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.