Quote from: Christopher Brady;845010I LOVE this fallacy.  OK, let's take a look at the players in this potential skirmish.

In the Red Corner, you have four or five people who have walked into town wearing their loot, so likely a suit of plate armour bearing a big honkin' weapon, with a Fighter attached.  Next up, a lithe member of the bandit's same profession sporting a short blade or five, easily accessible and some designed for both throwing, or just plain stabbing.  Third is the heavy with a mace and shield, likely also wearing plate, and wearing a tabard depicting his or her faith.  And finally is the Robed Wonder, bearing a stick and possibly reading a book.

In the (soon to be Black and) Blue Corner, you have a gang of maybe five to ten desperate men, who've killed, but never actually fought, and typically are clad in light armour, like leather, which is easily disguised so that the city guard doesn't round them up, as they have to live there.  And killing an unarmed/unskilled foe is leagues harder than fighting one who is trained to fight back.  So we got maybe 5-8 bravos armed with light armour, carrying relatively short blades facing off, even if they're setting up an ambush, against a crew of trained fighters and killers.

Yeah, not happening, there are easier marks to hit.  Like that caravan master and merchant who can be beguiled into leaving their entourage behind.

One thing a lot of people forget is that, outside of being stupid, criminals (which includes street robbers and bandits) are also cowards.  Meaning if their target(s) looks meaner than them, they will reconsider their plans.

Now, in some games, namely D&D and it's clones, armour being what it is, these guys have a slight chance, but realistically (and in some other game systems) plate amour is more or less immune to short, one handed blades.  And having to wrestle down your foe, so you can stick a sharp pointy bit into his armpit, while s/he's hacking and slashing at you and your buddies is an exercise in death.  So the question becomes, do you Mr. Bandit want to be the one to die, so your buddies might be able to bear Mr(s). Fighter down?  I doubt it.  And that's just one out of the four or five you need to deal with so you can loot them.

No, they won't attack.  They'll wait until these five are out of their armour before trying to shake them down, and it will be a shake down, with threats that the bandits will hope won't get laughed at. Cuz if they are?  Then they'll have to run away, or commit to a fight they're not entirely sure they want to deal with.

Agree with that apart from maybe the bit about criminals being Stupid and/or Cowards.
Lazy is more how I would put it.

One thing is certainly true if I am in a game playing the criminals I am not going to rock up to the 4 hard bitten bastards that just walked in to town and attempt theft with menaces. If I do decide to rob them it will be after they get absolutely ratted and the whores have drugged their mead and to be honest you probably don't want them showing up afterwards so slitting their throats and feeding them to the were-rats that live in the sewers is probably on the cards as well.

Quote from: Elfdart;845002In some cases (again, depending on the town) brandishing weapons and armor in town could make the PCs targets for those who might construe the party as a rich target in need of being robbed and killed. The miscreants might assume the party must be loaded with treasure because who else would need so much protection?

Of course clever PCs might deliberately wear armor and weapons for the express purpose of drawing out would-be attackers. Anyone who remembers the John Wayne movie Big Jake knows what I'm talking about.

We used to do exactly that, if a scenario got a bit boring, or if we were in town waiting for something to happen.

There's not much more thrilling than wandering around the rough area of town, dressed up to the nines and flashing the cash, hoping to be attacked by muggers so that we can defend ourselves. Out come the swords, on go the spells, muggers come to a sticky end.

Quote from: JeremyR;841378Well, the idea that a fantasy city in a world where there are monsters and magic would be even vaguely "historical" is completely ridiculous.

I mean, really, if you lived in a place where at any moment something nasty might try to kill you, you'd be prepared for it.

And that's generally why PCs wear armor/weapons in town, because they know that if they don't, whenever a monster comes across them they will be at a severe disadvantage.

PCs also don't have plot armor like characters in fantasy novels/stories...

I'd go much further than this, and suggest that the entire society would be massively different than just Medieval Times with the occasional Fireball spell going off.

Magic would affect the economy, the types of job people did, everything. Even if you ruled that only a tiny proportion of folks could cast spells, it would still have a global impact.

If places genuinely faced threats from orcs or dragons, the entire economy and lifestyle would reflect that. (Look at any conflict zone today).

I think pointing out the discrepancy of wearing uncomfortable armour all the time isn't wrong per se, but it is kinda nuts to think that is the only thing that is out of whack. The whole world is likely out of whack.

TLDR, I don't think it is something worth worrying about.


Now a more interesting question might be how you would manage this if you were running a historical RPG (e.g. Maelstrom's Elizabethan era).

I don't honestly know how small groups of troubleshooter mercenaries in Elizabethan times would used to operate....if they ever did.

How would they have moved around, how would they carry heavy breastplates if they didn't wear them all the time, where would they leave them when they weren't wearing? Would they simply choose to wear lighter protection except before a with-days-notice major battle?

I think the answer would be related to the mission and the distance from a recognisable base of operations.

A better question is. Do the PCs stow their gear when the local law asks them to at the gate or in town?

For our own group we usually do. A town or city tends not to ask that if it is not relatively safe. Assuming we did not stow it before reaching the gate as mentioned before.

The group I am DMing for readily enough stows the gear when asked. They may try to conceal a dagger or such if its not allowed, but otherwise they are surprisingly compliant. If they think that the town is dangerous then they may try and talk their way into getting in still in gear on some excuse.

A lot of this is highly setting dependent.

Using D&D assumptions in my own game most people go armed, many have a jack (leather armor)  and buckler as well. Cities, mainly  do to monsters  are very dangerous with 3 or 4 times the real world death rates,

High level PC's with a reputation are basically treated as nobles since a 15th level wizard or cleric is an extreme risk. Even a lowly 7th level fighter can kill a dozen men easily.

As such, high level adventurers are treated carefully and can get away with a lot.

Using GURPS assumptions its pretty different and closer to how someone might treat an "operator" or the like.

As with most gaming there is no "right" solution and your campaign may vary.

Quote from: asenrg;845051i'd guess that this is simply an issue left to gm adjudication, because you know, real people should just have some common sense;).

That's just crazy talk!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;845010I LOVE this fallacy.  OK, let's take a look at the players in this potential skirmish.

In the Red Corner, you have four or five people who have walked into town wearing their loot, so likely a suit of plate armour bearing a big honkin' weapon, with a Fighter attached.  Next up, a lithe member of the bandit's same profession sporting a short blade or five, easily accessible and some designed for both throwing, or just plain stabbing.  Third is the heavy with a mace and shield, likely also wearing plate, and wearing a tabard depicting his or her faith.  And finally is the Robed Wonder, bearing a stick and possibly reading a book.

In the (soon to be Black and) Blue Corner, you have a gang of maybe five to ten desperate men, who've killed, but never actually fought, and typically are clad in light armour, like leather, which is easily disguised so that the city guard doesn't round them up, as they have to live there.  And killing an unarmed/unskilled foe is leagues harder than fighting one who is trained to fight back.  So we got maybe 5-8 bravos armed with light armour, carrying relatively short blades facing off, even if they're setting up an ambush, against a crew of trained fighters and killers.

Yeah, not happening, there are easier marks to hit.  Like that caravan master and merchant who can be beguiled into leaving their entourage behind.

One thing a lot of people forget is that, outside of being stupid, criminals (which includes street robbers and bandits) are also cowards.  Meaning if their target(s) looks meaner than them, they will reconsider their plans.

Now, in some games, namely D&D and it's clones, armour being what it is, these guys have a slight chance, but realistically (and in some other game systems) plate amour is more or less immune to short, one handed blades.  And having to wrestle down your foe, so you can stick a sharp pointy bit into his armpit, while s/he's hacking and slashing at you and your buddies is an exercise in death.  So the question becomes, do you Mr. Bandit want to be the one to die, so your buddies might be able to bear Mr(s). Fighter down?  I doubt it.  And that's just one out of the four or five you need to deal with so you can loot them.

No, they won't attack.  They'll wait until these five are out of their armour before trying to shake them down, and it will be a shake down, with threats that the bandits will hope won't get laughed at. Cuz if they are?  Then they'll have to run away, or commit to a fight they're not entirely sure they want to deal with.

Or the thieves could simply lure the party into an alley and drop masonry on them from above -a favored tactic among thieves in Medieval Europe. In 1E AD&D this can be incredibly lethal.

Quote from: AsenRG;845051How does the lack of rules in D&D about something translate to "if the GM imposes such a rule, you should admit it's purely because of his preferences which are obviously not about realism"?
Do you really think that D&D is the ultimate guide to realistic roleplaying, and contains all situations concerning realistic law enforcement or social interaction:D?
I'd guess that this is simply an issue left to GM adjudication, because you know, real people should just have some common sense;).

Holy Christ you have the reading comprehension of a donkey!

How do I know it has nothing to do with "realism"? Because this thirst for "realism" is always selective, and it just happens to coincide with the DM's personal tastes.

Quote from: Elfdart;845190Or the thieves could simply lure the party into an alley and drop masonry on them from above -a favored tactic among thieves in Medieval Europe. In 1E AD&D this can be incredibly lethal.

Gravity is a harsh mistress.

JG

Quote from: Omega;845096A better question is. Do the PCs stow their gear when the local law asks them to at the gate or in town?

My old PC, Soltak Stormspear, had a magical sword and scabbard that appeared by his side every dawn, no matter where it was previously (unless he sold it, or gave it as a present, the GM was not that dumb) so he quite happily handed it in at the gate, especially when arriving at night, knowing full well that he would have it in the morning.

Quote from: soltakss;845232My old PC, Soltak Stormspear...

Well now I know where Soltakss's name came from, now I just need to figure out his avatar.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;845240Well now I know where Soltakss's name came from, now I just need to figure out his avatar.

That's what I used to look like, at least inside my own head.

Now, Soltak Stormspear, he had deathly white skin, covered in a fine blue fuzz, had eyes of black, with no whites or pupils, "one of his ears sticks out and looks silly" and cast no shadow. He wore glass stilettos and had a cloak made of cat hair that whirled around him with the wind.

Quote from: Elfdart;844990Straw man much?

Read English much? It was parody.

AsenRG and soltakss already addressed your confusion about the difference between rules mechanics and setting.

Quote from: rawma;845005You calmly described policing mages by punching them in the face when they cast a spell (but assumed there would be gesturing and incantation and that a punch would be an effective response; not all casters are like that in fantasy games)

I don't play all fantasy games. You don't either. I addressed the sorts of games I do play.

QuoteWipe the froth from your mouth and explain calmly how this restriction works for you as GM: do the player characters choose whether to wear armor or not and accept the results, or should the GM just tell them whether they're wearing armor in any situation based on the "socially allowed" norms?

Socially allowed means the society allows it. I thought this would be obvious to anyone who can read English at a minimum 9th grade level. I forgot you were reading this thread. I’ll write using small words rawma, so you can try to follow along.

To be even more clear for you since you are having a hard time understanding. The GM tells you what your guy knows about how regular folks dress and act. Your guy knows what people wear in the town he lives in. You say what your guy wears. You say what your guy does. The GM says what the other people in the world do.

Pretty simple really. It’s the sort of things people have been doing since before D&D was even published.

Quote"Restricting" armor as a general policy is game unbalancing for the games I run (and for most D&Dish games), and that outweighs any "historical" value it might have.

As a GM or as a player I am uninterested in this type of game balance. In over 40 years of gaming it's never been an issue that anyone I game with was particularly concerned about.

Quote from: Elfdart;845192Holy Christ you have the reading comprehension of a donkey!

Well at least he can recognize parody. Unlike you.



* Here is the original version. I simplified the words and grammar for rawma.

   To be even more clear for you since you are obviously having comprehension difficulties, the GM ensures that the players have been informed as to what their character knows about societal norms. Characters from or experienced with a culture would know basic norms like how wearing visible armor and carrying halberds or loaded arbalests is likely to be viewed. The player decides what their character wears and does. The GM adjudicates the society's response to that.

Pretty simple really. It’s the sort of things people have been doing since before D&D was even published.

Quote from: Elfdart;845192Holy Christ you have the reading comprehension of a donkey!

It's better to have the reading comprehension of a donkey than a donkey's ability to communicate your point without kicking (or rather, the lack thereof). Like you, for example:)!
Now, if we're over with the compliments, can we go to the scheduled applications of Armour-Discussing Prana;)? Just FYI, that was the logical conclusion from your post. I'm sure it was an involuntary mistake, but hey, cheer up a bit:D!

QuoteHow do I know it has nothing to do with "realism"? Because this thirst for "realism" is always selective, and it just happens to coincide with the DM's personal tastes.

And what if the GM tells you point-blank "tell me if you think I'm having the NPCs behave unrealistically - not illogically, that's realistic - and we can discuss it"?
Because I've been doing this almost since I began GMing.

Quote from: Elfdart;845190Or the thieves could simply lure the party into an alley and drop masonry on them from above -a favored tactic among thieves in Medieval Europe. In 1E AD&D this can be incredibly lethal.

And I've had thieves doing that. I've also had people smuggling contact poison on a PC, via pickpocketing.
As my players use to say, those NPCs that just start the fight by just trying to suckerpunch you with a punch dagger are the ones I consider "going easy on the players".

(I think it was circa 2003 when I ran a campaign, and at the end one of the players pointed out all the fights had started by a surprise round. For one side or for the other.
In a system that emulated D&D for most stuff, but almost didn't have surprise rules.
I just had to amend that!)

Quote from: Bren;845291Well at least he can recognize parody. Unlike you.

Thanks, I was starting to worry that nobody is getting the jokes anymore, and was wondering whether SJWs are to blame for that, too;).

Quote from: Elfdart;845192How do I know it has nothing to do with "realism"? Because this thirst for "realism" is always selective, and it just happens to coincide with the DM's personal tastes.

Well, no shit, Sherlock.  Gamers like to game in the ways that reflect their personal preferences.  Stop the freaking presses.

That aside, I infer you also have a hard time wrapping your head around the concept that anyone could hold to a premise out of common sense or logic, as opposed to self-serving motives.  If that's the way you prefer to think, well, your lookout.