Town adventures and consequences

[howandwhy99]

so what do the rest of you think?

I don't just mean in D&D eaither... we had soem problems with heavy (and illgal) weapons being carryied around in our WoD games, and I have even seen a PC in a star trek game carry a phaser rifle over his shoulder well on a ship, in dock over vulcan...

Think of the rules or laws the place has. If one of these is not allowing weapons without certain authority, then some weapons will not be allowed in either the town or establishment. Of course something could still be used as a weapon. And plenty of powerful items do not look like weapons. But a rule like this really disfavors the fighter more than any other. I'd suggest no spellcasting be allowed as well as no fighting in order to make things fairer across classes. It doesn't have to be fair of course. But if it is the only town the PCs can access, then certain classes will be at a disadvantage in the game.

Items, like weapons, are one category of power in most games. Not allowing an item to be accessible to a PC means the character will be weaker without it than with it. So the behavior you're referencing is going to happen because it increases the potential benefits for the players. Not giving up treasure stems from the same desire to gain more.

IME, players feel safer when they have other defenses working on their behalf. Things like walls, locked doors, armed militia, and all the securities in a town's defenses. I would be suspicious of giving up my defenses to enter a town unless I believed the town was safe for me to enter.

I would suggest not trying to force players to play a certain way. The rules themselves will affect what they judge the best avenues of play are. In a dangerous world they may just want to keep that armor and sword as handy as possible. I've seen plenty of political games too and danger isn't exactly absent in them. If the chance for physical violence, loss of person, is high, expect physical protections. If the chances are greater for gain or loss of property and place, then different behaviors will emerge.

 

[JoeGKushner]

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.

Do you play 4e? The game system tends NOT to work that way. The martial character who don't wear heavy armor, they generally have bonuses to armor class for the defenders and do great damage if strikers. The lack of armor is made up for in numerous ways. If you encourage the players to think that wearing armor is a disadvantage, you'll just encourage them to make characters that thrive out of armor. I call it the 'monk' problem. If it gets to the point where it happens more than once a blue moon, don't be surprise if all the players are using characters where obvious arms and armor are not the norm and there is no need to 'strip' to do the town so to speak.

 

[Celebrim]

Do you play 4e? The game system tends NOT to work that way.

No, of course not. I thought I was one of the more famous 4e naysayers. Oh well, keeps one humble.

I've said from very early on that 4e was very carefully crafted to produce a particular play experience, which however enjoyable it might be, made it impossible to play D&D the way I'd played it for 20+ years across 3 editions. Conversations like this only reinforce that belief.

The martial character who don't wear heavy armor, they generally have bonuses to armor class for the defenders and do great damage if strikers. The lack of armor is made up for in numerous ways.

Let's talk about the "monk problem". Through out 3e various writers attempted to 'fix' the monk such that it was balanced with the other martial classes as a front line combatant. Likewise, lots of people on the house rules forums here would continually come up with house rules that allowed finese fighters wearing light armor to compete in melee on equal terms with heavily armored fighters. And I continually pointed out that doing so would create a serious problem, in that not being heavily dependent on equipment was itself a very powerful advantage. If you could obtain as high of an AC while wearing light weight, cheaper armor (or none!) which did not encumber or hamper you, and if you could dump stat strength and put everything into dexterity and still obtain comparable damage, then in fact you weren't building something that was balanced but instead something that was strictly superior. A lightly armored mobile dualist character already had significant advantages over a heavily armored one. Attempting to make it balanced such that it could compete in equal terms in melee combat meant that there was no situation where wearing armor (or wielding weapons) was an advantage.

If you encourage the players to think that wearing armor is a disadvantage...

Errr... I cave. I climb hills with backpacks on. I know about squeezing through tight muddy passages, walking on slippery ground while carrying loads, and climbing up slopes as steep as ladders. I do not encourage anyone to think that wearing armor or bearing loads is a disadvantage. Wearing armor or bearing loads is a disadvantage in all sorts of ways as a point of fact, and not an opinion. There is no need to encourage that opinion, it will just evolve naturally in any game where there is terrain and armor (or even just weight) is in fact a tangible thing.

...you'll just encourage them to make characters that thrive out of armor.

But I'm not the one actually doing this. I'm not in fact the one removing the benefits of wearing armor from the game. Armor just is, with its own benefits and drawbacks.

From my perspective what you are describing is encouraging players to think that wearing armor provides neither advantage nor disadvantage, and that it is in fact no more than color. What I'm seeing from you is that no character in fact 'wears armor', instead all that happens is a player marks an AC and its cause on the character sheet, and then is from that point freed from any obligation to remember that he is wearing armor. This is what you seem to be calling 'balance'.

Further more, you seem to be suggesting that the DM is in fact thereafter under an obligation to ignore the existance of such armor as well. The armor is not in fact tangibly in existance within the game world. It exists only at the incidence where it impinges on the rules, and by your argument it have to be essentially not at all. If wearing armor is to not be a disadvantage compared to not wearing armor, then the armor must perforce be weightless, insubstantial, form fitting, and stylish on all occassions. It must not cost any more than equipping yourself in clothing. It must in point of fact not be there, as no one at the table is encouraged or even allowed to think of it.

I call it the 'monk' problem.

I'm well aware of it. I encourage you to do a search for 'celebrim' and 'monk' in the house rules forums if you think otherwise.

If it gets to the point where it happens more than once a blue moon, don't be surprise if all the players are using characters where obvious arms and armor are not the norm and there is no need to 'strip' to do the town so to speak.

I believe that the rules of the game world describe its 'physics'. If the rules describe a world where not wearing armor is absolutely balanced against the wearing of armor, then I would postulate that one of two things are true:

1) Heavy armor would never be invented on this world, as any benefit it provides could be had for less trouble just by doing something else.
2) If the 'doing something else' has been recently invented, then it will in the long run obselete the wearing of armor and ultimately everyone will stop making and wearing armor.

Don't be suprised that if in a world were wearing armor provides you no more protection than not wearing it, all the denizens of that world begin to shun armor so there is no need to strip down or to dress up so to speak.

 

[JoeGKushner]

No, of course not. I thought I was one of the more famous 4e naysayers. Oh well, keeps one humble.

Sorry, I try not to follow the flame wars.

I've said from very early on that 4e was very carefully crafted to produce a particular play experience, which however enjoyable it might be, made it impossible to play D&D the way I'd played it for 20+ years across 3 editions. Conversations like this only reinforce that belief.

As long as you play the game you enjoy.

Let's talk about the "monk problem". Through out 3e various writers attempted to 'fix' the monk such that it was balanced with the other martial classes as a front line combatant. Likewise, lots of people on the house rules forums here would continually come up with house rules that allowed finese fighters wearing light armor to compete in melee on equal terms with heavily armored fighters. And I continually pointed out that doing so would create a serious problem, in that not being heavily dependent on equipment was itself a very powerful advantage. If you could obtain as high of an AC while wearing light weight, cheaper armor (or none!) which did not encumber or hamper you, and if you could dump stat strength and put everything into dexterity and still obtain comparable damage, then in fact you weren't building something that was balanced but instead something that was strictly superior. A lightly armored mobile dualist character already had significant advantages over a heavily armored one. Attempting to make it balanced such that it could compete in equal terms in melee combat meant that there was no situation where wearing armor (or wielding weapons) was an advantage.

And in previous editions, yeah, it does create a problem.

Errr... I cave. I climb hills with backpacks on. I know about squeezing through tight muddy passages, walking on slippery ground while carrying loads, and climbing up slopes as steep as ladders. I do not encourage anyone to think that wearing armor or bearing loads is a disadvantage. Wearing armor or bearing loads is a disadvantage in all sorts of ways as a point of fact, and not an opinion. There is no need to encourage that opinion, it will just evolve naturally in any game where there is terrain and armor (or even just weight) is in fact a tangible thing.

Okay...

But I'm not the one actually doing this. I'm not in fact the one removing the benefits of wearing armor from the game. Armor just is, with its own benefits and drawbacks.

From my perspective what you are describing is encouraging players to think that wearing armor provides neither advantage nor disadvantage, and that it is in fact no more than color. What I'm seeing from you is that no character in fact 'wears armor', instead all that happens is a player marks an AC and its cause on the character sheet, and then is from that point freed from any obligation to remember that he is wearing armor. This is what you seem to be calling 'balance'.

Depends on the character. If your game, in the city, the mountains, or other locations, pits the characters who rely on armor at a disadvantage in terms of how easy they are hit or suffer damage, then you will have a party that does not rely on armor. This is a game mechanic issue. If the Game Master wants to 'ambush' the players in town, if he wants them to not have arms and armor, then they will make characters whose innate abilities do not rely on arms and armor. Note that this is not only monks, but also characters like mages and sorcerers.

Further more, you seem to be suggesting that the DM is in fact thereafter under an obligation to ignore the existance of such armor as well. The armor is not in fact tangibly in existance within the game world. It exists only at the incidence where it impinges on the rules, and by your argument it have to be essentially not at all. If wearing armor is to not be a disadvantage compared to not wearing armor, then the armor must perforce be weightless, insubstantial, form fitting, and stylish on all occassions. It must not cost any more than equipping yourself in clothing. It must in point of fact not be there, as no one at the table is encouraged or even allowed to think of it.

Not at all. I'm stating that if you punish the people wearing armor by putting them at a disadvantage, the players will make characters that do not rely on it.

I'm well aware of it. I encourage you to do a search for 'celebrim' and 'monk' in the house rules forums if you think otherwise.

And miss out on these exciting conversations? Heaven forbid!

I believe that the rules of the game world describe its 'physics'. If the rules describe a world where not wearing armor is absolutely balanced against the wearing of armor, then I would postulate that one of two things are true:

1) Heavy armor would never be invented on this world, as any benefit it provides could be had for less trouble just by doing something else.
2) If the 'doing something else' has been recently invented, then it will in the long run obselete the wearing of armor and ultimately everyone will stop making and wearing armor.

Don't be suprised that if in a world were wearing armor provides you no more protection than not wearing it, all the denizens of that world begin to shun armor so there is no need to strip down or to dress up so to speak.

How do those 'physics' handle falling? How do those 'physics' handle disease? It's a game first and foremost and when you put the players, who are NOT standard inhabitants of the game setting into situations where they are punished for wearing armor, they will take classes that do not rely on it. This is true for every edition. 1st ed still had monks and wizards and illusionist. If you as a GM put the players at situations where they are punished for not being able to wear armor, the next characters are not going to rely on it.

And in terms of denizens shunning armor... don't the vast majority of 'normal' denizens do that already? The players, NOT standard inhabitants, have funds, training, and other advantages that the normal denizens do not have access to.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

If you as a GM put the players at situations where they are punished for not being able to wear armor, the next characters are not going to rely on it.

If the GM is continually doing this, certainly this is true. But at the same time, there's no reason the GM shouldn't be able to put the PCs in a tight spot now and then. It's these kinds of restriction, cultural details, and other situations that keeps a game world interesting-- and keeps the PCs on their toes.

Imho, RPGing does demand a certain degree of maturity on the part of all players, including the GM. There should be a level of trust between everyone at the table that no one is trying to screw over anyone else.

A GM who intentionally disadvantages his players' characters all the time is playing "competitively" and missing the point of the game (unless that IS the point of their campaign, of course!). "Power tripping" is not a good quality in a GM.

Likewise, players who fail to accept that their players will occasionally be put (or even *gasp* forced!) into situations where they aren't optimally suited to "win" are suffering from an over-bloated sense of entitlement.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It should also be noted that characters should utilize equipment which is appropriate to the task at hand; they should not rely on the same equipment always being the best choice. Fine clothing and good manners are the armour and weapons of polite society.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

lets try this again...

I am NOT trying to screw my players, infact all I want is for them to think about there enviorment a bit. I want to run BOTH city/town adventures, and dungeon crawls, but I want them to feel diffrent. I want the dungeon to be kill or be killed, not the city.

I have seen PCs kill drunks who miss them with punches (Kinda hard to have a 3rd or 4th level drunk hit an AC in the 30's) becuse it was a 'fight'

again my game is not ment to 'trap' them... infact we as a group have never been 'traped'. I just want to be able to run games that don't envolve fully set for war well in there walled city, at the bar celebrating there brother's birthday (Not a joke look at my OP it was the example)

 

[Celebrim]

And in previous editions, yeah, it does create a problem.

Err... I don't know what problem or previous edition you are talking about, but whatever you mean by it, it doesn't seem to be be a logical responce to what I just wrote. In fact, it seems to me to be the opposite of understanding what I wrote.

Depends on the character. If your game, in the city, the mountains, or other locations, pits the characters who rely on armor at a disadvantage in terms of how easy they are hit or suffer damage...

You just don't get it. I mean, this is just one of a long series of statements that are just utterly backwards. Characters who rely on armor ought be at an advantage in terms of how easy they are hit or suffer damage compared to those that don't rely on armor. Conversely, those who don't rely on armor are at various advantages in terms of mobility compared to those who do. If those that wear armor have no advantage in protection, why would they wear it? And if wearing armor caused you no disadvantage in mobility, why would you not wear it?

If the Game Master wants to 'ambush' the players in town...

Again, you just don't get it. I want to be entertained. I don't want 'to ambush' players. I rather dislike 'ambush' to begin with. If more than 1:4 or 1:5 encounters are ambushes, you are probably doing something wrong. What happened to meeting engagements, or does the villain have some supernatural sense of where the PC's are at all times and spends every moment waiting for them to show up?

Players may or not be ambushed in town or out depending on their choices and the advantages or disadvantages of their character. I don't have some prearranged story that includes 'ambush in town', and if I do have an encounter in mind that involves 'ambush in town' it will probably - barring really bad choices by the player - be one which I expect the players and their characters to have the resources at their disposal to win (or at least survive) and that will include my calculation about the availability of armor.

Not at all. I'm stating that if you punish the people wearing armor by putting them at a disadvantage, the players will make characters that do not rely on it.

What makes you think I'm putting them at a disadvantage? I'm not putting them at anything. Presumably, characters take their armor off because they realize it puts them at an advantage, and put it back on for the same reason. Again, I don't think you even get it. Didn't I rip apart the entire approach of, "Try to get the PC's to take their clothes off in order to ambush them." Yes, occasionally if you take your armor on and off rather than living in it 24 hours a day, you might find yourself fighting defensively/using the expertise feat/etc. when you might otherwise have prefered your armor, but what of it? You'll still probably rip apart whatever it is you are fighting, because, dude - you are a hero and the bad guys probably aren't clanking around in plate mail either.

How do those 'physics' handle falling?

In my case, with a handful of d20's, a d6, some modifiers, and likely a massive damage save. Alot of effort over the years has gone into modelling falling, and there is bound to be a system that achieves the level of versimilitude you are looking for.

How do those 'physics' handle disease?

As a reoccurring saving throw with temporary attribute loss and some associated symptoms. I made a rather complex disease system in 1e, but I think the 3e edition system is on the whole a good starting basis and you can add whatever detail you feel is lacking.

It's a game first and foremost and when you put the players, who are NOT standard inhabitants of the game setting into situations where they are punished for wearing armor, they will take classes that do not rely on it.

In which case, they will be 'punished' when they get into game situations where you are 'punished' for not wearing armor - like I don't know, when the angry bugbear warband is trying to smash you flat with mauls or shoot you full of arrows fired from great bows. I suppose it is true that if I ran a desert focused campaign or nautical campaign (ran one and been a player in the other) that most people will find some alternative to heavy armor regardless of class, just because, for example, being strapped into to 60 lbs. of steel when you fall off a boat in 6000' feet of water is usually bad. Even if you manage to rip the buckles off, you are still losing that +4 plate mail. However, that doesn't mean that you don't own armor. You just don't wear it aboard the boat or anywhere else it doesn't make sense. And yes, if you are in a campaign where heavy armor doesn't make sense, you'll try to grow your character's abilities and gear to suit that situation. I wouldn't normally plan on wearing plate in a campaign that was centered on the jungle or desert, although I might consider that line of play opened up for me if I found a magic item that let me endure high temperatures.

And in terms of denizens shunning armor... don't the vast majority of 'normal' denizens do that already? The players, NOT standard inhabitants, have funds, training, and other advantages that the normal denizens do not have access to.

Sorta. For example, your Paladin might get a ring of water breathing, which makes wearing armor aboard a ship a bit less suicidal. Also, that Paladin maybe has a +20 swim check, allowing them to heroically swim (if just barely) with 100 lbs of dead weight. But these are ways to compensate for the inherent disadvantages of armor; they don't elimenate their existence.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

lets try this again...

I am NOT trying to screw my players, infact all I want is for them to think about there enviorment a bit. I want to run BOTH city/town adventures, and dungeon crawls, but I want them to feel diffrent. I want the dungeon to be kill or be killed, not the city.

I have seen PCs kill drunks who miss them with punches (Kinda hard to have a 3rd or 4th level drunk hit an AC in the 30's) becuse it was a 'fight'

again my game is not ment to 'trap' them... infact we as a group have never been 'traped'. I just want to be able to run games that don't envolve fully set for war well in there walled city, at the bar celebrating there brother's birthday (Not a joke look at my OP it was the example)

Well, all I can say is that your note to the players may be a start, but you need to make this into a discussion, and not appear to be a DM driven mandate. If your players are not interested in a game with a different feel to city and town adventuring, then you cannot make them be interested by telling them what you want to do, or imposing rules to make them see things differently. Just take the time, have a discussion about what would make the game fun for you and see how it can mesh with what makes the game fun for them.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I'm not at your table. I haven't gamed with you.

If you want the players to treat each aspect of the game differently, it has to be run differently from the get go.

A lot of this will depend on the social contract the player and the GM have with each other. Part of that will depend on the setting.

What is the agreed upon theme of the campaign? For example, I can see it being quite standard to wear armor and keep the heavy weapons out in a standard points of light setting where most of the towns are in danger of falling at all times. If it's in the cradle of civilization, then letting the players, especially those who have historical ties and background to these lands, know this ahead of time, would help the players know their place.

Another way to do such is to lead by example. In an old spelljammer adventure, the DM is told to insure that the players don't bring their weapons into a particular tavern. If they give the GM gruff, he GM shows an NPC leaving his powerful item behind. I've seen games where the players went after the NPC's item, and I've seen games where the players take the clue and leave their items behind. This goes for the player's friends and allies as well. And in many cases, it still works against those characters that use heavy armor and use heavy weapons. This is important to keep in mind.

Others have mentioned that you can do similiar things to mages/magic users/psionics/etc... but after a while it may appear that you're trying to keep things even just to keep them even as opposed to what you're talking about, an organic growth of the game.

If it's in a civilized city where weapons are outlawed, then the players probably aren't going to want to enter it. If it's one where they have to keep peace bindings on their wepaons, it's a little more realistic in terms of what players may expect.

A lot of this should be handled before the campaign starts, or at least before the players enter a particular city or there should be a good in game reason why now in mid stream things are changing. Not that hard to do if a new power comes to authority and wants to maintain his power by outlawing weapons, a common enough practice, but giving way to people learning how to fight with whatever weapons they then have around. (Look at all the funky weapons from the old school Oriental Adventurers and see how many of them are farm implements)

lets try this again...

I am NOT trying to screw my players, infact all I want is for them to think about there enviorment a bit. I want to run BOTH city/town adventures, and dungeon crawls, but I want them to feel diffrent. I want the dungeon to be kill or be killed, not the city.

I have seen PCs kill drunks who miss them with punches (Kinda hard to have a 3rd or 4th level drunk hit an AC in the 30's) becuse it was a 'fight'

again my game is not ment to 'trap' them... infact we as a group have never been 'traped'. I just want to be able to run games that don't envolve fully set for war well in there walled city, at the bar celebrating there brother's birthday (Not a joke look at my OP it was the example)