Quote from: Kiero on Today at 03:27:23 PMYeah, I'm sure the average Repuplican Roman citizen was fuming that armed men weren't allowed into the city and armies had to stay out on the Campus Martius. Who wants to be safe going about their everyday business without the threat of random armed strangers starting trouble?

If you have your own sword and know every other citizen also has a sword, you don't fear random armed strangers. Only if the population has been disarmed because the elites fear their own subjects do the citizens have to fear the armed stranger... except not really because in such a system the disarmed subjects don't have much of anything because the elites have confiscated it all for themselves so anyone looking to sack the place are going to target the estates of the elites.

By the time of the sacking of Rome the common citizens willingly opened the gates to armed strangers; trusting them more than their own elites.

Again, having such restrictions makes sense in a historical setting. Just stop pretending it was for the common good and not solely for the benefit of elites who feared their subjects would rise up against them if they were allowed to be armed.

Quote from: Kiero on Today at 02:58:47 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on Today at 02:46:49 PMFine. I cast fireball. Eat hot death.

Oh, what's that? I can't do that? I guess I'll be a monk then, since fighters are forbidden to have weapons and armor. Those 20 years of martial arts experience really pays off, right?

What's that? What's the best shield? If I wrap a towel around my forearm, how much does that improve my armor class again? What's that? It doesn't improve my armor class at all? Then why did you say that, Mister DM? I'm so confused...

Are you 12? Because you sound just like a whiny child. I should know, I have several.

This seems a very emotive subject for you, given multiple tantrums on the topic.

Ok, fine. I will dial it down. I will just ask you one last question, and I'll even do it without bringing up spellcasters.....even though you have carefully refrained from explaining precisely how you would hamstring PC spellcasters in a city, without making things extremely unpleasant for PCs.....to the point in which they would avoid your cities (or eventually conquer or destroy them in a fit of high-level PC vengeance).

Just please explain to me why I would ever play a fighter, instead of a monk....in your campaign of "verisimilitude". And remember:

"Incentive determines behavior."

So what's my incentive to play a weaponless and armorless fighter, rather than a monk (whose body becomes armor and weapons)? The monk is no more weak or vulnerable in this situation which you have imposed, whereas the fighter most certainly is. You have very carefully AVOIDED answering any questions like this.

I find that to be interesting.

Quote from: SHARK on Today at 03:54:51 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on Today at 02:46:49 PM

Quote from: Opaopajr on Today at 04:54:59 AMI just explain that civilization brings its own protections for certain sacrifices. Places that don't means that you don't know who you are dealing with and might (or mob) makes right -- meaning you never get to sleep deeply. So arms control becomes a function of civilization that players will seek out for PC rest and recuperation. Without such "safe zones" things get ugly fast as the village, town, & city is just a mega-dungeon usually aboveground with similar factional compacts to hold a tenuous peace.

I usually impart this in two major ways:

• I never run NPCs as only 0 lvl cannon fodder. There'll always be surprises in your midst.
• Numbers, numbers, numbers. Overbearing is a nice rule, and during a frenzied melee mobs understand this action advantage.

This also applies to magic-users (psionics, etc.) in my games that use magic. You are not the only hero, mind your manners, have some humility. Society has peace by a monopoly on violence and will liberally apply it during duress.

Yes that means certain systems like WotC/PF 3.Xe will be more upfront headache to populate with NPCs. But most other systems it is fine to populate a world with far more lethal force than ANY PC (or team of PCs) could typically field in the standard levels of the game. And that's how I like it: the world's bigger than you. Cope. Make meaning with what you got.

So social mores about doffing armor, tying arms with peace knots, binding gloves that hold down a finger to disrupt somatic casting, or a mouth marble for casters to prevent verbal casting, or whatever other social agreement you can dream up is very much present. They are just expressed as needed given the level of mistrust in a region. e.g. Heartlands see less need for these displays as the rules are internalized, power centers and borderlands more need of overt displays, frontier hinterlands everyone is assumed armed until proven otherwise and politeness is the law of the land.

How about....no?

Who is "civilization"? What's his name? Does he have an address? How many hit points does he have? "The World" is bigger than me, you say? So who is "the World"? What's his address? What's his armor class? How many hit dice does he have? Can I hold "the World" personally accountable, if I ever get fucked over when I'm armorless and weaponless in your precious "City of Verisimilitude"? What's that, you say? No?

And why would I ever allow a bunch of mouthy NPC Karens to practically hogtie me and force me to take part in a humiliation ritual every time I enter a city?

"Mouth marble"? Are you gonna have me wear a dog collar, a butt plug, and a muzzle too, "my lord"? For the record, I'm being extremely vulgar, in order to make a point. Seriously, what the fuck is the matter with you? Some of you guys on this forum seem to have some creepy DM domination fetishes, and it is very fucking weird. I want to play a fantasy game, but this is absolutely not what I have in mind.

In response, I will just sack your precious city when I'm high level, and nuke the depraved gestapo ruling class.....because policies like this will always be the brainchild of a small minority of corrupt assholes who rule with a hidden hand.

"Mouth marble"? Will you fucking listen to yourself, you weirdo?

Good grief. If I was ever exposed to any of this creepy DM domination fetish crap during the years I played D&D, I'd have quit the hobby a million years ago. Some of the things you guys are posting in this thread are starting to seriously weird me out, because it tells me how you guys really think.....and I do not like it.

Quote from: Kiero on Today at 11:14:43 AMJust as an aside, Steven Mitchell and SHARK's games sound awesome to me.

Quote from: Mishihari on May 10, 2025, 02:17:11 AMSo I'm curious.  The PCs are in town where they aren't fully armed and armored, and there's a fight anyway.  Where is the line between "screwing the players over" and "providing an interesting change of pace?"

Everyone plays by the same rules. The PCs aren't fully armed and armoured, nor are the people starting the fight. It's going to be fisticuffs, or perhaps knives, clubs or improvised weapons and the best "shield" is wrapping your cloak around your forearm.

Fine. I cast fireball. Eat hot death.

Oh, what's that? I can't do that? I guess I'll be a monk then, since fighters are forbidden to have weapons and armor. Those 20 years of martial arts experience really pays off, right?

What's that? What's the best shield? If I wrap a towel around my forearm, how much does that improve my armor class again? What's that? It doesn't improve my armor class at all? Then why did you say that, Mister DM? I'm so confused...

Greetings!

Sacrificial Lamb, throughout this discussion here, I have agreed with most of Kiero's points and dynamics. Kiero and I tend to agree on many things. Having said that, I can see where some of your points have been good. However, I think many of your points are more particular and appropriate to some kind of extra-hostile DM running a game at a convention, or something. Most DM's that I know seek to run games where cities and towns alike are prosperous and successful, and relatively peaceful within a historically inspired environment. Historically, most settlements and communities don't approve of people going armed everywhere, and *especially* unknown strangers that just blew into town last night.

Opaopajr is a long-time member here. Opaopajr is certainly one of the most gracious, humorous, and kind members here. He often leans into game extremes from a humorous angle, always seeking to contribute to various discussions in a worthy manner, while somehow being patient, tolerant, and kind, even to overly emotional, hostile jackasses. Opaopajr even manages to enjoy and graciously tolerate my occasional rants.

At the end of the day though, Opaopajr doesn't deserve your hostile, emotionally incontinent response to his post. Your responses in this discussion have been hyper-emotional, and strident, like you had some kind of crazy DM run your game. Pipe the fuck down, man. Light up a good cigar, pour something good to drink, and try to remember that most members here are friends, and friendly, open, gracious, mature adults.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK, I'm sure that Opaopajr is a nice guy in the real world. But when he started talking about "binding gloves" and "mouth marbles" for PCs, whenever they enter a city.....I stopped in my tracks, and thought:

"What the fuck"?

These are fantasy games, man. It is not my FANTASY to be treated like Hannibal Lector every time I enter a city, or submit myself to elaborate humiliation rituals.....every time I want to get some grog at a tavern. I've never signed up for any of that crap in my gaming. I've never DM'd or played in anything like that. I've never even heard of any of this stuff.....until this very thread.

If these guys are regularly doing this stuff in their campaigns, then please count me out.

Quote from: Chris24601 on Today at 05:40:27 PMIf you have your own sword and know every other citizen also has a sword, you don't fear random armed strangers. Only if the population has been disarmed because the elites fear their own subjects do the citizens have to fear the armed stranger... except not really because in such a system the disarmed subjects don't have much of anything because the elites have confiscated it all for themselves so anyone looking to sack the place are going to target the estates of the elites.

By the time of the sacking of Rome the common citizens willingly opened the gates to armed strangers; trusting them more than their own elites.

Again, having such restrictions makes sense in a historical setting. Just stop pretending it was for the common good and not solely for the benefit of elites who feared their subjects would rise up against them if they were allowed to be armed.

Yeah, that worked out really well in England, given the astronomical historical murder stats resulting from the combination of men wearing swords and alcohol being widely consumed. Any trip to the tavern could turn into a random murder.

I note the average citizen of Principate Rome later on was probably less sanguine about that rule being broken - solely for the Emperor's Praetorian Guard. I doubt that made them feel safer than Republican times where no one would be armed and armoured in the city.

So no, I don't agree that it's some weird, highly specific historical context that wouldn't work anywhere else. It was common in ancient Greek cities for people to be unarmed and unarmoured when going about everyday business in town. That's why the common arguments in the Athenian Forum weren't noted to be lethal, even if they did sometimes get violent.

Nor do I accept that it's as simple as a rule to keep the powerful in power.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on Today at 06:05:57 PMOk, fine. I will dial it down. I will just ask you one last question, and I'll even do it without bringing up spellcasters.....even though you have carefully refrained from explaining precisely how you would hamstring PC spellcasters in a city, without making things extremely unpleasant for PCs.....to the point in which they would avoid your cities (or eventually conquer or destroy them in a fit of high-level PC vengeance).

Just please explain to me why I would ever play a fighter, instead of a monk....in your campaign of "verisimilitude". And remember:

"Incentive determines behavior."

So what's my incentive to play a weaponless and armorless fighter, rather than a monk (whose body becomes armor and weapons)? The monk is no more weak or vulnerable in this situation which you have imposed, whereas the fighter most certainly is. You have very carefully AVOIDED answering any questions like this.

I find that to be interesting.

Herein lies the problem with your rant: I don't run standard D&D. Haven't done for years. The last time I used a D&D system was heavily modified ACKS for a historical game where the only "magic" was prophecy in dreams. There are no "wizards" or "monks".

Though there was unarmed combat, based on pankration, which was the preserve of the Fighter-types. They don't need a weapon to Cleave many lesser opponents (and can choose whether they're killing or just incapacitating those opponents). But they still have the option of concealed knives, improvised clubs and so on. And they're still tougher than random mooks. Furthermore, if they're experienced, they have followers who are almost as capable as they are. They become commanders.

The only way I'd consider anything close to core D&D is an E6/low fantasy type setup where no one in the world is a superhero. Which would again preclude one or a small handful of characters taking over cities without backup. Charisma and planning go a long way.

Quote from: ForgottenF on Today at 05:28:08 PMIt seems to me that this thread has gotten fouled up because of a lack of clarity between when people are talking about how it would be and when they are talking about how it ought to be.

Between this thread, the one on "hard historical" settings and the one on sexual norms, I'm now curious how much people are building their settings around their own ideal forms of social order. I've never consciously set out to do that, but I imagine that if I reflected on it, I'd find that my own values probably influence the way I portray a fictional world quite a bit.

Given that everyone has some kind of bias, there's only so objective we can be about extrapolation of historical + fantasy + imagination into something coherent.  I mean, some people do it better than others.  You get guys like Eric Flynt and his small army of sycophants that can't help but write every novel to "prove" that communism is the answer, for example.  But I'll give him this:  He makes about as strong a case as can be made, given the reality, though some of his followers are laughably inept.

I think that I probably avoid some of the traps of that kind of bias because I'm careful to have a wide variety of beliefs represented, and when I do, I try to represent them as fairly as I can. Of course, I won't understand some of those beliefs as well as others. So mistakes are bound to creep in no matter how much I try. Again, once you throw fantasy extrapolation in, though, it's all debatable.

I got brought up short by some players once for having too much gray because I had made them sympathizes with some evil hags. The hags weren't claiming to be anything other than a coven out for their own nasty ends--except their lair was right on top of something even nastier, that they were keeping locked up with their magic.  The wrong people working really hard, doing the right thing at great personal sacrifice, for the wrong reasons.

The party was trying to clear the area of "problems" for their own domain they were building up. In the end, they reached a kind of detente, with clear boundaries drawn, and agreed to not mess with each other.  The alternative was to take the hags out, losing some people in the process, and then hope that they could work out a new seal before the thing broke out. I tried to play it as straight as possible, not pushing either way. There was a real debate amongst the players. 

I think if I can have human sacrifice going on next door in a way that the players grudgingly tolerate, I can probably handle distinctions between, say, noble and peasant, or church and guilds, or wizards and clerics, or most any trope you can toss out there.  There's a few I don't find particularly fun to do. So I don't. But I could if I wanted.

In your formation, it's actually much easier to extrapolate what would be instead of what ought to be.  Then let the players worry about ought.

Quote from: Kiero on Today at 06:39:30 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on Today at 06:05:57 PMOk, fine. I will dial it down. I will just ask you one last question, and I'll even do it without bringing up spellcasters.....even though you have carefully refrained from explaining precisely how you would hamstring PC spellcasters in a city, without making things extremely unpleasant for PCs.....to the point in which they would avoid your cities (or eventually conquer or destroy them in a fit of high-level PC vengeance).

Just please explain to me why I would ever play a fighter, instead of a monk....in your campaign of "verisimilitude". And remember:

"Incentive determines behavior."

So what's my incentive to play a weaponless and armorless fighter, rather than a monk (whose body becomes armor and weapons)? The monk is no more weak or vulnerable in this situation which you have imposed, whereas the fighter most certainly is. You have very carefully AVOIDED answering any questions like this.

I find that to be interesting.

Herein lies the problem with your rant: I don't run standard D&D. Haven't done for years. The last time I used a D&D system was heavily modified ACKS for a historical game where the only "magic" was prophecy in dreams. There are no "wizards" or "monks".

Though there was unarmed combat, based on pankration, which was the preserve of the Fighter-types. They don't need a weapon to Cleave many lesser opponents (and can choose whether they're killing or just incapacitating those opponents). But they still have the option of concealed knives, improvised clubs and so on. And they're still tougher than random mooks. Furthermore, if they're experienced, they have followers who are almost as capable as they are. They become commanders.

The only way I'd consider anything close to core D&D is an E6/low fantasy type setup where no one in the world is a superhero. Which would again preclude one or a small handful of characters taking over cities without backup. Charisma and planning go a long way.

So what are you using for a game system then? No wizards? No monks? No high-level magic? No 100 hit point fighter or barbarian characters beating up small armies of opponents? Are there even hit points in your game? It sounds like you're very carefully trying to avoid the concept of the "hero's journey" in D&D, in which characters can become drastically more powerful than their 1st-level gimp selves.

I can't figure out what you're trying to do with your campaign, but so far....it sounds awful to me. If I wanted to experience all the indignities and limitations of real life, I certainly wouldn't play an rpg for that. Instead, I'd just try to go to a modern airport (or go to a local town board meeting), if I wanted to submit to the exceedingly frustrating, dehumanizing, and emasculating modern Karen NPC experience.

I play fantasy rpgs for the purposes of exploration, teamwork, advancement, and wish fulfillment. The "wish fulfillment" part is vitally important, because otherwise.....what am I playing a fantasy game for? I mean, seriously....if I want to be treated like a second-class citizen (with no personal autonomy allowed), I'll just go to an airport.

Quote from: SHARK on Today at 04:02:48 PMYour responses in this discussion have been hyper-emotional, and strident, like you had some kind of crazy DM run your game. Pipe the fuck down, man.

SHARK, no matter how much I might agree with your points here, you better hide your ass in a Faraday Cage and duck at every sound of thunder.  Because this is the most "pot meet kettle" post I have EVER seen on the Internet.  You, of all people, can't tone-police people, dude!

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on Today at 06:51:59 PMIn your formation, it's actually much easier to extrapolate what would be instead of what ought to be.  Then let the players worry about ought.

I agree, which is what makes the conversation on this thread curious to me.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on Today at 06:51:59 PMI got brought up short by some players once for having too much gray because I had made them sympathizes with some evil hags. The hags weren't claiming to be anything other than a coven out for their own nasty ends--except their lair was right on top of something even nastier, that they were keeping locked up with their magic.  The wrong people working really hard, doing the right thing at great personal sacrifice, for the wrong reasons.

The party was trying to clear the area of "problems" for their own domain they were building up. In the end, they reached a kind of detente, with clear boundaries drawn, and agreed to not mess with each other.  The alternative was to take the hags out, losing some people in the process, and then hope that they could work out a new seal before the thing broke out. I tried to play it as straight as possible, not pushing either way. There was a real debate amongst the players. 

See that sounds to me like an absolute coup of scenario design. A way more interesting decision to have to make than whether you should use cone of cold or burning hands to defeat the evil hags.

I have had similar things occur in a couple of my games, where my players rocked up on some intelligent monster ready to throw down, only to have the monster calmly explain why he's doing what he's doing and offer them a peaceful compromise. I have detected that moment of disappointment when they had themselves hyped up for a fight, but it's usually quick to be replaced by interest in the scenario. They don't always take the deal --sometimes the monster is too evil or the cost is too high-- but I love the fact that they usually pause to consider it.

I had one campaign where after several encounters like that, my PCs got ambushed by forest trolls in their camp at night. Related to this thread, that meant they were unarmored and had to weigh the risks of a fight. One of the players shouted "what do you want from us?" into the dark, and I could hear my players all waiting in anticipation of a complex and relatable motivation. When the trolls replied with "We want to eat you!" the whole table started laughing.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on Today at 06:51:59 PMGiven that everyone has some kind of bias, there's only so objective we can be about extrapolation of historical + fantasy + imagination into something coherent.  I mean, some people do it better than others....

I think that I probably avoid some of the traps of that kind of bias because I'm careful to have a wide variety of beliefs represented, and when I do, I try to represent them as fairly as I can. Of course, I won't understand some of those beliefs as well as others. So mistakes are bound to creep in no matter how much I try. Again, once you throw fantasy extrapolation in, though, it's all debatable.

I think that's the way. I'm usually running published settings these days, so in the name of impartiality, I try to just take the setting as presented and think through its implications for how the NPCs in it should think and act. In that context the biggest bias of mine that comes out is my tendency to assume that most people are basically reasonable. Even if they're evil, self-interested or just assholes, they'll tend to justify their own actions and try to achieve their goals in the easiest and least dangerous way possible. I actually struggle a bit to convincingly portray simplistic villains.

Whenever I get around to finishing my own setting and running it, I imagine my principles and biases will probably come out more strongly.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on Today at 06:05:57 PMJust please explain to me why I would ever play a fighter, instead of a monk....in your campaign of "verisimilitude". And remember:

"Incentive determines behavior."

So what's my incentive to play a weaponless and armorless fighter, rather than a monk (whose body becomes armor and weapons)? The monk is no more weak or vulnerable in this situation which you have imposed, whereas the fighter most certainly is. You have very carefully AVOIDED answering any questions like this.

I'm going have to answer his without the benefit of knowing the relative strength of monk vs fighter in recent iterations of D&D, as I've played very little 4E or 5E.  But the reason to play the guy with weapons vs the guy without is that a guy with weapons beats a guy without.  It's true in RL, else we wouldn't have weapons.  It's true in almost any RPG I've played.  It's true in any game where you want realism, historical accuracy, or even verisimilitude.  If most of the action happens outside of places where weapons are restricted by society, then playing the weapons guy is optimal.

Quote from: ForgottenF on Today at 08:30:05 PMI had one campaign where after several encounters like that, my PCs got ambushed by forest trolls in their camp at night. Related to this thread, that meant they were unarmored and had to weigh the risks of a fight. One of the players shouted "what do you want from us?" into the dark, and I could hear my players all waiting in anticipation of a complex and relatable motivation. When the trolls replied with "We want to eat you!" the whole table started laughing.

Hah! I've had a few similar moments arise organically out of play that way, and it's yet another example of something you simply never get to experience if the GM doesn't set the baseline behavior first. 

Quote from: ForgottenF on Today at 08:30:05 PMI think that's the way. I'm usually running published settings these days, so in the name of impartiality, I try to just take the setting as presented and think through its implications for how the NPCs in it should think and act. In that context the biggest bias of mine that comes out is my tendency to assume that most people are basically reasonable. Even if they're evil, self-interested or just assholes, they'll tend to justify their own actions and try to achieve their goals in the easiest and least dangerous way possible. I actually struggle a bit to convincingly portray simplistic villains.

Whenever I get around to finishing my own setting and running it, I imagine my principles and biases will probably come out more strongly.

My view is that human nature is constant, outright insanity is rare but minor insane quirks are common, almost everyone is reasonable but most are operating on at least a few false premises, and normal people in a difficult time always carry around some compromises.

Chesterton said that people always make the mistake of assuming that the insane are illogical, when more often than not they are hyper-logical. In fact, that's part of why they are insane--the same hyper-logic running down the same narrow track until it has carved a rut in their personality.

Toss in a host of motivations and plain old self-interest into that brew, along with a little dramatic license, you can justify almost anything.  It just needs a bit of consistency and thought.