Town adventures and consequences

[Celebrim]

First, the discussion on balance and allowed arms really is relevant. I've not seen a game in a long where wearing armor was so obviously superior that you had to occasionally penalize it with social stigma.

Fail.

This has nothing at all to do with game balance. I don't agree that it is a penalty and that it destroys game balance, but to be perfectly frank, if it did I'd toss out game balance before I'd toss out the sort of versimilitude I'm going for.

What if I promised the players at the beginning of the game that they'd never be ambushed by combat in the city for there entire careers. (I wouldn't promise such a thing because I don't know what is going to happen in the game, but for the sake of argument let's imagine I did because on the whole its not an entirely objectionable promise if I knew the players wouldn't abuse it.) In that circumstance where the player knew that he'd never be forced into combat in a social situation without time to prepare or 'even the odds', exactly what penalty would I be imposing? How would balance be effected then?

And I'd not want to play such a game; basically it only has two modes, one where armor is worn and too powerful, one where it is not worn, and armor wearers are over-penalized.

This sort of statement tells me that you play in games that have one mode: combat. I like combat. I like dungeon crawling. If you'd not want to play in any other sort of game, that's fine with me. However I don't consider your criticism even relevant to how I play my game.

Second, looking at pre-modern history, professional fighters have rarely been stigmatized for wearing arms. In fact, the wearing of arms was a mark of nobility; for a knight or nobleman to be caught unarmed is embarrassing.

There are two ideas that I think we should separate. One, the wearing of arms and two, being decked out for battle with missile weapons, armor, and a backpack. The wearing of a sword was indeed a mark of nobility - and in fact swords were often taxed or outright illegal - such that you couldn't own one if you weren't. I have not quibbled at all with the right of the PC's to bear some sort of personal weapon. I have quibbled with the idea that they have the right and reasonable expectation to roam around decked out in full adventuring gear everywhere that they go.

And PCs should generally be of knightly class...

Why? I would consider that a very harsh pregame restriction on what sort of character you may create.

...or the equivalent, or they'll run into all kinds of other problems - like loitering laws.

Or be accused of being bandits for travelling the King's Highways while bearing arms. Yes, indeed, there are all sorts of problems involved. That's why starting the game with a Noble rank is, for my campaign, something I consider to be worth a feat (well, technically, an advantageous trait, but that would get deeper into my house rules that is necessary for this forum).

Commoners were simply not supposed to live adventuring lives.

Yes, and dragons don't exist either. But it is here, and not in the physics of the game, that I think we must appeal to stories. While the real peasants didn't regularly live adventuring lives, the peasants of their stories - of what we'd call 'faerie tales' - did often live adventurous lives. And real commoners did rise to quite high ranks from time to time.

Basically, this means that classes like knights, fighters, and paladins (I am talking both character class and social class here) that wear arms as a part of their daily lives could also wear arms as a part of their social life.

Certainly, and I've never denied it. But you are quite mistaken if you take that to mean that real world knights spent all their lives going around in mail or plate like some John Boorman movie.

Characters like rouges would not be expected to be of knightly caliber, and thus not trusted to wear arms on social occasions...

Noble rank is something that is utterly divorsed from class in my game world. There are nations where most of the nobles are rogues. It's great class for representing scheming, worldly, backstabbers - social or less metaphorically. It's quite impossible to tell what class a noble might be. Indeed, while I think 'role' is a concept with in-game reality, I don't personally believe that class is something with in-game reality. You can't create a spell to 'Detect Fighter' or 'Detect Rogue'. IMO, class is entirely a convienent metagame construct. The people of my game world, unlike say that of Order of the Stick, don't really think think of themselves as having classes. Class is a metagame construct representing a bundle of related skills and abilities that are related to the practice of a profession of some sort and thus are often taught together. A class is intended to be flexible enough to encompass a very great many roles so there is not an absolute correlation between what someone of a class knows and what is known by someone else of the class. From the in game perspective, the characters see several distinct roles - archer, bounty hunter, game warden, sergeant, thief, blacksmith, etc. They don't see 'class'. Class is an abstraction; a simplification of a the messy reality for the purpose of achieving a certain sort of game play.

 

[Starfox]

I don't think we agree that much after all. I can definitely agree on the "not a full kit" issue. If a player at the royal ball started to take out coils of rope or 10 ft poles, I'd indeed say this was not reasonable (at which point the player would point out the magic purse he was keeping this stuff in, but that is my players and their preference in magic items). Swords and armor are much more readily accepted as badges of office, but carrying several weapons (such as shield, sword and axe, or sword and bow) is probably frowned upon. And it also depends on the situation and expected activity - armor is impractical at a ball if you are a dancer, but not if you are a bodyguard.

As to the separate treatment different classes get, DnD has a definite mix-up of character class and social class. Look at the skill list of the rouge and try to tell me it makes a good nobleman. This is something I dislike, so when I speak of class, generally assume social class rather than character class.

As for "knights" and equivalents, it is not a noble title. It is the title of a trusted professional warrior. Its not really a noble title, but only nobles could afford to have knights, and even to them they were expensive enough that they only had a few. This meant knights were elite and accorded status. Only trusted people are given access to this kind of military hardware, and they are generally trusted to carry it with them anywhere on friendly territory. I would not say that this is worth a feat, tough it might be worth some other kind of background option/cost with less game impact than a feat has. In my Traits/Talents system knight is an option you can take, as it appears to be in your rules.

I don't really find it credible that a character can gain training with military arms and armor without being some kind of soldier, so it boils down to the status of soldiers. Does there exist armored soldiery outside the knightly class? If a player wants a heavy-armor character to not be a knight in a chivalric setting, that takes quite an unusual background. Things might be entirely different in setting where armor is more common and soldiers in general have less status, like the renaissance.

True nobility, on the other hand, bears no relationship to character class. A noble can be anything, and a rogue (or other character class with presumed low status) that is a noble is higher in station than any mere knight.

On the point on whether you have to expect combat to erupt in a social situation, we really would not have this debate if there was not a chance combat would break out. Carrying arms and armor in a tavern might actually be a very good way for character to avoid a fight there. Of course, if a fight does break out, lethal force is still excessive in a barroom brawl.

The bottom line for me is that armor is not as encumbering, physically or socially, as many modern people expect. You can carry out a full range of activities in armor, and the armor penalties set in 3E are quite excessive. In fact, a chain shirt is barely noticeable under clothing, and heavier armor can be worn with relative ease. The social stigma of armor depends very much on your role - people expect you to adhere to a role they understand, and if that role includes armor, there is no stigma attached. And armor need not be more brutish or bloody than clothing. Typical bandits would probably look as odd in a ballroom whether they wore armor or not. Having poor style brings social stigma, but that has little connection to armor or weapons worn.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Consider The Godfather. When you are invited to the wedding, do you bring your gun? Does "But I'm a mobster!" seem like a good reason for bringing your gun?

The film, Unforgiven also has something to say on carrying weapons for "Snakes and such" and the consequences thereof.


RC

 

[Hejdun]

This is one of those DM-Player social contract situations. The DM has a certain vision as to how people behave in towns in his world. He'd like to have the players play along with that vision. In exchange for the PCs giving up a tactical advantage, the DM will guarantee that any combat taking place in town will have a difficulty level in line with the party's reduced tactical capacity. So something like this (from the OP's quote) is striking the perfect tone IMO:

Now lets talk out of game, social contract type thing. As the DM I promises 9 time out of 10 you will face lesser combat problems in town (Inless you go looking for trouble). So you don’t need everything…

The game rules have a certain expectation about PC stats. For instance, player defenses have a pretty clear target number for a certain level and role. A level 1 defender should have an AC or either 17 or 19 with a shield (give or take 1). Wardens are typically lower by 1, but get more hit points than normal. The various methods of getting defenses up that that target level vary: some just go for heavy armor, some give you light armor and make your secondary stat add to AC.

In game terms, cracking down on heavy armor is an arbitrary disadvantage. Why should the fighter be more disadvantaged than the warden? There really is no rhyme or reason. Combat is balanced around the assumption that the PCs have a certain defense. Regularly disregarding those assumptions in an arbitrary way is not something I would advise.

The in-game justification for this is that if it's so dangerous in town that you're regularly fighting combats, then it seems nonsensical that there's a social rule against weapons and armor.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is one of those DM-Player social contract situations. The DM has a certain vision as to how people behave in towns in his world. He'd like to have the players play along with that vision.

Again, Unforgiven.

Gene Hackman's character is an NPC who enforces the law. If you don't like it, he will horsewhip your friend to death and prop him up in front of the saloon. If you don't like that, well, Clint Eastwood plays a PC who has something to say about it.


RC

 

[Celebrim]

I don't think we agree that much after all. I can definitely agree on the "not a full kit" issue. If a player at the royal ball started to take out coils of rope or 10 ft poles, I'd indeed say this was not reasonable...

A player can be unreasonable if they wish to be. I have no problem with a player being unreasonable. However, I will be compelled to have any NPC in the vicinity act toward behavior that they find unreasonable in whatever way that I think most suits their character. But I certainly won't go, "You can't do that! It's unreasonable!" or "Your character wouldn't do that!"

Swords and armor are much more readily accepted as badges of office...

Sure. On most occassions the noble would wear something more suitable and frankly comfortable. Ever worn chainmail for a few hours?

As to the separate treatment different classes get, DnD has a definite mix-up of character class and social class.

I don't agree. The only D&D classes that imply social class are Cavalier (1e) and Aristocrat (3e). The rest do not apply social class at all. For example the entry on Rogue reads:

"Rogues share little in common with each other. Some are stealthy thieves. Others are silver-tongued tricksters. Still others are scounts, infiltrators, spies, diplomats, or thugs. What they share is versitility, adaptability, and resourcefulness. In general, rogues are skilled at getting what others don't want them to get."

Look at the skill list of the rouge and try to tell me it makes a good nobleman.

Ok, sure. I can easily imagine a noble rogue with the following skill list (3.0e): Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Forgery, Gather Information, Innuendo, Listen, Perform, Read Lips, Pick Pockets, and Sense Motive. He is highly skilled in every social situation, well informed, a master of schemes and plots, and by devious designs highly skilled at getting what he wants from others. Just because you are a charlatan or a crook, doesn't mean you are a criminal. You could just as easily be a politician.

As for "knights" and equivalents, it is not a noble title. It is the title of a trusted professional warrior. Its not really a noble title...

This is just wrong. If I could hazard a guess, I think you aren't making the translation from a Scandanavian language to English. You are think of a knægt, where the conotation is primarily of the servitude of the knight to his master. In English, the word 'Knight' emphasises the wealth and noble character of the holder. In any event, even on the continent, the were heriditary offices of Knighthood, which means that the Knight was not merely the lowest rung of the nobility in name and by legal status but of the order of landed nobility in fact. Knights are nobles. It is a title. Knighthood is conferred upon the recipient and thereafter, the Knight is entitled to the appropriate honorific - usually Sir (in English) or Ritter in German. And where it is not conferred, it was usually owed by virtue of noble birth. For example, the younger sons of a Baron were entitled to the rank of Knight. Younger sons of minor nobility were in fact the primary ranks from which knightly mercenaries were drawn. And the very fact that the Knight could enter into a vassalage contract with a Lord proved his status as a member of the nobility (albiet, a very low ranking one.) Commoners and slaves could not take an oath of homage: they were required to take an oath of bondage.

By the end of the middle Ages, it was not unusual for a Knight to be a soldier in name only. His legal status as a noble was more important. In payment of his theoretical legal duty to serve his lord in battle, he would send a mercenary in his place. Over time, this fiction began to be replaced by the Knight merely sending gold to his Lord so the Lord could hire the mercenary. By the early modern period, Knightly orders existed entirely to draft people into the fuedal structure or bestow honors without any connection to military service whatsoever. This practice continues to this day, so that you have, for example, Sir Elton John or Sir Alex Guinness.

This meant knights were elite and accorded status.

They were accorded status most usually because they were born with it. Very rarely a commoner might have knighthood confered upon them. Very often this occurred when the commoner managed to get a noble at his mercy in battle. Since it was disgraceful to surrender to a Villain, the vanquished Noble would confer Knighthood on the commoner, which in turn would in theory force the commoner to accept his surrender (by the code of chivilry). The Noble could then ransom himself out of bondage, and viola, a newly created Knight.

I don't really find it credible that a character can gain training with military arms and armor without being some kind of soldier...

Why? "Send for the Yeoman of the Bowman"? "You Peasant! You must pay your tax in the form of corvee."? "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, where did you learn to fence? At the University in Paris, of course."? Besides, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Mercenaries were about as far from upper class as you could get.

Carrying arms and armor in a tavern might actually be a very good way for character to avoid a fight there.

Or get the Hostler to send his boy out the back to fetch the Town Watch. I rather doubt the Innkeeper likes mercenaries scaring away his other customers.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Consider The Godfather. When you are invited to the wedding, do you bring your gun? Does "But I'm a mobster!" seem like a good reason for bringing your gun?

The film, Unforgiven also has something to say on carrying weapons for "Snakes and such" and the consequences thereof.


RC

In the former I wouldn't be surprised.

In the later, how about another western saga, Deadwood? Lots of guns floating around that town for a contrast.

 

[Celebrim]

The in-game justification for this is that if it's so dangerous in town that you're regularly fighting combats, then it seems nonsensical that there's a social rule against weapons and armor.

No that I can agree with. If it is so dangerous that you are justified in walking around town as if it was a battlefield, then its highly unlikely that there would be a social rule against doing so.

But on the other hand, if towns actually were that dangerous, it would be highly unlikely that anyone would live in town at all. Everyone would have their own fortress where they could dwell in relative safety and comfort. And, like the Mundberg, before you got in the door, you'd be required to leave your weapons with the doson. Sorry Aragorn, Anduril has to take a rest. But of course, if that happened, very quickly communities would develop which did have a social rule against walking around inside them prepared for battle, and this brings us back to the start.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The in-game justification for this is that if it's so dangerous in town that you're regularly fighting combats, then it seems nonsensical that there's a social rule against weapons and armor.

then there is the other end of the spectrum...

If you are in a safe town where the worst fights are bar brawls, and no one but town guard and one or two others even HAVE weapons, and they don't use them....um then what???

 

[Gansk]

Here's what Gygax had to say on the subject in the book Living Fantasy:

The Error of Peace Knot Use
...
Of course men went armed without any such contrivance for several thousand years here on earth, and only in the last century or so have governments sought to disarm all of their citizens.
...
Basically, weapons were historically, and are in a viable fantasy milieu, considered integral to a man, as personal protection from thieves and other ruffians, and to indicate social status as well.
...
Armor is another matter. Light armor—padded, leather, etc.—would be acceptable for most commoners, but heavy armor is probably allowed only to the aristocracy, their guards, or soldiers and watchmen.