Mount and rider SIZ

[ChrisWentWhere]

Hope it’s ok to start a new topic with this.

Does the SIZ of an adventurer have any bearing on the suitability of riding animals. Common sense and the existence of pygmy impala riders suggests it should. But I can’t see find anything that I can use to determine how, exactly. One PC in my group is a monstrous SIZ 19. Would he be ok on the back of a dainty Sered or would he really need to ride a Bison or a Daron or something? I can't see a mechanic that reflects this as I see it the Maximum ENC of the riding animals only relates to their use as Pack animals. Is there one somewhere? 

 

[Scotty]

In real life horses can comfortably carry 15–20% of their weight. In this RPG, you could easily rule the same, using the SIZ of the rider and mount, so a rider SIZ 12 would need a SIZ 60 mount and a SIZ 19 would need a SIZ 95 mount. But this is fantasy, so lets just assume that mounts in Glorantha are super strong and that generally a rider needs a mount at least twice their size. The SIZ 19 adventurer needs at least a SIZ 36 mount! Sereds that SIZ do exist, but a bison or high llama is more appropriate. This is not SimGlorantha, have fun, not maths...

[Joerg]

You might take a look at the Pack Animal ENC and Move table in the Weapons and Equipment Guide p.36 for an estimate. Capable riders behave differently from cargo.

[ChrisWentWhere]

Well to be honest I know sweet FA about horses and all things of a horsey nature. I didn’t know about the 15 - 20% thing, always good to learn new things, and I totally agree it’s fantasy it really doesn’t matter just roll with it. That’s what I have been doing so far. Works fine. But I get these niggly thoughts in my head going “hmm that guy is massive and he’s going to ride around on a little pony covered head to toe in bronze armour? That’s not right…”

I just wondered if there was something in the rules already I had missed. I like the double size rule, nice and simple. Maybe even size and half. 

[litrevan]

First off I'm not a horse expert and my math isn't completely worked out, but this is my opinion on the subject.

 

There are four ways of viewing rider size for riding.

 

1. The simple minded one is via weight. Rather than 1/5^th the weight. RQ roughly works out to 1/3^rd the weight for average human size on the modern horse. It breaks down on smaller mounts however.

2. The close to the book method is to use pluses and minuses for every d6 or +-6 off of 4d6+12. This works fine for near horse size, not so well for rather smaller: 2d6+6 would be -3, 6d6+36 would be +6, which sort of covers trolls.

3. Use half the stats, which covers pygmies down to ducks and pixies for smaller. Larger works as well, but rapidly gets to non humans.

4. Use a combo. Half the stats for smaller, pluses for larger for generally human sized. Larger species such as trolls could use double their size stats.

 

This doesn't cover ancient species Such as Roman horses were about eighty three percent as high as modern horses. So a modern horse is about eight feet long (not high), and a Roman horse is closer to six foot nine feet long. Nor the fact that using weight instead doesn't work well.

[DreadDomain]

10 hours ago, Scotty said:

In real life horses can comfortably carry 15–20% of their weight. In this RPG, you could easily rule the same, using the SIZ of the rider and mount, so a rider SIZ 12 would need a SIZ 60 mount and a SIZ 19 would need a SIZ 95 mount. 

No, this is not how SIZ works. It's not linear as shown on page 151 of RQG.

SIZ 12 (up to 75kg) would require a mount of 375kg, which is SIZ 31

SIZ 19 (up to 130kg) would require a mount of 650kg, which is SIZ 37.

Now horses in RQG are too small at SIZ 26 (350 kg) which is more the size of a small pony. Depending on breed they should be in the 500kg to 800kg (SIZ 34 to 40).

[French Desperate WindChild]

i imagine that more than SIN we should see the STR of the mount.

After all an impala with STR 2000 should not have any issue to carry a troll. The issue would be more if the troll's feet are on the ground or not

[Ian Absentia]

16 hours ago, Scotty said:

This is not SimGlorantha, have fun, not maths...

In all fairness, part of the fun is a comforting sense of plausibility, if not realism.  So a SIZ 19 character standing at a corral, looking at a selection of Sereds and saying, "Something about this don't feel right..." while wishing someone could point 'em in the right direction is, in fact, fun. 

@ChrisWentWhere, a special character merits a special mount.  It's also fair to just agree that no one really thought this through.  There aren't particular guidelines for matching any SIZ of mount with a rider of any SIZ, but go with a proportionate response.  Just like they'll need a bigger suit of armor, they'll have to look for a bigger horse.

!i!

[metcalph]

 

[ChrisWentWhere]

1 hour ago, Ian Absentia said:

In all fairness, part of the fun is a comforting sense of plausibility, if not realism.  So a SIZ 19 character standing at a corral, looking at a selection of Sereds and saying, "Something about this don't feel right..." while wishing someone could point 'em in the right direction is, in fact, fun. 

@ChrisWentWhere, a special character merits a special mount.  It's also fair to just agree that no one really thought this through.  There aren't particular guidelines for matching any SIZ of mount with a rider of any SIZ, but go with a proportionate response.  Just like they'll need a bigger suit of armor, they'll have to look for a bigger horse.

!i!

That’s my feelings exactly. I could hand wave it but my players will want a bit more consistency. 

I decided go for an average of STR and SIZ divided by 1.5. So the SIZ 19 character needs a big horse / bison etc. A really big War Zebra can do it, just.

Sereds are working out about 16 or 17, Galanas 14 or 15 but there are always exceptions in any breed. Which will cost a bit more of course…

 

 

[Revilo Divad Of Dyoll]

I could have sworn there was a rule somewhere that riders needed a mount that was 10 Siz bigger (i.e., a size 19 person would need a size 29 mount).  Is that my imagination?

[Ian Absentia]

That rule sounds very familiar to me, too, but I'm uncertain which BRP/d100 derivative I'm thinking of.

!i!

[Edit: I've found a ruling for the carrying capacity for a flying mount (giant wasps), but that's for carrying a rider in flight.  It's Rider SIZ up to Mount STR, if anyone's interested.  Which seems awfully generous.]

Edited November 6, 2023 by Ian Absentia

[DreadDomain]

3 hours ago, Revilo Divad Of Dyoll said:

I could have sworn there was a rule somewhere that riders needed a mount that was 10 Siz bigger (i.e., a size 19 person would need a size 29 mount).  Is that my imagination?

Hmmm, it does ring a bell. It has the benefit of being easy and consistent - SIZ+10 implies that the mount needs to be 2.5 times as big (at least in weight).

[Scotty]

On 11/5/2023 at 2:10 AM, DreadDomain said:

No, this is not how SIZ works. It's not linear as shown on page 151 of RQG.

Precisely, if you want to avoid the maths, just use a quick rule.

[ChrisWentWhere]

On 11/6/2023 at 4:26 PM, Revilo Divad Of Dyoll said:

I could have sworn there was a rule somewhere that riders needed a mount that was 10 Siz bigger (i.e., a size 19 person would need a size 29 mount).  Is that my imagination?

Ah yes. That would be easier ive done the maths now 😂 maybe I’ll go back and change it anyway. Just to make life easier in the future. 
cheers!

[DreadDomain]

21 hours ago, Scotty said:

Precisely, if you want to avoid the maths, just use a quick rule.

Avoiding math is not a goal in itself but we have just established that by knowing how SIZ works and doing a bit of primary level math, we can come up with a rule that is easy and consistent, may it be that the mount needs to be 16 SIZ bigger (for your suggested realistic ratio), or 10 SIZ bigger (for a more arbitrary but still believable and gamable result).

Edited November 9, 2023 by DreadDomain

[Squaredeal Sten]

If you add the weight of armor. a saddle,multiple weapons. some food, maybe a little loot.... you get an even harder problem matching rider and mount SIZ.  

Yet it seems to me that a quest for realism should account for those things too.  After all there is a reason jockeys are small people.  There is a reason most RW cavalry was not heavily armored in ancient times.  There is a reason larger horse breeds and knights in full plate armor occurred together.

As others have pointed out in this and other threads,

*RQ's encumbrance rule is written for two legged Adventurers and just doesn't work for four legged mounts or pack animals.

* SIZ characteristic is a quick game mechanic, and combines weight and height. Thus a giraffe and a rhinoceros might have similar SIZ stats.  But in the Real World the rhino is stronger.  SIZ becomes less useful if you use it beyond its original applications in the rules.

*SIZ is also not linear but apparently logarithmic.  Demonstrated by the table of examples in the rules.  But I suspect most players can't define "logarithm"  and many have never used logs.  Few will. tolerate a rule that requires threm, it is not fun gaming stuff.

So I suggest a mount encumbrance table, not a formula.  Write it to fit RW examples.  Including elephants at the high end.  But let's admit we have no RW experience with the carrying capacities of demibirds. rhinoceros, sable antelopes, dinosaurs. or giant insects.

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

*SIZ is also not linear but apparently logarithmic.  Demonstrated by the table of examples in the rules.  But I suspect most players can't define "logarithm"  and many have never used logs.  Few will. tolerate a rule that requires threm, it is not fun gaming stuff.

GURPS famously uses logarithms, and I think it's fair to have them invisible behind the game design, but yeah, SIZ certainly isn't linear.

[Ian Absentia]

Talking with a couple of my horsey friends, I've gotten some real world advice, which works for actual weight ratios, but doesn't necessarily translate into SIZ.  As noted above, SIZ is not linear.  But by straight-up weight, apparently the 15-20% guideline is commonly accepted.

I was referred to this online resource, which works pretty well for our purposes by starting with the weight of the horse and saddle, then calculating the weight of the rider:

https://good-horse.com/tools/calculator-much-weight-can-horse-carry/

Additional tabs are specific to dimensions and breed of horse, running the spectrum from pony to draft horse.  I have not found a similar resource for demi-birds, antelopes, and rhinoceroses.

!i!

[Edit: A little more exploration led to a similar calculator that starts with the rider's weight, then recommends a horse by type. 

https://good-horse.com/tools/calculator-horses-can-carry-comfortably/

This may actually be the most useful for gaming purposes.]

Edited November 9, 2023 by Ian Absentia
Better information

[Darius West]

As a rule, most pack animals, if properly and evenly loaded can travel all day at a walk if they are carrying a weight equal to half their own.  Camels and Mules can carry 55% of their weight this way.

A draft animal can pull 8 times its own weight all day in a cart on a level surface. 

On the other hand, if you want to ride hard all day, you need a big animal and to travel light.  Ian Absentia's 15-20% guideline is sound.  In Prax, that extra weight had better include water skins, or a support beast in tow with water skins.