TheRPGSite

Admittedly, I prefer historical to fantasy by a long way, where this sort of stuff is even more important from a versimilitude perspective.

In history, people in general, but strangers in particular were not permitted to wander around settlements armed and armoured. In Republican Rome, no one was allowed to wear armour inside the boundary of the pomerium (the ancient city walls) except the Master of Horse during times of emergency. That was later bent for the Emperor's Praetorian Guard, but it was another mark of how things had changed with the end of the Republic.

In ancient Athens, no one went to the Assembly armed (and you didn't wear armour in the city at all). Fights were common in the Assembly, which is why weapons were banned and frowned upon. These are both examples of times and places where there was no "city guard" or police force, social conventions and the threat of factions going off to arm up all their followers in response was usually enough to keep the peace.

Armour is generally hot and uncomfortable to wear, even if tailored for the particular owner. Even out campaigning you wouldn't routinely wear it and at the very least you'd tend to take it off to sleep. If you're aboard ship, you don't take the risk of being knocked overboard whilst armoured unless you're actually expecting a fight.

Point I'm getting at is the fantasy assumption that PCs are armed and armoured all the time makes no sense. And you would think any settlement would take a dim view of dangerous looking strangers wandering about the place loaded for bear.

It would also mean there are times when PCs might have to consider whether they want to get into a fight, when they're unarmoured and possibly armed with nothing more than knives or at most clubs, or avoid a fight and come back to something when they're better prepared. Or where a surprise encounter might feature the decision of whether some of the party react immediately to the threat whilst others get their armour on and perhaps locate mounts.

Do many settings actually consider that kind of thing, or is it more in the realm of how a GM presents their game?

Quote from: Kiero on May 06, 2025, 05:56:25 AMIf you're aboard ship, you don't take the risk of being knocked overboard whilst armoured unless you're actually expecting a fight.

I don't know about settings with such social conventions, but I'll just point out that this piece in particular seems more mechanical than social. Any game with more realistic swimming/drowning mechanics will see players shedding armor while aboard a ship.

Quote from: Zalman on May 06, 2025, 06:02:08 AMI don't know about settings with such social conventions, but I'll just point out that this piece in particular seems more mechanical than social. Any game with more realistic swimming/drowning mechanics will see players shedding armor while aboard a ship.

There's two different elements to this - the practical and the social. The practical is that armour is uncomfortable (fatigue rules?) and can be inconvenient in certain contexts (like finding yourself swimming with it on). The social is that other people don't like armed strangers around their homes and families.

Quote from: Kiero on May 06, 2025, 05:56:25 AMPoint I'm getting at is the fantasy assumption that

Fantasy.

Now, if you're playing a realistic-themed setting, that's different. But in fantasy, who cares?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2025, 06:48:02 AMFantasy.

Now, if you're playing a realistic-themed setting, that's different. But in fantasy, who cares?

There are more realistic fantasy settings. It's not as simple as "it's fantasy, so whatever". Indeed internal consistency is what separates the better fantasy settings.

I tend to go with as many restrictions on armor and weapons in inappropriate times and places as I can easily get into the game and back up with mechanics.  And that's in games that range from sword and sorcery to outright heroic fantasy, not really historical at all.

I find a small amount of restriction with a light touch works better than trying to be historically/physically realistic. So yeah, I have swimming rules that make falling into water wearing heavy armor a bad idea, but in the grey areas (brigandine, scale tunics, etc.) I instead give the nod to the fantasy side--where it's possible for a character to swim in them, just more difficult. A chain hauberk or plate and chain?  No way! 

My rules for exhaustion/recovery gives the players a lot of options to find their comfort zone, but are pretty simple to use. These rules also include positive things like having proper clothes, tents, hot food, etc. There's some of the recovery for upper level characters that just comes from being a bad ass, but there's a base amount that only comes from not tramping around in the desert wearing metal or sleeping in the rain or other such things. The primary focus of these rules is to encourage the players to see a stark difference when resting in safety in civilization compared to environmental extremes while adventuring, but not sleeping in armor is a factor. So basically, you can "sleep" in armor if you want, but then you are barely recovering fatigue at all, which is likely a drain on spell resources, and spell resources recover slowly over days and weeks, not overnight.

All of this is in service to making the players think, though, not to enforce realism. It gives a nod to realism, when the party is in bad shape, surrounded by enemies, camping in the snow without a fire, and a couple of characters decide to stay up all night and take the hit, because they are the only two not badly hurt. It feels more realistic than it is.  If it helps, think of the difference between stage fencing and real fighting.  Stage fencing is flamboyant and not realistic, because the realistic thing is not something the untrained can follow. Stage make up is exaggerated because there are no camera close ups.  So the stage tricks make are deliberately exaggerated to give the audience a closer feeling to reality than a more accurate representation would provide.

Keep in mind that in the typical vanilla fantasy realm there are all sorts of things that citizens in historical settings do not have to cope with. City streets being overrun by wererats from the sewers. Wyverns and other flying monsters swooping down and carrying off people. Purple worms or umber hulks suddenly bursting forth from the ground and terrorizing a neighborhood. A historical setting's people only have other humans, sickness, and natural disasters as primary threats. A fantasy realm has multiple intelligent humanoid apex predators that eat other humanoids running around.

Not even close to the same kind of world. at all.

I think this comes down to the hassle involved with donning and doffing armor.

How long does it take? Do you need to look it up? It's like with encumbrance, even if the game has the rules, many groups ignore it because it's bean counting.

So if you want to enforce this kind of convention (which does make sense), how simple can you make the rules for it?

One thing is probably don't have armor make you harder to hit, but rather have it subtract damage. If your defense score is the same, whether you're wearing armor or not, it's a lot easier to just keep track of whether you're wearing the armor, and then you do or don't subtract damage.

D&D having armor make you harder to hit I think is a big reason why people don't like switching. You have to re-calculate AC in each state. It's already bad enough with facing, not getting a shield bonus for rear attacks, etc.

Quote from: migo on May 06, 2025, 08:33:50 AMI think this comes down to the hassle involved with donning and doffing armor.

How long does it take? Do you need to look it up? It's like with encumbrance, even if the game has the rules, many groups ignore it because it's bean counting.

So if you want to enforce this kind of convention (which does make sense), how simple can you make the rules for it?

Depends if you want to be realistic or just approximate the effect for game play.  With the latter, I have really simple rules:  It's a "move" to ready a shield or don a helm. So if you use your action/move to do nothing else, you can do both in one round. For armor, it's 2 points of Armor for every action/move combo.  Up to 2 other people can help.  So yes, that does mean that with 2 people helping, you can get fully outfitted in all but the heaviest armor in 1 round, putting on the helm/shield the next round as necessary.  Which is not realistic at all.  But it does mean that 3 people are out of the fight in that crucial opening action, which is a meaningful decision the 2 helpers have to make, and occasionally the one with the armor.  And of course, in some situations, the 2 helpers need to put on their lighter armor first.

This simple rule did in fact provoke meaningful decisions in not 1 but 2 fights in my last session.  There's other times when the watch is alert enough to detect opponents far enough away that isn't really meaningful, but in that case we don't have to play it out.  Though we also had one instance this last session where the party really wanted to get into their armor with stealth. They got the armor on with no problem but failed in the stealth, which had ramifications for what happened next.  So no real game time or anything to look up, but a tense moment almost for free.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 06, 2025, 08:10:38 AMI tend to go with as many restrictions on armor and weapons in inappropriate times and places as I can easily get into the game and back up with mechanics.  And that's in games that range from sword and sorcery to outright heroic fantasy, not really historical at all.

I find a small amount of restriction with a light touch works better than trying to be historically/physically realistic. So yeah, I have swimming rules that make falling into water wearing heavy armor a bad idea, but in the grey areas (brigandine, scale tunics, etc.) I instead give the nod to the fantasy side--where it's possible for a character to swim in them, just more difficult. A chain hauberk or plate and chain?  No way! 

My rules for exhaustion/recovery gives the players a lot of options to find their comfort zone, but are pretty simple to use. These rules also include positive things like having proper clothes, tents, hot food, etc. There's some of the recovery for upper level characters that just comes from being a bad ass, but there's a base amount that only comes from not tramping around in the desert wearing metal or sleeping in the rain or other such things. The primary focus of these rules is to encourage the players to see a stark difference when resting in safety in civilization compared to environmental extremes while adventuring, but not sleeping in armor is a factor. So basically, you can "sleep" in armor if you want, but then you are barely recovering fatigue at all, which is likely a drain on spell resources, and spell resources recover slowly over days and weeks, not overnight.

All of this is in service to making the players think, though, not to enforce realism. It gives a nod to realism, when the party is in bad shape, surrounded by enemies, camping in the snow without a fire, and a couple of characters decide to stay up all night and take the hit, because they are the only two not badly hurt. It feels more realistic than it is.  If it helps, think of the difference between stage fencing and real fighting.  Stage fencing is flamboyant and not realistic, because the realistic thing is not something the untrained can follow. Stage make up is exaggerated because there are no camera close ups.  So the stage tricks make are deliberately exaggerated to give the audience a closer feeling to reality than a more accurate representation would provide.

I think what it can do is make for meaningful tactical choices when out on campaign. The party is in a dangerous region where they might be attacked - but they need to rest. Does half the group or some other subset stay on guard, armoured up, whilst the rest get out of their armour to sleep?

Or does everyone try to sleep in their armour, knowing they won't be in their best condition the next day or if they get attacked in the night?

If you're surprised in the night, do you take the time to get armoured up, or leap into the fray with just helmet and shield?

All of which I think are more interesting that the possible assumption everyone is just in their best condition with the best gear all of the time, regardless.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 06, 2025, 08:28:40 AMKeep in mind that in the typical vanilla fantasy realm there are all sorts of things that citizens in historical settings do not have to cope with. City streets being overrun by wererats from the sewers. Wyverns and other flying monsters swooping down and carrying off people. Purple worms or umber hulks suddenly bursting forth from the ground and terrorizing a neighborhood. A historical setting's people only have other humans, sickness, and natural disasters as primary threats. A fantasy realm has multiple intelligent humanoid apex predators that eat other humanoids running around.

Not even close to the same kind of world. at all.

Two things: not every settlement in a fantasy world is on the frontier, where monster attack could happen at any time. That isn't necessarily a valid concern for all places at all times.

And even then, why would they necessarily be cool with strangers being armed about the place, even if it is? The archetypical fantasy city with dangerous sewers has a city guard for that sort of thing.

Quote from: migo on May 06, 2025, 08:33:50 AMI think this comes down to the hassle involved with donning and doffing armor.

How long does it take? Do you need to look it up? It's like with encumbrance, even if the game has the rules, many groups ignore it because it's bean counting.

So if you want to enforce this kind of convention (which does make sense), how simple can you make the rules for it?

One thing is probably don't have armor make you harder to hit, but rather have it subtract damage. If your defense score is the same, whether you're wearing armor or not, it's a lot easier to just keep track of whether you're wearing the armor, and then you do or don't subtract damage.

D&D having armor make you harder to hit I think is a big reason why people don't like switching. You have to re-calculate AC in each state. It's already bad enough with facing, not getting a shield bonus for rear attacks, etc.

Depends on the armour; some heavier types can take several minutes, or even require assistance. The latter sort definitely complicates things, if the character would actually struggle to armour themselves when alone.

I don't think the different stats are all that big a barrier, though. At the same time you calculate your armoured stats, also calculate them unarmoured. You refer to one number, or the other depending on the situation.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 06, 2025, 08:47:17 AM

Quote from: migo on May 06, 2025, 08:33:50 AMI think this comes down to the hassle involved with donning and doffing armor.

How long does it take? Do you need to look it up? It's like with encumbrance, even if the game has the rules, many groups ignore it because it's bean counting.

So if you want to enforce this kind of convention (which does make sense), how simple can you make the rules for it?

Depends if you want to be realistic or just approximate the effect for game play.  With the latter, I have really simple rules:  It's a "move" to ready a shield or don a helm. So if you use your action/move to do nothing else, you can do both in one round. For armor, it's 2 points of Armor for every action/move combo.  Up to 2 other people can help.  So yes, that does mean that with 2 people helping, you can get fully outfitted in all but the heaviest armor in 1 round, putting on the helm/shield the next round as necessary.  Which is not realistic at all.  But it does mean that 3 people are out of the fight in that crucial opening action, which is a meaningful decision the 2 helpers have to make, and occasionally the one with the armor.  And of course, in some situations, the 2 helpers need to put on their lighter armor first.

This simple rule did in fact provoke meaningful decisions in not 1 but 2 fights in my last session.  There's other times when the watch is alert enough to detect opponents far enough away that isn't really meaningful, but in that case we don't have to play it out.  Though we also had one instance this last session where the party really wanted to get into their armor with stealth. They got the armor on with no problem but failed in the stealth, which had ramifications for what happened next.  So no real game time or anything to look up, but a tense moment almost for free.

Indeed, which again I think means the players are forced to actually think about stuff that mattered in real life, like who's on watch, who is ready and what time you're willing to take to prepare when you were surprised.

What it's about for me is getting away from the frankly rather boring assumption that the party is always maximally kitted out at all times. Your example of going for stealth is another good circumstance that might come up for not having all your gear equipped.

I think that one thing that helps with these kind of rules is to make shields more realistically valuable and/or have helms.  That's one of the reasons I built helms into the system, and I definitely wanted shields to matter more. In my system, helms, most shield, and moderately heavy or heavier armor all equally contribute to reducing the effects of critical hits. So even though the armor provides more total defense, the helm/shield has an outsize effect on the actual damage you take.

In many systems, equipping the shield is almost an afterthought, unless it is magical. Putting a time on that is not meaningful, just nit picky accounting. Whereas, I have had situations where a player made the decision to go with the fast shield/helm combo to get into the fight in a hurry.  I've even had a handful of times where a player did that to try to hold off opponents while the rest of the group got their armor on--and then retired as soon as someone could relieve the post.

If you want to make putting on armor a chore, then toss the players a bone and make grabbing up that big shield a useful emergency action.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 06, 2025, 08:28:40 AMKeep in mind that in the typical vanilla fantasy realm there are all sorts of things that citizens in historical settings do not have to cope with. City streets being overrun by wererats from the sewers. Wyverns and other flying monsters swooping down and carrying off people. Purple worms or umber hulks suddenly bursting forth from the ground and terrorizing a neighborhood. A historical setting's people only have other humans, sickness, and natural disasters as primary threats. A fantasy realm has multiple intelligent humanoid apex predators that eat other humanoids running around.

Not even close to the same kind of world. at all.

Just a note on historical settings.  During certain time periods, just about everything had a palisade wall around a cluster of buildings for defense.  You wouldn't have a farm as a few buildings, you would have an extended family with multiple buildings with a wall around most or all of it.

Fantasy worlds with a lot of monsters would have even more defenses.

I think its a practical matter. Most characters know they are in for adventure and want to be ready. They simply won't go anywhere without their best gear. All this is a shame because it limits the GM's bag of tricks.

The popular assumption is that the job of adventurer is tolerated- someone who solves some otherwise intractable problems.  If the game world really has like ten to twenty levels of power, then it's totally plausible, because high levels don't really map to anything like what the real world has in D&D. 

But even if the game is capped at 6th level or uses a system without such tiers, if you are in a place where some ogres can be a problem and a team of specialists can fix it, it's plausible to assume a looser attitude towards such characters.

There's another issue here, as regards being disarmed, unarmored and going on boats and such, and that is that there's no shortage of characters who are nearly as well defended as a knight by virtue of ki power and nimbleness, even whilst nude.  Even something as mundane as a rogue will often end up the greatest martial combatant if subject to some place without arms and armor (because he secretly brought a knife, which any system worth a hill of beans will allow a rogue to accomplish, and has a good baseline agility-hoppity-hop stat).  To say nothing of casters, who the system might make incapable of casting via some mechanism or simply not hinder them at all, depending.
You need to build a lot more baseline realism into a system to make all that work all that well.

It really depends on the setting.  While the trappings of d&d are medeival, the cultural assumptions and social structure are a lot more like the American old west.  The ideas of adventurers and adventuring make the most sense in such places, where significant numbers of people live out past the edge of strong civilized authority.  The age of pirates is another good example.  In many cases folks did go armed. 

I just recalled another relevant example.  I recently read about a far northern town where the residents are required to go armed outside because of the threat of polar bears.

Quote from: Mishihari on May 06, 2025, 11:00:39 AMIt really depends on the setting.  While the trappings of d&d are medeival, the cultural assumptions and social structure are a lot more like the American old west.  The ideas of adventurers and adventuring make the most sense in such places, where significant numbers of people live out past the edge of strong civilized authority.  The age of pirates is another good example.  In many cases folks did go armed. 

I just recalled another relevant example.  I recently read about a far northern town where the residents are required to go armed outside because of the threat of polar bears.

Yep. The typical D&D setting is a mishmash of myth, legend and history from all over the world and wildly different time frames. It's only superficially medieval, and sometimes not even that.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 06, 2025, 09:14:45 AMI think that one thing that helps with these kind of rules is to make shields more realistically valuable and/or have helms.  That's one of the reasons I built helms into the system, and I definitely wanted shields to matter more. In my system, helms, most shield, and moderately heavy or heavier armor all equally contribute to reducing the effects of critical hits. So even though the armor provides more total defense, the helm/shield has an outsize effect on the actual damage you take.

In many systems, equipping the shield is almost an afterthought, unless it is magical. Putting a time on that is not meaningful, just nit picky accounting. Whereas, I have had situations where a player made the decision to go with the fast shield/helm combo to get into the fight in a hurry.  I've even had a handful of times where a player did that to try to hold off opponents while the rest of the group got their armor on--and then retired as soon as someone could relieve the post.

If you want to make putting on armor a chore, then toss the players a bone and make grabbing up that big shield a useful emergency action.

Ironically, that's exactly the conclusion I came to when adjusting B/X-derived ACKS for a historical game. Armour was de-prioritised and shields made much more important. A big shield and helm was equivalent to medium armour, without actually wearing anything else.

It also provides an intermediate step between totally unprepared and totally armoured up. Sure you haven't got time to get into your cuirass and strap on greaves and arm plates, but you do have enough time to put on your helmet and pick up your shield before jumping into the fray.

And as you say, there's an interesting twist where the group, working as a team can do that trade off of some hold whilst others get ready.

Quote from: LordBP on May 06, 2025, 09:29:13 AMJust a note on historical settings.  During certain time periods, just about everything had a palisade wall around a cluster of buildings for defense.  You wouldn't have a farm as a few buildings, you would have an extended family with multiple buildings with a wall around most or all of it.

Fantasy worlds with a lot of monsters would have even more defenses.

You can get a palisade around the core area where the town and marketplace might be, you couldn't literally wall off the entire extent of farmland surrounding it. That would be the place people in the outlying farms would retreat to in times of trouble.

Within that space, though, the people in charge would be much more particular about who they want running about armed and armoured.

Quote from: Ruprecht on May 06, 2025, 09:49:10 AMI think its a practical matter. Most characters know they are in for adventure and want to be ready. They simply won't go anywhere without their best gear. All this is a shame because it limits the GM's bag of tricks.

If you're genuinely engaging with practical matters, they can't wear all their best gear, all the time. They have to sleep, bathe, swim, recover from wounds.

But yes, it doesn't just limit the GM's bag of tricks. if we assume the same for the opposition then the players don't get the chance to catch their enemies unawares, either.

Quote from: Venka on May 06, 2025, 10:10:40 AMThe popular assumption is that the job of adventurer is tolerated- someone who solves some otherwise intractable problems.  If the game world really has like ten to twenty levels of power, then it's totally plausible, because high levels don't really map to anything like what the real world has in D&D. 

But even if the game is capped at 6th level or uses a system without such tiers, if you are in a place where some ogres can be a problem and a team of specialists can fix it, it's plausible to assume a looser attitude towards such characters.

There's another issue here, as regards being disarmed, unarmored and going on boats and such, and that is that there's no shortage of characters who are nearly as well defended as a knight by virtue of ki power and nimbleness, even whilst nude.  Even something as mundane as a rogue will often end up the greatest martial combatant if subject to some place without arms and armor (because he secretly brought a knife, which any system worth a hill of beans will allow a rogue to accomplish, and has a good baseline agility-hoppity-hop stat).  To say nothing of casters, who the system might make incapable of casting via some mechanism or simply not hinder them at all, depending.
You need to build a lot more baseline realism into a system to make all that work all that well.

Again, in a frontier-type location maybe. But in the capital city of a developed nation well away from the frontier regions, why would the same permissiveness necessarily hold true?

Most places didn't sweat carrying knives on your person, even if they stopped people carrying spears and swords. The heaviest thing you might get when preparing for trouble in an urban area is a club or staff. If that gives an advantage to the roguish types, well that is the environment that's supposed to be their element. Though that sort of thing is paired with stealth/surprise and in a straight fight less useful.

Your latter point is a good one, but there may be similar strictures on casters and other power sources. Those who might respond to "unauthorised" magic use in the same way as people visibly armed where they shouldn't be.

Quote from: Mishihari on May 06, 2025, 11:00:39 AMIt really depends on the setting.  While the trappings of d&d are medeival, the cultural assumptions and social structure are a lot more like the American old west.  The ideas of adventurers and adventuring make the most sense in such places, where significant numbers of people live out past the edge of strong civilized authority.  The age of pirates is another good example.  In many cases folks did go armed. 

I just recalled another relevant example.  I recently read about a far northern town where the residents are required to go armed outside because of the threat of polar bears.

This is a good point, you've got a potentially incompatible crossing of trappings and assumptions going on. As far as I'm aware medieval Europe had laws and ordinances about who was allowed to carry what and wear, the old West was very different in that regard.

A lot of this comes down to what you think your job as the GM actually is.

You're the judge arbitrating the rules for a fantasy adventure game where players kill things for gold and experience. To what extent do you think you're obligated to enforce the rules and social norms of 13th century Europe onto characters who are carrying around weapons and therefore empowered to defy those norms?

Even mundane arms and armor were worth quite a lot of money. If the players have to take off their armor and disarm themselves, who are they going to trust to hold on to it? This is exacerbated by magical arms and armor. That +1 sword is probably worth more than the entire town.

Then you have metagame reasoning. The "neutral" judge who is supposed to "challenge" me during play is trying to take away my weapons and armor. What motivation could he have for doing this? Players aren't stupid, and they're suspicious by nature. This all sounds conspicuously like the GM engaging in kung fu treachery. No, I don't think I want to be unarmed and in plain clothes when the assassin strikes the mayor, thank you.

Quote from: Corolinth on May 06, 2025, 11:31:06 AMA lot of this comes down to what you think your job as the GM actually is.

You're the judge arbitrating the rules for a fantasy adventure game where players kill things for gold and experience. To what extent do you think you're obligated to enforce the rules and social norms of 13th century Europe onto characters who are carrying around weapons and therefore empowered to defy those norms?

Even mundane arms and armor were worth quite a lot of money. If the players have to take off their armor and disarm themselves, who are they going to trust to hold on to it? This is exacerbated by magical arms and armor. That +1 sword is probably worth more than the entire town.

Then you have metagame reasoning. The "neutral" judge who is supposed to "challenge" me during play is trying to take away my weapons and armor. What motivation could he have for doing this? Players aren't stupid, and they're suspicious by nature. This all sounds conspicuously like the GM engaging in kung fu treachery. No, I don't think I want to be unarmed and in plain clothes when the assassin strikes the mayor, thank you.

Personally, I think my job as GM is to present and believable, internally consistent world where people behave in a way that makes sense to the mores they'd hold.

Are they really empowered to defy those norms outside of the most thinly populated frontier towns? If they're wandering around the capital city of a developed nation, they surely said nation has it's own means of protecting the citizens who pay their taxes there?

Where they leave their stuff is one of those considerations of a realistic setting. Do they have henchmen/hirelings who guard their camp to free them up from routine stuff? Have they spent the time and effort building up a trustworthy entourage who can support them? Or perhaps they have a citizen of the settlement who's sponsoring their presence who can look after their stuff for them?

On the metagame, that's not players being smart, that's being paranoid. If they're never willing to be apart from their stuff, that limits their options of where they can do. By the same token, why would powerful people permit dangerous people like the PCs in their presence fully kitted out? If you don't want to be in plain clothes and unarmed, you don't get anywhere near the mayor or even to speak to them, because why would the mayor's security be dumb enough to let random people close by armed?

These aren't merely theoretical considerations, they're how societies work. You don't think in ancient Athens there were people who might worry about assassins, but trusted to the social conventions that everyone was unarmoured in the city to protect them? The alternative wouldn't be a functioning society, but armed camps staring at each other from within their fortresses.

That's how we developed customs around hospitality and guest friendship, where some societies developed really complex rules around "face" and status that come from behaving in particular ways. Many societies barred entire classes of people from having any weapons at all, for example.

Quote from: Kiero on May 06, 2025, 11:26:01 AM

Quote from: LordBP on May 06, 2025, 09:29:13 AMJust a note on historical settings.  During certain time periods, just about everything had a palisade wall around a cluster of buildings for defense.  You wouldn't have a farm as a few buildings, you would have an extended family with multiple buildings with a wall around most or all of it.

Fantasy worlds with a lot of monsters would have even more defenses.

You can get a palisade around the core area where the town and marketplace might be, you couldn't literally wall off the entire extent of farmland surrounding it. That would be the place people in the outlying farms would retreat to in times of trouble.

Within that space, though, the people in charge would be much more particular about who they want running about armed and armoured.

More thinking Neolithic Europe where most "villages" were an extended family with all the buildings inside of the palisade to protect them from other "villages" and the hordes from the plains (not that it helped much with the later).

This would be the model for any type of settlement outside of "civilized" areas, but in fantasy, I'm not sure that would work even then.

Quote from: Kiero on May 06, 2025, 11:42:04 AMPersonally, I think my job as GM is to present and believable, internally consistent world where people behave in a way that makes sense to the mores they'd hold.

Pardon me for not bothering to quote an entire post, because that became a whole thing recently.

So it's believable that a hardened warrior who risked life and limb to acquire a sword worth a king's ransom from the lair of a horrible monster is going to... surrender that sword because Sheriff Bob said so? Let's go with that whole some societies banned certain classes from carrying weapons schtick. Clearly the player characters are not from those social classes, as they have weapons. Problem solved.

What I'm getting from your posts in this thread is that you want to enforce a fairly rigid view of how medieval society interacted with one another, and aren't terribly interested in considering how, "That guy over there slew a dragon," might throw a monkey wrench into that paradigm. That's a thing you can do, but it's going to have limited success. Tabletop gaming is ultimately a group endeavor. Whatever you're trying to achieve requires some cooperation from your players.

Quote from: Corolinth on May 06, 2025, 12:45:36 PMPardon me for not bothering to quote an entire post, because that became a whole thing recently.

So it's believable that a hardened warrior who risked life and limb to acquire a sword worth a king's ransom from the lair of a horrible monster is going to... surrender that sword because Sheriff Bob said so? Let's go with that whole some societies banned certain classes from carrying weapons schtick. Clearly the player characters are not from those social classes, as they have weapons. Problem solved.

What I'm getting from your posts in this thread is that you want to enforce a fairly rigid view of how medieval society interacted with one another, and aren't terribly interested in considering how, "That guy over there slew a dragon," might throw a monkey wrench into that paradigm. That's a thing you can do, but it's going to have limited success. Tabletop gaming is ultimately a group endeavor. Whatever you're trying to achieve requires some cooperation from your players.

Uh no. I don't play medieval, I'm more interested in antiquity, and "Sheriff Bob" is an old West-ism. It's more like why would the king of a realm permit these dangerous individuals into their presence armed, even with his guard all around him?

That guy who slew a dragon is still a foreigner and a stranger, they don't get to simply skirt social convention when they could be dangerous. If they're the sort to be a dick about the way society works for everyone else, instead of finding a receptive locale to sell their loot and seek services, they find all the citizens mobilised against the invaders.

Quote from: Kiero on May 06, 2025, 05:56:25 AMPoint I'm getting at is the fantasy assumption that PCs are armed and armoured all the time makes no sense. And you would think any settlement would take a dim view of dangerous looking strangers wandering about the place loaded for bear.

It would also mean there are times when PCs might have to consider whether they want to get into a fight, when they're unarmoured and possibly armed with nothing more than knives or at most clubs, or avoid a fight and come back to something when they're better prepared. Or where a surprise encounter might feature the decision of whether some of the party react immediately to the threat whilst others get their armour on and perhaps locate mounts.

Quote from: Kiero on May 06, 2025, 12:54:50 PMI don't play medieval, I'm more interested in antiquity, and "Sheriff Bob" is an old West-ism. It's more like why would the king of a realm permit these dangerous individuals into their presence armed, even with his guard all around him?

That guy who slew a dragon is still a foreigner and a stranger, they don't get to simply skirt social convention when they could be dangerous. If they're the sort to be a dick about the way society works for everyone else, instead of finding a receptive locale to sell their loot and seek services, they find all the citizens mobilised against the invaders.

In your original post, Kiero, you talk about PCs avoiding a fight when they're unarmored, or possibly getting surprised and having to get their armor on during the fight. What would they be fighting? i.e. What are the sort of encounters that you are thinking might happen in the city?

---

I've had problems in the past with games where the citizens are inconsistent. If the PCs misbehave, then the citizens all mobilize against the PC invaders. However, if a bandit or monster shows up, then the citizens fail to mobilize and it's up to the PCs to fight it.

If the PCs are treated as dangerous-looking, untrusted strangers and afforded no rank - then I'd expect that the PCs would treat any problems in the city as none of their business. They'd back off and let the citizens handle it if a monster or bandit appeared. In my current cyberpunk campaign, say, the PCs are poor young gangsters of a sort in a Norse-myth cyberpunk city.

In many of my fantasy games, though, the PCs are considered to be of high social rank - so they are treated as valued visiting nobles and/or heroes. In my last D&D campaign, the PCs had a semi-divine patron, so they were treated as having religious authority and people commonly appealed to them (plus one of them was a princess).

Quote from: Kiero on May 06, 2025, 12:54:50 PM

Quote from: Corolinth on May 06, 2025, 12:45:36 PMPardon me for not bothering to quote an entire post, because that became a whole thing recently.

So it's believable that a hardened warrior who risked life and limb to acquire a sword worth a king's ransom from the lair of a horrible monster is going to... surrender that sword because Sheriff Bob said so? Let's go with that whole some societies banned certain classes from carrying weapons schtick. Clearly the player characters are not from those social classes, as they have weapons. Problem solved.

What I'm getting from your posts in this thread is that you want to enforce a fairly rigid view of how medieval society interacted with one another, and aren't terribly interested in considering how, "That guy over there slew a dragon," might throw a monkey wrench into that paradigm. That's a thing you can do, but it's going to have limited success. Tabletop gaming is ultimately a group endeavor. Whatever you're trying to achieve requires some cooperation from your players.

Uh no. I don't play medieval, I'm more interested in antiquity, and "Sheriff Bob" is an old West-ism. It's more like why would the king of a realm permit these dangerous individuals into their presence armed, even with his guard all around him?

That guy who slew a dragon is still a foreigner and a stranger, they don't get to simply skirt social convention when they could be dangerous. If they're the sort to be a dick about the way society works for everyone else, instead of finding a receptive locale to sell their loot and seek services, they find all the citizens mobilised against the invaders.

The unwritten assumption here is that if the GM is going to this kind of effort to have a consistent world, then:

- It's consistent across the board, whether that helps or hurts the PCs in any given situation.
- The players have signed on for this kind of game.
- It's strongly implied that the players have a lot of choices in what their characters tangle with.

So yeah, if you want to run an episodic, adventure of the week, with no real purpose other than dealing with that adventure, then it's a dick GM move to deprive the players of their weapons without at least some kind of way around it.  If the players have to go to town because that's the only place the adventure occurs this week, then assassins every time you are unarmed would get old in a hurry.

OTOH, if you are running a world in motions, where things happen, and players decide what they want to do about it, then more things are on the table.  I have actually had a group decide not go into a town because the restriction on weapons and magic struck them as particularly onerous and suspicious (and they weren't even all wrong about it, either). That had consequences of course, since they couldn't use the town services, but they were the ones deciding to make that trade. In fact, this way, a town can even functionally be an enemy.

It helps a lot to have some variety, and for that variety to have a reason the players can learn. This town over here likes us a lot because of that time we cleared out the ogres. So even though they have some rules about arms and magic, they made us honorary citizens.  I've even had players sign on as a temporary militia member.  When you have things like this in the game, they are just another kind of challenge to navigate.  What isn't cool is putting stuff like that in the game as gotchas with no ways to navigate it.

Consider too that non-humans may not follow human norms on what is socially acceptable. For some groups, it may be very unusual or even socially improper to go about unarmed or unarmored.

Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2025, 01:49:37 PMIn your original post, Kiero, you talk about PCs avoiding a fight when they're unarmored, or possibly getting surprised and having to get their armor on during the fight. What would they be fighting? i.e. What are the sort of encounters that you are thinking might happen in the city?

I'm not the one you're asking obviously, but for my games the combat encounters in a disarmed city would mostly be like the things you could encounter modern life.  Mainly criminals, but also bar fights, (rare) monster incursions, and aggressive locals who do have the right to go armed, like police or nobles.  If weapons are illegal then the ones used would be concealable or improvised, like knives, clubs/staff, spells, and martial arts.  I prefer to keep such encounters rare unless I'm specifically running an urban game, but they do provide a nice change of pace from the dungeon.

Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2025, 01:49:37 PMIn your original post, Kiero, you talk about PCs avoiding a fight when they're unarmored, or possibly getting surprised and having to get their armor on during the fight. What would they be fighting? i.e. What are the sort of encounters that you are thinking might happen in the city?

Two different scenarios - the "on campaign" version where it's rest time and those resting get unarmoured. Which behooves the party to make sure they have a watch schedule of some people who remain ready whilst others rest. In that case, it could be absolutely anything they could face.

For the "civilised city" version, I would expect them to be fighting (or avoiding) opponents under exactly the same strictures as they are. So unarmoured and possibly even unarmed gangs of toughs, brawls erupting over disputes over politics or in the streets.

Knives might be common, clubs a little less so, but no one else is armoured or toting battlefield weapons around either. Not without some sort of order from the authorities, perhaps, telling the prominent citizens to go home and arm up in response to a specific threat (or perhaps some kind of political maneuverings). The bigger danger to the PCs might be the sheer number of opponents, if an enemy has brought in all their supporters from the countryside, for example.

Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2025, 01:49:37 PMI've had problems in the past with games where the citizens are inconsistent. If the PCs misbehave, then the citizens all mobilize against the PC invaders. However, if a bandit or monster shows up, then the citizens fail to mobilize and it's up to the PCs to fight it.

If the PCs are treated as dangerous-looking, untrusted strangers and afforded no rank - then I'd expect that the PCs would treat any problems in the city as none of their business. They'd back off and let the citizens handle it if a monster or bandit appeared. In my current cyberpunk campaign, say, the PCs are poor young gangsters of a sort in a Norse-myth cyberpunk city.

In many of my fantasy games, though, the PCs are considered to be of high social rank - so they are treated as valued visiting nobles and/or heroes. In my last D&D campaign, the PCs had a semi-divine patron, so they were treated as having religious authority and people commonly appealed to them (plus one of them was a princess).

Absolutely, consistency should go both ways. If there are conventions in place as to who and how the place is defended, they should cut both ways.

The last D&D game I played in, the PCs weren't "adventurers" at all, they were explicitly the defenders of the community in which they lived.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 06, 2025, 02:21:37 PMThe unwritten assumption here is that if the GM is going to this kind of effort to have a consistent world, then:

- It's consistent across the board, whether that helps or hurts the PCs in any given situation.
- The players have signed on for this kind of game.
- It's strongly implied that the players have a lot of choices in what their characters tangle with.

So yeah, if you want to run an episodic, adventure of the week, with no real purpose other than dealing with that adventure, then it's a dick GM move to deprive the players of their weapons without at least some kind of way around it.  If the players have to go to town because that's the only place the adventure occurs this week, then assassins every time you are unarmed would get old in a hurry.

OTOH, if you are running a world in motions, where things happen, and players decide what they want to do about it, then more things are on the table.  I have actually had a group decide not go into a town because the restriction on weapons and magic struck them as particularly onerous and suspicious (and they weren't even all wrong about it, either). That had consequences of course, since they couldn't use the town services, but they were the ones deciding to make that trade. In fact, this way, a town can even functionally be an enemy.

It helps a lot to have some variety, and for that variety to have a reason the players can learn. This town over here likes us a lot because of that time we cleared out the ogres. So even though they have some rules about arms and magic, they made us honorary citizens.  I've even had players sign on as a temporary militia member.  When you have things like this in the game, they are just another kind of challenge to navigate.  What isn't cool is putting stuff like that in the game as gotchas with no ways to navigate it.

Yes, exactly. The whole point is that it's a setup everyone should be signed up to, and the usual maxim of not playing with dicks applies. I haven't had that particular problem since I left school.

And variety and nuance are the rewards for the "world in motion" (and make the effort worthwhile). Earning citizenship becomes a meaningful prize, in the same way that it's lack can be a challenge.

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 06, 2025, 02:24:22 PMConsider too that non-humans may not follow human norms on what is socially acceptable. For some groups, it may be very unusual or even socially improper to go about unarmed or unarmored.

Yes, though again I'd hope the implications of how that society functions have been considered properly when the PCs come into contact with them.

Quote from: Mishihari on May 06, 2025, 02:27:37 PMI'm not the one you're asking obviously, but for my games the combat encounters in a disarmed city would mostly be like the things you could encounter modern life.  Mainly criminals, but also bar fights, (rare) monster incursions, and aggressive locals who do have the right to go armed, like police or nobles.  If weapons are illegal then the ones used would be concealable or improvised, like knives, clubs/staff, spells, and martial arts.  I prefer to keep such encounters rare unless I'm specifically running an urban game, but they do provide a nice change of pace from the dungeon.

Precisely this.

I should probably say my own bias here is that the groups I played with back in the day got bored with dungeons pretty quickly (here's a richly detailed fantasy world, now spend most of your time in a hole in the ground and only interact with said world to resupply), and preferred overland adventures plus random urban stuff.

I have enforced this kind of restriction on players, but only in a specific context. Namely, in my Dragon Warriors campaign. There are a couple of reasons why it fit there, which are I think illustrative of a sensible approach to the concept. First, I ran that campaign openly and intentionally as a medievalist campaign. My players were there for a more authentic historical fantasy experience. Secondly, and this is a very big one, the Dragon Warriors rules accomodate it. Armor is useful for every class, and it's not their sole means of defense. A knight in that game is still drastically more difficult to hit than a sorcerer, even if he's caught in his pajamas. Magic weapons exist, but they're far less necessary than in D&D, as hit points remain low and attack scores scale more dramatically across the level range.

When using that kind of restriction in that kind of context, the rule I use (which I think represents the "spirit of the law" in most medieval and renaissance examples) is that within a town, a person may not go "armed for war". That means no metal armor or shields, no bows, and no main battlefield weapons (so no poleaxes, greatswords, halberds, pikes, warhammers, etc.) Under the Dragon Warriors rules, it isn't much of an imposition on a knight for him to have to strip down to his gambeson and only carry his arming sword and dagger, especially if his potential opponents will be under the same restrictions.

I might use similar restrictions if I was running other historical games like Maelstrom or Vampire Dark Ages, and they're built into some modern or sci fi games like Call of Cthulhu or Traveller. But I would never impose them on a D&D game. It's too unfair of an imposition on certain classes, and I don't think it matches the setting assumptions implicit in the game rules.

It can be fun to think about how this kind of thing would play out in a standard dungeon-fantasy "D&D world" type setting, though. Disarming the population is a desirable thing for rulers in any environment, but the question is whether they could get away with it.

For one thing, I think the class disparity would manifest in-world. The fighters guild is going to notice that arms control regulation unfairly penalizes them and allows the wizards' guild to laugh in their faces, and they're going to lobby to have those laws changed. Probably successfully, too, since an organized body of armed and trained men is always a potential power base. In general, I tend to think that the setting assumptions of D&D would tend to produce a professional organization for adventurers, and such a group only has to boycott a town to get the laws changed. When the adventurers stop spending money in the local hostelries and nobody is killing the local griffins, the baron is probably going to re-think his battleaxe registration program.

I could see strict arms-control coming about in a D&D world, but only in the most powerful and desireable cities. They'd have to be able to impose some rules on wizards as well, potentially even needing to pay their own casters to spread antimagic fields over the town, and the city would have to be so necessary to adventurers that they can't afford to stay away. So it has to have the best questing opportunities, the best magic item markets, or similar.

On a side note, it is very easy to see how organized adventurers could quickly become a social menace. They're well armed and trained, usually better than the local authorities, and the amount of money you can make as an adventurer prices the authorities out of hiring similarly capable enforcement officers. As mentioned, an adventurers guild could easily hold a city or even a small state to ransom by refusing to take quests in their territory, leaving them to either pay up or accept the depredations of their local monsters. Real world mercenaries often did something similar by refusing to fight on the eve of important battles, until their demands were met. A sufficiently well-organized adventurers' guild might become a "state within a state" and functionally above the law. It's only real threats would be freelancers undercutting the guild prices and trying to avoid paying their union dues. But hey, that could be fun for a campaign.

As soon as my players found out that the dwarf king doesn't allow unrestrained wizards into his court, their characters' goal changed from "get friendly enough with the dwarf king that we can get help locating the dragon's hoard we're here to recover" to "forget money, let's try to bring down the dwarven kingdom."

These are adults, and the impetus for that came from somebody who's not new at ttrpgs - but they want the full adventurer fantasy. :/

I'm now curious to see if they manage to connect with the other side of politics and discover the "right" way to take down this king, ally with the evil giants, or go back to chasing the lucre. Last night they tried an unprepared frontal assault against a fortress and retreated ignominiously... Both scouting familiars were shot out of the sky by archers, the wizard "caught" a ballista bolt the first round, the ranger got through the outer gates and into the field of fire of the murder-holes for long enough to be winged by a poisoned arrow...

Quote from: ForgottenF on May 06, 2025, 10:43:09 PMOn a side note, it is very easy to see how organized adventurers could quickly become a social menace. They're well armed and trained, usually better than the local authorities, and the amount of money you can make as an adventurer prices the authorities out of hiring similarly capable enforcement officers. As mentioned, an adventurers guild could easily hold a city or even a small state to ransom by refusing to take quests in their territory, leaving them to either pay up or accept the depredations of their local monsters. Real world mercenaries often did something similar by refusing to fight on the eve of important battles, until their demands were met. A sufficiently well-organized adventurers' guild might become a "state within a state" and functionally above the law. It's only real threats would be freelancers undercutting the guild prices and trying to avoid paying their union dues. But hey, that could be fun for a campaign.

(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKJjZ8xAdjZxEB3O3SHkATVE6rp9msEcXLw02VK8-9jnHsej4vCXm9zyGKfpl-EQNnjb3wE33BsTeUd1S3cRhe7CJMA5wkEZY_mDQk5jP5KCt40HwP7FOXLkd9SKGgvRHlIe4iVrvBr8tc/s1600/emirikol-the-chaotic.jpg)

Case in point - I think any fantasy world where the means to control use of magic exists would be exerted, too. Not just people with weapons, but to prevent things like this happening as well.

Quote from: Naburimannu on May 07, 2025, 04:28:32 AMAs soon as my players found out that the dwarf king doesn't allow unrestrained wizards into his court, their characters' goal changed from "get friendly enough with the dwarf king that we can get help locating the dragon's hoard we're here to recover" to "forget money, let's try to bring down the dwarven kingdom."

These are adults, and the impetus for that came from somebody who's not new at ttrpgs - but they want the full adventurer fantasy. :/

I'm now curious to see if they manage to connect with the other side of politics and discover the "right" way to take down this king, ally with the evil giants, or go back to chasing the lucre. Last night they tried an unprepared frontal assault against a fortress and retreated ignominiously... Both scouting familiars were shot out of the sky by archers, the wizard "caught" a ballista bolt the first round, the ranger got through the outer gates and into the field of fire of the murder-holes for long enough to be winged by a poisoned arrow...

Adults...who still harbour juvenile power fantasies. I can only laugh at the results of their petulance, though. This is a mess entirely of their own creation.

mm-hmm.
In all my campaigns, unless it is specifically a very violent setting like say Gamma World, then running around armed and armored is usually not permitted in all big cities and most small ones.

One of my few exceptions is running anything in Forgotten Realms. It is such an insanely lethal setting any more that you NEED do be armed and ready practically 24/7. Especially in 5e FR where there is a WORLD ENDING DISASTER at least once every year, sometimes MORE! Going unarmed and unarmored into Baldurs Gate is practically begging to get murdered or enslaved or both. Neverwinter is a mess too. Just not so heavily internal a threat. Waterdeep is not much far behind that.

But in other campaigns one is usually expected to leave weapons and armor at home or wherever the PCs are staying.

Which brings up the problem of...

How do you keep your stuff safe when its back in the house or inn?

Quote from: ForgottenF on May 06, 2025, 10:43:09 PMOn a side note, it is very easy to see how organized adventurers could quickly become a social menace. They're well armed and trained, usually better than the local authorities, and the amount of money you can make as an adventurer prices the authorities out of hiring similarly capable enforcement officers. As mentioned, an adventurers guild could easily hold a city or even a small state to ransom by refusing to take quests in their territory, leaving them to either pay up or accept the depredations of their local monsters.

Amusingly, this is a common setup in Rifts when you venture outside one of the big city states.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 07, 2025, 06:31:37 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on May 06, 2025, 10:43:09 PMOn a side note, it is very easy to see how organized adventurers could quickly become a social menace. They're well armed and trained, usually better than the local authorities, and the amount of money you can make as an adventurer prices the authorities out of hiring similarly capable enforcement officers. As mentioned, an adventurers guild could easily hold a city or even a small state to ransom by refusing to take quests in their territory, leaving them to either pay up or accept the depredations of their local monsters.

Amusingly, this is a common setup in Rifts when you venture outside one of the big city states.

And Empire of the Petal Throne. You were just as likely to get robbed by armed groups on leaving a complex. AD&D had the tables for running into other groups of adventurers too. Friend or foe.

Greetings!

Indeed, Kiero, I can see the attraction for running a milieu set in an Ancient or Medieval flavoured setting. My love for History aside, I also consider that whatever powers-that-be, would be more concerned about the Bulletes, the crazy fanatic cults, the assassins everywhere, the mutants, the scheming sorcerers, the vampires, werewolves, and the necromancers and ghouls lurking in every sewer system, than some group of mercenary adventurers.

That is all of course, in addition to packs of hateful, demon-worshipping Rat men in the sewers, the savage Lizardmen in the marshes, and the bands of monstrous beast men led by huge armoured Chaos Warriors lurking just outside the city gates.

How many Human women that have breeding fetishes about powerful, huge Orc warriors are eagerly willing to open the city gates to let the Orc hordes pour through and conquer everything?

Fantasy communities have far more to worry about than communities in historical ancient or medieval environments.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

In D&D, armor stops you from getting hit, instead of the character's ability to parry, dodge, or block with a shield or buckler. 

In games with settings where armor is less common you tend so see mechanics where those things hold true and armor is only worn on special occasions like when the character's ability is expecting a big battle.

Kiero, you're overthinking it.

D&D is the Wild West with fantasy medieval trappings.

That's it.

Frankly, what you're describing sounds like a thinly-veiled screed for gun control. If my fighter wants to control his own weapons and armor, then why would I ever visit one of your big cities? Why would I spend time in anything other than small frontier towns, if I have to inevitably surrender my armor and weapons to a bunch of mouthy, arrogant NPCs?

Your campaign would guarantee that every player becames either a spellcaster or a monk (because no armor and weapons allowed, peasant). And that's if anyone actually deigns to play in such a campaign. And if you made things sufficiently punitive against spellcasters too, then it would just be an all-monk campaign....where every player character would be focusing on mastering martial arts and unarmed combat. Why, you ask?

Because you're hellbent on punishing the characters for using the abilities of their class (weapons and armor for fighters, for example), and doing it in the name of "verisimilitude".

Aren't martial characters (like fighters) weaker than spellcasters in D&D already? And you want to limit fighters.....more? No weapons allowed? No armor allowed? And you want me to play a fighter?

I don't think too many gamers will sign up for that.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 07, 2025, 06:37:28 PMKiero, you're overthinking it.

D&D is the Wild West with fantasy medieval trappings.

That's it.

Frankly, what you're describing sounds like a thinly-veiled screed for gun control. If my fighter wants to control his own weapons and armor, then why would I ever visit one of your big cities? Why would I spend time in anything other than small frontier towns, if I have to inevitably surrender my armor and weapons to a bunch of mouthy, arrogant NPCs?

Your campaign would guarantee that every player becames either a spellcaster or a monk (because no armor and weapons allowed, peasant). And that's if anyone actually deigns to play in such a campaign. And if you made things sufficiently punitive against spellcasters too, then it would just be an all-monk campaign....where every player character would be focusing on mastering martial arts and unarmed combat. Why, you ask?

Because you're hellbent on punishing the characters for using the abilities of their class (weapons and armor for fighters, for example), and doing it in the name of "verisimilitude".

Aren't martial characters (like fighters) weaker than spellcasters in D&D already? And you want to limit fighters.....more? No weapons allowed? No armor allowed? And you want me to play a fighter?

I don't think too many gamers will sign up for that.

I don't play default D&D, doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.

And as already discussed, the corollary expands out wider than just the Fighter. Civilisation involves a monopoly on violence, just because things are uncontrolled on the frontier, doesn't mean the same applies in the developed core. Magic gets controlled for the safety of established power as well. Again, I want believable worlds with logically structured societies.

As to why they've visit the cities - because that's where the patrons, opportunities, markets and so on are. So they get a rich haul from their latest hole in the ground. Why would the flyspeck town closest to them be able to handle any of their loot? The market there is too small, no one can afford to buy any of the stuff they want to cash in. No one can repair their gear or replenish the highly specialised resources they depend upon.

That isn't punishing characters for not always being in combat mode, there are benefits they get from being able to visit places of relative safety and take a break from the usual. Not to mention getting a much broader variety of challenges than everything being a problem that they have to apply brute force.

Quote from: Kiero on May 08, 2025, 04:13:41 AM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 07, 2025, 06:37:28 PMKiero, you're overthinking it.

D&D is the Wild West with fantasy medieval trappings.

That's it.

Frankly, what you're describing sounds like a thinly-veiled screed for gun control. If my fighter wants to control his own weapons and armor, then why would I ever visit one of your big cities? Why would I spend time in anything other than small frontier towns, if I have to inevitably surrender my armor and weapons to a bunch of mouthy, arrogant NPCs?

Your campaign would guarantee that every player becames either a spellcaster or a monk (because no armor and weapons allowed, peasant). And that's if anyone actually deigns to play in such a campaign. And if you made things sufficiently punitive against spellcasters too, then it would just be an all-monk campaign....where every player character would be focusing on mastering martial arts and unarmed combat. Why, you ask?

Because you're hellbent on punishing the characters for using the abilities of their class (weapons and armor for fighters, for example), and doing it in the name of "verisimilitude".

Aren't martial characters (like fighters) weaker than spellcasters in D&D already? And you want to limit fighters.....more? No weapons allowed? No armor allowed? And you want me to play a fighter?

I don't think too many gamers will sign up for that.

I don't play default D&D, doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.

And as already discussed, the corollary expands out wider than just the Fighter. Civilisation involves a monopoly on violence, just because things are uncontrolled on the frontier, doesn't mean the same applies in the developed core. Magic gets controlled for the safety of established power as well. Again, I want believable worlds with logically structured societies.

As to why they've visit the cities - because that's where the patrons, opportunities, markets and so on are. So they get a rich haul from their latest hole in the ground. Why would the flyspeck town closest to them be able to handle any of their loot? The market there is too small, no one can afford to buy any of the stuff they want to cash in. No one can repair their gear or replenish the highly specialised resources they depend upon.

That isn't punishing characters for not always being in combat mode, there are benefits they get from being able to visit places of relative safety and take a break from the usual. Not to mention getting a much broader variety of challenges than everything being a problem that they have to apply brute force.

Why couldn't you just say you don't play D&D, and leave it at that?

What you want sounds boring and miserable.

See.....this type of DM wankery would just encourage my wealthy high-level characters to create multiple small towns that allow people to openly carry weapons and armor. I'll bring in and create the best patrons, opportunities, and markets. I will use my characters' wealth to create the market that PCs will need. I'll use my expansive wealth to starve your precious "city of verisimilitude" of its greatest treasures.

Furthermore, if you're playing a fantasy game that involves advancement that is even vaguely comparable to D&D, wherein a lone character can defeat multiple opponents, then it's obviously not "civilization" that possesses a true monopoly on violence. I take it you've never been to an inner city ghetto. If you had, then you'd realize that the so-called "monopoly" on violence controlled by "civilization" is largely.....an illusion.

And again, you still haven't explained why gamers would play in a campaign setting that punishes us for being a non-martial artist or a non-monk, every time we step foot inside a city. After all, why wouldn't we just play something like Forgotten Realms instead....where we are not punished for openly carrying the trappings of our class?

Oh, I beg your pardon. It's not "punishment", but rather.....it's "beneficial incentive". Not that it matters, because whether you call it "punishment" or "beneficial incentive", what you describe ends up having the same boring effect.

And yes, I will repeat.....what you advocate is boring and miserable. I'm not interested in that "much broader variety of challenges" that you describe.....probably because I'm just not that "evolved". Many of us already have to deal with mouthy NPCs trying to take away our personal autonomy out in the real world. And now you want us to submit to more such wankery in our fantasy gaming?

No, thank you.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 08, 2025, 10:32:30 AMWhy couldn't you just say you don't play D&D, and leave it at that?

What you want sounds boring and miserable.

See.....this type of DM wankery would just encourage my wealthy high-level characters to create multiple small towns that allow people to openly carry weapons and armor. I'll bring in and create the best patrons, opportunities, and markets. I will use my characters' wealth to create the market that PCs will need. I'll use my expansive wealth to starve your precious "city of verisimilitude" of its greatest treasures.

Furthermore, if you're playing a fantasy game that involves advancement that is even vaguely comparable to D&D, wherein a lone character can defeat multiple opponents, then it's obviously not "civilization" that possesses a true monopoly on violence. I take it you've never been to an inner city ghetto. If you had, then you'd realize that the so-called "monopoly" on violence controlled by "civilization" is largely.....an illusion.

And again, you still haven't explained why gamers would play in a campaign setting that punishes us for being a non-martial artist or a non-monk, every time we step foot inside a city. After all, why wouldn't we just play something like Forgotten Realms instead....where we are not punished for openly carrying the trappings of our class?

Oh, I beg your pardon. It's not "punishment", but rather.....it's "beneficial incentive". Not that it matters, because whether you call it "punishment" or "beneficial incentive", what you describe ends up having the same boring effect.

And yes, I will repeat.....what you advocate is boring and miserable. I'm not interested in that "much broader variety of challenges" that you describe.....probably because I'm just not that "evolved". Many of us already have to deal with mouthy NPCs trying to take away our personal autonomy out in the real world. And now you want us to submit to more such wankery in our fantasy gaming?

No, thank you.

There are more RPGs than D&D, and I have played D&D in the past. We are on a forum that talks about more games than just D&D.

Founding your own towns (with all the complications that brings) sounds like a vastly more interesting game than any dungeon crawl.

Quote from: Kiero on May 08, 2025, 10:59:22 AM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 08, 2025, 10:32:30 AMWhy couldn't you just say you don't play D&D, and leave it at that?

What you want sounds boring and miserable.

See.....this type of DM wankery would just encourage my wealthy high-level characters to create multiple small towns that allow people to openly carry weapons and armor. I'll bring in and create the best patrons, opportunities, and markets. I will use my characters' wealth to create the market that PCs will need. I'll use my expansive wealth to starve your precious "city of verisimilitude" of its greatest treasures.

Furthermore, if you're playing a fantasy game that involves advancement that is even vaguely comparable to D&D, wherein a lone character can defeat multiple opponents, then it's obviously not "civilization" that possesses a true monopoly on violence. I take it you've never been to an inner city ghetto. If you had, then you'd realize that the so-called "monopoly" on violence controlled by "civilization" is largely.....an illusion.

And again, you still haven't explained why gamers would play in a campaign setting that punishes us for being a non-martial artist or a non-monk, every time we step foot inside a city. After all, why wouldn't we just play something like Forgotten Realms instead....where we are not punished for openly carrying the trappings of our class?

Oh, I beg your pardon. It's not "punishment", but rather.....it's "beneficial incentive". Not that it matters, because whether you call it "punishment" or "beneficial incentive", what you describe ends up having the same boring effect.

And yes, I will repeat.....what you advocate is boring and miserable. I'm not interested in that "much broader variety of challenges" that you describe.....probably because I'm just not that "evolved". Many of us already have to deal with mouthy NPCs trying to take away our personal autonomy out in the real world. And now you want us to submit to more such wankery in our fantasy gaming?

No, thank you.

There are more RPGs than D&D, and I have played D&D in the past. We are on a forum that talks about more games than just D&D.

Founding your own towns (with all the complications that brings) sounds like a vastly more interesting game than any dungeon crawl.

Sigh. I really miss the use of forum emojis at a time like this.

So what amazing rpg are you playing that ignorant plebes like myself do not appreciate?

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 08, 2025, 11:06:13 AM

Quote from: Kiero on May 08, 2025, 10:59:22 AM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 08, 2025, 10:32:30 AMWhy couldn't you just say you don't play D&D, and leave it at that?

What you want sounds boring and miserable.

See.....this type of DM wankery would just encourage my wealthy high-level characters to create multiple small towns that allow people to openly carry weapons and armor. I'll bring in and create the best patrons, opportunities, and markets. I will use my characters' wealth to create the market that PCs will need. I'll use my expansive wealth to starve your precious "city of verisimilitude" of its greatest treasures.

Furthermore, if you're playing a fantasy game that involves advancement that is even vaguely comparable to D&D, wherein a lone character can defeat multiple opponents, then it's obviously not "civilization" that possesses a true monopoly on violence. I take it you've never been to an inner city ghetto. If you had, then you'd realize that the so-called "monopoly" on violence controlled by "civilization" is largely.....an illusion.

And again, you still haven't explained why gamers would play in a campaign setting that punishes us for being a non-martial artist or a non-monk, every time we step foot inside a city. After all, why wouldn't we just play something like Forgotten Realms instead....where we are not punished for openly carrying the trappings of our class?

Oh, I beg your pardon. It's not "punishment", but rather.....it's "beneficial incentive". Not that it matters, because whether you call it "punishment" or "beneficial incentive", what you describe ends up having the same boring effect.

And yes, I will repeat.....what you advocate is boring and miserable. I'm not interested in that "much broader variety of challenges" that you describe.....probably because I'm just not that "evolved". Many of us already have to deal with mouthy NPCs trying to take away our personal autonomy out in the real world. And now you want us to submit to more such wankery in our fantasy gaming?

No, thank you.

There are more RPGs than D&D, and I have played D&D in the past. We are on a forum that talks about more games than just D&D.

Founding your own towns (with all the complications that brings) sounds like a vastly more interesting game than any dungeon crawl.

Sigh. I really miss the use of forum emojis at a time like this.

So what amazing rpg are you playing that ignorant plebes like myself do not appreciate?

Something worth remembering in this is that Kiero is British, not American. His experience with arms control is very different than ours.

The idea that in the city where I live you can open and concealed carry handguns, rifles and shotguns (and technically even a having a real two-handed sword strapped to back) and can wear kevlar without even needing a permit (because a permit implies we need permission when our Constitution states no laws shall infringe on our natural right to arms) is probably quite alien to his experience. Given he is normally disarmed, the idea that disarming your character because society dictates it must feel natural to him.

Conversely, I've always felt that Jefferson's quote that "An armed populace is a POLITE populace" to be far more in keeping with American sentiments.

"What sort of king would let someone come before him armed?" The sort of king who is doing right by his people (so has little to fear from them) and trusts in his own fighting prowess and those of his guards; all of whom are armed.

Quote from: Kiero on May 08, 2025, 04:13:41 AMCivilisation involves a monopoly on violence, just because things are uncontrolled on the frontier, doesn't mean the same applies in the developed core. Magic gets controlled for the safety of established power as well. Again, I want believable worlds with logically structured societies.

As to why they've visit the cities - because that's where the patrons, opportunities, markets and so on are. So they get a rich haul from their latest hole in the ground. Why would the flyspeck town closest to them be able to handle any of their loot? The market there is too small, no one can afford to buy any of the stuff they want to cash in. No one can repair their gear or replenish the highly specialised resources they depend upon.

Regarding "civilisation involves a monopoly on violence" -- I generally presume that the PCs are part of that monopoly. i.e. They have status equivalent to nobility and/or military. If they are homeless common strangers with no connections or rank, then a logical civilization wouldn't tolerate them gearing up in the city with arms, armor, and other specialized resources - regardless of what they are wearing.

In other words, if adventurers come into a civilized city to buy the equivalent of assault rifles, grenade launchers, and body armor - then that will be restricted even if they keep the gear out of sight as they walk around the streets.

Logically, the state would either shut them down or co-opt them - using the equivalent of letters of marque or similar.

Just play hardcore Chivalry & Sorcery and strictly enforce true medieval social norms. This does have the downside of very limited "supernatural" encounters and any scuffles within a walled town will probably just be with drunks or thieves. But that's realistic vs. fantasy RPGs that presume hordes of orcs, giants, goblins, dragons, undead, etc.

Quote from: jhkim on May 08, 2025, 12:47:25 PMRegarding "civilisation involves a monopoly on violence" -- I generally presume that the PCs are part of that monopoly. i.e. They have status equivalent to nobility and/or military. If they are homeless common strangers with no connections or rank, then a logical civilization wouldn't tolerate them gearing up in the city with arms, armor, and other specialized resources - regardless of what they are wearing.

In other words, if adventurers come into a civilized city to buy the equivalent of assault rifles, grenade launchers, and body armor - then that will be restricted even if they keep the gear out of sight as they walk around the streets.

Logically, the state would either shut them down or co-opt them - using the equivalent of letters of marque or similar.

Given the way many players choose to conduct their characters, and their allergy to being tied to the social structures in a world, generally homeless strangers is more appropriate than members of the elite.

Quote from: Kiero on May 08, 2025, 01:53:38 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 08, 2025, 12:47:25 PMRegarding "civilisation involves a monopoly on violence" -- I generally presume that the PCs are part of that monopoly. i.e. They have status equivalent to nobility and/or military. If they are homeless common strangers with no connections or rank, then a logical civilization wouldn't tolerate them gearing up in the city with arms, armor, and other specialized resources - regardless of what they are wearing.

In other words, if adventurers come into a civilized city to buy the equivalent of assault rifles, grenade launchers, and body armor - then that will be restricted even if they keep the gear out of sight as they walk around the streets.

Logically, the state would either shut them down or co-opt them - using the equivalent of letters of marque or similar.

Given the way many players choose to conduct their characters, and their allergy to being tied to the social structures in a world, generally homeless strangers is more appropriate than members of the elite.

There's a chicken-and-egg issue here. Players conduct their characters based on how the GM sets things up.

In my experience, GMs frequently have PCs treated like crap which is where players develop their aversion to social connection. Social structures are frequently used to limit or tie down PCs and not as ways to empower them. I think that's behind a lot of the negative reactions you've gotten on this thread - where posters interpret your arms control as ways to trick and screw over players.

I find that players generally love it when they are treated with respect and can rapidly gain stuff through social connections.

Quote from: jhkim on May 08, 2025, 02:58:55 PMThere's a chicken-and-egg issue here. Players conduct their characters based on how the GM sets things up.

In my experience, GMs frequently have PCs treated like crap which is where players develop their aversion to social connection. Social structures are frequently used to limit or tie down PCs and not as ways to empower them. I think that's behind a lot of the negative reactions you've gotten on this thread - where posters interpret your arms control as ways to trick and screw over players.

I find that players generally love it when they are treated with respect and can rapidly gain stuff through social connections.

Which brings me back to "don't play with dicks". Fortunately, I haven't had to since I was at school.

Quote from: jhkim on May 08, 2025, 02:58:55 PM

Quote from: Kiero on May 08, 2025, 01:53:38 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 08, 2025, 12:47:25 PMRegarding "civilisation involves a monopoly on violence" -- I generally presume that the PCs are part of that monopoly. i.e. They have status equivalent to nobility and/or military. If they are homeless common strangers with no connections or rank, then a logical civilization wouldn't tolerate them gearing up in the city with arms, armor, and other specialized resources - regardless of what they are wearing.

In other words, if adventurers come into a civilized city to buy the equivalent of assault rifles, grenade launchers, and body armor - then that will be restricted even if they keep the gear out of sight as they walk around the streets.

Logically, the state would either shut them down or co-opt them - using the equivalent of letters of marque or similar.

Given the way many players choose to conduct their characters, and their allergy to being tied to the social structures in a world, generally homeless strangers is more appropriate than members of the elite.

There's a chicken-and-egg issue here. Players conduct their characters based on how the GM sets things up.

In my experience, GMs frequently have PCs treated like crap which is where players develop their aversion to social connection. Social structures are frequently used to limit or tie down PCs and not as ways to empower them. I think that's behind a lot of the negative reactions you've gotten on this thread - where posters interpret your arms control as ways to trick and screw over players.

I find that players generally love it when they are treated with respect and can rapidly gain stuff through social connections.

Greetings!

Very true, Jhkim. Kiero has some excellent points though, as presenting dynamics. For example, in central, highly-civilized regions of my Thandor world, the large, powerful cities frequently embrace some form of "Arms Control" including restrictions on mystical, spell-casting characters. Out on the frontiers, in border areas, few if any such restrictions are embraced. Out there, it is very much "The Wild West" kind of environment.

In large, powerful cities in Thandor, well, indeed, the "Powers that Be" are primarily concerned with maintaining and securing their power--but also tend towards being strictly authoritarian in maintaining public law and order, and discipline. Whole regiments of templars and professional soldiers may readily be deployed and very ruthlessly, to ensure trade routes are secure, vital economic assets are protected, and so on. That kind of assets and infrastructure is an absolute essential foundation to the elite's wealth, but also the prime lifeblood of the economy and trade. Somewhat obscured by these more obvious elements, is an underlying and massively powerful motivation, whether I am dealing with the Vallorean Empire, the Chang Empire, or somewhere in between, which is the critical importance of maintaining Legitimacy. Governments will use armies, teams of assassins, economic dynamics, lawfare, just about anything, to support and maintain their prestige and legitimacy. The people's continued support, discipline, and loyalty, is absolutely predicated on the foundational principle of Legitimacy.

As the DM. I am quick to use these elements to highlight and contrast the deeper cultural dynamics between huge, civilized and heavily-fortified cities, as opposed to frontier towns, isolated backwaters, the dense, mysterious forests, or the wind-swept Steppes.

Huge fortified cities provide vast wealth, opportunities, education, technology, and fantastic luxury--but at a cost. There is great strength, order, discipline, court systems, and security--as well as control. There are some freedoms--but the depth and nature of such freedoms in such an environment are very different from that which exists out on the frontier, or in the great Steppes.

This duality of conflict sheds light and provides energy to the fierce struggle and opposition of barbarian tribes living amidst the forests or out on the Steppes, as well as a sizeable segment of civilized peoples living on the frontiers and borderlands. Those borderland civilized peoples can see, feel, and smell the difference in freedom and autonomy, even if such concepts are out of reach for the urban masses living within the walls of civilization. The barbarian tribes, obviously, are violently opposed to civilized realms for precisely these reasons, and more.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 08, 2025, 11:06:13 AMSigh. I really miss the use of forum emojis at a time like this.

So what amazing rpg are you playing that ignorant plebes like myself do not appreciate?

Reads like Fantasy Wargaming. You are either a noble or a peasant and if you are a peasant you have practically no rights. What excitement! Hurray!

Quote from: Omega on May 08, 2025, 10:08:46 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 08, 2025, 11:06:13 AMSigh. I really miss the use of forum emojis at a time like this.

So what amazing rpg are you playing that ignorant plebes like myself do not appreciate?

Reads like Fantasy Wargaming. You are either a noble or a peasant and if you are a peasant you have practically no rights. What excitement! Hurray!

And then there's a shock when the people in power have a playerpeasant revolt.

Quote from: Kiero on May 08, 2025, 01:53:38 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 08, 2025, 12:47:25 PMRegarding "civilisation involves a monopoly on violence" -- I generally presume that the PCs are part of that monopoly. i.e. They have status equivalent to nobility and/or military. If they are homeless common strangers with no connections or rank, then a logical civilization wouldn't tolerate them gearing up in the city with arms, armor, and other specialized resources - regardless of what they are wearing.

In other words, if adventurers come into a civilized city to buy the equivalent of assault rifles, grenade launchers, and body armor - then that will be restricted even if they keep the gear out of sight as they walk around the streets.

Logically, the state would either shut them down or co-opt them - using the equivalent of letters of marque or similar.

Given the way many players choose to conduct their characters, and their allergy to being tied to the social structures in a world, generally homeless strangers is more appropriate than members of the elite.

Imagine making that the norm for how NPCs operate in the world too...

OK, it would very likely look like some post-apocalyptic anarchic nightmare, but maybe the players would enjoy a taste of their own hooch.

I also have to wonder why IRL, people from Britain aren't all badass monks/martial artists since they can't carry weapons or use magic. I mean, clearly they're being depowered otherwise...

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 09, 2025, 09:33:51 AMI also have to wonder why IRL, people from Britain aren't all badass monks/martial artists since they can't carry weapons or use magic. I mean, clearly they're being depowered otherwise...

I have over 20 years of martial arts experience. Never touched a gun in my life, besides an air rifle a few times.

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 09, 2025, 09:33:51 AMI also have to wonder why IRL, people from Britain aren't all badass monks/martial artists since they can't carry weapons or use magic. I mean, clearly they're being depowered otherwise...

Most of those of adventurer-stock left to conquer and establish the realms of the New World. Thus, Europe today has a disproportionately high rate of NPCs. :D

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 09, 2025, 09:33:51 AMI also have to wonder why IRL, people from Britain aren't all badass monks/martial artists since they can't carry weapons or use magic. I mean, clearly they're being depowered otherwise...

I know, right? And then I start wondering, why can't the people from Britain cast magic missile either? I mean.....after all, it's only a first level spell, and they can't even manage that.

Those silly Brits.

Quote from: Kiero on May 09, 2025, 10:09:57 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 09, 2025, 09:33:51 AMI also have to wonder why IRL, people from Britain aren't all badass monks/martial artists since they can't carry weapons or use magic. I mean, clearly they're being depowered otherwise...

I have over 20 years of martial arts experience. Never touched a gun in my life, besides an air rifle a few times.

Please tell me you got the joke...

Quote from: Kiero on May 06, 2025, 05:56:25 AMDo many settings actually consider that kind of thing, or is it more in the realm of how a GM presents their game?

*I* definitely enforce it, regardless of the setting. By "it" I mean whatever is necessary to maintain the status-quo. Even in settings that don't specify it, I will do that.

Since I run a lot of old-school Forgotten Realms the rules for this can be different in different places. Cormyr for instance has laws about keeping weapons peaceknotted. I also enforce the economic reality of having weapons and armor. Someone doesn't just run around in suits of plate and mail, or hell, even having horse.

The modern fantasy ren-faire does a disservice to the idea of earning a lot of this swag. It's taken for granted that "Fighters all wear platemail" and live in it (because you never know when the GM is going to jack you in the middle of the night!"

The other side of that is I enforce social etiquette. If you show up wearing full battle regalia to everyday in-city social settings, unless you're in some battle-hardened frontier town/fort/outpost - people will look at you like someone walking into a bar wearing full tactical gear with a kitted out M-4/M-16 ready to slam it on. I have NPC's treat "those PC's" accordingly until they learn. The city watch looks at them as potential troublemakers, people of import may not want to deal with you for safety concerns, or conversely - you attract the wrong kinds of patrons because to them you flaunt the social order.

As you point out, living in ones armor is not comfortable. I give my players all the leeway required to establish their modus operandi when out in the field. I hit them with penalties if they keep it up. In Savage Worlds you get hit with Fatigue, which suuuucks. It's like walking around in d20 with a -4 to all your rolls.

Invariably when I get new players they trip through all the wires - wear armor all the time, draw weapons at the drop of a hat (Because don't all encounters require murdering all NPCs at all times?) they're *always* ready for combat - even at the local Magistrates soiree where they're trying to rise in social station and *might* have a delicate matter one of the PC's could help with - but they show up with the gang, and one or more PC's are "Ready to rock!!!!!" (and they get stopped at the entrance and left out of the scene).

So yeah, the onus is on you to establish what is or isn't appropriate. I don't expect players to understand the historical reality of these things. Just show, and don't tell (outside of session zero).

Quote from: tenbones on May 09, 2025, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: Kiero on May 06, 2025, 05:56:25 AMDo many settings actually consider that kind of thing, or is it more in the realm of how a GM presents their game?

*I* definitely enforce it, regardless of the setting. By "it" I mean whatever is necessary to maintain the status-quo. Even in settings that don't specify it, I will do that.

Since I run a lot of old-school Forgotten Realms the rules for this can be different in different places. Cormyr for instance has laws about keeping weapons peaceknotted. I also enforce the economic reality of having weapons and armor. Someone doesn't just run around in suits of plate and mail, or hell, even having horse.

The modern fantasy ren-faire does a disservice to the idea of earning a lot of this swag. It's taken for granted that "Fighters all wear platemail" and live in it (because you never know when the GM is going to jack you in the middle of the night!"

The other side of that is I enforce social etiquette. If you show up wearing full battle regalia to everyday in-city social settings, unless you're in some battle-hardened frontier town/fort/outpost - people will look at you like someone walking into a bar wearing full tactical gear with a kitted out M-4/M-16 ready to slam it on. I have NPC's treat "those PC's" accordingly until they learn. The city watch looks at them as potential troublemakers, people of import may not want to deal with you for safety concerns, or conversely - you attract the wrong kinds of patrons because to them you flaunt the social order.

As you point out, living in ones armor is not comfortable. I give my players all the leeway required to establish their modus operandi when out in the field. I hit them with penalties if they keep it up. In Savage Worlds you get hit with Fatigue, which suuuucks. It's like walking around in d20 with a -4 to all your rolls.

Invariably when I get new players they trip through all the wires - wear armor all the time, draw weapons at the drop of a hat (Because don't all encounters require murdering all NPCs at all times?) they're *always* ready for combat - even at the local Magistrates soiree where they're trying to rise in social station and *might* have a delicate matter one of the PC's could help with - but they show up with the gang, and one or more PC's are "Ready to rock!!!!!" (and they get stopped at the entrance and left out of the scene).

So yeah, the onus is on you to establish what is or isn't appropriate. I don't expect players to understand the historical reality of these things. Just show, and don't tell (outside of session zero).

Fuck the "people of import". Who cares what some mouthy NPCs think? The player characters are the "people of import".

NOT NPCS.

And frankly, what you're saying here is:

"Don't play fighters. Play wizards or monks."

I understand.

And yes, I also understand that's not really your conscious intention, but....incentive promotes behavior.

For example, if you create a disincentive for players to become a fighter (by taking away their armor and weapons, every time they walk into town), then your players will not play fighters. I mean, why would they? Right?

Nobody fucks with the Wizard, Gandalf, and his "mere walking staff", or with the Druid and his "mere walking staff", or even with the Diet Coke version of Goku (the weaponless party monk), but the fighter with armor and weapons gets targeted? So why am I playing a fighter then?

I understand the desire for "verisimilitude", but you're playing a FANTASY GAME. Therefore, you're taking the verisimilitude wankery too far.

As a response to this, all the characters (if they're smart) would probably just wear "glamered" armor (armor disguised as clothes), and hide their weapons in portable holes (or whatever). Or perhaps they'll choose classes that do not need weapons and armor to be effective. Or maybe they'll just avoid the cities entirely, and deep-six the DM's railroad....in order to avoid dealing with unnecessary DM power-tripping and DM dickery from "the people of import".

Seriously though....why would I ever become a fighter in such a campaign, when fighters are already weaker than primary spellcasters anyway? And now you want to make fighters even weaker and less effective, by depriving them of the tools of their class? Oh, but you want to do it in the name of "verisimilitude", so that suddenly makes it acceptable.

Well, how about....no?

In that case, I'll stick with the frontier towns and the dungeons then. That way, there are far fewer "Karen busybodies" trying to dictate terms to me.....

.....in a fantasy game.

Quote from: Kiero on May 09, 2025, 10:09:57 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 09, 2025, 09:33:51 AMI also have to wonder why IRL, people from Britain aren't all badass monks/martial artists since they can't carry weapons or use magic. I mean, clearly they're being depowered otherwise...

I have over 20 years of martial arts experience. Never touched a gun in my life, besides an air rifle a few times.

Kiero, how is it humanly possible that you completely missed my point? Am I talking to a wall? You live in a country that is literally controlled by a tyrannically evil government that wants to prevent you from owning and carrying weapons, so your response to this is to acquire over 20 years of real life martial arts experience. Isn't your real life story a rough approximation of what I said was a logical response to your precious "verisimilitude"?

Unless fighters can become martial arts masters of weaponless combat in your game (which bans armor and weapons), then why would I ever become a fighter?

Do you get the point? Do you understand that I get the point?

You're playing a fantasy game. You do not have to behave like a real-life nanny-state Karen. Let your players have a small amount of wish fulfillment and empowerment. Your world will not implode if that happens.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 09, 2025, 12:50:57 PMKiero, how is it humanly possible that you completely missed my point? Am I talking to a wall? You live in a country that is literally controlled by a tyrannically evil government that wants to prevent you from owning and carrying weapons, so your response to this is to acquire over 20 years of real life martial arts experience. Isn't your real life story a rough approximation of what I said was a logical response to your precious "verisimilitude"?

Unless fighters can become martial arts masters of weaponless combat in your game (which bans armor and weapons), then why would I ever become a fighter?

Do you get the point? Do you understand that I get the point?

You're playing a fantasy game. You do not have to behave like a real-life nanny-state Karen. Let your players have a small amount of wish fulfillment and empowerment. Your world will not implode if that happens.

I think you're missing a larger point.  Everyone's fun is different.  Your fun and his are obviously very different.  There's a continuum of approaches between power trip fantasy and realism.  He enjoys play more towards one end and your preference is the other.  Neither is objectively better, but you probably shouldn't game together.

Quote from: Mishihari on May 09, 2025, 01:16:15 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 09, 2025, 12:50:57 PMKiero, how is it humanly possible that you completely missed my point? Am I talking to a wall? You live in a country that is literally controlled by a tyrannically evil government that wants to prevent you from owning and carrying weapons, so your response to this is to acquire over 20 years of real life martial arts experience. Isn't your real life story a rough approximation of what I said was a logical response to your precious "verisimilitude"?

Unless fighters can become martial arts masters of weaponless combat in your game (which bans armor and weapons), then why would I ever become a fighter?

Do you get the point? Do you understand that I get the point?

You're playing a fantasy game. You do not have to behave like a real-life nanny-state Karen. Let your players have a small amount of wish fulfillment and empowerment. Your world will not implode if that happens.

I think you're missing a larger point.  Everyone's fun is different.  Your fun and his are obviously very different.  There's a continuum of approaches between power trip fantasy and realism.  He enjoys play more towards one end and your preference is the other.  Neither is objectively better, but you probably shouldn't game together.

Probably not.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 09, 2025, 12:50:57 PM

Quote from: tenbones on May 09, 2025, 10:47:39 AMIf you show up wearing full battle regalia to everyday in-city social settings, unless you're in some battle-hardened frontier town/fort/outpost - people will look at you like someone walking into a bar wearing full tactical gear with a kitted out M-4/M-16 ready to slam it on. I have NPC's treat "those PC's" accordingly until they learn. The city watch looks at them as potential troublemakers, people of import may not want to deal with you for safety concerns, or conversely - you attract the wrong kinds of patrons because to them you flaunt the social order.

Fuck the "people of import". Who cares what some mouthy NPCs think? The player characters are the "people of import".

NOT NPCS.

Quote from: Mishihari on May 09, 2025, 01:16:15 PMI think you're missing a larger point.  Everyone's fun is different.  Your fun and his are obviously very different.  There's a continuum of approaches between power trip fantasy and realism.  He enjoys play more towards one end and your preference is the other.  Neither is objectively better, but you probably shouldn't game together.

I don't agree with all of Sacrificial Lamb's comment - but I also don't think his point is inherently unrealistic for a D&D or D&D-like situation.

If the PCs are untrusted and unimportant nobodies who wander into town with full tactical gear and M-16s (as tenbones presumes), then they won't be tolerated regardless of whether they put their body armor and M-16s into duffel bags instead of wearing them openly.

I think it is more realistic for the PCs to be considered people of import. If a knight in shining armor rides into town after having slain a dragon, ready to spend the dragon's hoard, then the townsfolk will generally show deference and respect - asking for stories, maybe swooning some, etc. They don't try to slap him around and teach him a lesson for being uppity.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 09, 2025, 12:50:57 PM

Quote from: tenbones on May 09, 2025, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: Kiero on May 06, 2025, 05:56:25 AMDo many settings actually consider that kind of thing, or is it more in the realm of how a GM presents their game?

*I* definitely enforce it, regardless of the setting. By "it" I mean whatever is necessary to maintain the status-quo. Even in settings that don't specify it, I will do that.

Since I run a lot of old-school Forgotten Realms the rules for this can be different in different places. Cormyr for instance has laws about keeping weapons peaceknotted. I also enforce the economic reality of having weapons and armor. Someone doesn't just run around in suits of plate and mail, or hell, even having horse.

The modern fantasy ren-faire does a disservice to the idea of earning a lot of this swag. It's taken for granted that "Fighters all wear platemail" and live in it (because you never know when the GM is going to jack you in the middle of the night!"

The other side of that is I enforce social etiquette. If you show up wearing full battle regalia to everyday in-city social settings, unless you're in some battle-hardened frontier town/fort/outpost - people will look at you like someone walking into a bar wearing full tactical gear with a kitted out M-4/M-16 ready to slam it on. I have NPC's treat "those PC's" accordingly until they learn. The city watch looks at them as potential troublemakers, people of import may not want to deal with you for safety concerns, or conversely - you attract the wrong kinds of patrons because to them you flaunt the social order.

As you point out, living in ones armor is not comfortable. I give my players all the leeway required to establish their modus operandi when out in the field. I hit them with penalties if they keep it up. In Savage Worlds you get hit with Fatigue, which suuuucks. It's like walking around in d20 with a -4 to all your rolls.

Invariably when I get new players they trip through all the wires - wear armor all the time, draw weapons at the drop of a hat (Because don't all encounters require murdering all NPCs at all times?) they're *always* ready for combat - even at the local Magistrates soiree where they're trying to rise in social station and *might* have a delicate matter one of the PC's could help with - but they show up with the gang, and one or more PC's are "Ready to rock!!!!!" (and they get stopped at the entrance and left out of the scene).

So yeah, the onus is on you to establish what is or isn't appropriate. I don't expect players to understand the historical reality of these things. Just show, and don't tell (outside of session zero).

Fuck the "people of import". Who cares what some mouthy NPCs think? The player characters are the "people of import".

NOT NPCS.

And frankly, what you're saying here is:

"Don't play fighters. Play wizards or monks."

I understand.

And yes, I also understand that's not really your conscious intention, but....incentive promotes behavior.

For example, if you create a disincentive for players to become a fighter (by taking away their armor and weapons, every time they walk into town), then your players will not play fighters. I mean, why would they? Right?

Nobody fucks with the Wizard, Gandalf, and his "mere walking staff", or with the Druid and his "mere walking staff", or even with the Diet Coke version of Goku (the weaponless party monk), but the fighter with armor and weapons gets targeted? So why am I playing a fighter then?

I understand the desire for "verisimilitude", but you're playing a FANTASY GAME. Therefore, you're taking the verisimilitude wankery too far.

As a response to this, all the characters (if they're smart) would probably just wear "glamered" armor (armor disguised as clothes), and hide their weapons in portable holes (or whatever). Or perhaps they'll choose classes that do not need weapons and armor to be effective. Or maybe they'll just avoid the cities entirely, and deep-six the DM's railroad....in order to avoid dealing with unnecessary DM power-tripping and DM dickery from "the people of import".

Seriously though....why would I ever become a fighter in such a campaign, when fighters are already weaker than primary spellcasters anyway? And now you want to make fighters even weaker and less effective, by depriving them of the tools of their class? Oh, but you want to do it in the name of "verisimilitude", so that suddenly makes it acceptable.

Well, how about....no?

In that case, I'll stick with the frontier towns and the dungeons then. That way, there are far fewer "Karen busybodies" trying to dictate terms to me.....

.....in a fantasy game.

Quote from: Kiero on May 09, 2025, 10:09:57 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 09, 2025, 09:33:51 AMI also have to wonder why IRL, people from Britain aren't all badass monks/martial artists since they can't carry weapons or use magic. I mean, clearly they're being depowered otherwise...

I have over 20 years of martial arts experience. Never touched a gun in my life, besides an air rifle a few times.

Kiero, how is it humanly possible that you completely missed my point? Am I talking to a wall? You live in a country that is literally controlled by a tyrannically evil government that wants to prevent you from owning and carrying weapons, so your response to this is to acquire over 20 years of real life martial arts experience. Isn't your real life story a rough approximation of what I said was a logical response to your precious "verisimilitude"?

Unless fighters can become martial arts masters of weaponless combat in your game (which bans armor and weapons), then why would I ever become a fighter?

Do you get the point? Do you understand that I get the point?

You're playing a fantasy game. You do not have to behave like a real-life nanny-state Karen. Let your players have a small amount of wish fulfillment and empowerment. Your world will not implode if that happens.

Greetings!

Hmmm...yeah, Verisimilitude is to my mind, very important. I don't run a crazy Gonzo fantasy game where Players can just stroll in wherever they want, ignore laws, custom, and Respecting the Authority of higher Social Status NPC's and act like absolute barbarians without any consequences. The Players seeking to act this way will get stomped on hard, and imprisoned, tortured, and killed in a brutal manner. Player Characters are not "people of import" within the world necessarily at all. There are many individuals and groups that are far more important than some group of mercenary adventurers that have just arrived at the city courtyard. Law, Order, Social Custom, and Authority are all important concepts for Player Characters to understand.

Like an ancient Roman philosopher responded to questions, "What have the Romans done?" "Yes, the Greeks have provided philosophy. The Celts have provided fine craftsmanship. Others have contributed much more. But what of the Romans?

The Romans have taught the world to obey."

Player Characters need to learn to obey those in authority and power above them, or they will be stomped and killed like any other criminal or rebel.

As far as "Fighters" being "deprived"--well, different circumstances provide ups and downs likewise for whoever of whatever Character Class. That's the way the world works. If Players don't like it, they don't have to play Fighters. Beyond that, though, as I have described, in any ordered and lawful society, any kind of BS from the Player Characters are likely to get them promptly killed by the authorities, regardless of whatever Character Class they happen to be. Monks acting stupid? They can be subdued, and then lashed until broken, and then strung up just the same. Arrogant, dangerous Mages or Priests? They can be brutally tortured and burned at the stake for worshipping Dark Gods, or embracing Unlawful Wizardry. Spellcasters don't get a free pass to act with impunity either, and the wheels of justice shall make them pay as well, one way or the other.

Mad-Max, Gonzo environments are fairly limited to particular locations, typically. The larger society that Player Characters operate in must be a functional and secure society, for there to be anything worthwhile. To not have laws, social custom, authority, then what you have is absolute anarchy and CHAOS.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

There's a reason that my own system diverges from later D&D on some of these points. In it, warriors and their relatives are stone cold killers. Sometimes they slice and dice across the battlefield before a caster can even get a spell or two off. Furthermore, they aren't as dependent on weapons as their D&D peers--not even early D&D peers. Meanwhile, magic is relatively tame up into the middle levels--about the same time that a warrior getting his bare hands on you is a bad idea.

That reason is that I wanted to play a game somewhere between what Kiero's very grounded, historical thing and Sacrificial Lamb's power fantasy.  And I wanted the players to have fun and be naturally inclined within the system to want to go where I was trying to take them.

So yeah, in my recent games, I'm closer to Kiero on this.  I want some grounded, at least realistic seeming (if you don't inspect it too close), behavior.  With also options to go wacky with the fantasy at times.  Among other reasons, it makes the fantastical stand out more.  (A handful of talking animals is fantastic. Race after race of common talking animals is a circus.)

I also want variety on this within the world--with players free to pick where they go and what they try. So I'm setting the range of options, but the players are finding the sub range they are comfortable spending most of their time pursuing. This makes it a negotiation point within the party, with even options to move the window around a bit depending on who shows for a given game.  If that means that they avoid certain places with rather restrictive rules, then so be it.

Nor is this limited to straight power.  I just had a party break very hard with what had been their home base, because they discovered some rot that ran deep. It having been their home base for some time, they also suspect that the rot is not pervasive, and there may even be some innocents involved. This puts them in a lot bigger quandary than would happen with, say, assaulting an evil fortified village.  it wasn't even weapon restrictions that made them suspicious--but how mundane gear and food was made available or not. 

I want to say this too:  If the idea of restrictions in the game immediately makes you reflexively think of the GM using those to monkey with the players, and nothing else, then you've had some sorry GMs.  I don't care how well they did funny voices or made things come alive or whatever else skills they had.  Their ability to be consistent and fair sucked.

That's a problem with those GMs, not the same game run by people with more sense.

Come to think of it, if one wants both realistic social structure and power trip fantasy one can just have the PCs be authority figures with a high degree of autonomy, like Paranoia troubleshooters, a band of ronin hired by a daimyo,or a privateer crew.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 09, 2025, 02:26:33 PMI want to say this too:  If the idea of restrictions in the game immediately makes you reflexively think of the GM using those to monkey with the players, and nothing else, then you've had some sorry GMs.  I don't care how well they did funny voices or made things come alive or whatever else skills they had.  Their ability to be consistent and fair sucked.

That's a problem with those GMs, not the same game run by people with more sense.

I could say the same about players. If you reflexively think of players flouting all social convention and being assholes who need to get taught a lesson to respect authority, then don't bother and just ditch them. It's a player problem, so just get better players.

The most common answer that I hear is "Well, but there's too many players like that" or "Players are just naturally that way" or similar.

I think these are two sides of the same coin. I don't think it's inherent extreme assholeness on either side, but just the tendency for both GMs and players, which in most cases can be moderated with a little effort.

Quote from: SHARK on May 09, 2025, 02:19:53 PMI don't run a crazy Gonzo fantasy game where Players can just stroll in wherever they want, ignore laws, custom, and Respecting the Authority of higher Social Status NPC's and act like absolute barbarians without any consequences. The Players seeking to act this way will get stomped on hard, and imprisoned, tortured, and killed in a brutal manner. Player Characters are not "people of import" within the world necessarily at all. There are many individuals and groups that are far more important than some group of mercenary adventurers that have just arrived at the city courtyard. Law, Order, Social Custom, and Authority are all important concepts for Player Characters to understand.

Generally speaking, I have that the PCs are "people of import" within the circles that the game is about. So, say, if I'm playing a low-power game, then the PCs are among other low-power NPCs - like Cuthren Village in Harn which was the setting for an older campaign I was in.

If lower-power PCs are surrounded by more significant and powerful "people of import", then logically, the PCs should be doing menial jobs rather than heroics. The "people of import" should be able to get real heroes for the important work, not be stuck with sending unimportant, untrusted nobodies.

If the PCs are low-importance nobodies, then if something exciting happens - then presumably the important people will be the ones to deal with it. So we should shift the game to circles where the PCs are of import, so they are the ones to deal with important problems. No one wants to play as flunkies or clean-up crew for the more important NPC heroes.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 09, 2025, 12:50:57 PMKiero, how is it humanly possible that you completely missed my point? Am I talking to a wall? You live in a country that is literally controlled by a tyrannically evil government that wants to prevent you from owning and carrying weapons, so your response to this is to acquire over 20 years of real life martial arts experience. Isn't your real life story a rough approximation of what I said was a logical response to your precious "verisimilitude"?

Unless fighters can become martial arts masters of weaponless combat in your game (which bans armor and weapons), then why would I ever become a fighter?

Do you get the point? Do you understand that I get the point?

You're playing a fantasy game. You do not have to behave like a real-life nanny-state Karen. Let your players have a small amount of wish fulfillment and empowerment. Your world will not implode if that happens.

Yes, my own government is pretty tyrannical, though their restriction on weapons is orthogonal to that. Learning martial arts wasn't a response to my government.

You seem to have completely missed my point about said control being applied equally to magic or other sources of power in the major centres. This isn't "punish the fighters and let everyone else do what they like".

I'm not talking about banning weapons and armour altogether (another point that seems to have sailed over your head), I'm talking about it being restricted in settlements. Where social mores insist everyone does so. Because PCs shouldn't be exempt from the same rules that are applied to anyone else. Especially if they're random strangers.

Sorry, juvenile wish-fulfilment where we go all "fuck all authority" isn't my idea of fun as player or GM. Stopped being appealing when I grew up. Playing a fantasy game doesn't have to mean we just cut loose and do stupid shit for giggles. Which often seems to be the main argument for "empowerment". As people have said, there's different kinds of fun.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 09, 2025, 02:26:33 PMI want to say this too:  If the idea of restrictions in the game immediately makes you reflexively think of the GM using those to monkey with the players, and nothing else, then you've had some sorry GMs.  I don't care how well they did funny voices or made things come alive or whatever else skills they had.  Their ability to be consistent and fair sucked.

That's a problem with those GMs, not the same game run by people with more sense.

You know that saying about how 90% of art produced is complete shit? In my experience that ratio applies to GMs too.

Sometimes that was all you had in your small town in the pre-Internet days. I still encounter them enough to make sure to have a polite exit strategy if they give early tells.

The number of times I've seen a GM enforce weapon restrictions without intending to screw the players over in 35 years of gaming? Zero.

I know good GMs exist. A friend of mine in another city couldn't stop gushing about how amazing his is. I just haven't had the fortune to have more than 3-4 in my experience vs. 7-8 truly abysmal ones and umpteen absolutely mediocre ones.

So, yeah, I don't blame anyone for being wary of such things... especially when spellcasters, while they might be punished for breaking the law are basically on the honor system instead of having to go about bound and gagged in their underwear (setting aside still spell, silent spell, and eschew material components).

I'll be honest, based on my past experience with GMs, my tendency in such a world as is being suggested would be to stay away from civilization until I could get strong enough to go Conan on the precious "betters" and end the campaign sitting on their throne drinking wine from their skulls while listening to the lamentations of their women.

Because that is what is best in life. :D

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 09, 2025, 05:06:11 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 09, 2025, 02:26:33 PMI want to say this too:  If the idea of restrictions in the game immediately makes you reflexively think of the GM using those to monkey with the players, and nothing else, then you've had some sorry GMs.  I don't care how well they did funny voices or made things come alive or whatever else skills they had.  Their ability to be consistent and fair sucked.

That's a problem with those GMs, not the same game run by people with more sense.

You know that saying about how 90% of art produced is complete shit? In my experience that ratio applies to GMs too.

Sometimes that was all you had in your small town in the pre-Internet days. I still encounter them enough to make sure to have a polite exit strategy if they give early tells.

The number of times I've seen a GM enforce weapon restrictions without intending to screw the players over in 35 years of gaming? Zero.

I know good GMs exist. A friend of mine in another city couldn't stop gushing about how amazing his is. I just haven't had the fortune to have more than 3-4 in my experience vs. 7-8 truly abysmal ones and umpteen absolutely mediocre ones.

So, yeah, I don't blame anyone for being wary of such things... especially when spellcasters, while they might be punished for breaking the law are basically on the honor system instead of having to go about bound and gagged in their underwear (setting aside still spell, silent spell, and eschew material components).

I'll be honest, based on my past experience with GMs, my tendency in such a world as is being suggested would be to stay away from civilization until I could get strong enough to go Conan on the precious "betters" and end the campaign sitting on their throne drinking wine from their skulls while listening to the lamentations of their women.

Because that is what is best in life. :D

Exactly.

It is almost inevitable that any power tripping DM that is truly that anal retentive about weapon and armor restrictions in fantasy cities in a fantasy game will weaponize that shit against players in the most frustratingly obnoxious ways.

So I do not buy any of the bullshit in this thread about "verisimilitude" or "respecting the authority" of asshole NPCs. Whenever I read a Conan comic book, I see that he wasn't scraping and kneeling and bowing before kings, even when people demanded that he do it.

Just....no.

I'll just come back to the city when I'm 18th-level, and then the asshole NPCs of "import" will do what I tell them to do.

Quote from: Kiero on May 09, 2025, 04:04:00 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 09, 2025, 12:50:57 PMKiero, how is it humanly possible that you completely missed my point? Am I talking to a wall? You live in a country that is literally controlled by a tyrannically evil government that wants to prevent you from owning and carrying weapons, so your response to this is to acquire over 20 years of real life martial arts experience. Isn't your real life story a rough approximation of what I said was a logical response to your precious "verisimilitude"?

Unless fighters can become martial arts masters of weaponless combat in your game (which bans armor and weapons), then why would I ever become a fighter?

Do you get the point? Do you understand that I get the point?

You're playing a fantasy game. You do not have to behave like a real-life nanny-state Karen. Let your players have a small amount of wish fulfillment and empowerment. Your world will not implode if that happens.

Yes, my own government is pretty tyrannical, though their restriction on weapons is orthogonal to that. Learning martial arts wasn't a response to my government.

You seem to have completely missed my point about said control being applied equally to magic or other sources of power in the major centres. This isn't "punish the fighters and let everyone else do what they like".

I'm not talking about banning weapons and armour altogether (another point that seems to have sailed over your head), I'm talking about it being restricted in settlements. Where social mores insist everyone does so. Because PCs shouldn't be exempt from the same rules that are applied to anyone else. Especially if they're random strangers.

Sorry, juvenile wish-fulfilment where we go all "fuck all authority" isn't my idea of fun as player or GM. Stopped being appealing when I grew up. Playing a fantasy game doesn't have to mean we just cut loose and do stupid shit for giggles. Which often seems to be the main argument for "empowerment". As people have said, there's different kinds of fun.

Wish fulfillment! Imagine an asshole DM getting butthurt about the pursuit of wish fulfillment....in a fantasy game. So now you want me to submit to power tripping NPC Karens, even in a fantasy? It boggles the mind. And I didn't miss your point. I brought it up, remember?

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 07, 2025, 06:37:28 PMAnd if you made things sufficiently punitive against spellcasters too, then it would just be an all-monk campaign....where every player character would be focusing on mastering martial arts and unarmed combat.

And what a coincidence. You became a monk yourself in real life, in response to British tyranny.....via practicing over 20 years of unarmed martial arts combat.

Oh, but wait. That's just a coincidence. Right?

Quote from: jhkim on May 09, 2025, 03:17:15 PMI could say the same about players. If you reflexively think of players flouting all social convention and being assholes who need to get taught a lesson to respect authority, then don't bother and just ditch them. It's a player problem, so just get better players.

The most common answer that I hear is "Well, but there's too many players like that" or "Players are just naturally that way" or similar.

I think these are two sides of the same coin. I don't think it's inherent extreme assholeness on either side, but just the tendency for both GMs and players, which in most cases can be moderated with a little effort.

Well, you could say that the two were parallel, but my experience is that they are seldom like that. Yes, there are players that are going to screw up the game no matter what, and yes you should dump them.

However, there's a lot more players that don't really know what they want until they see it. So if the GM does nothing but kick them around, they'll never get to experience it. Likewise, if the GM doesn't put in some restrictions for them to run up against, they'll never get to experience it, either.  Because most players wants a challenge/conflict/opportunity however you want to frame it, to do something meaningful in the game.

I've got a player right now (fairly new to me, not new to gaming) that is more or less doing exactly what Chris said he'd do in such a game--trying to get strong so that he has a lever to push back.  It's a little bit of an attitude, but it's all in good fun. Initially, he kept pushing to find the edges.  I kept telling him, "You can do anything you want. Just if you tick someone off, they'll probably be consequences." In his case, that includes the other players.  He told me recently that he is so enjoying the game because I let him try whatever he wants but the world doesn't always let him get away with it. He loves the chance to push back against a world that might try to slap him down. One of the other players is having such a blast watching the whole thing enfold, he jumped in with him. Some of the other players have conspired to keep him somewhat under control and/or channel his energies in ways that they find useful. He knows it, and plays up to that to the hilt.  All of that sparks an immense amount of intra-party conflict and role playing, and even I don't know how it will come out.  To put the magic cherry on top of the fantastical sundae, he met up with some nefarious people that tried to recruit him, having observed his behavior. He very carefully walked a tightrope of neither turning them down outright or joining, leaving that unresolved, with no one really sure whether it is a threat or an opportunity.

None of that would be possible if I didn't have the world push back.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 09, 2025, 07:03:14 PMI've got a player right now (fairly new to me, not new to gaming) that is more or less doing exactly what Chris said he'd do in such a game--trying to get strong so that he has a lever to push back. It's a little bit of an attitude, but it's all in good fun. Initially, he kept pushing to find the edges.
...
None of that would be possible if I didn't have the world push back.

That sounds cool - but it sounds like you're interpreting that if the PCs are "persons of import" then that means that the world doesn't push back and the PCs just get everything they want.

I think when the PCs are "persons of import", that's when it's most interesting for the world to push back. When the PCs are unimportant nobodies, then the only lever is more powerful NPCs slapping the PCs down for misbehaving.

If the PCs are persons of import, then they have skin in the game. They can have rivals who try to look better than them, and they can have petitioners who try to curry favor with them. If a rival upstart tries to look better than the PCs, then they can see what they stand to lose - and can get interested in better social posturing so they can outdo their rivals.

In the current Norse-myth-cyberpunk campaign I'm playing in, we're only a small warband - but we're still persons of import within our little neighborhood of Lower Vargstad. We have a rival warband called the "Iron Tide". They slightly outnumber us, but we've managed to outdo them several times. That rivalry is something that really makes us consider our reputation for the things that we do.

I think playing zero to hero means that no one starts out as a person of import but anyone could turn into one.  Assuming they play their cards right and have a little luck.  You aren't handed being a person of import. You earn it. 

Granted, in a setting with stricter social classes, that doesn't really work. You can't leave your class, or at least not very far from it.  That's another reason why I prefer my fantasy games emulate earlier medieval instead of ancient world or later medieval.  In early medieval, most people can't claw their way into person of import, but any given person could.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 09, 2025, 09:22:40 PMI think playing zero to hero means that no one starts out as a person of import but anyone could turn into one.  Assuming they play their cards right and have a little luck.  You aren't handed being a person of import. You earn it. 

Granted, in a setting with stricter social classes, that doesn't really work. You can't leave your class, or at least not very far from it.  That's another reason why I prefer my fantasy games emulate earlier medieval instead of ancient world or later medieval.  In early medieval, most people can't claw their way into person of import, but any given person could.

I think that might be backwards. My understanding is that there's actually more social mobility in the late middle ages and the renaissance. Due to a large number of factors --the Black Death, the increasing influence of cities,  centralization of monarchical power (with the attendant growth of an adminstrative class), rising literacy rates, increase in professional militaries and economic growth-- the old feudal order slowly dies of irrelevance. It still wouldn't have been easy for a commoner to become a noble, but there were more ways to get ahead in the world which didn't require you to be one.

For example, I was reading a short bio of Geoffrey Chaucer earlier today. He was the son of a wine merchant (his great-grandfather was a tavern keeper), but because his family was wealthy enough to get him educated, he was able to start off as a page in a countess' household, end up working as a royal messenger and later a diplomat and several other senior government positions, as well as serving in the Hundred Years War.

Sorry, by early medieval, I'm talking prior to Charlemagne. Or at least not all that far past him.  A strong retainer can distinguish himself in battle, get knighted, be given a fief, etc., all in one generation. As the years pass, it's still possible, but it becomes a multi-generational thing. 

Of course, depends on how you look at it.  Big cities are great levelers in that regard, though there is still a ceiling of "really influential commoner" instead of titled.  There was of course considerable social mobility in some ways in the aftermath of the black death, though that was more about survival than anything.  That is, When everyone is being brought down a peg or two, the survivors seem to be moving up in comparison.