Encumbrance - how's everyone handling this?

[slimykuotoan]

I've come to the realization that it really doesn't take much to be heavily encumbered.

Anyone modified the btb rules?

[Matthew]

I don't use the 'b the book' rules on this one, or the ones from AD&D 1e or 2e. Characters just carry as much as I feel reasonable in light of their strength score. Keeps things moving along nicely.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[nittanytbone14]

I'm actually strongly thinking of using a slightly modified "stone" system from this guy's blog:
http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/

[Wulfgarn]

Its funnt - but a simple way to do encunberance would be to limit movement by the armor worn as per 1st edition and 3rd

and then whatever an

[Matthew]

Wulfgarn wrote:
Its funnt - but a simple way to do encunberance would be to limit movement by the armor worn as per 1st edition and 3rd

and then whatever an

Aye, but in 1e that was the distance moved over one minute, so it is perhaps more understandable that Mail might slow a character down 'on average'. In a ten or six second round, it's a lot harder to explain. That's why I use four categories of encumbrance:

None

Light

Medium

Heavy

The only effect these have is on 'running' speed. A heavily encumbered character can only move his speed when running (30'), a medium encumbered character can rmove twice his speed when running (60'), a lightly encumbered character can move three times his speed when running (90'), and an unencumbered character can move four times his speed when running (120').
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[Treebore]

Matthew wrote:
Aye, but in 1e that was the distance moved over one minute, so it is perhaps more understandable that Mail might slow a character down 'on average'. In a ten or six second round, it's a lot harder to explain. That's why I use four categories of encumbrance:

None

Light

Medium

Heavy

The only effect these have is on 'running' speed. A heavily encumbered character can only move his speed when running (30'), a medium encumbered character can rmove twice his speed when running (60'), a lightly encumbered character can move three times his speed when running (90'), and an unencumbered character can move four times his speed when running (120').

Hmmmm. I like that line of reasoning.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Tank]

Wulfgarn wrote:
Its funnt - but a simple way to do encunberance would be to limit movement by the armor worn as per 1st edition and 3rd

and then whatever an

I don't like the C&C encumbrance system either, so we effectively do encumbrance by armor. PCs carrying up to 400 cns can move at 120'(40'), can carry up to 800 cns at 90'(30'), up to 1200 cns at 60'(20') and so on. For simplicity, strength does not effect carrying capacity, although I would allow a strength check too pull off a burst of speed in combat, as if carrying less weight.

I've structured my armor weights to fit those carrying capacities. Helmets weight 50 cns, shields 100 cns, leather 200, scale 300, chain 400, banded 500, plate 600, and full plate 800. The result is that scale armor probably slows you down to 30' per combat round, and plate probably slows you to 20'.

[Traveller]

My dislike of the RAW encumbrance system is well known. On my little hole in the Internet you can find the rules I use (link in my signature), but in a nutshell I went and made encumbrance less abstract.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

[serleran]

I ignore encumbrance. But, I also like using metaphysical objects of holding, too, in various forms and ability.

[cheeplives]

Meh... the system fits the design goals I set out for (except for the Capacity items, which in the end I would have done very differently)... it keeps the #s you have to juggle low (no number over double digits), gives an ad hoc system for building your own ENC values, and keeps people in a more "Realistic" mode for carrying items. I did what research I could to track down "historical" kits for infantry and tried to base my ENC values on that. Fantasy players are more used to the kitchen sink approach. I thought the final version of the rules (with the errata that weren't included in the 3rd printing) are a pretty good balance between the two. YMMV.

It's also the most maligned system in C&C. But I'm not sure exactly why... I know the 1st printing had issues with a bad mixture of the system and a much older playtest system, but after that the #s were pretty straightforward (albeit low compared to what players were used to).

The easiest way to "bump" the system is to increase the Encumbrance Base from 10 to some other value. I wouldn't go higher than 12 or 15 AT MOST to keep things in scale.

Another thing I would probably do would be to change Capacity items. I would have them have a set ENC value for the item. Then I'd give each a Capacity as well (as by the book). The departure would be that the items inside the pack do not count at all for a character's ENC, only the base pack's EV. I'd probably just use the by-the-book numbers but increase the EV of each Capacity Item by 3. Thus a EV 3(w) shoulder pack with a Capacity of 10 would become a 6(w) EV and Capacity 10 pack. Then, regardless if the pack was empty or full the character would only be penalized for the 6(w) EV of the pack.
_________________
discreteinfinity.com -- my little corner of the internet.

Author of StarSIEGE: Event Horizon -- Available now from Troll Lord Games!

[Treebore]

Well, I have to wonder how many people here are evaluation the encumbrance system after taking into account the changes in the sticky thread?

After taking that errata into account my biggest problem with the system is that a piece of chalk has an EV of 1. WTH?!?

Other than those kind of issues I actually think its a pretty darn good system.

Besides, I am more or less in the same camp as Serleran. I don't worry about encumbrance until I look over a PC sheet and wonder how the heck they are carrying so much.

As long as everyone looks like they are trying to be reasonable about it its "close enough" for me.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Buttmonkey]

Treebore wrote:
Besides, I am more or less in the same camp as Serleran. I don't worry about encumbrance until I look over a PC sheet and wonder how the heck they are carrying so much.

As long as everyone looks like they are trying to be reasonable about it its "close enough" for me.

Agreed. Keeping track of encumbrance BTB is a pain in the butt. I get enough record keeping at work. Also, I think the system is unduly harsh from a fun perspective. PCs get heavily encumbered quickly. One of the first things I did after buying the C&C books was to convert Frank Mentzer's "To the Aid of Falx" module to C&C, which basically meant converting the pregenerated PCs to C&C stats. Not a lot of work, but I was shocked to see the monk (who wore no armor and carried a fauchard fork, dagger, jo stick, and a few miscellaneous items) was moderately encumbered, IIRC. That's just nuts from a fun perspective. Maybe someone carrying that much would be moderately encumbered in real life, but I'm looking for a more heroic/less-realistic game setting.

[cheeplives]

Buttmonkey wrote:
Not a lot of work, but I was shocked to see the monk (who wore no armor and carried a fauchard fork, dagger, jo stick, and a few miscellaneous items) was moderately encumbered, IIRC.

You must be recalling incorrectly. The total EVs of the Fork, Dagger, and Jo (assume it to be 1/2 of a staff) are 8. The Monk (assuming a Strength bonus of 0 and only a Constitution prime) would need to be carrying 16 EVs (the equivalent of two suits of Full Plate Barding for a warhorse) worth of "miscellaneous items" to be Moderately Encumbered.
_________________
discreteinfinity.com -- my little corner of the internet.

Author of StarSIEGE: Event Horizon -- Available now from Troll Lord Games!

[Traveller]

cheeplives wrote:
It's also the most maligned system in C&C.

As I mentioned, I didn't like the abstract nature of the system, and thus ported over a more concrete system that at the same time also fixes a niggling issue with horses and ponies: what is the carrying capacity of a horse or pony. In the entry for horses, figures are given in pounds, yet the encumbrance system doesn't use pounds, which makes it rather difficult to figure out how much a horse could reasonably carry.

Besides my personal dislike of the abstract nature of the system, one issue I believe is that the system simply isn't intuitive. It's perhaps the one section of the book that has to be read to be understood, unlike the rest of the book where once you go through it, you likely won't have to refer too often to those section. I'll grant that it sounds like a lame excuse since everyone should read through the rules, but the system scares people off because they have to distinguish between normal objects, worn objects which have an exception to the normal rule, and capacity objects which have another exception to the normal rule.

The other issue I have is that the mechanics of the game rear their head in the encumbrance system. The majority of the other game mechanics fade into the background and allow the players and CK to immerse themselves in a fantasy world. Encumbrance, unlike the rest of the system, sticks out like a sore thumb and says, "here I am to remind you that you're in a game".

Honestly, while the system I use is intuitive, it doesn't fade into the background. Its biggest strength is that it isn't abstract. Since we want to keep the abstractions inherent in the RAW system, how do we rework the encumbrance system to be both intuitive and inobtrusive?
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

[shadoes]

I am thinking about doing one of two things. A) just bumping everything up one category. or B) set the characters regular gear at 0 encumbrance. Basically indicating they have conditioned themselves to carrying this normal load. Then go up from there as they collect other gear/treasure etc.

But I also have not yet read the sticky thread on encumbrance which I will do tonight

[Go0gleplex]

I look at EV in terms of initial equipment and gear. After that, we simply play things by ear since it matters little until the looting starts. Obviously large objects are going to slow them down...a few bags of coins, not so much *shrug*...a dragon hoard on the other hand; better have the cart and wagons at the ready.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Omote]

I'm pretty much doing encumbrance BTB. However, as I use a simple feat sytem in my games, there is a feat that increases base encumbrance by +4.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[serleran]

Is it called Ox?

[gideon_thorne]

I wing it and apply common sense.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Omote]

serleran wrote:
Is it called Ox?

Ha, of this was Ninjas & Superspies it might be called "Stone Ox". But alas, in my games the +4 ER feat is called Bearing.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Go0gleplex]

*visualizing Atlas* Hmmm....guess he was a ball bearing, eh?
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Saarlander]

Hi everyone, the German is back !

Encumbrance was an issue of mine too, while preparing my first true C&C campaign (also i still have to find the time to run it).

And after some thought, i decided for my game to kiss simulationism goodbye and go back to some old adventuring roots from my youth:

AKA the Joe Dever's Lone Wolf way.
- A character calculates his Encumbrance value BTB (the 10 + STR mod + prime thingy, just right)

- ... and that the number of Items he can carry !

Yep, just as in the old Lone Wolf books. A NUMBER of items.

Be they small or large, what qualifies and item as such is its importance.

So weaponry and armor obviously count as such... and a small bag of coins doesn't... unless it is THE small bag of antique coins needed in the adventure to accomplish the DOmmesy Ritual of Whatever, so it IS an item of its own.

The whole rest is a bit of common sense, deciding what is or is not an item, but since i play more high adventure than loot and run, it should work just fine for me.

I already adressed it with the players whose characters we made, and they didn't complain about it at all.

On the contrary, having sometimes to decide, despite actual realism, WHO will take in charge this or that item to carry had them quite excited, team work wise...

This solution is still to be fully playtested, but it went alright when we came to equip the beginning characters with it...

Any thoughts ?
_________________
People, i'm a German living in France, so please be forgiving about my English...

[seskis281]

gideon_thorne wrote:
I wing it and apply common sense.

I'm in Peter's camp here. And just so the C&C encumberance system doesn't seem overly maligned by me, I've applied the same to every system I've ever played - tell me what your wearing and carrying and I'll tell you if you're light, somewhat encumbered, or loaded down.

_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org