battle Wear vs. Town Wear

[Markdoc]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

I'm not sure I follow your question. Gangsters are always armed' date=' irrespective of laws. Gangsters don't care about laws. Laws prohibiting weapons take weapons out of the hands of people who care to obey the law. This of course makes life easier for gangsters. Repeal such laws and many law abiding citizens will promptly arm themselves, the gangsters already being armed.[/quote']

 

It doesn't actually work like that in real life though: if the local laws forbid the open carrying of arms, then the local law will descend on anyone who is obviously armed. In real life, most medieval cities in Europe *did* forbid the open carrying of arms outside time of war (apart from guards, who were typically unarmoured and those who had special privileges). Criminals were typically also unarmed (apart from knives: everybody carried those, so they barely count ). Even countries like Ethiopia, today, where for many tribesmen carrying your AK is a sign of manliness, forbid that in the cities. Tribesmen either disarm when they go to the city, or they don't go. Criminals are typically unarmed as well: if you are stopped by the cops or the army and you have a gun, without permit, expect to spend 6 months to a year in jail awaiting your trial: should you live so long. Edit: this only applies in the big cities - in the villages or cities in border areas like Harar, people do carry AK openly. Basically it only applies in places the police/army (Town guard in a fantasy setting) is strong enough to impose order

 

I can't, off hand, think of any historical culture where wandering the streets of a city armed and armoured was usual, outside of war or times/areas of civil unrest (again, apart from those with special privileges). Add to that the fact that armour is - by its very nature - heavy, chafes and causes sores if worn for very long and it's pretty logical that most people are not wearing armour. Certainly, in my games, players have always known that when they entered civilized lands that the armour and weapons of war get stowed. They feel safe enough with that, because they know that everybody else is in the same boat. It hasn't even been an issue.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

The most useful solution is of course that it depends on what you want, but I think it's not unreasonable to assume that either solution could exist; there can be reasons for both.

If there are undead monsters, rabid vermin, crazy wandering monsters, and kobolds, in the neighborhood, going around unarmed is just a symptom of either insanity or utter despair.

 

That doesn't sound much like a city to me though! Any place that anarchic is going to require being armed at all times, obviously.

 

cheers, Mark

[Nolgroth]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

I apologize if anything I said was taken as arguments on gun control.

Honestly, I saw it as a general trend and wanted to cut it off at the pass. While there is certainly room for a bit of Weapon Control theory in this discussion, I simply did not want to go to the flamewar extreme. Maybe my written tone was a little harsh and if so, you have my apologies.

[Markdoc]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Honestly' date=' I saw it as a general trend and wanted to cut it off at the pass. While there is certainly room for a bit of Weapon Control theory in this discussion, I simply did not want to go to the flamewar extreme. Maybe my written tone was a little harsh and if so, you have my apologies.[/quote']

 

Yeah, back on topic, normally "cities" are civilized places (relatively speaking) not hives of monsters and marauding gangs. If your players evince the sort of extreme paranoia that Panpiper showed, it suggests to me that the GM is sticking it to the players on a regular basis, so that they feel they have no chance but to be armed at all times and carry all their gear with them at all times. As I've noted, I've never had any problem convincing my players that some gear is appropriate for city streets, some for adventuring, and some for war - and they ain't the same things. It hasn't taken a heavy hand: some social consequences, application of long term END and encumbrance rules has done the trick. Mostly, though, it's just common sense.

 

cheers, Mark

[Tasha]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

There's something I've always wondered why fantasy RPGs didn't bother with dealing with, and that is that you don't want to wear your adventuring gear while visiting a town, especially if you want to stay there for a long period.

 

After all, would you carry a loaded M-16 down the streets of Portland? It would make people run away, call the SWAT team out on you, and generally brand you as a dangerous lunatic. Even active duty soldiers never carry around their heavy weapons outside combat zones, especially in their homelands.

 

I can't see how towns and cities in fantasy worlds would be much different. Wear a full suit of armor into the inn with a broadsword strapped to your back and a crossbow on your hip and everyone there will probably think you're a bandit out to rob the place!

 

Which raises some practical questions: what do you wear in town? Where do you stow your adventuring gear during your stay? And if something happens in town, how quickly can you get to your equipment and weapons?

 

Because most Fantasy Town/Cities seem to similar to a Wild West Town or like San Francisco during the same era. Also you are probably wearing your equipment on the trip there to be ready for the bandits that inhabit the lawless areas outside of the populated areas. So when you come into town you do probably have your armor on and your weapons on your belt. As Peregrine pointed out this is not a modern city/town. Fantasy worlds are usually a lot wilder less civilized places than our modern world. Hell, many cities inside our "clean" modern world are dangerous places as well it's only our laws that prevent most citizens from being armed when they venture there.

 

Now if your problem is that the PC's are always ready for battle 24/7 that is something that can be dealt with. First make sure that you are fair to the PCs when they DO finally divest themselves of armor and large weapons (Daggers are usually ok in pseudo medieval societies). If you are always springing attacks when they are the most vulnerable, then you are training your players to never ever go anywhere without their armor and weapons. Once in a while is ok for the sneak attack, but not as a constant thing. Make sure that the Craftsmen class people and nobility invite the PC to dinners and such. Point out that no one in the common room of the inn is carrying anything larger than a Dagger. If they still insist on being rude it's ok for the people in the common room to call the watch as the PC's are "Obviously planning on starting some Mayhem". Also the majority of the nobility will either school them before the PCs embarass the host or will make snide remarks about the barbarians within earshot of the PC's

 

It is possible to do this without heavy handed tactics like making special rules about wearing armor etc.

[mayapuppies]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

In the Kingdom of Tursh it is illegal for commoners and those without a Writ of Carriage to wear weapons and armor within a cities boundaries. A knife/dagger or soft leather armor is overlooked as are quarterstaves. The kingdom is on the edge of a revolution/uprising and the last thing the nobility wants to do is make it easy for the populace to attack the powers that be.

 

The "government" says if you are worried about your stuff being stolen, then don't have the stuff, otherwise stay at a respectable inn that has guards or hire your own.

[lemming]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

My games and the ones I wound up playing in long term we never had "the GM will screw you over if you show weakness" problem so this rarely came up. Most turning over weapons was done more at certain establishments or courts. You don't go fully armed into the king's presence, that sort of thing, but the fact is most of the time there was plenty of magic going around, taking away someone's shiny piece of metal seemed silly.

[Lezentauw]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

My games and the ones I wound up playing in long term we never had "the GM will screw you over if you show weakness" problem so this rarely came up. Most turning over weapons was done more at certain establishments or courts. You don't go fully armed into the king's presence' date=' that sort of thing, but the fact is most of the time there was plenty of magic going around, taking away someone's shiny piece of metal seemed silly.[/quote']

 

Again, this would depend on the style of campaign. For a High Fantasy campaign, I could see why you say it is silly. For a Low or Sword & Sorcery style campaign, where magic is at a more restricted level, it is far more plausible...

 

There is also the sentiment that man does the best they can with what they have available. If taking away armor & weapons helps maintain the peace, then that is what they are going to do. It does not matter if they can do nothing about magic, as they are better off facing only magic instead of magic & steel. Otherwise the populace is going to believe that they are not doing their job, which could lead to civil unrest...

[sinanju]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Yeah, back on topic, normally "cities" are civilized places (relatively speaking) not hives of monsters and marauding gangs. If your players evince the sort of extreme paranoia that Panpiper showed, it suggests to me that the GM is sticking it to the players on a regular basis, so that they feel they have no chance but to be armed at all times and carry all their gear with them at all times. As I've noted, I've never had any problem convincing my players that some gear is appropriate for city streets, some for adventuring, and some for war - and they ain't the same things. It hasn't taken a heavy hand: some social consequences, application of long term END and encumbrance rules has done the trick. Mostly, though, it's just common sense.

 

cheers, Mark

 

What he said. If you "reward" your players for stowing their equipment by having it stolen frequently, you have no right to complain when they decide that the only reasonable response is to carry everything with them always. If you make it clear that they _can_ safely leave their things stored somewhere (with rare exceptions that probably are plot-related), they're more likely to go along with it. If the players act like they're in a deathmatch with every NPC in the game world...maybe they're right.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

The Rules would depend on the town. A town run by a Lawful Good Paladin of the War God may have no rules about openly carried weapons, but very strict ones about concealed weapons (a man with a two hander on his back is just overarmed, a man with a dagger under his cloak is Up To Something). A Lawful Evil town would likely have rules about anyone except the town watch being armed. Chaotic Good towns would have no rules, but a Chaotic Evil town would have unwritten rules about how if you're openly armed you better be ready to use them (and if you're not openly armed, you better bow down to those who are!).

Walled Cities would have tighter rules. Small villages in the wilderness looser rules. GM's should have the rules in mind, and players should find out what they are before they break them (never break a rule through ignorance, always do it on purpose.).

 

Actual Game: DnD 3.0, town was walled, lawful good, and the GM warned us about walking about armed. A belt knife was fine, anything else would get you questioned by the city guard (Excuse me, Mr. Cleric, but why do you feel the need to carry a sword in town?). Which lead to one player throwing a fit when, after being warned twice by the GM and once by me, the guard was 'harrassing him' for wearing spiked plate armor, a shield, a dwarven war axe, a mace, three throwing axes, two daggers, a longbow and 40 arrows (and that's just the stuff you could see).

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

There are other problems associated with carrying weapons in a city, which to my mind can lead to the use of excessive force by or against PCs. A staple of gaming is the good old-fashioned tavern brawl. When done with fists, chairs and steins it's a way to let off steam. When done with broadswords it becomes a deadly, bloody mess.

[The Suave]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

I tend to play no-armor characters but whenever we start a game in a city my first question is "What's the socially acceptable level of personal armament." I'm not looking for trouble, but trouble tends to find PCs and I want my rapier/shortsword/handaxes (whatever the case may be) at my hip just in case!

 

That being said, if I have a sword on and I get into a fight at the local inn, it's gonna be a fistfight until escalation seems necessary. It seems silly to "Have at thee!" every time someone pushes you when you say something brash, not to mention the trouble that murder tends to bring in civilization. Besides, fistfights are fun!

[Ice9]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Now if your problem is that the PC's are always ready for battle 24/7 that is something that can be dealt with. First make sure that you are fair to the PCs when they DO finally divest themselves of armor and large weapons (Daggers are usually ok in pseudo medieval societies). If you are always springing attacks when they are the most vulnerable, then you are training your players to never ever go anywhere without their armor and weapons.

QFT. This is probably the biggest cause of paranoid player behavior, and it's not even that the GM is being a jerk (usually), they're just too quick to throw in complications.

 

The players finally take off their armor and weapons, and the GM starts coming up with ideas. There could be an assassin in court, or zombies from the sewers, or a fire, or any number of exciting hazards that will be especially dramatic to deal with while having to improvise for the lack of equipment. But you can't use them. Not just the first time, but the first several times the PCs go (mostly) unequipped, absolutely nothing should happen. No exciting hazards, and especially no thieves or corrupt guards that take their stuff while it's in storage. It's only once the players are used to going unarmored with no problems that you can throw action their way, and even then it shouldn't be overdone - one attempted assassination where they had to improvise weaponry will be remembered more than a half-dozen uneventful trips to the market.

 

Also, in many fantasy games, the players are carrying around stuff that's literally priceless. Leave my normal iron spear with the guards at the gate? Fine, they look honest enough, and I could get another if necessary. Leave the legendary Sword of Ten Giants, which I had to die and claw my way back from the underworld to obtain? I don't think so. This may be assuaged by storage options like the Bag of Holding, but even a non-paranoid character seems unlikely to leave one of a kind relics sitting in their room at the inn, or even in a "secure" town armory.

[dmjalund]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

In the case of valuable weapons there should be aan alternative - such as an official representative of the Lord of the town, and his retinue, picking up the weapons in question, with a written receipt signed by said lord. (just an idea)

[Nolgroth]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

From the paranoid player perspective, that would not work either. "But the lord may only want us disarmed so he can take advantage of our weakened state" or "Oh sure, I expect the Lord to be honorable, but that shifty eyed retainer of his wants our prized possessions."

 

This whole thread has me thinking about the antagonistic relationship that goes on between players and their GM. I always pictured roleplaying as a group exercise, wherein the GM presents challenges for the characters to overcome. There are usually some laughs when things go stunningly well (or stunningly bad) and stories are built around the exploits of the characters. What I am getting from this thread is that there is a perception from a lot of players that the GM is "out to get them." That's sort of frustrating and a little sad at the same time.

[mayapuppies]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

That's a situation that I never encountered until about 2002 or so, when I had to go out and find a new group of players and that perception (I'm about to make a generalization) came from the younger, video game/D&D-centric players rather than the older types. I stopped looking for face-to-face groups because of the apparent prevalence and (worst of all) acceptance that that was the "natural" state of the game.

[Kristopher]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

There are GMs out there who openly believe it's their duty to do everything short of cheating to defeat and destroy the PCs, to thwart their plans, to send them home broken or in a box.

 

It baffles me.

[Peregrine]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

There are GMs out there who openly believe it's their duty to do everything short of cheating to defeat and destroy the PCs, to thwart their plans, to send them home broken or in a box.

 

It baffles me.

 

Bad GMs. I've had more than enough experiences with them in my gaming career.

[Odraude]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Of course, there is a difference between a player roleplaying as a paranoid guy (Ill never leave Ol' Betty from my sights!) and a paranoid player. It would make sense to me to have a soldier or rouge type character that would be much more adamant about keeping their weapons on their person. Maybe the city is fine, but they had pissed off the wrong organized crime group and have to now constantly watch their backs. Or perhaps they were a bounty hunter whose largest catch just got out of jail and is out to hunt them. Paranoia in the character can be a good roleplaying benefit, but paranoia in the player can be a bad thing, especially if it is justified...

[The Suave]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

From the paranoid player perspective' date=' that would not work either. "But the lord may only want us disarmed so he can take advantage of our weakened state" or "Oh sure, I expect the Lord to be honorable, but that shifty eyed retainer of his wants our prized possessions."[/quote']

 

 

This got me thinking:

 

If you had to crawl into hell and back for this sword (or whatever else ridiculous feat), then you would NEVER leave it with ANYONE. If I have the legendary Axe of Jack Frost, for which I had to trek up to a frozen peak, defeat Jack's minions, defeat Jack's lieutenants, defeat Jack's personal guard (of terrifying frost giants), and then defeat Jack himself...whew...

 

Basically: Legendary weapons tend to be defended by legendary things of legendary power, even if that power comes from the weapon itself. Obviously people out there know about these legendary weapons, otherwise there would be no legends about them. Also, once you go through these trials and obtain this legendary weapon, you are now legendary....which means people are after me and my Axe the same way I was after Jack and what was his!

 

I don't care how "trusted" and "protected" this king's guarded armory is, but it's not better than a frozen peak with ice monsters...and if it's not better than that, then it won't do, because that's what I had to go through, and the guy behind me might be better than me.

 

I guess I had never really made the connection between PCs and legendary weapons/armor. It doesn't just get added to the inventory, you get added to the legend.

[mayapuppies]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

This got me thinking:

 

If you had to crawl into hell and back for this sword (or whatever else ridiculous feat), then you would NEVER leave it with ANYONE. If I have the legendary Axe of Jack Frost, for which I had to trek up to a frozen peak, defeat Jack's minions, defeat Jack's lieutenants, defeat Jack's personal guard (of terrifying frost giants), and then defeat Jack himself...whew...

 

Basically: Legendary weapons tend to be defended by legendary things of legendary power, even if that power comes from the weapon itself. Obviously people out there know about these legendary weapons, otherwise there would be no legends about them. Also, once you go through these trials and obtain this legendary weapon, you are now legendary....which means people are after me and my Axe the same way I was after Jack and what was his!

 

I don't care how "trusted" and "protected" this king's guarded armory is, but it's not better than a frozen peak with ice monsters...and if it's not better than that, then it won't do, because that's what I had to go through, and the guy behind me might be better than me.

 

I guess I had never really made the connection between PCs and legendary weapons/armor. It doesn't just get added to the inventory, you get added to the legend.

One of my players found this out the hard way.

 

As did the one who had the reputation "Great Warrior".

[Kristopher]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Reputation is a double-edged sword. Or axe, as the case may be.

[Vulcan]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

If you want your PCs to go without their main battle gear in town, you need to do a couple of things.

 

FIRST: Establish why people don't wear heavy armor and weapons in town. Several good suggestions have been made for this already.

 

SECOND: Establish that things left stored will not regularly be stolen as soon as the character's back is turned. Once in a while (no more than twice per campaign, total) can be written off to chance. Having it happen every single time just reinforces the 'Must stay with me!' mindset.

 

THIRD: Events that happen in town should be of the type that can be handled with no armor and sidearms, or you again reinforce the 'Must wear armor everywhere!' mindset.

 

Without doing this, your PCs are fully justified in wanting their full kit at all times, for self-preservation if nothing else!

[Curufea]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Well, put. Have some rep.

 

If players are treating the world in an unrealistic fashion - such as this total anarchy of every man for themselves, survival of the fittest stupidity - then it's usually in response to how they have been treated in the past. Their GM (or previous GMs) have instilled in them the idea that the world is an unrealistic anarchy where they need ludicrously high levels of paranoia merely to survive day to day. A setting where there is no civilisation at all, only the trappings that it probably exists for people that aren't PCs.

[Lezentauw]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

There are GMs out there who openly believe it's their duty to do everything short of cheating to defeat and destroy the PCs, to thwart their plans, to send them home broken or in a box.

 

It baffles me.

 

I am just not sure why you would want to play with someone you did not trust. The GM can cheat the PCs out of anything at anytime they want. But, what is the point in that? The whole point as like Nolgoth has already stated, is for the GM and Players to have fun creating stories...

 

On the other spectrum of things, a player cannot have his PC going around and do whatever he wants and not expect to pay a price for any actions that go too far just because he is a PC...