort of gear you note on your sheet. Sundries and incidentals don't count. It's not like I'm accounting for every pocket on a backpack. I'm just putting a mechanical measure on how much it contributes.

Here's an example of an easily achievable pack mule:
Imperial Army Backpack, Load-Bearing Gear, Utility Belt, 3 Brawn=18 Encumbrance
That's pretty absurd, in my opinion. To be able to carry that much without any sort of penalty?
In my method, you'd still be able to carry that much, but the gear would take up 5 Encumbrance (3+1+1), leaving you with 3 for carrying something before you're over your threshold because of how much stuff you've got on your body, even before you start loading it up. This encourages players to pack less, which makes it more "Star Warsy" in my opinion, as they really don't carry all that much.

If you don't like the idea of specifying how much you can carry, we could always just split it up into Encumbrance Threshold and "Carrying Capacity."

So you'd have an ET of 8 and a CC of 15. In other words, you can stuff 15 Encumbrance worth of stuff into your various pockets, but can only carry 3 more encumbrance than that on your person.

this is a character I've been wanting to play in and EotE/AoR game for a long time... 8 enc total

http://www.mediafire.com/file/r1el3ywxtihe0wv/JacenBaurneDemoSharp.pdf/file

will post more examples if you want

27 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

this is a character I've been wanting to play in and EotE/AoR game for a long time... 8 enc total

http://www.mediafire.com/file/r1el3ywxtihe0wv/JacenBaurneDemoSharp.pdf/file

will post more examples if you want

Not necessary.

It is quite possible and common to build a character with less than 5+Br in equipment (I know, because I have). It is also quite common and possible to build a character with a lot more than 5+Br in equipment, to the point of being goofy.

In case there was a misunderstanding, when I said "your PCs" I was referring to the players in your game. I realize that isn't the best way to phrase it. When I say "My PCs" I'm referring to my players. When I say "My characters" I'm talking about PCs I have built.

I just don't see it as a big enough (i.e. non trivial) issue to justify the added complexity of fixing (not worth the trouble of modding gear in ogg dude's generator and getting all the players to use the same mods in their copy of ogg dude's generator, not worth the added complexity of manual tracking either) but if you do, more power to you.

11 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

I just don't see it as a big enough (i.e. non trivial) issue to justify the added complexity of fixing (not worth the trouble of modding gear in ogg dude's generator and getting all the players to use the same mods in their copy of ogg dude's generator, not worth the added complexity of manual tracking either) but if you do, more power to you.

What's oggdude's got to do with anything? Most people don't use it, and I actually dislike it for a variety of reasons (I'm sure it's a fine program, it's just not for me). That's an odd reason for objecting to a houserule.

You may not see an issue, but I do.

I'm currently overseeing my players trying to put together their mission gear for the next scenario, and I'm interested in Encumbrance tweaks. Right now, they have all gone Brawn + Utility Belt + Back Packs, which I think is fine, but blindly using this system makes things weird. Like, you put on a back pack so that you can done the Flak Vest without losing the free Maneuver... okeeeee. Well, I've decided not to make a big deal out of it this time around, ruling that the backpacks also function like weight-distribution harnesses and cargo frames, but it is definitely odd.

I don't think I'd go with the what you suggest @P-47 Thunderbolt , simply because I want something even simpler than this. If I am to introduce a house rule to Encumbrance in the future, I will probably go for something like: "A character's Encumbrance Bonus cap is equal to twice their Brawn", possibly "twice [Brawn+UtilityBelt]" if I find the first ruling too restrictive. *shrug*

@P-47 Thunderbolt I'm glad if you find this system more realistic and enjoyable, I definately feel a GM should run the type of game he enjoys.

For myself, like Elias, I guess it seems a little unnecessary and trivial. Unless you want a really realistic Starwars game, then I don't see the benefit. Perhaps a minority likes to micromanage their inventory from game to game, and while I do like to have rules and confines to what you can carry without being over-encumbered, not at the expense of Player enjoyment.

As an example I like to think of most video games out there. Think of MMO's or other RPG's. These games usually provide a large inventory for players to carry things in, an unrealistic amount for sure, but people enjoy it.

If you've ever played a new game with a really restricted and limited inventory capacity, the overwhelming majority of players will complain and find it overly restrictive. When those restraints are loosened a little (even if slightly unrealistic) player enjoyment is much higher.

I think thats the case here, and that most would find the current encumbrance rules adequate and enjoyable.

3 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

As an example I like to think of most video games out there. Think of MMO's or other RPG's. These games usually provide a large inventory for players to carry things in, an unrealistic amount for sure, but people enjoy it.

Yeah, that's something that's always bothered me.

3 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

If you've ever played a new game with a really restricted and limited inventory capacity, the overwhelming majority of players will complain and find it overly restrictive. When those restraints are loosened a little (even if slightly unrealistic) player enjoyment is much higher.

I think thats the case here, and that most would find the current encumbrance rules adequate and enjoyable.

Most might, but I've always had some issues with the Encumbrance rules, both as a player and as a GM. At one point I just discarded them entirely and went with a "what makes sense" rule, but ended up deciding that wasn't enough. My in-person group has also always had issues with it. I haven't had a chance to discuss it since we haven't gotten together this year, but we're getting ready to reset and start again (hopefully) so it'd be the time to bring it up.

This isn't "really restricted and limited" and it fits the base games rules pretty closely as far as how much you can carry. It just means that wearing a backpack doesn't help you with your LRB. If you're wearing a backpack, it'll be harder to handle a heavy (literally heavy, not a weapon designation) weapon. There are some things that break the immersion for me, and broken encumbrance builds are one of them.

20 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

In RAW, items like the Utility Belt and the Backpack simply add to your Encumbrance Threshold. So sometimes you'll end up with players who look like pack mules, and yet suffer no penalties. And sometimes you may end up with a Brawn 4 player wearing a backpack so that they can carry their tricked-out LRB of 10 Encumbrance.

This is intended to be a simple fix to these issues by making the Backpack or whatever have a certain Encumbrance and then a capacity itself of items that don't count to your Encumbrance Threshold.

So, for example:

Backpack: 2 Encumbrance. Can hold a total of 6 Encumbrance worth of items weighing 3 Encumbrance or less, subject to GM discretion,* without contributing to the wearer's total carried Encumbrance.
Utility Belt: 1 Encumbrance. Can hold a total of 2 Encumbrance worth of items weighing 1 Encumbrance or less, subject to GM discretion, without contributing to the wearer's total carried Encumbrance.
Load-Bearing Gear: 1 Encumbrance. Can hold a total of 4 Encumbrance worth of items weighing 2 Encumbrance or less, subject to GM discretion, without contributing to the wearer's total carried Encumbrance.
Under-Barrel Micro-Rocket Rack: 3 Encumbrance. Mounted Micro-Rockets do not contribute to the wielder's total carried Encumbrance.

So, an LRB with an Under-Barrel Micro-Rocket Rack weighs 10 encumbrance. In the base game, someone with 4 Brawn would need a Utility Belt to carry this. Here, they'd need the Burly talent, Repulsor-Assisted Lifting, or an attachment that reduces Encumbrance.

*All that means is that the GM could rule that, for example, a particular Encumbrance 3 item does not make sense, or that an Encumbrance 4 item does.

What do you think?

I quite like this. I'd probably hand-wave a lot of things, but I've kind of been enforcing something like this in my games. Like where they keep their stuff, backpack, belt, or bag, pocket, ship, hand, boot ... This also matters thinking of pulling something out easily or with more time. It matters sometimes, not always. The size limitation of items fitting in a backpack or belt can sometimes add comedy, drama, and tension as the players are trying to stuff things into their gear and carry something big and heavy.

It's also worth taking a look at these: from DC the Military Pack, and the Spacer's Duffel from EtU, the items add something (i.e. Cumbersome X) if filled up or just carried around.

@CloudyLemonade92 , @EliasWindrider , I realized I did not express my intentions well regarding how much you can stuff in a backpack, utility belt, etc. and so I wish to clarify.

The "a backpack can hold up to 6 Encumbrance of items of X or less" was not intended as a limit, no more than "a backpack increases your ET by 4" was supposed to be a limit. It's just how much you can hold without contributing to your total carried encumbrance . So you can stuff in a lot of stuff, but anything past the first 6 will contribute to total carried encumbrance.

25 minutes ago, Jegergryte said:

It's also worth taking a look at these: from DC the Military Pack, and the Spacer's Duffel from EtU, the items add something (i.e. Cumbersome X) if filled up or just carried around.

Yes, Cumbersome 2 would still apply for the Military Pack (not familiar with the other), but Cumbersome 2 does practically nothing. It's quite rare (in my experience) for a PC to only have 1 Brawn, and if they do they likely aren't carrying much around anyway. I believe I've only had one PC who started with a 1 Brawn species, and they promptly raised it to 2.

16 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Here's an example of an easily achievable pack mule:
Imperial Army Backpack, Load-Bearing Gear, Utility Belt, 3 Brawn=18 Encumbrance
That's pretty absurd, in my opinion. To be able to carry that much without any sort of penalty?

From the "pretty absurd" perspective I both agree and don't. In a more realism based game I'd feel a certain amount of prior training might be needed to make best use of this kind of load distribution. I think of pictures I have seen of Arctic explorers with packs that are, literally, 10 feet tall. It can be done, but takes some skill. But from an everyday gaming perspective it doesn't particularly bother me. This person, however, would look out of place in many environs. That could be the biggest GM control.

Having said that, I agree that having an empty backpack to gain Encumbrance to carry something else doesn't make sense, and I, thankfully, have not experienced this as a GM or PC. To the specific suggestion I would not have the items have any Encumbrance of their own. I.e. a backpack has 0 Encumbrance. While the mechanic is that it adds to overall Encumbrance, I agree that it makes more sense that it holds 4 Encumbrance of items "for free", and as a PC that is how I always role play it.

As there is GM discretion in all things I would just be clear that having an empty backpack doesn't give you any extra Encumbrance capacity and end it there.