No Horses For You

[QueenOfItAll]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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]

Re: No Horses For You

 

Like' date=' "why do things have mass?"[/quote']

 

Ugh. Good question though!

[QueenOfItAll]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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

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...

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]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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

[QueenOfItAll]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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. 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.

 

 

 

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]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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

 

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

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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]

Re: No Horses For You

 

Sure' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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

 

[Chris-M]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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 ).

[Captain Obvious]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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).

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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.

 

 

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]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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!

 

 

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]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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]

Re: No Horses For You

 

Yeah' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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

 

cheers, Mark

[Jkeown]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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...

[Chris-M]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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...

 

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

[Maelstrom]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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]

Re: No Horses For You

 

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...