Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

[eternal_sage]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

Ditto on that. When I first saw this thread' date=' my response was "My god, someone's found the American history version of the dreaded [i']what-can-a-katana-really-do[/i] question!"

 

oh...well a KATANA could hang off the side of galloping horse and accurately fire a two handed weapon and not fall off. then again, Chuck Norris is actually a katana in disguise.

[Susano]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

oh...well a KATANA could hang off the side of galloping horse and accurately fire a two handed weapon and not fall off. then again' date=' Chuck Norris is actually a katana in disguise.[/quote']

 

A katana can cut a tank in half. Which is why GIs in WWII shot the guys with carrying katana first.

[texaspoet]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

ooh, SJohnRoss, where oh where are you living nowadays?

[eternal_sage]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

A katana can cut a tank in half. Which is why GIs in WWII shot the guys with carrying katana first.

 

lol! i'm sure he had to be doing his limit break at the time, though....

 

so silly....

[MorpheousXO]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

lol! i'm sure he had to be doing his limit break at the time, though....

 

so silly....

 

... was that an exalted reference? OMGWTFBBQ!!!!

[Susano]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

... was that an exalted reference? OMGWTFBBQ!!!!

 

I think it's Final Fantasy.

[S. John Ross]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

ooh' date=' SJohnRoss, where oh where are you living nowadays?[/quote']

 

Mile high

[Kristopher]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

So... still no sources where I can read up on what was and was not actually done in combat. Markdoc says that most of the tricks were things you'd never actually do in an actual fight. A couple of people have said that yes, the "Wild West Show" tricks were based on things done in combat.

 

Personally, I don't care for over-the-top, cinematic, stunt-man, acrobatic stuff, whether it's guys doing backflips on horseback or swashbucklers swinging from chandeliers while dueling. If it wasn't done in real fights, keep it the hell out of my game.

[eternal_sage]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

i think the general consensus is that yes, it was done on occassion, but the penalties usually far outwieghed the benefits. at least that is my reading of this thread so far...

 

 

and yes it was a Final Fantasy nod, although Exalted had some stuff like that too, although my memory was that limit breaks were usually negative...don't recall.

[Comic]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

I'm sooooo staying out of this question.

 

There are no doubt historical paintings one could find in a few hours of looking at a well-equipped library devoted to American heritage, or with luck online.

 

There are numerous clubs and groups dedicated to preserving that type of historical information and treasuring it, some of them with websites, but somehow I feel like they'd be less than pleased to be asked, "Yes, one of my players wants to do some cheesy Indian riding. Can you tell me if your ancestors really did that stupid stuff for real in battle, or just to impress girls?"

 

See, no way to handle this issue with any degree of sensitivity, taking that approach.

 

I've been told that for some cultures, battle was all about glory, not total victory. That perspective would be more consistent with trick riding, counting coup and entering battle unarmed to display bravery than carrying the best gun and shooting the most efficient way.

 

So, my question, is your player asking to play a character who values glory and bravery above efficiency and results? Does his character seek the rewards of such feats over the slaughter of enemies?

 

If so, then no doubt trick riding is the right modern interpretation of the sorts of acts in a historical context might have mattered to the real people, who let us face it we have zero clue about, based on our inability to find actual conclusive evidence after hours of research one way or the other if they rode bareback and used acrobatic techniques in real battle. Modern roleplayers and GM's might get a better sense of what was meant by the acts of the warrior depicted with trick riding than with a coup stick. Modern gamers might not see the act of touching an enemy with a willow branch as meaningful, in comparison. Call it pablum roleplay.

[McCoy]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

Maybe I can find some answers here. "Teh intarwebs" has been useless to me so far.

 

I have a friend who insists that Native American horsemen were able to do all sorts of things in combat, such as hang onto the horse with just their legs and swing down to fire under the horse, ride hanging from one side so that they couldn't be seen from the other side, fighting from horseback without a saddle, etc -- basically, that all the stuff in 50s westerns and the old Wild West shows was based on reality, not just flashy showmanship.

 

But it strikes me as just that -- flashy showmanship, not something that was ever done outside of stunt performances. And I cannot it find anything in any of my research that even hints that it was ever anything more than that.

 

He wants to include it in a character for a game, and personally it strikes me as pure cheese.

I've seen a lot of those done live no Sx, but I cannot find a single reference to them being actually used in combat.

 

You don't have to put it quite so bluntly if he's likely to be sensitive about it; make it an implied part of the design process: "Alright' date=' but bring a book or two about it, and we'll design the abilities based on the material directly, that way we're working from common ground and it'll save confusion in play."[/i']

What he said, burden of proff is on the player.

 

It'll ruin my fun if I have to roll my eyes and play along with something that's goofier than a pet racoon at least once a game session.

And that should be the end of it. Tell him to save that character for another game.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

Well you could be a real 'fun' GM and let him have it, then never let him have a horse.

[Alibear]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

If you allowed it in your game, and that seems unlikely, tell him to buy acrobatics with a limitation, only on horseback. Call it trick-riding and you're good to go. If he wants extra DCV with that he'd have to buy it.

 

Personally I'd allow it, I've allowed much worse but that is your call as GM.

[Diamond Spear]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

Personally' date=' I don't care for over-the-top, cinematic, stunt-man, acrobatic stuff, whether it's guys doing backflips on horseback or swashbucklers swinging from chandeliers while dueling. If it wasn't done in real fights, keep it the hell out of my game.[/quote']

 

Then just tell him that you are running a "realistic and gritty game" and as such tricks like that are not allowed. It's been my experience that it's easier to make a decision and stick with it rather than to demand "proof". YMMV