I'm looking at starting a new campaign with a relatively low number of players (1 or 2) at the most. It will either be DCC or 5e but in doing a bit of prep, I decided it is almost certain that the player(s) are going to need henchmen.

I have not run a campaign where henchmen were needed or used in a long time but looking back to when we used to, I think we did things weird....

The henchman would be hired by the player and was usually a level 1 fighter. The player would give commands and generally decide what the henchman did in and out of combat but there was also an amount of GM control over the henchman. We used the morale rules and the GM would give the henchman a name and sometimes even a bit of background.

And if in the GM's opinion things started to get outside the norms of what the henchmen considered "safe employment" there could very well be a GM imposed "screw you guys, I'm going home" moment with the henchman. And I don't even mean suicidal job duties.

Also because the henchmen had backgrounds in the campaign world, sometimes they were called on for information or social interaction with other NPCs. This was almost always controlled by the GM as to what the henchman could divulge or glean from a situation.

Reading most of the updated rules on henchmen I have now, it appears they are just cannon fodder for the player to do as they wish. Probably named: "Bob 1", "Bob 2", "Bob 3"....

So I'm looking for opinions, how much GM control do you have in your games over henchmen?

Do the henchmen ever get developed into fuller NPCs?

What do you when your player wants to hire a henchmen that might be a member of the arcane or divine classes? Do you allow it? Who picks the spells, etc. for them daily?

Thanks for the advice.

Players control henchmen, with DM override only if the players are doing something not in the best interests of the henchmen.

Mostly the players can run henchmen as they like, but the GM can "ghost" in if he needs.  Morale checks are the biggest reason to do so, but sometimes the GM knows something the player doesn't, and that's reason enough too.

Too, henchmen aren't idiots.  "My henchman takes point, my henchman walks ahead to check for traps, my henchman opens the chest while we all stand back..." that's a morale check at best, probably a departure, maybe a betrayal.  It's not actually common with good players, but I've noticed that once they start going down that path, a group is likely to stick with it.

I assume that 1st level classed characters won't serve other 1st level characters as henchmen, so starting characters are limited to 0th level "normal men."  I'm not sure how DCC handles that.  5E I think stats "acolytes" and "squires" as non-classed characters, which is handy.

After 1st level you can recruit classed henchmen.  I typically assume that fighters are more common than thieves, who are more common than clerics, who are more common than mages.  I'll work up a chart or a list if I know its needed, and that's who is available to hire.  So there's no picking exact feats or class combos, just hiring who you can.  Conceivably, traveling to a temple or wizard's tower could let you recruit acolytes or apprentices if you can't find any in a village, but that's not something I spell out.

Clerics can be henchmen, but they're typically only going to serve someone who is a member or champion of their religion.  That pushes their availability down where mages are by raw numbers.

I've played it both says. Sometimes a henchman is affiliated with a particular PC, and so that player runs him. Sometimes, he's more a party henchman and I run him. In any case, I can and will override any stupid actions or suggestions for henchmen.

No one plays the henchmen and hirelings. Or everyone does.

Keep in mind that "Non-Player Character" originally only applied to henchmen and hirelings, not to human or humanoid characters run by the GM. those were monsters. NPCs, in contrast, are "non-player" characters because they aren't played by anyone in paticular; they are shared between the players and the GM. That's what Loyalty is for: the NPCs do what the player says unless their loyalty and/or morale roles say otherwise.

Henchmen, though, can be upgraded temporarily to PC status if a player's character has downtime. Morale and loyalty doesn't apply then. For OD&D, there's a hint of an example in the section on inheritance: a player whose character is lost in a dungeon can roll up an heir and take over the first character's stash left in town, but if the first character is brought back in some way, the heir becomes an NPC and may resent the return of the first character.

In our AD&D game, henchmen are divided up amongst all the players.  If a player happens to have a character taken out, or even killed in combat, that player then takes over a henchman until they come around or their new character is rolled.

I generally let the player control his henchman, with the understanding that I (as DM) can override those directions at any time.

I've always liked and used henchmen/hirelings in games I've run... even just having wannabe followers and hangers-on like Kikuchiyo in The Seven Samurai... or 'paparazzi' who follow the famous heroes around hoping for a tall tale to tell.
If there are players at the table who seem up for it I'll hand them over... otherwise I'll play them myself. The strict rules is that they're NOT to be used as 'cannon fodder' or to check for traps or as bait (well, sometimes as bait...).
It's easy enough to set up something like a 'porters guild' that will supply consequences if the party is suspected of abusing them.

I've noticed that all the GMs I've played with over the past several years have shied away from hirelings, "You can't find anyone who wants to hire on"... even actively discouraging them. Maybe because it's more work for them... but it seems like something more, like having them will make us too powerful.

I ask the player. If they don't want to play the guy, the player determines his actions when adventuring, but roleplaying the character during downtime is up to me.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;801740I generally let the player control his henchman, with the understanding that I (as DM) can override those directions at any time.

Pretty much.  "I'm not stupid, I'm not expendable, and I'm not going!"

Quote from: Simlasa;801741I've noticed that all the GMs I've played with over the past several years have shied away from hirelings, "You can't find anyone who wants to hire on"... even actively discouraging them. Maybe because it's more work for them... but it seems like something more, like having them will make us too powerful.

I think generally there's been a greater portion of folks playing RPGs with a mindset of 'RPGs are emulating action movies/novels,' and in most fantasy stories there isn't 'and then we hire a bunch of redshirts to throw at problems.'

3e and other systems are designed more toward that mode of play.

In an 'adventure fiction' style of play, trying to get the GM to let you hire a bunch of thugs smacks of fucking with the campaign, rather than being clever, and that may explain some of the static folks might get for attempting it.

(to which the answer is, as usual, communicate expectations and work out ground rules for the campaign everyone is happy with)

Quote from: Old Geezer;801745Pretty much.  "I'm not stupid, I'm not expendable, and I'm not going!"

He wasn't a henchman!

Hehe heh. Love that guy.

I always role-play the henchmen, and let the players make their dice rolls.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;801740I generally let the player control his henchman, with the understanding that I (as DM) can override those directions at any time.

Usually I do this. It's the simplest solution and it creates the least work for the GM.

As an alternate, if it seems more interesting or likely that there should be some conflict or tension between henchman and boss or if we think it would be more fun and interesting to actually be able to have conversations beween the henchman and the boss (without Player A talking to herself) then the henchman is run by the GM or by another player. Something like Player A runs the henchman for Player B, Player B runs the henchman for Player C, and Player C runs the henchman for Player A works well in this case.

I always ran them out of combat as a GM and let the Player run them in combat when I had enough to worry about. If they started doing stupid, overly risky things with them once out of combat I had control which may mean a consequence for how they were run in combat. I seldom ran Morale rules but it was a factor I just stuck with common sense and the personality of the henchmen.

In a 1-2 player game I would probably lean toward players running 2 characters if that was at all possible.