Although this thread is a good rules discussion, it largely ignores one of the precepts of RPGing: players don't like having their cool stuff taken away.

...ignoring? Cheesing-off the players is the entire point of this move! Big, bad hunter draws his favorite rifle ("Callahan full-bore auto-lock with customized trigger double cartritdge through-gauge...I call her Vera.") and -- oops! It's across the room -- is exactly the sort of emotional WTF the GM should be angling for. Maybe they get into a pissed-off school-yard brawl -- that's worth the price of admission, baby!

Firefly reference = cool.

Sentiment of the post = uncool.

Players respond well to being challenged, not being railroaded.

Abuse of the term "railroaded" = uncool.

Players respond well to being challenged, not being railroaded.

What's not challenging about having your security blanket taken away?

As Dave points out, it's about fair play.

In an RPG, for MOST players, a weapon isn't a "security blanket", but rather an integral part of playing the game. Most characers use weapons (or some analog like the Force) and can't fully particpate in an encounter if that option is removed. Not fun, and the first rule is have fun.

Now, having said that, there are definitely a number of circumstances where it seems "fair" to me to just rip away a weapon. For example:

1) If the group is unbalanced and this is an attempt to give the non-combat characters the spotlight.

2) If there's a power gamer or weapon addict, it's fair to "teach him a lesson" that he doesn't need "Vera."

3) If the enemy is so bad@$$ that he's either not defeatable or supposed to scare the bejeesus out of the PCs.

4) To design a unique and challenging encounter. In the past, I've had characters fight in environments where they couldn't use energy weapons (for fear of setting off an explosion), a few encounters where they had to pose as bounty hunters and could NOT use the weapons they were best known for, etc. If the encounter is "You're unarmed. Deal with it. Good luck," that's cool.

I'm sure there are more, but I'm getting tired.

In my experience as a GM, though, there are certain expectations and assumptions. One is that the PCs have access to a certain level of resources. Another is that they are, to some extent, masters of their own fate. If you mess with those, it shouldn't be casually or callously.

Unless you're PCs are power-mongering, min-maxing douchebags. Then it's okay.

Players respond well to being challenged, not being railroaded.

What's not challenging about having your security blanket taken away?

As Dave points out, it's about fair play.

In an RPG, for MOST players, a weapon isn't a "security blanket", but rather an integral part of playing the game. Most characers use weapons (or some analog like the Force) and can't fully particpate in an encounter if that option is removed. Not fun, and the first rule is have fun.

Now, having said that, there are definitely a number of circumstances where it seems "fair" to me to just rip away a weapon. For example:

1) If the group is unbalanced and this is an attempt to give the non-combat characters the spotlight.

2) If there's a power gamer or weapon addict, it's fair to "teach him a lesson" that he doesn't need "Vera."

3) If the enemy is so bad@$$ that he's either not defeatable or supposed to scare the bejeesus out of the PCs.

4) To design a unique and challenging encounter. In the past, I've had characters fight in environments where they couldn't use energy weapons (for fear of setting off an explosion), a few encounters where they had to pose as bounty hunters and could NOT use the weapons they were best known for, etc. If the encounter is "You're unarmed. Deal with it. Good luck," that's cool.

I'm sure there are more, but I'm getting tired.

In my experience as a GM, though, there are certain expectations and assumptions. One is that the PCs have access to a certain level of resources. Another is that they are, to some extent, masters of their own fate. If you mess with those, it shouldn't be casually or callously.

Unless you're PCs are power-mongering, min-maxing douchebags. Then it's okay.

Yikes.

I think what you are really intending to say is if the relationship between the players and game master is solid, and built on the trust that each side is working for the betterment of the game, then you can use dramatic flourishes and unexpected challenges without concern. If the PCs are less mature in their approach to the game, perhaps you can educate them on a few points rather than belittle them.

At least, I hope that is what you mean. You said you were tired so I am attempting to translate.