Quote from: Doom;438555Look, he insisted on it, I would accept anything comparable, myself. But, he says what he says, not much I can do about that.

I think the cute bit is how everyone here has pointed out that you're lying about this, but you just keep repeating the lie. What do you think that's accomplishing, exactly?

QuoteLet's talk about rational thought for a moment.

This should be fun. Let's consider, for a moment, the point where you said:

Quote from: Doom;438162Go and read the AD&D modules, and you'll see quite clearly that hirelings weren't at all expected to be part of the adventure, not even the slightest.

Hmm... Doom claims that one should look to modules to see how the game was being played. I pointed out the foolishness of this (particularly when you cherry-pick the modules you choose to look at), but he doesn't want to believe me. Who can we possibly find to contradict him that he would listen to?

Well, I suppose we could ask Doom to do it:

Quote from: Doom;438555Evidence: 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.

Doom vs. Doom! FORUM CAGE FIGHT! GO!

What a maroon.

Quote

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?

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.

It's adorable how utterly incompetent you look as you flail around refusing to answer that question.

Quote from: Imperator;438568And 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. (...)

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.

This is a more interesting conversation to have.

I would tend to agree that the LBBs are confusing, poorly written, and pretty much completely inferior to many other systems in their design. It's why I have pretty much zero interest in the OSR clones.

But, as you say, the LBBs are, in fact, the first of their kind. And that makes them interesting documents, in part because they're confusing, contradictory, and vague.

Let me quote a bit from my blog:

Quote from: The AlexandrianBut one of the interesting things about the OD&D rules is that they are, basically, a set of typeset house rules. There are notable passages which are literally nothing more than a description of how you can kit-bash your copy of TSR's Chainmail and Avalon Hill's Outdoor Survival into a semi-cohesive system.

Nor is there any way to actually play OD&D "by the book". Not only are multiple options frequently given for accomplishing the same thing, but sometimes the rulebooks just flat out contradict themselves. In addition, while Dave Arneson is widely recognized as the original innovator of D&D-style gaming, it's fairly clear to me that Gary Gygax was in large part responsible for the writing of these rulebooks. And while I will praise Gygax for many things, the man was never skilled at writing or organizing rules -- which means that even when there is only one rule for a given situation it will often be written so vaguely as to leave itself open to a myriad of equally valid interpretations.

The result is something like a palimpsest. The OD&D rules are the ur-document of all roleplaying games, but the game itself has no true identity: There is nothing you can point to and say, "That is OD&D." It is like the many-faced Vishnu: All things at once. A form in formlessness.
As the years passed, the many-formed aspects of OD&D were slowly refined in a particular direction until it became the game that I started playing in 1989 and have (more or less) been playing ever since. But what's fascinating to me is that there was no particular reason why it was that particular mix of playing styles that were formalized. It could have just as easily been another.

People took the LBBs and, by necessity, started working to clear up its inconsistencies. This was good. It gave us better games.

But in the process, other options that might have been taken got left behind.

Some of those options, of course, were garbage. But there's some stuff in there that's pretty dang fascinating.

I also find that reading and playing the OD&D rules with a completely open mind is a really great way to re-analyze the deeply engrained biases that we have about "how RPGs should be played". (Skip ahead to 2:20 for the specific bias discussion in that video, but the whole thing is fairly relevant.)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438580

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

From a nation that didn't have the morality or will to fight for two years after the war had started somewhat hypocritical!

Quote from: Justin Alexander;438622I think the cute bit is how everyone here has pointed out that you're lying about this, but you just keep repeating the lie. What do you think that's accomplishing, exactly?

Uh, I've already quoted the exact post number. And a number of people have pointed out you're a liar, and documented it. Such poor reading comprehension you seem to have of late, I can't help but wonder why.

Let's wheel out that quote, then, because I know asking you to read is pointless:

Quotelet's just focus on the 10 light footmen that AM was originally talking about.

Looking for some basic confirmation that this was an expected baseline of play in AD&D,

That's your quote. You. You said it.  An expected baseline of play in AD&D is 10 light footmen come with every party (I'd be willing to negotiate as far as some organized squad of troops, but this is what you, you, you, specified as the baseline).

But, seriously, there's no reason to keep harping here. You've been shown wrong, and a liar, and intellectually dishonest. Do you want me to show that character sheet on YOUR BLOG, that has no place to put these 10 soldiers that are the 'expected baseline of play'?

Okeedoke: http://www.thealexandrian.net/images/20110124-large.jpg.

And, focus, again, citing one module (even if you have, which you haven't). doesn't do it, which I suppose is what you're trying to say, even if we disregard all other modules not acknowledging this alleged baseline of play, along with none of the published examples of play acknowledging this alleged baseline of play...along with not acknowledged on characters sheets, either.

I've already answered your question. Repeatedly. But since you lack reading comprehension skills (or are on some mind-altering drugs), you just don't get it.

You've already lost. It's over. Stop with the thread derailments, please. Please, stop with the thread derailments. The fact that you just keep going on with nothing demonstrates, indeed,

What a maroon.

Please, stop already. It's sad to see someone who used to be able to be coherent behave like this. Have you changed medications recently?

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.  

You see you missed a trick. the Scots are decent soldiers the Cannon Fodder are the guys you find at Millwall home games

Quote from: Malladin;438627From a nation that didn't have the morality or will to fight for two years after the war had started somewhat hypocritical!

Whatever the topic, the UK always looks best when compared to the US. That's nothing to be terribly thrilled about.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438580I think the British method is fairly well documented...

Don't even go there mate

I have a box of medals and no grandfathers thanks to our last little skirmish with the Bosh (no offense to our esteemed EU collegues in Germany of course) and we were still paying you for the bullets you sold us until 31 December, 2006 last payment -  $83m ........

So back to D&D

Yeah, Scots are a little too good to use as fodder. Wouldn't dare to suggest what countrymen would better serve, though it seems one does come to mind.

Quote from: Aos;438638Whatever the topic, the UK always looks best when compared to the US. That's nothing to be terribly thrilled about.

You obviously missed the Book of British Smiles on The Simpsons......

Quote from: jibbajibba;438643You obviously missed the Book of British Smiles on The Simpsons......

Ironically, the only TV I watch with any sort of regularity is from the BBC.

It's curious that one thing that hasn't come up as a reason for 4e's "not doing the best" was the errata.

Personally, I don't find errata per se a bad thing, it shows a willingness to fix broken aspects of the game.

That said, not being able to buy a 'proper' book that includes the most updated rules for 4e was something of a turnoff for me. I bought those stupid "elite edition" books, never took them out of the shrinkwrap...and somehow I don't reckon anyone ever will.

Quote from: Doom;438628But, seriously, there's no reason to keep harping here.

Irony. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Doom;438648It's curious that one thing that hasn't come up as a reason for 4e's "not doing the best" was the errata.

Personally, I don't find errata per se a bad thing, it shows a willingness to fix broken aspects of the game.

That said, not being able to buy a 'proper' book that includes the most updated rules for 4e was something of a turnoff for me. I bought those stupid "elite edition" books, never took them out of the shrinkwrap...and somehow I don't reckon anyone ever will.

That is interesting. I don't think it affects new players coming in but I can see that it frustrates exisiting casualplayers.
I think the DDI model actually ecaserbates this as its so quick to put out a new rule to corect one percieved as broken that the paper books become out of date rapidly. I can certainly see that a non DDI player that turned up to a game only to be told that x and y had been changed and the new rule was p would be a bit pissed off.
Now I think the DDI is a fantastic idea but it does stand in stark opposition to the long term standard that becomes a staple of toy stores and high school geekdom. I don't think the full implications of the technology were thought through.

Quote from: Benoist;438650Irony. :rolleyes:

Yup. :rolleyes:

Quote from: jibbajibba;438512i) 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.

I and my group certainly didn't.  Meh, we still had fun.