Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;621495Great link, thanks!  (I do tend to agonize over the details, in a setting like this - I waffle between the side of myself that wants to research everything to death, and the side that remembers we're playing D&D, and that the setting is very much "pseudo-Asia" for a reason.)

I always try to emphasize in my games the historic and cultural nature of asia, since if me and my group wanted to game bog standard knights in armor we would.  I love making use of Confucianism, family relations and the whole cultural experience when I run games like L5R.  To those who say "Rokugan is not Japan," I tell them back, "at my table, it's a samurai game!"

To make it accessible, however, I often try to reference popular and classic chanbarra films. Not entirely historical or accurate, but plenty exotic and exciting.

For a particular city, I might formalize arms control, but otherwise, it's based on reaction to perceived intent. Farmers carrying scythes won't typically be harrassed, not because there's a list of implement approved as tools, but because everyone figures he's going to or from the fields to harvest. Masked man with a scythe walking into the lord's keep might get a different reaction.

In general, I run games in borderland areas, where it might be pretty dangerous just walking from town to town, so people don't think someone wearing armor and carrying weapons entering the town is automatically a criminal. You might be questioned by guards before you reach an inn, but otherwise, it's not a big deal. Not changing out of your armor and scaling back to dagger or maybe short sword while you go shopping or gathering infor would be another matter. At the very least, I figure effective Charisma should be capped to 2 x AC in non-combat situations.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;621331The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a +5 Vorpal Sword is a good guy with a +5 Vorpal Sword.

That was surprisingly funny.

Quote from: RPGPundit;621239Seriously, though, how do you handle the notion of "arms control" in urban areas in your fantasy world/games?

There is always a bigger fish. Someone local, with ties of some kind to the government (be it a soldier or someone friends with the local count) is stronger than they are.

Quote from: The Traveller;621503I'm not too sure how much of a civilian police force would normally exist to be honest,the difference between those and men at arms was fairly academic until relatively recently. The scale might go military -> more military.

You're getting lost in the semantics of the modern conception of police (i.e. "peace officer"). Ancient and medieval forces still placed authority into the hands of office holders (officers) that did not overtly wield force of arms wherever they went, like a man-at-arms would. It's just a poor use of authority to constantly expose your limits.

A sheriff, reeve, alderman, tax collector, or magistrate need not bring a full retinue of armed guards at all times whenever they did their work. The abstract concept of the office -- and the understood violence that'd be brought to bear if they were disobeyed -- was enough. It's why high law areas are, well, lawful. The structure commands, not the popularity.

Quote from: GrumpyReviews;621561There is always a bigger fish. Someone local, with ties of some kind to the government (be it a soldier or someone friends with the local count) is stronger than they are.

My experience is that "someone local" routinely means "sufficiently powerful to question why he can't handle the shit the PCs are handling, after we gank him".

Seriously.  It's one of the great flaws of TRPGs that the armed response of the state routinely becomes something out of Knights of the Dinner Table, where the PCs end up obliterating the local government simply because they felt that they had the might to back up their non-compliance- and proved themselves right.  (Or got ganked, and then the players ask "Why isn't that guy taking care of the shit we do instead?", and break the setting and thus ruin the game when they bust out the math and--like a bunch of Denners--show the proof backing up that claim.)

This is why I default now to a hands-off approach.  PCs left to their own devices, by and large, just want to get their shit done and get back to their work.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;621581(Or got ganked, and then the players ask "Why isn't that guy taking care of the shit we do instead?", and break the setting and thus ruin the game when they bust out the math and--like a bunch of Denners--show the proof backing up that claim.)

That question was always stupid to me.

The reason why the Nth high level whatever doesn't go vanquish the goblin lair himself is because he has "Better Things To Do."

"But why does he attack our PCs who are wrecking havoc on the regional gov't and slaughtering the locals?"

Because your destabilization of his power base has rapidly jumped to the top of his list of "Better Things To Do."

(To kill the distant threat that might trouble you later, or kill the nearby threat that troubles you immediately? Hmm, decisions, decisions.)

Knowing the value between Delegation and Direct Intervention; it's how Holders of Power hold onto power. /insert Y's Vanished Omens boss music here.

Now go forth and don't attract attention you're not ready to receive.

I guess that in a setting like the FR (and D&D in general) the problem is asymmetry. Cormir imposes a ban on "heavy weapons" in urban areas, the City Watch confiscates the paladin's bastard sword, and then the wizard (who keeps his weapons in his head) causes the unfamous "Arabel University Campus Fireballing Massacre" - while the paladin can only watch.

I think that at the end things balance out. For a government the important thing is the ability to be "there" quickly and with appropriate force when something dire happens. It can be the Watch for a tavern brawl, it can be the equivalent of a SWAT Team (high level fighters supported by clerics and magic users - and maybe flying creatures) for a party of high-level heroes gone crazy.

A problem that many settings have is how they are simply classic medieval settings with magic grafted on. Magic grants both the firepower and the command & control capabilities of a modern army, but armies still march in closed formation. Just think of a forward observer capable to magically send word of an advancing cavalry column, thus calling a dragonstrike on the poor bastards, and you see how military tactics will change fast.

Thus, IMHO, the best way for a government to keep order and limit damage is to have some sort of communication system and a Strike Team always ready to be teleported anywhere in the city with a three minutes notice. If even high level heroes know that merrily swordswinging and fireballing will bring the government's wrath on their heads in under three minutes, weapon control will start with them.

Quote from: Reckall;621684Cormir imposes a ban on "heavy weapons" in urban areas, the City Watch confiscates the paladin's bastard sword

I think in this case, an oath or vow not to use the weapon in violation of the city's laws would suffice.  Not accepted the word of a Paladin of a church I think would amount to a "diplomatic incident" in most Western FR places.

Then again, depending on the god, not giving up your weapon might be seen as Pride or Hubris.

Quote from: Reckall;621684I guess that in a setting like the FR (and D&D in general) the problem is asymmetry. Cormir imposes a ban on "heavy weapons" in urban areas, the City Watch confiscates the paladin's bastard sword, and then the wizard (who keeps his weapons in his head) causes the unfamous "Arabel University Campus Fireballing Massacre" - while the paladin can only watch.

A thing:  While the peace-bonding law gets a lot of attention, the other side of the coin in Cormyr is the War Wizards.  They keep very close tabs on all adventuring groups (and aren't shy about mind reading), and magic-users above a certain level have to submit for service with them.  

So it's not as asymmetrical as all that.

Quote from: Reckall;621684I guess that in a setting like the FR (and D&D in general) the problem is asymmetry. Cormir imposes a ban on "heavy weapons" in urban areas, the City Watch confiscates the paladin's bastard sword, and then the wizard (who keeps his weapons in his head) causes the unfamous "Arabel University Campus Fireballing Massacre" - while the paladin can only watch.

"It was, in fact, the only time in the history of the contest that the challenger was disqualified, on the grounds that I had destroyed the stadium."

Quote from: james gillen;621721"it was, in fact, the only time in the history of the contest that the challenger was disqualified, on the grounds that i had destroyed the stadium."

oots ftw.

In my settings I usually make a point of there being some kind of controls on weapon/armor use in cities, and on there being a classist element to that.

In Albion, for example, a Cleric can use any kind of armor or weapon he wants; a knight or noble can carry a sword in the city, while anyone else can't carry anything other than a dagger or a stick or something else that could be disguised as a utilitarian device (excepting, of course, if they have special permission to do so).

RPGPundit

I use to apply very strict bands on Noble and Military weapon privy use in my old C&S 2E campaigns also had where in some towns where a local Black knight or Baron would force weapon bans at the city/town or Castle/Keep gates as to not trusting anyone, made for some frustrated PC's at times, with nothing but their fists and maybe a dagger.

In a Sci-Fi setting like Cyberspace use to have the local Corporations have mandatory weapon check in's before the PC's could enter a building to talk to the bosses, they always hated that too.

Its different in a world where "adventurer" is considered both a legitimate and relatively respectable occupation to have (somewhere like the FR or Mystara).  But in Albion, for example, I've made it clear to my players that even if they're in the (settled, not wilderness) countryside, if they're going around armed and armored the local lord might easily assume that they're up to no good and at the very least demand that they show proof that they're on some kind of legitimate business that has been authorized by the crown or church (particularly if they don't have a cleric, or a fairly high-ranking noble in the party to vouch for everyone's motives).

RPGPundit