battle Wear vs. Town Wear

[Enforcer84]

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']

 

Lucky bastard. In our first game my fighter ran the first two sessions with a dagger. And we were being haunted. All because I was out having drinks with my friends =) and the only PC to actually not be fully geared.

But I made it through.

[Enforcer84]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

I suppose what throws me off guard is that this is the HERO forum. I would expect that in a D&D forum or a Palladium forum. Here' date=' it just does not compute correctly. Then again, I was fortunate enough to hook up with some awesome role-players for a pretty long stretch.[/quote']

 

Why? You think poor roleplayers or good roleplayers are drawn to a particular system? We play what we can, man!

[Tasha]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Yeah, that's where my difficulty comes in. My world is about as far away from a D&D world as you can get and still be medieval fantasy and not Conan. All of my players come from a D&D-centric mindset. There are laws in some countries about wearing armor and weapons (that's what the nobility and soldiers are for) and those same countries will invariably have laws against magic (not that it's even common enough to worry about, but the Royal Academy likes having a monopoly on the stuff...).

 

Don't like leaving your stuff in an inn by itself? Leave someone to guard it or hire a guard. Don't walk into town showcasing your finely crafted weapons and armor. Stay at a respectable inn that takes protecting its guests seriously.

Want to end up a fugitive rather than a hero? Then assault that poor city guard who's just doing his job and trying to keep the peace. Do you think he wants a bunch of loose cannons walking around in what amounts to tanks?

 

Well, at least that's what goes on in my games.

 

Perhaps the real issue is that you are running what YOU want and not what the PLAYERS want. If your players are having fun than it's ok, but I have played in many games where the GM's idea of what is "real" conflicts with what the players consider "fun". Honestly, I don't think that I would find your game any fun.

[Tasha]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Wow I do not like that at all. It seemed basically a list of here are a bunch of ways you can screw over your pcs and pretend you have some kind of logical world justification about it.

 

Repped!!!

[Tasha]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

I suppose what throws me off guard is that this is the HERO forum. I would expect that in a D&D forum or a Palladium forum. Here' date=' it just does not compute correctly. Then again, I was fortunate enough to hook up with some awesome role-players for a pretty long stretch.[/quote']

 

 

 

Most groups start with another system. The group that I started Hero with played very monte Haul, over the top, screw the players, AD&D (with enough houserules so as to not recognize the original system). Hero was a way to play Superheroes. Roleplaying came later, but many of the GM's had a background in boardgaming and would forget that they were GMing a RP game. So we had GM's that would start to pull stuff out of their tail end if the PC's were beating their "precious" NPCs. One GM actually had a NPC group that would "help" us with the Villain of the week. Of course they would have an easy time and all of the rules calls would go to them.

 

Thank goodness I found a Gaming group that is FAR different from that one. While we have players who like combat (me for one), the GM's don't get bent out of shape if the PC's actually win a fight. There is a larger emphasis on RP and storytelling. It's the best gaming experience that I have had ever.

 

Tasha

[Markdoc]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Perhaps the real issue is that you are running what YOU want and not what the PLAYERS want. If your players are having fun than it's ok' date=' but I have played in many games where the GM's idea of what is "real" conflicts with what the players consider "fun". Honestly, I don't think that I would find your game any fun.[/quote']

 

It's exactly how I've been running things for decades (even when I ran D&D) and I really haven't seen any problems, or had players complain or leave. It's funny: the idea of people taking calmly to heavily-armed unknown warriors strolling into their town and wandering about armed to the teeth is ... well, so odd, to put it politely ... that I simply couldn't take a game like that seriously. Doesn't mean I wouldn't play, of course I have played games like that. But I never have been able to take them seriously.

 

It comes down to common sense, in the end: towns and cities exist as long as order is able to be maintained in them. If it isn't, people leave or die and the town becomes a fun ruin to be explored. If the local rulers are not able to enforce order - and that includes telling wandering gangs of armed strangers that they will put their stuff away and behave - then either they get replaced by people who can or the area drops into anarchy. "Having fun" doesn't have to mean "Can do whatever you like".

 

cheers, Mark

[Shinobi Killfis]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

It's exactly how I've been running things for decades (even when I ran D&D) and I really haven't seen any problems' date=' or had players complain or leave. It's funny: the idea of people taking calmly to heavily-armed unknown warriors strolling into their town and wandering about armed to the teeth is ... well, so odd, to put it politely ... that I simply couldn't take a game like that seriously. Doesn't mean I wouldn't play, of course I [b']have[/b] played games like that. But I never have been able to take them seriously.

 

It comes down to common sense, in the end: towns and cities exist as long as order is able to be maintained in them. If it isn't, people leave or die and the town becomes a fun ruin to be explored. If the local rulers are not able to enforce order - and that includes telling wandering gangs of armed strangers that they will put their stuff away and behave - then either they get replaced by people who can or the area drops into anarchy. "Having fun" doesn't have to mean "Can do whatever you like".

 

cheers, Mark

 

While I have run cities that restrict gear and magic and even had mages spellbound I never made it the norm. I never thought of it as odd to let powerful warriors armed to the teeth into town. Too many dangerous events can and do happen in towns for it to seem odd.

 

To me it seemed more odd to restrict capable warriors who might take down the necromancer sending the zombies into the bar before the town guard arrives on the scene. It is sort of why adventurers get hired by the mayor in the first place, they can handle crap without you having to deplete the town guard of its trained men. When they come to town, its like you get there services for free. Sure they could start trouble as well, but given that there isn't a huge range of armed to the teeth men in town it would be suicidal so it isn't a huge worry.

 

On top of that adventurers probably have more disposable income than anyone outside of rich merchants, as a mayor/lord etc I want them in town wasting money. Anything I do so they don't feel safe coming into town is costing my town and by extension me money.

[torchwolf]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

It comes down to common sense' date=' in the end: towns and cities exist as long as order is able to be maintained in them. If it isn't, people leave or die and the town becomes a fun ruin to be explored. If the local rulers are [b']not[/b] able to enforce order - and that includes telling wandering gangs of armed strangers that they will put their stuff away and behave - then either they get replaced by people who can or the area drops into anarchy. "Having fun" doesn't have to mean "Can do whatever you like".

 

cheers, Mark

I would think that towns and cities worked exactly like that, or not at all.

 

I have most of my fantasy RPG experiences in playing D&D and Rolemaster, and have always had a problem with suspension of disbelief stemming from wondering how these places actually manage to exist in many fantasy settings, like this example from D&D:

I played a mage who had my 2 daily spells at Command Person for that day, and we had looted ourselves a grimoire none of us had any use for, so we arranged an auction, and an idea hit me: I located the two most wealthy-looking merchants I could see and commanded them both to "Buy that grimoire!" as the auction started. We made a killing and left town, and I wondered to myself why every mage didn't just do that, while knowing the answer obviously is because the fantasy world wouldn't look right if everyone did...

 

NOTE: Yes, I'm still a bit ashamed at doing this to the GM, but at that time I just couldn't resist, and that was far from the worst thing any of the players did. Of course, such stuff might generate a GM vs players atmosphere, but I think it was well in place way before that even if my actions didn't improve the situation.

[Nolgroth]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Why? You think poor roleplayers or good roleplayers are drawn to a particular system? We play what we can' date=' man![/quote']Yes I do as a matter of fact. I have seen a few posters over the years with some sort of outlandish claims to play style, but by and large I see this whole community as a group of good people and good role-players. Maybe that is naive of me, but the HERO community has been my community for so long that I cannot imagine sucky role-players here.

[Tasha]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

It's exactly how I've been running things for decades (even when I ran D&D) and I really haven't seen any problems' date=' or had players complain or leave. It's funny: the idea of people taking calmly to heavily-armed unknown warriors strolling into their town and wandering about armed to the teeth is ... well, so odd, to put it politely ... that I simply couldn't take a game like that seriously. Doesn't mean I wouldn't play, of course I [b']have[/b] played games like that. But I never have been able to take them seriously.

 

It comes down to common sense, in the end: towns and cities exist as long as order is able to be maintained in them. If it isn't, people leave or die and the town becomes a fun ruin to be explored. If the local rulers are not able to enforce order - and that includes telling wandering gangs of armed strangers that they will put their stuff away and behave - then either they get replaced by people who can or the area drops into anarchy. "Having fun" doesn't have to mean "Can do whatever you like".

 

cheers, Mark

 

First, my character is bringing in a ton of money to their Town. Second, me and my friends will help with any situation where a band of armed people will be helpful.

 

Also as others have pointed out, this rule only harms the fighters in the party. The Mage, Thief, and Hand to Hand Fighter are not effected by this at all. I think that most Kingdoms would be more worried about the people who can project fire and lighting from their hands, and less worried about the folk with the mundane swords. What many of these discussion on "what is realistic" miss is the huge elephant in the room that is called Magic. I wonder how laws would deal with mages, or would they hope that those frightening people in heavy armor would somehow balance out those nasty spellcasters.

 

The only thing that these kind of rules do, is to push players into writing up light fighters (no noticable armor), Spell Casters and Martial Artists.

 

Also, if your cities and towns are safe enough for the adventurers to be unarmed. Then either you are preventing yourself from running "Town in danger" Town attacked by (your monster here)" or any number of interesting and fun plots or you are still running those and hosing the heavy fighters. I say this because "realistically" if the "Safe" town is suddenly attacked, then it is not very "realistic" for the fighter to don armor in any other time frame that will make it possible to help out with the combat. Wow a whole character conception hosed... A player who gets to watch his friends who smartly played the Mage, Light fighter, and Brawler have a good time since they don't have to wear armor to be worthwhile in combat.

 

Now, like I said before. I am quite ok with there being situations that wearing obvious weapons is frowned on. Its just that most fantasy cities aren't the place where one would take off their armor before going wandering.

 

YMMV, but I will point out that many players will put up with annoying stuff because their GM is the "only game in town" so to speak. It never hurts to discuss things with your players to make sure that everyone is ACTUALLY having fun, and likes your ideas of "realism"

[Odraude]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Something I do is just have an Adventurer's Charter. This is a handy dandy certificate/badge/mark/tattoo that states that this group is allowed to carry weapons/magic implements in various areas of a city because of their occupation as adventurers. Makes some form of sense to the more realistic lovers, doesn't screw over the fighter, and everyone including the paranoid players are happy. Also makes for some interesting plot seeds, like a lord that sees your Sword of Orcslaying and wants it no matter the cost, or goblins raid the city and you need to get to your armour/weapons as quickly as possible.

 

But hey if that doesn't solve anyone's problems... let me grab my stick. This horse needs some beating

 

[Vondy]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Its really dependent on setting, the character's status, and the level of trust on a meta-level within the group. If the players are playing their characters rationally, and the GM is a good egg who will keep the risks in town survivable based on the player's willingness to be reasonable (though they still need to *think*) I have zero issue taking off armor and wearing civvies. But that's something people need to remember: role playing exists on two levels - what's rational for the setting, and what's rational on the meta-level based on group dynamics , which includes what kind of GM you have. As I refuse to play with gamemasters of the sadistic, immature, asinine variety this is seldom a problem for me.

 

As a result, my characters go about in what is circumstantially appropriate for the setting. A young noble may be dressed in his finest rake-wear and a broadsword/rapier, for instance. For many settings that's not inappropriate. A viking or young venetian rake were generally armed. A lady with a knife under her skirts may have been little more than prudent. Or a trusty servant may have his master's point things cradled in his arms at his elbow or tucked away within reach in the carriage. And in most settings a dagger or knife will go without comment so commoner may have little issue bearing some level of arms. Indeed, you were often expected to show up with your own knife for meals. Otherwise, I'd only go out in urban streets in battle dress armed to the hilt if circumstances warranted it.

 

Note - this comes from a background that includes more gaming with Pendragon, Stormbringer, and Harn than in D&D land. If I were living in D&D land I'd probably walk around like I was on the battle field all the time too. This is a problem with the assumptions some people are making though: D&D is its own genre. It has its own assumptions. It is not even remotely rational as an environment. And people running D&D style games irrespective of system are replicating that. Under those circumstances I'd agree with panpiper. In most others, not.

[Markdoc]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

While I have run cities that restrict gear and magic and even had mages spellbound I never made it the norm. I never thought of it as odd to let powerful warriors armed to the teeth into town. Too many dangerous events can and do happen in towns for it to seem odd.

 

Isn't that odd, in itself? Why do the towns even exist if they are dangerous places to be?

 

To me it seemed more odd to restrict capable warriors who might take down the necromancer sending the zombies into the bar before the town guard arrives on the scene. It is sort of why adventurers get hired by the mayor in the first place' date=' they can handle crap without you having to deplete the town guard of its trained men. When they come to town, its like you get there services for free. Sure they could start trouble as well, but given that there isn't a huge range of armed to the teeth men in town it would be suicidal so it isn't a huge worry. [/quote']

 

And all of these heavily-armed men, whose profession is presumably fighting don't umm, actually fight? Or does the greengrocer put his plate armor on and strap a two handed axe over his shoulder, before going out to hawk cabbages?

 

On top of that adventurers probably have more disposable income than anyone outside of rich merchants' date=' as a mayor/lord etc I want them in town wasting money. Anything I do so they don't feel safe coming into town is costing my town and by extension me money.[/quote']

 

Sure - you make the two safe for them to come in and spend their money by ... making it safe. Which means not having rival gangs of adventurers roaming about eyeing up each other's valuable gear. Now to be plain, I'm not saying you shouldn't run your game like that:I'm playing in a D&D game somewhat like that right now. It's silly, but it's fun. However, there's no way you can logically defend it - it's just for fun.

 

I'm just pointing out that a GM can run a game with a much more realistic atmosphere (still pretty unrealistic, but hey ...) without doing it just to stiff the players.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

First' date=' my character is bringing in a ton of money to their Town. Second, me and my friends will help with any situation where a band of armed people will be helpful.[/quote']

 

Sure, but merchants and other goodfolk presumably bring in even more - if not, why did the town even exist when you turned up? And merchants and goodfolk tend not to thrive in high-threat environments. As to helping out in "any situation where a big band of armed people will be helpful". What happens when you're not there? For that matter what happens when your wishes and the city's wishes part way? If they can handle themselves without you, why would they need your help? If they can't, why are they even there?

 

Also as others have pointed out' date=' this rule only harms the fighters in the party. The Mage, Thief, and Hand to Hand Fighter are not effected by this at all. I think that most Kingdoms would be more worried about the people who can project fire and lighting from their hands, and less worried about the folk with the mundane swords. What many of these discussion on "what is realistic" miss is the huge elephant in the room that is called Magic. I wonder how laws would deal with mages, or would they hope that those frightening people in heavy armor would somehow balance out those nasty spellcasters. [/quote']

 

Yeah, if powerful magic is common or easy, then something needs to be done about that. But in general powerful magic is less common than swords, in most of these settings. Stopping people going out to do the shopping fully rigged for battle is not just aimed at the PCs but at everyone in the environment - including criminals who would certainly arm themselves to the teeth, if that were allowed.

 

The only thing that these kind of rules do' date=' is to push players into writing up light fighters (no noticable armor), Spell Casters and Martial Artists.[/quote'] Really? That's strange: I think I would have kind of noticed if that had happened. It hasn't. The heavy fighter gets to shine in pitched battle scenarios, which occur both inside and outside cities. Saying "people don't go to the bar for a drink armed and armoured" is not the same as saying "You cannot wear armour in a city for that midnight raid"

 

Also' date=' if your cities and towns are safe enough for the adventurers to be unarmed. Then either you are preventing yourself from running "Town in danger" Town attacked by (your monster here)" or any number of interesting and fun plots or you are still running those and hosing the heavy fighters. I say this because "realistically" if the "Safe" town is suddenly attacked, then it is not very "realistic" for the fighter to don armor in any other time frame that will make it possible to help out with the combat. Wow a whole character conception hosed... A player who gets to watch his friends who smartly played the Mage, Light fighter, and Brawler have a good time since they don't have to wear armor to be worthwhile in combat.[/quote']

 

Are you serious? You are, aren't you? Wow. Actually I run urban-based scenarios more than any other type. In general, an attack on a town or city does not magically materialise without a few minutes' warning. Likewise, there are plenty of times when armor is appropriate. And there are plenty when it isn't. At some point in the near future, my group is going to be attacked late at night in their town house (the attackers can come through mirrors and we have already established the presence of mirrors in the house). Am I "hosing" the groups heavy fighters because I will rule that "No, you don't in fact go to bed in your armour"? For that matter, in a session a few months ago the mage was poisoned and carried away by a giant spider for injection with eggs and filling with little spiderlings. He was rescued by one of the heavy fighters whose complete armour let him survive attacks by the hundreds of smaller (still cat-to-rat-sized) spiders that would swiftly have poisoned and then dragged down the light fighters. Was I "hosing" the mage and light fighters, because they faced a challenge where combat luck and high DEX wouldn't help?

 

Now' date=' like I said before. I am quite ok with there being situations that wearing obvious weapons is frowned on. Its just that most fantasy cities aren't the place where one would take off their armor before going wandering.[/quote']

 

"Most fantasy cities"? Even in our D&D games, which are petty old skool (in the previous game, we spent pretty much all of our time battling things in the sewers and tunnels directly under the metropolis we lived in) we weren't so paranoid that we did our shopping in armour, or took missile weapons to the bar. And yes, we have heavy fighters in the group.

 

YMMV' date=' but I will point out that many players will put up with annoying stuff because their GM is the "only game in town" so to speak. It never hurts to discuss things with your players to make sure that everyone is ACTUALLY having fun, and likes your ideas of "realism" [/quote']

 

There are 4 GMs in our social group: (5 if you count the one who ran the game above: he's sort of semi-retired as a GM and the giant sewer-dungeon game was the only one he's run). Not all of them play in my game, of course - no one person plays in all of their games, either. It is true that our regular D&D GM (who plays a heavy fighter) would prefer less intrigue, more straight combat and more loot: she's upfront about that But she has a choice of three other games and is still the most regular attendee at my game: she almost never misses a session. So I guess she is having fun. The guy who plays the party's mage-priest would prefer less combat and more intrigue. But he keeps turning up too, despite the fact that he also has other GM friends - so I guess he's having fun too: this game's been running regularly for 5 years now and he was part of my last campaign, too, which was even stricter on armour (that last one was quasi-historical though).

 

The D&D monster-city menagerie is a perfectly valid play style, but it's not the only play play style - in my own experience, it's not even the major play style, these days. It's entirely possible to run something a little more realistic without crimping "fun" - or without the GM having a desire to stiff the players. I do it 1) because I can't run monster-city menagerie with a straight face and it lets me give my players a variety of challenges.

 

There are of course "cities" in my game, where people do walk around in armour, their hands never far from their weapons' hilts - but those tend to be wretched hives of scum and villainy.

 

cheers, Mark

[mayapuppies]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Perhaps the real issue is that you are running what YOU want and not what the PLAYERS want. If your players are having fun than it's ok' date=' but I have played in many games where the GM's idea of what is "real" conflicts with what the players consider "fun". Honestly, I don't think that I would find your game any fun.[/quote']

And that would be why you're not in my games and neither are the ones that don't find it fun.

 

Most just find themselves occasionally slipping into the loot the D&D-esque mindset and then, when the world bites back, they go, "oh yeah" and get back on track.

[mayapuppies]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

It's exactly how I've been running things for decades (even when I ran D&D) and I really haven't seen any problems' date=' or had players complain or leave. It's funny: the idea of people taking calmly to heavily-armed unknown warriors strolling into their town and wandering about armed to the teeth is ... well, so odd, to put it politely ... that I simply couldn't take a game like that seriously. Doesn't mean I wouldn't play, of course I [b']have[/b] played games like that. But I never have been able to take them seriously.

 

It comes down to common sense, in the end: towns and cities exist as long as order is able to be maintained in them. If it isn't, people leave or die and the town becomes a fun ruin to be explored. If the local rulers are not able to enforce order - and that includes telling wandering gangs of armed strangers that they will put their stuff away and behave - then either they get replaced by people who can or the area drops into anarchy. "Having fun" doesn't have to mean "Can do whatever you like".

 

cheers, Mark

Dammit, once again I cannot rep you...

[mayapuppies]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

To me it seemed more odd to restrict capable warriors who might take down the necromancer sending the zombies into the bar before the town guard arrives on the scene. It is sort of why adventurers get hired by the mayor in the first place' date=' they can handle crap without you having to deplete the town guard of its trained men. When they come to town, its like you get there services for free. Sure they could start trouble as well, but given that there isn't a huge range of armed to the teeth men in town it would be suicidal so it isn't a huge worry. [/quote']

And here is where there is a primary difference in the worlds we run...this situation would never, ever happen in my game world. Magic is rare and difficult and monsters simply don't exist, so you don't have the monsters lurking in every corner issue.

[mayapuppies]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

First, my character is bringing in a ton of money to their Town. Second, me and my friends will help with any situation where a band of armed people will be helpful.

 

Also as others have pointed out, this rule only harms the fighters in the party. The Mage, Thief, and Hand to Hand Fighter are not effected by this at all. I think that most Kingdoms would be more worried about the people who can project fire and lighting from their hands, and less worried about the folk with the mundane swords. What many of these discussion on "what is realistic" miss is the huge elephant in the room that is called Magic. I wonder how laws would deal with mages, or would they hope that those frightening people in heavy armor would somehow balance out those nasty spellcasters.

 

The only thing that these kind of rules do, is to push players into writing up light fighters (no noticable armor), Spell Casters and Martial Artists.

Goes to the issue that this discussion seems to be split between those who play "high fantasy" and dislike the concept of restricting weapons and armor and those that play "low fantasy" where magic isn't anywhere near as prevalent and thus, not the issue.

[mayapuppies]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Its really dependent on setting, the character's status, and the level of trust on a meta-level within the group. If the players are playing their characters rationally, and the GM is a good egg who will keep the risks in town survivable based on the player's willingness to be reasonable (though they still need to *think*) I have zero issue taking off armor and wearing civvies. But that's something people need to remember: role playing exists on two levels - what's rational for the setting, and what's rational on the meta-level based on group dynamics , which includes what kind of GM you have. As I refuse to play with gamemasters of the sadistic, immature, asinine variety this is seldom a problem for me.

 

As a result, my characters go about in what is circumstantially appropriate for the setting. A young noble may be dressed in his finest rake-wear and a broadsword/rapier, for instance. For many settings that's not inappropriate. A viking or young venetian rake were generally armed. A lady with a knife under her skirts may have been little more than prudent. Or a trusty servant may have his master's point things cradled in his arms at his elbow or tucked away within reach in the carriage. And in most settings a dagger or knife will go without comment so commoner may have little issue bearing some level of arms. Indeed, you were often expected to show up with your own knife for meals. Otherwise, I'd only go out in urban streets in battle dress armed to the hilt if circumstances warranted it.

 

Note - this comes from a background that includes more gaming with Pendragon, Stormbringer, and Harn than in D&D land. If I were living in D&D land I'd probably walk around like I was on the battle field all the time too. This is a problem with the assumptions some people are making though: D&D is its own genre. It has its own assumptions. It is not even remotely rational as an environment. And people running D&D style games irrespective of system are replicating that. Under those circumstances I'd agree with panpiper. In most others, not.

Exactly. And repped.

[Markdoc]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

And here is where there is a primary difference in the worlds we run...this situation would never' date=' ever happen in my game world. Magic is rare and difficult and monsters simply don't exist, so you don't have the monsters lurking in every corner issue.[/quote']

 

Monsters are certainly around in my game, but any town that is in an area where monsters might be found has to be capable of standing them off on its own, or it's simply not going to survive. Point in case: in the current game the players are headquartered in a small, heavily-fortified city, which is the remnant of a much older, much larger city. It's actually a city that grew up inside an older fortified precinct (for a real-life example of this, see Split in Croatia: I've been there and it's awesome ) surrounded by ruins which are the haunt of things unnameable.

 

The area draws adventurers like flies*, but to survive the city has to have a strong, competent guard and they obviously don't want adventurers, who are known to be violent, impulsive sorts wandering the streets, armed to the teeth. On the other hand, they do want the money adventurers often have and the stuff looted from old buried magical laboratories. So adventurers are welcome - as long as they take off their heavy armour and wrap up their heavy weaponry when they are in the city. Detect magic ensures that any significant spell casting will draw a heavily-reinforced goon squad from the temple, buffed for trouble. In return for playing nice, the adventurers can resupply, rest up and not have to worry about having their blood sucked out while they sleep.

 

cheers, Mark

 

*admittedly, this city is a pretty unusual place - it's the only area like this the players know of, which is precisely why they have ended up there.

[LordGhee]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Mardoc any pic of Split??

 

Lord Ghee

[Tasha]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Goes to the issue that this discussion seems to be split between those who play "high fantasy" and dislike the concept of restricting weapons and armor and those that play "low fantasy" where magic isn't anywhere near as prevalent and thus' date=' not the issue.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I actually find low fantasy boring and too restrictive. It can be run to read about, but I don't care for it for play.

 

I guess with the right GM it could be tolerable or may even be fun. Though the GM would have to prove to me that they aren't like the ones that I had bad experiences with.

 

Also I hate those GMs who say that they would have the Heavy Fighter Strip at the gate. That seems a bit extreme to me. A better solution and one that would rankle less would be to Allow the party to be dressed in their travelling gear till they get to the Inn they are staying at. Then remind the HF that they must keep the plate armor and battle sword in their room. That at least would be tolerable. Of course if the city proved to be more dangerous than the GM advertised, then they would pry my armor off my cold dead body (and after I took out much of the guard definding my right to bear arms and armor in their clearly dangerous city).

[Tasha]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

And here is where there is a primary difference in the worlds we run...this situation would never' date=' ever happen in my game world. Magic is rare and difficult and monsters simply don't exist, so you don't have the monsters lurking in every corner issue.[/quote']

 

"Monsters" are a generic term. Humans are as dangerous as any monster, and can be even more annoying then your garden variety bugbear or orc. So your world is a safe place where Brigands, bandits and other human nasties don't exist to plague the PC's?

[Tasha]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Also, all of this talk about walled towns ignores the vast majority of Towns that cannot afford the men to guard their town. Also they cannot afford to put walls around their town. The "town Guard" is a bunch of youngish farmers who drill with spears or some other kind of cheap weapons. Perhaps there is a retired adventurer (or Soldier) running a small farm. The Town is still there because the dangers are rare and they can always have the noble who rules the area chase out any real trouble. The town boasts an Inn because the farmers enjoy a place to have a drink. Also occasionally Traders and Adventurers pass through their town on the way to some adventure or big city.

 

I guess I tend to use the "Wild West" as a guide for what is appropriate. If I envision the town as being like a western town where it was not only OK but expected that people wear a firearm. Then it's ok for people to be openly armed and armored.

 

If the City is more like a city in the east where things were fairly safe as long as you didn't go into the "bad parts" of the city. Then thats where the guard will inform the PCs that heavy arms and armor are not allowed, but will allow them to go directly to an Inn where they are expected to leave said items.

 

Now there are cities like Wild West San Francisco, where the whole place is dangerous. I will allow the PCs to wear their armor and carry their weapons.

[Curufea]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

My campaign worlds tend to be well settled.

I don't go for wild west frontier - monsters around every corner style. I prefer my civilisations to have hundreds of years of history instead of mere decades.