You fall off your glossy, black-shelled inix...

[Armaddict]

Perfect riding skill is not an inalienable right of all sentient humanoids.

Loved this.  And you know it's big when me and Synthesis agree. XD

[a strange shadow]

I agree with Synth, though, the current echo just kind of leaves you going 'wtf just happened'.

I explain it as a spooked mount, or a hole the mount stumbled in and it threw you, whatever.

[drunkendwarf]

Again, I never said anything about perfect riding.
My agility is listed as 'good' and I am not a half-giant. I cannot ride through anything remotely resembling rough terrain (i.e. - other than a road), with both hands empty without falling off my mount. It's ridiculous.
But let me stress again - I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT PERFECT RIDING.
There is a huge difference between struggling to get your mount to move (in the right direction) and being so inept at riding such that you fall off the animal.
And in closing, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT PERFECT RIDING AND I HAVE YET TO BRING ANYTHING UP ABOUT THE WEATHER.

[jhunter]

Yeah, there is a far cry from perfect riding to falling off your mount -at all-. I can see maybe...once in a while, in special circumstances, falling off your mount. Early on. But after even the most basic level of ride has passed, normal easy riding should not -ever- have a rider falling off. Then maybe only while riding quickly or in combat. And beyond a moderate level of skill, not at all unless trying to do it while your hands are full and/or in combat.

[spawnloser]

I don't know what you people are talking about.  I had a human with only 'good' agility that never fell off a mount at any speed in any terrain and this character did plenty of travel.

[Lizzie]

Morgenes said very clearly that after some practice, with the right equipment, there should be no reason why anyone would fall off their mount with any regularity at all.

I would recommend to drunken dwarf that he get in touch with Morgenes, because there might be some bug in his character. Or, Morgenes might be able to look at his character and point out something missing, or something too much, or perhaps even something about the mount that isn't good.

[Nyr]

My agility is listed as 'good' and I am not a half-giant. I cannot ride through anything remotely resembling rough terrain (i.e. - other than a road), with both hands empty without falling off my mount. It's ridiculous.

I think "with both hands empty" and "rough terrain (i.e. - other than a road)" gives you the answer.  Now that you can tell what your skill levels are, you'll probably note that you are not a "master" of riding.

(You may also note that you are not even "advanced.")

Skills and how they affect failure can always be tweaked, but the idea in making different guilds and subguilds better and worse at different skills is for the tradeoff.  If you are not a guild or subguild that gets ride naturally, you are going to find that you probably need to stick to roads, or not have stuff in your hands, or use extra riding gear.  Not every person in Zalanthas knows how to ride.  Of those that do, few know how to ride well.  Your character may not be the best at X or Y (in this case, riding is definitely one of these things), but he or she is good at something, somewhere out there.

Back to the point, though.  Yes, there is a huge difference between struggling to get your mount to move or move in the right direction and being so inept at riding that you fall off the animal.  In this case, the difference is "not using both hands on the reins," "not using riding gear," and "getting out on nasty terrain that isn't a road."  You have described the difference between the two, and you have traversed the space between point A and point B.

[Morgenes]

My mailbox is still open to people to submit logs of them falling off multiple times with both hands free while walking their mount (I'll even give you not on roads).  I will be happy to investigate what is the situation with your character.  That said, multiple posters here have pretty clearly spelled out the requirements to riding in rough situations.

[Dakota]

would like to point out that as someone who has ridden horses since she was 4 years old and completed in both Saddelbred three-gaited and five-gaited disciplines..

-Anyone- can fall off a mount in the most mundane terrain ever. Three years ago I saw a rider who was the USHA rider of the year call off in a show ring at a trot...

[MeTekillot]

Horses are not giant lizards.

Horses are not massive bugs with domed shape backs with an awekward saddle.

Horses are not giant birds.

So horses are easier to ride.

Please stop bringing up horses.

[Bilanthri]

Horses are not giant lizards.

Horses are not massive bugs with domed shape backs with an awekward saddle.

Horses are not giant birds.

So horses are easier to ride.

Please stop bringing up horses.

This is known as invalid logic. The premises are true but the conclusion does not follow from them.

I'm not saying this to flame, rather, I wouldn't want people to mistake this for a valid logical statement...it is not.

[Armaddict]

Horses are not giant lizards.

Horses are not massive bugs with domed shape backs with an awekward saddle.

Horses are not giant birds.

So horses are easier to ride.

Please stop bringing up horses.

This is known as invalid logic. The premises are true but the conclusion does not follow from them.

I'm not saying this to flame, rather, I wouldn't want people to mistake this for a valid logical statement...it is not.

Considering even the different structure of the vertebrae, and leg mechanics.  Yeah.  Not being a horse is valid.

[Bilanthri]

Horses are not giant lizards.

Horses are not massive bugs with domed shape backs with an awekward saddle.

Horses are not giant birds.

So horses are easier to ride.

Please stop bringing up horses.

This is known as invalid logic. The premises are true but the conclusion does not follow from them.

I'm not saying this to flame, rather, I wouldn't want people to mistake this for a valid logical statement...it is not.

Considering even the different structure of the vertebrae, and leg mechanics.  Yeah.  Not being a horse is valid.

Perhaps you misunderstand me.

You could certainly construct a valid logical statement using the premises outlined. And you could use the same conclusion. But there is a great deal of conditional information left out. Stating that horses are easier to ride because they are not bugs, birds, or lizards is not valid logic.

Easier for who? An earth human or a zalanthan human?

Are birds, bugs, and lizards the hardest animals to ride? Then, by process of elimination, horses would be easier to ride.

If A is true and B is true then it follows that C is true.
If you want to discount a topic of discussion, valid logic is worth more than water.

[spawnloser]

Actually, Armaddict, the only logic that follows from those premises is that it is different to ride giant birds, bugs or lizards with domed shells, not that it is easier to ride horses than it is to ride these creatures.

I still believe that people expect too much of their characters in these situations and that these people may just be having bad luck.  I think there's nothing wrong with the code so far that I have seen.  Perhaps I've just been lucky?  Well, from what it seems of Morg's opinions on this topic, probably doing just as expected.

[Dakota]

Horses are not giant lizards.

Horses are not massive bugs with domed shape backs with an awekward saddle.

Horses are not giant birds.

So horses are easier to ride.

Please stop bringing up horses.

This is known as invalid logic. The premises are true but the conclusion does not follow from them.

I'm not saying this to flame, rather, I wouldn't want people to mistake this for a valid logical statement...it is not.

Considering even the different structure of the vertebrae, and leg mechanics.  Yeah.  Not being a horse is valid.

Perhaps you misunderstand me.

You could certainly construct a valid logical statement using the premises outlined. And you could use the same conclusion. But there is a great deal of conditional information left out. Stating that horses are easier to ride because they are not bugs, birds, or lizards is not valid logic.

Easier for who? An earth human or a zalanthan human?

Are birds, bugs, and lizards the hardest animals to ride? Then, by process of elimination, horses would be easier to ride.

If A is true and B is true then it follows that C is true.
If you want to discount a topic of discussion, valid logic is worth more than water.

Sometimes when reading through the posts on the GDB I think some people take the whole reality factor to an extreme..

I didn't bring up horses comparing them to lizards, birds, giant magical snakes or whatever weird stuff you can ride IG...

The point was, no matter how good of a rider you are, you, at somepoint, will fall off / get thrown. Regardless of skill. Be it on a thin trail or in a flat show ring. To think you're a master at anything and still expect to never fail or a have a bad day, is absurd.

[Armaddict]

Actually, Armaddict, the only logic that follows from those premises is that it is different to ride giant birds, bugs or lizards with domed shells, not that it is easier to ride horses than it is to ride these creatures.

Well.  That was really the only point I was trying to make.  -I've- never ridden a giant lizard or bug, I don't know if it's harder or easier.  But I -was- saying that arguments based on horseback riding had little to do with it.

[Malifaxis]

Actually, Armaddict, the only logic that follows from those premises is that it is different to ride giant birds, bugs or lizards with domed shells, not that it is easier to ride horses than it is to ride these creatures.

Well.  That was really the only point I was trying to make.  -I've- never ridden a giant lizard or bug, I don't know if it's harder or easier.  But I -was- saying that arguments based on horseback riding had little to do with it.

Physics, I humbly believe, also has something to do with it.

Horses are easy to grip with the legs because of the shape of the back and the relative proportions of the ribcage to the flexibility of the human leg structure.

No where in Zalanthan documentation does it say that humans get an extra knee which creates an extra length of gripping appendage to shape around a wide shell.

Also, horses are coated in coarse fur.  Coarse fur creates traction.

Inix and war beetles are coated in not-fur.  They are coated in (maybe not shiny) domed (descriptions state this on both) armored shells, which do not have adequate grip points or shapes.

[Bilanthri]

They don't look that hard to ride.

Well, maybe the Mekillot.

[jriley]

Horses are not giant lizards.

Horses are not massive bugs with domed shape backs with an awekward(SIC) saddle.

Horses are not giant birds.

So horses are easier to ride.

Please stop bringing up horses.

I think that he's using horses as an example because it's the nearest real-world equivalent to something like an inix.  At the end of the day, that's the best comparison anyone here can make. 

Also, I tend to assume that our mounts have virtual saddle and virtual stirrups, in the same way that they eat virtual food, get infected with virtual flees and until recently took virtual dumps.*

I'm not trying to jump in on drunkendwarf's side...although I can sense his frustration because he thinks that the rest of us don't understand his point.

For what it's worth, I grew up watching cowboy movies.  In the movies cowboys always made fun of "city folk" or anyone with poor riding skill.  Based on this, I always assumed that riding is something super difficult and masculating, requiring years of practice.  However when I actually went out and took some riding lessons, I was startled at how easy it is.  Within minutes of my first lesson, I was riding a horse.  Within hours, I was riding a horse with ease. 

By the end of the first day, I was riding comfortably over broken ground.  On the second day, my riding instructor assigned me a "spirited" horse, warning me that the animal would attempt to misbehave.  Hah!  A couple of sharp kicks to his ribs put an end to that.  He was a nice enough stallion once you got to know him. 

Soon enough I was able to trot the bastard, and by the end of the first week I was able to trot without using my hands.  I never did see anyone fall off of one of the horses. 

Keep in mind that I'm a pudgy, middle-aged computer geek with poor hand eye coordination and no inherent rapport with animals.  Horse riding is just really that easy.

Some posters have brought up that other animals (like the fictional inix) are more difficult to ride than a horse, but so are camels, elephants, ostirich, donkeys and alpalca, and people ride them just fine when they put their minds to it.



*Is this not correct?

[Wolfsong]

One thing I would like to see is that mounts following others in a group are easier to control (provided all they're doing is following the lead animal) than mounts that are not following a lead animal - though I suppose this depends entirely on the sort of mount, and whether or not they're herd mentality. Lizards and insects (with the exception of kanks?) are probably less likely to follow others around docilely. Ox would, though.

[Qzzrbl]

One thing I would like to see is that mounts following others in a group are easier to control (provided all they're doing is following the lead animal) than mounts that are not following a lead animal - though I suppose this depends entirely on the sort of mount, and whether or not they're herd mentality. Lizards and insects (with the exception of kanks?) are probably less likely to follow others around docilely. Ox would, though.

I certainly wouldn't mind giving people more of a reason to buy anything other than an inix or a beetle....

[Armaddict]

Mounts that are more rider-friendly than others would -definitely- be cool.

[Synthesis]

Mounts that are more rider-friendly than others would -definitely- be cool.

I don't have any solid data, but I'm inclined to believe that this is already the case.

[Armaddict]

Mounts that are more rider-friendly than others would -definitely- be cool.

I don't have any solid data, but I'm inclined to believe that this is already the case.

Of course...then this thread would be about it being unfair that it's easier to ride something with less stamina...

[Synthesis]

Mounts that are more rider-friendly than others would -definitely- be cool.

I don't have any solid data, but I'm inclined to believe that this is already the case.

Of course...then this thread would be about it being unfair that it's easier to ride something with less stamina...

Actually...well...try it for yourselves, and draw your own conclusions.