Town adventures and consequences

[frankthedm]

Depends who, what and where the players are.

 

[weem]

I would invite my players to some extravagant dinner.

The dinner would be something they needed to attend in order to move on to what they are after.

When they show up, I would deny them entrance at the door... not by a bouncer (unless they push past him) but by some small snooty little man who takes offense at their attire - poking at their ratty clothing, etc. Not only can they not simply just strip down out of armor and weapons, but their clothes wouldn't be good enough.

They would need to quickly go buy new ones (I would not make this a hassle, I would just ask them if they wanted to and then give them some prices for varying degrees of "nice" clothing etc - it's supposed to be fun, not a chore).

Now my players may be expecting to be ambushed, and that this was simply a way for me to make them vulnerable... so the dinner might actually be pleasant, and without turmoil. Of course, there would be a skill challenge involved.

The point is, use it as an opportunity to have some fun, while also getting them to think about what they look like... a bunch of brutes walking around looking for a fight.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Rarely did I read Conan where he wasn't in direct conflict with the local inhabitants. Rarely did I read Fafrd and the Grey Mouser where they weren't in direct conflict with the local inhabitants. In point of fact, the characters you site were often as not treated as criminals and rogues. Conan in particular is often in direct cultural conflict with 'civilized' people who find his barbarian sword swinging behavior uncouth and intimidating.

And we know the players in this campaign aren't like that because?

I very much disagree. In context, whenever I start talking about 'the real world'...This would turn into an argument over who knows modern global culture the best, and it really isn't even relevant. As I said, when I refer to 'the real world', modernity isn't really even in my thoughts.

So in the OP, where he states, "In the real world people might carry a pistol around, but you don’t see people carrying AK 47’s, or Law rocket launchers…" you interpet that as the world of the past? I think you may need to read the OP again.

Or clerics. Or Paladins. Possibly even Barbarians. I seriously doubt that Clerics in town all go around dressed for battle all the time.

What if it's the cleric of Tempus or another war god? Yeah, the situation can vary tremendously. But you get the meat of what I'm saying so don't dance around it.

You seem to think the purpose of 'town' is primarily to provide another environment to ambush the players with combat. I think I made clear that I didn't find that to be its primary point. Besides which, if you start getting worried about cultural 'screw you' being class specific, then its very easy to consider that the staff wielding, robed, guy with the arcane symbols on his big fat books probably has some equivalent (or worse) cultural 'screw you' to overcome as well. If the Bard or Rogue finds themselves relatively advantaged in urban environments for cultural reasons, what exactly is surprising or undesirable about that?

Because the game has been designed from the ground up to make the classes more equal in the field of combat and by deliberately desginging things to hinder those players whose abilities are handicapped by these things (arms and armor) you're essentially telling the players the best way to get around these issues is to stick with classes that don't suffer from these non-game penalities that you're applying to them?

If your campaign revolves around the players MUST NOT HAVE HEAVY ARMS AND ARMOR mentality, then you might as well just gas and enslave them via the old classics and move on from there. If the players are more comfortable in the game and you have to start talking about people in the real world carrying AK-47s then to me, you've already lost the field regardless of the justification you're just now trying to introduce. At best move the action to another place where those new laws and ideas may be in vogue as opposed to trying to shoe horn in what the players should be doing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And we know the players in this campaign aren't like that because?

We don't.

We only know that, if they are like that, the GM can make the world (including NPCs) respond in an appropriate way.


EDIT: And clerics of Tempus are likely to wear symbolic armour more often than actual armour.


RC

 

[Celebrim]

And we know the players in this campaign aren't like that because?

If they are or aren't, how is it relevant? I don't see how, "The players are in violation of local legal and social norms and therefore suffer certain consequences.", is really a contridiction of what I said.

So in the OP, where he states, "In the real world people might carry a pistol around, but you don’t see people carrying AK 47’s, or Law rocket launchers…" you interpet that as the world of the past? I think you may need to read the OP again.

I interpret this as an attempt to communiciate with the player/reader in the same manner I might use such an example. I didn't consider it an attempt to claim that the culture of his game world was exactly equivalent to modern America. Once again, I don't consider "in the real world" to be a synonym for "what I've experienced". Regardless of what the OP believes, the fact that I don't consider "in the real world" to be a synonym of "what I've experienced in modern America" (speaking of which, I didn't grow up in America and in any event, America is a pretty big place) sufficiently refutes your claim.

What if it's the cleric of Tempus or another war god?

Then on the holy days of Tempus or when participating in some public marial ritual, I would expect such clerics to wear whatever martial regalia was traditional in the worship of said diety. That doesn't imply that if you are a cleric of Tempus that you necessarily go around wearing full plate all the time, and the exact situation would depend on the cultural norms of the society.

Yeah, the situation can vary tremendously. But you get the meat of what I'm saying so don't dance around it.

Back at you.

Because the game has been designed from the ground up to make the classes more equal in the field of combat...

I don't consider the problem to be system specific. If in a particular system it is now more of a problem than it has been because the game is now so combat focused that you aren't allowed to approach it in any other way, I consider that to be the systems problem.

...and by deliberately desginging things to hinder those players whose abilities are handicapped by these things (arms and armor) you're essentially telling the players the best way to get around these issues is to stick with classes that don't suffer from these non-game penalities that you're applying to them?

I'm not telling them any such thing. If a player asked, I would tell them that each role that they took on would carry with it various social benefits and penalities that varied according to the situation and that the undertaking of playing a role carried with it rewards and benefits that could not be described by a list of class abilities. Thus, there would be times when holding and obviously holding a high social station would be of great benefit, and other times when it might get you killed.

If your campaign revolves around the players MUST NOT HAVE HEAVY ARMS AND ARMOR mentality, then you might as well just gas and enslave them via the old classics and move on from there. If the players are more comfortable in the game and you have to start talking about people in the real world carrying AK-47s then to me, you've already lost the field regardless of the justification you're just now trying to introduce. At best move the action to another place where those new laws and ideas may be in vogue as opposed to trying to shoe horn in what the players should be doing.

I have no idea what that means. I'd like to think that my table revolves around playing roles. I'm not sure what 'revolves around not wearing armor' would be like (maybe a desert or jungle campaign?) but I assure you that the wearing of armor has occured frequently. I grant you that heavy armor tends not to be terribly popular after a while, but that is mostly because of the fact my adventures tend to occur in very rugged areas (I'm a hiker and member of the national speological society, and so take inspiration from my own experiences on hills or in caves) where heavy armor can be a burden due to the penalties it imposes on skill checks and mobility, and not that you might need to take off your breastplate or cuir boullis in town. "gas and enslave them via the old classics"?? "already lost the field"?? I'm not sure what you mean there or pretty much anywhere else in that last bit.

 

[JoeGKushner]

We don't.

We only know that, if they are like that, the GM can make the world (including NPCs) respond in an appropriate way.


EDIT: And clerics of Tempus are likely to wear symbolic armour more often than actual armour.


RC

Certainly. But a lot of that depends on how the campaign has started, what approaches have been in place since day one, and why there would be a need for a radical change in things.

And the old Tempus clerics tend to wear their armor battered and bloody, keeping the rust and dirt of previous conflicts upon it as a symbol of pride!

 

[JoeGKushner]

I don't consider the problem to be system specific. If in a particular system it is now more of a problem than it has been because the game is now so combat focused that you aren't allowed to approach it in any other way, I consider that to be the systems problem.

So it's not system specific unless it's the systems problem?

I'm not telling them any such thing. If a player asked, I would tell them that each role that they took on would carry with it various social benefits and penalities that varied according to the situation and that the undertaking of playing a role carried with it rewards and benefits that could not be described by a list of class abilities. Thus, there would be times when holding and obviously holding a high social station would be of great benefit, and other times when it might get you killed.

Except when they can't use their standard weapons and armor right? It's the monk problem that 3ed faced a lot. When the chips are down because of the high reliance of arms and armor, magic arms and armor, the monk and spellcaters tend to have the advantage. By using these situations, you are telling your players, in game, that it's best not to have to have characters that rely on weapons and armor because you will strike them when the chips are down. THen they will all pick classes where the utility of arms and armor is minor. Your actions will force their character choices.

I have no idea what that means. I'd like to think that my table revolves around playing roles. I'm not sure what 'revolves around not wearing armor' would be like (maybe a desert or jungle campaign?) but I assure you that the wearing of armor has occured frequently. I grant you that heavy armor tends not to be terribly popular after a while, but that is mostly because of the fact my adventures tend to occur in very rugged areas (I'm a hiker and member of the national speological society, and so take inspiration from my own experiences on hills or in caves) where heavy armor can be a burden due to the penalties it imposes on skill checks and mobility, and not that you might need to take off your breastplate or cuir boullis in town. "gas and enslave them via the old classics"?? "already lost the field"?? I'm not sure what you mean there or pretty much anywhere else in that last bit.

That if the GM is forced to rely on the playes dropping their weapons and armor for some specific plot point to move forward, that instead of forcing the players to adopt behavior, that at to this point seems abnormal, he might as well drug them and give them a hero point or something as opposed to forcing them to act in methods they don't normally do.

 

[Celebrim]

So it's not system specific unless it's the systems problem?

Tautologically true, but perforce true. If there is a systems problem, perforce it is system specific. However, the problem of players ignoring social norms in favor of combat readiness is not a system specific problem. Hense, I did not address it as one.

Except when they can't use their standard weapons and armor right? It's the monk problem that 3ed faced a lot. When the chips are down because of the high reliance of arms and armor, magic arms and armor, the monk and spellcaters tend to have the advantage. By using these situations, you are telling your players, in game, that it's best not to have to have characters that rely on weapons and armor because you will strike them when the chips are down. THen they will all pick classes where the utility of arms and armor is minor. Your actions will force their character choices.

I'm not at all sure where you are going with that. If you pick classes that can't wear heavy armor, you are likely to have a lower AC than ones that do wear heavy armor and as such you are likely to experience situations where you really wished you could wear heavy metal plates. What does "when the chips are down" have to do with this? As far as I can tell, you keep shifting the discussion to, "The DM is forcing you to take your armor off so that he can screw you over." I refer back to my original responce, where I complained about DMs that did this and then complained about there players fighting tooth and nail to stay prepared for combat at all times.

All I can say is that there are times when wearing platemail sucks, and times when you'll be really grateful for the few extra points of AC. There are going to be times when being an arcane worker of wonders is going to be great, and times it is going to suck. Whatever role you choose, it's not going to be the best in every situation.

I think that the DM is under some obligation to tell the player if he intends to run a campaign where one class or another is heavily disadvantaged, or where one concept or another is heavily disadvantaged. Assuming the existance of alot of feats related to wearing heavy armor, I'd probably caution a player not to invest in them in a campaign that was going to feature alot of travel aboard ship, slogging through jungle sauna's, etc. Likewise, if I was going to run a campaign heavy on undead and poor on trap filled tombs, I'd probably caution against playing a pure rogue. Then again, I play something of a sandbox, so if you didn't want to have a campaign like that then I could probably handle it with a suitable 'heads up we are going off the map'.

That if the GM is forced to rely on the playes dropping their weapons and armor for some specific plot point to move forward...

Errr... we just speak entirely different languages I think. You seem think of the DM as some sort of circus master who is cracking a whip and making players jump through hoops.

that instead of forcing the players to adopt behavior, that at to this point seems abnormal

???

he might as well drug them

The players or the characters??? What do drugs have to do with it?

and give them a hero point or something as opposed to forcing them to act in methods they don't normally do.

Huh???

 

[tuxgeo]

Celebrim is wise.

Yes. I must spread some XP around first.

Covered.
I particularly liked the points about making a quick wisdom or knowledge check on the character's behalf when the character is about to do something that the DM thinks that character would know better than to do; and about not constantly reinforcing the behavior of 'always being prepared for combat.'

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Back to the OPs post - Personally I would handwave most of the issue with what the PCs are wearing/equipped with except in unusual circumstances such as dinner with nobles, etc.

Where I would enforce "reality" would be on the issue of consequences of your actions. If you whip out the longsword and kill the drunk bastard who punched you in the bar, you will probably end up in serious trouble.

As for the social contract with players - you say 9 times out of 10 they will be in lesser combat situations - to the players that may appear to be you looking to screw them 1 time in 10. I can remember when I tried to run a Mechwarrior RPG game years ago. In the first version of the game, weapons were deadly and people were realistically very susceptible to dying from them. After one case where the PCs were attacked by a group of soldiers armed with sub-machine guns and grenades while the PCs were in their barracks resting, two of the players stated that their PCs were no longer leaving their Mechs. They would take the Mechs out to talk to a contact, purchase equipment, they would eat and sleep there etc.

If you make it so the players feel like you are trying to get them, they will do everything possible to avoid those situations, perhaps never going into town anymore.