Helmets: Under-Used but Over-Important

[Crimson Longinus]

Unless the system tracks hit locations it doesn't matter and I don't even want it to matter. Your armour bonus, AC, whatever just measures the overall protection the armour offers and there is no need to track protection of head separately any more than the protection of the left foot. The armour may or may not include a helmet, gauntlets, greaves etc. It really doesn't matter. Some people might think helmet clashes with the visual style they want for their character and I don't want to force them to compromise that. I value amazing hairstyles over historical realism.

 

[zarionofarabel]

EDIT:
Also, I feel compelled to point out that several of the images posted by zarionofarabel a few posts back had face coverings, which is contrary to his point.

I was attempting to make two different points with that post.

1) Most helmets do not cover the face. As demonstrated by the first and last images.

2) Warriors of the era WANTED to be identifiable even if their faces were armoured. This is demonstrated by the second image in that heraldry was used. Or by the uniqueness of individual Samurai armour as demonstrated by the images of said armour.

 

[GMMichael]

Your armour bonus, AC, whatever just measures the overall protection the armour offers and there is no need to track protection of head separately any more than the protection of the left foot. The armour may or may not include a helmet, gauntlets, greaves etc. . . I value amazing hairstyles over historical realism.

A hairstyle loses its flair when it's soaked in blood.

Is there no need to track shield usage as well, or are they different? Why?

 

[aramis erak]

Is there no need to track shield usage as well, or are they different? Why?

Realistically? on the scales of most campaigns, no, it's not likely to matter unless your weaponsmith was inept, as was your shield-maker and armorsmith.

 

[Bilharzia]

Some people might think helmet clashes with the visual style they want for their character and I don't want to force them to compromise that. I value amazing hairstyles over historical realism.

Unless you're actually compelling your players to cosplay their characters at the table/screen I think I'm capable of being a bit flexible with what I'm visualising, while knowing what a character is actually equipped with, isn't it a game of the imagination after all?

Is there no need to track shield usage as well, or are they different? Why?

Do you mean the fact that you have the shield equipped, or tracking how much damage the shield takes? There is if not a contradiction, a tension between the abstract nature of f20 combat and the detailing of various bits of martial equipment. The fact that shields have always been so gimpy in f20 has always been a surprise to me. If you want more detail, there are better RPG systems that give you that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A hairstyle loses its flair when it's soaked in blood.

Or it might just improve it!

Is there no need to track shield usage as well, or are they different? Why?

Depends on the system. If the system tracks the difference between one-handed and two-handed weapons then you kinda have to track the shield separately too.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Unless you're actually compelling your players to cosplay their characters at the table/screen I think I'm capable of being a bit flexible with what I'm visualising, while knowing what a character is actually equipped with, isn't it a game of the imagination after all?

That's just weird. This is not a computer game with a 'hide helmet' button. Either they wear a helmet and is is visible or they don't and it isn't. Handwaving the mechanical benefits of the helmet is far less jarring than handwaving its visibility.

 

[John Dallman]

Some people might think helmet clashes with the visual style they want for their character and I don't want to force them to compromise that. I value amazing hairstyles over historical realism.

OK, this is something I find weird, although that may tie in with the unimportance of fantasy art to me. Is your mental model of what's happening in the game largely based on visualising the scene?

Mine is not: I mostly focus on what the characters are thinking about, and what the outcomes of the action will be. I'm sure that the different players and the GM have quite different visualisations, and so I don't regard those as very important. I'm happy to accept that the scene might be visually unimpressive, even sordid, if it could be portrayed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

OK, this is something I find weird, although that may tie in with the unimportance of fantasy art to me. Is your mental model of what's happening in the game largely based on visualising the scene?

That is definitely a big part of it.

 

[John Dallman]

That is definitely a big part of it.

Have RPGs always worked that way for you? Have you always played with figures and terrain, rather than theatre-of-the-mind?