Is it just me or does horsemanship kind of get passed over in TTRPGs?

Horses are important in a hexcrawl, as are hirelings. Basically you want to bring a small camp with you out into the wilderness and park it in a secluded, defensible spot near the ruin/dungeon you're going into. Horses let you get there more quicky, then your hirelings set up camp and guard the horses and stuff while you're inside.
Arriving more quickly and being able to outrun things on the way if necessary is a big factor in survivability in a hexcrawl.

I tried that with my players once, no go. Apparently remembering to eat and understanding you can't sprint for 16 hours a day is too much to handle.

Brutal

I don't know enough about horses to do it justice, so I just have them do ride checks if they want to do something fancy.

>Equestrians are fags.
>Cowboy here

here, I always have to tone it down because I'm always the only one who knows what he's talking about when it comes to horses and shit.

What did she mean by this?

Someone said horseriding wasn't difficult or impressive enough to be an Olympic sport.

Nice one Satan

Horseriding is like a team sport, but your team member's a massive retard and they're the one that has to do all the work

fucking savage

...

It's because doing several rolls for "I move" isn't fun. One or two rolls when in danger are more than enough.

That goes for practically any mechanic. Combat gets a lot of rules, because bashing the shit out of a bunch of goblins with less or more tactics is fun for most people. It's an easy bit of gameplay to throw in for the DM where the players practically entertain themselves.

That's also why elaborate social combat rules are MOSTLY obsolete, since that question crops up all the time. The fun's already in the roleplaying, everything else is aptly handled by a few rolls to determine if your character manages to get his message across or gets convinced himself.

>that fucking pic

Horse riders are worse than fucking scuba divers.

>48830088
Cowboys are fags.

Chevalier here, ask me anything.

How many squires have you buggered?

IT HELPS THEIR DEVELOPMENT, SHUT UP

If Exalted can have special humans that are badass enough to care about, why can't it have badass horses too? Why do you need to go to zany fantasy stuff?

Yes, you dense motherfuckers, he's gay.

Have you tried not playing D&D?

The olympics really should be knocked back to only sports that could've taken place in ancient Greece. Swimming, track and field, that kinda shit. These days they just do every sport they can think of. I'm surprised snooker isn't there.

Little Jeremiah is crying in the corner over there!

Because such a horse would be the half-divine son of the God of Southeastern Horsemen or some similarly supernatural pedigree, and would be an ally rather than just a mount. Exalted is way up on the zany fantasy shit scale, user.

That could be an ally as well as a mount, but if you ride it, it's still a mount. And Sleipnir was the half-divine child of a horse and a god, so it's not like having a mount that's amazing but just a mount would be unprecedented.

Give it time. I for one can't wait to see what kind of dope the Russians will give to their snooker players.

Wait until the Chinese start trying to deliberately breed ideal snooker players.

Did the Greeks not do horse racing? I know the Romans were all about that shit.

>being this new
>>>/gaia/

Calling people Satan for getting the triple sixers is literally the only type of getposting that wasn't looked heavily down upon since 2011

Do they at least give a medal the horse?

Usually the horses die the same session you get them.

What makes Equestrians fags?

Why do you consider yourself the only knowledgeable person (or, more knowledgeable than most) on the subject of horses?

I find my GM has an irrational hatred of horses and anything else that allows players to possess more than their encumbrance limit suggests.

Chase rules + horse, boom, pretty important.

That said my current back up character is replacing horse with motor cycle.

>Not buying a wagon, a cart, and three donkeys at chargen
>Not naming them Larry, Curly, and Moe and getting a hireling to watch them
>Not regularly resurfacing from the dungeon to toss loot into the cart and wagon
>Then spending an entire session selling everything off, down to last pig-iron goblin dagger.
I pity you, user.

D&D is probably the only system that uses horses.

>GM somehow makes loot-selling take all session
I envy you for getting to use wagons and carts that way, but at the same time I kind of pity you back.

Yeah we need to bring back competitive trumpet blowing, korfball, and cycle polo.

Turns out that when you get two or more stubborn people used to haggling in the same group, things turn into Pawn Stars really quickly.
>"Look, these goblin knives are dull pieces of shit battered out of pig iron and wrapped in badly cured leather. No one wants to buy these, they're hardly even worth scrap value. I need to put bread on the table, so best I can do is 100 GP for the lot."
>[Haggling intensifies]

barely worth scrap value.
willing to pay GOLD for it.

either you have several hundred of these, or d&d's economy is still horrifically retarded.

>either you have several hundred of these, or d&d's economy is still horrifically retarded.
Both, actually.

very good, carry on.

Yeah, RPing the whole haggling process takes a lot of time. I like to just roll any relevant haggling-like skill and skip it, so we can get to parts of the game that are actually fun.

>inb4 you're a shitty rollplayer
I like roleplaying stuff involving talking to people who matter, even side stuff like the PCs' family or whatever. Roleplaying haggling is just a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. Even if it's fun for the guy doing it, the rest of the players probably are sitting there with their thumbs up their asses because the GM is 100% occupied by this meaningless process.

>he doesn't spend 90% of a session on roleplaying haggling, making camp, preparing food, inventorizing loot and making banter with bartenders while reducing combat and plot progression to a series of random table rolls
Look at this fucking rollplayer and laugh

>Ah done bin here since twenny-elevern, sonny!

>>>/9fag/

Whenever I see someone getting a mount in the game, they always end up doing something so they can use the mount as a second PC - helping them in combat and so on.

If they're not doing that, they just never use the horse or whatever for combat. They ride it and get off of it when there's a fight.

I agree with the pic, if only to get more women in jodphurs on TV

I didn't notice the repeating numbers, my bad

Horses generally don't give as much benefit as they "should" in most rpg's imo.

A charge while on a horse with a lance should do fucking tons of damage.

God that's brilliant with the riding skill, it's awesome to see people share their insights with systems...

>Too bad it's total shit overall
>Arbitrary opinion stated as fact

/v/ plz leave

Yeah, but I think they are worried about having the combat revolve entirely around mounted combat which while it would make sense doesn't make for a lot of fun unless you like playing around a meta in your fantasy stories.

It's probably weaker more because of design of the game than lack of reality - D&D is made more or less for small groups of people assumed to be fighting on foot, and a charge with lances is most useful with large amounts of heavily armored cavalry.

Besides, even assuming you're not indoors where a horse is not viable, sometimes what you fight might be huge. Like a dragon or something. Taking all that time to charge at an enemy with a lance, only to have it break against scales...I dunno, that'd be disappointing.

GURPS

what is not having combat take place exclusively in open fields for 500?

If your sword can get through, why would a lance do nothing? If anything it breaking off inside the dragon would be realistic considering lancer were literally disposable weapons (just like a lot of things that we ignore for the sake of the game but still)

Charging with a lance does do a shitton of damage in 3.5 and Pathfinder though

And poetry

by that logic flying a jet should be in the olympics

It's been forever since I've played either of those.

what is players are creative fucks?

Do you even Jeopardy bro?

I'm sorry, I thought lances shattered on impact?

Here's how I see it:
If you're anybody that's anybody, you have at least one horse and ride it whenever you need to travel.
If you're soft and lazy, or the weather is bad, or you just like to show off money, you ride in a coach.
If you're a farmer, you ride a donkey.
If you don't even have a donkey, you must be a really shitty farmer and nobody will respect you.

Did you not read what I wrote? They do. They're disposable. You use them and then go off and get another. Though lances used in jousting are often weaker than the war variety, they can still take multiple blows to break.

It's just that if it's inside something or someone you'd leave it behind, because the other option would be to stop your horse, become a massive target, and shake the corpse off. (which is why they were designed to just break).

That's a jousting lance, which are designed to shatter on impact as to lower risk of injury. War lances are very long, and very thick and designed to take a lot of force before breaking. However, due to the amount of force involved in a cavalry charge, war lances often broke after a single use.

>Is it just me or does horsemanship kind of get passed over in TTRPGs?

>How much do you actually care about or test your PCs ability to control a mount?
The big problem with horsemanship (and mounts in general) in TTRPGs is that it almost invariably involves an extreme amount of management.

Magical items or other resources require no (or little) upkeep. A horse, even a magical horse, needs to be fed at the very least. It might require being cared for in other fashions as well. It might even die, depriving you of not only it's use, but of all previous investment.

As such, the only TTRPGs that have any focus on mounts tend to be those that are the most detailed (like older editions of D&D, or games designed from that mold), or with the least resource management (like Exalted).

However, the vast majority of TTRPGs, and especially the RPGS that are currently the most popular, are instead somewhere in the middle, and have a rougher time with resource intensive systems. This is complicated in RPGs with simple and useful magic systems, since there will likely be a more efficient magical alternative to living mounts.

This is even before you get into mixing mounted combatants vs unmounted combatants, which can easy become super complicated, and thus slow down gameplay--which is bad in any system.

Altogether:

1. The complications of mounts and mounted combat only work when the RPG either expects and is designs for such complications, or when the RPG mitigates or ignore such complications altogether.

2. Most modern players want a more moderate experience, and so RPGs that tend to either extreme of complication or simplicity tend to be less popular.

and so

3. The RPGs that are most popular tend to be the least capable of handling mounts and mounted combat (and other complicated systems) satisfactory.

and this creates a feedback loop where

4. Players don't tend to favor mounts and mounted combat, as their preferred RPGs can't easily handle them.

Lol, murderhobos.