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.