All right, I need some brains.

As I have been working on Space Ranger I have come to realize that my whole concept of how you build and design the rules for equipment, at least for this game, do not work. Required a radical paradygm shift for me.

In short Equipment in Space Ranger lets you play. Perhaps really good Equipment gives you a small bonus and really poor Equipment gives you a small penalty but over all that is not it’s purpose. From a mechanics PoV, Equipment is a yes/no on whether or not you can roll your dice to do something that would require that type of Equipment to perform a given task.

From one PoV this is fantastic because it makes it easy to describe everything from Mecha to microscopes, cyberware to starships. Got it, you can do it (whatever IT is). Don’t got it, you can’t.

But…

One of the fun things about sci-fi games is all of the cool “Stuff”. Since all of the “Stuff”, mechanically speaking, is all the same, how do you differentiate it?

C. S. Bone

If each peice of equipment had a specific list of functions, then how "cool" something is could be based on its functions.  "Sure, all Mecha walk and have guns, but mine flies and can maneuver underwater!"

I don't know much about the system or your design goals, but if you want to include equipment as a relatively centeral feature, this could also provide the opportinity for players to upgrade their "stuff," either by purchasing it or fashioning it from scraps.

Also, in a lot of science fiction stories (and in real life military operations, though less spectacularly), there is technology whose sole purpose is to neutralize opposing technology, e.g. "electronic counter-measures" giving rise to "electronic counter-counter measures," or radar being countered by stealth -- which you might call the "no, you can't play after all" effect. E.g.

"I have Ultra-Mega-Missiles - I can attack you from interplanetary range!"
"Bah! My Automatic Defense Laser shoots down your missiles in flight! They're useless!"
"Fool! My Missiles' Reflective Anti-Laser Coating scornfully shoves aside your laser beams!"
"Miserable cretin! My Molecular Disruption Field causes your reflective coating to disintegrate!"
"Foul offspring of a dyslexic hamster! My Emphatic Cohesion Treatments keep my coating firm and sleek!"

and so on, and so on, although perhaps less ludicrously.

How about this?

Everyone starts with a pool of points to buy equipment with.

Whenever you want to use equipment to do something - such as shoot people from interplanetary range, you spend a point, name the equipment and note what it can do. From then on, you have that gear and it can do that.

You can also add extra functions to existing gear (such as the laser-reflective coating) by spending points.

The limited pool gives a reason not to keep inventing new gadgets until you win. You probably want to have some kind of mapping between level or scope of effects and game-mechanical bonus gained and the number of points spent.

Heya,

I just want to advise you to watch your Drift here.  I can't remember too much about your game, but equipment lists are very much a Sim priority and somewhat a Gamist priority.  If your game isn't oriented towards the Sim, then be careful or including rhemes of equipment lists.  Gamists only care about equipment if it helps them strategize.  Your old system would have worked in a Gamist philosophy just as nicely as a five page gear chart would without all the needless itemizing and inherant problems that always causes. 

Like I said, I can't remember too much about your game atm so I may be way off base, but I just wanted to toss this in just in case it did have some bearing on what you are doing :)

Peace,

-Troy

For what it's worth, CS, equipment in Full Light, Full Steam works in exactly the same way.

Use of, say, Mechanics requires proper tools in order to be able to make that roll.  If you have poor or few tools, you get a negative modifier.  If you have excellent tools in a convenient setting (ie, a workshop), you get a positive modifier.  There isn't even a section for equipment on the character sheet.

This is a game that has tremendous emphasis on the fantastic steam technology; it just doesn't have an emphasis on the equipment that the characters carry around.  Of course, I've got a military setting, so most 'equipment' is standard issue -- if everybody has the same sidearm, is it really necessary to write that down on the character sheet?  That's like writing down "two arms with five fingers each" in the character sheet.  On the other hand, there is a section on the character sheet for the ship, collaboratively created by all the players, and the ship has got "stats" in the form of thematic batteries -- which can just as easily be "soft" characteristics (stubborn) as hard mechanics (experimental faraday drive).  FLFS ships are "people" in the people/furniture distinction, though, which is more derivative of the Victorian navy side of the setting than the space opera side.  Before I qualify things any further, I'll just summarize that it depends on the goals of your game and how you treat tech and equipment as a part of the game.

Hi!
  I don't know what your game is about, but I do know that the nifty technobable can be used in two ways:
    1 ) Used to generalize specific technology. e.g., it's a phazer, what it does and how it works is unimportant. All you need to know is that it is a weapon and you don't want someone pointing one at you
    2 ) Used to differentiate. e.g., Type 227 oscilating ion pistol, it's way more accurate than the old type 226's and they are more stylish. I mean, I'd still rather have a Mark 3 pulse gun, but who can afford those? In this way, character customization extends into the physical game world.
  These are both acceptable systems, but they enforce and convey different moods and play styles. For instance if your game is about hard charging space marines saving the universe from grafite-stick pushing bureaucrats, then they are going to get military issue gear. All marines have Phazer Carbines (or whatever you want to call them), except the officers have Phazer pistols, the HW expert has Phazer Cannons and the Snipers have Phaser Rifles. You need to make stats for the gear that some of the baddie's the marines will encounter maybe Draconian Diruptors or whatever, but the list will be short and practical, no? But if the game is about hitmen, assassins and mercenaries, then you need to include old tech, current tech and new tech. Maybe the old tech has less ammo and is more reliable and the new tech does more damage but cuts out randomly, whatever, but that living on the edge, scrounging for gear to get the job done feel comes through when the players are trying to decide, no?
  I hope this helps, it only a vague spark of an idea, but if you like it or decide on a direction, we can flesh it out some more...

Oh boy…I didn’t expect this many responses this quick. COOL!

This is going to get long.
[hr]
Hi Ambrose!

Actually, I’m trying to stay away from big long lists of anything. One thing is for certain, though, technology and equipment is ubiquitous. Everybody’s got it and everybody uses it.

…but if you want to include equipment as a relatively centeral feature, this could also provide the opportinity for players to upgrade their "stuff,"…

Also, in a lot of science fiction stories (and in real life military operations, though less spectacularly), there is technology whose sole purpose is to neutralize opposing technology, e.g. "electronic counter-measures" giving rise to "electronic counter-counter measures," or radar being countered by stealth -- which you might call the "no, you can't play after all" effect.

Everyone starts with a pool of points to buy equipment with.

Whenever you want to use equipment to do something - such as shoot people from interplanetary range, you spend a point, name the equipment and note what it can do. From then on, you have that gear and it can do that.

You can also add extra functions to existing gear (such as the laser-reflective coating) by spending points.

I just want to advise you to watch your Drift here.

For what it's worth, CS, equipment in Full Light, Full Steam works in exactly the same way.

Use of, say, Mechanics requires proper tools in order to be able to make that roll.  If you have poor or few tools, you get a negative modifier.  If you have excellent tools in a convenient setting (ie, a workshop), you get a positive modifier.

I don't know what your game is about, but I do know that the nifty technobable can be used in two ways:
     1 ) Used to generalize specific technology. e.g., it's a phazer, what it does and how it works is unimportant. All you need to know is that it is a weapon and you don't want someone pointing one at you
     2 ) Used to differentiate. e.g., Type 227 oscilating ion pistol, it's way more accurate than the old type 226's and they are more stylish. I mean, I'd still rather have a Mark 3 pulse gun, but who can afford those? In this way, character customization extends into the physical game world.

Hi!
  Maybe you need to take a step back and assign stats to as much stuff as you think is pertinent, but instead of assigning attack, defense, damage, ammo, etc. Assign plot power and/or any other story driven potential. The reality is that sci fi is defined by using tech to do more/better/faster than you can do today. And all anyone can do is imagine how that technology can aid us.
  Just give Plot Power to items, maybe a hyper-spanner has a plot power of one, let the player and/or GM come up with how they manipulate the plot with a hyper-spanner...
Example
  Scot uses his hyper-spanner to attune the deflector screens to the same "wavelength" as the incoming destroyer. It won't make our ship invulnerable, but it will buy us enough time to accomlish the mission
  Then the Evil Commodore uses his Destroyer with 2 plot power to reverse the plot, because what our intrepid crew doesn't know is that this is a Mk II destroyer and it has kinetic weapons as well as disruptors and Kinetic weapons don't have a "wavelenght" Mwa ha ha ha

  Or something like that. If you don't want it to be about the stats, you have to find a way to make it about something else, no?
  Good luck, sounds like you know what you want, so it is just a matter of zeroing in on it!

Like so many other things, Ron Edwards said it best (full context at http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14746.msg156084#msg156084 if the link below doesn't work in your browser). Bear with me and Ron here; it gets good:

Ron wrote:
Think instead of all the circumstances in which your character really needs to get over an 8' fence. No, really, think of them - you'll find there are a lot. Now think about the subset of them which are not boring... in other words, in which something is at stake. And in which "something" means related to character's issue and "at stake" means no matter what, is about to change.

The fence just became a fairly marginal piece of detail, didn't it? And although it might be a really really cool detail, with plenty of resonance (e.g. the first bulwark at Helm's Deep, the Berlin Wall), it still isn't and can never be actually the something-is-at-stake.

So it's not what's being rolled. What's being rolled is whatever has an interest in the "something" going the other way. We can call it "antagonism," I guess, which is a tricky concept for gamers because even if the antagonist wins, it doesn't de-protagonize our character (just fucks him or her up way bad, even kills). Also, this "antagonism" doesn't have to be an actual being, sometimes - in fact, at times, yeah, you could treat the Berlin Wall as a character, in which case it would count, and would roll as such.

dindenver wrote: The reality is that sci fi is defined by using tech to do more/better/faster than you can do today. And all anyone can do is imagine how that technology can aid us.

Hi!
  OK, OK, I see what you are saying, the tech is the dressing, but without the tech, it's naked, aka it's not sci fi anymore...
  So, you have to find a way present the tech that is compatible with your game design goals.

Sydney!

Replace the word "fence" with "Death Star." Or "Insectoid Battle Machine." Or "Giant Space Battleship."

See what happens? The piece of equipment -- even if "piece" means "as big as a planet" -- just became a prop; in rules terms, it's maybe a modifier, or maybe nothing at all, just a piece of colorful narration. The real conflict is between your heroes and some worthy opponent.

Light saber, starfighter, battle fleet, giant battle station: All equipment. All stuff that modifies a character (mechanically) and expresses a character (thematically) but does not do a damned thing in the game/story on its own.

The tiny fighter and the giant battleship are both just modifiers to the roll, and mechanically might be best depicted as being equivalent to any other ability of the characters that own them -- so while the fighter may only give the heroes a +3, and the battleship may give the villains a whopping +15, the villains get maybe a lousy "Kinda Smart +1" while the heroes have "Smart +2," "Brave +4," and "Too Cool for School +10," which means they win easily.

Because if you really want heroic space drama, personal conviction and courage outweights the weaponry, every time. In fact, the weaponry only matters in so far as it somehow expresses character…

Maybe the war machine is so cool, and so important, that it has a personality unto itself; in that case, though, again, it's not the machinery that counts for your game, it's the personality. If you want to treat the Death Star as a character, that's fine, just don't try to figure out its maximum delta-vee and power output, instead think of it as a really, really big NPC with traits like "Relentless +6" and "Arrogant +9."

OK, OK, I see what you are saying, the tech is the dressing, but without the tech, it's naked, aka it's not sci fi anymore...  So, you have to find a way present the tech that is compatible with your game design goals.

Good luck, sounds like you know what you want, so it is just a matter of zeroing in on it!

Glad that helped. But don't diss the Grand Moff, man! Tarkin was my favorite character from all three movies as a kid. (Sad? Scary? You decide!).

And on that note, and because it keeps begging to be let out of my head, two very different ways to model Star Wars:

SPOILERS for those of you who've been living under a rock for 20 years:

1. Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Darth Vader, Tarkin, and the Emperor are all separate characters. In the climax of the first film, Luke (with modifiers from his equipment, namely "Vehicle: X-Wing" and "Sidekick: R2D2") and Han Solo (with "Vehicle: Millennium Falcon" and "Sidekick: Chewbacca") decisively defeat Tarkin ("Vehicle: Death Star"), eliminating him (and his equipment) from the game, but only deal a minor defeat to Vader ("Vehicle: TIE Fighter"). In movie 2, Vader hunts down Han with "Vehicle: Entire fleet" and then trounces Luke with "Weapon: Light saber," but neither decisively. In movie 3, the Emperor ("Vehicle: Better Death Star") shows up, but Vader ("Light Saber", again) switches sides and hoses him.

2. Luke is a character with "Sidekick: Han Solo," plus the X-Wing, Falcon, et al; Vader is a character with "Sidekick: Tarkin" and "Master: The Emperor." In movie 1, Luke's player brings in the "Han Solo" card at a critical moment, eliminating Vader's "Sidekick: Tarkin" and disabling, but not destroying, his "Vehicle: Death Star." In movie 2, while his "Death Star" card is tapped out, Vader plays "Personal Battlefleet" and captures the "Solo" card, forcing Luke into a daring and risky play that nearly loses him the game. In movie 3, feeling more confident and eager for the kill, Vader's player pulls out all the stops and not also reactivates "Death Star" but introduces "Emperor" as well -- except that Luke's player captures the Emperor card, subverting Vader's relationship with his master and winning the game.

P.S. The 24 hour rpg in my sig, apocalypse girl, tries to capture some of this kind of back-and-forth over story elements.

Sydney!

But don't diss the Grand Moff, man! Tarkin was my favorite character from all three movies as a kid. (Sad? Scary? You decide!).

Technically speaking, CS, you don't even need the Main/Sidekick distinction.  Hooray for Troupe Play!

Joshua!

How would you then make a distinction between a Character being used as Equipment and a Character being played?

C. S. Bone

The short answer, CS, is that you don't have to.

The long answer:
I can't find Vincent's thing about character sheets and player credibility.  Vincent, that needs to go on your Hardcore Theory page. =P  I'll paraphrase from what I remember, CS.

The function of a character sheet is not to describe a character (it might also do that as a side effect).  The function of a character sheet is to list player credibility resources.  The character sheet is just a big ol list of means by which you-the-player can affect the fiction.  Your character sheet has Mechanics-4?  Great, that means that you get to roll dice and try to turn the fictional busted machinery into fictional working machinery.  Your character is not affecting the fiction; you are as a player.  The fictional character weilding a fictional wrench is just how we explain and rationalize the effect of your very non-fictional verbal statement, "I got a crit success on Mechanics."

Now, since the "character sheet" is a listing of player resources, it does not need to be character-based at all.  Since we're going with a Star Wars meme, here, a three-player game might use "Team Sheets" instead of character sheets, and they'd look something like this:

Player One: Luke Skywalker 10d6, Blue Lightsaber 2d10, R2-D2 5d10, C3PO 2d4, X-Wing Fighter 3d6
Player Two: Han Solo 5d6, Blaster 3d6, Chewbacca 2d8, Bowcaster 2d6, Milenium Falcon 2d8
Player Three: Darth Vader 8d6, Tarkin 2d6, Death Star 8d4, Emporer Palpatine 7d6, TIE Interceptor 2d4

So example play: Luke and Han go try and rescue Leia.  Players One and Two roll Luke and Artoo and Han and Blaster.  Player Three rolls Death Star -- even if Vader, Tarken, and Palpatine don't show up.  Similarly, when Lando takes the Falcon against the second Death Star, Player Two keeps rolling dice for the Falcon, even though none of his characters are at the helm.

Now if you really really wanted to, you could tie the individual 'equipment' entries to individual characters, so you can only use Bowcaster when Chewie's in the scene.  That's a relatively minor point and falls under the more general heading of 'when can you use which resource'.

Also note that, while I lined the three players up under some loose factions, there's no reason why one player can't run Leia, Lando, the Falcon, and Tatoine.

Any of that make sense, CS?

You might want to check out Capes as the hardcore form of "characters? equipment? whatever!" A "character" in Capes can be a person, a piece of equipment, a place, an abstract idea, a personality trait, even a situation -- e.g. I once wrote up "searching the office" as a character with abilities like "what's this stuck behind the desk?" and "hidden safe" and "someone's coming!"

Here's the neat thing: The way you break up the fictional elements into mechanical elements says something about the story, and changes how you tell it. Think about the difference between having R2D2 as a character trait for Luke versus having R2D2 as a separate character, or having "Darth Vader" as a character with the character trait "Has fallen to the Dark Side" versus having "Darth Vader" as a character and "The Dark Side in Darth Vader" as a separate character capable of acting against him. Do you see how different Vader's internal struggle becomes when it's two separate "characters" in the game?