Equipment as character component.

[timfire]

Over in the [kewl powerz] thread, this sentiment was repeated a couple of times:

Equipment, which is external can be easily lost, and only begs to bear a label saying: "Anyone can use me to get a kewl effectz!"
How can I get social esteem from using that except through the skill I have in using/creating it?
Why do soldiers in movies often customize their weapons? So as to personnalize them, and make them more like themselves.

I take issue with the sentiment that equipment is always external. Or rather, I take issue with the idea that a character's equipment is inconsequential to their character or persona.

Can you imagine the Silver Surfer without his board?
Spiderman without his web-slinging forearm thingy's?
Batman without his bat-costume?
Dirty Harry without his magnum?

Now, a character's equipment isn't always important, but as the above examples show, sometimes they are. Spiderman's web-slinging thingy's are definitely as important to his idenity as Superman's ability to fly.

I believe Clinton R. Nixon realized this when he wrote Donjon. In that game, Clinton made a distinction between temporary equipment, which could be gained at time but lost at the end of the session, and permanent equipment, which could only be gained when a character went up a level and was kept, well, permanently. (I'm not sure if other games make the same distinction.)

[Matt Wilson]

Tim:

Or rather, I take issue with the idea that a character's equipment is inconsequential to their character or persona.

Total agreement.

I think equipment is just as cool as any other information on the sheet when it supports the right kind of play. The biggest failure I see is when it encourages a drift to gamist play, or when it just completely dominates play.

V got it right with Dogs, I think. And I like Clinton's approaches in both Donjon and TSOY, especially the 'what's in my backpack' roll in Donjon. I've never liked the problem with equipment where the fact that my character's common sense is thrown out the window because I forgot to have my navy seal bring a canteen. Donjon takes care of that in a very satisfying way.

[Callan S.]

I think the key line is:

How can I get social esteem from using that except through the skill I have in using/creating it?

Equipment reflects the choices the character made (in RP, choices the player made). Batman wears his costume because of a big choice, same for the silver surfers board, same for spiderman, same for Harry packing a magnum.

They are reflections of the characters significant choices.

The above quote indicates (I think) for a gamist agenda, if the equipment doesn't reflect my significant tactical choices, it's not a kewl power. Kewl powers tie with the player (for gamist play), because they exist in play due to his choices.

That's part of the reason for the crawl from being level one scum to level twenty gods...because all the player choices along the way link you as a player to the powers you eventually earn. If you just start at level twenty, what player decisions link you to all that power? Nuffin!

At a RP system level though, if the system doesn't make certain equipment a significant choice in gamist or nar terms, then it is just external. If you make up spiderman and then the other player is able to and just buys web shooters because he felt like it, it stops it representing a significant choice of you or your character.

[Vaxalon]

Any of you remember a police comedy series from the 80's titled "Sledge Hammer!"?  The main character always carried around an impossibly huge pistol... on the order of a Desert Eagle... certainly a .44 magnum.

In any case, in one episode, it was taken from him, and he was issued a standard police .38 snub-nose revolver.  He suddenly became passive, inconfident, and even more dissipated than usual.

Presently my home computer is not functioning properly... I can't get the NIC card to work reliably.  I'm feeling detached, frustrated, and depressed...

In ANY situation, the means by which power is expressed become associated with that power.

[Andrew Morris]

Oh, wow, what a blast from the past that is. I do remember the series ("Trust me, I know what I'm doing."), and that episode in particular. Aside from providing a bit of amusing pop culture trivia, it does illustrate a good point.

So, yes, I have to say I'm totally on board with the idea that equipment can be part of a character's persona. Certainly, this is not always the case, and I think it usually is not. But is it possible? Yes.

[Vaxalon]

I'd say that it's not just possible, but if characters are created with any degree of versimilitude, it's likely.  I can think of dozens of examples from speculative fiction, mythology, and legend; I personally don't consider a character finished until I have at least one item of equipment on the list that is the character's "favorite", something that sets him apart from all other characters.

It's important to note that weapons and vehicles are common for this kind of thing, but items of clothing can be just as important.

I think one of the reasons you so rarely see this kind of thing in player characters is a relic of Dungeons and Dragons... any item of equipment a PC has will almost certainly be sold and/or traded away as soon as something better comes along.

[Ron Edwards]

Check out this older thread: Item collecting.

Best,
Ron

[Vaxalon]

The older thread seems to talk about "ordinary" items, things one picks up along the way, rather than things that are, in some way, PART of the character.

[Andrew Morris]

I'd say that it's not just possible, but if characters are created with any degree of versimilitude, it's likely.

Verisimilitude to what? Source material? Real life?

I think we're at opposite ends of the player spectrum. I can't remember a single character I've played that had an item I would consider part of their identity. So I don't know that we can determine how likely it would be, unless we're talking specific games.

I think one of the reasons you so rarely see this kind of thing in player characters is a relic of Dungeons and Dragons... any item of equipment a PC has will almost certainly be sold and/or traded away as soon as something better comes along.

If I recall correctly, the Prophecies of the Dragon expansion for the D20 Wheel of Time RPG (which functions exactly like D&D and nothing like the WoT universe) had a section that discussed how items could be tied in to a character's history and backstory. It was in the context of creating a plot hook, I believe, but it did give advice like deciding if someone you care about gave you the item, if it was a prized possession from early on in life, etc. Just thought that might be worth noting.

[Vaxalon]

I'd say that it's not just possible, but if characters are created with any degree of versimilitude, it's likely.

Verisimilitude to what? Source material? Real life?

Yes.  Both.  Either.  The word means "similar to the truth" but what that "truth" is depends on the game.  Aside from Dungeons and Dragons, I don't know of a single style where personal attachments to pieces of equipment weren't important.

[Andrew Morris]

Gah! I'm still not understanding precisely what you mean, which is frustrating, because I can't really comment usefully until I do.

In your statement, "I don't know of a single style where personal attachments to pieces of equipment weren't important," there are two unclear portions.

First, what do you mean by "style?" Do you mean a particular game? A GNS mode? What? I assume you mean the first, but I can't be sure.

Second, what do you mean by "important?" Does that mean mechanically enforced? Does that mean encouraged? Does that mean happening naturally through the descriptions of the players? What?

I'm not on your case or criticizing here, I just want to understand what you're saying, because I think I disagree, but I'd like to be sure before I put forward a counter-argument. By the way, what's your name? I feel like I should be calling you Fred, but I don't know if I saw that somewhere, or if I'm just making it up.

[Vaxalon]

For "style" read genre/sub-genre/whatever.  

Batman is partially defined by the Batmobile.
Corwin is partially defined by Greyswandir.
Doctor Who is partially defined by the Tardis.
Kirk is partially defined by the Enterprise.

The fiction that roleplaying games often draw from is replete with examples.

Unfortunately, roleplaying games are NOT, because of the impact of Dungeons and Dragons.  There are some games that address the importance of equipment, notably point-value systems where you 'buy' important pieces of equipment with the same pool that you buy your other attributes with.  Most superhero games do this, Amber does it, I'm sure there are many more...

It's hard to give specific examples because characters aren't normally well-known...

http://random.average-bear.com/ShadowWorld/Okhfels

Okhfels carries around a Really Big Iron Sword.  It partially defines him, because you'd have to be REALLY strong to wield a monstrosity like that effectively.  It's not a terribly good example because both I and Okhfels are planning on replacing it.

As for "important", that depends on the context.  I think the best definition (as you can probably read from the leadup) is that "important" equipment helps to define the character.  Sledge Hammer wields Really Big Guns.  They're indicative of his testosterone-laden worldview and a good portion of his personality is invested in them.

[Andrew Morris]

Okay, let me see if I'm getting this. Your argument is that since source material has characters who are at least partially defined by their equipment (and you give some examples of this), role playing games should do so as well. Furthermore, that the reason the majority of them currently don't is because of D&D. Is that accurate?

[Vaxalon]

Yep, that's a fairly good summary.

[Andrew Morris]

Good. I couldn't have taken another "what exactly do you mean" post, and I'm sure no one else really wanted to read one either.

So, to get back to this discussion, as I suspected, we don't agree. Here's the core of my thinking.

The prevalence of characters defined by their equipment varies greatly by genre. I'm sure there are examples in every single genre that would support either side. But overall, I think we see this mostly in fantasy, super-heros, and somwhat in sci-fi. You don't see it so much in the romance, historical fiction, mystery, and horror genres, or even in war stories. As I said, I'm sure we could both find examples that serve to illustrate our points in any genre, but I'm talking about general trends here.

More importantly, whatever the content of various source materials, anything we can settle on doesn't really prove anything for RPGs. Just because action movies have guns doesn't mean every RPG should have guns.

So, for now, at least, I think we can settle on the idea that equipment can serve as a component of the character, and leave aside our disagreement over whether this is more common in other media or not, and whether that means anything for RPG design in general.