I guess I just pictured the rider falling as a result of the jump (that is, the horse is actually in the process of jumping rather than preparing to jump). I agree it's easier and cleaner to do as the article suggests, but I kind of like the image of the horse completing the jump and running off as the rider comes down hard on the wall or whatever they were jumping. Especially nasty if it's a deep ditch or pit or something.wilder_jw said:I'm not sure why folks think Skip's suggestion is unrealistic. I used to jump, and a trained mount that throws a rider while heading into a jump will almost always immediately stop. (And usually look around at the spilled rider with an "it wasn't my fault" expression.) I never, in four or so years of fairly serious riding, had a mount even attempt a jump without me atop, whether on a course or on a trail. (Of course, that's only 15 or 20 falls, but still.)
JimAde said:I guess I just pictured the rider falling as a result of the jump (that is, the horse is actually in the process of jumping rather than preparing to jump).
That's exactly what I assumed Skip meant. My mistake was in assuming Skip meant something that made sense; it happens, but as far as I can tell, it's generally accidental.Gez said:I'd say the Ride check would rather be to convince your mount to jump. Since usually you jump over an obstacle (wall, chasm, whatever), if you can't get the horse to jump, it breaks its run and stops there brutally, which makes you dismount.
Well - if the rider was still on when the horse started the jump, then simple ballistics says that he'll land on the far side of the jump, pretty much where he started - ie on the horse.JimAde said:I agree it's easier and cleaner to do as the article suggests, but I kind of like the image of the horse completing the jump and running off as the rider comes down hard on the wall or whatever they were jumping. Especially nasty if it's a deep ditch or pit or something.