"Keep on the Shadowfell" was generic and boring.

"Thunderspire Labyrinth" was somewhat better, but still kinda bland.

"Pyramid of Shadows" seemed like a bunch of disjoint encounters.

Third party (3PP) 4E publishers weren't any better either.  The 4E modules released by Expeditious Retreat Press were basically a few encounters mashed together.  The Goodman 4E modules were just as boring as the heroic tier WotC 4E modules.

Most of the 4E WotC and 3PP modules above level 10, looked almost identical to the lower level ones.  A zillion encounters shifted up in level, thrown together haphazardly.

They looked very much like "always fighting orcs" style crawls from level 1 to level 30.

About the whole discussion about henchmen and hirelings, I just would like to say that I completely agree with Abyssal Maw, and Peregrin also. OD&D and AD&D (First Ed, Holmes being primarily an introduction to O/AD&D itself) do very much imply the use of henchmen and hirelings which are part of the tactical base and management dimensions of game play, and if many people indeed didn't have these experiences with the game, these were thought of as the baseline of game play, as exemplified by the manuals themselves and what people like Rob Kuntz were actually doing playing the game themselves.

Ditto also Justin's posts, which are all spot on (including the parallel between henchmen and horses not included in party makeups for modules and the like, which made me laugh).

Hey I laughed too, the thought that a single henchman or a horse could reliably influence a dungeon encounter just as significantly as a dozen or so soldiers (and thus all be equally never worth mentioning) is pretty hysterical. Although, it's kinda funny, there are mentions of 'what if the party has horses' in modules (eg, White Plume Mountain, page 2), so pretty spot off. And, of course, "Alexander" actually lists modules that mention henchmen, so spot off there, also. Still can't find any of them mentioning what to do with the soldiers, alas.

But the confusion of ideas is funny all the same, I concede.

Moving back on topic, I have to agree at least a little with Ggroy, that the modules were pretty weak, at least as far as KoTS goes. I acquired several, but only seriously looked at KotS and Thunderspire Labyrinth (or whatever the name was, was for level 21 adventurers). The latter made absolutely no sense, and was loaded with oddities like DC 14 skill checks (rather trivial for level 20ish characters).

I've heard some adventures were actually pretty good, but what really kicked 4e hard initially was KotS was weaksauce, both in terms of pacing, and in understanding the game. Tossing in some inane fights and a horrid ending didn't help, either.

Quote from: Doom;438377I think the long combats, even if filled with incredibly deeply interlaced abilities, in extensively overamplified options, were another strong factor in people walking away from the game. Minions are bad, mind you...but easily discarded. Someone who doesn't like blowing 2 hours every time combat music plays just doesn't have much choice about it.

Several of the players in my M75 Wilderlands campaign were 3.x players who really hoped that 4e would fix the long combats (especially at higher levels) problems. They were very disappointed to find that 4e combats were about as long as 3.x combats. They may be more interesting combats to some because of the interlocking rules-based tactics in 4e, but these folks wanted each combat to be at least 50% shorter. 4e didn't deliver this for them.

Quote from: RandallS;438423Several of the players in my M75 Wilderlands campaign were 3.x players who really hoped that 4e would fix the long combats (especially at higher levels) problems. They were very disappointed to find that 4e combats were about as long as 3.x combats. They may be more interesting combats to some because of the interlocking rules-based tactics in 4e, but these folks wanted each combat to be at least 50% shorter. 4e didn't deliver this for them.

That's for sure. AD&D for the win.

I never hired a hireling or sought a henchman in my life, having played mostly 2e. Man, the stat blocks were short short short, and the combats so fast.

Quote from: Doom;438420Moving back on topic, I have to agree at least a little with Ggroy, that the modules were pretty weak, at least as far as KoTS goes. I acquired several, but only seriously looked at KotS and Thunderspire Labyrinth (or whatever the name was, was for level 21 adventurers). The latter made absolutely no sense, and was loaded with oddities like DC 14 skill checks (rather trivial for level 20ish characters).

I've heard some adventures were actually pretty good, but what really kicked 4e hard initially was KotS was weaksauce, both in terms of pacing, and in understanding the game. Tossing in some inane fights and a horrid ending didn't help, either.

I played through "Keep on the Shadowfell" and "Thunderspire Labyrinth", and partially through "Pyramids of Shadow".

WotC totally dropped the ball on these initial modules.  It seemed to set the tone on a bad start, with the perception that WotC 4E modules were crappy.

Quote from: Doom;438279

QuoteOver 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'...

This is what you're going with? Your definition of "an army of some sort" is "more than one guy"? Seriously?

QuoteYou'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.

Definition of a Disingenuous Asshole: Somebody who demands a certain standard of proof and then, when provided with that standard of proof, mocks the person providing it for having an insufficient standard of proof.

Congratulations, you're a disingenuous asshole.

QuoteAgreed, haven't started yet, and you can't use the Charisma table, by your own admission, since you acknowledge the topic is hirelings.

You're just completely incapable of stopping yourself from trying to shift the goalposts, aren't you?

Quote from: StormBringer;438287So, what do you call a quantity of extras that amounts to a squad of soldiers or two modern fire teams?

If you want to call ten guys a "squad", more power to you. If you want to claim that they're an "army", then you're an idiot.

Quote

QuoteI 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.

Perhaps you should stick to writing semi-coherent blog entries, because this is the first time you responded to my post.

I see English is too difficult for you to understand. Try harder next time, troll.

Quote

QuoteOh. I see. You really are that stupid.

Good luck with that.

My copy must be faulty, then. Perhaps you could point me to the section that has the area for detailing the routine and expected dozen or more extra members of the player's retinue? If it was such an expected and regular feature of play, like AC or Hit Points, there must be a section in the DM's Adventure Log to keep track of them, right?

How did you get from "included guidelines for including henchmen and hirelings in the log" to "detailing the routine and expected dozen or more extra members of the player's retinue"?

Oh. Right. You're a troll and an idiot.

For the record, the second paragraph of the the "HOW TO USE THIS PRODUCT" section tells you where to note the henchmen and hirelings on the log.

Quote

QuoteThe 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?

Except, it doesn't even say that.

QuoteA Wandering Monster Table with attached explanations is included before the keys for the fort and dungeon levels. The table is used only for the campaign adventure. There are no wandering monsters in the tournament dungeons.

Disingenuous, then, or outright fabrication?

And A1 also says on pg. 3: "There are no wandering monsters in tournament play. All encounters have already been listed and there is no need to have random encounters: these are only for campaign play."

What you're failing to comprehend is that I was specifically citing these examples to call into question the practice of citing a module's inclusion or exclusion of particular play elements as some sort of be-all and end-all statement of "HOW THE GAME WAS PLAYED".

So the more you deflate that idea, the more you're actually agreeing with me.

Hey Justin, by the way, S4 actually does include horses being loaned to the PCs by their benefactor as they venture forth in search of the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. p.2:

QuoteHorses: In addition to any other equipment or magical items supplied by the party's sponsor, the party has been given mountain horses, bred for strength and stamina. Their full statistics are as follows:

Mountain Horse: AC7; MV 24"; HD 3; hp 16 each; #AT 2, as HD 2 monster; D 1-4/1-4.

Just for the anecdote.

Quote from: Doom;438420Hey I laughed too, the thought that a single henchman or a horse could reliably influence a dungeon encounter just as significantly as a dozen or so soldiers (and thus all be equally never worth mentioning) is pretty hysterical.

That is pretty hysterical. When you're done laughing at your delusional little strawmen, though, why don't come out and join us in the real world so that we can quickly educate you on the stupidity of lying in a public forum.

QuoteAlthough, it's kinda funny, there are mentions of 'what if the party has horses' in modules (eg, White Plume Mountain, page 2), so pretty spot off.

What I wrote: "The G modules don't give the pregens henchmen. But they also don't give the pregens horses"

Is White Plume Mountain one of the G modules? (Hint: The answer is "no".)

Claiming that I said something I didn't actually say is, obviously, pretty stupid. I mean, it's a public forum. Anybody who wants to can just go back and check and see that you're lying.

QuoteAnd, of course, "Alexander" actually lists modules that mention henchmen, so spot off there, also. Still can't find any of them mentioning what to do with the soldiers, alas.

What I actually wrote:

"In module B1 we can find multiple references to hirelings and henchmen..."
"B2 talks about the hiring of men-at-arms at the Keep."

Hint: Men-at-arms are, in fact, soldiers. Not that it really matters, because AM talked about generic footmen -- not necessarily soldiers. Your obsession with claiming less than a dozen guys constitute an "army" notwithstanding.

Speaking of which...

Quote from: Doom;438279

QuoteOver 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'...

I thought "10 or 11 guys are an army of some sort" was a stupid thing to claim. But now you're going with "more than one guy" = "an army of some sort"? Really?

Fuck, dude. That's stupid.

QuoteYou'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.

Definition of a Disingenuous Asshole: Setting a standard for evidence and then mocking people who provide the evidence you requested.

Congratulations, you're not just an idiot, you're also a disingenuous asshole.

But let's take a moment to savor the broader idiocy you're displaying here: You respond to a post in which I provide citations from every single pre-4E of the game, focus on a single quote, and then claim: "That's it. The entirety of it." Okay, that's pretty dumb.

But you go on to actually quote me talking about Charisma ability score tables and a half dozen modules and the 1980 DM Log. Despite acknowledging the fact that I talked about all these others things, you can actually write with a seeming straight-face: "And you're makings posts now that, on the basis of this one marginal reference..." (emphasis added)

Fuck, dude. Get your story straight.

QuoteAgain, 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.

(1) You're obviously capable of finding the rules for hiring people.
(2) You've acknowledged the rules which place a limit on the number of henchmen you can have while specifically NOT placing ANY limit on the number of hirelings you can hire.

But you can't figure out where the rules are for "en masse" hiring?

That's pretty stupid. But it's even stupider when we realize that your definition of "en masse" is "10 or 11 guys", which is fewer hirelings than the maximum limit on henchmen.

Doom: Mr. Store Clerk! I can't figure out how to buy 10 Twinkies!
Clerk: Well, you're standing in front of a shelf full of Twinkies.
Doom: Yes.
Clerk: And each Twinkie costs $1.
Doom: Yes.
Clerk: So... you buy 10 Twinkies.
Doom: Yes, but what are the rules for doing that?
Clerk: Umm... Well, you pick them up. You go to the check-out counter. And you pay for them.
Doom: No, that's how you buy one Twinkie. How do you buy them en masse?
Clerk: Do it ten times?
Doom: I'm not following you.

Quote from: StormBringer;438288My copy must be faulty, then.  Perhaps you could point me to the section that has the area for detailing the routine and expected dozen or more extra members of the player's retinue?  If it was such an expected and regular feature of play, like AC or Hit Points, there must be a section in the DM's Adventure Log to keep track of them, right?

How the fuck did you get from "guidelines for including henchmen and hirelings in the log" to "detailing the routine and expected dozen or more extra members of the party's retinue"?

That's some bush-league bullshit there, buddy.

(For the record, you can find the guidelines of where to include henchmen and hirelings in your log in the second paragraph of the HOW TO USE THIS PRODUCT section of the log.)

Quote

QuoteThe A modules say that wandering encounters should not be used.

Except, it doesn't even say that.

QuoteOriginally Posted by Intro to A2
A Wandering Monster Table with attached explanations is included before the keys for the fort and dungeon levels. The table is used only for the campaign adventure. There are no wandering monsters in the tournament dungeons.

And on page 3 of A1 it says: "There are no wandering monsters in tournament play. All encounters have already been listed and there is no need to have random encounters: these are only for campaign play."

At this juncture you will probably start ranting about the A2 quote applying to non-tournament play and the A1 quote applying to tournament play. This is absolutely true. It is also absolutely irrelevant. The fact that different modules say different things in different contexts is, in fact, my entire point. You can't look at one module and say, "This module doesn't talk about horses or henchmen, so horses and henchmen must not have been an expected part of the game!"

You're not being quite as stupid as Doom in this thread, but you are demonstrating some practical illiteracy.

Focus on the words. Read for comprehension.

Quote from: Doom;438279You 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.

This, BTW, should call attention to the foolhardiness of assuming that "this one particular account / module doesn't mention it" equates to "it must not have existed".

You're right that the topic of henchmen / hirelings hasn't come up in my recounting of memorable and/or insightful moments from my OD&D table. But there have, in fact, been several sessions in which there have been 10+ retainers in the party. It's actually not that hard to achieve: I've had games with 10 players at the table; if each of them has a single hireling, bam, you've got 10 hirelings.

(In practice, some of my players go for hirelings and others don't. But those who are running 3-5 characters

There are a couple notable things about this:

(1) I've played with several of these people in 3E and 4E games. They don't pickup hirelings in those games.

(2) I didn't do anything to actively encourage the acquisition of hirelings.

So why is my OD&D game nevertheless studded with henchmen and hirelings (several of whom have evolved into full-fledged PCs)?

First, because the rules are front-and-center in the LBBs. You roll up your stats, you flip through the rulebook figuring out what they're good for, and you discover that Charisma is good for basically one thing: Accumulating henchmen and hirelings.

Second, because it works. In OD&D the combat is deadly and the treasure is heavy. Henchmen and hirelings help spread out both of those loads. Groups that have retainers on hand tended to be more successful than those that didn't, and people quickly learned from success.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;438449So why is my OD&D game nevertheless studded with henchmen and hirelings (several of whom have evolved into full-fledged PCs)?

First, because the rules are front-and-center in the LBBs. You roll up your stats, you flip through the rulebook figuring out what they're good for, and you discover that Charisma is good for basically one thing: Accumulating henchmen and hirelings.

Second, because it works. In OD&D the combat is deadly and the treasure is heavy. Henchmen and hirelings help spread out both of those loads. Groups that have retainers on hand tended to be more successful than those that didn't, and people quickly learned from success.

Ditto for my OD&D and AD&D games also.

Playing without henchmen, hirelings, alternate characters and the like is like shooting yourself in the foot, honestly. You're missing on a whole series of unique dimensions of the game, not only in terms strategy and tactics, of resource management, exploration MO, repartition of tasks etc, party makeup etc, but also in terms of role playing, lethality of the game, characters you can switch back and forth to play different levels of play in the campaign or just change pace with different personalities, keeping things fresh for the long term, and more.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;438447How the fuck did you get from "guidelines for including henchmen and hirelings in the log" to "detailing the routine and expected dozen or more extra members of the party's retinue"?

That's some bush-league bullshit there, buddy.

(For the record, you can find the guidelines of where to include henchmen and hirelings in your log in the second paragraph of the HOW TO USE THIS PRODUCT section of the log.)

I didn't get there.  You did.  In your insistence that every group that ever played was, without a single exception, dragging a dozen extra people with them.  As evidence, you pointed to the guidelines in an accessory that was designed to keep track of the players and their activities.  An accessory that mentioned how to keep track of hirelings instead of including sections for actually keeping track of hirelings.  It's as though the guidelines were included as an almost afterthought; "Oh, yeah, if there are hirelings or henchmen, you can use the regular sections for that, just mark them as henchmen and which PC they work for."

Since your level of agitation grows the more involvement with 'conversations' you experience, I will lay it out more simply:  If they were as expected and routine as you claim, there would be a section for them specifically in the accessory you brought into the discussion.  The accessory that is designed to help the DM keep track of the party.

QuoteAnd on page 3 of A1 it says: "There are no wandering monsters in tournament play. All encounters have already been listed and there is no need to have random encounters: these are only for campaign play."

What are only for campaign play?

QuoteAt this juncture you will probably start ranting about the A2 quote applying to non-tournament play and the A1 quote applying to tournament play. This is absolutely true. It is also absolutely irrelevant. The fact that different modules say different things in different contexts is, in fact, my entire point. You can't look at one module and say, "This module doesn't talk about horses or henchmen, so horses and henchmen must not have been an expected part of the game!"

You're not being quite as stupid as Doom in this thread, but you are demonstrating some practical illiteracy.

Really?  Did you want to go back and edit your post where you said that the A series of modules eschews wandering monsters entirely?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;438228The A modules say that wandering encounters should not be used.

Which you then go on to use as evidence that wandering monsters should never be used.  However, the A modules don't say what you claim they do.  They only say wandering monsters should not be used in tournament play with the A series of modules.  It says nothing about any other series of modules, nor does it make any broad claims about wandering monsters, as you are trying to make it appear.

So, judging by your reaction, you didn't expect anyone to have the A series any more, nor the DMs Adventure Log, and you have been caught using an argument that was crafted to be disingenuous.

QuoteFocus on the words. Read for comprehension.

I swear to God, this posting style and method of argumentation is very familiar.

What are the 4e fanboys saying?

Looks like that combat encounter just ended - I'll go over and ask them.....

(Damnit they drank all the Mt. Dew!!)


- Ed C.