Encumbrance in "Stone"

[Wik]

I like the idea behind it, because simplifying encumberance is a great idea (it'd be nice to actually have my Players keep track of it!). But, yeah, I could see a problem here - namely, that it could be pretty hard for players to figure out exactly what things weigh and all that jazz.

Truth be told, I'm canadian, and I get confused enough already with pounds. I know exactly what a pound weighs in kilograms, and all that, but I just don't "feel" lbs like I know kilograms. And all that jazz.

 

[Gort]

We should also have hitpoints measured in cubic litres per inch.

However, I do think that a simpler system for encumbrance should be used. It's a major headache to keep track of all the stuff you're carrying, so most players just don't bother.

I'd think that armour would be the major source of encumbrance - perhaps bringing back the old 2nd ed strength requirements for various armour would make the system simpler while still shutting down strength 4 characters who want to wear platemail?

 

[Aloïsius]

Inventory has allways been a hassle. The encumbrance rules are not the worst part, however, I guess that I will have a far easier time if I use equipment cards and small plastic pocket for container. This way, I won't have to bother with player "cheating" with "of course, I have a torch !"
Maybe use a color code on the card for easy weight calculations.

oh, and metric system rules ! Decimal > everything else

 

[Umbran]

For the purpose of an isolated encumbrance system it does not matter what the unit is.

The units do matter, insofar as the players need to have a clue what the units mean.

When I say a fighter can lift 100 lbs like it was nothing (meaning the guy isn't yet encumbered) the players have an idea what that means without looking at a chart - the guy is really strong. If I say he can lift "7 brobdignags", the players are going to have to do a conversion step before they have an intuitive understanding of what it means. I'd prefer to not make them do that step.

So, I think the encumbrance system should be rendered into whatever measurement of mass/weight the players are most familiar with. Same for distances.

 

[Jer]

Heh. Encumbrance in my games tend to go something like:

PC: You two grab the statue and I'll get the chest and we'll get out of here
DM (me): Let me see your character sheets. Do you REALLY think that the two of them can carry that statue with all the other stuff you're carrying?
PC: Sure!
DM: (raises eyebrow) Really?
PC: Um - no?

Seriously - I haven't bothered to track encumbrance for so long I don't even remember exactly what the rules are - my players are used to following a "common sense" metric for what they can carry. And if I catch one of them cheating he gets a rap on his knuckles (metaphorically speaking, of course). About the only place I use encumbrance in my game is to see if a particularly puny character can actually wear the armor he wants to wear and still move. The encumbrance system could be measured in half-pennies and it wouldn't make a difference to my games.

 

[The Souljourner]

Stones?!? Do we want to measure the volume of fireballs in hogsheads, too? Seriously, people. I suppose if WoTC wants to make metric and old-ass-english versions of their books, they're welcome to. But WoTC's an American company, and they're going to use the standard in the US, which is pounds.

Don't get me wrong, metric is a far superior system, and I'd love for the US to convert, but for right now, that's not the generally used system.

No one in the US is going to want to have to figure out what something weighs in stones. That's the problem - is that when the PC goes to pick up that iron statue, and he knows he can pick up 20 stone.... the DM has to figure out what that statue weighs in stone. He may have an idea of how much it weighs in pounds, and then have to convert that to stone. What a pain in the butt.

Sure, the "old timey feel" is kinda cool, but it's too much of a hassle. Better to use standard units and just rename it "Oh yeah, that statue weighs about 150 yarbles."

-Nate

 

[Tewligan]

Better to use standard units and just rename it "Oh yeah, that statue weighs about 150 yarbles."

Heh - if I'm remembering my "Clockwork Orange" correctly, "yarbles" would certainly be an odd unit of measurement! "Wait, is that in ogrish yarbles, or gnomish yarbles?"

 

[ruleslawyer]

The units do matter, insofar as the players need to have a clue what the units mean.

When I say a fighter can lift 100 lbs like it was nothing (meaning the guy isn't yet encumbered) the players have an idea what that means without looking at a chart - the guy is really strong. If I say he can lift "7 brobdignags", the players are going to have to do a conversion step before they have an intuitive understanding of what it means. I'd prefer to not make them do that step.

So, I think the encumbrance system should be rendered into whatever measurement of mass/weight the players are most familiar with. Same for distances.

I'm inclined to agree with you to some extent, Umbran, but I'd actually prefer an encumbrance value (EV) a la C&C (one of the few things I like about that system vs. 3e). Weight is too loosey-goosey a measurement to use, especially when it comes to stuff like weapons; a strong warrior can reasonably strap on a simply ridiculous quantity of weapons to his frame and carry a full pack, and I'd prefer that encumbrance be used as a means of restraining that kind of equipment usage rather than, say, be a matter of counting out every torch and piece of cheese the PC carries. One could then theoretically assign a nice high EV to stuff like weapons and shields, a correspondingly lower EV to stuff that can theoretically be carried in great amounts (like food), and base EV off Strength using some kind of formula. Yes, it's an abstraction; sure, it might even require you to keep all the weights listed anyway. But it would probably be simpler to run in play, especially as PCs pick up new stuff along the way.

 

[The Souljourner]

I'd actually prefer an encumbrance value ... Weight is too loosey-goosey a measurement to use

True encumbrance, like the fact that carrying a 10lb 30' pole is harder than carrying a 10lb dumbbell, is a loosey-goosey concept that can't really be quantified into a number. I think that sort of thing has to be the DM's call.

I think that's why they stopped trying to make everything have an encumbrance value, and just stuck with weight. Weight is a very objective, easy to figure out value that easily translates into a single number, and is easily related to a character's strength.

I don't think encumbrance should come back. If you don't want your players carrying six halberds and four sets of full plate from a battle field - just tell them they can't.

-Nate

 

[Simplicity]

I say we do encumberance like wealth in the d20 Modern system.
Everytime you pick something up, you have to make your encumberance check.
Darn, it... I want that +1 sword, but my hands sure are full.

Seriously, though. If I, as a DM, catch some player adding up the weights of his equipment, I'll scold him/her for wasting the group's time. You're overencumbered when the DM notices you're carrying way too much crap (but hasn't bothered to gift you a bag of holding yet).