|
3 years ago ::
Feb 17, 2010 - 8:50PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
daladinn, I said in "civilized areas" that my characters don't wear their armor everywhere. On occasion I've been in campaigns where my characters have attended parties hosted by villagers. Are you suggesting that they should show up for a dinner party in full plate armor?
Most of the campaigns I've been in are halfway realistic about when armor is necessary. And yes, once in a great while that means being caught without armor in dangerous situations. But so far I've not yet had a character killed, or even really badly hurt, because his armor is back in his hotel room.
Needing to wear armor everywhere you go seems sort of paranoid to me, actually. After all the "points of light" described in the DMG are supposed to be, you know, points of light.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 18, 2010 - 6:25PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Feb 11, 2007
|
What's important is that the DM have a view of creating a good story in which the adventurers are challenged but triumphant. Too many DMs (particularly in days past, but they still stalk our game shops and conventions) are of the 'if you could have survived by doing X, then your death is not only fair but a narrative imperative' mentality. The hero being separated from zir power source and proving that it's not the suit/ring/etc that makes zie a hero is a classic trope, but one which does not survive uncooperative DMs.
I recall an episode of Iron Man in which Tony Stark had to kick some ass without his suit. Would it have been a better story if the author had said 'if he wanted to win, he should never have taken the suit off'? I don't think so. The DM should find a way to ensure that being sans armor or weapons isn't a lose-condition for the players. The characters? Sure! Maybe the only safeguard the DM employs is making these foes take prisoners instead of killing the party when they're beaten. This still opens up a fun escape arc, trying to recover their gear, etcetera, etcetera. The characters may regret not having been armed to the teeth for that particular bruncheon, but as long as the players have fun it wasn't actually a negative result.
(I employ zie/zie/zir as a gender-neutral counterpart to he/him/his. Just a heads-up.)
Essentials definitely isn't for me as a player, and I feel that its design and implementation bear serious flaws which fill me with concern for the future of D&D, but I've come to the conclusion that it isn't going to destroy the game that I want to play. Indeed, I think that I could probably run a game for players using Essentials characters without it being much of a problem at all. Time will tell, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 18, 2010 - 10:57PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Oct 20, 2003
|
daladinn, I said in "civilized areas" that my characters don't wear their armor everywhere. On occasion I've been in campaigns where my characters have attended parties hosted by villagers. Are you suggesting that they should show up for a dinner party in full plate armor?
Most of the campaigns I've been in are halfway realistic about when armor is necessary. And yes, once in a great while that means being caught without armor in dangerous situations. But so far I've not yet had a character killed, or even really badly hurt, because his armor is back in his hotel room.
Needing to wear armor everywhere you go seems sort of paranoid to me, actually. After all the "points of light" described in the DMG are supposed to be, you know, points of light.
I will suggest that they show up for the dinner party in armor, myself. I'd vastly prefer a few people look down their noses at me(if they dare) than get caught with my plate down when civilization proves to be as *un*civilized as it always does. I'm a plate wearer. My AC is quite low enough while I'm wearing it, let alone actually taking it off to observe social mores.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2010 - 1:08PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2007
|
Showing up in armor to say, the king's palace, or some other wealthy type who often has defences in their own place shows a decided lack of confidence in their ability to protect themselves and their guests. That's a pretty big slight.
It's why you only gave weapons and armor in ancient japan under very specific circumstances, giving it to someone else to USE was an insult to their lord being unable to provide for them.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2010 - 6:19PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
daladinn, I said in "civilized areas" that my characters don't wear their armor everywhere. On occasion I've been in campaigns where my characters have attended parties hosted by villagers. Are you suggesting that they should show up for a dinner party in full plate armor?
Most of the campaigns I've been in are halfway realistic about when armor is necessary. And yes, once in a great while that means being caught without armor in dangerous situations. But so far I've not yet had a character killed, or even really badly hurt, because his armor is back in his hotel room.
Needing to wear armor everywhere you go seems sort of paranoid to me, actually. After all the "points of light" described in the DMG are supposed to be, you know, points of light.
I will suggest that they show up for the dinner party in armor, myself. I'd vastly prefer a few people look down their noses at me(if they dare) than get caught with my plate down when civilization proves to be as *un*civilized as it always does. I'm a plate wearer. My AC is quite low enough while I'm wearing it, let alone actually taking it off to observe social mores.
That's fine, it just seems that you and I have very different understandings about the "role playing" part of the "RPG" called D&D. That's all.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2010 - 9:44PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Oct 20, 2003
|
That's fine, it just seems that you and I have very different understandings about the "role playing" part of the "RPG" called D&D. That's all.
I'll freely admit that. I am the sort of person who builds a viable character first and then fits a personality to him/her afterward. In addition, the character I'm "roleplaying" is a rough, insensitive sort of character who feels that the only person who has a chance of protecting him, or anyone else for that matter, is himself. By lowering his defenses he is allowing not only himself but everyone around him to become vulnerable to attack. That does not sit well with him, as you can probably imagine. Best of all, this creates endless "roleplay" opportunities when those he is protecting fail to appreciate the sacrifice he has made of his "civility" and request/demand that he alter his behavior. So, yeah. Difference of opinion. That's really all it is.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2010 - 10:24PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
That's fine, it just seems that you and I have very different understandings about the "role playing" part of the "RPG" called D&D. That's all.
I'll freely admit that. I am the sort of person who builds a viable character first and then fits a personality to him/her afterward. In addition, the character I'm "roleplaying" is a rough, insensitive sort of character who feels that the only person who has a chance of protecting him, or anyone else for that matter, is himself. By lowering his defenses he is allowing not only himself but everyone around him to become vulnerable to attack. That does not sit well with him, as you can probably imagine. Best of all, this creates endless "roleplay" opportunities when those he is protecting fail to appreciate the sacrifice he has made of his "civility" and request/demand that he alter his behavior. So, yeah. Difference of opinion. That's really all it is.
Difference of opinion indeed. I'm the sort of person who builds characters according to concepts and makes them viable. Or not, depending on the game, the DM and the other characters. I find it entertaining to play characters with a wide variation of personalities, some trusting and naive, some paranoid and self-absorbed and as many variations in between as I can manage. It has been my experience that my most fun characters have been my most complex ones, with a mixture of flaws and strengths that force me to use effective tactics that are unique to that character. I also enjoy games with more verisimilitude, meaning that the characters experience a wide range of environments and opportunities. Frequently that means adhering to local laws and customs, including not wearing armor to the King's Royal Ball, just as Tony Stark doesn't wear his Iron Man armor to the charity festival because he can't wear it all the time, and Bruce Wayne doesn't wear his utility belt to the fashion show. If that means my character is more exposed during those moments, that means that I expect to be able to use my wits and abilities to survive the situation, and my characters usually have a few tricks up their sleeve so they are never entirely defenseless. Plus I also trust my DM not to play silly games with his players like just waiting for someone to take their armor off to pounce on them. I've been lucky that most of my DMs are like me in that they more or less treat their campaign worlds realistically, meaning it's generally not necessary to go to the Inn's common room in full plate armor. In fact in most cases it would be considered quite rude to do so.
There's no "wrong" way to play the game, so I've got no problem with you wearing your armor all the time. I just don't see that it's necessary and in most of the campaigns I've been in, it would have created a major problem at some point. And somehow, in spite of my characters sometimes running around in nothing but street clothes, nobody has ever died because they left their armor at the Inn.
Here is a current example. I am currently playing a fifth level fighter in 3.5e. He has a set of +1 plate mail armor. He also has a breastplate from his days in the King's army. But for the past week or so in game time, he's been in a civilized city and has stored both his full plate and his breastplate at the Inn in their vault. It's a well-regarded inn in a secure city. Sure the DM could steal it, but it doesn't make sense for him to wear it around the city. He lives there. He has friends there. He's something of a gambler and spends a lot of time at the casinos. Casinos don't allow characters in with full plate armor and magic swords. So he hasn't worn any armor for several days now. And during that period he's been investigating some mysterious events in the city, roaming around at night disguised as a drunken beggar and living mostly by his wits, because for him to turn up in full plate armor in the middle of the slums would immediately tip off the bad guys that somethings going on. He's gotten into a few scrapes with local riff-raff, but he's a fifth level fighter, he has both the hit points and the skill to handle anything he might reasonably encounter while scouting around the slums. Is he taking a risk? Sure he is, but it's a realistic risk with a realistic reward opportunity. And so far it appears to have been successful, he's been approached by local cultists to come to their secret gathering.
Now, when he goes to the secret gathering, will he have his armor on under his rags? Maybe so, but doing that is a risk because the cultists aren't stupid, and if they notice someone coming to their gathering in full plate armor, they just might suspect something. So the party is having a debate right now about whether we should get all armored up for the visit to the cult gathering. We might even go buy an illusion spell to allow us to fool the cultists as long as possible.
But he would never have gotten the opportunity to do this clanking around in full plate armor.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2010 - 11:49PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Feb 20, 2010
|
This has been an interesting topic, and opened up some avenues for roleplaying for me. That being said, as a DM, I did have a "halflings attack while you're sleeping!" battle, with them allowed cloth to sleep in, and their weapons. Thought it'd be a bit tougher, but the wizard "ruined" that, actually Thunderwaving two of the assassins out the window! I was proud of them for that, especially since the interrogation of the halflings after the battle proved fun to roleplay.
As for the issue of formal occasion, I seem to recall an enchantment for armor that allowed it to transform into cloth, and back, as a minor or free action. That would be EXCELLENT for this sort of occasion, don't you think? I also like the idea of just spiffing up the armor a little, since you can wear cloth over it. Perhaps an ornate tunic would be apropos, or a luxurious cloak?
The Smithy Knew
He'd Lost His Groove
When Scalding Sparks
Left His Chin Too Smooth
Dwarvenshave
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2010 - 12:28AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Oct 20, 2003
|
What can I say? Clearly our respective DMs will make the campaign fun for us regardless of how well defended we are. I can draw the ire of high society and revel in my defensible boorishness while you can blend in with the upper crust and enjoy your subtlety. It looks like we both get what we want by playing how we want.
Regarding Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne, both of them have identities to conceal which makes full armor impractical at best. I'm getting quite a chuckle imagining them wearing their 'suits' to their regular functions. Their public lives are, at best, not praticularly compatible with their private escapades and perhaps your character's is not either. I'm certain your story is equally interesting for the resulting dichotomy. The character I am currently playing(one of few I have been fortunate enough to have the opportunity to use) has no such private life. He doesn't care if people want to give him a hard time for wearing armor when they feel there is nothing to worry about. He gets to give them a hard time right back and when trouble eventually does show its ugly face, he is ready and they are dead.
For example, House Kundarak wasn't too happy that I wanted to bring my tetsubo into their Sharn branch. There was nearly an altercation with the bank security that was only avoided by the timely intervention of our party warlord and her bag of holding. It wasn't too long, though, before sky pirates staged a daylight robbery and Kundarak's personal security just wasn't up to the job of holding them off. Luckily, we were not nearly as defenseless as the rest of the giddy socialites blithely doing their business. By the time it was over, the tellers, such guards as survived the ordeal and all of the would-be hostages were kissing my greaves in gratitude.
Ah, good times. We might not have been the heroes of they day had we entered the bank in our elegant finery with only those chained ballpoints to hold off the robbers.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2010 - 12:38AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Feb 20, 2010
|
What can I say? Clearly our respective DMs will make the campaign fun for us regardless of how well defended we are. I can draw the ire of high society and revel in my well-defended boorishness while you can blend in with the upper crust and enjoy your subtlety. It looks like we both get what we want by playing how we want.
Regarding Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne, both of them have identities to conceal which makes full armor impractical at best. I'm getting quite a chuckle imagining them wearing their 'suits' to their regular functions. Their public lives are, at best, not praticularly compatible with their private escapades and perhaps your character's is not either. I'm certain your story is equally interesting for the resulting dichotomy. The character I am currently playing(one of few I have been fortunate enough to have the opportunity to use) has no such private life. He doesn't care if people want to give him a hard time for wearing armor when they feel there is nothing to worry about. He gets to give them a hard time right back and when trouble eventually does show its ugly face, he is ready and they are dead.
For example, House Kundarak wasn't too happy that I wanted to bring my tetsubo into their Sharn branch. There was nearly an altercation with the bank security that was only avoided by the timely intervention of our party warlord and her bag of holding. It wasn't too long, though, before sky pirates staged a daylight robbery and Kundarak's personal security just wasn't up to the job of holding them off. Luckily, we were not nearly as defenseless as the rest of the giddy socialites blithely doing their business. By the time it was over, the tellers, such guards as survived the ordeal and all of the would-be hostages were kissing my greaves in gratitude.
Ah, good times. We might not have been the heroes of they day had we entered the bank in our elegant finery with only those chained ballpoints to hold off the robbers.
Damn, now you're making me want to try out a campaign where the players have secret identities! A miller who slays gnolls in the moonlight, a bartender crushing wargs with a mordenkrad, etc.
The Smithy Knew
He'd Lost His Groove
When Scalding Sparks
Left His Chin Too Smooth
Dwarvenshave
|
|
|
