The one thing that throws the whole thing into a "WTF do you mean? " moment to some around here is the sentence in Arsenal in PPP section. Looking at the section in SR4 for helmets and shields it says pretty much the same thing. Looking at Encumbrance does not clarify much. (bolding is mine)

The one thing that confuses some of the players around here is it seems that they are treating helmets, shields and PPP like dice pool modifiers, added after the fact. Ergo, do not count for encumbrance. Which is plainly stated in the PPP quote.

Now, I'm not saying this is how I run things (it's not) but that is how it seems to most around here.

It has been argued that the meaning of the "doesn't count as separate" means you get the full bonus from all pieces and it all adds for encumbrance, but it doesn't actually say that anywhere that we have found.

And yes, I am well aware of the fact people think the rule book is jacked, hence the 5th ed thread.

It's all just a bit....odd.

Jareth, I don't think anyone thinks/plays that helmets, shields, PPP don't count for total encumbrance. At least, I don't recall seeing that on DS before. I've seen people claim that PPP inherits encumbrance magic from its 'host' (FFBA, mil-spec), but not that it's 'free'. Only magic, implants, etc. are 'free'.

Not talking DS, local area. Sorry.

I don't run it that way either, but the reading could be seen that way. It was an overheard "discussion" of another gaming group at my FLGS. It was rather heated and I recall some almost convincing arguments. Just bringing it up here since every other idea has been available for target practice.

I thought I already brought up those points. Oh well.

Not in so many words, but yes, you alluded to those facts indeed.

So Yerameyahu, apparently someone here on DS DOES think that way after all.

Neraph, how has that been in your game? Does it seem to cause any problems?

Neraph never counts. Though I'm still shocked if he actually believes/plays that way.

Ah, I forgot to mention that we do use the optional Tailoring rule to allow a Bod x3 limit. Bod 10 is not required in that case.

How does FFBA, which is already tailored interact with that optional rule at your table?

Cheesily.

It's never been brought up.

In fact, in the most recent game I ran a human in FFBA/PPP/Armor was shot to death with FA, the troll next to him took 1 Stun, and the other human driver took nothing, so FFBA/PPP/Armor does not seem to be as broken as people think.

Heh, that's not exactly rigorous statistics.

We just go with x3 for the whole outfit to simplify. Trying to run two comparisons just seems too convoluted. We also consider all those pieces to be tailored together so it functionally becomes one integrated suit of armour. The higher armour levels hasn't been a problem for our high-level campaign. The special capabilities of military armour remains a very strong draw for the players versus the SWAT combo armour, and as the GM, the SWAT combo armour gives me an easy option to notch up the durability of the bigger NPCs. But it's just a notch up. Personal armour is never a guaranteed bullet immunity in SR4. A good street sam with an SMG remains a threat no matter what you're wearing.