Quote from: Harime Nui;851474Meh, personal preference I know but I always hated that.  A fifth level fighter should be commanding ridiculous prices as captain of a mercenary company, or living sumptuously as a king's bodyguard.  An eighth level assassin should be a major underworld figure, if not running his own little operation.  You're not likely to run into these guys at the bar.  If you want to go be a big stink in a small town and you're a sixth level adventurer, have at it, probably nobody will be able to stop you until you've made a nuisance of yourself for a good long time.  Then some enterprising adventurers might hear tell and think to make a name off you!

interesting my campaigns are on the other end of the spectrum where the local sheriff could be 15th level witch is also why he so rarely looks for a posy to help
the black smith could be 12th level (witch is how he killed those 3 orc berserkers last time a the town was attacked him self ) ect ect

Quote from: kosmos1214;851818interesting my campaigns are on the other end of the spectrum where the local sheriff could be 15th level witch is also why he so rarely looks for a posy to help
the black smith could be 12th level (witch is how he killed those 3 orc berserkers last time a the town was attacked him self ) ect ect

...it almost appears to be language.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;851841...it almost appears to be language.

what do you know it almost appears to be intelligent.......

Quote from: kosmos1214;851863what do you know it all most appears to be intelligent.......

all most

Insufficient data for a conclusive analysis, Captain.

Quote from: Bren;851865all most

Life is good, n'est ce pas?

Quote from: rawma;843482Various locations may put limits on the use of any abilities; the traditional anti-magic area, darkness and fog affecting vision abilities, and so on. Towns reacting in various ways to strangers is part of that

Quote from: rawma;843969Did 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?

Quote from: rawma;845005To describe my position: Wearing armor in dangerous places is natural and advisable, and completely moot in places that are absolutely not dangerous. Rarely specific situations will be hard for a party that depends heavily on one kind of character; anti-magic areas or rust monsters or whatever. NPCs who view the PCs as odd (based on all sorts of factors) can have many possible reactions: fear, curiosity, avoidance, supplication, hostility, indifference, and so on. Dangerous places are more accepting of a wide variety of non-hostile PCs; the half-orc paladin would be welcomed as a protector in a frontier town, once the people decide she's on their side.

Quote from: Bren;845291The 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.

Good to see that you've abandoned your previous position with GMs restricting and allowing, and now agree with me. Except for how dangerous a town with walking corpses wandering around it is.

You still haven't told us how long it takes to tell players for each town whether characters should not wear white after Labor Day or whether hats are only worn outdoors but backwards or whether using palantirs during a restaurant meal is frowned upon. All of your posts point toward the answers being uniform and determined by your setting, so I suppose that it wouldn't be a concern.

Quote from: Elfdart;847311

Quote from: Bren;847059

Quote from: Elfdart;847051It was "parody" trying to make a point, and that point is a strawman: the notion that if some people wear armor and/or brandish arms in a quasi-medieval city then everything else might as well be off-the-wall fantastical as well. That's stupid beyond belief.

So that would be a no then.

Argumentum ad fireballum was trotted out, as it is always trotted out by people who decry any limit on their fantasy - even limits imposed in games they don't play, as the excuse for any armor and weapons being reasonable anywhere regardless of the setting. I was parodying that argument. Which you then supported.

Looking over previous posts in this thread, it's clear that either you can't read or are a dishonest, strawmandering fucktard. Either way, you can fuck right off.

It's probably the latter, although the former happens often enough, so it's more a both/and than an either/or.

Of course, nobody but Bren trotted out argumentum ad fireballum; pretty much the way it always goes.

Generally magic seems as likely to be an excuse for not needing armor on as for having it on. It's the danger that's decisive; if there is unquestionably no danger then there's no reason to even ask the players whether the PCs wear armor, and if it's as dangerous as a dungeon or whatever the equivalent is, then there's equally no question. If there's some danger and a cost to wearing armor (like bribing some guards), the players should probably just pay that cost and wear armor. If it's very bad either way, or the GM hedges on the danger, then the players should probably just avoid that town or only deal with it through a hireling. If that isn't ever an option, then the players should probably just avoid that GM's game.

I'm working on a new campaign right now (which I might get to run in... a year) which starts in a small hamlet (pop. 240, about 60 households) where there's a hidden wererat gang, a necromancer lurking in the woods and animals are lost to dire weasels and giant spiders every other week.  I think this will be a place where it's basically okay to wear arms and armor at the local taphouse.

The wererats run a gambling ring on dire rat fights based in the cellar at Old Widow Lantrey's farm though so they're not all bad.

Quote from: rawma;852321Good to see that you've abandoned your previous position with GMs restricting and allowing, and now agree with me. Except for how dangerous a town with walking corpses wandering around it is.

Look who's returned.

If by "allow", you mean arrest the PCs and toss them in the Chatelet for looking and acting like treasonous scum in the process of initiating yet another civil war in an attempt o overthrow the legitimate authorities, then sure I''ll "alllow" that.

But we all know by now that it's your trollish shtick to pick out a phrase here or there to fixate and misinterpret. How much your misinterpretation is due to your inability to understand or to your intentional mischaracterization, I leave to others to decide for themselves.

QuoteYou still haven't told us how long it takes to tell players for each town whether characters should not wear white after Labor Day or whether hats are only worn outdoors but backwards or whether using palantirs during a restaurant meal is frowned upon.

Why are you thinking of moving to a more detailed style of play?

QuoteAll of your posts point toward the answers being uniform and determined by your setting, so I suppose that it wouldn't be a concern.

Other than my refusal to participate in or approve of the sort of gonzo, PCs can do anything because they have a special PC glow that usually supports people wearing full plate armor 24-7 what you claim here is counter to reality, so what posts did you [strike]make up in your head[/strike] read, that allowed you to conclude that?

QuoteOf course, nobody but Bren trotted out argumentum ad fireballum; pretty much the way it always goes.

Misleading and false. Per usual. Technically it was an argument from undead hordes in every town, but that too falls under the category of logical fallacy known as argumentum ad fireballum.. Oh look here's the actual quote:

Quote from: Sommerjon;843379I find it laughable that people have no problem with walking corpses strolling down main street, but drop the suspension of disbelief card when a PC wants to wear armor in town.

Because there are undead (or could be undead) in the world, then you can fill in "wear full armor in the fine restaurant for a formal dinner" or whatever conclusion you want because, anything non mundane in the setting, undead, fireballs, werewolves, means IT'S A FANTASY and so anything goes. That is the argumentum fireballum in a nutshell. And it is an argument Sommerjon put forth to support their view that restrictions on PC's wearing armor should be verboten, and that is the argument that you and Elfdart support via attacking any counter to it.

Quote from: Bren;852394Misleading and false. Per usual. Technically it was an argument from undead hordes in every town, but that too falls under the category of logical fallacy known as argumentum ad fireballum.. Oh look here’s the actual quote:

Quote from: Sommerjon;843379I find it laughable that people have no problem with walking corpses strolling down main street, but drop the suspension of disbelief card when a PC wants to wear armor in town.

Because there are undead (or could be undead) in the world, then you can fill in “wear full armor in the fine restaurant for a formal dinner” or whatever conclusion you want because, anything non mundane in the setting, undead, fireballs, werewolves, means IT’S A FANTASY and so anything goes. That is the argumentum fireballum in a nutshell. And it is an argument Sommerjon put forth to support their view that restrictions on PC’s wearing armor should be verboten, and that is the argument that you and Elfdart support via attacking any counter to it.

No here's the actual quote

Quote from: Sommerjon;843379You answered the your own question.

derives

I'm not recreating some historical time.
I'm not bound by what some society did 1100 years ago.

I'm playing a fantasy game.

I find it laughable that people have no problem with walking corpses strolling down main street, but drop the suspension of disbelief card when a PC wants to wear armor in town. You want your rule system to reflect reality, only where and when you want it to.

Realism has nothing to do with wearing armor in town in Fantasy Games. it's about 2 things:
1. Historical contexts; Sorry we are talking Fantasy
2. Limiting player choice; Ding Ding we have a winner folks

The underlined keeps getting lost here, how convenient.
It is all about limiting players with cherry picked 'historical contexts' sophistry.
Just have the balls to actually admit to it.

Quote from: Sommerjon;852455No here's the actual quote

The underlined keeps getting lost here, how convenient.
It is all about limiting players with cherry picked 'historical contexts' sophistry.
Just have the balls to actually admit to it.

Your continued insistence that anyone who doesn't agree with you that PCs should be free to wander about in armor because it is a fantasy only does so based on cherry picked historical examples is wrong and annoying. Maybe someone did that to you when you were 14, I don't know, but get over it already.

Many of us run settings that are not the Wild West of tall tales mixed with magic swords and fireballs on every corner and dragons instead of Indian war parties. Several of us have mentioned that. Repeatedly. Only to be met by you insisting that no one should give a shit about inferences from history or plausible human nature because FANTASY. Fine you can do that. You get to run any damn setting you want. No matter how inane and nonsensical it is to others. But at least have the balls to admit you do it not because it makes more sense, but just because it's the sort of stuff you like and that people who don't like the stuff you like aren't cherry picking history to ruin fun.

I'm not playing TOON. I'm not playing WuShu wire Fu. I want the rule system to reflect reality everywhere that some other element of the setting doesn't obviously trump reality. I realize this is a desire that you find utterly foreign and possibly incomprehensible. Too bad.

One of the PCs in my current group sometimes walks around town in her armour and sword. She is a daughter of the noble whose manorial fief the village is part of. It is entirely appropriate for someone of her social standing to wear armour in town if she wants to.

A dwarf might also be able to get away with it as they are considered fae creatures and almost the stuff of legend.

Everybody wears a dagger or knife and nobody thinks anything of it. Spears and bows are for hunting. Otherwise people in this area don't wear weapons and/or armour. Anyone who showed up in town armed would be considered to be looking for trouble.

I have run plenty of campaigns where everyone went about armed for bear at all times.

The choice is more about aesthetics and tone than it is about "realism".  Realism departs when the giant, flying, fire-breathing, hyper-intelligent lizards show up. At that point verisimilitude and consistency are more important.

It does not, to me, follow that just because you can have walking corpses sashaying down Main Street plate mail is acceptable as formal wear at a fine dining establishment.

On first entering some towns and cities its ok as the PCs are looking for a place to crash and get out of the gear. Others might require the gear off before fully entering, and the rest dont care or the place is so rough and tumble that its not practical to relax unless you are holed up in a secure room.

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?

Yeah, usually they have weapons and armor. Most of my game towns have an atmosphere like HBO's Deadwood, kind of anything goes, wild west frontier towns, but medieval. It's about as realistic as the rest of the game, so I don't lose too much sleep over it.