A Matter of Honour

by Patrick Brady

Game mechanics are like clothes, we all have our favourites and our pet dislikes, but animosities are aroused when people mistake personal preference for objective truth (except of course when it comes to lime-green shirts, which are of course the work of the devil). It is really not my intention to tell you what to wear or how to game, but I would like to discuss modelling social relationships in a rolegame. The approach will be pragmatic, a description of experience rather than a prescription for anyone but myself.
Many of those experiences come from my Empire of the Petal Throne game (the Hall of Stone campaign), which is now in its tenth year, but the social and psychological models of fantasy worlds are something which I think could be generally more developed than they are. If you think there are better ways to do it, then you're probably right, so when you've perfected your system, test it and write it up. You can compare some of the following with the more sophisticated system in Paul Mason's Outlaws of the Marsh, which is a different line of development from similar roots. The point is that this is an approach which has been field tested, and its continuity is one of its strengths, it works and it has helped me to understand the mechanics of social relationships a little bit better. What follows exists to serve the game, not to be perfect.

A matter of honour
The idea of honour is an important one in many cultures, but in games it is too often modelled as being a psychological problem rather than a reasonable worldview. The most obvious examples are in the point building systems (such as GURPS and Champions) which clearly categorise "Honourable" with "Pyromaniac" and "Berserk". People are lumbered with being honourable, it is implicitly assumed that on balance (even if there may be minor benefits) this is a problem the character has to live with. I think that this is a mistake because it tends to push the group into seeing honour as basically a stick to beat the players with. My preference is for honour to be a link to a life other than our own, characters should be helped and encouraged to think appropriately, as opposed to simply having their character's actions restricted. In a sense, honour should be another place to play, a further dimension for the game rather than a purely personal feature of the character, it should be part of the geography of the world.

Quanta, quanta everywhere...
One of the peculiar conventions of rolegames is that we precisely quantify things, this tendency reached its height in the "twelve million characteristics for every character" approach exemplified by Chivalry and Sorcery and the "this should be a spread sheet not a character sheet" point build games, such as GURPS. Real people do not have such absolute measures of their abilities and some of the things which games treat as important measures are obviously rather arbitrary categories which persist for mainly historical reasons and because we can't think of anything better. Examples of such categories include Dexterity, which seems to be commonly used to refer to everything from hand-eye co-ordination, reflex speed, dancing ability, sense of balance, manual dexterity and how fast you can sprint 100 metres. The idea that you could have such an eclectic aggregate at a specific and precise level is one of the historical oddities of gaming. By the way, intelligence is just a popular superstition.
But we do need systems of measurement and you can classify all systems of measurement into one of four categories, of which two are of immediate interest for gamers. The first type are the nominal systems which allow for categorisation, and such things as gender and character class/occupation/tradition (or whatever euphemism we are using for character class this month) are the obvious examples. The other type are interval systems, using numbers (often integers) to represent a value, and most characteristic schemes fall into this type. What measures we choose will go a long way to defining how the players will interact with the game world.

And that brings me to honour, although not all societies have an explicit honour system, it may be more common than is often recognised. Human groups evolve social systems for the same reasons that they demonstrate aggressive behaviour, it is part of our biology that we do so. There are great differences in expression and some even deny the drive ("this is a classless society") but the interactions, suppressed, denied or misunderstood tend to surface at different times and places. Honour is one of the ways in which the social drive can be channelled, but it exists in numerous variant forms and under different names. For a Goth or a Cyberpunk setting, face is cool and vice versa. In a modern setting, that Columbian drug baron may have a character killed, not because they took his money, but because by doing so they showed him no "respect". Money matters, but respect is crucial. In science fiction games different species are often used to exemplify particular social values, and although "Honour" may not be referred to by name, but themes of correct behaviour and personal loyalty are very common.
So, honour should not be restricted to medieval or oriental cultures, it works in a variety of contexts, A man of honour is not necessarily a likeable man, but he embodies a set of culturally important values, he not only does the right thing, but he avoids doing the wrong thing. His behaviour is therefore quite predictable, once you understand his value system. Those values are not universal constants, they will vary according to the cultural background of the character, they could be courage, honesty, cleverness, loyalty or anything else that the culture glorifies. If you take a look at a societies more successful mythologies, their popular stories, you can often see what they value in a person. For example,

High Noon
"I won't run" - Marshal Kane
The old marshal is a man of honour, he will not run from a fight even though he apparently has no chance of winning. But his refusal puts his deputy and the rest of the town in a situation where they will lose face terribly unless he does run. The Marshal's honour gives him no choice, but it highlights the dishonour of the other townsfolk and denies his deputy the opportunity to gain the respect he so desperately craves.

Star wars
"Your lack of faith disturbs me" - Darth Vader
Vader may not be an obvious candidate for a man of honour, but don't doubt that someone is about to get strangled for his disrespect rather than his lack of religious conviction. Vader identifies with his religion, deny that and you denigrate him. That gets you killed.

The Maltese falcon
"If someone kills your partner, you're expected to do something about it" - Sam Spade.
Spade despises his partner but when that partner is killed, Spade goes after the killer and resists all distractions (even Mary Astor) to fulfil some sort of ideal. Finally he sends his love to the electric chair rather than compromise.

If you live in a culture that values courage above all, then playing chicken on the railway tracks might gain you honour in that culture. The fact that this activity is both stupid and destructive is not the point, its function is to publicise the participants identification with the ideal of courage, not to have any other purpose. So if you attempted the same act in a culture which valued intelligence greatly, doing something as stupid as playing chicken would lead to dishonour. Seen in this light, many forms of apparently deranged behaviour and much posturing are perfectly rational activities. On Tekumel, the violent pyromania that is honourable for a Vimuhla Priest is self-evidently dishonourable for the Priest of Avanthe. Decide who you are, then do the right thing.


The Parallel Economy
Western capitalism uses a nearly universal medium of exchange - Money. The modern idea, that everything has a cash price, should make little sense to any decent Tsolyani. The people of the Five Empires have a different worldview. If capitalism has a single trunk (labelled 'Money') which supports its social system, then Tsolyanu is support by a forest of columns (including 'Rank', 'Honour' and 'Custom' as well as 'Cash'). These are parallel economies and they add depth to relationships in the Five Empires. The currencies of these parallel economies are not completely inter-convertible. It is quite possible to be rich in one and poor in others. So honour can be seen as an economic system rather than a disability, putting it this way should give the players a more intuitive understanding of how they can behave. Each of the pillars of Tsolyani society can be defined in terms of its measures (the cash measures are, of course, already game defined), but this brings us to the mechanics of honour.

Measure for measure
There are two important measures of honour in the Hall of Stone campaign. the first is a characters face rating, this is an interval measure of respect and is rather like a credit rating, it does not wear out but it can be lost or gained. face is not about popularity, it is about your reputation for doing the right thing and the reliability of your behaviour.
Most people exist at a sort of neutral buoyancy, they define the normal level of correct behaviour and therefore define what it is to behave well or badly. So the starting point for face is zero, to gain face is good, to lose it is bad. This is not an absolute scale because it is relative to the norms of a particular society, so the zero point for a Tsolyani is probably higher than for a modern westerner. A higher level of conformity is considered normal by the Tsolyani.
The honourable person moves through his culture like a fish moves through water, the more face he has gained, the easier his passage becomes. A high face rating is therefore rather like being beautiful, it is sufficient in itself to change the way people respond to you. The values of the man of honour are reinforced because they lead to success, he does well by doing the right thing.
Conversely, for the dishonoured the world becomes a harsher place as they are swimming against the tide. It is very important not to confuse this with cultures which value the ideal of the individual or the rebel, a hundred thousand kids dressed like James Dean are all conforming to an ideal of the rebel, which is very different from some actual act of rebellion or dissonance. Attempting to conform to a value of rebelliousness is very different from rebelling against the values of your culture. In a teen culture the dishonoured are the dweebs, the uncool, not the ones in the leather bomber jackets. The dishonoured are never seen as romantic, they are perceived as fools, losers or mad by the surrounding culture. Sometimes they even see themselves that way and the fall from honour can be a long one, especially when it starts to degrade the sense of self.

Face is held in the awareness of the population rather than a vault, so it partially translates to fame. It involves the players in accumulating it, losing it and because it is public it exists externally to the character (see the section on audiovisual whatsits). A person may be dishonoured even though they have done nothing "wrong", all that matters is public perception. It may also have only a tenuous link to legality, if a man attacks your daughter you may be doing "the right thing" by killing him, but in modern Britain you may still go to jail and in Tsolyanu you may be presented with a huge shamtla bill. Honour is also contagious, your level of face may rise or fall due solely to the actions of a relative. The face level of an entire lineage can be altered in this way, as every member will get some fall-out from a major gain/loss of face. The face from social proximity will be a fraction of that gained or lost by the person generating it. For example,

Morusai and Rhan are brothers, and even for lineage mates they are close (in game mechanics the players have agreed a 1/4 relationship). So when Rhan wins a duel in the Hiralakte Arena and gains 4pts of face, Morusai gains 4*1/4=1pt of face as reflected glory. Had Rhan behaved dishonourably then Morusai could have lost face even though he himself had not been directly involved. Relationships can change, but as long as they both gain face, then each is an asset to the other.

This quantifies personal loyalties and relationships, normally people live with the default relationships and this only really becomes an issue if players want to change their relationship with someone. Every cousin in a clanhouse has some relationship with every other, but it is reasonably distant (about 1/20) so it would take a great honour or dishonour for it to directly effect a distant cousin. But, the point of this is that everyone in the clan is linked, however distantly, and great changes in face will spread out through the clan, like ripples on a pond.

"That sonofabitch he show me no respect, I'm gonna kill that sonofabitch ..."
- Al Pacino explaining the honour system in "Scarface".

Arguments between individuals can escalate to minor matters of honour, matters of honour are zero sum games, and can become an important area of conflict for the characters. The first person to back down in such a situation loses face. A matter of honour can start very minor and gradually escalate into something much more serious. So it becomes harder and harder to become "reasonable" as the personal investment increases. For example,

A group of Clan cousins intend to engineer the destruction of a den of thieves and professional gamblers in the slums of Chene Ho. But, they cannot agree on their tactics. Orun hi Kharsan wants to do it one way and Rhan hi Korodu wants to do it another way. They cannot find a compromise and the argument gradually becomes both heated and public. The referee declares that it has become a matter of honour for both men (so, initially 1 point of face is at stake). But, neither Rhan nor Orun is willing to back down, so neither loses face to the other, yet. The matter is gradually escalating and over the course of the next week the stake increases to 2pts of face. The argument is part of the game and leads to quite a bit of roleplaying. Eventually they turn to the Clan elders for arbitration and both get their shot at proving themselves. The one who takes down the opposition is right and can claim an amount of face (from a range given by the referee) from his opponent. Note that this has nothing to do with who is objectively "right", and leads to a race for glory which may not be the best conditions for anyone to achieve their objectives. This is the social dimension to a tactical situation and it's one of the things that make a rolegame different from a skirmish wargame.

Formalising this makes it part of the game rather than simply an argument between two players. This principle also applies between player's characters and NPC and between NPC's. The fear of losing face can be a major motivator. Face can also be lost by neglect and as we use a 3d6 system I classify face into 18pt levels (so 0-18=level one, 19-36= level two and so on). This makes it easy to interpret what characters with large amounts of face can do ("you'd need at least two levels of face to get a sit-down with him") and give a dice roll based on incomplete levels ("you've got one level plus 5pts of face, two levels would be pretty certain so your roll is 5 or less on 3d6). Incomplete levels will also decay with time (roll or -1pt quarterly), but full levels can only be removed by active dishonour.

The second measure of honour used in the Hall of Stone campaign is that of the Favour. Favours are a currency (credits or debits) and an honourable person may have many of both types. Owing favours is in no sense dishonourable and being owed is not inherently honourable, but a dishonourable person will never be offered favours whereas the honourable person will be. Favours are a nominal system, as you either owe a favour to the Temple of Thumis or you don't. A single, well placed favour can be a lifesaver and players tend to remember where they picked them up. So Favours can become both a source of neurosis ("Oh god I still owe the Temple of Sarku don't I") and become a sort of autobiography for the character as the origin and reason for the favours are recorded. Favours are rated for size (from Trivial to Great). Favours are an important enabling device for the players characters as they are a good way to get access to resources in an emergency. Basically if you are willing to owe someone a favour, you can get them to do stuff for you. Favours are particularly useful because they are a tool for the player rather than the referee For example,

Dhala hi Morutess finds herself in a difficult situation in Chene Ho (again !). She needs some sort of backup but none is readily available. Dhala seems to be in a dead end until her player comes up with an interesting suggestion, that she tries to turn an aquaintance with some members of the Legion of Serqu into direct support. The referee points out that they would be doing her a great favour, but the character manages to persuade them on that basis and the plot is driven forward quite dramatically.

Morusai hi Korodu chances upon a Nlyss warband who he may be able to persuade to defect to the Imperium, if he can show them enough gold. Unfortunately Morusai doesn't have that kind of dosh, but he does have some rank in the Imperial bureaucracy and is a Lay-Priest of Karakan, but his status is not that high and the Nlyss frankly couldn't care less. Morusai does not have time to go through channels, this is a once only opportunity. Fortunately, Morusai does have great face, he is known as a man of honour and if he says that he will sort the situation then people tend to believe him. His word is good enough for many people, especially if he already has some rank with them, so he gets a loan from the Temple, some from the local Palace of the Realm and shows the savages something of the glory of the Empire. Even though the cash is reimbursed, Morusai still owes a few favours, but that is more than compensated by the face he gained from bringing a new warband to the defence of the Empire.

So favours can give the initiative back to the player, which is where it should be. They also involve the player in developing the campaign, as in future the character will know where his commitments lie. Instead of having to drop, coerce or cajole characters into future adventures, the seed of the those developments are now part of the character. The player decides where he will look for favours and so has some control over whom he will be indebted to. Being owed favours is also a plot device waiting to happen, rather than have a character develop skills to an insanely high level or collect enough precious metal to fill Switzerland, it means that the character can collect a currency which supports further adventures. If your character has a fortune in gold, then risking his neck any further may seem increasingly implausible, but if the head of the Death Lords and the LAPD both owe him a Favour or two, then his ability to adventure is improved. Translating this situation into cash may actually encourage him to take some further risks so he can make that big score. In short, favours allow the character to be successful without them becoming cash rich.

Favours are actually very flexible (an intelligent player can think of a variety of uses), but they are also localised, so they do not spell death to game balance (an Avanthe scribe who is owed a single Great favour by a High Priest of Sarku may never be in a situation where he can use it and may fervently pray then he never gets to a point where he needs to). A loss of face can be resisted by the special use of a Favour, the Oath. An Oath is a type of Favour, but the recipient is either not designated or it is the person making the oath. This protects you (your honour) by using it (rapidly putting the appropriate currency into your 'account'). For example,

Urutlen has been embarrassed by an unknown poisoner, rather than take the loss of face, he swears that he will owe a Favour to anyone who brings him the name of his enemy. His oath is finely judged to exactly cancel the embarrassment.

Chiringa is slighted by a merchant of the Black Stone Clan. He declares his willingness to duel the entire Clan (a major Oath). This is quite excessive, easily cancelling the embarrassment and bringing a great gain in face for the best dressed killer in Chene Ho.

Other currencies
It is possible to work in other categories of the parallel economy, for example, rank and custom can be given the same treatment as honour. There are also other more marginal dimensions to social inter-action, and the subtle use of threat and bribe can be handled in this way. The smile of a pretty girl may have motivated more activity that history records, and a lot of money is earned to purchase intangibles such as status or even just the ability to live in obscurity. The cost of conformity can be significant.

Audio-visual whatsits
Rolegames are fundamentally verbal forms (the LARPers are an exception and are something different from tabletop gaming). This is the basis for our hobby, but it does have it's limitations when it comes to representing some sorts of social measure. Although it is obviously possible to attempt to convey the social rank, face level etc of a character in normal verbal communication, it is intermittent and it would tend to get in the way. Social measures like honour should be the social property of the group, not something that sits on a character sheet or gets in the way of the game. To this end I use two main types of visual aids.
Firstly there is a face chart, a line graph that traces the rise and fall of the characters face score over time. So everyone can see their position relative to the other characters. The back of the face chart has the public reputation of the character (up to a paragraph each). Some characters have no reputation, but even that is public property. Generally this tends to make players see the value of honour, for more or less the same reason it works in the real world. Even if you're too sensible to be a gloryhound it is nice to know you get respect. The face chart sits in the middle of the gaming table.
Second, there are the badges. The Tsolyani are a very label conscious society, everyone carries their personal heraldry and in my game so do the players. If you've ever put on a mask you'll know the difference in feel it can produce, having physical symbols of membership and allegiance is useful in encouraging identification with the character. Whereas masks are too clumsy and uncomfortable to be useful in a regular game, I do provide every player with the appropriate badges to represent their character's heraldry. So every player can see the allegiances of every other player without having to discuss them or point them out. Just try sitting there with a Ksarul symbol on when all around you is the grey of Lord Thumis and you'll soon find out about the importance of visible allegiance in Tsolyani society. For the group "badging up" is the signal for the roleplaying to begin.

Conclusions ?
Ah ! The trick is to keep the ball in the air, not to reach a conclusion. The approach I've discussed will probably evolve somewhat, and I'm always open to good ideas, but radical change would be missing the point. The player's familiarity with the system is important, it reflects the intuitive understanding that their characters would have. So, these mechanics work and honour can add an important dimension to the game. Try it, you might like it.

This article was originally published in Imazine 27.

Desert Bug

Frazer Payne 1999

No Free Lunches

A worm's eye view of trading in GURPS Traveller – by Tim Harford

The Far Trader supplement for GURPS Traveller contains two sets of rules for trade: a quick one for games which are not really about trading, and an involved one for games which are.

But what if you’re a referee who wants to run a trading game without spending too much time on preparation? By thinking about economics in a different way, you can cut out the tedious bits and spend your effort creating interesting games, without losing a sense of a detailed trading economy.

The complex rules in Far Trader take a bird's-eye view of the galactic business environment. But the worm's eye view is also good for your average gamer: it's down, it's dirty, and it's also simple.

No Free Lunches
“People talk about the law of one price, they talk about competition and collusion, they talk about option theory and revenue equivalence and gravity models and capital outflows. But there’s only one piece of interstellar trade theory that you need to know to be a trader: there’s no such thing as a free lunch.”
- Amerada Gupata, Windsor Professor of Economics, University of Glisten

So what is this "no free lunches" principle? It's simple. It says that if you're a trader who knows her stuff, you're in competition with other traders who also know their stuff. They have a ship like yours. They have a crew like yours. They're not fools. Whatever a shipment costs you to fly, it costs them to fly.
How much profit will you make, then? You don't need to look it up on a table. You don't need to create a model of the galactic economy, either. You simply know that you'll probably cover your costs - your own salary, your crew, fuel, permits, mortgage on the ship, insurance. After all, those guys have costs too. But after that, you won't make much. If you were making a big profit, your competitors would undercut you.

Hang on. That's simple enough, but it doesn't sound much like an exciting game.
Fair enough. That's what usually happens. But good games are about what doesn't usually happen. And good trading games are about the times when you might just make a killing - or you might just be wiped out.

That’s what this article is all about.

No Free Lunches in Action
Let’s say we’re in the middle of a trading game, and the characters have bought some cargo - since you ask, it's a consignment of Darrian Ultratruffles.
They've taken it somewhere else to sell. The referee needs only one question to be answered: “Who, if anyone, made a killing out of this?”

The short answer is that usually nobody made a killing.
The merchants on each planet probably didn’t make a killing because of competition and because the traders aren’t idiots. The characters know their business, and there are only so many things that can go wrong on a simple trading mission. As for competition, there are usually other merchants to trade with – if someone’s trying to rip you off by charging too much or offering too little, you can go somewhere else. Similarly, the traders won’t make a killing either. The merchants can always get other traders to carry their wares.
Like the Professor says, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. If you do something someone else can do, you can’t expect to make a pot of money. To make a killing, you need to find something that nobody else can do – or that nobody else is doing at the moment.

Finding the Free Lunch
Dull stuff over. We all know that there are free lunches out there. Where do we find them?

A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work
Trading is a business like any other, and just because competition prevents you making a fortune, it doesn’t mean you won’t make a living. A run of the mill trading voyage should pay for mortgages and wages for you and your crew – that’s true for your competitors just the same as for you.

Bust a cartel
Big business can make a lot of money running a cartel. If every line on the route has agreed to charge over the odds, then the merchants don’t have much option but to pay up. What happens to the tramps when there’s a cartel on the route?
Cartels aren’t easy to maintain. Of course, they’re illegal in the Imperium (see Far Trader, sidebar p25). That means they can’t be legally enforced and so they can only last if nobody else turns up and undercut the cartel. Historically, the most successful collusion has been illegally enforced – backed by criminal organizations such as the Mafia, who could prevent new competitors turning up to spoil the party. Cartels will probably need have bought out influential figures in the government, one way or another.
Characters are most likely to get involved as cartel-busters. There’s a lot of money to be made undercutting the cartel, getting guaranteed full holds and still making an unusually healthy margin. Just as long as they don’t get in the way of the local corporate goons or the crooked customs officials…
Remember that since smaller ships make less difference to the cartel operation, they’re worth less bother to stop. If the characters can keep a low profile, they may keep out of trouble – for a while.

Play rough
Not many people are willing to trade to Red zones. Or smuggle contraband. Or carry dangerous cargo. Or dodge pirates.
The characters can earn money in two ways by getting involved in this kind of activity. First, they earn danger money to compensate them for the risk. (There has to be extra cash in risking your life, or nobody would get involved.) Second, only a few rugged types are likely to have the stomach and the muscle for trading on the wild side. This means less competition, and the characters might get to charge an extra margin as well as their danger money. Of course, when the competition do turn up, they’re likely to know how to handle themselves.
The referee should remember that the “no free lunches” principle still applies. There are other thugs and criminals around, and if the characters ask for too much money the client can always get someone else.

Make a name for yourself
The universe is a big place, but if you become known – locally at least – as the safest, or the most discrete, or the fastest, or the most courteous, then you get to charge a premium. Of course, that premium depends on your reputation, and your competitors may wish to acquire the reputation for themselves, by fair means or foul.
If the players and the referee are into that kind of thing, trying to maintain a reputation makes for a fantastic game. Anyone who has ever seen Fawlty Towers can appreciate the humor to be found trying to keep up professional appearances in trying circumstances. Come to think of it, you don't need to have seen Fawlty Towers. You just need to have worked in a service industry for a while.
There is more than just humor to be found in a game of reputation. Once you get involved in local business, you get involved in local politics. The world of media, of PR, of spin and counter-spin - that's a world full of gray areas and great games.
Keep in mind that characters can have a bad reputation as well as a good one. If they made a killing on one deal through some sharp negotiation - even if what they did was legal - then people will get to hear. And that's bad for future business.

Ride the boom
The “no free lunches” principle relies on competition reducing freight prices to the point at which trading breaks even. But this process takes time ("in the long run, we're all dead"). Many of the serious fortunes made in the world have been made in a hurry because business conditions changed and a few people reacted more quickly than the competition.
In the simplest case, there is sometimes there’s so much business around that every trader in the area can charge a premium.
Bear in mind a few things, though. First, the boom would have to be for trading services. Traders themselves don’t benefit from a frenzy for Darrian Ultratruffles – the Darrian Ultratruffle manufacturers are the ones making a killing. Traders benefit from a shortage in shipping services, however that shortage came about.
Second, the boom may be short term or long term. If there’s an unforeseen need to ship cargo around, and the people who want it shipped can’t wait – perhaps they have to fulfill a contract, or perhaps the cargo is perishable – then the traders can charge a premium. That could be a short term situation, or there could be a sector-wide shortage of cargo ships for weeks, months or even years. The shortage will persist until new ships hear of the sellers' market and cross the galaxy to fill the void – or until new ships can be manufactured locally.
Third, the characters are just as likely to be caught in a slump, which could again be short or long term. A short term slump might mean some vicious and desperate competition. If it’s a long term local slump, that means that they have to get out of the sector to continue trading – leaving friends, contacts and local knowledge far behind.

Form a partnership
Many of the firms that turn in good profits year after year do so because they're managed to put the right team together in ways that are hard to copy.
There's a lot of rubbish written about teams, but good teams do exist.
Good teams can do things that others can't. And that means profit.
A good team is not just a collection of good people. Good people can earn a fat salary anywhere: the team is greater than the sum of the parts, which means there's a financial reward to sticking together.
This is ideal for a game, of course, but for maximum effect the team need to appreciate that their achievements are based on the way they fit together, rather than their individual talents.
They may appreciate this most when one of the team goes missing and needs to be replaced - so take advantage next time one of your players takes a vacation…

Be First With the News
On a planetary level, news travels fast. Publicly available information is incorporated into stock prices within fifteen seconds (yes, it’s been measured). Last year, as the prospect of war in Serbia loomed large, so did the prospect of post-war reconstruction: stocks in German construction firms rose. It’s callous, but it pays to think ahead.
When big news breaks in the Traveller universe, the headlines ripple outwards very slowly. Any trader who can ride that wave can get the drop on the people with whom he trades.
The characters could always rely on inside knowledge, of course – it’s a way of making a killing in any situation. Until they get caught. And remember, the NPCs can have inside information, too…

Conclusion: The “Critical Event” Approach
Although applied in this case to “Traveller”, the approach here can be used in many other settings. Essentially, the idea is that only what is exceptional is worth spending time on. Whether considering trading, or politics, or even combat - why not establish a way of cutting to the chase?

The True Arte of Defence

by Ralph Lovegrove

For most people, the term “Martial Arts” will conjure up images of inscrutable oriental masters of combat, remote Tibetan monasteries, and black silk-clad barehanded warriors who whoop and sail through empty air with deadly grace. Yet “Martial Art” is western term, and in its broadest sense applies to any form of military technique in combat. Oriental Martial Arts are long established in the public eye because of their apparent exclusivity, their esoteric practises and their spiritual traditions. Sadly it seems that in the west we have not taken quite as much care of our own martial heritage, discarding our Bills and Bows in favour of firearms, aircraft carriers and push-button warfare.
There is, however, a quiet army of enthusiasts working in the background who are steadily unearthing and reinterpreting ancient texts, sagas, prose and accounts of battles in an effort to recreate our European martial systems of old. It’s only recently, though, with the advent of the Internet that the Western traditions have suddenly become accessible to the scholar, who now has a wealth of information at their fingertips in the form of online texts and advice from groups throughout the western world. A glance at the works of Talhoffer or Silver will immediately show that our swordsmen of old were not ham-fisted barbarians, hacking and slashing their way through the annals of history. They were indeed artists, understanding combat as a science with basic underlying principles through which they applied their techniques. The martial traditions of Europe have as much practicality, elegance, poetry and in many cases spirituality as those of the Orient.
This article is mainly derived from the English martial arts and the use of the sword, as those are my primary sources of information. Obviously the historical detail I can provide in such a small space (and being only an amateur) is limited, but there is plenty of good stuff available from books and web sites, a list of which I will provide at the end of the text. Whether you want to run an historical game or simply take inspiration from the Ancient Masters, hopefully you’ll find something of interest.

Three Englishmen

Before we begin, I’d like to introduce you to three fine upstanding English gentlemen:
George Silver, Gentleman
Silver’s treatise of 1599 entitled Paradoxes of Defense, and the Brief Instructions that followed it, are regarded by many scholars as definitive works. Within the texts Silver lays down the law on the effectiveness of different lengths of weapons, the science of the fight including the Grounds and Governors, and a few good anecdotes. Silver was without a doubt an educated and intelligent man. Some modern scholars hold that he hated the Italians and Spanish, but in truth the thing he hated most was the rapier. The continental masters of fence certainly did not have many kind words to say about our own English backsword, which Silver defends most eloquently whilst pointing out the shortcomings of the rapier styles.

Sir William Hope
Actually, Sir William was a Scot. However, his New and Easy Method of Fencing was derived from the style of the English broad sword (backsword), and he is remarkable for being a small-sword master in a period when nearly all other fencing masters were French or Spanish. He wrote numerous books around the turn of the eighteenth century, including The Scots Fencing Master and the New Method.

Terry Brown
A practitioner of both western and eastern arts for over thirty years, Terry Brown is very much alive and giving classes in English arts from his studio in London. Terry’s book, English Martial Arts, is a fantastic read for both its historical content and its technical sections, which include a clarification of some of Silver’s principles of fighting.

Some Useful Terms
Artist - one who is skilled in the Art of Defense. The term Martial Arts is as much a western term as an oriental one.
Command the sword - meaning to seize an opponent’s weapon in order to disarm him
Contre-temps – an attack which occurs in single time, i.e. at the same time as an opponent’s attack. Normally the attacker would be relying on a parrying hand, dagger or simply dodging out of the way in order to preserve his life as he delivers his own attack. Because of the risk involved, the contre-temps is often synonymous with the Exchanged Thrust.
Ignorant - not usually derogatory, this term merely means one who is not skilled in (i.e. ignorant of) the art of defense.
Exchanged Thrust – an exchange where both combatants simultaneously attack and wound or kill one another. Common in rapier duels.
Measure - the distance of a fight. To retreat, or to move aside and out of the line of attack in combat is said to be Breaking Measure.
Time – a “time” is a single action, such as an attack, a parry, or the act of drawing one’s arm back to strike. Some “times” are faster than others. Silver talks extensively on “true” and “false” times.
Voiding - the act of dodging or otherwise avoiding an attack by movement of the body. To void is often taken to mean the circular breaking of measure.
Ward (or Guard) – (noun) the manner in which the weapon is held in combat to allow the combatant to defend himself; (verb) meaning to defend oneself against an attack.

A Brief History of the Art
Terry Brown tells us that “Martial Arts have always been held dear by Englishmen… which is not surprising when one considers how frequently England was invaded”. This tells us something of both our Anglo-Saxon heritage and of the martial heritage of Europe in general. The English arts were the arts “not of a family or village… but of an entire nation”. Clearly this points to some military structure and tradition of the arts which was handed down throughout English history, and probably throughout other parts of Europe as well. Actual treatises on European arts only go back as far as the medieval period; however, our culture is littered with accounts, sagas and prose that illustrate the prowess of the pre-medieval warriors. Not only must these heroes have been brave, but their technical competence must also have been very great. One can appreciate how Anglo-Saxon arts developed through training and exploration by masters of the sword, to be passed down from generation to generation and tested in battle and community prize-playing.
The oldest surviving manuscript on sword-art in Europe is German. Entitled I.33 (“one-thirty-three”), it is an illuminated manual from 1295 which demonstrates techniques in sword and buckler. The illustrations show one combatant with a tonsure, and the general consensus is that it was produced by a German cleric – the German text is repeated in Latin, and refers to the tutor as “Sacerdos” (priest). Perhaps the mixed image of the monastic and the martial is not exclusive to the eastern arts!
A large proportion of the medieval masters of the sword were German and Swiss. This period spans several centuries, from the anonymous I.33 at the end of the 13th century, through Hans Talhoffer who published his Fechtbuch between 1450 and 1470, to Joachim Meyer’s Art of Fighting of 1570. In the latter period the Germanic long sword started to overlap with the emergence of the rapier, and Meyer makes allusions to both weapons (as well as staves, pole-arms and unarmed combat). The most significant point about the medieval style is that sword-art was not taught as a separate art but was combined with wrestling and dagger techniques in training, as it was critical on the battlefield to use any possible advantage to penetrate heavy armour. A lot of medieval armour defeating methods involved using the “half-sword”, which involved gripping the sword close to the tip with the off hand and using it in the manner of a short spear to trap limbs and wrestle whilst striking with point, quillions and pommel[i]

The techniques, and the weapons of the medieval sword-man remained in use by soldiers throughout the Renaissance period (16th cent. onwards), particularly the English. However, around this time the rapier also appeared, and the treatises on rapier emerged from Italian and Spanish masters, as well as one or two Englishmen (such as Joseph Swetnam, who also included admonitions to the use of another great English weapon, the quarterstaff). The Italian masters of fence flooded the civilised world, and the mania for duelling began. The rapier is a very different weapon from the longsword; it balances differently and it is principally used for thrusting. The rapier required a great deal of skill to use, and there is no question that its masters were very skilled martial artists. However, many duellists did not posses such skill. George Silver’s objections to the rapier were mainly directed at those boastful masters of fence who claimed that it was a perfect weapon. Silver himself devotes some of Paradoxes of Defense to the exposition of the flawed arguments of the Italians and Spanish. His principle objection, it seems, was that the masters of the rapier were inflating the prestige of the rapier. As a result, many young men would attend a couple of lessons and, thinking that they had been instructed perfectly, would wear a rapier in public, involve themselves in duels, and die.

The rapier was a weapon for civilians. Gradually it became smaller and lighter - and in many cases longer; Queen Elizabeth issued an edict that all blades over a yard in length be broken when it became apparent that gentlemen were tripping themselves and others up with their ludicrously long trailing scabbards. The “transitional” period from rapier to smallsword occurred around 1700 – essentially the rapier became shorter and lighter and bladework became more subtle. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, however, duels between gentlemen – and on occasion between their seconds as well - were still bloody affairs that left one or both men dead. Most of the masters of the smallsword were French or Italian, but two notable Englishmen, Donald McBane and Sir William Hope, occupy a prominent place in the annals of history. Gradually the smallsword technique became more refined and less deadly as grace and composure rivalled Art as the recognised qualities of the swordsman. By the 19th century, fencing owed as much to the dancing styles of the period as it did the legacy of the rapier. The foil and epee are the direct (bastard) descendants of the smallsword today.

Warriors have played for sport throughout the ages, but once pistols became the mainstay of the duelling field from 1830 onwards, the sword was a sporting weapon as far as civilians were concerned. It was not, however, the only violent sport that was enjoyed. Pugilism and wrestling were also popular, and manuals on both unarmed martial arts are available. It is most important to note that, by this period, the arts of the sword and those of the fist were taught separately. Although a swordsman might also train to use certain holds, locks and throws in case his weapon be commanded, the art of the sword was very much aristocratic, whereas the barehanded arts were somewhat plebeian. That is not to impugn such arts - indeed, boxing was highly regarded as a sport, and drew large crowds. However, boxing was a bare-knuckle art and it was only when a few of the upper class decided to take lessons that the wearing of mufflers (gloves) in order to prevent broken jaws and noses in the training ring came into fashion.

The battlefield use of the sword continued up until the early twentieth century. Whilst the civilians of the Regency period were attending the classes of Angelo in the smallsword - by then not much heavier than an epee - the troopers were taking lessons from the manual of the 1796 light pattern sabre, a most deadly weapon that (by virtue of excellent design) was capable of cutting the head from a horse. Sabre combat was still an art of war in the Victorian era, as shown by the 1889 treatise Cold Steel by Sir Alfred Hutton. However, for obvious reasons the sword eventually could not be a practical weapon for battlefield use when portable machine-guns and pistols were available. The sword was (mainly) restricted to ceremonial use after the First World War.

It is only relatively recently that the earlier texts on Medieval sword-art have been unearthed as part of the ongoing effort. Why? Well, for one reason, the fashion for the rapier around the time of the Renaissance coincided with the birth of the printing press; prior to this, the medieval sword techniques were copied on manuscripts and were much less easily obtainable. Another, possibly related factor might have been the dictates of society and fashion. The wearing of a sword in the medieval period was a practicality, but in the Renaissance it was a fashion statement. Much to the ire of George Silver the rapier gained a perhaps undue amount of public acclaim at this time, prompting many masters of the weapon to write their own treatises.

The sword seems most favoured among the weapons of history for the sheer volume of material devoted to it. It is by no means a perfect weapon, but it has a particular mystique in history, culture, and fantasy role-playing games. We shall now explore the nature of the sword.

The Evolution of the Blade

Had the process for manufacturing cheap steel swords never been invented, there would be no Art of Fence per se - the sword would remain prohibitively expensive for ownership by the masses. The pattern-welded steel blades of the pre-900 AD era were chieftains’ weapons, labour intensive to make and very valuable. The only way a common warrior was likely to come by such a weapon was by either a gift, or by looting the dead on the field of battle. Swords are linked forever with both authority and legendary figures.

The early steel swords, like their pattern-welded predecessors, had blades with virtually parallel edges. Around the early medieval period when fighters would carry shields, combat was a matter of taking turns striking blows and defending with their shields until they could strike again. As the sword technology developed and the weapon became tapered and lighter, the sword could be employed more easily to both attack and parry and the system of fencing with a single blade emerged. However, there was considerable overlap between the use of sword and shield and single sword, and the methods that worked with the heavier Saxon blades were retained and used effectively with the later, tapered weapons. Hans Talhoffer refers to the use of both single sword and of sword and shield in his 15th century treatises.

Before we proceed further, it would be useful to clarify some sword nomenclature. Most role-players are probably familiar with the generally accepted standard of the Broadsword, usually taken to mean the heavy single- or double-handed broad bladed weapons of the medieval period. In fact the term only came into use in the 18th century, in describing those historical and contemporary weapons which were broad bladed by comparison with the rapier and smallsword. I use it as a general default term for any broad bladed cleaving sword. One specific example of the “broad sword” is the 16th century English Backsword, a single edged blade (with maybe a back edge on the top six inches for draw cuts), between three and four feet long, with a considerable knuckle-guard or cage for hand protection.

Next, we have the Long sword and Short Sword. Again there is no “standard” description other than taking the terms literally, i.e. the long sword is longer than the short sword. Many people will consider the Short Sword to be a little longer than a dagger, a heavy broad bladed cleaving weapon like a Gladius, but in fact it covers numerous styles of weapon from Roman gladii to Italian spontoons to the infamous knife of Jim Bowie. Silver’s distinction between the Long and Short sword was based on its functionality - in Paradoxes he explains how the short sword is superior to the long sword or long rapier because it is quicker to riposte from the parry. Silver’s reference was therefore to the use of shorter blades compared to longer ones, rather than any absolute; most blades were between 3 and four feet long (although there were much shorter blades in use). The only distinction we can make of the Long Sword, aside from its length, is that it frequently had a longer grip and could be employed two-handed as in the style of the German medieval masters.

At the extremes of the scale there are various “Great” swords, which could only be used double handed, and very short swords that might have been employed by archers and pikemen who would kneel or stand very close to one another on the field. All of these weapons, whilst varying in length, still retained their basic relative dimensions and balance, though the techniques for each varied.

Just to confuse things, though, later in history we encounter the Small sword. This little weapon is the predecessor of the modern epee or foil and is of similar dimensions. It is totally different from the short, broad sword of the medieval period. Like the rapier from which it evolved, the smallsword balances near to the hand and was used solely for delivering thrusts (although some were sharpened at the tip to improve penetration). The smallsword was mainly a civilian weapon and saw little military service[ii].

Let us return to the medieval period of the 14th and 15th century. By this point, steel swordmaking was well understood and light swords could be wielded with great agility to both attack and parry. The process of making a lighter and quicker blade was by no means the only technical refinement. Swords were developed with any number of grooves or “fullers” along their blades. This may have been done with the intention of making the weapon lighter, but there is also the notion that these provided a “blood gutter” which allowed the blood to drain freely from one’s victim once one had impaled them and (more importantly) broke the vacuum of the wound and allowed the fighter to extract his weapon from his opponent’s body.

Some blades were triangular, for thrusting only. These weapons could punch through armour in some cases (apparently, some examples of antique armour have small triangular holes at the base of the skull or over the heart…). The estoc was one such weapon, and was about the length of a longsword. Its triangular blade was probably designed to find mail links and joints and pierce them that way. It was most likely used with “half-sword” techniques.

A medieval soldier could expect to have his fingers repeatedly broken during the course of his career. One of the most significant developments was the inclusion of protection for the hand. Initially, the standard cruciform hilt was embellished with rings to protect the hand; later (around the 16th century) the hilt gained bow guards, shells or cups to cover the whole hand or even full cages. These refinements to the hilt and grip were not solely for protection, though. The elaborate hilts often included a ricasso for “fingering” the blade - essentially a little loop of metal over the leading quillion to protect the forefinger, which would rest over the quillion to improve control of the point[iii]. This practise of fingering the blade was very important to the Italian styles of fence, especially the rapier[iv].

The rapier was relatively short-lived (about 150 years) compared to the standard broad swords which preceded it and which continued to be in use during and after its lifetime. It may have developed from any number of cut-and-thrust style swords, such as the Italian Schiavona. It almost certainly did not develop from the Estoc, despite the latter’s triangular blade for thrusting only. The rapier differed from the broad sword in its balance, which was about one inch from the hand - the broad sword, by comparison, balances about eight inches from the hilt[v]. The principles of the fight with the rapier were the same as those of any other weapon, but the actual techniques were very different. Because the rapier became so popular with the civilian masses, it began to develop without input from the military. George Silver’s admonitions to the shorter sword were partly (if not wholly) directed at the rapier as, under the general assumption that the longer weapon would confer the advantage, gentlemen began to sport longer and longer weapons. At one point the long weapons were such a nuisance in the street that Queen Elizabeth ordered all blades over a yard in length be broken. Other refinements included triangular blades (as opposed to diamond-section weapons) which could be made lighter but retain their strength.

In the “transitional” period, the smallsword emerged from the transitional (short) rapier. Gradually the weapon became lighter and more effete, and after a while became irrelevant to civilian life outside the fencing salon. Meanwhile, however, the broad sword remained in military service in the form of the backsword (the latter day “claymore” used by Scottish regiments) and the ubiquitous sabre. A cutting weapon was much more effective on the battlefield than an impaling one, as it took time to draw one’s weapon from the body of a dispatched foe. There was little more refinement in the sword technology of this period, however, as military interest lay more in firearms.

The evolution of the sword is complicated. The outline above hardly takes into account the variation in tastes in European culture, let alone the cultural differences outside Europe in the scimitar, the shamshir, the katana and a host of other long bladed weapons that have been developed outside the European system.

Society and the Swordsman

There are two ways a man may learn to fight: direct conflict, or skilled tuition. For the soldier, the bulk of his experience would probably be earned on the battlefield. It seems that civilian life was no less hazardous, however. Terry Brown’s English Martial Arts begins with a number of references to England’s violent past, where common men were at risk not only from bandits but from senseless acts of violence by their peers, such as Roger Styward who was kicked and punched to death by Simon de Peckham for dropping litter outside his shop. Men generally travelled armed with a sword or similar in England “…save for the Minister… who weareth none at all unlesse it is a dagger or hanger at his side…”.

The “Ancient Masters” of England were a governing body of swordsmen who regulated the teaching of the sword and other arms. Though almost certainly respected, they were not always officially recognised by the state. In fact, they were not even legally recognised for much of history. Even when Henry VIII chose to directly patronise and officially recognise the Company of Maisters (English Martial Artists), they were still technically classified as vagrants.

Strange, then, that the masters of the rapier were so highly regarded by (continental) society. It was something to be proud of that one had studied under the master Saviolo, for example. Whether it was the arrogant attitude of the rapier masters that inflated their own importance, or the public regard for them that went to their heads, their boastful attitude was not well received by the English. There is no denying that the rapier masters were superb swordsmen, but their techniques were brought into question by Silver as being founded on inexact principles. In many cases the rapier man purchased their tuition by the “label” that came with it, thinking that a couple of lessons under an Italian master would make them the equal of an English swordsman of several years’ experience. No doubt that this notion of false security led to many the death of a boastful young man.

Above all, though, the Company of Maisters was an organisation that sought to maintain the quality of its swordsmen through handing down of techniques and striving for excellence in its swordsmen. The way that this was done was the same as the way standards are maintained in modern Oriental schools - i.e. grading. There were four grades of swordsman: Scholar, Free Scholar, Provost, and Master. Each rank conferred certain assurances of competence, and certain requirements were made of the student for passing from one to the next. The student was tested by the playing of a “prize”. Prizes were played publicly, although in order to demonstrate his readiness for the prize the scholar had to first privately play against six of his fellow scholars to the satisfaction of the Masters.

When enrolled in the English school the scholar normally trained in two weapons, although sometimes three weapons were learned. Weapons included the longsword, the backsword, and the sword and buckler.

The Company of Maisters appears to have had the exclusivity of a secret society or Masonic cell[vi]. Above the “ordinary” maisters (masters) there were four (or six) “Ancient Maisters” who appeared to have an autocratic rule, threatening punishment (though nothing more dire than a fine or a few days in prison) for those who rebelled against the traditions of the school. “Rebellion” seems to consist of dereliction of duties or contradicting the Maisters. This may seem unnecessarily dictatorial, but the purpose of the Company was to ensure excellence of teaching.

Challenges were the other form of public sport. These may have been formalised duels, announced to all and sundry before the event (indeed the challenge may have been issued publicly), or they may have simply been sporting events where two swordsmen demonstrated their expertise. The British certainly had a fondness for watching bouts of the sword, staff and fist. Gladiatorial combat with swords was not uncommon and was remarked upon by Samuel Pepys in his diaries. Pugilism gained popularity in the latter part of the eighteenth century, making names for such masters as Broughton, Mendoza and Gentlemen John Jackson (who, as Terry Brown remarks, was only a gentleman in conduct outside the ring).

The mania for the rapier and the duel on the continent was less genteel and ordered. As far as duelling went, it was common to deal through seconds in contacting one’s adversary. In the 16th century, not only did one have two or three seconds assisting in one’s matter of honour, it was often the case that on both sides the seconds would participate in the duel, making four men aside. It was also not uncommon that a high proportion of those men would be killed outright, as was the case when in one duel the two principles engaged one another, wounded each other and set about wrestling; when the seconds came to disengage the two they became embroiled in the melee and nearly all of the seconds were killed. Meanwhile, the two principles, having come to a reconciliation over the first wound, left the field injured but alive.

In the early 18th century it is reckoned that King Louis XIV was issuing one pardon per day for duelling. Duelling was still illegal, and a man could hang should he kill his opponent. There were some duelling conventions that were observed that might save a man from the noose were he brought in front of the magistrate for killing an opponent. It was reasonable to kill a man in the duel, but to kill him once he had surrendered was murder. Seconds existed partly to act as witnesses that all conduct had been above board.

Men were called out for the most petty and contrived offences, such was the craze for fighting. Avoiding another’s gaze in the street. Waking up a neighbour’s dog. Insulting the Mississippi. On occasion seconds were called for, but in some cases (when duelling was illegal and heavily penalised) a gentleman might simply make it known to his adversary that he would be taking a stroll, alone, tomorrow morning at the hour of five and would, by chance, be carrying his sword.

The amount of blood shed varied by period. In the 18th century duels went on until one man was dead; by the 19th, principles were urged by their seconds to reach a reconciliation after a pinking (i.e. minor scratch). In those latter days, between wounds the tips of the smallswords would be wiped with antiseptic.

And so we come to the end of the first section. In our second part, we’ll look at the grounds and governors of the fight, what the masters thought the necessary qualities of the swordsman to be, and how we can apply the principles to role-playing combat.

----------------------

[i] I refer here to the German styles practised by modern groups such as the Historical Armed Combat Association. I’m told that some Italian styles of longsword from the same period avoid wrestling in favour of retreating to sword distance, but to be honest I’ve not been tutored in either.
[ii] Actually, there are some examples of “military small swords” which may have been worn by officers, but the likelihood that they would have been employed on the battlefield is small. However a sibling weapon called a Spadroon - a sword of the dimensions of the smallsword but balanced to deliver slashing cuts - was used as a military weapon.
[iii] Not all ricassos on blades were functional. A weapon that claims to be an English backsword is on display in Warwick castle and has a ricasso. This is probably purely stylistic, as the English style of fence tended to use a fist or “hammer” grip.
[iv] However, the practise of fingering the blade can be observed centuries earlier, from illustrations on crypts that show knights holding a blade with a finger over the leading quillion.
[v] Based on an approximate measurement of a wooden replica.
[vi] Note though that the Company of Maisters pre-dated the Masons by several centuries!

My Lovely Horse

by Roz Barnes

Do you use horses in your games? As a longtime horse owner I'm amazed at how tractable 'gaming horses' seem to be - quite unlike real life. Those creatures that ferry you from A to B as uncomplainingly as a motorbike, are in reality as perverse and cussed as one of Jack Vance's fussiest creations.
The word reality is crucial here. What you see horses doing in films is not reality. They are trained to do things that normal horses wouldn't do or wouldn't tolerate. For instance, you often see someone hoisting an unconscious person onto the saddle in front of him and happily trotting off. Horses often become very hard to control if you do that. When the Byzantine cavalry needed to move the wounded off the battlefield, a specially placid type of horse was trained to do this because the cavalry horses, well trained as they were in other ways, wouldn't put up with it.
Aside from relishing this chance to point out where everyone gets it wrong, there's a more practical reason for pointing out these complications - they add drama or comedy, and storytelling thrives on the unexpected. I'm not a role-player, but I am a novel-writer (as well as a dedicated equestrian) and I can see several wasted opportunities.
Mostly, horses are trusting and willing to please, which is why people bothered to domesticate them. But all of them - from mustangs to farmers' cobs - are born with the same instincts. They go through many years of training to coax them to do what humans want reliably and calmly, but the instincts are always there, and will surface if the rider or handler is not in complete control, or puts them in a provocative situation. And this applies even to their basic training - fancy stuff like carrying an extra injured rider takes even longer, and doesn't always work.

Riding skill
If we are talking about ordinary people whose principal profession is something other than riding, we can compare their skill with that of car drivers - so some people will do it a lot better at it than others, some will be cautious, some brave, some dangerous to others, some aggressive, some will be speed demons, some will freeze when things go wrong, and some will be very bad at fine manoeuvring like parking. However, while cars are unquestioningly obedient at all times, horses aren't.
Riding is not just knowing where to kick or being well co-ordinated - it's also about how you react when you don't feel in control - for instance when the horse shies or does any of the behaviours listed later. What do you do to regain control? Do you start a fight (in which case beware - you may not win)? Do you lose your nerve so that you don't dare boss the horse around, letting it do what it wants? Many sensitive people (I imagine sorcerors, musicians and other 'indoors' types) feel very unsafe when something goes wrong. (On the other hand, they might love to abandon themselves to the power of the animal - which will cause mayhem for everybody else.)

Things you might find difficult to do
Many situations might interfere with a straightforward ride on a well mannered horse. I have graded the degree of difficulty from 'only a rather ineffectual, hesitant rider would lose control' (-2) to 'very skilled riders would lose control' (-10). (These figures are appropriate for a 3d6 system such as GURPS.)
But remember to increase the difficulty according to how hard the horse is to ride - that's when the fun really starts.
Going past something unfamiliar. Something new on an unfamiliar track - even something as 'natural' as a fallen log - will cause trouble. The horse will try to avoid going near it, or may even turn around and gallop back the way it came. Penalty is at least -2, but roll to find out how severe its reaction is. Also roll to see if rider was unseated and falls off.
Going somewhere new. If you're going down an unfamiliar track the horse will snort at trees and quiver at every rustle in the hedgerow, even though it has seen trees and heard rustles all its life. It may spook - modifier -4.
Breaking a habit. Horses are supreme creatures of habit. They learn very quickly, and that includes things you don't want them to learn. If you have always turned left at a particular path, you will find it hard to turn right - difficulty -4. If you have always galloped whenever you come to a hill, it will be very difficult to stop. Difficulty -6 because the horse will be excited.
Sudden noise or appearance of an object. Modifier at least -2, but depends on severity of fright, so roll to see how frightened the horse is. At a minimum, the horse may shy (skip sideways), which may unseat the rider. The more sudden the horse's movement, the more unseating it is. But a horse can be trained to stand still as cannons go off around it, provided the rider is not frightened also. A horse that has had a bad fright will turn and bolt, galloping madly to get away from the threatening object. Difficulty -10; a beginner becomes a helpless passenger; an experienced rider should roll to see how long it takes to stop. Some horses are incredibly stupid and may run full tilt into an object such as a tree, so roll to see if yours has a good sense of self-preservation.
If the horse is injured. A horse can ignore a lot of things if the rider has its attention sufficiently - for instance in a demanding situation such as a fight, the modifer from a blow of, say, a sword would be at least -8. Otherwise the horse will first attempt to flee, or, if it can't (or the rider stops it, or it has been trained to fight) it may attack. An injury caused in another situation such as wrenching a tendon or pulling a muscle, will make the horse stop and look very sorry for itself. It will have to be walked gently home, although only a competent person will be able to persuade it to move, and if it's a particularly dippy character it may think you are deliberately causing it pain (-4).
Blast from the past. Horses only have to be hurt once by something to fear it. There is a very small chance that a particular item or noise is their bete noir. Penalty is -10.
If you're lost. If you keep doubling back on your tracks, your horse will try to take charge. Horses have an excellent sense of direction and can always find their way home. If you are lost, you can drop the reins and the horse will take you back to civilisation, or at least to the next place that has other horses in it, friendly or otherwise.
If you are without some item of tack. Saddles help the rider stay on, and bridles give control. You can ride without either one, but it's hard. Modifier -6, and all difficulties caused by the horse's temperament will be more severe. Also, horses' spines are like razor blades so amorous activities will be out of the question.
An extra load. if asked to carry two people, or another load, the penalty is -6.
Supernatural happenings. Of course evidence on this is rather minimal, but horses are not telepathic or clairvoyant. What is known, is that they do have very keen hearing and an acute sense of smell. Supernatural happenings will be really disruptive (-10) because they will be unfamiliar, and the rider will also be scared of them.
Smell of blood. This really upsets horses. Hunts are careful to keep horses well away from the kill.

Gaits
Horses have four gaits: walk, trot, canter and gallop. Speeds: walk is 4-6mph; trot is 5-8mph; canter can be slow (12mph) or fast (25mph). Gallop is 25-40mph. But the horse will go as fast or as slow as it wants to, depending on whether you can 'light it up' or not. It is perfectly possible to get about using only walk and trot, so very unskilled riders may get into trouble at a canter, and slightly better ones will still have trouble at a gallop. However, some unskilled riders have a 'hot seat', which can be rather amusing

Ineffectual riders
An ineffectual rider will know how to give the horse basic instructions but will be unable to enforce them should the horse refuse to co-operate - which is very common as horses always know if there's an unsteady seat in the saddle. Even if the horse is generally obliging and docile, it may become very stubborn with the ineffectual rider on board. This is not nastiness, but discomfort at the constant clumsy kicks in the ribs, thumps on the back and tugs in the mouth.Ineffectual riders will have little control over the horse's speed, and in a crisis will get taken wherever the horse feels like going. If such a rider does decide to assert themselves, the horse will know it doesn't have to obey. It will either ignore the rider, or become really upset at the ham-fisted way it is being treated, and may buck or bolt. This will certainly cause a disaster as ineffectual riders have poor balance, and even minor shying or a stumble may be enough to unseat them. Ineffectual riders might well hate riding because (understandably) of the unpleasant sensation that the big brute underneath them is the one in control.

Dangerous things horses might do
Horses might do a number of things that are very unseating and may put themselves and their rider in danger. Often they do these things from fear, but some real rogues learn to do them out of disobedience.
Jumping
It is useful to jump ditches, hedges, etc. Any attempt to jump will result in one of a few outcomes:
The horse will jump. This is a very athletic movement and inexpert riders may fall.
The horse will crash through the object as though it wasn't there - but only if it is flimsy. They won't do this if they think they will hurt themselves.
The horse will stop. They can go from gallop to a standstill, but the rider can't. This is what happened to Christopher Reeve. Half the time even excellent riders get dumped. Or, the horse will try to swerve around the obstacle - for the rider the outcome is much the same.
The horse will try to jump but not clear the obstacle, and will fall. You may both be injured. The horse may not be quite so willing to jump for you in future.
You are more likely to fall off while jumping than while doing anything else. A horse is more likely to jump if it's following another horse, in fact you might find it impossible to stop. It is more likely to refuse if the obstacle is a ditch or looks off-putting - an object such as a stile is difficult, as is a wide object such as a cart. If the horse is worried about the obstacle and is following another horse it may try to find another way, by swerving suddenly, and the rider may be unseated.
Bucking is flinging the back legs in the air like doing a handstand, and the horse might do it only once or it might do it until it has got rid of its rider. Bolting is galloping madly away and refusing to stop, and a bolting horse might be so terrified it no longer cares about its own safety (see above). It will certainly upset other horses.
Rearing is standing on the back legs like a performing dog. You see this a lot in films because it looks very impressive, but in real life it's very dangerous as the horse can easily fall over backwards.

Horses that are aggressive may trample on someone, although well-mannered ones will do their utmost to avoid stepping on a person, even a fallen rider. Aggressive horses also might crush the rider or their dismounted handler, for instance, against a wall.
A horse might buck if excited. Any horse might do any of the above if frightened, but a horse who does them repeatedly has learned to use its strength defiantly (habitual behaviour like that is known as a vice).
However, they rarely rear in real life, because of the way they are trained (take no notice of what you see in films), but if they do rear they can fall over backwards. If they do it repeatedly they have to go for remedial training (rarely works) or be sold to some unsuspecting mug. If you want to have a horse rear in a game, roll to see if it falls over and if that happens, roll again to see if the rider is still alive.
Other ways in which a horse might injure a human - or another horse - are kicking and biting. Front legs and back legs are equally as dangerous. Being kicked by a horse is like being hit full force with a sledgehammer (not, as GURPS says, like a punch). And remember horses wear iron shoes.
Biting is also serious - horses' incisors are sharp and can give you a nasty wound. A horse may have learned to kick and/or bite as a habit too - usually it will kick or bite both humans and other horses.

The weather
Very cold weather (a bright crisp morning) makes them full of fun and raring to go, and more likely to cavort if they hear a rustle in the bushes. You might have little episodes of prancing and shying, which will be infectious. You will get everywhere much faster, but riding rolls are at -4.
A windy day can make them irritable (as opposed to just giving them extra oomph) because they rely on their hearing (imagine trying to hold an important conversation with someone in a high wind). They'll be more likely to be seriously worried by things, and will hear unfamiliar things - such as buildings rattling, or branches creaking. Difficulty -4 - roll to see if someone is about to leap sideways or try to bolt home!
Snowfalls and rain make them miserable. They tend to trudge along with their heads bowed. If they're startled by something, they are less likely to go potty than normal. Hot weather saps their energy (so if you buy a horse in high summer it may wake up in winter to become a monster!).
Thunderstorms may scare them, or they may not. Roll, modifying according to how sensitive they are.
Changing seasons... spring is a particularly frisky time of year for horses. All riding rolls are at -2.


Falling off
Simply riding along is not too difficult - the problems with staying on tend to come if something unexpected happens. Horses can go from halt to gallop in an instant - unlike a car they don't have to change up through the gears. Ability to stay on depends on being able to recover from this sudden change in balance or momentum. Even very experienced riders get caught out.
Holding the reins doesn't help you stay on - they're not like bicycle handlebars - but if you drop the reins you don't have as much control. You can also control the horse quite well by holding both reins in one hand - for instance, while using a sword. Remember to adjust for the unbalancing effect of the sword. Falling off is more painful the faster you are going, and you can also get caught up in various bits of saddlery - reins, stirrups etc and dragged.
Getting on again can be a lot of fun. Horses rarely just stand there after they have dumped you, although some honest souls will. Normally you will be running around a bit. If you're injured, tough luck.
If you are with other riders, your horse might run off and then come back to them (herd instinct). Or it might simply decide to go home without you. Or it might decide that freedom is wonderful (particularly if it has been made to walk all day and has a lot of energy ), and it may decide to charge at all the remaining horses to invite them to 'play'.
Roll to see if this has upset the others. If you're up to really complex game mathematics, a horse with a dominant personality (further up the pecking order) will cause a lot more trouble than one who is lower down. Also, by this time, the other riders may be upset if they feel their horses are being controlled by the loose one. And, since your reins are no doubt dangling loose around the horse's legs, there's a good chance that the horse will break them (they panic if they get tangled up in things), making it rather awkward for you to ride.
Horses always tend to behave consistently after dumping riders, so if they've hared off home once, they'll do it again.

Dogs, pigs and wolves
Dogs threatening you or running towards you... horses have a race memory of dogs as wolves. Dogs, however, love chasing horses. Even if a horse has become used to dogs through hunting it might be scared by a threatening hound. Penalty: -2 or more if the horse has had a previous bad experience with a dog. The horse will either flee (roll to see if the rider was unseated by the sudden movement) or give the dog a good kicking, which the dog may not survive.
Horses are scared of pigs. Modern farms make sure they keep pigs away from horses' grazing and from bridle paths. Just the smell of them will seriously upset a horse.

What the horse may tell you
You can get quite a lot of feedback about your surroundings from the horse. It will hear strange sounds long before you do and get agitated - for instance, gunshots, arrows being fired, or other horses approaching (particularly if they're going much faster than you are). It may speed up if you're coming close to civilisation. It will definitely get uppity if you seem uncertain - apprehensive about a particular path, for instance. That's why it will try to take you home if you get lost.

Fighting on horseback
GURPS regards fighting on horseback as giving you a height advantage. This seems to understate the case; however, it's a mixed blessing. Although you will be higher up and possibly more manoeuvrable, you still have to keep control of your mount. If you're with other horses you will have less time to devote to making sure they aren't all sending each other disruptive vibes.
Also, it is difficult to stay in the saddle while fighting, as aiming a good blow might be rather unbalancing. You need to be quite an advanced rider to withstand any sudden moves the horse makes, and to stay in control.
Holding a shield is very unbalancing, as is wearing armour.

Horse meets horse
You realise how much the horse has retained its old instincts when you see how much influence they have on each other. Horses are herd animals and always want to stick together because they feel safer. They also prefer the familiar - home - to a strange place. Here are a number of apparently simple things that are made far more complicated by the horse's hard-wired nature.
Going away from home on their own. Penalty -2 - horses want to stay at home, so an ineffectual rider often can't get them started. If with other horses they will follow them.
Going past another horse. You will find it harder to steer, then you may grind to a halt and simply follow the other horse. If you are on your own and going past a big group, Difficulty -1 (at least). If you are part of a big group going past a small group, your horse will follow the bigger crowd.
Being passed by another horse. Difficulty -2. If they are cantering while you are walking, disruption -4. If they are galloping, difficulty -6 (because it is exciting not only for the horses doing it but for any others it encounters). If you are on your own and are passed by a big group, add another difficulty level. You may be taken who knows where. Or you may fall off. Or you may decide to gallop towards somebody yourself to cause mischief. Horses communicate excitement to each other very easily.
Other horses being prats or spotting danger. One horse going doolally causes problems for everyone. They communicate by body language and have incredibly fast reactions. You can all be plodding along and then suddenly charging back in the opposite direction. Modifier -10. Good riders may regain control reasonably quickly, if they weren't unseated.
Leading another horse while riding. You have much less control over a horse if you're not on it, so any of the above becomes more difficult (-2). You also should roll to see if the horses get on well with each other. If they don't, the penalty is -4.
Introducing a new horse to your group. If you add a horse to your string or if you ride with strangers all the horses size each other up like thugs in a pub. The new horse will get bullied (threatened kicks, face pulling) by the others. All the horses become harder to steer and may shy away from each other, which may be unseating (-4). If any horse gets too close to the new horse, a kicking match will start. Roll to see if the kick connected, (horses have a very good aim) and what damage it did. Damage could be anything from a graze to a broken leg or shattered joint - in the latter case the horse will have to be killed. A severe injury is likely because of the iron shoes the horse wears.
Sex. Mares come into season every month or so in the spring and summer which makes them more of a handful. Modifer -4, but some are sex-maniacs so could be worse. They may try to do embarrassing things to a passing gelding, who may or may not enjoy it. Stallions can get excited when ridden near mares. with a penalty of -6, or more if the mare is in season.
Driving horses in a cart or carriage. This is much harder than riding them (because you control a horse with your weight when you ride). Penalty -2, cumulative for each horse in the team. Don't try and put a riding horse into harness unless you're sure it is used to it. And while we're at it, don't try to ride a driving horse unless it is used to it.

Nomad players
Here's a scenario that some friends got into a while ago. The players rode up to an inn after a long day and gave the horses a well earned feed. But as they pulled their boots off in front of a roaring fire, they heard a plot to murder and rob them, so they put their boots back on, went and saddled their horses and galloped off.
Any horse owner knows this could cause the horse an agonising, premature death. If you make it do strenuous exercise on a full stomach, you may cause blockages in its intestine because the lungs and diaphragm press on the stomach, compressing its contents into large lumps, which could then become stuck in the intestine. If the horse gets intestinal pain it can't be sick, so it can't get rid of the problem. The horse becomes more and more agitated, and then starts to throw itself around, and can give itself internal injuries so that the only thing to do is to kill it. We're talking colic, and it's a word that makes horse owners mutter protective oaths.
Even today colic is often fatal. It may be relieved early enough by giving a purgative (although that can cause more problems than it solves), and with modern painkilling drugs.
You have to wait an hour and a half for the horse's stomach to empty. Your options are:
Go slowly (gently ambling on a full stomach probably won't harm a horse provided it is not carrying a heavy load so that it starts puffing - this will be a very peculiar, tension-filled escape, and the horses will get fidgety and harder to control as they sense it)
Leave the horses (and come back for them later)
Tough it out in the inn
Chance it - any grooms may put up a vigorous defence to stop you. If that's what you decide, remember a horse in pain is very dangerous. Make danger rolls to avoid flying hooves, or the panic-stricken horse throwing itself on top of you. If you try to make it eat a purgative it might regard that as aggressive. A frightened horse that is in a stable may attack you. And it would serve you right.
You may be thinking, don't be daft, they survived in the wild, they can't be so fragile. But in the wild they graze for 20 hours a day. If they ran away from predators, their stomachs are always just under half full. So their guts are designed to process food constantly.
And they know this very well. A very ineffectual rider will probably find that once he has mounted, the horse takes them to a nice patch of grass, puts its head down and eats, ignoring the flailing arms and legs up on top. It will also try to eat passing plants - regardless of whether they are poisonous, so a bit of wilderness lore is important for riders. In the wild a horse wouldn't eat poisonous plants, but once domesticated a horse will eat pretty much anything, at any time. So it is easy to poison a horse.

The 'quest' style of roleplaying game, where players go on a long journey, brings particular problems. Basically, if you have a horse your life revolves around it. Even if you have a groom to do all the dirty work like grooming and mucking out, you still have to fit in with the horse's routine, which is entirely dictated by when it has to be fed.
Horses should be fed at roughly the same times each day. This means you will have to stop at roughly the same times each day, and yes you have to give them a lunch hour. You may be rather vulnerable at this time. If the horse goes for too long without food it gets colic. There is a small chance that a horse in your travelling gang may get colic because of factors beyond your control - such as stale food - so you should roll every now and again to check that everything is okay. Also, if you stay at an inn and your horse is fed the wrong thing, it may become uncontrollable.
Horses must be shod every four to six weeks, so you should make periodic rolls for finding a farrier and for how good the one you choose is. They also have to be shod if they lose a shoe (happens a lot in deep mud, and some horses are prone to losing shoes). If you have to use whatever farrier you come across, you may have picked an incompetent one. And even a good farrier can accidentally put a nail through the sensitive part of a horse's foot and lame it. If you try to nail a lost shoe back on by yourself, disaster is certain.
Having to use lodgings may cause other problems - stables may be in dangerously bad repair and injure the horses, or the grooms may put your horses in a field with others they have not met before. They will all have a big fight to establish who's boss. Roll to see whose horse got kicked and then again to see how badly.
Unfamiliar ground. Aspringy-looking meadow may tempt you to gallop, but you may not have seen the rabbit holes, or it may be marshy. Also, if you jump an obstacle, the landing side may be a lot harder or softer than you were expecting. Both may lame the horse badly. Ground conditions vary according to the weather. Lots of rain turns fields into bottomless mudbaths. A horse can easily wrench a tendon or a ligament trying to pull a foot out of deep mud, so you have to walk everywhere. Also they may slip over, or lose a shoe. Cold weather, especially snow, turns exposed ground to concrete if the ground has frozen. The horse may slip, and it may get concussion injuries in its legs if it goes fast, so the riders have to be careful.
Tack. Less experienced riders may not be able to tell if the horse's tack fits properly. A horse with back pain from a badly fitting saddle or a badly adjusted bit may be very disobedient. A rider may mistake this for cussedness. If tack is not cleaned it can cause sores. If a horse in the Roman army got these, it couldn't be used for two weeks and the soldier was fined heavily. Clearly they didn't want to chance going into battle without the required tack, but don't let that stop you trying. Just look at the notes above and remember that the invention of the stirrup was what made fighting on horseback possible. A rider's safety depends on certain items of tack. A broken girth or stirrup leather can be disastrous, as can a snapped strap on the bridle. They may wear out, or they may be tampered with. Good horsemen always check their tack before mounting.
If you feed an exhausted horse, it will probably get colic because it won't be able to digest. An experienced horseman knows it must be walked around until its pulse, temperature and respiration have returned to normal, then offered lukewarm (not cold) water in small amounts (not a great bucket all in one go), then an easily digestible feed such as bran mash. Once it's recovered it can have its normal feed. So even if you're all knackered after a marathon session in the saddle, you must spend half an hour or so looking after your horse.
Sleep. Yours, not theirs. Being herd animals, horses don't need much sleep. They need time at the end of a working day to mentally unwind (and to stuff themselves with the required amount of food) but they don't sleep very deeply, unlike humans. A person who is not an early riser is going to find owning a horse can be a downright pain.
If a horse falls and breaks a bone it will probably have to be put down. They break bones about as often as humans do. A horse weighs at least half a ton without armour, and up to a ton if very large and heavily muscled. Recovering from an injury takes longer if the horse is big. A 12 hand lightly built pony (suitable for small children) will take a couple of days to get over a bruise with swelling, while a 16 hand hunter/warhorse type will take a couple of weeks. A torn ligament will put any horse out of action for months, and a tendon for years.
A horse is faster then a camel and much more manoeuvrable. But few horses can outrun dogs.
Warhorses have been trained to be aggressive, however, they do so only on command and should be easy if handled by an experienced person.
A horse's sense of smell is very sensitive - they tell the difference between male and female humans by their generic smell (some horses show a distinct aversion to males but not to females, and vice versa, usually because they've been hurt by a man), and also the differences between individuals.

Buyer Beware - Be Very Aware!
If players need to buy horses, there is endless scope for mischief. The horse might turn out to be difficult or dangerous, or have something physically wrong with it. If you aren't an expert in horse lore as well as riding, you are 90% likely to make a bad buy, even today. For a start, you may not be able to tell that the horse is about twenty years old (geriatric, and disastrous if you want a lot of mileage) or three years old (far too immature for work - indeed it may never have been broken, but you may have been told it is quiet to ride).
35% of horses that look okay to experts turn out to have something wrong when examined by a vet - this ranges from leg problems to a heart murmur, broken wind or blindness in one eye, 20% of horses that seem well-adjusted and nice when an expert tries them, turn out to be difficult or dangerous; even more soon resent the kind of work you want them to do.
A horse can be doped so that it appears to be quiet and easy to handle. Another common problem is a horse that has never been taught to go away from other horses when a competent rider asks.
An old trick with a horse that has a lame front leg, is to lame the other front leg so that the horse moves evenly.
A female horse might be in the early stages of pregnancy, which is impossible to detect until 5 months, when the horse gets fat (and possibly goes lame because of extra weight on limbs). A horse's gestation period is 11 months.
While an experienced horseman will be able to tell a certain amount from the ground, it is only once they try riding a horse that they discover whether it is well mannered, easy to stop etc. You take your life in your hands if you try a horse without first seeing the vendor ride it. (But you may not know that.)
The first few months you spend with a new horse are crucial, where you find out if it's going to go lame or continually terrorise you, or whether it's a dreadful old plod with less oomph than a snail. Traditionally, these kind of horses can be given extra pizazz in the saleroom with overdoses of oats (a food that makes horses excitable, but there are downsides, such as crippling metabolic diseases) or enemas of ginger and mustard.

Problem Horses
Young horses - they are broken to harness and/or saddle at age 3-4 years, and only start acting maturely at age 7 or 8. It's harder to get their concentration, and skill penalties could be as much as -5.
Spirited horses, bad-mannered, or downright evil horses (depends on breed and personality - and generally the more flashy the horse, the more spirited it is) are between -1 and -5 or more to ride.
Horses in the wrong situation for their training - racehorses are not generally safe to ride in company as they have been trained to race, which is bad manners in normal riding horses. Warhorses are very obedient, but only to a skilled rider.
Geldings (castrated males) are less temperamental than mares, who are far less temperamental than stallions. Anyone riding a stallion should be an experienced rider. Of course, even nice horses sometimes misbehave, because they feel in high spirits or grumpy.
All these problems may occur in combination. Consider them every time you get on an unfamiliar animal.
There is also the question of whether you feel safe on a particular horse. Even experienced riders may feel uneasy sometimes. This could be because of the way the horse responds to your instructions - perhaps it is extremely sensitive, or hard to stop, or it falls over a lot. Even gung-ho personalities are unnerved by riding a horse that stumbles. Generally, you take good care of your horse because it is expensive to replace, and because you don't want to lose one that suits you.

In conclusion
Gamers strive for authenticity in areas such as combat, comeliness and spell- casting, but equestrianism is rarely explored. This seems to me illogical - you rely heavily on your horse and it probably has to get you out of danger from time to time. But this 'piece of equipment' has definite opinions about its work and its relationship with you, and can even be quite fragile. Next time you want some aspect of reality to complicate an already dramatic situation, just consider the horses!