Save My Game - Wilderlands & Dragons

[delericho]

I think the 1d6-Con modifier surges per day without provisions is a killer, but it's a true incentive to bring supplies/forage.

This is true, but only if they fix their encumberance rules. As things stand, high-Strength characters will never come close to their encumberance limits, and so can carry an absurd amount of kit *.

This means that tracking like food (and indeed ammo) are a minor consideration at 1st level (when funds are tightly limited), and nothing but an annoyance after that - they can buy as much as they want, and the party Fighter can easily carry it all.

A good encumberance system might actually make this interesting - PCs have to carefully choose what they carry (because of a tight limit), and so have to choose between carrying rope or a tent or one more day's food.

* This has, of course, been true since the beginning. I think the mistake is determining the character's max load by his Strength, rather than by his ability to fit everything in his pack. That, and tracking weights down to the tenth of a pound (or per coin, in old editions).

 

[Klaus]

This is true, but only if they fix their encumberance rules. As things stand, high-Strength characters will never come close to their encumberance limits, and so can carry an absurd amount of kit *.

This means that tracking like food (and indeed ammo) are a minor consideration at 1st level (when funds are tightly limited), and nothing but an annoyance after that - they can buy as much as they want, and the party Fighter can easily carry it all.

A good encumberance system might actually make this interesting - PCs have to carefully choose what they carry (because of a tight limit), and so have to choose between carrying rope or a tent or one more day's food.

* This has, of course, been true since the beginning. I think the mistake is determining the character's max load by his Strength, rather than by his ability to fit everything in his pack. That, and tracking weights down to the tenth of a pound (or per coin, in old editions).

Yeah, I think there's more to encumbrance than weight.

But once you have the abstract "provision" equaling "one day of supplies", you can determine volume by provisions:

- backpack - 3 provisions
- saddlebag pair - 2 provisions
- handcart - 10 provisions
- cart/wagon - 35 provisions

... or whatever.

And then you can say that races that don't need food/water (shardminds, warforged, vampires, vryloka with the racial utility 2) can fit 50% more provisions in a container.

 

[DireWereTeddy]

Speaking from experience as an Eagle Scout, there's more to encumbrance than weight. It's like carrying a large, but empty box. Yes, it's light, but it can still be difficult to carry because of its size. Or carrying wilderness supplies in a grain sack instead of a proper backpack. The backpack distributes the weight so it's easier to carry.

IIRC, WFRP 2e listed an encumbrance value for its gear instead of a weight value, and it addressed things like the above. A backpack could hold a certain amount of encumbrance, whereas other bags held less.

 

[delericho]

Speaking from experience as an Eagle Scout, there's more to encumbrance than weight. It's like carrying a large, but empty box. Yes, it's light, but it can still be difficult to carry because of its size. Or carrying wilderness supplies in a grain sack instead of a proper backpack. The backpack distributes the weight so it's easier to carry.

Indeed, it's trivial to prove - how many dice can you carry in your hand, and how many if you use a dice bag?

IIRC, WFRP 2e listed an encumbrance value for its gear instead of a weight value, and it addressed things like the above. A backpack could hold a certain amount of encumbrance, whereas other bags held less.

The big problem here was that the system was still too detailed and/or granular. Listing encumberance down to the single arrow implied that you were supposed to recalculate every time you took a shot, which is just too much work.

(Actually, even tracking arrows down to the single shot is probably too detailed, but that's another topic...)

To be honest, I might even be inclined to split items into 'major' items (those that are big and/or heavy) and 'minor' items (those that are small and light), and simply allow characters to carry 10 major items and any number of minor ones.

Or something like that.

Basically, reduce the granularity to a point where it's worth using the system, rather than trying to track things too closely. What you lose in resolution, you gain from people actually using it!

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

There was an AD&D 2e supplement that introduced more detailed encumbrance rules, using an additional "bulk" stat for equipment. Probably Skills & Powers, but my memory's fuzzy on that. It might be worth looking into, or killing it and taking its stuff for 4e.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

(Actually, even tracking arrows down to the single shot is probably too detailed, but that's another topic...)

To be honest, I might even be inclined to split items into 'major' items (those that are big and/or heavy) and 'minor' items (those that are small and light), and simply allow characters to carry 10 major items and any number of minor ones.

Or something like that.

Basically, reduce the granularity to a point where it's worth using the system, rather than trying to track things too closely. What you lose in resolution, you gain from people actually using it!

Make packing all the minor/basic stuff that still matters--like ammo and food, a skill challenge. Succeed in the challenge, you have everything you need. Fail, and you either didn't think to pack it, didn't pack it properly (it spoiled, was dropped, etc.) or maybe a kobold stole it because you weren't paying enough attention that first day out.

For those that don't mind the continuity hit, you can even do this skill challenge as a flashback, only running it once it matters.

If you get to the required number of successes, before 3 failures, you may not have every possible thing you meant to pack--you probably did have 1 or 2 failures. But you've got all the critical stuff. If you fail, you have to keep rolling, and each failure is a critical piece of supplies missing.

 

[delericho]

I kinda like that. (Actually, as a concept I really like it.) However, I see two big weaknesses:

1) It seems like a real pain to have to go through this every time I reach for "inconsequential item X" (or even once per adventure).

2) What the DM might consider inconsequential, I may consider essential. For example, there is simply no way my character would leave on an adventure without adequate rations, Skill Challenge or no. I would simply prefer to know "you can take Y items", and then get to choose those.

Still, YMMV, of course.

 

[TerraDave]

In wilderness, and sea based, adventuring I have done the make a fatigue check or loose a surge thing and the great big encounter once (or less) a day thing. I like them.

I like the surge loss for its simplicity, and as a straight forward way of showing exhaustion. I actually think its pretty simulationist, at least by 4E standards. Certainly does make endurance important.

For the big daily fights, sure they can be longer, so make it a good one! (Examples of mine include a frost giant and two troll cronies on an ice float and elves that had gone evil and were following a manticore).

Also, its generally easier to retreat in a wilderness area, so when it looks like the PCs have the upper hand, let the enemies make a break for it.

Actually that's not the case in these scenarios - because a dragonborn fighter even with a decent con who isn't trained in endurance can be REALLY terrible (exceptionally terrible) in endurance skill challenges. Those armor check penalties can really add up, while the staff of defense wizard with con primary can be amazingly better off in the same scenario.

Who is going to drop first, the big guy lugging around a bunch of armor, or the skinny guy with the staff?

 

[DireWereTeddy]

The big problem here was that the system was still too detailed and/or granular. Listing encumberance down to the single arrow implied that you were supposed to recalculate every time you took a shot, which is just too much work.

(Actually, even tracking arrows down to the single shot is probably too detailed, but that's another topic...)

Certainly and I suspect it was included out of a sense of completeness. Or the thought that if they didn't include it, someone would get upset because they wanted to know the encumbrance of a single arrow.

To be honest, I might even be inclined to split items into 'major' items (those that are big and/or heavy) and 'minor' items (those that are small and light), and simply allow characters to carry 10 major items and any number of minor ones.

Basically, reduce the granularity to a point where it's worth using the system, rather than trying to track things too closely. What you lose in resolution, you gain from people actually using it!

That sounds like it would work well. The only problem I'd see would be tracking things like rations, water, and other limited use items. If you classify them as minor than it becomes a 'I have three months of rations and water in my pack' situation. You'd have to include something like 'X minor items is equal to a major item.'

And that brings me to a realization I've never had. I don't recall ever seeing an encumbrance or weight value for water. And I think what bugs me most is that I'm just now realizing it.

 

[mudlock]

I don't recall ever seeing an encumbrance or weight value for water. And I think what bugs me most is that I'm just now realizing it.

Water weighs about 8 1/3 pounds per gallon.