Encumbrance for any system

[Runeward]

NOTE--System updated. Link in post #14 or available here (http://runeward.blogspot.com/2011/07/encumbrance-made-simple.html).

I'm looking for feedback on a quick encumbrance idea I had. Basically, what do you think, can you make it better, or would you probably just keep ignoring encumbrance?

Premise:
Encumbrance is constantly hand waived away. In my experience, this is because it is far too fiddly and the main consequence of being over encumbered is tactical speed at which point the player just announces they drop their backpack at the start of combat. Hence, lots of fiddle, no impact.

An encumbrance system that was quick and easy to adjudicate with reasonably consequences, then, might just actually add something to the game.

The rule:

You only have space for 20 items that covers everything including weapons, armor, and magic items.
If you want to carry more than 20 items, they need to go in things like backpacks or pouches. The container counts as one of the original 20, but gives additional item slots. Say +10 for a backpack.
All items have an encumbrance value. This is a combination of weight and bulkiness. Containers have an encumbrance value that remains the same whether or not the container is empty or full.
Containers also have a max encumbrance allowed. For instance, a backpack (which may have an encumbrance of 50) can hold up to 10 items with no item having an encumbrance greater than 10. So this could be 10 items at 10 encumbrance each or 10 items at 1 encumbrance each. Either way, the backpack has an encumbrance of 50.
You only track the top 5 items by encumbrance.


Why its a good rule:

You only track 5 things. If you pick up a chest full of gold, it probably tops the list and it is easy to update your encumbrance. Quick and easy. But it is also quick and easy in reverse. If you are drowning and you start shedding EQ, more items enter into your top 5 until you have had to make meaningful decisions.
Using encumbrance instead of weight makes it abstract. It cuts down on the number of arguments about realism. I can envision a lot of scenarios where 10 items at 10 encumbrance each would be relatively easy to carry if well packed in a backpack.
The normal rules (summing weights) introduce scarcity. You can only pack so much before you are encumbered. Since this only tracks the top 5, there isn't as much scarcity. Limiting characters to a finite set (i.e. 20 items) reintroduces scarcity.


So far I haven't decided on consequences for being encumbered and would appreciate suggestions.

[Almagesto]

I believe what you say is correct. Scarcity adds a lot of feeling when introduced in the campaign as a risk for the PCs.

Following this method we could eliminate things like one of my player's 10,000-arrow-backpack, and that's not counting the gear he was carrying, or the loot, or his armor, or his "spare" horse. OK, the horse is just a joke, but really I've had a lot of problem as a DM telling people there's just no way they can carry that along with the things they're already carrying. Their arguments basically boil down to: "It's still within my weight limit OR I have Str 19, of course I can carry it."

On the other hand, many of us still remember the frustration of having to drop something useful because you don't have enough "space" in your inventory, e.g. Diablo :( So, I'm with you only halfway. The 20 items limit is not cool. Maybe you can state a set of conditions that allow the item to be carried.

My idea is that everyone can have the following:


An armor.
One item in each hand.
One magic item in each "slot" that exists, i.e. fingers (one on each, even if only 2 rings are active), bracers, necklaces/periaphts, headbands, ...
One backpack OR one sack.
One small pouch for up to 50 coins hanging by the waist.
Also, maybe something in the saddles for the mount to carry.


The trick is assigning "dimensions" to each item, BESIDE "encumbrances". I don't care if anyone has 7 out of their 8 slots for a backpack free, you just can't stick a guitar in it. See what I'm saying?

[Runeward]

I think I agree with just about everything you said. In general I'm not real happy with the premise of "only 20 items" either because it feels very artificial and gamist. If I wrote it up I was planning to take it in the direction you mentioned (i.e. identify slots like hands, armor, rings, etc) and then just try to fudge a bit to identify a nice round number of slots; no one wants to try and remember if there are 16 or 17 slots...

My one problem with a rigid slots system is that it leads to its own wonkyness. I don't want a system to say that you can't hide a knife in your boot because you already have your "foot slot" filled. The pro of just setting a number of items (whatever the number ends up being) is that it smooths out the rationalizations. It isn't that you *can't* put a knife in your boot, it is that you are already carrying a bunch of stuff and you are just getting over laden in general. Whether that over laden is due to weight, because too many little things are in too many places, or because stuff is big and awkward, the system just reports that you are encumbered. In this instance, the ambiguity is helpful in defending the rationale.

To your second point about the guitar in the backpack, I again agree. That was my aim by giving containers an upper limit of what items could be put in them. If a backpack has a 10 encumbrance limit, this would exclude either really heavy or really bulky items from being put in. A guitar isn't that heavy, but it is bulky and so would be given a high encumbrance.

[Almagesto]

Oh, I get it now. Encumbrance would be bulkiness, not weight.

Also, a DM I know has a real simple approach to things. He just says: "Show me how you would do that." And every player must grab a similar object and show it, e.g. put a knife on his boot. The problem with this is that - even though it's the fastest and most realistic approach to the encumbrance problem - not everyone has every object just lying around their homes waiting to be picked up to prove a point about encumbrance.

I was also wondering, how about giving a PLAYER, not a container, the encumbrance points. Say, everyone has 100 points, and backpacks, sacks, etc just add to this. I know it's not a perfect solution, and I can see the flaws in it right away, but I think it could work if you assign the "right" amount of encumbrance to each object. What do you think?

[raxies94]

This could possibly relieve some of the problems with encumbrance. Honestly though, I don't think I have a problem with ignoring it for the most part, as long as people don't try to do ridiculous things with it, so as carrying a horse, or something like that. Also, wouldn't bags of holding kind of neutralize your argument?

[Runeward]

This could possibly relieve some of the problems with encumbrance. Honestly though, I don't think I have a problem with ignoring it for the most part, as long as people don't try to do ridiculous things with it, so as carrying a horse, or something like that. Also, wouldn't bags of holding kind of neutralize your argument?

Yeah. I think most people in most games just ignore encumbrance and usually for good reason. My goal was to try and come up with a system that was quick and simple enough that maybe people would decide *not* to ignore it. I'm not sure if this is that system or just one more log for the pyre.

Bags of holding would probably be pretty neat, actually. They would still have an encumbrance value that would hold static irrespective of what was within, but they probably have a higher encumbrance limit and higher item count. So, for instance, the backpack listed up thread weighed 50 itself, had an encumbrance limit of 10, and could hold 10 items. A bag of holding backpack might still weigh 50, but have an encumbrance limit of 50 and hold 20 items. It makes it pretty attractive, but still supports the goal of the system to introduce scarcity by limited item slots.

[Runeward]

I was also wondering, how about giving a PLAYER, not a container, the encumbrance points. Say, everyone has 100 points, and backpacks, sacks, etc just add to this. I know it's not a perfect solution, and I can see the flaws in it right away, but I think it could work if you assign the "right" amount of encumbrance to each object. What do you think?

I'm not sure I follow. Are you referring to the encumbrance limit (i.e. a backpack can't hold anything higher than 10 encumbrance) or a total encumbrance value (i.e. you can carry up to 100 encumbrance, and whether that is a single 100 en item or fifty items each weighing 2 en, it cannot exceed 100)?

[Almagesto]

Since Bags of Holding create nondimensional space, I would assume they have an infinite number of slots and are just limited by their weight capacity according to their description in the Dungeon Master's Guide.

[Almagesto]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you referring to the encumbrance limit (i.e. a backpack can't hold anything higher than 10 encumbrance) or a total encumbrance value (i.e. you can carry up to 100 encumbrance, and whether that is a single 100 en item or fifty items each weighing 2 en, it cannot exceed 100)?

The first. Yeah, now that I've read it, it kind of reads like what you originally posted. :smalltongue:

[Sciran]

This is... Very interesting. I like. I really like.

Though, I wonder, with this idea, what stops people from going full-tilt World of Warcraft with the system? "I have 2 six slot bags, and a four slot bag... Hnn... Maybe I really should pick up another bag in town, I'm running out of room..."
Then again, this might be the effect you're looking for. The typical traveller who is actually carrying what they need will have multiple bags and is encumbered up anyway.

My only argument against the "I drop my bag at the start of combat" complaint is that this is not a way to get out of dealing with encumberance. Encumberance can actually be an interesting factor (whether you use the original system, this one, or another) in multiple tricks and traps when someone can't just "drop it at the start of the encounter".
Good example of that is a rickety old bridge 'trap'. Characters have to get across but have difficulty because s/he is encumbered. Can't just 'drop it' because well, hey, they want their stuff on the other side! Just one of the many ways you can actually have these rules bring fun into the game rather than paperwork.

Just my two cents.

[Almagesto]

Though, I wonder, with this idea, what stops people from going full-tilt World of Warcraft with the system?


You are right. The intent is not to go that way but to introduce interesting elements to the gameplay, e.g. the bridge conundrum.

[Runeward]

This is... Very interesting. I like. I really like.

Though, I wonder, with this idea, what stops people from going full-tilt World of Warcraft with the system? "I have 2 six slot bags, and a four slot bag... Hnn... Maybe I really should pick up another bag in town, I'm running out of room..."

Yeah, that is definitely *not* the intent but I think you and Almagesto get it. I don't want to go all video-gamey, I want an easy to adjudicate but still has substantive consequence system. One neat thing I foresee with this system is that it lets you balloon up the EQ list so long as items don't get so heavy that they breach the top 5. But, then when all of the sudden it becomes important to start dropping EQ, you are forced to realize just how much stuff you have. As you drop a top 5 item, a new item kicks into the top 5 and you might still be encumbered. So you drop another and a new item enters the top 5. It has potential to be really interesting, but only when encumbrance is interesting. The other times, it sort of just drops into the background.

I think part of the problem with table top RPGs is that as computer RPGs have become more ubiquitous they can introduce us to new and exciting concepts seamlessly. We then want to port them back to the table, but quickly realize that arithmetic isn't seamless outside the computer. Item scarcity and encumbrance is one such thing that computer can do better than TTRPGs and the general idea here was to say, go ahead and carry a bunch of stuff but there are some consequences. The problem is figuring out a balance between record keeping and consequence.

[Runeward]

Just to be clear, I agree that it has a gamist bent and I think it is a fair criticism of the proposed system so far to say so. It does sort of feel WoW-ish and if anyone has a way to make it feel less WoW-ish, I'm all for it. The fundamental goals that I want it to simulate is to promote item scarcity so that people feel the need to consider what they carry and be easy to adjudicate during play. Anything else is just a bonus.

[Runeward]

I returned to the general idea of the system and gave it another shake. Here is the result of that second effort (http://runeward.blogspot.com/2011/07/encumbrance-made-simple.html). It is even faster and simpler (you only track three items) and has some really interesting consequences. Feedback appreciated.

[Domriso]

I wrote a long and awkwardly phrased attempt at explaining my views on an alternative, but I just kept scrapping it and eventually came down to the fact that your system seems fairly elegant. My only critique seems to be in that I think it is intrinsically difficult to avoid the whole "video game" feel of an encumbrance system like this, precisely because videos games tend to think in either this fashion, a la Diablo, or in standard D&D fashion, a la Oblivion, or possibly in the typical RPG of "you can carry X number of this item."

Maybe a set "Encumbrance Limit" for a character, in which certain items are inconsequential unless in bulk? As in, armor is generally not terribly encumbering once you get used to it, unless it's really heavy armor. Likewise, a wand won't do much, but a dozen might. Whereas the whole "only your largest encumbrances encumber you" makes some sense, I think that you would eventually get just plain weighed down by everything. There needs to be a major limit, and just plain weight won't do it (seeing as a marble that weighs 200 lbs. would be hard to pick up, but not impossible, but a person weighing 200 lbs. is a much more difficult task).

...I feel as though my thoughts are not connecting correctly on this issue. Does this make sense at all? Or am I just rehashing the same things you've already come up with?

[Runeward]

I think I get the gist and I tried to incorporate a solution to in. Let me try and explain.

Initially, I realized that it is really damn hard to shake the video game feel no matter how you do encumbrance unless you get really, really detailed. So I decided to just accept that fact and then include the paragraph about "Keeping it realistic" (in the link (http://runeward.blogspot.com/2011/07/encumbrance-made-simple.html), not in the OP) and how since this is a role playing game, things need a home. Imagine how your character looks and be able to describe it. This is somewhat of a design cop-out, but, on the other hand, the reason we have GMs and fellow players is to call us on our BS. We might as well use that resource in game design. If no one wants to call someone on their BS, then it isn't an issue for that group and they can ignore the rule.

Your second point is that a grip of light items still add up to weigh a lot and be awkward to carry around. This I tried to address by the max stark limit of 2x strength. It creates a ceiling that doesn't necessarily carry with it any penalties but does keep things realistic. Let's check out two examples to make it clearer:

Both hypotheticals use a 15 strength character (i.e. light encumbrance is greater than 7, heavy if greater than 15, max of 30 starks).

Guy A carries fifteen 2-stark items. Since we track the top three, he carries 6 starks and has no encumbrance but a total of 30. He cannot carry any more.

Guy B carries thirteen 2-stark items and a backpack (4 stark). He has 8 stark (4, 2, 2) and is lightly encumbered with a total of 30 stark. He cannot carry any more.

Obviously, Guy A seems to have gamed the system. There are a few protections--first, good luck plotting your character to have 15 items, none over 2 stark. Second, you still need to explain where all those items are stored. If you cannot, they occupy your hands. This probably means you put them in a backpack and you are now closer to guy B and are encumbered.

The system is abstract and it basically puts its effort into figuring out three things:

Should the character be lightly encumbered?
Should the character be heavily encumbered?
Should the character be able to move?

The first two things are on a spectrum. The last thing is analyzed separately and this provides the balance to someone carrying just a crap-ton of light gear. However, they all naturally build on each other and it provides a reasonable reflection of reality.

Thanks for the comment!

[Almagesto]

Yeah, that kinda balances it all. I mean, you can't have 15 stark 1 items without... well, having 15 items ! And having to explain WHERE you have them is fundamental.

I believe that, as Runeward said,
I realized that it is really damn hard to shake the video game feel no matter how you do encumbrance unless you get really, really detailed. So, I guess we'll just have to accept that this system - while videogamish will only be useful in the situations that make it interesting.

[Domriso]

And, you know, the videogameish feel might not be so bad. I mean, maybe it's just a good system, and video games found it first. ^^

[Runeward]

I believe that, as Runeward said, So, I guess we'll just have to accept that this system - while videogamish will only be useful in the situations that make it interesting.

If you let me change that last statement to: "I guess we'll just have to accept that this system - while videogamish will only be cumbersome in the situations that make it interesting." Then I can agree. If I agreed with "useful" then I'd just cast out the system.

As an aside, I sort of think completely ignoring encumbrance is equally video-gamish (just more Final Fantasy than Diablo). It is a rock and a hard place and I think I sort of like this compromise.

[Almagesto]

As an aside, I sort of think completely ignoring encumbrance is equally video-gamish (just more Final Fantasy than Diablo). It is a rock and a hard place and I think I sort of like this compromise.

Oh, totally. I mean, I've said this before: My PCs LOVE carrying things that are impossible to accommodate, by even the most insane standards, inside a backpack or in just 2 arms. So yeah, I get what you're saying.