Look .... All I said was that 3 Ogres could kill 5 5th level PCs if they caught them unaware I never meant to start a flame war......

Quote from: StormBringer;438232For example, a squad (in the Army) is around 10-15, give or take.

... a statement that has literally jackshit to do with anything discussed in this thread. Congratulations on posting such a completely idiotic non sequitur.

I wrote out a reply detailing how you misquoted me multiple times, engaged in mindless sophistry, practiced a laughable series of ad hominem attacks, and refused to answer the very simple question of "What, exactly, would it take to convince you that you're wrong about this?" while pretending to have some secret answer tucked away that you refuse to share with the world.

But then I realized that I was just feeding the troll.

When you have an answer to that question, though, feel free to try again.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;438228And while we're on the subject, let's talk modules.

QuoteYou're right. The G modules don't give the pregens henchmen. But they also don't give the pregens horses. Are we to assume from this that PCs were never expected to have mounts in early D&D? The A modules say that wandering encounters should not be used. Does this mean that wandering monster checks weren't an expected part of early D&D?

Do the A modules say that wandering monsters should never again be used ever by any player at any table until the heat death of the universe, or did they say something a bit more moderate, like wandering monsters should not be used with the A module series?

QuoteThe reality of course is that these modules are (a) tournament modules and (b) aren't re-treading the most basic gameplay outlined in the core rulebooks. (You'll notice they don't review the rules for bonus languages, either.)

Let's throw some math around then.  Do you suppose we will find that the set-piece encounters and wandering monster tables are geared for a squad of soldiers and their sergeant as well as the PCs, or perhaps just the PCs?  Because 10 1st level Fighters and a (perhaps) 3rd level Fighter to lead them will be able to deliver quite a bit of offensive strength.  Perhaps it would be prudent to look at some of the modules themselves and see if they appear to be designed for a group of PCs, or if they are designed as fortified emplacements that the PCs are intended to strategically assault with their squad of Fighters, instead of this drivel:

QuoteWhere would we find this sort of thing in early adventure modules? Maybe those explicitly designed for introducing new players to the game? Modules like those in the B series perhaps?

In module B1 we can find multiple references to hirelings and henchmen, including some guidelines for randomly determining available NPCs (including personality traits).

B2 talks about the hiring of men-at-arms at the Keep.

B3 includes a table of NPCs similar to B1's, although their use "as NPCs" is kept generic instead of being specifically for hirelings/henchmen.

B4 includes a NPC table and talks about using NPC retainers. B5 includes an abbreviated table and still talks about NPC retainers (although at this point it's recommended only in the context of supplementing undersized parties; the mid-'80s have arrived and the game is changing).

So, the modules that are specifically designed and marketed as introductory learning adventures could be expected to have some additional rules tutorials/reminders, wouldn't you think?

Or are you going to cite an adventure module as having the same priority as the established rule books?  You seem to, because you mention the A series, as though whatever those say is intended to entirely over-ride all other published material.

QuoteAnother random example: TSR 9036 Dungeon Master's Adventure Log from 1980 included guidelines for including henchmen and hirelings in the log. They were an expected part of any adventuring party.

Wait, 'guidelines' for including them?  Why weren't they just recorded on the clearly marked and labelled boxes for "Henchmen/Hirelings" on the log pages?

Quote from: StormBringer;438235So, the modules that are specifically designed and marketed as introductory learning adventures could be expected to have some additional rules tutorials/reminders, wouldn't you think?

...

Yes. I would think that. Which is I said that. In the message that you quoted.

... are you really this stupid?

QuoteWait, 'guidelines' for including them? Why weren't they just recorded on the clearly marked and labelled boxes for "Henchmen/Hirelings" on the log pages?

Oh. I see. You really are that stupid.

Good luck with that.

Looks folks I think its pretty clearly 2 schools of thought in D&D play.
The first bunch use hirelings.
The second don't.

I outlined why we thought they were crap.
Some people stated why they used them, because their 1st level PCs lived longer.

I think my arguments for not using them are far stronger but I can totally get that some players woudl use them and I totally understand that those players who came up from OD&D and the Wargame route would use them routinuely.

By the way I also think playing 2 PCs in the same part is shit for all the reasons I outlined about using hirelings.

Now having accepted that I think the pro-troupe faction needs to accept that the published modules (which I seldom played by the way because they are shit as well and if you lack the imagination to create your own adventures shame on you) are not constructed with a group of hirelings in mind. StormBringer and Doom may have gotten a bit ranty but that element of their argument is still valid.
If you look at the encounters levelled against PCs in Modules they typically assume a party of x PCs between level n and n+3. Its written on the front of the module.

Lastly and on an unrelated topic that I hope doesn't spark a second flame war isn't it ironic that a number of the same people that have been saying 4e is crap becuase it makes low level play too easy 'you start as a superhero' etc etc it turns out used to take 10 hirelings with them into a dungeon which to my mind makes 1st level play really really really easy

(PS. there is a fundermental ecomonic gap here by the way. You start play in D&D with just enough gold to buy a wepon and cheap armour, or spell components. If you use some of that to hire hirelings who die easily you can just take all their kit and you are in the money. In fact in AD&D where a longsword costs 15gp (?) and leather armour is 40gp a squad of 10 hierlings in leather with swords is worth 550gp - hire, dungeon, die, rinse repeat.... sounds like a MMO exploit

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;438230Question here: at least in 2nd ed. I believe IIRC it suggests Henchmen are one-at-a-time - maximum # of henchmen is used consecutively rather than currently i.e. after a while they just stop being replaced if you smell. Is Blue Book different to 2E??
(Not contesting the point generally - mostly just curious as to if there's some sort of trend operating between the editions)

Henchmen are different. Henchmen are named NPCs with levels and classes, and have to be hired individually. You might have 20 or 30 hirelings and just one or two henchmen.

Quote from: jibbajibba;438238Lastly and on an unrelated topic that I hope doesn't spark a second flame war isn't it ironic that a number of the same people that have been saying 4e is crap becuase it makes low level play too easy 'you start as a superhero' etc etc it turns out used to take 10 hirelings with them into a dungeon which to my mind makes 1st level play really really really easy

(PS. there is a fundermental ecomonic gap here by the way. You start play in D&D with just enough gold to buy a wepon and cheap armour, or spell components. If you use some of that to hire hirelings who die easily you can just take all their kit and you are in the money. In fact in AD&D where a longsword costs 15gp (?) and leather armour is 40gp a squad of 10 hierlings in leather with swords is worth 550gp - hire, dungeon, die, rinse repeat.... sounds like a MMO exploit

Well, ok, it is ironic. Tavis has commented on this before.

The other things is, you hire Hirelings without equipment. Typically you might get a group of 8 light footmen or so, and then have to pay for leather armor and spears for each of them. So it's not really an exploit, it's yet another place to sink your money.

Quote from: jibbajibba;438238I think my arguments for not using them are far stronger but I can totally get that some players woudl use them and I totally understand that those players who came up from OD&D and the Wargame route would use them routinuely.

I was not going to address your points as I see them as pure opinion and therefore not really right or wrong, but here goes anyway:

Quotei) They distract from the role play as they are either played for laughs or are cardboard

Didn't really happen in my games. Many were cardboard if they never did anything requiring them to be more, but them so are many bearers and spear carriers in "exploration" fiction.

Quoteii) They fail to emulate any of the fiction we were aspiring to. 'Aragron drew his blade as the orcs came over the hill toward the hobbits... get um boys he cried as the 15 soldiers he hired in Bree charged forward.....'

We were emulating different fiction. Not so much LOTR as Conan with his bands of pirates/bandits/etc. or H. Rider Haggard's exploration novels with their bearers and native warriors hired along the way. (Also Aragon did command troops for major parts of the LOTR.)

Quoteiii) They totally break the concept that the PCs are the exceptional adventurers because they represent a subcategory of the general populace who are just as brave as the party only 4 levels lower...

Not really. The PC do it without advance pay and never have to check morale. Hirelings don't work without pay, have to check morale, and general have little or no initiative (other than to save their asses) without orders.

Quoteiv) They drag out combats and turn an exciting battle against 3 ogres into a 45 minute chore.

Never happened in my games (or games I played in). Even a lot of hirelings only added a few minutes to the very short combats. The DM rolled for the hirelings in groups just as he did for large numbers of monsters.

Quotev) They are rarely played realistically as a bloke on 1sp a day + a 1% cut of loot will be unlikely to lay down his life for a bloke he met in the pub.

The DM plays them and the morale rules having them running away fairly realistically -- just as they do for monsters.

Quotevi) They are shit --- did i mention that?

They are great --- did I mention that?

QuoteNow having accepted that I think the pro-troupe faction needs to accept that the published modules (which I seldom played by the way because they are shit as well and if you lack the imagination to create your own adventures shame on you) are not constructed with a group of hirelings in mind. StormBringer and Doom may have gotten a bit ranty but that element of their argument is still valid.

Hirelings are mentioned in some detail in modules from the late 70s/early 80s aimed at beginners. Look at B1/B2.

Traveller. Check it out!

I have to admit that in retrospect-- I rather like hirelings in AD&D and Basic-- it's a bit of resource management you get to do right at the lowest levels. Right off you get a bit of an adventuring goal "Well, I scraped up enough to get these 10 dudes in leather with spears.. But if I can manage to get another 300 gp, we can upgrade everyone to ring mail!"

Legacy D&D campaigning really lacked goals beyond delving deeper, exploring farther, so getting treasure was enough of a motivator for just about anyone. You needed it to pay for training, to upgrade equipment. Eventually you got the idea, wouldn't it be cool to have everyone wearing my symbol on their shields? Have to hire a limner for that. Or you got to  dungeon where there was literally too much treasure to carry- you had to hire porters.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438258Or you got to  dungeon where there was literally too much treasure to carry- you had to hire porters.

An amusing case I remember was some player trying to get around encumbrance rules, by using a small wagon to carry their stuff and treasure.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438258I have to admit that in retrospect-- I rather like hirelings in AD&D and Basic-- it's a bit of resource management you get to do right at the lowest levels. Right off you get a bit of an adventuring goal "Well, I scraped up enough to get these 10 dudes in leather with spears.. But if I can manage to get another 300 gp, we can upgrade everyone to ring mail!"

Legacy D&D campaigning really lacked goals beyond delving deeper, exploring farther, so getting treasure was enough of a motivator for just about anyone. You needed it to pay for training, to upgrade equipment. Eventually you got the idea, wouldn't it be cool to have everyone wearing my symbol on their shields? Have to hire a limner for that. Or you got to  dungeon where there was literally too much treasure to carry- you had to hire porters.

I've been spending my LFR character's money on hiring an entourage to cheer him on when he leaves cities, because that's really the kind of thing he'd do -- he's at high paragon tier, which I think is the moral equivalent of name level in AD&D, and he's wildly charismatic. Also egotistical. It's interesting how tracking those relatively trivial expenditures helps reinforce my sense of his existence. I track his temple donations, too. "Thanks for the good luck, Lady Tymora, and I promise not to count on it."

I have a friend whose character bought a boat after the captain was killed in an adventure I ran. It's now his home base.

Quote from: RandallS;438253I was not going to address your points as I see them as pure opinion and therefore not really right or wrong, but here goes anyway:

Didn't really happen in my games. Many were cardboard if they never did anything requiring them to be more, but them so are many bearers and spear carriers in "exploration" fiction.

We were emulating different fiction. Not so much LOTR as Conan with his bands of pirates/bandits/etc. or H. Rider Haggard's exploration novels with their bearers and native warriors hired along the way. (Also Aragon did command troops for major parts of the LOTR.)

Not really. The PC do it without advance pay and never have to check morale. Hirelings don't work without pay, have to check morale, and general have little or no initiative (other than to save their asses) without orders.

Never happened in my games (or games I played in). Even a lot of hirelings only added a few minutes to the very short combats. The DM rolled for the hirelings in groups just as he did for large numbers of monsters.

The DM plays them and the morale rules having them running away fairly realistically -- just as they do for monsters.

They are great --- did I mention that?

Hirelings are mentioned in some detail in modules from the late 70s/early 80s aimed at beginners. Look at B1/B2.

You see there we differ

You obviously came up the wargame route and no problem with that. I really don't think that this is the way most people were playing in the early 80s and I really don't see your point on modules. Aside from the published stuff if you look ad adventures in Dragon/Dungeon I can't think of any that assume a cadre of followers.

I prefer the Conan movie to the books (how many times have my games begun with the 2 main PCs on a top half way up the side of a tower....) and as I noted I wasn't looking to recreate The Land that Time Forgot.

For me every NPC needs to be 3d I want the players to recognise which NPC is speaking just from the tone of my voice and my attitude. I am good but I can't do that for 12 identikit stooges.

We have on ocassion collected units of troops but they have always arisen from play and have always been fully realised.

But hey I would never claim that no one used hierlings or that they suit some groups and styles of play, I still maintain they are shit though

In my experience with AD&D, I've played it both ways.  When I first started playing we made use of hirelings and henchmen across all levels of play.  However, due to the cost of training and the XP sucked up by henchmen we moved to a multiple character model for a while where each player had two, or sometimes three, characters.  My highest level AD&D characters made use of their followers and henchmen as well.  I have a folder of something like 30-40 followers detailed for my highest level AD&D character (15th level) since he built a castle.  

After switching to the multiple PC model, we went back to the hireling/henchmen model for a specific campaign and had a blast because we amassed a small army at low levels and had some large scale skirmish fights in the campaign.  It was great, but it was a lot of resource management and bookkeeping- and that's the reason why we originally abandoned that model and moved to the multiple PC model.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;438222You seem to be very fond of saying "let's not move the goalposts" and then immediately trying to move them yourself.

Again, again, reread post #426. I asked you to do so for a reason.

QuoteWhat you said was: "I mean, the basic blue book D&D rules don't even mention hirelings, or at least not hiring soldiers en masse..."

Again, again, again, reread post #426, where I identified my error. The quote is still pretty accurate, since, at the least, there's nothing on hiring soldiers enmasse. Note the "or" in that sentence, only one needs to be true for the statement to be valid, it's bizzarro for you to get all pedantic like this, especially since, as I've noted, I'd corrected the error well before you showed up.

Are seriously going to argue that "the DM might have the party hire a band of mercenaries at some point" is the same thing as "all parties are expected to have at least a band of 10 soldiers, led by a sargeant, and here are the specific rules for doing so"?

How do you reconcile this with further down in that same column, where it says you must hire one at at time. Are you going to claim that hiring one soldier is the same thing as "en masse"?

Fine, let's assume these rules are as detailed as you think. The rules in that very column indicate you'll need to pay 100 gp, bare minimum to hire someone. The average character starts with 30-180 gold. Are you going to claim now that the average party of 5 adventurers really does start with the 1100 gold necessary to hire those 10 soldiers plus a sergeant?

 Usually, you're more coherent than this.

QuoteAnd yet I was able to produce a quote from the blue book specifically saying precisely that. Unless you're using some definition of the word "mention" drawn from an alternate dimension, you can now admit that you were wrong, apologize for being an asshole about it, and then move on.

Again, again, again, again, read post #426, where I identified my error, which is only technically an error, since I qualified it with no rules for hiring en masse, which still holds. Seriously, so what, there is the slightest mention, a single sentence, indicating such is a possibility. No sane person could conclude from this that a major portion of the game is really about hiring groups of soldiers. And, it's all moot anyway, since, before you butted in and started acting like a moron to the point that I think Alexander's account has been hacked, I'd ALREADY pointed out the error that you're so insistent on pointing out...what the hell is wrong with you that you're continuing to go on and on like this?

QuoteBut while we're on the subject of your hypocritical moving of the goalposts, let's go back to AM's original claim vis-a-vis hirelings: "You could probably count on a squad of 10 light footmen (or even heavy footmen) with a sergeant."

Over the past several pages of the thread you have systematically exaggerated AM's original statement until "10 light footmen" have become "soldiers en masse" and "an army of some sort".

Uh, 10 guys plus a sergeant being hired as a group IS more than one guy. Honest. I promise you. An 'army of some sort'...you're really going to niggle THIS hard on semantics? Ok, let's just narrow it down specifically to the rules saying 10 soldiers plus one sergeant, then.

QuoteBut I'm not going to get sucked into your bullshit. Despite the fact that the blue book actually does talk about hiring armies, let's just focus on the 10 light footmen that AM was originally talking about.

You're the one slinging it. Go and reread your own quote, again. Just a single sentence, very arguably two. That's it. The entirety of it. Nothing more than that. And you're makings posts now that, on the basis of this one marginal reference, that this seriously was how basic D&D was always played, with adventuring parties typically having bands of mercenaries with them.

You're serious about this, right?

Note: this single sentence doesn't mention specifically 10 soldiers plus one sergeant, either.

QuoteLooking for some basic confirmation that this was an expected baseline of play in AD&D, we don't have to look any farther than the ability score tables.

Awesome claim, let's see how that goes.

QuoteLooking at these tables we see things like Hit Probability, Damage Adjustment, Weight Allowance, Open Doors, Additional Languages, Max/Min Spells Per Level, Magical Attack Adjustment, Chance of Spell Failure, Defensive Adjustment, Hit Point Adjustment, yada yada yada. All basic, universal stuff that's pretty much basic, assumed content of play.

Yep, no confirmation there about players expected to hire specifically bands of 10 soldiers plus a sergeant in short order. I'd mention you've listed nothing here on hiring soldiers in any form, but you want to restrict things to specifically 10 soldiers plus a sergeant.

QuoteAnd then we come to the Charisma Table, which exists solely and entirely for the purpose of talking about henchmen.

Agreed, so no confirmation there possible.

Quotethat's before we even start talking about hirelings.

Agreed, haven't started yet, and you can't use the Charisma table, by your own admission, since you acknowledge the topic is hirelings. So why do you keep referencing the Charisma chart, which has nothing on this?

QuotePlus, that's just for one character. An average Charisma gives you 4 henchmen, which in a party of 6 characters translates to a maximum potential pool of 24 henchmen. (And these are followers who don't actually get paid a salary -- they work for share of treasure.)

Again, more smoke, nothing do with with your "look no farther" claim...still looking, anything in it at all?

QuoteIt's an assumed baseline of the mechanics of the game.

Uh, you haven't provided anything to that effect yet.

QuoteThe DMG says, "Henchmen, whether male or female, are greatly desired by the discerning players, for they usually spell the different between failure and success in the long term view." Gygax, Arneson, Kuntz, and many others are on record as saying "yup, that's how the game was played." What, exactly, would it take to convince you that you're wrong about this?

Hey, another quote on henchmen. Cool. Also, irrelevant.

Well, um, we were talking about hirelings, like you yourself said. Specifically since you're being anal about it, 10 soldiers plus a sergeant.

So, yeah, show me one line in the rulebooks that says "it is assumed that all adventuring parties have 10 soldiers plus a sergeant with them in nearly all situations."

Or show me a quote from Kuntz et al saying "Yeah, first thing we did after rolling up characters was hire 10 soldiers plus a sergeant."

I mean, I was willing to negotiate on what constitutes a band of soldiers (I played games where players had more than that, but now you've disallowed that possibility), but, hey, if you're going to sling bullshit like this, I'll be fair about it.

And, again, to emphasize because you might have missed it: absolutely, it can happen that the players are in command of 10 soldiers plus a sergeant. Certainly, quite possible. But such a common event that the encounters were built around assuming this, as much as they were built around assuming the fighters were in armor, that the players had positive hit points, stuff like that? No, not at all.

You do realize your own blog has accounts of people playing in your campaign, and those accounts do NOT mention the band of 10 soldiers plus a sargeant that your players are ordering around.  I don't think you can afford this level of intellectual dishonesty.