Quote from: jgants;439134I'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).

OK, I double-checked.  In AD&D, reaction adjustment is a core part of the system not optional.

However, looking at the original D&D book for Men and Magic, reaction adjustment doesn't exist at all and the Charisma score is described as "Its primary function is to determine how many hirelings of unusual nature a character can attract".  So, I was right in that the original purpose of Cha was solely for leadership purposes, just wrong in that by AD&D it was already expanding to different uses.

Anyhow, I think there's another henchmen thread now, just wanted to expand on my previous post.

Quote from: jibbajibba;439108That 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.

You're confusing the issue: The sheet I use (and that Doom linked to) isn't an official sheet.

With that being said, the first official sheets published in 1975 didn't include any space for henchmen. Of course, they also didn't include any space for hit points. But I'm pretty sure hit points were a part of the game.

And as I mentioned earlier in the thread, they were included in later official character sheets.

In 1979, TSR produced three products: Player Character Record Sheets (TSR 9028), Permanent Character Folder & Adventure Records (TSR 9029), and Non-Player Character Records (TSR 9030). In 1980 these were joined by the Dungeon Masters Adventure Log (TSR 9036).

I don't own a copy of TSR 9028, so I don't know if henchmen were included in there. But what I can tell you is that every other product I've listed there specifically does include them. (And TSR 9030, AFAICT, was specifically designed for hirelings and henchmen -- the sheet prominently features "Employer".)

QuoteIts 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.

You're making the assumption that you wouldn't simply handle hirelings and henchmen brought along on typical adventures just like you would treat any other character. That's a large assumption to make.

In fact, the AD&D1 DMG tells you explicitly to play them as individual characters (pg. 103): "Play them for their liege just as if they were your player characters, modified by whatever circumstances and special characteristics are applicable." And: "Some few players will actually play their henchmen as individual characters..."

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.

Hirelings are characters. Spells affect all characters equally. What special hireling-only spells are you expecting to see?

Maybe something that would force hirelings to serve you? That was called charm person in OD&D. (The nerfing of it came later as the importance of hirelings in the game was reduced.)

JibbaJibba, your PM box is full. Can you make some room, or write me?

Quote from: jgants;439164OK, I double-checked.  In AD&D, reaction adjustment is a core part of the system not optional.

However, looking at the original D&D book for Men and Magic, reaction adjustment doesn't exist at all and the Charisma score is described as "Its primary function is to determine how many hirelings of unusual nature a character can attract".  So, I was right in that the original purpose of Cha was solely for leadership purposes, just wrong in that by AD&D it was already expanding to different uses.

Anyhow, I think there's another henchmen thread now, just wanted to expand on my previous post.

Agreed, and I think this view is entirely non-controversial.

Quote from: 1989;439151K, 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.

I don't think it's lame so much as adding hirelings/henchmen/armies of 10 would add a whole bunch of complexity to the fight. Remember, it's already tough to go through a single character's abilities every round and decide which is best, then go through all the relationships.

Granted, the henchmen could be minions....but why would players hire them? They'd probably poke each one for 1 point of damage as part of the job interview process.

Quote from: kythri;439147How 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.

It happens to me all the time. I mean, I usually have some newbie among my players, and most of my players won't read a rules book anyway.

Quote from: 1989;439151K, 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.

Cry me a fucking river. God, you have only one message in you, do you?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;439090I've actually got an upcoming post on the Alexandrian that talks about this. First, I recommend watching this video on choice and conflict in games: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2590-Choice-and-Conflict

The video basically makes the case that it's a mistake to have all of your objectives line up so that they can all be achieved without conflict between them. D&D4's designers worked very hard to have all the objectives in the game line-up so that nothing would get in the way of the nebulously defined "fun".

Thanks for linking the video, and for the comments you add. Great points, though I personally find the following way clearer to get them across.

1. When a game gives you choices, you ought to distinguish between a) choosing among several objectives and b) choosing between several means to achieve a predetermined objective.

2. When a game gives you options of either variety (objectives or means to accomplish them), we have to distinguish whether the utility of these options, and hence the incentive to opt for any of them, is coded in commensurable ways or not. If it's commensurable, the resolution of choice comes down to calculation. If it isn't commensurable, the resolution of choice will invoke subjective preferences - preferences that are not the same 'across the board' for all rational agents making the choice.

Applied to 4e:

Ad 1. Restriction of objectives by removing a lot of the "outside the encounter" objectives from the game.
- I blame the RPGA for this, since its format forces to remove or restrain a lot of the game's more interesting objectives, objectives which only arise in a campaign that progresses naturally over a long time frame with the same player stock. The result is removing what James Maliszewski called "the endgame" from D&D: creating a stronghold, building a barony, ... The trend infects not just 4E, but also Paizo, whose staff consists of 3.x RPGA module writers (end result: see here). Actually, WotC is recently counter-acting that trend: see their recent "Beyond the Encounter" remark, their article on stronghold building. I do wonder, though, how effective these proverbial drops in the ocean are against the dominant "D&D Encounters" organized play format.
- The point to be made, however, is not just that the 4E designers removed objectives from the game - the design, overall, discourages players to find their own objectives, and that's where the true disconnect to older editions lies. You could, actually, write the history of this development by looking at the respective write-ups of the Wish spell over the ages. You'll find it moves increasingly away from a black box into which players can insert their own objectives to a list of candies written up by the author. It's a mystery of the age that the latter is called "clear rules text" and the former deemed a mess which leaves the precise application unclear. That's the point of the "black box".
- In a nutshell: Modern spell (or power) write ups as much as modern module design (especially Adventure Paths) is about designing the objectives for the players, as opposed to: providing a framework in which players can choose their own objectives.

Ad 2. Up for debate. It's too easy to fault the DPS/healing output equation onto 4e. Sure, that's how the char-ops handle 4e, but that's not how players choose their powers in my groups. See also Abyssal Maw's post in the thread next door:

QuoteCharacters [in 4E] are individually more interesting [than in previous editions]. You can make optimized characters but you can also choose less likely things that capture a theme in an interesting way. I have a gnoll swordmage that uses all frost/ice powers, for example. He has white fur, his name is Frostbite, he's from Icewind Dale, he used to work for a necromancer... power choices made that character what he is. I have another swordmage (tiefling) that concentrates on gambling and uses card-suit shaped shurikens. Same class, wildly different tactical style and personalities, and the powers influence the roleplaying.. these characters are a joy to play.

That said, I'm looking forward to reading your blog entry once you've posted it there in its entirety.

In my 4e games, if I have a small group I have the PCs hire some henchmen minions or get them assigned by various NPCS.  I make them minions for speed, but the players enjoy.  I do a max of Level + CHA bonus.

They give players a false sense of security in big battles.   And its not like a 1 HP minion is that different than an OD&D henchmen with 1D6 HP.  Both go down in one slice from most monsters.

Quote from: Windjammer;439277I do wonder, though, how effective these proverbial drops in the ocean are against the dominant "D&D Encounters" organized play format.

I don't think Encounters will end up having much of an impact on D&D. It's easy to recognize it's limitations with just one play experience.

Seanchai

I agree it won't have an impact on D&D, but I thought Encounters was about the most succesful thing 4e and Essentials had.

I mean, if players' primary experience of play of the game is Encounters, it rather stands to reason that their game play will be influenced by what they experienced at Encounters, right?

Quote from: Seanchai;439317I don't think Encounters will end up having much of an impact on D&D. It's easy to recognize it's limitations with just one play experience.

Seanchai

I would agree with this.

D&D Encounters is just an in-store little.. fun demo thing.

It's not meant to have much of an impact (and indeed it doesn't). The real point is that you can play for like an hour, get a taste for how to play, meet 5 other people with similar interests.. and hopefully gateway into real D&D games from there.

That's why the adventures only represent low levels and you're "supposed" to play with the beginner-style (ie Essentials, the beginners supplement) characters.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;439178You're confusing the issue

No, I'm pretty sure you're confusing the issue. The issue is that in earlier versions of D&D it was expected that the PCs would eventually become lords and raise their own armies. But it was also expected that somewhere around that time the player character would retire. For most of their career, PCs did not have piles of spearmen at their beck and call. That was a thing that happened around level 9.

So the core question of whether characters "usually" had 10 grunts with spears in AD&D and before is totally answered: no they didn't. Everything after that is confusing the issue.

-Frank

Damn, you KNOW it's bleeding obvious if Frank can answer it briefly.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;439333No, I'm pretty sure you're confusing the issue. The issue is that in earlier versions of D&D it was expected that the PCs would eventually become lords and raise their own armies. But it was also expected that somewhere around that time the player character would retire. For most of their career, PCs did not have piles of spearmen at their beck and call. That was a thing that happened around level 9.

So the core question of whether characters "usually" had 10 grunts with spears in AD&D and before is totally answered: no they didn't. Everything after that is confusing the issue.

-Frank

You are confusing followers and hirelings, Frank. Did you ever actually play AD&D?

Quote from: FrankTrollman;439333No, I'm pretty sure you're confusing the issue. The issue is that in earlier versions of D&D it was expected that the PCs would eventually become lords and raise their own armies. But it was also expected that somewhere around that time the player character would retire. For most of their career, PCs did not have piles of spearmen at their beck and call. That was a thing that happened around level 9.

So the core question of whether characters "usually" had 10 grunts with spears in AD&D and before is totally answered: no they didn't. Everything after that is confusing the issue.

-Frank

Bullshit. Your argument boils down to "hirelings and henchmen are meant for level 9" which... is just downright stupid.

You obviously don't know what the fuck you are talking about.