Quote from: Doom;438160Heh, 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.

I guess I'll just have to accept you as a guy who lives by mathematical proofs and has a very tough time understanding how games work.

Are you saying that the idea of hirelings in AD&D is a lie?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438163I guess I'll just have to accept you as a guy who lives by mathematical proofs and has a very tough time understanding how games work.

Are you saying that the idea of hirelings in AD&D is a lie?

And now you're reduced again to ad hominem. The fact you even care that some passage of the rules is provably ridiculous (even though it's long been errata'd) is downright creepy. But, once again, let me try to drag you into an intelligent discussion.

See, I've indicated why I believe you're wrong, I've presented evidence why I believe you're wrong.

You're running yourself ragged trying to move the goalposts to some other topic, and now you're pathetically scrambling to find some other way not to look like, well, the way you look.

Back up your claim, or shush.

Quote from: Doom;438162But '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.

Do you know the story of how Rob Kuntz beat the Tomb of Horrors?

Hint: it involves Robilar's army of orcish conscripts...

Quote from: Doom;438162Just because there were a few pages devoted to it doesn't mean it was critical and fundamental to the game.

It does if the source I'm quoting was specifically engineered to only include absolutely necessary information due to an extremely tight budget.  

Which is why I quoted OD&D, not AD&D.  AD&D had tons of crap that wasn't really all that campaign essential.  OD&D didn't.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438166Hint: it involves Robilar's army of orcish conscripts...

So you're saying Kuntz is the ONLY guy to have ever played AD&D, ever? Because that's the only way this would help your case.

By the way, orcish conscripts are on the list of hirelings, so you double fail, here.

Quote from: Peregrin;438167It does if the source I'm quoting was specifically engineered to only include absolutely necessary information due to an extremely tight budget.  

Which is why I quoted OD&D, not AD&D.  AD&D had tons of crap that wasn't really all that campaign essential.  OD&D didn't.

Fair enough, I only have Chainmail (or whatever pre-Basic D&D you're calling "OD&D"), and haven't even taken it out of the shrinkwrap, and have no idea how that played.

How many published modules were there for OD&D? Adventures give specific examples of how the publisher thought their game was played, so I think that would go a long way to getting an idea.

Quote from: Doom;438168So you're saying this guy is the ONLY guy to have ever played the game, ever? Because that's the only way this would help your case.

No, I'm just saying Rob Kuntz might be considered somewhat representative. Are you saying he's an extreme outlier?

 I mean, I lived through the era, and we certainly used hirelings, and so did everyone I knew from New York to Houston (I moved in 1980). I assure you that hirelings were in use. If you don't believe me, it's fine with me. But I'm saying it was a thing. In AD&D1e people used hirelings.

If you can resolve this down to a mathematical proof and prove that I didn't have this experience and neither did anyone else because of the page count, I guess I'm just going to have to concede the argument!

Quote from: Doom;438168So you're saying Kuntz is the ONLY guy to have ever played AD&D, ever? Because that's the only way this would help your case.

By the way, orcish conscripts are on the list of hirelings, so you double fail, here.

AD&D isn't like 3e, frendo. If the DM decided you got orcish hirelings instead of human or whatever the heck else, that was good enough for everyone.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438172No, I'm just saying Rob Kuntz might be considered somewhat representative. Are you saying he's an extreme outlier?

 I mean, I lived through the era, and we certainly used hirelings, and so did everyone I knew from New York to Houston (I moved in 1980). I assure you that hirelings were in use. If you don't believe me, it's fine with me. But I'm saying it was a thing. In AD&D1e people used hirelings.

If you can resolve this down to a mathematical proof and prove that I didn't have this experience and neither did anyone else because of the page count, I guess I'm just going to have to concede the argument!

But lots and lots of people didn't have this experience. And, again, you're now moving the goalposts. We're not talking 'hirelings', but soldiers, specifically, to the point that it could be reasonably assumed that all adventuring parties had at least a dozen soldiers with them.

Now that I've dragged you back, once again, do you acknowledge that lots and lots of people did not have your experience as documented by the simple fact that no published module expected parties to have such soldiers with them?

Quote from: Doom;438174But lots and lots of people didn't have this experience. And, again, you're now moving the goalposts. We're not talking 'hirelings', but soldiers, specifically, to the point that it could be reasonably assumed that all adventuring parties had at least a dozen soldiers with them.

Now that I've dragged you back, once again, do you acknowledge that lots and lots of people did not have your experience?

Of course. Also: many people never had a functional AD&D experience.. ever. By the time 1997 or so rolled around AD&D was widely considered to be a bit of a joke compared to more modern systems.

Hirelings are soldiers. They fall under the type "Mercenary soldier" in 'expert hirelings' (broken out by type- heavy or light footmen, archers, etc). There's also Followers you get at name level, and regular hirelings (which include porters and limners and so on). and then Henchmen, which actually have levels. Sergeants which you need to control a group of 10 soldiers.

But no, not "as documented by the modules." I think that's a meaningless point of data.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438173AD&D isn't like 3e, frendo. If the DM decided you got orcish hirelings instead of human or whatever the heck else, that was good enough for everyone.

Well, again, the issue is you claim low level adventurers were expected, intended, and always had at least a dozen hireling soldiers with them at all times is documented in the DMG.

No such documentation exists, and I ask for a better explanation of your belief.

The fact that you believe that one high level player managing to use special-case conscripted orcs to beat a high level module in 1 on 1 play (just 1 player and 1 DM, making the addition of some sort of NPCs a near certainty) somehow supports the claim deserves special merit, here.

You really do think like this, and it's good to have this for posterity.

(And, yes, Kuntz would be an outlier, it may be worth your while to become knowledgeable of topics you post as evidence)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438176Of course. .

Good. We've now established both that you're wrong, and that you understand you're wrong.

To help you out, since I'm sure you're confused: you've just acknowledged that you understand that lots and lots of people did NOT play the game the way you claim (and cannot back up in any sane way) it was played.

So, it is agreed, that's not how the game was played, except by some folks, somewhere, which can be said of anything whatsoever.

It should be noted that published modules in their entirety represent more word count than the DMG and PHB, and so are, in fact, a pretty relevant source of hard data for how the game was and is played. I emphasize: the DMG and PHB give the rules for play, whereas modules present actual play situations. They're very relevant if the topic is "how the game was played".

So, back to the point, those ogres could easily wipe out a low level party, since there's absolutely no reason to believe they would happen to have a troop of soldiers with them.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438172I mean, I lived through the era, and we certainly used hirelings, and so did everyone I knew from New York to Houston (I moved in 1980). I assure you that hirelings were in use. If you don't believe me, it's fine with me. But I'm saying it was a thing. In AD&D1e people used hirelings.

I started playing in 1975 (OD&D, not AD&D) and we certainly used men-at-arms hirelings on expeditions. All the groups I played with used hirelings, so did most of the other groups I knew of. That that did not use them tended to either have huge numbers of players. Having hired men-at-arms made it character survival at low levels much more likely. Those who did not use hirelings seemed much more likely to think lower level play was too dangerous/deadly.

Hirelings were had a large section in the rules on character creation (between the section on Languages and section on Equipment), opening with...

QuoteIn all probability the referee will find it beneficial to allow participants in the campaign to "hire into service" one or more characters. At times this may be nothing more than a band of mercenaries hired to participate in and share the profits from some adventure. However it is likely that players will be desirous of acquiring a regular entourage of various character types, monsters, and an army of some form.

This was a huge hint to player that hiring some additional muscle might be a good idea. Those who did not pick up on it right off, often thought of it have their first characters died.  Also, the type of fiction many of us had read was not unfriendly to the concept. Conan often had a band of soldiers, pirates, bandits, etc. available, for example. Explorers in H. Rider Haggard novels often had bearers, native warriors, etc. with them. Etc.

Hirelings did not really slow down play (combat was abstract and fast compared to more current editions) and often meant the difference between a near TPK and success, so it was hard to get upset over the extra 4-5 minutes they could add to a combat.

I have no idea how people starting play with 1e (and no previous players) played, but hirelings were important and were used more often than not in my experience in the early days of D&D.

Doom.  I think the only thing we've established is that you're kind of an idiot.  

Jesus. Where do these guys come from?