TheRPGSite

My players in Dark Albion or Lion & Dragon are always surprised, when they're first playing, at the fact that for the most part they can't just wander around the streets of London dressed in plate mail and heavily armed.

It seems like in most D&D games, there is this notion that you can wander around any fantasy city, with no special governmental authority or whatnot, looking like you're ready to engage in mass slaughter.

And I get that not every game needs to be entirely "medieval authentic", but I have trouble imagining most states of fantasy governments functioning effectively, where people who don't have political authority get to go around in full gear.

I'm not a scholar, but wasn't armour ridiculously expensive in medieval times? How likely would you have seen people in full plate wandering about anyway?

Fantasy has its own prerequisites which are thoroughly different than those of a historical campaign. Part of the attraction of fantasy is being able to steal elements of history without most of the "downsides".

I'm prepping a 13th century Low Countries campaign right now and it's going to be very different from my usual sword & sorcery campaigns by default.

Generally, no.  Frontier towns, maybe.  Some warlike cultures might allow people to go fairly well-armed, but not any type of civilized city.  For D&D worlds, maybe cities like Highport, Molag or Dorakaa going around without full gear might just mark you as prey.

Yes

A) it's a staple of the genre (which is not "medieval authentic"). Conan, Elak, Grey Mouser/Fafhrd all wore steel openly. So did Solomon Kane for that matter.  

B) The world is more dangerous, with monsters and such. People need to be armed, especially those that deal with monsters. In most D&D worlds, the state doesn't protect people from monsters and such, armed adventurers do.

C) People aren't serfs/slaves/conquered people (like in medieval England), they are free.  Carrying weapons is a right of free people. Hell, the state I live in lets people open and conceal carry without a permit. It's quite common to see people toting firearms on a holster in public. It might be considered gauche or unsophisticated, but again, in a D&D world, people would have far greater need to have weapons than ours.

Wearing steel or armed with a sidearm is different from walking around in full harness w/shield or carrying pole arms, greataxes, or longbow and quiver at the local watering hole.

No; in my historical game, only citizens of Massalia were allowed to go armed and armoured within the city walls. Even then, it was socially frowned upon for citizens to do so unless there was trouble.

I guess so, I don't often run adventures set in cities though. Exception would be Paizo Golarion stuff, I remember a Bard who walked around with a halberd!

Back when I ran Lankhmar in the '80s the PCs would wear leather & carry side arms like maces & swords, though. But players will buy and equip anything in the PHB. If you don't want them wearing plate, don't put it in the equipment list.

Almost always no.  I remember reading the Referee advice in Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0. about punishing players walking the streets in MetalGear armour with a heavy assault rifle shoulder slung and the mentality has stuck.  Keep your armour vest in the car boot, your combat gear in a backpack you can ditch and your dagger in your boot.

I have no problem making characters rot in a cell, pay heavy fines or be preemptively declared troublemakers and denied entry to where the important things are happening.

Player characters walking around in full armour, upsetting the proper order? FEAR to the rescue!

(https://78.media.tumblr.com/d936f49180a847bad8af05e27258e85e/tumblr_p6atveSeRU1rxmn3vo1_1280.png)

(From City State of the Invincible Overlord, 1976)

Another origin of the practice is "killer" DMs seeing unarmored/unarmed PCs as an opportunity to "get 'em". Going about a city unarmored is an invitation for such DMs to take advantage of the PCs' vulnerability - not to create adventure, but to abuse the PCs. Hence, "keeping their defenses up". It's an artifact of poor gameplay.

In my campaigns, it varies wildly depending upon the nature of the campaign.  For the current one, I turned the idea on its head, as a natural consequence of the setting:  People are relatively scarce and valuable, because portals can open up into the fey and shadow lands almost anywhere, with rapid and nasty consequences at times, never mind other magical and fantastical nastiness.  "Adventurers" role in society is to deal with such things.  They are essentially a semi-official, but mostly autonomous social class charged with dealing with special trouble as it arises.  An adventurer might not (and probably will not) have full combat gear in a town, the same way they wouldn't have it in most dungeons.  They will be armed and armored.  One that doesn't is considered to be a coward, derelict in their social obligations, or both.  An adventuring group is the first thing deputized when a local ruler needs backup.

In other campaigns, I've had stringent rules, and in most campaigns, it is somewhere in the middle.  Very much depends upon the setting.

One of my citys that deals with a lot of adventures has the rules posted.  

No shields
No heavy armor
No spells above 3rd level with out a license
No evocation
No deamon summoning
....

A buch of other stuff.

Mostly I forget/am less concerned about sidearms in cities (and therefore all the town guards in my head are also less concerned). Armour though, gets a verbal warning followed by a de-armouring, and knowing, never mind using, damaging cantrips in my 5e game is a capital offence in most civilised cultures.

Depends on the location.  If it's a city with a strong centralized government, often the only arms allowed are swords (long, broad, and short), clubs, and daggers.

Which just happen to be the weapons allowed to thieves in the 1E PHB.

Depends on the setting and location within the setting.

Generally, the main settings for our fantasy games generally run more like the American Wild West sans firearms + spells than something overtly feudal. Freemen are the norm, not the exception and the definition of a Lord is any wealthy landowner who rents out their land to tenants (i.e. a literal Land Lord). Government is local and decentralized and you'd best have the arms and armor to defend what's yours because the Sheriff might be 20+ minutes away when bandits or a wild beast come looking to take what's yours.

Throw in the fact that magic and shape-shifting beasts are pretty pervasive in the setting and "looks unarmed and unarmored" could as easily be "massively powerful wizard who could level the entire town" as it could "harmless old lady" and letting the populace have something to at least try to stick into an evil wizard/demon when they start chanting and waving their arms around is a prudent gesture.

This is a Magic Free Zone laws work about as well as Gun Free Zones do in the real world; they only keep out the law abiding and none of the realms are usually strong enough to survive that level of idiocy for long without getting overthrown.

In our most recent setting the concept of the hereditary monarchy (vs. the warrior class electing the king's successor from among themselves) is only starting to take hold in some of the more civilized areas in the last generation or so and they still risk falling prey to some warlord with ambitions if they aren't up to the task.

I try to convince my players that they don't have to wear full harness every moment.  Then I play honestly with them.

What pisses me off is when I try to role play my character wearing appropriate clothing and then being punished for not running around in full plate.  I fucking hate that.

In most D&D?  Yes.  Because armour is your dodge bonus, so having players unarmed when being mugged means that the attrition wins.  Unless you have a massive difference in hit points, the average bandit in fifth edition will have, on average (assuming AC 12, with a Dex bonus of +2) will have a 65% of always hitting the players.  At high levels it doesn't matter because the average fighter has more hit points than the entire band of bandits.  But between levels 1-5, it will end badly.

In other Fantasy systems?  No, not really.

Quote from: Chris24601;1031647Depends on the setting and location within the setting.

Generally, the main settings for our fantasy games generally run more like the American Wild West sans firearms + spells than something overtly feudal. Freemen are the norm, not the exception and the definition of a Lord is any wealthy landowner who rents out their land to tenants (i.e. a literal Land Lord). Government is local and decentralized and you'd best have the arms and armor to defend what's yours because the Sheriff might be 20+ minutes away when bandits or a wild beast come looking to take what's yours.

In my experience, the Wild West parallel is very common for D&D type games.  Though I would say that it is less often that the PCs feel the need to be armed against attack, and more that there isn't a welcoming institution where they feel safe leaving their stuff.  In D&D, the PCs are homeless wanderers with few connections or allegiances, who pay for everything with coinage. So they come into town and then rent a room at the inn - but they don't feel like the inn is fully safe and secure - and rightfully so for many adventures and town modules. They'd be willing to risk getting into a fight without their full arms and armor, but they're less willing to risk having all their arms and armor stolen from their room.

And the cities and towns tend to be rough places. When running a module or using encounter tables in D&D, it's pretty common for there to be some sort of trouble in town where they'll want their arms and armor.

In other settings, it can be quite different. In my Vinland setting, say, if they visited somewhere they would have a host who they were visiting.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1031663In most D&D?  Yes.  Because armour is your dodge bonus, so having players unarmed when being mugged means that the attrition wins.  Unless you have a massive difference in hit points, the average bandit in fifth edition will have, on average (assuming AC 12, with a Dex bonus of +2) will have a 65% of always hitting the players.  At high levels it doesn't matter because the average fighter has more hit points than the entire band of bandits.  But between levels 1-5, it will end badly.

In other Fantasy systems?  No, not really.

This has also been my experience. When we play Palladium Fantasy (1e), the players are a lot more likely to leave armor and heavy weapons behind in town (they'll still keep an arming sword or equivalent on them and maybe don light armor at most) because Parry and Dodge are your first line of defense (with armor only soaking up some hits when you roll really poorly due to how AR works in the system) and the difference between an arming sword (2d6) and a greatsword (3d6) is relatively small.

Its also worth noting too that there's a world of difference between someone in a nicely tailored brigandine or gambeson with a rapier and dagger on his belt and a wall of muscle in a full plate harness with a longsword on his belt and a bow and quiver on his back. The former probably wouldn't draw too much attention to themselves in all but the most oppressive communities (and in 5e could be a bard, rogue or Dex-based fighter pretty easily; with many spellcasters being even LESS obvious) while the latter is bound to draw attention just due to the obvious cost of all the steel they're wearing.

Quote from: Chris24601;1031674This has also been my experience. When we play Palladium Fantasy (1e), the players are a lot more likely to leave armor and heavy weapons behind in town (they'll still keep an arming sword or equivalent on them and maybe don light armor at most) because Parry and Dodge are your first line of defense (with armor only soaking up some hits when you roll really poorly due to how AR works in the system) and the difference between an arming sword (2d6) and a greatsword (3d6) is relatively small.

Its also worth noting too that there's a world of difference between someone in a nicely tailored brigandine or gambeson with a rapier and dagger on his belt and a wall of muscle in a full plate harness with a longsword on his belt and a bow and quiver on his back. The former probably wouldn't draw too much attention to themselves in all but the most oppressive communities (and in 5e could be a bard, rogue or Dex-based fighter pretty easily; with many spellcasters being even LESS obvious) while the latter is bound to draw attention just due to the obvious cost of all the steel they're wearing.

This is why in my current 5e home game, I've house ruled armour, which I've explained else where, to be damage reduction and certain classes add their Proficiency Bonus to AC.  It allows players to wander around in nothing more than Leather and maybe a back up blade, and still be capable in a fight.  It also allows for more swashbuckling action, I've found. Although the flaw is the extra math it brings.

In my campaign setting, the general populace is pretty accustomed to the whole concept of "adventurers," and seeing a man in full kit strolling down the street (and not actively causing a ruckus) will not draw excessive attention, though some people will tsk tsk or raise an eyebrow.  Adventurers are seen by the mainstream as "outsiders," in sort of the same way we all see circus folk.  They're seen as potentially dangerous, general untrustworthy, and assumed to be at least eccentric.  That said, you wouldn't show up to court or a ball in kit.

But really, this is not much of problem in my campaign. In the main play area of my campaign, which is basically the city states of Italian Renaissance, it's fairly common of men of any standing to carry a sword.  There are always ruffians about, ready to rob an unarmed man.  So seeing someone carrying a weapon while out on the streets, particularly young men at night, is not unusual.  

Heavy armor is also a lot less common.  I run HERO System, and a full suit of plate mail doesn't provide the huge advantage in combat in HERO that it does in D&D.  For one, armor actually makes you easier to hit, and the damage reduction it provides is less valuable over the long run than the extra hits you'll take from being slowed down.  I've also tweaked the rules to heavily favor a more swashbuckling approach to combat, and a character gains the maximum advantage by combining a steel cuirass, codpiece and open-faced helm with a padded surcoat and a few levels of Combat Reflexes .  Walking down the street in that kit isn't nearly as conspicuous as wearing full plate, and people will just assume you're either an adventurer, a mercenary captain, or a ship's captain, since that kit implies a life full of combat but also comfortable means.  Even then, my players are typically fine with going about completely unarmored, because should they get in combat, most already rely on either reflexes and agility to avoid being hit at all, or have some alternative means of defense (i.e. magic), and they can always choose to just take a more defensive stance than usual to make themselves really hard to hit.

If you don't want your PCs to wear full armor all the time, stop having them be attacked in inns and houses, except as a very rare occasion.  If "every damn time we try to have a quiet beer there is a huge fight with weapons," then of COURSE PCs will wander around ready for war at all times.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1031564My players in Dark Albion or Lion & Dragon are always surprised, when they're first playing, at the fact that for the most part they can't just wander around the streets of London dressed in plate mail and heavily armed.

It seems like in most D&D games, there is this notion that you can wander around any fantasy city, with no special governmental authority or whatnot, looking like you're ready to engage in mass slaughter.

And I get that not every game needs to be entirely "medieval authentic", but I have trouble imagining most states of fantasy governments functioning effectively, where people who don't have political authority get to go around in full gear.

It depends on the setting and place.

In Pavis, in Glorantha, there are rules about which weapons you are allowed to carry and what armour you are allowed to wear, these rules are rigidly enforced. In Sartar, in Glorantha, the rules are even harsher and enforced more strictly.

In Sanctuary, in Thieves World, the restrictions are far less. In certain areas of Ankh Morpock, anything goes.

The important thing is to make the players aware of the rules, unless they are complete strangers to the place, that way there are no surprises.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1031573I'm not a scholar, but wasn't armour ridiculously expensive in medieval times? How likely would you have seen people in full plate wandering about anyway?

If you buy armour, then yes. However, if you take armour from a fallen foe, it becomes quite cheap.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1031688If you don't want your PCs to wear full armor all the time, stop having them be attacked in inns and houses, except as a very rare occasion.  If "every damn time we try to have a quiet beer there is a huge fight with weapons," then of COURSE PCs will wander around ready for war at all times.

Muggings are rare, but having 'adventures' in a city, where having your full kit is restricted shouldn't be.

My PCs would normally be allowed to carry a single weapon, bow (slung), sword (sheathed), staff etc. Walking around the streets in full armour is not on the cards. In certain parts of the city, even openly displaying weapons wouldn't be allowed. Its really dependent on the setting or feel I'm going for. Currently my PCs are in a frontier town, and can carry what they like, though I've given them the willies by allowing them an audience with one of the main NPC's and allowing them to keep their full gear. Normally they would be searched and all weapons removed, but the NPC is that bad ass he doesn't see them as a threat, even with their full gear, and its freaking them a bit. The disconnect I sometimes have is the PC's have to remove their weapons but the wizard never gets gagged and bound when entering the city gates, but if they did that would explain why they choose to live in isolated towers!

Quote from: JeremyR;1031582Yes
A) it's a staple of the genre (which is not "medieval authentic").

Pretty much this.

Also, in a world where the biggest possibility of mass death and destruction come from the unarmored classes, it's a nonsensical restriction. If your setting is "authentic" -- including a complete lack of destructive magic -- then sure, ok. Otherwise it's just one more reason to avoid playing a fighter type.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1031564My players in Dark Albion or Lion & Dragon are always surprised, when they're first playing, at the fact that for the most part they can't just wander around the streets of London dressed in plate mail and heavily armed.

It seems like in most D&D games, there is this notion that you can wander around any fantasy city, with no special governmental authority or whatnot, looking like you're ready to engage in mass slaughter.

And I get that not every game needs to be entirely "medieval authentic", but I have trouble imagining most states of fantasy governments functioning effectively, where people who don't have political authority get to go around in full gear.

My players generally have no issues sticking to sidearms and light, socially-acceptable (for their class and profession) armour. But that's the ones that are used to my style:).
The ones that are new to it, but have D&D experience, have been known to state that they're walking around in plate and with two-handers;).

Quote from: JeremyR;1031582People aren't serfs/slaves/conquered people (like in medieval England), they are free.  Carrying weapons is a right of free people.

1). No, it's not. Carrying weapons of war in many parts of the world is, and has been, limited to those of the warrior caste.
Not even in Medieval England could you get away with walking everywhere in plate. Maybe in France during the Hundred-Years War.

QuoteHell, the state I live in lets people open and conceal carry without a permit. It's quite common to see people toting firearms on a holster in public. It might be considered gauche or unsophisticated, but again, in a D&D world, people would have far greater need to have weapons than ours.

So they allow you to carry body armour, RPGs and assault rifles with grenade launchers:D? Because that's the equivalent of "plate mail and heavy weapons" for today's weaponry.

Quote from: AsenRG;1031718So they allow you to carry body armour, RPGs and assault rifles with grenade launchers:D? Because that's the equivalent of "plate mail and heavy weapons" for today's weaponry.

No restrictions on body armor in our state (I know a guy who wore a vest nightly when worked nights at a downtown 24/7 gas station) and you can open carry an AR-15 without a permit (and permits for concealed carry are 'will issue' meaning unless something specific comes up in your background check they can't deny you a permit). A .50 sniper rifle is legal too. It takes some cash to get a permit but you can even legally own a gatling gun in many states in the US.

 I think you underestimate just how much unlike the rest of the world the United States is when it comes to gun rights, particularly in the Red States.

Quote from: JeremyR;1031582Yes

A) it's a staple of the genre (which is not "medieval authentic"). Conan, Elak, Grey Mouser/Fafhrd all wore steel openly. So did Solomon Kane for that matter.  

B) The world is more dangerous, with monsters and such. People need to be armed, especially those that deal with monsters. In most D&D worlds, the state doesn't protect people from monsters and such, armed adventurers do.

C) People aren't serfs/slaves/conquered people (like in medieval England), they are free.  Carrying weapons is a right of free people. Hell, the state I live in lets people open and conceal carry without a permit. It's quite common to see people toting firearms on a holster in public. It might be considered gauche or unsophisticated, but again, in a D&D world, people would have far greater need to have weapons than ours.

Early D&D always seemed to have a lot of influence from westerns, so it's only natural every gunslinger goes heeled in town.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1031688If you don't want your PCs to wear full armor all the time, stop having them be attacked in inns and houses, except as a very rare occasion.  If "every damn time we try to have a quiet beer there is a huge fight with weapons," then of COURSE PCs will wander around ready for war at all times.

The same goes for shitty DMs who get their hackles up when PCs decide to either sleep in armor or just do without sleep for a day or so because while the DM is stupid, the players certainly aren't because they know when an asshole DM is just licking his chops for that surprise ambush at night when no one has armor. It's almost as bad as the DM who whines that the PCs refuse to take on followers/henchmen, when he's fucked them over every time they brought NPCs into the group.

Yes.

"NPC betrayal" is the single most overused trope in RPGs.  Unfortunately, both Gary Gygax and Phil (Tekumel) Barker were big fans of Jack Vance's "Dying Earth."  In the DE books, EVERYBODY is a rat bastard.  It's not that they will betray you if they have a reason, it's that they will betray you unless there is an overwhelming reason NOT to.

This tainted the early history of RPGs.

It reached the point that in one Tekumel session, the PCs were sitting around discussing IN CHARACTER how this NPC was going to betray them this time.

Quote from: Elfdart;1031778The same goes for shitty DMs who get their hackles up when PCs decide to either sleep in armor or just do without sleep for a day or so because while the DM is stupid, the players certainly aren't because they know when an asshole DM is just licking his chops for that surprise ambush at night when no one has armor. It's almost as bad as the DM who whines that the PCs refuse to take on followers/henchmen, when he's fucked them over every time they brought NPCs into the group.

The solution to having an asshole DM is to not game with that motherfucker. Problem solved.

Quote from: jeff37923;1031787The solution to having an asshole DM is to not game with that motherfucker. Problem solved.

^ What he said.

The problem with PCs going around concentrations of people while fully loaded with armor and weapons is a problem in just about all genres of RPGs. It is bad in fantasy, it can be downright stupid in science fiction. Most settlements exist as safe areas where PCs can rest, recuperate, rearm, and get ready for their next adventure. Can there still be excitement? Yes, but of the picked pocket or bar brawl or social intrigue variety. Unless the settlement is a Klingon-like society or a war zone, full weapons and armor will be discouraged by those wishing to keep the peace. Even warrior societies will have strict codes of conduct to follow regarding weapon use lest their settlement become a wasteland of constant pointless warfare.

How to discourage PCs from walking around fully armed and armored?

First off - don't let them in. No city guard or police force is going to want people armed or armored wandering around their settlement. The potential for combat is just too great with a walking target like that in their midst. If the PCs insist on being armed and armored, then they will not be allowed in the city gates. If this is a problem that has been encountered before, then there will be businesses who will cater to these PCs outside of the city walls - usually third and forth rate businesses who aren't reputable enough to have a spot inside the gate.

Second - if they are in the settlement, don't allow them business. If you see someone wearing gang colors and holding a weapon, do you want to talk to them? No, you don't. They look like they are there to cause trouble, nothing else or they wouldn't be so armed and armored. It will be hard to find food, lodging, and other services because nobody wants their business associated with thugs. If the PCs are looking for patrons then it may be even harder to find some who will willing approach such questionable adventurers (unless they have questionable motives and jobs themselves that need doing). City guards and police will follow them around, just in case fighting that they are obviously ready for breaks out.

With that said, there are special cases. I had a Traveller player whose Scout had survived explosive decompression in chargen, so he wore a TL 14 vacc suit in every artificial environment he was in due to the fear of that happening again. I allowed that as a phobia of the PC's even though it had some negative social interaction effects (odor) and the PC would shed his vacc suit on worlds with breathable atmospheres (mainly for maintenance and cleaning).

Ultimately though, PCs will try to get away with whatever you allow them too. Just treat the situation as realistic without unduly punishing them.

And just don't be that asshole GM that will cause players to try and justify their behavior.

It depends on the norms and laws of the in-game location, and what social role/status the PCs have.

In my original campaign and some places like it in later campaigns, carrying weapons around is pretty normal in most towns except in high-status areas, temples, guild halls, palaces, near nobility, etc. However groups of well-armed people, or some conspicuous weapons/armor will draw attention, as will behaviour (readying weapons, menacing, etc).

My later campaign settings tend to have more places that are more sensitive to carrying/wearing conspicuous weapons and armor, but they also have open-carry/wear societies in other places. They also tend to have more specific groups with specific expected and allowed equipment in appropriate places. In some places, carrying certain weapons implies you are the sort of person who carries that weapon and is allowed to.

There are often exceptions for status, and there's often status for people who are strong well-equipped fighters who behave themselves. My later campaigns also tend to not just have a numerous heavily-armed generic no-questions-asked class, so a group of well-armed people tend to be noticed and hailed to see where they fit in the local power structure.

Depends on the location and local laws and just how often all hell breaks loose. Ib say AD&D youd be crazy to go anywhere unarmed in a city as any minute you could be accosted by undead, wererats, thugs and other hazards. Outside of AD&D its very YMMV. But usually the more dangerous the town the more likely everyones walking armed.

Just depends on the city, culture and occasion. If they complain too much just have them always taking ages getting anywhere because of all the guys in full armour with their barded war horses stopping anyone moving. Put them behind the fellow who always travels with a horse pulled cart full of adventure gear like tents and iron rations who is "just nipping to the barbers". They will get the idea. :)

I can't lie, the idea of guys clunking around a peaceful safe city in full armor and weapons makes me want to turn it into something like a 3 stooges routine- the dude turning and the far end of his 2 handed sword knocking over the carefully stacked pyramid of apples one merchant has out. When he turns to see the ruckus, he hits another merchant in the nuts causing him to fall into a dyer's tub, turning them a weird color, spins again crashing into a pottery merchant and his goods, with pots falling one at a time to hit the guy on the the head, etc. Eventually the whole market chasing the party down the street for all the chaos they caused.

Quote from: Elfdart;1031778The same goes for shitty DMs who get their hackles up when PCs decide to either sleep in armor or just do without sleep for a day or so because while the DM is stupid, the players certainly aren't because they know when an asshole DM is just licking his chops for that surprise ambush at night when no one has armor.

I agree with the "don't be an asshole GM" concept, but if characters, who can't see at night, are in Goblin Woods, which is lousy with Goblins, who can see at night, the most likely time for an attack is at night and I don't really think that is being an asshole GM, licking his chops. That is just gobbos acting as they they should. On the flip side, the GM shouldn't get wound up over them sleeping armor or not sleeping in Goblin Woods, either. That is adventurers acting as they they should. Now you tell me you are sleeping in armor in Ye Olde Ritz-Carlton Inn in Safeton, the capital of Snoozy Shire, that I find hard to accept. But I wouldn't accept an ogre kicking down the room door in Ye Olde Ritz-Carlton Inn in Safeton, the capital of Snoozy Shire, either.

For all you folks with experience, how hard is it to sleep in armor? I know US troops in the field sleep in body armor. And I have read about many battles where armies marched into position during the night or the night before and slept in formation so they could attack at first light (not sure how armored up they would be), although I am not sure if they slept in harness.

Quote from: AsenRG;1031718So they allow you to carry body armour, RPGs and assault rifles with grenade launchers:D? Because that's the equivalent of "plate mail and heavy weapons" for today's weaponry.

The closest equivalent to a grenade launcher in fantasy is the proverbial Fireball. See also D&D spells like Magic Missile and Mage Armor fitting your examples perfectly. This is why it makes no sense to restrict physical weapons and armor without also banning, say, all wizards. It would be more consistent to restrict the use of any weaponry, be it physical or magical.

We sometimes used to play "Rich Merchants" when things got a bit dull in our RuneQuest game, or when we didn't know what to do next. Basically, the PCs would dress up in rich clothes and walk through the roughest area of town, putting on a posh accent and talking about the quaint hovels, pretty children begging and so on, then we'd wait to be set upon by local hoodlums, allowing us to dispatch them with the greatest ease. Since everyone was a RuneLord/Priest combination, there was little risk to us, we got rid of some local thugs and had a thoroughly enjoyable session.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1031564My players in Dark Albion or Lion & Dragon are always surprised, when they're first playing, at the fact that for the most part they can't just wander around the streets of London dressed in plate mail and heavily armed.

It seems like in most D&D games, there is this notion that you can wander around any fantasy city, with no special governmental authority or whatnot, looking like you're ready to engage in mass slaughter.

And I get that not every game needs to be entirely "medieval authentic", but I have trouble imagining most states of fantasy governments functioning effectively, where people who don't have political authority get to go around in full gear.

It depends.  I am not sure a dark ages Viking inspired world (where every man enforces the law, say in Iceland) would be amiss with armed PCs.

Usually the key is for the environment to be realistic.  If expensive armor was constantly being stolen or travelers are being attacked on the streets, the city is either going to be an armed camp or not get many visitors. I can't walk around with a grenade launcher at the local mall, but I am also unlikely to be attacked by a mob at random.  If the probability of this happening was 50%+ then I would consider either not going or going prepared.  

If you are simulating late medieval England, people being killed on the streets by gangs (as opposed to the local nobility which is kind of a special case) would result in relatively strong responses from the local authorities.  Highwaymen were hanged in England, and they were doing their activities outside of cities.  Gangs so numerous and dangerous that a group of adventurers are likely to be attacked on the streets (meaning it's happening to dozens of such groups, if the PCs get targeted) would be a complete collapse of local authority.  In most scenarios that would result in a rather drastic response from the nobility.  

And if towns are basically safe, then it is not really needed to be tromping around in uncomfortable armor.

In a hyper realistic setting running around in expensive full plate probably makes people assume that you are a Knight or Noble aka someone general rules don't apply to anyways.

So you need a fantasy setting where the social order has advanced to modern levels (We either know who is Noble enough to be armed or guards can read papers) but at the same time it must be a social order that doesn't value the ability to defend yourself.

So this city is some sort of medieval modern Japan (everyone is literate and there is basically no come) or some sort of Tyrannical City where only a select few are armed and it doesn't matter your social rank or if the city is safe enough to be unarmed in.

Quote from: Big Andy;1031825I agree with the "don't be an asshole GM" concept, but if characters, who can't see at night, are in Goblin Woods, which is lousy with Goblins, who can see at night, the most likely time for an attack is at night and I don't really think that is being an asshole GM, licking his chops. That is just gobbos acting as they they should. On the flip side, the GM shouldn't get wound up over them sleeping armor or not sleeping in Goblin Woods, either. That is adventurers acting as they they should. Now you tell me you are sleeping in armor in Ye Olde Ritz-Carlton Inn in Safeton, the capital of Snoozy Shire, that I find hard to accept. But I wouldn't accept an ogre kicking down the room door in Ye Olde Ritz-Carlton Inn in Safeton, the capital of Snoozy Shire, either.

The issue isn't the attackers (especially when the PCs are careless), it's an asshole DM subjecting the PCs to a "canned hunt" where the characters are expected to leave themselves open to attack when simple precautions would mitigate much or the risk. One way you can tell if the DM is an asshole is if the PCs are regularly caught in compromising positions through no fault of their own, while the PCs never get the chance to catch the goblins napping and sans armor, or an ogre unarmed because he put down his club while taking a shit.

QuoteFor all you folks with experience, how hard is it to sleep in armor? I know US troops in the field sleep in body armor. And I have read about many battles where armies marched into position during the night or the night before and slept in formation so they could attack at first light (not sure how armored up they would be), although I am not sure if they slept in harness.

I'd think it depends on the armor. Padded and chainmail shouldn't be much of a problem, though the plate armors would no doubt be uncomfortable. Hardened leather armor is fairly similar to a full set of football pads and I managed to sleep in those when I was a kid (including the helmet). I guess if you're tired enough, you can sleep while wearing almost anything. Besides, I can't imagine sleeping in armor to be any more difficult than sleeping on the ground outdoors -something adventurers are assumed to do on a regular basis without penalty.

In Warhammer, its a no-no.

In D&D, depends on the setting and locale.

As a default in my OD&D, the PCs adventure on the borderlands and frontier of the Empire where laws are lack. Thus, walking around tanked isn't unusual for either PCs or NPCs. It's fantasy wild west via Hollywood so I'm fine with it.

Quote from: Elfdart;1032093The issue isn't the attackers (especially when the PCs are careless), it's an asshole DM subjecting the PCs to a "canned hunt" where the characters are expected to leave themselves open to attack when simple precautions would mitigate much or the risk. One way you can tell if the DM is an asshole is if the PCs are regularly caught in compromising positions through no fault of their own, while the PCs never get the chance to catch the goblins napping and sans armor, or an ogre unarmed because he put down his club while taking a shit.

I gave the answer to this back on post #31.

In most D&D worlds I'm not going to be half as scared of the guy in full plate with the pole arm as I am of the skinny little twerp in the robes and pointy hat with a stick. The latter is the one who can cast fireballs, lightning bolts, magic missiles which never miss, etc.  Magic is much scarier shit, man!

In our Hyborian age game, no.  They generally can get around with a sword or dagger, but no pole weapons or two handed weapons.  Armor is a no no and a good way to get harassed constantly by the watch.   I have had them get into a few scuffles in towns/cities while unarmored (which in GURPS can get deadly quick) but the warriors in the group are very competent, and rules around town mean the bad guys also wont have armor on the streets either.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1032134In most D&D worlds I'm not going to be half as scared of the guy in full plate with the pole arm as I am of the skinny little twerp in the robes and pointy hat with a stick. The latter is the one who can cast fireballs, lightning bolts, magic missiles which never miss, etc.  Magic is much scarier shit, man!

  This is a very good point, in settings where magic is not rare, magic is much more dangerous in a city/town (where collateral damage or just starting fires can be disastrous) than a guy in full harness.

Fully armed? No. Those who carry swords, other than greatswords, carry theirs as a matter of course. Similarly, shorter hafted weapons that can be carried on ones belt are commonly seen on the streets. And everybody carries a knife because it is a vital tool as well as a weapon. Polearms and spears are inconvenient to carry through crowded streets and would get the attention of law enforcement, if there is any. Bows would be cased.

Walking around in plate or mail would attract unwanted attention and carrying a shield would be highly unusual.

Quote from: Big Andy;1031825For all you folks with experience, how hard is it to sleep in armor? I know US troops in the field sleep in body armor. And I have read about many battles where armies marched into position during the night or the night before and slept in formation so they could attack at first light (not sure how armored up they would be), although I am not sure if they slept in harness.

It not a big deal. I done it several times in rigid and non-rigid armor. The worst thing is build up of odor but if you carry a change of undergarment that get mitigated as well.

Why it not a big deal? Because your gear is that just YOUR gear, you have taken the time to adjust all the straps and got it tweaked to fit you. If you aren't able to lie down in it then it probably not acting as good armor in the first place.

Quote from: Chris24601;1031750No restrictions on body armor in our state (I know a guy who wore a vest nightly when worked nights at a downtown 24/7 gas station) and you can open carry an AR-15 without a permit (and permits for concealed carry are 'will issue' meaning unless something specific comes up in your background check they can't deny you a permit). A .50 sniper rifle is legal too. It takes some cash to get a permit but you can even legally own a gatling gun in many states in the US.

OK, thank you for the correction. I knew about AR-15s, but I thought a full-bore M-16 (which is also able to shoot at full auto) would be out of bounds? Or is that permitted in your state/other states?

QuoteI think you underestimate just how much unlike the rest of the world the United States is when it comes to gun rights, particularly in the Red States.

Maybe I am! I've never visited those...I'd love to, mind you, they seem like fascinating places:)!
I'm just not quite sure whether I'd have the money for a visit any time soon;).

But conversely, I suspect that you are overestimating how unlike the rest of the world the USA is.

Quote from: Zalman;1031836The closest equivalent to a grenade launcher in fantasy is the proverbial Fireball. See also D&D spells like Magic Missile and Mage Armor fitting your examples perfectly. This is why it makes no sense to restrict physical weapons and armor without also banning, say, all wizards. It would be more consistent to restrict the use of any weaponry, be it physical or magical.

I said "the equivalent of "plate mail and heavy weapons" for today's weaponry". That assumes "the deadliest option for Fighters, given the technology of the time".

In other words: if you're fully equipped Fighter in today's world, you'd have body armour, assault rifle, grenade launcher (possibly combined) and grenades. If you're a fully equipped Fighter in a D&D game, given the assumed level of technology, you'd have a plate, a halberd, a sidesword, a dagger (probably rondel, but I can see an argument for a main-gauche, depending on whether you expect to use the sidesword in a city or on the battlefield), and maybe a buckler.

The analogue to being a Wizard (which is necessary in order to cast Fireball) is being part of a cannon or mortar's team;). (Just ask Gronan. Wizards were intended to be artillery:D!)

Quote from: Rhedyn;1032022In a hyper realistic setting running around in expensive full plate probably makes people assume that you are a Knight or Noble aka someone general rules don't apply to anyways.

No, in a "hyper realistic" setting*, you'd be assumed to be a Knight or Noble by the peasants, which wouldn't oppose you anyways.
But the Nobles and their Knights will ask you for identification. Who are you, who are your relatives, and what are you doing on their lands? Believe me, they'd express vested interest in knowing the above, and "I'm a Knight" ain't going to cut it.
Because depending on your answers your very presence might be a challenge to their rights to rule the place, or a possible boon to their plans;).

*What's this, BTW? We still talking about fantasy:D?

Quote from: Big Andy;1031825Now you tell me you are sleeping in armor in Ye Olde Ritz-Carlton Inn in Safeton, the capital of Snoozy Shire, that I find hard to accept. But I wouldn't accept an ogre kicking down the room door in Ye Olde Ritz-Carlton Inn in Safeton, the capital of Snoozy Shire, either.

However, if you've been sticking your nose pretty far into a hidden crime-lord or noble's business, an assassin through the window makes perfect sense.

Quote from: AsenRG;1032199OK, thank you for the correction. I knew about AR-15s, but I thought a full-bore M-16 (which is also able to shoot at full auto) would be out of bounds? Or is that permitted in your state/other states?

Full auto is covered at the federal level. It is extremely difficult and expensive to be allowed to have a fully automatic weapon and your local law enforcement is notified that you have it and can, if they wish, tell you "you can't have that here," depending on state and local laws. I used to shoot  at a range where two guys would bring there M60 machine guns (fired the same round as the M14 rifle) and they would burn off huge amounts of ammunition, break down and pack up the guns and take them home and put them in storage until the next time, which would be up to a year later.

Quote from: AsenRG;1032199OK, thank you for the correction. I knew about AR-15s, but I thought a full-bore M-16 (which is also able to shoot at full auto) would be out of bounds? Or is that permitted in your state/other states?

The M16 is actually just a variant of the AR-15 (so is the M4 carbine). AR-15s are technically weapon platforms; you can attach barrels of different calibers along with different stocks, sites and other attachments to make it almost functionally identical to the M16 or M4 (lacking only one aspect mentioned immediately below).

Another factor worth noting is that M16's haven't been fully automatic since about 1986 when the Army adopted the M16-A2. Due to studies conducted by the military it was determined that full auto for infantry rifles just wasted ammunition with the odds of hitting anything after the first three rounds dropping to basically zero. As a result almost all modern M16's fire only in a single shot (semi-automatic) or 3-round bursts.

This means that a civilian AR-15 is actually pretty close in overall effectiveness to the standard issue infantry rifle of our military; lacking only the three-round burst mode (which isn't THAT much of an advantage) and military grade body armor is commercially available (though not typically worn... those who do feel the need for body armor in every day life typically stick to concealed vests for protection; one of the reasons President Trump looked so thick around the middle during his campaign was that he always had a bullet-proof vest on under his suit).

Quote from: jeff37923;1032127I gave the answer to this back on post #31.

I've known for quite some time that assholes should be avoided.

Which is why I usually ignore your posts.

There's nothing wrong with "medieval realism", but as has already been said in this thread, there's nothing worse than an asshole GM who invites "deep immersion in the social milieu" (i.e. disarmament) and then punishes the players for it by having them attacked when vulnerable.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1031573I'm not a scholar, but wasn't armour ridiculously expensive in medieval times? How likely would you have seen people in full plate wandering about anyway?

plate mail was certainly very expensive.

QuoteI'm prepping a 13th century Low Countries campaign right now and it's going to be very different from my usual sword & sorcery campaigns by default.

You can use Lion & Dragon for this!

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1032207Full auto is covered at the federal level. It is extremely difficult and expensive to be allowed to have a fully automatic weapon and your local law enforcement is notified that you have it and can, if they wish, tell you "you can't have that here," depending on state and local laws. I used to shoot  at a range where two guys would bring there M60 machine guns (fired the same round as the M14 rifle) and they would burn off huge amounts of ammunition, break down and pack up the guns and take them home and put them in storage until the next time, which would be up to a year later.

OK, I thought it's a blanket ban - but it doesn't matter.
Now, take the "full auto" conditions. Apply them to a setting, except to war swords and armour. If it's one of the settings where weapon ownership is supported by the central authorities, you're likely to get the same picture;).
As an example, a peasant could have a sword (usually wakizashi) in Medieval Japan. It's just that he needed a permission for that - but in some more dangerous periods it was given to village elders. Granted, it was a mark of status more than anything, but then I'd assume those guys on your range didn't really shoot at people with their M60 MGs, either:).

So, my point is simply this: at any point of time the most efficient commonly-accessible* technology for killing people is going to be regulated...except in totally lawless areas. And sometimes even in those, by not allowing shipments towards them.
Whether the technology is "chainmail, shield, helmet and sword", "halberd, sidesword and plate" or "machine guns/auto rifles, body armour, grenade launchers and respirators", or whatever, is just not going to make that much difference.
Granted, in some places, where weapon ownership is supported, like in the USA today, those might be accessible to everyone with permits...or even issued to everyone, like today's Switzerland, if those people are expected to be drafted in case of need. In other places, tough luck getting them legally (roday's Japan and UK).
Still, people in any of those settings will have some means of self-defence. And yes, if someone is willing to break the law, the law-abiding people are going to be at disadvantage - a murderer has no reason not to use a knife in London...but many are smart enough to use fully legal baseball bats, or golf sticks. So yes, you might get caught in a situation of disadvantage, or you might get caught breaking the law by carrying an illegal weapon when there was no threat.
Know your setting, and act accordingly. It's part of being a player, in my book.

Quote from: Chris24601;1032222The M16 is actually just a variant of the AR-15 (so is the M4 carbine). AR-15s are technically weapon platforms; you can attach barrels of different calibers along with different stocks, sites and other attachments to make it almost functionally identical to the M16 or M4 (lacking only one aspect mentioned immediately below).

Another factor worth noting is that M16's haven't been fully automatic since about 1986 when the Army adopted the M16-A2. Due to studies conducted by the military it was determined that full auto for infantry rifles just wasted ammunition with the odds of hitting anything after the first three rounds dropping to basically zero. As a result almost all modern M16's fire only in a single shot (semi-automatic) or 3-round bursts.

OK, I admit I didn't know the part about the lack of full auto. But thank you for the explanation:)!

QuoteThis means that a civilian AR-15 is actually pretty close in overall effectiveness to the standard issue infantry rifle of our military; lacking only the three-round burst mode (which isn't THAT much of an advantage) and military grade body armor is commercially available (though not typically worn... those who do feel the need for body armor in every day life typically stick to concealed vests for protection; one of the reasons President Trump looked so thick around the middle during his campaign was that he always had a bullet-proof vest on under his suit).

And here I thought he's just over 70 years old, and has gotten some natural body padding:).
But still - I assume you'd need a permit for the "full gear", including the 3-round burst, and the under-barrel grenade launcher;).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1032393You can use Lion & Dragon for this!

Or Zweihander:D!
(I kid, I kid).

Quote from: AsenRG;1032490But still - I assume you'd need a permit for the "full gear", including the 3-round burst, and the under-barrel grenade launcher;).

For armor, no permit is needed. Sites and similar add-ons don't need permits either (at least in my area). Explosives, yes you'd need a permit for anything beyond basically a gunpowder bomb (it gets used for stump removal in fields among other practical small scale uses). Three-round burst would need a permit to be legal, but the modification is so simple and basically invisible that there's no practical way to restrict it short of disassembling every weapon you come across if it ever came to a war or guerilla situation any civilian resistance would have the capability within days (and more than a few probably have it already, but are otherwise law abiding so you'd never know until something like that happened).

Also, from the vets I know, 3-round burst is really only practical at extremely close range and the inclusion of the parts that limited the fire-rate also fucked with the trigger weight which in turn made it less accurate than a semi-automatic only rifle. Ironically this is NOT a problem for the fully-automatic configuration since it doesn't need those extra parts to limit the rate of fire. Regardless, the M16 bucks so much that even prone with an excellent grip the kick puts the second and third rounds a foot above the previous shot at 200 yards. They said the only time they ever used three-round burst mode was scaring off insurgents since rapid fire sounds a lot more intimidating than single shots and it wasn't good for much else. Assault rifles are actually pretty horrible platform for automatic fire... they're just not heavy enough to deal with the recoil and remain accurate the way a heavier gun can.

I also just read that some of the military brass are pushing to dump the three-round burst and go back to fully-automatic since if its only good for fear factor anyway they may as well really give 'em the pucker factor of a full 30 round spray.

The point being though that there are places where you could be legally just about as armed as the professional military (and certainly as well or better armed than the regular duty police forces... only the SWAT teams have anything better semi-automatic weapons and vests).

Huh, come to think of it... comparison to the local police force is probably a better gauge for this discussion than the full on military anyway.

Quote from: Chris24601;1032523For armor, no permit is needed. Sites and similar add-ons don't need permits either (at least in my area). Explosives, yes you'd need a permit for anything beyond basically a gunpowder bomb (it gets used for stump removal in fields among other practical small scale uses).

Armour isn't regulated today, because weapons outpace it. But back when it was a vital part of your combat ability, armour would be kept under scrutiny...possibly even more than the actual weapons.

QuoteThree-round burst would need a permit to be legal, but the modification is so simple and basically invisible that there's no practical way to restrict it short of disassembling every weapon you come across if it ever came to a war or guerilla situation any civilian resistance would have the capability within days (and more than a few probably have it already, but are otherwise law abiding so you'd never know until something like that happened).

Also, from the vets I know, 3-round burst is really only practical at extremely close range and the inclusion of the parts that limited the fire-rate also fucked with the trigger weight which in turn made it less accurate than a semi-automatic only rifle. Ironically this is NOT a problem for the fully-automatic configuration since it doesn't need those extra parts to limit the rate of fire. Regardless, the M16 bucks so much that even prone with an excellent grip the kick puts the second and third rounds a foot above the previous shot at 200 yards. They said the only time they ever used three-round burst mode was scaring off insurgents since rapid fire sounds a lot more intimidating than single shots and it wasn't good for much else. Assault rifles are actually pretty horrible platform for automatic fire... they're just not heavy enough to deal with the recoil and remain accurate the way a heavier gun can.

I also just read that some of the military brass are pushing to dump the three-round burst and go back to fully-automatic since if its only good for fear factor anyway they may as well really give 'em the pucker factor of a full 30 round spray.

OK, thank you, that's interesting and might be useful:)!
But really, that's why I made the point about the under-barrel grenade launcher. Without it, you can reasonably clame that citizens are just about as well-armed as the army.
But include this piece of gear, and we get a different picture;). And from reading a couple accounts of veterans of local wars, that kind of weapons made quite the difference at times.

QuoteThe point being though that there are places where you could be legally just about as armed as the professional military (and certainly as well or better armed than the regular duty police forces... only the SWAT teams have anything better semi-automatic weapons and vests).

That's what I said as well. You can be just about as armed as some units of the professional military. But the professional military keeps an advantage.
And it probably pays to remember that the USA is an outlier in this regard;).

QuoteHuh, come to think of it... comparison to the local police force is probably a better gauge for this discussion than the full on military anyway.

Again, the SWAT teams will still have an advantage over you:). And there's a reason cops call for SWAT if they have massively armed opposition, right?
Also, in most medieval fantasy based on Europe, there should be no difference between police and army, except that the police doesn't exist;).

Quote from: Big Andy;1031825For all you folks with experience, how hard is it to sleep in armor? I know US troops in the field sleep in body armor. And I have read about many battles where armies marched into position during the night or the night before and slept in formation so they could attack at first light (not sure how armored up they would be), although I am not sure if they slept in harness.

Its pretty easy to get a couple hours snooze even with 50 pounds of SAPI plates on.  But I don't think I ever slept through the night wearing my vest.  It was rigid and heavy an only took a second to put on so i usually slep ontop of it.  The ground got cold.

Quote from: AsenRGSo, my point is simply this: at any point of time the most efficient commonly-accessible* technology for killing people is going to be regulated...except in totally lawless areas. And sometimes even in those, by not allowing shipments towards them.
Whether the technology is "chainmail, shield, helmet and sword", "halberd, sidesword and plate" or "machine guns/auto rifles, body armour, grenade launchers and respirators", or whatever, is just not going to make that much difference.

Quote from: AsenRG;1032526That's what I said as well. You can be just about as armed as some units of the professional military. But the professional military keeps an advantage.
And it probably pays to remember that the USA is an outlier in this regard;).

In many historical and fantasy societies, though, there is no professional military or professional police. That makes a big difference. It can be hard to picture from today's world, but it used to be that it was the standard.

If you read historical epics like the Icelandic sagas or some Greek sagas, then well-armed visitors are often welcomed as being potential protectors. They are turned on if they aren't cooperative, but first there is usually an effort to make friends with them.

Quote from: The_Shadow;1032233There's nothing wrong with "medieval realism", but as has already been said in this thread, there's nothing worse than an asshole GM who invites "deep immersion in the social milieu" (i.e. disarmament) and then punishes the players for it by having them attacked when vulnerable.

Well, I agree. But in cities what combats they might encounter should almost always be with opponents who are not wearing armor. Their weapons should also be appropriate. A noble will be entitled to carry a sword, so they would have one, but a street gang, for example, would be unarmored and wielding clubs and daggers.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1032605Well, I agree. But in cities what combats they might encounter should almost always be with opponents who are not wearing armor. Their weapons should also be appropriate. A noble will be entitled to carry a sword, so they would have one, but a street gang, for example, would be unarmored and wielding clubs and daggers.

Precisely. That realism cuts both ways.

In my historical game, the PCs were unarmoured and carrying only hidden daggers when they were attacked in a dockside wineshop inside the city. Their opponents were also unarmoured and carrying either daggers, clubs or improvising with the furniture. On both sides, cloaks were wrapped around forearms to serve as makeshift shields. As the better fighters, the PCs pasted the thugs, but it was a more interesting fight than it would have been, had everyone been armoured and tooled up with proper weapons.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1031658I try to convince my players that they don't have to wear full harness every moment.  Then I play honestly with them.

What pisses me off is when I try to role play my character wearing appropriate clothing and then being punished for not running around in full plate.  I fucking hate that.

Same. Make up your damn mind DM!

Though it is worth noting that some travel guides from days of yore did occasionally warn the traveler and lodger of places where one should sleep armed.

Armed, or keeping weapons handy?  In medieval England, "armed" meant wearing armor.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1032605Well, I agree. But in cities what combats they might encounter should almost always be with opponents who are not wearing armor. Their weapons should also be appropriate. A noble will be entitled to carry a sword, so they would have one, but a street gang, for example, would be unarmored and wielding clubs and daggers.

The issue I have with this is the Hit Point mechanic that a lot of D&D games use combined with the Armour Class as Dodge Bonus, a street gang will have a higher HP count, and more damage capacity.  Players often end up in terrible shape compared to the gangers.

In ADnD 1e and 2e PHB & DMG advise being caught casting magic in public at someone without their consent (like a spell service) is considered assault, and suggested to be dealt with harshly by the community at large immediately.

So yeah, I see no issue with those armed for war to attract similar negative attention. Basically tempt the peace of civilization at your own risk, either as martial or spell caster.

Now, if you are running WotC DnD and never read such advice before, I could see how it could seem unequal and unfair.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1032710The issue I have with this is the Hit Point mechanic that a lot of D&D games use combined with the Armour Class as Dodge Bonus, a street gang will have a higher HP count, and more damage capacity.  Players often end up in terrible shape compared to the gangers.

I am inclined to agree. It's not without realism merits (numeric advantage is exceedingly valuable in a street-level skirmish, and if someone is 'so good they can mitigate that advantage' it probably approximates the point in AD&D or 5e when one gets multiple attacks and have the hp of multiple opponents), but stinks for genre emulation. D&D, like all other games, breaks down slowly as one moves away from its' base assumptions (such as the competent fighting types being in armor).

Quote from: Opaopajr;1032722In ADnD 1e and 2e PHB & DMG advise being caught casting magic in public at someone without their consent (like a spell service) is considered assault, and suggested to be dealt with harshly by the community at large immediately.

So yeah, I see no issue with those armed for war to attract similar negative attention. Basically tempt the peace of civilization at your own risk, either as martial or spell caster.

Now, if you are running WotC DnD and never read such advice before, I could see how it could seem unequal and unfair.

I honestly don't know how WotC is involved. If you never ran into the situation before, whether you were playing TSR D&D, WotC D&D, or GURPS Fantasy, it would seem unfair (particularly if you thought your DM was rolling it out just to roll you over).

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1032780I honestly don't know how WotC is involved. If you never ran into the situation before, whether you were playing TSR D&D, WotC D&D, or GURPS Fantasy, it would seem unfair (particularly if you thought your DM was rolling it out just to roll you over).

Very simple, it's in the context of my comment. TSR explicitly stated in its texts that it is considered an attack casting spells upon people out in public without their OK. TSR even had time to comment asking people their alignment in public, basically their deep seated world views (attached to a faith or not), was considered a gross breach of etiquette. So GM & players were made aware if they read the texts.

Did WotC? I don't know -- never combed through the entire corpus of 3e or 4e to find out. But I combed through their cores enough to notice a lot of commentary advice was missing. If they skipped, or glossed, morale, domain mgmt., and hirelings, I would not be surprised why people presume it unexpected that the same restrictions to armed fighters apply to armed wizards.

One company made the effort to talk about it, that magical societies do think about casters being armed (and the dangers of pissing such societies off). Did the other company? That could be the cause for the lack of awareness that magical societies would have similar cultural expectations for armed casters as armed fighters.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1032710The issue I have with this is the Hit Point mechanic that a lot of D&D games use combined with the Armour Class as Dodge Bonus, a street gang will have a higher HP count, and more damage capacity.  Players often end up in terrible shape compared to the gangers.

That is kind of the point of ganging up on someone.

Quote from: Omega;1033176That is kind of the point of ganging up on someone.

In real life, yes.  But I grew up reading Conan of Cimmeria, where he can handle two or three men at once, so I expect my fantasy games to be somewhat more 'heroic' in that sense.  And D&D doesn't seem to want to work that way without the best gear/magic you got in all situations.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1032710The issue I have with this is the Hit Point mechanic that a lot of D&D games use combined with the Armour Class as Dodge Bonus, a street gang will have a higher HP count, and more damage capacity.  Players often end up in terrible shape compared to the gangers.

Quote from: Omega;1033176That is kind of the point of ganging up on someone.

In terms of fantasy genre emulation, though, a single powerful monster is seen as requiring a single powerful hero to defeat - rather than being something that a group of peasants or thugs can handle. Likewise, a powerful hero is generally taken down by a powerful main foe, rather than by a group of weaklings.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1033193In real life, yes.  But I grew up reading Conan of Cimmeria, where he can handle two or three men at once, so I expect my fantasy games to be somewhat more 'heroic' in that sense.  And D&D doesn't seem to want to work that way without the best gear/magic you got in all situations.

At least in OD&D, a 4th level fighter got 4 attacks against 1 HD enemies.  Conan will cut a swath through the rabble easily.

In AD&D the fighter only keeps the multiple attacks if the enemy is less than 1HD, so against 0-level humans Conan would still do that.

However, if if the DM throws people with 1HD out which negates that special attack, are they using the morale system?  Because even if Conan's only taking one or two guys down a round, it shouldn't be long until softer targets elsewhere convince them to run.

That too.

Quote from: EOTB;1033200In AD&D the fighter only keeps the multiple attacks if the enemy is less than 1HD, so against 0-level humans Conan would still do that.

However, if if the DM throws people with 1HD out which negates that special attack, are they using the morale system?  Because even if Conan's only taking one or two guys down a round, it shouldn't be long until softer targets elsewhere convince them to run.

Not in Second edition.  Not in Moldovay's Red Box in 1981, not in the Expert Set of 1983, although in there at least the Fighter gets Lance and Spear combat.  In a game about Dungeon exploring...  

Looking through all of those, even if they did allow for it, Bandits have 1 HD in both the Red and Blue books, meaning the only things the Fighter can cleave through are Kobolds, Halflings and 'normal' people in those games.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1033202Not in Second edition.  Not in Moldovay's Red Box in 1981, not in the Expert Set of 1983, although in there at least the Fighter gets Lance and Spear combat.  In a game about Dungeon exploring...  

Looking through all of those, even if they did allow for it, Bandits have 1 HD in both the Red and Blue books, meaning the only things the Fighter can cleave through are Kobolds, Halflings and 'normal' people in those games.

Despite not all of the rules migrating from OD&D, I still find B/X to be much more OD&D-ish than AD&D-ish. I'd say this hypothetical version of B/X where the fighter did get multiple attacks, the threshold should be 1HD or less, not less than 1 HD. :-D

Regardless, your point does stand. If I were to plan a whole campaign around unarmored urban adventure, I would want to use a system that included more unarmored defensive/dodge focus.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1033205Despite not all of the rules migrating from OD&D, I still find B/X to be much more OD&D-ish than AD&D-ish. I'd say this hypothetical version of B/X where the fighter did get multiple attacks, the threshold should be 1HD or less, not less than 1 HD. :-D

Regardless, your point does stand. If I were to plan a whole campaign around unarmored urban adventure, I would want to use a system that included more unarmored defensive/dodge focus.

FOR ME:  5e's positive AC matrix, couple that with the flattened numbering and the Proficiency Bonus system, that allows me to do so, by turning armour into a damage reduction system, which I've spoken of before.

But that requires me to house rule and I NEVER argue houserules.  Because they fix everything and are unique to everyone who does.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1033202Not in Second edition.  Not in Moldovay's Red Box in 1981, not in the Expert Set of 1983, although in there at least the Fighter gets Lance and Spear combat.  In a game about Dungeon exploring...  

Looking through all of those, even if they did allow for it, Bandits have 1 HD in both the Red and Blue books, meaning the only things the Fighter can cleave through are Kobolds, Halflings and 'normal' people in those games.

Look, if you really want to blow your mind consider how in 1st edition, the overbearing rules allow a half-dozen 0-level grunts to routinely take down and kill high level characters.  And then think about how few ever consider using them in play to their own benefit, instead methodically standing there rolling a d20 round after round after round...

Quote from: Headless;1032537Its pretty easy to get a couple hours snooze even with 50 pounds of SAPI plates on.  But I don't think I ever slept through the night wearing my vest.  It was rigid and heavy an only took a second to put on so i usually slep ontop of it.  The ground got cold.

Slept in my vest many a time. Not very uncomfortable, though the helmet makes for a lousy pillow.

Quote from: jhkim;1032543In many historical and fantasy societies, though, there is no professional military or professional police. That makes a big difference. It can be hard to picture from today's world, but it used to be that it was the standard.

Not hard to picture at all - I've played Runequest Vikings already - but I'm talking about societies where there is professional military, but not professional police. That maps best to D&D's technological/societal levels, I've found - and the same model can often be applied to later societies.
I thought that would be clear from the fact that we were arguing weapon restrictions. If there's nobody to enforce them, there's no restrictions!

QuoteIf you read historical epics like the Icelandic sagas or some Greek sagas, then well-armed visitors are often welcomed as being potential protectors. They are turned on if they aren't cooperative, but first there is usually an effort to make friends with them.

Yes, because it's better to get some new friends than 20 cms of iron through your gut, and it's even better if those friends agree to deal with your problems:D!
However, walking around with your weapons in Rome ain't going to work well for you, despite it being set in an equally "early" time period.

Quote from: Kiero;1032608Precisely. That realism cuts both ways.

In my historical game, the PCs were unarmoured and carrying only hidden daggers when they were attacked in a dockside wineshop inside the city. Their opponents were also unarmoured and carrying either daggers, clubs or improvising with the furniture. On both sides, cloaks were wrapped around forearms to serve as makeshift shields. As the better fighters, the PCs pasted the thugs, but it was a more interesting fight than it would have been, had everyone been armoured and tooled up with proper weapons.

Precisely. And when then someone pulls out an "illegal" weapon, it's going to be A Big Thing, and you know it's not an accident:).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1033199At least in OD&D, a 4th level fighter got 4 attacks against 1 HD enemies.  Conan will cut a swath through the rabble easily.

Yes, that's why the Fighter gets 1hd+1, we know;). He can do that...but not against a group of Veterans.

Personally, I like better the way it works in EPT or Crimson Blades. In Crimson Blades, your HD are d6, and you roll your HD as attack, adding the bonus from high attributes. Each die that hits, is damage (which depends on the enemy's armour, and whether you're using a two-handed weapon or something balanced and quick, but might impact multiple opponents).
The 4HD fighter remains just as dangerous against 4 1-st level veterans, but if they're armed and armoured, he might wish he had a bigger weapon (killing one man per round will make them think again quite soon)...but he might well be injured, unless he's got armour. Which fits with how I imagine "heroes against veterans" should work.
Against rabble, you just need your trusty, thrusty sword, and the first round might be their last.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1032619Armed, or keeping weapons handy?  In medieval England, "armed" meant wearing armor.

If it was a travel guide, I doubt it was Medieval.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1032619Armed, or keeping weapons handy?  In medieval England, "armed" meant wearing armor.

Considering some of the descriptions of these places... BOTH!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1033202Not in Second edition.  Not in Moldovay's Red Box in 1981, not in the Expert Set of 1983, although in there at least the Fighter gets Lance and Spear combat.  In a game about Dungeon exploring...  

Looking through all of those, even if they did allow for it, Bandits have 1 HD in both the Red and Blue books, meaning the only things the Fighter can cleave through are Kobolds, Halflings and 'normal' people in those games.

sigh... here we go again.
2e Allows fighters that attack as well. The rule is squirrelled away in the DMG.
The rule is mentioned in one of the issues of SR and carries over to Holmes B and Moldvy BX. Not sure about Mentzer BECMI/RC. And theres a note in X of BX for giving high level fighters extra attacks.

Quote from: EOTB;1033200In AD&D the fighter only keeps the multiple attacks if the enemy is less than 1HD, so against 0-level humans Conan would still do that.

However, if if the DM throws people with 1HD out which negates that special attack, are they using the morale system?  Because even if Conan's only taking one or two guys down a round, it shouldn't be long until softer targets elsewhere convince them to run.

Even in 5th. Let's say the the Fighter alone (because what dumbass gang is jumping a 4-5 man party). He's only got a knife.

Five on one odds against a Fighter with a couple of levels under his belt means at least one dead. Maybe two. In the first round.

Unless you're running npcs like dumbasses, they bolt at that point.

Quote from: Omega;1033469sigh... here we go again.
2e Allows fighters that attack as well. The rule is squirrelled away in the DMG.

So a book every player has, of course.  Oh wait...

Quote from: Omega;1033469The rule is mentioned in one of the issues of SR and carries over to Holmes B and Moldvy BX. Not sure about Mentzer BECMI/RC. And theres a note in X of BX for giving high level fighters extra attacks.

SR? I don't honestly know that acronym, and if it's not in the Class description, are you sure people will notice it?  My personal experience says 'nope!'

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1033618SR? I don't honestly know that acronym, and if it's not in the Class description, are you sure people will notice it?  My personal experience says 'nope!'

By context, I think he means Strategic Review -- precursor magazine to Dragon (although I'd always heard it as 'The Strategic Review', so it threw me as well).

And this is an argument that no one can win (i.e. you're both 'right'). We each experienced the game in a different way. Some people had access to all the supplements, all the optional DMG rules, all the magazine articles, etc., and some people just had the basic books (and hopefully a DM with the DM sections thereof).

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1033648By context, I think he means Strategic Review -- precursor magazine to Dragon (although I'd always heard it as 'The Strategic Review', so it threw me as well).

And this is an argument that no one can win (i.e. you're both 'right'). We each experienced the game in a different way. Some people had access to all the supplements, all the optional DMG rules, all the magazine articles, etc., and some people just had the basic books (and hopefully a DM with the DM sections thereof).

I don't honestly care about being 'right' here, I'm saying that a decent amount for players aren't going to know because not everyone had access to the other books. Hell, I had no idea that 2e had the multiple target rule in the DMG and I ran that edition the most.

Just because you missed it does not invalidate it being a rule. Theres a couple I've missed over the decades. That doesnt mean those rules arent there.

Quote from: Omega;1033758Just because you missed it does not invalidate it being a rule. Theres a couple I've missed over the decades. That doesnt mean those rules arent there.

You're right, it doesn't.  But the issue still remains that it's not universally allowed, because in the case of 2e, most of the rules were optional (Or so it seemed, I mean, there effectively two 'skill' systems, three initiative mechanics, that I remember off the top of my head.)  And if it was in a magazine, it could easily be considered unofficial, and thus for SOME players (not me, I willingly used Combat and Tactics from 2e's end, remember?  I like optional rules!) might not consider it a 'real' rule.

Here's the thing, I am not arguing that these don't exist, they clearly do.  What I am saying is that they're not 'officially' part of the class, which could confuse some people into thinking that the rule doesn't exist, or is now optional.  It's perception versus reality.  And one thing I've learned, is that if people don't see it (and if you don't have the 2e DMG, or the various Strategic Review Magazines) they often assume it cannot be done.

You know, they do do that, way too often, I have to admit. However, we haven't had many visits to "cities." For awhile (before it got destroyed in a magical cataclysm), we had one city, called "Mageswell," where your arms/armament was magically whisked away unless you were considered a "citizen" (i.e., possessed a special signet ring). This led to black market trade of such things, which the PCs engaged in, as buyers. They were able to complete a service,eventually, and earn their citizenship. Still, most of the citizens were unarmed, so, them walking around with their shit should've drawn more ire.  I don't think I played that right, at all. It's not an issue currently, because the new group is in an area that is still relatively loose, when it comes to law enforcement.

Quote from: EOTB;1033217Look, if you really want to blow your mind consider how in 1st edition, the overbearing rules allow a half-dozen 0-level grunts to routinely take down and kill high level characters.  And then think about how few ever consider using them in play to their own benefit, instead methodically standing there rolling a d20 round after round after round...

Gang-tackling has always been part of my games in part because so many of the people I gamed with were on the football team, and in part because the first time we played The Village of Hommlet, no one could hit the evil cleric in platemail. Finally someone said "Fuck this -I'm going to tackle him!" and another PC joined in, taking him down promptly.

Aside from the 1E grappling rules (before UA) being a mess, one reason so many people didn't use gang-tackling is that it's not featured very often in movies, TV shows or fiction and when it is, it's usually something the villains' dastardly henchmen use. Otherwise, the mooks attack the hero one at a time and wait patiently for their turn to get their asses kicked.

Quote from: Elfdart;1034192Gang-tackling has always been part of my games in part because so many of the people I gamed with were on the football team, and in part because the first time we played The Village of Hommlet, no one could hit the evil cleric in platemail. Finally someone said "Fuck this -I'm going to tackle him!" and another PC joined in, taking him down promptly.

Gang-grapples are one of the big reasons we fought shoulder-to-shoulder.

Quote from: Elfdart;1034192Aside from the 1E grappling rules (before UA) being a mess, one reason so many people didn't use gang-tackling is that it's not featured very often in movies, TV shows or fiction and when it is, it's usually something the villains' dastardly henchmen use. Otherwise, the mooks attack the hero one at a time and wait patiently for their turn to get their asses kicked.

That is the premise of Terry Pratchett's "Guards, Guards."