Fascinating read, especially that one snippet of rules from Moldvay that somehow our old rules expert somehow missed every time. Granted, that AD&D DMG is from 1979, and Moldvay is from 1981, that's not exactly an epoch, there. I really do think it's fair to consider that the game's rules and materials evolved in response to play.

I imagine what happened is some folks were exploiting the poorly written DMG, and things just needed to get cleared up a little. I wonder if anyone will quote the specific admonition not to do a particular thing.

Quote from: Imperator;439724Though I don't really give a crap about the right answer to this discussion, I just read this:

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2011/02/retainers-in-moldvaycookmarsh.html

It may add smething useful. Or not.

OD&D is from 1974.
AD&D is from 1978.
Moldvay-Cook D&D is from 1981.

James' look at Moldvay-Cook B/X shows that there was a gradual shift away from hirelings/henchmen.

Quoting the relevant part:

QuoteIt's not something I'd ever really given much thought to, but I must admit that, knowing what I know now, we might well have stumbled on an explanation for why so many gamers have an aversion to the very idea of retainers: they picked up their attitude from the B/X rulebooks.

Just a question:

Let's posit that you were writing a module for AD&D to sell, and didn't know the players who would be in it.  After you put the recommended number of players and levels on the front (6-8 1st-2nd level characters lets say), would you write the module assuming the players had...

1.) 6-8 1st-2nd level characters

or

2.) 6-8 1st-2nd level characters plus 10 hirelings and a sergeant

What Ben and Justin seem to be missing is that what AM was proposing was #2.  That the 10 hirelings plus sergeant were assumed to be with every party, and therefore, 4e was no less deadly then 1e at lower levels.  That's the context of his statement.  Assume Doom never existed and read what AM actually said.

I could care less about baked DNA, that's not the issue.  What AM said was just wrong, period.  You could NOT count on (his words) 10 hirelings and a sergeant (his numbers) being in every first level group.  Period.

That's the only point that matters, the rest is all misunderstood bullshit that came after and personality conflict.

Quote from: CRKrueger;439740Just a question:

Let's posit that you were writing a module for AD&D to sell, and didn't know the players who would be in it.  After you put the recommended number of players and levels on the front (6-8 1st-2nd level characters lets say), would you write the module assuming the players had...

1.) 6-8 1st-2nd level characters

or

2.) 6-8 1st-2nd level characters plus 10 hirelings and a sergeant

I would write it for 6-9 1st-2nd level characters, with the possibility that these characters hired some help during the course of the campaign. So that means both (1) and (2) would be covered. Not to mention, there isn't the expectation that everything will be "level appropriate" according to an uber-nitpicky system-based equation like so many new role-players now seem to assume.

Quote from: Benoist;439742I would write it for 6-9 1st-2nd level characters, with the possibility that these characters hired some help during the course of the campaign. So that means both (1) and (2) would be covered. Not to mention, there isn't the expectation that everything will be "level appropriate" according to an uber-nitpicky system-based equation like so many new role-players now seem to assume.

Right, so if you wanted there to be 1-3 Ogres, or even 4 roaming groups of 1-3 Ogres, there would be, and the characters would have to play smart to avoid them, just as if you had an NPC give them a hint to start with the lower caves in B2.  They could go to the higher caves first, and probably wind up dead, not playing smart.   That's what Randall was saying, 1e dungeon encounter tables weren't perfectly balanced, there were possibly large numbers of creatures or small groups of very powerful creatures, the players couldn't count on the DM to plan things out for them like....drumroll....wait for it....4e.

AM's response to Randall was to toss up some smoke about hirelings to obscure this, and at 3,817 posts later, we can attest to a very fine bullshit job.

Quote from: CRKrueger;439740Just a question:

Let's posit that you were writing a module for AD&D to sell, and didn't know the players who would be in it.  After you put the recommended number of players and levels on the front (6-8 1st-2nd level characters lets say), would you write the module assuming the players had...

1.) 6-8 1st-2nd level characters

or

2.) 6-8 1st-2nd level characters plus 10 hirelings and a sergeant

What Ben and Justin seem to be missing is that what AM was proposing was #2.  That the 10 hirelings plus sergeant were assumed to be with every party, and therefore, 4e was no less deadly then 1e at lower levels.  That's the context of his statement.  Assume Doom never existed and read what AM actually said.

I could care less about baked DNA, that's not the issue.  What AM said was just wrong, period.  You could NOT count on (his words) 10 hirelings and a sergeant (his numbers) being in every first level group.  Period.

That's the only point that matters, the rest is all misunderstood bullshit that came after and personality conflict.

Being in every first level group period?

Let me ask you something, and I want an honest answer.

Are you retarded? Do you need to go back and review the evidence of what I actually said? What grade did you actually cease going to middle school in? You can go check for yourself what I wroite. Quote it back to me.

Because I never said that. I said in AD&D 1st edition hirelings were something that you could probably count on having in a supposedly unwinnable encounter to make it more winnable. The encounter in question (our notional ogres) was also a random one, gained by rolling a natural 20 on the dungeon level chart and then rolling on the level III chart.

Also just to point out- 10 and 1 sergeant was a possibility PER PC. Each player in the party could hire a group of 2, 4, 8 or 10+ if they liked. And also you could have 20 and 2 sergeants. Or whatever your charisma would allow. Of course you could also hire a captain (who would have between 4th-8th level or so) who could help manage 20 troops per level. It's all part of the game. Or some groups wouldn't bother hiring anyone. But then, that's all up to the players.

But anyhow, I think we all know why the argument continues.

Quote from: Doom;439727Fascinating read, especially that one snippet of rules from Moldvay that somehow our old rules expert somehow missed every time. Granted, that AD&D DMG is from 1979, and Moldvay is from 1981, that's not exactly an epoch, there. I really do think it's fair to consider that the game's rules and materials evolved in response to play.

I imagine what happened is some folks were exploiting the poorly written DMG, and things just needed to get cleared up a little. I wonder if anyone will quote the specific admonition not to do a particular thing.

Moldvay is in no way a commentary or revision of AD&D.  It's a completely separate game off on it's own evolutionary trail.

Having 10 spearmen in a party wasn't abnormal.   That's 2-3 per player in most games.   It happened regularly when the DM said, yes you can hire retainers and here's what it costs.  

If you give players a list with Kewl Stuff with prices, they will buy the Kewl Stuff and nothing is Kewler than buying extra attacks and extra HP.

BTW, when people talk about how low level PCs in OD&D/AD&D die so easily, I always ask "did you bring henchmen?" and that's usually the issue.  Your chance to live jumps up radically when you bring in some muscle.

Quote from: Seanchai;439582I'm sure that'll be the case for many, but it seems like a case of Encounters players playing Encounters with other Encounters players - how does this affect D&D/the hobby as a whole? It seems...insular.

I suspect Encounters gateways into RPGA play.  If you are having fun for an hour, how about 4 hours?

RPGA is an insular house organ / company focussed community.   Much akin to the tournament community of Magic and Warhammer.  

So if Encounters players transition to RPGA, that's a D&D win since RPGA players are great customers.  

As for the RPG hobby, there will be some trickledown from Encounters...and not insignificant either.   Remember that Encounters happens inside game stores.   People browse shelves and quite possibly pick up non-WotC product that catches their fancy.   Also, via Encounters the new players could be introduced to non-WotC RPG play via other players.

Its a social outing so lots of cross-polination is possible for those FEW who will interested enough in the hobby to expand their time commitment beyond Encounters.  

However MOST will stay within the WotC community.   Just like most wargamers don't leave Warhammer or CCGers don't leave Magic BUT there are enough who do expand their interests to allow entire companies to exist based on ex-WFB and ex-Magic players (and those players who aren't ex-, but just added another game to their hobby time).

Quote from: Aos;439676My mistake, we seem to have tapped into an infinite supply of hot air.  I'm going to make a zeppelin!

Methane baby, lots of methane.

Quote from: Imperator;439724It may add smething useful. Or not.

Smething sounds like a good name for a hireling.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;439751But anyhow, I think we all know why the argument continues.

Yes. Yes we do.  

Quote from: Benoist;439760

For further explanations concerning this chart, see this post. What James M. of Grognardia is talking about is B/X D&D, for reference.

Quote from: Spinachcat;439764So if Encounters players transition to RPGA, that's a D&D win since RPGA players are great customers.  

If they do. As you need an RPGA number to play, Encounters will no doubt let anyone who isn't aware of the RPGA know that it exists. Convincing them that it's worth their time is another matter, however.

I don't know if you play Encounters, but the format is...limited. I can't imagine Encounters would encourage folks to move on to the RPGA, even if it can be significantly less stilted.

Moreover, I can't imagine players transitioning to the RPGA is part of a plan, as WotC dropped the RPGA.

Quote from: Spinachcat;439764As for the RPG hobby, there will be some trickledown from Encounters...and not insignificant either. Remember that Encounters happens inside game stores. People browse shelves and quite possibly pick up non-WotC product that catches their fancy.

I do think Encounters is a boon to store owners. However, at least in my area, it's the same folks showing up for Encounters over and over and over again. There's only so much they're going to buy. For example, my FLGS owner sold quite a few Fortune Card boosters this week. I think he'll sell a few more next week. After that...eh.

Quote from: Spinachcat;439764Also, via Encounters the new players could be introduced to non-WotC RPG play via other players.

We have three table. I have yet to encounter (get it?) or hear of an Encounters player who hasn't played D&D or an RPG before. There were some that hadn't played 4e before, but they were all established gamers.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;439813We have three table. I have yet to encounter (get it?) or hear of an Encounters player who hasn't played D&D or an RPG before.

Oh? I'm surprised. I thought it'd appeal to newbies, somehow.

Try the game out. No commitment. You know.

Quote from: Benoist;439814Oh? I'm surprised. I thought it'd appeal to newbies, somehow.

Try the game out. No commitment. You know.

It's meant to appeal to newbies. I would say that at the shop I run it it's about 50% total newbies. In a wierd twist, Encounters time (7pm Wednesdays at my place) is the same as a Magic draft and we have gotten some Magic Players as well as just families dropping by.

I think this post really demonstrates how integral henchmen are to the OSR experience.