Quote from: Abyssal Maw;439609Anyhow, as far as AD&D is concerned- (At least as far as 1st edition)  I disagree too. Hirelings are definitely part of the DNA of AD&D1e.

More debatable, probably: I think the early lineage looks like a lot more like this:
OD&D--> AD&D1e
(simultaneously)
OD&D --> "Holmes" Basic D&D--> (which  had all of three levels and said "go play AD&D") ..and then, 6 years later Basic D&D of various editors (Moldvay, Mentzer, BECMI, Cyclopedia, red box, pink box, whatever else)

So yes, I really do think that AD&D1e (which hails from 1977) is closer to OD&D (1974) than any basic edition except the Holmes version.  And it was the edition that really had the most players, and that's what appeared in Dragon magazine, etc.

I completely agree with all this. To me OD&D and AD&D are on the same line of thought, though with one you basically have a bare frame on which you build your own D&D, and AD&D is EGG's greater extrapolation on the bare principles as an "Advanced" version of the game, if you will. So OD&D = base game you build upon, and AD&D = Gygax's "Advanced" OD&D for greater reference and standard of play.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;4396092nd Point: Most of the people claiming they all "go back to Original D&D"..MOST of these guys (not all, but certainly a large chunk), are really talking about those 80s (and 90s if we're going to include the black box and the cyclopedia) editions that came later.

You just can have a look at the big purple to see a lot of those, interchanging Original for Basic, and thinking that Rules Cyclopedia was the original game, or that it's the same game as AD&D.

Quote from: Benoist;439616Why are we caring again? :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KDO_yCYcuU

:pundit:

Quote from: jibbajibba;439612I do care about emerging themes so as I noted character emerges and becomes dominant in 2e and then game master comes to dominate in 3e....

I agree with you on the principle. The hirelings are just part of the finer discussion on how the shift proceeded at which point in time. But it's cool, as long as we're not throwing "holy writ" insults at each other, we're fine.

Now 3e having the game master dominate the game... that's an interesting idea. If anything, I'd think that the further refinement of the rules, the feats, the prestige classes, all that stuff that's put upfront at the feet of the players as they play the game, reinforces the role of the player in the game, as opposed to his character.

But the DM? How does 3e allow the DM to dominate?

Quote from: Benoist;439622I agree with you on the principle. The hirelings are just part of the finer discussion on how the shift proceeded at which point in time. But it's cool, as long as we're not throwing "holy writ" insults at each other, we're fine.

Now 3e having the game master dominate the game... that's an interesting idea. If anything, I'd think that the further refinement of the rules, the feats, the prestige classes, all that stuff that's put upfront at the feet of the players as they play the game, reinforces the role of the player in the game, as opposed to his character.

But the DM? How does 3e allow the DM to dominate?

I thought the same thing, Benoist. 3e was the opposite of the DM dominating- the d20 formula became king in 3e, which severely limited the powers of the DM.

Quote from: Benoist;439622I agree with you on the principle. The hirelings are just part of the finer discussion on how the shift proceeded at which point in time. But it's cool, as long as we're not throwing "holy writ" insults at each other, we're fine.

Now 3e having the game master dominate the game... that's an interesting idea. If anything, I'd think that the further refinement of the rules, the feats, the prestige classes, all that stuff that's put upfront at the feet of the players as they play the game, reinforces the role of the player in the game, as opposed to his character.

But the DM? How does 3e allow the DM to dominate?

Sorry Ithat was an important typo on my part I meant to write Game Mastery
which is very different.... OOOPS (what can i say I am also trying to account for an increase in incident tickets to senior management and raise a request for 2 contractors in Houston...)

I thought it was most likely a typo on jibba's behalf... he meant gamemastery.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;439602I said it was a feature of AD&D itself (which it is), I have no idea about the exact details of majority of the sessions that whoever played had used them or not. I said "don't leave home without them" because hiring a few hirelings was a smart thing to do since they are indeed part of the game and available (and affordable- we're talking for the price of a few suits of armor and weapons and a handful of silver pieces). I said "you get hirelings" because you can.

 And the whole salient point of that entire side trek is that a battle against ogres is not unwinnable when you make use of your resources. Is this all coming together for any of you guys at this point? Here's hoping.

When you find yourself arguiing over your own wildly overblown interpretation of what someone else said, in order to try and win points an argument on a side point in a largely innocuous topic this is called "Acting dumb to appear smart." It's a unique debating style, to be sure, but it doesn't actually make a bit of a difference.

Agreed.  I am not sure why this was so difficult for people to see.  Now, discounting Doom's disingenuous trolling in this thread, I don't think anyone can argue that hirelings were an available resource for low-level AD&D character to make use of or not.  

Some posters like Sacrificial Lamb and jibbajibba have stated that they didn't think that hirelings were a widely used aspect of the game based upon their experiences.  I can respect their opinion and position on that issue.  However, there are personal experience and document play reports that also validate that hirelings, henchmen, and followers were used in AD&D game in the 70's and 80's.  Clearly, the evolution of game play, and in turn the game system, moved away from this resource being used by a majority of players.

Quote from: jibbajibba;439628Sorry Ithat was an important typo on my part I meant to write Game Mastery

Ahhh! As in, learning the rules, optimization, ivory tower game design and all that. Ok that makes a lot more sense, now.

Oh, absolutely, some people used henchman and hirelings extensively, some people didn't.

Quote from: Drohem;439398Dude, of course, but you just knocked the toys out of the troll's hand and he can't play his stupid game anymore.

Oh c'mon. You know better than that. Doom is an idiot and a troll. He's just going to wait 3 pages, shift the goalposts again, and then lie about what people said. Maybe throw in a little selective quoting to give a patina of truthiness to his bullshit.

Quote from: Benoist;439438And for fuck sake's. 10 guys do not make "an army." :rolleyes:

The best part was where he pulled a little absurdist sleight-of-hand to add an extra 8+ guys. Not that 18 guys make an army, either, but I'm assuming he'll just keep doubling the numbers every couple of pages.

The original claim, remember, was "if they had hirelings to absorb the brunt of battle". Only later were 10 footmen offered up as one example of a group of followers that could "absorb the brunt of battle". The obsession over that particular number is indicative of trolling tactics.

"10 guys! That's ridiculous! It's an entire army of guys! And once you put those 10 guys on a slippery slope, there'll be even MORE of them! Plus you can't even find a printed reference to exactly 10 guys, so clearly there must have been 0 guys!"

I think the only thing of interest left here is the taking of side bets to figure out how many posts Doom can go before claiming that somebody's account has been hacked.

Sadness; another post, another trainwreck.

Quote from: Drohem;439636Agreed.  I am not sure why this was so difficult for people to see.  Now, discounting Doom's disingenuous trolling in this thread, I don't think anyone can argue that hirelings were an available resource for low-level AD&D character to make use of or not.  

Some posters like Sacrificial Lamb and jibbajibba have stated that they didn't think that hirelings were a widely used aspect of the game based upon their experiences.  I can respect their opinion and position on that issue.  However, there are personal experience and document play reports that also validate that hirelings, henchmen, and followers were used in AD&D game in the 70's and 80's.  Clearly, the evolution of game play, and in turn the game system, moved away from this resource being used by a majority of players.

You see you are bieng a bit disingenous yourself

The claim was that Hirelings were baked into the DNA of AD&D.

I propose they were not and I think that has been proven.

You can hire hirelings and there are rules for them but the claim was effectiviely that that was more than just an option amongst numerous options. The Claim was that that was ther default baseline playstyle. Now to this I take exception and I think the case has been made that this is simply not the case.

But you are right it ought not to matter. So why don't you all just give up

Quote from: jibbajibba;439647You see you are bieng a bit disingenous yourself

I don't think he's disingenuous at all. We all agree that hirelings were an available resource in AD&D.

Quote from: jibbajibba;439647The claim was that Hirelings were baked into the DNA of AD&D.

I propose they were not and I think that has been proven.

Now this is the part where we do not have agreement. Guys like me, AM, Drohem, Justin clearly believe that is the case. You, Lamb, don't. Since we each provided extensive evidence to support both our sides of the issue, I honestly think we're unlikely to reach a consensus on this aspect of the debate.

I'm guessing this comes from the way I and AM and others think of OD&D and AD&D in the same logical line of thought, that AD&D is the Gygaxian extension of OD&D, if you will, whereas you and Lamb are considering the AD&D game as interchangeable with 2nd ed. This comes from our differing perspectives.

I think I might have mentioned 10 hirelings because that number (10) is the point where they suggest they require a sergeant, and the sergeant is a 1st level fighter. Often enough this would be the first "real" henchman you got (the Henchmen rules for attracting and hiring are actually kind of interesting in themselves- but you could - if I remember correctly- hire a sergeant off of the hirelings table).

For normal henchmen (according to the DMG) you needed to put out an effort, hire town criers, post notices, or even hire an agent who would attempt to find suitable prospects. Each thing you did cost money and created a percentage, and then you rolled on a table because you never knew what you were going to get. Meanwhile (more resource management) you were having to stay in town, probably housing your hirelings etc, and expenses were mounting up. Rules detailing all of this process are in the 1st edition DMG.

By contrast, simply hiring hirelings was usually just a matter of making inquiries in a large enough town. If the DM said they were available, you could hire them. Usually I had most of my towns set up with a roll to see if there were any mercenaries available by the table in the DMG (which broke out heavy and light footmen, pikemen, archers, skirmishers, etc). Some towns might specialize in pikemen or archers, and some regions might be famous for their skirmishers. And other times we just had it as a random roll.

Hopefully, this thread will burst through the Earth's crust and enter the Pellucider before we run out of oxygen.
Only the Majars can save us now.