I posted the following in a gear thread over on the forums, but it seems blogworthy for posterity...

* * *

Spycraft's gear system throws people for different reasons. IMO there are two primary reasons for this.

1. Gamers have been trained to "purchase" gear, which I find a tedious, solitary exercise. The Spycraft system reflects this distaste and tries to introduce a holistic, communal alternative. Since it varies from the "one true way," however, folks have a hard time with it.

2. Gamers want to "game" their gear, and by extension, have been trained to believe that gear defines a character, or is at least central to it. This is 100% counter to the Spycraft ethic, which places the [i]character [/i]and [i]his [/i]abilities front and center. The Spycraft gear system all but blatantly says, "Gear isn't important. You shouldn't have a lot of it and it shouldn't be all that powerful." The power of gear is intentionally scaled down, but people cry foul that it's not realistic (perhaps true, but in any modern or post-modern game, realistic gear is, frankly, mechanically broken). Likewise, gear is limited even beyond realistic limits - no one can argue that D&D's gear limitations are in any way realistic - and rely on [i]cinematic [/i]standards more than anything else. It's not about tracking your complete pack-out for every mission. It's about the few items that define your character's "gear concept." Unfortunately, we designers also wanted to satisfy the need for a comprehensive array of options from which to choose these critical possessions (lower case "p" there). This produces a monstrous volume of material that people feel they have to fully absorb and critically analyze for every trip into the field. Problem. :(

If I were to go back to the beginning of that eight-month design cycle for 2.0, I might push for a gear chapter roughly 1/5 to 1/8 the current size. I'd still keep the current system, but it would include a one-page mission statement at the start that describes gear as "window dressing" for the character. I'd strip out virtually all the details that compel more detailed analysis of the system without a significant rise in cool. A lot of the stuff about signal strengths and computer software, for instance, would go away, while gadgets would remain because they're fun and promote the kind of personalized gear we want to see. I'd scale weapons back down to 15 pages or less with guns, martial arts weapons, and other categories with dizzying numbers of similar options being roughly grouped into semi-generic stat lines that cover many near-identical items. This might take the form of caliber-based guns as we saw in [i]Spycraft First Edition[/i], or might even breaking weapons down by "eras of adventure." Then I'd offer five or six examples of real-world weapons and items that fall into each category.

Of course, the few times I've suggested that to modern gamers, I've gotten bewildered, panicked glances and people have reached for the nearest blunt instrument. Maybe it's time someone actually used one and ended this bizarre love-hate affair I have with the post-video gamer.  :-\