LethalDose said:

Unsurprisingly, I disagree.

Maybe I've been playing a few too many indy and indy-flavor games of late, games that put the power back into the GM's hands rather than forceing a plethora of rules on both player and GM, granting the freedom to apply "common sense" is a better approach than having a spelled-out rule telling you "well, your common sense should tell you this."

That said, perhaps those two items could have a slightly expanded explanation (if it's not too late to add such a thing), that "backpacks" and "utility belts" are just loose descriptors, and that said items can be used to represent various other means of storing/carrying gear, much like the handful of examples I gave above, within reason.

Someone carrying three "utility belts" (an ammo bandolier across the chest and pair of Old West style gun belts with holsters) isn't that improbable, and personally I think it's a bit on the cool side, particularly if the character is a gunslinger packing twin blaster pistols.  Mechanically, it'd just be simpler to buy a backpack (cheaper too) and be done with it, but I at least think it's a cool visual, and the GM should work with the player to accomodate that concept.

I think Doc, the Weasel has the right idea, and that a GM should be able to allow simple "common sense" inform their decision of what is and isn't kosher without needing to be told as much.  Someone trying to wear four backpacks (as in actual backpacks) is absurd, and I'd be surprised if a GM didn't put the kibosh on something like that.  But an actual backpack and a belt-rig for a tool kit (both "backpacks" in game terms) is a good deal more reasonable.

Then again, maybe I'm placing more faith in the many GMs out there than others might, but I figure the vast majority of GMs really don't need as much hand-holding rules-wise as D&D 3rd Edition generally assumed was needed (granted, it wasn't as bad as Rolemaster got at points, since I never saw a chart for blowing your nose in an official WotC product).  Maybe it was the result of hearing too many horror stories of power-mad Dictator!DMs and allegedly "spineless" DMs that couldn't keep their players in check from 1st and 2nd edition that caused WotC to take the approach they did with 3rd edition and trying to codify every little thing, and if anything only serving to re-inforce the "DM vs. Players" mentality that's been the bane of many a promsing campaign.  But that's not really the point of this topic and kind of a moot point anyway since nobody here was involved in 3rd edition's development.

Let's please don't start another war in yet another thread. It's spreading like the plague. Keep discussing without snide comments please.

Well, as a follow-up (for those who care ) I think I'm going to turn 180° on my last thoughts.  DM's and Sturn's points have weighed in my mind for the past day or so, and have made me come around.  I like the simplicity and the not over-thinking of the rules.  I don't want to add to much minutiae to the game by having it to worry about what's in a backpack and what's not.  And the creative interpretation of such containers is exactly what I like about the system, and I feel that my house rule was going to be antithesis to that.  So, after some deliberation, I've decided to play it as-is.  I just think it's in a better spirit of the rules to not be overly concerned with little things like this.  If it's abused, then I'll reconsider my thoughts on it.  

The problem with common sense is that it isn't so common. With so many people coming from D20 or D&D specifically, they are used to practically everything being laid out for them. And it is a shame that some find it either impossible or even difficult to break away from such literal games where many, I would say too many, aspects are codified. They become lost when told to think on it themselves. Personally I don't think a couple of sentences are needed because I hope that common sense would prevail. On the other hand, a couple of sentences wouldn't hurt or take up much space, or at least a reminder that the game is more narrative driven and not so exact.

Sturn said:

I don't intend to start any sort of war.  And if someone else wants to, I simply won't participate unless I come under personal attack.

mouthymerc said:

Sadly, this is probably being proven to be so very true on a number of occasions.  I'm hoping with the pendulum swinging back towards "GM has more control" and away from "Rule for Everything & Everything has a Rule," that will change.  I guess time will tell.

But I get a feeling that people who can't make that break away from literal games probably won't be sticking with EotE or it's sibling games.  Which is a shame, but at least they've got a really good Star Wars (Saga Edition, in my opinion at least) that caters to them, although they could also stick with OCR/RCR as well.

I admit it took me some time to fully appreciate the narrative system when I picked up FFG's Warhammer. At first I wanted to tack on a grided movement system, ranges by hex, etc. Resist this knee-jerk realistic simulationist reaction until you understand the system more. FFG's narrative system is enlightening once you accept it for what it is.

Well, it's definitely been the case for me.  I came from BECMI D&D, then 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D.  But then, 12 years of 3.x.  I've gotten into Castles & Crusades over the last 3-4 years and my approach to that - at first - was to use it as-written, but put more d20 into it.  I finally came to realize that part of my appeal to C&C was because certain aspects of 3.x/d20 were gone.

So yeah, I can see that unlearning what they have learned playing d20 for the past decade might prove to be an uphill battle.  I can't speak for anyone else, but I got lazy with the d20 system.  It did indeed have a rule for practically everything - but that led to players wanting to make certain there wasn't a rule for something that the DM was trying to adjudicate on the fly and that everyone was playing it "right."  And that led to some bogged down play (and that's not even considering how long fights took!).

I, too, hope that the pendulum starts swinging the other way.  I think it's already begun in a lot of ways - there are a lot of games out there that are embracing either a "cooperative storytelling" or a rules light/GM Fiat style (or both), some new to the market and others have been around.  For me, personally, I can already see a difference in how the games flow - I already seem to be more ""into" the Edge of the Empire, as a GM, instead of just a rules interpreter and the guy behind the screen describing the action and drawing on the battlemat like I felt most of the time in Saga.

I find that there is a swing in the opposite direction these days, more towards narrative games. Games like Dogs in the Vineyard and MWP's Marvel game are good examples, and, of course, WFRP and Star Wars EotE. I'm sure there are others out there too, but it takes time to change perceptions. The bggest dog out there has been d20 for a very long time, and many players who started there have discovered the joys of other game systems, but there are still just as many who can't seem to enjoy anything except d20. Star Wars has enough appeal that it could reach more people than some other games, so hopefully this trend and game gain the popularity I think it deserves.

Sturn said:

I'm with DM, not looking to start a war.  There's nothing inherently wrong with dissent or criticism.  Like I said, there's spectrum and the ideal area for rules relies on player preference.  However, dishonesty and direct hostility, those do cause problems.  

For example If I dissented and got a PM that included lines like:

"If you honestly think you can do a better job [than the author], put your money where your mouth is and [create your own product] and be ready to defend your choices when someone whines about how you got [certain topic] wrong because they didn't match up to their idealized version of [topic]."

then that *might* cause problems.

-WJL

LethalDose said:

Hypothetically speaking, of course.  No one should assume I actually recieved a PM with those contents from any poster on this site.

-WJL

Sturn said:

I'm fully with you on the backpack, but the belt… why couldn't someone make it harness styly with the clips going down the sides?  Like suspenders with packs. I could argue that you could get 2 (at least one) slot(s) out of that. 

Also cargo pants…. gotta be worth another slot. 
 

Basically pockets help alot. :P
 

Just my .02… thinking outside the box, but using common sense is a must, for instance you're not putting a 12 pound item in your cargo pants pocket your pants would fall down the first time you botched a roll. Hey, I gotta remember that!

About Rule 0… 

For several Indy games, it's "Don't be a dick"
For many traditional games, it's "The GM is always right"
The term itself is meaningless without either context or being spelled out within the ruleset, and I don't recall seing either in the rules

As for common sense, it's bloody rare. And not a good substitute for a simple rule addition.

I kinda ge the impression that this whole debate "on encumbrance" is splitting hairs.  It's kinda the very thing this system was intended to avoid, like languages etc…

The encumbrance score is for large items, and to prevent one character from running around with turbo blaster batteries attached to their arms. That is why smaller items don’t even have a score.  If the smaller item does have a score it is because it is meant to be carried in their hand, or disrupt their ability to do other things at the same time (like a gun).  Rifles are large and bulky, etc…
As long as the person has a reasonable way to carry what she has, then who cares?  A backpack can hold rations, a datapad (heck you can even go the "halo route" and have it built into the forearm of armor), that kind of "don't need immediately” stuff, clips, batarangs, etc.. are on the belt, or banana clipped, etc… as long as the players are not trying to say they have 500 clips, they can keep them in a pocket for all I care.

Now if they are trying to pick up a coffee table and run around with it, then yes, some amount of math has to take place.  It's a large item, even if it isn't that heavy.  But why get all buggered down if you don't have to?

If your players can't adjust to common sense, then perhaps get some new players, or play HackMaster where every wee item is accounted for.  For myself, and my group, it just isn't that big of a deal, and we haven't run into any problems, not even one, in the 4 month campaign we have had going.  We come to a consensus and that’s the end of it.

$hamrock said:

I guess it's a question of whether you see it as debate or discussion.  I'd say there's a fine line between the two, but I think in this environment its pretty blurry.  In discussion the parties can express opposing or disparate viewpoints to evaluate the merits of those opinions, but aren't neccesarily trying to convince the other party to change their view points.  In debate, the parties are trying to convince the opposition to change their views or to prove the opposition's view to be erroneous.  I think the separation is blurry 

When I'm presenting ideas like the ones above (e.g. "one backpack or utility belt bonus per character", or "add a small rule"), I'm trying to discuss and explain and support a point of view, not trying to prove anyone else wrong.  I will try to point out why I may have opposing points of view with others, and if people come around to my point of view, fine.  But really, there are very few people I'm trying to convince about many smaller points of the game.  

Debating is substantially different.  For what my debates look like, go back at the Beta threads and pay attention to debates on skill costs and autofire activation in particular.  I was trying to show why particular rule was problmatic/broken/etc.  And really the only party that it matters to convince are the devs, because they're the ones with the final say over the product.  Anyway, that's how I look at it.

As a final comment, I will say that I think anybody has the right to correct anything they catch as factually incorrect, whether it's intentional or not.  If we're not having discussion or debates based on the truth or rational though, then we're not having intelligent or rational discussion or debates, which is a waste of time.  We should appreciate it when posters catch mistakes.

-WJL