OD&D example of play

[Mark]

In the play example in the 1e DMG, there is no caller, but there is a leader, who acts much like a caller. He makes all the minor decisions - movement and searching. The other players get to speak quite a bit though. Another player seems to take the lead in the water room with the blind fish, where the leader is quite disinterested at first, and then a different player, the gnome character's, takes more of a lead in the room with the secret door.

I'm familiar. I think both are accurate descriptions of how it played out at the table at various times. I recall some marathon sessions where whoever could keep most awake was stuck being "caller" in the late hours.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But probably the best bit is -
DM: "Black Dougal gasps 'Poison!' and falls to the floor. He looks dead."
Fredrik: "I'm grabbing his pack to carry treasure in."

Cold mang, real cold.

At least Sister Rebecca gives him the last rites of her church.

What goes around comes around. (the example continues in the combat section). Fredrik getts Bobba-Fetted by a hobgoblin!

We had two callers during an out of control session of AD&D at our gaming club a long time ago. There was one poor DM and 16 players all at the same session. Each group had a caller to somewhat limit the insanity.

Right after that session , I volunteered to start a new campaign for half of the group.

 

[Reynard]

One of these days, I'd like to record a portion of my regular group playing through a dungeon and write it up as an "example of play". Hindsight would be interesting on that score, I think.

 

[Chainsaw]

One of these days, I'd like to record a portion of my regular group playing through a dungeon and write it up as an "example of play". Hindsight would be interesting on that score, I think.

Haha! Probably at least 25% of my group's transcript would get converted into ...

 

[Beginning of the End]

Of course, it was also expected that you were running around with tons of henchmen and hirelings; no one did that either, which is why 2e and later editions completely ignored it.

Or was it the other way 'round? I mean, obviously there are people like you who always ignored the hireling rules. But a group of people I play 3.5 with regularly recently picked up the 1974 edition for a test run. People saw the prominent rules for hirelings, glommed onto them, and started hiring people. (Despite never doing anything like that in our 3.5 game.)

Intriguingly, many memorable characters have emerged from our pool of hirelings. There was the guy who had been cursed with two hearts by a witch whose love he'd spurned; Wheezy the Dwarf (for the voice the player employed in playing him); and Rowdy (who recently became the captain of the guard in Winterhaven during our OD&D play-thru of a converted Keep on the Shadowfell).

 

[the Jester]

Yeah, the party in my 4e game- which is at about 8th level- has hired a small army, though they really only take one guy with them on adventures... at this point.

 

[Hussar]

Funnily enough, hiring troopies is a habit I've never kicked, but, I can almost never convince any group I've played in to go along with. Including GM's. I love the idea of having bearers, if nothing else, to cart around our crap. Someone to watch the horses, stand guard, set up the tents, whatever.

Yet, almost without fail, every group I've played in beyond about 1985 has 100% vetoed this idea.

Never understood why.

 

[Glyfair]

Never understood why.

If you read KotDT, you can see an example of why some groups avoid hirelings like the plague. In one style of play, that was somewhat common at one time, if you had hirelings you could be sure they were going to mess with the party. Leaving them with treasure/horses/etc. was only marginally safer than leaving them with the monsters.

 

[Odhanan]

If you read KotDT, you can see an example of why some groups avoid hirelings like the plague. In one style of play, that was somewhat common at one time, if you had hirelings you could be sure they were going to mess with the party. Leaving them with treasure/horses/etc. was only marginally safer than leaving them with the monsters.

Or the henchmen and hirelings invariably got killed during the first session, which in the end made them both a waste of time and money on the PCs part. Alternately, they annoyed DMs when players kept using hirelings and henchmen as automatic trap detection devices and fodder in fights.

This is a result of crappy playing and DMing.

I love using henchmen and hirelings, personally. They're great for players and DMs alike. They really provide an additional dimension to the game, and they are an integral part of its development, in my opinion. Playing without them is missing on a part of the fun the game provides, to me.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Or the henchmen and hirelings invariably got killed during the first session, which in the end made them both a waste of time and money on the PCs part. Alternately, they annoyed DMs when players kept using hirelings and henchmen as automatic trap detection devices and fodder in fights.

I don't think I've ever played the "your hireling betrayed you" gimmick (although I theoretically might if someone's morale rolls were poor).

As a DM I usually allow players free reign with their hirelings, but I do maintain a "veto" button if I feel the hirelings are being treated like automata. (i.e., "automatic trap detection devices") Basically, hirelings are shared property in the game world.