TheRPGSite

I'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?

That never even occurred to me until you said it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;841354That never even occurred to me until you said it.

+1

When I did read about armor and weapons limitation in Dark Albion, I thought that the best class would thus be to play a Cleric.

Quote from: RPGPundit;841352Do you usually do things like this in your fantasy games? Or do your fantasy-medieval cities actually have weapon/armor control laws?

Yes my PCs wear their armour and carry their gear at all times. Occasionally some NPC will remark on how strange this is. They've learnt not to sleep without their armour - the risk of doing so outweighs the penalties imposed by the rules.

If they need to attend court or similar, some guard will try to check (confiscate) their weapons. If they're going to church, a fancy party or some other event where it would be egregious to show up armed and armoured, someone will remind them of this before it starts. Interestingly, most PCs seem to enjoy the fancy clothes shopping minigame.

Now, I am not usually playing D&D, so the genre conventions in our - usually more down-to-earth settings that actually do give a crap about plausibility and internal consistency, yes, someone who wears armor is usually seen as someone who is either expecting or looking for trouble. Both is highly suspicious and probably intimidating, especially when the guy in armor is a stranger in an otherwise relatively close-knit community. There is obviously a signficant difference based on the overall appearance and apparent status of a character: a knight and his entourage can be quite acceptable, an armed,  rag-tag band of cutthroats and mercenaries on the other hand shouldn't probably not even allowed to enter the settlement.

Almost never for any lengthy period of time because I make it a point how ridiculous it is, both from a body mechanics/health perspective, and a social perspective. I remind them of the weather, mobility, and regional politics and thus why having different types of armor is not a bad idea. If players try to push back in spite my open dictum, I bust out the Wilderness Survival Guide and give them a brush with heatstroke. (5e Exhaustion mechanics are fabulous new tools, by the way.)

I don't fuck around. Take off your damn armor and invest in a shield or leather bracer. Doesn't mean mages are better off. Socially if you're casting a spell openly you become questionable. If you harm people with it, people everywhere learned that swarm tactics still work and will beeline bum-rush you into the ground. Fuck not with my setting, for it will fight back. I don't need your bullshit at my table, trust me and work with me instead or walk.

In my ACKS game (which was historical), they weren't allowed into the city with weapons or armour, because none of them are citizens. They sneaked in some daggers when they went visiting, and that was it.

Wearing armour generally was something the characters had to make a conscious choice to do in-game, it was never assumed that they were armoured unless they said so. That because critical when the house of their employer was attacked at night - they all chose to scoop up shield and weapon and leap into the fight, rather than take the time to get properly armoured.

Depends a-lot on the setting.

If it is one where danger lurks around every corner, even in a big city. Then the PCs might be well advised to go armed and armoured at all times.

If it is a port or free town with everyone and everything mixing it up. But not a flat out deathtrap. Then the PCs are at their discretion to stow the gear.

Otherwise it is assumed that when "offduty" everyone puts the wargear away and relaxes at their discretion.

In a civilized city or town with specific rules. The PCs follow suit unless there is some indicator that they should not.

As a player normally I state that I am stowing the weapons and armour when entering town once we have a inn room if I am not doing my usual caravan home.

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.

Well, 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...

Walking around in chain mail with a sword, warhammer or quarterstaff by your side would probably be the equivalent of walking around in a Kevlar vest with an AK-47 or a Uzi or a 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun — you've got "trouble" spelled all over yourself.

So, it happens, but only in the really wild frontier places that PCs are likely to frequent. And even there the city guard (if there is one) will be keeping an eye on them. Unlikely to happen at a big city (e.g. Greyhawk, Waterdeep) market or in a nobleman's keep.

Also, as Opa mentioned above, exhaustion rules are your fruend — especially with warmer climates.

In the last games I ran, there weren't any plates anywhere, but that's setting detail and subject to change between games.
That said, my current group has only one player who might consider that, and if it's D&D-related, she'd play a wizard anyway. So it doesn't come up.

If it was happening, I'd describe how hot it is inside that armour, how people look at you, and if the players ignore it? They've agreed implicitly to the incoming reaction penalties, and depending on climate, possible Constitution checks to avoid overheating leading to fatigue.
If they're fine with this, I'm fine as well, but once again, the subject just doesn't come up much.

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 tend to agree with this.

However, there are times and places. Some areas won't allow you to bear weapons, and if you turn up to court in armour, it's better if you are a knight or in the employ of said court if you don't want to be looked at funny and have an armed guard...

Generally, PCs wear armour at all times, unless there's a very good reason why they don't.

Certainly, when travelling through town, they are in armour, where it is allowed. They have made so many enemies, over the years, that not wearing armour is like waving a flag with "Assassins attack me" written on it.

When camping out, they normally wear armour, as it is usually magical armour that is easier to wear. They have been caught out by being attacked in no armour before, so would rather taken the penalties.

I suppose they would take their armour off when erotically engaged, or at least take off some of the armour, but I have never really pushed them on that.

In any case, armour wouldn't protect them from Krarsht courtesan-assassins with the Sweat Acid spell. Although, many players would rather get a few skin burns than lose their enchanted iron armour.

One of the things I noticed conversely is that a lot of writers were writing that weapons had to be "peace-knotted" in major fantasy cities.  In history, Armor was not usually worn but everybody had a weapon, even free peasants were usually allowed to have a simple dagger or knife.  

People tend to look at the modern day gun control laws and assume that's the norm--but people forget towns didn't really have anything close to a police department.  If you read the original DMG, the City watch is mostly volunteers, with the Guard being the military force and not usually protecting the ordinary citizens from crime.  

I gave Gary Gygax some notes on this which he expanded on and put in Living Fantasy, the book he wrote for TLG about how a typical Eurocentric Fantasy would would work.  We commented on the armor (outside of an actual Knight, walking around in armor in the city is akin to showing up in riot gear at the mall), and this weapon stuff.

But then again, a lot of people forget about the social-economic stuff in fantasy--that in a Feudalistic society there's a lot of limitations to your class and social standing.  I wish more people took a good look at this kind of thing.

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?

I have the same problem in science fiction games, there is always one Jayne Cobb guy who tries to walk around in powered armor bristling with guns.

In any case, it usually ends up with the PCs encountering the authorities and being asked why they are wearing the armor and if they are expecting to be engaging in violence. I have a lot of NPCs just avoid them when they do that because nobody wants to deal with someone ready for violence 24/7. It only makes sense if it is a war zone, and even then you have to have rear areas where the chance of violence is minimal.

Of course not.
That's ridiculous.  Rules and laws and social customs make the idea somewhat idiotic.

For Example, this is from the basic information page on Igbar (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/35732531/Social%20Life%20in%20Igbar).

"The 'Rule of Reach' states that bows and two handed weapons cannot be carried within the city walls without a Scarlet Pilum escort or a letter of exemption from the Lower House of the Unicorn.  And it is incredibly gauche to walk around with real weaponry in town...
The Orcash and Klaxik fashion of men shaving their heads which started in the North has reached here recently.  Mainly by young folk and at the lower classes, seen more in the Dockside and the Bastion.
The Gates are open from Ma'Sue to Ta'Sue, or Sunup to Sundown.  This is counted from when Gerin, the first sun rises and sets, not the full daylight, which is almost two hours shorter..  The Scarlet Pilums judge this from the bronze dome of the Steel Libram, and most others people in town do as well, though there are 3 artificed public clocks in town as well.   After Dark, there are bells outside each gate, but only those with official paperwork or who are known to the Scarlet Pilums on duty will be let in.  Most knights and bards from Igbar are known and have paperwork...
Current fashion in the city is running towards 'shiny' fabrics, and women's fashions tend toward gowns that go to mid calf, with a half corset on the outside.  Headgear is a must for the fashionable Igbarian lady, often in a fan shape.  Men's fashion is very martial, with fitted leather armor being normal wear, and a tabard (again in those shiny fabrics for the fashionable Igbarian male) being cinched by a belt.   This does NOT mean that heavy armors are acceptable in town.  Maybe Chain Maille, in town.  In a real social situation, even that is too much.  Chained Leather or some such, but made to go with the tabard.  Please note that female combatants often combine the two to some level, and that this is considered respectable, but not very attractive. "

Quote from: soltakss;841396In any case, armour wouldn't protect them from Krarsht courtesan-assassins with the Sweat Acid spell. Although, many players would rather get a few skin burns than lose their enchanted iron armour.

Wouldn't acid corrode the iron armour as well?

Quote from: JRT;841397One of the things I noticed conversely is that a lot of writers were writing that weapons had to be "peace-knotted" in major fantasy cities.  In history, Armor was not usually worn but everybody had a weapon, even free peasants were usually allowed to have a simple dagger or knife.  

People tend to look at the modern day gun control laws and assume that's the norm--but people forget towns didn't really have anything close to a police department.  If you read the original DMG, the City watch is mostly volunteers, with the Guard being the military force and not usually protecting the ordinary citizens from crime.  

I gave Gary Gygax some notes on this which he expanded on and put in Living Fantasy, the book he wrote for TLG about how a typical Eurocentric Fantasy would would work.  We commented on the armor (outside of an actual Knight, walking around in armor in the city is akin to showing up in riot gear at the mall), and this weapon stuff.

But then again, a lot of people forget about the social-economic stuff in fantasy--that in a Feudalistic society there's a lot of limitations to your class and social standing.  I wish more people took a good look at this kind of thing.

Well, some of us do, my PCs usually stick to having weapons and no armour, though.

Quote from: jeff37923;841398I have the same problem in science fiction games, there is always one Jayne Cobb guy who tries to walk around in powered armor bristling with guns.

In any case, it usually ends up with the PCs encountering the authorities and being asked why they are wearing the armor and if they are expecting to be engaging in violence. I have a lot of NPCs just avoid them when they do that because nobody wants to deal with someone ready for violence 24/7. It only makes sense if it is a war zone, and even then you have to have rear areas where the chance of violence is minimal.

In most SF, that's just insane, since there is actual law enforcement organisations!

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...

The fact that it's a fantasy world with magic and monsters in it doesn't change the fact that armour is hot and uncomfortable to wear for long periods of time, especially the really heavy stuff.

Quote from: JRT;841397(outside of an actual Knight, walking around in armor in the city is akin to showing up in riot gear at the mall

I expect knights didn't wear armour day-to-day in the real world either.

I find the way to stop players from rattling around in my OD&D world in full armor everywhere is

i) assume they aren't

and

ii) let precautions be effective

The NPC knights are not wandering around town armed cap-a-pie and they survived the night; therefore, the PCs can as well.

Now, wilderness is a different matter, but that's why it's wilderness.

Quote from: Juisarian;841429I expect knights didn't wear armour day-to-day in the real world either.

Not plate, but they sure wore lighter armour most of the time ot of their homes or the homes of other nobles. Part of a knight's training is learning to dance in full armour, after all.
Of course, most PCs aren't knights and lack such training!

It's ridiculous from a historical perspective, but IME most fantasy games are really about modern people wandering around in a faux-medieval setting.  If I were going for a more authentic feel, I'd probably put in more restrictions about weapons and armour in town.

Do characters in most fantasy video games ever take off their armour in town?

Video games. You answered the question.

My new PC's usually do for the reasons cited above. After a session of them paying the social price of walking around in their gear, fully armed to the teeth obviously prepared for bloody battle, the inability to interact with people leery of such individuals, or the inability to get into certain places for security reasons, or the outright avoidance of such characters, usually is enough to break them of the habit.

Of course I moderate that with the sort of locale they might be in. Some frontier town or village - it's not a problem.

I always laugh at the noob PC that tries to sleep in their armor... bwahahaha. Sure go for it.

You may not like the result.

It depends on the setting, city, and type of armor.  

I usually assume that the average D&D world is about like a war-torn medieval setting.  The sort of setting where rule of law is a welcome relief rather than an expected standard, where your city getting invaded or sacked would not be unexpected, and where deserters turned bandit (the likely source for many bandits) were common.

So in this sort of setting, carrying around a sword would not be unexpected.  Wearing armor is not unexpected.  Cities where you're expected to be disarmed and the populace expects protection are the minority.  And even there, seeing armored individuals is not unusual.  

Furthermore, adventurers have a reputation.  For the most part, it's an advantage for them to stand out.  People who want to hire someone looking for trouble know who to talk to (it's that group that doesn't blend), and most guards give them a fairly wide berth.  After all they'll be out of there soon enough.

I usually assume the following:

Leather - boiled Leather is not necessarily inconspicuous, but it's not super unexpected.   It's a dangerous world.  And boiled leather can be fitted.

Chain mail - can actually be concealed under a shirt and standard travelers cloak (remember, cloaks were super common for travelers).  You'll always look bulky, but this is not impossible.

Breastplates - for the most part, someone wandering around in a breastplate sticks out, but again, I don't think it would be too unusual for anywhere but a major city.

Full Plate - Again, who is it?  Is it a paladin of a holy order?  Sure, wear full plate.  You stick out, but you're a fucking Paladin, you stick out anyway, and who is going to laugh at you?

I mean realism is great and all, but you need to be realistic to the setting.  If it's the sort of setting where demons getting gated into the city is not super unusual, people will not be surprised others are armed.  Think of shots of anywhere war-torn (Iraq, Rwanda, Palestine, etc.).  Seeing two people chatting with AKs propped against a wall is not super unusual.

Quote from: AsenRG;841433Not plate, but they sure wore lighter armour most of the time ot of their homes or the homes of other nobles. Part of a knight's training is learning to dance in full armour, after all.

Of course, most PCs aren't knights and lack such training!

While 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.

In my experience, most D&D worlds aren't actually feudal with that particular strict social hierarchy.  Even big civilized cities have problems of monsters turning up - as the PCs regularly discover with city encounters, hence their desire to stay armored up.  As a result, though, NPCs tend to react to them as heroic monster-slayers rather than as thugs.  i.e. "Whew!  Here's someone ready to protect us from marauding monsters."  Particularly after a few levels, PCs tend to have a reputation as monster-slayers that precedes them.

Yes they do, but I can't fault them considering almost every fantasy cartoon, movie or video game has people walking around fully armored all the time.

If I wanted to be realistic, I'd impose penalties to reaction rolls for player characters in armor, but that would just make the game even more hack-and-slash.
And I'm still looking for good fatigue rules that aren't too complex...

Depends on the game and campaign. If I am running DCC, then, they probably will wear armor 24/7. If I am running Runequest, then I'll probably try for a little more realism. Individual campaigns may vary.

Quote from: AsenRG;841416

Quote from: soltakss;841396In any case, armour wouldn't protect them from Krarsht courtesan-assassins with the Sweat Acid spell. Although, many players would rather get a few skin burns than lose their enchanted iron armour.

Wouldn't acid corrode the iron armour as well?

That'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.

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.

It's like the story of Einstein taking his hat off in the rain.

Some of my larger cities have laws to make weapons peace tied in town. But for the most part I think most of the smaller towns are like a fantasy version of Fallujah or Tombstone. Better keep your weapons close and nobody gives a second thought to it.

I can understand how it can be irksome in a historical setting and that walking around in armor all day would wear you out faster and chafe no end.

But in a fantasy setting where there are no safe places (what's that giant rats with a disease attack in the wine cellar of the local tavern?) I'm not going to get hung up on whether my players declare the removal of their armor or not.

By the way, some of the current metropolitan fantasy settings with goblins/ orcs/ noble vampires etc, roaming freely through town irk me way more than players that don't remove armor.

In the group I'm currently in, we have two PCs. An Trogruta Jedi who has a pair of lightsabers that she keeps under her coat and wears a blaster pistol openly, and dons padded armor when we are planning to make a ruckus, and my Mandalorian walking arsenal* who just carries a pistol and knife in public and has all the armor and rifles and whatnot safe on the ship for when necessary.

*I call him that due to the fact the he currently owes a modded blaster rifle, a modded unique blaster pistol, two heavy blaster pistols, a holdout blaster pistol, a Sidewinder rotary blaster cannon (think portable blaster Gatling gun), a vibroknife, a vibrosword, and a thermal detonator and random grenades.  That plus heavy battle armor.

Needless to say, he only wears a concealed armored duster in public, because locals tend to get nervous when someone walks past with enough firepower to take on the local defense forces and win.  Even when full kitted out for war, he doesn't carry all that shit.

When I run SF, the PC's spend a lot of time in "weapon free" zones, and that restriction applies to armor as well. They were nervous about it at first, until they realized that it wasn't an excuse for the GM (me) to screw them over - their enemies don't have any weapons or armor, either.

The 'no armor' thing confused the heck out of them at first, until they got into a bar fight. (It's Savage Worlds.) I asked them how they felt about fighting unarmed - using martial arts, etc - versus armored opponents, then they were OK with it. Fists (and the occasional knife or stunner) against heavy armor would take all night long, and result in some really dull fight scenes.

In fantasy games, I incorporate some variation on sumptuary laws into civilized regions of whatever setting I'm running, so there's a rigid code governing who can wear what in the cities/towns. Including armor.

Depends on the setting. My DCC game remains mostly urban, everyone can be assumed to be armed somehow but leather/hide is generally the most armor to be seen on anyone not in the militia.

In our Pathfinder games the GM's assumption is that unless you state otherwise you are not armored. We often get caught with our pants down, "Did any of you stop to put on your armor when you left the inn?"...
That hasn't stopped the resident powergamer from trying to wear plate everywhere. He toasted when we went to the desert, got fried when one of my lightning bolts went awry and drowned while we were investigating some canal smugglers... it's also been adverse for any sort of meetup with merchant, militia or potential mistress.

No. Such things depend on the setting and the circumstances and cities are pretty much out unless you are actively working at a job that dictates wearing armor - like SWAT team member at a hostage situation or Royal Bodyguard guarding the Queen.

Right now I'm running France in in the 1620s. Only one of the players even owns armor. Its a buff coat and heavy gloves and he only wears it if he is expecting trouble. Which in the city would be something like raiding a den of thugs. It would definitely not include walking around the market, hanging out at court, drinking in a tavern, or fighting a duel. On the other hand, all the PCs now wear swords. But for the most part, their PCs are nobles, gentlemen, or soldiers in an elite unit. Though do I need to crack down more on the ones who carry a brace of loaded pistols in town.

My characters wear what would make sense in a situation. I can't help it. I'm a role-player.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;841437Video games. You answered the question.

Two really good MUDs I played on actually had encoded that the NPC law or equivalent would go after you if you did not stow your combat gear. In one case they'd beat you up and toss you in jail sans all your gear.

Any waterborn adventure is going to be hell for armour reliant characters. Be leery around port towns too. I successfully one-hit killed two evil knights during a pierside battle by using dash charger and catapulting them into the river.

Quote from: Omega;841562Any waterborn adventure is going to be hell for armour reliant characters. Be leery around port towns too. I successfully one-hit killed two evil knights during a pierside battle by using dash charger and catapulting them into the river.

5th Edition I take it?

Love it.

Quote from: Omega;841562Any waterborn adventure is going to be hell for armour reliant characters. Be leery around port towns too. I successfully one-hit killed two evil knights during a pierside battle by using dash charger and catapulting them into the river.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;8415815th Edition I take it?

Love it.

One of the things that makes Breichtur in Birthright so dangerous. It's essentially the Hanseatic League in the Baltic/Sargasso Sea with pirates. Very easy to drown in 2e with armor. Delightfully easy to drown in armor in 5e, too! Hope is stays that way.
:)

i just assume that they are not wearing armor if they are in urban area or on ship.

This is one issue where D&D might benefit from a concept that put the screws to the idea of fully armed and armored at all times; Traveller Law Levels.

Many a time I've heard (and expressed) a disappointed "Ah, man..." when reading a planet's UPP on the way to a mission. Guess that Battle Dress and FGMP 15 will be in the locker, at least for now... :)

Some of this is pretty predicated on the game you play.  Mine is very 'town/social/political' based, so appearance and fashion and the law matter quite a bit.
And very long running, so these relationships matter.

I can see this being a lot less important in a shorter term, very adventure-site oriented game.

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 am generally not a fan of imposing armor restrictions on the characters because I tend to try and be very logical about the way laws would work.  If the social norm is that a chain shirt and a sword spells trouble, what about a fireball?  Or dominate person?  Or even charm person?  

Nor do I think that mages should all be part of some elite order able to ignore the whims of lesser peons, unless the Fighters are all knights and the rogues are all guildsmen (in which case it is a push and doesn't matter much).

So if I am going to let the warlock walk around without supervision, then the guys in armor are definitely not restricted because they are not what people will worry about.  In fact, heavy armor, as opposed to a heavy weapon, probably reassures people that you aren't a wizard.  The fact that you can put on this armor and (with a few exceptions, in a few system) reliably signal that you aren't able to unleash dark magic is actually a plus.  Because unless magic is rare, a fireball will kill a lot more people than a maniac with in armor who is punching people.  

Weapons, on the other hand, can be used by anyone and some casters use blades as a part of their magic.  Definitely frowned on in polite company, to the level that is above the average side arm for the person's rank.

Who said anything about letting magic get away without similar restrictions? In fact, I personally said I carry similar societal hostilities to spellcasters posturing openly. Spellcasters are in a similar boat; pose a threat, get the horns.

Cast a dangerous spell like fireball upon "a few harmless peons" because you can? OK, you kill a few attracting a shitload of attention, and now the rest of the hamlet is coming for your head. And they are sending their fastest runners spreading word like wildfire to nearby villages and the regional holders of power. You got a timer on your head, caster, soon your thumbs and tongue will belong to the regional power as your PC retires as slop boy.

If anything I run my settings with an even more lethal leash on spellcasting. No holder of power likes unexpected wild cards at its table. And small town locals are suspicious and insular enough to never let a stranger too far out of their eye.

Depends on the setting, the location in the setting, type of armor and a bunch of other variables.  

Wearing armor in the city can be impractical for a number of reasons, for example, it will prevent wounds, but you sure as hell aren't ever going to catch a thief, mugger or cultist chasing after them in full plate and shield.

Quote from: Votan;841754I am generally not a fan of imposing armor restrictions on the characters because I tend to try and be very logical about the way laws would work.  If the social norm is that a chain shirt and a sword spells trouble, what about a fireball?  Or dominate person?  Or even charm person?  

Nor do I think that mages should all be part of some elite order able to ignore the whims of lesser peons, unless the Fighters are all knights and the rogues are all guildsmen (in which case it is a push and doesn't matter much).

So if I am going to let the warlock walk around without supervision, then the guys in armor are definitely not restricted because they are not what people will worry about.  In fact, heavy armor, as opposed to a heavy weapon, probably reassures people that you aren't a wizard.  The fact that you can put on this armor and (with a few exceptions, in a few system) reliably signal that you aren't able to unleash dark magic is actually a plus.  Because unless magic is rare, a fireball will kill a lot more people than a maniac with in armor who is punching people.  

Weapons, on the other hand, can be used by anyone and some casters use blades as a part of their magic.  Definitely frowned on in polite company, to the level that is above the average side arm for the person's rank.

Well, good thing most of us who have thought through the restrictions on weapons (called the 'Rule of Reach' in much of my northern setting) also have the restrictions on magic figured out.  Magic, if anything, is policed more heavily.

And the OP did not mention D&D, so not eveery game has to balance stuff by making mages unable to wear armor.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;841766I let the computer crunch it out, since it takes no time these days.

Computers are great for some things. This isn't one of them. It took Arminius longer to write out the formula than it took to do the calculation in their head.

Speaking from the D&D perspective.

The characters who depend on heavy armor are not so overpowered that I would want to mess them up so gratuitously relative to mages and unarmored defense users and maybe even light armor wearers. I'm more sympathetic to weapon restrictions on game grounds, since the melee character is not quite as weakened by a restriction to smaller weapons. But you can carry a pretty honking big gun around where I live, openly or concealed, and we don't have a problem with random monsters decimating the local convenience store. (Nor did we when carrying such guns was not allowed.) The local authorities are going to be interested in mysterious, visibly competent strangers who sell wagon loads of looted goblin equipment and monster carcasses and then ask for directions to the nastiest dungeon around, no matter how they're equipped.

People rushing to say how restricted mages are in their towns are only putting lesser restrictions on the mages that could be put on armor wearers and over-sized weapon carriers: wait for them to do something bad and then drop the full weight of enforcement on them, rather than preemptively penalize them. (And that's ignoring the unanswered damage that casters could potentially do with Mind Blank, Greater Invisibility, Disguise Self, Subtle Spell and a host of other things.)

I don't want to turn my game into endless rounds of stalking where both sides try to catch their enemies with their armor off. Yes, wear your armor all the time and risk exhaustion and heat stroke and fungal infections and whatever other mundane hazard, because it's more real that way. Don't wear armor in town because it's not historical, unlike almost every other element of D&D, or because people might react negatively to your half-orc infernal pact warlock only for wearing light armor. I want a game of adventure where you risk death, not severe chafing, social embarrassment and discrimination in public accommodations.

And it's a magical world, and it's my world; my new house rule created this very moment is that armor proficiency lets you merge with your armor when there's no combat, like a Druid can merge with any equipment while Wild Shaped. It's not hidden; people still see you have armor if they could see it non-merged. And you have to drop your excess encumberance if you need the armor, but it comes out when needed for free. (Maybe even if you're surprised; there are enough benefits to surprise attacks already.) Characters who were asleep or even just resting when attacked won't have armor on; pretty much everyone else will. I'll let you know if it ruins my campaign.

Quote from: LordVreeg;841769Well, good thing most of us who have thought through the restrictions on weapons (called the 'Rule of Reach' in much of my northern setting) also have the restrictions on magic figured out.  Magic, if anything, is policed more heavily.

And the OP did not mention D&D, so not eveery game has to balance stuff by making mages unable to wear armor.

So, I admit my default was D&D.  But armor restrictions are not unique to D&D.  These limitations show up in other fantasy settings as well for example, Rolemaster (which puts the on clerics!) or GURPS (where the point buy favor low STR; if you look at GURPS wizards armor shows up for very high point buy characters). But Runequest or Mage: the Dark Ages would not have these restrictions.  

So, how do you police magic?

Quote from: rawma;841787Speaking from the D&D perspective.

The characters who depend on heavy armor are not so overpowered that I would want to mess them up so gratuitously relative to mages and unarmored defense users and maybe even light armor wearers. I'm more sympathetic to weapon restrictions on game grounds, since the melee character is not quite as weakened by a restriction to smaller weapons. But you can carry a pretty honking big gun around where I live, openly or concealed, and we don't have a problem with random monsters decimating the local convenience store. (Nor did we when carrying such guns was not allowed.) The local authorities are going to be interested in mysterious, visibly competent strangers who sell wagon loads of looted goblin equipment and monster carcasses and then ask for directions to the nastiest dungeon around, no matter how they're equipped.

People rushing to say how restricted mages are in their towns are only putting lesser restrictions on the mages that could be put on armor wearers and over-sized weapon carriers: wait for them to do something bad and then drop the full weight of enforcement on them, rather than preemptively penalize them. (And that's ignoring the unanswered damage that casters could potentially do with Mind Blank, Greater Invisibility, Disguise Self, Subtle Spell and a host of other things.)

I don't want to turn my game into endless rounds of stalking where both sides try to catch their enemies with their armor off. Yes, wear your armor all the time and risk exhaustion and heat stroke and fungal infections and whatever other mundane hazard, because it's more real that way. Don't wear armor in town because it's not historical, unlike almost every other element of D&D, or because people might react negatively to your half-orc infernal pact warlock only for wearing light armor. I want a game of adventure where you risk death, not severe chafing, social embarrassment and discrimination in public accommodations.

And it's a magical world, and it's my world; my new house rule created this very moment is that armor proficiency lets you merge with your armor when there's no combat, like a Druid can merge with any equipment while Wild Shaped. It's not hidden; people still see you have armor if they could see it non-merged. And you have to drop your excess encumberance if you need the armor, but it comes out when needed for free. (Maybe even if you're surprised; there are enough benefits to surprise attacks already.) Characters who were asleep or even just resting when attacked won't have armor on; pretty much everyone else will. I'll let you know if it ruins my campaign.

This shows an inherent problem with D&D and all it's clones, the more armoured you are, the less chance you'll ever get hit, should trouble come around.  AC is a bad mechanic, because it's the only scaling defense you have and if it gets lowered, you're in danger.

And let's face it, there are such things as Urban Adventures, which put the PC in the not so nice places in town.

However, in systems where armour is a Damage Reduction value, and characters have innate defensive 'skill' not tied to how much armour they hav on, I've not run into that problem above as often.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;841800This shows an inherent problem with D&D and all it's clones, the more armoured you are, the less chance you'll ever get hit, should trouble come around.  AC is a bad mechanic, because it's the only scaling defense you have and if it gets lowered, you're in danger.

And let's face it, there are such things as Urban Adventures, which put the PC in the not so nice places in town.

However, in systems where armour is a Damage Reduction value, and characters have innate defensive 'skill' not tied to how much armour they hav on, I've not run into that problem above as often.

It was a pretty big problem for The Fantasy Trip; damage pretty much always filtered through armor's damage reduction, so wearing armor was fairly crucial, and hit points didn't rise by a factor of 10 over a character's career. A character in plate armor could get hit by a lot of arrows and live, but would die from only a few without armor.

And D&D contains various forms of damage that aren't affected by armor (which has no effect on saving throws, still covering most damage spells, even in 5e).

Quote from: Votan;841797So, how do you police magic?

Immediately punch in the face anyone who starts making strange gestures and/or chanting in weird languages.

Culturally some societies may treat spell casting without permission like any other unjustified and potentially lethal attack. So people will react to the 'attacking' mage about the same as they would to a mundane person suddenly shooting people with a bow for no reason or running through a crowded marketplace hacking down people right and left with a sword.

Openly wearing armor is only appropriate in some genres and places. I could see wearing armor being common in some D&D games where monster attacks are common even in safe cities for example.

Even where its not appropriate , not  all armor is hard to conceal. A mail shirt , a padded jack or a   brigandine could easily be concealed much as a threat level 2a vest is today.  

It also possible to sleep in these if you don't mind the stench so jittery PC's might wear them most of the time.

I believe it's entirely a setting-dependent element. If you have encounter tables (or planned encounters) in a city that include "monsters" then anyone who could afford to wear armour would. If you have a fantasy police force in a thoroughly civilised city, maybe no-one wears armour.

Player character power plays a role, too. A band of heavily armed and armoured ruffians entering town might attract notice, but is there anyone who would take it on themselves to tell them "no"? Again, setting-dependent.

The following link goes to a video about "weapon & armour carrying when adventuring - advice for roleplaying games from history".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llPAuGy6XvQ

Quote from: Votan;841754I am generally not a fan of imposing armor restrictions on the characters because I tend to try and be very logical about the way laws would work.  If the social norm is that a chain shirt and a sword spells trouble, what about a fireball?  Or dominate person?  Or even charm person?  

Nor do I think that mages should all be part of some elite order able to ignore the whims of lesser peons, unless the Fighters are all knights and the rogues are all guildsmen (in which case it is a push and doesn't matter much).

So if I am going to let the warlock walk around without supervision, then the guys in armor are definitely not restricted because they are not what people will worry about.  In fact, heavy armor, as opposed to a heavy weapon, probably reassures people that you aren't a wizard.  The fact that you can put on this armor and (with a few exceptions, in a few system) reliably signal that you aren't able to unleash dark magic is actually a plus.  Because unless magic is rare, a fireball will kill a lot more people than a maniac with in armor who is punching people.  

Weapons, on the other hand, can be used by anyone and some casters use blades as a part of their magic.  Definitely frowned on in polite company, to the level that is above the average side arm for the person's rank.

Interesting. Never thought about it.

In my games, it depends on the setting and lawlessness. Most civilizations are not fan of armed people roaming around the streets.

Quote from: Vile;841845Player character power plays a role, too. A band of heavily armed and armoured ruffians entering town might attract notice, but is there anyone who would take it on themselves to tell them "no"? Again, setting-dependent.

In my game, the citizens of the polis. All of whom have armour, weapons, and regularly train with the above. Even with their entire retinue, the PCs would be outnumbered by a phalanx comprised of men who know each other and train together, fighting to defend their home.

But as I said, the gates are manned by the citizens, they're not getting through them armed and armoured in the first place. Not without starting that fight mentioned above.

I'm currently running an entirely in the underworld campaign and the only city they characters know about is deep below them.  It's ruled by an oligarchy of witches.  And it's as dangerous as any dungeon.  I've already established that the city trades with some other nearby settlements and haven't yet decided what the experience at the gates will be like.  The witches are probably far more concerned with preventing things like demons disguised as people from getting into the city than a small band of armoured warriors.  Some of the witches though, are in league with the demonic and monstrous though, so it's a seriously dangerous place for anyone who doesn't have friends and family and know how to stay safe and who not to cross.

Any town big enough to have a standing guard would stop this behavior. Smaller settlements don't have the muscle to stop an adventuring party from running rough shod over them. Realistically no one wears armour one second longer than they have to.

Yeah they walk around in armor. Shaintar is a dangerous place. But they are also Grayson's Grey Rangers, so they are within the legal right to do so being a fantasy police agency of sorts in the Wildlands.

The only time they aren't wearing armor is assumed during their sleep. There is even a Dwarf edge that allows them to sleep in full armor.

It depends on the game.

In some games, we let characters be in armor in most/all situations, as a conscious choice to be surreal / campy / gamey. We didn't think about it at first, then realized this was a bit silly, and as we added realism, it became a joke because we'd played for a bit with this assumption, and many games (and some films - e.g. Excalibur...) seem to not question this.

In other games, we acknowledge that most people would not spend most of their time in heavy armor, because it's uncomfortable, inconvenient, and impractical for non-combat purposes (reduces speed, increases fatigue and water use, requires more time to don and maintain, makes more noise, scares other people), so would only be worn when expecting sudden attack. And, there's often one level or another of social or legal reasons as well, depending on the place and who the characters are in society.

Ironically, the players who also always fight to the death may not realize that when they're unarmored, they may have a really easy time avoiding fighting people who are armored by out-running them... ;-)

Quote from: Votan;841797So, I admit my default was D&D.  But armor restrictions are not unique to D&D.  These limitations show up in other fantasy settings as well for example, Rolemaster (which puts the on clerics!) or GURPS (where the point buy favor low STR; if you look at GURPS wizards armor shows up for very high point buy characters). But Runequest or Mage: the Dark Ages would not have these restrictions.  

So, how do you police magic?

Nah, but it was obvious.  No stress.

When I play a d20 variation, I go back to the advice in the DMG about The guards also having casters, etc.

But 99% of the time, I play my own variant, which is very guild- derivative.  So there are laws about casting in public in every town and city, though they vary.  
Here is the Laws of Igbar (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955699/Law%20of%20Igbar), the main play center of one of my groups.

Quote from: LordVreeg;841913Nah, but it was obvious.  No stress.

When I play a d20 variation, I go back to the advice in the DMG about The guards also having casters, etc.

But 99% of the time, I play my own variant, which is very guild- derivative.  So there are laws about casting in public in every town and city, though they vary.  
Here is the Laws of Igbar (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955699/Law%20of%20Igbar), the main play center of one of my groups.

That was a nice setting document.  I liked the goggles of Least Eye (and having them randomly scattered about is a nice deterrent to magical hijinks).  The banded armor as a social faux pas seemed decent as well.  If you had a good reason for wearing it, then you could always explain (like people do with many minor social foibles) but doing it all the time has soft consequences.

A common law in many of my civilized lands (i.e., everywhere out of which players have been based) is that only uniformed military or liveried and registered guards are allowed to wear metal armor, carry anything beyond smallswords or wield strung bows or shields within municipal limits.

As far as the I'm-wearing-my-armor-all-the-time crowd goes, while they've sometimes accepted the fatigue penalties, the reaction penalties for the increasing stench from their bodies -- above and beyond those for being socially gauche -- they're far less sanguine when they start getting slammed for the spreading rash.

One guy went hardcore enough to get to the point where his mail started to rust, and you can all imagine how well that went over.

There are reasons that low-tech armor wasn't worn 24-7.  Hell, the SCA fighters I've known with mail invariably have carried duffle bags filled with about 10 lbs of coarse sand, and as soon as practice or the tourney is over, into the bag the armor goes to tumble about: it's the most practical way they've found to keep them clean and rust-free.

... the nine-year old sticky response:

QuoteI think the real question here is, "why do you consider the mechanics nonsense"? We're talking an imaginary dwarf, with 100 imaginary hit points, falling off an imaginary cliff, taking damage that is, also, imaginary.

If the designer finds it desirable that a character could fall off a cliff and survive, it will be so. If not, for whatever reason, it will not be. (The first mention of "but it's not REALISTIC!" gets you kicked. This is all *imaginary*, remember?)

If I had a dime for every time I've heard this over the last couple decades, I could pay all the bills this month.

Well, yes, it's all imaginary.  So why use cliffs, or indeed any recognizable terrain at all?  Why not adventure in big fluffy masses of amorphia?  Or just 'port to anywhere we want to go, and imagine it to be anything convenient to us?

Why should we use perfectly recognizable medieval weaponry?  It's imaginary, isn't it?  Don't limit yourself, hit the enemy with your kerfluffmezoz or your wheezimithuzit!

And since it doesn't have to make sense, we don't need to have these pesky movement rules, besides which we all want to be Matrixy and John Woo-esque, don't we?  Tell your DM that you're running through the air and phasing right through every intervening tree and foe to hit the Big Bad with your wheezimithuzit, and better yet you're doing it before he cut down your friend, because since it's all imaginary we don't have to use linear time either.

No, I don't care that I rolled a "miss."  Skill progression is one of those boring realism constructs, and I don't believe in it.  Let's just imagine that I hit the Big Bad whenever I need to, and for twenty-five hundred d8 of damage, too.  Encumbrance is boringly realistic too, so I'm ignoring it, and I'd rather imagine that my snazzy quilted vest protected me like the glacis armor on a T-72, please.

Alright, show of hands.  Why don't we play our RPGs that way?

It's called suspension of disbelief. We put our games into recognizable settings that mimic real life.  We use swords in fantasy games because we have the expectation that such milieus use swords, and those swords do the relative damage of a sword instead of the damage of a 155mm mortar shell because that is our expectation too.  Our fantasy characters wear tunics and cloaks, live in walled cities or sacred groves, and scale ramparts where the force of gravity pulls us downward, not pushes us up.  We have an expectation of how fast we can walk, how far we can ride, and how long we can sail.  All these expectations are founded in reality.

To the degree we ignore these things, just because, we lose touch with suspension of disbelief.  If the ten-foot-tall Big Bad hits a peon with his greatsword, we expect the peon to be in a world of hurt; we don't expect the sword to bounce off.  If the party wizard shoots a fireball at the orcs' wooden stockade, we expect that it might catch fire; we don't expect the wall to grow flowers instead.  

And if an armored dwarf takes a gainer off of a hundred foot sheer drop, we expect to find a soggy mass at the base of the cliff.  We sure as hell don't expect a dwarf boinging around like a rubber ball, happily warbling, "Bumbles bounce!"

That there are a great many gamers who want their rule systems to reflect reality, rather than ignore it -- so that we find ourselves constantly sidetracked as to issues of WHY suchandsuch doesn't make sense, or because the GM has to explain how come the dwarf isn't a soggy mass -- ought be a surprise to no one.

Why is it such a surprise to you?

Quote from: Ravenswing;842009That there are a great many gamers who want their rule systems to reflect reality, rather than ignore it -- so that we find ourselves constantly sidetracked as to issues of WHY suchandsuch doesn't make sense, or because the GM has to explain how come the dwarf isn't a soggy mass -- ought be a surprise to no one.

Why is it such a surprise to you?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You want your rule system to reflect reality, only where you want it to.

I don't give a flying blue fuck if you need to use armor encumbrance rules.  If that is what makes you shudder in ecstasy, you go gurl.

Once you tell me I'm playing wrong or don't get it....

Go fuck yourself.

Quote from: tenbones;841438I always laugh at the noob PC that tries to sleep in their armor... bwahahaha. Sure go for it.
You may not like the result.

Hmmm, I disagree.
I used to do Battle re-enactment for many years and I slept quite well wearing a Padded Jacket and Leather armor.

Chain linked armor ( A chain Hauberk, chain down to elbows and chain down to about halfway between knees and groin. )was heavier, but it sort of slumps around your body as it's very loose  (and is meant to me). I slept fine in chain.
Note that you generally wear a padded jacket or leather armor under chain, which probably helps.

I used to wear Scale armor for a while too (metal scales sewn with leather onto a Padded jacket and leather) and whilst rolling over and stuff was noisy, I slept fine.

when I tried it out did this over a few days, so it wasn't like it was just ok for one night.

I even tried sleeping in Lamellar armor type breastplate, which is a kind of wired together breastplate made of metal pieces.
I never expected that to be ok, but actually it was a bit like sleeping in a cradle, although I had to sleep on my back. It was quite uncomfortable sleeping on my side. but other than that it was mostly ok.
Getting up from a laying down position in Lamellar can be interesting though. so if you had to get up in a hurry, it might take a bit longer..

I'd imagine sleeping in Full plate would be a nightmare, but who knows, I've not tried that.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;841354That never even occurred to me until you said it.

+1

In Exalted PC's would hide that they were wearing orichalcum armor, but otherwise, very few games I've played in has "hiding armor" or "armor control laws" been a thing.

In answer to the question, it's very circumstantial on the setting/campaign/world and local events and so on.

But as a general guideline, in a city, you'd be expected to remove armor and weapons etc, but again, that just depends on circumstances.

I certainly HAVE had circumstances where the characters have been confronted for wearing armor and weapons, but it doesn't always happen.

Quote from: Sommerjon;842048(snip)

And when you post lines like "I'm playing a fantasy game," with boldface, italics and underlining, then you can take your faux indignation and shove it in your ear.  News flash: your cock doesn't get any bigger by playing the "I'm too good for verisimilitude" card.

Quote from: Ravenswing;842068whine whine whine, but whine

Yes.  It is a fantasy game.  

Yes I find it extremely stupid.  If that is what makes you shudder in ecstasy, you go girl.  Once you tell me I'm playing it wrong or "don't get it"....

Go.  Fuck.  Yourself.


See 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.

Quote from: Sommerjon;842093Yes.  It is a fantasy game.  

Yes I find it extremely stupid.  If that is what makes you shudder in ecstasy, you go girl.  Once you tell me I'm playing it wrong or "don't get it"....

Go.  Fuck.  Yourself.


See 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.

I read this and I remember when the movie Excalibur came out and I had to listen to guys tell me that, "You can totally have sex while wearing plate mail!!"

Quote from: Iron_Rain;842051+1

In Exalted PC's would hide that they were wearing orichalcum armor, but otherwise, very few games I've played in has "hiding armor" or "armor control laws" been a thing.

It was in Shadowrun. I used to cover my light body armour under street clothes and jackets. There was also the disguised body armour tailored to look like fine suits and dresses.

Quote from: Sommerjon;842093If that is what makes you shudder in ecstasy, you go girl.

Man, you really seem hung up on sexual imagery over the net.  Sure you rather wouldn't be over on alt.porn or Literotica with the rest of the deviants?  Don't let us interfere with your whackoff sessions.

QuoteSee 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.

Don't you?  Let's take that sticky rant, shall we?  If I was a player at your table, and I said that I just plain dodged those dozen crossbowmen, because I just didn't see any reason why they'd hit me, you'd likely tell me that there was no way I was dodging a dozen bolts at once.  If I said that I closed the 50' gap between me and the firing line in a single jump to cut apart the bowman, you'd likely tell me that it wasn't realistic for an Olympic long jumper to pull that off, or some such.  If I said that it would take only a single dagger slash apiece to kill them all, you might tell me to hold my horses, and when did I get super strength?

Yeah, well, why not?  You're already saying that you don't give a shit about realism, because it's fantasy.  So how come I can't do a 50' broad jump?  That the type of argument you appreciate around your table?

In general, I think it's fine for PCs to wear armor because it *is* realistic.  It doesn't match every historical period, but it is a good fit for the sort of dangerous fantasy world being portrayed - which is far from a peaceful modern city with police.

The type of unrealism that I find most annoying is when both of these happen:
1) When the PCs walk around with armor and start shaking down some shopkeeper, then very quickly there is a well-armed watch who come in force to deal with them.

and

2) When the PCs encounter a pack of wererats causing trouble, they are on their own - no watch shows up to help them deal with the threat.


In a given world, sure, big cities may be peaceful places where the citizens live in harmony.  However, in D&D I'm more used to cities being similar to how they are portrayed in 1st ed AD&D - with random encounters with monsters, crime, and other threats present.

Quote from: Omega;842119It was in Shadowrun. I used to cover my light body armour under street clothes and jackets. There was also the disguised body armour tailored to look like fine suits and dresses.

An armored jacket in Shadowrun is acceptable just about anywhere except social gatherings.

Hell, if you check out some of the fashion and social splats, they actually have original and mods for armor and weapons that are specifically designed to be high fashion and trendy, to the point that wearing it to a trending nightclub would be totally cool.

Quote from: Ravenswing;842486Man, you really seem hung up on sexual imagery over the net.  Sure you rather wouldn't be over on alt.porn or Literotica with the rest of the deviants?  Don't let us interfere with your whackoff sessions.

I'm not allowed to be here as well as there?  Are we not allowed multiple diversions?

Quote from: Ravenswing;842486Don't you?  Let's take that sticky rant, shall we?  If I was a player at your table, and I said that I just plain dodged those dozen crossbowmen, because I just didn't see any reason why they'd hit me, you'd likely tell me that there was no way I was dodging a dozen bolts at once.  If I said that I closed the 50' gap between me and the firing line in a single jump to cut apart the bowman, you'd likely tell me that it wasn't realistic for an Olympic long jumper to pull that off, or some such.  If I said that it would take only a single dagger slash apiece to kill them all, you might tell me to hold my horses, and when did I get super strength?

Yeah, well, why not?  You're already saying that you don't give a shit about realism, because it's fantasy.  So how come I can't do a 50' broad jump?  That the type of argument you appreciate around your table?

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

• Dodging whatever, whenever I want
• Killing whatever, whenever I want

Isn't that Outrage hyperbole a bit much?

Funny thing is, some systems do allow for; that 50' jump, killing with one blow vs multiple npcs, and dodging all attacks.

Never said I didn't give a shit about realism.
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

Pundy set the parameters in the OP

Quote from: RPGPundit;841352Of 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?

in your Fantasy Games.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;842517An armored jacket in Shadowrun is acceptable just about anywhere except social gatherings.

Hell, if you check out some of the fashion and social splats, they actually have original and mods for armor and weapons that are specifically designed to be high fashion and trendy, to the point that wearing it to a trending nightclub would be totally cool.

The fact that people in Shadowrun actually had good reason to go to social parties wearing armor disguised as clothes says alot about the lethality of the setting.

At times Shadowrun felt like it was just on the brink of becoming Dark Sun.

Thinking about it, all my recent games have taken place in borderlands-type areas where even if there are cities, there is dangerous wilderness within a short distance of the city walls, and it's normal and expected for warriors to wear armour. I can imagine having medieval French/English type restrictions in the heart of powerful lawful states, Greyhawk's Great Kingdom or Nyrond perhaps, but games don't generally take place there. If I were to run an urban campaign again like my old 1e Lankhmar game it might be different. The closest I can think of is my Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign, but that Paizo AP starts with the PCs being seconded to the City Guard, justifying armoured PCs. I did wonder a bit about the plausibility of the Bard with the 10' halberd though...

Quote from: Omega;842619The fact that people in Shadowrun actually had good reason to go to social parties wearing armor disguised as clothes says alot about the lethality of the setting.

At times Shadowrun felt like it was just on the brink of becoming Dark Sun.

Probably says more about the lethality of the presumed activities the characters will engage in than about the setting per se.

That brings up a relevant point, though - if the DM is regularly putting the PCs into situations where they feel that they need to walk around town wearing armour, maybe the issue isn't with how realistic it is that they would walk around in armour, but how realistic it is that they would feel constantly threatened in town.

Quote from: Ddogwood;842690...maybe the issue isn't with how realistic it is that they would walk around in armour, but how realistic it is that they would feel constantly threatened in town.

It may be, but even if it isn't unrealistic the feeling of danger is exacerbated by the common play style of not playing out every hour or day of game time.  

For example, on a per stay basis, the PCs in my Honor+Intrigue game are seldom attacked while stopping in an inn. However since most days of staying in an inn where nothing particularly interesting happens are skipped, the subjective experience of staying in an inn feels much more deadly to the players than it likely would seem to their characters.

I deal with it by telling people that in anything as big as a small town, they aren't going to be suddenly jumped by large numbers of armored warriors or gangs of monsters, and sticking with it.

If something DOES happen in town, the attackers will not be any more armored than the PCs are.

And if the PCs start trouble with the authorities, I have no trouble letting the chips fall where they may.

(I think 'betrayal' is horribly overused in RPGs, so I don't use a lot of 'towns lure you in to kill or rob you' sort of thing.)

Quote from: jhkim;842495The type of unrealism that I find most annoying is when both of these happen:
1) When the PCs walk around with armor and start shaking down some shopkeeper, then very quickly there is a well-armed watch who come in force to deal with them.

and

2) When the PCs encounter a pack of wererats causing trouble, they are on their own - no watch shows up to help them deal with the threat.

Why would that seem unrealistic to you, let alone annoy you? The shopkeeper undoubtedly pays for protection, and the PCs almost certainly don't. The security guard at the mall isn't going to help you with wererats, either.

Quote from: Old Geezer;842731I deal with it by telling people that in anything as big as a small town, they aren't going to be suddenly jumped by large numbers of armored warriors or gangs of monsters, and sticking with it.

If something DOES happen in town, the attackers will not be any more armored than the PCs are.

And if the PCs start trouble with the authorities, I have no trouble letting the chips fall where they may.

(I think 'betrayal' is horribly overused in RPGs, so I don't use a lot of 'towns lure you in to kill or rob you' sort of thing.)

I always took it as a sign of shitty DMing when the DM went out of his way to contrive situations where the PCs have to leave behind weapons, armor and other gear for the express purpose of screwing them over...

And then whine when the PCs refuse to take the bait again. You can always tell because while the shitty DM makes damn sure to arrange it so the PCs can be attacked sans armor, the PCs don't get similar opportunities. It's like the DM who whines about the PCs refusing to add NPCs to the party after he's screwed them with the same ruse as before.

Otherwise, it boils down to the type of city and the type of armor. Padded (because it can be made to look like clothing) and chainmail (because it can be worn under clothing -Saladin had mail woven into several of his formal outfits because he feared assassination) shouldn't be a problem even if arms and armor are restricted because what the powers that be don't see won't bother them. Full plate armor would be a different matter, though.

As for "realism", in most cities of the Middle Ages it was common for those with means to not only walk the streets armed, but to have a bunch of armed retainers as well -especially in Italy (see Romeo & Juliet).

Quote from: Elfdart;842835...As for "realism", in most cities of the Middle Ages it was common for those with means to not only walk the streets armed, but to have a bunch of armed retainers as well -especially in Italy (see Romeo & Juliet).

Yes, even into some settings in the 19th Century (and the roughest ones in the 20th and 21st), armed people who behave appropriately have been allowed to be armed, and may even be respected. Who's allowed to go about in an armed gang has a lot to do with social status (even in the "1st World" in the 20th & 21st Centuries, if you have _enough_ status _and_ discretion _and_ behave well, you can carry weapons and have armed bodyguards. But even Vladimir Putin isn't going to get away with directly threatening merchants with violence, and he's far too smart and socially-adept to do that, directly... (and it'd usually be pointless or at least unwise/silly).

Stereotypical fantasy RPG scenarios (as easily found in CRPG's for example) also over-do the world's disrespect for competent warriors. The foundation of medieval social status was martial ability - the nobles who emerged from the Dark Ages were the best warriors and warlords. A skilled warrior decked out in arms and armor is respected, feared, and valuable... at least until he starts behaving like a maniac and/or like he's being run by a modern teenager... But the typical (C)RPG formula is to fairly disrespect them, whilst also having a plot that expects them to save everyone...

Quote from: Elfdart;842835As for "realism", in most cities of the Middle Ages it was common for those with means to not only walk the streets armed, but to have a bunch of armed retainers as well -especially in Italy (see Romeo & Juliet).

Side arms? Of course. A gentlebeing has to defend their honor after all. Plate armor, helm, and halberd...mmm...not so much.

Quote from: Bren;842946Side arms? Of course. A gentlebeing has to defend their honor after all. Plate armor, helm, and halberd...mmm...not so much.

Precisely, armed (with sidearms) is one thing, armoured and carrying heavy weapons is something else entirely.

Restrictions on the wearing of armour in settlements go back to at least the time of Greek colonisation in the 6th century BC, likely before that even.

Back in high school when I GMed Robotech in a New Generation era campaign... my players would never take off their Cyclone armor.  Ever.  Even in a friendly bar where no trouble was expected.  No matter what I did, I couldn't shake them out of their armor, so after a couple of sessions I just gave up and planned around it.

Oh yeah, sidearms are definitely in my games. People are expected to eat with something sharp when sharing a meal. For example knives are quite common, they are utilitarian and often a utensil. Etiquette may restructure their domestic use into something more genteel, but barring rare security locations no one is going to freak out over most everyday sidearms.

But Bren is absolutely right, there is an issue of degree. Halberds and the like are martial items, not everyday items. Unless a recognized authority and given contextual license, it would be more distressing than not to the public to parade around in gear ready for war.

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?

Leather is the heaviest allowed.

A topic of much debate among my players...

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.

Actually, I've never had players walk around with a 'half-dozen' weapons.  They usually just carry one, their main one.  No one carries daggers, or short swords or hand axes, or anything that could be classified as a backup, or side arm, it's always their main weapon and maybe a throwing/ranged.  That's it, that's been it since 2e.

I wish players would carry a half-dozen, then maybe we could have them wandering around without the biggest meanest looking toys they got.

Minor tangent: I'm finishing up my second play-through of Ventica at present and since reading this thread have started having Scarlett (the protagonist) walk around in regular clothes if I know she's not going to be fighting. It makes absolutely no difference mechanically and means I have to go into the menu to equip her armor every time I venture out at night or head into the catacombs, but I find I'm rather liking the minor immersion boost.

I think I'm going to do the same with my character during game night this weekend. Maybe I can make it a thing with the rest of the party, or at least have fun with the discrepancy. "Look, wearing your armor and being scary and off-putting everywhere you go is great for the crazy dwarf with his own personal wurstmeister and the giant blacksmith-turned-apparent-steel-golem, but I'm the one expected to actually talk to people and smooth out the wrinkles in deals so I need to look presentable. Besides which, I have a reputation to uphold."

If I may be permitted to make another slight tangent...

It's much the same with modern games. Some games (very pulpy ones) allow players to have gunfights with minimal interference or repercussions (look at what Dr Jones gets away with on the silver screen). Other games will enforce the fact that the use  - or even carrying - of firearms tends to attract the sort of attention the PCs don't need.

In many D&D games, going armed and armoured 24/7 is the norm, and sort of fits the worldview of the game. In other D&D worlds and other fantasy games, such behaviour just seems silly. If the players stick to the conventions of the game setting, there tends to be no problem.

In one modern day game I ran, a player was always wanting to wear body armour, even when nipping out to the corner shop for a pint of milk. I suspect his PC was armoured and tooled up while watching tv in the evenings.

It depends on context.

If you walk around with a pistol in a shoulder holster in the UK, expect to be shouted at by a lot of armed police pointing guns at you. Do the same in the US and someone might ask for a permit.

If you walk around with a Kalashnikov in the UK, the police would probably shoot you, do the same in some parts of Africa/Middle East and nobody would bat an eyelid.

Walking around in armour/with weapons in a fantasy setting is probably the same.

Quote from: Opaopajr;842998Oh yeah, sidearms are definitely in my games. People are expected to eat with something sharp when sharing a meal. For example knives are quite common, they are utilitarian and often a utensil. Etiquette may restructure their domestic use into something more genteel, but barring rare security locations no one is going to freak out over most everyday sidearms.

But Bren is absolutely right, there is an issue of degree. Halberds and the like are martial items, not everyday items. Unless a recognized authority and given contextual license, it would be more distressing than not to the public to parade around in gear ready for war.

This is one of the issues when trying to put historical context onto a fantasy game.

Quote from: soltakss;843142It depends on context.

If you walk around with a pistol in a shoulder holster in the UK, expect to be shouted at by a lot of armed police pointing guns at you. Do the same in the US and someone might ask for a permit.

If you walk around with a Kalashnikov in the UK, the police would probably shoot you, do the same in some parts of Africa/Middle East and nobody would bat an eyelid.

Walking around in armour/with weapons in a fantasy setting is probably the same.

It is somewhat contextual.

In a country called Trabler, the more outskirt towns still consider it gauche to wear full armor in social situations but weapons are easier.  And at night, no one really bothers unless you are in the center of town.

Flash down to the capital, Igbar, and you'll get laughed at for wearing anything but town armors, and arrested for anything but dress blades or daggers.

I realized that this was a trope in D&D, so I started saying that my character took his armor off. Now I think we usually have armor off when in town.

Quote from: Gruntfuttock;843110It's much the same with modern games. Some games (very pulpy ones) allow players to have gunfights with minimal interference or repercussions (look at what Dr Jones gets away with on the silver screen). Other games will enforce the fact that the use  - or even carrying - of firearms tends to attract the sort of attention the PCs don't need.

Good point.

Quote from: Gruntfuttock;843110In one modern day game I ran, a player was always wanting to wear body armour, even when nipping out to the corner shop for a pint of milk. I suspect his PC was armoured and tooled up while watching tv in the evenings.

Some people just want to play Frank Castle.

Quote from: Sommerjon;843150This is one of the issues when trying to put historical context onto a fantasy game.

It's not an issue at all because it only requires putting fantastical magic into an historical context and extrapolate logical human responses to such.

Hey, I studied magic, obscurantism, and the occult from multiple cultures, in its varied contexts from anthropological lens to its own cultural viewpoint. For many real world human societies magic was explicitly viewed as a natural part of the world and proscribed a framework for dealing with it. That already provides a myriad of solutions to deal with the magic of fantasy.

The problem is nowhere as unresolvable as you suppose.

Quote from: Jame Rowe;843160I realized that this was a trope in D&D, so I started saying that my character took his armor off. Now I think we usually have armor off when in town.

Also my main character would walk around with just shield, which was slung on his back, and sheathed longsword. Of course, he was a noble, so he had the right.

If my Traveller scout goes armed he usually just carries his gauss pistol in an undercover holster, even though he has a noble-granted Imperial level firearm license. Not for being subtle but for less attention.

Quote from: Opaopajr;843235It's not an issue at all because it only requires putting fantastical magic into an historical context and extrapolate logical human responses to such.

That is the problem, you're making it a historical context.

Quote from: Jame Rowe;843160I realized that this was a trope in D&D, so I started saying that my character took his armor off. Now I think we usually have armor off when in town.

I think it also depends what you are playing.  In Game of Thrones (a fantasy TV show on HBO) they have a group called the Kingsguard.  They are often in armor when on duty, even when it's clear that they would prefer not to (see Jamie Lannister in Season one).

In the same sense, modern police officers wear vests on duty all of the time, and I would be surprised if politicians and bodyguards did not do so as well.  It's all context -- if it looks like you should be in armor than maybe this won't be a big deal.  And there is always somebody in the party for whom at least one warrior could be a bodyguard.

Quote from: Jame Rowe;843245If my Traveller scout goes armed he usually just carries his gauss pistol in an undercover holster, even though he has a noble-granted Imperial level firearm license. Not for being subtle but for less attention.

A PC in the Traveller game I run is on loan from the Imperial Army to act as bodyguard for a Baroness, so he can wear combat armor and carry a sniper-rigged laser rifle if combat conditions are to be expected. Since the campaign takes place in the no man's land of Foreven Sector between the Imperial and Zhodani borders, that may come up often.

Quote from: Sommerjon;843269That is the problem, you're making it a historical context.

I honestly think you're trolling again, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Explain what you are trying to say, because I absolutely cannot follow your train of thought. The vast majority of the fantastic we hold as gaming tropes today derives from historically cultural world views.

Quote from: Ddogwood;842690Probably says more about the lethality of the presumed activities the characters will engage in than about the setting per se.

That brings up a relevant point, though - if the DM is regularly putting the PCs into situations where they feel that they need to walk around town wearing armour, maybe the issue isn't with how realistic it is that they would walk around in armour, but how realistic it is that they would feel constantly threatened in town.

On a planet where pillows, curtains, bedsheets, floors, ceilings, rugs, cave features, friends, strangers, the air you breath, may at any moment try to kill you? On a planet where someone can be criminally insane and still find gainful employment making murder tools in a murder factory filled with murder traps made by murder dwarves? On a planet where any given orphanage may randomly attack you?

Quote from: Opaopajr;843310I honestly think you're trolling again, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Explain what you are trying to say, because I absolutely cannot follow your train of thought. The vast majority of the fantastic we hold as gaming tropes today derives from historically cultural world views.

You 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

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

In some cases, probably so.

And if your fantasy is such that you want to fantasize that people wear armor all the time, ok, enjoy.

I don't mind playing in that trope, sometimes.

I also think that yes people expecting trouble who have armor will likely want to, and that could include cities and it could be accepted and common to wear armor in many towns. Yes, especially when the world has a high number of threats and characters have experience with attacks at any time.

When I want a more realistic fantasy, though, I also consider that probably there are many places and contexts where weapons and armor aren't expected, or may even be required to be left outside or surrendered at the door/gate, etc. And practically everyone will sometimes choose not to wear armor and carry weapons, and the exceptions are probably particularly paranoid. Reasons include comfort, fashion, variety, laundry, maintenance, weather, fatigue, speed, convenience, concealment, anonymity, laws, and to avoid intimidation, fear, attention, other unwanted social reactions.

I'd often tend to prefer to play in a fantasy world where unpredictable sudden attacks are rare enough to not feel like weapons and armor need to be ready at all times, and where the reasons I just mentioned are also present and significant. That also feels more realistic (or since it's fantasy and some people tend to think of realism as opposing fantasy, just more believable or sense-making) and interesting to me.

Quote from: Sommerjon;843379I'm playing a fantasy game.

Me 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.

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

Disagree, on a few levels.

Suspension of disbelief depends on things being logical within the framework of the setting.  Historical context matters only when it is driven by things like physics and chemistry and biology.  If you set up setting specific crunch rules why armors don't rust or are uncomfortable or possible to sleep in, sure, it's a fantasy.  Go nuts, you can do this.  And similarly, you can set up setting fluff where it's perfectly fine to wear in town, that's also fine.

But the suspension of disbelief is about things making sense and not jarring a players sense of logic.  Walking corpses are fine if you have consistent rules about necromancy.  Wearing armor around town is fine in games where you are mainly worried about getting back to the dungeon or in games where you've set up fluff and crunch to create congruency.

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.

Precisely!  Thank you for helping make my point.

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.

Ravenswing had this exact same argument (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=842572#post842572) with him four days ago in this thread.

Can we please stop feeding the fucking troll.

I'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.

Clearly 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.

Given that the walking dead are a derived trope from multiple real world cultures, with several even now currently believing in their very real world existence (Serpent and the Rainbow anyone?), it is a ready-made fantastic idea that comes with already extant expectations, limitations, and weaknesses.

Just like expectations, limitations, and weaknesses about armor.

Your argument is weak because it imagines our own world comes with no useable past assumptions, be they mundane or fantastic. In fact, I will go further in saying it is hard to derive the truly alien because so much has already been dreamt up and incorporated into at least one cultural tradition somewhere. Among our various cultures and their schools of ideas, i.e. theosophical, philosophical, various sciences, mathematics, etc., ideas of astral travel, the ethereal, extra-planar, extraterrestrial, and so on have been elaborated at great length and exacting detail, and are still being elaborated on.

Our RPG hobby can barely hold a candle to the level of creativity already in existence by our real world — that's why we mine the ever-living shit out of it for derivatives.

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?

Your counterexamples all involve defying laws of physics; allowing the wearing of armor in town only compromises a non-universal historical standard. The rules say that one of my Fighter's abilities is "wearing armor". If the rules say you have bumble-bounce power and the ability to hire lizardmen chauffeurs, then you get to do that, assuming you meet the requirements (as I have to meet the requirement of having armor that fits my character).

Various 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, but having armor always forbidden in town is like having everywhere outside the dungeon be an anti-magic area. So I have to agree that banning armor by default as the only serious way to RPG is not right.

We have a very creative member on this board who already wrote an rpg about a "very different now" and how our cultural concepts are ever evolving even today. Just two grandmothers ago from me slavery still existed in USA, and Lowell's ideas on the nature of reality was assumed right. Go check out Lowell Was Right! - A Very Different Now, or anything derived from our past accepted mythologies, to note how worlds function with their own perceived realities.

There is nothing static or banal about humanity's everyday ideas. They just expect coherency so as to function well enough to suit immediate needs. Similarly an imaginative hobby pays credence to ideas of coherence about armor and magic, because of the need to relate to the audience quickly and establish functional boundaries.

Quote from: rawma;843482Your counterexamples all involve defying laws of physics

It's satire so I used the most ludicrous examples. Apparently you missed that.

Summerjon 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.

Other 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?

QuoteThe rules say that one of my Fighter's abilities is "wearing armor".

Yes the rules do. But 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.

QuoteTowns reacting in various ways to strangers is part of that, but having armor always forbidden in town is like having everywhere outside the dungeon be an anti-magic area.

No 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.

Antimagic is similar to having a magical defense that strips the armor off the fighter once they pass the town gates. No one is talking about that. Except maybe you.

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?

Yes. Peace bonding of swords and putting spell component bags in a locked and guarded place is typical in my games. And wearing visible armor or offensive spells and obvious enchantment spells is sure to get  a negative social reaction at the least. Hence the reason for things like Bracers and elfin chain and signature spells or covert subtle magic items. And certain feats that grant innate abilities or meta magic abilities.

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.

:D
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.

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.  :D

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!

Quote from: Votan;844053First, 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.  

Even in relatively comfortable lorica hamata (mail), which is basically an armoured tunic, not the full-body suit of a medieval soldier, it's still hot and smelly. Legionaries might labour in armour if they were in hostile country under the expectation of being attacked, but there's no way they'd choose to wear armour if there was no cause to.

Furthermore, if any of those legionaries were natives of the capital and went home, they wouldn't be allowed to wear that armour in the city. The only person allowed within the boundaries of the ancient city walls (the pomerium) was the Master of Horse, a temporary title granted to a senator in emergency.

That ban on armour and weapons in the city is why much of the political violence of the Republic's later years involved bands of thugs and men keeping their clients around them, not soldiers or mercenaries fighting in the streets.

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.

Exactly. Armour is a big deal, you don't wear armour in a settlement unless you've got good reason to. Same as wandering around in body armour in any modern city is going to get the police called out pretty rapidly unless you're already in uniform.

I wasn't aware it was an issue so much as I don't tend to run a lot of fantasy. This thread was very enlightening on a subject I wasn't informed on.

Of course, I think it also depends on your setting as well. Golarion for example, being a high fantasy Dungeons and Dragons setting...well wearing Armor in town probably doesn't cause anyone to bat an eye...

In the Adventure I'm currently running for LtFP "Better than any Man" there are refugee's and an army coming, and sacked cities..so people in villages and towns at the moment, aren't to surprised seeing people wearing armor who might be passing through...

For my more down to earth fantasy games now, however, I think I'll enforce this cultural custom.

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.

Seriously, are you STILL at it?  Woodsmoke may have a point; we're feeding the trolls here.

But let me echo Asen: I would be very interested to hear your "historically accurate" citations of people casually walking around cities in plate armor.  (Or else I would be interested, if you weren't just deliberately trying to bullshit us, and probably hoping that there's not a single medieval historian on this forum.  We do tend to neglect things that just aren't true.)

Kiero also raises a related example with legionnaires, something else most RPGs and tabletop groups either ignore or had no awareness of in the first place: armor is hot, sweaty and uncomfortable for long periods.  Roman officers had the devil's own time getting legionnaires to wear armor on route marches through hostile territory, and often couldn't.  Two millennia later, US infantrymen in Nam weren't much more enthusiastic about wearing helmets, and a lot of troopers stuck with boonie hats.  

Now maybe your personal experience of all this is gaming in an air conditioned living room, balancing dice and Doritos bags on your belly.  Fair enough.  For others of us, our experience comes from the SCA, reenactors and/or combat LARPs.  Never mind wearing armor -- I wasn't enthusiastic about wearing wizard's robes at 90 degree summer events, and cajoled my wife into whipping me up a couple Turkish-style eteks out of light linen to go along with cotton gauze harem pants.  Our LARP would've had dozens more casualties if people wore historically accurate mail, complete with heavy wool quilted gambesons beneath, rather than faux link shirts or sleeveless leather vests for fiat armor.

Anyway, I'm rambling.  Honestly, you were better off sticking mulishly to your original premise: "I don't know shit and I don't care, fantasy means I can do whatever I want."

Quote from: Orphan81;844219I wasn't aware it was an issue so much as I don't tend to run a lot of fantasy.

It isn't an issue.

In games, PC walk around in armour, unless they are not allowed to.

On forums, it is a much bigger issue, blown out of all proportion, as with many issues.

Quote from: Ravenswing;844223Anyway, I'm rambling.  Honestly, you were better off sticking mulishly to your original premise: "I don't know shit and I don't care, fantasy means I can do whatever I want."

Quite. Some people like to play in campaign worlds that actually make some kind of sense, making reference to and drawing upon the real world when appropriate. The fact that it's "fantasy" doesn't mean human behaviour, anatomy, economics or whatever else is entirely upended and our understanding of them is made irrelevant for the most part.

My group applies the same thing to modern campaigns (like our current Werewolf game set in modern Paris). If you do noisy, destructive things, people call the police. My character used to be part of a dodgy government agency, and is on a watch-list. Thus he's careful when he goes out in public to watch for tails, avoid CCTV cameras and so on. That enhances the experience of the game for me, things operate as we'd expect them to in reality.

Quote from: soltakss;844231On forums, it is a much bigger issue, blown out of al proportion, as with many issues.

Oh, de doo dah day.

We have a winner.

If you think people are being strict using real world references about people in armor, you should look about real world references about people casting magic. If you are a stranger looking like you're making V, S, M bippity boppity boo, (i.e. not a recognized 'licensed' part of the social fabric, often the community shaman, priest, magician, or sorcerer,) then "you gon' die!" You got to take extra pains to create setting societies where being armed and casting magic without control is the acceptable norm, particularly about the unintended societal consequences. The default state among humanity is "oh hell no!" and thus the more easily relatable for actual play.

Quote from: Opaopajr;844303If you think people are being strict using real world references about people in armor, you should look about real world references about people casting magic. If you are a stranger looking like you're making V, S, M bippity boppity boo, (i.e. not a recognized 'licensed' part of the social fabric, often the community shaman, priest, magician, or sorcerer,) then "you gon' die!"

I don't see a problem here.

Quote from: AsenRG;844310I don't see a problem here.

Townspeople would not have forgotten this incident>

(http://media.wizards.com/legacy/dnd/images/alumni_20130513_6.jpg)

If Magic Missiles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Magic Missiles.

JG

Quote from: AsenRG;844175Not 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.

Aldea is the Blue Rose setting. Its the Romantic Fantasy genre game,   good system (A True 20 variant)  and tolerable  though "progressive" political setting. I like it much better than I should to be honest.

Quote from: AsenRG;844175(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;)).

I've only worn mail for brief time  so I don't have first hand experience with plate :) I  know that the armor is maneuverable and not awkward, you can even do acrobatics in it  but it takes what two people to don and wearing 60-70 pounds of metal and linen can't be terribly comfortable over the day. Certainly manageable and you can even sleep in it   but it not fun.  People except for peddlers don't wear packs for similar reasons.

Also though highly game specific to my world, most of my game world Midrea is fairly warm,  a mild Mediterranean climate. Doubly nasty.

Quote from: James Gillen;844319If Magic Missiles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Magic Missiles.

JG

You're just afraid the King is going to come into your home and take your wands away! Well you're completely wrong!

No matter what the KWC (Kingdom Wand Collective) says...the new Monarch has made no legislation to outlaw spell attacks for personal defense! What we need is registration for our wizards at all proper academies!

Quote from: Orphan81;844398You're just afraid the King is going to come into your home and take your wands away! Well you're completely wrong!

No matter what the KWC (Kingdom Wand Collective) says...the new Monarch has made no legislation to outlaw spell attacks for personal defense! What we need is registration for our wizards at all proper academies!

I've long thought that any Lawful kingdom/society in D&D would have a method of licensing all users of magic, whether Magic Users, illusionists, Clerics, Druids or whatever. Seriously, having people wandering around being able to cause mass destruction is dangerous and not wanted.

Licensed people would be legally allowed to use their magic, under set conditions. Break those conditions and you could lose your licence. Annoy the rulers and you could lose your licence. Not pay your annual fees and you could lose your licence. Losing your licence means that you cannot cast magic.

The idea of having Wizards study for a CertMgc, DipMgc, BMgc, MMgc,DMgc, or the equivalent -Ill or -Nec has always appealed to me.

Quote from: jeff37923;844313Townspeople would not have forgotten this incident.

Which exemplifies my earlier point about "Sometimes walking around town in full gear is advised."

If being it town can still get you attacked by "random fruitcake wizard" on a spree. Then you are going to have to treat being in town as no different from being in the wilderness.

In AD&D in a city you had a chance of an encounter every 3 turns  with encounters including, Assassins, Bandits, Demons, Devils, Doppelgangers, all the way up to Vampires and Liches. For perspective. That is 2 checks per hour in an AD&D city. (Rounds were 1 minute, Turns 10 minutes.) With a 1 in 20, or 1 in 6 depending on how you read it, chance of an encounter happening. with about a 15-25% chance of something potentially bad encountered in the daytime and 40-50% at night. Luckily most of the monster stuff did not come out till night.

"And you expect us to walk around with no armour or weapons? Yeah riiiiight. Sure we are gov."

Quote from: Ravenswing;844223But let me echo Asen: I would be very interested to hear your "historically accurate" citations of people casually walking around cities in plate armor.  (Or else I would be interested, if you weren't just deliberately trying to bullshit us, and probably hoping that there's not a single medieval historian on this forum.  We do tend to neglect things that just aren't true.)

Nah not this time.
You've given no proof to fit your narrative.  Why do I have to?

Quote from: Omega;844466...In AD&D in a city you had a chance of an encounter every 3 turns  with encounters including, Assassins, Bandits, Demons, Devils, Doppelgangers, all the way up to Vampires and Liches. For perspective. That is 2 checks per hour in an AD&D city. (Rounds were 1 minute, Turns 10 minutes.) With a 1 in 20, or 1 in 6 depending on how you read it, chance of an encounter happening. with about a 15-25% chance of something potentially bad encountered in the daytime and 40-50% at night. Luckily most of the monster stuff did not come out till night. ...

LOL. Is there some missing context that makes this not insane?

Is it only for PC parties? Perhaps the assumption is that PC parties, with their supernatural ability to level up and become supermen, magically attract the forces of darkness to try to destroy them?

If everyone had that chance of hostile encounter, the whole town would be killed off in less than a week. Er, every town using those encounter tables, that is.

I find that it is extremely common for groups to apply modern standards rather than medieval ones to fantasy worlds. It's hard to picture how a town could function without police, but police are a modern development. While there were laws and courts, they often worked quite differently than in modern times. A town watch wasn't necessarily set up by the government, but was rather a group of neighbors who armed themselves to keep their area safe. Today we would call them vigilantes, but then it was being a good citizen.


For those like Ravenswing who say that people would never absolutely wear armor in town, I'm trying to understand what you mean.

Let's say we're in medieval Scotland, and a traveling group of Gaelic warriors have recently driven off a band of Picts. They go into a nearby market town. Are you saying that they would unquestionably take off their armor and carry it in their packs, rather than wear armor into the town?

I don't have any specific references on the point, but that doesn't sound like narratives I read like the historical Icelandic sagas or the Song of Roland. I would picture the warriors as coming into town and mostly doing what they liked - because warriors generally seem rowdy and arrogant. If they caused too much trouble some people would gather a mob to oust them, but especially if they were spending a bunch of money, they might instead be welcomed.

Quote from: jhkim;844493I find that it is extremely common for groups to apply modern standards rather than medieval ones to fantasy worlds. It's hard to picture how a town could function without police, but police are a modern development. While there were laws and courts, they often worked quite differently than in modern times. A town watch wasn't necessarily set up by the government, but was rather a group of neighbors who armed themselves to keep their area safe. Today we would call them vigilantes, but then it was being a good citizen.


For those like Ravenswing who say that people would never absolutely wear armor in town, I'm trying to understand what you mean.

Let's say we're in medieval Scotland, and a traveling group of Gaelic warriors have recently driven off a band of Picts. They go into a nearby market town. Are you saying that they would unquestionably take off their armor and carry it in their packs, rather than wear armor into the town?

I don't have any specific references on the point, but that doesn't sound like narratives I read like the historical Icelandic sagas or the Song of Roland. I would picture the warriors as coming into town and mostly doing what they liked - because warriors generally seem rowdy and arrogant. If they caused too much trouble some people would gather a mob to oust them, but especially if they were spending a bunch of money, they might instead be welcomed.

I am totally fine with people projecting modern stuff back. I've been reading history books for decades and I am still unclear on how law and order was handled in many places. I do find it fascinating though that you had other structures or institutions in place that handled issues we would handle with a modern police force (or that the town watch was often more about keeping the population from rebelling, being attacked by outsiders and putting out fires than enforcing local ordinances). But the world is big and you have places where things approaching a police force kind of exist. Some of the stuff I've been encountering in my research for historical China is surprisingly advanced in that respect (at least by the Song Dynasty). I'm all for a knowledgeable GM exploring these things, because they pretty interesting and can add something to the setting (also lack of a modern police force presents a challenge that happens to work well with may of the conceits of fantasy RPG adventures). But if the GM doesn't have that background or knowledge, I'm okay with Barney Fife keeping tabs on the locals.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844502But if the GM doesn't have that background or knowledge, I'm okay with Barney Fife keeping tabs on the locals.

I agree with this. I've run some historical campaigns, but in fantasy worlds I'm fine if they differ from history. (Indeed, I think it makes sense that they should differ from history given magic, monsters, and so forth.)

The problem is when people saying that certain things are impossible because of realism - when that supposed realism is at odds with real history.

Quote from: jhkim;844506The problem is when people saying that certain things are impossible because of realism - when that supposed realism is at odds with real history.

I agree. I think if you are aiming for historical realism then you ought to do your research but most groups I've encountered want to treat history a bit more lightly (it is a fantasy world, perhaps vaguely inspired by history but with a bunch of other timeless tropes and setting elements thrown in and a dash of Hollywood anachronisms). Most folks, I think, like fantasy because it liberates their imagination, and history can shackle that feeling for some people.

Quote from: Skarg;844490LOL. Is there some missing context that makes this not insane?

Is it only for PC parties? Perhaps the assumption is that PC parties, with their supernatural ability to level up and become supermen, magically attract the forces of darkness to try to destroy them?

If everyone had that chance of hostile encounter, the whole town would be killed off in less than a week. Er, every town using those encounter tables, that is.

I think it assumes that the PCs are "encounter magnets." But keep in mind that if going by the 1 in 20 factor, that is only about 2 encounters per day.

Also you can encounter other adventurers, same as delving into a ruin has a chance of bumping into another party. These encounters are no guarantee hostile every time either. And hopefully are not hostile as these city NPCs could be level 7 and up in some cases!

example: A fighter level 6-12 with 0-3 henchmen. The thief could be level 8-11 with 0-2 apprentices. If alone then is an adventurer just stopping by in the city/town.

quick demo. Rolling up a full day. 48 checks (which would not really be the case as you'd be spending time off the streets in stores, etc where encounters might not happen.)
2 daytime encounters: a Beggar (who did not have any secrets!) and a Gentleman.
3 night-time encounters, 9 Bandits + leader, 8 elven Ruffians (one of which is a level 7 Assassin!), and a level 8 NG half-orc Cleric with 4 lesser clerics.

Quote from: jhkim;844493Let's say we're in medieval Scotland, and a traveling group of Gaelic warriors have recently driven off a band of Picts. They go into a nearby market town. Are you saying that they would unquestionably take off their armor and carry it in their packs, rather than wear armor into the town?

I'd want to know quite a bit more about the setting and time period. Do we even have market towns before the Picts merged with the Gaels in what is now known as Scotland or do what passes for urbanized people live in Dark Age/Early Medieval oppidae rather than what a modern might think of as a town?  Do the these Gaels even wear much in the way of armor? or are they light infantry skirmishers? What are the Vikings doing at this time in proto-Scotland, etc?

The Song of Roland does not, so far as I recall, deal with people other than what are essentially the knights and champions of the Emperor Charlemagne in the field at war shopping or tavern crawling in town is absent from the tale. Iceland is a pretty rural setting and its been a long while since I read any sagas, but I seem to recall a distinction between what people wear traveling from farm to village and what they would wear in a duel, when engaged in ambush or attacking their neighbor's stead, or when going raiding. Even though, I seem to recall some folks being described as not wearing armor.

I figure soldiers (sailors and pirates) in pretty much every period of history get rowdy and arrogant, but their presence and their behavior is often limited to that part of town. And the merchants and entertainers there are good enough at separating warriors from their wealth that it pays to tolerate a bit of boisterousness. As long as the warriors are spending money. The line between soldier and brigand is pretty elastic throughout an awful lot of European history.

Quote from: jhkim;844493For those like Ravenswing who say that people would never absolutely wear armor in town, I'm trying to understand what you mean.

Haven't said anything of the sort.

Of course, if people had a high expectation of trouble -- as opposed to the Dungeon Fantasy standard of "There could be a random encounter any second! -- I expect they'd be kitted up.

If there were riots in the streets, I expect people would be kitted up.

I just object to the premise that Everyone Would Wear Armor All The Time, And Without Any Ill Effects To Boot.

Quote from: 5 Stone Games;844322I've only worn mail for brief time  so I don't have first hand experience with plate :) I  know that the armor is maneuverable and not awkward, you can even do acrobatics in it  but it takes what two people to don and wearing 60-70 pounds of metal and linen can't be terribly comfortable over the day. Certainly manageable and you can even sleep in it   but it not fun.

Unless you get used to it. Modern combat gear can reach as much, and it's on the back, not well-distributed across the whole body.
But even when you get used to it, you'd still rather wear something else:).

Quote from: Omega;844466In AD&D in a city you had a chance of an encounter every 3 turns  with encounters including, Assassins, Bandits, Demons, Devils, Doppelgangers, all the way up to Vampires and Liches. For perspective. That is 2 checks per hour in an AD&D city. (Rounds were 1 minute, Turns 10 minutes.) With a 1 in 20, or 1 in 6 depending on how you read it, chance of an encounter happening. with about a 15-25% chance of something potentially bad encountered in the daytime and 40-50% at night. Luckily most of the monster stuff did not come out till night.

"And you expect us to walk around with no armour or weapons? Yeah riiiiight. Sure we are gov."

So, you get a 2:1 or 3:5 odds of being attacked during a single 6-hour day?
Yeah, that's not a good mechanic. No wonder it leads to distortions.

Quote from: jhkim;844493I find that it is extremely common for groups to apply modern standards rather than medieval ones to fantasy worlds. It's hard to picture how a town could function without police, but police are a modern development. While there were laws and courts, they often worked quite differently than in modern times.

There are sub-cultures that prefer not engaging the authorities even today, and there are places where police still hasn't reached. It's not that hard to find contemporary examples of how it would work, really.

QuoteA town watch wasn't necessarily set up by the government, but was rather a group of neighbors who armed themselves to keep their area safe. Today we would call them vigilantes, but then it was being a good citizen.

Indeed. Which doesn't mean the police, after it was imposed, wasn't seen as an improvement.

QuoteFor those like Ravenswing who say that people would never absolutely wear armor in town, I'm trying to understand what you mean.

Like Bren, I'd ask for more detail. Add to his questions "how big the town is", population-wise, and "how available are modes of transportation out of town";).

QuoteThey go into a nearby market town. Are you saying that they would unquestionably take off their armor and carry it in their packs, rather than wear armor into the town?

They might wear them the first day, when arriving, but after that? Only if they expect trouble, indeed. And it would be a sign to the NPCs as well that they expect trouble.

Remember the old westerns. The hero goes out and behaves sort of normally, but is expecting trouble. A wizened old citizen notices a minor sign and without breaking his concentration, tells the people to get the kids off the streets, because lead is going to fly.
That's the effect of the PCs putting on armour that I'd expect, assuming that they were seen as protectors by the citizens.

QuoteI don't have any specific references on the point, but that doesn't sound like narratives I read like the historical Icelandic sagas or the Song of Roland. I would picture the warriors as coming into town and mostly doing what they liked - because warriors generally seem rowdy and arrogant. If they caused too much trouble some people would gather a mob to oust them, but especially if they were spending a bunch of money, they might instead be welcomed.

I'm struggling to remember a moment when some jarl was ambushed and had his armour on. Mind giving me a reference to the specific saga? I've got a Bulgarian translation sitting on my bookshelf in the other room.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844502I am totally fine with people projecting modern stuff back. I've been reading history books for decades and I am still unclear on how law and order was handled in many places. I do find it fascinating though that you had other structures or institutions in place that handled issues we would handle with a modern police force (or that the town watch was often more about keeping the population from rebelling, being attacked by outsiders and putting out fires than enforcing local ordinances).

I'd simply rely on the recollections of people that had more experience with "justice that doesn't involve the authorities".

QuoteBut the world is big and you have places where things approaching a police force kind of exist. Some of the stuff I've been encountering in my research for historical China is surprisingly advanced in that respect (at least by the Song Dynasty).

And then there is the "there is police, but we don't want it to meddle" situation:D!

QuoteI'm all for a knowledgeable GM exploring these things, because they pretty interesting and can add something to the setting (also lack of a modern police force presents a challenge that happens to work well with may of the conceits of fantasy RPG adventures). But if the GM doesn't have that background or knowledge, I'm okay with Barney Fife keeping tabs on the locals.

Me too, as long as I've been warned it's the case. I'd make a different character otherwise.

Quote from: Ravenswing;844572Haven't said anything of the sort.

Of course, if people had a high expectation of trouble -- as opposed to the Dungeon Fantasy standard of "There could be a random encounter any second! -- I expect they'd be kitted up.

If there were riots in the streets, I expect people would be kitted up.

I just object to the premise that Everyone Would Wear Armor All The Time, And Without Any Ill Effects To Boot.

right.

as before, there are reasons one would wear armor in town.  Border areas, slum areas, or if the system has possible lethal encounters in town set.

Parades, military forts, etc.  sure.

but as I said before, those can be very different from court or a civilized city.

Quote from: LordVreeg;844602right.

as before, there are reasons one would wear armor in town.  Border areas, slum areas, or if the system has possible lethal encounters in town set.

Parades, military forts, etc.  sure.

but as I said before, those can be very different from court or a civilized city.

Right.  If you don't want people to wear plate armor in town, don't make the town so dangerous that you need to wear plate armor.

As far as the AD&D encounter tables in town... "encounter" also includes things like merchants and prostitutes.  Further "context is everything," and you'll have a much different experience in a crowded marketplace on a bright sunny afternoon than if you're out wandering the alleys and byways after midnight.

Just like any city nowadays, imagine!

Quote from: Omega;844519quick demo. Rolling up a full day. 48 checks (which would not really be the case as you'd be spending time off the streets in stores, etc where encounters might not happen.)
2 daytime encounters: a Beggar (who did not have any secrets!) and a Gentleman.
3 night-time encounters, 9 Bandits + leader, 8 elven Ruffians (one of which is a level 7 Assassin!), and a level 8 NG half-orc Cleric with 4 lesser clerics.

EXACTLY!  And seriously, is anybody surprised that city streets can be dangerous at night?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;844605Right.  If you don't want people to wear plate armor in town, don't make the town so dangerous that you need to wear plate armor.

As far as the AD&D encounter tables in town... "encounter" also includes things like merchants and prostitutes.  Further "context is everything," and you'll have a much different experience in a crowded marketplace on a bright sunny afternoon than if you're out wandering the alleys and byways after midnight.

Just like any city nowadays, imagine!

Leave us not forget the AD&D Random Harlot table.


And in a sophisticated city, there are such things as court armor and weapons.  One does not want the reputation of being a border-town bumpkin...

Quote from: AsenRG;844594So, you get a 2:1 or 3:5 odds of being attacked during a single 6-hour day?
Yeah, that's not a good mechanic. No wonder it leads to distortions.

No. Just a fair chance of bumping into "something" during the course of wandering the town or city. They arent all automatically hostile. You encounter bandits during the day and they are just casing some location, or the party out as possible targets. Think of it as those rare things that stand out amidst the general populace.

The tables were there for when the DM had not pre-prepped a town or just wanted some quick inspirations or ideas. Or for solo play.

But based on that table. Wandering towns and cities was not safe. PCs had reason to stay armed and armoured.

BX had a 1 in 6 chance of an encounter in a city, but far fewer hostile ones. And was only checked 3-4 times a day. And even those were not necessarily auto hostile. They might even be friendly.

You need to determine "Armour" and you need to think aboutthe weather a lot more.

I have worn chain mail on LARPs (mail shirt elbow to mid thigh) over a sheepskin jerkin and its toally painless wear it for 48 hours straight sleep in it run , clibm just etc etc ... however a chain hood and coif gets to be a pain in the arse after about 10 minutes.

Likewise a breastplate isn't a big deal  (Until you sit down at a table to eat) but anything round your shoulders or legs becomes very annoying very fast.

A helmet is constantly annoying.

Now living in Singapore the heat is a killer. Wearing a heavy shirt or jeans and doing anything vaguely physical is painful. Armour.... fuck off.

to be honest adventure gear has never been well thought out. When you watch movies , like LotR, where the producers have thought about what you woudl actually wear to adventure in and compare it to what D&D characters wear... No one wears full plate if they ever plan to climb up a cliff or wander into a cave (its not about weight its about the lax of flexibility and squeezing through gaps and stuff.
No one wears metal greaves or a helmet with antler on it...
Adventurers would wear a mail shirt, boots, leather gloves, thick trousers, leather cap , maybe leather bracers on their arms. No one is wearing a cloak, or chain mail bikini, or lots of plate armour.

If you were to extend that realism to what aventurers wore then showing up in town in a mail shirt and your standard kit would be fine.

Quote from: Omega;844614No. Just a fair chance of bumping into "something" during the course of wandering the town or city. They arent all automatically hostile. You encounter bandits during the day and they are just casing some location, or the party out as possible targets. Think of it as those rare things that stand out amidst the general populace.

The tables were there for when the DM had not pre-prepped a town or just wanted some quick inspirations or ideas. Or for solo play.

But based on that table. Wandering towns and cities was not safe. PCs had reason to stay armed and armoured.

BX had a 1 in 6 chance of an encounter in a city, but far fewer hostile ones. And was only checked 3-4 times a day. And even those were not necessarily auto hostile. They might even be friendly.

Well, yes, "attacked" was a wrong turn of speech. What I meant was "2:1 or 3:5 chance of at least one encounter with people that might attack you, depending on the reaction roll and circumstances".
If that seems about right to you, then yes, maybe adventurers in such games should be walking armed:).

Quote from: jibbajibba;844619Adventurers would wear a mail shirt, boots, leather gloves, thick trousers, leather cap , maybe leather bracers on their arms. No one is wearing a cloak, or chain mail bikini, or lots of plate armour.

If you were to extend that realism to what aventurers wore then showing up in town in a mail shirt and your standard kit would be fine.

Cloaks are quite useful to travelers, from what I know.
And the problem with wearing armour to town isn't just about comfort;).

Quote from: AsenRG;844651Cloaks are quite useful to travelers, from what I know.
And the problem with wearing armour to town isn't just about comfort;).

Well you might have a cloak rolled up in your backpack I give you that but you'll not be wearing it and climbing, crawling through a cave, running after a bunch of orcs (or blokes from Bristol in masks).

Comfort is the thing though. An old chain shirt worn over a jerkin isn't threatening at all if you are out shopping or just arrived in town. It might not be suitable for a dinner party or meeting the Prince but it will not attract any undue attention specially when one of your party is a 7 foot tall dragon man carrying a Flamberg....

It'd be even more laughable if you couldn't meet anyone in a city. And it's useful to have a table to impartially answer a  question such as "who passes by as we loiter on a streetcorner?" And yes, if it's the "Late Night in the Bad Parts of Town" table, there should be a chance to meet whatever shady characters hang out there at night, and depending on the world, they may or may not reasonably have any interest in attacking adventurers.

It was the specific example that had me LOL, not everything about it, but the chances of attack and the presence of certain monsters in the city:

Quote from: Omega;844466...
In AD&D in a city you had a chance of an encounter every 3 turns  with encounters including, Assassins, Bandits, Demons, Devils, Doppelgangers, all the way up to Vampires and Liches. For perspective. That is 2 checks per hour in an AD&D city. (Rounds were 1 minute, Turns 10 minutes.) With a 1 in 20, or 1 in 6 depending on how you read it, chance of an encounter happening. with about a 15-25% chance of something potentially bad encountered in the daytime and 40-50% at night. Luckily most of the monster stuff did not come out till night. ...

Who are the people in your neighborhood, in your neighborhood, in your neigh-bor-hood? Oh, a vampire is a person in my neighborhood... they're the assassins that you meet, when you're walking down the street...

It can be fun to play in a world where there are monsters everywhere, but it's also surreal, and can be nearly impossible to try to actually have make sense overall. One doesn't need to have to try to have it make sense, if everyone agrees the fun of frequent weird monsters outweighs the desire (if any) to have things make sense. Or one can use the "PCs are a weirdness focus" concept, which I like to have explicitly called out in my attempts to make sense of things, personally.

That is, especially as GM, but also as player, I like to know whether meeting monsters every day is something that's happening to me because I'm special, or whether everyone in town meets monsters on a regular basis.

Of course, this level of weirdness encounter exists in some fiction too. Such as Doctor Who, Supernatural, Penny Dreadful, Murder She Wrote...

As a DM and player I was happy to see the DMG had rules for hostile environments such as hot and cold climates and placing restrictions on armour, (and heavy clothing,) worn then. Disadvantage on those ever increasing CON saves can well do you in eventually.

Oh, hell, even outdoors my Encounters chart is set into "Animal, Event and Actual Encounter'
(Here's a recent one, the Northtag Fields (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/83048656/Notes%20on%20setting%20up%20encounters%20in%20the%20NorthTag%20Fields))

In town, they are set up the same way, but the listing includes so, so many other non-encounters, and many more political ones/guild specific ones.  It is more what they see and might choose to interact with than people coming to interact with them.

Going into a new major city, there is a pretty small chance for my PCs to run into a real threatening encounter.  It is only after they have made enemies that things get ugly.

Which always seems to happen.

Quote from: LordVreeg;844695Oh, hell, even outdoors my Encounters chart is set into "Animal, Event and Actual Encounter'
(Here's a recent one, the Northtag Fields (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/83048656/Notes%20on%20setting%20up%20encounters%20in%20the%20NorthTag%20Fields))

In town, they are set up the same way, but the listing includes so, so many other non-encounters, and many more political ones/guild specific ones.  It is more what they see and might choose to interact with than people coming to interact with them.

Going into a new major city, there is a pretty small chance for my PCs to run into a real threatening encounter.  It is only after they have made enemies that things get ugly.

Which always seems to happen.

That is a nice encounter chart structure.

Quote from: Skarg;844689It was the specific example that had me LOL, not everything about it, but the chances of attack and the presence of certain monsters in the city:

It can be fun to play in a world where there are monsters everywhere, but it's also surreal, and can be nearly impossible to try to actually have make sense overall. One doesn't need to have to try to have it make sense, if everyone agrees the fun of frequent weird monsters outweighs the desire (if any) to have things make sense. Or one can use the "PCs are a weirdness focus" concept, which I like to have explicitly called out in my attempts to make sense of things, personally.

That is, especially as GM, but also as player, I like to know whether meeting monsters every day is something that's happening to me because I'm special, or whether everyone in town meets monsters on a regular basis.

1: To be fair. Aside from bandits and the like, the chances of monsters is only 1% each. (aside from Wererats and Werewolves who have a 3% and 2% chance respectively. and only at night.)

2: The rules specifically say "don't put it there if it does not make sense for it to be there somehow." If I roll up a lich while the PCs are in the tavern having a meal then its up to me to either say "WTF???" and re-roll, or to puzzle out why the lich is there. I can just make stuff up on the fly, or make some NPC rolls to get some ideas. Or in my example, the assassin hiding amongst the party of frat boy elves. I can say, "That makes no sense." and revert him back to a regular carouser. Or I can puzzle out why hes there in the group. Is he after one of the PCs? Or is he about to kill one of the rowdy elves during the ensuing brawl and pin the blame on the PCs. etc.
BX though was so much weirder. You could have cities with friendly spectres roaming the streets, or gnolls out carousing, or get your kneecaps assaulted by irate gnomes.

3: In AD&D and BX the impression I get is that this stuff happens more to the PCs. For whatever reasons they are encounter magnets. But is happening to other people as well to a lesser degree, especially if they are adventurers. But as the rules say. It was expected that the DM would have a town or city fleshed out beforehand and their own possible encounter tables, or say nothing at all happens ever.

Quote from: AsenRG;844594Remember the old westerns. The hero goes out and behaves sort of normally, but is expecting trouble. A wizened old citizen notices a minor sign and without breaking his concentration, tells the people to get the kids off the streets, because lead is going to fly.
That's the effect of the PCs putting on armour that I'd expect, assuming that they were seen as protectors by the citizens.

That's a good analogy.

QuoteI'm struggling to remember a moment when some jarl was ambushed and had his armour on. Mind giving me a reference to the specific saga? I've got a Bulgarian translation sitting on my bookshelf in the other room.

Honestly I can't recall whether they were ever wearing armor when ambushed, but I assumed the ambushers wore armor some of the time. (Though probably not in an opportunistic ambush where you are out and about, your enemy is out and about, and you realize - "Hey there are more of us than there are of Skallagrim. Let's ambush the bastard." I'm pretty sure the attackers wore armor when they surrounded a guy's house and set it on fire though.

Quote from: Skarg;844689Of course, this level of weirdness encounter exists in some fiction too. Such as Doctor Who, Supernatural, Penny Dreadful, Murder She Wrote...

I'm still shocked that the authorities never figured out that Jessica Fletcher was a serial killer. Surely that is the simplest explanation for her proximity over the years to so many murders. Kindly old mystery writer my ass!

Quote from: LordVreeg;844695Oh, hell, even outdoors my Encounters chart is set into "Animal, Event and Actual Encounter'
(Here's a recent one, the Northtag Fields (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/83048656/Notes%20on%20setting%20up%20encounters%20in%20the%20NorthTag%20Fields))

That is nice. I like the way you have included a varety of encounters including some that would qualify as tracks or evidence of other encounters, e.g. “Strange note” and “Bodies of large animal”

Quote from: Omega;844614No. Just a fair chance of bumping into "something" during the course of wandering the town or city. They arent all automatically hostile. You encounter bandits during the day and they are just casing some location, or the party out as possible targets. Think of it as those rare things that stand out amidst the general populace.

That's not a "fair" chance.  Skarg had it right: it's a surreal chance.  Your average party, following that logic, runs into more unusual encounters in a week's time in a small city than I've had in over half a century of living in one of the most heavily populated metropolitan areas in the history of the world.

That being said, if you're going to adopt the AD&D boardgame approach, and that you ought to expect X number of encounters a day because the rules say you have to make a check every half-hour, well ... that's your privilege to play the game you want how you want.

But with that in mind, why bring it up at all in this discussion?  If you're set on playing an unrealistic game, why make armor the exception?  Hell, you can just declare that all PCs can carry up to 500 lbs of gear each, anywhere they feel like going, and have one-second-access to any of those items they want whenever they want, and that's the rule.  What's to stop you?

A major metropolitan area in a 1st world country with a strong police force?  That's comparable, maybe to the good parts of town of a nation's shining capital.  Try doing the same in a city in a "third world" country.  Where local "militia groups" run rampant, there's a not-inconsiderable chance of finding a terrorist, and the idea of "law and order" are a sad joke.  The chances of you going a year without incident are fairly low.  Add in the PCs are both obvious outsiders and probably flashing money around and, well... yeah.  They're likely to get attacked.

I think any sensible DM would rule that PCs who take the time to learn local conventions, dress, etc., who don't flash gold around, who blend in, and who look like slightly desperate mercenaries rather than flush-with-coin adventurers get reduced chance.

But often PCs roll in and start hiring people and such.  Flashing that much coin around, no one thinks "it'd be easier to take out a few mugs for that coin?"

Quote from: Ravenswing;844721That's not a "fair" chance.  Skarg had it right: it's a surreal chance.  Your average party, following that logic, runs into more unusual encounters in a week's time in a small city than I've had in over half a century of living in one of the most heavily populated metropolitan areas in the history of the world.

Which goes to show that you live in a world that doesn't have wererats, kobolds, and liches.

Historically, many places have had death rates that are hundreds of times higher than a modern-day first-world city, and the cities as a whole survived. The people were not that comfortable - and they would appreciate what help they could get - but those that survived could get by.

They tend to have a different outlook, though, than modern-day first-world citizens.

Quote from: GreyICE;844725A major metropolitan area in a 1st world country with a strong police force?  That's comparable, maybe to the good parts of town of a nation's shining capital.  Try doing the same in a city in a "third world" country.  Where local "militia groups" run rampant, there's a not-inconsiderable chance of finding a terrorist, and the idea of "law and order" are a sad joke.  The chances of you going a year without incident are fairly low.  Add in the PCs are both obvious outsiders and probably flashing money around and, well... yeah.  They're likely to get attacked.

I think any sensible DM would rule that PCs who take the time to learn local conventions, dress, etc., who don't flash gold around, who blend in, and who look like slightly desperate mercenaries rather than flush-with-coin adventurers get reduced chance.

But often PCs roll in and start hiring people and such.  Flashing that much coin around, no one thinks "it'd be easier to take out a few mugs for that coin?"

Right, the chance of going a year....Not a couple of times a day.  That is maybe a 700 to one conversion.  I get the point, and if you play a game where it can happen even close to that regularly, maybe you tank up to go to the next neighborhood for a beer.

This 'issue' is primarily a D&D problem, simply because of armour being the player's dodge mechanic, and that DMs have been using encounter charts and have turn basic town encounters into full on Dungeons.

In other fantasy games, I've played, like Dragon Warrior or MRQ, that's not been that big an issue.

Quote from: Ravenswing;844721That's not a "fair" chance.  Skarg had it right: it's a surreal chance.

Its the same chance as wandering a dungeon. 1 in 20. Its just not helped by the fact I'm rolling an inordinate number of 20s.

On a second go through of a full 24 hours, 48 checks I got not a single encounter.

Then it happened again when doing a twelve hour test. 4 encounters. Giant rats, a merchant, some bandits we never knew was, and some laborers. That is from being out and about in town twelve hours which also may not be very realistic a time to be actually on the streets. But some of those could have happened in taverns or shops. Could definitely see the bandit encounter in a shop they are casing out.

As for board games and the rest. Um, what are you hallucinating? :confused:

Quote from: Skarg;844490LOL. Is there some missing context that makes this not insane?

Is it only for PC parties? Perhaps the assumption is that PC parties, with their supernatural ability to level up and become supermen, magically attract the forces of darkness to try to destroy them?

If everyone had that chance of hostile encounter, the whole town would be killed off in less than a week. Er, every town using those encounter tables, that is.

In the AD&D Players Handbook, Gygax flat-out said that the gold piece standard reflected a "California Gold Rush" economy in which merchants could afford to charge at a certain level because they were dealing with professional treasure hunters, who were stocking up in a town that was catering to them.  Similar principle here.

JG

Quote from: GreyICE;844725A major metropolitan area in a 1st world country with a strong police force?  That's comparable, maybe to the good parts of town of a nation's shining capital.  Try doing the same in a city in a "third world" country.  Where local "militia groups" run rampant, there's a not-inconsiderable chance of finding a terrorist, and the idea of "law and order" are a sad joke.  The chances of you going a year without incident are fairly low.  Add in the PCs are both obvious outsiders and probably flashing money around and, well... yeah.  They're likely to get attacked.

Also keep in mind that the concept of a metropolitan police force is a Victorian-era invention.

JG

The random encounter tables were examples, not holy writ. They were meant to be adjusted according to setting. Given that young men and boys have not changed all that much in the intervening decades, and if action movies are any indication having been perennial favorites regardless their coherency, I am going to surmise it was the author's nod to the assumed audience.

Adventurous derring-do always potentially on the table to keep the players' attention, some far greater than party survivability. Lower % chance, but still possible, so don't take the place for granted. I get the logic behind the example. And they still also said it's your game and adjust accordingly.

Quote from: Opaopajr;844791The random encounter tables were examples, not holy writ. They were meant to be adjusted according to setting. Given that young men and boys have not changed all that much in the intervening decades, and if action movies are any indication having been perennial favorites regardless their coherency, I am going to surmise it was the author's nod to the assumed audience.

Adventurous derring-do always potentially on the table to keep the players' attention, some far greater than party survivability. Lower % chance, but still possible, so don't take the place for granted. I get the logic behind the example. And they still also said it's your game and adjust accordingly.

What, you mean have a sense of proportion?  That's just crazy talk!

Quote from: Skarg;844689It can be fun to play in a world where there are monsters everywhere, but it's also surreal, and can be nearly impossible to try to actually have make sense overall. One doesn't need to have to try to have it make sense, if everyone agrees the fun of frequent weird monsters outweighs the desire (if any) to have things make sense. Or one can use the "PCs are a weirdness focus" concept, which I like to have explicitly called out in my attempts to make sense of things, personally.

Or maybe it's Ankh-Morpork, where Mr. Ixolite the shy banshee slips a card under the door that says "Oooooeeeeooooeeeeoeooo".

Quote from: jhkim;844730Which goes to show that you live in a world that doesn't have wererats, kobolds, and liches.

It certainly goes to show that I don't live in a world where they're jumping out to kill every resident every couple of hours.

And no fantasy city could survive under such an onslaught either.

As far as death rates go ... give me a break.  You're a smart guy.  You can't possibly expect me or anyone else to believe you're not aware why low-tech urban life expectancies were so low, and it had damn all to do with violence.  Show me an "urban encounter" table dominated by "You drink some bad well water and get cholera," "There are strange swellings under your armpits" and "You're down half your Fatigue because the vermin swarming over your pallet kept you awake most of the night," and I'll buy that.

Quote from: Ravenswing;844841It certainly goes to show that I don't live in a world where they're jumping out to kill every resident every couple of hours.

And no fantasy city could survive under such an onslaught either.

As far as death rates go ... give me a break.  You're a smart guy.  You can't possibly expect me or anyone else to believe you're not aware why low-tech urban life expectancies were so low, and it had damn all to do with violence.  Show me an "urban encounter" table dominated by "You drink some bad well water and get cholera," "There are strange swellings under your armpits" and "You're down half your Fatigue because the vermin swarming over your pallet kept you awake most of the night," and I'll buy that.

I didn't claim that high historical death rate was due to wererat attacks. I agree - they are mostly due to infectious disease, infant mortality, malnutrition, and the like.

And I'd agree that encounter tables (like from the 1st ed DMG) are written more for creating exciting adventures than for sensible world.

However, communities have lived with extremely high death rates compared to modern times - and whether killed by wererats or plague, dead is dead. So there is some justification for suspension of disbelief. Cities could be often like the stereotype of Transylvania - people living in fear, coming home and locking up at night.

Quote from: jhkim;844852I didn't claim that high historical death rate was due to wererat attacks.

I really wish you had, because that would be an interesting conversation to watch unfold.

QuoteAnd I'd agree that encounter tables (like from the 1st ed DMG) are written more for creating exciting adventures than for sensible world.

For me, I use encounter tables for a few basic reasons. The first is excitement. Obviously the players get a bit more action than most of the general populace probably does. I am fine with this, as it is a generally more interesting than if had lives like ordinary inhabitance of the setting, which probably involve few significant encounters a year. The second reason is to give the setting a sense of realness and consistency. Again the players do see more action than most folks,  but even within that I still want the world to feel vaguely plausible and like things are not just happening because the GM wants them to. So it is important to me that encounter tables reflect setting and create a rhythm of interactions that feels right from the players point of view. The third reason is they get me to think outside my comfort zone on the fly. If I am picking encounters all the time, I will gravitate toward the same kind of threats and interactions I'm most comfortable running. Encounter Tables force me to think about monsters, NPCs and situations I might not otherwise feel like addressing in the middle of a session.

Quote from: jhkim;844852I didn't claim that high historical death rate was due to wererat attacks. I agree - they are mostly due to infectious disease, infant mortality, malnutrition, and the like.

And I'd agree that encounter tables (like from the 1st ed DMG) are written more for creating exciting adventures than for sensible world.

However, communities have lived with extremely high death rates compared to modern times - and whether killed by wererats or plague, dead is dead. So there is some justification for suspension of disbelief. Cities could be often like the stereotype of Transylvania - people living in fear, coming home and locking up at night.

Yes it is very odd that monsters could be so common in a small city.

"You encounter a group of 3 were-rats..."

Hold on if we say there are these three Wererats. Each night they rove abroad and kill a guy.
This is a medieval city with say ... 5,000 inhabitants. If these rats kill 1 person a day that is an anual death rate of c 7.5 % of the population. But as they are lycanthropes it's possible that they might also injure some folks who become were-rats, lets take a stab at a 10% injury rate. Just on those numbers we are adding say 3 new were rats in month 2.

On a expontential growth curve 3 were-rats would become 6 become 12, become 24, become 48, become 96, become 192 .. so after 6 months there may well be close to 200 were rats and they need to kill 2000 people a month ....

So what natural predation controls the were rats? given a close system the were rats will become so dominant that after about 3 months all the people would flee or hire adventurers (possibly armed with magical pipes) to come and sort out the weere rat issue.

This assumes that the only monsters in town are 3 were-rats.

Quote from: Bren;844720That's a good analogy.

Honestly I can't recall whether they were ever wearing armor when ambushed, but I assumed the ambushers wore armor some of the time. (Though probably not in an opportunistic ambush where you are out and about, your enemy is out and about, and you realize - "Hey there are more of us than there are of Skallagrim. Let's ambush the bastard." I'm pretty sure the attackers wore armor when they surrounded a guy's house and set it on fire though.

This was my impression, but I'm happily waiting.
And of course, I said "when you expect trouble". You're obviously expecting trouble if you're planning to be the trouble:)!

QuoteI'm still shocked that the authorities never figured out that Jessica Fletcher was a serial killer. Surely that is the simplest explanation for her proximity over the years to so many murders. Kindly old mystery writer my ass!

Yes, it undermines what trust I had in the authorities, as well...;)

QuoteThat is nice. I like the way you have included a varety of encounters including some that would qualify as tracks or evidence of other encounters, e.g. "Strange note" and "Bodies of large animal"

Seconded, the table is nice!

Quote from: jhkim;844730Which goes to show that you live in a world that doesn't have wererats, kobolds, and liches.

Historically, many places have had death rates that are hundreds of times higher than a modern-day first-world city, and the cities as a whole survived. The people were not that comfortable - and they would appreciate what help they could get - but those that survived could get by.

They tend to have a different outlook, though, than modern-day first-world citizens.

Well, it depends. Murder rates, for example, vary just wildly among societies with low level of technology (from 0,3% of the men among !Kung to well in the double digits among such tribes as Jivaros, (http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/02/steven-pinker-on-deaths-by-violence-in.html) Yanomami and their like).
So the question is, what kind of place are you picturing? In some places, classical PC paranoia is almost justified. In others, not so much.

Quote from: jhkim;844852And I'd agree that encounter tables (like from the 1st ed DMG) are written more for creating exciting adventures than for sensible world.

And that was the point. If you apply those rules, however, the sensible reaction to an world that's not trying to make sense, can seem weird.

QuoteHowever, communities have lived with extremely high death rates compared to modern times - and whether killed by wererats or plague, dead is dead. So there is some justification for suspension of disbelief.

What? How are you getting from "many people died from the plague last year" to "I need to wear armour" in order not to die like them?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844867I really wish you had, because that would be an interesting conversation to watch unfold.



For me, I use encounter tables for a few basic reasons. The first is excitement. Obviously the players get a bit more action than most of the general populace probably does. I am fine with this, as it is a generally more interesting than if had lives like ordinary inhabitance of the setting, which probably involve few significant encounters a year. The second reason is to give the setting a sense of realness and consistency. Again the players do see more action than most folks,  but even within that I still want the world to feel vaguely plausible and like things are not just happening because the GM wants them to. So it is important to me that encounter tables reflect setting and create a rhythm of interactions that feels right from the players point of view. The third reason is they get me to think outside my comfort zone on the fly. If I am picking encounters all the time, I will gravitate toward the same kind of threats and interactions I'm most comfortable running. Encounter Tables force me to think about monsters, NPCs and situations I might not otherwise feel like addressing in the middle of a session.

Hold on you use a tough random city encounter table to add excitement.
You care about internal consistency,
You don't trust yourself to pick consistent interesting encounters so you deliberately use a random table - one I assume you wrote yourself for yout city...

In short. You want more excitement than you would realisitcally get but you want ralism and you don't trust yourself to choose but you do trust yourself to roll on a table you wrote ?

It it just me or are we seeing some internal consisty here.

If cities are plausible they are relatively monster free and safe.
Where monsters do exist they must be controlled by a governing mechanic be that location, haunting, organisational, contolled by the were rat guild, or whatever. Monsters still need to eat so undead haunting an old temple that no one goes near - logical. Spectres wandering the streets ... unlikely or the city won't last long.
If you are generating random encounters from a table then you may as well just pick the encounter based on the rest of the world in motion. More internally logical and should hook into major NPC activities.

Quote from: jibbajibba;844874Hold on you use a tough random city encounter table to add excitement.
You care about internal consistency,
You don't trust yourself to pick consistent interesting encounters so you deliberately use a random table - one I assume you wrote yourself for yout city...

In short. You want more excitement than you would realisitcally get but you want ralism and you don't trust yourself to choose but you do trust yourself to roll on a table you wrote ?

.

That possibly the least charitable interpretation of what I said. I was speaking generally about random tables. I never said it had to be realistic or a simulation or reality, just that I wanted the feel of realness. You can have "vaguely plausible" and exciting. Random Tables are tool like anything else. It isn't about not trusting my own judgment, I will simply decide something occurs when that feels appropriate. But I like random tables because they keep me on my toes as a GM and I like being surprised from time to time. What the table does is it forces me to use a monster or encounter I might avoid in the course of a regular game. I like that. Makes the game more fun for me.

Regarding cities. It definitely depends the campaign and setting. In my current campaign, except for certain times of year, most city encounter tables are pretty mundane (guards, crime, etc). But I have no issue with there being monsters on the table if that adds to the game and is vaguely plausible. Again, my concern isn't realism, it is more about whether issues stick out like a sore thumb or not. I am not too worried about questions of whether it is realistic for players to be encounter monsters in a city unless the players themselves are bothered by it.

I get that you have your way of doing things and that's what works for you. That is fine. But I think we run very different games and have very different attitudes about what is enjoyable. For me random encounters add a lot to my enjoyment as a GM. They also seem to create more entertainment for my players. I do throw in on the fly encounters too, when they feel right. But I've noticed over the years that if I pick every encounter, they start to take on a certain shape and pattern. The randomness jogs my creativity a bit by forcing me to use things or situations I otherwise might be inclined to ignore. Yes, I make the tables, so they are still a product of my preferences and tastes, but it is easier for me to break free from patterns if I am plodding out charts in advance.

Quote from: Ravenswing;844841It certainly goes to show that I don't live in a world where they're jumping out to kill every resident every couple of hours.

And no fantasy city could survive under such an onslaught either.

As far as death rates go ... give me a break.  You're a smart guy.  You can't possibly expect me or anyone else to believe you're not aware why low-tech urban life expectancies were so low, and it had damn all to do with violence.  Show me an "urban encounter" table dominated by "You drink some bad well water and get cholera," "There are strange swellings under your armpits" and "You're down half your Fatigue because the vermin swarming over your pallet kept you awake most of the night," and I'll buy that.

Sounds like a fun game.

Not.

Though those things are actually in the 'event' side of my in town encounter charts, but then we get to have the whole , "Frequency distribution of magical healing vs disease probability in fantasy world" conversation.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844885That possibly the least charitable interpretation of what I said. I was speaking generally about random tables. I never said it had to be realistic or a simulation or reality, just that I wanted the feel of realness. You can have "vaguely plausible" and exciting. Random Tables are tool like anything else. It isn't about not trusting my own judgment, I will simply decide something occurs when that feels appropriate. But I like random tables because they keep me on my toes as a GM and I like being surprised from time to time. What the table does is it forces me to use a monster or encounter I might avoid in the course of a regular game. I like that. Makes the game more fun for me.

Regarding cities. It definitely depends the campaign and setting. In my current campaign, except for certain times of year, most city encounter tables are pretty mundane (guards, crime, etc). But I have no issue with there being monsters on the table if that adds to the game and is vaguely plausible. Again, my concern isn't realism, it is more about whether issues stick out like a sore thumb or not. I am not too worried about questions of whether it is realistic for players to be encounter monsters in a city unless the players themselves are bothered by it.

I get that you have your way of doing things and that's what works for you. That is fine. But I think we run very different games and have very different attitudes about what is enjoyable. For me random encounters add a lot to my enjoyment as a GM. They also seem to create more entertainment for my players. I do throw in on the fly encounters too, when they feel right. But I've noticed over the years that if I pick every encounter, they start to take on a certain shape and pattern. The randomness jogs my creativity a bit by forcing me to use things or situations I otherwise might be inclined to ignore. Yes, I make the tables, so they are still a product of my preferences and tastes, but it is easier for me to break free from patterns if I am plodding out charts in advance.

Some games are better played with the PCs being magnets for trouble. There is nothing wrong with stating that the random encounter table for PCs is nothing like what normal inhabitants would deal with.  Since they are PCs.
The Wererat example from earlier is a good example.  If PCs run into them, they could be part of a secret assassin guild, and tries to remain unnoticed, or traveling through town, and just happens to hit the PCs.

My in town stuff actually includes encounters with "guild connection from enemy group"..."Someone from group with enemy in common"  etc, which allows me to mix in group history with a random element.

But depending on where the PCs are, I keep my encounters 90% social/event in town, very little chance of something crazy.  But that is me, your mileage may vary.

Quote from: LordVreeg;844895Some games are better played with the PCs being magnets for trouble. There is nothing wrong with stating that the random encounter table for PCs is nothing like what normal inhabitants would deal with.  Since they are PCs.

And this is an area where I probably fluctuate a bit depending on the group and the game we're interested in playing. I don't run every campaign the same way. Sometimes I give more primacy to realism or to grit. Other times I want to inject a little more drama or excitement into the mix. I could see myself going either way on the were rats depending on whether I was playing something like Ravenloft versus a more realistic and political setting.

Quote from: Bren;844720...
I'm still shocked that the authorities never figured out that Jessica Fletcher was a serial killer. Surely that is the simplest explanation for her proximity over the years to so many murders. Kindly old mystery writer my ass!...

You too? I've been saying that for decades! Having since learned more about what government agencies get up to, my guess is she's a CIA assassin (q.v. urban encounter table ;-) ).

Quote from: LordVreeg;844891Sounds like a fun game.

Not.

Sounds like those whispered rumors of what Warhammer Fantasy RPG is like in actual play. :p

Quote from: Ravenswing;844721Hell, you can just declare that all PCs can carry up to 500 lbs of gear each, anywhere they feel like going, and have one-second-access to any of those items they want whenever they want, and that's the rule.  What's to stop you?

Indeed that sounds exactly like the fantasy of some players.

Quote from: jhkim;844852However, communities have lived with extremely high death rates compared to modern times...

In a number of historical periods the net population growth rate for city dwellers was negative, sometimes significantly negative. The deficit was made up of immigrants from the rural countryside.

Despite all that, a strict adherence to D&D encounter tables is pants on head silly. It's a good thing there is a DM/GM involved to adjust frequency to taste and for setting consistency.

Quote from: jibbajibba;844872So what natural predation controls the were rats?

Weretigers.

Quote from: jibbajibba;844874It it just me or are we seeing some internal consisty here.

Probably just you...or in other words, what Brendan said made a lot of sense to me.

Quote from: jibbajibba;844872Yes it is very odd that monsters could be so common in a small city.

"You encounter a group of 3 were-rats..."

Hold on if we say there are these three Wererats. Each night they rove abroad and kill a guy.

This is a medieval city with say ... 5,000 inhabitants. If these rats kill 1 person a day that is an anual death rate of c 7.5 % of the population. But as they are lycanthropes it's possible that they might also injure some folks who become were-rats, lets take a stab at a 10% injury rate. Just on those numbers we are adding say 3 new were rats in month 2.

So what natural predation controls the were rats? given a close system the were rats will become so dominant that after about 3 months all the people would flee or hire adventurers (possibly armed with magical pipes) to come and sort out the weere rat issue.

This assumes that the only monsters in town are 3 were-rats.

1: Keep in mind it specifically tells the DM to disregard a roll if it makes no sense.

2: In they daytime they are just going about their thing. At night they might be in human form and even in ratman form they use swords. Which means they arent as likely to infect someone. Least in AD&D. A lycanthrope had to actually bite someone for 50% of their total HP to infect. And the AD&D wererats were more likely to take hostages and ransom.

3: In AD&D a town has a population of 1500-6500, and a city has 10-60k. Those are the only two locales youd use the tables for it seems. None of this weirdness in a village or smaller. See above for why the wererat population isnt likely to grow much. They seem more like a thieves guild with some peculiarities. DMG entry for the town/city encounter for a Wererat mentions Swords of Lankhmar even. And they might not necessarily be hostile even.

4: Assuming that they are operating like a thieves guild and just extorting money then people might put up with them to some degree. And these are towns where they are likely to run into level 7+ classed NPCs on the same streets, and the city guard rates captains level 1-5, and they always have with them a level 1-4 magic user. And wererats are only 3HD monsters.

Which shows that some thought was put into all this crazyness.

X: There is actually a BX/BECMI module in Dungeon about exactly this sort of problem you point out.
The PCs are passing through a town just as a were-rat takeover is about to go into full swing. Nicely done module too as it is not apparent until late in exactly what the real threat is. There is also the expansion book for BX/BECMI D&D which features a kingdom that is run by werewolves who are working in a very orderly and self policing manner with the goal towards eventually going public as a stable non-hostile community. Also very well done.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;844904Sounds like those whispered rumors of what Warhammer Fantasy RPG is like in actual play. :p

Whispered?  Around here, they brag about it.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;844904Sounds like those whispered rumors of what Warhammer Fantasy RPG is like in actual play. :p

A good WFRP game strikes a fine balance between the Crapsack World caricature of Medieval Europe and epic Chaos/Ork/Skaven/etc.-punching.

Quote from: The Butcher;844935A good WFRP game strikes a fine balance between the Crapsack World caricature of Medieval Europe and epic Chaos/Ork/Skaven/etc.-punching.

And going solely by local players and the Internuts, no one has apparently had a Good WFRP game session.  And that's how they like it!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;844941And going solely by local players and the Internuts, no one has apparently had a Good WFRP game session.  And that's how they like it!

Things tend to get distorted beyond their original meaning over the Internet. Every D&D game is about killing monsters and taking their stuff. Every CoC game ends with the PCs dying, going mad and failing miserably. Every V:tM game is a round-robin session of angst-ridden soliloquies. And so on.

Actually reading and playing the games tends to dispel the bullshit rather quickly. I have plenty of stories to share, but suffice to say we've never lost a PC to disease in my WFRP (admittedly, 2e) games. Not even the Skaven-bitten ones.

In fact, if you play strictly RAW, you're more likely to catch a nasty disease in AD&D 1e than in WFRP.

I played an entire multi-story-arc campaign of WFRP2e without any of the crapsack. Sure, the Border Princes weren't a nice place, but it wasn't grimdark schlock by any means.

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?

Yes.

The whole purpose in having a few assumptions about "realism" in a fantasy game is to give participants a common frame of reference. A huge oak chest bound with iron straps and filled with thousands of gold coins should be harder to pick up and carry than a goose down pillow. A fighting man wearing heavy armor should be weighed down more than a comparable fighting man wearing no armor at all. There are countless other examples we can add if we so choose.

HOWEVER, these notions of in-game "realism" are NOT meant to give gamer "experts" or clubhouse lawyers or just all-around assholes an excuse to bog down the game with their horseshit pedantry. Especially not when 99 times out of a hundred (and I'm being VERY generous here) their expertise is worthless because simply put, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

These notions of "realism" are also not meant to give DMs or players a blank check to give their own tastes and biases the veneer of extra credibility because of "realism". I know of no rule in any of the versions of D&D that expressly forbids bearing arms and armor in town. Now what a DM likes for his campaign is up to him -but it's purely a matter of what he likes or dislikes, so quit bullshitting about "realism".

QuoteYou 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.

Because all of these things are the equivalent of PCs bearing arms and wearing armor in a city. Gotcha.

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

Straw man much?

Quote from: jhkim;844852I didn't claim that high historical death rate was due to wererat attacks. I agree - they are mostly due to infectious disease, infant mortality, malnutrition, and the like.

And I'd agree that encounter tables (like from the 1st ed DMG) are written more for creating exciting adventures than for sensible world.

However, communities have lived with extremely high death rates compared to modern times - and whether killed by wererats or plague, dead is dead. So there is some justification for suspension of disbelief. Cities could be often like the stereotype of Transylvania - people living in fear, coming home and locking up at night.

This NYT review of a book about the history of urban homicide rates is interesting. (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/23/us/historical-study-of-homicide-and-cities-surprises-the-experts.html) Money quote:

QuoteNew data presented at the conference by a Dutch scholar, Pieter Spierenburg, showed that the homicide rate in Amsterdam, for example, dropped from 47 per 100,000 people in the mid-15th century to 1 to 1.5 per 100,000 in the early 19th century.

Professor Stone has estimated that the homicide rate in medieval England was on average 10 times that of 20th century England. A study of the university town of Oxford in the 1340's showed an extraordinarily high annual rate of about 110 per 100,000 people. Studies of London in the first half of the 14th century determined a homicide rate of 36 to 52 per 100,000 people per year.

By contrast, the 1993 homicide rate in New York City was 25.9 per 100,000. The 1992 national homicide rate for the United States was 9.3 per 100,000.

After examining coroners' inquests, Barbara A. Hannawalt, a professor of medieval English history at the University of Minnesota, concluded that most slayings in medieval England started as quarrels among farmers in the field. "They were grubbing for existence," she said. Insults to honor were taken seriously, and violence was the accepted method of settling disputes, since the king's courts were slow, expensive and corrupt.

The knife and the quarterstaff, the heavy wooden stick commonly carried for herding animals and walking on the muddy roads, were the weapons of choice. "Everyone carried a knife, even women," she said, since "if you sat down somewhere to eat, you were expected to bring your own." Given the lack of sanitation at the time, even simple knife wounds could prove deadly.

Keep in mind that the 1992 murder rate for New York was the subject of great consternation because it was so high and had been for a few decades. And the medieval figures are considerably higher.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;843546Depends 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 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.

Quote from: Bren;843490Sommerjon's examples were magical and physical so I parodied them with absurd magic and physics.

You 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), so the existence of magic in a fantasy game doesn't bother you. It's only when someone points out that your historical standards may not make sense in a world that departs significantly from the conditions of history, and then you start squealing about argumentum ad fireballum. Sommerjon gave no example that I can find of magic at all, only walking corpses strolling down main street.

Quote from: Bren;844032Yet 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.

It seems odd that you're so bent out of shape over an inadequate armor restriction but are indifferent to games in which all of these other deviations from history exist. "Acceptable everywhere" is typical goalpost shifting.

QuoteWhy 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.)

Right there you are saying an armor restriction must be present in a non-silly game; it's kind of pointless to discuss silly games.

QuoteClearly 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.

Wipe 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? If what's "socially allowed" (by a society created by the GM) always skews one way, how is that any better than an arbitrary restriction solely by the GM? How is this differernt from GMs punishing players who violate your historical sensibilities? "Restrict" sounds like the GM aiming for a particular outcome, not impartially judging what happens.

To 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. "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.

QuoteAnti-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.

Taking away armor from characters who depend on it for their effectiveness is exactly like taking away magic ability from characters who depend on that. Anti-magic is more severe, but I was sticking to a common game feature; substitute reduced spell casting level if you prefer. Your proposal of policing mages by hitting them when they start to cast spells would correspond to attacking the armor wearer when they start to fight, rather than preemptively taking their armor away.

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?

I 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.

Quote from: Elfdart;844990These notions of "realism" are also not meant to give DMs or players a blank check to give their own tastes and biases the veneer of extra credibility because of "realism". I know of no rule in any of the versions of D&D that expressly forbids bearing arms and armor in town. Now what a DM likes for his campaign is up to him -but it's purely a matter of what he likes or dislikes, so quit bullshitting about "realism".

How 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;).

Quote from: Elfdart;844990These notions of "realism" are also not meant to give DMs or players a blank check to give their own tastes and biases the veneer of extra credibility because of "realism". I know of no rule in any of the versions of D&D that expressly forbids bearing arms and armor in town. Now what a DM likes for his campaign is up to him -but it's purely a matter of what he likes or dislikes, so quit bullshitting about "realism".

Were we just talking about D&D then? I didn't realise. I must have forgotten that any discussions about wearing armour must be D&D.

In any game, there are two things that heavily impact the game:

• Rules Information
• Setting Information

Rules information covers things like how effective armour is, what effect it has in combat and so on.

Setting information covers things like what armour is available, how much it costs, what attitudes to armour are in different places and so on.

I would not expect a rulebook to contain setting information, unless the rules are tied to a single setting.

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.

Actually, if the bandits are even somewhat intelligent, it becomes even more comical. Since they know how easy it is to steal from the sheriff's lockbox, the bandits start to spread the story that the PCs are violent morally retarded sociopaths planning on sacking the town - thus letting the local authorities deal with the heavies while the bandits prepare to steal their belongings when they are not wearing them - like when the PCs have been incarcerated.

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.

Quote from: soltakss;845263Now, 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.

What a glorious peculiar image.

I love those character profiles that - through the natural flow of the game - become too wonderfully weird for real life AND standard fiction. It's like the way truly ancient mythology feels, with all the rough edges and absurd details.

Quote from: Ravenswing;845326Well, no shit, Sherlock.  Gamers like to game in the ways that reflect their personal preferences.  Stop the freaking presses.

Nah, see it's when they refuse to admit it's personal preferences.  
They hide it behind common sense and/or logic and/or realism.

Quote from: Ravenswing;845326That 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.

Common sense or logic is touted, when in actuality it is tradition or how I was taught.

Quote from: Sommerjon;845376Nah, see it's when they refuse to admit it's personal preferences.  They hide it behind common sense and/or logic and/or realism.

Getting a bit muddled there, aren't you, sport?  One has a personal preference for realism, not because of it.

Quote from: Sommerjon;845376Common sense or logic is touted, when in actuality it is tradition or how I was taught.

In a hobby scarcely forty years old, when a lot of us -- hell, several of those contributing to this thread -- were first generation gamers, claiming that folks hold to their gaming notions out of "tradition" or "how they were taught" isn't merely as insulting as Elfdart's nonsense, it's just plain clueless.

But heck ... if, like Elfdart, you'd like to confess that you hold your opinions not because you've thought them through, but because you've unthinkingly always done it that way, and common sense has nothing to do with any of it ... well, okay.  I won't call you a liar.  Fair enough?

Quote from: Motorskills;845094Now 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.

Something which I think is often not apparent to all of us born after the Victorian era is just how many people were employed in domestic service in the past. A gentlemen wouldn't go anywhere without at least his valet; the notion of a party of people, none of whom have servants or retainers is entirely at odds with the historical periods games sometimes claim to be inspired by.

An Elizabethan troubleshooter or mercenary would have a servant or groom who looked after their stuff for them, including their mounts and pack animals. So if they weren't wearing their armour, it was stowed away on a mule, looked after by their servant. That same servant might help them get into that same armour if trouble was expected.

Of course that is at odds with modern notions of equality and such. Even besides that, I'm sure it would jar with many people's sense of heroism if a party of five PCs also included ten NPC retainers, servants, guards and other staff.

Quote from: Sommerjon;845376Common sense or logic is touted, when in actuality it is tradition or how I was taught.

I wasn't "taught" how to play by anyone, thanks.

Quote from: Kiero;845483I wasn't "taught" how to play by anyone, thanks.

Same here, and I'd have been better off if I had ignored 90% of the advice I got at first, as a young player and GM:).

Quote from: Ravenswing;845402Getting a bit muddled there, aren't you, sport?  One has a personal preference for realism, not because of it.

No.
Nah, see it's when they refuse to admit it's personal preferences.
They like to use one or all or a combination of these;
They hide it behind saying it's common sense.
They hide it behind saying it's logical.
They hide it behind saying it's realistic.
 
Elfdart said it correctly; 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.
Which is nearly the same thing I said to your original rant.
You want your rule system to reflect reality, only where you want it to.

Quote from: Ravenswing;845402In a hobby scarcely forty years old, when a lot of us -- hell, several of those contributing to this thread -- were first generation gamers, claiming that folks hold to their gaming notions out of "tradition" or "how they were taught" isn't merely as insulting as Elfdart's nonsense, it's just plain clueless.

You are a moron.

Quote from: Kiero;845483I wasn't "taught" how to play by anyone, thanks.

Hmm.  When a new idea comes your way about RPGs are you more likely to adapt the new idea into your gaming or stick to your long-established(psst...shhh...tradition or how I was taught) way?

Quote from: Kiero;845483Of course that is at odds with modern notions of equality and such.

And?

QuoteEven besides that, I'm sure it would jar with many people's sense of heroism if a party of five PCs also included ten NPC retainers, servants, guards and other staff.

Someone has to hold the horses, carry the torches, and brew the tea, not to mention hew the wood, haul the water, and light the fire. That's what servants are for old son. We may be called heroes, but by God, sir, we are gentlemen!

Quote from: Sommerjon;845543You are a moron.

"Lo! the harshest of all voices is the voice of the ass."

Quote from: Bren;845607And?

For some groups, that might be an issue. Especially those who might only be able to countenance a "progressive" theme to a game.

Not my thing, mind, but I'm sure there are groups out there where a stratified social structure where class matters would be a deal-breaker.

Quote from: Bren;845607Someone has to hold the horses, carry the torches, and brew the tea, not to mention hew the wood, haul the water, and light the fire. That's what servants are for old son. We may be called heroes, but by God, sir, we are gentlemen!

Absolutely, though it's something I didn't really appreciate until playing ACKS recently. In my D&D days of old, some 20-odd years ago, we didn't really grasp the significance of the henchman/hireling dynamic, and ignored them. Now I find myself wanting to add retainers to games that don't necessarily consider them, because having a wider "team" is more fun for me.

Quote from: Kiero;845625Absolutely, though it's something I didn't really appreciate until playing ACKS recently. In my D&D days of old, some 20-odd years ago, we didn't really grasp the significance of the henchman/hireling dynamic, and ignored them. Now I find myself wanting to add retainers to games that don't necessarily consider them, because having a wider "team" is more fun for me.

Fuck yes.  
People like logic in their games?  this is a great example of that.

Quote from: Kiero;845625For some groups, that might be an issue. Especially those who might only be able to countenance a "progressive" theme to a game.

Not my thing, mind, but I'm sure there are groups out there where a stratified social structure where class matters would be a deal-breaker.

Not my thing either, and those of us who aren't game designers can just not bother with those people's views:).
Seriously, if they're not playing at my table, their views aren't a problem that's going to come up in my game. This, in turn, makes it simply irrelevant for me as a Referee.
I guess if you're looking at it as a game designer, you should simply explain that yes, that's how society worked at the time, but the PCs are free to come up with their own solution.

QuoteAbsolutely, though it's something I didn't really appreciate until playing ACKS recently. In my D&D days of old, some 20-odd years ago, we didn't really grasp the significance of the henchman/hireling dynamic, and ignored them. Now I find myself wanting to add retainers to games that don't necessarily consider them, because having a wider "team" is more fun for me.

And I think that's the right direction. It's way more fun for me and my group as well;).

Quote from: Kiero;845625For some groups, that might be an issue. Especially those who might only be able to countenance a "progressive" theme to a game.

Not my thing, mind, but I'm sure there are groups out there where a stratified social structure where class matters would be a deal-breaker.

OK, so a fantasy game where that's their fantasy. Those folks should definitely stay the hell away from any game smacking of history or human nature.

QuoteAbsolutely, though it's something I didn't really appreciate until playing ACKS recently.

We started out playing D&D with torch bearers , mules, and mule tenders. They upped the survival chance for our first and second level PCs. After my PC reached 4th level I started running solo so I had a band of hirelings, charmlings, and later undead (how do you get an chaotic/evil elvish necromancer in OD&D? Put on the Helm of Alignment Change.)

Now I find that sometimes we need to either keep the number of hangers on or crew to an artificially low minimum or ignore them as individuals else we don't have enough play time for the actual PCs.

Quote from: Sommerjon;845543No.
Nah, see it's when they refuse to admit it's personal preferences.
They like to use one or all or a combination of these;
They hide it behind saying it's common sense.
They hide it behind saying it's logical.
They hide it behind saying it's realistic.
 
Elfdart said it correctly; 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.
Which is nearly the same thing I said to your original rant.
You want your rule system to reflect reality, only where you want it to.

You (repeatedly) assert this as axiomatic, but it ain't necessarily so.

It is also possible to build a game world by starting from what we know of reality; stipulating that X, Y, and Z are different; and then trying to work out what such a world would logically/realistically be like.  The GM doesn't have to pull things out of his ass based solely on his personal tastes.  There's also the option of saying, "based on what we know of the game world already, what makes the most sense/is most logical/is most realistic here?".

Personally, I prefer the latter approach and find that it makes for a much more consistent, logical, and, yes, realistic setting, in large part specifically because it maximizes the ability of players to reason about the game world independently of the GM and minimizes any tendency of the world to reshape itself based on the GM's whim of the moment.

Quote from: nDervish;845702You (repeatedly) assert this as axiomatic, but it ain't necessarily so.

It is also possible to build a game world by starting from what we know of reality; stipulating that X, Y, and Z are different; and then trying to work out what such a world would logically/realistically be like.  The GM doesn't have to pull things out of his ass based solely on his personal tastes.  There's also the option of saying, "based on what we know of the game world already, what makes the most sense/is most logical/is most realistic here?".

Personally, I prefer the latter approach and find that it makes for a much more consistent, logical, and, yes, realistic setting, in large part specifically because it maximizes the ability of players to reason about the game world independently of the GM and minimizes any tendency of the world to reshape itself based on the GM's whim of the moment.

I think part of the issue is that in game design/style, the terms, 'logical' and 'realistic' are used as synonymous, when they are not.  

Realistic infers that the rule or system is based on reality.  That it was pulled from the real world.  

Logical, in our context, is defined as the rule or system making sense based on other defined rules or setting documentation.

The two are NOT the same thing, however.  For example, as we have said, people wearing armor in town is more logical if the system in place has pretty regular, constant random checks for actual hostile and lethal encounters in said town.  It may not be realistic, but the in-game logic supersedes any relation to the actual historic real world analog.

Quote from: LordVreeg;845791I think part of the issue is that in game design/style, the terms, 'logical' and 'realistic' are used as synonymous, when they are not.  

Realistic infers that the rule or system is based on reality.  That it was pulled from the real world.  

Logical, in our context, is defined as the rule or system making sense based on other defined rules or setting documentation.

nDervish used logical to describe deriving the setting based on the rules and a few setting premises.

If you want to describe the derivation as "making sense" based on defined rules and setting premises, then the word you want is plausible not logical. The outcome may be logical without seeming plausible.

I usually speak in terms of believability and internal logic. Believability is just something feels real enough to pass. It might have holes under scrutiny after the game but no one really questions it during play. Internal logic just suggests that events and outcomes make sense based on what has been established, that there is chain of causation (i.e. an NPC is able to track them down because he had someone following the party the whole time, which is why they were being asked to make those detect rolls; he is after them because the guy they killed back in town was his brother, etc).

I actually think plausible is a great word to add in, since it adds a veneer of, "Of Course" to the process of creation.

Believablilty is a good one.  I think of it as being like watching a play on stage.  Most stage play sets aren't really all that good, unless you're a big-time theater.  But the audience accepts them if the play is good.  RPGs are like that, if they generally work pretty well and are fun, we all simply ignore the bits where the paint is chipped or the microphone is visible.

And to echo what somebody else said, again, if you don't want the PCs wandering around town in full armor, don't make it necessary.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845822Believablilty is a good one.  I think of it as being like watching a play on stage.  Most stage play sets aren't really all that good, unless you're a big-time theater.  But the audience accepts them if the play is good.  RPGs are like that, if they generally work pretty well and are fun, we all simply ignore the bits where the paint is chipped or the microphone is visible.

And to echo what somebody else said, again, if you don't want the PCs wandering around town in full armor, don't make it necessary.

And, as we are working with, maybe don't make it logical and necessary for them to wear armor in town system-wise,  and then penalize them for it setting wise.

Believability is another good one. Theater is a great analogy.

Quote from: LordVreeg;845825And, as we are working with, maybe don't make it logical and necessary for them to wear armor in town system-wise,  and then penalize them for it setting wise.

Believability is another good one. Theater is a great analogy.

Exactly. If I have a rough and tumble town where trouble lurks around every corner then I am not going to try and force some sort of weird ass law on the PCs or NPCs requiring them to disarm. But if I've established that towns are safe and theres laws to abide and they refuse to stow the gear. Then that is their own fault and if things go poorly they can and will get filled full of arrows.

My OD&D setting has one main city in the region. The City of Rings has wealthy inner rings and rougher outer rings. The deeper you go, the stricter the rules and the more powerful the contacts you can make.

I did SCA so I know you can easily sleep in armor. It's not comfortable, but after an afternoon of sword swinging in the sun, I more than once, just napped under a tree in armor. When I woke up, I wasn't much worse for wear. When you're physically exhausted, any sleep is pretty good. After fighting a few hours in the sun, you just pass out.

The bigger problem is heat exhaustion and being weighed down. Steel weapons and armor are DAMN heavy after a while. Heck, even LARP armor and weapons can get tiresome to carry about after a while.

Quote from: LordVreeg;845791I think part of the issue is that in game design/style, the terms, 'logical' and 'realistic' are used as synonymous, when they are not.  

Realistic infers that the rule or system is based on reality.  That it was pulled from the real world.

"Realistic" is a loaded word in discussion of games and fiction in general, as this thread has already demonstrated with allusions to the classic "there are fireballs, therefore the game is absolutely divorced from reality and 'realism' has no place in it" argument.  In my previous post, I'd considered adding notes to the effect of "'realistic' with respect to the game world, not the real world" or "by 'realism', I mean 'the sense that this could be real (even though it isn't)'", but ended up editing them out as too clumsy and distracting from my point.  Even if someone wants to argue that I'm absolutely wrong for having used the word "realism", I'm confident that my meaning was still clear to all readers.

Quote from: Bren;845806If you want to describe the derivation as "making sense" based on defined rules and setting premises, then the word you want is plausible not logical. The outcome may be logical without seeming plausible.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;845808I usually speak in terms of believability and internal logic.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845822Believablilty is a good one.  I think of it as being like watching a play on stage.  Most stage play sets aren't really all that good, unless you're a big-time theater.  But the audience accepts them if the play is good.  RPGs are like that, if they generally work pretty well and are fun, we all simply ignore the bits where the paint is chipped or the microphone is visible.

These are all good points and good alternative terms which are more technically correct than "realistic" (without being as clumsy as "verisimilitudinous"), but they're also all beside the actual point of my previous post, which was that restrictions on the PCs' options don't necessarily come about solely from the GM's personal preferences (as Sommerjon has been claiming).  They may instead be the result of extrapolating from what is known of the real world, modified by a handful of setting-specific deviations from reality.

Well, I dig how you were using the term, but often, in our games, we have facts, details, cultures, that actually come from real history.

Like weapons.  How many of us haves arms and armor that are real-world analogs?  Most of us, no matter how crazy detailed our worlds are.

So, whereas 'realism' may be understood to some degree, in a conversation when 'something taken from actual reality'  is needed as a term, the term 'realism' is just going to be less effective.  No stress, but that is why the other terms are going to be better in this conversational context.

I appreciate the attempts to think of words that might not provoke the "it's a FANTASY game" arguments as much as "realistic" does, but I think it's also worth keeping in mind that the word "realistic" does not mean "about the real world, not about a fantasy world."

"Realistic" means: representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life.
"a realistic human drama"

And this is my baseline reason for finding it a bit odd for PCs to seem to never take off their armor, even in safe civilized situations, such as towns where monsters and random attacks against a group of strong people is not at all expected. I also do run settings where people going about town with battle gear is fairly common, but I'm sensitive to what the people of a setting are like, and what their norms and reactions to things are liable to be. So even in those settings, there will be different reactions of unarmed townsfolk to the men who go around armed and armored, and the ones who don't, or even the ones who have weapons but put them away in town. And I like to be able to have actual towns where serious violence is very rare and going about armored is not the social norm and gets attention and draws suspicion, because that seems quite like what would tend to happen in a place that was mostly safe. To me, that seems like it'd be more realistic (see actual definition of word, above) for to expect for most safe non-violent communities. I might expect their upper/warrior/aristocratic classes, and police, to carry weapons but not usually be in heavy armor.  I'd also expect the level of alarm that carrying weapons and wearing armor causes, to increase depending on how scruffy or foreign or strange the carriers seem to the locals.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845822And to echo what somebody else said, again, if you don't want the PCs wandering around town in full armor, don't make it necessary.

Agreed, but I'm assuming it's not necessary if the Referee thinks it's a boneheaded idea;).

Quote from: AsenRG;845993Agreed, but I'm assuming it's not necessary if the Referee thinks it's a boneheaded idea;).

Don't give the GM too much credit....

Quote from: LordVreeg;846003Don't give the GM too much credit....

I find that assuming Referees aren't running games where doing what's necessary for survival is considered boneheaded isn't an impossibly high standard.

Quote from: jhkim;844493I find that it is extremely common for groups to apply modern standards rather than medieval ones to fantasy worlds. It's hard to picture how a town could function without police, but police are a modern development. While there were laws and courts, they often worked quite differently than in modern times. A town watch wasn't necessarily set up by the government, but was rather a group of neighbors who armed themselves to keep their area safe. Today we would call them vigilantes, but then it was being a good citizen.


For those like Ravenswing who say that people would never absolutely wear armor in town, I'm trying to understand what you mean.

Let's say we're in medieval Scotland, and a traveling group of Gaelic warriors have recently driven off a band of Picts. They go into a nearby market town. Are you saying that they would unquestionably take off their armor and carry it in their packs, rather than wear armor into the town?

I don't have any specific references on the point, but that doesn't sound like narratives I read like the historical Icelandic sagas or the Song of Roland. I would picture the warriors as coming into town and mostly doing what they liked - because warriors generally seem rowdy and arrogant. If they caused too much trouble some people would gather a mob to oust them, but especially if they were spending a bunch of money, they might instead be welcomed.

It depends on the period you're talking about. It sounds like you're talking the dark ages; and the answer there is that the local lord would decide if they should get armor or not. As soon as he hears there's a group of dudes running around in armor, he'll either want to welcome them to his keep or he'll send armed men to drive them out.

In later periods, like the 13th century and up, you can bet that if there was any law and order anywhere near that market town, those guys would not be allowed to run around in armor.  So barring a period of massive civil chaos, they would definitely want to take it off upon getting to a market town.

Level of safety is a big factor. Do the PCs feel safe in town? If they dont. And more importantly, arent. Then they might have good reason not to stow the gear. Otherwise what reason do they have to not? Its safe. Relax.

Quote from: Omega;846713Level of safety is a big factor. Do the PCs feel safe in town? If they dont. And more importantly, arent. Then they might have good reason not to stow the gear. Otherwise what reason do they have to not? Its safe. Relax.

Really, that actually is the main factor.  If people are being cut down on the streets then everyone will walk around armed (just look at modern failed states).  If an attack is the source of great scandal then it would be odd not to be walking around in civilian clothes.

Look at what happened to John the Fearless when he assassinated his brother (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Fearless) -- despite being a powerful duke, he suffered a massive political price for a killing on the streets of Paris.

Quote from: Bren;845291Read English much? It was parody.

It 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.

Quote from: AsenRG;845305It'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:)!

Want some cheese to go with your whine?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845822Believablilty is a good one.  I think of it as being like watching a play on stage.  Most stage play sets aren't really all that good, unless you're a big-time theater.  But the audience accepts them if the play is good.  RPGs are like that, if they generally work pretty well and are fun, we all simply ignore the bits where the paint is chipped or the microphone is visible.

A lot of that is simply a matter of knowing what's important and what isn't. I'm not about to let the fact that a prop or costume isn't authentic for the time period depicted distract me from the drama unfolding, let alone ruin it.

I like shoot-'em-up cowboy movies and I couldn't care less if Dodge City in real life had very strict gun laws. The fact that doing so might be foolhardy and stir up trouble is all the more reason to do it!

QuoteAnd to echo what somebody else said, again, if you don't want the PCs wandering around town in full armor, don't make it necessary.

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.

Do your PCs walk around on a boat, or even a pier, fully armoured?

Quote from: Omega;847075Do your PCs walk around on a boat, or even a pier, fully armoured?

Depends on the PC and the game. On the boat, not usually unless there is some magic* that lets them survive sinking. On the pier, it depends on why they are there: to get on a boat, then probably not; to patrol the pier and other land areas, then probably so. But they are going to be extra careful about standing near the edge of the pier.

* I had a Runequest PC who had a sword that let him breath water or let him cast a water breathing spell or some such. He was really happy to get that as he had previously nearly drowned from falling through a trap door into the water. He barely got his armor off in time to reach the side of the pool.

Quote from: Omega;847075Do your PCs walk around on a boat, or even a pier, fully armoured?

Mine do, but they have magical sharkskin armour that does not impede them in water, for just such a purpose.

Quote from: Bren;847059So 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.

Quote from: Elfdart;847311Looking 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.

Go back to sucking 3PO's finger.

Ah, the love in this thread...

...Nope, not feelin' it.

Quote from: Bren;847388Go back to sucking 3PO's finger.

I hear it's like licking a battery. :)

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;847643I hear it's like licking a battery. :)

JG

Got my brother to do that.

Twice... :cheerleader:

Quote from: Omega;847688Got my brother to do that.

Twice... :cheerleader:

did they enjoy it ?

Quote from: Omega;847075Do your PCs walk around on a boat, or even a pier, fully armoured?

Are they armored on a boat?  Are they armored on a stoat?
Are they armored on a pier?  Are they armored on a bier?

Quote from: kosmos1214;847702did they enjoy it ?

I dont know? It was a 9-volt. He was too busy crying.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847705Are they armored on a boat?  Are they armored on a stoat?
Are they armored on a pier?  Are they armored on a bier?

And actually one player was riding an armoured stoat. I think in armour... But not on a boat, or crossing a moat. After much pestering they did finally eat the green orcs with hammers... :eek:

To their credit. The group I am DMing for did actually sit down and discuss wether or not the paladin should stay in armour or not while they were crossing a swamp.

Quote from: Omega;847722I dont know? It was a 9-volt. He was too busy crying.

it was intended as sarcasm

Quote from: kosmos1214;847736it was intended as sarcasm

Your spelling and punctuation are so shitty we can never tell.  A couple of people have mentioned this politely and you ignored it, so no more politeness.

Learn to write, you little shitbag.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847750Your spelling and punctuation are so shitty we can never tell.  A couple of people have mentioned this politely and you ignored it, so no more politeness.

Learn to write, you little shitbag.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

And where is that fucking book you have been promising the world for over a year?

My capitalization and punctuation are well within the standards of written English, thank you.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847755My capitalization and punctuation are well within the standards of written English, thank you.

I'll believe that when I see it proven in your book, cupcake.

Yes. But does a sinking paladin take falling damage when they hit the bottom?

Quote from: Omega;847762Yes. But does a sinking paladin take falling damage when they hit the bottom?

Does a sunken thread know when it's hit bottom?

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?

yes，but I perfer to buy a "top metal detectors" (http://www.detectorall.com/) to make my real life cool !

Quote from: Omega;847075Do your PCs walk around on a boat, or even a pier, fully armoured?

Isn't that the fun of combat at sea?

Especially at low levels before spells and magic items can negate the question of whether we go unarmored into battle or save ourselves from drowning.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847750Your spelling and punctuation are so shitty we can never tell.  A couple of people have mentioned this politely and you ignored it, so no more politeness.

Learn to write, you little shitbag.

Quote from: jeff37923;847753Pot. Kettle. Black.

And where is that fucking book you have been promising the world for over a year?

beat me to it

Given the acrimony is more pungent of late, I think theRPGSite is going through another "moon time." :) Be sure to pay homage to the gods in quality libations and return your essence back to the mother! :D

Quote from: LordVreeg;847765Does a sunken thread know when it's hit bottom?

Apparently not.

jg

You sorta wish that the RPGsite had the particular smilie enabled with a graphic of whacking an equestrian corpse with a 2x4.



(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/540/658/5e8.jpg)

Quote from: AsenRG;845632And I think that's the right direction. It's way more fun for me and my group as well;).

Quote from: Bren;845641We started out playing D&D with torch bearers , mules, and mule tenders. They upped the survival chance for our first and second level PCs. After my PC reached 4th level I started running solo so I had a band of hirelings, charmlings, and later undead (how do you get an chaotic/evil elvish necromancer in OD&D? Put on the Helm of Alignment Change.)

Now I find that sometimes we need to either keep the number of hangers on or crew to an artificially low minimum or ignore them as individuals else we don't have enough play time for the actual PCs.

I think one of the main reasons we didn't bother in my early gaming days was that our groups were so big. We regularly had 6-8 players, and with those numbers you don't really need hirelings for combat muscle/padding.

Plus we were right in the middle of the AD&D2e heroic era in the mid-90s, where it was all about the PCs and no one else. When you read the likes of the Dragonlance novels, they have big parties with no mention of followers or the like, it's just the PCs.

Nowadays, my group has 4 players, besides the GM, and extra bodies makes more sense. Four people, no matter how capable, really isn't an appropriate sized group for surviving independently in a hostile world.

Quote from: Kiero;848026Nowadays, my group has 4 players, besides the GM, and extra bodies makes more sense. Four people, no matter how capable, really isn't an appropriate sized group for surviving independently in a hostile world.

D&D did seem to change the style of play between the 1970s and the 1980s-90s.

While there are advantages to larger parties for sharing watches and guard duty and such, I'd say the perceived advantage of a larger party is in part a function of most systems and GMs not differentiating the number and type of encounters based on party size and attitude. One or two people traveling alone on foot while trying to keep a low profile (stay off ridgelines, smokeless fires or cold camps, etc.) should attract a lot less notice than a group of 4 heavily armed leaders on horseback with one or two dozen scouts, support ,troops, and camp followers along with carts and pack mules to carry the tents, trunks, and gear that such a band requires.

In Albion, it's not just armor.  I've put in a lot of information about Sumptuary laws, and my players were surprised when they discovered they wouldn't just get in trouble for wearing chain mail in a town, they could get in trouble for wearing the wrong clothes too!

Quote from: Bren;848085D&D did seem to change the style of play between the 1970s and the 1980s-90s.

While there are advantages to larger parties for sharing watches and guard duty and such, I'd say the perceived advantage of a larger party is in part a function of most systems and GMs not differentiating the number and type of encounters based on party size and attitude. One or two people traveling alone on foot while trying to keep a low profile (stay off ridgelines, smokeless fires or cold camps, etc.) should attract a lot less notice than a group of 4 heavily armed leaders on horseback with one or two dozen scouts, support ,troops, and camp followers along with carts and pack mules to carry the tents, trunks, and gear that such a band requires.

Well, it was a game of going into the dungeon then.
And in a deadly game, where people counted weight, you had men at arms and followers, as well as porters, etc, to help you in a game that was about exploring a place, I think i called it "Expeditioning' at one point, compared to 'Campaigning'.

Quote from: RPGPundit;848106In Albion, it's not just armor.  I've put in a lot of information about Sumptuary laws, and my players were surprised when they discovered they wouldn't just get in trouble for wearing chain mail in a town, they could get in trouble for wearing the wrong clothes too!

Wearing the colour purple was against the law in a specific kingdom in one of the campaigns I ran. That was a colour reserved for royalty.

In BX Karameikos wearing boots or cloaks of elvenkind in the Alfheim kingdom was exponentially likely to get you stopped and questioned if you were not an elf.

What about weird concealable/wearable weapons like the Urumi? It looks like a metal belt pretty much till you unwind it.

Quote from: Omega;848141Wearing the colour purple was against the law in a specific kingdom in one of the campaigns I ran. That was a colour reserved for royalty.

In the real world, you couldn't wear a certain shade of Yellow because it was the Imperial colours and to do so would mean treason and death.

Quote from: RPGPundit;848106In Albion, it's not just armor.  I've put in a lot of information about Sumptuary laws, and my players were surprised when they discovered they wouldn't just get in trouble for wearing chain mail in a town, they could get in trouble for wearing the wrong clothes too!

It's hard out here for a pimp.

JG

Quote from: Christopher Brady;848142In the real world, you couldn't wear a certain shade of Yellow because it was the Imperial colours and to do so would mean treason and death.

Heck, in the real world, sumptuary laws included a dizzying array of nonsense: the maximum number of colors you were allowed to wear, the fabrics you were allowed to wear, how long a tippet or the points on your shoes could be, the number and material of decorative buttons.

All basically boiling down to "It pisses us old-line aristocracy off that you nouveau riche merchants can afford flashier clothing than we can, so we need to put a stop to that."

All of the Sumptuary Laws in dark albion are based in real medieval laws about what your social class allowed you to wear (or forbade you from wearing).

Quote from: Ravenswing;848528Heck, in the real world, sumptuary laws included a dizzying array of nonsense: the maximum number of colors you were allowed to wear, the fabrics you were allowed to wear, how long a tippet or the points on your shoes could be, the number and material of decorative buttons.

All basically boiling down to "It pisses us old-line aristocracy off that you nouveau riche merchants can afford flashier clothing than we can, so we need to put a stop to that."

Yeap.  Never underestimate Humanity's drive for pettiness and oneupsmanship.

Quote from: Ravenswing;848528Heck, in the real world, sumptuary laws included a dizzying array of nonsense: the maximum number of colors you were allowed to wear, the fabrics you were allowed to wear, how long a tippet or the points on your shoes could be, the number and material of decorative buttons.

All basically boiling down to "It pisses us old-line aristocracy off that you nouveau riche merchants can afford flashier clothing than we can, so we need to put a stop to that."

I hadn't thought of it before, but I could adapt this to the nobility in Traveller and have a field day with it.

Quote from: Elfdart;847051Want some cheese to go with your whine?

It's spelled "wine", dude. Or at least that's what I'd have with cheese, you can keep the "whine" version;).

Quote from: jeff37923;848984I hadn't thought of it before, but I could adapt this to the nobility in Traveller and have a field day with it.

You mean you're not doing it yet:D?

Quote from: AsenRG;849017You mean you're not doing it yet:D?

I hadn't thought of it, honestly. I already had some friction between the honor nobility and the hereditary nobility, but I hadn't considered sumptuary laws.

Sumptuary laws became necessary as soon as there were people Not Covered In Shit who weren't aristocrats.

Quote from: jeff37923;848984I hadn't thought of it before, but I could adapt this to the nobility in Traveller and have a field day with it.

I don't doubt it.  All you need is to establish what passes for baroque fashion/conspicuous consumption, and there you go.

Quote from: RPGPundit;849457Sumptuary laws became necessary as soon as there were people Not Covered In Shit who weren't aristocrats.

Essentially.

jg

Quote from: RPGPundit;849457Sumptuary laws became necessary as soon as there were people Not Covered In Shit who weren't aristocrats.

" 'Oos 'e?"

"I dunno, 'e must be a king."

" 'Ow can you tell?"

" 'E 'asn't got shi' all over 'im."

In my current Pathfinder campaign, the PCs are actual members of a mercenary troop, so when on duty they do, but when off duty they relax and take their armor off like real human beings, although they carry daggers and swords at their sides casually.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;849876" 'Oos 'e?"

"I dunno, 'e must be a king."

" 'Ow can you tell?"

" 'E 'asn't got shi' all over 'im."

Yes, that was the reference.

Quote from: RPGPundit;850769Yes, that was the reference.

mind if i ask what to?

Quote from: kosmos1214;850782mind if i ask what to?

Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

The irony of Gronan of Simmerya quoting that movie should not be lost.

Quote from: jeff37923;850787Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

The irony of Gronan of Simmerya quoting that movie should not be lost.

ah ok iv never seen the whole picture only a few clips friend have shown me

and yes i do see the irony

I fail to see where one could find any irony at all.

This was a long, long, long standing point of contention between me and my players which I finally lost in my longest-running game.  I decided that since my PCs were famous heroes they could technically get away with wearing whatever they wanted; also because once they got to level 8 there was pretty much no small-town watch or magistrate in the world who was going to stand up to them.   But I kept pointedly making references to people staring at them or cautiously backing away whenever they entered a new town in full harness with weapons strapped.... and they kept very pointedly ignoring me, if not actively enjoying the fear they caused.  

I still remember one player I had wanting to go into town and specifically "start a bar fight."   I asked him how he did it and he said his Fighter would look for the biggest, toughest customer she could find and throw something at him.  I said okay first, look, you're level 10 you're basically Hercules; there is literally no meaningful way these guys can challenge you.  Secondly you're dressed head to foot in fitted steel and you have six feet of broadsword on your back; even if you found a guy stupid enough to think he could take you, nobody is gonna see you're in the equivalent of like $70,000 worth of fighting gear and think they could assault you with zero repercussions.  So what happens is you bean a guy in the face with a mug of ale and he just kind of glowers at you helplessly and walks out dripping with his head down and his friends rushing up to console him.   And that guy was like JEEZ HARIME I JUST WANTED TO HAVE FUN and I was like FUCK YOU, DIE, haha good times.

AD&D towns and cities though were populated with some pretty rough citizens. City guard could have one or more 2-5th level fighters leading the 2-16 guardsmen, that ruffian might be a level 8 assassin, that guy in the bar might be a level 7-10 monk.

Pick your fights carefully when in anything larger than a village.

Meh, 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!

In a world where there is no level cap on most classes for humans?

I think of it like (and I'm showing which edition I grew up here) you have to go through thirteen fights with a moderate chance of being killed to go up a level, more or less.  How many people do you know put their life on the line that many times?  Like even out of guys who've been to war and stuff, most of them spent most of it keeping their heads down trying not to get killed.  Even the local gangsters, generally those guys don't fight fair and they don't target people who look tough.  The guy who's like fuck yeah I'm gonna go into this cave and antagonize the hell out of the local otyugh, he's a rare bird.  

It's a playstyle but yeah, I don't like "if you foul up Elminster will teleport in to save you" type campaigns and I see the reverse of that as, even from level 1 you are a tough dude you are not just some average jerk and if you want to fight Brom the farmboy for some reason you will probably win.  You bully!

In Dave Arneson's original BLACKMOOR there was no Raise Dead spell.

So player characters did stuff like get up to 5th level and be made captain of the town guard and retire, or hit third level and buy a tavern, etc.

AD&D reflects how the game was actually being played, in that respect.

In most towns, I don't allow it or, at least, it's against the law. Some towns allow it. I don't think it's that hard to come up with logical in-world reasons why a town may have restrictions on arms and armour, nor why some (frontier towns, places with little or no ability to actually enforce laws, etc) wouldn't have rules on it. It doesn't have to be "this happened historically" justification; the reason it happened historically is the same sort of reason it might happen in a game world, because having magic and monsters doesn't change logic, it just changes some of the constraints (maybe extra restrictions on magic users, too, of course, or maybe there aren't but using magic will mean you are set upon by midgets and kicked to death. For example. Hope none of my players are reading this).

I think that not spending the whole game completely tooled up makes things more interesting, particularly if challenges are scoped accordingly. In any case,the same laws often apply to others in the town, so it makes breaking the law a potentially good idea for certain purposes (although not without risk).

One thing I remember from an otherwise forgettable old Magic: The Gathering novel that was pretty cool was wizards who wanted to get a drink in a public house had to wear something called "peace bonds" which basically was a leather loop that cinched their right thumb up to their finger, making it impossible for them to cast.

Yet another reason to love ACKS: carefully considered level demographics.

Quote from: Harime Nui;851579One thing I remember from an otherwise forgettable old Magic: The Gathering novel that was pretty cool was wizards who wanted to get a drink in a public house had to wear something called "peace bonds" which basically was a leather loop that cinched their right thumb up to their finger, making it impossible for them to cast.

Seems like it would make it rather difficult to pick their drinks up, too, unless the glasses have handles.  And don't even think about trying to use a fork...

Pfffft, thumbs.  Who needs em!

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? :D

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.

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=853176&postcount=374) 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.

In pre-modern societies strangers can be very dangerous*.  Add in fantasy elements like dangerous cults, powerful warriors forged in battle deep beneath the earth and the like and I can totally see why a given town might not want to let anyone in that's armed or armoured.  If there's a wall, the point is to keep potentially dangerous known and unknown elements out.  I could see a town allowing known individuals, especially if they are of an appropriate station or work directly for such an individual, to keep their arms and armour.  But an average armed and armoured stranger?  That's a terrible idea.  That said, if someone wants a characteristic of their town to be that it takes needless risks with unknown armed strangers, their more than welcome to run their game any wat they want.

* for example in some areas of Paupa New Guinea if you meet a stranger and they can't explain how they are either related to you or a proven ally, you would be duty bound to kill them on the spot.  Anthropologists who want to go into those areas often have to spend a lot of time living near them and making themselves known to anyone who comes out of the area to trade so when they finally go in they'll be proceeded by a positive reputation as a friend of the people and be able to cite who they know by name until they can hopefully list someone the person they are talking to knows before they are potentially killed as dangerous strangers.

We don't really live in a society where people rarely travel more than a few miles from their place of birth and where anything or anyone you haven't heard of by word of mouth could easily be a dire threat to entire communities.  Larger towns and cities would have less of an issue in terms of considering all strangers to be an immediate threat, but it would still be very foolish to just open your gates to armed strangers or armed foreigners (be they other human peoples, demihumans or something else).

Quote from: Kiero;853390Nope, unless they are sidearms, those are stowed in the baggage too.

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.

1: You specifically said armour, not all gear. Hence the comment.

2: Which means exactly what in a fantasy setting where a totally unarmoured person can have better AC than the guy in full chain? Or my own character who can make a weapon appear out of thin air? What about the poor sod who happens to have a talking sword that does not want to be stowed and might just be able to do something about it?

Hence some of the arguments by others in this thread.

Indeed that fellow in plate armour with a two handed sword is of much less concern to me than the lady over there who can summon lightning bolts with a snap of her finger

At least the guy in armour is an obvious threat. Mages could look like any civilian, as could monks (how do you guard against the "quivering palm"?).

Or the ancient dragon who has shapeshifted into human form?

In a fantasy world anyone is a potential danger. And I haven't even gotten to Invisible Stalkers and their ilk, or psionics...

Quote from: DavetheLost;853468Indeed that fellow in plate armour with a two handed sword is of much less concern to me than the lady over there who can summon lightning bolts with a snap of her finger

At least the guy in armour is an obvious threat. Mages could look like any civilian, as could monks (how do you guard against the "quivering palm"?).

Or the ancient dragon who has shapeshifted into human form?

In a fantasy world anyone is a potential danger. And I haven't even gotten to Invisible Stalkers and their ilk, or psionics...

Aaaargh! I'm never taking my armour off ever again!

Quote from: soltakss;853525Aaaargh! I'm never taking my armour off ever again!

Good luck with that. If lightning is being tossed around, I don't want to be anywhere near the lightning rod in the plate armor.

Quote from: soltakss;853525Aaaargh! I'm never taking my armour off ever again!

You play a Tortle?

(http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee65/Bluebomber4evr/tortle.gif)

Give that guy a shotgun and he looks just like my old Metamorphosis Alpha character. He never took of his armour either.

:cool: I'm stealing that picture for Star Wars.

Quote from: DavetheLost;853468Indeed that fellow in plate armour with a two handed sword is of much less concern to me than the lady over there who can summon lightning bolts with a snap of her finger

At least the guy in armour is an obvious threat. Mages could look like any civilian, as could monks (how do you guard against the "quivering palm"?).

The same way societies have dealt with witches, unsanctioned religious leaders (like heretical priests), and unlicensed magic workers (like a community's magicians and sorcerers). The second you show your power without previously garnering the OK by the powers that be in the area you are immediately set upon by the entire community. You will likely be killed, never have rest until you flee beyond the borders, and lucky if you get even a mock trial formality.

Civilization should terrify anyone with lone wolf pretensions. The sentient masses will destroy you if you step out of line, and quickly tell any nearby friends to do the same. Shapechanging creatures would only ramp up the paranoia and harsh reactions, as such real world beliefs testify. Focused large numbers have always been a check upon powerful individuals.

These are the same masses who oft rely on those lone wolf groups to go out and save the land from whatever whatsits is causing trouble this time. Or these are the lone wolf groups that just did.

Said masses possibly living in towns and cities that could maybee use some lone wolves to clean things up.

Context helps.

A safe town I expect safe laws weapons sheathed or stowed once settled. Armour is problematic as it can be a hassled when not worn, depending on the type. And getting people to disarm outside the walls where it may not be 100% safe might get called out. But if its a known safe town with known rules then the group should know this going in and have time to prep.

Like my Shadowrun example previously. Keep your battle gear concealed when in the more normal areas. OR ELSE. Outside those safe streets though and youd sure as heck better be fully loaded, OR ELSE.

Of course, expendable outsider is always worth pitting against another unwanted expendable outsider. Very familiar trope and explains the rise of mercenaries. Up until the point that the mercenary gains friends, becomes a mercenary company, and is strong enough to challenge authority itself. And then we go back to "slaughter the dangerous outsiders, until we need 'em" as the new boss tries to defend himself in the same way as the old boss.

And thus we cycle endlessly. ;)

Quote from: Omega;853723These are the same masses who oft rely on those lone wolf groups to go out and save the land from whatever whatsits is causing trouble this time. Or these are the lone wolf groups that just did.

They may be true if that's how the game plays out. But sending some hired thugs to go take care of trouble outside of town is a very different proposition to allowing those same thugs to wander around inside your town. The reason the PCs were sent may be because no one in the town was available to deal with the threat, because no one in the town wanted to deal with the threat, or because no one in the town was able to deal with the threat. Which reasons apply make a big difference in how a confrontation would play out.

The treatment of armies by citizenry in the early modern and enlightenment period and later is illustrative in this case. Trained soldiers possessed a skill  ("the ability to fire three rounds a minute in any weather" R. Sharpe) that the citizenry lacked. So they paid soldiers to go and do their fighting for them. Not unlike the PCs in some games. But the citizenry's lack of gratitude towards, fear of, and outright ostracization of the soldiers they employed is well known and attested. Indeed it is one of Kipling's major themes. So the town wanting to prevent the PCs from wandering about armed and unsupervised makes a lot of sense.

Whether the town is able to stop the PCs depends on just how powerful the PCs are. If they are a mercenary regiment that's one thing, a company another, and a small war band, a third. Especially in the last situation, which is the more frequent RPG situation, it depends on just how over the top the PCs are compared to the townsfolk.

• In Runequest, the townspeople will probably win (if their morale holds) since numbers make such a huge difference in RQ.
• In Call of Cthuhlu the authorities are always more powerful than the PCs.
• In Star Trek the PCs are supposed to be the guys and gals who stop the wandering mercenary band from terrorizing the townsfolk.
• In Westerns, it's often a genre convention that the townsfolk are always a bunch of frightened sheep. (Ignoring the reality that many townsfolk fought and faced death in the bloody battles of the Civil War; the Northfield Raid shows how townsfolk against outlaws play out for real).
• In Star Wars D6, combined fire can bring down even highly powered PCs.
• Honor+Intrigue is similar.
• But in a level based game like D&D...well that is possibly a very different kettle of old fish. Where the outcome depends on how high level the PCs are and on whether anyone in the town even has levels and levels of comparability to the PCs.

QuoteContext helps.

It certainly does.

We're, for the most part, all agreeing. Those with power to threaten the status quo are on notice until they show consistent behavior indicating otherwise. Same as it ever was, and one of the most coherent ways to structure cooperating sentient creatures. As a group behavior its presence doesn't even really change that much as you go down the food chain.

Then the PCs are all killed by a random pack of wererats because they were in their civvies. And  the next time the DM tells them the local law says "no armor" they tell him and the local law to go to hell.

So that's what my last Mechwarrior game needed... wererat packs. :)

Quote from: Omega;853764Then the PCs are all killed by a random pack of wererats because they were in their civvies. And  the next time the DM tells them the local law says "no armor" they tell him and the local law to go to hell.

Yes if you run your town like that it would be a problem. But if that's what town is like, how do the mundane townspeople survive long enough to build a town?

The wererats only randomly attack adventurers? Everybody in town is a wererat? Shut up you fool! It's D&D, it isn't supposed to make sense.

Quote from: Opaopajr;853769So that's what my last Mechwarrior game needed... wererat packs. :)

Dinosaur things got us once in MW. Just stay in space where its nice and safe and "random -METEOR- impact" oh well...

Quote from: DavetheLost;853862The wererats only randomly attack adventurers? Everybody in town is a wererat? Shut up you fool! It's D&D, it isn't supposed to make sense.

Played that module for BX. Was great.

Quote from: Bren;853780Yes if you run your town like that it would be a problem. But if that's what town is like, how do the mundane townspeople survive long enough to build a town?

In that case you build the town and it attracts things like the wererats and whatevers. The encounter tables in AD&D for towns and cities were all things that would be likely to move in after, or be generated by. And the NPCs could be upwards of level 9 on the street, the town guard had a magic user with them, etc.

The point is that there is no one way. Every locale could be different. Saying "The PCs must always shuck the gear entering a town. ALLWAYS!" is nonesense.

Quote from: Bren;853780Yes if you run your town like that it would be a problem. But if that's what town is like, how do the mundane townspeople survive long enough to build a town?

Again, as we go around the same circle.  For those that did not read the earlier posts.

Quote from: LordVreeg;854411Again, as we go around the same circle.  For those that did not read the earlier posts.

It's like a merry-go-round.

Quote from: Bren;854424It's like a merry-go-round.

round and round and round we go where she stops only this threads death knows

Quote from: kosmos1214;854483round and round and round we go where she stops only this threads death knows

Id have equated Bren with being more like a broken record in this case. But same same.

Quote from: Bren;853556Good luck with that. If lightning is being tossed around, I don't want to be anywhere near the lightning rod in the plate armor.

Actually, you'd be pretty safe.  Because you'd be less conductive than the metal you're wearing, so the electricity would actually avoid you.  Plate and chain is worn away from the skin with a layer of leather padding for good measure, after all.

Oh, you might not be unscathed, but in a lightning storm, there's a fair (not perfect) chance you'd come out lightly toasted but breathing.

Magic, on the other hand, tends to break the conductivity rules.

Quote from: Bren;854424It's like a merry-go-round.

Is that hipster-speak for "circle jerk"?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;854673Is that hipster-speak for "circle jerk"?

No. I just meant a merry-go-round. One of those things you see at old fashioned amusement parks. The spinning round things covered with ponies, carriages, swans, unicorns, you know the usual thing.

Or to paraphrase: sometimes a merry-go-round is just, simply a merry-go-round.

An armoured pony. In town! mwah-haa-haa-haa!

Quote from: Omega;855018An armoured pony. In town! mwah-haa-haa-haa!

Do I throw wererat packs, meteors, or both at it? :p

Typically my parties shop like this: they get off the boat, arrive in town on the winding road from the south, or pop through planar gate X and immediately go to the bazaar to buy, sell and trade. So naturally they arrive looking fully armored, covered in filth and goblin spinal fluid, reeking of odor and decay. But most merchants recognize them for that special breed of madmen known as adventurers, laden with treasure, and proceed to do their best to fleece them.

Quote from: Omega;855018An armoured pony. In town! mwah-haa-haa-haa!

Quote from: Opaopajr;855146Do I throw wererat packs, meteors, or both at it? :p

If it's not a player character, it won't trigger a panic attack in the GM, so no appeal to the historical presence or non-presence of armoured ponies is needed. Maybe you should just ride on it, if it's a carousel pony that goes up and down (the stationary ones are boring).

Or nab it for I-like-ponies! collection, er, "freedom herd."
:cheerleader:
Ermahgerd! Ermerd Pernees! Frer mah Kehrershil!

Oh, I had forgotten your half-orc barbarian folk hero. :o How many ponies does she have now? Still playing her in Adventure League?

Quote from: rawma;855399Oh, I had forgotten your half-orc barbarian folk hero. :o How many ponies does she have now? Still playing her in Adventure League?

5e town encounter table: Animals on the lose!
NPC: "Stampede! Who let that half-orc barbarian folk hero in town with armoured ponies! gaaaah!"
DM:  please take 2d4+2 friendship is trampling damage per pony that hits you.

Best armour in town? The toad familiar in a thick iron box with breating holes. At a pinch you can even use it as a weapon.

Quote from: Omega;8554045e town encounter table: Animals on the lose!
NPC: "Stampede! Who let that half-orc barbarian folk hero in town with armoured ponies! gaaaah!"
DM:  please take 2d4+2 friendship is trampling damage per pony that hits you.

ahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahaahahahhahahahahaaaaaaaahhhhh

this made me laugh so hard

Quote from: rawma;855399Oh, I had forgotten your half-orc barbarian folk hero. :o How many ponies does she have now? Still playing her in Adventure League?

I took a hiatus from Season 2 because it was seeming so horrible.

She's 3rd lvl now, IIRC, and can afford two more ponies now, but has to buy just one otherwise she won't have enough money to feed them. She did get the Cloak of Elvenkind from her 'new aunty' Greenteeth (the hag). She had a hearty meal at aunty's, and promises to leave tokens of her adventures in the village the next time she's through (but won't enter the forest, of course).

Quote from: Bren;853780But if that's what town is like, how do the mundane townspeople survive long enough to build a town?

This is an important point for me when I design settings.

Of course, sometimes towns on the border don't survive.

Quote from: Spinachcat;855866This is an important point for me when I design settings.

Of course, sometimes towns on the border don't survive.

How else did those abandoned ghost towns get there? Sure some just picked a bad spot to settle. No well, poor soil, mine played out. Others though are raided and wiped out.

Some times it is cyclic. One of the neet touches in Hoard of the Dragon Queen was that castle in the swamp. It was abandoned not one but twice before the villains renovated it a third time. And if the PCs have any say in the matter its going to be seeing abandonment #3.

Quote from: Omega;855018An armoured pony. In town! mwah-haa-haa-haa!

Leaving a horse in armor and harness longer than necessary and giving them no rubbing or brushing after a long ride is cruel behavior and will eventually cause an alignment slide to Chaotic Evil.  :mad:

Quote from: Harime Nui;855985Leaving a horse in armor and harness longer than necessary and giving them no rubbing or brushing after a long ride is cruel behavior and will eventually cause an alignment slide to Chaotic Evil.  :mad:

Well it is the pony's fault for not taking their armour off when they entered town and then trampling people. So I think the pony's slide into evil was well on its way before this trampling incident.

Frankly ponies can hardly be expected to reasonably defend themselves with the current Stand Your Ground laws in place.

Quote from: Opaopajr;855710I took a hiatus from Season 2 because it was seeming so horrible.

I have to admit I liked Adventure League season 2 better than season 1. What did you find horrible?

Very narrow solutions to the adventure, needless high aggro and surprise combats, and several had rather linear impels forward. Played at least three and overheard quite a few more. Was not impressed compared to Season 1 branching and circumvention potential.

Quote from: Opaopajr;856051Very narrow solutions to the adventure, needless high aggro and surprise combats, and several had rather linear impels forward. Played at least three and overheard quite a few more. Was not impressed compared to Season 1 branching and circumvention potential.

I was thinking more of Encounters, which followed the released campaign books; the Dragon Queen was way more linear than Princes of the Apocalypse. (I can only judge to 5th-6th level, since then we've moved on to the next season.) Expeditions, to the extent that I've done it, has been a mixed bag, but maybe I haven't done enough, with only about four from each season. The style may have shifted as you describe because of pressure to have them run always in a given amount of time.

More importantly than town laws which may or may not exist or even make sense...

Do your PCs walk around in armour in adverse weather? Hot and cold temperatures do not mix well with armour the further from the norm it gets. Much like wearing armour when near the water.

On top of that. Depending on the materials it is made from damp climates can impact armour too. We allways assumed that part of camp downtime during wilderness travel was spent in the upkeep of the gear.

Quote from: Harime Nui;855985Leaving a horse in armor and harness longer than necessary and giving them no rubbing or brushing after a long ride is cruel behavior and will eventually cause an alignment slide to Chaotic Evil.  :mad:

That's why I just kill and eat the horses after I ride.

Off Topic:

Quote from: rawma;856024I have to admit I liked Adventure League season 2 better than season 1. What did you find horrible?

As someone who ran the season as a DM/Judge, I had severe issues with the printout that WoTC gave us.  First, it jumped a whole chapter, and was meant for characters at level 3, as the encounter table hadn't been modified.  Secondly, it missed a whole bunch of information points that would have helped the various players factions to get them more involved.

That was my issue.

Quote from: Harime Nui;855985Leaving a horse in armor and harness longer than necessary and giving them no rubbing or brushing after a long ride is cruel behavior and will eventually cause an alignment slide to Chaotic Evil.  :mad:

That's why mounted PCs should have at least one NPC groom, if they aren't going to take care of their horses themselves.

Quote from: Omega;856363Do your PCs walk around in armour in adverse weather? Hot and cold temperatures do not mix well with armour the further from the norm it gets. Much like wearing armour when near the water.

I've thought about doing that sort of thing many times, especially since I'm generally tracking the weather anyhow.  In the end, though, it's always seemed like too many extra fiddly bits to stay on top of, so I've never actually bothered.

In 5e does it as CON saves and taking levels of exhaustion with each failure on a check per hour. Neither mentions armour worn. But could be as simple as applying disadvantage to the saves. Or increasing the DC target.