Quote from: Naburimannu on July 31, 2021, 07:38:16 AM
That's really light, but weight limits are tight enough to really matter anyway - our characters in plate armour are stripping it off for long distance travel, because it speeds the entire party up 50% and we were running into time limits, but just now we got into a short-range dangerous situation where they're both unarmoured. Consequences.

A long as the GM doesn't intentionally use things like this to screw the players, it reflects a realistic happening.
Parties use scouts for a reason.

Quote from: Jaeger on July 30, 2021, 04:19:22 PMPersonally I would want a system that takes 'bulk' into account for items like some slot based enc systems do, but I haven't seen anything that has hit my sweet spot yet, so I may have to work one out on my own.

Runequest had a simple system that could be used to take bulk into account as each item is rated on a separate scale. The total number of points a character could carry is the average of his Str and Con. Most things, such as swords cost 1 slot.

I use a similar system in my OD&D game and to help track encumbrance I created a ton of treasure cards. Each card has a value as well as a weight in this scale. This system also gets rid of the need to track the various values of coin types as each bag of coins has its own weight and value and stating the actual distribution of coinage is not necessary.



These are just printed on sheets of pre-perforated business cards bought at a office supply store.


One thing I've noticed about using cards to represent treasure is that the players are more likely to use things like potions when it's on a card rather than when it's just written on a sheet of paper.

When the guys at Paradigm tried to write their own system for their Arcanis setting (originally 3e, presently 5e) they had a pretty good encumbrance system based on bulk.

The short version of which is characters could handle bulk up to their Fortitude defense without penalty. Fortitude was a total of the character's Might (Strength) + Vigor (Constitution) + a static value.

Translated to 5e it'd be something like characters can carry up to 8 + Str mod + Con mod Bulk without penalty.

For some values, a dagger is 1, a side/arming sword 3, a greatsword 5, a longbow 5, a quiver of 20 arrows is 2, most light armor is 2, medium armor is 3-4, heavy 4-5, a large shield 3, a backpack is 2 (holds up to 10 bulk [max. 3 bulk/item] and reduces bulk of items in it by half), a week's rations 3, bedroll 3, 100 coins is 1.

With typical Fortitude defenses in the 16-18 range, it was pretty easy to overburden yourself. Medium armor 3 + shield 3 + longsword 3 + dagger 1 + shortbow 4 + quiver (20 arrows) 2 + backpack 2 + bedroll 3/2 + week's rations 3/2 + a full waterskin 2 is 22 bulk.

You wanted the quick release option on your pack, so you only needed what in 5e would be a bonus action to shed the 7-ish bulk of it and fight effectively. Woe is you if you have to retreat and leave your pack with your food, water, bedding and any treasure behind though.

Up to 1.5x your Fortitude (24-27) it's not too bad; in 5e terms, -5' speed, -1 AC, -1 to all STR, DEX and CON checks (including saves), but it gets progressively worse at 2x (double the above penalties) and 3x (quadruple so -20' speed [i.e. 10' move for humans], -4 to AC and all STR/DEX/CON checks/saves) and you can't move at all at 4x.

I don't know if I'd use it per se; my own system is already fairly restrictive just using weight (a PC with strength as their dump stat can barely manage a basic adventurer's kit and a single weapon, much less even light armor or any treasure to speak of; average strength could just handle light armor, a weapon or two and an adventurer's kit), but it's definitely an interesting system.

Quote from: jhkim on July 30, 2021, 02:22:33 PM
Regarding encumbrance systems -- if one has a large expedition then tracking all individual items like number of arrows and torches quickly becomes a big headache of bookkeeping. Thus, I prefer to do encumbrance more by GM fiat than by exact calculation, like "You're starting to run low on supplies" rather than making players have spreadsheets of all the supplies.

I used a loose system for both encumbrance and wealth for my Vinland game, because tracking individual items was too much bookkeeping.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 30, 2021, 07:04:13 AM
There were 15 people in The Hobbit's party - 13 dwarves, plus Gandalf and Bilbo. Then 9 in the Fellowship of the Ring.

Not quite the 30+ companies we're talking about, but larger than many adventuring parties in D&D.

I think LotR is the model for much of D&D, though. They travel extremely light, and for much of the books it is smaller parties -- at first the four hobbits, then five with Aragorn -- and later the split fellowship with two on one side and five on the other. They have very little amenities or supplies mentioned other than lembas. Emulating this is the default for a lot of D&D parties. And there's nothing wrong with that -- it's fun, and if supply trains aren't fun for the players, I don't think it should be done.

  I think the Hobbit is more the model.  LotR they have a much more clearly defined goal and destination, and a time limit to get there.   They keep the party small not for practical purposes of travel, but because you have to be very careful about who knows of the ring and their intentions (less people in the party is fewer people to stab you in the back).  But I do agree that many players are not going to want to do an oregon trail sim for their supply train.  My players usually hire a guide who handles logistics and hiring porters/mules/etc.   I do not go with the tired trope of having the guide try to screw them, so it works out.  They do always prefer to have hired men at arms with them though, as the systems we usually play favor having more people in combat drastically (GURPS and SWADE).