Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 5046226" data-attributes="member: 3192">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.</blockquote>

Verification