Equipment as character component.

[Vaxalon]

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.

I'll grumblingly agree to disagree with the former assertion, but I won't let stand the latter.

Your logic (drawn from the paragraph about the guns) appears to be as follows, and correct me if I'm wrong:

1>It is not sufficient reason to incorporate an element in a given roleplaying game, that the element appear in any genre or genres of the sources from which roleplaying games are derived.

2> Therefore, not all roleplaying games need to address character definition by equipment.

I think your logic is flawed.  Yes, the first is true, but the second is a nonsequitur.

You seem to have admitted that you can find examples in any genre of a character who is partially defined by one or more items that he typically carries or uses.  I can list examples, in fact, I'll bet you could too, so I won't bother here unless I'm called on it.

I think every roleplaying game ought to have a means by which a character can be partially defined, mechanically, by a piece of equipment, unless there exists a good reason not to.

[Andrew Morris]

Nope, that's not quite what I'm saying. I think part of the problem is that I'm talking about concepts in general, and it seems you're talking about specific applications.

Let me try to clear up my position. I do not think that because element X appears in genre Y, that all games, whether based on genre Y or not, should have (or not have) element X. I do think that a game based on genre Y would likely benefit from the inclusion of element X. In other words, the fact that most action movies have guns doesn't mean that (as a general rule) RPGs should or should not have guns. However, for a particular game based on action movies, the inclusion of guns would likely be better than the lack of guns in the RPG.

Furthermore, the fact that one roleplaying game might be better suited with rules for the inclusion of character-defining equipment doesn't mean that all games should have such rules.

Sound better?

[Christoph Boeckle]

@Timfire, Vaxalon & al.:
I think the point you make about D&D having influenced people certainly is true for me. I played a lot of D&D. How many times have I been frustrated because I had to change for better equipment, even though there was something special to  the "old" equipment, or how many times has our party been robbed off of all its stuff?
Too many times for me to give any importance to equipment anymore.
All that because equipment was just part of getting more powerful (but as an external means), whereas what you suggest is a way to create meaning. If the game does not punish me for it, I will gladly create a character with a strong bond to an item.

BTW, not only D&D is to be "blamed". A lot of "action-rpgs" on computer, such as Diablo or World of Warcraft induce the same kind of thinking.

So consider my opinion to change depending on what kind of game I am playing ;)

Thanks for the insight ;)

[Vaxalon]

...I do think that a game based on genre Y would likely benefit from the inclusion of element X. In other words, the fact that most action movies have guns doesn't mean that (as a general rule) RPGs should or should not have guns. However, for a particular game based on action movies, the inclusion of guns would likely be better than the lack of guns in the RPG.

Okay, I'm talking about all RPG's here, not any specific genres.

1> In any genre, one can find examples where a character is defined in part by his equipment.

therefore

2> In any genre, a good roleplaying game will facilitate defining a character in part by his equipment.

[TonyLB]

Fred:  You're saying that any RPG which doesn't have explicit rules for including items as inseparable elements of a character fails to meet your measure of "good RPG."  Yes?

Are you proferring this as merely your personal preference ("I only like games that do this")?  Or are you putting forth the opinion that this is an objective law, and that no RPG ever has or ever can be created that lacks such a rule and yet accomplishes its design goals?

[TonyLB]

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.

Yes... but then there's Dumbo.  A counter-point to this is that sometimes equipment is a crutch holding a character back, because they think it is essential to them.  And that's a fun story to investigate as well.

In most RPGs, I would be guided by player choice in this matter, in much the same way that I am guided by player choice when a Dog makes a moral judgment in DitV.  

Player: "My lucky six-shooters have been taken away... now I can't shoot straight."
Me:  "Of course, of course.  Your character can't shoot with just any gun."
Player:  "Damn straight."
Me:  "But now Polly Trueheart is in danger.  How about now?"
Player:  "Not without his six-shooters... they're a part of him!"
Me:  "Innnnnteresting...."

In fact, I think I'm well-prepped to have fun with this concept in my new game.  Not "Your powers mean this, to you, to the world", but "Here's these abilities... what do they mean?  Do they make you happy?  Do they make you sad?  Do they solve problems or start them?"  I'll be interested to see what people answer.

Player:  "No, his super-berserker-rage only causes problems.  It's his Librarian ability that makes people happy."
Me:  "Oh, of couse, of course.  But now he is facing a giant rubbery monster in desperate need of being smacked silly."
Player:  "But going berserk will only wreck the school!  What's needed here is more research!"
Me:  "Innnnnnnteresting...."

[Andrew Morris]

Fred, I can't disagree strongly enough. You can find examples of anything, if you look hard enough. If I wanted to, I could come up with examples of monkies in every genre. Does that mean RPGs should all have rules covering monkies?

[Vaxalon]

Fred:  You're saying that any RPG which doesn't have explicit rules for including items as inseparable elements of a character fails to meet your measure of "good RPG."  Yes?

Are you proferring this as merely your personal preference ("I only like games that do this")?  Or are you putting forth the opinion that this is an objective law, and that no RPG ever has or ever can be created that lacks such a rule and yet accomplishes its design goals?

Halfway between.  Any game could be improved by supporting this small item.

[Vaxalon]

Fred, I can't disagree strongly enough. You can find examples of anything, if you look hard enough. If I wanted to, I could come up with examples of monkies in every genre. Does that mean RPGs should all have rules covering monkies?

When it comes right down to it, roleplaying games are about characters, in some fashion... either who they are, what they do, or something like that.  Defining characters is essential to play.  Monkeys are not.  Your analogy is flawed, because it jumps the line between character and not-character.

Show me that every genre has protagonists who are monkeys, and I'll agree with you that an RPG is improved by having rules for monkeys.

[timfire]

Yes... but then there's Dumbo.  A counter-point to this is that sometimes equipment is a crutch holding a character back, because they think it is essential to them.  And that's a fun story to investigate as well.

Yes, but I think that's a seperate issue. I wasn't making an definitive statement. I was just saying that sometimes equipment *is* important to a character's idenity/persona/whatever, other times its not.

[TonyLB]

Fred:  That's a pretty provocative statement.  Why not take it off to its own thread?  That way those of us who just want to talk about character-items as a technique can do so without being sidetracked by the question of whether it is an essential technique without which any RPG is incomplete.

[timfire]

Halfway between.  Any game could be improved by supporting this small item.

Honestly, I don't believe its neccessary to formally incorporate such rules into a game system. First off, it depends on the goals of the game. DnD isn't really a game about developing a character's idenity/persona/whatever. It's about acquiring greater and greater combat options. As such, equipment is generally meant to be used and thrown away for something better. Permanent equipment doesn't really fit with that purpose.

Second, this type of thing is something that happens all the time informally, so why should the designer waste the time writing rules for something the players are going to do naturally? He can just trust in the player's natural instincts. (That should work as long as he didn't write other rules that counteract that instinct, like there are in DnD.)

[Andrew Morris]

When it comes right down to it, roleplaying games are about characters, in some fashion... either who they are, what they do, or something like that.  Defining characters is essential to play.  Monkeys are not.  Your analogy is flawed, because it jumps the line between character and not-character.

Fair enough. Pick any trait or quality that fits the bill, and the statement still applies. Alcoholism and addiction, for example. Every genre can offer up an example of an alcoholic character, or a character suffering from an additiction of some sort. Does this mean that all games would benefit from the inclusion of alcoholism and addiction rules? I don't think so. If that fits into what the particular game is about, then yes. If not, then no. So, I'm in agreement with what TIm said on the subject -- it depends on the game.

[Lance D. Allen]

I think the main disjoint here between Fred and Andrew is this: The word genre

If a given genre is the key component to a given game, and element X is commonly found in that genre, then element X should definitely be represented by that game.

But a lot of Andrew's points seem to be based on games that are less genre dependent as dependent on certain themes and ideas that don't have anything to do with element X.. Which means that the above idea, that the genre is the key component isn't true.

Basically it's the difference between the genre in which monkeys are protagonists, and a game set in that genre exploring what it is like to be a human in such a genre.

Oh, and one final comment to address something said before, about games like Diablo and World of Warcraft sharing some of the blame; Not so. These games are based on ideas predicated by D&D, so if blame is to be cast, then D&D holds the blame for any ideas originated in it, even if games following continued to perpetuate those ideas.

[Andrew Morris]

Lance, I don't think that's it, but you do point out what is probably the root of it. You say "commonly found in that genre," and that's the key. I'd say that the more frequently element X is found in a particular genre, then the more likely it is that a game based on that genre will benefit from the inclusion of element X.


The fact that an example of a particular element can be found in a genre doesn't mean that it is a key concept in that genre. That's the problem with trying to prove a point with examples -- they serve as excellent illustration, but don't offer up enough evidence for generalization. The larger the example set, however, the stronger they make the point.

Take the hard-bitten, hard-drinking private detective concept. I'm sure there are plenty of sci-fi movies out there with characters of this nature.  But it's certainly not so common as to be a key part of the sci-fi genre. If you're making a game based on the film-noir detective genre, though, it's almost required.