[pmulcahy11b]

I like and agree with that "equipment = options" philosophy. The PCs are fighting an uphill battle, even if they are just trying to survive; they have also survived a cataclysmic war, so they have probably done better than your average dead person at acquiring and maintaining equipment.

It also makes the PCs, from the GMs point of view, a more viable target. You can put a sort of "gunslinger syndrome" into things; the PCs are a more visible target simply because of their success and attract attention in the form of bigger and badder enemies, and they will acquire a following (or simply jobs or help) from people interested in their protection.

And for game continuity, new equipment and a chance at acquiring more equipment and supplies is a big incentive to keep players interested. If the players get something that's really unusual or interesting, they can become really interested. (It's was the original reason I started statting out new stuff a million years ago, and I was in general the "stat man" when I played D&D as well.) And it also provides the GM an opportunity to cause that equipment and supplies to be depleted or destroyed, giving the players incentive to keep adventuring to replace it. Loss and recovery is a powerful incentive to players.

In T2K, I also prefer a bit more "high-functioning" campaign to one where the players basically have dirt and are thankful for it. It's just more interesting to me. A "dirt" game is an interesting diversion from time to time, but not something I'd want to play as a campaign. That's a personal bias, I know.