A simple, system-neutral encumbrance system incorporating weight and bulk

[Random Bystander]

This is your thread now; may you have what joy of it you can.

 

[Imaculata]

One of the biggest problems with any encumbrance system, is that it is such a hassle to keep track of. And this system doesn't seem any different in that respect, no offense.

What I think would be much easier to use a system like this:

-Any item that is not considered a heavy item, can be carried, as long as the player has a means to carry it (scabbard/pouch/backpack). A sword is not considered a heavy item, a suit of armor is.
-A PC can carry a number of heavy items, equal to (or related to) their strength bonus.

 

[delericho]

Yep, I'm afraid I agree with [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] - almost every encumbrance system I've seen adds much more complexity than it gives benefit.

Eventually, I came to the conclusion that the best system is probably "you can carry ten things", where a 'thing' is a weapon, set of armour, potion, pouch of money, or whatever - basically, anything important enough for you to worry about whether the PC has it or not. And then don't sweat the small stuff, like mundane clothes, scabbards, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

Yep, I'm afraid I agree with [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] - almost every encumbrance system I've seen adds much more complexity than it gives benefit.

Agreed.

Eventually, I came to the conclusion that the best system is probably "you can carry ten things", where a 'thing' is a weapon, set of armour, potion, pouch of money, or whatever - basically, anything important enough for you to worry about whether the PC has it or not. And then don't sweat the small stuff, like mundane clothes, scabbards, etc.

Problem there is that sooner or later nearly everything becomes important enough to worry about whether the PC has it or not...including the "small stuff" such as a candle, or a mirror, or flint-and-tinder, or a green cloak rather than a gray one.

To factor in strength, maybe make the "ten" in "you can only carry ten things" become "your strength score plus three". Even then, that's extremely limiting for most characters even if a backpack and its contents only count as one "thing"; most non-caster PCs are going to have armour, shield, at least a couple of weapons (say, one melee and one ranged), a backpack, at least two pouches (coin pouch and waterskin), a potion or two on their belt, rope, a bedroll or tent, likely a quiver for bolts or arrows - that's already 11 things without backup weapons; and if it's winter add in a parka or heavy cloak and maybe some snowshoes. A character who prefers to use thrown weapons (hand axes, throwing hammers, javelins, daggers, etc.) will use up all their carry-slots just for ammunition!

Lanefan

 

[Imaculata]

To factor in strength, maybe make the "ten" in "you can only carry ten things" become "your strength score plus three". Even then, that's extremely limiting for most characters even if a backpack and its contents only count as one "thing"; most non-caster PCs are going to have armour, shield, at least a couple of weapons (say, one melee and one ranged), a backpack, at least two pouches (coin pouch and waterskin), a potion or two on their belt, rope, a bedroll or tent, likely a quiver for bolts or arrows - that's already 11 things without backup weapons; and if it's winter add in a parka or heavy cloak and maybe some snowshoes. A character who prefers to use thrown weapons (hand axes, throwing hammers, javelins, daggers, etc.) will use up all their carry-slots just for ammunition!

This is why I wouldn't even count the light stuff. Just count only the heavy equipment, and put a cap on how many heavy things a character can carry, based on their strength score.

 

[delericho]

Problem there is that sooner or later nearly everything becomes important enough to worry about...

Sure. The system's far from perfect - I'd be willing to claim it's useful for some groups, but that's all.

whether the PC has it or not...including the "small stuff" such as a candle, or a mirror, or flint-and-tinder, or a green cloak rather than a gray one.

In most campaigns, the question of whether a given PC has, say, a candle is going to be important very rarely, if at all. In such a case, the DM would need to make a ruling (or pre-assign a %age chance of them having any given item, or whatever), and the players would need to trust the DM to do so.

Of course, if a player wants to make a point of his character having a given item, he can choose to assign it as one of his 'things'... but he can't do that for everything.

(In the odd case where a given campaign considers, say, candles to be unusually important, the DM should probably tell the party to track them carefully - and handwave something else instead. In the case where there really is nothing, or very little, that the group is happy to handwave, they probably need a full-fat encumbrance system.)

To factor in strength, maybe make the "ten" in "you can only carry ten things" become "your strength score plus three". Even then, that's extremely limiting for most characters...

I intentionally went for something extremely limiting. If encumbrance doesn't lead to careful choices on what to carry and what to leave behind, it's better off ignored.

(And that's my big problem with the encumbrance system in most D&D editions as written - the player is encouraged to carefully calculate an encumbrance total, tracking weights down to the single coin and arrow... and then the limits are so high that they might as well not bother.)

A character who prefers to use thrown weapons (hand axes, throwing hammers, javelins, daggers, etc.) will use up all their carry-slots just for ammunition!

Yep, that's a weak spot in the system. In that case, I'd let the player assign "my throwing knives" as one 'thing'.

Again, I didn't claim the system was perfect - its virtues are rather than it's quick, simple, and easy to remember. I'd argue that it's "good enough" for the right group in most cases... but it's certainly not for everyone or for every campaign.

 

[Random Bystander]

If you are not interested in the encumbrance system I posted, why are you hijacking my thread for your own encumbrance systems?

You are being rude. Kindly desist.

 

[Jhaelen]

Feel free to discuss, critique, tear apart, put together in whatever configuration(s) suit your fancy, and in general improve upon.

If you are not interested in the encumbrance system I posted, why are you hijacking my thread for your own encumbrance systems?

You are being rude. Kindly desist.

?!?!
Isn't it to be expected that people who think your system is (still) too complicated start discussing alternatives they consider better?

 

[Random Bystander]

?!?!
Isn't it to be expected that people who think your system is (still) too complicated start discussing alternatives they consider better?

On forums I have been on before, that would be considered "off-topic", and gain mod attention.

In a social situation, diverting someone's topic to discuss your own topic is widely considered rude.

"Here is an idea I'd like discussed." "That's stupid. Let's discuss my idea instead."

 

[Lanefan]

On forums I have been on before, that would be considered "off-topic", and gain mod attention.

In a social situation, diverting someone's topic to discuss your own topic is widely considered rude.

"Here is an idea I'd like discussed." "That's stupid. Let's discuss my idea instead."

In a thread where the topic is encumbrance, I'd be off topic were I to start discussing, say, point-buy vs. rolling as a char-gen method.

But discussing encumbrance and encumbrance tracking systems in a thread about encumbrance? Seems on-message from here.

And if you were hoping for a critique of the system you propose in post 1 I think you already sort of have it from subsequent posts; namely that it - like a great many other encumbrance tracking systems - is too complicated to see consistent use at most tables.

Lan-"and rather than just stop there we go on to start thinking up simpler systems"-efan