Monday, 24 March 2014

A Thought on Encumbrance: How About This...

How about, instead of the player carefully selecting all his gear, then laboriously calculating the weight, comparing it with a threshold, and thus determining encumbrance, why not do it the other way around: the player selects an encumbrance level, and from this he gets both a "select X specific items" and also a "percentage of possession"?

When the question gets asked "do you have...?", then if you've declared it as a specific item then the answer is yes, otherwise you roll for it. (And if the dice come up "yes", you can then either switch one of your existing specific items for this new thing, or take your chances next time.)

You'd probably want to base both on the character's race and/or Strength, so how about this:

Light encumbrance: Select 3+Str mod specific items (minimum 1). You have a chance of having any other item equal to 10+(5 x Str mod)% (minimum 5%).

Medium encumbrance: Select 5+Str mod specific items (minimum 1). You have a chance of having any other item equal to 30+(10 x Str mod)% (minimum 5%)

Heavy encumbrance: Select 7+Str mod specific items (minimum 1). You have a chance of having any other item equal to 50+(15 x Str mod)% (minimum 5%)

Thus, if Frodo (Str 8) chooses to have only light encumbrance, he gets to select only 2 specific items to carry and has a 5% chance of having some other item. Conversely, Sam (Str 14) chooses to be heavily encumbered, and so gets to choose 9 specific items and has a 80% chance of having some other item in his pack.

(Note that weapons, but not ammunition, would always have to be listed as specific items. As for armour, light armour would count as 1 item, medium armour as 2, and heavy armour as 3. Again, such things would have to be listed as specific items.)

Any thoughts? Or is the whole thing just mad?

(Hmm... as a thought, each successful check should probably reduce the character's %age chance for further equipment. So, the more you dig into the pack, the more your reserves get used up...)

No comments:

Post a Comment