This is a simple one that we think is a no-brainer.

Basically 5 + Brawn is a character's base Encumbrance, nothing new there.

Our GMs feel like this should reflect the heaviest weapon(s) and armor a character can equip and wear (including a Jet Pack, for that matter).

We still buy Backpacks and such, but we feel that characters should not be allowed to use their Backpacks and Utility Belts or whatever to use those Encumbrance bonuses to carry heavier weapons and armor.

I mean if you're wearing armor and carrying/shooting a weapon, it's not in your backpack, so you shouldn't be able to take advantage of the extra Encumbrance that provides. We're restricting our characters to a base "Personal Encumbrance" to define what weapons and armor they can wear.

For example, my Gadgeteer has a total Encumbrance of 15 with Backpacks and whatnot, but a Personal Encumbrance of 7 (2 Brawn). He can wear Laminate armor and carry a Heavy Blaster Rifle, nothing heavier, which maxes out his "Personal" Encumbrance

Also we've ruled you can only carry EITHER a Backpack or Jet Pack on your back, never both. One of our players said something about flipping the backpack around and wearing a backpack on his chest and a jet pack on his back.

We laughed and cried "munchkin".

We're not trying to change the rules for Encumbrance, you can still incur additional difficulties and whatnot for Brawn and Agility checks when you're encumbered. We're just ruling that your weapons and armor are restricted by your Personal Encumbrance and can't benefit from the bonuses provided by Encumbrance-enhancing items.

TLDR:

This house rule states that carried Weapons and Armor cannot take advantage of the additional Encumbrance provided by Encumbrance-enhancing items, such as Utility Belts and Backpacks.

Also you can wear EITHER a Jet Pack or Backpack, never both.

What about "fluffing" the backpack as a satchel? I had someone in a previous group describe his backpack that way just for the benefit of his character's style. He didn't have a jetpack or anything, he simply thought the satchel would look neat on his character.

I am hard pressed to believe that something that carried the exact same statistical benefit and carried the exact same in-game cost should be any lower profile or mass or size or than the backpack, and I still wouldn't allow it to be worn with a Jet Pack.

That being said, I'm not totally opposed to the idea of multiple Utility Belts (maybe one on the waist, one on the thigh), but I'm also of the opinion that you should only be able to stick an Encumbrance 1 item in those.

For example, my Gadgeteer has a total Encumbrance of 15 with Backpacks and whatnot, but a Personal Encumbrance of 7 (2 Brawn). He can wear Laminate armor and carry a Heavy Blaster Rifle, nothing heavier, which maxes out his "Personal" Encumbrance

Negative. His laminate armor only has Enc of only 1 when worn (pg 168).

See the current rules for Enc aren't a measure of weight, but a hybridization of weight and bulkiness. that's why armor has a lower Enc when worn, because it's bulky (which is true, real armor is heavy, but trying to carry it by hand is just outright awkward, I always just wear mine on the rare occasion I need it). Things like the backpack isn't increasing your Enc because it makes you physically stronger, it just gives you a more efficient place to stash all those smaller items you accumulate like stimpacks, datapads, glowrods, toolkits, spare blaster packs, grenades, and so forth. Otherwise your character would just be filling his pockets and tucking it all into his pants.

Even Jetbacks and Backpacks can be easily explained when you consider that within the universe there's a demand for packs that work with jetpacks. Check out the style of the "Elysian Drop Troops" featured in Warhammer 40k. They wear jetpack -like gravchutes that sit high on their back, and their backpacks hang down below them, allowing the troopers to drop into a combat zone while still carrying all the gear they'd need to fight long enough to be relieved by more conventional troopers with heavier weapons and more easily managed supply lines.

What about "fluffing" the backpack as a satchel? I had someone in a previous group describe his backpack that way just for the benefit of his character's style. He didn't have a jetpack or anything, he simply thought the satchel would look neat on his character.

Because there's already a satchel that grants +2 encumbrance?

OT:

Am I then only one who finds it sort of absurd that your encumbrance is 15 to begin with. Are you carrying two backpacks? I can't believe your GM came up with a house rule on encumbrance, but didn't outright smack down the idea of carrying around two backpacks. Or I guess it could be a backpack, a satchel and a couple belts, but I'm just wondering what the **** you are hauling around that you need all that. Does everyone in your party carry that much junk?

Doesn't that seem sort of silly to you? Calling out another player for munchkinism because he wants to carry a backpack and a jetpack, but are somehow alright with two backpacks?

Your game your rules though

I suppose if you feel the need to break the encumbrance rule down that far but I guess my counter would be a utility/gun belt certainly should be used to allow for the weight of pistols, binoculars etc. I could see not allowing the use of a backpack if you are wearing a jetpack, but I think it would reasonable also to have a storage clip or pouch or two on the jetpack and still allow it to grant a point or two of encumbrance capacity as it would still serve the purpose of distributing weight and load around a persons body. Then again I would actually probably not bother at all because it starts to make things a little too hyper technical for my tastes.

Also we've ruled you can only carry EITHER a Backpack or Jet Pack on your back, never both. One of our players said something about flipping the backpack around and wearing a backpack on his chest and a jet pack on his back.

We laughed and cried "munchkin".

I have, in real life, frequently worn two backpacks simultaneously in just such a manner. I've heard it referred to as "fore-and-aft" packs. It is surprisingly effective, as long as you make sure to put on the backpack being worn in front last, so that its straps are on top and you can remove it easily. Try it out sometime, it leaves a wider range of arm motion than you might think.

Game-wise, I would reflect this by giving the front backpack the Cumbersome 4 quality, reflecting the awkwardness of fighting while wearing it. There is in-game precedent for equipment with Cumbersome; the Spacer's Duffel from Enter the Unknown, grants +2 Encumberance Threshhold with Cumbersome 3.

Even Jetbacks and Backpacks can be easily explained when you consider that within the universe there's a demand for packs that work with jetpacks. Check out the style of the "Elysian Drop Troops" featured in Warhammer 40k. They wear jetpack -like gravchutes that sit high on their back, and their backpacks hang down below them, allowing the troopers to drop into a combat zone while still carrying all the gear they'd need to fight long enough to be relieved by more conventional troopers with heavier weapons and more easily managed supply lines.

Very true, but remember that a jetpack generates dangerous exhaust, unlike a grav-chute. Also, the nature of their ammunition (charge packs are very large "magazines" for a conventional infantry weapon) means that less goes a lot farther. I could definitely see a sort of "half-pack" being worn with a jetpack though, for Encumberance +2 or so.

What about "fluffing" the backpack as a satchel? I had someone in a previous group describe his backpack that way just for the benefit of his character's style. He didn't have a jetpack or anything, he simply thought the satchel would look neat on his character.

Because there's already a satchel that grants +2 encumbrance?

Not in the CRB, which is all that was available at the time.

Also we've ruled you can only carry EITHER a Backpack or Jet Pack on your back, never both. One of our players said something about flipping the backpack around and wearing a backpack on his chest and a jet pack on his back.

We laughed and cried "munchkin".

I have, in real life, frequently worn two backpacks simultaneously in just such a manner. I've heard it referred to as "fore-and-aft" packs. It is surprisingly effective, as long as you make sure to put on the backpack being worn in front last, so that its straps are on top and you can remove it easily. Try it out sometime, it leaves a wider range of arm motion than you might think.

Game-wise, I would reflect this by giving the front backpack the Cumbersome 4 quality, reflecting the awkwardness of fighting while wearing it. There is in-game precedent for equipment with Cumbersome; the Spacer's Duffel from Enter the Unknown, grants +2 Encumberance Threshhold with Cumbersome 3.

Even Jetbacks and Backpacks can be easily explained when you consider that within the universe there's a demand for packs that work with jetpacks. Check out the style of the "Elysian Drop Troops" featured in Warhammer 40k. They wear jetpack -like gravchutes that sit high on their back, and their backpacks hang down below them, allowing the troopers to drop into a combat zone while still carrying all the gear they'd need to fight long enough to be relieved by more conventional troopers with heavier weapons and more easily managed supply lines.

Very true, but remember that a jetpack generates dangerous exhaust, unlike a grav-chute. Also, the nature of their ammunition (charge packs are very large "magazines" for a conventional infantry weapon) means that less goes a lot farther. I could definitely see a sort of "half-pack" being worn with a jetpack though, for Encumberance +2 or so.

It depends on the positioning of the jets, the exhaust temp, and the materials of the backpack. Elysian Grav-chutes thrusters are high up and out on the sides, so below works. For a pack of the design shown on the Fetts you probably wouldn't want to put the pack below the jets, but you could certainly have strap-on pouches that go on the outside and over the top and sides.

I am hard pressed to believe that something that carried the exact same statistical benefit and carried the exact same in-game cost should be any lower profile or mass or size or than the backpack, and I still wouldn't allow it to be worn with a Jet Pack.

That being said, I'm not totally opposed to the idea of multiple Utility Belts (maybe one on the waist, one on the thigh), but I'm also of the opinion that you should only be able to stick an Encumbrance 1 item in those.

I do agree, if you're going to break it down, that only items equaling the Encumbrance of the container item should be "in" the container.

That said, due to the extremely narrative nature of the game, and FFG's own emphasis on the player describing their gear, I have no problem with players describing their items mostly how they want. Aside from obviously weird extremes (clearly a fanny-pack isn't a valid descriptor of the backpack).

Any intention to adjust EC based on the Silhouette of the character? Should a Silhouette 0 character be able to carry as much gear as a Silhouette 1 character with the same Brawn?

Any intention to adjust EC based on the Silhouette of the character? Should a Silhouette 0 character be able to carry as much gear as a Silhouette 1 character with the same Brawn?

I feel like they should have the same Encumbrance Threshold. Simply because the game is already saying they should have the same physically capacity based on Brawn. However, because of the way Encumbrance works and it not being solely based on weight, I could completely understand them having a different value. For example, 3 or 4 + Brawn to determine their Threshold.

Any intention to adjust EC based on the Silhouette of the character? Should a Silhouette 0 character be able to carry as much gear as a Silhouette 1 character with the same Brawn?

I feel like they should have the same Encumbrance Threshold. Simply because the game is already saying they should have the same physically capacity based on Brawn. However, because of the way Encumbrance works and it not being solely based on weight, I could completely understand them having a different value. For example, 3 or 4 + Brawn to determine their Threshold.

The other extreme to that is that a rancor has Brawn 6. Should a rancor be able to carry more than a typical human (Brawn 2) with a backpack? I think so.

I run mine where the base encumbrance is like how the OP describes. However I probably use it a bit looser terms than they do.

Basically items and weapons that can't be stored inside a backpack or belt count against the base encumbrance. I do allow them to use base encumbrance on stuff that is stored in pouches.

I also have it where the PC's can utilize multiple belts. I would allow two belts around the waist if one was used as a holster and the other like an ammo belt. I'd also allow two bandoliers across the chest. The belts could also be used as a sheath for melee weapons.

I have also allowed players to use more than one backpack but the extra ones were redone as bandoliers or belts that only contained a certain thing. Two examples would be extra power packs for blasters or a belt/bandolier for grenades. Those would be the only things that could be stored in those.

If they players can justify it I don't have a problem considering it. I do also remind them that they may not be able to wear all the extra stuff in all situations. A bandolier of grenades would probably be frowned upon at a dinner party.

Any intention to adjust EC based on the Silhouette of the character? Should a Silhouette 0 character be able to carry as much gear as a Silhouette 1 character with the same Brawn?

I feel like they should have the same Encumbrance Threshold. Simply because the game is already saying they should have the same physically capacity based on Brawn. However, because of the way Encumbrance works and it not being solely based on weight, I could completely understand them having a different value. For example, 3 or 4 + Brawn to determine their Threshold.

The other extreme to that is that a rancor has Brawn 6. Should a rancor be able to carry more than a typical human (Brawn 2) with a backpack? I think so.

In that case maybe some factor of silhouette? Or maybe add brawn + silhouette + 1 is a given creature's encumbrance? That would give said rancor a encumbrance of 11 i think. Factor in some carrying packs If it was a Dathomir Nightsister's ride and you could easily have a 20+ encumbrance ride.

Any intention to adjust EC based on the Silhouette of the character? Should a Silhouette 0 character be able to carry as much gear as a Silhouette 1 character with the same Brawn?

I feel like they should have the same Encumbrance Threshold. Simply because the game is already saying they should have the same physically capacity based on Brawn. However, because of the way Encumbrance works and it not being solely based on weight, I could completely understand them having a different value. For example, 3 or 4 + Brawn to determine their Threshold.

The other extreme to that is that a rancor has Brawn 6. Should a rancor be able to carry more than a typical human (Brawn 2) with a backpack? I think so.

I agree that a rancor should be able to carry more, particularly as Brawn 6 represents a wide range of physical strengths from being the "natural" max. Technically speaking though, rancors can carry as much as the GM wants since they fall under the NPC purview of not following the same rules as PCs. I am curious to see what FFG does with future official species stats that have different Silhouettes.

I kept personal and extra encumbrance storage separate from the start

I also use silhouettes as a multiplier for the "+5" characters get for their encumbrance threshold, except 0 so silhouette 0 characters can carry as much as a 1 in my game. I guess you could apply that rule to silhouette 0 so they would have an encumbrance threshold that is equal to their brawn.

I also keep the number of extra encumbrance items like back-packs and belts that can be worn by a character limited to the character's brawn. Characters are only allowed to wear one back-pack at a time though, I haven't had a player try to wear two back-packs or a back-pack with a jet-pack yet. I'm thinking:

Limit one back-pack per 3 brawn

Limit one jet-pack (and limits max number of back packs to 1)

EDIT : To refine this and put it simply:

Encumbrance & Encumbrance Threshold = Brawn + (5 * Silhouette)

Max number of extra storage items* characters can wear = Brawn

*Limit one back-pack. Limit two back-packs if brawn is 3 or higher

So a rancor has an encumbrance & encumbrance threshold of 21

[brawn 6 + (silhouette 3 * 5)].

For example, my Gadgeteer has a total Encumbrance of 15 with Backpacks and whatnot, but a Personal Encumbrance of 7 (2 Brawn). He can wear Laminate armor and carry a Heavy Blaster Rifle, nothing heavier, which maxes out his "Personal" Encumbrance

Negative. His laminate armor only has Enc of only 1 when worn (pg 168).

You've confused me... if the Gadgeteer has a Heavy Blaster Rifle (Encumbrance 6), and wears Laminate armor (1 Enc when worn), how is that not 7 Personal Encumbrance?

For example, my Gadgeteer has a total Encumbrance of 15 with Backpacks and whatnot, but a Personal Encumbrance of 7 (2 Brawn). He can wear Laminate armor and carry a Heavy Blaster Rifle, nothing heavier, which maxes out his "Personal" Encumbrance

Negative. His laminate armor only has Enc of only 1 when worn (pg 168).

You've confused me... if the Gadgeteer has a Heavy Blaster Rifle (Encumbrance 6), and wears Laminate armor (1 Enc when worn), how is that not 7 Personal Encumbrance?

Nevermind, I wasn't tracking over the table right and was looking at the regular rifle.

Why? Why over complicate something in the game that in reality to the game is so trivial? People need to stop complicating a story game with more rules, not saying there isn't a place for it if you like that kind of RPG pick up a copy of Rolemaster

Why? Why over complicate something in the game that in reality to the game is so trivial? People need to stop complicating a story game with more rules, not saying there isn't a place for it if you like that kind of RPG pick up a copy of Rolemaster

Not everyone is going to play the game the same way. For some, the Encumbrance rules are as important as those for Obligation.