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. 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. 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.