Encumbrance Rules and 'Cheating'

[Fishyninja]

If those are boring to track, why should you not throw them out as well? Now, if those things matter, they wont be boring to track. But if let's say you never have more than 1 encounter per adventuring day (wilderness trekking?), then there is indeed no point in tracking daily resources like spell slots.

Ok maybe I am not understanding your point here but it seems the weight of your argument is that HP/Slots/Rations seem to be important we should track them but encumbrance is not important so we shouldn't track it?
If I am misunderstanding please say.

So...what do you want from them then? It somewhat sounds like you're giving them a reward that they can't claim due to being too big/bulky? If getting resources to transport it isn't viable, then why do it? Not trying to say you're doing anything wrong here, I'm genuinely curious what puzzle it is you want them to solve.

Well its not a puzzle per se but as part of this module I am running there is a large amount of treasure. This module is usually run as a one shot but I am integrating it into my campaign as an arc.
It's not so much a puzzle I am trying to make them solve per se but there are certain factors: 4 of the party members are in debt for various reasons, this gold could not only pay of the debt but keep them affluent which they all want. . The puzzle per-se is that the dungeon is in a mountain 800ft above ground level with no real obvious method of getting up or down the mountain. They got in by convincing a creature to carry them who is now no longer available.

So, the puzzle is basically.......is the gold (and what it could accomplish) worth the risk of transporting it down the mountain.

The point that I envision (which could be entirely incorrect) is that with the amount of gold that they could find the following could happen:
- One character will pay off his family's debt and make them a powerhouse in Waterdeep, which would secure his position as a man of influence.
- One character could pay off his and his daughters debt to another character and make them essentially freeman
- One character could stop being a thief and enter polite society.
- Once character (whom is dissenting the encumbrance rule) could donate most of their share to the Church of Selune in order to help the poor and try to absolve her sins

To be fair, a DM who is assuming his players are playing by the rules might not realize for a year that they're not tracking hp, either, and just think they've been able to tough out his monster battles.

Yes, since these are all experienced players (from 2nd Edition onwards) I am surprised that there would be such dissent about Encumbrance.

[Pelle]

Ok maybe I am not understanding your point here but it seems the weight of your argument is that HP/Slots/Rations seem to be important we should track them but encumbrance is not important so we shouldn't track it?
If I am misunderstanding please say.

Totally depends on your campaign. If it matter, track it. If it don't, then don't track. Sounds like the biggest consequence of not tracking encumbrance so far after a year is that someone carried some extra arrows or an extra backup weapon. That's hardly consequential in the big picture. (Please expand, if you realized earlier some players didn't track encumbrance, would there really be any big meaningful differences in your emergent story?) In comparison, the consequence of not tracking HP could be the difference of a PC death or not.

[Rynjin]

Well its not a puzzle per se but as part of this module I am running there is a large amount of treasure. This module is usually run as a one shot but I am integrating it into my campaign as an arc.
It's not so much a puzzle I am trying to make them solve per se but there are certain factors: 4 of the party members are in debt for various reasons, this gold could not only pay of the debt but keep them affluent which they all want. . The puzzle per-se is that the dungeon is in a mountain 800ft above ground level with no real obvious method of getting up or down the mountain. They got in by convincing a creature to carry them who is now no longer available.

So, the puzzle is basically.......is the gold (and what it could accomplish) worth the risk of transporting it down the mountain.

The point that I envision (which could be entirely incorrect) is that with the amount of gold that they could find the following could happen:
- One character will pay off his family's debt and make them a powerhouse in Waterdeep, which would secure his position as a man of influence.
- One character could pay off his and his daughters debt to another character and make them essentially freeman
- One character could stop being a thief and enter polite society.
- Once character (whom is dissenting the encumbrance rule) could donate most of their share to the Church of Selune in order to help the poor and try to absolve her sins

Okay, so several of your players are looking to make great character development strides; ones any GM should be proud to have play out in their game.

And you're nitpicking over encumbrance to...stop that from happening? Situations like this are why so many PCs are written with the "no family, no friends, no connections" paradigm; because attempts to actually move plots forward are always stymied by inconsequential things like this or the GM simply not paying attention in the first place.

[Zhorn]

When digging down into people's reasoning of "encumbrance is not important" you will tend to find a collection of other rules also being ignored, or encounters/modes of play also not cropping up at all in their games.
What gives encumbrance it's importance isn't just one big singular aspect of play, it's an interconnection with a whole lot of subsystems, and for each one you cut out the area of importance of encumbrance diminishes.

Fast forward past overland travel, supplies for the journey are irrelevant.
Don't track daily food and water requirements to avoid starvation and dehydration? Carrying food and water is no longer important and doesn't require bag space.
Don't track ammunition? arrows and quivers don't take an allotment of inventory weight, with ranged combatants free to constantly remain at a safe distance from melee combat.
No tracking of light sources or their durations, or even tracking the passage of time spent in dungeons? Torches, lanterns and oil supplies are now moot.
No climbing, with all travel paths on easily accessible walking paths? Don't bother with any climbing equipment or means of getting heavy things up and down difficult elevations (ropes, climbing kits, block and tackle)
Traps are not used, or disarming them is just a roll without any narrative use and expenditure of tools? There goes a whole lot of uses for 10-foot-poles, mirrors, ball bearings, pitons, and a bunch of other miscellaneous items.
and on and on and on.

Keep stripping out aspects of the game, and d&d just gets smaller and smaller.
Again this is my bias talking here. I like dungeon delving and survival aspects of travel. A big part of play is preparing your equipment and supplies for a journey with the limitation based on how much you can store in your bags and carry, and what extra supplies you have traveling with your hirelings to be kept at camp with the wagons and pack mules.
There's no fast forward to the boss chamber, then be immediately back at the tavern with all the treasure while you seduce the barmaid. There's a challenge in how you get to the dungeon without getting lost, how long can you spend away from civilization without a resupply, how deep into the lightless dungeon can you delve AND get back out before your light sources run out, what supplies you brought to address the challenges you accounted for, what can you use to MacGyver up a solution for the things you didn't prepare for, how you get the treasure out of the dungeons, and how do you get it all back to civilisation.
Encumbrance ties into to so many of those aspects and more.

Want to play a game without it? Sure, it's not a wrong way to play, all d&d is legitimate d&d. But it is a smaller and easier version of d&d, one with less danger, less death, and faster and simpler levelling, and i think you'd have more fun if you played a different and more rules light system instead of insisting that so much of d&d should be ignored.

[Mellack]

What gives encumbrance it's importance isn't just one big singular aspect of play, it's an interconnection with a whole lot of subsystems, and for each one you cut out the area of importance of encumbrance diminishes.

Fast forward past overland travel, supplies for the journey are irrelevant.
Don't track daily food and water requirements to avoid starvation and dehydration? Carrying food and water is no longer important and doesn't require bag space.
Don't track ammunition? arrows and quivers don't take an allotment of inventory weight, with ranged combatants free to constantly remain at a safe distance from melee combat.
No tracking of light sources or their durations, or even tracking the passage of time spent in dungeons? Torches, lanterns and oil supplies are now moot.
No climbing, with all travel paths on easily accessible walking paths? Don't bother with any climbing equipment or means of getting heavy things up and down difficult elevations (ropes, climbing kits, block and tackle)
Traps are not used, or disarming them is just a roll without any narrative use and expenditure of tools? There goes a whole lot of uses for 10-foot-poles, mirrors, ball bearings, pitons, and a bunch of other miscellaneous items.
and on and on and on.

I understand what you are saying, but the game itself makes many of those issues trivial rather quickly. Food and water can be solved by 1st level spells. Light can be created by a cantrip, and a 2nd level spell can create permanent light sources. Phantom steed can remove the need for mounts for travel, and teleport can remove travel completely. Levitate, spider climb, or natural flight abilities can replace climbing. Bags of Holding, portable holes, flying brooms, and so many other things replace the mundane parts. Just so much of the common stuff fades away as characters level that it truly does become irrelevant.

[Zhorn]

"trivial"
The game doesn't make it trivial, there are just active choices and trade-offs that offer solutions to some problems.
They range from choices for the players in some cases (usually swapping one option/resource for another), active decision by the DM in others (which is then not the game doing things but akin to DM also just ignore those situation by ACTIVELY trivialising it themselves by choice), and a random occurrence on loot tables for the remainder (at relatively low % when you break it down).

Goodberry at first level is chewing up a a spell slot from a very finite number at low levels, and as not being a ritual means it is also locking out an option as far as your prepared list for the day is concerned. If you run single encounter days in safe areas where nothing else is doing to challenge the party that day, then it is an easy choice to make, but if there's any chance of combat that spell slot is more valuable in eliminating a threat to your life, or used on a heal to revive an unconscious/dying ally, since Goodberry can't help since it needs an action of the person to eat it (potions can be administered by RAW, Goodberry makes no such claim).
It also was intended to do nothing for water needs, just food (citation). And being only on the Druid/Ranger spell list it is not universally applicable to all groups.
Only makes carrying food trivial when 1st level slots are trivial, and that all comes down to the style of play.

Create food and Water is a 3rd level, non-ritual spell. It is occupying a prepared spell choice for the day and is one less 3rd level slot you have for spending on other problems, unless you are a Genie Warlock and can get a short rest immediately after casting it then it is not a trivial expenditure of resources. Like above with Goodberry, there's also a matter of what classes/subclasses have it on their spell list as to what level they'll have access to it, and also like above only makes food and water trivial if 3rd level slots are already trivial.

Cantrips creating light are great, Light and Dancing Lights are highly valuable to me. Not everyone is playing a caster. Not all casters value cantrips equally, and some have cantrips that they value more to use their limited selection on. Choosing to dedicate a cantrip selection to the light source problem is not trivial.

Continual Flame is going to cost you 50 gp worth of ruby dust per pop, and isn't going to survive antimagic zones or area dispells. Good utility, but cost and drawbacks are not trivial though.

Phantom Steed, a useful ritual that is only on the wizard's spell list. Good for solo travel, but if trying to transport a party is either going to be chewing up a large potion of your day refreshing the ritual castings, or burning through your 3rd+ spell slots at a rate of one-per-mount-per-hour. Not trivial.

Teleports are awesome, both the Teleportation and Teleportation Circle variants. Reliability of destinations takes at least some effort though, as is with getting large treasure hauls trough the defined spaces of the spell. Very good if you account for all the factors involved, but expending the resources into making a base to safely teleport treasure to is not a trivial undertaking, and some dungeons (such as tomb of annihilation and the Dungeon of the Mad Mage) have wardings against such solutions. Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum on a dungeon lair is the perfect counter to teleporting adventurers. Generally I don't think we can call spellcasting of 5th and 7th level trivial by the sheer nature of them being such high level spells.

Magic items offering solutions are only as trivial as the effort taken to obtain them. How often are you getting an opportunity to roll on the Magic Item Table that has the specific item you are after, and then what is the % chance of the result you wanting to pop up? Outside of those random occurrences, the DM giving you a specific item is them doing a thing, not the game.
Also as talked about earlier in the thread; some of these times have encumbrance mechanics factored in: Bags of Holding (has a weight/volume limit), Portable Holes (volume limit), Brooms of Flying (note it has an weight limit).

I agree that having access to the right spells and magic items gives easier solutions to some of the more 'mundane' feeling challenges, but they are not trivial solutions, in either needing to invest your build into having the spells at the right level AND be willing to use those resources in place of what the mundane solutions would cost you, or getting lucky with a random roll to have a magic item capable of does more than what you can achieve on your own.
Not every party is going to have all (or possibly any) of these listed solutions.

[Avonar]

Well its not a puzzle per se but as part of this module I am running there is a large amount of treasure. This module is usually run as a one shot but I am integrating it into my campaign as an arc.
It's not so much a puzzle I am trying to make them solve per se but there are certain factors: 4 of the party members are in debt for various reasons, this gold could not only pay of the debt but keep them affluent which they all want. . The puzzle per-se is that the dungeon is in a mountain 800ft above ground level with no real obvious method of getting up or down the mountain. They got in by convincing a creature to carry them who is now no longer available.

So, the puzzle is basically.......is the gold (and what it could accomplish) worth the risk of transporting it down the mountain.

The point that I envision (which could be entirely incorrect) is that with the amount of gold that they could find the following could happen:
- One character will pay off his family's debt and make them a powerhouse in Waterdeep, which would secure his position as a man of influence.
- One character could pay off his and his daughters debt to another character and make them essentially freeman
- One character could stop being a thief and enter polite society.
- Once character (whom is dissenting the encumbrance rule) could donate most of their share to the Church of Selune in order to help the poor and try to absolve her sins

Yes, I got the point of it. You are challenging the players to get all this treasure back to town where there isn't really anything around to let them do that.

Do the players have an idea? If they can't think of anything, will you help them find something or just say "too bad, you can't take it all."

This all seems set up to actively deny them the whole hoard. Bring a cart? No you can't do that. Multiple trips? No, you can't get back becasue the creature who got them there is gone. As a DM, knowing the entire situation and all the hidden aspects, do you have an idea how they could transport it all?

[Fishyninja]

This all seems set up to actively deny them the whole hoard. Bring a cart? No you can't do that. Multiple trips? No, you can't get back becasue the creature who got them there is gone. As a DM, knowing the entire situation and all the hidden aspects, do you have an idea how they could transport it all?

It might be so, I am just running the module as it is written.

The dungeon is in a mountain 800ft above the ground, which required climbing to get up there (they worked around that), so that eliminates carts and horses for the immediate collection.
The module assumes the group already have a Bag of Holding, but they didn't so I threw one into the loot of a previous encounter.

I feel my players will probably load up the Bag of Holding to it's max capacity (it already has 110lbs in it). The Wizard has already exclaimed he can fly a few people down the mountain at a time so I think if they really want the stuff they'll get everyone off the mountain, make camp, go back to the town which is a days travel away or so, hire a few carts and workers, come back to mountain, get the wizard and maybe one or two of the party up with some sacks and fill those up until encumbrance. Rinse and repeat.

It will take time and resources and also there is the risk of random encounters. I am not aiming to be a Richard DM and dangle loot the party cannot have as some members have suggested, but I also just don't want to set a precedent with the players that carrying tens of thousands of coins is just as simple as writing numbers on your sheet.

Totally depends on your campaign. If it matter, track it. If it don't, then don't track. Sounds like the biggest consequence of not tracking encumbrance so far after a year is that someone carried some extra arrows or an extra backup weapon. That's hardly consequential in the big picture. (Please expand, if you realized earlier some players didn't track encumbrance, would there really be any big meaningful differences in your emergent story?) In comparison, the consequence of not tracking HP could be the difference of a PC death or not.

Ah, I understand now, sorry last post I read I was doing something else at the time and meaning escaped me. In regards tot he arrows being the only time, that is not the case it is just an example I have used where encumbrance has been part of a problem that the group needed to solve. Usually it is carrying either a captured criminal (the Wizard wants to be a magister) or a downed team member when they are out of healing resources. They got around the captured criminal part by buying a cart and installing a prison cage on the back. In regards to team members they now plan their attacks better and make sure that everyone has a potion within easy reach but because with this team member and their gear, they were too heavy to be carried by any members of the party, they toyed with the idea of two people carrying them then the group decided to make a travois (I think that is the correct term, the triangle shaped sled you can drag) to drag the downed member to a safe area before they could make camp.

[Keravath]

Just a quick comment - in 5e, a bag of holding can hold 25,000 coins. If the party only takes platinum and gold they already likely have enough to pay off their debts unless they have a huge debt. I don't know the game or the game world but usually debts might range to a few thousand gp typically and if that is the case here then the players can probably fit the necessary funds in their bag.

In addition, with the fly spell from the wizard, and only 1 day travel to town, they can go back to town, make a deposit at the "banker" you mentioned and then return for more coins. Assuming the dungeon is cleared of dangerous foes and this is a somewhat populated area only 1 day from a major settlement - the odds of encounters should be small (unless someone else learns about the treasure horde and wants some for themselves).

Alternatively, the mold earth cantrip could allow the wizard to very quickly bury the treasure and they could make multiple fast trips up and down the mountain burying the treasure until they can return it to town. (800' takes just over a minute with a fly speed of 60' - assuming that the treasure room is no more than another 1200 feet into the complex - and most D&D dungeons are MUCH smaller then it only takes 200 seconds or about 3 minutes to travel from the base of the mountain to the treasure horde). This means that casting fly in the treasure room allows the character to fly the bag of holding outside, empty it and fly back to the treasure room with one casting of the spell. They then fill the bag again, cast fly again and fly it out. Depending on how long it takes to shovel the coins into the bag, they can get 50,000 coins out of the treasure room in less than an hour.

So, I am not sure I see much issue getting the treasure out - encumbrance or not. In addition, if they want to be efficient they can leave non-essentials like backpack content at the base of the mountain and take empty backpacks which would allow each to carry at least 50 pounds extra which would be an additional 2500 coins/character on top of the bag of holding.

The bottom line is that the entire treasure scenario provides so little challenge that encumbrance is irrelevant so I don't really understand the obsession.

[Fishyninja]

The bottom line is that the entire treasure scenario provides so little challenge that encumbrance is irrelevant so I don't really understand the obsession.

Just wanting to use the rules we all agreed with originally. Wouldn't exactly call it an obsession.

[J.C.]

Bookkeeping Reduction Act

Or BRA as an acronym.

[Zhorn]

Bookkeeping Reduction Act

Or BRA as an acronym.

But as Fishyninja has covered; they are using a VTT and so it's all auto calculated.

[Tanarii]

Just a quick comment - in 5e, a bag of holding can hold 25,000 coins. If the party only takes platinum and gold they already likely have enough to pay off their debts unless they have a huge debt.

It worth noting that separating 25,000 of specific coins from mixed coins could easily take ... days? Not a problem if you control the treasure pile and surrounding terrain. Of course in that case, you can probably just take as many trips as needed any way.

Mentioning it because I often see the idea that players can just leave behind copper or even silver. Unless the previous owner presorted them for you, that may be easier said than done.

[noob]

You seem to have the same feelings as Pelle in regards to making the choices meaningful and I am doing that. Or at least attempting too.
To further expand the example I mentioned earlier. They could potentially find 50k in GP.
As also mentioned they could make multiple trips back to town, the problem is every trip requires an ascent and descent down a mountain with no path so there are risks of climbing etc etc, random encounters. It is also established that in my game that if you do not want to/cannot carry your cash, there is a bank in which your money can be deposited. Some have used this feature.

So you encourage not having the right carrying capacity by giving them extra encounters.
With your reward mechanic I can except them to carry 1 gold coin per trip while having all the rest of their allowed carrying capacity in equipment that they say is "absolutely needed" in order to maximise benefits by having 50000 occasions to have random encounters.

[Pelle]

Ah, I understand now, sorry last post I read I was doing something else at the time and meaning escaped me. In regards tot he arrows being the only time, that is not the case it is just an example I have used where encumbrance has been part of a problem that the group needed to solve. Usually it is carrying either a captured criminal (the Wizard wants to be a magister) or a downed team member when they are out of healing resources. They got around the captured criminal part by buying a cart and installing a prison cage on the back. In regards to team members they now plan their attacks better and make sure that everyone has a potion within easy reach but because with this team member and their gear, they were too heavy to be carried by any members of the party, they toyed with the idea of two people carrying them then the group decided to make a travois (I think that is the correct term, the triangle shaped sled you can drag) to drag the downed member to a safe area before they could make camp.

Allright, is there any moment in your campaign that you can point back to (also to your players), and say that if encumbrance rules were followed, the story of the campaign would have shifted to something completely different?

For example, if it turned out that not having enough ratios would have meant a detour to stock up on supplies, what would the consequence of missing one day? Would the cultists had time to summon Cthulhu, or would it not have mattered at all, due to dramatic logic and arriving at the middle of the ritual anyways.
If when having to carry a fallen party member, would the slower movement rate have any affect? Would the ooze have caught up with the party, or could the party just have dropped some useless equipment and kept the original speed without any consequences? Or would dropping the climbing equipment to keep up the speed meant that when the party reached the cliff face, they would not have been able to traverse it, leading to not being able to cure the curse on the downed party member in time?

If you are able to point back at something in your game that would be completely different with encumbrance, you will be much more likely able to convince your group. If the only change would have been that they should have 10 gp less due to dropping some uncessary equipment, they are going to say "I told you so, tracking encumbrance is pointless".

[Tanarii]

If you are able to point back at something in your game that would be completely different with encumbrance, you will be much more likely able to convince your group.

Or they can just tell the one serious objector (not "the group") that these are the normal rules, they were explicitly called out as not being house ruled away in session 0, and everyone else is onboard both then and now with using these standard rules.

[Sol0botmate]

Just wanting to use the rules we all agreed with originally. Wouldn't exactly call it an obsession.

It's 5 pages thread about you asking us if you should or not ignore Encumbrance rules. We all have different approach to game as you can see. You will get different answers because we all DM and play differently. We also play with different people.

If my players were like suddenly "listen, we don't want to track Encumbrance because it's boring", I would say fine. Because Encumbrance being there or not have almost no impact on crucial things in game. It's not serious decision like Spell Points vs Slots, which absolutely impact every aspect of a game.

You have different approach to it than me obviously. But aks yourself this question: if you will say to them "no, you must follow Encumbrance" and they will still won't do it, will you end whole campaign and group over Encumbrance? Is there only one solution here- yours or theirs? Can't there be a compromise? I get they agreed on those rules - but it's not uncommon you start campaign with some rules (official or homebrew) and THEY JUST DON'T CLICK after some time, either because they cause trobules, are unbalanced or players don't like it or everybody thought it will be fun but it turns out it's not. I once allowed Spell Points and we agreed to switch it back to slots in the middle of game because it just didn't work well for game.

There is nothing wrong in dropping out rules in the middle of game if they don't work!

There is no easy solution there. If you can't find compromise, one side will have to back down. Sure, you are DM and you have last word- but it won't matter if you will have no group to play with.

Maybe consider "logical Encumbrance" instead of mechical. For example:

Everything that is "concealable" is not tracked (arrows, coins, bottles, torches etc.). Everything that would require actuall carrying (not being able to put in backpack etc.) require Athletic check if someone is able to carry it or passive Strength score, increasing DC as another item is being carried by that person. If 8 STR wizard wants to carry a 5,000 coins chest - obviously he can't but other party member with 14+ STR can. No numbers, no calculations etc. Just common sense.

Maybe that will be good middle ground. I don't know your players but that's what I can think of.

[Keravath]

Or they can just tell the one serious objector (not "the group") that these are the normal rules, they were explicitly called out as not being house ruled away in session 0, and everyone else is onboard both then and now with using these standard rules.

I agree. :) The counscientous objector to tracking encumbrance should have it pointed out that everyone agreed to use it at the start of the game and that since they are using Roll20 it quite conveniently prints out the total weight carried.

I've only ever found this to be an issue for strength 8 characters whose weight limit is 120lbs which wear medium armor (like half-plate) and a shield, a full backpack, and then want to carry a few thousand coins. These characters will often be over the 120lb weight limit due to the coins required. However, carrying coins is a pretty normal part of D&D play.

In addition, this situation is made worse if the character is the type that likes to carry a variety of weapons for just the right situation - slashing, piercing and bludgeoning weapons - ranged weapons etc - plus a variety of gear for obscure situations - climbing gear, caltrops, alchemist's fire, a range of potions, various tool sets (blacksmith+brewing+ ...). All of these add up in weight and if a character has 8 strength and medium armor then the reality is that they can't carry it all at once.

Overall encumbrance does place limits on what gear a character can have available which will affect game play. However, it doesn't require micromanagement of every single gram to achieve this. Every 0.1 to 0.5 lbs on the character sheet doesn't need to be accounted for - but the character/player does need to recognize the overall limitations imposed by their choice of 8 strength and play accordingly (which is the main point of the encumbrance system - as a tool for role playing how much your character can carry and dealing with the consequences of the character's choices).

I may not be in favor of a detailed accounting of every pound carried ... is 119 pounds that different from 121? However, at a higher level, that number does limit the flexibility of the character in terms of what they can transport and those limits should be incorporated from a role playing perspective and since everyone agreed to it in session 0 - it should be gently explained to all players that as soon as they get back to town, they will need to pair down their inventory to match up generally with their carrying capacity. This may mean making choices about what gear to carry or finding a bank or similar to store excess coins but that is simply part of the game they agreed to play.

However, ideally the shift to using it as intended should be "gentle" and the DM should ideally not make everyone drop all their excess possessions right away - give them a chance to drop them at a safe place where they might be able to get them later (this is often why characters buy houses in a game - it gives them a place to store their stuff :) ).

[KorvinStarmast]

The trouble I have always had is with figuring out how long in-game has passed as players do stuff outside of combat time. By having turns codified to be 10 minutes AND having specific things that can be done within one turn, that makes this far more doable for me, as a DM.

Yeah, and the beauty of it is that you can turn that dial a bit depending on how quickly or slowly you want the clock to tick. The other thing I saw one DM do was use a 12 sided die similarly to the 6, so that he didn't have to roll for random monsters as often.

[TigerT20]

If my players were like suddenly "listen, we don't want to track Encumbrance because it's boring", I would say fine. Because Encumbrance being there or not have almost no impact on crucial things in game. It's not serious decision like Spell Points vs Slots, which absolutely impact every aspect of a game.

You have different approach to it than me obviously. But aks yourself this question: if you will say to them "no, you must follow Encumbrance" and they will still won't do it, will you end whole campaign and group over Encumbrance? Is there only one solution here- yours or theirs? Can't there be a compromise? [B]I get they agreed on those rules - but it's not uncommon you start campaign with some rules (official or homebrew) and THEY JUST DON'T CLICK after some time, either because they cause trobules, are unbalanced or players don't like it or everybody thought it will be fun but it turns out it's not. I once allowed Spell Points and we agreed to switch it back to slots in the middle of game because it just didn't work well for game.

You make a good argument, but remember this is one player out of 6. This isn't the entire group dissenting; 4 players want to use the rules. 1 doesn't. 1 doesn't mind either way.

If in your spell points scenario, one player desperately wanted to use spell points instead of spell slots and had secretly continued to use them despite everyone agreeing not to, how would you respond?

[Corsair14]

As much as I add homebrew rules to make my campaigns more true to life(various armor and weapon related rules), I don't really do a whole lot with encumbrance. Too much a hassle to keep track of. Basically I tell my players they can carry what they realistically think they can carry. I let them hold one of my actual combat helms so they get an idea on how heavy armor is and why they cant wear it 24/7, might let them put on my full face sallet so they understand why their perception and sneaking abilities have disadvantage and penalties attached and so on. If a player appears to be turning into a walking closet of gear I might ask him to tally up how much everything he is carrying weighs. "But its just a suit of chainmail..." Here, hold my short sleeve shirt of mail. Wearing it correctly so the weight is distributed and mostly rests on your hips is one thing, looting the raiding party and trying to take all of their chainmail rolled up in your backpack is something different.

[Unoriginal]

It's 5 pages thread about you asking us if you should or not ignore Encumbrance rules.

Pretty sure the thread was about what to do with a couple of players who weren't following the rule.