Often overlooked as a social mechanic (in D&D-likes anyway): Fashion

[PhoenixPhyre]

Come to a court ball in your armor and armed? Very different response than coming in the latest fashion. And even fashion can be used as a weapon--if different major nations/parties/social groups have different fashion trends, adhering to one or the other or neither can be a sign of allegiance to one social group or another.


Note: Mirzapor is one of the major cities, as is Varanasi. The first is traditional and "stodgy", while the second is heavily commercial and "popping". Ikela is the country, which is located in the southern sub-tropical jungle. And yes, these are impractical garments for tropics. Noted. Most of the work-day fashion is much more light, this is fashion (not practicality).

Three main "streams" of fashion: High Mirzapor fashion, High Varanasi fashion, and low fashion.

High Mirzapor mode is the "classic" high fashion. Traditional to a fault, it changes only slowly and emphasizes good breeding and status. High Varanasi is the experimental fashion, with trends being born and dying like froth on the sea. Low fashion is the clothing and styles worn by the country folk (nobles and common alike) who don't follow either style. It emphasizes practicality and changes extremely slowly.

Fabrics and Materials
Mostly cotton and linen, with silk used extensively among the most wealthy. Fur is used only very rarely, and mostly as an accent (Ikela being a warm, humid climate). Leather is used in low fashion and as protective gear. Exotic materials such as spidersilk and coralweave are used in tiny amounts by the very wealthiest. Elastic fibers (sourced from a few types of plants) are known but expensive (relative to Earth).

Fasteners and decorations are bone or wood (at the low end) and brass and gold and gemstones at the high end.

High Mirzapor
Attractive men are slender, pale skin, with dark hair and eyes. Tans, calluses, and visible musculature are lower-class markers. Women are hourglass (enforced by corsets and stays), but also pale with dark hair. "Languid" is a term of approval.

Male Fashion: think "Regency England" (aka Jane Austin's era) in cut. Frock coats, tailored shirts, tight breeches and boots. Generally unembroidered and without lace or ruffles. Nobles go armed, mostly with a smallsword (like a cut-down rapier), but this is usually decorative. Hats are worn, but closer to a tricorne (except). Colors are bright, generally being shades of a single color across an outfit. Blues and greens predominate, with reds being seen as a more feminine color.

Female Fashion: Corsets narrow the waist and push up the bust. The upper bodice is cut low, tight and square, exposing much of the upper side of the breast, with puffy shoulders and long, fitted sleeves (often extending to a point on the back of the hand). Breathing is optional. Lace and ruffles are used sparingly. The skirts are voluminous and layered, often with 7-8 layers of petticoats or with hoop skirts. Artificial bustles are added. Colors are pastels, often very pale ones. Reds (well, mostly pinks) show up frequently. But most dresses are cream or other off-whites or very pale pastels. Women wear substantial jewelry, especially necklaces with heavy pendants. Hair is worn up, but no wigs, although jewels are woven through it. Big hair.

High Varanasi (ca 250 AC)
Attractive men are slightly more muscled and fit than High Mirzapor fashion dictates, but still very pale and soft skin. Slightly more forgiving of various hair colors. Attractive women have more natural figures (although slender is a necessity, cf the dresses).

Male Fashion: Similar in cut to High Mirzapor, but with frills, ruffles, and BRIGHT CLASHING COLORS and high-heeled boots. Men wear jewelry, including ear studs and rings. In the highest fashion, trousers tend to be laminated on with large, padded codpieces made of a very different, contrasting color. Seriously, they look ridiculous.

Female Fashion: Ditch the corsets and bustles and large skirts. Necklines stay low but become V-shaped, but every artifice is made to fit the dress to the skin. Women frequently have to be sewn into their dresses and can barely walk, as the skirts only flare out in the last 6-12 inches (and often have large trains). Bright colors are the norm, as are arm bands and big chonky jewelry. Hair is worn down (often to the lower back) or pulled back, but not braided. Jeweled ropes tie it back and are woven through it.

Low Fashion
Trousers and tunics, belted at the waist and laced up the front. Not particularly fitted. Formal dresses tend to be simple but follow somewhat similar patterns (without the excesses) of High Mirzapor fashion: full skirts and square necklines. Sleeves only reach the elbow and the dresses generally are worn with only a single petticoat and no corset.

[Alcore]

Don’t forget colors; appearing in certain colors (even by accident) can have others assume you stand with a specific group.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Don’t forget colors; appearing in certain colors (even by accident) can have others assume you stand with a specific group.

Absolutely. That's a classic one. Even happens today. I'll use the example of football teams (to avoid the obvious minefield of more...political...examples)--my graduate alma mater was blue and orange. One of our (many, this being the SEC) rivals was a school in crimson red. On game day, you made darn sure you were wearing the right colors. Some of those games had to be held in neutral cities because of riot potential.

In a game environment, this is the sort of thing that you'd want to make really clear, or at least have a rebuttable presumption of allegiance. Having them swarmed under because their (unstated up to that point) shirt was the wrong color with no warning is, well, not something I'd like to have happen to me in a game. Obvious arm bands, people warning them, giving them obvious dirty (or welcoming!) looks, etc.

[KorvinStarmast]

When in doubt, wear basic black.
Is that now a dangerous proposition?

[Tawmis]

While not for any form of gala, but in my homebrew - my players are in a desert setting (where magic runs rampant) and the very heat itself is magical.

So anyone wearing any form of armor, is regarded as potentially ready to start a fight, and all social interactions are at Disadvantage in this town, because people feel uncomfortable speaking to them.

[Anonymouswizard]

So anyone wearing any form of armor, is regarded as potentially ready to start a fight, and all social interactions are at Disadvantage in this town, because people feel uncomfortable speaking to them.

I've had guards try to arrest PCs because they're fully armoured, and they'd have done the same if they were openly carrying most weapons. First switched away from D&D to not inconvenience fighters so much, now I spend a lot of time in modern settings where PCs might be unwilling to carry weapons at all.

But yeah, dress for the occasion. Armour shows that you're expecting to fight and normal workclothes won't do for the royal ball. Plus your character's fashion can say a lot about your character and how people react to them.

I actually spend more time on PC outfits than their physical attributes, and I'm not into fashion IRL. But it's very useful to have at least two or three sets of everyday clothes, a set of formal wear, and some kind of more serious adventuring gear defined.

Like just imagine the embarrassment and alienation you'll feel if you're the only hatless person at the gala.

[jjordan]

Come to a court ball in your armor and armed? Very different response than coming in the latest fashion. And even fashion can be used as a weapon--if different major nations/parties/social groups have different fashion trends, adhering to one or the other or neither can be a sign of allegiance to one social group or another.


Note: Mirzapor is one of the major cities, as is Varanasi. The first is traditional and "stodgy", while the second is heavily commercial and "popping". Ikela is the country, which is located in the southern sub-tropical jungle. And yes, these are impractical garments for tropics. Noted. Most of the work-day fashion is much more light, this is fashion (not practicality).

Three main "streams" of fashion: High Mirzapor fashion, High Varanasi fashion, and low fashion.

High Mirzapor mode is the "classic" high fashion. Traditional to a fault, it changes only slowly and emphasizes good breeding and status. High Varanasi is the experimental fashion, with trends being born and dying like froth on the sea. Low fashion is the clothing and styles worn by the country folk (nobles and common alike) who don't follow either style. It emphasizes practicality and changes extremely slowly.

Fabrics and Materials
Mostly cotton and linen, with silk used extensively among the most wealthy. Fur is used only very rarely, and mostly as an accent (Ikela being a warm, humid climate). Leather is used in low fashion and as protective gear. Exotic materials such as spidersilk and coralweave are used in tiny amounts by the very wealthiest. Elastic fibers (sourced from a few types of plants) are known but expensive (relative to Earth).

Fasteners and decorations are bone or wood (at the low end) and brass and gold and gemstones at the high end.

High Mirzapor
Attractive men are slender, pale skin, with dark hair and eyes. Tans, calluses, and visible musculature are lower-class markers. Women are hourglass (enforced by corsets and stays), but also pale with dark hair. "Languid" is a term of approval.

Male Fashion: think "Regency England" (aka Jane Austin's era) in cut. Frock coats, tailored shirts, tight breeches and boots. Generally unembroidered and without lace or ruffles. Nobles go armed, mostly with a smallsword (like a cut-down rapier), but this is usually decorative. Hats are worn, but closer to a tricorne (except). Colors are bright, generally being shades of a single color across an outfit. Blues and greens predominate, with reds being seen as a more feminine color.

Female Fashion: Corsets narrow the waist and push up the bust. The upper bodice is cut low, tight and square, exposing much of the upper side of the breast, with puffy shoulders and long, fitted sleeves (often extending to a point on the back of the hand). Breathing is optional. Lace and ruffles are used sparingly. The skirts are voluminous and layered, often with 7-8 layers of petticoats or with hoop skirts. Artificial bustles are added. Colors are pastels, often very pale ones. Reds (well, mostly pinks) show up frequently. But most dresses are cream or other off-whites or very pale pastels. Women wear substantial jewelry, especially necklaces with heavy pendants. Hair is worn up, but no wigs, although jewels are woven through it. Big hair.

High Varanasi (ca 250 AC)
Attractive men are slightly more muscled and fit than High Mirzapor fashion dictates, but still very pale and soft skin. Slightly more forgiving of various hair colors. Attractive women have more natural figures (although slender is a necessity, cf the dresses).

Male Fashion: Similar in cut to High Mirzapor, but with frills, ruffles, and BRIGHT CLASHING COLORS and high-heeled boots. Men wear jewelry, including ear studs and rings. In the highest fashion, trousers tend to be laminated on with large, padded codpieces made of a very different, contrasting color. Seriously, they look ridiculous.

Female Fashion: Ditch the corsets and bustles and large skirts. Necklines stay low but become V-shaped, but every artifice is made to fit the dress to the skin. Women frequently have to be sewn into their dresses and can barely walk, as the skirts only flare out in the last 6-12 inches (and often have large trains). Bright colors are the norm, as are arm bands and big chonky jewelry. Hair is worn down (often to the lower back) or pulled back, but not braided. Jeweled ropes tie it back and are woven through it.

Low Fashion
Trousers and tunics, belted at the waist and laced up the front. Not particularly fitted. Formal dresses tend to be simple but follow somewhat similar patterns (without the excesses) of High Mirzapor fashion: full skirts and square necklines. Sleeves only reach the elbow and the dresses generally are worn with only a single petticoat and no corset.


I really, really dislike it when players run around town in battle armor and obviously armed to the teeth.

[Alcore]

I really, really dislike it when players run around town in battle armor and obviously armed to the teeth.

Favoring the “Space Marine” look any character of mine with plate mail is in plate mail (minus helmet of course). :smallamused:


In reality anything about as big as longsword should prompt a guard visit and armor better than hide a friendly guard shadow. Unless your a noble.

[KorvinStarmast]

In reality anything about as big as longsword should prompt a guard visit and armor better than hide a friendly guard shadow. Unless your a noble. Why do you hate martial characters and love spell casters? :smallbiggrin:
(As a one time Starcraft addict, the space marine look is, to me, high fashion!)

[Anonymouswizard]

Why do you hate martial characters and love spell casters? :smallbiggrin:
(As a one time Starcraft addict, the space marine look is, to me, high fashion!)

Yeah, this is a major issue. Such restrictions in D&D tend to heavily impact the weakest classes without majorly affecting more powerful ones (they might have to leave their staff at home, but can probably sneak spell components/casting foci in relatively easily). It's not the case in every system, my favourites tend to put big enough limits on casters or just straight up don't have the distinction.

Then you have systems like Chronicles of Darkness where weapons are nice, but not as key to winning a fight as skill and Willpower (because if you don't hit you don't get those tasty bonus successes). A skilled brawler with plenty of Willpower will probably best an untrained gunman running on fumes. Sneaking a pistol in under your clothing is great, sneaking a knife in isn't a major deal, and if one player has powers everybody probably does. In Nobilis I'm fairly certain it doesn't matter if you can sneak your warhammer into the Louvre or not, I believe calling Treasure to you is a fairly minor miracle.


Plus the space marine look can't be high fashion, it doesn't have a hat!

[Alcore]

Why do you hate martial characters and love spell casters? :smallbiggrin:
(As a one time Starcraft addict, the space marine look is, to me, high fashion!)

What spell casters? :smallbiggrin:


“In reality” = historical (in my context at least)

[DigoDragon]

In my Saturday group, our party keeps at least one fancy outfit each for occasions when we meet nobles. And since nobles pay us very well for jobs, we will go out of our way to look good in their courts. :3

The GM does give us a small bonus to social checks for dressing up. Anything between +1 and +3 depending on our style choices and whether we wear the same outfit often or switch it up.

[Lemmy]

Full plate would be weird indeed... But some types of armor that would be considered light or medium armor in D&D could pretty reasonably pass for clothing or be used under normal clothing.

Similarly, most the time, most people shouldn't have much of an issue with someone carrying a sidearm, like a dagger or arming sword... But carrying a spear, zweihander or longbow might not be the best choice for social events.

(Not to mention that in D&D there's magical armor that literally transforma into clothing)&

[Zekestone]

I know the Cyberpunk game does cover this (it even has a skill for wardrobe & style). Walking around in heavy armour carrying heavy weapons? You ain't going anywhere but the combat zone in that. Light armour can be made to look like regular outfits though, and any weapons you take to some place would have to be concealable.

[Martin Greywolf]

Concealing armor as clothes

Do whatever in your games if it pleases you, but in reality? No really a thing, outside of very few exceptions. When I'm wearing my gambeson, it's very obvious I'm doing it, no matter what else is on top, simply because my head is now disproportionately small to the rest of me, let alone the details like padded armor not folding or flowing like normal clothes.

Just about the only armor you can get away with like this is chain mail sewn into clothes - this was done historically, but is nowhere near as effective as proper chain mail (lacks padding, for starters), and it can still be seen if you are paying attention - the garment doesn't move like clothes. You won't be able to dress in height of fasion like this, but you may be able to passs as a servant in a baggy tunic. I'd probably call it a chain shirt with one or two less AC in DnD terms.

Just for the record, plate inserts do work, but they can't overlap or be shaped properly, so you get no padding and a lot of gaps. It's basically chainmail, but slightly worse.

Weapon and armor laws

First thing to note is that they are highly localized, you only very rarely see a national law governing this before early modern era. They are usually city laws, and as such often can't apply to nobility, only burghers and commoners, which is why you will often get the effect of a noble being able to carry a sword in a city even if such a case isn't explicitly mentioned in the city laws.

As for the form they take. Well. The earlier you go, the more vague the language gets, in 12th-13th century they refer to full panoply of war or weapons of war and leave it up to the town guard to decide what that is.

Once we get to late medieval 14th-15th centuries, the language gets more specific. Armor is usually called out, and weapons are usually regualted by length. There is a steel measure bolted onto the city's church/cathedral that local merchants use as a standard, and the length of weapon is often regulated by it, as in "no swords, long knives or other weapons longer that the elbow". The guards will then just... cut a string the length of said measure to take around with them, not unlike a tape measure.

Note that this applies for moving around in the city, if you just arrived and are on your way to your accomodations, you will be fine. If you start to wander around the market, some of the local town guard/militia gentlemen will politely ask you to leave.

Flaunt it if you got it

If you are a noble, it may very well be fashionable to carry a weapon, just to show that you are, in fact, a noble. The less you have to travel to parts of the country that are regulated, the more likely it is that there will be a specialized fashionable dress-sword specifically for that purpose. While most likely still functional, it will be much smaller and less capable of parrying a halberd than a proper military sidearm - this is more ore less where smallswords come from.

The evolution may then come full circle, taking this fashion sword and beefing it up to a size that is serviceable for military porposes - which is where spadroons come from.

Point is, you can have a lot of fun with designing this, if this is your jam.

[King of Nowhere]

if you have some kind of official position as "problem solver", your weapons may actually be your work uniform, and you may get exceptions.

but nobody is mentioning casters. so the fighter is forbidden from carrying his sword, but the wizard can move around freely, despite being potentially a lot more dangerous?
seems to me that either a society would try to restrict spellcasting similarly, or they'd just give up on trying. as in, if we can't control who may be a spellcaster ready to unleash death, we may as well have anyone armed and just crack down really hard on those abusing it

[Anonymouswizard]

but nobody is mentioning casters. so the fighter is forbidden from carrying his sword, but the wizard can move around freely, despite being potentially a lot more dangerous?
seems to me that either a society would try to restrict spellcasting similarly, or they'd just give up on trying. as in, if we can't control who may be a spellcaster ready to unleash death, we may as well have anyone armed and just crack down really hard on those abusing it

Staffs will likely be banned, as will wands and similar items (although they're easier to hide). Holy symbols run into the fact that you can't tell if the holder can use it for spells until they do so, as well as religious discrimination issues. Finally spell components can easily be relatively mundane items or hidden in normal pouches.

That's not getting into the fact that many settings do try to regulate spellcasting and related items, or the fact that spellcasters are relatively rare. An average town or city might have a handful of casters, if that, but a desire to not have weapons of war being carried around (if owned at all).

[Batcathat]

While it would almost certainly be harder to do, it seems unlikely that the authorities wouldn't at least attempt to control and regulate magic, considering it has all the risks of mundane weapons plus a bunch of extra ones.

Maybe have the magic detecting version of a metal detector at the city gates and other important locations? Though I'm not sure if that would work for non-magical components and such. If nothing else, there's always searching the pack and person of anyone who enters (though magic allows some new ways of getting around that).

[Vahnavoi]

Spellcasters of fantasy are based on historical scholars & clergy, so if you want inspiration for what kind of fashion etiquette they'd be subject to, look there. Chances are, wearing a robe, a staff and a fancy hat as well as symbols of your god and school are mandatory, but if they're the wrong robe, staff and hat for your station or if the symbols are of a foreign or unpopular god or school, you've at least given everybody a reason to be suspicuous, and at worst created a scandal and given a lot of other spellcasters a reason to punish you.

[Lemmy]

Concealing armor as clothes

Do whatever in your games if it pleases you, but in reality? No really a thing, outside of very few exceptions. When I'm wearing my gambeson, it's very obvious I'm doing it, no matter what else is on top, simply because my head is now disproportionately small to the rest of me, let alone the details like padded armor not folding or flowing like normal clothes.

Just about the only armor you can get away with like this is chain mail sewn into clothes - this was done historically, but is nowhere near as effective as proper chain mail (lacks padding, for starters), and it can still be seen if you are paying attention - the garment doesn't move like clothes. You won't be able to dress in height of fasion like this, but you may be able to passs as a servant in a baggy tunic. I'd probably call it a chain shirt with one or two less AC in DnD terms.

IMO, gambeson could reasonably become a type of clothing by itself... As in: At very leas, it wouldn't be aggressively out of place in a social setting, unless it's an occasion with a specific dressing code, like a gala or something... And I've literally seen people wearing chain shirt under their shirts and no one could tell it was there until the person wearing it showed it.

[Thrudd]

Spellcasters of fantasy are based on historical scholars & clergy, so if you want inspiration for what kind of fashion etiquette they'd be subject to, look there. Chances are, wearing a robe, a staff and a fancy hat as well as symbols of your god and school are mandatory, but if they're the wrong robe, staff and hat for your station or if the symbols are of a foreign or unpopular god or school, you've at least given everybody a reason to be suspicuous, and at worst created a scandal and given a lot of other spellcasters a reason to punish you.

In some forms of magic, specific garb is actually necessary for the rituals to have effect, as well. It's possible a prohibition on spellcasters wearing armor in the system/setting is not only a concession for game-balance reasons, but can also be explained as a necessary component of magic in-world. Someone walking around town in a spellcaster's garb would be a dead giveaway, if authorities were on the lookout for them. Just like the fighters, you need to "disarm" in order to blend in, or be allowed into certain places, meaning that all characters are equally disadvantaged without access to their best tools. Maybe some simple/low power forms of magic (non-combat cantrips?) are possible without the special garb, but anything else needs the long robe with embroidered gold runes and the hat with a specific crystal attached to the forehead, that nobody could mistake for anything else.

[Vahnavoi]

Ah yes, that's a good point. In older editions, what magic-users could or could not wear was definitely influenced by ideas of what they'd need to wear for magic. It would be possible to go all in with that and have specific spells require specific ritual clothing. No battle magic for you in everyday clothes etc..

[Lord Torath]

Concealing armor as clothes

Do whatever in your games if it pleases you, but in reality? No really a thing, outside of very few exceptions. When I'm wearing my gambeson, it's very obvious I'm doing it, no matter what else is on top, simply because my head is now disproportionately small to the rest of me, let alone the details like padded armor not folding or flowing like normal clothes.

Just about the only armor you can get away with like this is chain mail sewn into clothes - this was done historically, but is nowhere near as effective as proper chain mail (lacks padding, for starters), and it can still be seen if you are paying attention - the garment doesn't move like clothes. You won't be able to dress in height of fasion like this, but you may be able to passs as a servant in a baggy tunic. I'd probably call it a chain shirt with one or two less AC in DnD terms.

Just for the record, plate inserts do work, but they can't overlap or be shaped properly, so you get no padding and a lot of gaps. It's basically chainmail, but slightly worse.This is why you need the 2nd Edition Shadowrun "Fashion" spell. You can change target's garments into any fashion you desire, but you cannot affect the protective properties of the clothing. So you can turn regular clothing into useless armor, or turn real armor into regular (or fine or Tres Chic) protective clothing.

I generally *do* have my characters purchase one set of nice clothing, but they don't always have it with them when they need it.

[Thrudd]

Ah yes, that's a good point. In older editions, what magic-users could or could not wear was definitely influenced by ideas of what they'd need to wear for magic. It would be possible to go all in with that and have specific spells require specific ritual clothing. No battle magic for you in everyday clothes etc..

Just musing on this concept -
It might have an interesting effect on game balance and tactics, as well as roleplay scenarios, if the types of magic a caster had access to was identifiable by obvious pieces of garb. You can look at the battlefield, see there's a guy wearing a turban with a blue jewel, and know that he's got conjuration spells, or a red robe with golden dragon runes embroidered on it for an evoker or pyromancer, etc. If you see a guy with a blue robe, a bejeweled necklace/chestpiece, a pointy hat, and holding a staff with a big claw on top, you know they have multiple schools. Some schools' implements might be more concealable than others, and some might be mutually exclusive (ie. two schools require different types of robes or headgear). I'm not saying this should be applied directly to D&D as-is, but a homebrew system could certainly work it in, with the schools and spells balanced around this feature of the game.

[Beleriphon]

Favoring the “Space Marine” look any character of mine with plate mail is in plate mail (minus helmet of course). :smallamused:


In reality anything about as big as longsword should prompt a guard visit and armor better than hide a friendly guard shadow. Unless your a noble.

With enough filigree any plate can be high fashion. I mean if Robute Guilliman dress below for meeting with the High Lords of Terra as well as ripping space Orkz in half with his bare hands so can you. Paint that armour blue and you can bust out such quotes as:

"Never wish for danger. Danger needs no help. There is no such thing as fate that can be tempted, but morale is never improved by an active lust for war."

"What doesn't kill me... isn't trying hard enough."

https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/thumb/3/3f/GuillimanReborn3.jpg/716px-GuillimanReborn3.jpg

[PhoenixPhyre]

With enough filigree any plate can be high fashion. I mean if Robute Guilliman dress below for meeting with the High Lords of Terra as well as ripping space Orkz in half with his bare hands so can you. Paint that armour blue and you can bust out such quotes as:

"Never wish for danger. Danger needs no help. There is no such thing as fate that can be tempted, but morale is never improved by an active lust for war."

"What doesn't kill me... isn't trying hard enough."

https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/thumb/3/3f/GuillimanReborn3.jpg/716px-GuillimanReborn3.jpg

I'm not sure that everything that passes muster in WH40k (especially from a primarch, who are rather above such pretty concerns) would pass muster in any random world.

But sure, if you're level 20, dripping in legendary gear you tore from the dead hands of your foes and are in a mortal court somewhere, wear what you want. Few will safely gainsay you.

[AceOfFools]

I think the problem with mechanizing fashion is that it’s such a nuanced topic that it would require a reasonably high level of complexity.

Just as a for-instance, going full spiky-Mohawk-punk will endear you to some audiences, alienate you from others, make you more intimidating to many. Even determining if it should be a bonus or penalty is a complicated question. Further, can one even have “fine” clothing in a style that celebrates torn & ragged?

So I think the only way this works is if you have a fairly generic system, one that relies heavily on GM adjudication. Like, you could totally give a character proficiency in “aristocratic clothing” as a tool in 5e, and let them apply their bonus where proper dress makes a difference: impersonating a noble, demanding your rights as an aristocrat, etc.

[Mechalich]

The problem with fashion mechanics in D&D-likes is very simple: every character is actually Iron Man, demanding that they change out of their battle gear means massively reducing their personal power and severely compromising their personal safety. This was already a risk management issue in pre-industrial historical cases - European cultural mores were strongly against this, but elsewhere people got murdered at banquets or under a flag of truce distressingly often - and the incredible force multipliers tied to gear in D&D-like scenarios multiples the constraint by orders of magnitude. For one thing the traditional methods of providing VIP security - having your retinue secure literally every place you ever visit before you get there - simply isn't viable because no one a tier lower on the power scale can protect you at all.

[Vahnavoi]

@AceofFools: this is a case of "don't make things more difficult than they have to be". If a game is governs a short timespan, a natural language list of things that are in fashion and which aren't will go a longer way than any amount of numerical models. For longer time spans, changes in fashion can be tracked in same ways as changes in weather: a random chart that's periodically checked on, or a cyclical calender with information on how fashion is changing and why. If you have multiple factions or cultures, pictures of what members of those cultures consider fashionable or not will go an even longer way. The rest is just paying attention to how characters look and being willing to say things like "you showed up in the wrong clothes - they won't let you in", "your garb is hideously out of fashion - disadvantage for this social situations", "you came in literally wearing colors of the enemy, of course everyone is hostile to you".

---

@Mechalich: people sometimes got killed under truce or as result of false flag operations, yes. But most characters don't start from the top, with ability to ignore the rules with impunity. To get the gear and the personal power, they will have to act according to the rules first, and for most steps along the way, they will have people equal to or above them who will act to take their gear and power away from them if they break them. If there aren't enough people acting in good faith, you will never get truces or flags to use as cover for your deception to begin with.

A steep power curve doesn't make all that much a difference for this. It just means each tier of power is chiefly concerned with their equals and lowers.

[Anonymouswizard]

So I think the only way this works is if you have a fairly generic system, one that relies heavily on GM adjudication. Like, you could totally give a character proficiency in “aristocratic clothing” as a tool in 5e, and let them apply their bonus where proper dress makes a difference: impersonating a noble, demanding your rights as an aristocrat, etc.

That's kind of how GURPS does it, it first assumes that 90% of your starting wealth is tied up in things like your living place and a full wardrobe, and then let's you buy Fashion Sense to get a bonus to reaction rolls when you can prepare your outfit (and give your allies the bonus as well if you dress them).

[KorvinStarmast]

The problem with fashion mechanics in D&D-likes is very simple: every character is actually Iron Man, demanding that they change out of their battle gear means massively reducing their personal power and severely compromising their personal safety. This was already a risk management issue in pre-industrial historical cases - European cultural mores were strongly against this, but elsewhere people got murdered at banquets or under a flag of truce distressingly often - and the incredible force multipliers tied to gear in D&D-like scenarios multiples the constraint by orders of magnitude. For one thing the traditional methods of providing VIP security - having your retinue secure literally every place you ever visit before you get there - simply isn't viable because no one a tier lower on the power scale can protect you at all. I have a modified rule (in 5e) for unarmored Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers: if they are not wearing armor they add proficiency bonus to their armor class; which addresses some of what you allude to here, but obviously not all of it.

[Lemmy]

Rather than a hard-coded rule, this kind of thing should probably be just a case-by-case situational bonus.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's kind of how GURPS does it, it first assumes that 90% of your starting wealth is tied up in things like your living place and a full wardrobe, and then let's you buy Fashion Sense to get a bonus to reaction rolls when you can prepare your outfit (and give your allies the bonus as well if you dress them). heh, GURPS comes through again! :smallsmile:

[Easy e]

I have seen the GM grant advantage/disadvantage based on our clothing or attire in some social situations. For example, at a court gathering and trying to curry favor with a courtier, but dressed in our road clothing could cause disadvantage on a persuasion check.

In other (more modern and less fantasy) games I play, having the right equipment often grants a bonus to the roll. Fashion/clothing has definitely fallen into this category on many occasions to get the bonus. For example, having a "uniform" has granted a bonus on an intimidation check.

[Stonehead]

I think the problem with mechanizing fashion is that it’s such a nuanced topic that it would require a reasonably high level of complexity.

Just as a for-instance, going full spiky-Mohawk-punk will endear you to some audiences, alienate you from others, make you more intimidating to many. Even determining if it should be a bonus or penalty is a complicated question. Further, can one even have “fine” clothing in a style that celebrates torn & ragged?

So I think the only way this works is if you have a fairly generic system, one that relies heavily on GM adjudication. Like, you could totally give a character proficiency in “aristocratic clothing” as a tool in 5e, and let them apply their bonus where proper dress makes a difference: impersonating a noble, demanding your rights as an aristocrat, etc.

I think a high level of complexity/depth could actually be a plus, not a minus. Although I admit my tastes aren't fully representative of the community as a whole.

We have equipment lists full of slightly different variations in weapons, I see no reason why it can't get a similar level of specificity in clothing. In real life, if you show up to your friend's barbecue in a full suit and tie, you'd get some weird looks. Certain outfits could give bonuses in fancy parties, or bonuses from commoners, or bonuses in certain cultures. There would have to be some DM adjudication, but in some editions Rangers get bonuses in "forests" or "swamps", so it's not unprecedented.

[Dienekes]

In reality anything about as big as longsword should prompt a guard visit and armor better than hide a friendly guard shadow. Unless your a noble.

It really depends on the setting. Even in real life. For times in the HRE wearing a sidearm like a longsword was considered a normal display of being a freeman. While during the Italian Wars where social norms got turned around pretty consistently it was just considered good sense to always be armed. There is also decent enough evidence among the early medieval Germanic and Scandinavian cultures that being armed was fairy normal. But there was also a social etiquette of leaving your weapons at the door when going into someone’s house.

But those places still didn’t often see people wearing actual armor on a normal day. That’s just weird. Though having a secret breastplate or light mail under your clothes was not unheard of. Especially in Italy.


Why do you hate martial characters and love spell casters? :smallbiggrin:
(As a one time Starcraft addict, the space marine look is, to me, high fashion!)

This does bring up the point. In a setting where these restrictions exist and has magic, you better believe that there would be just as many restrictions placed upon spellcasting components and focuses.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think a high level of complexity/depth could actually be a plus, not a minus. Although I admit my tastes aren't fully representative of the community as a whole.

We have equipment lists full of slightly different variations in weapons, I see no reason why it can't get a similar level of specificity in clothing. In real life, if you show up to your friend's barbecue in a full suit and tie, you'd get some weird looks. Certain outfits could give bonuses in fancy parties, or bonuses from commoners, or bonuses in certain cultures. There would have to be some DM adjudication, but in some editions Rangers get bonuses in "forests" or "swamps", so it's not unprecedented.

I strongly disagree about having "clothing lists". Because it's so situational & setting (and even micro-setting) dependent once you get down below the most basic. For example, my current party is at a party.

One character is in armor (albeit shined up).
One is wearing a robe-adjacent getup covered in arcane symbols.
One is wearing a simple suit.
The last is wearing something like the Witcher garb minus the armor parts.

The other people are wearing one of 6 possible clothing styles (3 basic fashion trends, plus since it's all gender-based, 2 different styles of each trend). How do they all map up (ie what bonuses and penalties, etc) apply:

1. The one in armor is basically invisible, because he's in the garb of a guard. He's hired help. But he can watch anyone.
2. The arcane one gets a really really strongly negative reaction from one particular person, a "oh so unfashionable but exotic" reaction from most of the rest, and a strongly positive from a couple people.
3. The one in a suit is fairly neutral, being treated as the "country cousin". Everyone's sure someone else invited him. So he can mingle with everyone. He's the closest to being "in style" or "properly dressed".
4. The last one is there as the guest of someone no one wants to offend, so he's just seen as uncouth and barbarous. But for what he intends to do, that's a positive.

And if they went somewhere else, those same clothes would drastically change in effect. Change countries to the one next door? The arcane guy is going to be the star and no one else will be considered really odd. Go out into the colonies? The first and last are the most appropriately dressed, even at more formal occasions there.

So trying to pin it down beyond the squishy "advantage/disadvantage" and "DM adjusts how things are roleplayed/reactions appropriately" is bound to create ludonarrative dissonance.

[Willie the Duck]

It really depends on the setting. Even in real life. For times in the HRE wearing a sidearm like a longsword was considered a normal display of being a freeman.
Arming swords, rapiers, hangers, messers, and later smallswords or cavalry sabers certainly. A longsword, while wearable on the hip, would be a pretty extreme example.


I think a high level of complexity/depth could actually be a plus, not a minus. Although I admit my tastes aren't fully representative of the community as a whole.

It depends. I think an adventure where the party realizes they have a party to attend and what can they obtain to wear -- with various outfits or accessories giving various bonuses to various parts of the social effect (turn every head, not turn every head but still look very good, convincingly portray certain status or profession, increase persuasion, maintain specific image, etc.) could be fun. Doing so regularly and having to maintain a wardrobe full of different components, all to be usable in such and such a situation -- while I can see the value in that, I've tended over time to move that kind of thing to computer games (where, if you might want to use a spreadsheet to track all your build components, it is already built-in in some way).

[Vahnavoi]

Or, you could just embrace your inner 10-year-old girl and make playing with paper dolls part of the game. This isn't hard, people.

[Hytheter]

I have a modified rule (in 5e) for unarmored Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers: if they are not wearing armor they add proficiency bonus to their armor class; which addresses some of what you allude to here, but obviously not all of it.

Wouldn't that just mean dexterity characters stop wearing armour at all? :smallconfused:

[KorvinStarmast]

Wouldn't that just mean dexterity characters stop wearing armour at all? :smallconfused: I don't know, would it? That problem has not come up.

[Hytheter]

I don't know, would it? That problem has not come up.

So none of your players have ever noticed that they could have more AC by going shirtless than while wearing studded leather?

[noob]

Wouldn't that just mean dexterity characters stop wearing armour at all? :smallconfused:

That would happen only after they gain enough levels and dex for their proficiency+dex modifier to go over 17.
So for example 18 dex, +3 proficiency which happens at the earliest at level 5 which is a whole lot(lots of games barely reach that point or stops before).

[Hytheter]

That would happen only after they gain enough levels and dex for their proficiency+dex modifier to go over 17.
So for example 18 dex, +3 proficiency which happens at the earliest at level 5 which is a whole lot(lots of games barely reach that point or stops before).

Even a level 1 character has no need of any light armours if they are adding their proficiency to AC. A level 4 character with 18 dex would benefit only from half-plate, and that has trade-offs regarding stealth so it's not a strict upgrade (not to mention it is rather expensive).

While 'lots of games' may not reach level 5, I doubt this is true for Korvin based on my impression of his experience as a DM. Besides, a proficiency based house rule would be meaningless if he never expected proficiency to change within his games.

[Slipjig]

If you expect there to be many situations where armor is uncouth, I'd suggest the following workaround to make life easier on the martials:

Create bracers of armor that require Light/Med/Heavy Armor proficiency to wear, and make them extremely common items. Operating the bracers takes a certain amount of training, and warriors in this society spend their time learning that skill instead of how to fight in physical armor. You could also say that the Med/Heavy ones glow or hum when active, so they still have disadvantage on stealth checks.

[Alcore]

I once, sorta, used fashion in one game.


The game was Kingmaker and most of the game is set in the River Kingdoms. So the vast majority of people they fought were from there. You don’t go anywhere unarmed and anyone not working who was unarmored is suspicious.

Que the party squishies not wearing mock armor (or weapons) and were targeted first. They were unwilling to roll knowledge local until later; they were absolutely stumped on why three quarters of their peasants were armed and armored and why their softer weaker guards from more civilized lands refused to go out at night.


The ‘king’ finally started wearing armor in court and stopped getting a -2 on checks when dealing with people from the river kingdoms.

[KorvinStarmast]

So none of your players have ever noticed that they could have more AC by going shirtless than while wearing studded leather? No, it has never come up. Maybe not all players think the way that you do.

[Anonymouswizard]

So at maximum level, assuming you've been keeping up with the gear treadmill, the difference is one point. 15+Dex for highly enchanted studded leather, 16+Dex for no armour.

Honestly I think the game might work better if AC was redesigned to use your Proficiency Bonus. Something like 8+PB+Armour Bonus(+Dex), with armour bonuses generally being smaller. Say +1 for Light, +3 for Medium but capped Dex, and +5 for Heavy. This keeps the numbers at level 1 about the same, gives defensive scaling without relying on items, and means those with Unarmoured Defence begin at the level of mundane medium armour and end at roughly enchanted heavy armour with a shield.

This also makes losing your armour less devestating for those using Light or Medium. For those in Heavy every choice has consequences.

[KorvinStarmast]

So at maximum level,
You are wrong in your assumption here. You assume maximum level. None of our campaigns (in the group where I use this modification) has lasted beyond 9. I have only applied it to situations where the PC is in a social setting, or resting, sans armor. Paladin, Fighter, Ranger only. Nobody else. (You score two internet points for understanding why those three classes). The situations where I apply this have come up less than a dozen times. The players' usual MO is to put on their armor and do their normal thing.
(Our current campaign where I DM with this group is at level 8).

Honestly I think the game might work better if AC was redesigned to use your Proficiency Bonus. Something like 8+PB+Armour Bonus (+Dex), with armour bonuses generally being smaller. Say +1 for Light, +3 for Medium but capped Dex, and +5 for Heavy. This keeps the numbers at level 1 about the same, gives defensive scaling without relying on items, and means those with Unarmoured Defence begin at the level of mundane medium armour and end at roughly enchanted heavy armour with a shield.

That's kind of where I have been headed with this, but the whole thing was brought about during the maritime portion of Tomb of Annihilation campaign. Taking off heavy armor does not make a Fighter (or a Paladin) worse at Fighting. They are ostensibly the best a Fighting, hence Fighter. (The rest of my Rant I will excise). My approach also allows for Conan the Barbarian to be a Fighter and still run about in his loin cloth. :smallbiggrin:

An idea that I've been mulling over is to do this with half-proficiency (rounded down or up, I can't yet decide) for those three classes only. But the situation has not come up recently.

I've discussed this as a global mod a few times on this forum, with mixed results. The problem arises, as we have discussed it here at GiTP, with the usual Multiclassing exploits that this board is so fond of discussing.
At the moment, this modification only is available for pure, non-MC Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers at the moment.
Any MC voids this option.

And again, the situation rarely arises in play.

[Anonymouswizard]

You are wrong in your assumption here. You assume maximum level. None of our campaigns (in the group where I use this modification) has lasted beyond 9.

Poor wording on my part, I was speaking generally. Hence 'assuming you've been keeping up with the gear treadmill's, not every group does.

One point isn't anything to worry about. Four points is


I have only applied it to situations where the PC is in a social setting, or resting, sans armor. Paladin, Fighter, Ranger only. Nobody else. (You score two internet points for understanding why those three classes).

My initial guess would be 'classes primarily focused on martial arts (who don't get Unarmoured Defence)'.



That's kind of where I have been headed with this, but the whole thing was brought about during the maritime portion of Tomb of Annihilation campaign. Taking off heavy armor does not make a Fighter (or a Paladin) worse at Fighting. They are ostensibly the best a Fighting, hence Fighter. (The rest of my Rant I will excise). My approach also allows for Conan the Barbarian to be a Fighter and still run about in his loin cloth. :smallbiggrin:

I thought Conan generally wore chainmail when he could?

I see no issue with making wearing armour better, I just don't think it should be the be-all and end-all of non-spell PC defence.


An idea that I've been mulling over is to do this with half-proficiency (rounded down or up, I can't yet decide) for those three classes only. But the situation has not come up recently.

I've discussed this as a global mod a few times on this forum, with mixed results. The problem arises, as we have discussed it here at GiTP, with the usual Multiclassing exploits that this board is so fond of discussing.
At the moment, this modification only is available for pure, non-MC Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers at the moment.
Any MC voids this option.

And again, the situation rarely arises in play.

I really, really dislike the way defence works in D&D. Skill doesn't matter at all, and I'm interested in working out a way to change that.

The first thing I'd do in 5e is drop or rework Unarmoured Defence.

[jjordan]

It's my opinion that fashion is insanely useful for social interaction scenarios. HOWEVER, a lot of players don't care and actively hate detailed resource management. So, in general, I try to keep it simple. Characters that stand out get noticed and that notice can convey advantages or disadvantages based on the scenario. E.G. Fully armed and equipped (backpacks?) players showing up at the ball are almost certainly going to be avoided and might even be considered a threat and asked to leave. Disadvantage on social interactions. But if they are, at the ball, attempting to convince the local lord to let them go after the goblin raiders then they might gain some advantage.

Restricting resources available to players can be very useful for some scenarios. Lower level creatures become more of a threat if you encounter them on the streets of the town while walking back to your lodgings wearing your town clothing.

Sumptuary laws provide all sorts of opportunities for role-play. Players may notice that someone is wearing the wrong style of clothing. They may take advantage of clothing styles to disguise themselves. There may be confusion caused by clothing choices ("Only entertainers and prostitutes wear striped clothing?!?") There may even be violence as a result of wearing clothing or colors of clothing. The rights to bear weapons outside of active military service may be restricted.

My settings have brief details on clothing that add brief, toss-away color and consistency to the game. The inhabitants of Eisenbourg wear wool-based clothing dyed with iron-based dyes in reds, blacks, and dark orange/browns because they have ready access to iron-oxide and they believe it offers them protection from elvish magic. I can riff on that data to have traditional inhabitants reacting negatively to people wearing other colors (whether because they are foreigners who don't know or rebellious youth the effect is the same).

And I'm not going to worry about making martials 'less effective'. That's on D&D. Players can come up with ways around that (lots of examples of decorative armor and armor as fashion to choose from) if it really matters to them or they can play the game and I'll give them points for doing so.

[Faily]

I always try to have different clothes and outfits for my characters in most games. For mediums like play-by-post, I go full in on describing clothes and appearance (often with links for visual images). Appearance matters so much for initial impressions and reactions, and can tell you a lot about a character's personality, where they're from, cultural backgrounds, etc.

Good character design often comes with the thought behind it of why a character dress the way they do, and how that fits in with the world.


Some of my long-running characters have pages worth of wardrobe because they've amassed wealth, received gifts, or stumbled upon unique clothes that are still valuable even if they're not magical (that group is just really fond of loot that is fancy even if not magical).

[Anonymouswizard]

HOWEVER, a lot of players don't care and actively hate detailed resource management.

A k.a. most players don't track arrows (or in some cases spell slots), getting them to track clean knickers is next to impossible.

Most groups are pretty much just going with characters having access to street clothes and formal wear in addition to their adventuring gear. If you're wearing the wrong kind of clothing for the situation you get a minor penalty. Keeping up with the latest fashions requires regular expenditures but provides a bonus.

Although honestly for me this is more likely to come up in CofD, where it'll mostly be 'do you have enough Wealth and/or Status, Unknown Armies, where getting the fancy clothes can very much be a session in itself, or Nobilis, where getting the latest fashion is trivial for any PC and you're going to have to try harder than that to impress people.

In D&D illusions cover a multitude of sins, and it's not implausible for experienced characters to obtain positions where their formal regalia includes armour.

[KorvinStarmast]

My initial guess would be 'classes primarily focused on martial arts (who don't get Unarmoured Defence)'. Fighters are, by the PHB, the masters of armed combat.

I thought Conan generally wore chainmail when he could? Not really, mostly unarmored but yes, sometimes in armor.

I see no issue with making wearing armour better, I just don't think it should be the be-all and end-all of non-spell PC defence. If I had my 13th Age book I'd cite their example of the three kinds of defense, but I don't have it.

I really, really dislike the way defence works in D&D. Skill doesn't matter at all, and I'm interested in working out a way to change that. I'd like some more options for the Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers. Yes.

The first thing I'd do in 5e is drop or rework Unarmoured Defence. Please rework, don't drop, since I like how the Monk's UD works.

A k.a. most players don't track arrows (or in some cases spell slots), getting them to track clean knickers is next to impossible. Heh, I track both on most of my characters. Yeah, some old habits die hard.

In D&D illusions cover a multitude of sins, and it's not implausible for experienced characters to obtain positions where their formal regalia includes armour. I had no idea how valuable the studded leather glamour armor (+1 leather than can morph into any outfit you want it to) would be on my lore bard (5e) until I got a set and began to embrace my inner fashionista. It was an absolute hoot. :smallsmile:

[Anonymouswizard]

Fighters are, by the PHB, the masters of armed combat.

Yep, they focus on martial arts, they aren't like monks and barbarians, diluting their focus with philosophy and bodybuilding.


Not really, mostly unarmored but yes, sometimes in armor.

So what we need is advantages to both states!


If I had my 13th Age book I'd cite their example of the three kinds of defense, but I don't have it.

I might pull mine off the shelf and check it.


I'd like some more options for the Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers. Yes.

Always more options for Fighters would be nice. I'd like to have more than like three :smallwink:


Please rework, don't drop, since I like how the Monk's UD works.

If I ever get around to working on it I'll have a go, but I'm not sure how to do it atm.


Heh, I track both on most of my characters. Yeah, some old habits die hard.

At some point I need to come up with a good bonus for not just cleaning clothes with Prestidigitator.


I had no idea how valuable the studded leather glamour armor (+1 leather than can morph into any outfit you want it to) would be on my lore bard (5e) until I got a set and began to embrace my inner fashionista. It was an absolute hoot. :smallsmile:

I kind of had the same revelation when I first played a game that assumed the PCs own more than one set of clothes.

[KorvinStarmast]

I kind of had the same revelation when I first played a game that assumed the PCs own more than one set of clothes.
Not sure why I did this, but in D&D 5e I usually start out with a set of travelers clothes and then get (or buy with background money) a set of fine clothes so that I always have another set.

Depends on the DM, but if you bathe in the river / lake / stream a while before entering a town, and have put on your fine clothes while the rest of the party is in their dirty clothes/armor, you can often pass as not being a member of the party and that can lead to some interesting benefits if you are collecting intel ...

[Psyren]

Rather than a hard-coded rule, this kind of thing should probably be just a case-by-case situational bonus.

I'm with Lemmy on this one. A fashion ruleset or subsystem might sound interesting on paper, but I could easily see it becoming massively cumbersome in practice as you try to account for things like wealth, nobility, taste, factions, iconography and many other factors, when all you really need to do is boil it down to a simple binary choice - is the character's outfit helping them accomplish their goals, or hindering them? (Or neither?) And based on the answer to that, you assign a bonus/penalty (which in 5e would most likely be advantage/disadvantage), or maybe their choice of outfit has such a large impact one way or the other that it removes the need to roll at all.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm with Lemmy on this one. A fashion ruleset or subsystem might sound interesting on paper, but I could easily see it becoming massively cumbersome in practice as you try to account for things like wealth, nobility, taste, factions, iconography and many other factors, when all you really need to do is boil it down to a simple binary choice - is the character's outfit helping them accomplish their goals, or hindering them? (Or neither?) And based on the answer to that, you assign a bonus/penalty (which in 5e would most likely be advantage/disadvantage), or maybe their choice of outfit has such a large impact one way or the other that it removes the need to roll at all.

I think it's worth acknowledging the difference between not just helpful and unhelpful, but 'suited to the situation' and 'suited to the situation, while costing as much as a small business'. High level D&D characters tend to have enough WBL to splash hundreds to thousands of go on an outfit without really affecting their combat ability, which is a level that not even nobles can manage (and in something like World of Darkness PCs could very possibly be multimillionaires*).

It might also be worth doing something like Exalted/Scion's Stunting mechanics for outfits. Anything more than a bare bones description gets a small bonus, but to get a big bonus you don't just have to spend the GP, you have to describe something actually impressive.

Also, and I can't stress this enough, social penalties for putting no effort in. Encourage players to at minimum bathe and buy a good hat before meeting the queen (don't worry, there's no AC penalty for forgoing your helmet). The. Same should go for PCs, encourage them to bathe occasionally.

I'm considering trying to write a Bard's Guide to Adventuring Fashion thing for DMsGuild or the like. A mixture of rules and musings about personal presentation as an adventurer. Realistically I suspect most parties would occasionally detour to a river or stream to bathe, if only for health reasons, and would likely wash communally just to save on time. There is of course always that one member who never buys their own soap.

* I only have CofD to hand, and it tops out at 'filthy rich', so not really the 1%.

[Vahnavoi]

A combat ruleset or subsystem might sound interesting on paper, but I could easily see it becoming massively cumbersome in practice as you try to account for things like health, position, equipment, allegiance, terrain and many other factors, when all you really need to do is boil it down to a simple binary choice - does the character win or not? (Or neither?) :smalltongue:

[Anonymouswizard]

A combat ruleset or subsystem might sound interesting on paper, but I could easily see it becoming massively cumbersome in practice as you try to account for things like health, position, equipment, allegiance, terrain and many other factors, when all you really need to do is boil it down to a simple binary choice - does the character win or not? (Or neither?) :smalltongue:

I suspect you say this at least partially in jest, but I've legitimately argued for it on occasion. Not in D&D, it's design goals ask for a crunchy combat system, but if it was a Doctor Who RPG? Fights in that show are generally fast enough that one roll and done is a more accurate simulation. You do however want fairly detailed chase rules.

Similarly you don't need detailed fashion rules until first impressions and staying ahead of trends matters. Which means you want a highly social game, and you'll be tracking your outfits and hoping you can save enough money not to be seen in last season's stockings.

For what your average D&D game actually consists of 'smelly/normal/fashionable' is probably fine. But if the designers want to be serious about social interaction being a core pillar than some more rules would be really handy, even if they boil down to "really fabulous outfits give a +6 bonus, as long as you're not delivering an academic lecture in a ballgown*'. Or rules for relationships between characters and abstracted favour trading I suppose, that would be cool. Having more than one Bond, giving them ratings, and adding those ratings as circumstance bonuses when interacting with those groups.

But something.

* If in lingerie make a save to wake up.

[Vahnavoi]

Oh, it's a jest allright. The jest is that it can be legitimately argued. :smallwink:

[ShurikVch]

Dragon #340 have "Making an Entrance" article: for wearing specific clothes, accessories, etc, your PC got "style points"; every 10 "style points" give +1 on Cha checks on wealthy and elite people for 1 day

[noob]

In the 3.5 player manual it is mentioned that wearing the right clothes gave a bonus to diplomacy against nobles.

[icefractal]

A combat ruleset or subsystem might sound interesting on paper, but I could easily see it becoming massively cumbersome in practice as you try to account for things like health, position, equipment, allegiance, terrain and many other factors, when all you really need to do is boil it down to a simple binary choice - does the character win or not? (Or neither?) :smalltongue:I mean, you could say that about combat too. Why have all these different stats and feats and maneuvers, when really you just want to know whether the PCs won and at what cost? It could all be done in one or two rolls, using GM judgement rather than a list of modifiers.

And some rules light games do handle combat that way. But for D&D, the nitty-gritty is part of the fun. Same goes for fashion - in many games, it doesn't need details. But in a game that was social focused (which could be D&D or not), the details could be part of the fun.

[Anonymouswizard]

Dragon #340 have "Making an Entrance" article: for wearing specific clothes, accessories, etc, your PC got "style points"; every 10 "style points" give +1 on Cha checks on wealthy and elite people for 1 day
In the 3.5 player manual it is mentioned that wearing the right clothes gave a bonus to diplomacy against nobles.

The issue with both is that correct and on-trend fashion could, and likely should, matter with groups other than nobles.

[ShurikVch]

The issue with both is that correct and on-trend fashion could, and likely should, matter with groups other than nobles.
The exact text in the aforementioned article said:

Presented here is a new system meant to reward players who make an appearance beyond that provided by a basic noble's outfit and jewelry. The following adornments, services, and attendants all provide "style points" toward netting a character bonuses on Charisma-based skill checks made toward a certain group or class of people. Many have an associated cost in gold pieces or time that must be met to gain the noted number of points. For every 10 style points you accrue, you gain a +1 bonus on all Charisma-based skill checks made toward a certain class of people - in this case, the wealthy and elite - for 1 day.
As we can see, it says "a certain group or class of people"; "the wealthy and elite" was just a specific case - thus, it's, technically, possible to use the same system for other groups/classes...

[Mechalich]

The issue with both is that correct and on-trend fashion could, and likely should, matter with groups other than nobles.

Well, the thing is that prior to the industrial revolution 'fashion' really was the province of the rich only. Textiles were scarce and ordinary people mostly had working clothing in various states of disrepair and one or if they were lucky two sets of clothing for ceremonial and event purposes that they kept nice and never wore otherwise (this is arguably still relevant, ie. 'Sunday Clothes'). In fact the very concept of high fashion, as understood in Western thought, can arguably be traced to Louis XIV (https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/09/the-king-of-couture/402952/), especially the rapid changeover of styles, in the 17th century.

Wearing culturally appropriate garb will matter to people other than nobles, especially in terms of avoiding taboos and not appearing like a foreigner, but that's not the same thing as fashion.

[KorvinStarmast]

In fact the very concept of high fashion, as understood in Western thought, can arguably be traced to Louis XIV (https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/09/the-king-of-couture/402952/), especially the rapid changeover of styles, in the 17th century. I'd suggest that it started in the Renaissance but that's a decent article.

[JeenLeen]

Usually when I played 3.5, I'd pay the extra few thousand to make my armor Glamoured so that it could appear as clothes. Both for fashion reasons and to appear as less-armored than I actually was, in order to throw off enemy perceptions.

I definitely think "how fashion matters" would be a good thing for GM and players to discuss, so they're not taken off guard. But I'd think, if it's a setting where "adventurer" is a career path, then walking around armored might ID you as an adventurer, but generally be accepted.
Also, at high level, walking around with magical gear is as or more ostentiously displaying wealth as a noble wearing exotic furs and jewels. I've heard many times that a high-level PC is probably wearing more wealth than many small kingdoms have. (Of course, depends on normality of magic items in the setting.)

[jjordan]

Well, the thing is that prior to the industrial revolution 'fashion' really was the province of the rich only. Textiles were scarce and ordinary people mostly had working clothing in various states of disrepair and one or if they were lucky two sets of clothing for ceremonial and event purposes that they kept nice and never wore otherwise (this is arguably still relevant, ie. 'Sunday Clothes'). In fact the very concept of high fashion, as understood in Western thought, can arguably be traced to Louis XIV (https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/09/the-king-of-couture/402952/), especially the rapid changeover of styles, in the 17th century.

Wearing culturally appropriate garb will matter to people other than nobles, especially in terms of avoiding taboos and not appearing like a foreigner, but that's not the same thing as fashion.
I think your definition of fashion is far too narrow. While Louis XIV and his court may have invented seasonal fashion, culturally appropriate fashion has been around for as long as we've been carving pictures in rocks and writing down legal codes and has indicated status/origin/affiliation. 'Barbarian' trousers versus the tunic and toga. The use of tyrian purple. Voluminous clothing for those that didn't have to work. Striped clothing for entertainers and prostitutes. Head-coverings. Clothing that covered faces. Rules on what fabrics could be used. Rules on what jewelry could be worn. The Silk Road was named for the fabric reserved for the wealthy (sometimes by law) long before Louis and company. I haven't even left Europe in my search for examples. The Americas, Africa, and Asia all have their own examples. No need to limit our choices.

In game terms I think most players will completely miss the fine details in narration, but if they ask then GMs can provide useful details or the details can be a useful explanation for a good Wisdom roll. E.G. A 19? You notice the man is wearing an embroidered silk undershirt not common to this nation, and even banned in many cities because of its association with the northern tribes.

[Mordante]

I do think that fashion is part of the game. Just like a group can spent a whole session on browsing the magic market. Spending a whole session or at least part of it buying the proper clothing is normal. My level 4 Bard in 3.5 got invited to perform at some high society party. So I spend considerable time on finding out what was in fashion in that town. What colours were a political go or no-go. Looking for a shop that could tailor make a dresses for met female catfolk in which she should dance and sing.

It did cost all my savings and I'm not sure if the performance was much story related. But if you get invited you better go the whole mile.

In another party our level 15/16 party was invited to attend the local king. So we spend time shopping for a decent outfit that would befit the gala, we did not wat to insult the king by looking like beggars.

[Easy e]

I was just reading a scholarly article about the Archamaenid Persian empire, and how in art "Persians" were distinct from their enemies based on fashion motifs in the various groups. You could also discern from which cultural groups the "enemies" came from based on the style of clothing.

If anyone is interested:
https://www.academia.edu/2765593/_Enemies_of_Empire_A_Historical_Reconstruction_of_ Political_Conflicts_between_Central_Asians_and_the _Persian_Empire


That said, my "hot-take" is that sub-systems for such a system are not needed. Most sub-systems are not needed, and instead it is much harder to strip a game down to its core essence than to add on layers of sub-systems. Therefore, a games "Core Mechanic" should be able to absorb and utilize "fashion" as the inputs for determining success/failure as simply as possible.

[Psyren]

I think it's worth acknowledging the difference between not just helpful and unhelpful, but 'suited to the situation' and 'suited to the situation, while costing as much as a small business'. High level D&D characters tend to have enough WBL to splash hundreds to thousands of go on an outfit without really affecting their combat ability, which is a level that not even nobles can manage (and in something like World of Darkness PCs could very possibly be multimillionaires*).

It might also be worth doing something like Exalted/Scion's Stunting mechanics for outfits. Anything more than a bare bones description gets a small bonus, but to get a big bonus you don't just have to spend the GP, you have to describe something actually impressive.

Also, and I can't stress this enough, social penalties for putting no effort in. Encourage players to at minimum bathe and buy a good hat before meeting the queen (don't worry, there's no AC penalty for forgoing your helmet). The. Same should go for PCs, encourage them to bathe occasionally.

I'm considering trying to write a Bard's Guide to Adventuring Fashion thing for DMsGuild or the like. A mixture of rules and musings about personal presentation as an adventurer. Realistically I suspect most parties would occasionally detour to a river or stream to bathe, if only for health reasons, and would likely wash communally just to save on time. There is of course always that one member who never buys their own soap.

* I only have CofD to hand, and it tops out at 'filthy rich', so not really the 1%.

In 5e, downtime activities like "keep yourself clean" and "maintain your clothes" would all fall under the abstract Lifestyle Expense rules (PHB 157-159). They cover living conditions like lodging and cleanliness, as well as services like hiring a tailor for a pristine new outfit before meeting nobility.

In the interest of efficiency, I would simply ascribe a bonus or penalty based on where that PC falls on the Lifestyle table relative to the NPC they're interacting with. If you're at the same level on the table, straight check, if you're above, advantage, if you're below, disadvantage. Two or more rungs below (e.g. meeting with royalty when you're Modest, Poor or Squalid) and the check may be an automatic failure as they refuse to even talk to you.

[Anonymouswizard]

That said, my "hot-take" is that sub-systems for such a system are not needed. Most sub-systems are not needed, and instead it is much harder to strip a game down to its core essence than to add on layers of sub-systems. Therefore, a games "Core Mechanic" should be able to absorb and utilize "fashion" as the inputs for determining success/failure as simply as possible.

Great idea, why don't we reduce combat to 'each sice makes an attack roll and the higher result wins' while I'm at it.

@Psyren: not going to go into a detailed reply, but that's a reasonable way to do it if you don't care about defining outfits

[Psyren]

@Psyren: not going to go into a detailed reply, but that's a reasonable way to do it if you don't care about defining outfits

I'd probably also layer on the Services table as well - say, you might normally live a Modest lifestyle as a ranger, but if you stop by the tailor for a dapper outfit prior to visiting the local lord's manor, you might count as Comfortable that evening instead and not eat disadvantage.


Great idea, why don't we reduce combat to 'each sice makes an attack roll and the higher result wins' while I'm at it.

I mean, that's not exactly a fair comparison if we're talking about D&D. As a combat simulator with a handful of abstracted mechanics for the other pillars, the game just isn't designed for highly detailed and nuanced social interaction. Put another way, the game is Dungeons & Dragons, not Entertainment & Etiquette.

[Easy e]

Great idea, why don't we reduce combat to 'each sice makes an attack roll and the higher result wins' while I'm at it.


Coming from a wargaming background, many systems use that approach. However, many RPGs are even worse because the target doesn't even get to resist and doesn't get to roll at all. The player just has to beat a TN to generate success in combat.

I.e. roll a d20 and get a number higher than armor class 15 to hit.

At least in your example, the defender gets to do something too!



However, in a more serious take on the topic. The "Core Mechanics" should have a way to determine success/failure of a player. The chance of success is dictated by various inputs and is frequently done via modifiers. Therefore, instead of a full sub-system the "Core Mechanic" should be able to absorb the appropriate use of Fashion as a simple Modifier to help determine success/failure of the player.

Elaborate sub-systems that do not use the "Core Mechanic" of a game to resolve are less optimal.

[Psyren]

Coming from a wargaming background, many systems use that approach. However, many RPGs are even worse because the target doesn't even get to resist and doesn't get to roll at all. The player just has to beat a TN to generate success in combat.

I.e. roll a d20 and get a number higher than armor class 15 to hit.

At least in your example, the defender gets to do something too!

Just to nitpick, the defender gets plenty of counterplay even with static AC. They control the starting number via the protective gear they wear, and they can utilize positioning/cover to modify it further. And all that is before buffs/magic.


However, in a more serious take on the topic. The "Core Mechanics" should have a way to determine success/failure of a player. The chance of success is dictated by various inputs and is frequently done via modifiers. Therefore, instead of a full sub-system the "Core Mechanic" should be able to absorb the appropriate use of Fashion as a simple Modifier to help determine success/failure of the player.

Elaborate sub-systems that do not use the "Core Mechanic" of a game to resolve are less optimal.

I'd argue that even non-elaborate subsystems should incorporate fashion into the core mechanic. It's just efficient/elegant.

(Otherwise agreed)

[noob]

In 5e, downtime activities like "keep yourself clean" and "maintain your clothes" would all fall under the abstract Lifestyle Expense rules (PHB 157-159). They cover living conditions like lodging and cleanliness, as well as services like hiring a tailor for a pristine new outfit before meeting nobility.

In the interest of efficiency, I would simply ascribe a bonus or penalty based on where that PC falls on the Lifestyle table relative to the NPC they're interacting with. If you're at the same level on the table, straight check, if you're above, advantage, if you're below, disadvantage. Two or more rungs below (e.g. meeting with royalty when you're Modest, Poor or Squalid) and the check may be an automatic failure as they refuse to even talk to you.

I could also see being too many rungs above giving a disadvantage for befriending someone or stopping a conflict and it being an advantage mostly when you are trying to extort them or intimidate them (ex: you could stop a conflict by making them scared of you calling guards but they would resent you even more afterwards).