Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Edgar Ironpelt" data-source="post: 9435057" data-attributes="member: 32075">I'm inclined to favor long lists of available stuff. But as many others have noted the stuff has to be useful. Also, there is a level-of-abstraction issue: Too little abstraction drowns the Fun, as the players and GM have to fiddle with all fiddly bits of (e.g.) socks, scarves, sweaters, etc. instead of just obtaining a "set of good warm clothing." But too much abstraction can starve the Fun, because a little fiddling with bits and pieces - and the customization possibilities this provides - can be cool.One way to handle this is to have standard options and then "customize your pizza" options. But the custom-pizza has to be fluff-only, or else the PC will have incentives to load up ("I'll order TWO pizzas!") in order to get the conditional bonuses/avoid the conditional penalties that custom-options put on offer. Unless a clever way can be found to properly price the two-pizza kit - with "it costs more" and "it weighs more" not working well as increased prices in typical groups.Maybe have more stuff cost more time to use - time needed to break the extras out & to put them away again. Or have extras that reward skill, somehow, so that a big fancy custom-chosen set of (e.g.) lockpicking tools will not ever help a standard rogue, but will sometimes give a circumstance bonus to a rogue built with a lock-picking specialization.In some ways it's the mundane analog of material components requirements for spells. Some find great Fun in enforcing the iron-filings and bits-of-wool requirements for casting spells, while many others just want to abstract the whole thing away with "component pouches" or even just drop those rules entirely.</blockquote>

Verification