Quote from: Justin Alexander;438449This, 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".

Luckily, no one is doing that.  You are stating that unequivocally, henchmen were a nigh unto mandatory part of every adventure, and anyone that didn't use them was playing wrong.  You have made the extraordinary claim, so now you must provide the extraordinary evidence.

All the rest of us are saying is, "Yeah, henchmen, I remember.  I don't recall using them or anyone I knew using them, but I am sure some did".

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

Since you have become the queen of bitching about reading comprehension, I highlighted the critically important part of your sentence, there.

I assume you played D&D with every group that ever existed, or the fact that your group used henchmen extensively means jack shit.

QuoteFirst, 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.

Well, two things.  It isn't called a 'dump stat' just for shit and giggles, you know.

QuoteSecond, 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.

Unless the DM properly applied the rules that parties habitually returning from adventures with huge losses in their small army should have a hard time hiring more of them.

Also, are you going to pick an edition and stick to it for a while?  You have managed to jump all over the 70s, 80s and 90s scrambling to find evidence for your claims.  It has really got to be putting some wear and tear on your DeLorean.

Quote from: Benoist;438452Ditto 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.

I offered some henchmen for the Castle Amber PbP game here.  I recall they were roundly rejected.

Quote from: StormBringer;438463I offered some henchmen for the Castle Amber PbP game here.  I recall they were roundly rejected.

I have no idea, since I joined the game later on and picked a character that had been left vacant by a previous player.

But really, to me, it's pretty simple: it's a fact that many people didn't play AD&D that way, and Justin has acknowledged as much earlier, if I'm not mistaken. The issue is whether the use of henchmen and hirelings is part of the base assumptions of the game, and then, my answer is a resounding "yes." In OD&D just as obviously so as in AD&D, moreso in OD&D if you count the Chainmail affiliation and the way one game influences the next. That's all part of the same picture in the end. Chainmail -> OD&D -> AD&D.

You mad, bro?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;438443

DISSECTION OF AN IDIOT

Good lord, an endless frothing-at-the-mouth foulmouthed rant. Ah, I've somewhat missed the Bill O'Reilly method of discussion, simply shouting loudly.

Bottom line, if you had anything, you would have provided it by now. Even if you could provide something, the fact that it would take you this long to come up with something shows you're wrong.

And, since you have nothing, all you can do is rant and rave.

QuoteFuck,

Uh huh.

QuoteAsshole

Mkay.

Quoteasshole

Um, yeah. And so concludes the more intelligent parts of your pointless and wrong on too many levels to discuss rant.

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

But, it's not. If it were 'studded' as you say, it seems like it would have come up in your years of posting. Sprinkled, perhaps...on occasion, no doubt. But not studded, as your own sampling has somehow missed it, even though it often covers entire expeditions. Heck, a recent post there has a "favorite character sheet". On that sheet, I note, is no mention of 10 guys plus a sergeant, nor is there any place on that sheet for such a mention.

Of course, this assumes you're really 'the' Justin Alexander, which is now in significant doubt.

I'm simply hard pressed to believe this ranting, frothing, foulmouthed, lying creature really is the same guy who has The Alexandrian.

But, in any event, you're done. The simple fact you've provided nothing of relevance over the course of these few pages demonstrates the point. You can stop now, and I'm sure your caps lock key will appreciate.

Quote from: StormBringer;438458In your insistence that every group that ever played was, without a single exception, dragging a dozen extra people with them.

Didn't I just get done pointing out how stupid it is to lie about what people said in a public forum?

Quote

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!"

What are only for campaign play?

I called it!

QuoteWhich you then go on to use as evidence that wandering monsters should never be used.

Stormbringer: Functionally Illiterate or Compulsively Mendacious?

Film at 11.

Quote from: StormBringer;438462I assume you played D&D with every group that ever existed, or the fact that your group used henchmen extensively means jack shit.

In the post you quoted here, I'm specifically replying to someone talking about my campaign. You must be really fucked up in the head to think that my campaign has "jack shit" to do with my campaign.

Quote from: Benoist;438469I have no idea, since I joined the game later on and picked a character that had been left vacant by a previous player.

But really, to me, it's pretty simple: it's a fact that many people didn't play AD&D that way,

Exactly, which is why AM's claim of "that's how the game is played" is rubbish. The game might certainly be played that way sometimes, sure. But not always, not by a wiiiiiiide margin.

QuoteThe issue is whether the use of henchmen and hirelings is part of the base assumptions of the game, and then, my answer is a resounding "yes." In OD&D just as obviously so as in AD&D, moreso in OD&D if you count the Chainmail affiliation and the way one game influences the next. That's all part of the same picture in the end. Chainmail -> OD&D -> AD&D.

Agreed, such things come up in the game. But the issue is whether it was standard for parties to have a 10 soldiers, plus a sergeant, at all times.

A henchman in a game? Sure...maybe not every time, but certainly common. Consulting a sage? Sure...but not every round of combat.

A troop of soldiers? Sure, sometimes.

But right out of rolling up the characters? In every dungeon adventure? At all times? Enough that all the encounters in all the adventures assumed there'd be a troop of soldiers with the players?  I don't think so, and the fundamental lack of supporting evidence from examples of play and published adventures (or, heck, homemade adventures posted on the net) makes the case.

Even if you, personally, believe otherwise, the simple fact that we've been on this for over a day without any meaningful evidence ends the discussion as to it being an everday thing.

I mean, you can claim that in the '50s, everyone drove 100 foot long tanks that fired nuclear missiles, and if you want to say that's your personal experience, I can't argue with that. But when "can you show me some reason to believe that?" gets only emptiness, well, that's where the conversation ends.

So, let's go back to the topic at hand, and continue the post-mortem of 4e.

Quote from: Doom;438472Bottom line, if you had anything, you would have provided it by now. Even if you could provide something, the fact that it would take you this long to come up with something shows you're wrong.

(1) Doom requests that someone cite early rulebooks talking about hirelings. Multiple citations are provided. He replies to them.

(2) Doom requests that someone cite early modules talking about hirelings. Multiple citations are provided. He replies to them.

(3) In addition, citations are given for supplementary products and original play reports from the 1970s and early '80s. He replies to them.

(4) Doom now claims that "if you had anything, you would have provided it by now."

The real question here is not, "How stupid is Doom?" That's pretty well established at this point. The real question is, "How stupid does he think everyone reading this is that he actually thinks anyone is going to swallow his idiocy?

The question has been asked before, but let's try it again: If quotations from rulebooks, modules, supplements, and actual play reports are insufficient to convince you that henchmen and hirelings were an expected and common part of gameplay, what would it take to convince you, exactly?

Quote

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

But, it's not.

Doom's Closing Act: Claiming he knows what happens at my game table better than I do.

What a maroon.

To go back to what started this whole shitstorm:

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438121I don't think 1d3 ogres would be an unwinnable encounter for low level PCs in AD&D, either. Especially if they had hirelings to absorb the brunt of battle while the PCs stayed in the rear firing arrows or set up a fighting retreat.

This is true. Period. Depends on actual tactical circumstances (what the environment looks like, how the ogres are encountered, in which precise situation, etc) as well. Nonetheless, 1d3 Ogres is not automatically unwinnable for low level PCs in AD&D, I agree.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438165Do you know the story of how Rob Kuntz beat the Tomb of Horrors?

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

This is also true, though none of the orcs who entered the Tomb managed to survive beyond the initial entry corridor, as far as I know. So that picture's incomplete, but that is true that there were scores of hirelings used in the LG game. That's a fact.

As far as the manuals, page references in OD&D, AD&D manuals, Holmes, it's all there, in the thread as well.

It is a fact that you may play the game without using henchmen and hirelings, and a fact that it was the case for plenty of AD&D players back in the day. But was it a baseline assumption of the game that henchmen and hirelings would be used in campaign play? Yes. Totally.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;438475(1) Doom requests that someone cite early rulebooks talking about hirelings. Multiple citations are provided. He replies to them.

No citations stating what you've claimed, however. You ignore the fact that your citations don't say what you claim they say. Nowhere do these citations state "all adventurers should have a party of 10 soldiers, plus a sergeant, at all times,", as discussed in great detail, and most of them don't even come close to an approximation of such.

Quote(2) Doom requests that someone cite early modules talking about hirelings. Multiple citations are provided. He replies to them.

You again ignore the fact that they don't state what you claim, or are even close.

Quote(3) In addition, citations are given for supplementary products and original play reports from the 1970s and early '80s. He replies to them.

You again ignore the fact that they don't state what you claim, or are even close. In fact, published examples of play in the books giving example of how the game is played consistently do not support your example.

Even if, at this point, you managed to find a published example of play where the players do have 10 soldiers, plus a sargeant, you've still lost: all you will have shown is that manner of play was a minority.

Quote(4) Doom now claims that "if you had anything, you would have provided it by now."

And you again ignore the fact that you STILL haven't provided what you claimed.

QuoteThe real question here is not, "How stupid is Doom?"

The real question is, who are you, really?

QuoteThat's pretty well established at this point. The real question is, "How stupid does he think everyone reading this is that he actually thinks anyone is going to swallow his idiocy?

Do note quite a number of folks are disagreeing with you. Even Benoist, who sort of agrees, couldn't help but point out you are wrong about horses not being mentioned in modules.

Maybe we've 'only' shown that horses appear in some modules, and not the specific series of modules you reference...but the fact remains: you're very wrong.

Now, why can't you simply point to every single module, and show me where it says something along the lines of "and here's where the adventuring party's 10 soldiers plus 1 sargeant will go", or anything of the sort. Since, as you claim, every party would have such a thing, there should be such comments in a great number of modules. Not a handful of modules that indicate players might possibly hire a soldier, which you've sort of done...but there should be modules that indicate players already have 10 soldiers, plus a sargeant.

Where is such a quote?

QuoteThe question has been asked before, but let's try it again: If quotations from rulebooks, modules, supplements,

None of which satisfy the claim.

Quoteand actual play reports

Almost all of which that have been provided so far have shown the exact opposite of your claim.

Quoteare insufficient to convince you that henchmen and hirelings were an expected and common part of gameplay,

Now now now, don't move those goalposts. You gave me grief for changing things around, there's only one thing you need to show, and can show: every party has 10 soldiers, plus a sergeant, with them at all times, and all adventures, modules, and random encounter charts are set up to expect this. I mean, I was willing to accept variants like bowmen, or cavalry, or something, but let's just go with what you insist.

Quotewhat would it take to convince you, exactly?

Well, you ARE the one making the claim.

Show me in the rules, or in every single module, the statement that "it is understood that all adventuring parties at all times will have 10 soldiers, plus a sergeant."

Your epic hardheadedness here does you no good.

QuoteDoom's Closing Act: Claiming he knows what happens at my game table better than I do.

No, I assuming you're not a liar. I'm assumiing you're the Justin Alexander of the blog thealexandrian, and that those play accounts given in the blog are the truth.

Are you now acknowledging that you are a liar? Which part? LIkely the former, but if not the former, then the latter for sure. But, you're lying about one or the other, and I've clearly made a mistake in thinking there's some truthfulness in you. Which error have I made?

But, back to the original point...you've lost. You've not managed to find anything that really supports your claim, and you've had more than sufficient time to do so. The fact that, indeed, you continue to post and embarrass yourself in this manner demonstrates fully:

QuoteWhat a maroon.

Quote from: Doom;438478No citations stating what you've claimed, however. You ignore the fact that your citations don't say what you claim they say. Nowhere do these citations state "all adventurers should have a party of 10 soldiers, plus a sergeant, at all times,"

WTF? Where does he actually say that? That's a strawman, dude.

Quote from: Benoist;438476To go back to what started this whole shitstorm:

You need to go further back, I'm afraid.

QuoteThis is true. Period. Depends on actual tactical circumstances (what the environment looks like, how the ogres are encountered, in which precise situation, etc) as well. Nonetheless, 1d3 Ogres is not automatically unwinnable for low level PCs in AD&D, I agree.

And, there's a claim here that the PCs can count on having 10 soldiers, and a sergeant. A sure thing, hence there's no real danger in that chart.

QuoteThis is also true, though none of the orcs who entered the Tomb managed to survive beyond the initial entry corridor, as far as I know. So that picture's incomplete, but that is true that there were scores of hirelings used in the LG game. That's a fact.

This is an example of high level play, and, I hope, nobody's discounting that, sometimes, high level players will have an army with them.

And, more to the point: do note that the Tomb of Horrors was NOT built under the assumption that players would show up with an army, which is why it was beaten...oh wait, we've just demonstrated that Gygax himself didn't expect players to show up with an army. Oopsie.

let's emphasize that: Gygax didn't think the game was played that way, at least not all the time, and clearly so seldom that even his "perfectly designed deathtrap to kill the most clever and well prepared character" was vulnerable to players showing up with disposable troops. Yeah, we've just shown a well prepared character in AD&D didn't reasonably have 10 soldiers, plus a sergeant.

QuoteBut was it a baseline assumption of the game that henchmen and hirelings would be used in campaign play? Yes. Totally.

No argument there. The issue is the whole "yeah, everyone has 10 soldiers and a sergeant with them at all times." The issue is not "could some party have 10 soldiers and a sergeant"...it's that: was such a thing an absolute given?

And, as even Tomb of Horrors (as well as nearly every other module ever made) demonstrates: no, not at all.

Quote from: Benoist;438479WTF? Where does he actually say that? That's a strawman, dude.

Read post #435 specifically. It's what he wants to focus on. Ok, he specifically says the "10 light footmen" that AM was referencing, namely that it can be 'counted on' that any given group of adventurers will necessarily have such troops.

I guess I'm willing to be vastly more reasonable than him. He can specifically reference "10 light footmen", as opposed to "10 soldiers plus a sergeant", although I think the latter gives him more wiggle room, in my opinion.

Note, again, because this keeps getting lost: his rule references indicate only the *possibility* that a player in some theoretical situation might hire some sort of troops at some point. Thus, they do not show what he claims, by any stretch of the imagination.

Let's see the rules reference that, definitely, absolutely, players always hired troops, were expected to hire troops, and that the whole game was built around players always having troops with them. That the game truly was 'played that way'. Note, it will be difficult to show this, since all published examples of play do not mention this collection fo troops, and all (nearly all? I think it's pretty amazing that not even one example has been given) published modules likewise fail to address these supposed troops.

But, he keeps insisting he can do it. Let's give him more time, I suppose.

What I'm seeing is that you keep wanting people to not move the goalposts while you turn around and do that exact thing in the same fucking post.

It all starts with Jibba saying that a group of ogres could beat 5th level characters to a pulp or some such, which is true under some scenarios. AM then answers that actually, a group of low level PCs could survive an 1d3 ogres encounter, especially with the help of hirelings, which is ALSO true in some circumstances.

Then, that's where it becomes kind of... well. Judge by yourself:

AM says that most people playing the game used hirelings extensively. Debatable claim IMO - certainly true of many groups, untrue for many others. The argument could have stopped there, with some people having some experience with the game, and others having other experiences with it. BUT NO! Then the goalpost moved to whether the WRITTEN GAME ITSELF presupposes the use of hirelings or not. Well? YES, it does.

Then it gets into a whole further goalpost moving where a quote doesn't *EXACTLY* say what a poster says, and then it's not STRICTLY ten guys and a sergeant... what next? I mean, seriously?

That's just stupid bullshit. Everything.

Do you know what you're arguing about at this point? The actual POINT of all this, or have you forgotten by now?

Quote from: Doom;438481

QuoteTo go back to what started this whole shitstorm:

QuoteOriginally Posted by Abyssal Maw View Post
I don't think 1d3 ogres would be an unwinnable encounter for low level PCs in AD&D, either. Especially if they had hirelings to absorb the brunt of battle while the PCs stayed in the rear firing arrows or set up a fighting retreat.

You need to go further back, I'm afraid.

Farther back than the earliest mention of hirelings in the thread? Okay. What are we looking for, exactly? There's 30+ pages back there.

Quote from: Doom;438478You ignore the fact that your citations don't say what you claim they say. Nowhere do these citations state "all adventurers should have a party of 10 soldiers, plus a sergeant, at all times,"

But I didn't say that. This is just another example of your bullshit attempts to move the goalposts.

QuoteDo note quite a number of folks are disagreeing with you. Even Benoist, who sort of agrees, couldn't help but point out you are wrong about horses not being mentioned in modules.

But I never said that horses were never mentioned in modules. I talked about the pregenerated PCs in specific module as a response to you talking about the pregenerated PCs in a specific module. This is just another example of your bullshit attempts to shadowbox with strawmen.

Quote from: Doom;438478

QuoteThe question has been asked before, but let's try it again: If quotations from rulebooks, modules, supplements, and actual play reports are insufficient to convince you that henchmen and hirelings were an expected and common part of gameplay, what would it take to convince you, exactly?

Well, you ARE the one making the claim.

Show me in the rules, or in every single module, the statement that "it is understood that all adventuring parties at all times will have 10 soldiers, plus a sergeant."

For the record, I find it utterly unsurprising that you refused to answer the question and instead went for the strawman again.

However, can we assume from this that you're conceding the fact that henchmen and hirelings were, in fact, an expected and common part of gameplay? Because if not, then you need to answer the question.

QuoteNo, I assuming you're not a liar. I'm assumiing you're the Justin Alexander of the blog thealexandrian, and that those play accounts given in the blog are the truth.

Justin: I went to the store yesterday.
Doom: Ah ha! You admit that you didn't eat lunch yesterday!
Justin: I had lunch before I went to the store.
Doom: WHY WOULD YOU LIE ABOUT WHAT YOU DID YESTERDAY?

What a maroon.

Basically the point that started this whole argument was whether or not a 1-3 Ogre encounter was something a 1st level party would avoid or whether it was just like any encounter since the PCs had a group of hirelings with them to hide behind and use missile fire on the ogres.

The thing to remember is, AM was stating this as a defense for 4e.  Randall made it sound like AD&D was more realistic or dangerous since every encounter wasn't neatly balanced, and AM was tossing up the red herring of hirelings supposedly making the game every bit as survivable as 4e, at least that was the implication.

As Doom and AM were in the middle of a shitstorm on minions, well the shitstorm carried over on to hirelings.

Doom went way too far in his claim against hirelings and posters here have pointed out the error.

There's two things I think Storm, Doom and Justin should be able to agree on...
1. It is without doubt that henchmen and hirelings were expected parts of the earlier D&D game, in that it was assumed that characters would interact and hire them for different things at different times.

2.  I think, however, if you look at the actual modules themselves, you will see that the modules were not written assuming the party always had a group of cannon fodder with them, which was AM's implication.

At this point, can we stop with the sentence by sentence one-upmanship before Morrow gets here?

In any case hats off to AM for managing to completely derail an anti-4e thread by getting people to argue the finer points of earlier D&D. :hatsoff: