Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438144I actually agree on all points. But they do represent how the game is played.

Well not by anyone I have ever actually met in a con at a game table or anywhere else. Although I have heard dungeondelver refer to using teams of hirelings, in reference to where to get repalcement PCs from after player death, on this forum.

But lets not bitch ... point is a group of 3 ogres could easily kill 5 5th level PCs especially if the PCs are recently out of a combat and are not fully healed or the wizardy-wiz has used up a couple of spells.

Quote from: Doom;438145You're blatantly misquoting me. I never said anything about minions in reference to interactions these last few posts. I never said it was the fighter that moved initially. Are you being deliberate in these repeated misreads? Your games must be even more complicated if you follow what your players say as well as you follow what I submit in print. Please, take a few moments and actually read what I wrote.

But, going by what I actually said, then, yes, the interactions get pretty sticky pretty fast in 4e, and a single kobold can trivially set off a chain of interractions (and can do so every round) unlike anything in low level D&D.

Well, your example was ambiguous, and we were discussing minions.

 Look, it's not complicated. We had three 12 year olds and a 7 year old with her parents in D&D Encounters this past season- for multiple sessions. Nobody ever got confused. The point is, nobody ever pulls off the "perfect move" or stops to peruse every available chess move. You just take your turn and go. If the kobold gets to shift, it does so. If you get to attack a second time, you do so. It's not rocket science.

Quote from: Doom;438146Sure, players can get such things. They can also get +5 Holy Longswords. Doesn't mean the game is expected to be played with every character in every party to have a +5 Holy Longsword.

Do you have anything better than this? Something along the lines of what you've actually said, that "the game is played" with parties routinely having a troop of suicide soldiers with them?

It's just so hard to believe that everyone I know has been playing the game totally wrong all the time. But, hey, it's possible. One more chance to back up what you say. Please?

Wait, you don't believe that players routinely use hirelings in AD&D?

Just for curiosity sake: How old are you and when did you start playing?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438139This is one of the baseline assumptions of older editions of D&D.

Regarding the "ready to fanatically die" part. Isn't the DM supposed to roll morale for hirelings, retainers, etc.?

Quote from: The Butcher;438150Regarding the "ready to fanatically die" part. Isn't the DM supposed to roll morale for hirelings, retainers, etc.?

For everyone. Hirelings as well as monsters.

I should note: some hirelings were fanatically loyal, and some woulod be ready to stab you in the back or desert at first opportunity.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438148Well, your example was ambiguous, and we were discussing minions.

 Look, it's not complicated. We had three 12 year olds and a 7 year old with her parents in D&D Encounters this past season- for multiple sessions. Nobody ever got confused. The point is, nobody ever pulls off the "perfect move" or stops to peruse every available chess move. You just take your turn and go. If the kobold gets to shift, it does so. If you get to attack a second time, you do so. It's not rocket science.

The only ambiguity was I didn't specifically name the exact power of the exact kobold.

And let's not move the goalposts...the assertion was a single kobold can generate considerable interactions. This is demonstrated.

Whether or not a child can just ignore it all is besides the point.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438149Wait, you don't believe that players routinely use hirelings in AD&D?

Just for curiosity sake: How old are you and when did you start playing?

Again, let's not move the goalposts.

Show me, in the DMG or PHB, where it was understood and a given that every group of adventuring parties would be expected to have a dozen soldiers marching around with them, to the point that it would be *odd* not to have such soldiers.

Absolutely, the game allowed for it, and had rules for it, much like leprosy. Certainly, some people somewhere played that way at some time (just as I reckon there was a party of adventurous lepers at some point..one of the advantages of D&D over 4e is that it supports a wide range of playing possibilities). But I want to see to see something in the actual rules, or at least reasonably implied, that the game was meant to be played with adventurers consistently, even at low level, hiring groups of soldiers to go out with them.

I note that every single module I have allows for no such possibility; I note that every single module with a 'sample party' doesn't include a group of sample soldiers that comes with it. From this, I conclude that, no, AM, the game was not typically played in the manner you assert, any more than it was typical for everyone in the party to have leprosy.

Again, back up your claim?

I always thought hirelings were assumed from all of my studies of O/AD&D history.  Especially considering how much text OD&D devotes to discussing their hire, morale, payment, etc.  It was also easier to jump into a hireling's role if your main PC was killed.  There was a lot more "arm's length" between you and your PC at low levels because you'd often have quite a few NPCs under your command as well.  It's a natural extension of the wargame roots.

Quote from: Men and MagicPlayers will, in all probability, seek to hire Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, and/or Clerics in order
to strengthen their roles in the campaign. A player-character can employ only as many as indicated by his charisma score...

Quote from: Doom;438152The only ambiguity was I didn't specifically name the exact power of the exact kobold.

And let's not move the goalposts...the assertion was a single kobold can generate considerable interactions. This is demonstrated.

Whether or not a child can just ignore it all is besides the point.

Oh it wasn't being ignored, it was being handled. All it amounts to is another attack.

Quote from: Doom;438153Again, let's not move the goalposts.

Show me, in the DMG or PHB, where it was understood and a given that every group of adventuring parties would be expected to have a dozen soldiers marching around with them, to the point that it would be *odd* not to have such soldiers.

There's no goalpost moving.. If you don't believe that AD&D groups routinely used hirelings, I'm certainly not going to argue it. I have a feeling this is going to turn out like your assertion that "players count as their own enemies" and there's no harm done if we both just stick to our respective beliefs which are ironclad and based on years of experience*.








* heh.

Quote from: Peregrin;438154I always thought hirelings were assumed from all of my studies of O/AD&D history.  Especially considering how much text OD&D devotes to discussing their hire, morale, payment, etc.  It was also easier to jump into a hireling's role if your main PC was killed.  There was a lot more "arm's length" between you and your PC at low levels because you'd often have quite a few NPCs under your command as well.  It's a natural extension of the wargame roots.

I can see that and have heard as much on these forums but I started with ...um that version with the blue dragon on the front that went up to Level 3 and we never used hirelings I guess because we wanted to emulate heroic fantasy fiction and not The Land that Time Forgot but also maybe becuase we were self taught and it never occured to us to want to have a bunch of cannon fodder.

I like to think that the progression from OD&D to AD&D was one in which roleplaying grew in importance to replace the tactical mini driven wargaming roots. I think 2E was the natural extension of this (my go to version) as the kit model, where the differentiation of PCs was due to roleplaying not mechanical differences in multiple new classes, stresses Roleplay over tactics.

I think the dichotomy between OD&D as an extension of wargaming and "actual role-playing" is a false one.  AD&D 1e still contained a lot of wargaming sensibilities (well, duh, a lot of the designers were wargamers!), and people certainly role-play all they want with it.

2e had a different guiding philosophy because it had different people leading the design.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438157There's no goalpost moving.. If you don't believe that AD&D groups routinely used hirelings, I'm certainly not going to argue it. I have a feeling this is going to turn out like your assertion that "players count as their own enemies" and there's no harm done if we both just stick to our respective beliefs which are ironclad and based on years of experience*.

* heh.

Heh, indeed, mathematical proof is mathematical proof, not a question of belief at all, nor is it "my" assertion, merely a statement of mathematically proven fact.

And again, you attempt to obfuscate the current issue.

But I do think harm is done when someone flat out disseminates lies, which is why it's important to call you out and demonstrate you can't back up your dissembling.

That's my belief, anyway.

Quote from: Peregrin;438159I think the dichotomy between OD&D as an extension of wargaming and "actual role-playing" is a false one.  AD&D 1e still contained a lot of wargaming sensibilities (well, duh, a lot of the designers were wargamers!), and people certainly role-play all they want with it.

2e had a different guiding philosophy because it had different people leading the design.

Never said it was a dichotomy, I said it was a progression.

Now I came to the game late (1980) and in the UK so I can't comment on the roots of the game. I merely think there is a solid trend in D&D to move from a 'I am playing an individual piece in a wargame' to 'I trust Lord Sevman finds his quarters in order. If you require me my liege I will be in the antechamber yonder.'

Quote from: Peregrin;438154I always thought hirelings were assumed from all of my studies of O/AD&D history.  Especially considering how much text OD&D devotes to discussing their hire, morale, payment, etc.  It was also easier to jump into a hireling's role if your main PC was killed.  There was a lot more "arm's length" between you and your PC at low levels because you'd often have quite a few NPCs under your command as well.  It's a natural extension of the wargame roots.

Hirelings were much more likely to come up at 'name' level, when the game could more reasonably have wargaming aspects to it (since at this point the characters could be rulers of small countries and such). Especially hirelings of *some* sort, which certainly would come up at some point in nearly every campaign.

But 'assumed' soldiers willing to fight monsters far outside their ability? No, not at all. Go and read the AD&D modules, and you'll see quite clearly that hirelings weren't at all expected to be part of the adventure, not even the slightest.

Just because there were a few pages devoted to it doesn't mean it was critical and fundamental to the game. Hireling soldiers, which is what we're specifically talking about here, fit on one page of the AD&D DMG. So do all the diseases. Insanity covers nearly 2 full pages.

Who here played with a whole party of (non magically) insane characters?