Combat, Armaments, and Politeness

[VoxRationis]

I'm finding myself in a bit of a bind as I'm running my present campaign* when it comes to player equipment and NPC expectations. A significant amount of the game time is spent with the party visiting towns and cities, both because in a Bronze Age setting like mine, a lot of the wealth and power is concentrated by elites into those urban areas, hence causing much of the conflict to take place there, and because the players are traveling by ship and therefore tend to encounter settled regions by coming up to a port.

However, my PCs also carry battlefield-style weapons (polearms, longbows, spears) and wear significant amounts of armor, and I cannot help but find that the NPCs in these towns and cities would look askance on people roaming through their neighborhood so arrayed. There's often no explicit legal prohibition, in part because many settlements in the setting don't have the institutions that would enforce them, but I make it clear to the players, when they ask, that people would find it alarming to see people, especially strangers, walking about as though they were marching into battle and that this could be expected to make social interaction harder or cause hostility with local powers.

The problem really stems from the fact that combat often pops up in these urban environments, since my adventures usually involve at least a little combat, and this has left a bad taste in my players' mouths. I've tried to be fair about it, not just dropping a bunch of fully-kitted-out enemies on them when they're in civilian garb (urban enemies usually have little armor and only daggers or the like; the time the players did encounter battle-ready enemies, they knew to expect them and had prepared for such), but they've had enough urban encounters that they, particularly my brother, are espousing the views of disarming held in DM of the Rings. (https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=931) The notion that they get into fights every time they leave their armor behind isn't quite true, but the impression remains.

So what do all of you do to resolve this issue? How do you square having combats in urban areas, realistic or reasonable NPC reactions to player gear, and the desire not to seemingly punish the players for being polite?


*It's a Mythras game, but I don't think that's particularly relevant here.

[NichG]

Sounds like you have a conflict between realism and metagame concerns. If combat is so common in the city, walking around armed for war shouldn't been seen as odd (except as it indicates wealth). So you have a metagame pressure 'I want a combat every session' that creates a very unrealistic context for the PCs that just isn't being applied for the residents, and a pressure from realism to not go around in armor which - if the urban environment wasn't a combat zone - would be perfectly reasonable.

So I'd try to choose a way to be consistent. Either I'd say 'cities are actually relatively safe except certain zones, so you'll know when you might need your armor and weapons' or say 'since I want to have more combats than would be normal here, I'm also going to gloss over the armor issue and people won't bat an eye'.

[King of Nowhere]

While full armor and polearms are a bit too much, it was actually commonplace - even expected - to be armed inside cities for most of human history. Commoners would carry a knife, nobles had their side swords. If one was especially paranoid, wearing a chainmail or breastplate under your clothes wasn't unheard of.
I say, let them keep a modicum of armor

[Unoriginal]

I'm finding myself in a bit of a bind as I'm running my present campaign* when it comes to player equipment and NPC expectations. A significant amount of the game time is spent with the party visiting towns and cities, both because in a Bronze Age setting like mine, a lot of the wealth and power is concentrated by elites into those urban areas, hence causing much of the conflict to take place there, and because the players are traveling by ship and therefore tend to encounter settled regions by coming up to a port.

However, my PCs also carry battlefield-style weapons (polearms, longbows, spears) and wear significant amounts of armor, and I cannot help but find that the NPCs in these towns and cities would look askance on people roaming through their neighborhood so arrayed. There's often no explicit legal prohibition, in part because many settlements in the setting don't have the institutions that would enforce them, but I make it clear to the players, when they ask, that people would find it alarming to see people, especially strangers, walking about as though they were marching into battle and that this could be expected to make social interaction harder or cause hostility with local powers.

The problem really stems from the fact that combat often pops up in these urban environments, since my adventures usually involve at least a little combat, and this has left a bad taste in my players' mouths. I've tried to be fair about it, not just dropping a bunch of fully-kitted-out enemies on them when they're in civilian garb (urban enemies usually have little armor and only daggers or the like; the time the players did encounter battle-ready enemies, they knew to expect them and had prepared for such), but they've had enough urban encounters that they, particularly my brother, are espousing the views of disarming held in DM of the Rings. (https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=931) The notion that they get into fights every time they leave their armor behind isn't quite true, but the impression remains.

So what do all of you do to resolve this issue? How do you square having combats in urban areas, realistic or reasonable NPC reactions to player gear, and the desire not to seemingly punish the players for being polite?


*It's a Mythras game, but I don't think that's particularly relevant here.

How do those urban fights usually start?

The way you describe it, it seems like most of the time, people with daggers and little to no armor are attacking a group of well-armored, battlefield-weapons-wielding experienced combatants.

In *most* cases, being that outmatched should make the NPCs refuse to fight and try to escape if the PCs attacks.


Sounds like you have a conflict between realism and metagame concerns. If combat is so common in the city, walking around armed for war shouldn't been seen as odd (except as it indicates wealth). So you have a metagame pressure 'I want a combat every session' that creates a very unrealistic context for the PCs that just isn't being applied for the residents, and a pressure from realism to not go around in armor which - if the urban environment wasn't a combat zone - would be perfectly reasonable.

So I'd try to choose a way to be consistent. Either I'd say 'cities are actually relatively safe except certain zones, so you'll know when you might need your armor and weapons' or say 'since I want to have more combats than would be normal here, I'm also going to gloss over the armor issue and people won't bat an eye'.

Well put.

If people fight in X situation, then people will be ready to fight in X situation.

[Pauly]

While full armor and polearms are a bit too much, it was actually commonplace - even expected - to be armed inside cities for most of human history. Commoners would carry a knife, nobles had their side swords. If one was especially paranoid, wearing a chainmail or breastplate under your clothes wasn't unheard of.
I say, let them keep a modicum of armor

Not just with swords and the like, it carried well into the 20th Century. Pocket pistols were invented precisely because lugging around a full sized full power pistol (let alone a rifle or shotgun) was considered impolite. So a small pistol you could fit into your pocket became a thing even if it wasn’t particularly suited to combat. Sword-canes are another example of a weapon where the design was compromised for politeness over functionality.

Going back to renaissance/medieval times it was fairly common for people to be lightly armed and armored in towns, yet be more completely kitted out when wandering the countryside.

In terms of game balance some considerations.
1) Combat in towns should either be uncommon, or have many fights where the bad guys quickly realize they are overmatched and run away.
2) There should be complications from other citizens joining in. Whilst not everyone is armed, enough should be to jump in and help out when a general fight breaks out. This can either be in the party’s favor or against as needs be.
3) City guards tended to be fairly indiscriminate when quelling a fight. They just want the fighting stopped and don’t care who started it or who was in the right until the swords have stopped swinging.
4) Have possible combat encounters rigged so that combat is not inevitable. Let the party talk or run their way out without penalty. If the party want to have a combat then let it be their choice, not yours. If they want to avoid combat then let them choose a path that lets them do so without costing them.
5) In addition to (4) you can make fights the party chooses to get into cost them by complications with the local officials. For example blood debts.

[Satinavian]

If fights in cities continue to be common, the PCs will continue to be armed and armored.

No amount of politeness is enough to justify taking such serious risks. It also doesn't make sense in game : ll these fights did happen and continue to happen, so obviously cities are not more safe than the wilderness.



You can try to get OG agreement from the players to have fun knife fights in cities though. But in game it does not make much sense for people regularly being attacked to abandon their safety.

[VoxRationis]

While full armor and polearms are a bit too much, it was actually commonplace - even expected - to be armed inside cities for most of human history. Commoners would carry a knife, nobles had their side swords. If one was especially paranoid, wearing a chainmail or breastplate under your clothes wasn't unheard of.
I say, let them keep a modicum of armor


Not just with swords and the like, it carried well into the 20th Century. Pocket pistols were invented precisely because lugging around a full sized full power pistol (let alone a rifle or shotgun) was considered impolite. So a small pistol you could fit into your pocket became a thing even if it wasn’t particularly suited to combat. Sword-canes are another example of a weapon where the design was compromised for politeness over functionality.

I'm aware of sidearms and have made the point that the PCs can carry them around without issue in all but the most stringent of places. The PCs have daggers or short swords (in one case, a hatchet) and wear them in urban areas. They just would rather be carrying their longbows and glaives.

On the armor point, the players at present are generally wearing clothes meant to fit under armor, not over it, but I suppose they are presently in a big city with lots of clothes-sellers in an array of styles. I could make the suggestion that they might be able to pull off hidden torso armor with bulky enough robes. (Though it should be noted that none of the players have access to mail, which is a closely regulated military asset in the kingdom they are presently visiting.)

[Unoriginal]

I'm aware of sidearms and have made the point that the PCs can carry them around without issue in all but the most stringent of places. The PCs have daggers or short swords (in one case, a hatchet) and wear them in urban areas. They just would rather be carrying their longbows and glaives.

Well then it becomes a question of consequences between "how much I would rather do X" and "what happens if I do X".

From what you said, the only consequence is some people being afraid of the PCs and/or thinking they're impolite.

That's not a high price to pay when you know you're going to be attacked in this urban area, because you're nearly always getting attacked in urban areas anyway.


I find your description of mail as being "closely regulated" to be confusing, given that your OP states the setting's cities don't have anyone to enforce weapon restriction laws.

[Satinavian]

I find your description of mail as being "closely regulated" to be confusing, given that your OP states the setting's cities don't have anyone to enforce weapon restriction laws.They play not D&D and are in a bronze age setting.

Mail is probably the new hot thing that only some very few highly guarded artisans can make.

[Unoriginal]

They play not D&D and are in a bronze age setting.

Mail is probably the new hot thing that only some very few highly guarded artisans can make.

Even if this is the situation, that still requires the presence of people able to guard the artisans and/or enforce the regulations against wannabe-transgressors and thieves.

"Yes, they can enforce the rules for this armor because it's a military asset, but there's no one who can or care to enforce rules on weapons" is confusing

[kyoryu]

You can make the culture whatever you want. It's your world.

The things you have to deal with are:

1. How will it be enforced? What are the consequences if the PCs balk at this?
2. How can you do this in a fair way where the PCs don't feel they're getting punished? Enemies in town should play by the same rules, generally, and external attacks should (mostly) have enough warning to let people get armored.
3. Is your system set up to allow for this in a meaningful way?
4. How will your players feel about this in general?

[Easy e]

If you want to change behavior, the rewards for the behavior you want them to demonstrate have to be greater than the rewards for the behavior you do not want. This is how society works.

Make the rewards for complying with local customs the flow of information, adventure hooks, and even necessities to survive (food, water, transport, etc). Without complying, they come across another city where no one welcomes them, people bar their doors from them, the vendors pack up and flee, people spy on them from a safe distance, and the elites want them gone because they threaten their stability and power. There is no action, or social as everyone avoids these obvious trouble-makers and thugs.

If the PCs choose not to comply, you have to be ready to push the adventures out into rural areas and away from the cities. Also, be ready to deflect player grumbling by reminding them of their own agency and asking them questions.

[kyoryu]

If you want to change behavior, the rewards for the behavior you want them to demonstrate have to be greater than the rewards for the behavior you do not want. This is how society works.

Make the rewards for complying with local customs the flow of information, adventure hooks, and even necessities to survive (food, water, transport, etc). Without complying, they come across another city where no one welcomes them, people bar their doors from them, the vendors pack up and flee, people spy on them from a safe distance, and the elites want them gone because they threaten their stability and power. There is no action, or social as everyone avoids these obvious trouble-makers and thugs.

If the PCs choose not to comply, you have to be ready to push the adventures out into rural areas and away from the cities. Also, be ready to deflect player grumbling by reminding them of their own agency and asking them questions.

Just make sure they know the consequences up front.. Clearly they're not the first to flaunt this standard, and they can see/hear what happens when people do.

You don't wanna inadvertently run into gotcha GMing.

[Easy e]

A great point. Ideally, this would have been the standard from day 1.

Now, at this point you can slowly ramp it up. First, the "A-list" places start to seal up to them, but seedier and less reputable places warily welcome them and their coin. Maybe some people flee, but not all. Perhaps the more desperate city-dwellers are willing to work with them, but express their unease.

You could easily slowly boil the frog, allowing the PCs to adjust their behavior slowly as well.

They shouldn't feel like they got hit with the banhammer out of nowhere.

[Jay R]

I'm aware of sidearms and have made the point that the PCs can carry them around without issue in all but the most stringent of places. The PCs have daggers or short swords (in one case, a hatchet) and wear them in urban areas. They just would rather be carrying their longbows and glaives.

Solve it with tradition and simple pragmatism, not legal strictures.

Just have innkeepers refuse them entrance when they carry bulky or long weapons. I don't want to try to walk past glaives in a crowded tavern. And people in bulky armor will also be a pain.

Merchants who have expensive wares would not allow heavily armed groups into their shops.

People won't trust them. They will not be admitted into most places unless they leave those weapons at the front door.

And people in armor will look and feel as out of place as people in full American football pads in the mall.


On the armor point, the players at present are generally wearing clothes meant to fit under armor, not over it, but I suppose they are presently in a big city with lots of clothes-sellers in an array of styles. I could make the suggestion that they might be able to pull off hidden torso armor with bulky enough robes. (Though it should be noted that none of the players have access to mail, which is a closely regulated military asset in the kingdom they are presently visiting.)

You can have chainmail with tiny links made, that can be hidden under a shirt, but most armor will be quite obvious, even under bulky robes.

Covered up or not, within a day, they would be known as "those strangers who won't take off their armor."

You can probably get them out of it with a few days like this. But if you do, don't attack them out of armor in most towns, or they will never stop wearing it again.

They will wear armor any place it's needed. You need to convince them that it's not needed in town. To do that, it needs to not be needed in town.

[Lacco]

In general, if there is a city guard, or at least some form of militia/law enforcement, this can be a gentleman agreement between players and the GM: cities are sufficiently safe, so leave the big sticks and bulky armor, get something light and the worst that will happen is some dagger-wielding maniacs.

On one side, I know that as a GM you want to see the players challenged and you want to see them win via their ability to improvise and not just through the big weapons, but Jay R has this nice rule that states something appropriate about the wishes of players. I do not remember the exact quote.

On the other side, players do not wish to die because a guy with a knife finds them without any weapon and armor.

So, how to balance this?

My first idea is to have safe zones and use expectations and game logic. Example: unless there is someone actively hunting them, the only time they can get mugged/attacked is during night and outside, or in the bad side of the town. So if they go out during the day and stay indoors at night (e.g. near their weaponry in case of a burglar/assassin), they are safe and can walk around and the worst that should happen is some pickpocket.

My other idea is to use reverse psychology. After all, if they wear all the armor and wield all those weapons, who will attack them? Nobody. So they will get the looks, the shopkeepers will close their doors, politely excusing themselves that they are needed elsewhere, and most people will not even look at them. And the would-be assailants will evade them, because nobody wants to fight them. However, the players need to get the message clearly: unless they seem like prey, they will not be attacked by those dagger-wielding target-wearing madmen.

Also, if there is no institutions that would enforce peace in the streets, there would be a lot of folks wearing armor and weapons walking around. At least the elites and the merchants should have some bodyguards. If not, why would the attackers choose the adventurers and not the 'soft' targets?

[VoxRationis]

Even if this is the situation, that still requires the presence of people able to guard the artisans and/or enforce the regulations against wannabe-transgressors and thieves.

"Yes, they can enforce the rules for this armor because it's a military asset, but there's no one who can or care to enforce rules on weapons" is confusing

Ah. Yes. Most of my setting consists of Bronze Age city-states or semi-urban oppida, and most of that has only informal and uncodified laws and only the most minimal of centralized state apparatus. The part the players are currently visiting, however, has both more advanced technology (including the working of iron and steel into mail) and a much more expansive state apparatus, including a cadre of professional guards, who would be enforcing any arms restrictions I had set had I not waffled a little in the latest session.

[Jay R]

On one side, I know that as a GM you want to see the players challenged and you want to see them win via their ability to improvise and not just through the big weapons, but Jay R has this nice rule that states something appropriate about the wishes of players. I do not remember the exact quote.

I'm not sure which rule you mean. Is it this one?


3. What the players want today is a quick, easy victory. But what they will want tomorrow is to have brilliantly and valiantly turned the tables to triumphantly defeat a deadly opponent when it looked as if they were all about to die.

[GloatingSwine]

If you don't want them carrying arms and armour in cities, then model them on ancient Greece and Rome where weapons were explicitly banned from being carried within city limits.

And then if any combat does break out it's fistfights and wrestling.

[Lacco]

I'm not sure which rule you mean. Is it this one?


3. What the players want today is a quick, easy victory. But what they will want tomorrow is to have brilliantly and valiantly turned the tables to triumphantly defeat a deadly opponent when it looked as if they were all about to die.

That is the one I thought about.

Today they grumble because enemies wield swords while they have to leave their armor and halberd at home. Tomorrow they will talk about how cool it was they overcame it.

However, what the GM should take care of is the feeling of betrayal.


If you don't want them carrying arms and armour in cities, then model them on ancient Greece and Rome where weapons were explicitly banned from being carried within city limits.

And then if any combat does break out it's fistfights and wrestling.

Well, there will always be those who ignore the laws and defy them - so you will always run into few men with swords in a city where swords are forbidden - but it should not be often and it should only be if there is a good reason. After all, those men are risking their lives and their livelihood (because the law enforcement may take a better look at whoever sent them). If that will make sense, I assume the players' response will be more favourable.

[icefractal]

I wonder if there's a second factor involved - safety of the weapon/armor itself. The PCs might have lighter armor and smaller side-arms they could carry and still be decently prepared for a fight, but ... where are they storing their heavy stuff?

At the inn? Inns can have thieves. With the city guard? Guards can be corrupt. Or PCs can run afoul of the law and need to leave ASAP. Hide them outside of town? Fine, unless someone else digs them up, or you can't find the spot later. Where-as if they're on your person at all times, then things stay simple.

If Bags of Holding or the like are on the table then that solves it, but in a low-level game or a low-magic setting that's not going to be an option.

[Lacco]

I wonder if there's a second factor involved - safety of the weapon/armor itself. The PCs might have lighter armor and smaller side-arms they could carry and still be decently prepared for a fight, but ... where are they storing their heavy stuff?

At the inn? Inns can have thieves. With the city guard? Guards can be corrupt. Or PCs can run afoul of the law and need to leave ASAP. Hide them outside of town? Fine, unless someone else digs them up, or you can't find the spot later. Where-as if they're on your person at all times, then things stay simple.

If Bags of Holding or the like are on the table then that solves it, but in a low-level game or a low-magic setting that's not going to be an option.

And this is why knights had squires. And servants. Retinue. And other loyal/hired help.

And spares.

Depending on the game system (D&D being one of the more problematic ones), this may be a debilitating (you are better off doing the 'rocks fall' stuff) situation, you may be temporarily weakened, or you can have an interesting plot point.

[MonochromeTiger]

As others have stated you kind of backed yourself into a corner on this. Not setting strict rules or putting somebody who can actually enforce it in place means it's player choice, having attacks happen in cities means you put a massive weight on the "keep armed and armored" option because good will and convenience are useless if you're too stabbed to death to benefit from them.

The attacks also make it less logical for people to really freak out and blame them for keeping their equipment visible, you've established that cities are dangerous. Having some kind of threat display as a mobile "don't attack me it's not worth the risk" has been a common response to that for ages to the point it's even worked into how some animals evolved. The people in town live there, they'd be aware of the danger and likely also either prepared for it which would mean having defenses of their own or resigned to it in which case their response to a bunch of heavily armed people showing up wouldn't be hostility it would be "alright please don't hurt me" until the adventurers show they aren't murderous thieving bandits.

Your incentive for them to not go traipsing through town with all their equipment is "people will respond better to you" but you've countered that with "but you can get attacked at any time by the things those people should actually be worrying about". Honestly wiping out those dangers en masse by being constantly attacked without using their own equipment to take advantage of the apparent defenselessness of the town should absolutely undo that fear pretty quickly, they're showing a complete lack of interest in robbing the place and killing people and are actively opposed to the people who do both.

So to get out of that corner something needs to change. Drastically. First option is the danger needs to stop and the people need to have some actual reason not to trust the people who have basically defended them and cut down the local crime problem so much. That's the bare minimum for it to not just be "I'm punishing you for not making yourself vulnerable or potentially getting all your expensive and powerful stuff get stolen where it might get used against you." Second option is the town falls under the protection (whether that's portrayed as benevolent or malevolent) of people with an interest in actually making it a rule and enforcing it, the followup being that should also cut down on the people being able to just jump them and fight in the streets since the new guards should be cracking down on them too.

Or, cut down to its basics, you want them to not be armed and armored you need to make the place safe enough to justify that.

You aren't going to get them to see disarming as a good idea when they're the only protection they're going to get and these fights are "common." You've already established that the seeming safety of an established community isn't actually safe. You've established that there's no one keeping people from being equipped for a fight and thus no reason for them to take the chance. That just leaves them with the knowledge that they could get attacked at any time and that NPCs, despite living in these same circumstances in such a way that they should clearly understand the players' logic, are upset with them until they make that potential danger worse for themselves.

[spinningdice]

For large/long weapons simple practicality, if it's bronze age most buildings aren't going to accommodate a long spear or fork comfortably, yes you can get it through the door but it's going to be awkward, even a larger sword is likely to cause some issues sitting around a table.

There's also the attitude of NPCs, some npc's will be afraid of the characters, nothing like entering a Tavern and half the patrons taking a look at them and leaving to make the players feel uncomfortable. They're also displaying wealth - have a difference in prices while they're geared up compared to normal. Pickpockets might be willing to chance it etc. People will notice them, where they're staying and what they're up to, meaning they're more likely to robbed or similar.

[Unoriginal]

For large/long weapons simple practicality, if it's bronze age most buildings aren't going to accommodate a long spear or fork comfortably, yes you can get it through the door but it's going to be awkward, even a larger sword is likely to cause some issues sitting around a table.

There's also the attitude of NPCs, some npc's will be afraid of the characters, nothing like entering a Tavern and half the patrons taking a look at them and leaving to make the players feel uncomfortable. They're also displaying wealth - have a difference in prices while they're geared up compared to normal. Pickpockets might be willing to chance it etc. People will notice them, where they're staying and what they're up to, meaning they're more likely to robbed or similar.

On the other hand, only foolish or very competent individuals would actually try to steal from people who casually stroll around armed to the teeth.

[MonochromeTiger]

On the other hand, only foolish or very competent individuals would actually try to steal from people who casually stroll around armed to the teeth.

Which in turn makes the idea that they're being attacked on a regular basis and not attacking the town and still being seen as more suspicious and unwelcome than the people doing actual banditry even stranger. If you've got all these people willing to attack a group much better equipped than them for their stuff then you've also got a group that should by all rights have absolutely no qualms about pillaging and looting the townspeople who are so scared of the adventurers.

Any approach that keeps the attacks also leaves an easy way of gaining and proving trustworthiness because there is a clear and obvious danger that has no reason not to be harming the city even more than they harm the adventurers and the adventurers are routinely publicly dealing with it.

[Morgaln]

In the German RPG "The Dark Eye," people who graduated from warrior academy get an official letter that not only proves they graduated but also gives them permission to carry weapons in public. Of course the setting is more medieval/renaissance in nature and most larger city will have a city watch that is absolutely willing and able to demand that letter and enforce the rules if you can't produce it. Special dispensation might also be given to cultural weapons, like the axe of a Thorval (a viking-like people). That means even if you carry obvious weapons of war, people tend to accept that you have the right to do so and not be unduly worried, as long as you don't act threateningly.

But in smaller towns, you might get by with just waving some kind of written document at a (hopefully) illiterate person and proclaiming: "oh, don't worry about us, we've got an official warrior's letter right here" to alleviate any suspicion or fear. Accompanied by an appropriate bluff check, of course.

[Unoriginal]

Which in turn makes the idea that they're being attacked on a regular basis and not attacking the town and still being seen as more suspicious and unwelcome than the people doing actual banditry even stranger. If you've got all these people willing to attack a group much better equipped than them for their stuff then you've also got a group that should by all rights have absolutely no qualms about pillaging and looting the townspeople who are so scared of the adventurers.

Any approach that keeps the attacks also leaves an easy way of gaining and proving trustworthiness because there is a clear and obvious danger that has no reason not to be harming the city even more than they harm the adventurers and the adventurers are routinely publicly dealing with it.

Indeed.

The only other option I see is that all those city-state people don't see anything wrong with attacking foreigners, so the ones who regularly attack the PCs in urban areas are not criminals or pariahs but people whose actions are accepted by other citizens and who wouldn't attack said other citizens.


I think it would be very useful to the topic if OP described a few of the urban encounters the PCs faced in the past and the context.

[spinningdice]

On the other hand, only foolish or very competent individuals would actually try to steal from people who casually stroll around armed to the teeth.

It also depends on the setting, if someone's carrying around a two-handed sword worth someone's income for 3 months, a few desperate individuals might be inclined to try...

[GloatingSwine]

And this is why knights had squires. And servants. Retinue. And other loyal/hired help.

And spares.

Depending on the game system (D&D being one of the more problematic ones), this may be a debilitating (you are better off doing the 'rocks fall' stuff) situation, you may be temporarily weakened, or you can have an interesting plot point.

Yeah, armour is one of those places where the long shadow of D&D, its kitchen sink maximalism, and its origins in tabletop wargaming have combined to produce unfortunate outcomes.

D&D sets the tone for a lot of RPGs in terms of having loads of different types of armour which top out at full battlefield armour that would be hugely impractical to wear for the sort of adventures that, well adventurers go on because it's not designed to be worn continually for long periods, needs help to get into or out of, or to do anything but fight in. So that shiny Paladin in full plate gets treated like he has a CHA of 3 by everyone because he's not taken his armour off for a week and there's no way to go to the toilet except, well, in it.

It would probably be better to just redesign arms and armour more around what would make sense for adventuring rather than the battlefield.

[Jay R]

So that shiny Paladin in full plate gets treated like he has a CHA of 3 by everyone because he's not taken his armour off for a week and there's no way to go to the toilet except, well, in it.

Nobody ever went to war in armour he couldn't relieve himself while (mostly) wearing.

[VoxRationis]

I feel like some of these responses have been a trifle uncharitable with their assumptions. I haven't been cramming my urban settings with vast arrays of randomly encountered, heavily armed bandits preying freely upon the local populace, unopposed by local power structures, nor have I been in the habit of stealing all the PCs' things when they put them down. (The party travels with a galley full of followers commanded by the close relatives of one of the PCs, so they can usually be assured of the safekeeping of any goods they aren't carrying on them.)


Indeed.

The only other option I see is that all those city-state people don't see anything wrong with attacking foreigners, so the ones who regularly attack the PCs in urban areas are not criminals or pariahs but people whose actions are accepted by other citizens and who wouldn't attack said other citizens.


I think it would be very useful to the topic if OP described a few of the urban encounters the PCs faced in the past and the context.

Here are the major settlements which the PCs have visited:


A large city begins the campaign with a civil war to which the players were party. Full battle gear was encouraged, and the players knew the conflict was coming.
Port town where the party acquired their ship. No adventure was had here.
A well-guarded town. A rival of one of the PCs used knockout poison to kidnap him with the tacit acceptance of the local power structure because they were allied with said rival, who nonetheless balked at lethal force. An NPC challenged an NPC ally of the players to a duel (outside of city limits) over a past grievance, which said ally won handily.
A small town whose leadership is hostile to the PCs' home city. The party, interested in examining nearby ruins, negotiates their way out of any conflict. Ambush was never likely, as the locals were either going to be overtly aggressive or honoring a truce (as it so happened).
A city whose outlying territory is facing raids attempts to get the PCs to assassinate their enemy (outside the city limits), but the PCs balk at it and leave without violence.
A city known for political instability and factional conflict. The party takes it upon themselves to investigate a rash of disappearances. One of the local nobles, behind the disappearances, attacks the party, first with a set of lightly armed proxies and then, once the players were moving with full kit and an armed guard, overtly with his own retainers in full panoply.
A normally peaceful city with an unusually strong central government is beset by a subversive cult that has recently sprung up. Said cultists, hiding amongst the regular populace, uses only sidearms and improvised weaponry. The PCs encounter the cult twice, once as the cult attempts to assassinate the king and again when the PCs try to locate a cult cell. The royal guard assists in both circumstances.
A satellite town of the above city. The players pass through without incident, despite being on the outs with the government.
A city has a succession dispute, and the rival claimants each begin making preparations for violence, but the PCs broker peace. All parties viewed physical conflict only as a last resort, and any violence was to be between NPCs, with PC involvement optional.
The present location of the party. Only the private security of local elites and the military have battlefield-grade weapons. There is some violent crime in the city, of course, but it's unlikely to affect the PCs, and its perpetrators will likely either use natural weapons, tools, or concealable sidearms.

So out of ten notable towns or cities they've encountered thus far, only two of them had circumstances where people tried to kill the PCs when they were out of kit. No encounters were based on people attempting to rob them, and no encounters have been random; they stem from plot-related conflicts, usually centered around power struggles, that would not have any reason to involve the ordinary populace. Most enemies in town are unarmored or lightly armored and use things like knives or clubs. Enemies are either part of local power structures or are being actively combated by them.

[Unoriginal]

I feel like some of these responses have been a trifle uncharitable with their assumptions. I haven't been cramming my urban settings with vast arrays of randomly encountered, heavily armed bandits preying freely upon the local populace, unopposed by local power structures, nor have I been in the habit of stealing all the PCs' things when they put them down. (The party travels with a galley full of followers commanded by the close relatives of one of the PCs, so they can usually be assured of the safekeeping of any goods they aren't carrying on them.)



Here are the major settlements which the PCs have visited:


A large city begins the campaign with a civil war to which the players were party. Full battle gear was encouraged, and the players knew the conflict was coming.
Port town where the party acquired their ship. No adventure was had here.
A well-guarded town. A rival of one of the PCs used knockout poison to kidnap him with the tacit acceptance of the local power structure because they were allied with said rival, who nonetheless balked at lethal force. An NPC challenged an NPC ally of the players to a duel (outside of city limits) over a past grievance, which said ally won handily.
A small town whose leadership is hostile to the PCs' home city. The party, interested in examining nearby ruins, negotiates their way out of any conflict. Ambush was never likely, as the locals were either going to be overtly aggressive or honoring a truce (as it so happened).
A city whose outlying territory is facing raids attempts to get the PCs to assassinate their enemy (outside the city limits), but the PCs balk at it and leave without violence.
A city known for political instability and factional conflict. The party takes it upon themselves to investigate a rash of disappearances. One of the local nobles, behind the disappearances, attacks the party, first with a set of lightly armed proxies and then, once the players were moving with full kit and an armed guard, overtly with his own retainers in full panoply.
A normally peaceful city with an unusually strong central government is beset by a subversive cult that has recently sprung up. Said cultists, hiding amongst the regular populace, uses only sidearms and improvised weaponry. The PCs encounter the cult twice, once as the cult attempts to assassinate the king and again when the PCs try to locate a cult cell. The royal guard assists in both circumstances.
A satellite town of the above city. The players pass through without incident, despite being on the outs with the government.
A city has a succession dispute, and the rival claimants each begin making preparations for violence, but the PCs broker peace. All parties viewed physical conflict only as a last resort, and any violence was to be between NPCs, with PC involvement optional.
The present location of the party. Only the private security of local elites and the military have battlefield-grade weapons. There is some violent crime in the city, of course, but it's unlikely to affect the PCs, and its perpetrators will likely either use natural weapons, tools, or concealable sidearms.

So out of ten notable towns or cities they've encountered thus far, only two of them had circumstances where people tried to kill the PCs when they were out of kit. No encounters were based on people attempting to rob them, and no encounters have been random; they stem from plot-related conflicts, usually centered around power struggles, that would not have any reason to involve the ordinary populace. Most enemies in town are unarmored or lightly armored and use things like knives or clubs. Enemies are either part of local power structures or are being actively combated by them.

I see, I see.

In that case, the NPCs shouldn't react negatively to the PCs being armored and armed in town.

They're rich enough to own a galley and they have followers, so at minimum that put them in the same social group as "rich merchants", with most people probably even assuming "foreign dignitaries" given how the PCs have been involved in political matters quite a few times.

In other words, they're part of the VIP who are expected to travel in town with an armed escort.

The only consequence to this, as long they don't try to do it in places where it's forbidden or would be directly insulting to the host's hospitality, would be some NPCs assuming that the less armored/older looking/best dressed PC is the dignitary and that the ones with more gears are their guards/followers.

[icefractal]

In that case, the NPCs shouldn't react negatively to the PCs being armored and armed in town.

They're rich enough to own a galley and they have followers, so at minimum that put them in the same social group as "rich merchants", with most people probably even assuming "foreign dignitaries" given how the PCs have been involved in political matters quite a few times.

In other words, they're part of the VIP who are expected to travel in town with an armed escort.I feel like that would vary from place to place? Like, the rich and powerful do get more leeway, but (for example) it's not like Bezos could spontaneously show up at an airport with a squad of assault-rifle-wielding bodyguards without it being a major issue.

Now could (in many cases) the PCs arrange things in advance if they're major players? Yeah - send a message ahead and have the people who you want to meet arrange things in advance. But that's different than "nobody would bat an eye if a group of heavily armed soldiers showed up suddenly, as long as they looked important".

[Duff]

Edit to add: You're potted history seems like fair play.
You might want to lay it our for the players that "Armed for war or lightly armed" is a decision they get to make. Sometimes full kit is the better choice, sometimes it isn't and sometimes both choices will help and hinder in equal amounts


Sounds like you have a conflict between realism and metagame concerns. If combat is so common in the city, walking around armed for war shouldn't been seen as odd (except as it indicates wealth). So you have a metagame pressure 'I want a combat every session' that creates a very unrealistic context for the PCs that just isn't being applied for the residents, and a pressure from realism to not go around in armor which - if the urban environment wasn't a combat zone - would be perfectly reasonable.

So I'd try to choose a way to be consistent. Either I'd say 'cities are actually relatively safe except certain zones, so you'll know when you might need your armor and weapons' or say 'since I want to have more combats than would be normal here, I'm also going to gloss over the armor issue and people won't bat an eye'.

That's a really good summary. I'll only add, some suggestions to help with the "Gloss over" of armour in cities.

Make urban combats more about wrestling. If the attackers are trying to detain the PCs, not to kill them, armour isn't helping. If the PCs want prisoners, not corpses, weapons don't help
Make more of your action scenes be non combat, eg chases
The ship probably comes ashore every night so there's plenty of times and places for out of city encounters
The very rich often have villas near but outside the city.
Thank you for entering our fair city. Since you are armed heavily enough to take over, We'll be providing an escort of 8 burly fellows with staves. They will ensure no plot related activities enemies attack such dangerous and welcome guests while they draw such very large amounts of attention and are perfectly safe

[Pex]

Give everyone unarmored AC based on armor proficiency
Heavy: 10 + ST/DX modifier + CO modifier + Proficiency Bonus
Medium/Light: 10 + DX modifier + Proficiency Bonus
None: 10 + DX modifier

Classes that provide their own unarmored AC continue to do so. Player chooses which one to use.

No one wears armor, fitting for the age. The rich can have armor because they aren't adventurers.

Magic items of clothing/jewelry/tattoos can provide magical enhancements you would normally have on armor.

[Satinavian]

Give everyone unarmored AC based on armor proficiency
Heavy: 10 + ST/DX modifier + CO modifier + Proficiency Bonus
Medium/Light: 10 + DX modifier + Proficiency Bonus
None: 10 + DX modifier

Classes that provide their own unarmored AC continue to do so. Player chooses which one to use.

No one wears armor, fitting for the age. The rich can have armor because they aren't adventurers.

Magic items of clothing/jewelry/tattoos can provide magical enhancements you would normally have on armor.
They are playing Mythras, not D&D.

[Telwar]

INot being familiar with the system, is there something they can do to make themselves less vulnerable while not in their heavy armor/kit, that doesn't take an exorbitant amount of scarce player resources?

[Pex]

They are playing Mythras, not D&D.

Fair enough. The more important info is the idea. However Mythras works find the means to give PCs the defenses armor would provide by means other than armor.

Personally, the real issue as I see it is the DM is having trouble with realism interfering with the fun of the game. When realism interferes with fun I always side on fun. Ignore realism or bend it, in this case arbitrarily come up with some other method of defense without the need of physical armor so that the game math will work.

[LibraryOgre]

While full armor and polearms are a bit too much, it was actually commonplace - even expected - to be armed inside cities for most of human history. Commoners would carry a knife, nobles had their side swords. If one was especially paranoid, wearing a chainmail or breastplate under your clothes wasn't unheard of.
I say, let them keep a modicum of armor

This would be where I'd land... town armor, town weapons.

For town weapons, you might go with side swords, knives, or walking sticks that happen to be just a bit heavier than hickory (thanks to a few ounces of powdered lead in the business end). Town armor might be something relatively inoffensive like leathers, or you might go with something like brigandine. A small shield might be in order, especially if it's ornamental on top of being practical.

[Unoriginal]

This would be where I'd land... town armor, town weapons.

For town weapons, you might go with side swords, knives, or walking sticks that happen to be just a bit heavier than hickory (thanks to a few ounces of powdered lead in the business end). Town armor might be something relatively inoffensive like leathers, or you might go with something like brigandine. A small shield might be in order, especially if it's ornamental on top of being practical.

In a context where it was normal for ordinary citizens to be armed with small arms and be lightly armored, powerful people having guards equipped with with a level of weapon and armor above the norm was common, maybe even expected.


I feel like that would vary from place to place? Like, the rich and powerful do get more leeway, but (for example) it's not like Bezos could spontaneously show up at an airport with a squad of assault-rifle-wielding bodyguards without it being a major issue.

It's proportional, bodyguards are generally expected to be more armed than the typical person in a given context.

So for example, in a context where the ordinary citizen isn't expected to be armed at all, the bodyguards will often have one obviously-carried weapon.

In a context where the ordinary citizen being armed with sidearms is not uncommon at all, the bodyguards will generally have some obvious armor and better weapons.



Now could (in many cases) the PCs arrange things in advance if they're major players? Yeah - send a message ahead and have the people who you want to meet arrange things in advance. But that's different than "nobody would bat an eye if a group of heavily armed soldiers showed up suddenly, as long as they looked important".

It's not a "nobody would bat an eye" situation. People would bat an eye, and it'd be part of the display of status/wealth.

It's just that they're unlikely to react negatively to VIP having an armed escort while traveling in town (unless the PCs are using their role as 'armed guards' to bully their surroundings or they're facing someone who dislike people of that status). It is possible they'd fear the PCs more, but in a "I'll make sure to not piss them off" more than in a "oh no please they're going to hurt me" fashion.

[Slipjig]

I'd leave it up to the players. There should be some events (fancy parties, being admitted to government buildings or into the presence of VIPs) where they simply won't be admitted carrying around heavy armament.

In places where it's weird but not outright banned, have the locals react how you would expect somebody in the modern world to react to a bunch of bikers walking around with shotguns or a SWAT team in full kit. Probably nobody will be rude to them, but most people won't want to talk to them either. They are also going to stick out like a sore thumb, so anybody who wants to track their movements will have no problem doing so. The PCs may not care about this, but many of their contacts certainly will. If your players decide they are okay being as subtle as an orcish heavy metal band... hey, player agency!

[wilphe]

On the other hand, only foolish or very competent individuals would actually try to steal from people who casually stroll around armed to the teeth.

Well, if you are trying to carry out daily life with a spear and shield you are going to be spending a lot of time just trying to exist, like move through a crowded market without hitting anybody or knocking over a stall.

And if you trip, well sucks that both hands are full

Your situational awareness for anything else is gonna be terrible, and if you have a helmet on even worse


There are good practical reasons why certain weapons are more socially acceptable

[Slipjig]

Concur. Polearms and longbow especially just make sense zero sense as "carry around" weapons. Most ceilings won't be high enough to carry a polearm vertically, so you'll be forced to carry this 10' long object horizontally any time you are inside all but the largest buildings.

[gbaji]

Fair enough. The more important info is the idea. However Mythras works find the means to give PCs the defenses armor would provide by means other than armor.

Personally, the real issue as I see it is the DM is having trouble with realism interfering with the fun of the game. When realism interferes with fun I always side on fun. Ignore realism or bend it, in this case arbitrarily come up with some other method of defense without the need of physical armor so that the game math will work.

I get where you are coming from, but that seems to be heavily throwing out the baby with the bathwater. One presumes that there are game balance reasons for why some armor protects for more than others, and destroying those game balance components for what is more or less a RP issue seems problematic.

If my warrior is given the same armor whether he's actually wearing armor or not, then he's never going to wear armor. Or, I'll get the benefits of being in armor, but wear something else that is incompatible with wearing heavy armor (some magic robe or tunic maybe). Dunno. I just see a ton of ways in which this will create massively more problems than it solves.

To my way of thinking, unless the GM is actively using the "you can't wear armor here" as a means to screw over the PCs, this should not be a problem. Some locations are going to have rules against wearing armor and carrying heavy weapons, but as many people have pointed out, those rules pretty much only work to the point they are enforced. Think "guns in the wild west" here. Many towns may not have wanted folks walking around with pistols at the ready, but the reality is that outside of larger cities with large police foces, no one really could enforce that. Same deal in an earlier time period. Frontier type towns are going to be places where the PCs can presuambly wear whatever the heck they want, as can any of the NPCs too. Larger cities may very well enforce restrictions on what folks can carry while in town. But as a GM you have to enforce that on the NPCs as well. This usually results in a relatively even playing field, if everyone is restricted to light armor and weapons (which is kinda the point, leaving the town guard with better stuff than anyone they're likely to have to come into conflict with).

The powerful PCs should still have plenty of advantage over local riff raff for this not to be an issue. I've been playing games with rules like this for decades and have never had an issue with it. Now yes, this absolutely can be an issue if the evil bad guy is the ruler of some city/location/whatever, and the PCs have to disarm themselves to enter, and this gives the big bad an advantage. But usually, the PCs should know this ahead of time (or at least have some clue/warning, but then again maybe not!). And sure, the rare "we just got totally backstabed by someone we trusted" is a thing that can happen, but that's going to happen whether there are other rules in place or not. The PCs presuambly aren't allowed to enter other people's homes, palaces, castles, etc while fully armed and armored for battle either. Any of those locations are far more likely to be where a betrayal scenario may play out than just walking down the street in a "arms restricted" town.


And you can absolutely play up the politeness angle on this too. As has also been pointed out, just because the local townsfolk can't force you to not walk around in full fighting gear, doesn't mean they wont appreciate if if you take that stuff off while in their town. Again, barring the whole "we're under constant attack by powerful bandits and these new strangers could help us" scenario, in which case the attitude should be completely different. It's somewhat of a joke at my table that when the party comes into town, and the townsfolk seem oddly happy that they're there, it's time to get really worried. If you're lucky they just have a job for you.

There is also the matter of comfort. As a few have mentioned, heavy armor and weapons are just not convenient or comfortable to carry around all day long. Some games systems have better methods to manage this than others, but I think you can kinda RP this out a bit too. The reality is that most people would never just walk around in more than what most games categorize as "medium" armor. It's just too bulky, too heavy, and a pain in the butt to get in and out of to just walk around in all day long (not to mention hot as heck). But, RPGs being RPGs, if the rules say "I can walk around with this on" folks will do just that, no matter how impractical it really is.

Do you also allow folks to sleep in full armor? Have you ever tried actually doing that? I get it. Players want their characters to be fully functional at all times. And yeah, in class based games, what armor you can wear is part of the balance assumed to exist (so classes that can wear heavy armor kinda must do so to be "balanced", so anytime they cannot, that can be viewed as a penalty for just their class(es)). But realistically, anything other than light armor should not be allowed for anyone not actively on watch during rest periods as well. Which, you know, is also a time rife for attacks (and probably far more dangerous than random thieves attacking while walking around town). But this does kinda come down to how a game system manages things like "comfort". Most dont. But you can treat this as a RP thing "do you really enjoy sitting a the dinner table in full plate?". I suppose some players will resist this, but IMO, it's not a bad idea to at least attempt to make your character somewhat capable even when not fully kitted out. There will be an "escape from prison with just our bare hands" scenario at some point. Maybe.

If the PCs are too much dependent on gear, maybe it's a good thing to occasionally have them try to do without. Don't do this often, but occasionally? Sure.

[icefractal]

I get where you are coming from, but that seems to be heavily throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
...
If the PCs are too much dependent on gear, maybe it's a good thing to occasionally have them try to do without. Don't do this often, but occasionally? Sure.I'd agree, especially for lower-power / grounded games (which is kinda the vibe I get from the OP, although not confirmed).

I'd say that part of what makes a game feel low power / grounded is that the PCs aren't unhindered by circumstances. They rely on gear / conditions, and have to deal with operating at lower effectiveness some of the time. Related to which, they're not able to just ignore authority either - they can smuggle weapons of course, but they can't just say "We're walking into the throne room in full battle gear, dealwithit.jpg"

Conversely, the more high-power a game is, the more I feel like PCs should be gear independent. Like, if I'm playing a "Dawn Caste Exalted" level of warrior, they should be able to pick up a random table-knife and defeat a dozen assassins with it.

[Unoriginal]

Well, if you are trying to carry out daily life with a spear and shield you are going to be spending a lot of time just trying to exist, like move through a crowded market without hitting anybody or knocking over a stall.

And if you trip, well sucks that both hands are full

Your situational awareness for anything else is gonna be terrible, and if you have a helmet on even worse


There are good practical reasons why certain weapons are more socially acceptable

And yet guards and soldiers with helmets, spears and shields have patrolled the streets or escorted powerful patrons through crowded markets all over the world, for thousands of years.


Concur. Polearms and longbow especially just make sense zero sense as "carry around" weapons.

Guards with halberd:

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-6ced4457ed9b1eed145aeed58e6989dc-lq

Praetorian Guard with spear:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/24/67/712467e07a47b47f97464b1ed2ea3a25.jpg

[Thane of Fife]

One option would be to introduce some form of explicit escalation track. That is, limit the amount of force or violence that the NPCs are allowed to bring to bear based on how much the players do (on a community-by-community basis, probably). So if the players are wearing civilian clothes and carrying only concealable weapons, any assassins who come after them will do the same. If the players traipse about in full panoply with contingents of bodyguards, then any assassins will be similarly well-armed and in large numbers. Likewise, if PCs get into a bar fight and fight with their bare hands, other people will do so as well... unless the PCs have already developed a reputation around town for using weapons and armor, in which case, other people may try to preempt them.

The premise here being not to scale things with the players, but that, in a community, it is easier, more discreet, and less disruptive to do things with less force where possible. In keeping with that, responses should be based on history as much as current behavior. So, you might decide that there will be an assassination attempt on the PCs at some dinner party. If the PCs have been pretty low-key and trying not to escalate things, the assassins might be limited to, say, knives and concealable weapons. Now supposing the PCs get suspicious and decide to wear their armor to this party, they've probably foiled the assassination attempt, but they've also escalated this for the rest of their time in the city.

The track also doesn't need to be limited to just equipment - you could make it so that if the PCs engage in certain crimes, that also escalates things. And you could also use such a mechanic to distinguish between communities - this place is in chaos, so it starts at a higher escalation level and everyone goes around in armor; this place is home to your ancestral rivals, and so they always count as escalated one level higher than usual; beware the ides of March, because things are gonna get real and escalate on that date.

[Jay R]

And yet guards and soldiers with helmets, spears and shields have patrolled the streets or escorted powerful patrons through crowded markets all over the world, for thousands of years.

But they weren't trying to shop in crowded markets or otherwise carry out daily life. They weren't having a beer in the tavern, or shopping in a magic shop, or carrying packages, or wearing full backpacks. That spear or halberd was the only thing they were dealing with.

At SCA events, I can walk around with a spear with no problem. But I put it down when I plan to use my hands for anything else. I don't take it into feast halls, or meetings, or bardic competitions, or arts & science displays, or the merchant area.

[wilphe]

I used to do cyberpunk LARP, the most dangerous place was the toilet because you can't really do no1 whilst holding an assault rifle

No2 was asking to have a grenade rolled in from the cubicle next door

++++++++++


And yes patrolling guards do do those things, because people get out of their way. They aren't trying to shop, drink at the tavern or flirt with the housemaids

[JusticeZero]

I mean, I've had people walking around in the vicinity of (not at, but close to) my house carrying military rifles, and I've sat in fast food lines with people carrying substantial amounts of weaponry, and they were treated politely and given their hamburger out of politeness... but we made assumptions about not just what kind of person they were but what organizations they were associated with... and those kind of assumptions? Probably wouldn't (usually) be helpful for your adventuring party to have stuck on them in every situation. If everybody is like "We'll serve you, please don't hurt us with your axes; we don't want to anger the Dark Cultists of Zord..." it will seriously skew what people are telling them or how they are being interacted with. It tells the party about the situation, but it also seriously restricts their ability to get information.

[Grod_The_Giant]

This sounds like a case of clashing expectations. Your players expect a standard d&d type approach, where concerns like "how are you carrying that 10ft glaive everywhere?" or "won't you damage your bow if you always keep it strung" are hand-waved away. You expect a more grounded approach where commoners will be uncomfortable with a bunch of heavily armed and armored strangers wandering around the city.

There's no way to address this in game, other than giving up in one way or another ("fine, you can hide your platemail under a cloak and use a folding glaive, why not?"). Talk to your players. Explain the vibe you're trying to create, point out all the ways you modify combat encounters to compensate for the lack of weapons, and ask if they'd rather not have urban combat be a thing they regularly need to worry about.

tl;dr--it's dm/player social contract stuff, talk it out.

[Vahnavoi]

So what do all of you do to resolve this issue? How do you square having combats in urban areas, realistic or reasonable NPC reactions to player gear, and the desire not to seemingly punish the players for being polite?

The first thing to do is to ditch the desire to "not punish" players.

When your playing antagonist characters, exploiting and punishing players for their mistakes is part of your job and part of the game. The choice your players have is not "be punished" versus "don't be punished", it's between "get punished by potential friends for being overequipped" versus "get punished by potential hostiles for being underequipped".

Understanding the choice is between two different punishments, the question you're left with it: does it truly matter to you if your players always pick one over the other? Because you can just decide it's not your problem - it's your players' problem of which kind of tactics to use.

If you decide it does matter, then you have two options:

1) if you'd rather your players stick with one, increase the punishment for doing the opposite. In this case, if you'd prefer your players to be less equipped, increase the punishment for walking around overequipped. If, for some reason, you feel you cannot do that, remember: this is purely a self-created problem. You're the one who chooses details of your game's social paradigm and mechanics. If you are unwilling to step over lines of sand you yourself have drawn, then just admit defeat and accept your players will continue doing whatever they're doing.

2) if you'd rather your players vary their choice, you need to vary situations in your game, and you have to give your players enough information to figure this out. As in, sometimes it should be transparent that walking around overequipped will just get players shunned, with no utility against possible hostiles, because there are no hostiles. And vice versa, sometimes it should be transparent that marching around in full get-up is justified and smart.

Finally, remember one psychological reason for why negative impressions stick: negativity bias. People often naturally weigh (possible) negative consequences more than positives. You can think of it as trauma response: people are unwilling to continue behaving in ways that hurt them, especially if they have no non-hurtful experiences of the same sort. Which also means that if getting attacked in urban areas is reasonably common, you've already set yourself up for failure. If you want to swing the pendulum the other way, you have to cease with the urban attacks for an extended period and focus on punishing players for impoliteness.

[gbaji]

Honestly, I don't see how it's any more trouble to balance encounters based on what gear the PCs are going to be able to use than it is for any other aspect of an encounter. You presumably don't run a group of 1st level characters into an ancient dragon, or drop them into a tomb of horrors type adventure either, right? At some level, the players have to have a degree of trust that the GM is going to provide a reasonable balance with regard to the opponents that the adventure requires the PCs to face (which, certainly allows for the PCs to get themselves into more dangerous problems all on their own though).

Restrictions on gear worn in certain location (like in towns, homes, castles, palaces, places of buisiness, etc) are part of the encounter balance equation. It allows the GM to make opponents who might normally not be much of a threat to the party, actually be an interesting and difficult encounter. To me, this actually flows somewhat naturally with regard to "in-town" encounters. Powerful characters are quite commonly far far more powerful than the typical folks in a typical town. Lots of in-town adventures involve opponents who are not hordes of Orcs, or Ogres, or powerful monsters, or dragons, or such, but normal playable race type people, often employed more in some sort of nefarious business (or politics) than the typical "evil dark lord in his tower of doom!!!" type bad guys. In short, usually folks who would just die a fast death if trying to fight the PCs normally.

Dunno. I've just never had a problem doing this. I tend to run on very basic assumptions: If the PCs are armed and armored, they are expecting or looking for a fight. In most towns, this is not going to be appreciated, and in some may be illegal. The degree to which the PCs may ignore or get away with this anyway is entirely up to them. But yeah, to whatever degree these restrictions are in place, they will tend to apply to the NPCs as well (with some exceptions). And again, the GM should still always just use this as a balancing point for the encounters themselves. I could have the local smugger boss guy send his boys over to deal with the PCs snooping around his business while the PCs are fully kitted out, but that would likely be suicidal. So I tend to use this sort of thing as a way to make otherwise somewhat marginally tough opponents into "ok, that's a decently challenging fight".

But I always leave this up to the players. They are free to try to bring their heavier gear, but run the risk of being spotted by whatever guards or other folks are out and about. Sometimes, they can get away with it. Sometimes not. I've had PCs come up with interesting plans like buying a cart and running around town in normal looking clothes, but with their weapons stowed in the cart. Hide the cart in the alley out behind the place you're planning on attacking, wait till no one's around, put on armor, and then attack. There's some risk to this as well, but again, they're free to try whatever they think they can get away with. And yes, that includes "we just ignore the guards if they catch us wearing stuff we aren't supposed to be wearing". Which may or may not have a variety of consequences for them. I always allow them to make their own choices, but with somewhat knowns consequences for them. It's not a hard "you must do this" sort of thing. But assuming they don't actually want to have to fight the entire town guard and become wanted fugitives, they'll usually need to at least make some effort to figure out a better way.

And to me, it's that process of having the players have to actually think up a solution to the problem that is the point. If you just handwave it all away, or ignore it, then (to me at least) that's kinda leaving a good chunk of RP potential off the table. Let them figure out what they must do in order to be able to have one of them pretend to be a wealthy merchant or land owner and have their own guards marching around with them, if they want (cause that might be a thing that's possible). Maybe they work out a deal with the local lord to do jobs in return for the authority to bear weapons and armor? There are lots of possibilities and ways to manage this IMO. And they do tend to increase the "look and feel" of the game world. And along the way, may actually allow you to drop in some additional tasks/quests/whatever too. Maybe that Lord actually expects you to go and deal with the local bandit gang that's been causing trouble in return for wearing heavy gear. Maybe there's a group of mercs who normally do these sorts of jobs, and they're miffed that you are squeezing into their livelihood. Maybe while filling out the paperwork for your "I'm a merchant and need armed guards for my goods" license, you over hear something about recent robberies in the merchant quarter, or are cautioned about shipping things this time of year because the Dread Pirate Roberts has been spotted in the area. Every one of these sorts of things can be potential hooks for adventure opportunities for the PCs. The last thing you want is the PCs walking into town, in full gear. Going directly to the thing they are in town for, also in full gear. Then walking out of town when done, also in full gear, but never having actually interacted with anything else in the town. Some players will naturally go out looking for stuff/trouble. But it doesn't hurt if you give them a reason to go to different places and talk to different people while in town. It makes putting these hooks in front of them feel much more natural.