... or at least that's my experience with them.
Why? Because even with the simplest, smartest or most intuitive rules, the system always - always - gets forgotten in the heat of the game. Perhaps I'm an outlier here, but I've never known any group of players to adhere to encumbrance rules - or even to remember them. I've certainly never managed it as a player.
But I don't think it really matters as long as the GM asks one question whenever a physical challenge presents itself. That challenge might be crawling, climbing or combat, but the question should always be this: what do you do with your stuff?
A central failing in many encumbrance systems is that they're trying to do two different jobs at once. Many systems grossly underestimate how much a strong, fit character should be able to carry in the wild for days on end. At the same time, they often overestimate how much the same character would be able to carry while still being unhindered in hand-to-hand combat.
The two situations are very different, so it's unsurprising that it's hard to cover them with a single system. How much stuff can determined travellers carry through the wilderness? Lots. How much stuff can those travellers keep about their persons and still fight unaffected? Very little? Hence the question: what do you do with your stuff?
The answer will tend to be variants of "We discard some of it" (for climbing, crawling and the like) or "We dump it" (for fighting). So it leads to resource depletion in the first case and an extra dimension to combat in the second. Each of these adds interest to the game.
If PCs discard some of their stuff, they're creating an obvious trail for anyone who might be following - unless they decide to conceal the abandoned gear. But if they do that, they're depleting both their resources and time. They might also be drawing predators to their trail if they abandon edible items (which might not be limited to food: remember the rust monster!).
And if they dump some of their stuff for a fight, they immediately create a more interesting tactical situation. The best RPG fights tend to resemble engrossing skirmish wargames, with much more to consider than merely rolling to hit. And, as any seasoned skirmish gamer knows, the best skirmish games tend to involve objectives beyond simply killing the enemy. A pile of hastily dropped supplies and loot immediately creates objectives for PCs and enemies alike. All of a sudden, manoeuvre, push-backs and retreats become much more important. And that's something that the GM should exploit to the full.
Encumbrance is a big pain for sure. I prefer to pretty much just ignore it most of the time and use common sense.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that's the default. But by making players consider what common sense would indicate, you can add an extra dimension to the game (or just annoy them more) and avoid those situations when you realise that someone's been performing all sorts of feats of derring-do with an arbalest and a treasure chest strapped to their back ...
DeleteThis is something I struggle with too. The One Ring goes part way in that it tracks encumbrance of fighting gear in combat but abstracts the rest of the travelling gear. I did play around with a slot based system based on my army time. In real life we had full fighting order which was our webbing or tac vest, armour, weapons, about half our ammo, and enough supplies for a fight plus maybe one meal, some water, first aid. Our rucks had everything else but we dropped them when things looked like they were becoming interesting. We tried to leave someone with our gear if we could (a job for henchmen in a game maybe). To model that, I made a chaeacter sheet with three columns for gear. The first listed the character's fighting order. The second and third their pack. If you fought or attempted an action with more than your fighting order, or with a full pack, you had some pretty significant penalties. In theory this worked well, but in practice it hampered the game as the party was more concerned about not being pushed off their gear than about whatever they were doing or simply relied on hirelings to grab things as they swept on...
ReplyDeleteVery interesting! I like the idea of the three columns.
DeleteI suppose I'm thinking here about ways in which the negatives you describe could be turned into positives. I'm mainly using The Fantasy Trip for gaming now, and its very dynamic and manouevre-focused combat means that there's lot of scope for players being lured or driven away from their stuff - for example, if they're being pelted by goblin arrows from the far end of a cave and need to either seek cover or take the fight to the archers.
And the hirelings carrying the gear are great - because it's easy to amp up the atmosphere as they get picked off one by one (or get frightened: "I ain't going in there, sir, no matter how much silver you're offering!").
And anything that gets the players making difficult decisions. Armour or rations? A shield or an extra quiver of arrows? A sword or just a dagger? The last of these decisions is particularly interesting in TFT because its combat system has a "hand-to-hand" element (effectively grappling) in which most weapons are useless but daggers do much more damage. So characters needing to travel light might opt to go with just a dagger on the assumption that they'll be able to close quickly with any future foes.
My table uses a modified LotFP slot based encumbrance system that differentiates between your belt and your pack, and it is central to play. Actions are required to pull things from your pack--and it's harder to grab things from your pack. I constantly pressure my players to make decisions about the pack/belt/hand slots, and they shift a lot based on their needs.
ReplyDeleteAnd, crucially, when they take damage in combat--anything fragile that they're carrying can break.
I think these sorts of rules put an emphasis on encumbrance in a way that weight-based encumbrance systems don't. We certainly don't forget about it. It's essential to a dungeon slog.
That's interesting too - and similar to what Robb describes above. It sounds like you're achieving what I've always failed to by foregrounding it much more. Food for thought!
DeleteYou make a very good point about encumbrance vs weight, especially with regard to hand slots. Despite being heavy, something like a poleaxe really isn't encumbrance at all on the march because it would serve as a walking stick. But it could be tricky to get through a crawling-only tunnel - or to climb a cliff with.
Many good points, and ideas to be used both in RPGs and skirmish games. It would be interesting to create backpack tokens to create a focus for the party: if they give chase or start wandering around the area, they must either leave someone to guard their possession or attempt to hide them somewhere. What if the challenge was a mere diversion and a fast Goblin/Skaven/whatever steals their precious bag filled with potions, scrolls and treasure maps?
ReplyDeleteYes - I think that the more you force the party to consider what they're doing with their stuff, the more potential you have to make encounters interesting, frustrating or infuriating (depending on how sadistic you're feeling as GM!).
DeleteAnd of course, this doesn't just apply to starting equipment: it applies to treasure that the PCs have acquired too. That's especially true when that treasure isn't just gold pieces but is in the form of silks or carpets or tapestries (awkward to carry) - or ceramics, bone carvings or fine wines (fragile).
I've got various resin bits and bobs - packs, chests, sacks, etc. - which work as both objectives in skirmish games and 'stuff tokens' in RPGs.
I like the picture from Pilgrim's Progress!
ReplyDelete"As to thy burden, be content to bear it, until thou comest to the place of deliverance; for there it will fall from thy back of itself."
Indeed!
DeleteI don't disagree that encumberance is usually handled badly, or that the complications it can create add to play.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that efforts to make encumberance realistic and account for things like better packing, combat v. movement encumberance or really much detail at all are useful.
As with all new mechanics the consideration should be what does this add and What's the cost? Added complexities always cost time and have negative impacts on player & GM attention as well as on other subsystems.
In the case of encumberance I've found simple low number slot systems based on Strength ideal because they are transparent and limit equipment in a way that matters during even short session. A more realistic system would likely be more fiddly and more likely to be set aside in tense, attention grabbing moments, but also have less importance to the players as the characters could carry more.
At some point simulationism needs to bend to ease of use and game play considerations. This is the failure of AD&D style or 5E style coin/lb based systems - they arectwo complex to track encumberance easily during play.
Very good points - and I agree entirely that simulation should be the servant of gameplay, not vice versa.
DeleteI'd argue, though, that there's a *big* difference between movement encumbrance and combat encumbrance. But I think the question "what do you do with your stuff" deals with it fairly well - removing the need for a complicated system.
Let's take movement encumbrance. There are really two considerations for the GM here. Can the PCs carry the stuff in question? And will it slow them significantly?
Very often, the answer to both questions will be "Yes". That will apply both when a heavily equipped expedition sets out and when a treasure-laden expedition returns. So the GM can then make assumptions about pursuit (any relatively fast-moving pursuers will catch up with the party), which in turn gives rise to the need for player action. If you've made off with the golden idol of the troglodytes, it's a given that the troglodytes will be after you - and that they, unencumbered by an idol, will catch up with you soon. So what do you do? Set up an ambush? Conceal most of the party and the loot, but send on a few fast-moving henchmen to continue your trail and mislead the pursuers? Stash the idol and attempt to up your pace to lure the trogs to a well-defended garrison town? Or any of the myriad things that players can dream up? The point is that these situations arise from simple considerations of movement encumbrance without any formal mechanics.
Another example would be climbing a cliff. In TFT, that would be a DX test. The game's mechanisms already impose a (heavy) DX penalty for armour, so players are incentivised to have their characters climb without it. But after that, a simple question should sort out the penalties. "What are you carrying when you climb?" A dagger or a shortsword or a hand axe in the belt aren't going to matter much, but a poleaxe? Or a spear? A heavy bag? It's easy just to impose an on-the-spot penalty for anything awkward (probably an extra die on the test). But that opens the door to player ingenuity, in that they'll immediately start thinking about using ropes to haul their stuff up afterwards. And of course, that gives the GM lots of scope for fiendishness - with some unarmoured and lightly armed PCs at the top of the cliff while all their heavy gear is still at the bottom.
Equally, combat encumbrance can be simplified hugely by the default assumption that fighters will dump anything not involved in fighting. And that immediately provides the complications that you describe - more tactical dimensions for a combat encounter and more decision-making for players.
I think there might be a division here, though, between games using miniatures and pure 'theatre of the mind'. In the former, it's very easy to stick down a pile of packs in the form of a miniature or tokens. And that changes everything. In the latter, it's one more invisible ball to juggle.
But I take your point about strength slots. I suppose my view is that PCs should be able to carry more than those systems usually allow, but shouldn't be able to fight or climb well with almost any of it.