I think that the saddest part of all this consists in a witless troll post by a very tiresome and witless troll, generating a thread of more than 500 posts, about a subjective topic that has been discussed to death, and with no useful ideas whatsoever coming out of this mess.

Seriously, this place is like a Welcome Club To Witless Trolls, as they don't even have to try that hard.

Quote from: CRKrueger;438488In 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:

Well said, sir.

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


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.




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.

You see you are being disingenuous.

This whole shit storm started becuase I pointed out that 3 ogres in a game of AD&D could easily kill 5 5th level PCs especially if they were not prepared or had just emerged from a combat.

Now this to be is pretty obvious. A 5th level party typically would have 2 fighters, a thief, a wizard and a cleric. You can imagine the scene the party have just beaten a group of orcs, one of the figthers took a couple of hits and is on 1/2 hp (av 27 for a 5th level fighter so he's on 14) the wizard used his sleep spell and a maybe his 2nd level spell as well. The priset has used 1/2 his heals. As they rummage through the orcs stuff looking for any thing useful the Dm throws in 3 ogres roused by the rucass of the combat....

Now at this point rather than saying yes in AD&D the players would be in trouble and that would be a tough challenge (3 x 4d8+1 hits creatures, doing 1d10 +2 - or in my world with 18(00) strength 1d10 +3/+6 - ) AM's immediate response was no that would be trivial the party's 10 hierlings would use their bows to keep the ogres off for a couple of rounds whilst he PCs prepped and then they coudl get through the combat with no issues.

So the issue is not whether Hirelings were a part of AD&D play so much as were they ubiquitous, so ubiquitous infact (can you qualify ubiquitosity???) that 3 ogres would never be a risk to a 5th level party?

Now as I said Doom and StormBringer got a bit ranty but really can you blame them? You guys have basically said that everyone always used Hirelings in AD&D is was a key part of the game. That is not true because you have at least 3 of us on this thread that never used hirelings and from our experience have never played with gorups that used hirelings.

I own 2 modules (as I said I hate modules)  Bone Hill and Against the Giants, I looked at the G ones last night and its pretty explicit that you are not expected to have hirelings. Now obviously that is a modeule pitched at 6-9 players of 8-10th level so hirelings woudl be pretty useless but the way the PCs are 'hired' and directed to the Steadying, the way they get shifted about all seems to indicate that Hirelings are not coming on this trip (I couldn't find Bone Hill to compare).

So what you basically have is 2 factions of people the first claim that everyone uses hirelings the second claims that they never did and naver saw this in play and the first bunch are basically saying that they are lying ?? I don't get it.

I was self taught I bought the Blue book when i was 10 learnt D&D and played with my mates, 6 months later when we all had 3rd level Pcs I bought the DMG, PHB and MM. I never got the impression from the game that hirelings were essential, at the same time as I was doing this other groups of kids my age were starting to play at my school (eventually I founded a school club for us all to play in) and none of them used hirelings either.

I can honestly say from my own experience that hirelings were uncommon in any D&D games I played. I am not sayign they didn't exist or that there are rules in the books for them. I will say that from the books themselves the use of hirelings can not be said to be predetermined or essential as then all groups would use them.

Now is anyone saying that my experience is invalid? Is anyone saying that I am lying? Does anyone doubt that 3 ogres could fuck up a party of 5 5th level PCs ?

If anything this discussion has descended into the realms of religious debate. The KORAN says that women must cover their faces!... well now it actually says that wome must hide their precious goods, its only Arabic culture from the 8th century that insists that women wear veils.... NO IT IS THERE LOOK ON PAGE 24 IT CLEARLY SAYS THAT YOU CAN BUY VEILS FOR 1SP EACH AND THAT A PC CAN OWN AS MANY VEILS AS THEY HAVE CHARISMA WHY WOULD IT HAVE THIS RULE UNLESS YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO WEAR THEM TO COVER THE SHAME OF YOUR BEAUTY...... etc ....



NOw I wonder where people are from.

I am from the UK. Doom, SB?

Maybe its a cultural thing the American's only attack when they have overwhelming force whereas the Brits prefer to send in a crack team of expendable special ops guys... not sure where that leaves Ben... maybe recruiting a bunch of criminals from other parties, ignoring their past and sending them in to do his dirty work

Lighten up guys its a GAME. (some people say D&D is a matter of life and death, we know its more important that that.....)

Quote from: Benoist;438483What 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?

I hadn't read this when i posted.... Very true appart from Then the goalpost moved to whether the WRITTEN GAME ITSELF presupposes the use of hirelings or not. Well? YES, it does.

The rest I agree with totally

Quote from: jibbajibba;438500So the issue is not whether Hirelings were a part of AD&D play so much as were they ubiquitous, so ubiquitous infact (can you qualify ubiquitosity???) that 3 ogres would never be a risk to a 5th level party?

Even with hirelings, three orges would be a major risk to a party of 1st or 2nd level characters encountering them on the first level of the dungeon (which could happen using the random dungeon monster tables in the book). Without hirelings, they'd need to run very fast and drop some food or shiny treasure (and hope it distracted the orges).

QuoteI was self taught I bought the Blue book when i was 10 learnt D&D and played with my mates, 6 months later when we all had 3rd level Pcs I bought the DMG, PHB and MM. I never got the impression from the game that hirelings were essential, at the same time as I was doing this other groups of kids my age were starting to play at my school (eventually I founded a school club for us all to play in) and none of them used hirelings either.

I was semi-self-taught when I was 18 in 1975 and played with groups of college students (and a few high school students). We used hirelings regularly, so did 80-90% of the other groups I knew of -- and that was a fairly large percentage of the D&D playing population at the time (which was very small although very spread out). Just like the rules don't force fighters to fight with weapons rather than their hands, they don't force you to use hirelings. However, since both weapons and hirelings greatly increase the survivability of low level characters, those who don't use them have no business complaining than D&D is likely to kill their characters at low level. (I've noticed that most of the people who complain about older versions of D&D being too deadly at 1st level did not seem to use hirelings.)

Perhaps by the time the AD&D books had been out for a few years (the early 1980s), new groups were choosing not to use hirelings just as they were choosing to ignore other rules in AD&D, but that doesn't change the facts that:

1) designers used hirelings and expected they would be used by players.
2) that using hirelings at low levels was a smart thing to do as using hirelings greatly increased the party's chances of success and reduced character dead.
3) Charisma was only a dump stat if you did not use hirelings and henchmen. If hirelings and henchmen were not expected to be an important part of the game, there really would have been no need to include the Charisma stat.

Quote from: RandallS;438507Perhaps by the time the AD&D books had been out for a few years (the early 1980s), new groups were choosing not to use hirelings just as they were choosing to ignore other rules in AD&D, but that doesn't change the facts that:

1) designers used hirelings and expected they would be used by players.
2) that using hirelings at low levels was a smart thing to do as using hirelings greatly increased the party's chances of success and reduced character dead.
3) Charisma was only a dump stat if you did not use hirelings and henchmen. If hirelings and henchmen were not expected to be an important part of the game, there really would have been no need to include the Charisma stat.

All I said is "it's not an unwinnable encounter" and "especially if they had hirelings".. because people did have such things. It was a regular feature that I remember. So in general we agree. I do think hired soldiers went out of vogue by 2nd edition.

Quote from: RandallS;438507Even with hirelings, three orges would be a major risk to a party of 1st or 2nd level characters encountering them on the first level of the dungeon (which could happen using the random dungeon monster tables in the book). Without hirelings, they'd need to run very fast and drop some food or shiny treasure (and hope it distracted the orges).



I was semi-self-taught when I was 18 in 1975 and played with groups of college students (and a few high school students). We used hirelings regularly, so did 80-90% of the other groups I knew of -- and that was a fairly large percentage of the D&D playing population at the time (which was very small although very spread out). Just like the rules don't force fighters to fight with weapons rather than their hands, they don't force you to use hirelings. However, since both weapons and hirelings greatly increase the survivability of low level characters, those who don't use them have no business complaining than D&D is likely to kill their characters at low level. (I've noticed that most of the people who complain about older versions of D&D being too deadly at 1st level did not seem to use hirelings.)

Perhaps by the time the AD&D books had been out for a few years (the early 1980s), new groups were choosing not to use hirelings just as they were choosing to ignore other rules in AD&D, but that doesn't change the facts that:

1) designers used hirelings and expected they would be used by players.
2) that using hirelings at low levels was a smart thing to do as using hirelings greatly increased the party's chances of success and reduced character dead.
3) Charisma was only a dump stat if you did not use hirelings and henchmen. If hirelings and henchmen were not expected to be an important part of the game, there really would have been no need to include the Charisma stat.

I can agree with some of that. Comparing hirelings to a fighter using his hands is of course hyperbole. Perhaps comparing a fighter wearing chain as opposed to Plate would be a better comparison as at the end of the day use of hirelings is a roleplay thing, an in game decision to make.

On your listed points

i) Deigners use of not of hirelings is totally unclear from the RAW. If it's true that they all used them that is something you learnt from outside the rule book, from experience and contact with people who knew people etc . You certainly can't expect a bunch of kids in the UK in 1980 to draw that conclusion from the rule books themselves.
ii) Yes it is a smart thing to do but again limited by role play. So i can see that a magic user from an aristocratic background might well hire servants to carry goods for him, but I can't see a lone ranger (pardon the pun) from the forests doing the same thing, or a cutthroat rogue looking to quietly loot a tomb etc .
iii) Charisma is not a dump stat anymore than any score beteeen 8 and 15 is in D&D. First of all there is the reaction  bonus which is key to every single person or monster you meet (mathematically if you have a 9 and a 14 you are far better to put the 14 in Charisma as you get a consistent bonus on encounter to all creatures you meet), second of all I thought Charisma was henchmen and hirelings just work for coin so its irrelevant to this discussion and lastly there is role play again, if I am playing an elven archer I want him/her to be hot, if I am playing a rogue I want him/her to be charming, that is what I use Charisma for ...

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438508I do think hired soldiers went out of vogue by 2nd edition.

2e certainly did downplay them. They weren't even mentioned in any detail (if at all) until chapter 12 of the 2e Players Handbook. And the book said they would never go on adventures. Certainly much different than the way they were presented in OD&D and 1e.  This is one of the reasons I see 2e as the start of the (downhill, IMHO but YMMV) slide of D&D away from its roots -- such things were not left up to the campaign and/or the DM, the rules said that they would not accompany PC on adventures.

Quote from: ggroy;438407Third 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.

Quote from: ggroy;438408Most 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.

I looked again through my collection of Goodman 4E modules.

Here's a list of 4E Goodman modules by level.  (There are no epic tier modules, and a small number of low paragon tier ones).

http://www.goodman-games.com/4e.html

It turns out they only made one module at the paragon tier:  "Shrine of the Fallen Lama" which was meant for level 10-12.

The only other paragon tier stuff they made, were isolated encounters in their "Level Up" 4E magazine and in the long delayed "From Here to There" book of isolated encounters.  (IIRC, I remember seeing "From Here to There" on Goodman's "Coming Soon" section since early/mid-2009.  It was only recently released a few months ago in late-2010).

These Goodman paragon tier isolated encounters/modules read very much like an "always fighting orcs" type of dungeon crawl.  Basically one could have taken a mid or high heroic tier level encounter/module, and changed the monsters to higher levels.

51 pages? I have forum fatigue now. *head explodes*

-=Grim=-

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438508All I said is "it's not an unwinnable encounter" and "especially if they had hirelings".. because people did have such things. It was a regular feature that I remember. So in general we agree. I do think hired soldiers went out of vogue by 2nd edition.

[PEDANT]
Actually what you said was

QuoteQuote:
Originally Posted by jibbajibba  
Depends how you ruled Ogre Strength and Damage. I figured that if Ogres are inteligent-ish they would use weapons and they really should have 18 (00) strength so they all get +3 to hit and somthing like a d10 + 6 damage.

At those rates 3 ogres can kill a party of 5 5th level PCs if they come across them unawares (an average 5th level wizard has 12 hp remember and an average 5th level figther only has 27)

Just sayin.

They can only attack once per round. In AD&D they do 1d10 or "by weapon". You could probably count on a squad of 10 light footmen (or even heavy footmen) with a sergeant..augmenting the party as the front line. That's 3 rounds at least where you don't even break a sweat, firing arrow after arrow, just enough to do 4d8+1 hp (let's say 21 hp per ogre) of damage, and your front line is probably landing a few blows of their own.

It's not an unwinnable battle is all I am saying. plus we don't really have to change the rules (not a very common thing to start suddenly giving Ogres the bonuses that aren't part of their stat block).. that's not really how AD&D was supposed to work, is it? DMs don't need to change the stat block, they could just roll behind the screen and make everything up. Do you know the gygaxian riddle "Why does a DM roll dice?"

So move 'especially if you had' to 'you could probably count on...'
If you had said "especially if you had..." this whole car crash could have been avoided

[/PEDANT]

But as pointed out you nicely sidesteped the whole 4e is shit and minions suck ass debate  

Quote from: jibbajibba;438523[PEDANT]
Actually what you said was



So move 'especially if you had' to 'you could probably count on...'
If you had said "especially if you had..." this whole car crash could have been avoided

[/PEDANT]

But as pointed out you nicely sidesteped the whole 4e is shit and minions suck ass debate  

What part "you could probably count on" seems like an imperative definite statement? It's not actually even controversial.  I mean, is it? Jesus.

This is the thing; the controversies and arguments here are simply desperation statements by a particular breed of "gamers" that do not truly understand the past, do not connect to the present and have no future. Which all I have to say about that is- too bad for them.

4th Edition D&D is the best version of D&D ever published. That's an opinion I guess. Minions are awesome too. I'm sorry that other people can't enjoy it, but not that sorry.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;438486Justin: 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.

Say, if you really are Justin Alexander, can you post a link to this on your blog? I'm sure you're confident you look very intelligent and insightful and polite here, and would have no difficulty letting your followers know.

Thanks.

Quote from: CRKrueger;438488The thing to remember is, AM was stating this as a defense for 4e.
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:

A very fair assessment.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438545What part "you could probably count on" seems like an imperative definite statement? It's not actually even controversial.  I mean, is it? Jesus.

This is the thing; the controversies and arguments here are simply desperation statements by a particular breed of "gamers" that do not truly understand the past, do not connect to the present and have no future. Which all I have to say about that is- too bad for them.

4th Edition D&D is the best version of D&D ever published. That's an opinion I guess. Minions are awesome too. I'm sorry that other people can't enjoy it, but not that sorry.

Yes there is a substantive difference in those comments : )

Like I said about 400 pages ago I don't think Minions are that bad. I didn't mind them as mooks in Daredevils or extras in James Bond.
I think there is an issue using them in a game like D&D which is level based as there is a disconnect between the way monsters have worked in the past and now. I also think there is a disconnect with D&D as historically the game has been reasonably big on immersion and minions are a cinematic game device.

Now I think we all agree that 4e has dropped some of the emulation / simulation stuff for ease of play and cinematic excitement. Again I think that this is a big break with old editions. I like a lot of cinematic games, I am not convinced that I like my D&D to be of that flavour but I totally get that it's a personal taste thing.

I might well take umbrage with the claim that the controversies and arguments here are simply desperation statements by a particular breed of "gamers" that do not truly understand the past, do not connect to the present and have no future.  I think its pretty hard to draw that conclusion from a debate about the use of hirelings ..... or even a debate about whether 3 ogres could be a handful for a group of 5th level PCs.... It's even a stretch if you are talking about using Minions or not in 4E.

I think your committment to 4e is laudable. You stick to your guns in the face of vast oposition on a web site where the tone is highly antagonistic. I do think that you need to make your points more substantive and less emotive or personal.