Quote from: Opaopajr;843778Even 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.

A few years ago, I was in a car with a friend's young kids, and they were playing a game that went like "this is my super-kill ray gun and I'm shooting it at your head!" and the older sister cocked an eyebrow and said "ok but too bad for you my hair has super reflecto powers and is sending it back to you." Etc.

The less consistent the game system is with reality, the less the cool-sounding fantasy elements really are anything like what we say they are in any practical way, and the more license we give for any other nonsense to be invented to counter our handwavium in ways that don't relate to anything. My level of interest in playing a game with cool-thing X is directly proportional to how logical the system represents both X and the mundane rest of its world. Because otherwise, to me, the game isn't really about cool-thing X, it's just about some abstract game mechanics which don't really represent it.

Er, but I guess I've got way off topic in this thread. I guess I'd just add that the main way this applies to PC's never taking off their armor and never putting down their magic items, is that to me it can undermine the representation of both the characters and the items, because the items become more like built-in inseparable super-powers of the PCs that have them (and they characters' own qualities become less significant by being dwarfed by the powers of their equipment).

I'm currently running Vampire the Masquerade Dark Ages w/ the V20 revised rules. The players only where armor when they absolutely have to, as wearing armor subtracts lots of dice from any of your dexterity-based dice pools, and Dex is very important for hitting and dodging.

Quote from: Bren;843436I'm aware of Ravenswing's post. Ravenswing presented a reasonable position on the use of reality in gaming. Sommerjon of course disagreed. I took a ridiculous position advocating the negation of any reality in gaming. Sommerjon of course agreed with the ridiculous position.

It's called sarcasm.  Of course you know that, but to acknowledge it would undermine your position.

Quote from: Bren;843436Clearly Sommerjon has a rather unique definition of the word fantasy that is more in line with the Beatles Yellow Submarine or Terry Gilliam's animations for Monty Python's Flying Circus than with anything the vast majority of gamers would care to have in an RPG setting. I felt that was worth clarifying.

It isn't based in any realism.   That doesn't matter though does it.  If it sounds realistic than it must be.

It's based on I wantsies.  I don't know what is worse that the Dm is allowed to pick different times and places mingle that together and allowed to call it realistic or that players are stupid enough to believe it.    If it sounds realistic than it must be.

Restrictions on weapons and armor during the middle ages varied so widely it is meaningless.  

Strange that you're all about the restrictions because realsies, but about what happened when the fantastic was made realsies?

My bad.  I'm not supposed to say stuff like that.  I'm all about Bubble Powerz and Fartasauruses.

Quote from: Sommerjon;843870It's called sarcasm.  Of course you know that, but to acknowledge it would undermine your position.

Actually I wasn't certain it was sarcasm. Your position is so close to self-satire that it's not easy to tell if anything you say is an exaggeration.

QuoteIt's based on I wantsies.

So own your "I wantsies" and stop insisting that "fantasy" implies that logic and consistency are tossed out the window and anything always goes because "dragons." Don't try to justify the silliness you want in your game, just own it.

Quote from: Bren;843490It's satire so I used the most ludicrous examples.

You failed. You apparently believe a social convention that is not universal is as immutable as the laws of physics. Limitations and abstractions are placed in the game to make the game fun and playable, not to slavishly follow some but not all historical precedents.

And it is a fantasy game; anything you described could be done with a wish in D&D, although that timeline change is going to go much, much worse for you than just wishing for the opponent's death would.

QuoteSummerjon is arguing that PCs get to wear armor everywhere because its a fantasy game. The typical argumentum ad fireballum (or in Sommerjon's case, ad undead). Sommerjon's examples were magical and physical so I parodied them with absurd magic and physics.

Sommerjon says that the motivation is not historical contexts but rather limiting player choice. I disagree; I'm happy to accept that it's both but I do think that the latter is more damaging to the game than anything gained by the former.

Do you permit tieflings or dragonborn to walk around town? I'm sure historically that they would have gotten much, much worse reactions than humans in armor. Women as adventurers? Acceptance of all religious faiths? The list goes on and on.

QuoteOther people are arguing that limiting the sorts of armor, weapons, and magic cast while walking about town is a reasonable social prescription. Sommerjon disagrees. Are you agreeing with Sommerjon that there should be no social restrictions on armor and weapons?

Other people, but especially you, are arguing that the armor restriction must always be present, and it is for you apparently the sole consideration of what a town would forbid in advance; wizards will be reacted to only after the fact of spellcasting. Did you not see where I said "Towns reacting in various ways to strangers is part of that", which includes how they look, what they wear and what they carry? I just don't demand one particular instance, everywhere and always, that makes little sense in the world of most fantasy games.

QuoteBut only a 14 year old halfwit concludes that based on that the GM cannot restrict where the fighter is socially allowed to wear armor, carry greatswords, halberds, and lances, or ride a barded warhorse.

No, the GM can't "restrict" that. The character is allowed to do all of those things, if he has the equipment; the GM simply specifies the consequences of what the player characters do or don't do, as with anything in the game. Once the GM starts selectively unbalancing things for one kind of character, the game falls apart as a game, for an illusory benefit to historical accuracy that defies the common sense of the actual situation, where towns (anywhere that adventurers go) are dangerous places.

QuoteNo it is like having laws preventing MUs from casting offensive spells in town. People have already said they do that along with restricting certain armor and weapons.

No, that would be like having a law against armed and armored characters fighting; forcing the removal of armor and weapons the character needs to be effective is like preemptively removing most of the wizard's spellcasting capability.

Quote from: rawma;843969Sommerjon says that the motivation is not historical contexts but rather limiting player choice. I disagree; I'm happy to accept that it's both but I do think that the latter is more damaging to the game than anything gained by the former.

I happen to think the opposite.

QuoteDo you permit tieflings or dragonborn to walk around town?

In most towns, no, not unless they're hiding what they are.

QuoteI'm sure historically that they would have gotten much, much worse reactions than humans in armor.

Indeed.

QuoteWomen as adventurers?

Adventurers is bad enough by itself, the fact that they're women isn't added to that due to my way of handling modifiers (I only use the worse modifier, unless two or more have the same rating).
Edited to add: Also, PCs in my games are seldom "professional adventurers". What they are varies by the setting.

QuoteAcceptance of all religious faiths?

Not to be assumed in my games.

QuoteOther people, but especially you, are arguing that the armor restriction must always be present, and it is for you apparently the sole consideration of what a town would forbid in advance; wizards will be reacted to only after the fact of spellcasting.

You're wrong. Wizards are reacted to, usually by putting people to follow them, if it's a game where wizards are rare. If it's a game where everybody knows some magic, like in Glorantha, they're just better than the average.

QuoteNo, the GM can't "restrict" that. The character is allowed to do all of those things, if he has the equipment; the GM simply specifies the consequences of what the player characters do or don't do, as with anything in the game.

True, but most people call that "restricting". I'm actually on your opinion. Do it, if you think you can pull it off!

QuoteOnce the GM starts selectively unbalancing things for one kind of character, the game falls apart as a game, for an illusory benefit to historical accuracy that defies the common sense of the actual situation, where towns (anywhere that adventurers go) are dangerous places.

Towns aren't dangerous places in my games, meaning you're not likely to meet undead walking on the street. And if you get attacked by ruffians, they'd be no more armoured than you.

Quote from: rawma;843969You failed.

You didn't get it. That's neither surprising, nor a failure on my part. You usually don't get it.

QuoteDo you permit tieflings or dragonborn to walk around town?

I don't permit them period.

QuoteWomen as adventurers?

Generally I don't run games for "adventurers." If you mean women who wear carry swords and such, then it depends what you mean by "permit." Responses to women or men outside their cultural roles depends on the setting.

• Glorantha or Star Wars  - no problem.
• 17th century France - sword wearing and using women are socially very unconventional and a lot of people in setting will disapprove of her, a few will be neutral, some will approve.
• Call of Cthulhu in the 1920s kind of like France, but not so bad. Anyone, male or female,  openly wearing guns in New York City are going to get a lot of negative attention from the authorities.
• Female knights in Pendragon – none of the women wanted to run female knights so it never came up – which is probably a good thing as it's not something you see in Mallory.

QuoteAcceptance of all religious faiths?

Depends on the setting. Unconventional faiths tend to result in disapproval. Sometimes torture and death in 17th century Europe.

QuoteThe list goes on and on.

Yet the answer is always the same. It depends on the setting. I don't think I've ever run a setting where tossing offensive magic or walking around geared up for war is acceptable everywhere. It seemed silly to my 16-17 year old self. It seems just as silly decades later.

QuoteOther people, but especially you, are arguing that the armor restriction must always be present...

As usual you are an idiot who is unwilling or unable to parse the English language. Why don't you point out where I said an armor restriction must be present?

(Hint: My saying I find no weapon, armor, and spell restrictions to be silly, but people are allowed to like silly things doesn't count as my saying a restriction must be present.)

QuoteNo, the GM can't "restrict" that.

Clearly the meaning of "socially allowed" escapes your understanding. Try looking up the words and then reading the sentence to yourself very slowly. Maybe the meaning will become clear. Or ask you mom or dad to explain it to you.

QuoteNo, that would be like having a law against armed and armored characters fighting; forcing the removal of armor and weapons the character needs to be effective is like preemptively removing most of the wizard's spellcasting capability.

Anti-magic is not like a law against armed and armored characters fighting. It strips off existing magic and prevents the casting of new magic. It is much more like magic that strips off armor and weapons and prevents the acquisition of new armor and weapons.

Quote from: AsenRG;843992Towns aren't dangerous places in my games, meaning you're not likely to meet undead walking on the street. And if you get attacked by ruffians, they'd be no more armoured than you.

In some of my games, towns are safe places with reasonably strict arms controls. (True for modern-era games, certainly, and also for some fantasy settings, like Aldea.)

In some of my games, towns are typically still dangerous - with regular dangerous encounters like the random tables in 1st ed AD&D.

In some of my games, some towns and safe and controlled - while other frontier towns are more dangerous and wild.

I see no need for there to be a single answer for all games.

The more I think about this question, the more that I think context really matters.  Both the game system (world and rules) and the social context.  

First, it is quite possible to walk around in armor.  Let's ignore full plate for a moment -- Roman legionnaires marched all day in either lorica segmentata (banded?) or mail (chainmail suit?) followed by putting up a camp (that involved digging and tree cutting.  

I think it would be a massive improvement if there was a reason to pick an armor type that was not plate (where this is actually kind of stupid).  

Second, the question of how the town enforces the laws and what is the risk if of following these rules.  If this is Pathfinder then making the Fighters ditch gear is a real handicap (especially relative to the Druid).  That's also a world where enemies can teleport in and attack on the drop of a hat.  One has to ask what the benefit to a town would be of making it easy to assassinate people in it.  

Similarly, if players misbehaving face a magical SWAT team, so should assassins, with similar speeds of response based on the quality of the plan.  

If all of the guards are 1st to 3rd level warriors, just how do they stop the staggeringly risk and powerful 15th level fighter?  

Again, logical consequences are key.  Maybe showing up in armor makes all of the prices go up (wealthy adventurer).  

Third, how does this work in the social context of the time.  If this is AD&D, a 9th level fighter is an actual lord.  A cleric could be an actual high priest.  Do lords never go into towns.  How does the town make it so the lord feels save (especially since his heir might express their gratitude by leveling the town where kinsmen keep dying).  

That doesn't mean that it can be a free for all.  In Dark Albion, the son of a count might well get away with wearing armor.  But entering a low born tavern could lead to consequences and nobody there would be happy (what if a noble dies here? what if he is seeking out criminals?  what if he is a complete idiot?).  In the same sense, a senior cleric is likely to be able to walk around in armor but people will pay attention to them and gossip about them.  

In other settings, a wizard might be forced to wear a specific costume (so people always know they are dealing with a wizards) whereas a fighter or a rogue out of armor can look like a tradesman.  Maybe the penalty for not doing so is very severe (after all, why would you ditch the required sigil or robes unless you planned trouble -- if nothing else, you can explain how this came up to the magistrate).  In this context, ditching the armor could be an advantage that fighters have over wizards.

Similarly, clerics wanting to wear armor openly might well attract all sorts of curious attention and social expectation.    

Finally, it is usually the case that licenses can be purchased for all sorts of things.  Furthermore, if you want mercenaries to buy stuff in your town, there will be some sort of plan for how they can enter to buy supplies without leaving armor worth as much as a house back with the tent.  Once again, maybe you have a couple of town guards along to "assist" (both to prevent trouble and to get you out of the peace-loving town in a speedy fashion).  


So I guess what I think is that I like the idea of an organic world where different modes of dress and arming lead to consequences.  A blanket no armor ban can be very unfortunate, especially in systems with a huge magic item expectation, when it impacts different classes in a very differential manner.  But if it is thought out as "how did this culture deal with these problems" then that is much different.

Quote from: Bren;843182Some people just want to play Frank Castle.

Or the occasional US gun wanker. There are civilian  people in the US like this who wear body armor and carry guns (with a permit, its legal) and weapons everywhere, Going to mail box?  Handgun, no 2 handguns! and a knife and pepper spray.

  The US has a higher than average homicide and violence rate than most first world countries but these guys are mostly White middle class and live lives as safe as most Europeans.

And note this isn't an anti gun or anti carry  rant, I'm fine with owning and carrying concealed weapons its about attitude of incipient paranoia and danger that doesn't meet the facts on the ground.

The worst offender here that I can remember is a guy from Oregon , early 2000's I think who carried 3 handguns, switchblade,  blackjack , knife, pepper spray and I think a sword cane or sword umbrella. While they were well concealed all legally carried it was still stupid. Oregon is one of the safest states in the union.

Heck politeness and social acceptability is highly underestimated in any genre.

 My post civil war/economic collapse/ecological mess Marginal Apocalypse setting may have more firearms than people and guns and weapons are mostly unregulated. However basically no one carries rifles or long guns  except when hunting and  handguns are mostly carried concealed. Its considered quite rude and threatening to do otherwise.

Fantasy settings of course  vary a lot even within the setting.

Most of my setting has weak rule of law and a lot of monsters some even infiltrating into "safe" cities so carrying sidearms and personal weapons and light comfortable defenses is pretty common.  

No one would carry a poleaxe though, too bit, unwieldy and rude and plate armor, usually 16th century style in that game  is awkward, expensive, hot and far from comfortable.

It would be like wearing full battle rattle and lugging and an M4 in the modern US. It might be legal in some areas  but its not worth the discomfort or trouble

Other areas match historical places and allow knives to x and walking sticks and a few other "street" weapons. Hidden armor is the norm

This matches Medieval  history pretty well (Swords not OK to carry in England, OK in Germany, no in Italy and so on)

FWIW I find the restrictions fun as a GM and done right with player needs in mind, the players don't mind either

Quote from: 5 Stone Games;844069The US has a higher than average homicide and violence rate than most first world countries but these guys are mostly White middle class and live lives as safe as most Europeans.

And note this isn't an anti gun or anti carry  rant, I'm fine with owning and carrying concealed weapons its about attitude of incipient paranoia and danger that doesn't meet the facts on the ground.

The worst offender here that I can remember is a guy from Oregon , early 2000's I think who carried 3 handguns, switchblade,  blackjack , knife, pepper spray and I think a sword cane or sword umbrella. While they were well concealed all legally carried it was still stupid. Oregon is one of the safest states in the union.

Heck politeness and social acceptability is highly underestimated in any genre.

An armed society is a polite society.
Well, actually an armed society is a paranoid society, but that achieves the same result.  

jg

Quote from: Bren;843883Actually I wasn't certain it was sarcasm. Your position is so close to self-satire that it's not easy to tell if anything you say is an exaggeration.

Funny how quickly this morphs from wearing armor in town to:

    Master of space and time
    Having Stupor Powerz

Actually agreeing with the Outrage hyperbole can't be seen as sarcasm?

Quote from: Bren;843883So own your "I wantsies" and stop insisting that "fantasy" implies that logic and consistency are tossed out the window and anything always goes because "dragons." Don't try to justify the silliness you want in your game, just own it.

Soon as you admit that wearing armor in town has as much logic and consistency as not wearing it.  Both are historically accurate.  Funny how that part is being neglected here.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;843837I'm currently running Vampire the Masquerade Dark Ages w/ the V20 revised rules. The players only where armor when they absolutely have to, as wearing armor subtracts lots of dice from any of your dexterity-based dice pools, and Dex is very important for hitting and dodging.

Mage Awakening 2e player here and that means yes you can be loaded for bear and virtually invincible if you're prepared or willing to pay the price for risk. There are defined limits to what you can do safely compared to what you can do with a price or what you might attempt for an even larger price.

I find it interesting that once you reach and start building paradox your spell will work just fine but somebody will pay the price you, or everyone else, it's a binary thing with no middle option. It's your choice.  Basically just because you can do a thing should you? And if you do why expect there won't be consequences? Especially social one's in a situation that isn't touched by war, lawlessness or similar?

And depending on period, there's a difference between "armed" and "carrying a weapon."  In medieval England a person not wearing armor was "unarmed" no matter how many weapons they had.

A knight in medieval London was allowed to carry a sword, but they didn't traipse around in full armor.  And everyone carried a dagger and nobody said boo.

Quote from: jhkim;844033In some of my games, towns are safe places with reasonably strict arms controls. (True for modern-era games, certainly, and also for some fantasy settings, like Aldea.)

In some of my games, towns are typically still dangerous - with regular dangerous encounters like the random tables in 1st ed AD&D.

In some of my games, some towns and safe and controlled - while other frontier towns are more dangerous and wild.

I see no need for there to be a single answer for all games.

Not familiar with Aldea, sorry. The name seems to ring a bell, which might mean that I've seen it or even played in it, but likely shortly and a while ago.

I've run towns that were as dangerous (including a futuristic 2080 New York in Fates Worse Than Death). No PC was going around heavily armoured, though. The heat penalties and social penalties (like, any gang shifting their attitude one degree because you're obviously gearing for trouble on their turf) were probably going to dissuade them.
At the same time, everyone carried light armour as soon as they could afford it. Motorcycle outfits were popular, and a few PCs actually owned motorcycles, too.
Bottom line, there is difference between obvious and non-obvious armour. And being armed more heavily than the average person on the street marks you as troublemaker. What varies is how much the average person is armed and/or armoured.

Towns might vary, yes. I tend to indicate it to players if that's the case. But usually it's the frontier towns that are the exception.
I was, however, writing about the general rule.

Quote from: Votan;844053Second, the question of how the town enforces the laws and what is the risk if of following these rules.  If this is Pathfinder then making the Fighters ditch gear is a real handicap (especially relative to the Druid).  That's also a world where enemies can teleport in and attack on the drop of a hat.  One has to ask what the benefit to a town would be of making it easy to assassinate people in it.

In PF, the armour is part of your combat stats.
In the systems I play, the armour is what you use when your other plans fail. There's a vast difference in how necessary it is.

QuoteSimilarly, if players misbehaving face a magical SWAT team, so should assassins, with similar speeds of response based on the quality of the plan.  

I agree. In my Fates Worse Than Death game, armour use wasn't regulated, but guns were (by the setting, and it was different in other cities, but the default location for the game is NYC). Shooting a gun leads to helicopter-driven SWAT response.
Hence, gun battles never lasted long. Shooting, then both sides tended to run away and hide, possibly throwing weapons away if there weren't fingerprints or DNA traces on them.

QuoteThird, how does this work in the social context of the time.  If this is AD&D, a 9th level fighter is an actual lord.  A cleric could be an actual high priest.  Do lords never go into towns.  How does the town make it so the lord feels save (especially since his heir might express their gratitude by leveling the town where kinsmen keep dying).  

The relationships between lords and towns are much more complicated and depending on location. Is that a free town? Or did it grow around the manor with time?

QuoteIn other settings, a wizard might be forced to wear a specific costume (so people always know they are dealing with a wizards) whereas a fighter or a rogue out of armor can look like a tradesman.  Maybe the penalty for not doing so is very severe (after all, why would you ditch the required sigil or robes unless you planned trouble -- if nothing else, you can explain how this came up to the magistrate).

And now I'm considering writing a short story about the hearing.

QuoteFinally, it is usually the case that licenses can be purchased for all sorts of things.  Furthermore, if you want mercenaries to buy stuff in your town, there will be some sort of plan for how they can enter to buy supplies without leaving armor worth as much as a house back with the tent.

And where is your page looking?

QuoteA blanket no armor ban can be very unfortunate, especially in systems with a huge magic item expectation, when it impacts different classes in a very differential manner.

Which is why I don't play such systems.

Quote from: 5 Stone Games;844069Heck politeness and social acceptability is highly underestimated in any genre.

This cannot be stated enough.
(Also, 16th century plate is neither awkward nor uncomfortable, as it's fitted on the specific wearer. It is, however, hot inside, indeed, which tends to make it uncomfortable with time;)).

Quote from: Sommerjon;844125Soon as you admit that wearing armor in town has as much logic and consistency as not wearing it.  Both are historically accurate.  Funny how that part is being neglected here.

I'm interested in hearing your examples of a civilised place that allowed the carrying of plate armour and where it was widely practiced.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;844133And depending on period, there's a difference between "armed" and "carrying a weapon."  In medieval England a person not wearing armor was "unarmed" no matter how many weapons they had.

A knight in medieval London was allowed to carry a sword, but they didn't traipse around in full armor.  And everyone carried a dagger and nobody said boo.

Quoted because it's not stated often enough:D!