Town adventures and consequences

[The Human Target]

As soon as you mentioned "the real world", I stopped reading.

It's rare to read older fantasy materal and think about such things. Rarely did I pick up a Robert E. Howard book and find Conan going, "Damn the city for taking my things." or otherwise regreting his lack of weapons and material. Ditto for Fafrd and the Grey Mouser.

As a brief aside, those guys all pretty much stayed in very dangerous neighborhoods/cities or the wild.

And they still lost their gear all the freaking time.

My suggestion- tell the players that if they go around unarmed and unarmored and get into a fight they didn't start, you can let them pretend they have their gear on and use those stats. IE the fighter flavor wise is still in his tunic and is fighting with a table leg, but he statistically is fighting in his magical scale mail and using his longsword. No muss, no fuss.

Unless you plan to do the "players get attacked without gear by weak enemies" kinda encounter. But that happens so rarely it can just be a special encounter.

 

[Starfox]

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???

Your game is quite atypical for DnD, and your characters are unlikely to be warrior-types at all. Then again, this describes a pulp-style game pretty well - that genre is called two-fisted action for a reason. But then it is very clear from the beginning that arms and armor is not a part of the setting, and characters are made as to not be dependent on them.

 

[haakon1]

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.

I beg to differ, sir. In the UK, knights are not peers. They can vote in elections for the House of Commons, and they can be elected to the House of Commons. That's why British politicians are happy to be made knights these days but have often turned down the honor of being made a noble, in the last century +. Knights are still commoners. Gentry, yes, but peers, nope -- they are of the 3rd Estate, not the 1st.

And knighthoods are not inheritable. A Baronetcy, which goes with the title sir, is inheritable, but it's not technically a knighthood. I can't remember if Baronets sat in the House of Lords or not. Probably yes, as it seems a step up from a life peerage to me.

I do remember that after Thatcher retired, she was made Baroness Kesteven, which I believe is a hereditary peerage, but I believe by some special rule Mark Thatcher, her ne'er-do-well mercenary son, isn't allowed to inherit it. The Brits are excellent at having complicated rules!

 

[Starfox]

You are think of a knægt, where the conotation is primarily of the servitude of the knight to his master.

Never heard of a knægt, but it might be Danish for the Swedish word knekt. In Swedish, knekt simply means "soldier" or "mercenary" and is almost a derogatory. Maybe the word connotes better in Denmark. In the day when knekt was a common word, Denmark tried using them to occupy Sweden, opposed by Swedish levies and rebellions. Nothing de-values a title more than having the title-bearers used as a tool of oppression.

A better translation of knight to Swedish is riddarsvenn, where riddar(e) means rider or knight (compare ritter in German), and svenn means man. An idiomatic translation would be knight-at-arms or man-at-arms. But this is not really an indication of nobility and more a type of soldier - heavy cavalry. We also use riddare (knight) in another meaning - as a member of a virtuous order -and I think English has that usage as well. But that is not a title of nobility.

Wikipedia on Knight: The word knight, from Old English cniht ("boy" or "servant"), is a cognate of the German word Knecht ("labourer" or "servant"). This meaning, of unknown origin, is common among West Germanic languages (cf: Old Frisian kniucht, Dutch knecht, Danish knægt, Middle High German kneht, all meaning "boy, youth, lad", as well as German Knecht "servant, bondsman, vassal").

 

[Hand of Evil]

There are a number of different "town" concepts; stuff like cosmopolitan, frontier/outpost, rural, decadent, declining, etc. Each have a different feel, attitude and a possible aligniment to them, they can be mixed.

• Cosmoplitan - is a city/town that is at the center of a country, it has no foes around it and is very lawful. It has art, science, education. People feel safe in it and do not carry weapons or wear armor. Those they do are seen as hicks, trouble makers and vagabonds. -30 to all charisma!
  
• Frontier/Outpost - is on the edge of a country, it is home to all sorts. The people make their living the hard way. Any law is more than likely military. You can walk around with just about anything and no one will say anything to you, as long as you do not make trouble! Trouble is basicly murder.
  
• Rural - is a town that supports another town or city. Mostly lawful and safe. But it's feel is dependant on what it supports.
  
• Decadent - Cities and towns of sin, this is all about money. If you don't have it, you are not welcome. If you do have it, you are king, it is just everyone wants it.

 

[Celebrim]

I beg to differ, sir. In the UK, knights are not peers.

I didn't saw that they were peers. The English Peerage system is more or less unique to England, as was Parliment. Peers are those members of the noble class which are in the line of succession. Knights are not peers in England, it is true. But even so, they were of the nobility, the were entitled to the legal protection of nobles, were part of the vassalage system, and made oaths of homage to their lords, and not oaths of bondage as required by non-nobles.

And knighthoods are not inheritable.

In England, yes, for the most part that is true. In Ireland or on the continent, that is not true. There are enheritable orders of knighthood. In England, an Earl is a very high title. On the continent, it is much less so.

The Brits are excellent at having complicated rules!

Yes. And Feudalism is nothing if not complicated, because its not so much a system of government as it is a network of personal relationships secured by legal contracts.

 

[Blackbrrd]

There are a number of different "town" concepts; stuff like cosmopolitan, frontier/outpost, rural, decadent, declining, etc. Each have a different feel, attitude and a possible aligniment to them, they can be mixed.

• Cosmoplitan - is a city/town that is at the center of a country, it has no foes around it and is very lawful. It has art, science, education. People feel safe in it and do not carry weapons or wear armor. Those they do are seen as hicks, trouble makers and vagabonds. -30 to all charisma!
• Frontier/Outpost - is on the edge of a country, it is home to all sorts. The people make their living the hard way. Any law is more than likely military. You can walk around with just about anything and no one will say anything to you, as long as you do not make trouble! Trouble is basicly murder.
• Rural - is a town that supports another town or city. Mostly lawful and safe. But it's feel is dependant on what it supports.
• Decadent - Cities and towns of sin, this is all about money. If you don't have it, you are not welcome. If you do have it, you are king, it is just everyone wants it.

Thanks for a post that actually helps me as a DM.

I can picture somebody trying to get into a fine inn in a large city in fullplate, shield with a crossbow strapped to his back. It looks out of place, the character looks paranoid and people won't be helpful to this lunatic.

In the same large city, in the worse part of town you will be noted with all your weapons, and probably given some respect. You are obviously not belonging to the place, but money can help you out.

In a smaller town, you can get by arriving in full armor - you have obviously been traveling far and people will probably treat you respectfully. You might after all be tough enough to take over the town...

You arrive at the idyllic fishing village and begin bargaining with a fisher to take you along the coast. You are obviously a washed up piece of fish and will have to pay through your nose to get passage.

Generally I think it will be frowned upon wearing heavy armor/weaponry in well civilized cities. If the regular guy goes to the inn without armor, so should the PC be allowed to do so. If it isn't safe, the innkeeper will be seen wearing armor and there will be safety precautions all over the place, a little like a military base.

The moment your PC's start wearing armor and all their weapons inside civilized inns, I think you have probably created an unlikely world.

On the other hand, rough bars where the chain mail clad dwarf drops his axe on the table and hollers for ale might be a piece of the scenery and the players will feel at home in their heavy armor.