Quote from: jibbajibba;438551Yes 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.

Fair enough!

Quote from: Benoist;438483Then 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.

Look, he insisted on it, I would accept anything comparable, myself. But, he says what he says, not much I can do about that.

Let's talk about rational thought for a moment. Some folks are really caught up in emotion and pure undiluted rage (well, one guy, anyway), so let's shift the premise from "Every adventuring party can count on (having 10 footmen and a sergeant)'. That's how the game is played." to "Every adventuring party can count on (some guy using a melee weapon). That's how the game is played."

Now let's examine some possible evidence, the value of such evidence, and why that value is assessed. Let's mostly stick to AD&D, since the comedy of watching someone rush around scrambling through 30 years of books trying to find a scrap is getting dull.

Claim: "Every adventuring party can count on (some guy using a melee weapon). That's how the game is played."


Evidence: A certain module doesn't have horses.
Value: Laughable
Reasoning: It's completely irrelevant to the claim. Pointing out that other modules do have horses, while good for amusement, only further to serves how laughable the evidence is.

Evidence: A certain module let you buy a melee weapon.
Value: Worthless
Reasoning: What happens in one module, or even a handful, doesn't address all play very well. At best, it's evidence that, sometimes, someone could buy a melee weapon in a module.

Evidence: Melee weapons are in the PHB equipment list.
Value: Worthless
Reasoning: Lots of weapons are in the PHB, including ranged weapons. All this is, is evidence that someone, somewhere, might well use a melee weapon. You can buy a piglet for 1gp, that doesn't mean every adventuring party had one, and that you could count on a piglet being in a party.

Evidence: Melee weapons are mentioned in the DMG.
Value: Worthless
Reasoning: Again, lots of things are mentioned in the DMG, including leprosy and a Censor of Summoning Air Elementals. But I doubt anyone here asserts that adventuring parties can count on having a leper in them, or a Censor.

Evidence: My friend Bob used a melee weapon.
Value: Meaningless
Reasoning: Millions of people played AD&D, citing one or a few such people means nothing.

Evidence: There are rules for using a melee weapon given somewhere.
Value: Worthless
Reasoning: There are rules for lots of things given somewhere (cf, leprosy, above).

(Note: this is all evidence presented so far in support of the other claim, as well. Let's consider other evidence for the melee weapons claim, to see how easy it is to present legitimate evidence for things that are true.)

Evidence: There's a picture of a guy using a melee weapon on the cover of the DMG
Value: Dubious
Reasoning: There's also an Efreeti on the cover, and nobody seriously claims that you can count on an Efreeti being in every fight.

Evidence: There's pictures of guys using melee weapons scattered heavily throughout the game.
Value: Weak
Reasoning: Artwork serves as inspiration, and certainly this is actual evidence that, at the very least, the publishers thought folks should be using melee weapons. However, if melee weapons were poorly designed mechanically, they probably wouldn't be used in game play all that much.

Evidence: The example of play given in the DMG has someone using melee weapons
Value: Adequate
Reasoning: The example of play indicates how the game is played. While it can be argued that the published example only indicates how the publisher thought the game is played, the fact still remains that anyone playing the game is very likely to use the example as, well, an example.

Evidence: Almost every example of play published has someone using melee weapons (the examples that don't are explicitly highlighting something else).
Value: Decent
Reasoning: Again, examples are used as examples, and many examples really reinforce the way the game is played. If the way the game was played had changed or was different than what was originally thought due to mechanical issues, the examples would change, as well.

Evidence: Every module has battles where it's assumed the players are using melee weapons.
Value: Good
Reasoning: Modules represent actual play of the game, and application of the rules. If it was just one module, or a handful, a case might be made, but seeing as every module has melee combat in it, and nearly everybody played at least one module, and modules were intended for all players, then, yes, it can be counted on that there were folks who used melee weapons.

There is, of course, considerable other evidence that could be provided, but the key is, evidence for how a game is played has to somehow address actual game play. And that's how one rationally looks at things. And that concludes today's discussion on valid thinking, and, hopefully, ends discussion on AM's very successful sidetrack.



Now, let's get back to identifying things that caused 4e to "not do so well".

Weak modules, and bad combat certainly were contributing factors. I feel that the 'non combat mechanic', i.e., skill challenges, wasn't handled very well, either, which led to a game that functioned poorly both in and out of combat.

Quote from: jibbajibba;438501I 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

That's cool.

The difference comes from our different points of view. You are mostly a 2nd ed AD&D player, if I remember well. I'm talking in what the First Ed baseline is. That's part of the paradigm change between the two editions. Add to this that many people played without hirelings during First Ed's time, just like they wouldn't use the AC/WP table, the pummeling rules, or didn't have basically any fucking idea what the game actually contained beyond the to-hit tables, and that adds to the overall confusion.

Quote from: Benoist;438557That's cool.

The difference comes from our different points of view. You are mostly a 2nd ed AD&D player, if I remember well. I'm talking in what the First Ed baseline is. That's part of the paradigm change between the two editions. Add to this that many people played without hirelings during First Ed's time, just like they wouldn't use the AC/WP table, the pummeling rules, or didn't have basically any fucking idea what the game actually contained beyond the to-hit tables, and that adds to the overall confusion.

I am indeed a 2E player. But I was a 1E player from 1980 until they wrote 2e. And during those 5 or 6 years I basically played D&D every day, well okay there was a Boot Hill phase and a James Bond phase but D&D was the game I played every school lunchtime and most weekends so I played me a fair bit of 1e, to the point where I can still recall the values of the to hit tables without looking them up

I always felt 2E was really a clarification of IE with a bit more tailoring of classes (kits, specialist priests, schools of magic, theif skill specialisation) and a few more simple combat options. There is a list of hirelings in 2E and it details everyone from Alchemists to Yak herders if I recall with a daily rate but the statement is there that these are not adventuring folk but as i said we never hired folk for that anyway, although Lord Fantastic did hire a crew for his luxury barge if I recall,....

We did play a kind of hybrid 2e Battle system mini adventure campaign for a year where we played battles between 4 races and the night before each battle there would be a D&D session that precursored it. So 3 goblin Sappers would try to sneak into a human encampment and poison the water supply or assinate a wizard. If they succeeded that affected the Battle on the next day. I think a few of those had troops, wouldn't call them hirelings exactly.

Man I used to have so much time to play games ..... where did it all go ....

Quote from: jibbajibba;438500If 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 ....

I also find a lot of historical revisionism when discussing the game. For the record, I started playing in 1985, Mentzer Red Box, and hirelings have never been a significant part of any game I can think of. No one was ready to waste XP on them. So no, no hirelings AFAIK.

And seriously, what's with the re-reading of the LBBs as if they were some kind of Holy Text to be deciphered or whatnot? I will be the first to say that OD&D can be insanely fun, but for fuck's sake, I own the LBBs and they are confusing, poorly written and all of that is simply due to them being the first of their kind. That's it. There are no secret messages hidden there, and I am pretty sure that EGG and Arneson didn't write them that wayto park any creativity on people wanting to houserule things, they simply didn't know any better.

It is amazing to see otherwise smart and lucid people becoming the equivalent of mad hermits or even worse, theologians, when it comes to interpreting that stuff. A game must have clear rules, or otherwise it is a poor design. If someone bought a boardgame written like the LBBs are, everyone would agree on calling the game a piece of shit. But it seems that, when it comes to RPGs (specially the one we like) we always find a way to justify poor design, holes in the rules, and any other thing that would make us cringe in other games.

QuoteMaybe 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

I salute you.

Let me make this clear: henchmen and hirelings were NOT a regular part of the games I was playing in the 80s either. But that's really not my point. That was part of what I was discussing above and saying "this is debatable." That's a fact some groups used henchmen and hirelings, and a fact others did not. The groups I personally played with were overwhelmingly from the latter category.

What I'm talking about is whether the AD&D First Ed game and OD&D assume the use of henchmen and hirelings, and there it is a "yes," regardless of what my personal experience or yours was with the game.

QuoteMaybe 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

Actually, that leaves me with the original grognards to work with.

The British only stopped using overwhelming force when they lost all the cannon-fodder pulled from other countries in the Empire.  I mean there's a limited number of Scots to sacrifice.  

I think the centerpiece of the rules, the 'powers' system, totally negates any interesting choice or innovation it would have had with complete blandness due to overwhelming numbers.

If they were really interested in creating a co-operative team environment, the powers would be far more synergistic.  The Fighter hits successfully, then the Rogue can slide the opponent.  The Rogue distracts the opponent, then the Fighter can Cleave.  The Wizard casts a spell, then the Cleric can frighten them with divine power.  The Cleric starts swinging a mace, then the Wizard teleports them into a group of enemies.

As it stands, all the powers are almost entirely self-contained, and it is a struggle to get powers working together well, and many don't fit well within the framework of combos.  Unless you want to pinball some goblins around the battlefield.

Quote from: CRKrueger;438571The British only stopped using overwhelming force when they lost all the cannon-fodder pulled from other countries in the Empire.  I mean there's a limited number of Scots to sacrifice.  

I think the British method is fairly well documented...

Quote from: Benoist;438570What I'm talking about is whether the AD&D First Ed game and OD&D assume the use of henchmen and hirelings, and there it is a "yes," regardless of what my personal experience or yours was with the game.

Sure, but then, so what? It is irrelevant, absolutely irrelevant. So the early game assumed you would use hirelings. Many groups didn't give a shit about that. So, probably due to that, 2nd ed downplayed them, as many people didn't use them.

Now what? I still cannot see how that distinction matters. How it can help you in a game. It is a useless piece of trivia, like discussing how many angels are able to dance on a hairpin instead of going to town and nail some wenches. It is no fun.

Quote from: Imperator;438582Sure, but then, so what? It is irrelevant, absolutely irrelevant. So the early game assumed you would use hirelings. Many groups didn't give a shit about that. So, probably due to that, 2nd ed downplayed them, as many people didn't use them.

Now what? I still cannot see how that distinction matters. How it can help you in a game. It is a useless piece of trivia, like discussing how many angels are able to dance on a hairpin instead of going to town and nail some wenches. It is no fun.

Well, if you go back to the origin of the argument, it was about how AD&D could present you with an unwinnable battle, but my point is, a lot of these weren't actually unwinnable. And hirelings were a part of the game. Also guard dogs- many PCs travelled with guard dogs, which cost something like 25 gp.

I bet I'm not the only person who remembers a party member with a guard dog or two...

ooh, that does bring back memories...those 2hd guard dogs were vicious things to have around. Definitely used them in one party.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;4385454th Edition D&D is the best version of D&D ever published. That's an opinion I guess.

Yes, it's an opinion. Here's mine: 4th Edition D&D is the worst version of D&D ever published for the way I enjoy running and playing D&D. Both opinions are 100% accurate as "best/worst edition of D&D" is purely subjective.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438584I bet I'm not the only person who remembers a party member with a guard dog or two...

When I accidentally left them out of a early draft of Microlite74, complaints were quickly heard.

Quote from: Imperator;438582Sure, but then, so what? It is irrelevant, absolutely irrelevant. So the early game assumed you would use hirelings. Many groups didn't give a shit about that. So, probably due to that, 2nd ed downplayed them, as many people didn't use them.

Now what? I still cannot see how that distinction matters. How it can help you in a game. It is a useless piece of trivia, like discussing how many angels are able to dance on a hairpin instead of going to town and nail some wenches. It is no fun.

Well now, you can look at some other components of the game and wonder how henchmen and hirelings fit into the picture, and what sort of entertainment you get as you play the game by using them. Henchmen and hirelings actually have a deep impact on game play, from the game's lethality to the multi-layers of resource management it implies, the tactical resources available to the party, the characters that can be promoted PCs upon the death of other characters, how your retinue plays into the campaign's continuity up to name level when you create your fief/tower/whatnot, and so on, so forth.

So, sure, you can discard this aspect of the game and play it any way you want. But the inclusion of henchmen and hirelings into the game does bring a different type of entertainment to it, and alters its game play in ways that some might find interesting. Which happens to be my case now, as opposed to twenty years ago.

Quote from: Doom;438591ooh, that does bring back memories...those 2hd guard dogs were vicious things to have around. Definitely used them in one party.

I think we got one of those once, then totally forgot we had one.  Kind of like familiars, they go into the extra-dimensional Bag of Pet Holding until you need them.