PDA

View Full Version : Clothing as hindrance in combat



Pages : [1] 2

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-05, 08:28 PM
I think there's a reason the wizard traditionally doesn't fight very well. It's because of his blasted floor-length robes. Has anyone put together anything modelling the hindrance factor for dresses, robes, stuffed backpacks and sacks, carried bodies, corpulence, and ceremonial armour when it comes to combat and feats of physical daring?

neonchameleon
2016-03-05, 09:20 PM
In what system? And genera rules are don't sweat the small stuff - the d20 is only so granular and tracking too much is a faff

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-05, 10:06 PM
In what system? And genera rules are don't sweat the small stuff - the d20 is only so granular and tracking too much is a faff

d20 or 3d6 system. You don't think there are any costumes encumbering enough to account for?

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-05, 10:15 PM
Humans tend to not wear things that they can't maneuver in. The only exception I can think of is High Heels and certain articles of clothing meant to restrict your movement for...*ahem* reasons.

The human body is strong enough that, in a situation where our clothes inhibit our movement, we tend to damage the clothes with our movements once we get going. (Most people have ripped their pants before. Their butt is stronger than the seams)

Also most robes don't descend to the floor except for weird fantasy ones that are probably a pain to keep clean. It's not worth writing out rules for.

Bohandas
2016-03-05, 10:56 PM
Also most robes don't descend to the floor except for weird fantasy ones that are probably a pain to keep clean. It's not worth writing out rules for.

That's what the cleaning function of the prestidigitation spell is for.

As for restrictive clothing, give it an armor check penalty

nyjastul69
2016-03-05, 11:14 PM
D&D models these things with the encumbrance rules.

Coidzor
2016-03-05, 11:16 PM
d20 or 3d6 system. You don't think there are any costumes encumbering enough to account for?

Beyond adhocing a -1 or 2 (or the equivalent thereof) or using the base encumbrance penalties when actually pertinent? No.

I'm wanting to discourage PC nudity, not encourage it. With apologies to Talya's Vow of Nudity and its fans.

Most of the time players aren't gonna want to wear clothing that would gimp them anyway, unless it's a trade-off for some other benefit it gives in exchange.

goto124
2016-03-06, 12:59 AM
I'm wanting to discourage PC nudity, not encourage it. With apologies to Talya's Vow of Nudity and its fans.

Awwww man! :smalltongue:

Belac93
2016-03-06, 01:39 AM
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0025.gif

Âmesang
2016-03-06, 11:34 AM
In a similar vein this is why a female ranger of mine has short hair.
https://www.schadenfreudestudios.com/backup/pictures/avatars/denisescvi.png

Satinavian
2016-03-06, 12:04 PM
A robe is not really a problem. There should not be a penalty.

Blackhawk748
2016-03-06, 12:22 PM
Speaking as someone who has gone LARPing in a full length robe, with a cloak even, i can say that they dont really cause any issues. The only issue i can think of is that, on mine anyway, the dangly sleeves are a pain occasionally, but if i was a real adventurer i wouldnt have dangly sleeves :smalltongue:

Keltest
2016-03-06, 12:32 PM
Typically, people are not going to go adventuring in garments or armor that prevents them from doing what they need to do. In theory, how cumbersome and restrictive a set of armor is, is reflected in the armor check penalty and/or the maximum dex bonus. In practice, those numbers are more for game balance than a reflection of how restrictive the armor is.

Jay R
2016-03-06, 12:40 PM
I have fought in the SCA since the 1970s, wearing doublets, trunks, pants, tunics, jerkins, chain mail, leather armor, plate, greaves, vambraces, gorgets, helms, helmets, , various sorts of gauntlets, and yes, robes.

My experience is that robes can be made to bind and/or restrict, and they can be made so that they don't. This is equally true of any other bit of clothing or armor. So it sometimes happens that a baldrick slips and binds an arm, or pauldrons shift, etc. When that happens, you lose the fight quickly, then walk off the field and fix or replace the garment or armor.

I assume that an adventurer has worn that robe before, and has already fixed any problem. I also assume that people making robes for adventurers are not stupid, and know what activities they are made for.

Also, I have learned that when I make or buy a new bit of clothing or armor for fighting in, I need to try it one, and then advance, retreat, lunge, circle, swing a sword or mace, heft a shield, and do other fighting moves to make sure it's good. My new pauldrons have two extra laces to fix just such a problem.

Therefore, by the time somebody reaches first level, the clothes should not bind in a way that interferes with combat.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-06, 01:56 PM
A robe is not realld a problem. There should not be a penalty.

Christopher Lee expressed his frustration at his robe in Lord of the Rings. Used some choice language as I recall.

VoxRationis
2016-03-06, 02:08 PM
This question has more merit than it has been treated as having so far. Highly restrictive clothing does exist in many situations, and characters are not always in full combat gear when something happens. In a campaign based on feudal Japan, for example, it could very well happen that negotiations in court could break down while the player characters are all wearing naga-bakama, which are by design very difficult to move and fight in. Even a Western suit coat can hinder movement of the arms, if only by a little bit. Sure, you could pop off the button or rip a seam, but a) you've ruined your good clothing, and b) you've slowed yourself down to do so, either wasting crucial seconds or (if your clothing-destruction is in the same motion as an attack or something) hampering your actions with extra resistance. Even after that, depending on the clothing, you might still have to deal with the pieces causing you trouble.

Satinavian
2016-03-06, 02:23 PM
Christopher Lee expressed his frustration at his robe in Lord of the Rings. Used some choice language as I recall.
And i never had any problems with them.

Until you make them long enough to drag behind you over the floor, it is not more cumbersome then other clothing (which is what we compare it to - not to naked people). And you wouldn't use that long robes for outdoor activities. Or actually anything outside of court rituals.

Ill-fitting or badly cut clothing is a problem. But a robe won't restrict upper body and arm movement more than comparable upper body clothing and restricts leg movement even less then ill fitting trousers do.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-06, 04:41 PM
And i never had any problems with them.

Until you make them long enough to drag behind you over the floor, it is not more cumbersome then other clothing (which is what we compare it to - not to naked people). And you wouldn't use that long robes for outdoor activities. Or actually anything outside of court rituals.

Ill-fitting or badly cut clothing is a problem. But a robe won't restrict upper body and arm movement more than comparable upper body clothing and restricts leg movement even less then ill fitting trousers do.

So would a long robe not hinder climbing stairs (fast or slow), climbing ropes or rock faces, swimming, or acrobatics? Is there any clothing that would? Is there a reason acrobats don't wear long robes while doing their routines?

Do naked people get advantages in such physical activities? Or fighting or running?

What penalties would a court official have in combat whilst wearing long, trailing ritual robes?

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-03-06, 05:01 PM
I would only implement rules like this if the cumbersome clothes have some sort of advantage. You need to wear formal robes during your stay at the palace or your chances to convince the king will go down sharply, you can't cast this spell without the top hat of thisspelliness, this armor prevents you from getting hit. If there's only the downside this rule will accomplish only one thing: Steve's ranger cannot wear the cool cape Steve envisioned, or else he'll get punished. Doesn't sound like fun. If you want a serious realistic game where people don't fight on high heels (except cavalry of course, see the origin of high heels) there are better ways to accomplish that, mostly talking to the rest of the group.

Sredni Vashtar
2016-03-06, 05:06 PM
Remember the No Capes montage in The Incredibles? It was a funny observation on how impractical superhero costumes would be in real life, sure, but playing those scenes out in a game or even reading them in a mostly serious comic book would be disappointing to say the least.

VoxRationis
2016-03-06, 05:08 PM
What penalties would a court official have in combat whilst wearing long, trailing ritual robes?

Impaired movement rate is the raison d'etre of the aforementioned naga-bakama. I assume things like cartwheels are also more difficult in such garb. Voluminous sleeves might be an issue when using a bow, if they get tangled in the string. The effects of heat are typically ignored in RPGs, but a big reason athletes don't wear a lot is because strenuous activity can get you overheated quite quickly. Wearing multi-layered court clothes can be an issue in that regard (though probably not so much of an issue as metal armor, which is probably why it's ignored).

neonchameleon
2016-03-06, 05:10 PM
d20 or 3d6 system. You don't think there are any costumes encumbering enough to account for?

If for whatever reason a hero ended up in a straightjacket that would certainly need accounting for. But that's a special case. Heels they could barely walk in - but that's mostly a familiarity penalty. A toga or a crinoline would both be problems - but those would be special cases where PC adventurers would only wear them under duress or on special occasions. And if you're trying for a one-off event like a Red Wedding get PC buy in first; competent PCs are always going to wear clothing they can manage if they have anything resembling a choice.

Anonymouswizard
2016-03-06, 05:16 PM
In my mind, this is why most adventuring wizards do not wear long robes. In fact, the last character concept I've had for a floor-length robe wearer was a plate-armoured fighter (the robe draws fire away from the wizard).

IIRC, in most societies everyday robes wouldn't be floor length (I think knee length was the standard in some?). Long robes would be essentially formalwear, and even then wouldn't be floor length. When you see a long robe I'd suggest thinking 'suit'. Your adventuring wizard probably wears a thigh or knee length robe over trousers, more similar to a fighter's gear than academic dress.

Knaight
2016-03-06, 05:43 PM
I've seen this in a few cases. Generally it's not worth looking at in the context of the sort of clothing people choose to wear when they know they're going into a fight, or even non-fighting clothing designed for practicality. However, there are a few major exceptions:
1) Clothing deliberately designed to hinder. There's a lot of different clothing that is designed to prevent you from being able to do anything that even vaguely resembles physical labor, with the intention of communicating that you are sufficiently high class that you will never have to do anything that even vaguely resembles physical labor. Dresses with 10+ layers of petticoats, hoop skirts, robes that trail on the ground for several feet, high heels (though these can be kicked off pretty quickly), the list goes on.

2) Generally functional clothing that gets a lot less functional when waterlogged. There are some generally cooperative and useful clothing designs that stop working nearly as well when wet, and particularly when submerged. Things like reasonably waterproofed larger sleeves might leave you having to haul around a bunch of water while fighting largely submerged, you might have parts that generally stay down but that get up in your face when things start sticking to each other due to being wet, the list goes on. Really high wind conditions can sometimes have similar effects.

3) Specialized footwear that doesn't work for the situation. The best example for this is snow-shoes; they're really useful for traversing snow drifts, and fighting in them is far from ideal. There are other examples though; heavily hobnailed shoes can provide really good traction on grass while absolutely sucking on smooth stone, heavier leg armor that's common for cavalry can meaningfully slow infantry down, etc.

4) Clothes that fit really poorly. Sometimes you just have to infiltrate a place by pretending you belong, and that means acquiring a uniform somehow. If the uniform doesn't fit well and has materials that are sufficiently tough, it could cause problems. An overly tight fitting sturdy leather jacket will mess up arm movements, rigid articulated armor that doesn't line up well with your joints

5) Space suits. Fantasy games generally aren't going to see this issue, but I have absolutely seen cases where there's a PC in space, in a space suit, fixing something or something like that and then they start getting shot at. I tend to play smart NPCs mean as a GM, so this comes up with a surprising frequency. I've also seen it go the other way, with a particularly notable case involving the PCs handling a space pirate outpost by engineering a situation where a bunch of them would need to be outside in space suits, and them coming by in a warship and aiming point defenses in their general direction.

6) Jetpacks. It depends on the specifics of how jetpacks are implemented, but there are jetpack designs in sci-fi and space fantasy games that would pose a major hindrance in certain situations. They're also liable to be deliberately brought to combat, because the case where you end up in a tight quarters knife fight when everyone is out of ammo (where the jetpack is a huge problem) is usually going to be outweighed by the case where you have a massive mobility advantage, vastly better access to high ground, and can more easily do things like set up crossfires.

With that said, I generally find that it doesn't come up often enough to really warrant specialized rules. There's also a good chance the game just isn't that detailed - I don't necessarily know the precise make of all the PCs shoes, it's just not worth specifying in most games.

Talakeal
2016-03-06, 05:56 PM
I remember Riddle of Steel imposed additional encumbrance penalties for wearing a robe or a dress. They also give overweight people additional encumbrance penalties.

I am not a big fan of having cosmetic choices about your characters appearance impose penalties, but some people liked the added realism.

cobaltstarfire
2016-03-06, 06:38 PM
So would a long robe not hinder climbing stairs (fast or slow), climbing ropes or rock faces, swimming, or acrobatics? Is there any clothing that would? Is there a reason acrobats don't wear long robes while doing their routines?


I don't imagine a robe hindering one going up and down stairs any more than wearing a nice flowing skirt would, which is to say not at all. If you're having trouble running much less walking up and down stairs in a long skirt, than your skirt is too long, and too tight.

Any clothing will hinder you in swimming, because wet clothing is heavy. It's also cold and uncomfortable to walk around in.

Acrobats can and do wear flowing clothing when they do routines, particularly in the East.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-06, 06:58 PM
I don't imagine a robe hindering one going up and down stairs any more than wearing a nice flowing skirt would, which is to say not at all. If you're having trouble running much less walking up and down stairs in a long skirt, than your skirt is too long, and too tight.

Any clothing will hinder you in swimming, because wet clothing is heavy. It's also cold and uncomfortable to walk around in.

Acrobats can and do wear flowing clothing when they do routines, particularly in the East.

But no acrobat performs in a 6' hoop skirt, do they?

And as I said, Christopher Lee certainly found his floor-length robes made it difficult to climb stairs.

What about fetters? How hindering would a set of fetters be? Or a leg manacle connected to an iron ball? Or hand manacles, they seem the thing likely to crop up in adventure fiction? Or handcuffs?

Numbers are welcome, I invite numbers.

Tiktakkat
2016-03-06, 07:15 PM
The same clothing can be more or less hindering for a variety of purposes, particularly combat, depending on the specifics.

I know quite a few people who prefer their karate uniforms cut to mid-forearm and mid-calf because wrist-length sleeves and ankle-length pants have a disturbing tendency to bind at the elbows and knees at just the wrong moment, despite being intended for general workouts.

It could easily be that Christopher Lee's robes were just cut wrong for him, while someone else with robes of a different cut would have no trouble running about unhindered.

Bohandas
2016-03-06, 07:16 PM
Remember the No Capes montage in The Incredibles? It was a funny observation on how impractical superhero costumes would be in real life, sure, but playing those scenes out in a game or even reading them in a mostly serious comic book would be disappointing to say the least.

I could see it in an overly serious comicbook though, like "Watchmen".

neonchameleon
2016-03-06, 07:28 PM
But no acrobat performs in a 6' hoop skirt, do they?

No. But people dance in them. And they would be surprisingly little problem when swordfighting.


And as I said, Christopher Lee certainly found his floor-length robes made it difficult to climb stairs.

Which is why everyone in their senses wears ankle length skirts rather than floor length. And anle length are fine.


What about fetters? How hindering would a set of fetters be?

That depends entirely on what connects the fetters. A bar is worse than a chain. And a 6" chain is far worse than a 2' chain. On the other hand a 4' bar makes things almost impossible and is almost always used in BDSM while a 4' chain would be a minor nuisance.

There is no one size fits all answer.


Or a leg manacle connected to an iron ball?

When within the length of the chain the manacle isn't a problem at all. Trying to move further depends on how you intend to carry the ball. Use the encumberance rules if you intend to pick it up - worse if you are trying to drag it, less if you've got it on a cart.


Or hand manacles, they seem the thing likely to crop up in adventure fiction? Or handcuffs?

Hands in front of you or behind? Connected by a rigid bar or a chain? Are you trying to jump, to balance, to pick a lock, or carry out oratory? (cue jokes about handcuffs being as good as gags for some people)


Numbers are welcome, I invite numbers.

For anything an adventurer would choose to wear when it's dry rather than waterlogged a modifier of 0 or even +1 is going to cover it for all purposes except fitting in (which is culturally determined).

Any intentionally restrictive clothing is going to be a matter of what is the piece of clothing, what is the person trying to do, and does the person have experience with it to deal with the problems? So to take another fetish piece of clothing, ballet boots aren't going to provide much modifier to sleight of hand checks while sitting down - but are to acrobatics and athletics checks. How much of a modifier. I could barely walk in the things so it would make even average tasks impossible for me - but with enough experience wearing them the penalties would be much more minor.

Person, task, exact bit of clothing. All three are relevant for every single case. Which is why the question itself will get no definitive answer.

Flickerdart
2016-03-06, 07:35 PM
Yeah, this seems like one of those things where, even if there were a penalty, it would be to the order of -0.1 or so - utterly negligible. An Olympic athlete wants to wear as little as possible to squeeze out those last millimetres of performance, but to a dude fighting orcs, it's not really significant if he jumped 20 feet or 20.05 feet, as long as he cleared the chasm.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-06, 07:59 PM
Yeah, this seems like one of those things where, even if there were a penalty, it would be to the order of -0.1 or so - utterly negligible. An Olympic athlete wants to wear as little as possible to squeeze out those last millimetres of performance, but to a dude fighting orcs, it's not really significant if he jumped 20 feet or 20.05 feet, as long as he cleared the chasm.

No article of clothing across all of history including manacles and long hakama will have the slightest mechanically appreciable effect on a character's physical performance of anything outside of the Olympics? Like, shoes with large rocks in them won't affect anything including running? Being ziptied at the wrists has no effect on anything including combat? Boxing gloves don't hinder trying to wield a sword? I'd say all of these things are worth at least a -1 on a d20/3d6 system, though as pointed out particulars matter greatly.

Keltest
2016-03-06, 08:06 PM
No article of clothing across all of history including manacles and long hakama will have the slightest mechanically appreciable effect on a character's physical performance of anything outside of the Olympics? Like, shoes with large rocks in them won't affect anything including running? Being ziptied at the wrists has no effect on anything including combat? Boxing gloves don't hinder trying to wield a sword? I'd say all of these things are worth at least a -1 on a d20/3d6 system, though as pointed out particulars matter greatly.

If you have manacles on that are actually restricting your movement in any significant way, it wouldn't be inflicting penalties so much as outright preventing that action. You aren't running with your legs bound together, period. Ditto with jumping any horizontal distance of relevance.

Ditto with boxing gloves and sword wielding, and pretty much all your other examples. You could maybe argue that being bound at the wrists would hamper athletics type checks by inflicting a penalty, but that's about it.

And I wouldn't define manacles as "clothing" anyway, unless I was deliberately being a pedant trying to annoy people.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-06, 08:49 PM
If you have manacles on that are actually restricting your movement in any significant way, it wouldn't be inflicting penalties so much as outright preventing that action. You aren't running with your legs bound together, period. Ditto with jumping any horizontal distance of relevance.

Ditto with boxing gloves and sword wielding, and pretty much all your other examples. You could maybe argue that being bound at the wrists would hamper athletics type checks by inflicting a penalty, but that's about it.

And I wouldn't define manacles as "clothing" anyway, unless I was deliberately being a pedant trying to annoy people.

I'm sorry, I don't think I'm being clear enough. First, I'm referring to anything a person wears or carries, including fat cells and backpacks stuffed with 100 lbs of treasure. Second, the situations I have just described, and a milliard more I have not and am not imaginative enough to, but am implicitly alluding to, will certainly describe a range, whereby at one end of the range, actions of whatever type are wholly inhibited, whilst at the other end, wholly uninhibited, and in the middle--the crucial middle--there will be situations of partial inhibition which translate into a dice modifier. That is the scope and intent of my search.

cobaltstarfire
2016-03-06, 09:17 PM
You've gotten lots and lots of answers, and responded to them all with more questions.

If you want numerical answers, I'd say that your average adventuring clothing does not get any modifiers applied at all. Doesn't matter if its a robe, a kilt, or pants.

Wet clothes can have their weight increased, and if that increase is enough to change the characters encumbrance (if the game has rules for it) then those rules can come into play.

If someone is bound by something, than they are bound. And I suppose again you can add the weight of the bindings to encumbrance, or roll a strength check of some sort if they're trying to deal with something like a ball and chain.


The only time I can think of where everyday adventurers clothing might cause some numerical changes is with heavy winter gear, which might at most give a penalty similar to light armors I guess?

Anything more would probably be better to come up with on a case by case basis dependent on the clothing itself, and even then most clothing will rip or pop a seam/button rather than be a hindrance in combat.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-06, 09:48 PM
You've gotten lots and lots of answers, and responded to them all with more questions.

If you want numerical answers, I'd say that your average adventuring clothing does not get any modifiers applied at all. Doesn't matter if its a robe, a kilt, or pants.

Wet clothes can have their weight increased, and if that increase is enough to change the characters encumbrance (if the game has rules for it) then those rules can come into play.

If someone is bound by something, than they are bound. And I suppose again you can add the weight of the bindings to encumbrance, or roll a strength check of some sort if they're trying to deal with something like a ball and chain.


The only time I can think of where everyday adventurers clothing might cause some numerical changes is with heavy winter gear, which might at most give a penalty similar to light armors I guess?

Anything more would probably be better to come up with on a case by case basis dependent on the clothing itself, and even then most clothing will rip or pop a seam/button rather than be a hindrance in combat.

Yes, and I appreciate those answers, though I usually thank people towards the end of a thread rather than during the middle. So thanks for the input, everyone.

goto124
2016-03-06, 10:01 PM
I am not a big fan of having cosmetic choices about your characters appearance impose penalties, but some people liked the added realism.

In this case, clothing ceases to be a cosmetic choice and becomes a mechanical choice. We'll be building a sub-system of how clothing affects other mechanics.

Others have already mentioned restrictive clothing when going to a court and a fight breaks out, though there could be options to spend an action freeing yourself from said court clothes.

I suppose clothing mechanics would also kick in when there's a trade-off to be made. When you're travelling across snowy tundras, do you wear more thick clothing and take combat penalties, or wear less and take more environmental damage? That sort of thing.

Talakeal
2016-03-06, 10:11 PM
In this case, clothing ceases to be a cosmetic choice and becomes a mechanical choice. We'll be building a sub-system of how clothing affects other mechanics.

Others have already mentioned restrictive clothing when going to a court and a fight breaks out, though there could be options to spend an action freeing yourself from said court clothes.

I suppose clothing mechanics would also kick in when there's a trade-off to be made. When you're travelling across snowy tundras, do you wear more thick clothing and take combat penalties, or wear less and take more environmental damage? That sort of thing.

Let me rephrase that; I dislike the notion of mechanical penalties with only cosmetic upsides to balance them out (and vice versa).

runeghost
2016-03-06, 10:40 PM
If I remember right, Castle Falkenstein had a combat penalty for corsets...

And in the opposite direction, GURPS has bulletproof nudity rules floating around in one or more of its supplements.

Knaight
2016-03-06, 11:38 PM
Let me rephrase that; I dislike the notion of mechanical penalties with only cosmetic upsides to balance them out (and vice versa).

There might not only be cosmetic upsides. The same overly long robe deliberately designed for uselessness at physical tasks that gives a penalty to physical tasks might actually give a bonus in the social situations it's meant to be used in. Something like SCUBA flippers are likely to give a penalty to fighting in any system with even a hint of granularity in which fighting is relevant, but they also help swim.

Coidzor
2016-03-07, 12:47 AM
What about fetters? How hindering would a set of fetters be? Or a leg manacle connected to an iron ball? Or hand manacles, they seem the thing likely to crop up in adventure fiction? Or handcuffs?

Presumably the game system you're using or one related to it already has rules on the subject, such as halving movement and preventing running, for instance.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-07, 02:06 AM
Here's the reason why game systems tend not to care about the middle:
I won't say that it's automatically poor game design, but it is so delicate that anyone without significant amounts of experience (and even still some of them) is going to screw it up and make it suck.

Let's see how these penalties would play out:
"My wizard is wearing a robe, and he has a staff-"
"Ah. Make sure to note that -1 penalty in combat due to wearing a robe."
"...what?"
"Wearing a robe gives you a penalty because robes get in the way."
"Well then I guess my wizard isn't wearing robes. He's wearing normal clothing."
"Ok, no penalty then."

It means that wizards can't wear robes and be effective at the same time. Which sucks for the players.

Remember, games value good design over realistic simulation of everything that is. Because the former is a good time. The latter is just going out and doing it yourself in real life. The best sword combat simulation is fighting your friend with an actual sword. 100% realism. Even the injuries are real.

Also, including a rule for something means that thing is important enough to the game or setting that it merits a rule. If the setting or game you're playimg highly values the clothing people are wearing in X situation, then you need rules about them. If it doesn't, then skip it rather than wasting space on adding more crap to the game. In game design, less really can be more.

goto124
2016-03-07, 02:09 AM
But the robes give +1 to Cha checks, because they're just that awesome.

Also, the robe should give -1 only to, say, acrobatic or dexterity stuff, stuff that's left to the warriors.


Also, including a rule for something means that thing is important enough to the game or setting that it merits a rule. If the setting or game you're playimg highly values the clothing people are wearing in X situation, then you need rules about them. If it doesn't, then skip it rather than wasting space on adding more crap to the game. In game design, less really can be more.

This is true, though.

Jayngfet
2016-03-07, 02:56 AM
I think people are forgetting that it's not just a sweeping generalization of categories that matter, but the style of clothing.

If your robe is just one solid dress-esque deal that goes to the floor obviously it'll snag on branches and the like. But if it's got a strategic cut or drapes in the right way it becomes a non-issue. Given how common and mundane tailors tend to be and how quickly a simple job can be done your average adventurer will face this problem once and then just have their gear modified or get something of the appropriate style.

If your wizard dresses in a floor length robe then has those problems become an issue they'll just get them tailored or replaced and it won't actually matter.

Necessity is the mother of invention, and one should remember actual historical people have been able to go around in varying types of gear and fight just fine. Knights went to war in full ankle length surcoats and long riding cloaks and obviously they wouldn't do that if suddenly they ran into problems every skirmish.

An adventurer is generally assumed to be wearing clothes in the style best suited to adventuring unless otherwise noted. Which isn't a huge deal since that tends to be reasonably simple and inexpensive wool in common colors, or whatever the local equivalent is. If they run into someone else "in the field" then they'll probably be wearing the same thing or excuse the indiscretion in context. Obviously they'll want something a bit different for formal balls or the like but that's why those clothes are listed separate anyway.

Satinavian
2016-03-07, 03:21 AM
So would a long robe not hinder climbing stairs (fast or slow), climbing ropes or rock faces, swimming, or acrobatics? Is there any clothing that would? Is there a reason acrobats don't wear long robes while doing their routines?

Do naked people get advantages in such physical activities? Or fighting or running?

What penalties would a court official have in combat whilst wearing long, trailing ritual robes?
Stairs ? No penalty. Climbing ? Depends entirely on the cut. Many robes would still get no penalty at all, some would. Swimming ? Yes, there should be a penalty - the same as for every other kind of clothing of roughly the same size. Acrobats ? One of the reason professional acrobats don't wear wide flowing clothing in tournaments is that people can actually see their body movement. The second is simply weight. As for movement restriction, acrobats need less restrictive clothes than normal people because they move in ways normal people don't. Which is why most of them use stuff specifically tailored to be less restricting. Which is actually easier to do with wide, flowing clothes. Like robes.

Naked ? Even normal clothing does offer considerable protection both from superficial injuries and weather. That is why people use clothes. If your system is not detailed enough to simulate "armor" and weather protection of normal clothes, it is probably not detailed enough for movement restriction modifiers for normal clothes either. That is especcialy true for footwear, which is in use for 40000 years for a reason.



The only time I can think of where everyday adventurers clothing might cause some numerical changes is with heavy winter gear, which might at most give a penalty similar to light armors I guess?I have seen systems give heavy clothing small armor protection and small armor encumberance modifiers.

I have also seen systems with a big focus on survival simulation give detailed tables for cold protection for every kind of clothing and hand out movement restriction penalties at the same time (some equivalent of a small armor penalty for a traditional annorak, heavy modifiers for fine motoric movements for fingerless heavy winter groves and so on)


But D20 is not a system for detailed survival adventures. And even if one would try to import those rules, robes would not get a significant penalty.

Sredni Vashtar
2016-03-07, 07:00 AM
I could see it in an overly serious comicbook though, like "Watchmen".

I just don't think Dollar Bill's player appreciated the irony though. That campaign was rife with "well, that's what my character would do" excuses and unfair PVP anyway.

Mastikator
2016-03-07, 07:30 AM
Humans tend to not wear things that they can't maneuver in. The only exception I can think of is High Heels and certain articles of clothing meant to restrict your movement for...*ahem* reasons.

The human body is strong enough that, in a situation where our clothes inhibit our movement, we tend to damage the clothes with our movements once we get going. (Most people have ripped their pants before. Their butt is stronger than the seams)

Also most robes don't descend to the floor except for weird fantasy ones that are probably a pain to keep clean. It's not worth writing out rules for.

Gandalf
ITT Lord of the Rings is weird fantasy.

Storm_Of_Snow
2016-03-07, 08:07 AM
I think there's a reason the wizard traditionally doesn't fight very well. It's because of his blasted floor-length robes.
And not because, say, he hasn't spent hours every day for the last decade or so practising with a weapon, both on their own and sparring with opponents? :smallamused:

A lot of what's already gone is very interesting and well thought out, but I'd like to add another point for people to consider - familiarity. If you're not used to what you're wearing, you won't be as agile while wearing it, and it might even lock up or throw you off balance. And if you do get caught in situations where you're in unsuitable clothing, you'll try and remedy that as soon as possible - be it kicking off high heeled shoes, ripping the seams of a skirt or trousers that are restrictive, unfastening the clasp to let your cloak fall away or whatever.

And as an aside, you could potentially use your clothing to hinder your opponent - using a scarf or cloak to lock down their weapon arm, for example.

Beleriphon
2016-03-07, 09:04 AM
I like the tact that the Avenernum/Exile games from Spiderweb Software takes. Scholarly wizards like X wear weird robes because they rarely leave their towers. Adventuring wizards tend towards more practical gear for the most part.

goto124
2016-03-07, 09:12 AM
I seem to remember spellcasters wearing no armor because it's heavy, and sometimes the weight impacts spellcasting, and other times it's just cumbersome to wear all the time when you don't even need the protection. Stand behind your warrior, sheesh.


Gandalf
ITT Lord of the Rings is weird fantasy.

Nah, remember what Gandalf is? Overpowered beings like him doesn't need practical clothes :smallamused:

Ashtagon
2016-03-07, 09:24 AM
0th level wizards spend their early training learning minor cantrips that deal with awkward clothing problems.

cobaltstarfire
2016-03-07, 11:28 AM
I think people are forgetting that it's not just a sweeping generalization of categories that matter, but the style of clothing.



Several people have mentioned that style and cut, and whether it even fits properly, and what's it for can effect clothing and how it may or may not give modifiers. I even pointed out that modifiers should be given out on a case by case basis depending on the clothing.

Raimun
2016-03-07, 11:59 AM
Uh, wizards are not that good in physical fights because they spent their time reading books (about arcane secrets but still books) and not training like fighters or fighting wolves and rival tribes like barbarians.

I can assure you that wizards who spesifically wear normal clothes, ie. pants instead of robes, fight just as bad. I've seen a few. :smallamused:

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-07, 01:09 PM
Here's the reason why game systems tend not to care about the middle:
I won't say that it's automatically poor game design, but it is so delicate that anyone without significant amounts of experience (and even still some of them) is going to screw it up and make it suck.

Let's see how these penalties would play out:
"My wizard is wearing a robe, and he has a staff-"
"Ah. Make sure to note that -1 penalty in combat due to wearing a robe."
"...what?"
"Wearing a robe gives you a penalty because robes get in the way."
"Well then I guess my wizard isn't wearing robes. He's wearing normal clothing."
"Ok, no penalty then."

It means that wizards can't wear robes and be effective at the same time. Which sucks for the players.

"Ah, but they're your magical robes, so if you're not wearing them, -1 to all spellcasting."

Keltest
2016-03-07, 01:19 PM
Since were on the topic, what is the advantage to wearing a robe instead of regular clothes?

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-07, 01:22 PM
Since were on the topic, what is the advantage to wearing a robe instead of regular clothes?

A nice breeze betwixt the nethers, and everyone knows you're a wizard, judge, Catholic monk, or recently stepped out of the shower the moment they see you.


"Ah, but they're your magical robes, so if you're not wearing them, -1 to all spellcasting."
I hope that's a joke because it would make everything even worse. The player is GUARANTEED to be punished no matter what. Bad bad bad bad bad bad bad. No.


Gandalf
ITT Lord of the Rings is weird fantasy.
After looking up pictures, as Gandalf the Grey his robes didn't quite touch the ground. And as gandalf the white....


http://www.mckellen.com/images/1206.jpg


That only goes down to his ankles.

Also, it was weird (fantasy robes) not (weird fantasy) robes.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-03-07, 01:33 PM
"Ah, but they're your magical robes, so if you're not wearing them, -1 to all spellcasting."

I'm getting Craft (clothing) and I'm making a pair of +1 pants and a +1 shirt.

If the GM is trying to screw me at every corner, challenge accepted.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-07, 01:47 PM
I'm getting Craft (clothing) and I'm making a pair of +1 pants and a +1 shirt.

If the GM is trying to screw me at every corner, challenge accepted.
In this particular case it would be the System screwing you over unless it's a houserule forcibly tacked on to a pre-existing system, in which case yeah, the GM is screwing you.

I mean, if this is a d100 system, where a -1 (or I guess a +1, if it's rollunder like most d100 systems) means little to nothing for the roll itself, then it's still bad, but not AS bad. Still bad tho.

Talakeal
2016-03-07, 02:34 PM
Speaking of shoes:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-3qTniJsoEg

This video goes into quite a bit of detal about how much of a hassle pre modern shoes were. If we are going to penalize robes we should really look at modifiers for shs, because they seem to be quite a bit more of a big deal.


Also, For some reason this thread is reminding me of the thread about penalizing female characters we had a few weeks ago.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-07, 03:38 PM
Speaking of shoes:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-3qTniJsoEg

This video goes into quite a bit of detal about how much of a hassle pre modern shoes were. If we are going to penalize robes we should really look at modifiers for shs, because they seem to be quite a bit more of a big deal.


Also, For some reason this thread is reminding me of the thread about penalizing female characters we had a few weeks ago.

It is similar, especially in the sense of "Be very very careful when including this in your design." But at least most of the proposals gave an upside to being female for every downside, and the same for males.

This is just about penalties and/or avoiding penalties. No bonuses in sight. Just a lack of penalties.

Which, from a design perspective, is much worse.

The sex-based stats is purely a call on whether or not the playerbase will be offended or not based on how you present the stat changes. But the stat changes themselves would be hard to do really badly, design-wise.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-07, 03:38 PM
I hope that's a joke because it would make everything even worse. The player is GUARANTEED to be punished no matter what. Bad bad bad bad bad bad bad. No.

Joke or not, so being a wizard has its drawbacks--you're a wizard, you can deal with drawbacks.

It's nice to have PC's who aren't 100% “punished”, good to have some edges here or there, but I'm not concerned about whether I'm "punishing" the player or not, so much as conveying a sense that the PC's are really people, really there, getting their hands dirty, and thus far my players don't seem to mind. Sometimes it's interesting role-playing someone who isn't the best at anything, is generally a little put-upon, but is still a person with feelings, skills, and concerns. Maybe someone with rotten initial stat or background rolls. Maybe the love shared between the PC's keeps them together more than what they're good at. In game or out, life isn't "balanced," it's messy, and some people get +1's and some don't and that's the way it is.

Keltest
2016-03-07, 03:48 PM
Joke or not, so being a wizard has its drawbacks--you're a wizard, you can deal with drawbacks.

It's nice to have PC's who aren't 100% “punished”, good to have some edges here or there, but I'm not concerned about whether I'm "punishing" the player or not, so much as conveying a sense that the PC's are really people, really there, getting their hands dirty, and thus far my players don't seem to mind. Sometimes it's interesting role-playing someone who isn't the best at anything, is generally a little put-upon, but is still a person with feelings, skills, and concerns. Maybe someone with rotten initial stat or background rolls. Maybe the love shared between the PC's keeps them together more than what they're good at. In game or out, life isn't "balanced," it's messy, and some people get +1's and some don't and that's the way it is.

The thing is, the player is being penalized for using suboptimal equipment. Its like having a -1 sword. Nobody is ever going to willingly use it, except its the only alternative to something else they don't want to use. If you want your wizards to wear robes, make the robes better for them, don't make other clothes worse.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-07, 04:51 PM
Joke or not, so being a wizard has its drawbacks--you're a wizard, you can deal with drawbacks.

It's nice to have PC's who aren't 100% “punished”, good to have some edges here or there, but I'm not concerned about whether I'm "punishing" the player or not, so much as conveying a sense that the PC's are really people, really there, getting their hands dirty, and thus far my players don't seem to mind. Sometimes it's interesting role-playing someone who isn't the best at anything, is generally a little put-upon, but is still a person with feelings, skills, and concerns. Maybe someone with rotten initial stat or background rolls. Maybe the love shared between the PC's keeps them together more than what they're good at. In game or out, life isn't "balanced," it's messy, and some people get +1's and some don't and that's the way it is.

I was going to write something much longer explaining why this is a bad idea.

Instead, I'll just say this:
Do it. You'll learn a valuable lesson about why it's a bad idea to use the stick instead of the carrot.

No, seriously. Do it. See what happens.

Just know that when it does fail miserably, all of us here will say "We warned you, Brodo Baggins."

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-07, 05:18 PM
I was going to write something much longer explaining why this is a bad idea.

Instead, I'll just say this:
Do it. You'll learn a valuable lesson about why it's a bad idea to use the stick instead of the carrot.

No, seriously. Do it. See what happens.

Just know that when it does fail miserably, all of us here will say "We warned you, Brodo Baggins."

I'm gathering you only play point-buy systems? Or do you do random-rolls but give players a carrot if they roll lousy?

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-07, 05:22 PM
The thing is, the player is being penalized for using suboptimal equipment. Its like having a -1 sword. Nobody is ever going to willingly use it, except its the only alternative to something else they don't want to use. If you want your wizards to wear robes, make the robes better for them, don't make other clothes worse.

That's a huge generalisation you're making. Nobody? Ever? In the history of gamerdom? I think someone might like their -1 sword because of fond memories (maybe it's a lucky -1 sword), or because they've got a thing for magic, or it's got some fancy scrollwork. I have more faith in role-players than you seem to, that they might do something because it is interesting or helps the story rather than because it adds a point to their crunch-factor.

Flickerdart
2016-03-07, 05:41 PM
...because it is interesting or helps the story rather than because it adds a point to their crunch-factor.
How is subtracting a point from crunch-factor more interesting than adding one?

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-07, 06:03 PM
How is subtracting a point from crunch-factor more interesting than adding one?

You don't think being pinioned by ridiculously elabourate and encumbering court clothes when a fight breaks out has dramatic potential?

Keltest
2016-03-07, 06:08 PM
You don't think being pinioned by ridiculously elabourate and encumbering court clothes when a fight breaks out has dramatic potential?

Perhaps, but your players are going to be snarling at you for taking away their equipment (and indeed, replacing it with something worse than being naked) then forcing a fight on them. Except the wizard, who might be able to get away with justifying their regular robes as appropriate court apparel.

Also, if youre going for realism, I suspect most D&D martial characters would have enough strength to rip the clothes to the point where they can move freely anyway.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-07, 06:27 PM
I'm gathering you only play point-buy systems? Or do you do random-rolls but give players a carrot if they roll lousy?

As I would have said in the larger post,

Point-buy allows you to completely maneuver around that entire problem.

Randomly Generated stats aren't inherently a punishment. It's good or bad luck. And in fact many modern systems alleviate some of that bad luck to keep players from having their character jump off a cliff until they get better stats.

Case in point, in Stars Without Number each class has two Key Stats. After you roll stats and pick a class, you can raise one of those two key stats to a 13. (The threshold in that game for a +1)
Also, if your combined modifiers are less than 0, you have the option to reroll. (Not mandatory, for those who love to be more burdensome than effective.)

As it happens, the system I play most often has predefined Stat Arrays for each class, so we don't roll jack for stats. But I do play Stars Without Number almost as regularly with no problems.

Your players have very little control in a TRPG. They control their characters' attempted actions, words, and motivations... and that's it.

The dice determine their success. The challenges you present determine their chances to succeed. The entire world is played by you. Everything good or bad that happens outside of the numbers that come up on the dice is your doing.

Slapping them around with penalties just makes you even more antagonistic to them. If the only way you have to create drama is to give them penalties, then you need to work on creating drama. There are better ways to do it. Such as:

Separate them
Let them see the ugly truth
Put it (whatever nastiness It is) in their way
Put a high pricetag (monetary? Moral?) On what they want
Signal approaching badness
Target the NPCs/Things/Places/Organizations they care about
Learn what makes each player feel the pressure and push there (with their permission. Can't go stressing people out without OOC permission.)
Look through crosshairs. Everything is a target. Everything. Even your beloved NPCs. Especially them.
Make them pariahs overnight.
Accuse them.


The list goes on. Compared to these, "Make their robes really crappy" seems petty. Because it is.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-07, 07:05 PM
As I would have said in the larger post,

Point-buy allows you to completely maneuver around that entire problem.

Randomly Generated stats aren't inherently a punishment. It's good or bad luck. And in fact many modern systems alleviate some of that bad luck to keep players from having their character jump off a cliff until they get better stats.

Case in point, in Stars Without Number each class has two Key Stats. After you roll stats and pick a class, you can raise one of those two key stats to a 13. (The threshold in that game for a +1)
Also, if your combined modifiers are less than 0, you have the option to reroll. (Not mandatory, for those who love to be more burdensome than effective.)

As it happens, the system I play most often has predefined Stat Arrays for each class, so we don't roll jack for stats. But I do play Stars Without Number almost as regularly with no problems.

Your players have very little control in a TRPG. They control their characters' attempted actions, words, and motivations... and that's it.

The dice determine their success. The challenges you present determine their chances to succeed. The entire world is played by you. Everything good or bad that happens outside of the numbers that come up on the dice is your doing.

Slapping them around with penalties just makes you even more antagonistic to them. If the only way you have to create drama is to give them penalties, then you need to work on creating drama. There are better ways to do it. Such as:

Separate them
Let them see the ugly truth
Put it (whatever nastiness It is) in their way
Put a high pricetag (monetary? Moral?) On what they want
Signal approaching badness
Target the NPCs/Things/Places/Organizations they care about
Learn what makes each player feel the pressure and push there (with their permission. Can't go stressing people out without OOC permission.)
Look through crosshairs. Everything is a target. Everything. Even your beloved NPCs. Especially them.
Make them pariahs overnight.
Accuse them.


The list goes on. Compared to these, "Make their robes really crappy" seems petty. Because it is.

Must everything be big and bold? Is there no room for niggling little details? Cannot the spirit of micromanagement find its way to the Summer Home of good gaming? I find my play style enjoyable, and haven't run into players who have found it rankles. YMMV.

goto124
2016-03-07, 07:11 PM
A nice breeze betwixt the nethers, and everyone knows you're a wizard, judge, Catholic monk, or recently stepped out of the shower the moment they see you.

I have a paladin who wears a bathrobe (http://www.robemart.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/womens-blue-bathrobe.jpg).

It's also floor-length, but his best friend girlfriend wears a chainmail bikini to battle, so realism had cried itself to oblivion by then.


Perhaps, but your players are going to be snarling at you for taking away their equipment (and indeed, replacing it with something worse than being naked) then forcing a fight on them. Except the wizard, who might be able to get away with justifying their regular robes as appropriate court apparel.

But what if it would actually make sense plot-wise for people to attack at the court? It could make for an interesting challenge, even!

What if the players received clues that the court could be attacked? If they understand the clues, they can prepare beforehand. "I hide a kusari-fundo in my sleeves", "I wear half-plate beneath the robes", "I attach a string to my court clothes such that I can tug the string to rip those clothes out", etc.

Keltest
2016-03-07, 07:31 PM
I have a paladin who wears a bathrobe (http://www.robemart.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/womens-blue-bathrobe.jpg).

It's also floor-length, but his best friend girlfriend wears a chainmail bikini to battle, so realism had cried itself to oblivion by then.



But what if it would actually make sense plot-wise for people to attack at the court? It could make for an interesting challenge, even!

What if the players received clues that the court could be attacked? If they understand the clues, they can prepare beforehand. "I hide a kusari-fundo in my sleeves", "I wear half-plate beneath the robes", "I attach a string to my court clothes such that I can tug the string to rip those clothes out", etc.

That's a bit different. You aren't taking away resources at that point, youre offering a management challenge.

goto124
2016-03-07, 07:34 PM
Exactly! It's much more fun for the players!

Why else would you restrict or remove resources anyway? It's to give a challenge.

Even when the players are about to get to, say, a great red dragon, they'll get clues beforehand that they're facing something highly powerful.

Keltest
2016-03-07, 07:50 PM
Exactly! It's much more fun for the players!

Why else would you restrict or remove resources anyway? It's to give a challenge.

Even when the players are about to get to, say, a great red dragon, they'll get clues beforehand that they're facing something highly powerful.

See above about carrot and stick. Just taking away their stuff is different from offering them a chance to try and make due with fewer than they like.

wumpus
2016-03-07, 08:46 PM
I have a paladin who wears a bathrobe (http://www.robemart.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/womens-blue-bathrobe.jpg).

It's also floor-length, but his best friend girlfriend wears a chainmail bikini to battle, so realism had cried itself to oblivion by then.


Based on Arthur Dent?

While the wizard is having trouble due to the traditional floor length robe, do the sorcerers have similar issues? More likely due to high heels (for both genders) and perhaps floor length robes for the sorcerers to disguise how blatantly platform-type the heels are. The sorceresses hardly have to deal with floor length robes (they're lucky if the are thigh length), but have to deal with the constriction of those pesky corset of charismas (if you want to be historically correct, so do the sorcerers/aristocrats of either gender. I just felt that if they are already wearing the floor length robes the extra constriction wouldn't be needed).

Also, I wouldn't expect NPCs to have these issues. Only PCs would find themselves in combat while wearing a ridiculous outfit in vain (sorry) hopes of getting a +1 higher save DC.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-07, 09:02 PM
Must everything be big and bold? Is there no room for niggling little details? Cannot the spirit of micromanagement find its way to the Summer Home of good gaming? I find my play style enjoyable, and haven't run into players who have found it rankles. YMMV.

Sure, but you're talking about making situations dramatic by heaping on punishments. I'm not the one introducing "but wouldn't it be dramatic!" Into the equation. That was you. I'm just disproving the notion that you need mechanical punishments to make drama. You really don't.

What's more, having your characters lose the bonuses from their armor during the fight in the court scene is sufficient without adding even worse penalties on top of that. The fighter's AC is going to tank. Why turn him into a clutz on top of that? Once you've taken away their goodies, sufficient badness has happened to them. You need not expand upon it.

Micromanagement is fine if everyone at the table loves micromanagement. The problem is, the proposal isn't micromanaging anything except figuring out which penalties you want. There is no interplay of advantage/disadvantage, management of resources vs. expenditure, or even management of people. It is literally "Which of these penalties do I want to take?" That's not micromanagement.
That's picking which kind of knife you want to be stabbed with.

goto124
2016-03-07, 09:23 PM
That's picking which kind of knife you want to be stabbed with.

I thus choose:


9.The Dagger of Healing: You stab it into someone, and they are healed for a certain amount, but they also take the same amount as damage for being stabbed

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-07, 09:38 PM
Sure, but you're talking about making situations dramatic by heaping on punishments. I'm not the one introducing "but wouldn't it be dramatic!" Into the equation. That was you. I'm just disproving the notion that you need mechanical punishments to make drama. You really don't.

What's more, having your characters lose the bonuses from their armor during the fight in the court scene is sufficient without adding even worse penalties on top of that. The fighter's AC is going to tank. Why turn him into a clutz on top of that? Once you've taken away their goodies, sufficient badness has happened to them. You need not expand upon it.

Micromanagement is fine if everyone at the table loves micromanagement. The problem is, the proposal isn't micromanaging anything except figuring out which penalties you want. There is no interplay of advantage/disadvantage, management of resources vs. expenditure, or even management of people. It is literally "Which of these penalties do I want to take?" That's not micromanagement.
That's picking which kind of knife you want to be stabbed with.

I think the difference between you and I is that you are playing games from the perspective of games being "balanced" as if they are mathematical equations or board games or game (design) theory, and I am playing them from the perspective of including whatever is interesting, dramatic (however "petty"), or colourful. And I find "picking which kind of knife" to be on the latter order. Shall I not give penalties for cold weather even though there's no game-balance involved? I fundamentally disagree that my games (your games can be whatever) should avoid picayune penalties, or that they will collapse into your laughing-stock if they do not. Been GM-ing a while now, hasn't happened yet.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-08, 01:49 AM
I think the difference between you and I is that you are playing games from the perspective of games being "balanced" as if they are mathematical equations or board games or game (design) theory, and I am playing them from the perspective of including whatever is interesting, dramatic (however "petty"), or colourful. And I find "picking which kind of knife" to be on the latter order. Shall I not give penalties for cold weather even though there's no game-balance involved? I fundamentally disagree that my games (your games can be whatever) should avoid picayune penalties, or that they will collapse into your laughing-stock if they do not. Been GM-ing a while now, hasn't happened yet.

I have yet to mention Balance in any way. I have mentioned reward structures, though. These are two different ideas entirely.

Players do what rewards them, and avoid what punishes them. (People like rewards and dislike punishments. Weird, right?)

The problem with using only punishments is that the game becomes "avoid the stick" rather than "achieve the reward."

I also take offense to the idea that Game Design isn't creative, artistic, even elegant. I'm sure many professional Game Designers would be similarly bewildered by the idea that they aren't engaging in the creation of something dramatic and wonderful.

Also, try not to defend your point with what is basically "yeah, well, I have experienced otherwise." Mostly because A) You can't prove you aren't lying about that, and B) It's a sign that you're out of better arguments.

Of course, my question is this:
You obviously already decided to do this. There has never been any doubt that no matter what we said, you would do it anyway.
So why bother asking if you don't want honest opinions and/or won't change anything based on the feedback you receive? Seems like a huge waste of time.

Coidzor
2016-03-08, 02:13 AM
You don't think being pinioned by ridiculously elabourate and encumbering court clothes when a fight breaks out has dramatic potential?

Once. Maybe twice.

If it happens often enough that you need to make extensive, complex, or convoluted rules for it, it's probably happening too often.

Satinavian
2016-03-08, 03:40 AM
I think the difference between you and I is that you are playing games from the perspective of games being "balanced" as if they are mathematical equations or board games or game (design) theory, and I am playing them from the perspective of including whatever is interesting, dramatic (however "petty"), or colourful. And I find "picking which kind of knife" to be on the latter order. Shall I not give penalties for cold weather even though there's no game-balance involved? I fundamentally disagree that my games (your games can be whatever) should avoid picayune penalties, or that they will collapse into your laughing-stock if they do not. Been GM-ing a while now, hasn't happened yet.
But that is not what you do.

You want to hand out a penalty for robes. Not because robes are restrictive clothing, but because wizards use them. You don't consider penalties for other clothing usually used by other classes. And your answer to "well, if robes are so restrictive, my wizard would not use them" is a penalty for spellcasting without robes to make the wizard using them. Here goes the last pretense of realism and micromanagement and all that is left is you trying to find some justification to give wizards and only wizards (not bards or clerics or other spellcasters) some arbitrary penalty. The only possible justification for doing that would be balancing and now you say you don't care about balancing. And forget about drama as argument for penalties for base equipment that people will use all the time. There is no scene or plot involvement which means the drama can't be a reason to do this.

And now it looks as if all you want is making up rules to hurt a specific character of a specific player and if not for balancing or plot, then obviously out of a power trip or for a personal grudge. That is what it would look like at the table. And frankly, that is also what it looks like here to me.


Micromanagement can be fun. I have played systems that do this and where you can look up the difference between a wool shirt, a hemp shirt, a fur west and a lether west on cold protection, price and encumberance in different tables. Which results in people trying to find a nice balance between weather for intended travel route, price, mobility, durability and (very important) personal style.

Arbitrarily singling out certain kinds of clothes your players use and giving them unrealistic penalties but no advantages while still wanting your players to stick to them (or else!) has nothing at all to do with micromanagement. Micromanagement is about introducing detail (e.g. getting rid of "traveller clothes", "noble garment" and other clothing sets) and making meaningful choices regarding the newly introduced details.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-08, 04:49 AM
^^^^^^^^^^
See Above Post

Yes. That. Exactly that.

Thank you.


http://media0.giphy.com/media/11uArCoB4fkRcQ/giphy.gif

Keltest
2016-03-08, 06:58 AM
Based on Arthur Dent?

While the wizard is having trouble due to the traditional floor length robe, do the sorcerers have similar issues? More likely due to high heels (for both genders) and perhaps floor length robes for the sorcerers to disguise how blatantly platform-type the heels are. The sorceresses hardly have to deal with floor length robes (they're lucky if the are thigh length), but have to deal with the constriction of those pesky corset of charismas (if you want to be historically correct, so do the sorcerers/aristocrats of either gender. I just felt that if they are already wearing the floor length robes the extra constriction wouldn't be needed).

Also, I wouldn't expect NPCs to have these issues. Only PCs would find themselves in combat while wearing a ridiculous outfit in vain (sorry) hopes of getting a +1 higher save DC.

I feel like once youre able to cast Fireball, you automatically get an exception to the corset thing. It wasn't exactly a secret how uncomfortable they were.

neonchameleon
2016-03-08, 07:43 AM
I think the difference between you and I is that you are playing games from the perspective of games being "balanced" as if they are mathematical equations or board games or game (design) theory, and I am playing them from the perspective of including whatever is interesting, dramatic (however "petty"), or colourful. And I find "picking which kind of knife" to be on the latter order.

The problem is that you are designing games so that players do not actually make interesting choices. If one option is mechanically better than another then you either make the good choice or you make the stupid choice.

If you give robes the -1 penalty you are talking about for athletics then robes become the equivalent of wearing a dunce's cap. Only a player playing a deliberately stupid character is going to put that character in robes. By giving the sort of mechanical modifiers you are talking about you are asking the players to bring cookie-cutter clones along rather than actually make flavourful decisions.

If one choice is strictly mechanically better than another and your characters are supposed to be risking their lives then your character is suicidally stupid to not take the better choice. It literally and measurably lowers their chance of survival with no benefit. Being suicidally stupid might be dramatic - but it's a specific and rare type of drama. No one will take those options for colour and flavour?

You have a simple choice. If there is a clear best type of knife then characters who aren't stupid will all, without exception, pick that type of knife. If you want to allow characters colourful and flavourful choices then it is absolutely essential that there is not one best choice that all adventurers will choose. Because if their knife helps them survive then choosing the best knife is a matter of life and death and all your charaters are going to come out armed the same way.

This however doesn't mean you can't have situational clothing bonusses. Take, for example, the corset. We all know that it would provide penalties on certain physical rolls. It will also provide bonusses on certain rolls - which is why people wear them. They wear them at parties where the social bonusses are likely to be relevant - and the physical penalties rendered largely irrelevant.

Armour on the other hand provides very different bonusses and penalties. PCs wear armour because the bonusses are things that save their lives.

You want to make an interesting choice? Have the PCs invited to a high class party. Tell them trouble isn't expected (they won't believe you of course). Offer them social bonusses for dressing to the nines in things like corsets that are restricting. If you have a fighter and a rogue you might find the fighter staying in armour because they don't want to socialise anyway - or you might find them saying that if they aren't going to be wearing armour they are weakened so much they might as well take the social bonusses. And your rogue might go for socials all the way or they might stay in working clothes that aren't actually a problem just in case. This is because there is no right answer.

But if you just penalise people the way you are planning to then there is a right answer and you can either pick it or play a suicidally stupid character. Therefore you absolutely crush interesting and colourful choices by making them simple and boring ("Are you suicidally stupid or do you pick the best option?")

Storm_Of_Snow
2016-03-08, 08:09 AM
You want to make an interesting choice? Have the PCs invited to a high class party. Tell them trouble isn't expected (they won't believe you of course). Offer them social bonusses for dressing to the nines in things like corsets that are restricting. If you have a fighter and a rogue you might find the fighter staying in armour because they don't want to socialise anyway - or you might find them saying that if they aren't going to be wearing armour they are weakened so much they might as well take the social bonusses. And your rogue might go for socials all the way or they might stay in working clothes that aren't actually a problem just in case.
More likely the fighter works their armour into formal attire (even if it's only a breastplate and possibly a helmet), whether it's as official regalia for some position (whether real or made up on the spot), a military uniform or some other reason, and the rogue's got something protective on under their finery.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-03-08, 11:16 AM
More likely the fighter works their armour into formal attire (even if it's only a breastplate and possibly a helmet), whether it's as official regalia for some position (whether real or made up on the spot), a military uniform or some other reason, and the rogue's got something protective on under their finery.

Irrelevant to the current discussion but funny to tell anyway: that rogue is dressed a lot like how soldiers and mercenaries in the early modern age went to battle, wearing their most expensive garments. The reason was that while you are all fighting the camp is empty, and every thief within a hundred miles knows it. Anything those guys didn't want to loose they had to bring with them to get muddy and bloody and cut.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-08, 11:24 AM
I have yet to mention Balance in any way. I have mentioned reward structures, though. These are two different ideas entirely.

Players do what rewards them, and avoid what punishes them. (People like rewards and dislike punishments. Weird, right?)

The problem with using only punishments is that the game becomes "avoid the stick" rather than "achieve the reward."

I also take offense to the idea that Game Design isn't creative, artistic, even elegant. I'm sure many professional Game Designers would be similarly bewildered by the idea that they aren't engaging in the creation of something dramatic and wonderful.

Also, try not to defend your point with what is basically "yeah, well, I have experienced otherwise." Mostly because A) You can't prove you aren't lying about that, and B) It's a sign that you're out of better arguments.

Of course, my question is this:
You obviously already decided to do this. There has never been any doubt that no matter what we said, you would do it anyway.
So why bother asking if you don't want honest opinions and/or won't change anything based on the feedback you receive? Seems like a huge waste of time.

I haven't asked you to badwrongfun me, I asked after what modifiers clothing and other forms of encumbrance would have. It turns out the answer is multiplex and that furnishes more interesting options than I had hitherto considered.

Offended? That's a big word. I'm mildly irritated you don't "get" what I'm talking about, that there are other types of players of these games who appreciate colour more than game balance, but I'm not going to worry about it. You seem to be trying to convince me of something that I have already stated is Not A Problem for me, and are getting "offended" because of my counterposing of My Way versus Your Way.

Do you have any comments that are not about badwrongfunning me but are relevant to clothing penalties (or bonuses!)?

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-08, 11:41 AM
But that is not what you do.

You want to hand out a penalty for robes. Not because robes are restrictive clothing, but because wizards use them. You don't consider penalties for other clothing usually used by other classes. And your answer to "well, if robes are so restrictive, my wizard would not use them" is a penalty for spellcasting without robes to make the wizard using them. Here goes the last pretense of realism and micromanagement and all that is left is you trying to find some justification to give wizards and only wizards (not bards or clerics or other spellcasters) some arbitrary penalty. The only possible justification for doing that would be balancing and now you say you don't care about balancing. And forget about drama as argument for penalties for base equipment that people will use all the time. There is no scene or plot involvement which means the drama can't be a reason to do this.

And now it looks as if all you want is making up rules to hurt a specific character of a specific player and if not for balancing or plot, then obviously out of a power trip or for a personal grudge. That is what it would look like at the table. And frankly, that is also what it looks like here to me.


Micromanagement can be fun. I have played systems that do this and where you can look up the difference between a wool shirt, a hemp shirt, a fur west and a lether west on cold protection, price and encumberance in different tables. Which results in people trying to find a nice balance between weather for intended travel route, price, mobility, durability and (very important) personal style.

Arbitrarily singling out certain kinds of clothes your players use and giving them unrealistic penalties but no advantages while still wanting your players to stick to them (or else!) has nothing at all to do with micromanagement. Micromanagement is about introducing detail (e.g. getting rid of "traveller clothes", "noble garment" and other clothing sets) and making meaningful choices regarding the newly introduced details.

Balderdash. I'm not singling out wizards. The fighter getting sores from wearing his armour too long might also come into play at some point If the wizard's robes' penalties were unrealistic I wouldn't include them. But it's not outside the pale to think that some character classes will have drawbacks. Clerics being prohibited from using blades comes to mind. Am I a meanie against clerics if I do that? If not, why am I a meanie if I stipulate wizards must wear robes (which get penalties to grot if such seem realistic)?

Flickerdart
2016-03-08, 11:45 AM
Balderdash. I'm not singling out wizards. The fighter getting sores from wearing his armour too long might also come into play at some point If the wizard's robes' penalties were unrealistic I wouldn't include them. But it's not outside the pale to think that some character classes will have drawbacks. Clerics being prohibited from using blades comes to mind. Am I a meanie against clerics if I do that? If not, why am I a meanie if I stipulate wizards must wear robes (which get penalties to grot if such seem realistic)?
"Can't do X" and "must do X, which penalizes you" are very different animals. There are plenty of powerful blunt weapons for clerics to use.

cobaltstarfire
2016-03-08, 11:53 AM
Your clothing penalty and bonuses are not engaging, and would make me feel cheated if I was a player, especially if dropped on me by surprise.

I also would never accept a -1 on robes, they do not noticeably inhibit running, jumping, or climbing, but if you wanted to force it anyway I'd just have to make a magic user that doesn't wear robes. Oh but that has a penalty too so maybe it'd be better to just leave the table.

Seriously, wear robes and suffer, or don't wear robes and suffer, you really truly honestly think that such a restriction brings "interest" to a game? Because it just sounds like an annoying hurdle to get in the way of making an interesting character.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-08, 11:54 AM
The problem is that you are designing games so that players do not actually make interesting choices. If one option is mechanically better than another then you either make the good choice or you make the stupid choice.

If you give robes the -1 penalty you are talking about for athletics then robes become the equivalent of wearing a dunce's cap. Only a player playing a deliberately stupid character is going to put that character in robes. By giving the sort of mechanical modifiers you are talking about you are asking the players to bring cookie-cutter clones along rather than actually make flavourful decisions.

If one choice is strictly mechanically better than another and your characters are supposed to be risking their lives then your character is suicidally stupid to not take the better choice. It literally and measurably lowers their chance of survival with no benefit. Being suicidally stupid might be dramatic - but it's a specific and rare type of drama. No one will take those options for colour and flavour?

You have a simple choice. If there is a clear best type of knife then characters who aren't stupid will all, without exception, pick that type of knife. If you want to allow characters colourful and flavourful choices then it is absolutely essential that there is not one best choice that all adventurers will choose. Because if their knife helps them survive then choosing the best knife is a matter of life and death and all your charaters are going to come out armed the same way.

This however doesn't mean you can't have situational clothing bonusses. Take, for example, the corset. We all know that it would provide penalties on certain physical rolls. It will also provide bonusses on certain rolls - which is why people wear them. They wear them at parties where the social bonusses are likely to be relevant - and the physical penalties rendered largely irrelevant.

Armour on the other hand provides very different bonusses and penalties. PCs wear armour because the bonusses are things that save their lives.

You want to make an interesting choice? Have the PCs invited to a high class party. Tell them trouble isn't expected (they won't believe you of course). Offer them social bonusses for dressing to the nines in things like corsets that are restricting. If you have a fighter and a rogue you might find the fighter staying in armour because they don't want to socialise anyway - or you might find them saying that if they aren't going to be wearing armour they are weakened so much they might as well take the social bonusses. And your rogue might go for socials all the way or they might stay in working clothes that aren't actually a problem just in case. This is because there is no right answer.

But if you just penalise people the way you are planning to then there is a right answer and you can either pick it or play a suicidally stupid character. Therefore you absolutely crush interesting and colourful choices by making them simple and boring ("Are you suicidally stupid or do you pick the best option?")

I already said, they're magic robes. Wizard grot needs them to do his thing. Maybe there's a solution to the dilemma, maybe not. Maybe his magic isn't annulled without the robes, just diminished, or maybe he can "accidentally" shrink them in the wash, who knows. But I don't see how just applying realistic penalties (if indeed they apply) is so beyond the pale at to elicit this passionate reaction.

You all also seem to think I'd be springing this on my players, instead of telling them things like, "Wizards come with penalties" (like d4 hit dice?), and they'd say, "Okay, hit me."

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-08, 12:01 PM
Your clothing penalty and bonuses are not engaging, and would make me feel cheated if I was a player, especially if dropped on me by surprise.

I also would never accept a -1 on robes, they do not noticeably inhibit running, jumping, or climbing, but if you wanted to force it anyway I'd just have to make a magic user that doesn't wear robes. Oh but that has a penalty too so maybe it'd be better to just leave the table.

Seriously, wear robes and suffer, or don't wear robes and suffer, you really truly honestly think that such a restriction brings "interest" to a game? Because it just sounds like an annoying hurdle to get in the way of making an interesting character.

[shrug] I'd play it. Yes, I think it's interesting. As I said, you'd know in advance wizards had drawbacks. Don't play a wizard. Or don't play at all, whatever.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-08, 12:04 PM
"Can't do X" and "must do X, which penalizes you" are very different animals. There are plenty of powerful blunt weapons for clerics to use.

It's still a restriction that leaves the character vulnerable if she loses her weapon and only blades are lying around at hand. And for what? Some stupid character rule? What a hassle! Why play a cleric at all? I'm not playing a cleric.

Keltest
2016-03-08, 12:28 PM
I already said, they're magic robes. Wizard grot needs them to do his thing. Maybe there's a solution to the dilemma, maybe not. Maybe his magic isn't annulled without the robes, just diminished, or maybe he can "accidentally" shrink them in the wash, who knows. But I don't see how just applying realistic penalties (if indeed they apply) is so beyond the pale at to elicit this passionate reaction.

You all also seem to think I'd be springing this on my players, instead of telling them things like, "Wizards come with penalties" (like d4 hit dice?), and they'd say, "Okay, hit me."

The penalty to wearing wizard robes is "they aren't armor". Theres no need to add on an additional penalty to wearing them over running around naked, and forcing your players to accept this penalty or not play a wizard is just going to breed resentment. Theres nothing interesting here because its a false choice.

cobaltstarfire
2016-03-08, 12:37 PM
[shrug] I'd play it. Yes, I think it's interesting. As I said, you'd know in advance wizards had drawbacks. Don't play a wizard. Or don't play at all, whatever.

Yeah, playing a stereotypical wizard in a robe is super interesting alright.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-08, 12:42 PM
The penalty to wearing wizard robes is "they aren't armor". Theres no need to add on an additional penalty to wearing them over running around naked, and forcing your players to accept this penalty or not play a wizard is just going to breed resentment. Theres nothing interesting here because its a false choice.

I don't understand where you're getting the moral authority to say what is "needed" or not.

Keltest
2016-03-08, 12:44 PM
I don't understand where you're getting the moral authority to say what is "needed" or not.

Ok, lets try this another way. Where is the benefit to making wizard robes worse than running around naked? What does it add to the game to make the class that cant wear armor also be forced to wear something that actively penalizes them beyond what another class not wearing armor would be?

Talakeal
2016-03-08, 01:24 PM
I don't understand where you're getting the moral authority to say what is "needed" or not.

What does the neccessity (or lack thereof) of game rules have to do with morals?

VoxRationis
2016-03-08, 01:55 PM
I think the difference between you and I is that you are playing games from the perspective of games being "balanced" as if they are mathematical equations or board games or game (design) theory, and I am playing them from the perspective of including whatever is interesting, dramatic (however "petty"), or colourful. And I find "picking which kind of knife" to be on the latter order. Shall I not give penalties for cold weather even though there's no game-balance involved? I fundamentally disagree that my games (your games can be whatever) should avoid picayune penalties, or that they will collapse into your laughing-stock if they do not. Been GM-ing a while now, hasn't happened yet.

I'd give it up, Donnadogsoth. You're running into the "PCs can't be penalized except by enemy spells" school of thought, and there's no success in arguing with them. There's a certain brand of thinking endemic to this forum which believes tabletop RPGs are to be played rather like League of Legends, with wholly non-agentive NPCs, a gameplay which consists of a group of colorful but improbable misfits smashing together to see whose numbers are bigger, and, most importantly to this thread, a total lack of penalties or hindrances that don't come from the actions (read: tactical-level combat abilities) of those it is socially acceptable to kill. Their expectations and values for a game are wholly different from yours, and you're not going to be able to change their minds. Goodness knows I've tried, to no avail.

Talakeal
2016-03-08, 02:25 PM
I'd give it up, Donnadogsoth. You're running into the "PCs can't be penalized except by enemy spells" school of thought, and there's no success in arguing with them. There's a certain brand of thinking endemic to this forum which believes tabletop RPGs are to be played rather like League of Legends, with wholly non-agentive NPCs, a gameplay which consists of a group of colorful but improbable misfits smashing together to see whose numbers are bigger, and, most importantly to this thread, a total lack of penalties or hindrances that don't come from the actions (read: tactical-level combat abilities) of those it is socially acceptable to kill. Their expectations and values for a game are wholly different from yours, and you're not going to be able to change their minds. Goodness knows I've tried, to no avail.

Let's calm down and try to look at this pragmatically:

In my observation:

Most players are primarily concerned with the mechanics of their character first.

Therefore, if you make a rule that robes have a penalty with no upside most people will simply read it as "Robes are not an option."

So most of the time all this rule will do is mean that players have fewer stylistic choices.

Now, you might have a few players who enjoy style over substance. They want their character to wear robes, so they will wear robes despite the penalty.

Most of them will be conflicted about this. They will constantly be having doubts, wondering if they should just give in and ditch the robe to avoid the penalties. These doubts cause tension, which makes the game stressful and less fun.

This can seriously be compounded if the other players are constantly mocking them or nagging them. Lots of groups will bully other players if they think that they are "holding them back" with the clearly sub-optimal build choices. This makes the game less fun.

So, you might have someone who is being mechanically penalized, under stress, and being mocked or harassed by their peers. All of this is likely going to discourage them from valuing aesthetics, and in all likehood drive them to becoming a "power gamer."

In my opinion if you want someone to look at the game as less of a video game and more of a story or reality simulation punishing them for doing so is the worst way to go about it, instead you should find ways to reward them for making cosmetic choices and caring more about the fiction of their character than their power.



Now, to truly help the OP, we have to look at why he is doing this. He has said that it is both for added realism and to "bring wizards down a bit".

For realisms sake, you need to look at why people wore robes in reality. There have to be reasons, otherwise robes would never have been a thing in the first place. Look at comfort, ease of upkeep and manufacture, how well they perform in various climates and weather, and then look at the social impact of wearing them. Cobble all of these factors together and find out what the RL properties of robes are, both positive and negative, and then cobble those together into a mechanical representation that leaves robes a viable option but not absolutely better or worse than all other forms of clothing, just like in reality.


Now, if you are doing it to try and balance wizards, you need to look at why wizards wear robes. Because, again, if it is "just because its looks wizardly" most players will ditch the robes and play wizards in street clothes. If you actually make it mandatory for wizards to wear robes you need to come up with a very good reason for it, and since you seem to be emphasizing role-play and realism over mechanics you need to make sure that the explanation is consistent and logical. How and why did robes become required mage-wear in the first place?
Furthermore, you need to explore the impacts on the setting and make sure they are applied evenly and desirable. You now have wizards who can be picked out on sight by the robes and who are helpless on laundry day for example. You also now have the aesthetic of a setting where all wizards wear robes, and no one who isn't a wizard (or pretending to be) would be caught dead in such an outfit, which severely curtails the possible appearances you could have for characters in the setting, PC and NPC alike.

So yeah, its doable, but its a lot of work and has a lot of downsides, so make sure it is worth it. If you really want to go down this path I'll give you the best advice I can, so get back to me with exactly how and why you plan on implementing these changes and I will do my best to give you constructive feedback and help you figure out where to go from there.

Knaight
2016-03-08, 03:15 PM
Perhaps, but your players are going to be snarling at you for taking away their equipment (and indeed, replacing it with something worse than being naked) then forcing a fight on them. Except the wizard, who might be able to get away with justifying their regular robes as appropriate court apparel.

You're not taking away their equipment and forcing a fight on them, you're giving them an option to use equipment which works better than fighting gear for some non-fighting purpose, and they're choosing to make that trade. This sort of stuff comes up in my games routinely. To use some examples all from a recent space opera game, at one point the PCs ditched some of their very useful equipment (jetpacks, heavy weaponry, armor) to blend in with the medical officers on a pirate ship. They did this because they had a plan to capture the captain by surreptitiously injecting him with something, and then carting him off with a stretcher because it was a "medical emergency". This worked, but there was a small firefight near the end where they turned away from the medbay to go back to their ship. Nobody was complaining about being under-equipped; everyone was pretty happy about how that plan still resulted in facing a lot less firepower than a frontal assault would. In another instance, they suited up in space suits during an enemy boarding attempt, despite them not working as well in a fight. They did this, because it allowed them to open up the cargo bay which had a few small fighters in it in various states of disrepair, which still worked pretty well as stationary turrets against some of the boarders. There was the time they crashed their ship into a planet due to a magnetic anomaly that took out the steering*, and upon seeing a primitive surface village decided not to bring in anything too obviously high tech, so as not to spook the villagers. A fight didn't happen in that case, but the players knew there was the potential for an extremely isolated colony to maybe get a bit tetchy about strangers appearing, and took that risk anyways.

*Technically it was a sophisticated defense system disguised as a magnetic anomaly, but whatever.

Talakeal
2016-03-08, 03:15 PM
Also; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z29Rk8814w

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-08, 04:57 PM
I haven't asked you to badwrongfun me, I asked after what modifiers clothing and other forms of encumbrance would have. It turns out the answer is multiplex and that furnishes more interesting options than I had hitherto considered.

Offended? That's a big word. I'm mildly irritated you don't "get" what I'm talking about, that there are other types of players of these games who appreciate colour more than game balance, but I'm not going to worry about it. You seem to be trying to convince me of something that I have already stated is Not A Problem for me, and are getting "offended" because of my counterposing of My Way versus Your Way.

Do you have any comments that are not about badwrongfunning me but are relevant to clothing penalties (or bonuses!)?

I don't care what you find fun. I already told you to do it and expect you will anyways. I've just given my reasons why it is a bad idea to sling out punishments for no good reason.

As for my offense, that isn't what you said. You said that considering balance and design (of which I was considering only the latter) is uncreative and uncolorful and undramatic, simply by saying "some people consider design, other people cosider color and drama" and that is a load of bull exrement. I can, in fact, do both. Hell, I even abandoned D&D because I've found systems that better support the fiction of my game worlds and allow me and my players to tell stories that we couldn't before. I've played GMless games that were basically collaberative storytelling with a few rules, and so were pure exercises in fiction, drama, and creativity. (The systems in question are Apocalypse World, its many hacks, Fall of Magic, and a handful of others here and there.) So no, I refute your position entirely. I get to valur color and creativity and ALSO point out terrible design decisions.

As everyone has already said, on that last point,
The clothing (all pieces) MUST have bonuses as well as penalties, and at least one option with neither. Only penalties is only an interesting choice as far as "where do I want to suck?"
Penalties AND bonuses makes for an interplay between "This gives me X, but I lose Y. Is it worth it to take that penalty to receive this boon? " That situation is very different.
Wizard Robes being needed for spellcasting is weak and would need to have a very good justification for why exactly a Wizards natural magic abilities get worse when they are naked. That doesn't make sense. Robes would have to enhance spellcasting at the cost of combat abilities, or, do nothing.

But as always, having a rule for something communicates to the players that this thing is important. It sounds like you have maybe 1 situation in which this mechanic would ever be used in an interesting way, and that's insufficient to merit a subsystem. A one-time penalty for really, really stuffy and restrictive/stupidly tailored clothing for the purpose of that one scene is sufficient.

Basically, think of it this way: Will your players be making wardrobe decisions every single session? Will they have a narrative reason to do so every single session? If the answer to one or more of these is No, just save yourself a lot of time and don't do it. Use a one-time setup and call it good. The rules your system has in place already are probably sufficient.

Basically: this rule would end up being like that one appliance everyone has but doesn't ever use. Or uses once and forgets about. So...why bother putting in the kind of effort this would require if the whole system, setting, amd narrative aren't built to support it? Just....don't. It's easier.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-08, 05:31 PM
Let's calm down and try to look at this pragmatically:

In my observation:

Most players are primarily concerned with the mechanics of their character first.

Therefore, if you make a rule that robes have a penalty with no upside most people will simply read it as "Robes are not an option."

So most of the time all this rule will do is mean that players have fewer stylistic choices.

Now, you might have a few players who enjoy style over substance. They want their character to wear robes, so they will wear robes despite the penalty.

Most of them will be conflicted about this. They will constantly be having doubts, wondering if they should just give in and ditch the robe to avoid the penalties. These doubts cause tension, which makes the game stressful and less fun.

This can seriously be compounded if the other players are constantly mocking them or nagging them. Lots of groups will bully other players if they think that they are "holding them back" with the clearly sub-optimal build choices. This makes the game less fun.

So, you might have someone who is being mechanically penalized, under stress, and being mocked or harassed by their peers. All of this is likely going to discourage them from valuing aesthetics, and in all likehood drive them to becoming a "power gamer."

In my opinion if you want someone to look at the game as less of a video game and more of a story or reality simulation punishing them for doing so is the worst way to go about it, instead you should find ways to reward them for making cosmetic choices and caring more about the fiction of their character than their power.



Now, to truly help the OP, we have to look at why he is doing this. He has said that it is both for added realism and to "bring wizards down a bit".

For realisms sake, you need to look at why people wore robes in reality. There have to be reasons, otherwise robes would never have been a thing in the first place. Look at comfort, ease of upkeep and manufacture, how well they perform in various climates and weather, and then look at the social impact of wearing them. Cobble all of these factors together and find out what the RL properties of robes are, both positive and negative, and then cobble those together into a mechanical representation that leaves robes a viable option but not absolutely better or worse than all other forms of clothing, just like in reality.


Now, if you are doing it to try and balance wizards, you need to look at why wizards wear robes. Because, again, if it is "just because its looks wizardly" most players will ditch the robes and play wizards in street clothes. If you actually make it mandatory for wizards to wear robes you need to come up with a very good reason for it, and since you seem to be emphasizing role-play and realism over mechanics you need to make sure that the explanation is consistent and logical. How and why did robes become required mage-wear in the first place?
Furthermore, you need to explore the impacts on the setting and make sure they are applied evenly and desirable. You now have wizards who can be picked out on sight by the robes and who are helpless on laundry day for example. You also now have the aesthetic of a setting where all wizards wear robes, and no one who isn't a wizard (or pretending to be) would be caught dead in such an outfit, which severely curtails the possible appearances you could have for characters in the setting, PC and NPC alike.

So yeah, its doable, but its a lot of work and has a lot of downsides, so make sure it is worth it. If you really want to go down this path I'll give you the best advice I can, so get back to me with exactly how and why you plan on implementing these changes and I will do my best to give you constructive feedback and help you figure out where to go from there.

When a wizard appears in my game, I will hit you up. Thanks.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-08, 05:38 PM
I don't care what you find fun. I already told you to do it and expect you will anyways. I've just given my reasons why it is a bad idea to sling out punishments for no good reason.

As for my offense, that isn't what you said. You said that considering balance and design (of which I was considering only the latter) is uncreative and uncolorful and undramatic, simply by saying "some people consider design, other people cosider color and drama" and that is a load of bull exrement. I can, in fact, do both. Hell, I even abandoned D&D because I've found systems that better support the fiction of my game worlds and allow me and my players to tell stories that we couldn't before. I've played GMless games that were basically collaberative storytelling with a few rules, and so were pure exercises in fiction, drama, and creativity. (The systems in question are Apocalypse World, its many hacks, Fall of Magic, and a handful of others here and there.) So no, I refute your position entirely. I get to valur color and creativity and ALSO point out terrible design decisions.

As everyone has already said, on that last point,
The clothing (all pieces) MUST have bonuses as well as penalties, and at least one option with neither. Only penalties is only an interesting choice as far as "where do I want to suck?"
Penalties AND bonuses makes for an interplay between "This gives me X, but I lose Y. Is it worth it to take that penalty to receive this boon? " That situation is very different.
Wizard Robes being needed for spellcasting is weak and would need to have a very good justification for why exactly a Wizards natural magic abilities get worse when they are naked. That doesn't make sense. Robes would have to enhance spellcasting at the cost of combat abilities, or, do nothing.

But as always, having a rule for something communicates to the players that this thing is important. It sounds like you have maybe 1 situation in which this mechanic would ever be used in an interesting way, and that's insufficient to merit a subsystem. A one-time penalty for really, really stuffy and restrictive/stupidly tailored clothing for the purpose of that one scene is sufficient.

Basically, think of it this way: Will your players be making wardrobe decisions every single session? Will they have a narrative reason to do so every single session? If the answer to one or more of these is No, just save yourself a lot of time and don't do it. Use a one-time setup and call it good. The rules your system has in place already are probably sufficient.

Basically: this rule would end up being like that one appliance everyone has but doesn't ever use. Or uses once and forgets about. So...why bother putting in the kind of effort this would require if the whole system, setting, amd narrative aren't built to support it? Just....don't. It's easier.

I appreciate the avuncular pose, but I don't care about "design" and you're really wasting your breath. Though you have given me the idea that a wizard might find, or craft, a spell that creates illusory magical robes that serve the same function as physical ones. Whether the wizard will have to remain nude beneath the illusion has yet to be determined. Ah, being a wizard, all these compromises.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-08, 05:42 PM
I'd give it up, Donnadogsoth. You're running into the "PCs can't be penalized except by enemy spells" school of thought, and there's no success in arguing with them. There's a certain brand of thinking endemic to this forum which believes tabletop RPGs are to be played rather like League of Legends, with wholly non-agentive NPCs, a gameplay which consists of a group of colorful but improbable misfits smashing together to see whose numbers are bigger, and, most importantly to this thread, a total lack of penalties or hindrances that don't come from the actions (read: tactical-level combat abilities) of those it is socially acceptable to kill. Their expectations and values for a game are wholly different from yours, and you're not going to be able to change their minds. Goodness knows I've tried, to no avail.

Yes. The OP question has elicited all the elaboration it will I think, leaving only a residue of people telling me what I "need" and why I am wrong and a bad GM.

Keltest
2016-03-08, 05:52 PM
I appreciate the avuncular pose, but I don't care about "design" and you're really wasting your breath.

Then youre going to have a rough time should you ever actually try to play a game like this. If youre ok with that, more power to you, I guess.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-08, 06:37 PM
I appreciate the avuncular pose, but I don't care about "design" and you're really wasting your breath.

"Hey guys, I need help designing a mechanic for the restrictions of clothing!"

"I don't care about design."

Bruh.
Bruh.
Bruuuuuuh.
Wut r u doin

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-08, 07:42 PM
"Hey guys, I need help designing a mechanic for the restrictions of clothing!"

"I don't care about design."

Bruh.
Bruh.
Bruuuuuuh.
Wut r u doin

Yes, not someone telling me I'm not playing the game right.

Keltest
2016-03-08, 07:54 PM
Yes, not someone telling me I'm not playing the game right.

Its not about playing the game right or wrong, its about playing it in a manner that people will enjoy, and the vast majority of people will have their enjoyment negatively impacted by these changes.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-08, 07:54 PM
Yes, not someone telling me I'm not playing the game right.

Who said anything about playing the game?

Put the Victim Card away, homeslice. You wanted help designing a subsystem. You're being told that the idea as originally proposed isn't good design, (you asked for help designing a subsystem, which should include warnings when you're about to make a big mistake) have gotten pretty much the same advice consistently. (The clothing options need both Positive and Negative qualities, not just Negative and Lack-of-Negative qualities, make sure this subsystem will actually matter in the long run before you spend effort on it, make sure you aren't targetting any classes in particular, etc.) And these bits of advice aren't just from me.

So again:
"I want help with designing this"

"Anyone who tells me my design is bad is attacking my playstyle"

Bruh.
Bruh.
BRUUUUH.
Wut r u doin

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-08, 10:17 PM
Who said anything about playing the game?

Put the Victim Card away, homeslice. You wanted help designing a subsystem. You're being told that the idea as originally proposed isn't good design, (you asked for help designing a subsystem, which should include warnings when you're about to make a big mistake) have gotten pretty much the same advice consistently. (The clothing options need both Positive and Negative qualities, not just Negative and Lack-of-Negative qualities, make sure this subsystem will actually matter in the long run before you spend effort on it, make sure you aren't targetting any classes in particular, etc.) And these bits of advice aren't just from me.

So again:
"I want help with designing this"

"Anyone who tells me my design is bad is attacking my playstyle"

Bruh.
Bruh.
BRUUUUH.
Wut r u doin

I think I understand your charming patois, and the answer is, having fun collecting rule bits.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-08, 11:39 PM
I think I understand your charming patois, and the answer is, having fun collecting rule bits.

So... asking people "hey, what kind of rules should I apply to clothing?" Isn't collecting Rule Bits.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zrfUJzfMZ_4/maxresdefault.jpg

Satinavian
2016-03-09, 03:26 AM
Yes, not someone telling me I'm not playing the game right.
You came here to ask for advice for rule design

We told you, your proposed idea is a bad rule
We told you why it is a bad rule.

You told us you simply don't care about the reasons. Not that we were wrong, but that balancing, rule design principles and even allowing players choices simply don't matter. And you never really answered the realism complaints.

We also told you that players might ditch the robes.

You told us that you would make it requirement for working spellcasting

Then you complained about us not valueing "color" and "drama" over "balancing and numbers". Despite your rule basically only affecting balancing and numbers and restricting choices which makes the game less colorful and more boring while not adding to drama at all. Outside of OT-drama that is.

Until now, you have not been able to bring a single argument supporting your rule. Only insults for those who don't like your idea. And a lot of strawmanning (suddenly "this penalty is bad" becomes "every penalty is bad")



You know what ? Have fun implementing bad rules into your personal game, and showing your whole group why they should never allow you to design rule systems.



Yes. The OP question has elicited all the elaboration it will I think, leaving only a residue of people telling me what I "need" and why I am wrong and a bad GM. You probably are a terrible DM.
Bad choices
Can't handle criticism
Decisions seem to be rooted in petty grudges and there are a lot of hints for DM-power abuse

Ashtagon
2016-03-09, 04:43 AM
So let me get this straight.

Robes are intended to provide a penalty to combat stats.

Wizards are required to wear robes (Maybe magi requires the arcane field woven into the robes? Who knows? Because reasons!)

Either because the PCs have a specific dress sense intended for their character, or because they don't like the penalties, they want to ditch the robes.

Solution: Give wizards a flat -2 penalty on attack rolls, regardless of clothes, as a house rule. Let them wear what they like with no special penalties.

Although frankly, sensibly-cut robes are far less restrictive than the OP thinks. Foolishly-cut robes, of course, are as restrictive any any other foolishly-cut garment. I've seen trousers supposedly in my size that I couldn't walk in because the hips were too tight.

Âmesang
2016-03-09, 08:07 AM
Suddenly I want to play as an enchanter who wears a comfy bathrobe ala Hugh Hefner. Perhaps with a fez.

T'would be a good match for my sorceress and her "entertainer's outfit (https://www.schadenfreudestudios.com/dnd/quintessaXXX.png)." :smalltongue:

neonchameleon
2016-03-09, 09:51 AM
"Help me design rules for clothing" vs "I don't care about design."

Right.

"I want people to pick colourful and interesting clothing choices - so I'm going to make all colourful and interesting clothing choices suck to the point that they are not good to wear."

Right.

"I don't care about design and optimisation therefore my clothing rules are going to be all about design and optimisation."

Right.

"Wizards might ditch their robes because of the arbitrary penalty so I'm going to make it a requirement for casting spells to ensure that they don't ditch robes because that will make wizards less cookie cutter than letting them wear whatever the hell they like."

Right.

"I want people to wear varied clothing but I'm never going to give clothing bonusses so characters should never want to wear interesting stuff."

Right.

If you give a damn about what you claim to care about then you are going about things precisely the wrong way. The only people your way of going about things helps is jerk DMs who just want to screw with their players. Either you are a jerk DM looking for ways to screw with your players and you are designing this intentionally or you are designing a system that encourages this and discourages everything you claim to want to encourage. We're giving you the benefit of the doubt for now and saying that your attempt at design does not fit your stated playstyle and should be discarded. But the more you talk the more it looks as if what you want is an excuse to be a jerk - and that is one of the few playstyles that is genuinely bad and wrong.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-09, 10:46 AM
You came here to ask for advice for rule design

We told you, your proposed idea is a bad rule.

That's where you've gone off the rails. I didn't ask for judgements of rules in term of whether they make me a terrible GM, I just asked for rules. Just rules, period.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-09, 11:52 AM
"Help me design rules for clothing" vs "I don't care about design."

And that's the end of it. I didn't ask for judgements on whether the rules were fair, just, moral, kosher, or in accordance with the United States Code. I asked about realistic rules for clothing, that's it.

Satinavian
2016-03-09, 12:21 PM
I asked about realistic rules for clothing, that's it.
No penalty for any clothing with following exception :

- ill fitting clothing : max 1 penalty
- clothing explicitely made to restrict movement (ranging from certain court customs to straitjacket): 1-5 penalty
- naked : 1 penalty (because clothes are used for a reason)

- swimming : -1 penalty per kg weight of fabric
- riding : some kind of clothes might require special saddles and give -1 penalty. Basically everything where you can't fit a horseback between your legs

Seems realistic for general D20 games. Happy now ?

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-09, 12:52 PM
And that's the end of it. I didn't ask for judgements on whether the rules were fair, just, moral, kosher, or in accordance with the United States Code. I asked about realistic rules for clothing, that's it.

You got the answer multiple times. Allow me to interpret:

1. Clothing is drastically more varied than simply "X garment is like Y." Modelling these things realistically is a fool's errand. Because. ..

2. The cut of any clothing can be altered, cheaply. Even an idiot who has never used a needle and thread could probably do a quick and dirty hem to make floor- length robes into ankle-length robes.

3. People are strong enough to easily tear fabric with their hands/bodies. Even non-strong people can do this. Go buy a really tight button-up cotton shirt and then start doing really intense physical activity. Odds are, it will either stretch to accomodate or it will tear at the seams. Buy pants that are too tight and bend over for a more comical version of the same idea. Amd medieval seams/fabrics were a hundred times worse than today's, so they would rip easier. The idea of double-seamed Blue Jeans wouldn't come around until much later, and that idea was a major game-changer.

Conclusion: While you COULD model the effects of clothing, the negative bonuses would be obliterated really easily by:
-Taking it to a tailor and having it altered
-Making a very low strength check to just rip the clothes enough to fight
-have a dagger? The above no longer even requires a check. It is, at worst, a full-round action to make a floor-length robe into one that ends at the thigh. (Which is both functional and flirty, so all the old wizards are rocking it this season.)

For more instances of why this is not a thing, look up Cirque Du Soleil. They do performances with robes and long-length skirts all the time because their costumes are awesome.

http://wpmedia.montrealgazette.com/2012/08/cirque-du-soleil-2.jpg
http://www.theaterpizzazz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/peacock-dance.jpg
Go to about 3:30 in this video to see this performance: https://youtu.be/gOoe6cksAYA
If you watch carefully, you'll see that having billowy sleeves would only be a problem insomuch as it obscures her arm movements. Otherwise they likely wouldn't hinder her. And her outfit is far weirder than a simple robe.
http://images.theage.com.au/2013/09/18/4757788/CirqueMJ3AArticle-wide-729-620x349.jpg an entire dance routine is done in these outfits...
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/9a/f2/13/9af2134c300eccd720650f7994333e03.jpg this lady took the cool sleeves, apparently.
http://cdn.sandiegouniontrib.com/img/photos/2015/02/17/THEATER_CirqueDuSoliel03_r900x493.jpg?122770e84b36 f1c039d5c4c2ca15c2d8bc4ecd52 while perhaps not restrictive in the traditional sense, these guys have tentacles/leaves growing out of their suits at odd places and seem unbothered.

Basically, the problem is so easy to fix that it's not worth modelling at all and/or is such a small problem that it merits a -1...in a d100 system. Or smaller.

As for manacles and other non-cloth restrictive clothing...
*coughs loudly and points to Armor Penalty rules*
*Sneezes quietly and points to Manacles rules in the PHB*
*Burps at moderate volume and points to Encumbrance rules for clothing that is just really heavy*

These rules exist for every effect large enough to be measured on a d20.

Wizards suck at combat because they use their brains, not their brawn. Unless someone finally discovers a sweet Muscle-Wizard build. Which exists in Mage: The Ascension, but that's not d20. (Who doesn't want to cast a fireball by FLEXING SO HARD THAT IT ALTERS REALITY TO INCLUDE MORE FIRE.) but that's a different issue.

But yeah, that's your answer.

Too granular for d20. Almost too granular for d100, but d100 can sorta model it (even though a decent tailor fixes the problem, realistically.)

It is modelled in most d20 systems as well as it is likely going to be. And besides, your wizards are casting fireball at the dragons your orc barbarian is wrestling to the ground while your fighter's enchanted armor reflects the blast of ice from the creature's mouth into a nearby kobold. Keeping their clothing realistic is pretty low on the priority list of things not rendered realistically, don't you think?

I'm sure there are systems built around realistic portrayals of medieval life that include more detailed clothing and encumbrance rules. But in something as pulp-fantasy focused as D&D? Nah. Maybe worth a chuckle to see the wizard curse his robes to high heaven and vow upon his honor that he will strangle the tailor when he gets back to town. But only once.
Taking away all the boons they have for the purpose of one dramatic scene, maybe even applying a small penalty until they rent their clothes in twain. (In the form of Armor Check Penalties.) That would also be cool. Once.

So yeah. Too granular and small for d20, too easily solved by a needle and thread. Trying to force the issue comes across as douchey. So... just make one exceptionally stuffy article of clothing for your dramatic purposes and call it a day. Unless you want to build a system from the ground up with this in mind, in which case we'll have a lot more to talk about than just numbers.

Tiktakkat
2016-03-09, 01:24 PM
That's where you've gone off the rails. I didn't ask for judgements of rules in term of whether they make me a terrible GM, I just asked for rules. Just rules, period.

I do not think choosing to implement rules such as you want makes you a terrible GM.
All that matters is if your players like it.

I do think choosing to create rules such as you want makes you a terrible designer/developer.
That you aren't finding anyone who would want to use such rules pretty much establishes that.

The two are not synonymous, although many people think so.
Nor are many of the other elements of game construction and play synonymous, although again many think so, particularly those who do the hiring at game companies, and among those who like to self-publish.

being able to play an awesome character =/= being able to run an awesome adventure =/= being able to write an awesome adventure =/= being able to write an awesome setting =/= being able to write awesome expansion material for a rules system =/= being able to create an awesome rules system

Each is a separate and distinct skill, requiring its own expertise, though there are synergy bonuses available.


I asked about realistic rules for clothing, that's it.

That is moving the goalposts.

realistic =/= flavorful =/= functional

They could be, but as with the task abilities above, each is a distinct element of design.

You started by asking for any rules, then declared you wanted flavorful rules, and now you are claiming you want realistic rules.
Each time you have received suggestions along with commentary regarding the possibilities.
And each time they have included criticisms that have led you to complain and insist you want something else.

That doesn't make you a terrible GM or designer.
It makes you a terrible consumer.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-09, 02:20 PM
No penalty for any clothing with following exception :

- ill fitting clothing : max 1 penalty
- clothing explicitely made to restrict movement (ranging from certain court customs to straitjacket): 1-5 penalty
- naked : 1 penalty (because clothes are used for a reason)

- swimming : -1 penalty per kg weight of fabric
- riding : some kind of clothes might require special saddles and give -1 penalty. Basically everything where you can't fit a horseback between your legs

Seems realistic for general D20 games. Happy now ?

That's wonderful, thanks!

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-09, 08:27 PM
I do not think choosing to implement rules such as you want makes you a terrible GM.
All that matters is if your players like it.

I do think choosing to create rules such as you want makes you a terrible designer/developer.
That you aren't finding anyone who would want to use such rules pretty much establishes that.

The two are not synonymous, although many people think so.
Nor are many of the other elements of game construction and play synonymous, although again many think so, particularly those who do the hiring at game companies, and among those who like to self-publish.

being able to play an awesome character =/= being able to run an awesome adventure =/= being able to write an awesome adventure =/= being able to write an awesome setting =/= being able to write awesome expansion material for a rules system =/= being able to create an awesome rules system

Each is a separate and distinct skill, requiring its own expertise, though there are synergy bonuses available.



That is moving the goalposts.

realistic =/= flavorful =/= functional

They could be, but as with the task abilities above, each is a distinct element of design.

You started by asking for any rules, then declared you wanted flavorful rules, and now you are claiming you want realistic rules.
Each time you have received suggestions along with commentary regarding the possibilities.
And each time they have included criticisms that have led you to complain and insist you want something else.

That doesn't make you a terrible GM or designer.
It makes you a terrible consumer.

Why would I ask after unrealistic rules? Or unflavourful rules? What would possibly be the point of that? It's all implicit in my asking after rules at all. So yes X == Y == Z.

You know nothing of my gaming history and you're telling me I'm a terrible designer and developer. I'm not, in case it's not obvious, looking for players here. This place is a worthwhile source of commentary and contribution, but it is a bit full of itself when it comes to judging others' play styles.

A terrible consumer? Jeez louise. I'm crushed.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-09, 08:35 PM
You got the answer multiple times. Allow me to interpret:

1. Clothing is drastically more varied than simply "X garment is like Y." Modelling these things realistically is a fool's errand. Because. ..

2. The cut of any clothing can be altered, cheaply. Even an idiot who has never used a needle and thread could probably do a quick and dirty hem to make floor- length robes into ankle-length robes.

3. People are strong enough to easily tear fabric with their hands/bodies. Even non-strong people can do this. Go buy a really tight button-up cotton shirt and then start doing really intense physical activity. Odds are, it will either stretch to accomodate or it will tear at the seams. Buy pants that are too tight and bend over for a more comical version of the same idea. Amd medieval seams/fabrics were a hundred times worse than today's, so they would rip easier. The idea of double-seamed Blue Jeans wouldn't come around until much later, and that idea was a major game-changer.

Conclusion: While you COULD model the effects of clothing, the negative bonuses would be obliterated really easily by:
-Taking it to a tailor and having it altered
-Making a very low strength check to just rip the clothes enough to fight
-have a dagger? The above no longer even requires a check. It is, at worst, a full-round action to make a floor-length robe into one that ends at the thigh. (Which is both functional and flirty, so all the old wizards are rocking it this season.)

For more instances of why this is not a thing, look up Cirque Du Soleil. They do performances with robes and long-length skirts all the time because their costumes are awesome.

http://wpmedia.montrealgazette.com/2012/08/cirque-du-soleil-2.jpg
http://www.theaterpizzazz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/peacock-dance.jpg
Go to about 3:30 in this video to see this performance: https://youtu.be/gOoe6cksAYA
If you watch carefully, you'll see that having billowy sleeves would only be a problem insomuch as it obscures her arm movements. Otherwise they likely wouldn't hinder her. And her outfit is far weirder than a simple robe.
http://images.theage.com.au/2013/09/18/4757788/CirqueMJ3AArticle-wide-729-620x349.jpg an entire dance routine is done in these outfits...
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/9a/f2/13/9af2134c300eccd720650f7994333e03.jpg this lady took the cool sleeves, apparently.
http://cdn.sandiegouniontrib.com/img/photos/2015/02/17/THEATER_CirqueDuSoliel03_r900x493.jpg?122770e84b36 f1c039d5c4c2ca15c2d8bc4ecd52 while perhaps not restrictive in the traditional sense, these guys have tentacles/leaves growing out of their suits at odd places and seem unbothered.

Basically, the problem is so easy to fix that it's not worth modelling at all and/or is such a small problem that it merits a -1...in a d100 system. Or smaller.

As for manacles and other non-cloth restrictive clothing...
*coughs loudly and points to Armor Penalty rules*
*Sneezes quietly and points to Manacles rules in the PHB*
*Burps at moderate volume and points to Encumbrance rules for clothing that is just really heavy*

These rules exist for every effect large enough to be measured on a d20.

Wizards suck at combat because they use their brains, not their brawn. Unless someone finally discovers a sweet Muscle-Wizard build. Which exists in Mage: The Ascension, but that's not d20. (Who doesn't want to cast a fireball by FLEXING SO HARD THAT IT ALTERS REALITY TO INCLUDE MORE FIRE.) but that's a different issue.

But yeah, that's your answer.

Too granular for d20. Almost too granular for d100, but d100 can sorta model it (even though a decent tailor fixes the problem, realistically.)

It is modelled in most d20 systems as well as it is likely going to be. And besides, your wizards are casting fireball at the dragons your orc barbarian is wrestling to the ground while your fighter's enchanted armor reflects the blast of ice from the creature's mouth into a nearby kobold. Keeping their clothing realistic is pretty low on the priority list of things not rendered realistically, don't you think?

I'm sure there are systems built around realistic portrayals of medieval life that include more detailed clothing and encumbrance rules. But in something as pulp-fantasy focused as D&D? Nah. Maybe worth a chuckle to see the wizard curse his robes to high heaven and vow upon his honor that he will strangle the tailor when he gets back to town. But only once.
Taking away all the boons they have for the purpose of one dramatic scene, maybe even applying a small penalty until they rent their clothes in twain. (In the form of Armor Check Penalties.) That would also be cool. Once.

So yeah. Too granular and small for d20, too easily solved by a needle and thread. Trying to force the issue comes across as douchey. So... just make one exceptionally stuffy article of clothing for your dramatic purposes and call it a day. Unless you want to build a system from the ground up with this in mind, in which case we'll have a lot more to talk about than just numbers.

This is all interesting and I'm taking it under consideration, but what about boots that don't fit? Suppose for some reason--be imaginative, I'm not very imaginative, it seems--you have to wear these boots, but they're about three sizes too small. Do you suppose that would pose a problem to a combatant?

Tiktakkat
2016-03-09, 08:44 PM
Why would I ask after unrealistic rules? Or unflavourful rules? What would possibly be the point of that? It's all implicit in my asking after rules at all. So yes X == Y == Z.

You wouldn't. You would simply place something else as a higher priority.
No, it is not implicit in asking after rules. It is implicit in asking for a particular kind of rules, which is what you did.
And no, flavor, realism, and function are still not synonymous in rules.


You know nothing of my gaming history and you're telling me I'm a terrible designer and developer.

Well actually, I do.
You've written about your design priorities in this thread repeatedly.
Or have you forgotten that suddenly?


I'm not, in case it's not obvious, looking for players here.

Yes, I know.
That's why I don't think the lack of ability you've expressed and displayed as a designer reflects an inherent lack of ability as a GM.


This place is a worthwhile source of commentary and contribution, but it is a bit full of itself when it comes to judging others' play styles.

Which is why I didn't judge your play style.


A terrible consumer? Jeez louise. I'm crushed.

Clearly.

Keltest
2016-03-09, 08:56 PM
This is all interesting and I'm taking it under consideration, but what about boots that don't fit? Suppose for some reason--be imaginative, I'm not very imaginative, it seems--you have to wear these boots, but they're about three sizes too small. Do you suppose that would pose a problem to a combatant?

See above about them either stretching or ripping apart.

Having said that, I doubt you would be able to get them on in the first place, no matter how important it was. Some things simply cant be made to fit.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-09, 09:41 PM
This is all interesting and I'm taking it under consideration, but what about boots that don't fit? Suppose for some reason--be imaginative, I'm not very imaginative, it seems--you have to wear these boots, but they're about three sizes too small. Do you suppose that would pose a problem to a combatant?

1. Boots that small aren't going onto your feet unless you just put your toes in and walk on tiptoes for some reason.

2. If you are wearing shoes that are too small, and a fight breaks out, take off your shoes. Then again, mild foot pain and restriction will not pose a big problem in combat. For reference, google pictures of Ballerina feet. They look like that because of how the shoes constrict the feet and the weird weight being placed on them. Yet, they are able to withstand the often quite intense pain and perform their dances anyway. And a combatant isn't doing anything so foot-focused as ballerinas do. The only time I wouldn't recommend this is if there is broken glass everywhere. But then I'd make a quick ruling for reflex saves per round of being barefoot or take 1 damage. Solved. And I can come up with that on the fly. (We are also talking about big tough guys who shrug off sword wounds. They can probably handle a bit of sore toes.)

3. At its very worst, your shoes count as Difficult Terrain.

4. If this comes up often enough in your campaign that it needs something other than an on-the-spot ruling, then you are running a very weird campaign that I assume is about an adventure party of runway models. That or the GM has a very strange foot bondage fetish and I would leave.

5. If you have any prep time before combat in these shoes, take your dagger (or someone in the party's dagger) and cut off the toe and heel areas so that you are effectively wearing undersized sandals. Even something as simple as slots cut into the sides would ease enough pressure that it would become a non-issue.

6. Tie your bracers to your feet.

7. Get the wizard to cast Fabricate to get you a pair of Wooden Clogs that fit. Better than ill-fitting boots.

There are a lot of solutions to this problem. All of them really easy. And the effects are minimal.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-09, 09:54 PM
You wouldn't. You would simply place something else as a higher priority.
No, it is not implicit in asking after rules. It is implicit in asking for a particular kind of rules, which is what you did.
And no, flavor, realism, and function are still not synonymous in rules.

They are with me.


Well actually, I do.
You've written about your design priorities in this thread repeatedly.
Or have you forgotten that suddenly?

You mean what I have written about seeking realistic rules for clothing? What I have just summarised for you, twice? Try reading between the lines sometimes and get the feel for what I have written. It was obvious from the beginning I was looking for realistic (what else? unrealistic rules? what the heck for?) rules for clothing, for the obviously implicit reason of being flavourful (why else? am I playing a board game that needs to be balanced down to the last dot?). And from this, I am a bad designer, no scratch that, I'm a terrible designer! Because of a -1!


That's why I don't think the lack of ability you've expressed and displayed as a designer reflects an inherent lack of ability as a GM.

Designer for what? I design for my game, not yours, thankfully, and my designs work out more often than not. You're trying to hold me up to the standards of some kind of High Council of Game Design, or perhaps a popular vote, neither of which I recognise nor am I interested in. You can keep your design standards.

NoldorForce
2016-03-09, 11:11 PM
Your search for significant realism is misplaced in just about any game that's not ultra-detailed (that is, nearly all of them), and in particular since you were talking about d20 earlier that system is designed around several abstractions such as ability scores. Why not just treat any business of clothing as already assumed based on one's armor (and whatever bonuses/penalties that brings, if worn in the first place), one's level (ie, attack bonuses and saves/defenses), and one's ability scores (such as Dexterity)?

In addition, even if we were to put that aside and search for realistic modifiers, most of the time one's clothes and/or training are already suited to not require further modifiers beyond what the game already gives. (Given the earlier comments, contrast Christopher Lee's tedious floor-length robes with Ian Mckellen's more practical ankle-length robes.) Even performing a quick sewing job often manages to remove any issues of consequence. [Edit: Occasionally people will dress impractically in the name of fashion, but if you're being impractical while also being fashionable you're doing so deliberately. And there's always some breathing room there to be less impractical but still fashionable should the situation require both.]

Lastly, what does this model do for the game in return for requiring some more accounting? Detailed models aren't always better than simple ones, after all. As an example of this, I recently finished up attempting to model baseball pitch data over a season given all sorts of details such as handedness/pitch type/pitch position. And what my group found was that the exceptionally complex models involving Bayesian analysis or kernel density estimation performed only the tiniest bit better than a quick-and-dirty estimation using overall hit rates and the log5 heuristic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log5). Thus what I'm wondering is whether this actually does something meaningful for the model that is someone's tabletop RPG.

(So what we're generally saying is that your premises are likely flawed.)

goto124
2016-03-09, 11:53 PM
you are running a very weird campaign that I assume is about an adventure party of runway models. That or the GM has a very strange foot bondage fetish and I would leave.

Thanks for the new campaign idea :smalltongue:

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-10, 12:30 AM
Any time. ;D

I'll totally play that if someone makes it.

http://mitrafarmand.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/supermodel-superhero.jpg

neonchameleon
2016-03-10, 06:35 AM
You mean what I have written about seeking realistic rules for clothing?

But you personally and explicitly do not want realistic rules for clothing. Realistic rules for clothing are "Good, comfortable clothes have no penalty. Any clothes worn by any even vaguely sensible adventurer with more than two copper pieces to their name will either be in this category or provide a bonus or they would not wear them willingly. And as most games aren't fetish games about forced clotheswearing there isn't a problem."

You have done, so far as I can tell, jack about making sure that there are these bonusses. Which means that what you want isn't realistic rules for clothing. It's punishing rules for clothing. Even your robes example does approximately jack - other than to say that given the choice he would not have worn those specific robes.

You can claim all you like that what you want is realistic rules - but if you want realistic rules then you are going about it the wrong way. You can claim all you like that you want more colour - but the way you are going about it is eqivalent to smearing half the pencils in the pencil box with itching powder. And then saying that what you want is people to use more colours from the pencil box.

Knaight
2016-03-10, 08:49 AM
But you personally and explicitly do not want realistic rules for clothing. Realistic rules for clothing are "Good, comfortable clothes have no penalty. Any clothes worn by any even vaguely sensible adventurer with more than two copper pieces to their name will either be in this category or provide a bonus or they would not wear them willingly. And as most games aren't fetish games about forced clotheswearing there isn't a problem."

There's no guarantee that PCs are adventurers, and even if they are they could easily be spending time in some other role. The clothing that is deliberately worn into combat by anyone knowing they are going to be going into combat is going to be appropriate (the same way that people who go to work on high voltage electrical systems always seem to have specialized clothing to deal with high voltage electricity, and people who go into arctic conditions on purpose always seem to be wearing clothing good for arctic conditions), but if they end up there inadvertently, maybe not (the same way that people in a plane crash in the arctic going from one warm area to another probably don't have the clothing necessary).

neonchameleon
2016-03-10, 09:28 AM
There's no guarantee that PCs are adventurers, and even if they are they could easily be spending time in some other role. The clothing that is deliberately worn into combat by anyone knowing they are going to be going into combat is going to be appropriate (the same way that people who go to work on high voltage electrical systems always seem to have specialized clothing to deal with high voltage electricity, and people who go into arctic conditions on purpose always seem to be wearing clothing good for arctic conditions), but if they end up there inadvertently, maybe not (the same way that people in a plane crash in the arctic going from one warm area to another probably don't have the clothing necessary).

Which is why several of us have said that some clothing should provide bonusses. You don't wear specialised clothing to work on high voltage systems because it looks cool. You wear it because it provides DR 5/Electricity or whatever. Arctic Clothing gives bonusses to endurance and possibly even damage reduction against cold even as they cause problems in other ways.

If you work with a system of offsets (DR 5/Element for -1 to hit or DR5/3 elements for -2 might work) then people will decide whether protective clothing is worth it. And you'll see it worn but not by everyone or all the time.

But until @Donnadogsoth flips his entire thinking on his head and stops asking for rules about clothing as hinrance in combat, instead asking about "Why do people wear awkward clothes and how can I encourage that?" he's going to just get people to stick to the most basic clothing possible and is undermining everything he claims to want.

Knaight
2016-03-10, 10:42 AM
Which is why several of us have said that some clothing should provide bonusses. You don't wear specialised clothing to work on high voltage systems because it looks cool. You wear it because it provides DR 5/Electricity or whatever. Arctic Clothing gives bonusses to endurance and possibly even damage reduction against cold even as they cause problems in other ways.

If you work with a system of offsets (DR 5/Element for -1 to hit or DR5/3 elements for -2 might work) then people will decide whether protective clothing is worth it. And you'll see it worn but not by everyone or all the time.

But until @Donnadogsoth flips his entire thinking on his head and stops asking for rules about clothing as hinrance in combat, instead asking about "Why do people wear awkward clothes and how can I encourage that?" he's going to just get people to stick to the most basic clothing possible and is undermining everything he claims to want.

Pretty much. There might also be penalties, but those thick rubber soled boots that show up on high voltage systems absolutely should provide DR 5/Electricity or whatever (and really, the penalty behind them is that they are expensive as heck). You could also have a choice of penalties - you go into the arctic, and you either take arctic clothing (Temperature Resistance, -1 attack, -1 AC), get hit by whatever temperature effect is relevant, or take advantage of those snazzy spells and magic items that provide protection from cold without having to wear heavy furs. Or, if you're the right species, you go out in temperate weather clothing if that and laugh at everyone else being weighed down.

I'm in the group of people suggesting bonuses, and I'd consider the whole idea of clothing giving penalties "because flavor" is just a way to make people not wear certain clothing even if they otherwise would. The benefits don't have to be mechanical - a robe that communicates that you are a member of a prestigious pyromancers guild and gives a penalty to AC might still be worth using because even without hard mechanics attached it can provide advantages in situations which play out without mechanics (and could probably make use of some circumstance bonuses; you show up in that thing and start making threats and you might just be a bit scarier than normal). There's still a reason to make that decision though.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-10, 11:09 AM
Pretty much. There might also be penalties, but those thick rubber soled boots that show up on high voltage systems absolutely should provide DR 5/Electricity or whatever (and really, the penalty behind them is that they are expensive as heck). You could also have a choice of penalties - you go into the arctic, and you either take arctic clothing (Temperature Resistance, -1 attack, -1 AC), get hit by whatever temperature effect is relevant, or take advantage of those snazzy spells and magic items that provide protection from cold without having to wear heavy furs. Or, if you're the right species, you go out in temperate weather clothing if that and laugh at everyone else being weighed down.

I'm in the group of people suggesting bonuses, and I'd consider the whole idea of clothing giving penalties "because flavor" is just a way to make people not wear certain clothing even if they otherwise would. The benefits don't have to be mechanical - a robe that communicates that you are a member of a prestigious pyromancers guild and gives a penalty to AC might still be worth using because even without hard mechanics attached it can provide advantages in situations which play out without mechanics (and could probably make use of some circumstance bonuses; you show up in that thing and start making threats and you might just be a bit scarier than normal). There's still a reason to make that decision though.

Or an impractically long robe that lets you cast spells?

Knaight
2016-03-10, 11:17 AM
Or an impractically long robe that lets you cast spells?

If there's any sensible reason that it has to be impractically long, sure. This coming across as anything but an arbitrary penalty is really unlikely though, the same way the cold weather clothing penalty would seem off in any game high-tech enough to have the sort of synthetic fabrics that let you get a lot of cold resistance with a surprisingly thin layer. You'd first need a reason magic is tied to clothing at all, then a reason that a functional design wouldn't work. On top of that, as magic isn't an actual thing there isn't a particular logical reason to do it any particular way most of the time, so there's that.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-10, 11:20 AM
But you personally and explicitly do not want realistic rules for clothing. Realistic rules for clothing are "Good, comfortable clothes have no penalty. Any clothes worn by any even vaguely sensible adventurer with more than two copper pieces to their name will either be in this category or provide a bonus or they would not wear them willingly. And as most games aren't fetish games about forced clotheswearing there isn't a problem."

You have done, so far as I can tell, jack about making sure that there are these bonusses. Which means that what you want isn't realistic rules for clothing. It's punishing rules for clothing. Even your robes example does approximately jack - other than to say that given the choice he would not have worn those specific robes.

You can claim all you like that what you want is realistic rules - but if you want realistic rules then you are going about it the wrong way. You can claim all you like that you want more colour - but the way you are going about it is eqivalent to smearing half the pencils in the pencil box with itching powder. And then saying that what you want is people to use more colours from the pencil box.

Actually no, I just wanted rules for clothing, and if they're punishing so be it. Some people here suggested a simple set of penalties for d20, and that's something I can work with. The considerations of PC's altering their frustrating clothes in the heat of battle or afterwards (or before, if they're forward-thinking enough) is interesting. What most people responding here don't seem to grasp is that there's a continuum of penalties between a straightjacket and a loose-fitting silk shirt.

Satinavian
2016-03-10, 11:20 AM
Or an impractically long robe that lets you cast spells?
That is even worse than simply giving spellcasters a penalty for being spellcasters and let them wear what they want. At least then players could still choose the style for their characters.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-10, 11:23 AM
If there's any sensible reason that it has to be impractically long, sure. This coming across as anything but an arbitrary penalty is really unlikely though, the same way the cold weather clothing penalty would seem off in any game high-tech enough to have the sort of synthetic fabrics that let you get a lot of cold resistance with a surprisingly thin layer. You'd first need a reason magic is tied to clothing at all, then a reason that a functional design wouldn't work. On top of that, as magic isn't an actual thing there isn't a particular logical reason to do it any particular way most of the time, so there's that.

Maybe it's a status thing. The longer the robe the higher the status. This would select for junior wizards doing the adventuring and senior ones rarely venturing out from their towers.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-10, 11:25 AM
That is even worse than simply giving spellcasters a penalty for being spellcasters and let them wear what they want. At least then players could still choose the style for their characters.

You could say that with any detail in the game whatsoever that the players didn't like. Not that I'm hung up on wizards here, but players could take umbrage at anything.

Knaight
2016-03-10, 12:23 PM
Maybe it's a status thing. The longer the robe the higher the status. This would select for junior wizards doing the adventuring and senior ones rarely venturing out from their towers.

They're robes, not body modifications. The senior wizards could wear their fancy robes in their towers and around town to communicate status, and then still choose to wear something practical when necessary. People tend to have multiple sets of clothing, and they choose different sets for different purposes.

Tiktakkat
2016-03-10, 12:40 PM
Actually no, I just wanted rules for clothing, and if they're punishing so be it. Some people here suggested a simple set of penalties for d20, and that's something I can work with. The considerations of PC's altering their frustrating clothes in the heat of battle or afterwards (or before, if they're forward-thinking enough) is interesting.

If you had bothered to look at the rules, there already exists a continuum for clothes, though it is in the form of bonuses, as others have suggested, rather than penalties, which for some reason you are enamored of, in the D20 rules.

Your first choice is between wearing clothes and wearing armor.
If you wear clothes, you get . . . nothing.
If you wear armor, you get a bonus to AC.
For a few classes, the choice to wear armor comes with penalties, ranging from a chance of failure of class abilities to a total loss of class abilities.

Within clothes, a second set of options then exists.
You can wear ordinary clothes, or you can wear special clothes.
If you wear ordinary clothes, you get . . . nothing.
If you wear special clothes, you get minor bonuses to various skills.
No class is particularly aided or hindered by these choices, unless of course they really wanted to wear armor instead, in which case they must find a way to sneak around the system to get those bonuses while wearing a full set of armor plus magical gear.

As for general hindrances, your choice is to wear lots of gear or to wear little gear, as noted in the OOTS comic that was linked.
If you wear little to no gear, you get . . . nothing.
If you wear lots of gear, a variety of physical skills have a default penalty of the Armor Check Penalty and the Encumbrance Penalty.
Once again, no class is particularly targeted by this.

Then you have your idea about linking the inability of a wizard to be good at fighting, and even cast spells, to wearing a robe.
The basic concept of a wizard not being good at fighting already exists. It is called "Poor BAB".
It requires no justification, it just is.
The basic concept of requirements to cast spells already exists as well. It is called "Components".
Once again, no justification is required, it just is.
When looking to add a penalty to wizards if they don't wear robes, along with a penalty for wearing robes, other questions arise:
Do clerics wear goofy clothing that makes them worse at fighting and allows them to cast spells?
Do rogues wear goofy clothing that makes them worse at fighting and allows them to sneak attack?
If wizards, clerics, and rogues wear goofy clothing that makes them worse at fighting, why don't they have a Good BAB like Fighters to start with?

Not considering these things is called "Bad Design (TM)".

But let's say, for whatever reason you want to come up with next, that you desire some additional restriction on wizards because they are just so darn powerful.
There are plenty of ways to do that.
A simple one is a variant of the taboo class feature of the Wu Jen, requiring wizards to dress in a ridiculous manner.
Or it could be a flaw, Goofy Fashion Sense, that causes a combat penalty.
Both have a bonus, allowing wizards to wear nearly any sort of goofy clothing rather than just a robe, allowing much more flavorful customization between wizards. It could set up a rivalry between the Robed Wizards and the Cone of Shame Wizards (who wear ruffed collars so big it hinders them) and the Groin Protector Wizards (ala From Dusk Til Dawn).
You could also declare that all wizard spells have an additional component, Absurd Outfits, causing penalties hither and yon to all sorts of skills. (Penalty to Diplomacy for wearing a Dunce Cap on your head!)

Note how those focus on the function first, allowing the flavor and realism to flow from them as useful supports.
And note how they acknowledge a specific design goal of desiring to restrict wizards.
And note how they avoid suggesting similar penalties for other classes using their class skills based on clothing.
Well, unless of course you want to write an entire variant of the D20 rules where every class feature is tied to a particular sartorial choice.

Taking all of these things into consideration and constructing a coherent system is called "Good Design (TM)".


What most people responding here don't seem to grasp is that there's a continuum of penalties between a straightjacket and a loose-fitting silk shirt.

What you get upset about grasping is that combat is a very dangerous thing, and that people who go into it deliberately hindering themselves have a tendency to die quickly, encouraging others to make significantly more rational clothing choices in the future.
Declaring you want "flavorful" clothes anyway is making it clear that you do not care about realism, no matter how much you say you do.

Âmesang
2016-03-10, 12:47 PM
…so is anyone else reminded of the Counter Monkey episode, Laundry Day in the Tower of High Sorcery (http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-laundry-day-in-the-tower-of-high-sorcery/)?

I suppose it was the idea of a mage wearing a long robe as a mark of status, and then another high-level mage wearing a shorter robe just to fool people into thinking he's weaker than he truly is.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-10, 12:54 PM
If you had bothered to look at the rules, there already exists a continuum for clothes, though it is in the form of bonuses, as others have suggested, rather than penalties, which for some reason you are enamored of, in the D20 rules.

Your first choice is between wearing clothes and wearing armor.
If you wear clothes, you get . . . nothing.
If you wear armor, you get a bonus to AC.
For a few classes, the choice to wear armor comes with penalties, ranging from a chance of failure of class abilities to a total loss of class abilities.

Within clothes, a second set of options then exists.
You can wear ordinary clothes, or you can wear special clothes.
If you wear ordinary clothes, you get . . . nothing.
If you wear special clothes, you get minor bonuses to various skills.
No class is particularly aided or hindered by these choices, unless of course they really wanted to wear armor instead, in which case they must find a way to sneak around the system to get those bonuses while wearing a full set of armor plus magical gear.

As for general hindrances, your choice is to wear lots of gear or to wear little gear, as noted in the OOTS comic that was linked.
If you wear little to no gear, you get . . . nothing.
If you wear lots of gear, a variety of physical skills have a default penalty of the Armor Check Penalty and the Encumbrance Penalty.
Once again, no class is particularly targeted by this.

Then you have your idea about linking the inability of a wizard to be good at fighting, and even cast spells, to wearing a robe.
The basic concept of a wizard not being good at fighting already exists. It is called "Poor BAB".
It requires no justification, it just is.
The basic concept of requirements to cast spells already exists as well. It is called "Components".
Once again, no justification is required, it just is.
When looking to add a penalty to wizards if they don't wear robes, along with a penalty for wearing robes, other questions arise:
Do clerics wear goofy clothing that makes them worse at fighting and allows them to cast spells?
Do rogues wear goofy clothing that makes them worse at fighting and allows them to sneak attack?
If wizards, clerics, and rogues wear goofy clothing that makes them worse at fighting, why don't they have a Good BAB like Fighters to start with?

Not considering these things is called "Bad Design (TM)".

But let's say, for whatever reason you want to come up with next, that you desire some additional restriction on wizards because they are just so darn powerful.
There are plenty of ways to do that.
A simple one is a variant of the taboo class feature of the Wu Jen, requiring wizards to dress in a ridiculous manner.
Or it could be a flaw, Goofy Fashion Sense, that causes a combat penalty.
Both have a bonus, allowing wizards to wear nearly any sort of goofy clothing rather than just a robe, allowing much more flavorful customization between wizards. It could set up a rivalry between the Robed Wizards and the Cone of Shame Wizards (who wear ruffed collars so big it hinders them) and the Groin Protector Wizards (ala From Dusk Til Dawn).
You could also declare that all wizard spells have an additional component, Absurd Outfits, causing penalties hither and yon to all sorts of skills. (Penalty to Diplomacy for wearing a Dunce Cap on your head!)

Note how those focus on the function first, allowing the flavor and realism to flow from them as useful supports.
And note how they acknowledge a specific design goal of desiring to restrict wizards.
And note how they avoid suggesting similar penalties for other classes using their class skills based on clothing.
Well, unless of course you want to write an entire variant of the D20 rules where every class feature is tied to a particular sartorial choice.

Taking all of these things into consideration and constructing a coherent system is called "Good Design (TM)".



What you get upset about grasping is that combat is a very dangerous thing, and that people who go into it deliberately hindering themselves have a tendency to die quickly, encouraging others to make significantly more rational clothing choices in the future.
Declaring you want "flavorful" clothes anyway is making it clear that you do not care about realism, no matter how much you say you do.

Thank you for that lengthy post. Stuff to think about.

The thing about combat in RPGs is that when done cleverly it's not just very dangerous but also inventive, putting PC's in all manner of unlikely situations, including having to wear clown shoes or, yes, floor-length robes, whether out of Goofy Fashion Sense or else because said robes are magical and allow certain spells to be cast (or if you prefer, give a bonus to spellcasting).

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-10, 01:09 PM
Actually no, I just wanted rules for clothing, and if they're punishing so be it. Some people here suggested a simple set of penalties for d20, and that's something I can work with. The considerations of PC's altering their frustrating clothes in the heat of battle or afterwards (or before, if they're forward-thinking enough) is interesting. What most people responding here don't seem to grasp is that there's a continuum of penalties between a straightjacket and a loose-fitting silk shirt.

Just because a continuum exists does not mean it is worthwhile to attempt to model in an rpg.

There is an entire continuum of amounts of damage that a weapon could potentially deal.
Why don't we account for each and every subtle variation in the handles and balances of every single weapon? The slight effective difference between having a rosewood haft on an axe and having a cedar haft.

Guitars with Rosewood necks have a stiffer action than those with Pine necks. Any string instrument made of rosewood now incurs a -1 penalty because it is made of rosewood and has a slightly stiffer action. (Even though by the time a bard becomes an adventurer their fingers are used to it, screw it! It's realistic to say that they are 5% worse.)

A -1 is a 5% penalty. Meaning any set of clothing that receives the penalty has to, in reality, also come with a 5% reduction in effectiveness at certain activities. For realism, you now need to go out and do some research. Get a group of randomly selected people and make them do various physical tasks in various lengths of robe. Whatever robe length starts to have a 5% worsening effect on this activity is where the penalties start. If none of them do, then your rule isn't realistic. So the possibility that the rule might easily be wrong indicates that you need to do research to ensure you actually ARE modelling reality, and aren't appointing arbitrary rules and penalties.

Unless you are willing to actually test and make sure that every imposed penalty is accurate to actual reality, then you don't actually want realistic rules. You want a confirmation of how you perceive reality to be, manifest in rules. Which is not necessarily realistic.

So I guess the question I SHOULD be pushing on you is:
How do you know that these 5% reductions in effectiveness are, indeed, accurate to reality and not exactly as arbitrary as having no penalties?

Keltest
2016-03-10, 01:10 PM
Thank you for that lengthy post. Stuff to think about.

The thing about combat in RPGs is that when done cleverly it's not just very dangerous but also inventive, putting PC's in all manner of unlikely situations, including having to wear clown shoes or, yes, floor-length robes, whether out of Goofy Fashion Sense or else because said robes are magical and allow certain spells to be cast (or if you prefer, give a bonus to spellcasting).

That still begs the question of why did the wizard make the stupid too-long robes magical instead of the ones that fit comfortably? Why would somebody make a pair of Goofy Clown Shoes of Looking Silly While Kicking Buttocks when they could make a pair of Regular Looking Comfortable Boots of Looking Perfectly Normal While Kicking Buttocks?

Courtly clothes have a trade off (before any sort of enchantment) to justify the penalties. But your silly robes or dunce hat or whatever seem to have been enchanted to negate the penalties, not because someone would otherwise voluntarily wear them and you want them to be as good as possible.

neonchameleon
2016-03-10, 01:12 PM
Or an impractically long robe that lets you cast spells?

That's a bad idea and you should feel bad for keeping suggesting it.

First it means that all wizards are cookie-cutter robe wearers. If you want quirks and colour, forcing every single wizard in the game to do the same thing is pouring a bucket of whitewash over it.

Second it means that you're arbitrarily picking on the wizard by changing the fluff and the rules of the game.

Third, it means that no wizard has ever been smart enough to find a way to hike their robe. Or borrow a smaller wizard's robe.

Are you intending to play a game of comedy stereotypes here with all wizards literally wearing the same stupidly impractical thing?

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-10, 01:28 PM
That still begs the question of why did the wizard make the stupid too-long robes magical instead of the ones that fit comfortably? Why would somebody make a pair of Goofy Clown Shoes of Looking Silly While Kicking Buttocks when they could make a pair of Regular Looking Comfortable Boots of Looking Perfectly Normal While Kicking Buttocks?

Courtly clothes have a trade off (before any sort of enchantment) to justify the penalties. But your silly robes or dunce hat or whatever seem to have been enchanted to negate the penalties, not because someone would otherwise voluntarily wear them and you want them to be as good as possible.

On this same note, if the robes are enchanted....
Why can't pants and a shirt be enchanted the same way?
You can have a sword of fire and an axe of fire but not a Shirt of Wizardlyness?

You'll also note that D&D specifically is not an attempt at realism. (It never was to begin with)
D&D operates on Versimilitude, which is The Appearance or Semblance of Truth .
Within fiction, this means that the world appears to function within its own rules.

In this world Wizards cast spells. Because it has Versimilitude, people generally accept this. The world of D&D includes wizards that cast spells. Neato. It is once thing to say "Wizards wear robes." It is an entirely different thing to say "Wizards MUST wear robes."
That creates a question: Why?
"Because the Robes are magical."
"Why can't you have magical pants?"
"Because you can't."

This is a worse situation than:
"Why do wizards wear robes?"
"Because they're wizards."
"Can't they wear pants?"
"Sure, but that's not very wizardly. And they are Wizards."

The first creates a disconnect between The Aesthetic and Versimilitude. Wizards are forced to wear robes? Why? By who? By what? You get more questions than answers.
The second tells us things about Wizards. It answers more questions than it creates. Wizards wear robes because they are Wizards. They don't HAVE to, they just do because it is the Wizardly thing to do. This instills a sense of traditionalism into the mix. A sense of Magical Pride that forms the basis for Wizard Society. We can now envision wizards putting on normal clothes for various purposes but donning the robes to hobnob with other Wizards. Not because they HAVE TO, but because that's what hundreds of years of Wizarding has taught them to do.

This makes the Party Wizard showing up in pants and a petticoat very strange, an attention grabber. Not because "Look at this idiot not wearing his enchanted robes" but "Look at this guy not wearing his robes. Youths these days. No sense of tradition!"

I don't know about you, but as a player I would like to be in the second camp rather than the first. Someone avant-garde and bucking tradition, and catching flack for THAT. Not some idiot who decides to be worse at magic by wearing pants and being mocked for it.

The first has story potential. The second is just...not going to end well.

Flickerdart
2016-03-10, 02:38 PM
Re: The long robes thing.

Why doesn't the wizard take his enchanted robe, roll up the hem a couple of inches, and then sew it into place?

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-03-10, 02:58 PM
Re: The long robes thing.

Why doesn't the wizard take his enchanted robe, roll up the hem a couple of inches, and then sew it into place?

Because that let's the magic out. The enchanted fabric forms a magic-seal against the ground, creating an enclosed space large enough for sufficient buildup of power. The hand gestures that are used in casting are a way to open up the sleeves of the robe so the energy can come spouting out.

And now you know that your next wizard character will be a tinkergnome looking to design the ultimate magical garment.

Keltest
2016-03-10, 03:02 PM
Because that let's the magic out. The enchanted fabric forms a magic-seal against the ground, creating an enclosed space large enough for sufficient buildup of power. The hand gestures that are used in casting are a way to open up the sleeves of the robe so the energy can come spouting out.

And now you know that your next wizard character will be a tinkergnome looking to design the ultimate magical garment.

Im imagining a giant onesie that slowly inflates the longer a wizard goes without casting.

Knaight
2016-03-10, 04:20 PM
Because that let's the magic out. The enchanted fabric forms a magic-seal against the ground, creating an enclosed space large enough for sufficient buildup of power. The hand gestures that are used in casting are a way to open up the sleeves of the robe so the energy can come spouting out.

And now you know that your next wizard character will be a tinkergnome looking to design the ultimate magical garment.

The whole idea behind drawing magic from the ground and releasing it works for a particular magical tradition, but if you're going with it it should probably be extended. For instance, robes could be just the beginning. Extremely wide structures with one human size hole in the top are routine for ritual magic, and while the infrastructure is expensive having a titanic wizard-dome is a must for major cities, with smaller ones being common parts of fortifications. Efforts to make these domes as light as possible are common, with high tension wires supporting silk typical of places that have the resources involved. While robes and big skirts are routine, there are also collapsible wizard domes which can be spread out and carefully sealed to the ground, usually with a radius of 7-15 feet.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-10, 04:55 PM
Because that let's the magic out. The enchanted fabric forms a magic-seal against the ground, creating an enclosed space large enough for sufficient buildup of power. The hand gestures that are used in casting are a way to open up the sleeves of the robe so the energy can come spouting out.

And now you know that your next wizard character will be a tinkergnome looking to design the ultimate magical garment.

I think it has something to do with conics. Hence the hat.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-10, 05:11 PM
That's a bad idea and you should feel bad for keeping suggesting it.

First it means that all wizards are cookie-cutter robe wearers. If you want quirks and colour, forcing every single wizard in the game to do the same thing is pouring a bucket of whitewash over it.

Second it means that you're arbitrarily picking on the wizard by changing the fluff and the rules of the game.

Third, it means that no wizard has ever been smart enough to find a way to hike their robe. Or borrow a smaller wizard's robe.

Are you intending to play a game of comedy stereotypes here with all wizards literally wearing the same stupidly impractical thing?

More moralising, huh?

Actually, if I wanted to run with it I think I'd take the conic idea I just offered above, and say that in order to do magic, the wizard, excluding arms, has to fit within a symbolic cone extending from ground to hat-point. (Magic circles and the like would be needed for certain heavier spells.) A cord or rope within the robe would allow quick raising of the hem for the purposes of travel, flight and fight.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-10, 05:17 PM
That still begs the question of why did the wizard make the stupid too-long robes magical instead of the ones that fit comfortably? Why would somebody make a pair of Goofy Clown Shoes of Looking Silly While Kicking Buttocks when they could make a pair of Regular Looking Comfortable Boots of Looking Perfectly Normal While Kicking Buttocks?

Courtly clothes have a trade off (before any sort of enchantment) to justify the penalties. But your silly robes or dunce hat or whatever seem to have been enchanted to negate the penalties, not because someone would otherwise voluntarily wear them and you want them to be as good as possible.

See the answer I gave above re: robes.

Do you suppose clown shoes would offer a penalty in combat?

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-03-10, 05:23 PM
Do you suppose clown shoes would offer a penalty in combat?

I suppose they'd give at least +4 to kicking ass. You almost literally can't miss!

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-10, 05:27 PM
Just because a continuum exists does not mean it is worthwhile to attempt to model in an rpg.

There is an entire continuum of amounts of damage that a weapon could potentially deal.
Why don't we account for each and every subtle variation in the handles and balances of every single weapon? The slight effective difference between having a rosewood haft on an axe and having a cedar haft.

Guitars with Rosewood necks have a stiffer action than those with Pine necks. Any string instrument made of rosewood now incurs a -1 penalty because it is made of rosewood and has a slightly stiffer action. (Even though by the time a bard becomes an adventurer their fingers are used to it, screw it! It's realistic to say that they are 5% worse.)

A -1 is a 5% penalty. Meaning any set of clothing that receives the penalty has to, in reality, also come with a 5% reduction in effectiveness at certain activities. For realism, you now need to go out and do some research. Get a group of randomly selected people and make them do various physical tasks in various lengths of robe. Whatever robe length starts to have a 5% worsening effect on this activity is where the penalties start. If none of them do, then your rule isn't realistic. So the possibility that the rule might easily be wrong indicates that you need to do research to ensure you actually ARE modelling reality, and aren't appointing arbitrary rules and penalties.

Unless you are willing to actually test and make sure that every imposed penalty is accurate to actual reality, then you don't actually want realistic rules. You want a confirmation of how you perceive reality to be, manifest in rules. Which is not necessarily realistic.

So I guess the question I SHOULD be pushing on you is:
How do you know that these 5% reductions in effectiveness are, indeed, accurate to reality and not exactly as arbitrary as having no penalties?

We can't know any rule is perfectly realistic. All we can do is judge based on our own sense of how things are in the world that this situation gives a +1 and that gives a -1. If you have a crew of Mythbusters I'll gladly borrow them, but barring that I have to make do with my own estimation.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-10, 05:37 PM
I suppose they'd give at least +4 to kicking ass. You almost literally can't miss!

Thank you, I'm including that.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-10, 05:55 PM
We can't know any rule is perfectly realistic. All we can do is judge based on our own sense of how things are in the world that this situation gives a +1 and that gives a -1. If you have a crew of Mythbusters I'll gladly borrow them, but barring that I have to make do with my own estimation.

Then don't claim realistic rules. We have things we can measure in reality to ensure rule realism in a lot of different contexts. D&D has never cared about realism, but Versimilitude. And I've never seen a system actually claim realism. So don't call it realistic. Call it what it is: "I want to arbitrarily penalize robes because I think penalizing them would be real cool, and I once heard of a guy complaining about robes."

It's also a matter of granularity. 5% reduction in effectiveness means that for every 100 times the wizard attempts to do a thing, they fail 5 more times (On average.) Consider this:
When hitting AC 10, with a BAB of 0, the wizard will hit 50% of the time.
Now that they are wearing "robes" they only hit 45% of the time. (They miss 55/100 times)
Of they wear robes and bad shoes, they now hit 40% of the time. (They miss 60/100 times)

These are sizeable penalties, especially if they stack. A lvl 2 fighter forced to wear robes and shoes that suck effectively loses their BAB (pretty much the one thing they have going for them)

In fact, this hurts martials even more than it hurts wizards, who shouldn't be in melee at all. It doesn't affect a Wizard's AC so all it really does is make the wizard worse at something the wizard doesn't do anyways. (Meaning the rule may as well not be there.)

You've got a lot of reasons to just not do it, and "maybe cone magic or a single nifty scene" as reasons to do it.

So feel free to do it.

Just don't bother trying to justify it as Realistic, Flavorful, or Dramatic. Because no one buys that.

(Also the cone magic would require Hoop Skirts, not robes, because robes don't form a cone. And Hoop Skirts are surprisingly easy to maneuver in when conical because they don't interact with your feet.)

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-10, 06:56 PM
Then don't claim realistic rules. We have things we can measure in reality to ensure rule realism in a lot of different contexts. D&D has never cared about realism, but Versimilitude. And I've never seen a system actually claim realism. So don't call it realistic. Call it what it is: "I want to arbitrarily penalize robes because I think penalizing them would be real cool, and I once heard of a guy complaining about robes."

It's also a matter of granularity. 5% reduction in effectiveness means that for every 100 times the wizard attempts to do a thing, they fail 5 more times (On average.) Consider this:
When hitting AC 10, with a BAB of 0, the wizard will hit 50% of the time.
Now that they are wearing "robes" they only hit 45% of the time. (They miss 55/100 times)
Of they wear robes and bad shoes, they now hit 40% of the time. (They miss 60/100 times)

These are sizeable penalties, especially if they stack. A lvl 2 fighter forced to wear robes and shoes that suck effectively loses their BAB (pretty much the one thing they have going for them)

In fact, this hurts martials even more than it hurts wizards, who shouldn't be in melee at all. It doesn't affect a Wizard's AC so all it really does is make the wizard worse at something the wizard doesn't do anyways. (Meaning the rule may as well not be there.)

You've got a lot of reasons to just not do it, and "maybe cone magic or a single nifty scene" as reasons to do it.

So feel free to do it.

Just don't bother trying to justify it as Realistic, Flavorful, or Dramatic. Because no one buys that.

(Also the cone magic would require Hoop Skirts, not robes, because robes don't form a cone. And Hoop Skirts are surprisingly easy to maneuver in when conical because they don't interact with your feet.)

Phoenix Command claimed to be realistic, or more realistic than any other game on the market at the time. The main designer is literally a NASA rocket scientist who apparently knows a lot of about guns and put some research and thought into a realistic combat RPG (Swords Path Glory) that he then simplified into PC. I'd say PC is a hell of a lot more realistic than D&D. Or that doesn't count with you?

100% realism is impossible, therefore no realism is possible? All RPGs must at best be as verisimilar, and as unrealistic, as D&D? I think swords have a longer reach than daggers. Is that a realistic judgement or a verisimilar one? I think a higher Health score equates, barring a specialty skill, to a better ability at holding one's breath. Realistic or verisimilar? I think constructing an electric motor requires a certain set of tools and resources. Realistic or verisimilar? I think a small child wearing a large sheet as a ghost costume for Hallowe'en that drapes longer than he is tall has a chance of stepping on his own costume and tripping if he runs. Realistic or verisimilar?

What's the difference between "cool" and "flavour" if I'm going to arbitrarily do something as a GM?

neonchameleon
2016-03-10, 07:18 PM
100% realism is impossible, therefore no realism is possible?

Nope. Just the way you personally want to do things is less realistic than doing absolutely nothing at all. D&D without anything you've suggested is more realistic than D&D with your clothing rules.

It's not that you can't approach realism. It's that you're going in the wrong direction.

And there are reasons Phoenix Command in practice flopped although a lot of people bought it. Adding fiddly modifiers are on that list - and that's about the only thing you have in common with it.


What's the difference between "cool" and "flavour" if I'm going to arbitrarily do something as a GM?

Not all flavour is cool. Giving the wizard arbitrary penalties the way you want to is approximately as cool as a naga chilli in a blast furnace.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-10, 07:57 PM
Nope. Just the way you personally want to do things is less realistic than doing absolutely nothing at all. D&D without anything you've suggested is more realistic than D&D with your clothing rules.

It's not that you can't approach realism. It's that you're going in the wrong direction.

And there are reasons Phoenix Command in practice flopped although a lot of people bought it. Adding fiddly modifiers are on that list - and that's about the only thing you have in common with it.

Not all flavour is cool. Giving the wizard arbitrary penalties the way you want to is approximately as cool as a naga chilli in a blast furnace.

So the below is a garbage post? It was probably a goodly % of sarcasm so perhaps we should roll to decide.


No penalty for any clothing with following exception :

- ill fitting clothing : max 1 penalty
- clothing explicitely made to restrict movement (ranging from certain court customs to straitjacket): 1-5 penalty
- naked : 1 penalty (because clothes are used for a reason)

- swimming : -1 penalty per kg weight of fabric
- riding : some kind of clothes might require special saddles and give -1 penalty. Basically everything where you can't fit a horseback between your legs

Seems realistic for general D20 games. Happy now ?

neonchameleon
2016-03-10, 08:11 PM
So the below is a garbage post? It was probably a goodly % of sarcasm so perhaps we should roll to decide.

If you'd actually understood the post you were quoting you'd realise it could be boiled down to "Other than for swimming don't give penalties except under exceptional circumstances - and then only 1 point penalties". No it wasn't a garbage post. It was a post telling you not to give penalties. If a midget wearing a giant;s clothes is a 1 point penalty - or someone in clothing that almost cuts off the blood supply and is far too tight round the crotch is a 1 point penalty, most clothes aren't any penalty at all. So it's saying don't give penalties by establishing an upper bound.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-10, 10:30 PM
Phoenix Command claimed to be realistic, or more realistic than any other game on the market at the time. The main designer is literally a NASA rocket scientist who apparently knows a lot of about guns and put some research and thought into a realistic combat RPG (Swords Path Glory) that he then simplified into PC. I'd say PC is a hell of a lot more realistic than D&D. Or that doesn't count with you?
I never said they don't exist. I said I've never seen one. I've never read the rules for Phoenix Command and only heard the name once before now. *shrug*
Being nitpicky about this doesn't disprove the point I'm making anyways.



100% realism is impossible, therefore no realism is possible? All RPGs must at best be as verisimilar, and as unrealistic, as D&D? I think swords have a longer reach than daggers. Is that a realistic judgement or a verisimilar one? I think a higher Health score equates, barring a specialty skill, to a better ability at holding one's breath. Realistic or verisimilar? I think constructing an electric motor requires a certain set of tools and resources. Realistic or verisimilar? I think a small child wearing a large sheet as a ghost costume for Hallowe'en that drapes longer than he is tall has a chance of stepping on his own costume and tripping if he runs. Realistic or verisimilar?
The first is questionable because there are lots of swords and lots of daggers. Some of what are called "daggers" may be longer than other things called "swords." You'd have to check for realism. But it is versimilar.
The second is only Versimilar. (Unless you can quote me your Health Score. All abstractions are Versimilar)
Three is so broad as to be either. "I think some organisms need to inhale gases" Ummm..both?
The last is realistic but mostly because you include that tricky word "chance." There is a chance that a piano will fall on him, realistically. It's a small chance,.but it exists. Though you seem to suggest that the existance of a chance is the same as a sure thing. I remember being a child and walking around with a sheet over my head. Even running like that. But I don't really recall tripping more often than normal. But maybe I was an unusually hard to trip child. (I'm still pretty hard to trip. So how would we quantify that?)



What's the difference between "cool" and "flavour" if I'm going to arbitrarily do something as a GM?
Cool applies to mechanics.
Flavor applies to narrative.

Mechanics can enhance or detract from flavor, but rarely are the source of it. And "-1 to weird pants" is quite the stretch to call "flavorful."
[EDIT: To word this better, Mechanics can support Flavor or not support it. Mechanics cannot CREATE flavor. The flavor has to exist already or be built around the rules. But the rules don't create it. See FATE and GURPS for examples of flavor being built around rules, but not by them. And see Apocalypse World for rules supporting Flavor.]

It can be cool once. But not constantly.

"The World of Nazathoth is home to spirits who prey upon the living. Whenever you resurrect someone, you must make a spellcraft check to ensure that you do not inadvertantly place one of these predatory spirits into your friend's body."
That informs us about the world and setting, and creates expectations for the kind of narrative we will see.

"Robes are long and you may trip on them. -1 to robe wearers."
That tells us nothing about the world or setting. We have no idea what kind of narrative to expect exceot maybe "If we are forced to wear robes, prepare for problems. "

That's the difference between Cool and Flavorful.

You can go for the conic magic thing if you want, but be prepared to make it a major part of your setting. Because if it is mentioned at the beginning and then never comes up again, then you're just flinging out a 1-time excuse.

Mechanics =/= flavor on a 1 to 1 basis. You can stop harping about it now.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-10, 10:35 PM
There is a chance that a piano will fall on him, realistically.

Okay, you're just playing games. I'm done with you.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-10, 10:54 PM
Okay, you're just playing games. I'm done with you.

"I will now ignore all of your good points because you exaggerated once!"

Woopie, I love the internet.

goto124
2016-03-11, 12:23 AM
You can go for the conic magic thing if you want, but be prepared to make it a major part of your setting. Because if it is mentioned at the beginning and then never comes up again, then you're just flinging out a 1-time excuse.

Going with this. Someone seems to be finding every excuse to penalize robe-wearers, and there doesn't appear to be an actual good reason for the penalty.

I now want a setting surrounding conic magic though, especially if it results in every single spellcaster wearing silly cone hats :smallbiggrin:

Knaight
2016-03-11, 12:33 AM
Going with this. Someone seems to be finding every excuse to penalize robe-wearers, and there doesn't appear to be an actual good reason for the penalty.

I now want a setting surrounding conic magic though, especially if it results in every single spellcaster wearing silly cone hats :smallbiggrin:

If it involves standing on top of very conical towers and carefully lining your robes (or hoop skirts) up with the top of the tower, I'm in. There's something about that mental image that is just fundamentally enjoyable.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-11, 01:36 AM
If it involves standing on top of very conical towers and carefully lining your robes (or hoop skirts) up with the top of the tower, I'm in. There's something about that mental image that is just fundamentally enjoyable.

I now envision what is basically a weird combo between KKK uniform and muslim Bhurka (I don't know all the version names and too lazy to look it up) that basically turns the wearer into a big walking cone with arms coming out (and of course they can draw in their sleeves to make the cone smooth) and it has a little glass visor to see out.

It kinda makes sense to limit the effectiveness of high-level spells by requiring bigger and bigger cones to cast them. "Casting a level 9 spell? You better get on a 4 story Cone of Casting."

goto124
2016-03-11, 01:39 AM
So does the Cone of Cold become a spell that's overpowered for its level?

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-11, 02:05 AM
So does the Cone of Cold become a spell that's overpowered for its level?

It creates a highly dangerous conical feedback loop that may kill the user. But yes, it is catastrophically powerful. There is an entire region to the west that is still thawing from the last time that forbidden spell was successfully cast.

Satinavian
2016-03-11, 03:22 AM
In various editions of TDE there were rules with clothing restrictions for wizards and spellcasting. A rough translation of the rules :


"A magus of proper standing should posess five garments. Not more, not less as either would not be appropriate.
Primo : The Light Garment worn during manipulation of the mind. It should be of pure color, blue, red or green, never yellow or black;
A robe of ankle-length from pure fabric (never two kind of string), stiched on it symbols of mind, communication and power in silver.
It should be held together with a girdle of the same color. It is word with a pointy hat without a brim or a cap modelled after the horns
of a widder
Secundo : The Great Garment worn for manipulation of living and unliving matter be of similar kind : A robe of deep blue, green or red made of silk
which is stitched with symbols of the planets, the elements and power in silver and black and held together with a black belt of two fingers width.
Avoid wearing gloves and cover the hair with a close fitting cap of silk which is adorned with symbols of the mind
Tertio : The Summoning Garment should be a simple knee long tunic of pure white, red or black color depending on whether elementals, ghosts or demons
are to be summoned. It should have wide sleeves not hindering movement. The girdle be either from brocade with silver threads or simple hemp or linnen.
It is not allowed to wear any head, foot- or underwear
Quarto : The Convent Robe should be a robe of deep blue or red silk stiched with symbols of power and communication and worn over simple white trousers.
It is word with sandals corded up to the knee. The belt is made from black ox leather A hat is not compulsary bat can be worn and then should be
black, white, blue or red with half sphere corpus and wide brim. Otherwise a handbend is allowed too.
Quinto : The travel garment should be simple, a frock of of grey or white linnen held be a double cordle or a leather belt. Allowed is a wool, elf cotton or
linnen mantle which may have lining. if the lining is adorned with symbols of travel, origin, way and destination, a pointy hat with small brim and shoues,
boots or sandals. During winter a magus may wear trousers of a simple kind of linnen or elf cotton."
-newest version of convent regularium for magi and magae, appendices of Codex Albyricus Rethoniensis, Lib VII, pag 72ff.

"Especcially the last Garment has lead to irritation among among adepts and magisters with 'fashion sense'. and among those travelling around the
countryside wishing for more robust solutions. Such pleas may be heard but the principle that a magus is always recognizable for his clothing all the
time, has to be upheld. "
- Sirdon Kosmaar, commentariolus for Codex Albyricus, 1010 BF


Now the rules going with those in ingame texts provides only a miniscule positive modifier for wearing the correct robe while doing magic.
And even that rule is only optional outside of summoning (which is linked to elaborate rituals). It is perfectly possible to forgoe the small bonus and still be nearly as effective. Garment 4-5 has no effect on magic at all and is purely social.
All of that is also only applicaple for a certain kind of magic users that is rather organized and has lots of privileges and restrictions but constitute the "wizards" of the setting


This is detail. This is worldbuilding. This is even choice. (Do i show everyone that i am a wizard and which kind of magic i want to do. Do i really want to use a short tunic barfeet during my summoning in the snow ? How severe are cultural expectation at the place where i am ? Even if i have all 5 garments which to i wear on which occasion ?). Mind you : many wizards of the setting decide to not go along with those rules which are also not really enforced. Occassionally this does lead to social problems and additional drama. There are also regios where it is really illegal to hide your wizard status.

goto124
2016-03-11, 04:09 AM
I saw "elf cotton" and wondered if it's made of real elves.

EDIT: I WANT TO BELIEVE.

Satinavian
2016-03-11, 04:36 AM
It's a plant cultivated by elfs in the setting and has some similarity to cotton. That is why i translated it this way.

It is a very detailed setting.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-11, 07:06 AM
I think it's funny that this thread has turned into quoting way overly detailed settings, and/or creating probably the most stupid Cone World freakin' setting of all time just to find a reason to justify robe penalties.

Have I ever mentioned how much I like you guys?

goto124
2016-03-11, 08:08 AM
Considering what the premise of Kill La Kill probably is, we could've done better/worse :smalltongue:

Back on topic, what sort of game systems are best suited to give mechanical social bonuses for combat-unready clothing?

neonchameleon
2016-03-11, 01:03 PM
Back on topic, what sort of game systems are best suited to give mechanical social bonuses for combat-unready clothing?

First there's the rolling collection of disasters that is MWP's Firefly RPG. The whole thing runs on the players causing trouble and coming at things sideways (if you ever want a system to play Ghost Busters or Police Academy in it would be excellent). For that matter MWP's Leverage about a team of thieves and con artists would do almost as well.

But really it's more about setting than game. Fate can do it perfectly well with aspects like Dressed to the 9s - but you really want the setting to be one with limited combat expected, and that not lethal. Lethal combat means that wearing social clothing is literally risking your life - whereas if the expectation is that if combat breaks out it isn't lethal, and you'll be spending more time socialising, there's no problem.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-11, 09:04 PM
First there's the rolling collection of disasters that is MWP's Firefly RPG. The whole thing runs on the players causing trouble and coming at things sideways (if you ever want a system to play Ghost Busters or Police Academy in it would be excellent). For that matter MWP's Leverage about a team of thieves and con artists would do almost as well.

But really it's more about setting than game. Fate can do it perfectly well with aspects like Dressed to the 9s - but you really want the setting to be one with limited combat expected, and that not lethal. Lethal combat means that wearing social clothing is literally risking your life - whereas if the expectation is that if combat breaks out it isn't lethal, and you'll be spending more time socialising, there's no problem.

I don't usually recommend FATE for anything that isn't meant to be pulpy, and usually action-y.

The biggest downside to FATE is that every time you play it, it feels like you're playing FATE. No matter the setting. FATE is generic and pulpy, so everything you do with it (outside of careful hacks) will feel generic and pulpy.
Which isn't necessarily bad, just not my go-to for this purpose.

Jay R
2016-03-11, 10:15 PM
In the SCA, people fix any problems that their clothes cause in battle.

I assume that adventurers whose life is actually at risk would do the same.

Therefore, if there is any penalty for clothing, just assume that the PCs are now wearing clothing that does not incur that penalty.

Don 't waste time modeling it in the game unless a simulation of the details of tailoring is appealing to you and your players.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-03-14, 04:38 AM
On the other hand, it might be kind of funny to have a system where wizards have a version of an armor check penalty. Strong channeling robes give a 30% increase in spell power (this spell now kills a person, and cuts of the legs of whoever is standing closest? Alternatively just give a bonus to their casting stat, magic rings are not a thing in this universe.) but also give a -6 penalty on dex based skills and either induce a penalty to physical attack rolls or even worse lower your armor class. You could even set minimum or maximum casting stat requirements for the garments. And you just know people would wear them, because power.

If anyone tries this in D&D 3.X the results should be minmaxy enough to break the game easily four levels before that usually happens. Send stories.

Lacco
2016-03-14, 05:01 AM
On the other hand, it might be kind of funny to have a system where wizards have a version of an armor check penalty. Strong channeling robed give a 30% increase in spell power (this spell now kills a person, and cuts of the legs of whoever is standing closest? Alternatively just give a bonus to their casting stat, magic rings are not a thing in this universe.) but also give a -6 penalty on dex based skills and either induce a penalty to physical attack rolls or even worse lower your armor class. You could even set minimum or maximum casting stat requirements for the garments. And you just know people would wear them, because power.

If anyone tries this in D&D 3.X the results should be minmaxy enough to break the game easily four levels before that usually happens. Send stories.

My first idea was to give penalty to mages mostly due to encumbrance from spell components, spellbooks etc... they have to keep these somewhere, no?

Talakeal
2016-03-18, 04:07 PM
I am actually going to agree with the OP a bit, to me clothes do seem to be more of a hindrance than then most people are letting on.

I know that if I am wearing clothes that are too hot or too tight I can't focus on anything very well even if the clothes don't actually restrict my movement, and when I wear dress clothing I certainly feel like my movements are restricted. And just now I was trying to cook lunch while wearing a bath robe and fount it almost impossible due to the flowing sleeves.

Also, there is an almost constant argument about sexism in women's clothing in fantasy artwork and how impractical it would be to go adventuring wearing corsets, high heels, and anything which doesn't properly support the chest.

Keltest
2016-03-18, 04:13 PM
I am actually going to agree with the OP a bit, to me clothes do seem to be more of a hindrance than then most people are letting on.

I know that if I am wearing clothes that are too hot or too tight I can't focus on anything very well even if the clothes don't actually restrict my movement, and when I wear dress clothing I certainly feel like my movements are restricted. And just now I was trying to cook lunch while wearing a bath robe and fount it almost impossible due to the flowing sleeves.

Also, there is an almost constant argument about sexism in women's clothing in fantasy artwork and how impractical it would be to go adventuring wearing corsets, high heels, and anything which doesn't properly support the chest.

I suspect you are neglecting to take into account the amount of time people would practice what they need to be doing while wearing the appropriate garments. A first level fighter isn't wearing their leather armor for the first time, after all.

Also, regarding your bathrobe, its been mentioned, a lot, that clothes are pretty easy to modify if they get in the way. Cloth can be torn or stitched, and your flowing sleeves can be bound back, temporarily or permanently.

Jay R
2016-03-18, 05:05 PM
Adding rules to codify restrictive clothing will never actually get them used in a game. The only effect will be that each player starts the game saying, "I pay extra for clothes that don't bind."

goto124
2016-03-19, 02:07 AM
So there's got to be some sort of trade-off between different types of clothes for e.g. combat, or for travelling. Perhaps snowshoes and thick warm clothes reduce the amount of Cold damage you take from the chilly environment, but give you -1 Dex in combat against that ice elemental, and you'll have to spend an action or so to take them off.

"Social" clothes are typically worn in places where combat is not expected. Why would the PCs constantly get into situations where they somehow have to wear "social" clothes for combat? And even if they do, they'll start designing clothes that are both practical and pretty that can adjust or tear off in a moment's notice.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-19, 11:44 AM
So there's got to be some sort of trade-off between different types of clothes for e.g. combat, or for travelling. Perhaps snowshoes and thick warm clothes reduce the amount of Cold damage you take from the chilly environment, but give you -1 Dex in combat against that ice elemental, and you'll have to spend an action or so to take them off.

"Social" clothes are typically worn in places where combat is not expected. Why would the PCs constantly get into situations where they somehow have to wear "social" clothes for combat? And even if they do, they'll start designing clothes that are both practical and pretty that can adjust or tear off in a moment's notice.

Real fights happen fast. One might not have even "a moment's notice" to adjust anything.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-20, 01:24 AM
Real fights happen fast. One might not have even "a moment's notice" to adjust anything.

Go to goodwill and buy a shirt that is too tight.

Take it home and put it on. Grab a knife.

Stick the knife in the shirt and do your damndest to cut it enough that it isn't tight.

This should take maybe 10-15 seconds, and you'll be trying not to cut yourself and won't be in a life-or-death situation with Adrenaline to help you.

For the 100th time, people are stronger than fabric. Unless they are in attire specifically designed to restrict movement (which means restraints or fetish-wear, and even most of the latter is pretty easy to move in) most will be able to just rip it and go, either with their bare hands or with some mild cutting assistance.

That, and sufficiently high level characters keep wands of Disintigrate handy to vaporize these darn restrictive clothes they keep finding themselves in for no apparent reason.

Talakeal
2016-03-20, 03:51 PM
Want to here a worst of both worlds scenario?

Last night my DM flat out told me that my bard could not wear a dress because it was no appropriate adventuring gear.

Keltest
2016-03-20, 04:31 PM
Want to here a worst of both worlds scenario?

Last night my DM flat out told me that my bard could not wear a dress because it was no appropriate adventuring gear.

Hmm. While I frown on DM's flat out telling their players "no" to plausible actions, I think he might be right. By my understanding, a dress, as opposed to a skirt, was a rather specific garment in the same family as the other formal clothing that would be destroyed by the movements of adventuring.

Make sure youre on the same page as to what is meant by dress, by the way, because if you do mean the formal outfit, it would almost certainly be outright destroyed by the activities of adventuring.

Knaight
2016-03-20, 05:27 PM
Hmm. While I frown on DM's flat out telling their players "no" to plausible actions, I think he might be right. By my understanding, a dress, as opposed to a skirt, was a rather specific garment in the same family as the other formal clothing that would be destroyed by the movements of adventuring.

That's based on the reading of "wear a dress" which interprets it as "use a dress as standard adventuring gear". There's another reading that is close to "physically put a dress on your body at some point and then leave it there for at least a short duration", and if that's the case then it's just really, really dumb. Given prior examples, I'm inclined to think that for this particular GM, it's the second one.

Keltest
2016-03-20, 05:30 PM
That's based on the reading of "wear a dress" which interprets it as "use a dress as standard adventuring gear". There's another reading that is close to "physically put a dress on your body at some point and then leave it there for at least a short duration", and if that's the case then it's just really, really dumb. Given prior examples, I'm inclined to think that for this particular GM, it's the second one.

I thought Tala left that GM?

Talakeal
2016-03-20, 06:25 PM
Long story short: Yes it was the same DM, Yes I left the game.

Longer story: I finally finished painting the model for my bard character from that game and I showed him the model during the game we are both players in. He told me it was a good thing I didn't finish painting it while the game was still running because she is wearing a dress and he bans PCs wearing dresses because they aren't appropriate adventuring wear, and that he doesn't allow models that don't properly represent the character's attire.

Yeah, so glad I am not playing in that game anymore, that was a good decision.

Knaight
2016-03-20, 06:33 PM
Longer story: I finally finished painting the model for my bard character from that game and I showed him the model during the game we are both players in. He told me it was a good thing I didn't finish painting it while the game was still running because she is wearing a dress and he bans PCs wearing dresses because they aren't appropriate adventuring wear, and that he doesn't allow models that don't properly represent the character's attire.

That may or may not be slightly better than I was thinking of.

Also, your well of bad GMing examples really is getting impressive.

Keltest
2016-03-20, 06:40 PM
That may or may not be slightly better than I was thinking of.

Also, your well of bad GMing examples really is getting impressive.

Indeed.

Having said that, why would your adventuring bard be wearing a dress? Does she hobnob with the nobility regularly or something like that?

Also, you should remind that GM that unless he is using Barbie dolls for models, they don't generally come with easily changeable clothing to accurately reflect every change in equipment. I want to hear about his reaction.

Âmesang
2016-03-20, 09:15 PM
I'd have left, too. My favorite character does hob nob with nobles and desires to look fabulous at all times.* I had found and painted a figurine that was a near perfect match to how I imagined her… but I had to order said figurine from a shop across the planet, the only manufacturer.

Besides, aside from her two noble's outfits her only other attire is her "entertainer's outfit." :smalltongue: What sounds more appropriate: a dress or a Playboy bunny costume?

*Fly is good to avoid most hazards, and mending and prestidigitation is good for cleanup and repair.

goto124
2016-03-20, 11:22 PM
I finally finished painting the model for my bard character from that game

May I see pictures of that model please? Could even post it in the Dungeons & Dreamboats thread!

Talakeal
2016-03-20, 11:35 PM
May I see pictures of that model please? Could even post it in the Dungeons & Dreamboats thread!

I dont think you want that, my skills as a painter or a photographer isnt terribly impressive.

It was this model though:

http://www.reapermini.com/OnlineStore/vampire/sku-down/03150#detail/03150_Siobhana_pe_f

Coidzor
2016-03-21, 12:41 AM
Besides, aside from her two noble's outfits her only other attire is her "entertainer's outfit." :smalltongue: What sounds more appropriate: a dress or a Playboy bunny costume?

Well, bunny suits do have precedent in the Dragon Quest series of games...

Storm_Of_Snow
2016-03-21, 06:20 AM
That, and sufficiently high level characters keep wands of Disintigrate handy to vaporize these darn restrictive clothes they keep finding themselves in for no apparent reason.
And thus bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase "vapour-wear" :smallwink:

Although if they're at high enough level, they're probably more likely to have clothes that can transmute into armour, conjurable armour and weapons (Bound weapons and Mythic Dawn equipment from the Elder Scrolls games) or the fantasy equivalent of the briefcase Iron Man armour.

Âmesang
2016-03-21, 07:38 AM
I dont think you want that, my skills as a painter or a photographer isnt terribly impressive.

It was this model though:

http://www.reapermini.com/OnlineStore/vampire/sku-down/03150#detail/03150_Siobhana_pe_f
Aww, I'm starting to wish I had found that figurine among my searches! I'd say that's a pretty darned close match to my sorceress, too… at least based on how I had also created her in SoulCalibur V:
https://www.schadenfreudestudios.com/dnd/quintessaXX.png
https://www.schadenfreudestudios.com/dnd/quintessaXY.png

Instead I had opted for this one from Heresy:
https://www.schadenfreudestudios.com/dnd/quintessaFF.png
Original figurine's photo is on the right; my edit is on the left to give me a painting reference (though the skin on my actual figurine didn't come out nearly as well, and being my first I wasn't able to add any kind of good shadow or highlight; at least the black-to-blue transition for the dress worked out surprisingly well).

neonchameleon
2016-03-21, 10:05 AM
I dont think you want that, my skills as a painter or a photographer isnt terribly impressive.

It was this model though:

http://www.reapermini.com/OnlineStore/vampire/sku-down/03150#detail/03150_Siobhana_pe_f

Being fair I might have cracked a couple of jokes about that mini and not being able to move freely in that skirt. That dress in specific is unsuitable for adventuring. (Which in no way means there aren't times when a PC so inclined wouldn't wear it).

goto124
2016-03-21, 10:07 AM
Nevertheless, there is no reason any GM should be so stick-in-the-posterior that drawings and minis must match the character's actual clothing. Anyone found a female mini wearing actual practical clothing? Even if it's easy, why make your players go through extra unneeded effort anyway?

Did that GM refuse male minis with unpractical, say, cloaks or overly fancy, bulky armor with spikes? Or at least gave penalities to e.g. Dex?

neonchameleon
2016-03-21, 11:11 AM
Oh, I quite agree. And my response to Talakeal's GM if I didn't walk would involve bringing about a dozen of my Reaper Bones to any given gaming session and changing them over at least every day as my character changed clothes. (I've once done this with a changeling PC in a non-serious game; every time I picked up my mini to move it I'd put down a different one)

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-21, 02:29 PM
Go to goodwill and buy a shirt that is too tight.

Take it home and put it on. Grab a knife.

Stick the knife in the shirt and do your damndest to cut it enough that it isn't tight.

This should take maybe 10-15 seconds, and you'll be trying not to cut yourself and won't be in a life-or-death situation with Adrenaline to help you.

For the 100th time, people are stronger than fabric. Unless they are in attire specifically designed to restrict movement (which means restraints or fetish-wear, and even most of the latter is pretty easy to move in) most will be able to just rip it and go, either with their bare hands or with some mild cutting assistance.

That, and sufficiently high level characters keep wands of Disintigrate handy to vaporize these darn restrictive clothes they keep finding themselves in for no apparent reason.

Go to the store and buy a watermelon. Get a knife, and count how many times you can stab the watermelon in 10 seconds. That's your best friend, while you're fussing with your shirt.

Fights are fast, no time to fuss with clothing. I saw a guy on the bus one time, fatigues and chains, got his chain-wallet caught in the bus seat when he tried to get up. Looked a fool. Fussy, fancy, floppy clothing is bad mojo in a fight.

Shackel
2016-03-21, 02:55 PM
Go to the store and buy a watermelon. Get a knife, and count how many times you can stab the watermelon in 10 seconds. That's your best friend, while you're fussing with your shirt.

Fights are fast, no time to fuss with clothing. I saw a guy on the bus one time, fatigues and chains, got his chain-wallet caught in the bus seat when he tried to get up. Looked a fool. Fussy, fancy, floppy clothing is bad mojo in a fight.

The system can already handle that: worst-case scenario, then, that'd be 2 full-round actions ("2 round" treated as a spells casting time if you really wanted to be unnecessarily annoying) that provoke attacks of opportunity.

More likely, including adrenaline and just how little you'd need to cut, it'd be one 1 full-round action that would provoke.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-21, 03:32 PM
Go to the store and buy a watermelon. Get a knife, and count how many times you can stab the watermelon in 10 seconds. That's your best friend, while you're fussing with your shirt.

Fights are fast, no time to fuss with clothing. I saw a guy on the bus one time, fatigues and chains, got his chain-wallet caught in the bus seat when he tried to get up. Looked a fool. Fussy, fancy, floppy clothing is bad mojo in a fight.

If your friend is already so close that they can get shanked, you can't help them at all. I could stab a helpless watermelon several times in 6 seconds (a round) since the watermelon is an inanimate object. The watermelon can't fight back. A Fighter or Cleric can. This is not an applicable comparison, but it's a cute attempt at one.

So your argument against flowy fabric is a CHAIN WALLET with a METAL CHAIN attached to the STRONGEST STITCHING on your pants getting caught on what was probably a METAL FIXTURE. Do you think these through before posting them? Metal isn't flowy fabric.

If you're grasping this hard at straws to make it seem like a sensible idea, then it isn't.

Shackel
2016-03-21, 04:58 PM
And that's not all. I could bet that whole wallet that he neither wanted to tear his pants, his wallet nor, even if he was that strong, did he want to somehow damage the seat. Nor was there someone trying to stab him. Nor was there really any sense of urgency beyond "I'm possibly embarrassed."

EDIT: Oh, oh, let's go deeper! In D&D terms he likely wasn't any higher than a level 3 NPC class. Nor was he likely 2x as strong as your average person(Str 15, easily achievable by even non-full martials with items)... or 3x(Str 18, the practical baseline for martials), or 4x(Str 20, what you're most likely to see from any martial above level 3, if even that high).

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-21, 06:52 PM
If your friend is already so close that they can get shanked, you can't help them at all. I could stab a helpless watermelon several times in 6 seconds (a round) since the watermelon is an inanimate object. The watermelon can't fight back. A Fighter or Cleric can. This is not an applicable comparison, but it's a cute attempt at one.

So your argument against flowy fabric is a CHAIN WALLET with a METAL CHAIN attached to the STRONGEST STITCHING on your pants getting caught on what was probably a METAL FIXTURE. Do you think these through before posting them? Metal isn't flowy fabric.

If you're grasping this hard at straws to make it seem like a sensible idea, then it isn't.

The more fussy the clothing, the more "friction" there is going to be, which translates into lost time, which increases the odds of friends dying. How long would it take a Southern Belle to tear out of her skirt if it caught nicely in a bramble? How well could a modern "gangster thug" wearing his crotch at knee-height, "tear out of" his jeans in order to run? Fussy clothing causes problems.

EDIT: Because you'll probably miss or bury it: 10 seconds is a world of time in a fight. Life or death. Worrying about cutting one's clothing so one can avoid a -1 is insane behaviour for anyone but the grandest of grandmasters.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-21, 07:52 PM
The more fussy the clothing, the more "friction" there is going to be, which translates into lost time, which increases the odds of friends dying. How long would it take a Southern Belle to tear out of her skirt if it caught nicely in a bramble? How well could a modern "gangster thug" wearing his crotch at knee-height, "tear out of" his jeans in order to run? Fussy clothing causes problems.

EDIT: Because you'll probably miss or bury it: 10 seconds is a world of time in a fight. Life or death. Worrying about cutting one's clothing so one can avoid a -1 is insane behaviour for anyone but the grandest of grandmasters.

A Southern Belle is not a combatant, really, and so not a great comparison. But if she didn't give a damn about the skirt? One quick jerk will solve the problem most of the time. Brambles are not that grabby, and simply sprinting in the desired direction will likely pull you free when combined with a quick and solid pull. If her skirt were suddenly sewn around a tree with a good stitch job and she had no knife, then we could talk.

The gangster could dive for cover in a firefight long enough to remove his pants, which wouldn't take long since they're already most of the way down. Or, here's an idea, he takes one hand and hitches the pants up while he breaks into a run. You can run in jeans. Not with the same comfort as running shorts, but you can easily do it. Go try. Return and report your findings.

And this is still obviously grasping at straws since wearing your pants around your ankles is nothing even vaguely similar to wearing a robe except that cloth is near your shins and ankles. And no court situation I can envision would involve ankle-jeans. And PCs can get around that problem using this nifty invention that I believe is known as "A belt."

This continues to be asenine and incredibly silly, and your examples have now entirely strayed from the real of medieval fantasy and into "Jeans, chainwallets, and dainty females in silk dresses caught in bramble bushes because dainty Southern Belles hang out near those a lot, apparently."

Your excuses have drifted into absurdity. But I'll continue to point that out as long as you want me to.

For the EDIT:
A round in D&D is 6 seconds. Making 10 seconds just under two rounds, and remember: This is how long it takes a person BEING CAREFUL who IS NOT IN IMMEDIATE DANGER.
Under those circumstances, I'd cut it down to 5 seconds or less to get enough movement to not even worry. And if it's a STR 16+ character? It would cost them maybe a move/standard action to just rip the damn thing and go. So it doesn't even affect them beyond losing maybe an attack this turn, which is an OK tradeoff for most people for everything being 5% harder. A -1 is a 5% penalty. Don't forget that. Wording it as "just a -1" is purposefully minimizing the problem. A 5% reduction in efficacy is just worrysome enough to merit the expense of a single action.

Shackel
2016-03-21, 07:53 PM
If it's small enough to be only a -1, it's not a Southern Belle. It might be a gangster thug, but, well, pulling up one's pants is a lot less than 6 seconds.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-21, 09:37 PM
A Southern Belle is not a combatant, really, and so not a great comparison. But if she didn't give a damn about the skirt? One quick jerk will solve the problem most of the time. Brambles are not that grabby, and simply sprinting in the desired direction will likely pull you free when combined with a quick and solid pull. If her skirt were suddenly sewn around a tree with a good stitch job and she had no knife, then we could talk.

The gangster could dive for cover in a firefight long enough to remove his pants, which wouldn't take long since they're already most of the way down. Or, here's an idea, he takes one hand and hitches the pants up while he breaks into a run. You can run in jeans. Not with the same comfort as running shorts, but you can easily do it. Go try. Return and report your findings.

And this is still obviously grasping at straws since wearing your pants around your ankles is nothing even vaguely similar to wearing a robe except that cloth is near your shins and ankles. And no court situation I can envision would involve ankle-jeans. And PCs can get around that problem using this nifty invention that I believe is known as "A belt."

This continues to be asenine and incredibly silly, and your examples have now entirely strayed from the real of medieval fantasy and into "Jeans, chainwallets, and dainty females in silk dresses caught in bramble bushes because dainty Southern Belles hang out near those a lot, apparently."

Your excuses have drifted into absurdity. But I'll continue to point that out as long as you want me to.

For the EDIT:
A round in D&D is 6 seconds. Making 10 seconds just under two rounds, and remember: This is how long it takes a person BEING CAREFUL who IS NOT IN IMMEDIATE DANGER.
Under those circumstances, I'd cut it down to 5 seconds or less to get enough movement to not even worry. And if it's a STR 16+ character? It would cost them maybe a move/standard action to just rip the damn thing and go. So it doesn't even affect them beyond losing maybe an attack this turn, which is an OK tradeoff for most people for everything being 5% harder. A -1 is a 5% penalty. Don't forget that. Wording it as "just a -1" is purposefully minimizing the problem. A 5% reduction in efficacy is just worrysome enough to merit the expense of a single action.

Your continued obnoxious snideness is noted.

ANYONE is a combatant, there are merely greater or lesser degrees of skill. And ripping out of her dress would take some time, and would also cause some distress for being partially or fully disrobed unless she was in an adrenaline high or terrified. Such a dress exists for parties, not for adventuring, and getting it snagged on brambles might lead to a little rip, or it might lead to a real catch.

Gangsters in baggy pants are not going to be running at full tilt holding their pants up with one hand. They might go faster than otherwise, but max speed is out. Getting out of their pants so they can run--you guessed it--takes TIME. Stupid choice of attire for a flight.

I'm not talking about, nor am I interested in, D&D rounds, or D&D measurements. I'm using d20 as shorthand for referring to d20 or 3d6 systems, which is what I use.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-21, 11:06 PM
Your continued obnoxious snideness is noted.

ANYONE is a combatant, there are merely greater or lesser degrees of skill. And ripping out of her dress would take some time, and would also cause some distress for being partially or fully disrobed unless she was in an adrenaline high or terrified. Such a dress exists for parties, not for adventuring, and getting it snagged on brambles might lead to a little rip, or it might lead to a real catch.

Gangsters in baggy pants are not going to be running at full tilt holding their pants up with one hand. They might go faster than otherwise, but max speed is out. Getting out of their pants so they can run--you guessed it--takes TIME. Stupid choice of attire for a flight.

I'm not talking about, nor am I interested in, D&D rounds, or D&D measurements. I'm using d20 as shorthand for referring to d20 or 3d6 systems, which is what I use.

I'm only obnoxious to those who try to treat their absurdities as legitimate, which I don't allow.

In d20, it is a 5% penalty. For 3d6, it is a slightly larger penalty, since the range is 3-18, so the total range is 16 outcomes, so a 6.25% penalty.

As to your suggested scenarios:

-Life or Death situation = ripping your dress is better than literally dying. Adrenaline has allowed pregnant women to lift cars off of their children. It can probably allow a southern belle to outstrength a bush. Most non-atrophied humans have enough raw muscle strength to cause themselves serious harm, but we have built-in limiters that disallow this. When our life is on the line, our brain may select injury over death. Adrenaline surges help with this. A woman can easily overpower a bush. Even a sharp bush. Suggesting otherwise is assuming either A) she is literally emaciated or B) is a really poorly thought-out assumption of human strength.

-A gangster wearing baggy pants can run close enough to top speed while holding his pants up that it is not worth a 5% penalty to represent mechanically. Literally the only difference is one arm isn't pumping. This has a smaller effect than you think. I have surprisingly large amounts of experience with holding up too-large jeans while running. Ok, actually I was playing Dance Dance Revolution with Flip Flops and saggy jeans on. I never noticed a significant difference between my performance with (held up) baggy pants and flip flops vs shorts and tennis shoes. (And no, I wasn't playing easy levels. Being good at DDR was pretty much my only athletic achievement until my early 20s.)

So yeah, your arguments have thusfar boiled down to "but it WILL impose, and simple solutions DON'T exist!" despite the parade of simple solutions, and you're now delving into more and more specific, extenuating circumstances to find a situation in which normal attire will cause a person problems with mobility.

To save you time, Yes. Such situations exist. And they are extenuating and very uncommon in the grand scheme of things, and may, when they happen the one or two times they happen in a campaign, be worth a one-time ruling being made on the spot.

They don't require an entire dedicated mechanic unless it comes up in the campaign CONSTANTLY.

The things that are mechanised are either A) used frequently or B) utterly ignored. For examples, look at D&D and its splatbooks. The DMG2 has rules for owning a business. If you use those rules, then business ownership becomes a large part of the campaign. But most campaigns just ignore those rules entirely.

If you want your campaign/game to focus on clothing, and being attacked while in weird restrictive outfits, then yes. It needs a system.

If it's just going to happen only incidentally, then it's not worth the time. Throw out a -1 for "narrative drama" and know that your players will remember that one time when they wore the stupid clothes and got jumped. I would do that once, maybe.

But not more than that.

Ashtagon
2016-03-22, 12:01 AM
I dont think you want that, my skills as a painter or a photographer isnt terribly impressive.

It was this model though:

http://www.reapermini.com/OnlineStore/vampire/sku-down/03150#detail/03150_Siobhana_pe_f

To be fair, that style of dress didn't appear historically until the 1880s at least. The GM could have said it was ahistorical.

otoh, any GM who insists that a mini must match the PC exactly is being something awful.

Absent a more specific setting dataset, this is what I'd normally default to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_medieval_European_dress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1100%E2%80%931200_in_European_fashion
http://www.angelcynnreenactmentsociety.org.uk/home/pagan-anglo-saxon-clothing
http://www.tha-engliscan-gesithas.org.uk/education/anglo-saxon-clothes-women

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-22, 09:04 AM
-Life or Death situation = ripping your dress is better than literally dying. Adrenaline has allowed pregnant women to lift cars off of their children. It can probably allow a southern belle to outstrength a bush. Most non-atrophied humans have enough raw muscle strength to cause themselves serious harm, but we have built-in limiters that disallow this. When our life is on the line, our brain may select injury over death. Adrenaline surges help with this. A woman can easily overpower a bush. Even a sharp bush. Suggesting otherwise is assuming either A) she is literally emaciated or B) is a really poorly thought-out assumption of human strength.

Even if she can rip out of it, it's still going to take time.


-A gangster wearing baggy pants can run close enough to top speed while holding his pants up that it is not worth a 5% penalty to represent mechanically. Literally the only difference is one arm isn't pumping. This has a smaller effect than you think. I have surprisingly large amounts of experience with holding up too-large jeans while running. Ok, actually I was playing Dance Dance Revolution with Flip Flops and saggy jeans on. I never noticed a significant difference between my performance with (held up) baggy pants and flip flops vs shorts and tennis shoes. (And no, I wasn't playing easy levels. Being good at DDR was pretty much my only athletic achievement until my early 20s.)

I wonder if any Olympic sprinters have ever ran with one hand behind their backs, just because it has a smaller effect than one thinks.

Keltest
2016-03-22, 10:36 AM
Even if she can rip out of it, it's still going to take time. On a thorn bush? Not really. She might come away with big holes in the dress, or her dress covered in thorn branches, but if she is just trying to get out as fast as she can, it will be pretty quick, if she is even actually stopped.



I wonder if any Olympic sprinters have ever ran with one hand behind their backs, just because it has a smaller effect than one thinks.[/QUOTE]

Olympic sprinters need every fraction of a second they can get. The situations are entirely different.

Âmesang
2016-03-22, 11:54 AM
I'm reminded of The Mighty Thor #3 (2011) where Kid Loki caught Sif sleeping naked in bed, leading her to stand over him with nothing but a sword between his eyes.

"You dropped your blanket."

"The blanket or the blade. I made my choice."

Vinyadan
2016-03-22, 12:18 PM
Because that let's the magic out. The enchanted fabric forms a magic-seal against the ground, creating an enclosed space large enough for sufficient buildup of power. The hand gestures that are used in casting are a way to open up the sleeves of the robe so the energy can come spouting out.

And now you know that your next wizard character will be a tinkergnome looking to design the ultimate magical garment.

Boy that's gross. It doesn't convey me magic coming from the ground. More like gaseous magic.

Talakeal
2016-03-22, 01:47 PM
Nevertheless, there is no reason any GM should be so stick-in-the-posterior that drawings and minis must match the character's actual clothing. Anyone found a female mini wearing actual practical clothing? Even if it's easy, why make your players go through extra unneeded effort anyway?

Did that GM refuse male minis with unpractical, say, cloaks or overly fancy, bulky armor with spikes? Or at least gave penalities to e.g. Dex?


One complaint I have about web sites like: http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/ is that they almost seem to have a double standard against showing skin. They poo-poo any fantasy outfit that is impractically skimpy, but heap praise on female armor that is too bulky, covered in spikes, too thick to move, has shoulder pads too large to actually lift your arms, blinding helmets, or long flowing capes.

They also seem to make the argument that an ideal combatant is covered in head to toe in thick slabs of shapeless metal, and anyone else is just asking to be killed, which seems really weird as in a lot of genres have people of both genders engage in melee combat wearing completely non sexualized clothing with no protective value whatsoever (like say your standard Wuxia or Steampunk).




To be fair, that style of dress didn't appear historically until the 1880s at least. The GM could have said it was ahistorical.

otoh, any GM who insists that a mini must match the PC exactly is being something awful.

Absent a more specific setting dataset, this is what I'd normally default to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_medieval_European_dress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1100%E2%80%931200_in_European_fashion
http://www.angelcynnreenactmentsociety.org.uk/home/pagan-anglo-saxon-clothing
http://www.tha-engliscan-gesithas.org.uk/education/anglo-saxon-clothes-women

I wasn't trying to be that exact, was just looking for an attractive female who was wearing a dress and holding a chalice instead of a weapon and that was the best I could find.

Also, man most of those dresses are ugly. They may be historically accurate, but I think you could find a happy medium between realism and attractive, something like a girl would wear at a ren-fair or something that a fair / princess would wear in a fantasy movie.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-22, 02:17 PM
On a thorn bush? Not really. She might come away with big holes in the dress, or her dress covered in thorn branches, but if she is just trying to get out as fast as she can, it will be pretty quick, if she is even actually stopped.

As long as it would take someone without nine yards of fabric on her?


Olympic sprinters need every fraction of a second they can get. The situations are entirely different.

You're running from a gunman. Every fraction of a second counts. You might even have to climb things and maneuver awkward obstacles. Do you choose to wear ridiculous crotch-knee jeans that you're holding up with one hand, or do you wear something sensible?

Vinyadan
2016-03-22, 02:22 PM
Also, man most of those dresses are ugly. They may be historically accurate, but I think you could find a happy medium between realism and attractive, something like a girl would wear at a ren-fair or something that a fair / princess would wear in a fantasy movie.

Now I am curious to see what they actually wear at ren-fairs. I wouldn't call the linked clothes ugly, personally, although they obviously are for the most part lower-class clothes, and consequently simpler and cheaper. There also is the fact that beauty has changed a lot over time. Just to make an example, in the middle ages the size of the bosom didn't matter: what mattered was that it didn't fall low. Anyway, take a look at these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lady_and_the_Unicorn). They portray much richer clothing and also come from a much later date than those previously linked.

Keltest
2016-03-22, 02:42 PM
As long as it would take someone without nine yards of fabric on her? Probably. You would almost have to be doing it on purpose to get tangled in a bush to the point where you are legitimately stuck, and at that point even a naked person would have to be careful extracting themselves lest they accidentally impale their foot or otherwise injure themselves.




You're running from a gunman. Every fraction of a second counts. You might even have to climb things and maneuver awkward obstacles. Do you choose to wear ridiculous crotch-knee jeans that you're holding up with one hand, or do you wear something sensible?

No, fractions of a second are not counting here. Human reaction speeds are simply not enough to dodge a bullet, period, and that's the only way a fraction of a second could count in this situation, because you do not run from gunmen, you hide from them. The terrain and your knowledge of it compared to the gunman's is the deciding factor here, unless your pants have fallen down so far as to act as manacles.


Now I am curious to see what they actually wear at ren-fairs. I wouldn't call the linked clothes ugly, personally, although they obviously are for the most part lower-class clothes, and consequently simpler and cheaper. There also is the fact that beauty has changed a lot over time. Just to make an example, in the middle ages the size of the bosom didn't matter: what mattered was that it didn't fall low. Anyway, take a look at these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lady_and_the_Unicorn). They portray much richer clothing and also come from a much later date than those previously linked.

Ive been to a few faires. They mostly look like what is linked, except worn by people who bathe regularly and can afford to keep their garb clean and presentable. And also not made of paint; those portraits are not really the best way to get a feel for what that stuff looks like.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-22, 02:55 PM
As long as it would take someone without nine yards of fabric on her?


So now the ENTIRE DRESS is in the bush? Quit moving the goalposts. The parts that are stuck will rip open, or the bush will lose branches. Another thing to note is that Bramble bushes are stickier when dry, because while they are green, the thorns are still a little wet and retain flexibility (making it easier to pull off the stuck bit of dress) and when Dry, they are more brittle and easier to break. There's a very specific period during the fall when this would present a larger problem. But still solved by a solid tug.

Though again, you're attempting to use a Damsel In Distress to justify actions taken against Highly Skilled Player Characters.

And still look silly doing it.



You're running from a gunman. Every fraction of a second counts. You might even have to climb things and maneuver awkward obstacles. Do you choose to wear ridiculous crotch-knee jeans that you're holding up with one hand, or do you wear something sensible?
Again, life or death situation with 0 planning vs Athletic Competition with years of training

Not a valid comparison.

You grab your jeans and you sprint for cover. The gunman will move slower than you do unless he wants to miss. Since no one will ever invent the outfit that lets you outsprint a bullet, this is more of an initiative test than anything else. Once those jeans are hitched and you make it to cover, you now have
A) A lead
B) a way better running situation, even if not 100% efficient.

If the gunner gets the drop on you, it lterally DOESNT MATTER what you're wearing unless it is thick plates of metal. You will get shot.

You need to take some time to think through these arguments nore.

Ashtagon
2016-03-22, 02:59 PM
I wasn't trying to be that exact, was just looking for an attractive female who was wearing a dress and holding a chalice instead of a weapon and that was the best I could find.

Also, man most of those dresses are ugly. They may be historically accurate, but I think you could find a happy medium between realism and attractive, something like a girl would wear at a ren-fair or something that a fair / princess would wear in a fantasy movie.


Now I am curious to see what they actually wear at ren-fairs. I wouldn't call the linked clothes ugly, personally, although they obviously are for the most part lower-class clothes, and consequently simpler and cheaper. There also is the fact that beauty has changed a lot over time. Just to make an example, in the middle ages the size of the bosom didn't matter: what mattered was that it didn't fall low. Anyway, take a look at these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lady_and_the_Unicorn). They portray much richer clothing and also come from a much later date than those previously linked.

To be fair, I was focusing my links on the dark age and early mediaeval period. Most ren-fair productions, where they match up with any kind of historical outfit at all, tend to focus on high mediaeval or renaissance era clothing. Fashions have been known to change over the centuries.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-22, 03:58 PM
Probably. You would almost have to be doing it on purpose to get tangled in a bush to the point where you are legitimately stuck, and at that point even a naked person would have to be careful extracting themselves lest they accidentally impale their foot or otherwise injure themselves.

Dresses are not made of sugar-foam. Can you provide any evidence that dresses tear as easily as you say, to the point that they would extract from a bramble (not a raspberry bush, a bramble) as easily as would leather armour?


No, fractions of a second are not counting here. Human reaction speeds are simply not enough to dodge a bullet, period, and that's the only way a fraction of a second could count in this situation, because you do not run from gunmen, you hide from them. The terrain and your knowledge of it compared to the gunman's is the deciding factor here, unless your pants have fallen down so far as to act as manacles.

If I were running from a gunman, I would be counting every fraction of a second as a precious jewel until I could take cover, as around the corner of a building, and thence away. And I wouldn't be wearing ridiculous pants.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-22, 04:07 PM
So now the ENTIRE DRESS is in the bush? Quit moving the goalposts. The parts that are stuck will rip open, or the bush will lose branches. Another thing to note is that Bramble bushes are stickier when dry, because while they are green, the thorns are still a little wet and retain flexibility (making it easier to pull off the stuck bit of dress) and when Dry, they are more brittle and easier to break. There's a very specific period during the fall when this would present a larger problem. But still solved by a solid tug.

Though again, you're attempting to use a Damsel In Distress to justify actions taken against Highly Skilled Player Characters.

And still look silly doing it.

Quit doing your best to pretend that clothing has no effect on human action.

I didn't say the entire dress is in the bush, I referred to the voluminousness of the dress, which will create more surface area and decorations to catch. That might cause some problems. Until you can provide some proof otherwise, that's how I will run it.


Again, life or death situation with 0 planning vs Athletic Competition with years of training

Not a valid comparison.

You grab your jeans and you sprint for cover. The gunman will move slower than you do unless he wants to miss. Since no one will ever invent the outfit that lets you outsprint a bullet, this is more of an initiative test than anything else. Once those jeans are hitched and you make it to cover, you now have
A) A lead
B) a way better running situation, even if not 100% efficient.

If the gunner gets the drop on you, it lterally DOESNT MATTER what you're wearing unless it is thick plates of metal. You will get shot.

You need to take some time to think through these arguments nore.

Already answered this. Every fraction of a second can count in a fight, including in a gunfight. Anyone caught trying to escape a gunman whilst wearing crotch-knee pants is a fool.

Keltest
2016-03-22, 04:12 PM
Quit doing your best to pretend that clothing has no effect on human action.

I didn't say the entire dress is in the bush, I referred to the voluminousness of the dress., which will create more surface area and decorations to catch. That might cause some problems. Until you can provide some proof otherwise, that's how I will run it. Which is compensated for (imagine that) by not getting as close to a bramble bush in the first place. Again, what are you doing such that you are getting any significant amount of your dress caught in that bush? Are you trying to crawl through it?




Already answered this. Every fraction of a second can count in a fight, including in a gunfight. Anyone caught trying to escape a gunman whilst wearing crotch-knee pants is a fool.

And youre flat out mistaken. It comes down to reaction time and initiative, not run speed. Assuming your shooter is remotely competent, running from them is not going to impact their ability to shoot you until you manage to put an obstacle between you and them, something you will not have time to do if they get the drop on you.

JustSomeGuy
2016-03-22, 04:24 PM
Well, i for one know how easily the arse rips on trousers, jeans, shorts, lycra, negligee, chaps and posing pouches. And it is for this reason that when i throw down with the local pugilists, i no longer insist on getting naked first.

Also, the idea of a very Strong bush (dire bush?) overpowering folks for their clothes is hilarious

Vinyadan
2016-03-22, 04:33 PM
If I were running from a gunman, I would be counting every fraction of a second as a precious jewel until I could take cover, as around the corner of a building, and thence away. And I wouldn't be wearing ridiculous pants.

I hope you never have to run from a gunman on Halloween, especially in a Roland McDonald or Minnie costume.

Anyway, given that much of the ancient world wore clothing based on draping, I don't think it was that much of a problem to wear a robe. They took it off when they had to wear armour or to practice sports (which they did naked), and they were aware of the fact that it bettered their performance; they also found that eastern trousers were a hindrance while fighting. However, all other daily activities were carried out in robes, and we especially know that the Ionians wore long chitons. The question is: shouldn't you rather give a bonus to naked characters, instead of a malus to draped characters?

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-22, 04:42 PM
Which is compensated for (imagine that) by not getting as close to a bramble bush in the first place. Again, what are you doing such that you are getting any significant amount of your dress caught in that bush? Are you trying to crawl through it?

Who knows? Crap happens in RPGs, man.


And youre flat out mistaken. It comes down to reaction time and initiative, not run speed. Assuming your shooter is remotely competent, running from them is not going to impact their ability to shoot you until you manage to put an obstacle between you and them, something you will not have time to do if they get the drop on you.

No, you're mistaken. Find me any military advisor who disagrees that minimising one's time spent in the field of enemy fire is a good idea.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-22, 04:47 PM
I hope you never have to run from a gunman on Halloween, especially in a Roland McDonald or Minnie costume.

Anyway, given that much of the ancient world wore clothing based on draping, I don't think it was that much of a problem to wear a robe. They took it off when they had to wear armour or to practice sports (which they did naked), and they were aware of the fact that it bettered their performance; they also found that eastern trousers were a hindrance while fighting. However, all other daily activities were carried out in robes, and we especially know that the Ionians wore long chitons. The question is: shouldn't you rather give a bonus to naked characters, instead of a malus to draped characters?

What are eastern trousers?

Do people who are not used to going naked in public get a penalty to fight on that account?

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-22, 04:49 PM
Also, the idea of a very Strong bush (dire bush?) overpowering folks for their clothes is hilarious

That's a great idea, thanks.

Keltest
2016-03-22, 05:03 PM
Who knows? Crap happens in RPGs, man. Such as the dreaded dire shrubbery, known for hiding in open planes and entrapping people wearing large dresses, right? My point is, if you are entangled to that degree, you were not running. I don't know what you were doing, but it wasn't running.




No, you're mistaken. Find me any military advisor who disagrees that minimising one's time spent in the field of enemy fire is a good idea.

Let me be clear here. Running does not take you out of the enemy's line of fire. Moving behind an obstacle does. However, to get out of the line of fire, you first have to be in it. And if you are in their line of fire, who acts first is the deciding factor. If they shoot you before you can move, it doesn't matter that you were that fraction of a second faster, and if you can get behind cover before they start shooting, holding up your pants would not have slowed you down enough to get you killed.

What do you think the place looks like where running at your absolute maximum velocity is the only way to survive?

Vinyadan
2016-03-22, 05:07 PM
What are eastern trousers?

Anaxyrídes (https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/RE:%E1%BC%88%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%BE%CF%85%CF%81%CE%AF%C E%B4%CE%B5%CF%82)were the pants used by the Persians. The basic version was made of simple leather, while the rich would get coloured models. They were shown as very adherent (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Alexandermosaic.jpg) or relatively loose, making many folds (the Amazons (https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3726/13542952654_4ecc4e9457_b.jpg) are wearing them). Given that they were really simple leather, not armour, it is easy to understand why the Greeks saw them as suboptimal. It was like going to war in long lederhosen.

Do people who are not used to going naked in public get a penalty to fight on that account?

Just slap them with a morale or concentration malus identical to the naked bonus. When they get used to it, they can enjoy the benefits (and the blisters from carrying their stuff on naked skin, which should give them a new, different, heavier malus, until their skin grows used to that).

Knaight
2016-03-22, 05:09 PM
Let me be clear here. Running does not take you out of the enemy's line of fire. Moving behind an obstacle does. However, to get out of the line of fire, you first have to be in it. And if you are in their line of fire, who acts first is the deciding factor. If they shoot you before you can move, it doesn't matter that you were that fraction of a second faster, and if you can get behind cover before they start shooting, holding up your pants would not have slowed you down enough to get you killed.

What do you think the place looks like where running at your absolute maximum velocity is the only way to survive?

The obvious case here would be running behind a corner before they've had time to take aim. Aiming isn't an instantaneous thing, there's a lot of missing (particularly given that outside of military contexts most shootings are with handguns, which tend to have accuracy problems), and being able to move faster to take cover is helpful.

Vinyadan
2016-03-22, 05:19 PM
Also, the idea of a very Strong bush (dire bush?) overpowering folks for their clothes is hilarious

There is a fable by Aesop about a bramble, a seagull and a bat wishing to become traders. The seagull had some copper, the bat took a money loan and the bramble bought clothes to sell. They then sailed towards an emporium. However, a storm broke out and their ship sank with the wares and the money.
Since then, the seagull lives by the sea, in the hope of finding his copper, while the bat only goes out at night, because it's afraid of debt collectors. The bramble instead took a habit of grabbing other people' clothes, to see if it its ware which they are wearing.

Keltest
2016-03-22, 05:20 PM
The obvious case here would be running behind a corner before they've had time to take aim. Aiming isn't an instantaneous thing, there's a lot of missing (particularly given that outside of military contexts most shootings are with handguns, which tend to have accuracy problems), and being able to move faster to take cover is helpful.

Well yes, that would be the reaction speed thing. Fractions of a second are not going to make or break you there.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-22, 05:56 PM
Holy crap this has descended so far into absurdity.

When you get ambushed by gunmen while wearing unoptimal pants, sure. You may be 0.01% more likely to die while running with your pants hitched up than running with normal pants. Of course, your pants have little effect on diving for cover (ie, just leaping from a dead stop) which is the brightest idea, but whatever. Donna lives in a world where people sprint away from bullets as their best bet.

In all instances, your living or dying is in the hands of the shooter that ambushes you. If their gun is already out, halfway aimed, and you stumble into their sight, you are dead. It takes them less time to point in your general direction and start squeezing the trigger than it does for you to shift your entire body mass and put it any sort of significant distance away from where it currently is. So no, the fractions of a second you would get from sprinting are already lost when you reorient your momentum or fight inertia to begin movement. You're dead, kiddo.

The military is pretty explicit about priority 1 being to get into cover, and when ambushed out-of-cover, soldiers die. You can look up videos of military ambushes. Just count how many manage to survive the first few seconds. It will be a very low number. (Except for really big groups, which are their own armor.)

Anything smaller than a 5% difference is not worth modeling in d20, because you overexxagerate.

As for the dress, you need not tear the entire dress apart, which is where you fail to logically process.

Have you ever born witness to a small hole in a garment? Imagine lots of those. That is the most probable result of getting your dress caught in a bramble bush. NOT ending up naked.

I have gotten myself caught on doorknobs before (I happen to be just the right height) and except for jeans, this results in a torn pocket and a slight stumble when I move at a walking pace. Same general principle applies.

I'm not saying that the clothing has 0 consequence in either situation. (Which you could realize by...reading what I wrote.) But what I HAVE been saying is that the penalties are TOO SMALL to render in the d20 system with any sort of accuracy, meaning they would have to be inflated. Meaning that your PCs have competence removed from them in order to support your "super kewl idea." Which you can do, sure. It's stupid, but you can do it.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-22, 06:53 PM
Such as the dreaded dire shrubbery, known for hiding in open planes and entrapping people wearing large dresses, right? My point is, if you are entangled to that degree, you were not running. I don't know what you were doing, but it wasn't running.

One could run full tilt in panic into the arms of a bramble.


Let me be clear here. Running does not take you out of the enemy's line of fire. Moving behind an obstacle does. However, to get out of the line of fire, you first have to be in it. And if you are in their line of fire, who acts first is the deciding factor. If they shoot you before you can move, it doesn't matter that you were that fraction of a second faster, and if you can get behind cover before they start shooting, holding up your pants would not have slowed you down enough to get you killed.

What do you think the place looks like where running at your absolute maximum velocity is the only way to survive?

Name any military commander who would agree to dress his troops in knee-crotch pants.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-22, 06:58 PM
Holy crap this has descended so far into absurdity.

When you get ambushed by gunmen while wearing unoptimal pants, sure. You may be 0.01% more likely to die while running with your pants hitched up than running with normal pants. Of course, your pants have little effect on diving for cover (ie, just leaping from a dead stop) which is the brightest idea, but whatever. Donna lives in a world where people sprint away from bullets as their best bet.

In all instances, your living or dying is in the hands of the shooter that ambushes you. If their gun is already out, halfway aimed, and you stumble into their sight, you are dead. It takes them less time to point in your general direction and start squeezing the trigger than it does for you to shift your entire body mass and put it any sort of significant distance away from where it currently is. So no, the fractions of a second you would get from sprinting are already lost when you reorient your momentum or fight inertia to begin movement. You're dead, kiddo.

The military is pretty explicit about priority 1 being to get into cover, and when ambushed out-of-cover, soldiers die. You can look up videos of military ambushes. Just count how many manage to survive the first few seconds. It will be a very low number. (Except for really big groups, which are their own armor.)

Anything smaller than a 5% difference is not worth modeling in d20, because you overexxagerate.

As for the dress, you need not tear the entire dress apart, which is where you fail to logically process.

Have you ever born witness to a small hole in a garment? Imagine lots of those. That is the most probable result of getting your dress caught in a bramble bush. NOT ending up naked.

I have gotten myself caught on doorknobs before (I happen to be just the right height) and except for jeans, this results in a torn pocket and a slight stumble when I move at a walking pace. Same general principle applies.

I'm not saying that the clothing has 0 consequence in either situation. (Which you could realize by...reading what I wrote.) But what I HAVE been saying is that the penalties are TOO SMALL to render in the d20 system with any sort of accuracy, meaning they would have to be inflated. Meaning that your PCs have competence removed from them in order to support your "super kewl idea." Which you can do, sure. It's stupid, but you can do it.

cf. post above.

Keltest
2016-03-22, 07:22 PM
One could run full tilt in panic into the arms of a bramble. ooo, are dire brambles invisible now? Or perhaps she ran off a ledge into one?




Name any military commander who would agree to dress his troops in knee-crotch pants.

Knee-crotch pants are stupid for a variety of reasons. Their infinitesimally diminished running speed when you pull them up to where they should be is not one of them. Soldiers would want both hands free, not because it increases their running speed, but because hands are useful things, and soldiers benefit from having them.

Vinyadan
2016-03-22, 07:29 PM
ooo, are dire brambles invisible now? Or perhaps she ran off a ledge into one?


She brambled into them.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-22, 07:39 PM
One could run full tilt in panic into the arms of a bramble.

Yes, one could. Unless they fall full-body into the brambles, they can pull free pretty easily. Once they are full-body in the brambles...the dress just makes an already really bad problem a worse problem. But even a guy in armor will have a bad time getting out of a bush he fell into, brambles or otherwise.



Name any military commander who would agree to dress his troops in knee-crotch pants.

Strawman Fallacy.
No one is arguing that these are the optimal pants for the situation.

And, the pants prevent the use of hands. Which are very needed for things like Shooting, Throwing grenades, and etc. But crotchwaist paints will allow you to run one-handed.

That, and you're throwing away the points I made in favor of making me defend one I didn't make. Shame shame.

Vinyadan
2016-03-22, 07:45 PM
Name any military commander who would agree to dress his troops in knee-crotch pants.
Strawman Fallacy.


Never heard of him.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-22, 08:23 PM
Never heard of him.

He looks like this:
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpvSzP4E5erLHoMpQtRcw_JoOrHkNZg rFb7HKIStziOPfCcutxEA

He's famous for mocking his opponents for using really stupid strategies they didn't actually use.

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-22, 10:19 PM
Yes, one could. Unless they fall full-body into the brambles, they can pull free pretty easily. Once they are full-body in the brambles...the dress just makes an already really bad problem a worse problem. But even a guy in armor will have a bad time getting out of a bush he fell into, brambles or otherwise.

Really, it would take no less time to free oneself from a belle dress in a bramble than if one were wearing leather armour? You've tested this?


Strawman Fallacy.
No one is arguing that these are the optimal pants for the situation.

And, the pants prevent the use of hands. Which are very needed for things like Shooting, Throwing grenades, and etc. But crotchwaist paints will allow you to run one-handed.

That, and you're throwing away the points I made in favor of making me defend one I didn't make. Shame shame.

You've tested this with crotch-waist pants that they allow running just as fast as with regular pants?

And if we pit a regular soldier against his twin in crotch-knee pants, and tell them to maneuver a broken field as fast as possible, over the distance of a mile, they'll both arrive at the finish line at the same time?

Donnadogsoth
2016-03-22, 10:21 PM
ooo, are dire brambles invisible now? Or perhaps she ran off a ledge into one?

Or at night.


Knee-crotch pants are stupid for a variety of reasons. Their infinitesimally diminished running speed when you pull them up to where they should be is not one of them. Soldiers would want both hands free, not because it increases their running speed, but because hands are useful things, and soldiers benefit from having them.

cf. post above.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-22, 10:32 PM
Really, it would take no less time to free oneself from a belle dress in a bramble than if one were wearing leather armour? You've tested this?

Ooooh so NOW you want things to be tested for accuracy rather than just what makes sense now that it goes AGAINST your opinion. Mk. That explains a lot.

Also, leather armor won't be punctured by a bramble bush, so it won't get caught at all. The difference between the two is EXISTANT but NOT SUFFICIENTLY LARGE to merit an entire rulesystem for clothing hindrances. Remember, your original proposition to show the necessity of this rule was that robes are flowy. After this was disproven and several other things, your argument is currently that these rules are necessary in case someone in a flowy dress ends up stuck in a bramble bush. Do you see why I now find this absurd?



You've tested this with crotch-waist pants that they allow running just as fast as with regular pants?

And if we pit a regular soldier against his twin in crotch-knee pants, and tell them to maneuver a broken field as fast as possible, over the distance of a mile, they'll both arrive at the finish line at the same time?
The above? Yeah, though not officially. I can sprint about as fast in either case. I'm not particularly fast to begin with, though. And as I said before (and you ignored) I was able to play a dancing game that requires rapid, accurate leg movements in baggy, sagging pants and flip-flops without a noticeable dip in skill.

The below? Maybe. But now we're getting even more ridiculous to find a difference.

Let me put it in all-caps because you seem to be bad at finding it when I keep saying it.

DIFFERENCES DO INDEED EXIST, AND THE CLOTHING NOTED MAY INDEED HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT. HOWEVER, THIS IMPACT IS TOO SMALL TO RENDER WITHIN A D20 SYSTEM WITHOUT OVERINFLATING AND/OR OVERSIMPLIFYING THE PENALTY, THUS UNDOING THE ATTEMPT AT "REALISM" IN THE FIRST PLACE BY MAKING THE PENALTY NOT REALISTIC.

STOP. READ THE ABOVE AGAIN.

Ok. Do you get it NOW?

goto124
2016-03-22, 11:47 PM
One complaint I have about web sites like: http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/ is that they almost seem to have a double standard against showing skin. They poo-poo any fantasy outfit that is impractically skimpy, but heap praise on female armor that is too bulky, covered in spikes, too thick to move, has shoulder pads too large to actually lift your arms, blinding helmets, or long flowing capes.

The logic is that they're on equal terms with the male characters, who do have that sort of unrealistic armor as you described.

We're fighting for gender-equal unrealism!

Because this is fantasy, unrealism is part and parcel of the genre. Just that it has to be balanced with suspension of disbelief, and sticking to your own rules that you made up in your own world (if less cloth = greater freedom of movement, why don't the men do that too?).

That's my thoughts anyway. Many of those websites tend to be overly obssessed with 'realism', when we're actually more concerned with verisimilitude.


They also seem to make the argument that an ideal combatant is covered in head to toe in thick slabs of shapeless metal, and anyone else is just asking to be killed, which seems really weird as in a lot of genres have people of both genders engage in melee combat wearing completely non sexualized clothing with no protective value whatsoever (like say your standard Wuxia or Steampunk).

I wasn't trying to be that exact, was just looking for an attractive female who was wearing a dress and holding a chalice instead of a weapon and that was the best I could find.

Also, man most of those dresses are ugly. They may be historically accurate, but I think you could find a happy medium between realism and attractive, something like a girl would wear at a ren-fair or something that a fair / princess would wear in a fantasy movie.

I agree with the rest of your post though. It's why we have a Dungeons & Dreamboats thread - finding good art is hard.