Goodman Games

I certainly hope 5-6 pages are spent on mundane equipment for this game. If the spells are illustrated, I hope the equipment page is too.

It depends upon how much Joseph is trying to mirror the early editions of RGs. Early games tended to have really short equpiment lists, assuming that a GM could "wing it" if an item wasn't covered in the list.

I'm actually something of a fan of "your weapon does 1d6 damage" and leaving it at that. Games that feature guns, I don't care about the differences (and don't care about hearing people complain that the real world differences are not accurate/there at all). Games with pole-arms, swords, etc. need only reflect the obvious stuff (e.g. reach, for one) and not make too much of a big deal of details, if they are all lethal in the right hands.

But that's just me.

Literally.

As for other equipment, I hope there's a nice one-column list of things you can load yourself down with and loose when you almost plummet off of that rickety rope bridge.

Right now the equipment list is REALLY short. And no plans for illustrations. I think we all know what a backpack looks like at this point. I'd rather spend my art budget giving Easley and Holloway and the rest of them some awesome ideas for dungeoneering scenes...

Awww -- but I've always wanted to see how Easley would render a ten-foot pole and coil of rope...

GnomeBoy wrote:I'm actually something of a fan of "your weapon does 1d6 damage" and leaving it at that. Games that feature guns, I don't care about the differences (and don't care about hearing people complain that the real world differences are not accurate/there at all). Games with pole-arms, swords, etc. need only reflect the obvious stuff (e.g. reach, for one) and not make too much of a big deal of details, if they are all lethal in the right hands.

But that's just me.

Not just you!

I think that this rule tends to minimize the players who pick obscure weapons just to get an extra +1 on damage. Any way to cut down on artificial MIN/MAX in the rules is a good thing, in my book!

GnomeBoy wrote:Awww -- but I've always wanted to see how Easley would render a ten-foot pole and coil of rope...

Well, there are different types of rope (large hemp rope, thin silky rope...) and maybe a player really wants to see it before he buys it. Ten-foot poles sound pretty generic, however.

finarvyn wrote:

GnomeBoy wrote:I'm actually something of a fan of "your weapon does 1d6 damage" and leaving it at that. Games that feature guns, I don't care about the differences (and don't care about hearing people complain that the real world differences are not accurate/there at all). Games with pole-arms, swords, etc. need only reflect the obvious stuff (e.g. reach, for one) and not make too much of a big deal of details, if they are all lethal in the right hands.

But that's just me.

Not just you!

I think that this rule tends to minimize the players who pick obscure weapons just to get an extra +1 on damage. Any way to cut down on artificial MIN/MAX in the rules is a good thing, in my book!

This is great and I agree with flat damage by class for all weapons. But this thread is about equipment. I didn't really mean arms and armor.

GnomeBoy wrote:Awww -- but I've always wanted to see how Easley would render a ten-foot pole and coil of rope...

More Pitons!!

goodmangames wrote:Right now the equipment list is REALLY short. And no plans for illustrations. I think we all know what a backpack looks like at this point. I'd rather spend my art budget giving Easley and Holloway and the rest of them some awesome ideas for dungeoneering scenes...

Thank the gods. I don't need pictures of lanterns and crowbars.
However I wouldn't mind if they are in a cool dungeon scene. One where an adventurer is breaking his lantern over a mummies head while the other one is trying desperately to pry open a secret door so they can escape.

goodmangames wrote:Right now the equipment list is REALLY short. And no plans for illustrations. I think we all know what a backpack looks like at this point. I'd rather spend my art budget giving Easley and Holloway and the rest of them some awesome ideas for dungeoneering scenes...

Good. The equipment list in the 1974 D&D rules is the right length, IMO.

Geoffrey wrote:

goodmangames wrote:Right now the equipment list is REALLY short. And no plans for illustrations. I think we all know what a backpack looks like at this point. I'd rather spend my art budget giving Easley and Holloway and the rest of them some awesome ideas for dungeoneering scenes...

Good. The equipment list in the 1974 D&D rules is the right length, IMO.

I agree. Any other equipment that is more setting-specific could always appear in the modules and annuals.