Skip Navigation

Starfield and Baldur’s Gate 3 Revive Age-Old RPG Debate About Encumbrance

Starfield and Baldur's Gate 3 both weigh the player down with encumbrance. Love it or hate it, it seems like it's here to stay.

73 comments
  • I got sick of the constant quick travel back to merchants in BG3 and decided to just install the mod that multiplies my encumbrance by 9000x. the item management in that game is a giant pain and the gold economy plus encumbrance is an artificial barrier to getting them from merchants that simply adds playtime for no actual benefit.

    Realistically speaking, if you want a useful encumbrance system, you should be thinking: what is the goal of an encumbrance system in the context of this game?

    In BG3, it serves a few purposes:

    1. physical consequences. reduced movement speed, damage from jumping, etc are all part of D&D rules, which is useful when you're in a kind of situation where, say, you need to get a giant boulder across a huge gap and put it on top of a button that opens the gate while in combat. but outside the context of combat, doing this is meaningless, as the player can simply overcome this problem with time, which is annoying more than fun.
    2. limit access to the number of options a character has when confronting an encounter. it's not feasible to carry 99 potions of greater healing on you, and encumbrance is a general strategy that prevents this from being as effective. at the end of the day it does not solve this problem
    3. express limitations on what a character can do with their environment. encumbrance affects how much else you can carry, such as throwing a big rock at an enemy to do a lot of damage. this is irrelevant in the context of inventory vs. how much you can affect your environment; it can easily exist independently of an encumbrance system.

    I don't like encumbrance in games in general. It makes games more fiddly, and forces the player to engage the system with no real addition to the fun of it. Limited inventory slots are similarly frustrating in games to the scale of Baldur's Gate. BG2 solved both of these problems by giving the player a billion bags of holding, which also had the added benefit of making inventory organization easier in a system that was largely left the same from its predecessor since it probably was built on the same codebase. BG3 had no such codebase restriction, and its type sort system sucks (the search bar is a lifesaver). Encumbrance very much feels like a "This is how it works RAW in 5e, so we're going to do it this way" decision, which is funny because in plenty of other situations the devs decided to stray away from RAW to make the game a lot more approachable.

    I don't know if the goal of encumbrance is to prevent players from taking everything as much as possible or not - but if it is, it utterly fails at that goal

  • If I'm playing an immersive misery simulator like a heavily modded S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Anomaly then encumbrance and inventory space plays a vital role in not only immersion but also gameplay systems like loadout choices and how much supplies and medicine you chose to bring and what that means in terms of how long you can stay out and how much loot you can carry back to base.

    In games like Starfield and BG3 I find encumbrance mostly meaningless and annoying, and just exists as a means to slow down early game economy by preventing you from picking up literally everything not nailed down and selling it off. And in the end I typically end up thinking there are probably better ways to accomplish this that doesn't leave you with an annoying encumbrance system as a byproduct.

  • I played a Barbarian with the bear aspect (and before that, the gear that granted you double carry capacity), and I still found myself encumbered since I kept looting all the heavy stuff I could sell.

    Even after clearing out all the loot, I was still left with a ton of scrolls, potions, poisons, etc. that I was "saving up" for a potentially difficult encounter, all taking up 75% of my carry capacity.

    It's certainly a way to discourage hoarding and encourage you to use those consumables, especially since BG3 has an end, but I wish there's a better method for it.

    • It’s certainly a way to discourage hoarding and encourage you to use those consumables, especially since BG3 has an end, but I wish there’s a better method for it.

      Sometimes less is more. If they put harder limits on what you can take into fights it might turn from a boring chore to an interesting choice, but all these games that dump every single item in your inventory and expect you to go against your hoarding instincts. Cyberpunk had the same issue, you get dozens, hundreds of consumables and but hey are all worthless, you can just spam the healing one 10 times per fight instead. It ruined something that could have been a really good immersive powerup otherwise.

      It's not a very well known game but I really like how Vampyr did it. You could only carry like 6 bullets/consumables at a time, but any additional items you pick would go to your stash. When you rest at home or visit the stash it refills any used items from it.

      It's such a good system and I will never understand why other games don't do it the same way. You still get rewarded for exploration and finding items, but you can't just spam dozens of them. Using them feels special and powerful (which they are since they are so limited), but you don't feel too bad about using them since you know you have more of them at home, or can craft more.

73 comments