In a word, yes.

Player characters have always walked around with full weapons and armor in any campaign I've been in.

Quote from: Bren;852394If 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.

Is the town dangerous? If not, then the PCs wouldn't be wearing armor.

If the town is dangerous and the PCs have the false choice of not wearing armor and suffering for it or wearing armor and suffering for it, then you've moved into the territory of the thread on NPC betrayal.

It appears you favor manipulating the game world to achieve your preferences rather than adjudicating how events would go in an impartial manner.

QuoteBut 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.

Bren, master of projection.

QuoteOther 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?

   

Quote from: Bren;844032Yet the answer is always the same. It depends on the setting.

And never, apparently, does it depend on who the PCs are, who they know, what they've done, what events have taken place, the nature of any NPC, and so on. I kept asking, patiently, and still no example or even hint otherwise.

QuoteTechnically 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:

   Here's the entire quote:

Quote from: Sommerjon;842093See 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.

QuoteBecause 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.

So there's magic in AMC's The Walking Dead and any number of other zombie apocalypses? No, the vast majority depend on some unlikely but decidedly not magical disease. The point (as I took it) was that there's danger in that town, that justifies wearing armor. It has literally nothing to do with magic. Sommerjon's point appears to be that you depart from history and reality whenever you want to, but squeal about history and reality if your "wantsies" are threatened.

QuoteThat 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, Elfdart and I were mocking your lame and dishonest strawman. I think Sommerjon was arguing that restrictions on armor are about restricting player choice, not history.

Quote from: Bren;852482Your 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.

I don't have to get over it.  I choose to play the hobby the way I want to.  If you can't get past that, get over it.

Quote from: Bren;852482Many 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.

I can run anything I want?  Then why the fuck are you bitching and whining at me for doing that?

Quote from: Bren;852482But 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.

Sure thing bub, Oh I already did that, post #45

Quote from: Sommerjon;841751I'm not recreating some historical time.
I'm not bound by what some society did 1100 years ago.

I'm playing a fantasy game.

Quote from: Bren;852482I'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.

No not utterly foreign and possibly incomprehensible, I find the people pettifogging certain details to be utterly missing the point of the hobby.

Quote from: rawma;852597So there's magic in AMC's The Walking Dead and any number of other zombie apocalypses? No, the vast majority depend on some unlikely but decidedly not magical disease. The point (as I took it) was that there's danger in that town, that justifies wearing armor. It has literally nothing to do with magic.

It's about not thinking about the "realities" of the game setting because they are to busy trying to shove our reality into the setting.

Quote from: rawma;852597Sommerjon's point appears to be that you depart from history and reality whenever you want to, but squeal about history and reality if your "wantsies" are threatened.

Correct.

Quote from: rawma;852597No, Elfdart and I were mocking your lame and dishonest strawman. I think Sommerjon was arguing that restrictions on armor are about restricting player choice, not history.

Yes it is about the lack of choice, but the armor restriction is just part of that.

Quote from: rawma;852597It appears you favor manipulating the game world to achieve your preferences rather than adjudicating how events would go in an impartial manner.

There go those voices in your head again.

QuoteAnd never, apparently, does it depend on who the PCs are, who they know, what they've done, what events have taken place, the nature of any NPC, and so on. I kept asking, patiently, and still no example or even hint otherwise.

What do you think setting consists of?

QuoteSo there's magic in AMC's The Walking Dead and any number of other zombie apocalypses?

Sommerjon seemed to be refering to D&D not modern zombie horror. I don't watch TWD, does it have actual towns? People in plate armor? Or is this another one of your random, tangential accusation questions?

QuoteSommerjon's point appears to be that you depart from history and reality whenever you want to, but squeal about history and reality if your "wantsies" are threatened.

Sommerjon and you squeal continuously about your "wantsies". That irony word just keeps tripping you up. Look it up under "I".

QuoteNo, Elfdart and I were mocking your lame and dishonest strawman. I think Sommerjon was arguing that restrictions on armor are about restricting player choice, not history.

Any setting consistency restricts player choice. That's what setting consistency is supposed to do. Without setting restrictions the setting is just a mish-mash of random ideas. Sommerjon probably likes that. You? Who knows. I doubt you actually play table top RPGs, face-to-face with real people.

The restrictions will come, in part, from good players aligning with the setting. But in any remotely traditional TTRPG, the GM is the one who arbitrates the setting and usually creates it, so some restriction will come from the GM. And immature, entitled, whiny-ass babies will complain that the GM is being mean for taking away their wittle toys because they are "cherry picking" reality.

Quote from: Sommerjon;852603I don't have to get over it.  I choose to play the hobby the way I want to.  If you can't get past that, get over it.

I can run anything I want?  Then why the fuck are you bitching and whining at me for doing that?

Your continued insistence that anyone who runs a setting that is different than the Deadwood with magic swords and plate armor that you seem to prefer is cherry picking history and that they are doing so solely to be mean to the players by restricting their choice instead of, oh I don’t know, actually thinking about plausible consequences and preferring settings that are consistent, that include reasonable simulations of human behavior, that don’t treat the PCs as some special quality of being simply because they are the PCs, and that have some connection with analogous cultures. You keep whining about how anyone who plays settings differently than you, are cherry picking from history. Why is that?

Now, where the hell is the rest of that naphtha?

Flaming arrows, hell.

Commence primary ignition.

I'll take these twos sniping over Estar's bizarro world spiel. At least this argument makes some sort of sense.

When you take your armor off when you go into town, where does the armor go? Is there like a coat room at the entrance where you turn in your armor, and they give you a chit with a number on it that you hand over to the armor lady behind the counter when you leave, and she goes in the back and gives you your armor  when you're leaving?

I mean, if I'm new in town, I'm wearing my armor just because I don't have a place in town to keep it! Unless I actually OWN A MANSION WITH AN ARMORY!

I mean, if I own an armory, then fine, the armor comes off and I send one of my serving boys to have it polished, and I put on some nice evening clothes and go paying visits, that's fine.

But I'm still keeping the sword because it accessorizes well.

Quote from: Omega;852970I'll take these twos sniping over Estar's bizarro world spiel. At least this argument makes some sort of sense.

Doffs plumed hat and sketches a bow.

Though I'm done with this argument. At this point, it's just a repetition of earlier posts and no one is learning anything further or saying anything new.

Quote from: Axiomatic;852974When you take your armor off when you go into town, where does the armor go?

Many people have suggested the PCs take their armor off once they find an inn and it stays there. Clearly that is safer to do if the inn makes some effort to safeguard the guest's belongings or if you actually do use servants, hirelings, magical wards, or other PCs to stay at the inn and keep your stuff from growing legs and walking off. Of course the same holds true for your mounts in the stable with the addition that they already have legs.

Now that I think about it, a good reason to take your armor off in town might be that you go to the nearest smithy or armorer and go "Listen, I got in a tangle with like three huge vampire bears, and there's a puncture in the left vambrace now, can you fix it?"

And the guy looks 'em over and says "Sure, you can pick it up on friday."

And now you're in town and don't have your armor because it's in the shop.

Quote from: Axiomatic;852980Now that I think about it, a good reason to take your armor off in town might be that you go to the nearest smithy or armorer and go "Listen, I got in a tangle with like three huge vampire bears, and there's a puncture in the left vambrace now, can you fix it?"

And the guy looks 'em over and says "Sure, you can pick it up on friday."

And now you're in town and don't have your armor because it's in the shop.

Pretty much. The armoured characters beelined for a smith if it wasnt past shop hours or they weren't totally beat and just wanted sleep in a bed rather than a tent.

With our current group instead we hit up the local leatherworkers in me and Kefras case and Jan looks up a jeweler to patch up her chain-mail. Though we try to get an inn first.

One thing DMs who demand players shuck the gear before entering a town is that wearing armour is one thing. Carrying it as a bundle is a little different. Distribution of weight. This I know personally from handling a chain-mail shirt balled up and then when worn.

Quote from: Axiomatic;852974When you take your armor off when you go into town, where does the armor go? Is there like a coat room at the entrance where you turn in your armor, and they give you a chit with a number on it that you hand over to the armor lady behind the counter when you leave, and she goes in the back and gives you your armor  when you're leaving?

It goes into your baggage, same place that it does when you're out campaigning in the wilderness. To be left with your squire/slave/servant to look after/clean up/maintain while you're not wearing it.

Quote from: rawma;852597And never, apparently, does it depend on who the PCs are, who they know, what they've done, what events have taken place, the nature of any NPC, and so on. I kept asking, patiently, and still no example or even hint otherwise.

Quote from: Bren;852628What do you think setting consists of?

A lot less than what I listed. In particular, what they've done is NOT setting; it's the actions the players chose for their characters and all the consequences that follow. If your game world does not ever allow characters to (for example) alter their reputation for good or bad and have that reputation precede them, then I fail to see how the players get to accomplish anything meaningful in your game. Restrictions exist from the setting, but expecting an absolute ban on armor in towns that can never change in every serious game is just stupid.

And setting--history, Mallory, Glorantha, whatever, excluding what any player character attempted and failed or succeeded at--was the only thing that factored into any of your responses. Never was there leeway for the player character who is a member of the city guard, or the player character who has credentials from an important patron, or the player character who is an admired hero, or the player character who is the ruler of the town in question, or a town that desperately needs a well-armored champion, or game world events that change attitudes to armor. I kept asking because I thought that eventually some such circumstance would warrant mention, but it never happened.

Amusingly, Bren considers chirine ba kal's Tekumel not serious:

Quote from: chirine ba kal;848052So, generally, unless one starts trouble, one usually will be politely overlooked if one if in armor.

Quote from: Bren;852628Sommerjon seemed to be refering to D&D not modern zombie horror. I don't watch TWD, does it have actual towns? People in plate armor? Or is this another one of your random, tangential accusation questions?

I took it to mean that there were bigger threats than armored people; as I explained, people wear armor because there's danger. If there's no danger, the question of wearing armor doesn't even come up. Since Sommerjon did not mention magic, your subsequent hyperbole was ridiculous.

Yes, there are towns in TWD, and in many zombie movies, and yes, there were people wearing riot gear from the prison they holed up in.

QuoteThat irony word just keeps tripping you up. Look it up under "I".

Irony is from a Greek word meaning "dissimulation", and you are dishonest, as Elftdart noted ("dishonest, strawmandering fucktard"), so you just keep on labeling your posts with that word.

QuoteYou? Who knows. I doubt you actually play table top RPGs, face-to-face with real people.

You know, you should probably heed Bedrock Brendan's advice from that other thread. We'll just add this to the long list of things you're wrong about.

QuoteYour continued insistence that

The only things I've insisted on are:

• That Sommerjon was not necessarily referencing magic.
• That your resulting hyperbole was ridiculous.
• That your assertion that no serious game can have any PC in any town wearing armor, ever, under any circumstances, is stupid.
• That universal restrictions on armor, in a game designed so that some characters depend on armor, damage the game, as a game.

Unlike you, I've accepted that there are games that omit things I like and include things I don't like, and that the people who play those games are not doing it wrong. I just don't play in those games, and I don't want the things I don't like to come into my games.

Quote from: Axiomatic;852974When you take your armor off when you go into town, where does the armor go? Is there like a coat room at the entrance where you turn in your armor, and they give you a chit with a number on it that you hand over to the armor lady behind the counter when you leave, and she goes in the back and gives you your armor  when you're leaving?

Quote from: Bren;852979Though I'm done with this argument. At this point, it's just a repetition of earlier posts and no one is learning anything further or saying anything new.

Well, you just learned something about The Walking Dead.

QuoteMany people have suggested the PCs take their armor off once they find an inn and it stays there.

So are the inns outside of town, or are you actually allowed to enter the town wearing armor on the way to the inn? Your previous posts suggested that this would get the PC arrested. If the inns are outside of town, what are the PCs going into town for?

Quote from: rawma;853278So are the inns outside of town, or are you actually allowed to enter the town wearing armor on the way to the inn? Your previous posts suggested that this would get the PC arrested. If the inns are outside of town, what are the PCs going into town for?

You take your armour off before you go into town, already understanding that they won't let you in the gates wearing it.

Quote from: Kiero;853309You take your armour off before you go into town, already understanding that they won't let you in the gates wearing it.

Sure. Fine. We shuck the armour and walk into town fully armed. :rolleyes:

As Kefra commented in a previous campaign. "What exactly is the point to making us get out of the armor? It is these pointy-kill-you-things we are carrying that they should be worrying about?"

As noted previously. This is the other reason I like to grab a caravan home ASAP in any given campaign. We can store the gear without having to lug it around while looking for an inn. And we arent advertising we are adventurers to any local thieves guilds.

Quote from: Omega;853316Sure. Fine. We shuck the armour and walk into town fully armed. :rolleyes:

Nope, unless they are sidearms, those are stowed in the baggage too.

Quote from: Omega;853316As Kefra commented in a previous campaign. "What exactly is the point to making us get out of the armor? It is these pointy-kill-you-things we are carrying that they should be worrying about?"

Because it increases the relative power of the local authorities, when strangers don't have the advantage of body armour if they get into trouble. And consequently, tends to discourage said strangers from doing stupid stuff.