Do your PCs walk around town in armor?
-Is this campaign based on John Boorman's Excalibur?
Answer: No
-Then No.

Some reasons TO go parading around town in full riot gear.
The town or city is dangerous: Only a fool walks the streets (or walks certain districts) unarmed. Press gangs, slavers, bandits, whatever.
The town or city is prone to bad things happening out of the blue: Dragons, orc raids, evil cults, whatever.
To attract attention: good or bad attention.

Some reasons NOT to go parading around town in full riot gear.
The town or city is pretty darn safe: Really. Why are you armed to the teeth while children frolic in the streets?
The town or city is far from the action: Nothing ever happens here. Calm down!
To avoid attracting attention: good or bad.

And that last one is why I try to enter towns as unassuming as possible most of the time. The initial reason for that was thieves guilds. Used to be in D&D you had to guard your stuff like a paranoid dragon or some stealthy sneak  would snatch your stuff! Adventurers are a prime target as they sooner or later have some really valuable stuff on them.

Also it keeps you under the radar of any cults or factions that might cause trouble.

When we get to a town the first thing we try to do before entering is to stow the gear and put on more casual clothes. Either that or we do so once we find an inn. Sometimes it just is not practical to stop and de-armour before entering. But once we have a room we can get out and about more casually. For us that IS the point of hitting up a town or city usually. To relax, do some shopping, check for rumours or new quests in the offing.

Quote from: James Gillen;843514Do your PCs walk around town in armor?
-Is this campaign based on John Boorman's Excalibur?
Answer: No
-Then No.

You have to admit that Excalibur could be a good setting to adventure in.  A tad low magic, but otherwise very D&D friendly.

Quote from: RPGPundit;841352I've found that in most D&D games, it's totally typical that a PC might go do his shopping in the middle of the city wearing plate mail and armed with a half-dozen weapons.

Of course, this is totally ridiculous from any kind of 'historical' perspective.

Do you usually do things like this in your fantasy games? Or do your fantasy-medieval cities actually have weapon/armor control laws?

Depends on the city, but even in one that didn't have explicit laws against being equipped for war while shopping at the bazaar, there would be social norms and expectations that would apply pressure against that behavior.  (Talk about negative reaction roll modifiers!)  In general, I'd make it clear that it's a bad idea, in most settlements.

In my current campaign set in a fantasy bronze age earth, the PCs are in a Babylonian city in which the only ones who may openly bear arms of any kind must also carry a seal showing their rank or position. Obviously, actual soldiers are allowed.

This has led to some awesome plots by the characters to acquire seals from young, drunken nobles or to make friends with the thieve's guild to buy forgeries.

So the players did not mind such a limitation because I provided so many opportunities for them to overcome it (usually feeding off of their ideas).

Quote from: Bren;843402Me too. I mean why should petty, realistic concerns like gravity, linearity of time, inability to be in multiple places at once, or cause and effect limit my character's actions. The only possible reason any of those would apply is because the GM want's to ruin my fun. It's a fantasy, so anything and everything goes...am I right?

You should literally allow my character to use his bumble-bounce power to avoid damage from a 50,000 foot fall and to change his position in three dimensions, so that he can use his temporal fugue to eliminate Attacker #1 before he was born by simultaneously causing Attacker #1’s great-great-grandmother and great-great-grandfather to cease to exist. Also since there is no chronological order, after I have been hit by Attacker #2’s gob-jabbar strike I can use my twixitar to time-parry his strike, which retroactively negates the damage, makes a random NPC within 1d10,000 fractars distance pregnant, turns a random other PC's clothes into daisies, while giving  my character 10,000 gold gobstoppars and a lipstick red 1969 Cadillac Coupe de Ville with a lizard man chauffeur dressed as one of the Pope's Swiss Guards.

After all, it’s fantasy and there should be no limits on my PC from big meanie head GMs.

Bravo! Can I have permission to quote this in other discussion on other boards in future?

I've been in so many Internet discussions where people appear and say the "it's a fantasy game" or even just "it's a game" as a reason why nothing should make sense, and the word "realistic" should be negative.

I don't think matching history has anything to do with my considerations about armor norms or laws.

When, decades ago, we first noticed how peculiar our game worlds must be, to have the norm be groups of armed and armored men everywhere, casually engaging in combat in town, etc., it was an interesting learning experience. I kept running that game world, and would still run it perhaps, and it would still be custom in most places to allow groups of armed and armored men to strut through town. But in that world it still has social effects to do so, and there are effects on travel time, fatigue, comfort, etc.

In new fantasy worlds I tend to create, it's not necessarily going to be against the law or not done - I'm just sure to think about and intentionally create and be aware of what the pros and cons are. And there are likely to be cons and tradeoffs to always wearing high-end fighting gear everywhere.

I think the only thing I really object to is unconsciousness and willful denial that being armed to the teeth would have no effect and no reason not to do it. At least, if that's the trope in play, I'd want the GM to be aware that it is a trope intentionally chosen. And I think that's the case with everyone here. The disagreements are mostly about what we want to choose and why.

Quote from: Votan;843539You have to admit that Excalibur could be a good setting to adventure in.  A tad low magic, but otherwise very D&D friendly.

And regardless of whether your setting is exactly Excalibur, similar norms may be at work in a fantasy world - i.e. knights/adventurers are heroes who go around solving problems for the population at large. They are respected for what they do, and their armor and other trappings mark their status as such.

For some cultures, being a knight in shining armor or similar is a positive image - especially if the government is weak, such that things like monster attacks are handled by adventurers instead of by strong government response. If so, warriors/adventurers are respected because they do vital work, like being a soldier in uniform.

Note that if it turns out that someone is wearing arms and armor, but is *not* a monster-killing adventurer, then that person would be reacted to very negatively. (Like someone wearing a soldier's uniform when not a soldier.)

Quote from: Omega;843520Some reasons NOT to go parading around town in full riot gear.
The town or city is pretty darn safe: Really. Why are you armed to the teeth while children frolic in the streets?
The town or city is far from the action: Nothing ever happens here. Calm down!
To avoid attracting attention: good or bad.

These depend on the social norms. In many societies, weaponry is considered fashionable and a status symbol - i.e. musketeers, samurai, knights, etc.  In some cases, parents might be glad to see children excitedly clustering around a heroic knight riding into town.

In any case, even big cities in D&D tend to be not particularly safe, from my experience of city modules and encounter tables.

Quote from: jhkim;843611These depend on the social norms. In many societies, weaponry is considered fashionable and a status symbol - i.e. musketeers, samurai, knights, etc.  In some cases, parents might be glad to see children excitedly clustering around a heroic knight riding into town.

In any case, even big cities in D&D tend to be not particularly safe, from my experience of city modules and encounter tables.

1: Exactly. If its ok to carry your weapon in public then so will we. Unless we are trying not to get challenged every block. Frontier and free adventurer founded towns and cities tend to be that. But for my group at least we hit up the towns to not lug the riot gear around for a while.

2: So very very true.

Quote from: jhkim;843611These depend on the social norms. In many societies, weaponry is considered fashionable and a status symbol - i.e. musketeers, samurai, knights, etc.  In some cases, parents might be glad to see children excitedly clustering around a heroic knight riding into town.

True, however accessory-weapons are almost never heavy, utilitarian, military ones.

For example, a gentleman in the 17th and 18th centuries was all but naked if he didn't have a sword on his person with which to defend his honour. But that blade would almost certainly be a light, graceful court sword, not a heavier cavalry sabre or other war sword. And armour was definitely not part of the attire (and if a man was wearing concealed mail, he'd best make sure no one knew of it).

Point is fashion and social custom almost never justify being kitted out for battle in a civilian context.

Quote from: Kiero;843662True, however accessory-weapons are almost never heavy, utilitarian, military ones.

For example, a gentleman in the 17th and 18th centuries was all but naked if he didn't have a sword on his person with which to defend his honour. But that blade would almost certainly be a light, graceful court sword, not a heavier cavalry sabre or other war sword. And armour was definitely not part of the attire (and if a man was wearing concealed mail, he'd best make sure no one knew of it).

This depends on the time and place. In 17th and 18th century Europe, there was a development of distinct courtly swords based in part on the culture of dueling. However, even in that era, that is largely a development of only the top social class in an area of high social control (like the French royal court).

For a gentry in the back towns, he's just got a sword - and he uses the same one in battle as in town.

The same is true in plenty of ancient and medieval settings as well.

Quote from: jhkim;841455While most PCs aren't knights, the ones with heavy armor generally have equivalent training in it.  This is explicit in later editions as armor proficiency.

Being able to wear armour doesn't mean you're able to feel comfortable in it,

Quote from: soltakss;841471That's the point - many players would sooner their PCs take off the iron armour and get more damage from the acid than take the chance of burning through their precious iron armour.

I like your style.

Quote from: Bren;843402Me too. I mean why should petty, realistic concerns like gravity, linearity of time, inability to be in multiple places at once, or cause and effect limit my character's actions. The only possible reason any of those would apply is because the GM want's to ruin my fun. It's a fantasy, so anything and everything goes...am I right?

You should literally allow my character to use his bumble-bounce power to avoid damage from a 50,000 foot fall and to change his position in three dimensions, so that he can use his temporal fugue to eliminate Attacker #1 before he was born by simultaneously causing Attacker #1's great-great-grandmother and great-great-grandfather to cease to exist. Also since there is no chronological order, after I have been hit by Attacker #2's gob-jabbar strike I can use my twixitar to time-parry his strike, which retroactively negates the damage, makes a random NPC within 1d10,000 fractars distance pregnant, turns a random other PC's clothes into daisies, while giving  my character 10,000 gold gobstoppars and a lipstick red 1969 Cadillac Coupe de Ville with a lizard man chauffeur dressed as one of the Pope's Swiss Guards.

After all, it's fantasy and there should be no limits on my PC from big meanie head GMs.

Seconding the request, can I quote you in other forum discussions;)?

And yeah, some (or even many) people want to play a game where shooting people doesn't have repercussions.
Me, I could be interested in such a game for the sake of a specific genre, but if it's not explicitly that kind of game? I'd default to "shooting has repercussions", and expect it to be the default. Otherwise, it'd seem to me that your setting is not much better than a videogame.

Quote from: Votan;843539You have to admit that Excalibur could be a good setting to adventure in.  A tad low magic, but otherwise very D&D friendly.

My two main influences as a Fantasy fan are Excalibur and Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

JG

Quote from: Skarg;843597Bravo! Can I have permission to quote this in other discussion on other boards in future?

By all means.

QuoteI've been in so many Internet discussions where people appear and say the "it's a fantasy game" or even just "it's a game" as a reason why nothing should make sense, and the word "realistic" should be negative.

It's odd that people feel they need to try to justify their desire to bumble-bounce through the setting swinging their twixitar and fugue-ing the space time continuum. It sounds like silly nonsense to me, but if you enjoy it, just fucking own the fact that you really like the silly and go find some other twits who like the same silly as you and bumble-bounce on you crazy fugu-ing twixitar wielder.

Quote from: Kiero;843662Point is fashion and social custom almost never justify being kitted out for battle in a civilian context.

You said what I was going to say more succinctly

Quote from: AsenRG;843680Seconding the request, can I quote you in other forum discussions;)?

Of course.

Even my games that have planar domains without gravity, non-linear time, and beings who can be in multiple places simultaneously still come with coherent structural frameworks. Bren's satirical example highlights the failings of complete player empowerment, untethered from any sort of setting context limitations. It sounds wonderful at first, but is impractical for actual play, because eventually you divorce too far from the relatable or manageable.