Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6533216" data-attributes="member: 22424">Yeah, I'm not a big fan of "fail forward". I'm quite happy just to have the PCs fail.Fair enough...I suspect the "general rule" is rather that you're talking to different people with different perspectives.The thing is, I don't mind the player characters being inconvenienced in any and all ways. Not an issue.But that shopping trip back to town means taking a chunk out of my very limited gaming time. It doesn't inconvenience the PCs, it inconveniences the players and it inconveniences me. And that's something I'd rather avoid.So, actually, what I'm calling for, in the case where the DM decides "equipment matters" is that the inconvenience be greater than just the occasional trip back to town. They can't carry iron spikes and rope and rations and torches, so they have to make a tough choice about what to leave behind and then have to make do without if caught short.Yep, I understand your frustrations here.Some people - probably a lot of people - simply don't care about this, and don't consider that the TARDIS-style backpack does "violate the integrity of the imagined space". They just want to play. And I can't say I fault them for that - people should play what they want.But there seems to be a weird hang-up that occurs with games like this where, because the game includes rules for encumbrance they feel that they have to include it. And so we have people tracking encumbrance, and then bitching mightily about the need to do so. Leading to the rules getting watered down further and further, to the current point of uselessness.And to those people, I say: just drop encumbrance. If it's nothing but an annoyance, why are you even bothering?For people like yourself, who consider encumbrance to be important, and for whom the TARDIS-style backpack is indeed an issue, then absolutely, use encumbrance. If you find it adds to the game, then by all means use it.Me, I find the RAW (in virtually every RPG I've read or played) hits pretty much exactly the wrong balance - it assumes a lot of micro-management of weights, then ties those weights to limits that are generally too high to matter, and penalties that are too fiddly to bother with anyway. I'd be happy if the rules were either removed entirely or significantly beefed up (and indeed, changing with different DMs and campaigns), but find that they fail as-is precisely because they fall between the two stools.</blockquote>

Verification