TheRPGSite

This is a D&D question, but not necessarily limited to 5e (although that is what I'm currently using):

When going on extended adventures out in the wilderness, do your PCs bring along hirelings?

I'm not talking about powerful combatant NPCs, but stuff like porters, linkboys, personal servants (valets), a cook, someone to care for horses, local guides, basic mercenaries (guards) to protect the camp, etc. that are mainly used to form, populate, and defend a base camp that the players set up.

Before they got mostly phased out, I tended to take along a few retainers or hirelings/mercs to watch my caravan home. If possible I tended to hire folk in town or city for research or prep for the adventure rather than drag them along as I just did not like endangering the NPCs leaving them outside unless I had a good idea they could handle themselves without us.

Quote from: Omega;1117676Before they got mostly phased out, I tended to take along a few retainers or hirelings/mercs to watch my caravan home. If possible I tended to hire folk in town or city for research or prep for the adventure rather than drag them along as I just did not like endangering the NPCs leaving them outside unless I had a good idea they could handle themselves without us.

Phased out? By your group or by the writers of the game? 5e contains bare bones info on hirelings--mainly just daily wages--but they're not entirely gone.

I certainly agree on using hirelings for adventure prep/info, but I am really looking for any experiences with those that go on the expedition such as the helpers that accompanied Indiana Jones in the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark or those in The Mummy (Brendan Fraser version).

It's pretty common in my games - fantasy or sci-fi, for my group to bring hirelings. In my last campaign, for example, which was a Star Wars Bounty Hunter/Mercenary themed game, the PC's routinely hired guides on worlds where they felt unfamiliar to the terrain or wanted extra intel on flora and fauna or just local knowledge.

Expeditions beyond the party "just roughing it" almost always required porters and extra sellswords to protect basecamp etc (which implies the usual cavalcade of support staff to justify all the other inevitable non-essentials that get tacked on). Pretty common in my games. But I'm also a very big stickler for environmental gameplay - which I know a lot of GM's just gloss over. Not me.

When my PC's are traveling to "hard-to-find" destinations over rough terrain... they feel quite pleased about succeeding making it there. And hirelings are almost always a big part of that. Tons of side-quests have spun off over hireling drama too. Someone "disappears" in the middle of the night - turns into a mini-search and find mission. Intra-hireling drama can spill over into the main adventure. RP around the campfire is always opportunities to gin up potential interesting stuff "When I was a boy, hunting in these woods with my Pa, we found this old outlaw mineshaft about five-miles from here..." or whatever. Or maybe a "hireling" is plant from the PC's adversaries - are they a spy? saboteur? Hirelings are always good potential for other things.

One of the reasons I dislike the 'skill packages' in Mongoose Traveller so much is that you're supposed to hire people to fill the roles you don't have the skills for.  Do you know how much opportunity to insert npcs those packages that 'make sure you have the skills needed for the campaign' takes away?

We almost never brought NPCs along if we had to split XP with them; we did tend to bring pack animals or a wagon to justify having an appropriate amount of supplies.

I seem to recall some games (Call of Cthulhu, maybe) suggesting that monsters kill NPCs first to give the appropriate level of immediate deadliness without killing the PCs too quickly.

From The Hobbit, I learned that it's a good idea to bring a Wizard, but also pack your own pocket-handkerchiefs since you can't count on the Wizard remembering important things like that.

Quote from: rawma;1117697We almost never brought NPCs along if we had to split XP with them

That's very metagamey; is there any good in-world reason for not taking available help with you? I can see not being able to afford the help, or the need to sometimes travel light without attracting attention, but the idea of "if we accept help, we won't become more personally powerful as quickly" doesn't sit well with me. In any event, NPCs like commoners (porters, etc.) and guards (mercenaries to guard camp) don't sip from the XP gained.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117690Phased out? By your group or by the writers of the game? 5e contains bare bones info on hirelings--mainly just daily wages--but they're not entirely gone.

I certainly agree on using hirelings for adventure prep/info, but I am really looking for any experiences with those that go on the expedition such as the helpers that accompanied Indiana Jones in the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark or those in The Mummy (Brendan Fraser version).

1: Phased out by groups and in a way TSR then WOTC. 5e brings them back in a small way. But its still very PC oriented. The companion rules they squirrelled away in Essentials is an interesting twist on this though.

2: This same up in a video discussion recenrly about NPCs that end up being more than intended.
Most memorable was Inonu the gnoll/grimlock thingy the PCs picked up while playing through the epic Darkness Gathering series. Inonu joined the group as they were exploring looking for something to help with the crisis as he was impressed by their prowess. Actually survived the brutal battle with the Neolithid. And was rewarded with a weird tentacly illithid glove the party found but had no use for. Thing was on a critical hit with it, it would extract the targets brain. You can see where this is about to go right? Yep. Poor Inonu would at least once a battle score a critical and yoink someones brain. Which he had no idea what to do with so just tossed them and happily continued on.

Another was the Blue Kobold faction of in a Tyranny of Dragons campaign ran. First session the groups blue dragonborn bluffed his way through an encounter and ever after they kept running into this group here and there and getting help in one form or another. They essentially became the party's un-official retainers and would often lament the fate of a kobold named Daern whenever the PCs asked them for help. Poor Daern.

As for myself. In Gamma World ended up picking up a mutant rat NPC named Pestilence whos primary mutation was the power of disease. Which my human PC happened to be mysteriously immune to. Which was a good thing as she initially could not turn the power off and saw it as more a curse. But later it saved the group when we were captured by the Knights of Genetic Purity and sentenced to death. They dismissed her with no restraints as her power registered as a useless defect. Pestilence ended up accounting for probably 75% or more of the kills as we fought our way out as the party was either depowered in various ways. Or in my case. Had no powers at all. Ended up rescuing and picking up another mutant who became my second NPC follower who ended up having an ongoing grudge with a recurring villain the party had a hard time putting down.

In BX D&D in what became the "Phantasm Lord" campaign I ended up impressing the oft mentioned spectral merchant. Who ended up becoming a retainer/partner of sorts. And spectres were one of the most powerful undead in our BX campaign. Mostly helped with information gathering and occasional scouting and healing via potions as we lacked a thief and a cleric. It was just my MU and a pair of Fighters. Though tended to forget that we were susceptible to things like, oh, GRAVITY for instance. ow... pit trap... ow... And also why I stress that listed alignments of monsters are a generalization and especially in BX never a guarantee. We got trounced a couple of times by the campaigns thoroughly wicked gold dragon mastermind. We brought the spectre along for what was looking to be the final confrontation which we did not expect to win. But hey. Did you know that level draining works on Goldzilla? Why yes. Yes. it does. :cool:

Other memorable NPCs I had were a pair of fighters who guarded my caravan home who had this weird knack for attracting curious critters. Like rust monsters. Why did it have to be rust monsters... Or one particular rust monster that seemed to be happily following them. They eventually gave up on metal armour and weapons and went with leather and wooden weapons till I could afford to equip them with silver armour and weapons. Which later proved a boon as they were able to fend off a pack of werewolves on their own. Thank you rust monster? :o

The game I'm mostly done writing started out with 4E's tactical combat as a foundation, but player interest led to having to incorporate all manner of hirelings (to the point that, if its sapient, you can theoretically hire it).

Many of the PC backgrounds also include options to gain more skilled (generally) and loyal followers you don't have to actually pay for (well, not in the sense of a daily wage... you DO have to pay for their food, shelter, transportation, clothing and other gear) and the aristocrat background even encourages you to take those options and use them for mundane tasks even if the PC could do it themselves... because what's the point of being a noble if you can't have people do things for you.

The result is that just about everyone has some companions unless they specifically don't want them (the vigilante in our urban/crime-focused game for example doesn't want the entanglements of companions, but the brothel madame has a bouncer, some cut throats and three ladies working for her).

The "free" followers that can be gained by the follower-heavy backgrounds top off at one elite warrior type (a bodyguard, enforcer or medic), three warriors (a lance of men-at-arms, a tribal warband or a band of thugs) and three non-combat followers (apprentices, acolytes, attendants, lackeys or a troupe of entertainers).

The default for a knight or minor noble with the companion options would have a squire (bodyguard or enforcer), lance of archers (men-at-arms), a valet, a page and a porter to handle baggage and beasts of burden (the squire would handle their lord's personal mount) as their basic retinue. They can then hire on as much additional muscle as they can afford.

The only balance for travelling with additional forces is that they cost money and that means they'll cut into the profits of your adventuring efforts. They also make fights less challenging and the default leveling method is that you level up when the GM decides you've faced enough challenging situations to have actually learned something from it... you don't improve much by throwing fifty hired soldiers at two dozen bandits.

I tend to look for one NPC to round out whatever the party needs in terms of skills, magic or fighting.

Then it would depend from adventure to adventure.  For example if we were heading into a wilderness then maybe I might pick up a Ranger type character or going into a Dwarven area then a Dwarf NPC would be useful.  If the party happened to get a home base then we would tend to aggregate our NPCs there.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117698That's very metagamey; is there any good in-world reason for not taking available help with you? I can see not being able to afford the help, or the need to sometimes travel light without attracting attention, but the idea of "if we accept help, we won't become more personally powerful as quickly" doesn't sit well with me. In any event, NPCs like commoners (porters, etc.) and guards (mercenaries to guard camp) don't sip from the XP gained.

I see the in-game equivalent of not wanting to share XP as being the desire to act solo in general, unburdened by others who might cramp your style. Very S&Sish, it seems to me. Traveling light isn't just about attracting attention, it's often just a character's (or party's) primary adventuring personality.

As Ash Williams said, "At heart, me, I'm an alone wolf."

We don't tend to use hirelings much on adventures, as we typically have a big group of PCs, often of varying levels.  Hirelings tend to be used to guard the home base instead.  Now, some people that become hirelings are found on adventures.  Those of course accompany the party back to base, and thus may be involved fairly heavily towards the end of an adventure.

Quote from: Shasarak;1117717I tend to look for one NPC to round out whatever the party needs in terms of skills, magic or fighting.

Then it would depend from adventure to adventure.  For example if we were heading into a wilderness then maybe I might pick up a Ranger type character or going into a Dwarven area then a Dwarf NPC would be useful.  If the party happened to get a home base then we would tend to aggregate our NPCs there.

I'm assuming these are henchmen or allied NPCs with class & levels, right? If so, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to generic low-end help. Sure, they'll have names, but not individualized stats or gear.

Quote from: Zalman;1117724I see the in-game equivalent of not wanting to share XP as being the desire to act solo in general, unburdened by others who might cramp your style. Very S&Sish, it seems to me. Traveling light isn't just about attracting attention, it's often just a character's (or party's) primary adventuring personality.

As Ash Williams said, "At heart, me, I'm an alone wolf."

If Conan could bring a crew of pirates, a mercenary unit, or a band of savages along on his adventures, he often would. That's very S&Sish to me.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117731I'm assuming these are henchmen or allied NPCs with class & levels, right? If so, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to generic low-end help. Sure, they'll have names, but not individualized stats or gear.

I dont get it.  All NPCs have class and levels.

Quote from: Shasarak;1117734I dont get it.  All NPCs have class and levels.

Not before 3e, and not after it either (except in 3e derivatives like Pathfinder).

In 5e, the basic mercenary is a Guard from the NPC appendix of the Monster Manual. The Guard has neither a character class nor a character leve!.

Quote from: Shasarak;1117734I dont get it.  All NPCs have class and levels.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117737Not before 3e, and not after it either (except in 3e derivatives like Pathfinder).

In 5e, the basic mercenary is a Guard from the NPC appendix of the Monster Manual. The Guard has neither a character class nor a character leve!.

Yes before 3e, right from the very beginning  ..and stats, and treasure, sometimes magic items, and definitely gear as well. The players only get the leftovers if they attack the npcs, not everything they were carrying because they, ...well, ...use it.

For every 30 bandits there will be one 4th-level Fighting-Man; for every 50 bandits there will be in addition one 5th- or 6th-level fighter (die 1–3 = 5th level, die 4–6 = 6th level); for every 100 bandits there will be in addition one 8th- or 9th-level fighter (die 1–3 = 8th, die 4–6 = 9th). If there are over 200 bandits there will be 50% chance for a Magic-User (die 1–4 = 10th level, die 5–6 = 11th level) and a 25% chance for a Cleric of the 8th level. If
there are exactly 300 bandits there will absolutely be a Magic-User, and the chance for a Cleric goes up to 50%. There is also a chance that there will be magical accouterments with the super-normal types:

Magic Items that NPC's may possess, from the Original D&D, Volume 2, Monsters & Treasure...

Bandits & Dervish Encounters---
Type
5% chance for Fighting-Men for each level, roll for . . . Armor Shield Sword
5% chance for Magic-Users for each level, roll for . . . Wand/Staff Ring Misc. Magic
5% chance for Clerics for each level, roll for . . . Misc. Weapon* Armor Shield

There is a 15% chance they are in or near their lair when encountered, and they'll collectively have a Type A Treasure hoard scattered and/or concealed around their bandit camp as well.

The bandits will have the following gear;
Composition of Force: Light Foot (Leather Armor & Shield) = 40%;
Short Bow (Leather Armor) or Light Crossbow (same) = 25%;
Light Horse (Leather Armor & Shield) = 25%;
Medium Horse (Chain Mail & Shield, no horse barding) = 20%.
All super-normal individuals  with the force (that's 4th level & above), will be riding Heavy, barded horses.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1117751Yes before 3e, right from the very beginning  ..and stats, and treasure, sometimes magic items, and definitely gear as well. The players only get the leftovers if they attack the npcs, not everything they were carrying because they, ...well, ...use it.

For every 30 bandits there will be one 4th-level Fighting-Man; for every 50 bandits there will be in addition one 5th- or 6th-level fighter (die 1–3 = 5th level, die 4–6 = 6th level); for every 100 bandits there will be in addition one 8th- or 9th-level fighter (die 1–3 = 8th, die 4–6 = 9th). If there are over 200 bandits there will be 50% chance for a Magic-User (die 1–4 = 10th level, die 5–6 = 11th level) and a 25% chance for a Cleric of the 8th level. If
there are exactly 300 bandits there will absolutely be a Magic-User, and the chance for a Cleric goes up to 50%. There is also a chance that there will be magical accouterments with the super-normal types:

Magic Items that NPC's may possess, from the Original D&D, Volume 2, Monsters & Treasure...

Bandits & Dervish Encounters---
Type
5% chance for Fighting-Men for each level, roll for . . . Armor Shield Sword
5% chance for Magic-Users for each level, roll for . . . Wand/Staff Ring Misc. Magic
5% chance for Clerics for each level, roll for . . . Misc. Weapon* Armor Shield

There is a 15% chance they are in or near their lair when encountered, and they'll collectively have a Type A Treasure hoard scattered and/or concealed around their bandit camp as well.

The bandits will have the following gear;
Composition of Force: Light Foot (Leather Armor & Shield) = 40%;
Short Bow (Leather Armor) or Light Crossbow (same) = 25%;
Light Horse (Leather Armor & Shield) = 25%;
Medium Horse (Chain Mail & Shield, no horse barding) = 20%.
All super-normal individuals  with the force (that's 4th level & above), will be riding Heavy, barded horses.

Are suggesting PCs will recruit bands of 30+ bandits to take on adventures? If not, that's outside the scope of the thread. If so, do the rules for using them as hirelings work the same way as the encounter rules you're citing? I recall the mercenary charts from the DMG, and they were less complex than that.

In 5e, we have Bandit and Bandit Captain. Neither have levels in character classes. Both could potentially be recruited as hirelings under the right circumstances (and the stats for these are supposed to represent pirate crews too).

In either case, I'm not about to waste time individually rolling ability scores, assigning proficiencies, and equipping a dozen mercenaries (or bandits/pirates). I'm perfectly fine with them all using a standard stat block and uniform gear.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117753Are suggesting PCs will recruit bands of 30+ bandits to take on adventures? If not, that's outside the scope of the thread. If so, do the rules for using them as hirelings work the same way as the encounter rules you're citing? I recall the mercenary charts from the DMG, and they were less complex than that.

In 5e, we have Bandit and Bandit Captain. Neither have levels in character classes. Both could potentially be recruited as hirelings under the right circumstances (and the stats for these are supposed to represent pirate crews too).

In either case, I'm not about to waste time individually rolling ability scores, assigning proficiencies, and equipping a dozen mercenaries (or bandits/pirates). I'm perfectly fine with them all using a standard stat block and uniform gear.

(https://www.laboiteverte.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/1066.jpg)

L'équipement du soldat britannique au cours de l'histoire (https://www.laboiteverte.fr/lequipement-du-soldat-britannique-au-cours-lhistoire/)

Quote from: GameDaddy;1117754(https://www.laboiteverte.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/1066.jpg)

L'équipement du soldat britannique au cours de l'histoire (https://www.laboiteverte.fr/lequipement-du-soldat-britannique-au-cours-lhistoire/)

I don't read French, but thanks for the pictures. Was there a point to them?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117737Not before 3e, and not after it either (except in 3e derivatives like Pathfinder).

In 5e, the basic mercenary is a Guard from the NPC appendix of the Monster Manual. The Guard has neither a character class nor a character leve!.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1117751Yes before 3e, right from the very beginning  ..and stats, and treasure, sometimes magic items, and definitely gear as well. The players only get the leftovers if they attack the npcs, not everything they were carrying because they, ...well, ...use it.

No, Yes, and Maybee actually.

Monster type hirelings were all over the place. Either they were their own thing and had no class or real level other than HD. Or only the leaders had class and levels. Also in older iterations when a monster became a hireling or PC it started gaining the equivalents of levels sometimes depending on the rules. If any.

In BX retainers had levels and classes. They were a step above hirelings who were the equivalent of normal peasants or slightly better if mercs or soldiers. But did not go into dungeons.
In AD&D Merc captains and lieutenant hirelings could have levels and classes. Henchmen allways had levels and classes. It was advised to start them at level 1.
2e has much the same system as AD&D. Henchmen have levels and classes. Hirelings apparently do not same as in AD&D.
3e actually does have a section on cohorts and hirelings. These have classes and levels. There were also hireable workers
5e has a few different methods now and the Essentials box set just introduced companions who have their own sort of class and levels.

My players (whether they be playing D&D, Star Wars or some homebrew Genesys setting) don't generally bring anyone with them, which I always thought was a little odd. Especially in D&D. While the system may be barebones, the option for hirelings is there, and if you're going to be getting massive loot hauls from dungeons (and let's all admit it, every player likes a massive loot haul once in a while), someone needs to pack it, carry it, and protect it while the PCs are in the next dungeon on their tour de murderhobo.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117698That's very metagamey; is there any good in-world reason for not taking available help with you? I can see not being able to afford the help, or the need to sometimes travel light without attracting attention, but the idea of "if we accept help, we won't become more personally powerful as quickly" doesn't sit well with me. In any event, NPCs like commoners (porters, etc.) and guards (mercenaries to guard camp) don't sip from the XP gained.

Since most XP was gold, it's the same as splitting gold; but we weren't as concerned with the gold as with the XP. If you like, you can conclude that it's the glory; you advance by doing impressive heroic feats (and characters can understand that) and killing something in a crowd of a hundred is less impressive than with a small party. And characters could observe that those who used many hirelings did not develop their own skills as much (certainly casters can see objectively that they've advanced by virtue of being able to use more and better spells, even if the fighters would only have a rough idea).

Personally, I've never thought anyone would take the same risk of death as us (or greater, since they were clearly cannon fodder) for much less reward, so hirelings to do the fighting doesn't make sense to me anyway (if they were any good, they'd be their own party). Many DMs dropped the idea of hirelings until characters were so high level that low level hirelings would die too quickly (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3125) and make no difference in an adventure; they only mattered for baronies and such.

But yes, it probably was originally metagame even if it can be rationalized; it was an established practice when I joined that first campaign, so I don't know what thinking prompted it. Far from the worst metagame sins in that campaign.

Quote from: rawma;1117761Personally, I've never thought anyone would take the same risk of death as us (or greater, since they were clearly cannon fodder) for much less reward, so hirelings to do the fighting doesn't make sense to me anyway (if they were any good, they'd be their own party). Many DMs dropped the idea of hirelings until characters were so high level that low level hirelings would die too quickly (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3125) and make no difference in an adventure; they only mattered for baronies and such.

5e uses "bounded accuracy" so the Guard's +3 attack doing 1d6+1 damage can actually contribute to the party's offense and 11 hit points with AC 16 gives reasonable staying power against hordes of small baddies (which, much like the Guard, can still be a challenge to higher-level characters when in groups). If the PCs are trying, it can be really easy to keep such guys alive with a little magic (5e is very forgiving compared to some versions). Perhaps most useful, these guys can actually help to keep the monsters off of the "squishy" PCs and prevent flanking (if that rule is in effect) while also ensuring that Rogues have a friend to help them Sneak Attack. All of this at the low cost of 2gp/day each.

Quote from: rawma;1117697From The Hobbit, I learned that it's a good idea to bring a Wizard, but also pack your own pocket-handkerchiefs since you can't count on the Wizard remembering important things like that.

Do you consider someone skilled in magic to be critical to a party's survival/progress?
I ask because I'm looking at the Scarlet Heroes rules which should make one and two player parties viable.
Does a single Hero have to be a "Jack of All Trades"?

Is there a "requirement" to recruit a henchman?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117674This is a D&D question...When going on extended adventures out in the wilderness, do your PCs bring along hirelings?

Absolutely yes.

Quote from: rawma;1117697We almost never brought NPCs along if we had to split XP with them...

This is probably edition-dependent, but it isn't a big problem for the editions I favor (i.e., original D&D or 1e AD&D). In my games, the vast majority of XP comes from treasure, and the treasure split is determined by the players (not the DM). Monster XP always gets split equally among the participants, but it's usually only around 20% or so of the total XP.

Quote from: HappyDaze;11177665e uses "bounded accuracy" so the Guard's +3 attack doing 1d6+1 damage can actually contribute to the party's offense and 11 hit points with AC 16 gives reasonable staying power against hordes of small baddies (which, much like the Guard, can still be a challenge to higher-level characters when in groups). If the PCs are trying, it can be really easy to keep such guys alive with a little magic (5e is very forgiving compared to some versions). Perhaps most useful, these guys can actually help to keep the monsters off of the "squishy" PCs and prevent flanking (if that rule is in effect) while also ensuring that Rogues have a friend to help them Sneak Attack. All of this at the low cost of 2gp/day each.

One of my 5E groups rescued an NPC elf scout.  At the time, he had no weapons or armor, having lost all that when captured.  They loaned him a spare dagger and a crossbow, thinking he wouldn't add much anyway.  And for several sessions, he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.  Then suddenly last session he couldn't miss, was rolling almost max damage, and even tossed in 2 criticals with the crossbow.  By himself, took down one of two upgraded ogres that was walloping the 6th level cleric while the rest of the party dealt with a small horde.  In a party of 9 player characters.

Quote from: HappyDaze;11177665e uses "bounded accuracy" so the Guard's +3 attack doing 1d6+1 damage can actually contribute to the party's offense and 11 hit points with AC 16 gives reasonable staying power against hordes of small baddies (which, much like the Guard, can still be a challenge to higher-level characters when in groups). If the PCs are trying, it can be really easy to keep such guys alive with a little magic (5e is very forgiving compared to some versions). Perhaps most useful, these guys can actually help to keep the monsters off of the "squishy" PCs and prevent flanking (if that rule is in effect) while also ensuring that Rogues have a friend to help them Sneak Attack. All of this at the low cost of 2gp/day each.

The NPCs in 5e are stronger than the ones in OD&D, but the rules for 5e tend not to encourage having hirelings, and since XP is not gold dependent, players don't tend to have as much gold. It's even cheaper to conjure animals. From an economic point of view, if the price is lower than the utility then you're going to get outbid (lots of less risky ways to earn a living for guards, if the game world is worth playing in). From a game balance standpoint, excessive hireling ruin things; there was a Lord of the Rings game way back when where I was able to take 5000 Riders of Rohan through Cirith Ungol, making it pretty easy to force your way to Mount Doom. Lots of reasons why that wouldn't work (horses going up staircases, the need for stealth) but "lots of hirelings" is frequently one of the "Win" buttons.

Quote from: Greentongue;1117773Do you consider someone skilled in magic to be critical to a party's survival/progress?
I ask because I'm looking at the Scarlet Heroes rules which should make one and two player parties viable.
Does a single Hero have to be a "Jack of All Trades"?

Is there a "requirement" to recruit a henchman?

In the case of The Hobbit, without Gandalf, every dwarf and Bilbo would have been killed by trolls and then goblins, and probably starved to death without finding Beorn; unclear if the giant eagles would have helped them. Maybe they'd leveled up enough (and gotten some magic items) by the time they reached Mirkwood to do without, though.

My experience was always that henchmen were plotting to betray you.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1117781This is probably edition-dependent, but it isn't a big problem for the editions I favor (i.e., original D&D or 1e AD&D). In my games, the vast majority of XP comes from treasure, and the treasure split is determined by the players (not the DM). Monster XP always gets split equally among the participants, but it's usually only around 20% or so of the total XP.

I was talking about OD&D. Why would the hirelings take a greater risk of death (they were the cannon fodder) and not get a share of the treasure? We rejected even explicit rules in OD&D that made no sense to us (or that hurt the game as a game). But some of it is rule interpretation; we computed XP from the treasure captured, and then divided it evenly, no matter how much gold a particular character got.

Quote from: rawma;1117791I was talking about OD&D. Why would the hirelings take a greater risk of death (they were the cannon fodder) and not get a share of the treasure? We rejected even explicit rules in OD&D that made no sense to us (or that hurt the game as a game). But some of it is rule interpretation; we computed XP from the treasure captured, and then divided it evenly, no matter how much gold a particular character got.

Yeah, I don't divide treasure XP evenly. I let the players decide how treasure is split and grant the treasure XP based on how they choose to split it. I do divide monster XP evenly, though.

Hireling monetary rewards can be tricky, and it probably depends on exactly how the hirelings are used. For example, if the hirelings in question are "adventuring" as if they're full party/equal members, then yes, I think their loyalty would suffer if they don't get substantial shares of the loot. (To me, that's more like how henchmen often operate.) But if they're more like "camp guards" or "garrison duty," then they might be content with more standard men-at-arms pay, possible at the "dangerous duty" scale. Also, I look at examples from history, like how shares were allocated on age of sail ships (i.e., not equally, and there was no expectation of equality there). For some situations, that can be a useful guide that can parallel the model of an adventuring party leading a group that includes men-at-arms hirelings. Also, I think our modern views on equality and what might be expected color our perspective. In a more feudal-based or influenced society, many hirelings would probably see the PC's kind of like leaders/lords in the "gold and gift giver" roles. They'd expect to be rewarded, of course, but probably wouldn't expect pure equality. But successful lords and gold-givers would inspire some loyalty through their success and their generosity. In short, as long as the PCs are giving their hirelings wealth and prestige that those hirelings wouldn't have, otherwise, I can see hirelings being content with what a modern person might not consider a "fair share."

Some of this also depends on how you model your game and campaigns. I run D&D with the idea that the PCs are adventurers seeking fortune and glory. Thus fortune and glory are major goals, which works very well with treasure-based XP, et cetera. And it works well with the idea that the PCs take on the roles of leaders/lords/gift-givers as the campaign develops. And that works well with followers being, well...followers. Individuals that hitch on to a rising star in hopes of bettering their own situation, but don't expect to be equals or "stars," themselves.

And, obviously, if hirelings and followers are ill-used, then they would have little or no loyalty to the PCs. If they're callously employed as disposable cannon fodder, then they'd almost certainly abandon or turn on the PCs. But if they're rewarded in line with what they see as their "place" and their expectations, then they're likely to be content and loyal. In my experience, most players tend to be pretty generous with their followers. They usually want to be seen as good leaders and gold-givers: lords to follow.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1117803Yeah, I don't divide treasure XP evenly. I let the players decide how treasure is split and grant the treasure XP based on how they choose to split it. I do divide monster XP evenly, though.

Hireling monetary rewards can be tricky, and it probably depends on exactly how the hirelings are used. For example, if the hirelings in question are "adventuring" as if they're full party/equal members, then yes, I think their loyalty would suffer if they don't get substantial shares of the loot. (To me, that's more like how henchmen often operate.) But if they're more like "camp guards" or "garrison duty," then they might be content with more standard men-at-arms pay, possible at the "dangerous duty" scale. Also, I look at examples from history, like how shares were allocated on age of sail ships (i.e., not equally, and there was no expectation of equality there). For some situations, that can be a useful guide that can parallel the model of an adventuring party leading a group that includes men-at-arms hirelings. Also, I think our modern views on equality and what might be expected color our perspective. In a more feudal-based or influenced society, many hirelings would probably see the PC's kind of like leaders/lords in the "gold and gift giver" roles. They'd expect to be rewarded, of course, but probably wouldn't expect pure equality. But successful lords and gold-givers would inspire some loyalty through their success and their generosity. In short, as long as the PCs are giving their hirelings wealth and prestige that those hirelings wouldn't have, otherwise, I can see hirelings being content with what a modern person might not consider a "fair share."

Some of this also depends on how you model your game and campaigns. I run D&D with the idea that the PCs are adventurers seeking fortune and glory. Thus fortune and glory are major goals, which works very well with treasure-based XP, et cetera. And it works well with the idea that the PCs take on the roles of leaders/lords/gift-givers as the campaign develops. And that works well with followers being, well...followers. Individuals that hitch on to a rising star in hopes of bettering their own situation, but don't expect to be equals or "stars," themselves.

And, obviously, if hirelings and followers are ill-used, then they would have little or no loyalty to the PCs. If they're callously employed as disposable cannon fodder, then they'd almost certainly abandon or turn on the PCs. But if they're rewarded in line with what they see as their "place" and their expectations, then they're likely to be content and loyal. In my experience, most players tend to be pretty generous with their followers. They usually want to be seen as good leaders and gold-givers: lords to follow.

I believe that the 5e costs for hirelings are considerably higher than in previous editions. I recall being able to attract a mercenary for 4-6 gp/month years ago whereas they now expect 2gp/day thanks to Amazon pushing up the minimum wages.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1117780Absolutely yes.

Can you give an example of the roster of an expedition.

Here is a man-at-arms tracker from a 10-year-old 1e AD&D game. Looks like the group had ten active men-at-arms at the time the sheet was last updated. They were used as camp guards and for general bulking up of the party while travelling through the wilderness.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5R2-xYFZszhZTE2ODgzOTMtNjJmMC00ODI1LWJmYTgtYWEyZjAzY2QzNjZm/view?usp=sharing

Reading through old notes, it looks like they topped out at around 14 regular infantry and 10 archers.

They also had a couple mules and a mule handler or two, about 8 PCs and 6 henchmen. I don't think they had an other cooks/servants/valets, although they probably should have.

Edit: If you scroll right on the tracker, cause of death is listed for the deceased. :)

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117817Can you give an example of the roster of an expedition.

For my group it works out to about 4 PCs, 3 henchmen, a couple of porters/beast handlers, a couple hired scouts familiar with the area, a cook, 2-3 general purpose laborers (pitch tents, gather firewood, clear collapsed tunnel entrances, etc.) and six camp guards (i.e. they don't go into the dungeons)... so about 20-21 men, a dozen beasts of burden and 4 wagons... roughly 2 support personnel for every PC/henchman who goes into the dungeons.

Basically enough to make your typical wild beast or scouting band (a dozen-ish or less humanoids) not want to bother with the effort, but small enough the whole group (minus the wagons) could also take shelter in the first room or so of a dungeon if they need to (the entrance being a good defensive choke-point).

Quote from: Chris24601;1117823For my group it works out to about 4 PCs, 3 henchmen, a couple of porters/beast handlers, a couple hired scouts familiar with the area, a cook, 2-3 general purpose laborers (pitch tents, gather firewood, clear collapsed tunnel entrances, etc.) and six camp guards (i.e. they don't go into the dungeons)... so about 20-21 men, a dozen beasts of burden and 4 wagons... roughly 2 support personnel for every PC/henchman who goes into the dungeons.

Basically enough to make your typical wild beast or scouting band (a dozen-ish or less humanoids) not want to bother with the effort, but small enough the whole group (minus the wagons) could also take shelter in the first room or so of a dungeon if they need to (the entrance being a good defensive choke-point).

This group used wagons and (I assume) mounts; what kinds of terrain were you generally traveling through? Did feeding the beasts ever become an issue? I suppose that magic (e.g., goodberry in 5e) can make feeding horses a trivial concern but they still probably need plenty of water.

Do most such expeditions travel on mounts/in vehicles overland, or is foot travel more common?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117829This group used wagons and (I assume) mounts; what kinds of terrain were you generally traveling through? Did feeding the beasts ever become an issue? I suppose that magic (e.g., goodberry in 5e) can make feeding horses a trivial concern but they still probably need plenty of water.

Do most such expeditions travel on mounts/in vehicles overland, or is foot travel more common?

Typically the terrain in most of out campaigns is generally a massively depopulated Medieval Europe (i.e. overall population density on the order of 1/sq. mile (in practice post-cataclysmic city-states of 30-100k surrounded by miles of monster-haunted ruin-filled wilderness reclaimed by nature)... so mostly grassland, low hills and light forest.

Our groups were largely mixed in terms of locomotion... some had mounts, some rode in the wagons, others walked. Despite what RPGs might imply, horses and wagons didn't actually improve your ground speed vs. walking... it just tired you out a lot less to be carried (and realistic travel times are about ten miles a day over land).

As to feed, if you skip winter travel most horses can stay healthy with a couple pounds of grain per day (200 lb. of grain would be good for a week's travel) and giving them enough time to graze to cover the remainder. One of the reasons for hiring some local scouts is because they'll know where to get fresh water, fields for grazing and easier travel routes in general.

As a rule for myself, even if magic is available to cover food and water, I plan my provisions as if I didn't have the magic. Spells are better saved for emergencies and things ordinary gear can't handle. Magic items are nice, but tend to be all or nothing. If all your food comes from a single item and it gets lost, you're out of luck. If you lose one of your four wagons (and you spread your food out) then food might be tight, but you've still got enough on hand to alter plans accordingly (if you pack enough food to get there and back, you'll always have enough to get home even if you lose half your supplies).

It'd be even less of an issue in more populated settings akin to actual Medieval Europe there will likely be "rest areas" along major trade routes and small villages/manors every couple of miles.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117737Not before 3e, and not after it either (except in 3e derivatives like Pathfinder).

In ADnD the short form for writing NPCs was: Fighter 1, Magic User 3, Thief 2 so I dont know how you imagine it is a 3e thing,

QuoteIn 5e, the basic mercenary is a Guard from the NPC appendix of the Monster Manual. The Guard has neither a character class nor a character leve!.

I dont know how 5e fucked up NPCs.

Quote from: Shasarak;1117840In ADnD the short form for writing NPCs was: Fighter 1, Magic User 3, Thief 2 so I dont know how you imagine it is a 3e thing,

Those are classed NPCs.

Your standard AD&D man-at-arms is level 0 and has no class. 1d6hp, I believe. They use the level 0 row of the Fighter attack and saving throw tables, but they're not Fighters.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1117843Those are classed NPCs.

Your standard AD&D man-at-arms is level 0 and has no class. 1d6hp, I believe. They use the level 0 row of the Fighter attack and saving throw tables, but they're not Fighters.

Exactly. Those basic NPCs also lacked much of the stats classed individual had (like ability scores). 3e added everything to them that PCs had, and 5e pulls back a bit from that (ability scores but not classes).

Quote from: Shasarak;1117840I dont know how



I dont know how

Yes, that's become quite clear to me.

Greetings!

Well, my groups generally bring along an assortment of mercenaries, a cook, several labourers, a few animal handlers, and several skilled scouts. Sometimes a Cartographer as well, and a Historian. And, depending on the expedition, a few translators.

The hirelings usually stay at the base camp, with only the most bold and skilled being willing to accompany the adventurers into the crazy dungeons.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117845Yes, that's become quite clear to me.

I was being polite.  I do know how you can make such a incompetent mistake like that.

Quote from: Chris24601;1117823For my group it works out to about 4 PCs, 3 henchmen, a couple of porters/beast handlers, a couple hired scouts familiar with the area, a cook, 2-3 general purpose laborers (pitch tents, gather firewood, clear collapsed tunnel entrances, etc.) and six camp guards (i.e. they don't go into the dungeons)... so about 20-21 men, a dozen beasts of burden and 4 wagons... roughly 2 support personnel for every PC/henchman who goes into the dungeons.

Basically enough to make your typical wild beast or scouting band (a dozen-ish or less humanoids) not want to bother with the effort, but small enough the whole group (minus the wagons) could also take shelter in the first room or so of a dungeon if they need to (the entrance being a good defensive choke-point).

I assume that each of these people didn't need a multi-page background write-up?
Were they even given names and stat blocks?

From what I gather, these days there would be so much "role playing" just within the "caravan" that there would be no time to actually explore a dungeon.

Were there times when sessions were just about the "caravan" interactions?

Henchmen in particular are a 'force multiplier" - a party can tackle a stronger challenge with them than without them. Stronger challenge means higher rewards, both treasure and XP. In most rules sets, NPC henchmen get a fraction of a share of both treasure and XP as compared to PCs because they are "followers/joiners", rather than taking their own initiative for adventure. This is, overall, an incentive to take NPC adventuring henchmen.

As for an entourage to handle base camp, bearing gear, etc. - this is much closer to historic expeditions than the "wandering band of 4-6 PCs" that has come to dominate game play.

In both of the above, the DM has to be cooperative - if NPCs are regularly slaughtered offscreen or betray the PCs, henchmen demand full shares, etc., then the PCs are better off without them.

Quote from: Greentongue;1117859I assume that each of these people didn't need a multi-page background write-up?
Were they even given names and stat blocks?

Our PCs don't even get multi-page background write-ups, so no on the first. That said, everyone did have a name and at least a basic personality (i.e. the sort of thing you'd find on the random personality table in the DMG in terms of depth). The PCs and Henchmen obviously had full stats (the whole point of henchmen is they've got class levels) while the guards used the generic guard stats, the scouts used the generic irregulars stats and the rest just used a default "commoner" stat block if it was ever needed.

QuoteFrom what I gather, these days there would be so much "role playing" just within the "caravan" that there would be no time to actually explore a dungeon.

Were there times when sessions were just about the "caravan" interactions?

Not as much as you'd think. Because only the PCs/Henchmen went into the dungeons before they were cleared and we paid well, there was very little turnover in our crew. That meant that once the initial personality conflicts were dealt with there wasn't much to RP about. We're professionals doing a job, not a group therapy session.

Far more common in terms of roleplaying in the caravan scenario was when we actually traveled with other groups going the same direction. Then we'd get to know the new groups and it was basically a mobile tavern/town in terms of RP. Meet some interesting personalities, hear some rumors, maybe make a few trades and get asked to do a job (one time we emded up temporally dropping our original dungeon crawl for escorting a bunch of pilgrims looking to retake an abandoned and now monster infested holy site because the rewards sounded more lucrative).

Quote from: SHARK;1117846Greetings!

Well, my groups generally bring along an assortment of mercenaries, a cook, several labourers, a few animal handlers, and several skilled scouts. Sometimes a Cartographer as well, and a Historian. And, depending on the expedition, a few translators.

The hirelings usually stay at the base camp, with only the most bold and skilled being willing to accompany the adventurers into the crazy dungeons.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Damn, I want in on a SHARK party, because a SHARK party adventures in style! :D

I don't think I've ever been in a campaign that used hirelings. There was the occasional helper NPC to guide the party, but not cooks or skilled tradesmen or anything.

Hmm... something to try out.

How does (for example) a henchman cook affect play, practically/mechanically? Does the DM or someone roll to see if the cook produces food? If PCs' food supplies run low, does the cook pop more into existence?

Quote from: Shasarak;1117840I dont know how 5e fucked up NPCs.

They didnt. Some NPCs are the exact same as in OD&D, AD&D or BX. They are no different than monsters and others are no different than PCs.

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1117868Damn, I want in on a SHARK party, because a SHARK party adventures in style! :D

I don't think I've ever been in a campaign that used hirelings. There was the occasional helper NPC to guide the party, but not cooks or skilled tradesmen or anything.

Hmm... something to try out.

How does (for example) a henchman cook affect play, practically/mechanically? Does the DM or someone roll to see if the cook produces food? If PCs' food supplies run low, does the cook pop more into existence?

Greetings!

*Laughing* Yes, my friend! Adventuring in style! Indeed, I apply morale penalties for poor and/or shitty food. In addition, for having consistently good food, the party gains frequent small bonuses, and avoids penalties. In addition, at certain times, they can gain Advantage as a morale booster lasting all day.

Imagine traveling through the harsh wilderness for two or three weeks, eating MRE's. Then, being woken up one morning and told by Gunny that fresh eggs and bacon is cooking on the grill, men!

The shift in morale is tangible, like watching electricity bounce from man to man, instantly lifting their spirits, and making them bold for a new day of challenges.

In a similar fashion, having a skilled, professional cook accompany you and your band on your journey for weeks or months into the unknown is made a bit warmer, safer, and happier. The cook can take any meat you catch and kill, whether lamb, deer, bear, goat, cattle, or some unusual beast, and inside of an hour or two make a good, tasty meal that you and your group of your own, couldn't dream of. There's always something good the cook can do with various fish, as well as roots, berries, and vegetables found along the way. The cook can also be knowledgeable and skilled in transforming something that would likely make you sick or even kill you--into something safe, edible, and tasty.

Plus, Cooks are great sources of odd wisdom, and crazy stories! Cooks often become a beloved and favourite NPC, whether they are men or women.

As an aside in observing human nature and culture, I suppose, I was always amazed by how powerful the informal authority of cooks were in the Marines. Whether in the barrack's area Chow Hall, or in a makeshift mess area out in the field, the Cooks take command. How you get your food, where you go to eat, what to do with your empty plate, and on and on. Everyone is eager to please, and prompt in doing what the Cook's tell them. Well I remember how having a good, well-cooked breakfast in the morning was such a tremendous blessing, after so much harsh training and struggle. It's funny seeing us goofy Marines, beaming with smiles in the morning, just because we were surrounded by mountains of delicious food.:D Fresh omelets, cooked from scratch right in front of you. Same with pancakes, waffles, eggs, bacon, sausage and ham. Trays full of fresh hot biscuits and cinnamon rolls, right from the oven, brought out to you. Tables set with baskets overflowing with fresh bananas, apples, and oranges. It was always very special.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: rawma;1117697We almost never brought NPCs along if we had to split XP with them; we did tend to bring pack animals or a wagon to justify having an appropriate amount of supplies.

I never had a character decision motivated by XP. I remember a group of PCs in a tavern talking to an old drunk who told us what XP were and how you got them. We didn't want any.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117674This is a D&D question, but not necessarily limited to 5e (although that is what I'm currently using):

When going on extended adventures out in the wilderness, do your PCs bring along hirelings?

I'm not talking about powerful combatant NPCs, but stuff like porters, linkboys, personal servants (valets), a cook, someone to care for horses, local guides, basic mercenaries (guards) to protect the camp, etc. that are mainly used to form, populate, and defend a base camp that the players set up.

To a limited extent and largely when we are going to spend part of the adventure underground or indoors. Horses need care and protection. The couple that fills that function also has one very good camp cook (Mr. Z) and one who is really good at other camp chores but a lousy cook (Mrs. Z) Unfortunately, they alternate the cooking duties.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117817Can you give an example of the roster of an expedition.

I'll see if I can find any notes from previous adventures. It kind of depends on what the PCs are doing and who the PCs are.

Off the top of my head, it's typically the PCs and any henchmen they have, mounts, wagons, one or two linkboys, and one or two squad-sized units of men-at-arms (usually spearmen and/or archers). Sometimes a teamster or two for wagons, if they're present.

I'm usually DM, but I played in a game not too long ago that was exploring a desert looking for some buried ruins. We had the PCs, men-at-arms, and camels and mules with some pack handlers. The biggest issue was carrying water. We were carrying barrels of water (and food, of course, but water was the critical thing). The DM for that game used some tweaked rules from the Outdoor Survival game for handling wilderness exploration and food/water consumption, and those seemed to work pretty well. We had some difficulty after we located the ruins, because the camp was attacked by hippogriffs after the camels. We drove them off, but they did kill a camel or two, which meant we lost the ability to carry some of our water supply.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117829Do most such expeditions travel on mounts/in vehicles overland, or is foot travel more common?

Depends on what you're doing, terrain, et cetera. If you have a lot of men, mounts or pack animals become pretty important. Mainly for carrying food, water, and misc. gear. If the terrain or circumstances make mounts and vehicles difficult or impossible, porters are the fallback.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1117843Your standard AD&D man-at-arms is level 0 and has no class. 1d6hp, I believe. They use the level 0 row of the Fighter attack and saving throw tables, but they're not Fighters.

In AD&D, mercenary men-at-arms are all treated as Fighters, but they can't/don't advance. They're basically "fighters" for the purposes of running combat. Regular men-at-arms are 0-level fighters with 4-7 hit points (basically 1-1 HD, but considered to be in the upper portion of that range). NCOs are veteran 1st level fighters (that don't advance). Lieutenants are 2nd or 3rd level fighters (that don't advance). Captains are 5th-8th level fighters (that don't advance).

In my experience, it's rare for PCs to hire enough men-at-arms to require captains unless they're planning on using the men-at-arms for actual warfare/battle. For exploration and adventuring, it's more common for the PCs to hire smaller units of men-at-arms with NCOs, maybe a lieutenant, and then have a PC fighter take the role of "captain" in overall command.

Other "normal men" NPCs are also considered "0-level fighters" (equivalent to 1-1 HD), with hit points and combat ability according to guidelines based on who they are and what they do:

Sedentary Females: 1-3 hit points, -3 combat ability
Sedentary Males: 1-4 hit points, -2 combat ability
Active Females: 1-4 hit points, -1 combat ability
Active Males: 2-5 hit points, normal 0-level combat ability
Laboring Females: 2-5 hit points, normal 0-level combat ability
Laboring Males: 2-7 hit points, normal 0-level combat ability

Quote from: Greentongue;1117859I assume that each of these people didn't need a multi-page background write-up?
Were they even given names and stat blocks?

Multi-page background? Oh, hell no. Even the PCs don't do that.

They only get names if it becomes important/desirable to name them. Same with specific stats. Usually that's not needed. The exception is actual henchmen (as opposed to hirelings). Henchmen always have names, stats, classes, et cetera. They're more like PCs (and often end up becoming actual PCs, at some point).

QuoteFrom what I gather, these days there would be so much "role playing" just within the "caravan" that there would be no time to actually explore a dungeon. Were there times when sessions were just about the "caravan" interactions?

Not really. Organizing the expedition can take some game time, but once that's done there's not really any need to "role play" all the details. There might be some limited role-play with certain NPCs (like lieutenants or NCOs, or for linkboys or henchmen that accompany the PCs a lot), but mostly the NPCs have defined jobs that aren't important to focus on or role-play out. If they're loyal, I assume they do their jobs without needing to "play it out."

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1117868I don't think I've ever been in a campaign that used hirelings. There was the occasional helper NPC to guide the party, but not cooks or skilled tradesmen or anything.

How does (for example) a henchman cook affect play, practically/mechanically? Does the DM or someone roll to see if the cook produces food? If PCs' food supplies run low, does the cook pop more into existence?

In my games, we don't focus on day-to-day (boring) stuff like cooking or handling the mules or whatever unless it's important to the game situation for some reason. There's no "cooking roll" or anything like that. It's assumed. A PC or NPC that is cooking doesn't produce food out of nothing. You have to have some food to cook. If the group runs out of food they might need to spend time foraging or hunting (or using spells to create food).

FWIW, "henchman cook" seems a bit odd, to me. Henchmen are usually more like "sidekick NPCs" that are members of the adventuring party (attached to a specific PC). Like a squire or a protege. If Brienne of Tarth is a PC, Podrick is probably a henchman. Henchmen can cook, but it would be odd to have a henchman that is "just a cook." (An NPC who is "just a cook" is likely to be a hireling.) Henchmen can also act as a "backup PC" for players. If their main PC is killed or incapacitated, the player can actively play the henchman, instead.

If you want some rules guidelines for foraging, here are the rules we used in that game I mentioned in a previous post: A party may forage for food by sacrificing 1/3 of its move allowance. A maximum of three such attempts may be made each day. Each foraging attempt gives a 1 in 6 chance that adequate food can be found to satisfy the day's food requirement. This chance could be optionally adjusted based on the circumstances (e.g., abundance of the land, presence of an expert like a ranger or druid, et cetera). On the DM's hex map, there can also be certain hexes that are designated "food hexes," where the supply is particularly abundant and no roll is needed at all, just time.

More details can be found in the Planet Eris House Rules supplement (https://cubeofquazar.blogspot.com/p/the-scribes-of-sparn.html) by Jimm Johnson (he was the DM for that game). It's in the section "Wilderness Adventures Using Outdoor Survival." There are some other cool resources on his blog (https://cubeofquazar.blogspot.com/p/the-scribes-of-sparn.html), as well.

The ACKS rules for foraging and hunting are the best I've seen for combining ease of use with reasonable results.

It's something along the lines of foraging gathering 1d4 man days of food with a successful check, and you can forage on the move; hunting gathers 2d4 man days of food on a successful check, but prevents travel.

All PCs can attempt both; hunting proficiency provides a hefty bonus.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1117908The ACKS rules for foraging and hunting are the best I've seen for combining ease of use with reasonable results.

It's something along the lines of foraging gathering 1d4 man days of food with a successful check, and you can forage on the move; hunting gathers 2d4 man days of food on a successful check, but prevents travel.

All PCs can attempt both; hunting proficiency provides a hefty bonus.

ACKS is one of the best for hireling/henchman/mercenary rules as a whole.

Shark's tribute to the value of (good) cooks to morale was entertaining and brought back fond memories. Whether that sort of thing appeals or you would rather just "get on with the game" is a matter of taste. I am in the "my characters are human or human-like and like their comforts" camp.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1117948Shark's tribute to the value of (good) cooks to morale was entertaining and brought back fond memories. Whether that sort of thing appeals or you would rather just "get on with the game" is a matter of taste. I am in the "my characters are human or human-like and like their comforts" camp.

Greetings!

Indeed, thanks my friend! I'm glad to make you smile. You know I'm right on, brother! Good cooks, good food was such a morale booster in the military. Stay inspired!

You know, I am not alone in believing of the importance of good food and good cooks. General George Patton, Commander of the U.S. Third Army in Europe, wrote and commented about the critical importance of good, hot food for the men. Without it, he felt, an army would be critically weakened, it's morale greatly lessened, and any successful campaign in grave doubt. Fresh hot food, and a staff of good cooks seemed to always be a very important priority for General Patton.

I've always agreed with Patton, also based on my own experiences in the field. *laughs*

One time, while we were just waking up after long days in the field, we could smell the fresh bacon and eggs the cooks were breaking out at the mess area in the field camp. Gunny comes tramping through, and says hold the phone, Marines! All you motherfuckers better be shaved and squared away before eating the good chow! *Laughs* So, we had to hurry up and shave with our ice cold canteen water thrown into our helmet, and shaved that way. Yeah, ice fucking cold. *bastard* We got it done quick though, and through on a clean blouse so we looked squared away good enough, for a proper breakfast. We were still in the field after all. *laughs* We didn't know it yet, but after we finished breakfast, Gunny marched through the groups of Marines, scattered about drinking coffee and smoking, and told us to get our gear, and mount up for a short march. The helicopters were on their way to bring us home!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1117957Good cooks, good food was such a morale booster in the military...General George Patton, Commander of the U.S. Third Army in Europe, wrote and commented about the critical importance of good, hot food for the men. Without it, he felt, an army would be critically weakened, it's morale greatly lessened, and any successful campaign in grave doubt. Fresh hot food, and a staff of good cooks seemed to always be a very important priority for General Patton.

I agree with all of that. However, unless food quality is important for the game situation, I assume that "if the party has food, they can cook it and it is suitable." Same kind of thing for making camp. I assume that the party sets up the best camp they can for their gear and circumstances. I don't worry about details like "do they put enough insulation between them and the ground" or "do they lay in an adequate supply of firewood before it gets dark" or "do they avoid low-lying areas where the cold air settles." Again, there might be game situations where I thought those details were more important, but usually it's not something I want to spend game time on. Usually, it's enough to know that they have the right resources (e.g., suitable food, water, camping gear, etc) and that someone has the right knowledge/background for the tasks at hand. In my games, that usually doesn't mean the right "skill" (I don't use general skills or non-weapon proficiencies in my D&D games). I assume that most people in the game world are familiar with how to build a fire or set up a camp or cook some food. And if there's a ranger or a druid or an wood elf or someone with an applicable background (including hirelings) then that's even better. (I do use "secondary skills" in D&D, which basically define a character's background prior to becoming an adventurer. Things like "forester" or "fisherman" or "farmer" or "sailor" or some sort of craft/trade. Between that background and the character's class/race, I have a pretty good idea of what knowledge and aptitudes that character would possess. Usually I don't require a roll for such things, unless it seems appropriate for the circumstances.)

Quote from: rawma;1117697We almost never brought NPCs along if we had to split XP with them

With the right NPCs you'll end up getting more XP, since you can carry more loot and defeat more dangerous foes. Of course, it may not be an issue if the DM always makes you win however dangerous the foe, but then you may as well not have an adventuring party at all and just be a lone PC.

At 1st and sometimes 2nd levels we just grabbed whoever we could afford. After that we'd usually have a few thousand GP spare and could get organised. When playing in traditional D&D settings with dungeon etc, the party would have:

- 2 shares treasure each = PCs: fighter, magic-user, cleric, thief & any others
- 1 share treasure each = NPC henchmen if any
- 0 shares treasure = NPC hirelings: see below
- 2 shares treasure = party funds going to find new hirelings, pay for magical healing, grants to families of deceased NPCs, etc.
- in addition to their monthly pay, men-at-arms would get all silver pieces treasure, and hirelings all copper pieces treasure.

Hirelings were generally made up of,
- 12 men-at-arms with henchmen rotating acting as sergeant; in the absence of any henchmen we'd hire a sergeant. These were armed with 3 javelins, a spear, shortsword and large shield, with armour depending on available funds, but working to chain mail as soon as possible
- 1x cook, 1x steward
- 1x teamster, 1x stableboy
- 2 labourers
- some PCs chose to have a valet, who kept their equipment clean and working and made them their own meals.
- typically 4 carts drawn by horses carrying food, tents, axes and shovels, etc. The men-at-arms walked, the rest rode most of the time.

Altogether there'd be 4+ PCs, with a few henchmen, 12 men-at-arms and 6 non-fighting hirelings. Yes, that mean a train of 20+ people.

On arriving at a dungeon, the party would set up camp, with men-at-arms preparing basic defences of wooden spikes and doing clearing patrols of the immediate area, and labourers collecting firewood and clearing surrounding brush and cover so that if possible the base would have 100ft clear each side. They would then dig a latrine and set up tents etc.

On going into the dungeon we'd take 6 men-at-arms and leave the other 6 and the henchman-sergeant behind to defend the camp. We tried to go into the dungeon for the day and come back before nightfall, the next day taking the other 6 men-at-arms in with us.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1117900I never had a character decision motivated by XP. I remember a group of PCs in a tavern talking to an old drunk who told us what XP were and how you got them. We didn't want any.

PCs just did dangerous stuff with no idea why? At the very least I hope they were chasing after magic items, money and fame. Same thing, then.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1118048With the right NPCs you'll end up getting more XP, since you can carry more loot and defeat more dangerous foes. Of course, it may not be an issue if the DM always makes you win however dangerous the foe, but then you may as well not have an adventuring party at all and just be a lone PC.

If the DM expects you to have NPC cannon fodder, better have them, I guess. And the reverse is true.

An NPC with the party is a chance for betrayal but also a chance for a DM PC who solves all problems. Not really keen for either, but your mileage clearly varies.

Quote from: rawma;1118075PCs just did dangerous stuff with no idea why? At the very least I hope they were chasing after magic items, money and fame. Same thing, then.

I can't imagine why or how PCs would know about XP. They do dangerous stuff because they see a need for it. They don't expect magic items either because they are rare. After awhile, some individuals and groups do figure out that there is money in it. Fame is damn rare.
Not really the same thing. XP is an abstract concept and hard to imagine a person caring about. Hobgobins attacking a farm where you can see the smoke from the burning farmhouse from the road is concrete. Conflict between a usurper and the heir, who is also a much better person, is concrete.

Quote from: rawma;1118075If the DM expects you to have NPC cannon fodder, better have them, I guess. And the reverse is true.

They are not "cannon fodder", there are no cannons! And we don't throw their lives away, nor does the DM "expect" them to be there.

Others have expressed the idea as a "living world". This isn't Skyrim, where at 1st level you will only meet 1st level bandits and at 20th level you will only meet 20th level bandits. People and monsters exist in more-or-less logical places for them to exist, with the abilities and resources and treasures which are reasonable for them to have, and go about their lives and plans unless the PCs arrive to interfere with that.

Let us imagine that in a game world near a village we have three sets of possible foes: a small group of bandits, an ogre and a dragon. In many computer games, the foes would need to be tackled in that order, it would be physically impossible to bypass the bandits and ogre and go straight for the dragon. In an "open world" computer game you could tackle them in any order you wished, but the dragon would destroy you if you tried it first, and the bandits would supply just enough xp and magic loot to make tackling the ogre a 50-50 affair, and the ogre would have a Sword of Dragon Stabbing among its loot.

In a "living world" those guys are all there and go out on patrol or hunting for food or whatever at reasonable intervals. You might bump into them in the wilderness, they might ambush you, or you might go to their lair and find them not there at all, and the place free to loot.

Having a larger party with men-at-arms and the like gives you more choices, for example you don't have to stay in the town but can camp in the wilderness, you've more resources to take on the tougher challenge first, and so on. That's up to the party. But the bandits, ogre and dragon don't all gain or lose levels and loot because you did or didn't take NPCs with you. Monsters and foes don't exist in a state of quantum uncertainty until they discover who is observing them. There is no Schroedinger's Orc.

QuoteAn NPC with the party is a chance for betrayal but also a chance for a DM PC who solves all problems. Not really keen for either, but your mileage clearly varies.

Please show me on the doll where the bad DM and their NPC touched you.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1118088Please show me on the doll where the bad DM and their NPC touched you.

First, you show us on the doll where you were touched by all the people you think are bad because they play differently than you do.

Quote from: rawma;1118108First, you show us on the doll where you were touched by all the people you think are bad because they play differently than you do.

You are the one insisting that others (the DMs) are out to screw you for the bad choices you make. Accept your responsibility and stop trying to play a victim card that's long since been tapped out.

Good, hot food is a morale boost. AKA, not more stale rations or rat on a stick. As morale is important for hirelings and henchmen, PCs should take the time and effort to provide various boosts to maximize morale. Kyle Aaron once discussed how his PC let his henchmen gather keep all the coppers. I played a cleric would not heal himself until his hirelings were fine (except for the dead ones). I had a group whose hirelings were all provided letters recommending their future service, so even if they were illiterate, they knew the local lord would be impressed by the letter.

As for the value of hirelings, its dependent on the GM and the style of the campaign.

In my OD&D, 0-levels won't enter the Underworld. It's auto-Fear effect upon them. Thus, men-at-arms are great for overland adventures, guarding your stuff as you enter the dungeon, but they're not cut out to step down those steps. Down there is where death lives...

I guess my biggest problem with dragging a group of 0 level guards around with you is that if they trigger a Wandering Monster Encounter then they are basically fucked.  It would only take an Ogre or Troll heading back into their Dungeon lair and then it's game over man.

You know, just for a change of pace, one of the most amusing things for me running a Star Trek game where the players were officers assigned to "Away Team Alpha" (the Vulcan captain felt it illogical to risk the senior staff on away missions) was breaking the party of the notion they had to do everything on their own with no support from others (including their own commanding officers).

It was probably half-a-dozen sessions in before it finally sunk in that they were Star Fleet officers with an entire starship crewed by 150 highly trained specialists whose primary job is to ensure the ship's mission succeeds (it was also quite fun watching the Cardassian liason officer player; the setting was Dominion War aftermath in the demilitarized zone; going from planet to planet where contact had been lost during the war; roleplay out learning that the command staff and lower ranks were not actually looking for opportunities to stab them in the back).

There's very much a "us vs. the world" mindset instilled by a lot of RPGs and adjacent media that can be quite unhelpful if your setting is actually one based on cooperation and command. In a medieval context, if you're playing a landed noble then you've got vassals to assist you (that's part of what makes you a noble) and part of the deal is that your own liege is expected to aid you in matters beyond your ability (because it's actually his land; you're just managing it for him).

Quote from: Shasarak;1118117I guess my biggest problem with dragging a group of 0 level guards around with you is that if they trigger a Wandering Monster Encounter then they are basically fucked.  It would only take an Ogre or Troll heading back into their Dungeon lair and then it's game over man.

Depends on the game. In 5e, a dozen Guards (they don't have a level, not even 0) can potentially deal with many wandering encounters that might hit a camp for APL 1-4 and they can even help against harder foes. This is because of bounded accuracy making even weak combatants (like Guards) effective in numbers. Contrast this with 3.5e or Pathfinder (1e, I neither know much nor care at all about 2e) where AC can quickly scale well beyond what hirelings could ever hope to hit.

As a quick example, a Guard has a 65% chance to hit an Ogre and will do 4.5 damage on a hit. In a white room, this means that 12 Guards can typically take down a single Ogre in two turns. For it's part, the Ogre has a 55% chance to hit a Guard and will do 13 damage (enough to drop a Guard to 0 hp) on a hit. In that white room, only one or perhaps two Guards will go down. So long as a standing Guard can make those Medicine checks (likely with a Help from another Guard) or apply a Healer's Kit, the downed Guards are likely to survive.

Quote from: Chris24601;1118122You know, just for a change of pace, one of the most amusing things for me running a Star Trek game where the players were officers assigned to "Away Team Alpha" (the Vulcan captain felt it illogical to risk the senior staff on away missions) was breaking the party of the notion they had to do everything on their own with no support from others (including their own commanding officers).

It was probably half-a-dozen sessions in before it finally sunk in that they were Star Fleet officers with an entire starship crewed by 150 highly trained specialists whose primary job is to ensure the ship's mission succeeds (it was also quite fun watching the Cardassian liason officer player; the setting was Dominion War aftermath in the demilitarized zone; going from planet to planet where contact had been lost during the war; roleplay out learning that the command staff and lower ranks were not actually looking for opportunities to stab them in the back).

There's very much a "us vs. the world" mindset instilled by a lot of RPGs and adjacent media that can be quite unhelpful if your setting is actually one based on cooperation and command. In a medieval context, if you're playing a landed noble then you've got vassals to assist you (that's part of what makes you a noble) and part of the deal is that your own liege is expected to aid you in matters beyond your ability (because it's actually his land; you're just managing it for him).

Our group faced this in Rogue Trader, the Warhammer 40K game of space-going conquistadors flying in city-sized spacecraft with crews in the tens of thousands. Even a frigate could easily support 1,000 armsmen.

Quote from: Shasarak;1118117I guess my biggest problem with dragging a group of 0 level guards around with you is that if they trigger a Wandering Monster Encounter then they are basically fucked.  It would only take an Ogre or Troll heading back into their Dungeon lair and then it's game over man.

True...especially with a Troll.  

However in OD&D, a 4HD Ogre vs. a half-dozen 0-levels is a fair fight...and the Ogre might note 6 spears, or worse, 6 bows as it approaches, and turn away.

But certainly, I've run many games were the NPC encampment got overrun. It's especially dangerous at higher levels when the surrounding area is sure to have major threats wandering around. In these cases, the 0-level NPCs are usually kept at a distance from the terrorzone to minimize their loss. Of course, at higher levels, your hirelings might be leveled-NPCs who can hold their own.

I've begun adventures with the PCs finding the entrance to the dungeon...by seeing the last group of adventurers and their men-at-arms spread about the area as a warning to the foolhardy.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1118111You are the one insisting that

Stop spouting nonsense. Have hirelings or don't; decide based on whatever information you get about the world. Accept the consequences whatever you do. I'm not the one claiming you have to do either or claiming that anyone who plays differently than me is making bad decisions.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1118126However in OD&D, a 4HD Ogre vs. a half-dozen 0-levels is a fair fight...and the Ogre might note 6 spears, or worse, 6 bows as it approaches, and turn away.

Bows, yes; but if they start off at close range, as in the dungeon, the fight favors the ogre, which gets 4 attacks each round on normal men (and one of those at +1).

With the six having d6 HP and giving them AC5, the ogre on average kills 1.65 such 0-levels per round; with full numbers, they can only kill the ogre in the third round on average, and they lose on average 1.6875 of their number to the ogre's 4 attacks and average 1.225 per attacker against the ogre. If they lose initiative and the two sides alternate, the average result is that they lose in the 4th round without exceeding the ogre's 15 HP. If they win initiative, they barely win in the 3rd round but still lose on average more than half their number; if the ogre has only a few more HP then on average they still lose when they win initiative.

"But what if it's an ogre mage?" I think morale is on the ogre's side.

Quote from: rawma;1118133Stop spouting nonsense. Have hirelings or don't; decide based on whatever information you get about the world. Accept the consequences whatever you do. I'm not the one claiming you have to do either or claiming that anyone who plays differently than me is making bad decisions.

Take a look at what you wrote about DMs that care about gear. You insist that they are just out to screw you anyways (as opposed to just being willing to let you screw yourself). Those same DMs are likely the ones that will allow you to take hirelings (or to suffer the consequences for not doing so). Perhaps your feelings about being properly equiped and having appropriate hirelings are not the same then?

Quote from: Shasarak;1118117I guess my biggest problem with dragging a group of 0 level guards around with you is that if they trigger a Wandering Monster Encounter then they are basically fucked.

I found that one house rule dealt with this: shield walls. If at least 3 N/PCs are supervised by a fighter of 1+HD, they can form a shield wall, giving +1 to AC for each person beside you, up to +2.

It doesn't sound like much, but it actually makes a significant difference in play, especially if you have them all in chain mail or better. Obviously when someone threatening approaches and/or one of them falls, morale will be key. And that's why in play we ensured good food and equipment, rotating through combat duties, and generous remuneration, as I noted above.

Shield walls also provide an explanation for why humanoids haven't overrun human settlements. The village militia with a 1st level "veteran" can hold off at least small attacks.

As well, in AD&D1e at least, multiple attacks are quite dangerous - something will eventually hit the thing.

Quote from: rawmaBows, yes; but if they start off at close range -

The intelligent player will endeavour to not start at close range with an ogre. That's tactics, which is part of the challenge of the game.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1118138Shield walls also provide an explanation for why humanoids haven't overrun human settlements. The village militia with a 1st level "veteran" can hold off at least small attacks.

Couldn't humanoids, particularly hobgoblins, utilize shield walls against humans?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1118138The intelligent player will endeavour to not start at close range with an ogre. That's tactics, which is part of the challenge of the game.

Well that is the point, the NPCs are not players, they dont have a militia to call up, they may or may not even have a Fighter of 1+HD to organise themselves and failing moral checks is a thing even with a shield wall.

Best case the Players can keep the DM busy enough that he forgets about the NPCs waiting up top.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1118139Couldn't humanoids, particularly hobgoblins, utilize shield walls against humans?

That'd be up to the DM. In my games I've said it's something humans only can organise. There will occasionally be humanoid armies led by humans who might have trained them to do it, the classic "necromancer in the woods" and all that. But in general, no. It's just not in their nature.

There's an argument for allowing it for the lawful races including some of the humanoids, but then you'd get into arguing about PC chaotic good rangers leading groups and all that and I couldn't be bothered with it.

Then there's this:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

Basically I've always imagined humanoids as r-selected species, having lots and lots of offspring and not caring for them much, whereas humans are K-selected species, having few but caring for them. Only K-selected species bother with tactics other than "swarm", since the point of tactics is to ensure that you minimise your casualties while maximising the foe's.

R-selected species would in reality tend not to develop intelligence and societies, but given a magical world we can handwave that, and just take from it that orcs et al don't place a high value on individual humanoid lives, so don't bother much with tactics - unless they have a human(ish) leader.

This matches much fantasy literature, so for example King Theoden falls in battle and his men fight on, but Sauron dies and the orcish armies were now utterly unco-ordinated and easily defeated. Adventuring parties will not often engage in battles of such scale, but we can easily imagine the sort of scale PCs might deal with: a band of 30 orcs led by a human magic-user of 5th level or so and his 3rd level fighter henchman, they fight in a solid 3 ranks with shield walls, and when the magic-user and fighter are slain, the orc's shield wall crumbles, it's every orc for himself, and they now only fight as individuals and are quickly overwhelmed.

If you want humanoids to use shield walls, they can. But that'll give a different feel to what I describe. Humans will prevail because they stand together - in the shield wall!

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1118142That'd be up to the DM. In my games I've said it's something humans only can organise. There will occasionally be humanoid armies led by humans who might have trained them to do it, the classic "necromancer in the woods" and all that. But in general, no. It's just not in their nature.

There's an argument for allowing it for the lawful races including some of the humanoids, but then you'd get into arguing about PC chaotic good rangers leading groups and all that and I couldn't be bothered with it.

Then there's this:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

Basically I've always imagined humanoids as r-selected species, having lots and lots of offspring and not caring for them much, whereas humans are K-selected species, having few but caring for them. Only K-selected species bother with tactics other than "swarm", since the point of tactics is to ensure that you minimise your casualties while maximising the foe's.

R-selected species would in reality tend not to develop intelligence and societies, but given a magical world we can handwave that, and just take from it that orcs et al don't place a high value on individual humanoid lives, so don't bother much with tactics - unless they have a human(ish) leader.

This matches much fantasy literature, so for example King Theoden falls in battle and his men fight on, but Sauron dies and the orcish armies were now utterly unco-ordinated and easily defeated. Adventuring parties will not often engage in battles of such scale, but we can easily imagine the sort of scale PCs might deal with: a band of 30 orcs led by a human magic-user of 5th level or so and his 3rd level fighter henchman, they fight in a solid 3 ranks with shield walls, and when the magic-user and fighter are slain, the orc's shield wall crumbles, it's every orc for himself, and they now only fight as individuals and are quickly overwhelmed.

If you want humanoids to use shield walls, they can. But that'll give a different feel to what I describe. Humans will prevail because they stand together - in the shield wall!

Interesting approach. It's not one I'd necessarily use--I like to differentiate the various humanoids from one another, so a blanket "all humanoids do x" wouldn't fit my world--but at least you put some thought into it.

As for those CG rangers, their alignment was already enough of an issue for dinging troop morale (worse than LE IIRC).

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1118142This matches much fantasy literature, so for example King Theoden falls in battle and his men fight on, but Sauron dies and the orcish armies were now utterly unco-ordinated and easily defeated. Adventuring parties will not often engage in battles of such scale, but we can easily imagine the sort of scale PCs might deal with: a band of 30 orcs led by a human magic-user of 5th level or so and his 3rd level fighter henchman, they fight in a solid 3 ranks with shield walls, and when the magic-user and fighter are slain, the orc's shield wall crumbles, it's every orc for himself, and they now only fight as individuals and are quickly overwhelmed.

If you want humanoids to use shield walls, they can. But that'll give a different feel to what I describe. Humans will prevail because they stand together - in the shield wall!

I like how you think but then, I like logical worlds even if they have access to magic.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1118143Interesting approach. It's not one I'd necessarily use--I like to differentiate the various humanoids from one another, so a blanket "all humanoids do x" wouldn't fit my world--but at least you put some thought into it.

There are other ways they can be different. Consider: how do they reproduce, how do they eat? The answers to those two questions will change a lot of other things.

For example: let's say kobolds breed by laying and hatching eggs. This means they need a nest they can't abandon when foes show up, and will fiercely defend. So they have to be near a source of food, and/or grow their own. If they are hunter-gatherers then they may clash with whoever else is hunting and gathering in the area. If they grow their own then they have to be in one place past their breeding season. Now how long is their breeding season, and how long do the eggs take to hatch? A month? A year? etc. You get a band of kobolds settling down in one place, at least for a while. The local human village will care about this, the king won't - unless the place the kobolds are is near a main trading road, or silver mine, or... if they hunt, how? Slings? Massive traps for herbivores to fall into? Whatever they use against animals they will use against humans who come to smack them over.

Now you get orcs and might say that they breed like humans, but are culturally incapable of settled agriculture, they're nomadic. Now you get wandering bands of orcs, staying in one place only long enough to loot and burn it to the ground. The small village might just give a tribute to the local orc chieftain to save themselves the burning, but since that leaves nothing to give in tribute for the king, the king will care a lot about this. Where do they get the iron for their weapons? Do they make their own or is everything stolen? If it's all stolen, the orcs will use whatever the locals use - so the orcs of East Hangnail might be different to those of West Hangnail.

There are many possible differences apart from whether they use shield walls.

My kobolds like to think they are related to dragons, so they try to mimic dragon-like behaviors. Unfortunately for them, their mental state makes a mess of it, sometimes literally. The dragon-like drive to amass a hoard of wealth instead manifests in kobolds as a pathological obsession to hoard everything. Yep, kobold dens are twisting tunnels filled with hoarder piles, and some of their traps are just a result of this accumulation of junk.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1118142Then there's this:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

Basically I've always imagined humanoids as r-selected species, having lots and lots of offspring and not caring for them much, whereas humans are K-selected species, having few but caring for them. Only K-selected species bother with tactics other than "swarm", since the point of tactics is to ensure that you minimise your casualties while maximising the foe's.

R-selected species would in reality tend not to develop intelligence and societies.

That is really interesting and explains many of the differences between a number of real world human cultures except that the R-selected human cultures do of course have intelligence and societies, they just do not value anything about the individual or even have the concept of personal freedom.

Yes it's not either/or, and we can argue about cause and effect. But we do know that societies with large numbers of younger people have more tumult, and that societies with high infant mortality also have high fertility. As late as 1920 or so Winston Churchill wrote to a friend who was getting married that he should have four children, "one for the mother, one for the father, one for growth and one for accidents." It had been a century at least since the UK had had a 25% infant mortality rate, but there was still that mindset.

You can either have a lot of children and not invest much in each, or have a few children and invest a lot in each one. A high infant mortality will encourage the first, a low infant mortality, educated women and so on the second. You are not going to have one child and spend thousands of... er, gold pieces on tutoring and musical instruments and sports if there's a 25% chance they'll die before 5yo.

Traditionally fantasy humanoid societies are presented as the first. Of course it needn't be so in your game world. But if it is, that lets the players hack through them with callous glee. I'm in favour of that.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1118165My kobolds like to think they are related to dragons, so they try to mimic dragon-like behaviors. Unfortunately for them, their mental state makes a mess of it, sometimes literally. The dragon-like drive to amass a hoard of wealth instead manifests in kobolds as a pathological obsession to hoard everything. Yep, kobold dens are twisting tunnels filled with hoarder piles, and some of their traps are just a result of this accumulation of junk.

This is awesome. Stealing this! :D

Oh yes, of course! It is tradition in my campaigns for the players to bring on at minimum one to two regular hirelings, comrades, or henchmen (and surprisingly often, unwilling "companions"...). Usually one of them ends up becoming a fan favorite of the group, and they then insist on dragging them everywhere regardless whether they belong there or not. :eek: I have had several campaigns where there was more or less a whole caravan; a cartographer, an animal handler, a couple of laborers/monster bait, quartermaster, and etc. My players seem to get infatuated with these types of things. I have had at least 3 campaigns that eventually became based around creating thriving organizations and handling them and/or using strategy and intelligence to orchestrate large military forces; I have had recent talk with one player who wants to play a pulpy 007-type game in a previous campaign setting, revolving around a "retired" spymaster running an intelligence agency (and being a legendary spy himself, of course, coming out of 'retirement' and jumping into the fray as well!). :p

I do use loyalty checks and similar, and allegiances can improve or fail depending on how the relationship develops (perhaps they aren't getting paid enough, perhaps they've been dangled in a hole one too many times, perhaps the players didn't bury his buddy before gleefully stripping the corpse and leaving it behind...)

To be totally honest I don't think any of my campaigns would have entertained the players or myself as much had hirelings and similar hangers-on had not been included or allowed for. Not that I have forced the issue where players were not inclined; it is their freedom of choice, after all, that is the true joy of roleplaying!

Quote from: SHARK;1117897I apply morale penalties for poor and/or shitty food. In addition, for having consistently good food, the party gains frequent small bonuses, and avoids penalties. In addition, at certain times, they can gain Advantage as a morale booster lasting all day.

Imagine traveling through the harsh wilderness for two or three weeks, eating MRE's. Then, being woken up one morning and told by Gunny that fresh eggs and bacon is cooking on the grill, men!

The shift in morale is tangible, like watching electricity bounce from man to man, instantly lifting their spirits, and making them bold for a new day of challenges.

I worked for many years in forestry camps, and other than wage there was no other factor more important to camp workers than who the cook was going to be. The best cooks attracted eager followers, and many workers would pursue those cooks from one contract to another. Applying this phenomenon to a morale mechanic is spot on.

Quote from: Zalman;1118255I worked for many years in forestry camps, and other than wage there was no other factor more important to camp workers than who the cook was going to be. The best cooks attracted eager followers, and many workers would pursue those cooks from one contract to another. Applying this phenomenon to a morale mechanic is spot on.

And don't forget coffee, or whatever the game world equivalent is. :p

Quote from: Zalman;1118255I worked for many years in forestry camps, and other than wage there was no other factor more important to camp workers than who the cook was going to be. The best cooks attracted eager followers, and many workers would pursue those cooks from one contract to another. Applying this phenomenon to a morale mechanic is spot on.

Greetings!

Thank you, Zalman! I'm glad that you like my idea. Indeed, your own story of working with foresters and workers is very interesting! I love it! I have always thought it was funny how struggle and privation really brings out the important things in life! Pay and food...amazing how those are absolutely crucial. Housing, beds, showers even, many other conveniences, no, no, those fall away. Pay and food is what we are really willing to sweat and suffer for.:D I have also noticed how critical those are to maintaining loyalty and discipline, in the military for example. Jack with the troop's pay and their food, and watch the *real* discipline problems grow!

Your work in the forests sounds strangely fun, Zalman. Maybe I'm just weird and like suffering, *laughs*--but your work sounds very cool. There's something exhilarating about working hard in the wilderness, suffering far from the comforts of civilization.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Greentongue;1118273And don't forget coffee, or whatever the game world equivalent is. :p

Greetings!

That's right, Greentongue! Gotta have coffee!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1118276Greetings!Your work in the forests sounds strangely fun, Zalman. Maybe I'm just weird and like suffering, *laughs*--but your work sounds very cool. There's something exhilarating about working hard in the wilderness, suffering far from the comforts of civilization.

Haha, yes totally, I have the same masochistic streak that way. Backbreaking, filthy, utterly remote, bug-ridden, bear-infested work. I love it.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1118137Take a look at what you wrote about DMs that care about gear. You insist that they are just out to screw you anyways (as opposed to just being willing to let you screw yourself). Those same DMs are likely the ones that will allow you to take hirelings (or to suffer the consequences for not doing so). Perhaps your feelings about being properly equiped and having appropriate hirelings are not the same then?

Hmm, assume you're talking about this post, or maybe the follow-up after Spinachcat explicitly promised to eat a party that was equipped. I don't think that GMs are always out to screw you, but if you're poking everything with a 10-foot pole it's probably to avoid being screwed. Unless you always poke things with a 10-foot pole in real life?

Quote from: rawma;1117885The poke everything with a 10 foot pole convention is just silly; you waste a lot of time poking things, and if the GM wants to screw you because you didn't poke things then they're the sort of GM who will screw you anyway.

I'll grant you that there may be some GMs who demand the 10-foot pole dance, delivering consequences if you won't dance, but not seeking other avenues and excuses to deliver consequences if you dance. My original hyperbole is exposed! Understand what the GM expects and you'll be OK, if that's the kind of game you like, which is pretty much my opinion on hirelings.

I don't like hirelings in my game partly because it doesn't seem reasonable for the game world I prefer and partly because it distorts the game I want to play; I have no objection to being well equipped, because neither of those conditions apply, but both apply to the 10-foot pole dance. If you're bothered by my approval of your playing, well, there's an ignore list. Or just hide under your bed.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1118138The intelligent player will endeavour to not start at close range with an ogre. That's tactics, which is part of the challenge of the game.

Meet a wandering ogre in a dungeon in OD&D and the distance is randomly determined as 20 to 80 feet, which an ogre can move in one round; less if you meet from coming through a door or are surprised. Depending on the dungeon, there may not be many places where you can take repeated advantage of ranged attacks; but, yes, if you're outside then there's a good chance that reasonable scouting will spot the ogre far enough away to give bowmen the decisive advantage.

Quote from: rawma;1118521Hmm, assume you're talking about this post, or maybe the follow-up after Spinachcat explicitly promised to eat a party that was equipped. I don't think that GMs are always out to screw you, but if you're poking everything with a 10-foot pole it's probably to avoid being screwed. Unless you always poke things with a 10-foot pole in real life?


I'll grant you that there may be some GMs who demand the 10-foot pole dance, delivering consequences if you won't dance, but not seeking other avenues and excuses to deliver consequences if you dance. My original hyperbole is exposed! Understand what the GM expects and you'll be OK, if that's the kind of game you like, which is pretty much my opinion on hirelings.

I don't like hirelings in my game partly because it doesn't seem reasonable for the game world I prefer and partly because it distorts the game I want to play; I have no objection to being well equipped, because neither of those conditions apply, but both apply to the 10-foot pole dance. If you're bothered by my approval of your playing, well, there's an ignore list. Or just hide under your bed.



Meet a wandering ogre in a dungeon in OD&D and the distance is randomly determined as 20 to 80 feet, which an ogre can move in one round; less if you meet from coming through a door or are surprised. Depending on the dungeon, there may not be many places where you can take repeated advantage of ranged attacks; but, yes, if you're outside then there's a good chance that reasonable scouting will spot the ogre far enough away to give bowmen the decisive advantage.

You were doing so good at delivering a reasonable reply... and then you had to devolve into insults. I'd really rather not ignore you, so I'd kindly ask you stick to the discussions without trying to take ineffective cheap shots.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1118527You were doing so good at delivering a reasonable reply... and then you had to devolve into insults. I'd really rather not ignore you, so I'd kindly ask you stick to the discussions without trying to take ineffective cheap shots.

Greetings!

*laughs* Ah, HappyDaze! I love your cheerful sense of optimism!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: rawma;1118521Meet a wandering ogre in a dungeon in OD&D and the distance is randomly determined as 20 to 80 feet, which an ogre can move in one round

And as well as ranged attacks, the intelligent player will try to parley, flee or distract as appropriate. Reaction rolls should be made - maybe the creature doesn't want to fight, and even if it does, after you talk and bargain, maybe it doesn't then. You can do a fighting retreat, and spike doors shut, drop caltrops and magical traps to slow it down while you pull back to either not fight at all, or at least to fight on ground of your choosing (for example, back to the stockade with resting men-at-arms I mentioned earlier). There is a chance intelligent creatures will stop to pick up any dropped treasure, and unintelligent creatures any dropped food. And you could do enough damage to him in the first round or two to make him suddenly recall an urgent appointment elsewhere - most living things don't want to die, which is of course what makes the undead, robots etc so frightening.

The last pages of the AD&D1e PHB had the useful advice: avoid unnecessary encounters. This meant wandering monsters, since they carry no treasure, and any encounter which was not a direct obstacle between you and your goal. In computer game terms, if you can you should go straight to the boss fight!

You can't avoid them all, but you can minimise unnecessary encounters, and if you do have them, often you can avoid the actual combat, or move to better ground.

D&D has its roots in wargames, many of the original players came to it with that background - and that mentality. If you've grown up playing computer games where everyone you meet is either a trader, a quest-giver or an implacable foe who will attack you on sight and fight to the last man and his own death, or else just mindless characters who wander about mouthing the same lines for all eternity - if that's your background, then a lot of stuff in the older editions of D&D and how it's played won't make sense to you.

Tactics go beyond calculating average hit points damage per combat round.

Knowing background of the game and running that way changes play.
As you point out, many games are run as paper computer games.
This really changes how the game is played even using the same rules.

Researching the requirements for meeting the quest goal and picking a team to accomplish that goal is wise.

Maybe more likely in a West Marches style game?

There is of course the little situation of wanting to hire/acquire some help.  But lacking the funds. Or botching alot of interviews. As in BX for example that can have a cascade effect.

I miss the old days when you just needed a torch bearer and some porters, now you've gotta bring a enviromental assessor, anthropologist, lawyer and a tax accountant.

Quote from: David Johansen;1118808I miss the old days when you just needed a torch bearer and some porters, now you've gotta bring a enviromental assessor, anthropologist, lawyer and a tax accountant.

Hey, that last one is a serious asset!

Quote from: David Johansen;1118808I miss the old days when you just needed a torch bearer and some porters, now you've gotta bring a enviromental assessor, anthropologist, lawyer and a tax accountant.

Nah, thats Call of Cthulhu. :cool:

Isn't everything?

Quote from: David Johansen;1118808I miss the old days when you just needed a torch bearer and some porters, now you've gotta bring a enviromental assessor, anthropologist, lawyer and a tax accountant.

Regulations!

Quote from: David Johansen;1118808I miss the old days when you just needed a torch bearer and some porters, now you've gotta bring a enviromental assessor, anthropologist, lawyer and a tax accountant.

Hahah! You win, man.