No Horses For You

[Chris-M]

Over in the "We Loves Us Some Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66774)" thread, we've been talking about, among other things, how some GMs, wanting to make their fantasy worlds less stereotypical, will use original non-human races or put non-standard spins on the classic non-human races.

Something else you'll see when a GM or worldbuilder tries to go for a more original, exotic game setting is the replacement of horses as the standard steed of record with something else -- big lizards, flightless birds, giant cats or dogs -- you name it.

Personally, this has always been a huge pet peeve of mine -- quit goofing around and just give us our horses already! But then I realized that in the "Avatar: The Last Air Bender" TV series, there are no horses and a variety of other creatures serving as steeds, and it didn't bother me one bit. I guess because "Avatar" features a nicely-designed original Asian Fantasy setting that is already different enough from your standard faux-Medieval Europe fantasy setting that it wasn't jarring. Also, "Avatar" features normal animals that are all, or mostly, hybrids of our real-world animals -- poodle monkeys, badger moles, etc., so the lack of horses and the presence of other unusual steed options seems to fit right in. (As an interesting side note, there's one reference by Sokka to just plain "horses," although we never seen one -- we do, however, meet one regular, ol' bear -- which freaks the main characters out.)

Anyway, what are some examples of non-horse steeds that have been the norm in fantasy campaigns you've played in? Which ones did you like and which ones did you not like?

[Lawnmower Boy]

Dogs --not in RPGs, but in literature. You have to feed them meat! Or at least milled grains. Think about your economy, please, worldbuilder. Even your landscape is going to look profoundly different.

[Doctor Agenda]

Talislanta is a setting where all the critters are mythical/fictional, and even all the humans seem to have pointed ears.

[Lord Liaden]

I was always partial to the phorusracoids, the extinct giant carnivorous flightless birds that look like huge ostriches with axe-shaped beaks. They look cool, and assuming they're trainable they'd make effective battle steeds. Last time I used them I added steel blade extensions to their wing-claws as part of their tack. :eg:

BTW in the classic Bard Games Atlantis: The Lost World RPG setting (recently updated by Morrigan Press as Atlantis: The Second Age), the dwarven nation of Punt (the modern island of Madagascar) used giant ostriches with steel heel-spurs as steeds. The Puntian dwarves were a cool variation in themselves, being black, beardless, and typically wearing dreadlocks. :D

[Lord Liaden]

Talislanta is a setting where all the critters are mythical/fictional, and even all the humans seem to have pointed ears.

IIRC the dominant Talisantan riding animals look like a cross between horse and lizard, and are sapient.

[Vulcan]

There's a short story somewhere that has the heroines riding giant rabbits...:D

Saberhagans' Complete Book of Swords had the riding beasts being feline. Basically tiger-sized, but with the coloration of house cats.

In a primitive world, cavemen might domesticate the larger raptor dinosaurs (Deinonycus would be about the right size), or perhaps some breed of cerotopsian (less maneuverability, more striking power). Or build a small fort/archery stand on top of an ankyliosaur.

For that matter, consider a lancer on a rhinocerous.:sneaky:

And the old D&D villians, the Drow, are sometimes described as having giant riding spiders. http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/shock.gif (Freaked one of my player out good when they showed up in my game. If I'd know he was that creeped out by spiders, I wouldn't have done it...)

[Fitz]

You know why people don't use carnivores as riding animals? Because they make terrible riding animals, that's why. You can get away with dogs as pack animals because they're... er, well, pack animals -- they'll accept a human being as pack leader, and are trainable. Get one big enough, you could probably ride it - if you could stay on. Horses and camels are herd animals, and can be dominated in a similar way. I seriously doubt you'd get the same sort of cooperation from a velociraptor; the only way you could expect to ride something like that without having to be constantly on guard would be if you could exert absolute mental and/or physical control over it.

Another thing to think about when replacing horses is the anatomy of the creature you're proposing. Even assuming you could control a Saberhagenesque riding tiger-beast enough that it wouldn't chow down on you at the first opportunity, the spine of all cats flexes enormously when it runs; good luck staying on if you're not actually tied to it. Horses may be passé, but their backs stay relatively horizontal when they're moving at speed, which is one reason why they've been our most successful mount.

Almost all of the mount replacements in games and literature have been chosen because they're cool, not because they'd actually be practical riding beasts.

[Ragnarok]

I've seen some interesting deviations from the standard horse. Nothing too outlandish like dinosaurs, though, they're more of the typical Tolkien-style variations. For example, some of the cave dwelling goblins in a previous campaign used spiders as a sort of all-terrain cavalry. Some of the more savage, barbaric humans in the Northern reaches used Dire wolves. The casualty rate for taming one was horrendous, though.

With that said, there are few steeds as trustworthy and timeless as a huge horse, like the Clydesdale's. If you're tired of your run-of-the-mill horse, just use something like this guy: http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=x9jDXwEJpyE.

23 hands, 2800 pounds, and only 4 years old. Badass.

[Curufea]

We've only ever had horses, whether it was low or high fantasy.

[Vulcan]

You know why people don't use carnivores as riding animals?

They are prohibitively expensive to feed, among other things. Meat is not cheap, even in fantasy settings.


Because they make terrible riding animals, that's why. You can get away with dogs as pack animals because they're... er, well, pack animals -- they'll accept a human being as pack leader, and are trainable. Get one big enough, you could probably ride it - if you could stay on. Horses and camels are herd animals, and can be dominated in a similar way. I seriously doubt you'd get the same sort of cooperation from a velociraptor; the only way you could expect to ride something like that without having to be constantly on guard would be if you could exert absolute mental and/or physical control over it.

There is some palentological evidence that the raptors were pack animals as well, so...

Besides, a Velociraptor would make a terrible mount even for a halfling. They were about the same weight as a turkey, with a long tail. Sure, nose-to-tail length was about 6'. At the shoulder they were about 3' tall. Deinonycus would be a better choice, scale-wise. It stood about 6' at the shoulder, and roughly 10-12' overall length.


Another thing to think about when replacing horses is the anatomy of the creature you're proposing. Even assuming you could control a Saberhagenesque riding tiger-beast enough that it wouldn't chow down on you at the first opportunity, the spine of all cats flexes enormously when it runs; good luck staying on if you're not actually tied to it. Horses may be passé, but their backs stay relatively horizontal when they're moving at speed, which is one reason why they've been our most successful mount.

Almost all of the mount replacements in games and literature have been chosen because they're cool, not because they'd actually be practical riding beasts.

There is that. Of course, this is in the Fantasy HERO forum, a bit of handwaving is expected.

[steamteck]

For my standard fantasy world pretty much everyone uses horse except some exotic lost world tribes who ride flightless birds. In planetary romance, which might arguably be SF or fantasy, anything goes!

[Shadowsoul]

I'm no expert but I believe that the largest raptor fossil ever found was the Utahraptor which was somewhere around the size of one of the Jurassic Park beasties. Still not good riding material for humans though.

In the War of the Powers series there are Dog Riders, Bear Riders and Giant Badger Riders, (that was one weird series). Dogs would seem to be the most practical of those three since they have a nicer temperament.

Sled-dogs have been used instead of horses in certain very cold areas so perhaps in sub-arctic conditions riding dogs would be ecologically justifiable.

Otherwise I assume they'd develop in a place where there was plenty of prey for the mounts to catch. Perhaps a nice big forest which horses would have more trouble traversing anyway, not that I'd expect much of any cavalry in heay woodland. Or a wide open plain filled with herd animals, although horses would love those conditions as well.

Horses are excellent mounts compared to most other mundane creatures so I would expect a good reason for them to not be in use. Assuming that they don't just 'not exist' then perhaps they are a sacred animal to humans and it would be blasphemous to enslave them for the menial work of carrying humans around.

Or perhaps this world features centaurs who for reasons of pride or practicality have made damn sure that the humans don't get to ride horses; either by attacking any human countries that try it or keeping control of the major herds. That's not a perfect solution but it would help to explain why humans went looking for different mounts.

[CTaylor]

I like the WOW approach: different cultures use different creatures. Some are more exotic and showy than logical (some are just retarded looking, like the ostrich things the blood elves ride), but they are interesting.

[Curufea]

Riding animals are only an issue if you make it an issue. Otherwise it's background flavouring that rarely affects play.
However, if you're adding realism, like mount personalities, care and feeding, sickness and mishap or other details - then it's worth noting what mounts are like.

But in general I believe most folk roleplay at a pulp melodrama level, they gloss over how to get from A to B and are more interested in killing things at B so they can buy things at A. Micromanaging is viewed as a waste of time that could be spent on violence.

[Maelstrom]

My first FH character rode a donkey. A donkey that had been sorcerously mutated by dragon blood. Eeesh.

Check out Randall Garrett's The Bronze of Eddarta and others for telepathic, intelligent, riding-cats. Fun stuff. I'd build it as a follower more than allow it as a purchase.

I like the WoW approach too.

[Doctor Agenda]

IIRC the dominant Talisantan riding animals look like a cross between horse and lizard, and are sapient.

Fortunately most humanoid Talislantans don't speak Equus...they gossip about their riders terribly.

[Vulcan]

I'm no expert but I believe that the largest raptor fossil ever found was the Utahraptor which was somewhere around the size of one of the Jurassic Park beasties. Still not good riding material for humans though.

Looking at some of the latest material (my aging textbooks are a bit dated), it seems that even Deinonychus would be a bit small, 11' long but only about 4' (ish) at the shoulder. Utah Raptor would indeed be a better fit at around 7' at the shoulder. Although they are significantly larger than the Jurrasic Park beasties at over 20' in length.:nonp:

But feeding these beasts would be a pain in the wallet. ;)

Note: In an earlier post, I mentioned that Velociraptor was about 6' long and 3' at the shoulder. These numbers are actually for the Troodon, a closely related species. Velociraptors were about half that size.

Not a good choice for a movie villian.:D

[Curufea]

You could also modify mounts to just look like dinosaurs.
Built like a horse internally, but having evolved a lizard skin instead of hide.

[Vanguard00]

Large horse-like rams were used in an old comic-fantasy series by Lionel Fenn ("Blood River Down" Ithink it was called). His, at least, while not necessarily sentient, was pretty darn smart.

I'm of the opinion that horses are fine in any world populated with "familiar" beasts such as birds, dogs, cats and fish. If you're going to come up with something instead of horses, make sure it has a place in the ecology. Make the horses slightly different, if you wish; make 'em like zebras, but bluish-grey in color. Or given them cloven hoofs. Or make them omnivorous pack (instead of herd) creatures. Don't just do away with them because you want something different.

That's not to say that some cultures didn't find large flightless birds more their style, or that some magic-based priesthoods have a rapport with oversized canines or felines, and so on.

Remember that fantasy is fun because of the differences in reality, but that reality-based ideas provide plenty of contrast. A real-world horse is fine, but it gives the very rare riding cat that much more oomph, or makes the lizard-riding folk of the savannas that much more strange.

Just sayin'...

[BobGreenwade]

In my fantasy games, I've seen at one time or another griffins, pegasi, triceratops, and (I kid you not) giant armadillos.

[Supreme Serpent]

One fantasy game I played in horses were the norm, but one area had wasteland barbarians that rode around on big spider-things. Didn't have too much interaction with them during the campaign.

[Sociotard]

Technically, lions are pack animals . . . (but I doubt they would work).

I'd say that using non-horses is less of a problem in Fantasy lit than using horses as if they were motorcycles. The characters ride to the inn, tie the horse to a post, go sleep, then return to untie the horse and ride away.

They left the packs and saddles tied on! Not to mention they failed to groom them, check their hooves, etc. I'm not PETA fan, but I'd give some of these knights a talking to if I caught them in the act.

For what it's worth, my favorite non-horses were the riding bunnies-on-stilts from The Dark Crystal.

[CTaylor]

I think those were more like bats than bunnies.

But you're right, I make a point of having characters treat their mounts well or they suffer. They have to have regular rests, food, shelter, they can't leave stuff on them (or it gets stolen), the mounts cost a fortune, and so on.

[Maur]

Most players I've played with don't abuse the animals, but no game time was wasted having the characters maintain them.

Players get to an inn, pay the fee for room and board and stable... stable boy does the work if players don't say otherwise...

Overland travel... no more than 8 hours a day to allow for setup and breakdown of camp (which includes dealing with aforementioned animals). Push them and they suffer the penalties that players would from a forced march...

This was all just assumed to have happened unless it was important to the story that an event occur and interrupt them.

[Vulcan]

Technically, lions are pack animals . . . (but I doubt they would work).

I'd say that using non-horses is less of a problem in Fantasy lit than using horses as if they were motorcycles. The characters ride to the inn, tie the horse to a post, go sleep, then return to untie the horse and ride away.

They left the packs and saddles tied on! Not to mention they failed to groom them, check their hooves, etc. I'm not PETA fan, but I'd give some of these knights a talking to if I caught them in the act.

For what it's worth, my favorite non-horses were the riding bunnies-on-stilts from The Dark Crystal.

Unless there's some in-game reason to deal with it, much of that sort of thing is 'assumed to be deat with' in my games. Part of the bedding down for the night procedures includes taking care of mounts (by the PC's or by stableboys), equipment maintenance, personal hygene, etc. It's just things the characters do, without needing to dwell on them excessively.

[Maelstrom]

They left the packs and saddles tied on! Not to mention they failed to groom them, check their hooves, etc. I'm not PETA fan, but I'd give some of these knights a talking to if I caught them in the act.

Easy to fix. All horses in your world should talk from now on.

With Brooklyn accents.

And foul language.

"Hey, I'm tryin' ta SLEEP over he-ar! Get this saddle off me, motherf(*$%!"

[Zeropoint]

In a short-lived D&D campaign, my character rode a mule. Not as flashy as a horse, but it was tougher than a horse, and that came in handy in the harsh environments we wound up traveling through.

If a mule is good enough for The Man With no Name, it's good enough for me. :)

[jtelson]

Horses and camels are herd animals, and can be dominated in a similar way. I seriously doubt you'd get the same sort of cooperation from a velociraptor; the only way you could expect to ride something like that without having to be constantly on guard would be if you could exert absolute mental and/or physical control over it.

This is true if you grabbed one out of the wild, but what would a raptor be like after 50 generations of selective breeding for size and ability to be trained, after 100, 1000. You don't need mental or physical control, when you've got genetic control.

We make the animals we need, that we want. Here Horses and Dogs were easy and did the trick, but in a fantasy setting? What animals would we need to fight a thousand year war against the Orcs, what would we want. What would they have? How would magic help with selective breeding?

[McCoy]

For that matter, consider a lancer on a rhinocerous.:sneaky:
My favorite Runequest character rode his loyal albino war-rhinocerous. It was not sapient at first, but became "awakened" when he reached Rune-Lord status and demanded that his mount also be his Ally (sort of a familiar Rune-Lords and Rune-Priest get, Allies can be living or disembodied spirits, advantages and disadvantages to both).

In that world, there were the Animal Nomads, cultures that rode the same animals they herded, buffalo, reindeer, llamas, but horses were always an option for player characters.


Overland travel... no more than 8 hours a day to allow for setup and breakdown of camp (which includes dealing with aforementioned animals). Push them and they suffer the penalties that players would from a forced march...
Yep, I allowed this to be streched to twelve hours a day if they got twice as many animals as they needed, riding half the horses and allowing the others to come allong unburdened, switching at midday. So they could get 50% more speed for twice the cost.

[DusterBoy]

Yeah, people treating horses like cars or motorbikes was what made Terry Pratchett come up with golem horses (Making Money).

Horses are beautiful animals, but they seem to be awfully fragile - and stupid.

A good thing to read is Poul Anderson's "On Thud and Blunder". Germane here is the fact that stallions don't make good mounts, at least for women, since stallions become uncontrollable around women when they're menstruating (apologies if this word gives offence). A mare or gelding is a better choice. Also it mentions that fact that any horse untrained for battle will become unmanagable. If a cavalryman was trained from birth, so was his horse. it's an essay loaded with gems like that, although I don't agree with all his conclusions.

If I had a horse, I'd walk it for most of the time and rest it as much as I could. I'd gallop it only when I had to.

There's a dman good reason predators don't get used as mounts. They're likely to see their riders as food . . .

[CTaylor]

Horses are beautiful animals, but they seem to be awfully fragile - and stupid.

Well modern horses tend to be, they've been bred to be fast, light, and obedient. If you get a shaggy mean plains horse, they are smaller, not as quick, but much tougher and smarter. The breed of horses that knights rode (destrier) has died out entirely, with shreds of its genetic stock in animals like the Clydesdale, it was nothing like a Kentucky racehorse.

I'd suspect that fantasy hero mounts would be more along these lines than the elegant, sleek riding horses of modern times.

[Markdoc]

A good thing to read is Poul Anderson's "On Thud and Blunder". Germane here is the fact that stallions don't make good mounts, at least for women, since stallions become uncontrollable around women when they're menstruating (apologies if this word gives offence). A mare or gelding is a better choice.

Incorrect. Horse react to a menstruating woman exactly as much as you react to a menstruating horse, which to say: don't notice.

Stallions were a poor choice of mount for general use, because when confronted with an unfamiliar stallion, they will often fight. Which is why a knight would usually have a riding horse (palfrey) which was normally either a mare or a gelding and a destrier (which was usually a stallion).

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

As for the horse thing, I have actuallly decided for the curent game "No Horses For You". I use big riding birds instead. This was a deliberate design decision, intended (and apparently successfully) to "shock" the players out the usual mindset as an easy way to point out "this is not medieval Europe".

cheers, Mark

[Vanguard00]

There was a campaign way back when--I know it was on the internet, but I don't remember names, dates, or anything else germaine--that used a variety of riding steeds for every day use, be they large flightless birds, ram/bovine-type creatures or whatever. Horses were relatively rare and reserved for military and government usage. I've been trying to find whatever it was I read (it might have been a world-builder thing and not a game) but am unsuccessful thus far.

In any case, it's yet one of many ideas.

[DusterBoy]

How about a stallion for a destrier, mare or gelding for general use and a mule for pack use - or is this over-complicating things?

And what if your stallion gets the hots for the mare? :D

[CTaylor]

Really rich and powerful people used to travel with a baggage train for a reason. Lets face it, riding ol' paint eight hours gets a bit uncomfortable and you're completely exposed to the elements. As Wang said in Big Trouble in Little China "a brave man likes the feel of the nature on his face," but Egg Shen pointed out that a wise man has enough sense to get in out of the rain.

[Lawnmower Boy]

The breed of horses that knights rode (destrier) has died out entirely, with shreds of its genetic stock in animals like the Clydesdale, it was nothing like a Kentucky racehorse.

This is a bit of a myth. Heavy cavalry has been with us from Roman times to 1914, and as late as 1914, heavy cavalry horses were as or more heavily laden than any medieval destrier. Stud farming was the aerospace industry of c.1200--1900. It did not lose stuff that mattered. If you catch the Olympic equestrian events, you will see the lineal descendants of medieval destriers doing what they do best.
It is true that heavy cavalry horses are not Arabian thoroughbreds. Horsebreeders refer to those as "warm blooded" animals, and suitable hunters (the basic heavy cavalry stock) are supposedly interbred European "cold" and "warm" animals. Not that this last is particularly scientific, or has anything to do with the use of these labels in biology.

[Vulcan]

How about a stallion for a destrier, mare or gelding for general use and a mule for pack use - or is this over-complicating things?

And what if your stallion gets the hots for the mare? :D

Then you get a colt for free!

(Just make sure you aren't trying to ride the mare at the time...)

[Vulcan]

This is a bit of a myth. Heavy cavalry has been with us from Roman times to 1914, and as late as 1914, heavy cavalry horses were as or more heavily laden than any medieval destrier. Stud farming was the aerospace industry of c.1200--1900. It did not lose stuff that mattered. If you catch the Olympic equestrian events, you will see the lineal descendants of medieval destriers doing what they do best.
It is true that heavy cavalry horses are not Arabian thoroughbreds. Horsebreeders refer to those as "warm blooded" animals, and suitable hunters (the basic heavy cavalry stock) are supposedly interbred European "cold" and "warm" animals. Not that this last is particularly scientific, or has anything to do with the use of these labels in biology.

It is my understanding that the true "Heavy Cavalry" warhorse has pretty much disappeared.

The Clydesdales are a poor man's version, being a draft breed. They were bred for working, not fighting. And the full-on "Heavy" warhorse averaged a couple hands larger than the modern draft breeds. HUGE animals!

The calvary started breeding for endurance and speed as gunpowder began to make the fully armored knight a lot less useful in battle. What the 19th century cavalry called 'heavy horse' would have been medium by medieval standards.

I note, however, that I am hardly an expert equestrian, much less equestrian history. This is mainly my understanding from long decades of casual interest due to my hobbies. :D

[CTaylor]

Yeah the knight's warhorse died out as a breed because the needs changed. Heavy cavalry was more about speed and endurance than strength and size.

[Chris-M]

In my never-ending (if intermittent) quest to be helpful, here are a couple of interesting links on the medieval horse issue, which I highly recommend for anyone who does use horses in a faux-medieval fantasy setting. Very interesting stuff.

Destriers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destrier)and Horses in the Middle Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_Middle_Ages).

[Lawnmower Boy]

Hey, thanks, Chris-M. I was going to come back with references to my own library, but to my chagrin, I got nothing, whereas the Wikipedia article he links to summarises the overwhelming evidence that late medieval war horses were exactly the same size as modern saddle horses.
Now I don't have to learn how to link, and can go back to teaching myself how to make fire with flint. (It gets dark in this cave after the great burning orb in the sky goes down.)

[CTaylor]

Yeah uh, about that Wikipedia thing ... ;)

[Chris-M]

Yeah uh, about that Wikipedia thing ... ;)

Not to thread drift too much, but while I'm aware that there are people who posit that everything on Wikipedia is wrong or made up, I have found that, when I have confirmed sources, it seems to be as accurate as any encyclopedia. Other than instances of deliberate article vandalism, do you have reason to believe, for instance, that the articles I linked to are historically inaccurate (they seem to agree with comments you've made in this thread, FWIW)? I do not mean that in a challenging way at all -- you may be right for all I know -- I'm just genuinely curious and want to know what I should be on the lookout for.

[Curufea]

The thing to lookout for is using it as a basis for any kind of academic research or authority work. The credentials of the people adding information are never verified and therefore the wiki can never be an authority.
However, it's often better information than what your friends know, or what is written on these boards - unless your friends have done a PhD on the subject you're asking them about.

[CTaylor]

do you have reason to believe, for instance, that the articles I linked to are historically inaccurate

Yes. There's a reason nearly every college and high school on earth tells students they cannot use Wiki as a source.

[Midas]

Yes. There's a reason nearly every college and high school on earth tells students they cannot use Wiki as a source.

Because a student might come across something that invalidates the teacher's canned lecture? :D

[jtelson]

Yes. There's a reason nearly every college and high school on earth tells students they cannot use Wiki as a source.

Ease of use, concerns about plagerism, cicumvents the need for actual research thus reducing depth of knowledge.

[Admiral C]

You know I have never seen anyone use giant crabs as a mount. Or giant goats for that matter. I've never seen a plant mount either, like a walking venus flytrap or living lily pads.

I came up with an idea, probably someone else did too, of using undead dinosaurs as undead (or living) troop transports. I even had the idea of placing siege equipment in them, a battering ram hanging in it's rib cage, catapults on it's back, siege tower/ladders running up it's neck. I imagine it coming up out of a lake or up a beach with dozens of undead riders in it's bare bones belly with wooden frameworks running this way and that.

I remember the only time I used a donkey was as a half orc fighter in a 3.5 game had one as a mount/sidekick. He never did anything but acted like comic relief, mostly by just standing there and me calling him a "stupid doloc!" after he eat something I needed or refused to answer a question or needed rescuing when the other players were rescuing a princess or something. I swore to the other players they were going to be running through a dungeon with some elven maiden, bags of treasure, etc. and I'll be running along with that donkey over my shoulder with some sort of jeweled barding hanging from him.

[Curufea]

Ease of use, concerns about plagerism, cicumvents the need for actual research thus reducing depth of knowledge.

And lack of authority.

[CTaylor]

Yeah. And lack of consistency, the fact that any jobu can edit anything, the fact that certain factions of Wikipedia's management tend to edit things for a specific slant, etc.

Wikipedia is about worthless for anything other than the list of links at the bottom where you can do real research.

Crabs would make a pretty good mount, if a bit odd in terms of movement. Very smooth ride, tough, has some offense.

[Vulcan]

Eberron has the siege crab - a giant crab (like 50' across) magically turned into a castle-cracking war machine.

[Chris-M]

Yes. There's a reason nearly every college and high school on earth tells students they cannot use Wiki as a source.

When I was in college we weren't allowed to cite any encyclopedia as a source, not because the information was assumed to be false but because we were required to research our own source material and corroborate important claims with at least three independent sources. I don't really feel that's the level of intellectual rigor required of message board discussions. :)

There has been a lot of sensational stuff written about political vandalism and personal/biographical character assassination on Wikipedia, but I'm not too concerned about net hooligans posting false information about horses in the Middle Ages. I would certainly go do my own research if I were going to write an authoritative work on destriers or something, but I think in most instances it's a more credible source than not knowing anything or what some person I don't know personally says about something. And I figure if it says something wildly and nakedly untrue, someone who knows more about it than I do won't be able to resist pointing this fact out with some enthusiasm, discussion will ensue, more credible sources will be cited, and we will all be made wise. :)

All of this and more will be covered in my upcoming -- and highly authoritative and historically accurate -- book, The Lazy Intellectual. [Please note, the presence of any actual intellectual content will be purely coincidental. ]

Anyway, getting back to the horse/no-horse thing, I think a spell that turns horses into savage, man-eating beasts, cast by an evil cleric on an adventuring party at an inopportune moment, would be a really mean (but fun) trick.

[Maelstrom]

I've never seen a plant mount either, like a walking venus flytrap or living lily pads.

Do Ents count?

[Markdoc]

Anyway, getting back to the horse/no-horse thing, I think a spell that turns horses into savage, man-eating beasts, cast by an evil cleric on an adventuring party at an inopportune moment, would be a really mean (but fun) trick.

In a long ago D&D game, my character Fonographix the bard was annoyed when his trusty horse of the week would get fireballed (or lightning-bolted or cone of cold'd or whatever) out from underneath him. He went up north managed to capture (and charm) a pair of Tyrannosauruses and then had our mage polymorph them into horses (for ease of riding).

There never were more foul-tempered warhorses, but it was worth it just to have an 18 HD warhorse!

cheers, Mark

[DusterBoy]

Anyway, getting back to the horse/no-horse thing, I think a spell that turns horses into savage, man-eating beasts, cast by an evil cleric on an adventuring party at an inopportune moment, would be a really mean (but fun) trick.

You are one sick puppy . . . but that's just sheer genius.

Repped

[Lord Liaden]

You know I have never seen anyone use giant crabs as a mount. Or giant goats for that matter. I've never seen a plant mount either, like a walking venus flytrap or living lily pads.

I recall the old Gamma World game setting had a mutated "centaur cactus." The illustration for the plant had four branches arranged like the legs of a horse, with part of the truck horizontal and the rest upraised like a head. The cactus had the capacity to walk from one water source to another.

That could make a cool steed, if you were willing to take the time to trim its needles, at least where you sat. ;)

[CTaylor]

Yeah one of the demons I created is a Corrupter, I built a template of fel- for animals and such that can be added on, giving them various nasty abilities. The Corrupter has a transform he can use to turn pets and mounts into fel- pets and mounts and turn them against the party. Very high point cost, nobody has run into one ... yet.

[Maur]

Yeah. And lack of consistency, the fact that any jobu can edit anything, the fact that certain factions of Wikipedia's management tend to edit things for a specific slant, etc.


They put political slant into horses of medieval ages or in math? I know it, like any source edited by people has slants when it comes to some topics, but that doesn't invalidate the entirety of the body of work...



Wikipedia is about worthless for anything other than the list of links at the bottom where you can do real research.

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britanni ca_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia

[Ragnarok]

One my friends ran a very interesting campaign. I never had the chance to partake in it, but it was basically a civil war between the forces of Hell, after they had conquered the earth. The devils were trying to establish themselves as the world order, and the demons...well...were still spreading chaos. Anyhoo, the PCs (who were devils) rode around on fel steeds: monstrous, jet black horned horses with flaming eyes and hooves. Just throwing that out there...

[Worldmaker]

I've adapted boars, rams, goats, and elk as riding beasts in my campaigns before.

[Lord Liaden]

Of course, riding dragons into battle is probably the epitome of bad-@$$ cool. :cool:

[Curufea]

But it's rare and probably takes an entire kingdom to keep the dragon fed.
There's nothing wrong with riding carnivores - if you don't break reality too much and create some kind of infrastructure to support them.
Very rich folk could afford to maintain the more outrageous mounts.

[Chris-M]

Good point, Curufea. That actually reminds me: I've always liked Moorcock's idea about the Melnibonean dragons sleeping for decades or centuries (whatever it was) after being awakened and used in battle, and I think that's an idea that could be applied to other exotic mounts/war-beasts in different ways.

[Curufea]

I'm all for fantasy elements, but if you as a GM, don't have some valid reasons for things, or a bit knowledge on how it could work - sooner or later your PCs will pull you up on it. Most likely by exploiting a plot hole, or continuity error you hadn't thought of yet. So it's best to make the continuity whole before introducing PCs to it (in my opinion).

[Chris-M]

In a long ago D&D game, my character Fonographix the bard was annoyed when his trusty horse of the week would get fireballed (or lightning-bolted or cone of cold'd or whatever) out from underneath him. He went up north managed to capture (and charm) a pair of Tyrannosauruses and then had our mage polymorph them into horses (for ease of riding).

There never were more foul-tempered warhorses, but it was worth it just to have an 18 HD warhorse!

Please tell me that at some point you ran up against some bad guys and had the wizard un-polymorph them. :eg:

(Hmm...how many d6 of extra Presence Attack would you give for that?) :)

[Chris-M]

I'm all for fantasy elements, but if you as a GM, don't have some valid reasons for things, or a bit knowledge on how it could work - sooner or later your PCs will pull you up on it. Most likely by exploiting a plot hole, or continuity error you hadn't thought of yet. So it's best to make the continuity whole before introducing PCs to it (in my opinion).

I think part of the fun of fantasy worldbuilding/GMing is coming up with fun, new, crazy, fantastical stuff. That said, I think yours is sage advice that any GM would be wise to follow. The balance between creative freedom and logic can be a challenging line to walk, and I suppose we each choose which side we err on.

[steamteck]

I recall the old Gamma World game setting had a mutated "centaur cactus." The illustration for the plant had four branches arranged like the legs of a horse, with part of the truck horizontal and the rest upraised like a head. The cactus had the capacity to walk from one water source to another.

That could make a cool steed, if you were willing to take the time to trim its needles, at least where you sat. ;)

I remember the Pinetos or horse cacti!. one controlled it with a sharp goad behind its sensory root clump where the head should be. `

[Curufea]

I think part of the fun of fantasy worldbuilding/GMing is coming up with fun, new, crazy, fantastical stuff. That said, I think yours is sage advice that any GM would be wise to follow. The balance between creative freedom and logic can be a challenging line to walk, and I suppose we each choose which side we err on.

It's a style thing. If you prepare beforehand you'll get a more epic-type fantasy setting. If you come up with stuff on the fly (like I do with Western Shores) - you get a more pulp serial type of fantasy. It's better for the more light hearted adventures where there isn't a lot of planning by the PCs involved, or the background history isn't delved into too far.

I also recommend copious notes - just in case.

[Maelstrom]

IIRC, Heinlein used horses in "Glory Road", but they had eight legs. If you want a nonstandard mount, maybe a standard mount with some subtle differences. Not quite a pushme-pullyou, unless your tastes run that way.

I'd use the new Spore Creature maker to create new mounts. They're a little cartoony, true.

Personally, I'd like to ride a Ki-rin.

[Lawnmower Boy]

By the way, the Wikipedia article above was not distorting quotes from the acknowledged expert, Ann Hyland (The Medieval Warhorse, 1250--1600 [{an address in the U.K deliberately chosen because the publishing group hates librarians}*: Sutton Publishing, 1998). She doesn't pull in zooarchaeology, but people might be interested in knowing that Leonardo da Vinci, Albrecht Durer and others made scale drawings of medieval warhorses.
There's also a neat picture (p. 38) of the Lithuanian draft horse (15.5 hands, but a little more robust than the modern saddle horse) that the Royal Armouries have bought to show off their collection of late medieval panoply. It fits to a "T," indicating, as suspected for a long time, that the references from late medieval times referring to efforts to buy larger horses were targetting animals the size of the modern hunter/Olympics equestrian horse.
The knight's charger was smaller, albeit more solidlly built, than the modern saddle horse.


*Phoenix Mills, Thrupp, Stroud, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom. You type that into your dissertation bibliography a few dozen times....

[Curufea]

I'd use the new Spore Creature maker to create new mounts. They're a little cartoony, true.

I love the creature creature, I can hardly wait for the game to come out.

[CTaylor]

Just remember, nobody wants to ride a penis creature, even if they are apparently easy to make with Spore.

[Worldmaker]

I'm all for fantasy elements, but if you as a GM, don't have some valid reasons for things, or a bit knowledge on how it could work - sooner or later your PCs will pull you up on it. Most likely by exploiting a plot hole, or continuity error you hadn't thought of yet. So it's best to make the continuity whole before introducing PCs to it (in my opinion).


Yeah, but if its fantasy, isn't there a point where its legitimate to just say "Magic!" and let it go?

[Maelstrom]

Just remember, nobody wants to ride a penis creature, even if they are apparently easy to make with Spore.

My collection of pr0n says that you're wrong -- half the human race wants to, if you just bring a pizza or come over to fix the plumbing. :yes:

[Midas]

Originally Posted by Curufea
I'm all for fantasy elements, but if you as a GM, don't have some valid reasons for things, or a bit knowledge on how it could work - sooner or later your PCs will pull you up on it. Most likely by exploiting a plot hole, or continuity error you hadn't thought of yet. So it's best to make the continuity whole before introducing PCs to it (in my opinion).


Yeah, but if its fantasy, isn't there a point where its legitimate to just say "Magic!" and let it go?

As an ardent simulationist, my answer is, whenever I can't come up with an answer to "How does that work?"

For ex: Say you're designing a world where the elves are truly *fey.* Not pointy eared woods runners -but spirits clothed in flesh, for the moment. And as such, they are vulnerable to "cold iron." Why? Maybe it's psychosomatic. Maybe it's an allergic reaction that their chosen form must bear. Maybe they can feel the heat from the earth's core, through the iron. OK, go with the allergy. "Why can't they make a body that doesn't react to iron?" "Donno. Magic, I guess." :o

Actually, I'd skull on it a while and go to or three levels deeper before shrugging it off to magic, but the example should work.

Midas

[Ragnarok]

Yeah, but if its fantasy, isn't there a point where its legitimate to just say "Magic!" and let it go?


Well.......In my mind, not really.

Even though you may not be able to logically explain how a huge dragon can support its weight in the air, you should always at least try to strive to attain some sort of realism in your fantasy world.

After all, who wants to live in a glittery world full of fantastic flying manbearpigs who teleport all over the place? Not me...

[Captain Obvious]

I kind of have it both ways. Some things need to be rationally (at least cinematically rationally) explained, and other things just are. Fey and iron is a "they just are" sort of thing, while feeding a mount is a rational thing, IMO.

[Worldmaker]

Okay, my mind is whirling at the concept of "realism" in a fantasy setting. :D But I'll take it on faith. I guess what you mean is more "internal consistency" than "realism".

But still... there has to be some point at which you no longer try to explain every little detail and just assume that magic is the cause. As Captain Obvious said, some things just are.

But... if you really need a rational explanation for dragons not bankrupting the kingdom and so on, just say they only eat once a month or so on, and that they get by on a single cow or something. I mean, there's realism and then there's realism, and if you must have a reason behind things, there's no... well, reason why the reason has to be the same thing in this world.

It is fantasy after all.

[DusterBoy]

About Elvish/fey vulnerability to cold iron, in "Lords and ladies", Terry Pratchett says that amongst other things, it disrupts their ability to sense a magical variant of magnetic fields described as lines of glittering silver, an ability which explains how they can never get lost.

[Shadowsoul]

You don't need modern scientific logic for this sort of thing. You need the logic of myth.

One could use the ideas associated with classical philosophy and renaissance magic. Everything corresponds to particular celestial influences and is thus connected. In this case Iron is linked to Earth which is opposed to the celestial influence which Elves or Faeries are linked to or made from.

Or one could say that an ancient creator god or other powerful being granted the Elves mastery over many mystical elements of the spirit, (which is why they can perform magic), but reserved the mastery of iron for humankind and with this mastery the humans crafted many fine and useful things. Seeing this the Elves grew discontented with their portion and rose up to wrest the secrets of blacksmithing from the hands of men. The God grew angry, (in fact since he was a creator god he probably grew wroth), and he cursed the Elves.

"You would take that which is not rightly yours. But iron knows those who should be its masters and it knows you not. From this day forth the spirits of iron shall strike down any who shall lay hands upon them unless they be of the race of men whom iron knows as its rightful lords."

Less dramatically, if iron is 'human magic' then it cancels out 'Elven Magic' which is less tied to the material world and thus weaker in some ways although it is less limited.

[Vulcan]

I always thought the cold-forged iron vs. fay thing came out of European folk tales. In general, the fay could not be injured by normal steel, but something about cold-forged iron screwed with them.

Of course, this came out of the same cultures that determined the best way to prove a woman was a witch was to tie her up and thow her in a pond. If she survived, she must have used magic and was a witch. If she drowned, well, I guess she wasn't a witch after all...:rolleyes:

[Curufea]

Yeah, but if its fantasy, isn't there a point where its legitimate to just say "Magic!" and let it go?

That doesn't work for all players though. And they will pull you up on consistency - you need to remember what you allow and what you don't allow when a PC proposes it. Either you take notes and remember to check them - or you understand how the world works so you can give consistent answers.

I don't view this as realism - realism is a separate issue. This is internal consistency so the players can still remain in the moment as much as possible.

[Curufea]

I always thought the cold-forged iron vs. fay thing came out of European folk tales. In general, the fay could not be injured by normal steel, but something about cold-forged iron screwed with them.

Of course, this came out of the same cultures that determined the best way to prove a woman was a witch was to tie her up and thow her in a pond. If she survived, she must have used magic and was a witch. If she drowned, well, I guess she wasn't a witch after all...:rolleyes:

I've always thought it was a throwback to the picts who tended to use bronze weapons versus the roman iron.

[Zeropoint]

I always thought the cold-forged iron vs. fay thing came out of European folk tales. In general, the fay could not be injured by normal steel, but something about cold-forged iron screwed with them.

I've always assumed that the "cold" in "cold iron" was simply descriptive . . . room-temperature iron feels cold when you touch it. We sometimes use the term "cold steel" to describe knives and swords today (in fact, there is a knife company NAMED Cold Steel).

The Wikipedia article for Cold Iron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_iron) confirms that the idea of "cold iron" as a special kind of iron is a modern invention, mainly of roleplaying games. Historically, "cold iron" just meant . . . iron and steel.

[Vulcan]

That could be it. Bronze wasn't enough, you needed iron...

[DusterBoy]

According to wikipedia (so place what faith in this you will) bronze is stronger (harder) than wrought iron. Archeologists suspect that migrations around 1200 BCE to 1100 BCE disrupted the trade in tin and precipitated the Iron Age. Then ironworking techniques improved, with better quality iron and then, of course humans learned to make steel, which holds a sharper edge longer, than bronze.

[Markdoc]

According to wikipedia (so place what faith in this you will) bronze is stronger (harder) than wrought iron.

I never write off wiki "just because" but in this case, it's dead wrong.

First off "hardness" can be measured lots of ways, but regardless of whether you use Brinell, Knoop, or Rockwell hardness values, iron is 2-3 times harder than Bronze - for example Brinell values of 183 - 234 for cast iron or around 150 for wrought iron versus 60-80 for Bronze.

If you want to do your own comparisons, go here: http://www.matweb.com

cheers, Mark

[Lawnmower Boy]

I never write off wiki "just because" but in this case, it's dead wrong.

First off "hardness" can be measured lots of ways, but regardless of whether you use Brinell, Knoop, or Rockwell hardness values, iron is 2-3 times harder than Bronze - for example Brinell values of 183 - 234 for cast iron or around 150 for wrought iron versus 60-80 for Bronze.

If you want to do your own comparisons, go here: http://www.matweb.com

cheers, Mark
Things can get a little complicated with composition and treatment details. I remember a description (Journal of Metallurgical History, for those who want to geek out at length) of a shot-peened bronze helmet deposited as a votive offering sometime in the 400s BC. Clearly this laborious hardening treatment gave it a much higher surface hardness than a typical bronze piece. Was it it harder than a typical Early Iron Age wrought iron piece? I do not know. But then, wrought iron's advantages lie in its toughness, not hardness.
Certainly Drew, Early Riders, builds his case for the contemporary development of horseriding with iron-making on the advantages of iron bits. Here we are probably talking about cemented pieces, though.
In short, better to go long: many questions about how iron works are hard to answer briefly. Take a look at your local technical library's copy of Making, Shaping and Treatment of Iron and Steel, the definitive textbook by the Iron and Steel Institute of America. If you need to go the Wiki route, I'm sure that the "Iron and Steel" article in the 11th Edition of the Encyclopaedica Britannica is available through Wikisource.

[Old Man]

But then, wrought iron's advantages lie in its toughness, not hardness.

Well, maybe. But bronze just won't hold an edge no matter how you treat it. Iron is... better.

[Markdoc]

Well, maybe. But bronze just won't hold an edge no matter how you treat it. Iron is... better.

Actually, it holds and edge better .... because it's harder. It's really not that complicated.

You can, as Lawnmower boy mentioned, treat bronze to make it slightly harder - but of course you can treat iron to make it harder still. "Hardness" can be measured differently (resistance to penetration, flexibility to impact, reistance to scratching, ability to scratch, etc). Depending on which of those methods you choose ..... iron is harder.

Bronze is more ductile - meaning it deforms better under stress (Ductility is measured in percent deformation before breaking, and Bronze has a score of around 30% compared to 6% for iron). But deforming under stress is exactly what you don't want in weapons or armour - Marshmallow has great ductility, after all.

Last of all, there's "toughness" (Tensile Strength) - which is the ability to distribute sudden stress (meaning how likely the material is to break under sudden impact, say). For this measurement, Iron is slightly tougher than bronze.

All round, Iron replaced bronze in most places because it's easier to obtain (there's lots of iron ore about once you know how to extract it) and it makes better weapon/tool making material. Bronze was retained when a little deformation is good (cannons, for example: bronze was preferred over iron for precisely its "error tolerance").

cheers, Mark

[Worldmaker]

That doesn't work for all players though. And they will pull you up on consistency - you need to remember what you allow and what you don't allow when a PC proposes it. Either you take notes and remember to check them - or you understand how the world works so you can give consistent answers.

I don't view this as realism - realism is a separate issue. This is internal consistency so the players can still remain in the moment as much as possible.


I never said don't strive for internal consistency... I just think that, seeing as this is fantasy, then "magic" is just as logical a reason for something to happen as any other reason. Why are fairies allergic to cold iron? Magic. Why does sunlight kill vampires and silver kill werewolves? Magic. Sure, its a bit of a band-aid answer, but its still a legitimate answer.

Unless you're running a game with no magic, that is.

[Ragnarok]

I never said don't strive for internal consistency... I just think that, seeing as this is fantasy, then "magic" is just as logical a reason for something to happen as any other reason. Why are fairies allergic to cold iron? Magic. Why does sunlight kill vampires and silver kill werewolves? Magic. Sure, its a bit of a band-aid answer, but its still a legitimate answer.

Unless you're running a game with no magic, that is.

I see what you're saying here, and I agree. I think a big part of fantasy is....things happen which cannot be explained logically (at least by our standards now.) I think that's part of the appeal. Of course, you don't want to go over the edge and overindulge, but as long as you keep it within that boundary, I agree.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Actually, it holds and edge better .... because it's harder. It's really not that complicated.

All round, Iron replaced bronze in most places because it's easier to obtain (there's lots of iron ore about once you know how to extract it) and it makes better weapon/tool making material. Bronze was retained when a little deformation is good (cannons, for example: bronze was preferred over iron for precisely its "error tolerance").

cheers, Mark
The first part hits the (cheap, iron) nail on the head. The second part is an area where it is complicated. I'm skeptical about the ductility claim because bronze guns have been dissected, and they are rarely homogenously bronze all the way through. The mix of tin and copper, never mind other alloys, varies greatly depending on the location in the gun. They may have been optimised for ductility where it mattered by casting practice, but that isn't clear.
The main reason that bronze guns persisted (and I've had to argue this a great deal with an expert) is that large pieces of cast iron were, for a long time, crap. I started to give the reasons below (as I understand them) why that is the case, but old time ironfounders can't discuss the chemistry without getting into the methods, and the discussion quickly becomes tedious and arcane. There's issues of slag and carbon monoxide inclusions ("sponginess"), of carburisation and of neutralising the ore.
Again, I think I'm on secure grounds in calling the question complicated.

[Curufea]

I see what you're saying here, and I agree. I think a big part of fantasy is....things happen which cannot be explained logically (at least by our standards now.) I think that's part of the appeal. Of course, you don't want to go over the edge and overindulge, but as long as you keep it within that boundary, I agree.

Ditto.

The problem is that magic is "a magic answer" (it's a bit like "Intelligent Design" in that regard) - it's an answer to questions without actually being an answer or explaining anything. If you, as a GM, answer the reasons behind something as magic too often, then the generalisations can lead to problems in problem solving for the PCs. If magic is the answer to everything, the PCs will always assume magic will also solve all their problems.

For example - why does cold iron work against fairies, but not elves, or not dragons, or not demons? Surely they are also magical beings? Or against ghosts. Can a magic user carry any cold iron on them?

You can still have magic, but it shouldn't be the final answer - just the initial gloss. Again, you, as a GM, should know the details of things for consistency.
You can quote "it's magic" but you should know "the fae, as creatures of organic plant life, magically personified are elementally against things of the earth - cold iron is the embodiment of the earth element" or similar (think up any reason why cold iron should affect fairies in your world, but stick to that reason). That way, as a GM, the magic answer works for fairies, but not other magical creatures.

[Maur]

Answer... You, as Players, don't know why they are, just common knowledge that they are...

[Ragnarok]

Ditto.

The problem is that magic is "a magic answer" (it's a bit like "Intelligent Design" in that regard) - it's an answer to questions without actually being an answer or explaining anything. If you, as a GM, answer the reasons behind something as magic too often, then the generalisations can lead to problems in problem solving for the PCs. If magic is the answer to everything, the PCs will always assume magic will also solve all their problems.

For example - why does cold iron work against fairies, but not elves, or not dragons, or not demons? Surely they are also magical beings? Or against ghosts. Can a magic user carry any cold iron on them?

You can still have magic, but it shouldn't be the final answer - just the initial gloss. Again, you, as a GM, should know the details of things for consistency.
You can quote "it's magic" but you should know "the fae, as creatures of organic plant life, magically personified are elementally against things of the earth - cold iron is the embodiment of the earth element" or similar (think up any reason why cold iron should affect fairies in your world, but stick to that reason). That way, as a GM, the magic answer works for fairies, but not other magical creatures.

Right. I don't think Gregg or I are advocating the automatic "just because it's magic" style. I think what we both realize the need for logical explanations of things, just that fantasy, as a rule, lies outside "normal" human logical reasoning, and as a result, more things are explained by magic. Of course it helps to integrate reasoning into magical things, and to try to have a story behind as much as you can, but at some point some things are impossible to explain by science.

[Captain Obvious]

As far as laymen are concerned, some things in science can't be explained by science.

[Zeropoint]

As far as laymen are concerned, some things in science can't be explained by science.

Like, "why do things have mass?"

[lemming]

Like, "why do things have mass?"

Twinkies

[QueenOfItAll]

Amongst dinosaurs I would suggest Iguanadon, or other herbiverous, herd-forming creatures of moderate size.

I remember a game where the lizardmen (not called that, but effectively they were) rode Komodo dragons. My disbelief was hung, not suspeded, as Komodos are utterly fierce and utterly fearless. Taming them would be impossible.

[Maelstrom]

Like, "why do things have mass?"

Ugh. Good question though! :thumbup:

[QueenOfItAll]

I always thought the cold-forged iron vs. fay thing came out of European folk tales. In general, the fay could not be injured by normal steel, but something about cold-forged iron screwed with them.
It is widely regarded by folklorists, ethnologists, et al., that the origin of myths of elves come from distorted memories and tales of the peoples inhabiting Europe before the iron-using Celts. The lack of iron, and the reaction of fear and longing towards this "magic" metal, were transfomed in tales (by the iron users) to a "magic allergy".

BTW, there is nothing about "cannot be hurt by normal steel" to the myth. The (over)use of the phrase "cold iron" is a poetic turn of phrase; the old legends have it that the mere touch of any form of iron would harm elves.


Of course, this came out of the same cultures that determined the best way to prove a woman was a witch was to tie her up and thow her in a pond. If she survived, she must have used magic and was a witch. If she drowned, well, I guess she wasn't a witch after all...:rolleyes:
Oh no; the witch-water myth is millenia later than the elves-iron myth. It is a specifically christian idea: the water of baptism will reject one who has rejected the connection to god that baptism formed. The witch does not use magic to prevent drowning; the priest uses the magic inherent in baptism to show the witch has severed herself from christendom. The ides is still garbage, but a significantly different sort of garbage. ;)

[Curufea]

..ology - the study of something to determine what kind of garbage it is :)

[QueenOfItAll]

For a "no horse" fantasy setting, where the GM wants a high degree of verisimilitude, I would recommend camels and similar creatures. A camel-like creature that evolved to tolerate humidity, or a larger cousin of the llama would be good.

As well, one can imagine the evolution of a smaller elephant, or a larger tapir.

Indeed, the megafauna of the Pleistocene are a rich source of ancestors of imaginary riding animals.

[DusterBoy]

Ah, now we get to Sir Arthur C Clarke and his belief that a compact version of the elephant would be an excellent choice for short-range personal transport. It is the only quadruped capable of precision handling operations - a job they are already used for in South-east Asia, at least.

And I like elephants. :)

[Worldmaker]

Ditto.
You can still have magic, but it shouldn't be the final answer - just the initial gloss. Again, you, as a GM, should know the details of things for consistency.

You can quote "it's magic" but you should know "the fae, as creatures of organic plant life, magically personified are elementally against things of the earth - cold iron is the embodiment of the earth element" or similar (think up any reason why cold iron should affect fairies in your world, but stick to that reason). That way, as a GM, the magic answer works for fairies, but not other magical creatures.


And if that's the way you want to do it, go for it. :D Your game, your rules. As a GM, I find "it's magic" is a suitable explanation for why cold iron hurts fairies but not dragons, because there's nothing to say that magic can't be as arbitrary as anything else in the world.

And again, I'm not saying use "it's magic" for the explanation for everything... just that since we are talking about fantasy, I don't have to come up with a huge set of "magical laws" that explain whatever magical whoozits occur in my gameworld. As long as I know that magic works that way, and the players know that magic works that way, then there's no need to go any further into it, in my opinion. But like I said, your game your rules. :D





Right. I don't think Gregg or I are advocating the automatic "just because it's magic" style. I think what we both realize the need for logical explanations of things, just that fantasy, as a rule, lies outside "normal" human logical reasoning, and as a result, more things are explained by magic. Of course it helps to integrate reasoning into magical things, and to try to have a story behind as much as you can, but at some point some things are impossible to explain by science.


Precisely.

[JmOz]

Ostriges (sp)...just saying...(Remember it from a cartoon I use to watch as a kid, don't remember much more, but one of the characters rode a big bird...)

[Kristopher]

Saying "it's magic" and leaving it at that strikes me as something along these lines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

[Worldmaker]

Saying "it's magic" and leaving it at that strikes me as something along these lines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story


Sure, and if we were dealing with solid, fact-based reality, it would be a problem. This is fantasy, though, so its not that big a deal.

[Ragnarok]

Sure, and if we were dealing with solid, fact-based reality, it would be a problem. This is fantasy, though, so its not that big a deal.

I don't think they get it, Gregg. *shrug*

:dh:

[Chris-M]

I don't think you guys are all that far apart. Saying "it's magic" is fine in some instances, in other instances players will ask quite-natural questions about what kind of magic and why it works that way in one instance and not another. Nobody's saying you have to write up a 200-page tome to explain how things work in your fantasy world, and one can easily explain or handwave these sorts of questions as long as you've given them a little thought. Sometimes what you make up to explain things will create more questions but other times they'll suggest excellent new ideas for adventures or items or monsters or whatever.

Again, I don't think this is terribly different than what Gregg is saying. I think what some of the other folks are saying is that if the only explanation for inexplicable things is "it's magic," your players will begin to hear "I don't know; I don't think these things through" instead, and shaking the faith your players have in the setting is seldom a good thing. It's up to each of us as individual GMs to know our players and to give them the consistency and reasonable explanations they require to enjoy the game -- remember, the players are the customers, and the customers are never wrong (except when they build their characters or complain about things in combat :D).

[Captain Obvious]

Saying "it's magic" and leaving it at that strikes me as something along these lines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

Fantasy is rife with just-so stories. Just-so stories are what myths are made of.

An airtight world history with integral magic system is great, but not really necessary for fantasy. Decent fantasy settings can be (and have been) built on ground as shaky as dreams, where even the landscape can change from minute to minute.

[Curufea]

I do think they're different approaches - but they also fit different player styles.
If you have players that are more fantastical in their approach, and roleplay as though they were within a fairy tale or fantasy story - the "it's magic" approach is perfect.
I generally don't have those kinds of players, except at cons where the blurb spells out that setting or rule knowledge is a hindrance.
My players still tend to approach everything with a scientific or logical mindset. Possibly because they played cyberpunk or shadowrun type games, where success in a mission was determined by planning. Rather than going with the flow, they will think things through - which is out of character for heroic fantasy. But not for some other types of fantasy (such as modern literature tends to show).

[Worldmaker]

I do think they're different approaches - but they also fit different player styles.
If you have players that are more fantastical in their approach, and roleplay as though they were within a fairy tale or fantasy story - the "it's magic" approach is perfect.
I generally don't have those kinds of players, except at cons where the blurb spells out that setting or rule knowledge is a hindrance.
My players still tend to approach everything with a scientific or logical mindset. Possibly because they played cyberpunk or shadowrun type games, where success in a mission was determined by planning. Rather than going with the flow, they will think things through - which is out of character for heroic fantasy. But not for some other types of fantasy (such as modern literature tends to show).



There you go. :D


My players are my sons, my niece, and one of their friends. They range in age from 14 to 16 and are way ready to accept things on faith. Their main requirement is that I get the myths right if I base something on "real world" myths or legends.

[QueenOfItAll]

If one wishes to use explanations more exact than "It's magic," one should be careful the explanations do not demand explanations themselves.

E.g., I once had a GM who said "elves are hurt by iron because it's at the bottom of the fraction packing curve." Naturally, we all asked why elves were sensetive to such a thing. "Hilarity ensued."

[Midas]

Amongst dinosaurs I would suggest Iguanadon, or other herbiverous, herd-forming creatures of moderate size.

I remember a game where the lizardmen (not called that, but effectively they were) rode Komodo dragons. My disbelief was hung, not suspeded, as Komodos are utterly fierce and utterly fearless. Taming them would be impossible.


Here's a photo that will tear your disbelief down from the scaffold and eat it! :sneaky:


http://www.coolminiornot.com/index/whatc/Fantasy/id/68599

I have been looking through CMoN for inspiration and I just found that post. Couldn't help but post it.

Midas

[Curufea]

Just look up Dark Elves and Cold Ones - they've been in WFB since first edition.

[Worldmaker]

Yeah, the coolness factor for using big lizards, if not dinosaurs, as riding animals for savage tribes outweighs the "that isn't logical", I think. And I know, this could break open the "magic/logic" argument again, but there's something to be said for including things in a campaign just for the "awesomeness".


Something I thought about the other day was "why replace horses at all?" Sure, it limits the broad scale of the campaign, but if you're setting the campiagn in one small area (as opposed to a Eurasia-sized continent), then walking becomes a valid option for land travel. For really long distances, just make sure boats are available to get the players close enough to walk to where they are going.

[Markdoc]

Yeah, the coolness factor for using big lizards, if not dinosaurs, as riding animals for savage tribes outweighs the "that isn't logical", I think. And I know, this could break open the "magic/logic" argument again, but there's something to be said for including things in a campaign just for the "awesomeness".available to get the players close enough to walk to where they are going.

Actually, if they were around, big lizards are not even that illogical. Reptiles require far less feeding than mammals and in areas where snakes are a top predator, the landscape supports a predator density that would be unimaginable with mammals. Of course this means that your riding mounts are going to spend a deal of time sleeping :D

cheers, Mark

[Jkeown]

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1170820#post1170820

How's this? I did this a while back, but maybe it's relevent to this thread... If not... :doi:

[Chris-M]

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1170820#post1170820

How's this? I did this a while back, but maybe it's relevent to this thread... If not... :doi:

Are you kidding? That's a great link for this thread! Lots of nice suggestions there.

[Maelstrom]

Actually, I think the use of magic in this way is what I hate most about fantasy. Maybe that's why I like Game of Thrones so much.

[Midas]

Just look up Dark Elves and Cold Ones - they've been in WFB since first edition.

http://www.coolminiornot.com/index/whatc/Fantasy/id/197372

Like this?

OK, going with WFP, are riding wolves (for WFB goblins, about half man size); Riding hogs (for orcs); The Tsar rides a bear, but I think that is a special case. Also the savage jungle goblins ride spiders.

I'm considering a bronze age campaign with nomadic steppe amazons. I was considering having each tribe have a totem animal, perhaps only the nobility riding their totem animal:

http://members.optushome.com.au/cynan/Miniatures.htm

Consider the rhino riders, the sabertooth riders, and the terror bird riders. If each tribe kept a few of their totem, and traded breeding stock with other tribes in the clan, would this strain suspension?

Midas

[Vulcan]

That's not a standard GW Cold One, that's a raptor of some sort! The Cold Ones are a lot chubbyier and don't have the killing claw on the foot. I'd love to know who makes that mini!

As far as the Totem Animal idea, I think that's really good. Of course, the Terror Bird tribe is going to have a rough time against the Rhinocerous Tribe...

[Midas]

That's not a standard GW Cold One, that's a raptor of some sort! The Cold Ones are a lot chubbyier and don't have the killing claw on the foot. I'd love to know who makes that mini!

As far as the Totem Animal idea, I think that's really good. Of course, the Terror Bird tribe is going to have a rough time against the Rhinocerous Tribe...

Odd, both that link and this one: http://www.coolminiornot.com/index/whatc/Fantasy/id/197801

Say GW as manufacturer, but even I can see that they are dif critters. I think someone should launch a congressional investigation! Ooops sorry, :o NGD syndrome. :eg:

One on one, yeah, but I was considering the Rhino people could field *one* woolly rhino ridden by the Queen, her personal champion, and a drover. Rich tribes could field *two*. The Terror Bird people OTOH could field a small Queen's Guard of perhaps half a dozen birds. All bets are off when nations go to war, of course. Since it is bronze age, I suspect the rest of the warriors would be either light foot with a few pony riders or chariots for the rest of the nobles.

What I don't want is a Prax clone (I've done that in another campaign :) ).

Midas

[Vulcan]

I stand correced.

GW just released a new line of Cold Ones, and they are indeed modeled on raptors. The figure in the picture is a great example of what they look like now.

They look a heck of a lot cooler than the previous versions!

[Enforcer84]

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1170820#post1170820

How's this? I did this a while back, but maybe it's relevent to this thread... If not... :doi:
Rep to you sir!

[Enforcer84]

I like WoW's and other video games handling of the mounts, I like unusual and original, so my worls has many different types.

Birds for the plains
Goats for the moutains
Horses for multiple terrain
Lizards for the deserts
Dolphins for the sea living

much rarer:
Lions (or other felines)
Rhinos
Elephants
Griffons
Dragons
Wolves (or other canines)
Golems
Bats
Butterflies
Bears
Bulls/Oxen/Buffalo
I don't really care, as long as the players are happy and they pay points for the mounts that do more than carry their goods.