Pulp Alley Rules for Mounts: Why Bother?

[WuZhuiQiu]

I've been skimming through the PA rules for mounts, but don't see much of an advantage to having characters ride them. Moreover, resource points for the extra mount abilities aren't always going to be available without Associates. Apart from the cover bonus and ability to disengage, why bother? There does not seem to be any height advantage, and the somewhat increased stability of shooting from a running mount over running on foot (and needing to halt to shoot) is not reflected, either. What am I missing?

[ragsthetiger]

Mounts run 16", not 12.  The ability to disengage and the cover save are not insignificant advantages, and it's great fun doing this:



Hope that helps. 
rags

[WuZhuiQiu]

Good point about the run (oops!)!

[ragsthetiger]

The main point I was making is that mounts are something that you CAN do in Pulp Alley, if you think you would like to.  The rules for mounts are simple and fun, like everything else in the game, and if the thought of having your leader or a sidekick mounted on a fine steed, or a hideous riding beast, or zooming around on a jetbike, appeals to you, then you can do it, and you'll have fun doing it.  Whether or not it will increase your likelihood of winning is hard to predict, but at least you will have the full measure of enjoyment for your resource points.
Of course, if you're doing the Old West, or the Bengal Lancers, you'll probably want the Mounted Perk.
 

[Dangerboy]

One of the new skills for Mounts in Lost World of Lemuria is Single-Rider, which is both free and grants a pick from a small group of skills, in exchange for limiting your mount to one rider. It's probably the cheapest way of getting a mount with an ability that roughly simulates some of what you're looking for. For 1 Resource point you can pick up a 16" run, a cover save and one of the +1d/-1d abilities.

[WuZhuiQiu]

@Dangerboy Thanks for pointing that rule out, which should make mounts much more similar to horses and camels, etc.

[Wolf Girl]

I always thought mounts should cost more. All that you get for just 1 point is great. And I love doing the Flying Dismount into an enemy!   

[dinohunterpoa]

And I love doing the Flying Dismount into an enemy!   

Sounds FUN as it's supposed to be! 

[warrenpeace]

I think that once a set of rules comes out, there must be pressure to include official rules for more stuff. For example, if someone writes a tactical set of rules for WW2 starting with infantry rules, then the writer or company is going to be strongly criticized if no rules for AFV's follow. That's going to be true even if the rules are meant to emphasize infantry fights.

However, in this case I'm sure the Phipps gang produced rules for mounts out of fun. It provides a service to players who don't want to make up their own rules for how to handle mounted characters.

Having said that, I'm less interested in the treatment of vehicles as something to be purchased. I'd rather use them as part of a scenario design. Why have a set of rustlers encounter cowboys if they are not all mounted,... for free. To me mounts are part of a setting.

[ragsthetiger]

...Why have a set of rustlers encounter cowboys if they are not all mounted,... for free. To me mounts are part of a setting.

You make a good point about the setting having an influence on something like this.  But, Pulp Alley has always been open to this kind of tinkering, and the Pulp Leagues book has a lot of suggestions about using PA in different genres and settings.  In the kind of Old West setting you are describing, I would consider giving all the mounted leagues (cowboys, outlaws, cavalry, Indians, etc.) the Mounted Perk for free, while the townsfolk, miners, and such could have Eagle-eyed, or something similar.