Where is my Freaking Mule?!

[Tav_Behemoth]

In 1954 the New Yorker published an account of 240 U.S. GIs herding 900 artillery mules (i.e., they were meant to pull cannons, not they filled the distance-attack role in this encounter) from Burma, where they had been designated expendable during the demobilization following WWII, to China, where they were to be a gift to the Chinese Nationalists as part of the anti-communist effort.

On their worst day the group made 7 miles, on their best they made 24. The average day's travel was 16 miles, although at one point they had to enforce a slower pace to keep the mules healthy. Attempts to requisition a truck had failed, so this was under medieval-appropriate conditions (and some Silk Road-era trails that were literally medieval).

Spoiler warning: at the end of the journey the mules came down with an unknown virus. Afraid of infecting the native mule populace and thus causing the immediate collapse of the nationalist resistance, for after all what is a party without mules, the Army vets ordered all 900 mules shot and buried ASAP. First the writer tried to find several steam shovels, but none were forthcoming. Finally, in a very PC-worthy solution, he put about a dozen dead mules in each of the plentiful local gullies and then used dynamite to trigger avalanches for a loud and effective insta-burial.

 

[Mark Chance]

On their worst day the group made 7 miles, on their best they made 24. The average day's travel was 16 miles, although at one point they had to enforce a slower pace to keep the mules healthy. Attempts to requisition a truck had failed, so this was under medieval-appropriate conditions (and some Silk Road-era trails that were literally medieval).

Those sound spot on for march times and distances I experienced when I was in the Army (sans generalissue donkeyhorses). Pushing through 24 miles in a single day carrying even half standard infantry load (which would be about 30 or so pounds) was exhausting, and it wasn't the sort of thing one wanted to attempt traveling through what D&D would classify as wilderness.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

Thanks for the input! I also wondered about how the terrain would be classified; it sounded like they did consistently travel on a road or trail. (The writer traded a donkeyhorse for a ridinghorse and often scouted ahead for a place to pasture the mules; often this was a graveyard because everything else was rice cultivation.)

In your experience, what is an accurate estimate for visibility? How far could you spot someone moving; how close would you have to be to tell a mule from a horse, for example (and to try to keep this on-topic)?

 

[Mark Chance]

In your experience, what is an accurate estimate for visibility? How far could you spot someone moving; how close would you have to be to tell a mule from a horse, for example (and to try to keep this on-topic)?

Well, it's difficult to generalize because terrain, hour, weather, et cetera, affect so much. Most of my experience was either in forest or forested hill. Generally, you'll hear someone before you see them, and you'll end up seeing them within a dozen or so yards.

I remember one march at night practicing ambush skills. It was our turn to be killed. In the dark with enemies prone in the bush, you couldn't see them when they were a handful of yards away. When the ambushers blew the start (probably because several of the squad had fallen asleep), we turned and charged their position. I was literally almost standing on a man's head before I saw him.

The look on his face when I aimed my M16 at him and held the trigger down while on full auto to empty a magazine of blanks into him was priceless.

Of course, we then got chewed out by one of the observers for not "dying in place" and had to do the whole thing all over again.

Also, keep in mind, I wasn't infantry, but rather support. Even when I was stationed with the 25th Infantry Division (Light) in Hawaii, I spent more time riding in trucks than I did marching. (Ah, the good life!) Consequently, my field experience is limited compared to many.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
2. More importantly, it reduces the opportunity for meaningful decision making on the part of the players. Let's say the players are deciding "Should we train more mules now, or are we better off spending our time collaring the oxen and forcing them into service?" Presumably in a skill challenge, the player would say what they wanted to do, and then roll a skill check. The only link between the player's decision and his chance of success is a DM judgement (as to what skill, and whether to give a bonus or penalty) - so the player is essentially trying to guess the DM's judgement. But if the player had the stats, they could actually make the decision based on the stats, and thus they would have an opportunity for their problem-solving skills to make a difference.

(For an analogy, consider combat. The rules don't tell the players to just describe their tactics and the DM gives a bonus or penalty based on his judgement; the rules give the players tools to actually implement their own tactics, and then the rules determine the result. Having more rules ofr mundane items would make it so you could extend that paradigm into non-combat problem solving.)

How many games out there are focusing on "training mules or ox teams"? Do you think this is so common that it would drive a need to produce rule sets to cover this?

Sure, we can bring in real world examples of mule teams as well.

But, at the end of the day, have you done this in your campaign? Have you done this enough times in a campaign that you felt the need to have codified rules sets?

No one called such a book a crutch. The "crutch" quote came from someone who was putting words in the mouth of people questioning the need for such rules. It's not a crutch. It's, IMO, a complete and utter waste of time and money, but, hey, if you want it, more power to you.

Me? I'll stick to campaigns that don't center around training mules and try for something that's perhaps a trifle more exciting IMO.

As far as a group that is scrabbling for silver? In D&D? What D&D have you EVER played where this is true. I mean, even a first level character is starting out with over 100 gp in most cases. By 3rd level, they're walking around with over a thousand and that's not edition specific by any stretch.

The idea that a mule would be a major purchase for a D&D character is just bizarre to me.

 

[Alex319]

How many games out there are focusing on "training mules or ox teams"? Do you think this is so common that it would drive a need to produce rule sets to cover this?

Sure, we can bring in real world examples of mule teams as well.

But, at the end of the day, have you done this in your campaign? Have you done this enough times in a campaign that you felt the need to have codified rules sets?

I think maybe the specific examples are missing the point. True, given any specific example (like training mules), either the probability of it coming up is low enough to not bother, or you know enough in advance to prepare something. But more generally, the probability that something will come up that isn't combat related and that you didn't anticipate is quite high. And whatever that thing is, it would be nice to have (at least partial) rules for it, so that players can try to come up with solutions.

Another way to put it is that there is a desire for a system that can do the following:

1. The DM puts the players in a situation, and says "okay, try to deal with problem X." The DM at this point does not necessarily know how to get out of X, how difficult X is supposed to be, or even if it is possible to get out of X. (Possibly because the DM didn't anticipate X.)

2. The players use their knowledge of the game works and the rules to devise a plan.

3. The players and the DM then "run the plan through the rule system" to produce a result.

Now, D+D 4e is very good at doing the above when X == "kill a group of monsters", but less good at it when X is something non-combat. The challenge is to devise a rule system that's general enough to achieve the above for as big a variety of X's as possible.

 

[Lanefan]

As far as a group that is scrabbling for silver? In D&D? What D&D have you EVER played where this is true. I mean, even a first level character is starting out with over 100 gp in most cases. By 3rd level, they're walking around with over a thousand and that's not edition specific by any stretch.

You haven't seen my crew play, have you?

Take the session I ran tonight, for example: the party overall have quite decent wealth for their level (3rd-5th) but when they took out some Ogres and looted the corpses they were still scrabbling for every last copper piece.

That said, they wouldn't think twice about buying a mule or two if such were needed.

Lan-"without greed, what would they play for?"-efan

 

[pemerton]

Another way to put it is that there is a desire for a system that can do the following:

1. The DM puts the players in a situation, and says "okay, try to deal with problem X." The DM at this point does not necessarily know how to get out of X, how difficult X is supposed to be, or even if it is possible to get out of X. (Possibly because the DM didn't anticipate X.)

2. The players use their knowledge of the game works and the rules to devise a plan.

3. The players and the DM then "run the plan through the rule system" to produce a result.

Now, D+D 4e is very good at doing the above when X == "kill a group of monsters", but less good at it when X is something non-combat. The challenge is to devise a rule system that's general enough to achieve the above for as big a variety of X's as possible.

This is exactly what the skill challenge mechanics are for:

1. The GM assigns the difficulty (based on party level + circumstances).

2. The players use their knowledge of the ingame situation and the skill challenge rules to devise a plan. In light of the plan, the GM may adjust the difficulty assigned at step 1 (this is one area where narrative responsibility is shared between players and GM).

3. The players and the GM "run the plan through the rules system", including taking account of any modifications to the plan required by changes to the ingame situation that unfold during the course of resolving the skill challenge (see DMG2 for discussion of this).

Now I'm happy to admit that the skill challenge rules could do with more work to support GMs and players at each of steps 1 to 3 (they compare poorly to other games with similar mechanics, for example, in terms of the guidance they give). And I'll also allow that they may not be the sorts of mechanics that some people enjoy. But it seems bizarre to me to assert that 4e lacks such mechanics.

 

[Drkfathr1]

I don't think it's "wrong" to want a book of mundane items, I just think some people would be better served by working on their on-the-fly skills for things like this. More rules for things you can do yourself in a single breath can serve as a crutch.

I haven't put words in anyone's mouth.

 

[Imaro]

How many games out there are focusing on "training mules or ox teams"? Do you think this is so common that it would drive a need to produce rule sets to cover this?

Sure, we can bring in real world examples of mule teams as well.

But, at the end of the day, have you done this in your campaign? Have you done this enough times in a campaign that you felt the need to have codified rules sets?

No one called such a book a crutch. The "crutch" quote came from someone who was putting words in the mouth of people questioning the need for such rules. It's not a crutch. It's, IMO, a complete and utter waste of time and money, but, hey, if you want it, more power to you.

Me? I'll stick to campaigns that don't center around training mules and try for something that's perhaps a trifle more exciting IMO.

As far as a group that is scrabbling for silver? In D&D? What D&D have you EVER played where this is true. I mean, even a first level character is starting out with over 100 gp in most cases. By 3rd level, they're walking around with over a thousand and that's not edition specific by any stretch.

The idea that a mule would be a major purchase for a D&D character is just bizarre to me.

Just as a side note, I sometimes wonder if this attitude is what hampers the expansion of D&D into a wider player base. I mean I look at videogames like Fable, Fable 2, Oblivion, WoW and so on... that have rules to allow players the option to step beyond "adventuring" and do other things such as crafting, buying houses and businesses, and so on. In fact I would say most people are starting to expect rpg's to do exactly this and that the play experience becomes richer and more diverse for it... which in turn leads to a wider base of people who can find enjoyment in the game.

I find it a little dissapointing that not only has 4e decided to devolve in this area as opposed to evolving, refine and exapnd, but that those who play the game see this as a good thing and embrace it to the point where the other side is viewed as wrong for even suggesting that some may want other things.