Post by Mutant Lord: William McAusland on Apr 17, 2013 15:54:31 GMT -8
Encumbrance?
by Xhaosdaemon » Sat Oct 08, 2011 6:32 am
It is late, I am tired, and I am probably missing something but is there encumbrance for PCs based upon their STR? The fact that gear all has weight would lead me to believe so but I am not seeing it so easily...
Re: Encumbrance?
by WillMcAusland » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:38 am
Hello Xhaosdaemon,
You are actually the first person to ask about encumbrance. I had a few days to think about your question during Thanksgiving festivities (Canadian), and finally have a chance to get on the forums here and post some replies.
We didn't add encumbrance rules to the Hub Rules set, even though it seems like an oversight to GMs who use such rules. We will add some in an issue of Excavator Monthly or in the Expansion Rules book for those who want a clear rule on this.
I was thinking it might be a good idea to have the community here co-design encumbrance rules, then publish those as official rules down the road a bit.
When I GM, which is 90% of my RPG game play, I don't usually have weight rules for encumbrance but do establish the importance of not letting one's character become encumbered due to both weight issues and mobility issues. All armor has a movement modifier, and for non-powered armors, that is always represented by a reduction to one’s movement rate. While this takes into the consideration of wearing bulky armor, it doesn’t accommodate circumstances where a character loads up with kilograms of extra gear. For this, other rules might need to be put into play:
As you noticed, all the relics and most archaic items have a weight statistic, as do cybernetic implants and a few of the larger physical mutations. These weights, combined with the character's own body weight may mean the difference between life and death in the game.
First example: The character is heavily loaded down with all sorts of spare guns, looted relics, sacks of silver coins, a desktop computer, office chair and other treasures. He weighs 190kg and must cross a rusty catwalk over a vat of bubbling toxic sludge. Other, wiser characters carried less stuff and already crossed the deck to safety. This catwalk has a percentage chance to collapse under too much weight, so the GM consults a table in the adventure, either one he made himself or a table included in the published adventure. The table might look something like this:
Weight on catwalk Chance of collapse
1-50kg 1%
51-70kg 6%
71-90kg 15%
91-110kg 26%
111-150kg 47%
151-200kg 59%
201-300kg 82%
over 300kg 98%
Another example is when being heavy is a good thing, such as when a black owl tries to pick up a character after striking the target with both talons. A black owl can only lift somebody lighter than itself, which weighs 85 KG. The overloaded character above at 190kg is like a lead weight to this huge bird.
Also as the GM, a lack of mobility is something that can encourage players not to encumber their PCs. Often times the only escape route or way forward is for a character to crawl on his or her hands and knees, squeezing through tight spots and into narrow confines. If one has a couple of spare rifles, a spear, shield, espresso machine and crossbow on his back, he will snag and move very slowly, if at all. Also, the GM can mention to obviously overloaded characters that they only move half speed through a patch of tangled thorn bushes, or constantly bump into and hook onto passers by in a rough trade outpost, pissing off the locals.
If this is not enough, maybe it is time for some serious rules. I’d like feedback from you and the forum folks on this if possible.
Perhaps encumbrance could be determined by the character’s strength score X 2, the result being the amount in kilograms of gear he or she can carry without being encumbered. If deemed encumbered, the PC moves -1m per round, cannot climb ropes or walls, drops one rating in his or her swim ability, and cannot use the dodge or stealth skill.
Thoughts?
Best regards and thanks for joining us on the forum!
WM
Re: Encumbrance?
by Xhaosdaemon » Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:38 pm
I guess the biggest reason this came up is that I was messing around and rolled up a random character as per the rules. When I got to his gear and looked at the laundry list of items he had (OK, some of them arguably small) it just made me pause to think. It does seem to make sense to have some sort of mechanic for encumbrance, even just looking at the creature example you gave where it can't lift you unless you weigh less than a certain amount. Armor does penalize movement, which makes sense, but it is also at least relatively evenly distributed on the wearer's body. Miscellaneous other gear would not be so evenly distributed (ever carried a heavy bag in one hand and nothing in the other? I am sure you know how that makes you hold your body to do it), and having gear in a backpack, bags, pouches, sacks, and attached to you in various places would definitely affect how well and how fast you move.
I suppose your STR x 2 suggestion would be a simple solution even if it is somewhat limited in its scope. In looking at this I was thinking of Savage Worlds where you can carry gear equal to your STR die number x 5 in pounds and for every equal increment past that you take a -1 cumulative penalty to certain actions and attribute rolls. So in TME a possibility would be that you can carry an amount in kg equal to your STR then would take penalties for increments after that. For example someone with a 50 STR could carry 50 kg unencumbered and for every additional 50 kg carried he would suffer some sort of cumulative penalty to movement, actions, etc. That of course could be overly fiddly to many people. Of course the more fiddly approach would negate the issue of a person running around with 100 kg of gear unencumbered and all the sudden he picks up a 1 kg item and he can no longer climb, dodge, sneak, etc. The more fiddly approach would incrementally decrease movement and apply cumulative penalties to certain actions until a max weight is reached where all the person can do is stagger around for a few steps (max weight could be something like 8x the base, with increments going up to 8 in steps).
The other points you made about being too light or too heavy or having too much gear sticking out everywhere are right on in my opinion and definitely something I could see in a game I ran or played in. I can see how it being left up to individual GMs to decide how they handle encumbrance (if at all) makes sense. However an encumbrance system could be deemed "optional" like some of the combat rules but would be handy as a framework for GMs to use as is or work from to create their own encumbrance system.
So those are some of my initial thoughts at least, I am sure I will have more later, especially if this becomes a lively discussion. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question and I am interested to see what comes out of this on this board...
Re: Encumbrance?
by WillMcAusland » Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:27 am
Hey I like the sound of the cumulative penalties for cumulative encumbrance. Maybe we can work this into a new official rule pretty quickly, with your help, and any body else here who wants to chime in..
I used to back pack in the mountains near where I live in the middle of British Columbia. There was no water where I went and had to pack enough food and water for both myself and the dog, along with camping gear, shotgun shells, pump shotgun and beer. My pack and belt load weighed nearly 100 pounds once and while I did manage to carry it up for several hours, I would defiantly not be able to crawl, around quietly or fight with much style if a cougar jumped me. I weighed about 160 pounds back then, a bit more now, and so even though my pack was lighter than me, I would still have declared myself encumbered for hand to hand fighting, climbing or anything involving balance, stealth or attempts at hiding. I could, however, shoot my shotgun or other rifle perfectly well. Maybe these are considerations to look at.
As a side note, I am no longer as young or fit as I once was, although I do walk the dog nearly every day. I can't imagine doing the sort of physical exertions that I was once capable of. Having four kids and a desk job (Outland Arts) has not been conducive to an active lifestyle.
Will
Re: Encumbrance?
by Xhaosdaemon » Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:04 pm
What you describe in your backpacking experience is exactly why I thought about incremental encumbrance. After I get out of work later tonight I will try and put something down that is a bit more comprehensive to start the process. Stay tuned for Encumbrance, part 1....
Re: Encumbrance?
by Xhaosdaemon » Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:02 am
OK so here is something preliminary to chew on and discuss:
There are 8 levels of encumbrance, the base level (STR in kg), and seven levels which increase by an amount equal to the base number until level 8 which is 8x STR in kg as a maximal load (can stagger around a few steps, virtually impossible to do anything else). Each level after the 1st would have a penalty (non-cumulative) to certain actions, tasks, and skills.
So as an example we will take someone with a 25 STR (average) with an unencumbered movement rate of 6m:
1) 0-25 kg <Unencumbered>
2) 26-50 kg <-7 SR, +3 DV, Hazard Checks for Movement Skills/Tests shift 2 columns right, -15% movement>
3) 51-75 kg <-14 SR, +6 DV, Hazard Checks for Movement Skills/Tests shift 3 columns right, -30% movement>
4) 76-100 kg <-21 SR, +9 DV, Hazard Checks for Movement Skills/Tests shift 4 columns right, -45% movement>
5) 101-125 kg <-28 SR, +12 DV, Hazard Checks for Movement Skills/Tests shift 6 columns right, -60% movement>
6) 126-150 kg <-35 SR, +18 DV, Hazard Checks for Movement Skills/Tests shift 8 columns right, -75% movement>
7) 151-175 kg <-42 SR, +25 DV, Hazard Checks for Movement Skills/Tests shift 10 columns right, -90% movement>
8) 176-200 kg <-49 SR, +35 DV, Hazard Checks for Movement Skills/Tests shift 12 columns right, movement dropped to 0.25m>
That is one proposition for an encumbrance chart, allowing said example character to carry a maximum of 200 kg/420 lbs but he won't be doing much successfully while doing so. Yes it is a little fiddly but I think it captures increments fairly well, making it extremely difficult to succeed at tasks at maximal encumbrance levels. Thought, suggestions, criticisms?
Re: Encumbrance?
by Blood axe » Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:47 am
I’m an American and I find it so much easier to think in pounds/feet. LOL. I just use encumbrance lightly. If I think a player is trying to carry too much- I let him know. He's moving slower, getting tired quickly, etc. But is very good to have some hard rules. Great stuff XhaosDaemon.
Re: Encumbrance?
by WillMcAusland » Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:53 am
I agree. Nicely done.
After Excavator Monthly issue 3 goes out on the market, I'll have to work with you and see about getting this published.
Deadline of the magazine is the 15th, but looking mighty tight now that I have the editors changes handed in and a lot of the smaller inks to complete. You can see some EM3 art here: www.outlandarts.com/TME-Excavator-Monthly-Magazine-issue3-art.htm
Re: Encumbrance?
by Xhaosdaemon » Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:17 am
Thanks for the kind words but I definitely would consider those rules a raw Beta, in need of a playtest to see how they work (I am certainly not a game designer and am still learning the system having just received it a week ago). See if they work at least relatively smoothly and keep from overly bogging down the game (Are the penalties too much, not enough for things with really high traits, too much bookkeeping/crunch, etc.?) . There are probably a number of other ways to come up with encumbrance rules. Assuming these test out (I don't know who would test them and where) I would certainly put them in as an "optional rule"; for people to decide whether to use them, not use them, or use to generate their own encumbrance rules. Things like encumbrance rules can definitely be a fine or not-so-fine line between "realism" and cinematic action. I sometimes tend towards a level of "realism" but others may not. "Realism" can slow things down a lot and kill the fun factor if overdone...
Re: Encumbrance?
by Xhaosdaemon » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:34 am
So I am glad I came up with an encumbrance system, even in beta format. A friend of mine rolled up a couple characters in case I am able to get a game going and one of them ended up with over 70 kg of gear! Fortunately she has a horse to carry much of it, because with her STR otherwise she would be dealing with 3 levels of encumbrance past unencumbered. The random gear for the more wealthy characters can add up in weight in a hurry!
Re: Encumbrance?
by WillMcAusland » Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:10 pm
Glad to hear the encumbrance rule is working and getting some in-game test playing. A friend of mine who is heavily involved in The Mutant Epoch is taking these rules through their paces, too. Actually, Danny is doing an article in Excavator Monthly Issue 4 on a new skill Acrobat, and maybe we should look into getting the encumbrance rules into the magazine, along with a big illustration or two.
by Xhaosdaemon » Sat Oct 08, 2011 6:32 am
It is late, I am tired, and I am probably missing something but is there encumbrance for PCs based upon their STR? The fact that gear all has weight would lead me to believe so but I am not seeing it so easily...
Re: Encumbrance?
by WillMcAusland » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:38 am
Hello Xhaosdaemon,
You are actually the first person to ask about encumbrance. I had a few days to think about your question during Thanksgiving festivities (Canadian), and finally have a chance to get on the forums here and post some replies.
We didn't add encumbrance rules to the Hub Rules set, even though it seems like an oversight to GMs who use such rules. We will add some in an issue of Excavator Monthly or in the Expansion Rules book for those who want a clear rule on this.
I was thinking it might be a good idea to have the community here co-design encumbrance rules, then publish those as official rules down the road a bit.
When I GM, which is 90% of my RPG game play, I don't usually have weight rules for encumbrance but do establish the importance of not letting one's character become encumbered due to both weight issues and mobility issues. All armor has a movement modifier, and for non-powered armors, that is always represented by a reduction to one’s movement rate. While this takes into the consideration of wearing bulky armor, it doesn’t accommodate circumstances where a character loads up with kilograms of extra gear. For this, other rules might need to be put into play:
As you noticed, all the relics and most archaic items have a weight statistic, as do cybernetic implants and a few of the larger physical mutations. These weights, combined with the character's own body weight may mean the difference between life and death in the game.
First example: The character is heavily loaded down with all sorts of spare guns, looted relics, sacks of silver coins, a desktop computer, office chair and other treasures. He weighs 190kg and must cross a rusty catwalk over a vat of bubbling toxic sludge. Other, wiser characters carried less stuff and already crossed the deck to safety. This catwalk has a percentage chance to collapse under too much weight, so the GM consults a table in the adventure, either one he made himself or a table included in the published adventure. The table might look something like this:
Weight on catwalk Chance of collapse
1-50kg 1%
51-70kg 6%
71-90kg 15%
91-110kg 26%
111-150kg 47%
151-200kg 59%
201-300kg 82%
over 300kg 98%
Another example is when being heavy is a good thing, such as when a black owl tries to pick up a character after striking the target with both talons. A black owl can only lift somebody lighter than itself, which weighs 85 KG. The overloaded character above at 190kg is like a lead weight to this huge bird.
Also as the GM, a lack of mobility is something that can encourage players not to encumber their PCs. Often times the only escape route or way forward is for a character to crawl on his or her hands and knees, squeezing through tight spots and into narrow confines. If one has a couple of spare rifles, a spear, shield, espresso machine and crossbow on his back, he will snag and move very slowly, if at all. Also, the GM can mention to obviously overloaded characters that they only move half speed through a patch of tangled thorn bushes, or constantly bump into and hook onto passers by in a rough trade outpost, pissing off the locals.
If this is not enough, maybe it is time for some serious rules. I’d like feedback from you and the forum folks on this if possible.
Perhaps encumbrance could be determined by the character’s strength score X 2, the result being the amount in kilograms of gear he or she can carry without being encumbered. If deemed encumbered, the PC moves -1m per round, cannot climb ropes or walls, drops one rating in his or her swim ability, and cannot use the dodge or stealth skill.
Thoughts?
Best regards and thanks for joining us on the forum!
WM
Re: Encumbrance?
by Xhaosdaemon » Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:38 pm
I guess the biggest reason this came up is that I was messing around and rolled up a random character as per the rules. When I got to his gear and looked at the laundry list of items he had (OK, some of them arguably small) it just made me pause to think. It does seem to make sense to have some sort of mechanic for encumbrance, even just looking at the creature example you gave where it can't lift you unless you weigh less than a certain amount. Armor does penalize movement, which makes sense, but it is also at least relatively evenly distributed on the wearer's body. Miscellaneous other gear would not be so evenly distributed (ever carried a heavy bag in one hand and nothing in the other? I am sure you know how that makes you hold your body to do it), and having gear in a backpack, bags, pouches, sacks, and attached to you in various places would definitely affect how well and how fast you move.
I suppose your STR x 2 suggestion would be a simple solution even if it is somewhat limited in its scope. In looking at this I was thinking of Savage Worlds where you can carry gear equal to your STR die number x 5 in pounds and for every equal increment past that you take a -1 cumulative penalty to certain actions and attribute rolls. So in TME a possibility would be that you can carry an amount in kg equal to your STR then would take penalties for increments after that. For example someone with a 50 STR could carry 50 kg unencumbered and for every additional 50 kg carried he would suffer some sort of cumulative penalty to movement, actions, etc. That of course could be overly fiddly to many people. Of course the more fiddly approach would negate the issue of a person running around with 100 kg of gear unencumbered and all the sudden he picks up a 1 kg item and he can no longer climb, dodge, sneak, etc. The more fiddly approach would incrementally decrease movement and apply cumulative penalties to certain actions until a max weight is reached where all the person can do is stagger around for a few steps (max weight could be something like 8x the base, with increments going up to 8 in steps).
The other points you made about being too light or too heavy or having too much gear sticking out everywhere are right on in my opinion and definitely something I could see in a game I ran or played in. I can see how it being left up to individual GMs to decide how they handle encumbrance (if at all) makes sense. However an encumbrance system could be deemed "optional" like some of the combat rules but would be handy as a framework for GMs to use as is or work from to create their own encumbrance system.
So those are some of my initial thoughts at least, I am sure I will have more later, especially if this becomes a lively discussion. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question and I am interested to see what comes out of this on this board...
Re: Encumbrance?
by WillMcAusland » Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:27 am
Hey I like the sound of the cumulative penalties for cumulative encumbrance. Maybe we can work this into a new official rule pretty quickly, with your help, and any body else here who wants to chime in..
I used to back pack in the mountains near where I live in the middle of British Columbia. There was no water where I went and had to pack enough food and water for both myself and the dog, along with camping gear, shotgun shells, pump shotgun and beer. My pack and belt load weighed nearly 100 pounds once and while I did manage to carry it up for several hours, I would defiantly not be able to crawl, around quietly or fight with much style if a cougar jumped me. I weighed about 160 pounds back then, a bit more now, and so even though my pack was lighter than me, I would still have declared myself encumbered for hand to hand fighting, climbing or anything involving balance, stealth or attempts at hiding. I could, however, shoot my shotgun or other rifle perfectly well. Maybe these are considerations to look at.
As a side note, I am no longer as young or fit as I once was, although I do walk the dog nearly every day. I can't imagine doing the sort of physical exertions that I was once capable of. Having four kids and a desk job (Outland Arts) has not been conducive to an active lifestyle.
Will
Re: Encumbrance?
by Xhaosdaemon » Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:04 pm
What you describe in your backpacking experience is exactly why I thought about incremental encumbrance. After I get out of work later tonight I will try and put something down that is a bit more comprehensive to start the process. Stay tuned for Encumbrance, part 1....
Re: Encumbrance?
by Xhaosdaemon » Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:02 am
OK so here is something preliminary to chew on and discuss:
There are 8 levels of encumbrance, the base level (STR in kg), and seven levels which increase by an amount equal to the base number until level 8 which is 8x STR in kg as a maximal load (can stagger around a few steps, virtually impossible to do anything else). Each level after the 1st would have a penalty (non-cumulative) to certain actions, tasks, and skills.
So as an example we will take someone with a 25 STR (average) with an unencumbered movement rate of 6m:
1) 0-25 kg <Unencumbered>
2) 26-50 kg <-7 SR, +3 DV, Hazard Checks for Movement Skills/Tests shift 2 columns right, -15% movement>
3) 51-75 kg <-14 SR, +6 DV, Hazard Checks for Movement Skills/Tests shift 3 columns right, -30% movement>
4) 76-100 kg <-21 SR, +9 DV, Hazard Checks for Movement Skills/Tests shift 4 columns right, -45% movement>
5) 101-125 kg <-28 SR, +12 DV, Hazard Checks for Movement Skills/Tests shift 6 columns right, -60% movement>
6) 126-150 kg <-35 SR, +18 DV, Hazard Checks for Movement Skills/Tests shift 8 columns right, -75% movement>
7) 151-175 kg <-42 SR, +25 DV, Hazard Checks for Movement Skills/Tests shift 10 columns right, -90% movement>
8) 176-200 kg <-49 SR, +35 DV, Hazard Checks for Movement Skills/Tests shift 12 columns right, movement dropped to 0.25m>
That is one proposition for an encumbrance chart, allowing said example character to carry a maximum of 200 kg/420 lbs but he won't be doing much successfully while doing so. Yes it is a little fiddly but I think it captures increments fairly well, making it extremely difficult to succeed at tasks at maximal encumbrance levels. Thought, suggestions, criticisms?
Re: Encumbrance?
by Blood axe » Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:47 am
I’m an American and I find it so much easier to think in pounds/feet. LOL. I just use encumbrance lightly. If I think a player is trying to carry too much- I let him know. He's moving slower, getting tired quickly, etc. But is very good to have some hard rules. Great stuff XhaosDaemon.
Re: Encumbrance?
by WillMcAusland » Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:53 am
I agree. Nicely done.
After Excavator Monthly issue 3 goes out on the market, I'll have to work with you and see about getting this published.
Deadline of the magazine is the 15th, but looking mighty tight now that I have the editors changes handed in and a lot of the smaller inks to complete. You can see some EM3 art here: www.outlandarts.com/TME-Excavator-Monthly-Magazine-issue3-art.htm
Re: Encumbrance?
by Xhaosdaemon » Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:17 am
Thanks for the kind words but I definitely would consider those rules a raw Beta, in need of a playtest to see how they work (I am certainly not a game designer and am still learning the system having just received it a week ago). See if they work at least relatively smoothly and keep from overly bogging down the game (Are the penalties too much, not enough for things with really high traits, too much bookkeeping/crunch, etc.?) . There are probably a number of other ways to come up with encumbrance rules. Assuming these test out (I don't know who would test them and where) I would certainly put them in as an "optional rule"; for people to decide whether to use them, not use them, or use to generate their own encumbrance rules. Things like encumbrance rules can definitely be a fine or not-so-fine line between "realism" and cinematic action. I sometimes tend towards a level of "realism" but others may not. "Realism" can slow things down a lot and kill the fun factor if overdone...
Re: Encumbrance?
by Xhaosdaemon » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:34 am
So I am glad I came up with an encumbrance system, even in beta format. A friend of mine rolled up a couple characters in case I am able to get a game going and one of them ended up with over 70 kg of gear! Fortunately she has a horse to carry much of it, because with her STR otherwise she would be dealing with 3 levels of encumbrance past unencumbered. The random gear for the more wealthy characters can add up in weight in a hurry!
Re: Encumbrance?
by WillMcAusland » Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:10 pm
Glad to hear the encumbrance rule is working and getting some in-game test playing. A friend of mine who is heavily involved in The Mutant Epoch is taking these rules through their paces, too. Actually, Danny is doing an article in Excavator Monthly Issue 4 on a new skill Acrobat, and maybe we should look into getting the encumbrance rules into the magazine, along with a big illustration or two.