UPDATE: These rules have now gone to print in Carcass Crawler issue 2 and we're no longer looking for further feedback.
Encumbrance is one of those parts of the game that different groups tend to handle in a lot different ways. Some groups simply ignore encumbrance altogether (it is, after all, an optional rule), some use one of the standard systems presented in Old-School Essentials, and others implement their own tweaks or alternative systems.
To provide more options to players of Old-School Essentials, we're developing an alternative encumbrance system which is now ready for play testing!
Standard Encumbrance Systems
Old-School Essentials presents two systems for tracking encumbrance:
- Basic encumbrance: A character's movement rate is determined by the armour they wear and whether they are carrying a significant amount of treasure or not.
- Detailed encumbrance: A character's movement rate is determined by the total weight of equipment and treasure carried.
These two systems are derived from the classic Basic/Expert rules, of course, as Old-School Essentials is designed for compatibility with that game.
Play Test: Item-Based Encumbrance
In recent years, item- (or slot-) based encumbrance has become one of the most popular alternative systems for tracking encumbrance: instead of tracking the weight of items carried, players track the number of significant items carried.
Necrotic Gnome is currently developing an item-based encumbrance system for Old-School Essentials (to be featured in Carcass Crawler issue 2) and would like to offer the draft version of the rules for play testing. You can download the draft files here:
Changes from v0.1 to v0.2:
- Unified wording around tiny items and jewellery.
- Clarified that a character's movement rate is determined by looking up equipped and packed items in the table and using the slower rate.
- Added a section on calculating item-based load limits for mounts and vehicles.
12 comments
I wonder if it might make sense to treat worn armor as a packed item for these purposes; it’s not taking up a hand and it’s not something you can put on or take off quickly, just like items in your pack take some time to get out or put away. That would also play nicely with the optional rule for high-STR characters being able to carry more packed items.
>Should the Strength bonus also help with Equipped items? As it stands it seems like a fully kitted out fighter, even with a high strength, is going to be slow.. which makes sense for low-average strength but feels wrong for big burly types.
The idea is that it only affects packed items. The intention of this system is to stay pretty close to the basic assumptions of the standard OSE (B/X) encumbrance systems, so heavy armour just makes characters slow.
Should the Strength bonus also help with Equipped items? As it stands it seems like a fully kitted out fighter, even with a high strength, is going to be slow.. which makes sense for low-average strength but feels wrong for big burly types.
Agree with hemp rope at 2 slots. It’s heavy and it’s also really bulky.
@John Justice Historically there was much, much less freedom of choice than there is in an RPG. Medieval warriors absolutely without question wore the most protective armor they could find. The problem was finding it. The only real instance where warriors exchanged protection for mobility was in the Crusades, when 120-degree heat made wearing metal armor difficult. Even so, most held onto it, since it was the equivalent in modern terms of a top-of-the-line luxury SUV. Nor did they ever concern themselves with carrying tents, rope, torches, hundreds of gold coins, a 10’ pole, etc. I think the question here is not whether RPG encumbrance is “gamey”, it’s a question of how gamey it can be before it gets too ridiculous. You’ll note 5e solved this problem by ignoring it. Which I think is a lazy design decision, but it’s really not a simple problem.