[DF] Controling well armed and armored adventures in towns

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

Real cultures had civilians carrying sword and buckler. It was the self-defense (combo) weapon of it's day in Western Europe from about the late 1200s. The I.33 manuscript shows an unarmored monk and student training in a system of arms using sword and buckler. The reason to carry a shield around is to protect yourself from trouble.

That wasn't the impression that I had. My understanding was that both shields and helmets were the "goin' to war" attire, and that someone wandering around with either is assumed to be a soldier or looking to cause trouble.

[Hai-Etlik]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

That wasn't the impression that I had. My understanding was that both shields and helmets were the "goin' to war" attire, and that someone wandering around with either is assumed to be a soldier or looking to cause trouble.

That depends a great deal on the shield. A buckler might in some circumstances be considered a perfectly acceptable civilian weapon that you might carry arround town.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by martinl

(obscure Canadian joke) Also, how often does the currency become psychotic in your town? (\obscure Canadian joke)

You missed out on the amazing bi-metalic self-disassembling coin; about 24 hours after its release we had a new national hoby - breaking the silly things :D

[martinl]

Originally Posted by Bruno

You missed out on the amazing bi-metalic self-disassembling coin; about 24 hours after its release we had a new national hoby - breaking the silly things :D

Bimetallic coins are not a great idea if your country is well known for extreme climate variations...

[martinl]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

That wasn't the impression that I had. My understanding was that both shields and helmets were the "goin' to war" attire, and that someone wandering around with either is assumed to be a soldier or looking to cause trouble.

A buckler is a shield in the same way that a smallsword is a sword. It is not battlefield equipment, it is for civilian dueling/self defense. Also - it clips easily to the belt for convenient transport.

A medium or large shield is war equipment, and unwieldy as heck to boot.

The modern analogy is carrying a pistol (ready for violence, but not war) and carrying a high powered rifle.

[Mr Frost]

Originally Posted by Michael Lewis

I've always had a problem with adventures always wearing their armor and weapons everywhere they go, especially in towns/cities. How do other GM control their players when they are the only ones armed to to hilt when they are in a city or town? I've read in [I]The Grand Duchy of Karameilos[I] that they tie their weapons to their hilts. I'm trying to add a little more "realism" to my DF campaign.

Any suggestions?

You need to define what level of armed and armoured is acceptable before you decide on how to police it .



Bare in mind that in many places throughout history it was common for civilians to sport many kinds of weapons and armour in daily public life :

In Medieval Italy arming doublets {basically padded armour} became very fashionable and were worn with swords .

Brigandine armour {many thin plates riveted to leather or cloth backing then covered in velvet or leather} could be worn in public by those whom could afford it in various parts of Medieval Europe and the Middle East at various times {especially if the wearer was Noble and thus had political clout} .

High quality mail was often worn under clothing during the Rennaissance in various parts of Europe .

Many parts of the United States permitted open carry of guns and though it wasn't quite like a cowboy movie , many did take advantage to go heeled all day long .
There are still parts where it is legal today without licence and at least one town in Texas actually requires every citizen to carry a handgun in public within that towns' limits {violent crime is virtually unknown there too :)} .



It would be unlikely in any pre-industrialised setting that all {or even most} towns and cities would require visitors to be completely unarmed and unarmoured yet still allow them to own arms and armour at all {places where certain classes of people were expected to serve in the armies yet did not permit ownership of weapons would issue equiptment during wars then retrieve it after their service was done , much like many countries today where you're not allowed to defend yourself but are expected to defend the rulers [/rant]} .

I would say pick a level of armour {cloth , mail , can be concealed etc} you're comfortable with and arms too {some places limited swords to certain lengths or frowned on weapons meant to pierce armour} and have the degree of limitation increase proprtionate {though not neccessarily in exact step} to the size of the settlement with some exceptions {there was relativly little uniformity in most places in most periods of history before this modern era} .

What kept most travellers and "adventurers" {it is actually a quite old term for folk whom did real live versions of what R.P.G. players have their adventurers do cinimatically} in line {relativly} in Medieval Europe was that peasants , merchants and craftsmen created wealth that the exceptionally well equipted and trained nobility taxed to afford their stunningly expensive military equiptment and the private armies they maintained and they would quite literally "go medieval" on the arse of any reprobate that damaged their tax base like that should they catch them {which was quite likely in many places given the commoners didn't want to be robbed any worse than the tax collectors already did , nor get killed , and refusing to obey their lords' orders to provide information withwhich to catch the criminals could have unpleasant repercussions} .
The threat of agonising and humiliating death {not the gentle and humane methods of modern times} is a detriment to some .

Now add in the advantages a lord in the D.F. setting would have in finding you with powerful magic {and perhaps a cleric communing with a God of justice} being available {they will likely be able to afford more and better than the typical aventuring party could muster} and you starting to look at your enforcement tool .

For a policing stick to compliment the carrot of "you will have a much easier and more profitable time of selling your dungeon crawl loot if you refrain from slaughtering peasants and townsfolk" concider a lord and His highly trained from childhood knights all better equipted than the adventurers and outnumbering them two to one with say five Men at Arms per knight showing up to lay the law down hard should your adventurers get too naughty {let them see it happen to another party to give them the idea ... don't be afraid to get too creative with the execution methods as the ones used in history were pretty extream} .

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

That wasn't the impression that I had. My understanding was that both shields and helmets were the "goin' to war" attire, and that someone wandering around with either is assumed to be a soldier or looking to cause trouble.

OK. Where did you get your impression from?

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by martinl

A buckler is a shield in the same way that a smallsword is a sword. It is not battlefield equipment, it is for civilian dueling/self defense. Also - it clips easily to the belt for convenient transport.

A medium or large shield is war equipment, and unwieldy as heck to boot.

The modern analogy is carrying a pistol (ready for violence, but not war) and carrying a high powered rifle.

Except for those that took it to the battlefield like many English archers and billmen did. I get your analogy but it suffers some in that there is more of a sliding scale and lots of overlap. Don't bucklers make an appearance in Italian city state warfare where large groups of young men terrorized the streets buckling swashes? They were certainly being offensive with them.

I think you are correct about the larger shields being a PITA to carry around. They interfere with trade, I can't get to my coin purse with out settng it down, it takes up a whole hand etc. Those should be the concerns of the characters.

[Pagan]

I can find plenty of references for a bucklers use for dueling or war but not one for people just carrying it around, "just in case".

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

OK. Where did you get your impression from?

'Fraid I don't have a single source I can cite, aside from waving my hand vaguely and muttering something about my large collection of roleplaying supplements and the internet. I could have sworn that the spanish fielded sword and buckler troops, and I know with the rise of civilian weapons you had gangs of duelists wandering around cities with them, but gangs of deulists are by definition looking for trouble.