battle Wear vs. Town Wear

[Markdoc]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Explain Washington DC to me then' date=' that place has a murder rate that puts any fantasy city I ever designed to shame. I never said it was uninhabitable just dangerous. [/quote']

 

As noted above, DC today is far less dangerous than medieval cities in general were. Not only that I lived in the DC area for years. The vast majority of people do not walk about armed, nor are they afraid to store their stuff anywhere in case it is stolen. And, indeed, if you did walk about obviously armed, you could expect a great deal of law enforcement attention. If your fantasy cities are less dangerous than DC, then obviously people would have no need to go armed everywhere. As an example it proves exactly the opposite of what you intended.

 

Where did I say people don't fight. I said the PCs would be seen as an assist to the town guard. The PCs might be closer to the touble and quite frankly training a new town guard is expensive so why have your people get killed when you can have an adventurer get killed in his place.

 

If people aren't fighting, who are the PCs assisting against? Do you PCs have a big sign above their heads saying "Player characters, do not disturb?" If not, how do the guards tell them apart from any other armoured thugs who roll up to the gate? More to the point, if the city guard isn't up to enforcing law and order without assistance, how do they cope when the PCs are not around? "Let's hope that some strangers turn up and pitch in" is not a terribly viable security strategy. If the city guard is up to enforcing law and order, why do they magically exempt the PCs?

 

Note - I stress - for the fourth or fifth time, I'm not saying you shouldn't run your game like this is you and your players want - just that if the players and GM want a bit more depth and realism to their gaming world, it's pretty hard to justify logically.

 

 

I think I have logically defended mine just as well as you have yours. There are plenty of times in history where armed civilians were a fairly normal occurrence' date=' and there societies and cities could survive. If it is illogical for them to exist, how come they were able to in history. Just because I may model my worlds after time periods where the citizen and civilian might be and frequently was armed does not mean my world is any less illogical than yours. [/quote']

 

Can you name one? I can't think of a single civilisation that allowed ordinary citizens to walk the street with more than a light sidearm (a knife, typically, occasionally a sword). Armour, shields and weapons of war were strictly reserved to the guard and the military. In point of truth, in most of medieval europe even the city guard were not typically armoured - where armour was available it was reserved for times of war or civil unrest.

 

Sure there are ways to do it and ways not to do it. I found the previous list especially all the taxes to be a fairly heavy handed player screwing. I might do it in a game where I was trying to parody current real life' date=' but it would not be my norm. I thought it was funny to see all the taxes being levied in the book Another day another dungeon when the characters tried to transport there goods out of the dungeon(dwarf territory) into there home country. That isn't to say there might not be a good way to do this where it isn't player screwing but I think the taxes would be fairly hard to pull off.[/quote']

 

I've never had any problem - players in my game recognise that the local authorities need to raise taxes to pay for the guard, the roads, the castles, the city walls. Those things are not provided by the civilization fairy. When they set up their own fiefs, they levy taxes too. It's not "player screwing" it's simply an attempt to provide a more immersive gaming experience and also a wider choice of character choices. In my game, one of the PCs is primarily a merchant. He can fight pretty good, but he's no great warrior. To make his character interesting, there has to be at least the semblance of functioning economy. Many of the PCs are initiates of the Temple cults - the temple expects a tithe, but at the same time it supports it's members. This isn't "player screwing". If I just said "There's an economy, OK? Nobody pays taxes and tithes, it just kind of exists on other stuff" they'd think I was being lame. the same if I dropped them into a town where everyone walked around armed and armoured as if for battle. They'd want to know why. Saying "People just do that here" wouldn't cut it. It's not "screwing the players" - it's how we like to play.

 

Now I have never said "If you don't do it like this, you're having badwrongfun". In our D&D game we do play the "all armed, all the time" game. We're there to cruise the countryside, kill the abundant monsters, take their stuff and look cool doing it. We don't question the monster-laden ecology, the treasure-laden lairs or the fact that merchants and nubile maidens can ply their trades up and down roads that we can only traverse heavily armed and armoured, at the cost of constant combat. On the other hand, in that game your character choices are essentially warrior, warrior-mage or warrior-priest. If you can't kill things real good, or provide combat support, you have no reason to exist. That's fine - we knew that going in and we have fun with it. I'd never try to play a sneaky courtier or traveling merchant in that game, nor would I look for logical consistency.

 

It's a different playstyle. Because I (and many GMs) prefer something different does not mean we do it "to screw the characters". We do it because we - and the players - like it.

 

cheers, Mark

[mayapuppies]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

You are no longer allowed to post, Markdoc. I'm getting sick of not being able to rep you.

[Nolgroth]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

I got him for us.

[Alibear]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

I think I repped him but am not sure with this new board.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

I got him too.

[torchwolf]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Ditto, wish I had more to give.

[Ragnarok]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Can you name one? I can't think of a single civilisation that allowed ordinary citizens to walk the street with more than a light sidearm (a knife, typically, occasionally a sword). Armour, shields and weapons of war were strictly reserved to the guard and the military. In point of truth, in most of medieval europe even the city guard were not typically armoured - where armour was available it was reserved for times of war or civil unrest.

 

To be fair, if you were a man in Viking culture, you had a weapon with you at all times. At. All. Times. You had one next to you while you were sleeping, you took one to legislative assemblies (Things) and you even took one when you were going to the outhouse. To have your weapon more than arms' distance away from you was a deathwish.

 

Granted, this was only for men, and the rather unique Viking culture and society necessitates it. Also, the more affordable heavy weapons tended to be multipurpose (axes for lumber, spears for hunting.)

 

Armor is a different story. Just from a practical standpoint, you aren't going to be doing everyday chores in your armor, especially not anything metal. Wear and tear and weathering would cause maintenance to be a nightmare.

 

If your civilization is structured through a warrior culture that allows violent retribution of legitimate grievances at any time, then go for it. Otherwise, if you're not a hunter, I'd say stick to knives or short swords at the most.

[Vulcan]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Sorry' date=' but this silliness needs to be slapped down with a quickness. The largest city in medieval Europe was Paris, population roughly 100,000 in the year 1300. The homicide rate in DC in 2007 was 30.8 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants. Do you believe that medieval Paris saw fewer than three homicides a month? I call shenanigans.[/quote']

 

I call shenanigans on your shenanigans. He never said anything about historical cities. He was referring to cities he designed for use in his fantasy games, which by definition have little to no restrictions when it comes to maintaining historical accuracy.

 

Having said that, yes, it would be odd that a medieval/Renessance city would experience that low of a murder rate. But if that's the normal in his world...

[Lezentauw]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Well said Markdoc...

[Markdoc]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

To be fair, if you were a man in Viking culture, you had a weapon with you at all times. At. All. Times. You had one next to you while you were sleeping, you took one to legislative assemblies (Things) and you even took one when you were going to the outhouse. To have your weapon more than arms' distance away from you was a deathwish.

 

Granted, this was only for men, and the rather unique Viking culture and society necessitates it. Also, the more affordable heavy weapons tended to be multipurpose (axes for lumber, spears for hunting.)

 

It's also not true - the sagas include multiple instances of men being surprised and killed while unarmed. For example, in Grettir's saga, the men of Wick and the men of Coldback fight over a beached whale. It is specifically stated that most of them were unarmed, so that they fought with the tools they had been using to cut up the whale and also with strips of blubber.

 

"At Rib-skerries, I hear folk tell,

A hard and dreadful fray befell,

For men unarmed upon that day

With strips of whale-fat made good play.

Fierce steel-gods these in turn did meet

With blubber-slices nowise sweet;

Certes a wretched thing it is

To tell of squabbles such as this."

 

In the text it states: "few men there had weapons except the axes wherewith they were cutting up the whale, and some choppers." In chapter 17, Grettir is without weapons when he sets out on his journey - it's because he didn't own any. In the same saga when Ogmund and Thorir vist Thorfinn's household at Jule they are asked to lay aside their weapons before coming into the house to eat and drink - this they do. Interestingly, when they turn up, Grettir and his friends are apparently also unarmed - he has to go to Thorfinn's wife to ask for the weapons which are stored. Even the housecarls are unarmed - when Grettir proposes to kill Ogmund and Thorir, the housecarls rush out to go and get their weapons. They clearly weren't carrying them - in the time it takes them to go and get weapons, Thorgrim and Ogmund and their men have time to puzzle over Grettir's absence, find out the door is locked, try the door and walls for weak spots, improvise a battering ram, and break out of the building. Grettir has to fight them alone until the armed housecarls get back. He survives, since Thorgrim's wife has lent him her husband's weapons and - as the saga states:

"Grettir set on each one of them, and in turn hewed with the sword, or thrust with the spear; but they defended themselves with logs that lay on the green, and whatso thing they could lay hands on, therefore the greatest danger it was to deal with them, because of their strength, even though they were weaponless."

 

Again, much later, when Grettir fights Odd, they fight with sticks and fists since neither man is armed. It specifically states that Kormak's folk and the men of Biarg, who are watching, run to get their weapons - because apparently they aren't armed either, but by the time they get back the fight is over.

 

In Njal's saga when Hauskald is killed, Skarphedin counsels revenge, telling his fellows, "Let us take our weapons, and have them with us." They then go to Njal's house to get their weapons. Mord Valgard's son turns up later the same night, also collects his weapons and then rides off with them - pretty clearly none of them were armed at the time. Actually in Njal's sage there are many many instances of men telling their friends or followers to go and get their weapons, so it's pretty clear that when not expecting a fight they weren't carrying them around. Almost nobody has a shield with them unless they are at home or set out expecting a fight, or armour (though this might reflect the fact that most of these guys were not professional warriors, so most of them probably didn't own armour)

 

If your civilization is structured through a warrior culture that allows violent retribution of legitimate grievances at any time' date=' then go for it. Otherwise, if you're not a hunter, I'd say stick to knives or short swords at the most.[/quote']

 

Short swords were considered warrior's weapons - indeed, when Grettir gets his first shortsword, they all make a big deal out of it. Knives however, don't really count as "weapons" since people carried them all the time. Mind you before the airlines started acting up, I always had a swiss army knife on me, too. I didn't consider that as being armed: it's a utility knife not a fighting dagger. It is pretty clear from the sagas that violent death was a frequent event and that most men kept a weapon close by: there are frequent references to weapons being hung in the house. But it's also clear that carrying weapons was the exception not the rule. When Grettir is worried about revenge killings, it is specifically stated that he kept his weapon with him at all times (suggesting that he didn't do that any way) and when he sets it aside to go fishing, his treacherous host steals it and then tries to kill him. When Njal sees a group of men carrying weapons he asks them what they are doing seeing as they are riding all armed - they tell him they are looking for sheep - he tells them he thinks they are hunting men, again indicating that men traveling about with weapons was enough to draw suspicion. As noted, Mord and Kari's sons are not carrying their weapons while out working around the farm, even though they are several hours away, etc etc.

 

There's more of course, much more - enough to state pretty authoritatively that no, viking men, even those living on the lawless fringes of society, did not always go around armed - in fact, it seems that most of the time they did not. It makes sense: a battle axe is not the same as a wood axe, and both axes and swords were expensive weapons. They were prone to rust and damage if not well cared for and often extensively decorated. They are heavy, and get in the way. You don't want to carry extra weight if you don't have to, or put your expensive sword at risk while fishing or mucking out the byre. And while fights, battles and revenge killings were common in the sagas, simple murders of or by strangers are rare. If you weren't actively expecting a fight, why would you feel the need to be armed - and inconvenience yourself in the process?

 

cheers, Mark

 

Edit: and as an aside, I've been interested in viking culture for decades. I've sailed in longships, lived in viking houses, made iron in a viking forge, worn viking clothes and armour and handled viking weapons. I've visited viking sites, and even handled some of the oldest saga manuscripts: I've read almost every saga - many of them multiple times. Did you honestly think I didn't consider vikings when I stated that I could not think of a culture where people routinely went armed about their daily business?

 

Edit2: it suddenly occurred to me in the ribskerries example above that not everyone might know what a medieval flensing axe (used to strip blubber off whales) looks like: it isn't anything like an axe, for starters. It looks like a spade with a skinny blade and a very long handle and was often made entirely of wood. I don't doubt you could kill someone with one (it's at least as heavy as a boat oar) but a weapon of war, it ain't.

[Markdoc]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Mardoc any pic of Split??

 

Lord Ghee

 

My wife and I took hundreds

 

Here's 4:

#1 is a street running through what used to be a palace hall.

#2 is a street running through what used to be the actual wall around the palace grounds

#3 is the catacombs underneath the town - (actually built as storage, not catacombs for bodies). Did I mention the palace was built on a huge scale? That's a regular-sized door in the picture.

#4 is looking up beside the cathedral showing how the old roman ruins are kind of integrated into modern (well, medieval, so "more modern") buildings

 

cheers, Mark

[Ragnarok]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

"It's also not true - the sagas include multiple instances of men being surprised and killed while unarmed."

 

A couple thoughts on this. You obviously have a lot of background reading the sagas, so the examples you stated are very revealing to me. I will say that the heavy emphasis on being armed from the various books on Viking history, my professors, and Edward Short (who has studied Icelandic sagas thoroughly) has lead me to believe it was so. I'm glad that I have a broader view now, so thank you. I think it should be acknowledged (as been hammered into my head) that using sagas as a definitive proof is questionable for several reasons, not the least of which being the rather depressing lack of written contemporary historical information we have from that age. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I'm probably not entirely wrong either. You obviously have a head start on me about this sort of field, so I defer.

 

"Almost nobody has a shield with them unless they are at home or set out expecting a fight, or armour (though this might reflect the fact that most of these guys were not professional warriors, so most of them probably didn't own armour)"

 

I do not dispute this. In fact if you read my post, you will see that I specifically emphasize that from what I know, they did not routinely carry armor for practical reasons, and I would lump shields in with that as well.

"Short swords were considered warrior's weapons - indeed, when Grettir gets his first shortsword, they all make a big deal out of it. Knives however, don't really count as "weapons" since people carried them all the time."

 

I would personally classify seaxes as short swords, seeing as they could get to about a foot and a half, which is just shy of a gladius. Short sword or really big knife? YMMV.

 

"If you weren't actively expecting a fight, why would you feel the need to be armed - and inconvenience yourself in the process?"

 

From what I've learned, a significant part of revenge was that the avenger could kill family members of the offender (barring women), even if they weren't involved in the dispute. Personally, especially in a large extended family, I wouldn't push my luck. I'd much rather inconvenience myself with a weapon than being inconvenienced by untimely death. This would, of course, vary with the turbulence of the social climate, so again, YMMV.

 

"Did you honestly think I didn't consider vikings when I stated that I could not think of a culture where people routinely went armed about their daily business?"

 

I don't know you. Before this conversation I had no knowledge on the extent of your expertise in this area. My post was an attempt to bring attention to Viking society based upon the knowledge I do have, and that seemed relevant to the situation. In no way was it a personal attack, a dismissal of your background, or a proclamation of a universal truth. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

That being said, I agree with you that the driving factor for a GM's weapons policy should be a consideration of fun and reasonable plausibility. This is a fantasy game, not a rigid reenactment.

 

Regards,

John

[Ice9]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

I can't think of a single civilisation that allowed ordinary citizens to walk the street with more than a light sidearm (a knife, typically, occasionally a sword).

Well, in many parts of the present-day US, you can carry a pistol (with a permit, but one that most people can get). While that might be a "light" weapon compared to, say, an assault rifle, it's still as lethal as a battleaxe, and ranged as well.

[Markdoc]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

"It's also not true - the sagas include multiple instances of men being surprised and killed while unarmed."

 

A couple thoughts on this. You obviously have a lot of background reading the sagas, so the examples you stated are very revealing to me. I will say that the heavy emphasis on being armed from the various books on Viking history, my professors, and Edward Short (who has studied Icelandic sagas thoroughly) has lead me to believe it was so. I'm glad that I have a broader view now, so thank you. I think it should be acknowledged (as been hammered into my head) that using sagas as a definitive proof is questionable for several reasons, not the least of which being the rather depressing lack of written contemporary historical information we have from that age. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I'm probably not entirely wrong either. You obviously have a head start on me about this sort of field, so I defer.

 

I should not have given the impression that you are way off base: it is fair to say that viking culture (especially on the periphery of scandinavia: places like Denmark were more tightly controlled) was an extremely violent one, where combat was not infrequent and men were expected to own and know how to use weapons. However there's a big difference between "always have access to weapons" and "always be armed". You're also right that the sagas are not unimpeachable truth - for a start, they're actually post-viking, written down as the viking era was coming to a close. Still, they are the best evidence we have for how people around that time thought and acted. The image we get from the sagas is that violence was always lurking in the background and that men were prepared for it - but as far as we can tell, they didn't go round prepared to fight at an instant's notice. As I noted there are many examples, where violence appears to catch people off guard and without their weapons close by. It's worth remembering too that the sags were stories. In many - maybe most -cases, stories with a historical basis: you can see many of the places mentioned in them, still today and we have other evidence that many of the people described were real people. But still, they are stories about famous people, conflict and battles. Erlsson the sheep herder who never got in a fight and never killed anyone doesn't get a saga. If the people who were famous for their fights and feuds spent a lot of time unarmed,we can guess pretty safely that people in general did that.

 

"Almost nobody has a shield with them unless they are at home or set out expecting a fight' date=' or armour (though this might reflect the fact that most of these guys were not professional warriors, so most of them probably didn't own armour)"[/b']

 

I do not dispute this. In fact if you read my post, you will see that I specifically emphasize that from what I know, they did not routinely carry armor for practical reasons, and I would lump shields in with that as well.

 

There's a difference though - the sagas make it plain that many men had shields at home along with their weapons. But when they go on a trip, they might take a weapon with them, but they don't seem to take shields unless they are going out specifically for a fight. Armour's a bit different - very few people mentioned in the sagas seem to own it, since it is very rarely mentioned, even when people are gearing up for a fight - except when real battles are involved. The reason I mentioned it is that if you really were concerned about your safety - enough to tote weapons everywhere you went - and you had a shield, wouldn't you take that too?

 

"Short swords were considered warrior's weapons - indeed' date=' when Grettir gets his first shortsword, they all make a big deal out of it. Knives however, don't really count as "weapons" since people carried them all the time.[/b']"

I would personally classify seaxes as short swords, seeing as they could get to about a foot and a half, which is just shy of a gladius. Short sword or really big knife? YMMV.

 

Only the very largest seaxes are a similar size to a shortsword - the sagas (and some of the few genuine viking texts we have) distinguish between knives and shortswords, using different words for them. It's not clear of course, exactly where they draw the line (a small seax would probably be called a knife while a really big one might be called a sword, for example: I'm guessing here), but they do draw a line. More importantly, whatever sort of knife men carried about with them they clearly didn't regard it as a weapon, since there are multiple instances of men being "unarmed" and multiple instances where men who are attacked using a walking staff, stick or even stones to defend themselves with. I'm thinking that if they had a "tungr knivur" with a 15" blade on them, they'd be using that instead.

 

"If you weren't actively expecting a fight, why would you feel the need to be armed - and inconvenience yourself in the process?"

 

From what I've learned, a significant part of revenge was that the avenger could kill family members of the offender (barring women), even if they weren't involved in the dispute. Personally, especially in a large extended family, I wouldn't push my luck. I'd much rather inconvenience myself with a weapon than being inconvenienced by untimely death. This would, of course, vary with the turbulence of the social climate, so again, YMMV.

 

Well that much is true - feuds tended to be between groups, not just individuals. It wasn't just women - harming children was frowned on, as well. And it wasn't just families - feuds could spread to involve patrons and clients (ie: a warleader and his men, a rich farmer and his tenants, etc). However most of the blood feuds we know about tended not to last very long - the rule was you could only take vengeance before a case was bought up for judgement. Once that happened, any killing apart from legal duels was potentially considered murder, not legal vengeance. As a result, as far as we know people didn't go around constantly on edge that someone was going to burst onto their property. In the sagas, at least, people usually had a pretty good idea of when they should be on their guard. Viking society, as I said was extremely violent, but I doubt any society could exist at more than the tribal level if you had to be constantly, on your guard.

 

"Did you honestly think I didn't consider vikings when I stated that I could not think of a culture where people routinely went armed about their daily business?"

 

I don't know you. Before this conversation I had no knowledge on the extent of your expertise in this area. My post was an attempt to bring attention to Viking society based upon the knowledge I do have, and that seemed relevant to the situation. In no way was it a personal attack, a dismissal of your background, or a proclamation of a universal truth. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

Actually, looking back at what I wrote, I should apologize, not you - it comes across as far pissier than I had intended. Sorry about that. It was surprise rather than anything else, since I've written a lot on these boards over the years about my interest in viking history and culture: indeed, I posted just a couple of days ago about the reconstructed longship Havhingsten and a friend who sailed in it to Ireland last year. Of course it occurs to me now, that there was no reason to assume you had read all that: my bad!

 

Cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Well' date=' in many parts of the present-day US, you can carry a pistol (with a permit, but one that most people can get). While that might be a "light" weapon compared to, say, an assault rifle, it's still as lethal as a battleaxe, and ranged as well.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I thought about that, actually. But as you note, it is a light sidearm, not a warrior's weapon like an assault rifle or (say) a flamethrower. You can, some places in Europe see "ordinary people" on the street with assault rifles - here in Denmark, I've seen Hjemmeværnet (roughly the equivalent of the National Guard in the US) with their weapons. On the other hand, they are in uniform and presumably on their way to or from assembly or the range. That's quite different from saying "the population is armed" - in the US the number of CCW holders is a bit less than 2% and the number of people who open carry is even smaller: the vast majority of people aren't armed. The same applies to the viking discussion above, really: there were certainly armed men about, but as far as we can work out the general populace didn't go about their daily business - especially in town - armed.

 

cheers, Mark

[Ragnarok]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

"Actually, looking back at what I wrote, I should apologize, not you - it comes across as far pissier than I had intended. Sorry about that. It was surprise rather than anything else, since I've written a lot on these boards over the years about my interest in viking history and culture: indeed, I posted just a couple of days ago about the reconstructed longship Havhingsten and a friend who sailed in it to Ireland last year. Of course it occurs to me now, that there was no reason to assume you had read all that: my bad!"

 

No harm, no foul. I haven't had as much leisure time to surf the forums as I would like. Anyway, thanks for the info. Always helps to broaden one's knowledge base.

[The Weapon]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Can you name one? I can't think of a single civilisation that allowed ordinary citizens to walk the street with more than a light sidearm (a knife, typically, occasionally a sword). Armour, shields and weapons of war were strictly reserved to the guard and the military. In point of truth, in most of medieval europe even the city guard were not typically armoured - where armour was available it was reserved for times of war or civil unrest.

 

cheers, Mark

 

England allowed people to walk around with pistols, shotguns, anything they wanted until quite recently. Gun laws didn't come in until the IRA attacks of the early 20th century.

[Markdoc]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

England allowed people to walk around with pistols' date=' shotguns, anything they wanted until quite recently. Gun laws didn't come in until the IRA attacks of the early 20th century.[/quote']

 

There's a huge difference between "allowed to own" and "allowed to walk down the street carrying". A man displaying a pistol (or other firearm) openly in the street in the UK a few decades back would - without question - have attracted a good deal of attention, and pretty swiftly, the police. He would have been told in no uncertain terms to put it away unless he had a very good reason - and would have faced arrest had he refused. So, no, not a great example of an armed populace.

 

cheers, Mark

[Alibear]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

I'm from rural Scotland and grew up there in the 70s in a family of field sportsmen. I owned a 20 guage shotgun at 10 years old.

 

People did not walk around with shotguns or any other weapons openly. Hunters or farmers would have them in the back of the Land Rover or propped in the wardrobe. If you did see someone with a gunbag over his shoulder you'd look twice and he'd likely be on his way to shoot game in in a field or take to the sportshop to have repaired perhaps.

 

Some of the 'shooting' community had other weapons for fun, 9mm pistols or pump action remmingtons or the like but that was very much a rarety most people had an 'over an under' or 'side by side' and perhaps a .22 rifle.

[Curufea]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

A couple of things-

 

Being allowed to carry weapons around does not mean the average civiliand DID.

 

Secondly - Viking's didn't have cities, so I don't know why they are mentioned at all in relation to cities.

[Markdoc]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

A couple of things-

 

Being allowed to carry weapons around does not mean the average civiliand DID.

 

Secondly - Viking's didn't have cities, so I don't know why they are mentioned at all in relation to cities.

 

Actually vikings did have cities - in 8-10th century Denmark, Hedeby was a major trading city for the Danes - who were pretty definitely also vikings. It not only was fortified, but had an extensive series of walls and dykes protecting the adjacent countryside, plus a largish canal built to improve shipping access. It was a focal point for trading along the North Sea coast and down into Germany. It was important enough that the Carolingian kings made alliances with its rulers. Danish scholars - presumably from that area - such as Notkhar, travelled to France, where their names and tales were recorded. By the height of the viking era, there were substantial fortified viking cities at Dubh Linn (modern Dublin), Jorvik (modern York - at the time second only to London in size and commercial importance), Roskilde, Aros, Hedeby, Ribe, Lund, Kiev, Holmgard (Modern Novgorod), etc, etc. These were not giant cities, but they had populations that were in the low thousands (Novogorod for example, at its viking peak is estimated to have had a population in excess of 15,000 and a trading empire that stretched from Denmark to Persia: it's why you can find coins from India in Danish hoards).

 

Here's a photo of a reconstruction of 10th century Aros (modern Aarhus) from the aarhus museum, showing the city walls in scale with some longships:

and giving an idea of what we think the larger viking towns looked like - rather suburban, actually The houses shown would tend to house an extended family of owner plus servants, plus servant's families - anywhere from 4 to 20 people.

 

cheers, Mark

[Ragnarok]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

^ What he said.

 

A couple of years ago I got a chance to visit Dublin and York, which were awesome. The national museum in Dublin has quite a bit of archaeological evidence for it being a good-sized city.

[tesuji]

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

 

by the same token "common sense" and "realism" being extolled as virtues in a world with m,agic and dragons and zombies seems a bit on the "so why do we choose this particular aspect to i9nflict common sense on again and not all these others???"

 

i mean "common sense" tells me a multiton lizard with wings that size cannot fly.

Common sense tells me a stone statue cannot move, much less attack me.

common sense tells me dead dont rise up and try and eat the living.

 

but all those are fine and acceptable but "i walk down to the inn past the assassins guild wearing my aromr" triggers the common sense police to start "making the player's life difficult"?!?!

 

Someone mentioned "well just leave one of you behind sitting at the inn to guard your stuff" or somesuch which is fine and dandy except for... thats a PLAYER sitting alone in a hotel room to PREVENT anything happening, which might suit the common sense police fine, but they aren't the guy sitting in the corner watching everyone else play the friggin game he showed up expecting to play too.

 

Now, sure, the gm can have stuff happen, have robbers show up frequently etc, which really enforces the whole "towns exist as long as they protect" theme doesn't it?

 

If you have bad stuff happen that often in the inn, that starts to strain the common sense too, doesn't it?

 

There are a lot of things that "make sense" but don't necessarily fit into a good play experience for "a half dozen people gathered at Joe's place Sunday afternoon" even if they are realistic or in genre.

 

But it all boils down to shared expectations and satisfactions between players and gms. If the players enjoy the "one guy left as guard" and "selective common sense enforcement" then thats great. Heck, even if they tolerate these "sidebars" because the rest of the game is so good, thats fine too.

 

For me as a GM, I would never expect one of my players to sit "guarding our stuff" while the rest of the players went off to "do stuff in town" in the name of "common sense". My players are there to play, not watch the rest play, and while the obvious occasions where they split up and do different things cause brief periods of this, thats a wholly different animal than guard duty. So i would not set up the world in the genre i am running to make this be necessary.

 

I just find players have more fun when doing something more than sitting and waiting in case something happens, so i don't make that kind of thing a significant element in my games.

 

But i percieve a belief that players "dont get it" when the issues of "leave your stuff at the in n and walk around without your gear" comes up and I believe it is NOT a case of "we wanna do whatever we want" as much as its a player-based "i am here to play, not sit and watch."

 

Heck, i know if i showed up for a fantasy rpg for my first run and the gm setup the scenario such that i got to sit on guard duty in our room at the inn while everyone else went out into the town and did stuff for the session - I likely would not be back for a second session. I mean, really, i can sit and not do stuff at home and have all my snacks and be able to watch my dvr shows etc a lot easier than i can get over to joe's to sit and watch them play while I sit waiting for nothing to happen.

 

maybe if the Gm showed up for a session and the players told him "you sit in that chair and we will oet you know when you get to do something" and they pulled out a card game or board game and played it for an hour os so while he sat, he might rethink the whole notion of "how much sense it makes to leave someone behind to guard our stuff."

[Alibear]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Has anyone here ever GMed a game for a PC sat as a guard of 'stuff' while the other PCs went of and had an adventure?

 

I never have in 20 odd years GMing. Dragons only fly cos they're inherently magical in nature. Stone statues only walk if a magician animates it. A zombie only only rises again by magic.

 

Magic doesn't explain away why a normal villager would blink away a strange soldiers dressed for war strolling up and down the main street. And certainly doesn't explain why the local law would ignore it.

[Ragnarok]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

In my seven years of RPG experience I have never seen one PC babysit gear while the others go and have fun. That's just bad GMing, unless that one PC really really wants to sit and do nothing.

 

Gaming is a lot about the willing suspension of disbelief. With a decent enough explanation, I can buy that forces beyond my understanding can reanimate a corpse. Some things, however, are just so ingrained in our understanding of basic human behavior that I can't buy the deviation. Personally, if I see a group of strangers armed to the teeth walking down the street, my first instinct will be to contact the guards.

 

*shrug*