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.

Tim:

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

Check out this older thread: Item collecting.

Best,
Ron

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.

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

Vaxalon wrote: 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.

Andrew Morris wrote:

Vaxalon wrote: 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?

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.

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.

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?

Yep, that's a fairly good summary.

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.

Andrew Morris wrote: 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.

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?

@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 ;)

Andrew Morris wrote: ...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.

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?

timfire wrote: 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.

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?

TonyLB wrote: 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?

Andrew Morris wrote: 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?

TonyLB wrote: 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.

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.

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

Vaxalon wrote: 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.

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.

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.

Well... I can understand both points of view, but there are a few things to be said. Equipment is equipment, whether you gain benefit from just having it or not. In an above example, someone didn't want to rescue a hostage without his lucky six-shooters. The example goes on to show that the character has developed a mental illness, if you will, that prevented him from wanting to work with any other six-shooters. It is my experience that most people create roleplaying characters to have little flaws, if any. In the guys mind, for the example, what he is thinking to himself probably goes like this: "I can't make that shot, not without MY guns... the same guns I have used for 17 years" In gaming terms, mechanical gaming terms, it could come down to two simple things.

1: A gun is a gun, with the same stats as any other gun (of the same type, silly). The man in the example, having spent his career wielding the same guns has made a bond with them and will shoot any other guns at a penalty until he has spent sufficient time bonding with them or until he has sufficiently greived the loss of his old guns. This type of system should be used in a game where equipment is expensive and/or rare.

2: A gun is not a gun, and it changes over it's lifetime... or rather the gun wielder changes. Over time he learns how the gun works, it's natural flaws, how it changes after it is cleaned or tuned, and how it handles different environments. Mechanically this is represented by a bonus given to use equipment if you have used for a substantial period of time and should only apply to tools where this situation applies. A gun can be studied over time and you can learn how it reacts to many different situations, and that knowledge can give you benefits. A rope on the other hand is not used in enough types of situations, nor does it change substantially in non-severe environments, for someone to have learned enough about it to benefit in a real world way. This type of system is best used where equipment is common. Players can (and will) trade in old equipment for new equipment, but will also hold on to old equipment longer and feel a need to have it repaired.

Personally I actually use the second system, in a small way. Over time your equipment becomes a part of you, but this is in a system where 99% of the equipment is static and known and a system where specialty equipment can be made for specific reasons. I really don't fundamentally agree with penalizing Mr. six-shooter for not having his lucky guns or becoming mad when he decides not to chase down a group of thieves to get back equipment when he chooses to buy and practice with some new guns. You (as the GM) likely stole his equipment in the first place, and you should accept his choice to purchase new equipment if he decides to. That's why the bonus is there, to offer incentive from a reasonable cause of reality. You shouldn't punish a player for playing the way he wants.

Nogu (is that a real name?),

The system you describe is similar to how Hero Quest handles things. That is, you simply can increase the bonus that the equipment gives you over time. It doesn't even ask you why specifically, you can rationalize it any way you like. Typically people talk about getting used to the item. But it's really a metagame thing and doesn't have to make a lot of in-game sense. The ratings are not in-game, after all.

Thus, yes, the in-game gun is a gun, but the rating for it is not the thing.

Anyhow, I agree with Fred, sorta, here. That is, we all agree that what's good for the game is based on it's concept. So I think we have a circular argument going. Basically if you assume that we want to emulate a genre, then, well, of course a rule that allows it's emulation is good. But this just goes back to the question of whether you want to include such in your emulation.

Let's just call it a design decision.

My favorite example of this, BTW, is the Signature Weapon rule from Feng Shui. Blatantly obvious that it's an attempt to get the in-genre effects of that special weapon that the one guy has that's so prevalent in HK action.

Overall, I think there's another question here, and that's whether or not you're talking about needing to create an exception rule to make this work, or whether it's just part of the overall system. Hero System makes equipment part of the character, but only by making a bunch of rules that explain how it's cheaper because it can be taken away. As opposed to Hero Quest which just uses the same rules for equipment as anything else.

The HS system really only benefits the game by an addition of tactical choice, and otherwise adds a lot of complexity. The HQ system makes this a non-question. That's not to say that equipment in HQ can't be taken away, it can. But then interestingly, any ability can be taken from a character, in any game, in theory. Cut off a character's legs and can he run any more? Calling something equipment, and then having rules for it being taken away is really a thematic thing. Equipment is more interesting because it does tend to be taken away in most genres.

But Fred is right about the perspective thing. We're biased to thinking of equipment being "normally" considered something that can be taken away. The most basic thing in a game is that an ability of a unit is an ability of that unit. A knight in chess can take another peice by moving how it moves theoretically because being on a horse, it can leap other pieces. Are there rules for removing the knight from the horse?

In an rpg, sure you should be able to do "anything" reasonable. Including taking things away. But again you can take anything from anyone including their life. So why it makes more sense to consider equipment as separate from the character a priori is not logical. It's a fun addition in certain games, I'd agree. But in no way neccessarily the baseline.

By which I mean to say that I think that you should consider equipment as not part of the character only if you can prove you have a good design reason to do so. The burden of proof is not to prove that equipment should be part of the character, but that it should not. The character is simply that mass of abilities by which the player interacts mechanically with the setting. A character can be an army of men. A character can be a planet with all of the people on it. It's a D&D assumption that it mechanically means one human (oid), naked, but trained.

Mike

In Guildmaster, the game I'm most recently working on (yeah, I'm working on it again) "Materiel" is an explicit character attribute.  In Guildmaster, the "PC" is not an individual person, but rather an entire organization.  As such, its equipment, even for an organization with sparse resources, will be too varied to enumerate.  The decision to make equipment an inherent part of the character is virtually a requirement.

About the only time I could see NOT making equipment an element of character would be when the thrust of the game is something along the lines of, "Your fancy technology shall not avail you, technomancer!  My kung fu is strong!"... something like that old, old game where the kung fu freedom fighters infiltrate the lair of the clonemaster to kill him... I have forgotten the name, and I can't seem to Google it...

What is interesting to me about this (hello everyone, Evan here, sorry to gale in) is a system like GURPs in which there are layers of how equipment is managed as a character stat.

You have Resources, Special Items you can pay points for that have limits, and then the run of the mill technology that you can walk into a shop and buy. One of the reason GURPs supers 3rd ed (in its various incarnations) was so badly broken was that it made your average blaster pay several hundred points for powers that you can also walk into a store and buy a shotgun and solid slug armour piercing depleted uranium shells for with cash and 0 points. Assuming that you do not even bother to buy resouces, the default resource level of characters is sufficient in most game universes. So the batman types are able to spend those extra hundreds of points on having skills and stats at insane levels. Then you also have Tech Levels. Coming from a different level of technology can be bought... which basically translates to "I have access and understanding of more equipment than you."

All this work ballancing done without adquately describing what it is (effect) that is attempting to be balanced. heh...

Now I gale away...
Warm regards,
Evan