GM'ing Question: Carrying Guns and Encumbrance

[Raellus]

So, a few of my players want to carry more than one primary long arm (assault rifle/battle rifle/sniper rifle/LSW/SAW/GPMG, etc.) at a time. To me, this seems very unrealistic. I've seen literally tens of thousands of photos/videos of soldiers in wartime and I can count on two hands the number of times I've seen a soldier carrying more than one such weapon at a time and then only under special circumstances (carrying a wounded comrade's weapon for him, collecting captured weapons, showing off, carrying a breeching gun or small GL as well as an AR, etc.).

I get a sore shoulder carrying my slung Mossberg 500 for a mile hike.

Anyway, under game rules, players are well within their rights to carry multiple long arms as long as they don't go over their carried weight limit. I just don't buy it. I will allow PCs to carry a primary long arm and then another smaller weapon like an SMG, short-barrelled shotgun, or collapsed carbine (in addition to a sidearm as well).

I've instituted a house rule that PCs may carry multiple primaries but at a penalty to movement, innitiative, and to hit rolls.

Am I being a hardass? Am I the one being unrealistic? Is my stance reasonable? What do you think? How would you handle this issue as a GM?

[Panther Al]

Rule I always followed was a player could only carry 7 bulk points of weapons, with every additional 3 bulk points moving encumbrance up a level. And the weight of said weapons counts against the player as well, so no grabbing a MILAN and a 240 and taking off with it with out penalty.

Another rule I followed regarding bulk, weight, and encumbrance is the rule I have for riding in vehicles. The limit is again bulk: In this case 4 points. But: Weight of whatever s/he might have on counts as well. Including fatigues or whatever the character might be wearing, each 5 kilo's is a bulk point. I had my characters list out what they would always have on them, and as long as it meets the 4 point limit, its the standard load-out for panic moment, such as leaping out of a burning vehicle, reaction to surprise, etc. If a character has a average of agility and strength under 4, the limit is 3 points of bulk, if over 7, 5 points.

It seems to work, and keeps the arguments down when a character is ambushed, jumps out of the back of the truck when panic, and then saying, "Oh, by the way, on the way out I grabbed my DPTGAMPP* gun..."



(*Don't Point That Gun At My Planet Please!)

[Legbreaker]

As an infantryman, I routinely carried and L1A1 SLR, M79 GL and an M72 66mm LAW in addition to webbing (roughly 15-20kgs) and pack (about 20kgs).
While they were a pain if simply tossed over the shoulder, given a few moments to strap into place properly they weren't an issue.

At another time I carried by the pistol grip an L1A1 in one hand and M16A1 in the other - definitely NOT recommended except in an emergency (as that was).

Carriage of muliple unslung weapons is not going to happen as a normal thing (several L1A1s for example can be hooked together and carried by the carried handle, but they're not in a ready for use state). Carriage of several, properly stowed weapons on the other hand is possible in a combat environment (although why any soldier would even want to carry additional weaponry as a standard practice is beyond me).

I do need to state publicly that as one of the players in Raes game I have a vested interest in this.

[Snake Eyes]

I don't think all combinations of multiple longarms are necessarily unreasonable. A shotgun or sniper/hunting rifle securely bungee'd to your pack while carrying an assault rifle or carbine at low ready isn't that ridiculous a loadout even on a long march. Strapping an M16/M203 while humping an M60 is probably pushing it.

Seems pretty easy to handle this in 2.2 with the Bulk attribute. Something like: Reduce effective Initiative by 1 for every point of Bulk carried that exceeds the character's AGL and maybe implement a similar Observation penalty too. At the very least it gets players to think of leaner and more efficient loadouts at the cost of speed and stealth.

[Legbreaker]

Using Bulk doesn't really work though. A character could load up on other stores such as 40kgs of food, a couple of manpack radios, or a packfull of 100 hand grenades.
Common sense and decent roleplaying is the answer rather than a strict ruleset.

[pmulcahy11b]

It sort of depends on how the weapon is being carried. I once carried both an M60 and a Dragon cross-country for about 3 miles tactically, and I probably wouldn't have been as tired if I didn't have the flu at the time. The dragon was slung crossways across my back and the M-60 in my hands (the damn thing was minus the sling).

[Snake Eyes]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Using Bulk doesn't really work though. A character could load up on other stores such as 40kgs of food, a couple of manpack radios, or a packfull of 100 hand grenades.

The existing 2.2 Load rules handle matters of mere static mass just fine. The major exception being in cases of uneven distribution of "felt" weight - i.e., it is one thing to mount 50 kilos in a well-fitted framed pack with a padded hip belt and shoulder straps and quite another indeed for one man to herk around that same load in half a dozen plastic garbage bags. I took it that The Cap'n was referring more to the unwieldiness of lugging about multiple primary weapons, which - in addition to mass - are given a Bulk rating. Their mass counts against a PC's Load, but you can still implement Bulk-based modifications to make going armed for bear a slightly less appealing tactic. It only works if there is a tradeoff, and in this case the Load rules alone don't cut it.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Common sense and decent roleplaying is the answer rather than a strict ruleset.

Yeah, sure. But a good and complete ruleset is a framework that serves as a fair baseline to keep everybody (players and GM) honest.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I've instituted a house rule that PCs may carry multiple primaries but at a penalty to movement, innitiative, and to hit rolls.

Am I being a hardass? Am I the one being unrealistic? Is my stance reasonable? What do you think? How would you handle this issue as a GM?

Rae,

The question is not mutually exclusive! You can be right but still a hardass.

It's not clear cut, and I can see where you're coming from. Even a properly stowed weapon is going to have some effect; unlike a pack or bag longarms tend to be long and unbalanced. They catch on underbrush when moving, can be damaged if you dive for cover, restrict movement and so on.

1) Move/Init penalties make some sense when moving. Not major but enough to remind you you're carrying a burden.

2) Poorly stowed longarms can interfere with shooting stance, balance and so on, so maybe a small penalty. Not a difficulty level but (say) a -1 to skill. For example, a character picks up a rifle and slings it over a shoulder. The then

3) If firing from a braced or otherwise stable position, I can't see a longarm slung and secured properly being significantly different than any other burden as accounted for under the rules.

Tony

[HorseSoldier]

It sort of depends on how the weapon is being carried.

I agree on the real world side of things.

On the gaming side, I feel pretty supportive of penalizing characters for going all silly first person shooter with their kit. At my last unit we did a "green up" sort of event a time or two for programmers associated with the America's Army video game and it was pretty amazing how quick they figured out that hitting F1 to cycle from your M4 to your SAW to your Barrett was just daft once we handed them one of each and let them try that out in the real world. (On the plus side they were a fun bunch and took us all out on their expense account after we spent the day having them run around a MOUT site dodging simunition rounds . . .).

[Targan]

I think the T2K bulk/encumbrance system is rubbish but as all the veterans of this forum know, I'm a rules-crunchy kind of guy. In the system I use different loads cause different encumbrance penalties to different characters, based on each individual's strength and endurance.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

I agree on the real world side of things.

On the gaming side, I feel pretty supportive of penalizing characters for going all silly first person shooter with their kit.

HS,

I wouldn't dream of abusing reality like that in an RPG.

Speaking of FPS type games, I never liked the way most handled the mechanism for switching weapons. Or where you can carry a plethora of small arms and heavy weapons, probably several hundred kilos worth! Like Half Life and Half Life 2. Games like R6 Vegas and Call of Duty/Modern Warfare allow you one main weapon, a sidearm and some grenades. Switching is a fairly long process (except for drawing a sidearm).

Tony

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by helbent4

HS,Speaking of FPS type games, I never liked the way most handled the mechanism for switching weapons. Or where you can carry a plethora of small arms and heavy weapons, probably several hundred kilos worth! Like Half Life and Half Life 2.

In all fairness, those games aren't focused on reaslism so much as they are on the story and action.

And back on topic, I'd penalize PC's for carrying multiple weapons myself. Any added gear is going to interfere to some degree.

[LBraden]

To go onto the game front -- that Battlefield Bad Company 2 is a little more realistic on using the M203, GP-30, or AG-36 40mm grenade launchers if you switch to it from the main weapon, and back again.

Back to topic.
I am the sort of guy who would look to either create or modify something into a cart and use something to pull it to help with weight carrying, one thing that happens in Fallout that annoyed me, was that you see all these, effectively, two headed cows carrying stuff for merchants, YET you cannot have one to carry an extra couple of weapons or something like that.

However, yeah, at most, main, side, knife, few mags for each, probably a few extra items is a good loadout for most.