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.