Fair enough, Benoist's position is that rules exist, and I agree. But that's not what AM and others were talking about as far as how the game is played, and he was just confused to think that his position related to the claim. He simply asserts such rules exist, and I certainly don't care one way or the other what the designers intended, since that was never the issue.



Calm down, guys.

Quote from: jibbajibba;439381You know my position Ben but SB is right if you assume that hirelings are a default assumption of the game thne your final sentence should be

Now, by the book, should/will you have ten spearmen travelling with you at low levels?

As you know the 'can' can be applied to 'a dozen hunting dogs' , 'a wagon', '6 pit ponies' etc etc .

If you want to win the point I at least expect commitment

Quote from: Benoist;439385Now that's a different question.

To answer that question we have to consider the particulars of the adventure itself, what the players are after, how far they have to travel, etc. Are we travelling in the Wilderness or the Dungeon? How thick is the foliage in the Wilderness? Is there a travel time constraint? How about a dungeon? Is it to the PCs' best advantage to explore the dungeon with 10 unexperienced dudes carrying 10 polearms around? How high is the ceiling? What armor are they wearing? Are these guys silent? What's the impact on wandering monsters, and other creatures in the dungeon? Isn't that like ringing the bell for dinner for some of them?

The particulars of the campaign milieu will matter the most, because that's what the actual game is about. Players making decisions on how to venture forth, how they strategize, how they decide to do this or that. Then live or die by the consequences of these actions.

To further complete the question, talking now about my personal circumstances, my tastes as a player, if I play AD&D and the DM has no problem with the use of hirelings and henchmen, and I feel this is a viable strategy to employ them given the circumstances of play, I totally will hire people to carry out various tasks. Men-at-arms, porters, lanthorn bearer, you name it!

Right now in our OD&D game, my wife is playing several characters adventuring (which you could either consider as several PCs or one main PC and henchmen in different circumstances of play), but she's a bit weary on the whole hirelings thing, because she's afraid of the management that represents or just prefers it that way, I do not know for sure.

Me however? I love this stuff. My wife is about to run the game for me, and I'm going to play a fighting man and a magic user as main characters, with a cleric, fighting man and thief at least as henchmen. I'm still debating on the particulars of the group, but I'm going to take full advantage of such a strategy, if relevant, and if allowed to.

Lastly, in the Ptolus AD&D game here on the RPG Site, you've got currently 10 player characters active in some fashion or another, as well as 6 hirelings following the party at this moment, all of which have been hired by 2 (out of 10) PCs in the game. That's actually pretty representative of First Ed in action right there.

Quote from: jgants;439390Whereas I think Benoist has been very clear on his position - he's saying that hirelings and henchman were an assumed part of the original rules and one of the things the game was designed around.

No one, and I mean no one, has argued that every group that played actually used them.  Like a great many rules of D&D/AD&D, it was completely ignored by a lot of people.  But that doesn't mean the game wasn't built around that concept, because it was.  The Men and Magic book couldn't possibly make it clearer - the game expected you to hire soldiers to go along with your party.

Furthermore - the Men and Magic book actually discusses capturing monsters, breaking their morale, and getting them to join your forces (sort of a stockholm syndrome deal I guess).  It's very clear that one of the original assumptions of how D&D was to be played involved large groups of people moving around the countryside.


Now, the game certainly evolved from that.  D&D kept changing to adapt to how people actually liked to play instead of how the rules assumed they would play.  Few people bothered to play out the end game, so they got rid of it.  Parlaying with monsters was seldom done, so they de-emphasized that.  People preferred dungeon-crawling parties of 4-6 characters, so they adjusted the game to fit that.  Etc.

But none of those changes negates the fact that the game was originally designed for a different style of play - and that style included having a force of people travelling around, not just 4-5 PCs.

to be fair though we aren't talking about Men and Magic or OD&D we are talking about AD&D as that is where the debate between me and AM began .....

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=12763

Before we forget context, this post (#371) triggered the debate in this thread:

Quote from: Abyssal MawI don't think 1d3 ogres would be an unwinnable encounter for low level PCs in AD&D, either. Especially if they had hirelings to absorb the brunt of battle while the PCs stayed in the rear firing arrows or set up a fighting retreat.

1d3 ogres, gentlemen, 1d3 ogres. Referencing OD&D in this debate seems hilarious to me.

Quote from: Men and Magic, p.5Number of Players: At least one referee and from four to fifty players can be handled in any single campaign, but the referee to player ratio should be about 1:20 or thereabouts.

Quote from: jibbajibba;439412to be fair though we aren't talking about Men and Magic or OD&D we are talking about AD&D as that is where the debate between me and AM began .....

Indeed, it begins back in post 373 where the claim is you supposedly can count on soldiers, asserted again in 380 where AM says "you get them", like it's a fundamental assumption, re-asserted in 382 where AM says it's a "baseline assumption" that you'd have these soldiers, and reasserted in 386 that it's "how the game is played", and that's not even mentioning the vacuous re-assertion in post 435 by another. And yes, we're specifically referencing AD&D, not some mythical time in the past (pre-1979) where, hell if I know, things were different. I think OD&D keeps getting referencing because some folks are just that desperate. I started playing in 1976, fwiw...and we didn't play that way, not that that counts for anything. Even played with Menzter (and Penni Petticord) when they came to Tampa one year, with Gygax looking over the table...yes, I know, that proves nothing.

But, back to the posts I've listed above, go and see for yourself if you don't believe me.

You'll note, none of this is an assertion about the possibility of soldiers being in the rules. I think we all agree rules for soldiers exist.

And no, Ben, it's not about 4e. I can't conceive of the confusion of ideas that would make you think this is about 4e.

I think the main reason this thread can't stay on 4e hate is well, it's choking and gasping, and nobody wants to think about it anymore. I know I don't.

All right. Apparently, we can't keep the henchmen and hireling wankery out of this thread, so let's nip this in the bud once and for all.

Quote from: FrankTrollmanNo, 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

Quote from: Benoist;439336Bullshit. 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.

Frank has a point. If we look at some of the adventure modules written by Gygax himself, we can see that he assumed that adventuring parties were larger (than modern adventuring parties), but it was not assumed that PCs were running around with tons of NPC sidekicks, unless the PCs were inexperienced or weak. Some examples:

-------

* Dungeon Module B2: The Keep on the Borderlands

under "NOTES FOR THE DUNGEON MASTER"

"This module has been designed to allow six to nine player characters of first level to play out many adventures, gradually working up to second or third level of experience in the process. The group is assumed to have at least one magic-user and one cleric in it. If you have fewer than six players, be sure to arrange them to get both advice and help in the KEEP. For example, they should have advice from a friendly individual to 'stay near the beginning of the ravine area, and enter the lower caves first', to avoid their getting into immediate trouble with higher level monsters. Likewise, the services of several men-at-arms must be available to smaller parties. If two or three player characters are to adventure, be sure to have a non-player character or two go along, as well as a few men-at-arms. In addition, give the player characters a magic dagger or some magic arrows and at least one potion of healing - family bequests to aid them in finding their fame and fortune when they go against Chaos."

-------

* Dungeon Module D3: Vault of the Drow

under "CAUTION"

"1. The composition of the party must be well balanced with respect to magic-users and fighters, and at least one thief and two clerics should be along.

2. The average level of the group should be about 10th, and each character should have magic items commensurate with his or her level of experience.

3. There is no instant retreat from this underworld, as teleportation will not function properly so deep beneath the ground, and the party must be both strong and numerous enough to trek in and face what they discover, then manage to come out alive. 8 or 9 characters is not an excessive party number, and 6 is the minimum number that should attempt the module."

We should note that the "Vault of the Drow" module doesn't even acknowledge NPC henchmen and hirelings for the PCs. It does, however (under "Notes For The Dungeon Master"), acknowledge that the type of steed you have affects your rate of travel in that subterranean environment. Yet there's not even a note about large groups traveling more slowly, which makes Goddamn sense. Large parties travel more slowly than small ones. That's usually how it goes. In other words, the module assumes a certain number of people in the party, and a shitload of NPCs throws that outta whack.

-------

* Campaign Module WG 4: The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun

under "Player Characters"

"As with THE LOST CAVERNS OF TSOJCANTH, this module is designed for adventuring by up to 12 player characters. However, it assumes that there will actually have been some losses and weakening of power due to adventuring. The scenario is ideal for four to eight characters with an average of 10th, 9th, or 8th level - less if well-equipped with spells and magic items. Party balance requires a cleric and a magic-user."

As far as NPC assistance, that's only if the party is weak.

under "Gnome Assistance"

"Physically, the gnomes will send up to 13 of their number with the party -- but the party must be WEAK for them to do so. This body of troops will be divided into four units of 3 gnomes each: 3 scout/runners (AC 7, MV 9", 4 h.p. each) with slings (20 bullets each) and clubs; 3 archers (AC 6, MV 6", h.p. 3 each) with bows (short, 20 arrows each) and short swords; 3 spearmen (AC 5 , MV 6", h.p. 4 each) with spears and short swords; and 3 pole-armed (AC 5, MV 6", h.p. 5 each) with glaive and dagger. They will be commanded by a lieutenant (AC 4, MV 6", L 4, h.p. 18) with spear, short sword, and sling. The gnomes will not foolishly throw their lives away. They will remain under command of their leader at all times. If their lieutenant is slain, the gnomes will return home at the first reasonable opportunity."

-------

So what does all this mean? Well...old school adventuring parties were assumed to be about double the size of current ones. In BD&D or AD&D, an eight man crew might be considered "normal" in size, while in 3e and beyond, a four man adventuring party is considered the default party size. But NPCs were normally only brought onto expeditions under unusual circumstances. They were not a "default" aspect of an adventuring party.

Everyone take a minute to think about this. Are we to assume that a "normal" party composition was 8 PCs, 8 henchmen (because almost all PCs had henchmen :rolleyes:), 10 mercenary soldiers (hirelings), a sergeant (hireling), and all their steeds? Oh, and lest we forget, we should include a pack handler for all those horses, possibly a teamster or two to handle the carts and wagons, a linkboy to act as a torch bearer, and of course, let's not forget our valet to send messages to both the front and back of the party...since such a large group is going to be significantly spread out, and will need someone to relay messages.

Now...is this a normal-sized party? Hell, no. :nono: It's a fucking army. We have dozens of people here now. I wasn't even assuming that each PC had the maximum number of henchmen for their Charisma, and only assigned them one henchman each.

Oh, and someone mentioned a couple wardogs. Let's not forget those.

This is not the normal state of play. Henchmen and hirelings are nice...but they're optional, and normally used only in limited circumstances. That's just the way it goes.

And that's it in a nutshell. :pundit:

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;439419All right. Apparently, we can't keep the henchmen and hireling wankery out of this thread, so let's nip this in the bud once and for all.

:

Great idea but it won't work though

Agreed, and you can go to a dozen other modules and get similar quotes (and they're particularly relevant past level 1, since players would have their full entourage by then, if it was truly normal).

Sorry for my hand in the thread derail, but, to be honest, I don't think anyone really cares about the 4e postmortem yet. Try again in another six months.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;439419Now...is this a normal-sized party? Hell, no. :nono: It's a fucking army.

Yeah, think about it. Two fighting men, a wizard, a dwarf, their pony, and their 4 henchies enter a tomb. If this thread is to be believed, two things are true: 1. They are one fucking army! 2. The henchies decide the fight.

Gandalf's elven girlfriend is hot!

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;439419This is not the normal state of play. Henchmen and hirelings are nice...but they're optional, and normally used only in limited circumstances. That's just the way it goes.

And that's it in a nutshell. :pundit:

I completely disagree. That's not "the way it goes."

Modules were built to be self-contained, but they come in contact with the campaign in practice. And henchmen and hirelings are part of the baseline of the AD&D game, as presented in the rules books. The fact that hirelings and henchmen are not mentioned in the modules does not prove anything. Henchmen and hirelings could be used playing a module, or not. But the game itself is pretty clear that henchmen and hirelings are part of the picture. The rest is up to the players and DM at their game table. The players to decide whether they seek the services of henchmen and hirelings, and the DM deciding whether such services are available to the PCs.

And for fuck sake's. 10 guys do not make "an army." :rolleyes:

Quote from: Windjammer;439416http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=12763

Before we forget context, this post (#371) triggered the debate in this thread:



1d3 ogres, gentlemen, 1d3 ogres. Referencing OD&D in this debate seems hilarious to me.

Yeah...but in the context of that passage they're talking about a single world (=campaign), not a single session.

Quote from: Benoist;439438I completely disagree. That's not "the way it goes."

Modules were built to be self-contained, but they come in contact with the campaign in practice. And henchmen and hirelings are part of the baseline of the AD&D game, as presented in the rules books. The fact that hirelings and henchmen are not mentioned in the modules does not prove anything. Henchmen and hirelings could be used playing a module, or not. But the game itself is pretty clear that henchmen and hirelings are part of the picture. The rest is up to the players and DM at their game table. The players to decide whether they seek the services of henchmen and hirelings, and the DM deciding whether such services are available to the PCs.

And for fuck sake's. 10 guys do not make "an army." :rolleyes:

You're not thinking this through. The "default" adventuring party around 30-plus years ago was approximately eight Player Characters, if we take what was written in actual published modules at face value.

Abby brought up ten 0-level men-at-arms, and a 1st-level sergeant as hirelings that would have been considered a normal aspect of an adventuring party, and you didn't contradict him. Neither did Justin.

Henchmen were brought up in the thread, and they're supposed to be an integral part of the game, yes? If they're integral to the core the game, then most PCs will have them.

So do the math. When you add it all up, it eventually becomes much more than just "10 guys"....and honestly, dozens of such adventurers will create a very large disturbance when traveling together. Noise, tracks, trash, etc. I'd hate to be a Thief or Ranger in such a group.

All these dudes are great if you need backup for sacking a keep, or if you're running a caravan, but generally, this many guys running around is a pain in the ass without some serious rules for mass combat, which we see no evidence of in the core rules for BD&D or AD&D.

The adventure modules never assume that you're automatically running around with a bunch of NPC redshirts, and only bring them up as a possibility, if your party is anemic and weak. At best, henchmen and hirelings are no more than a secondary or tertiary part of the picture. :pundit:

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;439449You're not thinking this through. The "default" adventuring party around 30-plus years ago was approximately eight Player Characters, if we take what was written in actual published modules at face value.

Dude, you're insulting my intelligence when you're saying that I didn't "think this through." I did, and still do.

Now, hirelings in fact do not affect the party's baseline in terms of levels, because just as you noted, they are 0 level characters which are basically paid wages per month for their services. The scenario of AM is thus perfectly feasible.

Henchmen are a different matter, since they require shares of treasures for themselves, which puts a whole another spin on the question of their use in practice, where many player characters will in fact decide they do not want to share significant amounts of rewards with other characters, unless of course these characters are themselves PCs in other groups or other adventures in the same campaign. Having multiple characters in the same campaign was actually something that you could encounter way more back in the day than you do now with the emphasis on one character from beginning to end of the campaign. Playing multiple characters between DMs, adventures, or even in the same adventure was much more of a possibility back then, and henchmen are part of this picture also in the way they are used, allowing different levels of characters to adventure together, upgrading NPCs to PCs status, branching off to play different levels with different characters in the same campaign, etc.

So it's my turn to return the favor: don't assume I have not thought things through, or that I'm not willing to reevaluate my position.

Thank you.

As I mentioned earlier and has been repeated since, the whole thing started with AM defending 4e.  Randall pointed out that in D&D you could have a first level party run into some Ogres, (meaning to say, regardless of the number of creatures encountered, you could still have TPK encounters, remember this was about minions).

AM then proceeded to assert in several posts, that 1-3 Ogres wasn't that dangerous for a first level party due to the 10 henchmen.

Not that they might have.
Not that some had.
The implication was that every D&D/AD&D party had henchmen and hirelings with them.

AM was not claiming they existed and were used, he was implying that taking them into dungeons was the default and expected method of play, the baseline, the normal state of affairs.

Doom called him on it, and rightfully so, however, he went way overboard and dismissed the importance henchmen and hirelings did have (particulary in the campaign area).

Ben, Justin and others have taken him to task for that and rightfully so.

Of course, no one backs down, everyone has to prove how smart they are,  Doom who was originally right, is now almost trolling the thread and no one is really talking about AM's assertion that started the whole goddamn thing.

As I said, a masterful dodge by AM, he's probably posting on 4e boards how he got all the 4ehaters to tear each others' heads off.

So, discuss AM's contention or shut the fuck up already and stop bumping dickheads.  :rant: