Equipment in Game Systems
Technology is one of the biggest advantages that humanity has had in its conquest of the world. It's a real thing...it does't require religious faith to work, it can't be argued that a tool is simply a morale boosting exercise...it is quantifiably an advantage. It isn't magic that requires ritual, arcane times and places or obscure componentry. Anyone can pick up a screwdriver and they become far more proficient at turning screws into their appropriately threaded holes, it might take a little instruction but you don't need psychic manifestation, noble birthright or wads of cash to make it happen.
But something seems to go awry when we translate items and equipment into roleplaying games.
The advantages provided by magic, religion, psychic powers and social status have been integrated into gaming mechanisms in many different ways across many different systems. In D&D, and many OSR products, magic gets a list of spells completely different in function and feel to the rest of the game. Religion revolves around obscure and unknowable gods, but the very mechanisms of faith within a game make a quantifiable difference.
D&D 3 (and 3.5), gave you an advantage to skills if you used a masterwork version of equipment...but what did normal equipment do for you. What about a found item like a simple stick?
If you had a stick for leverage, were there game mechanisms in effect that increased your strength for the task at hand?...not that I remember. It's the kind of common sense thing that was left to GM fiat. "Oh, you've got a stick, Ill reduce the difficulty to move that rock by 5...but it you roll under a 10, you'll break the stick and if you roll a one you'll injure yourself in the process. Nothing in the rules, but you could make it up as you go.
I'm also thinking of a recent Mythbusters episode in which they mimicked being stranded on a desert Island with only a pallet of duct-tape for survival. In this episode, Jamie and Adam went through a variety of challenges to prove that duct-tape would make the survival not only possible but plausible.
How would a good game system handle the diversity of benefits possible from a simple roll of duct-tape?
Does skill with a specific piece of equipment play an advantage? (Knowing how to use the duct tape most effectively).
In some games, equipment has a flat mechanical game cost based on it's ability to improve a character.
Small benefit in a narrow field of uses = low cost.
High benefit in a narrow field of uses, or small benefit in a wide field of uses = moderate cost.
High benefit in a wide field of uses = high cost.
But a roll of duct tape or a multi-use survival knife (high benefit in a wide field of uses) is cheaper than an oscilloscope (small benefit in a narrow field). How do we quantify this in a game?
These are the things I'm currently thinking through for Walkabout.
But something seems to go awry when we translate items and equipment into roleplaying games.
The advantages provided by magic, religion, psychic powers and social status have been integrated into gaming mechanisms in many different ways across many different systems. In D&D, and many OSR products, magic gets a list of spells completely different in function and feel to the rest of the game. Religion revolves around obscure and unknowable gods, but the very mechanisms of faith within a game make a quantifiable difference.
D&D 3 (and 3.5), gave you an advantage to skills if you used a masterwork version of equipment...but what did normal equipment do for you. What about a found item like a simple stick?
If you had a stick for leverage, were there game mechanisms in effect that increased your strength for the task at hand?...not that I remember. It's the kind of common sense thing that was left to GM fiat. "Oh, you've got a stick, Ill reduce the difficulty to move that rock by 5...but it you roll under a 10, you'll break the stick and if you roll a one you'll injure yourself in the process. Nothing in the rules, but you could make it up as you go.
I'm also thinking of a recent Mythbusters episode in which they mimicked being stranded on a desert Island with only a pallet of duct-tape for survival. In this episode, Jamie and Adam went through a variety of challenges to prove that duct-tape would make the survival not only possible but plausible.
How would a good game system handle the diversity of benefits possible from a simple roll of duct-tape?
Does skill with a specific piece of equipment play an advantage? (Knowing how to use the duct tape most effectively).
In some games, equipment has a flat mechanical game cost based on it's ability to improve a character.
Small benefit in a narrow field of uses = low cost.
High benefit in a narrow field of uses, or small benefit in a wide field of uses = moderate cost.
High benefit in a wide field of uses = high cost.
But a roll of duct tape or a multi-use survival knife (high benefit in a wide field of uses) is cheaper than an oscilloscope (small benefit in a narrow field). How do we quantify this in a game?
These are the things I'm currently thinking through for Walkabout.
.png)
Comments
There are certain games with a jury-rig/MacGyver type skill that allows random tools and equipment to be better used, and put to more improbable uses. But I think that when it comes to simple tool use, not having the tool is best described as a penalty. Sure, someone could get a screw into a pre-bored/tapped hole without a screwdriver, but they would struggle to get it in as tightly. And can you imagine someone trying unfasten in by hand? They would need something that could also be used as a screwdriver, but then failure could risk damaging the screw, the tool, and maybe even the operator if they screwed up badly enough.
Icar has weld tape, which is part of the "tech kit". A tech kit allows the users to do a bunch of technological things. I don't say specifically what tool does what (although sometimes it is obvious) but a techie character needs the tool to use the skill in many cases. As shorty says, not having it is a penalty.
The problem with generating too much system is that the player has to remember the rule around each bit of kit. As they get more technological, the amount of kit they carry increases and there is volumes to remember.
In Icar, I have equipment handouts for weapons, vehicles, space craft and so on. Most of the big items in the game are written out, ready to use. They player doesn't need to copy the rules but still needs to remember to reference them.
The other problem with tech and rulesets is that you end up with a lot of rules that can't possibly cover all situations.
Sometimes though, there will be times when tools are enhancers, rather than enablers, like your example on moving a rock with a lever.
The oscilloscope may only be useful in a subset of tasks, but try analyzing a waveform without one. There is just no good substitute. Some tasks can use improvised tools, others you can't.
Another issue is that while duct tape is very useful, it's not the same as a full repair. Yes, you can fix a plane with it, but it's not going to last like a correctly done repair. On the other hand, it can give a bonus to a wide range of tasks.
The final issue in how to deal with equipment in game systems is to make sure that the equipment doesn't outstrip the players's choices. SF games are usually the big offenders here. Some of the games I've seen have equipment that can completely make certain skills useless. "Oh, you're playing an engineer? I've got my Fixit droid 2000 that puts you to shame." "Ah, you are a stealth specialist? I've got a chameleon suit with noise cancelation."
I suggest making it so the tech works in conjunction with skills without overshadowing them.