Quote from: CRKrueger;439060Nah, the GURPS and HERO boards certainly have enough build options to make intense rules discussions (and they do), but on the G/H boards you have people posing solutions and changes.  The MMOG atmosphere isn't there.  

I'd posit that it's there and you just don't perceive it.

Seanchai

Quote from: jgants;439094In the old days, it was mostly confined to spells.  

In my experience, it was class and race combinations, weapons, and magic items initially, then, later on, kits and all the others.

But there was less to work with. And, lacking message boards, et al., harder for ideas to jump groups, be discussed and dissected at length, and so on.

Seanchai

Originally Posted by StormBringer View Post
Allow me one counter-argument, then, and I will offer no recriminations if you choose not to address it:
While not being recorded on the character sheet is not an absolute barrier to existing, most groups did have a pretty solid understanding this was the minimum requirement; ie, it has to be written down somewhere.
I think the line of "this needs to be recorded" can vary quite a bit between groups and between players. (For example, in me 3E campaign the PCs don't have hirelings, but they do have a variety of contacts and friends. Some of the players jot down notes about them; others don't.)

But there's also the question of where this information is to be recorded. To use the example from my original post, the character sheet Doom linked to doesn't include any place for spells to be written down. Does this mean that spells don't exist in my OD&D campaign? Of course not. They're recorded somewhere else.


That is more of the sort of stuff I was talking about in my earlier post. There are lots of things that should be in AD&D if hirelings were indeed the norm a place to record them on the offical sheet is just another example. Its like the lack of spells to affect them or classes that have some direct interaction or summarised encumberance tables or a note on how to handle hirelings in combat without making individual roles for each guy etc etc etc.

If Hirelings were in the DNA of the game they would be more ubiquitous. Str, Dex, Con, Wis, Cha, Int these are in the DNA of D&D so there are spells that change them, classes that have minimum requirements of them, magic items that increase them, magic pools (in the random dungeon generators) that increase them etc etc .... I could list others but you get what I mean.

Quote from: jibbajibba;439108There are lots of things that should be in AD&D if hirelings were indeed the norm a place to record them on the offical sheet is just another example. Its like the lack of spells to affect them or classes that have some direct interaction or summarised encumberance tables or a note on how to handle hirelings in combat without making individual roles for each guy etc etc etc.

I just don't get some of these supposed requirements.

The same spells that affect PCs, NPCs, and monsters affect hirelings and henchmen -- after all, they are just humanoids (for the most part). Why would special spells spells for them be needed?

Classes that have some direct interaction with them?  Why would one need or want such classes. Having them would just convince people that only those classes could interact with them (in the same way have a thief class tended to make people think that you had to be a thief to have a chance top move quietly, pick a lock, disarm trap, etc.).

Summarized encumbrance tables. I'm not even sure what you mean.

Notes on how to handle hirelings as a group in combat? Heck, there really weren't notes on how to handle 60 orcs in a combat. Yet few people rolled a to hit roll for each orc. They made a roll and counted it the the roll made by each orc in groups of five or ten or whatever.

QuoteIf Hirelings were in the DNA of the game they would be more ubiquitous. Str, Dex, Con, Wis, Cha, Int these are in the DNA of D&D so there are spells that change them, classes that have minimum requirements of them, magic items that increase them, magic pools (in the random dungeon generators) that increase them etc etc .... I could list others but you get what I mean.

All those things are already in the game. Hirelings are just humans, elves, halflings, etc. There are already lots of spells, magic items, etc. that affect them. I don't see any need to have special "only affects hirelings" stuff.

Quote from: RandallS;439111I just don't get some of these supposed requirements.

The same spells that affect PCs, NPCs, and monsters affect hirelings and henchmen -- after all, they are just humanoids (for the most part). Why would special spells spells for them be needed?

Classes that have some direct interaction with them?  Why would one need or want such classes. Having them would just convince people that only those classes could interact with them (in the same way have a thief class tended to make people think that you had to be a thief to have a chance top move quietly, pick a lock, disarm trap, etc.).

Summarized encumbrance tables. I'm not even sure what you mean.

Notes on how to handle hirelings as a group in combat? Heck, there really weren't notes on how to handle 60 orcs in a combat. Yet few people rolled a to hit roll for each orc. They made a roll and counted it the the roll made by each orc in groups of five or ten or whatever.

All those things are already in the game. Hirelings are just humans, elves, halflings, etc. There are already lots of spells, magic items, etc. that affect them. I don't see any need to have special "only affects hirelings" stuff.

Okay I will lay it out again maybe I am not beong transparent enough.

It is my belief that if a game was designed in which hirelings were an essentail ubiquitous essental part of play, baked into the DNA of the game so to speak then there would be more things that specifically related to them in play. So for example a first level Wizard spell that gave groups a bonus to initiative, or a class that gave group bonus - like the Bard class in MMOs.
When you are desiging a game you look at the elements that you can affect and you build affecting those into the game.
So I would expect to see encumberance tables that give typical carry capacity for hirelings in groups or what ever. i woudl expect to see a note in combat that said ...
'Sometimes parties and their associates hirelings and henchmen can form quite large groups and combat between groups and similarly sized groups of monsters can get quite cumbersome. In situatiosn lije this you may elect to simplify combat to a degree and .....' etc

just sayin ......

My question would be, if hirelings, henchmen, etc aren't part of the core rules, then why is there a Cha score?

As others have said, the main reason Cha is thought of as a dump score is because people were ignoring hirelings.  If you use hirelings, Cha is pretty darn useful as it sets the number of guys you can command and (more importantly) their max morale score.

Honestly, Cha should just be removed from the game if you aren't using hirelings.

Quote from: jibbajibba;439121just sayin ......

I just don't get it, but then I've never wanted or needed rules for everything -- and don't see why you'd need all sorts of special treatment in the rules for hirelings (beyond things like morale, effects of charisma, and the like). Having special rules for hirelings when they are just NPCs working for a member of the group or the group as a whole is just alien to my way of thinking. Although I hate to use the word "gamist," I really think that would be unnecessarily gamist for me. Sorry.

Quote from: jgants;439123My question would be, if hirelings, henchmen, etc aren't part of the core rules, then why is there a Cha score?

As others have said, the main reason Cha is thought of as a dump score is because people were ignoring hirelings.  If you use hirelings, Cha is pretty darn useful as it sets the number of guys you can command and (more importantly) their max morale score.

Honestly, Cha should just be removed from the game if you aren't using hirelings.

The one point i'd make here is that charisma is also important if you make reaction rolls when first encountering NPCs/monsters. Of course many modules, etc. include script like "attack on sight" and its entirely reasonable that there will be certain situations where NPCs/monsters' reaction will be obvious from the circumstances, but it makes for an interesting game if depending on the moment there may or may not be a chance to parley, negotiate, or even ally with some of the monsters.

Quote from: jgants;439123My question would be, if hirelings, henchmen, etc aren't part of the core rules, then why is there a Cha score?

As others have said, the main reason Cha is thought of as a dump score is because people were ignoring hirelings.  If you use hirelings, Cha is pretty darn useful as it sets the number of guys you can command and (more importantly) their max morale score.

Honestly, Cha should just be removed from the game if you aren't using hirelings.

Didn't I mention the reaction adjustment is a hugely important or the fact that hirelings have nothing to do with Charisma just coin or the fact that there is a huge roleplay aspect to Charisma. You can;t play a suave conman with poor charisma or a beautiful elven queen or .... etc ...
Lastly in D&D values from 8 to 14 are pretty much null in Con/str/dex so if you are a theif with stats of 15, 12, 14,12, 10, 8 you may as well put the 8 in con and the 14 in charisma because the reaction bonus is just about teh most useful thing you are goign to get.

I'd have to double-check my AD&D book to be sure, but I thought I remembered the reaction adjustment to be an optional rule (much like the initiative bonus for Dex).

And I find the idea that you need to have a Cha stat solely as a limit for how well you can role-play your character to be a pretty dumb one (that kind of thinking leads down the path of the utterly pointless Comeliness stat from UA).

Quote from: RandallS;439126I just don't get it, but then I've never wanted or needed rules for everything -- and don't see why you'd need all sorts of special treatment in the rules for hirelings (beyond things like morale, effects of charisma, and the like). Having special rules for hirelings when they are just NPCs working for a member of the group or the group as a whole is just alien to my way of thinking. Although I hate to use the word "gamist," I really think that would be unnecessarily gamist for me. Sorry.

You are missing the point and this will be my last comment on the matter.

Basically if there is a thing in a game that is essential to the game then when you are creating the rule for the game you tend to think of ways to manipulate, target or benefit that thing. Its not a case of 'Help me I am weak I need rules for everything.' Its a case of the designers sitting round and saying what are the key aspects of the game we weant to be manipulatable? What are the thing we can affect with PC skills , what can we use spells to alter or affect what are our variable here.

You look to things in the system that are key to the game and that is where you focus your effects.  So alignment is DNA there are lots of things that manipulate or use alignment. You might not like alignment but its baked into the DNA of D&D if you stop using it there are rules you have to change. Drop detect alignment, change Paladins, Rangers, Assasins, fix a load of items etc etc . If you do that to Hirelings nothing changes there are no rule tweaks there are no modifications no side notes the game carries on regardless.

Now I am all for changing games houseruling etc but this particular debate was really about whether hirelings and henchmen were a fundamental part of D&D (AD&D in particular owing to Ben's excllent research in that area) or if they were an optional extra that you coudl take or leave. Ben's claim, drawn from his own research is that the designers of D&D expected you to use Hirelings, I disagree I think they knew some of their old players liked to use hirelings so they acommodated them in the rules. I think that the majority of the game actually points to AD&D trying to move away from it's wargame roots.

Now this is a pretty obscure point of D&D lore and I totally understand that 99% of folks don't see why it matters, don't understand the difference or why the fuck I am concerned with such trivia but meh... what can I say

Quote from: Justin Alexander;439099Ideally he would admit he was wrong and apologize for his oafish behavior.

That's obviously unlikely to happen. He lacks the maturity to do it.

I admit I was wrong about what I said in post #420. I said as much in post #426, correcting it as soon as I could. We're all very grateful for you pointing it out again in post 432, 435, 477, and 489, among others, I'm sure.

I apologize for my behavior that could reasonably be called oafish.

Quote from: jibbajibba;439139You are missing the point and this will be my last comment on the matter.

Hey mate, I just want you to know I get your point, and though I still disagree, I basically get where you're coming from. I think the breaking point from the wargaming roots is with late First Ed/2nd ed, let's say... post-1985 (hint hint). I also do think that all the elements I provided show that hirelings and henchmen are part of AD&D's DNA, just like Name levels, getting your stronghold, etc are part of the picture also. Now we disagree on that and I'm totally cool with it.

I just wish I could run the game for you live.

Quote from: jgants;439094

Quote from: Justin Alexander;438950While this is true, there has been a pretty much indisputable trend line towards greater "RAW worship" from 1974 to today.

But, honestly, this is only because the rules have achieved a level of consistency which allows for that to happen.

Going back to the earliest days, for example, it's actually impossible to run a game "according to RAW" with the LBBs. The rules are contradictory, incomplete, and vague. And there are several occasions when they say to the DM, "Here are a couple of options. Pick one." There's not a unified game to be found in there.

AD&D1 is not that dissimilar, although "incomplete" is replaced by "sub-systems so convoluted and arcane that, as far as anyone has ever been able to tell, nobody has ever run a campaign using them (and that includes Gygax)". (The "nobody" is probably a hyperbole, but not by much.)

I completely agree with this.  The big reason no one's game of OD&D or AD&D was the same was because the rules were a jumbled mess that no one could interpret correctly; house rules and tinkering were far in the minority compared to "oh, we thought it meant..." or "yeah, we couldn't figure that rule out so we dropped it..."

Zeb Cook even explained the whole point of 2e was to fix the fact that no one agreed what RAW for AD&D was.  And once 2e came out, the RAW mentality was definately in full swing.

I'm curious how much of this is also due to people's experience with the game and varying versions?

When D&D first came out, everyone came to the table with zero experience with the game.  As time went by, and newer versions came out, more and more people have their own interpretations of the rules.

I first sat down at a table with the black box/Rules Cyclopedia, played for a couple months, and then didn't come back to the hobby until 3E.  Both experiences had a lot of the same attitude towards RAW, and folks were arguing over what the book said, as they had their own idea of how it should play out due to experience with 2E or 1E, or whatever.

How many people sit down at a table these days with a group of players where they all have never touched the game or the rules (or any RPG, for that matter)?  That was an experience that I never had, and I'm sure a large majority of players never will.

If you don't have any expectations of how something will work or should work (and in those early games, where the DM was the only one with the rules, you wouldn't), then you're not going to argue over RAW, I'd imagine.

K, let's get back on track here.

In 4e, you don't need hirelings/henchmen. That's old grognard stuff. I mean, those guys would be lame. Where's all their cool, special powers like the PCs have? Those putzes would ruin the coolness of the scene and cramp the PC's stylin' ass-kicking. 4e PCs are frickin' superheroes that shoot lightning from their asses and move their enemies around on a square grid by means unexplained and outside reality.