TheRPGSite

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.

I've actually never had a player try to hire henchmen. They invariably try to recruit NPCs for free and that means Im running them.

As a player I have never had a reason or chance to pick up any henchmen. I have though acquired NPCs.

Ive never seen them in use at convention sessions either. The occasional NPC. but never any henchmen.

Quote from: Will;8017463e and other systems are designed more toward that mode of play.

Yeah I'm not thinking 3e, or playing it, I'm more of mind of Call of Cthulhu... if motif is about expeditions into remote places it makes sense to hire a bunch of guys to carry stuff, care for the horses... or bodyguards when going down to the bad parts of the docks to question some guys.
That way you can have the craven toadie who sells out the party to the local cultists or tries to steal the golden idol not realizing there is a curse on it.
 
Loads of examples of such things in books and movies.

I prefer to treat hirelings and henchmen as player controlled resources, with the proviso that I'll step in if something ridiculous or unusual comes up. I find this approach encourages players to think beyond the combat powers, spells, items etc. that their PC possesses and take more control of their environment, plans, etc. A player who is directing a gang of thieves is much more involved in the setting and more actively directing the campaign than one who just has their singular killer character.

Simlasa: A good way to sell it might be referencing The Mummy...

Quote from: Will;801770Simlasa: A good way to sell it might be referencing The Mummy...

That's what I was thinking of when I mentioned "the craven toadie who sells out the party to the local cultists"... the other guy is from Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Quote from: Omega;801765I've actually never had a player try to hire henchmen. They invariably try to recruit NPCs for free and that means Im running them.

As a player I have never had a reason or chance to pick up any henchmen. I have though acquired NPCs.

Ive never seen them in use at convention sessions either. The occasional NPC. but never any henchmen.

..."free?"  What is this "free" of which you speak?

Quote from: Old Geezer;801783..."free?"  What is this "free" of which you speak?

Hopefully "free" means they're demanding shares.

There is a certain player type that's got to bargain over everything, though.  

GM:  The men at the bar demand 10 gold on departure and 10 gold on return to enter the dungeon with you.
PC:  I offer them 10 gold flat!  That's real money!
GM:  If you want them to fight, you'll have to buy them arms and armor.
PC:  We'll buy them leather armor and a spear, but we keep the leather and the spear at the end.
GM:  There's 11 guys [twice our number] with crossbows leveled at you.  They demand...  50 gold pieces to let you pass!
PC1:  I offer them 25!
PC2:  No!  We'll pay them nothing, if they depart now!
Me:   I apologize for my idiot friends and pay the 50 out of pocket.

I guess its actually a useful brake on overusing henchmen if you're the GM.  Its frustrating as hell when you're a fellow player though.  I still haven't figured out if these guys genuinely thought they were playing smart, or if they had a streak of "roleplaying means doing stupid wacky crap" in them.

Quote from: Bren;801754Usually 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.

This is how we ended up handling troupe-style in Ars Magica: every one had their own wizard, but everyone's companion was linked to another player's wizard, and all of the grogs were communal property (with the exception that individual shield grogs wouldn't be played by the shielded wizard's player). We moved to this after learning the hard way that RPing three-way conversations was not a lot of fun for individual players. (E.g., I played my Scots hedge wizard, his herbalist common-law wife, and their adopted changeling child, and other players had similar set-ups initially).

Quote from: Saladman;801787Hopefully "free" means they're demanding shares.

There is a certain player type that's got to bargain over everything, though.  

GM:  The men at the bar demand 10 gold on departure and 10 gold on return to enter the dungeon with you.
PC:  I offer them 10 gold flat!  That's real money!
GM:  If you want them to fight, you'll have to buy them arms and armor.
PC:  We'll buy them leather armor and a spear, but we keep the leather and the spear at the end.
GM:  There's 11 guys [twice our number] with crossbows leveled at you.  They demand...  50 gold pieces to let you pass!
PC1:  I offer them 25!
PC2:  No!  We'll pay them nothing, if they depart now!
Me:   I apologize for my idiot friends and pay the 50 out of pocket.

I guess its actually a useful brake on overusing henchmen if you're the GM.  Its frustrating as hell when you're a fellow player though.  I still haven't figured out if these guys genuinely thought they were playing smart, or if they had a streak of "roleplaying means doing stupid wacky crap" in them.

Example 1:  "They say 'Piss off, you manky bugger' and go back to their drinking.

Example 2:  "They waste you with their crossbows."

I don't know why some players seem to think that either stupid is OK or they can do anything they want.

I had a group surprised by archers, and I specified that they had their bows drawn.  The first level magic user said "I'm going to throw a sleep spell" and got pissed when he got feathered with arrows.

Quote from: Old Geezer;801801I had a group surprised by archers, and I specified that they had their bows drawn.  The first level magic user said "I'm going to throw a sleep spell" and got pissed when he got feathered with arrows.

It's interesting how often characters in film and story either stall for time while hoping for an opportune distraction or actively work to create a distraction and how seldom some players do either. The MU could at least have stalled for time until the archers' arms got tired of holding their bows at the draw.

Quote from: Simlasa;801741I'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.

From a DM perspective, for a long time I preferred to have henchmen & hirelings be full NPCs in their own rights, which mean more work, but also gave some additional traction for hooks.  As a player I shied away from hiring any of them unless absolutely necessary. I'm not sure I could say why. Maybe as a player I was worried that the DM's mindset might also like for the to be full NPCs, and that could mean "interesting times."  Yeah, not really sure.

Quote from: Old Geezer;801783..."free?"  What is this "free" of which you speak?

So true. They oft got off with some loot at the end. Or were using the group for some purpose like where I mentioned in an older post, using the adventurers to clear out the dungeon for their own uses. Or as trap detectors, one in a series of such groups.

Thinking back. We actually did use henchmen in our earliest plays of BX.

Early TSR modules tended to give you a good mix of both. Henchmen to hire. Or NPCs who tagged along for their own purposes.

Later modules seem to shift away from that. It was allmost allways later just NPCs tagging along if any and rarely any henchmen up for hire.

Quote from: Old Geezer;801801I don't know why some players seem to think that either stupid is OK or they can do anything they want.

I had a group surprised by archers, and I specified that they had their bows drawn.  The first level magic user said "I'm going to throw a sleep spell" and got pissed when he got feathered with arrows.

I'd modify your entirely accurate observation with "... and they think they're invulnerable to boot."

My enduring choice for the Worst Player Ever To Darken My Door did a very similar thing as his first huge screwup.  So the party's in hill country, and a dozen mounted ruffians are bearing down on them, at the gallop, waving various weapons.  They don't look very welcoming.

So Evan, playing a wizard, confidently tells the group, "Don't worry, I've got this."  The players, most of them raised in a paradigm that when the party wizard says he's got something he likely really does, nod their okays and ready their weapons.  (Me, knowing what spells he has, has no idea what the hell he thinks he can do, but players have surprised me before.)  Evan waits until the bandits are right on top of them ... and throws a Dazzle spell.

For those of you unfamiliar with The Fantasy Trip -- most of you, I imagine -- the effect of the Dazzle spell is to reduce the DX of everything within 15 feet of the caster by three, for three turns, which in TFT lops three off of all physical and combat rolls.  If you port that directly into D&D, say, it has around the same impact.

So, great.  Five of the bandits (how many did he think he was going to get with a 30' diameter circle) are at -3 DX.  That doesn't affect the rest, and it doesn't critically impair the five.  The party did win the engagement, but they got chewed up badly, much more than if they'd taken up a defensive position in the nearby ravine.

Let's just say that my ironclad anti-PvP rule was all that prevented them from slapping the idiot wizard around.

For the most part, I run them.  They're people with minds of their own, not faceless game pieces.

The only times I farm them out to players are when there are a LOT of NPCs, and only in a large-scale melee: I did, for nostalgia's sake, an old-time killer dungeon crawl a couple years back, where the augmented party was encouraged to invite their favorite NPCs.  There were eight of them, and I couldn't possibly handle them all, so I farmed out one each to the players and kept two under my own thumb ... while, as others have said, reserving the right to speak for them and take them over whenever dramatically appropriate.

Quote from: Ravenswing;801837For the most part, I run them.  They're people with minds of their own, not faceless game pieces.

That would always have been my approach, too. Having considered the comments in this thread, though, I may try having players run their own teams and see how it goes.

Seems like anything which can increase player involvement and participation while freeing me to consider other aspects of the game is worth a look!

Quote from: Majus;801840Seems like anything which can increase player involvement and participation while freeing me to consider other aspects of the game is worth a look!

One option is try it out as a temporary change to see if it works with your group. Explicitly tell the players that is what you are doing and tell them what sort of behavior you are looking for e.g. the NPCs are to be run with an appropriate degree of self interest and self preservation, that you as the GM may call for a morale check for certain actions, etc.

In my historical game, which had many more NPC henchmen than PCs, the players ran them in combat, but I "played" them in conversations and other interactions. Unless someone was playing one of their henchmen while their PC was out of action.

Quote from: Bren;801855One option is try it out as a temporary change to see if it works with your group. Explicitly tell the players that is what you are doing and tell them what sort of behavior you are looking for e.g. the NPCs are to be run with an appropriate degree of self interest and self preservation, that you as the GM may call for a morale check for certain actions, etc.

Exactly.  My players are pretty good about how they treat the NPCs... stand beside them in a fight, don't send them off into hopeless situations, heal them, etc.  They treat them as a valuable asset, not expendables.

Quote from: Old Geezer;801883Exactly.  My players are pretty good about how they treat the NPCs... stand beside them in a fight, don't send them off into hopeless situations, heal them, etc.  They treat them as a valuable asset, not expendables.

For some players it helps if the NPCs, in addition to being valuable assets, possess some personality so they are not just Bowman #3 or Spearman #5.

Quote from: Bren;801855One option is try it out as a temporary change to see if it works with your group. Explicitly tell the players that is what you are doing and tell them what sort of behavior you are looking for e.g. the NPCs are to be run with an appropriate degree of self interest and self preservation, that you as the GM may call for a morale check for certain actions, etc.

I like this, I think DCC and the rules for 4e treated the henchmen more as character resources as described up post by someone.

I definitely need to have the players do more of the running of the henchmen.

Often as GM I have played an adventuring NPC or controlled henchmen to help the PCs. Now I've ever gotten lazy or decided the game is better when I concentrate on the action and overall interaction of the game.

OK not trying to derail but the discussion reminded me of a book I used to own.

It was a TSR module size book with nothing but NPC write ups. We used the low level ones for henchmen.

I remember the back of the book had a Stat up of Warduke and some other characters from the toy line.

Anyone remember the name of that book? I know it's probably seen as part of the splat treadmill for any edition but I loved books like that for the utility of it.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;801948OK not trying to derail but the discussion reminded me of a book I used to own.

It was a TSR module size book with nothing but NPC write ups. We used the low level ones for henchmen.

I remember the back of the book had a Stat up of Warduke and some other characters from the toy line.

Anyone remember the name of that book? I know it's probably seen as part of the splat treadmill for any edition but I loved books like that for the utility of it.

AC01: The Shady Dragon Inn. An NPC accessory with an inn floorplans added. Anyone calling it a splatbook deserves to be punched. Just dont tell anyone I said that when you punch them ok? :D

Had stats on a couple of the D&D figure characters actually including Elkhorn the Dwarf, Ringlerun the Wizard, Strongheard the Paladin and his former adventuring buddy Warduke.

Are there any modules written in, oh, say, the last ten years that especially lend themselves to the playstyle of the characters having a good number of henchmen and hirelings with them?

Quote from: ArtemisAlpha;801991Are there any modules written in, oh, say, the last ten years that especially lend themselves to the playstyle of the characters having a good number of henchmen and hirelings with them?

We've found henchmen essential in our ToEE campaign.

Quote from: ArtemisAlpha;801991Are there any modules written in, oh, say, the last ten years that especially lend themselves to the playstyle of the characters having a good number of henchmen and hirelings with them?

Barrowmaze is one.  The dungeon is not scaled to a party of 4 to 5 starting characters.  You need help just to get close to parity.

I'd imagine there's more under the OSR umbrella, but I'm not a big consumer of modules, so I'm not a lot of help.

Quote from: RunningLaser;801996We've found henchmen essential in our ToEE campaign.

A new ToEE was made in the last ten years?

Quote from: Crabbyapples;802044A new ToEE was made in the last ten years?

No, we're playing the old one.  Missed that ten years part:)

And to add- I like the idea playing a game where a large group goes out on a dangerous adventure, and not all make it back.  Reinforces that "dangerous adventure" part.

Quote from: ArtemisAlpha;801991Are there any modules written in, oh, say, the last ten years that especially lend themselves to the playstyle of the characters having a good number of henchmen and hirelings with them?

It'd be a lot easier to list those that didn't, I expect.

Modules that have a large number of lesser opponents are henchmen and hireling friendly.

Barrowmaze (already mentioned) is a good example, because the place has lots of encounters with several low level creatures - skeletons, zombies, giant rats, beetles, and tomb robbers. 4-5 characters would just get swamped

Stonehell Dungeon is another. Maybe the first half of Dwimmermount.

But really, even once your main characters get to high levels, henchmen don't lag behind too much, even with 1/2 the xp.

Like if your PC has 100,000 xp, and your henchman only 50,000, that's basically just 7th level vs 6th level.

Hirelings get kind of useless though, since they stay 1st/0th level

2nd Ed AD&D seems the cut off point for some reason. I cant think of a single module from that era that had any mention of henchmen.

But to be fair. It is very possible that module designers simply assumed that this was stuff outside the module that the DM would handle and so no need to mention it.

Quote from: Omega;801990AC01: The Shady Dragon Inn. An NPC accessory with an inn floorplans added. Anyone calling it a splatbook deserves to be punched. Just dont tell anyone I said that when you punch them ok? :D

Had stats on a couple of the D&D figure characters actually including Elkhorn the Dwarf, Ringlerun the Wizard, Strongheard the Paladin and his former adventuring buddy Warduke.

That is the one! Thank you.

I had totally forgotten about the map of the inn.

If ever I have the money to rebuild some of my old collection I would actually like to find this one again.

Quote from: Bren;801855One option is try it out as a temporary change to see if it works with your group. Explicitly tell the players that is what you are doing and tell them what sort of behavior you are looking for e.g. the NPCs are to be run with an appropriate degree of self interest and self preservation, that you as the GM may call for a morale check for certain actions, etc.

It's very early days in my game, so there aren't really henchmen per se, but I still think I may delegate the tasks of the folks being dragged along by the party. Your advice is very good and I'll bear it in mind, cheers.  :)

Quote from: Majus;802360It's very early days in my game, so there aren't really henchmen per se, but I still think I may delegate the tasks of the folks being dragged along by the party. Your advice is very good and I'll bear it in mind, cheers.  :)

Cool happy to be of help. :)

I've found that most players like running NPCs as long as it doesn't overly distract from game time and energy spent running their PC. Some players really love running NPCs as it gives them more scope for variations in characters. Sometimes players will the NPC to become a PC.

However, I've had a couple of players who really prefer not to run any character except their PC. They would much rather stay in their PC's head and focus on that point of view all the time. In 40 years of gaming I haven't found many players like that, but be aware that they do exist. I'd wait and see if anyone voices a complaint rather than worrying about it ahead of time though.

I was in a SciFi campaign where the GM had each of us make two characters -- a military character, and a scientist character.

That way, when events were more violent, we'd use our first batch of characters, and when matters dwelled more on research and archaeology, we'd use our scientists.

It was a lifepath, Traveller-inspired game, which was a lot of fun -- I got cute about it and made my characters identical twins. One brother took a military path, the other a scholastic one, and it was interesting starting from roughly similar basic stuff and evolving in different directions.

Quote from: Will;802400I was in a SciFi campaign where the GM had each of us make two characters -- a military character, and a scientist character.

That way, when events were more violent, we'd use our first batch of characters, and when matters dwelled more on research and archaeology, we'd use our scientists.

We did something like than in our Star Trek campaign. The players each had a bridge officer, a security officer, and a medical or science officer. Since the game was like the TV shows there was usually an activity off ship needing a Landing Party/Away Team and an activity on the ship usually requiring the bridge crew and/or engineering or sick bay.

Eventually we each ended up with more characters as we added back ups for key positions and otherwise fleshed out the crew. Adding characters was a way of adding new skills sets since we didn't track or use experience. Characters didn't really improve their skills unless they took time off to go back to the Academy for specialist training, OCS, or Advanced courses.

Yeah, thats another thing that seems to have fallen by the wayside.

Players playing more than one character at once.

And aside from Dark Sun and Albedo (P) I cant think of any RPGs that have you make a back-up character right out the gate due to lethality.

I like the way Savage Worlds handles this with 'extras'. The Referee roleplays them out of combat, but the players control them in combat.

Quote from: Weru;802666I like the way Savage Worlds handles this with 'extras'. The Referee roleplays them out of combat, but the players control them in combat.

Same way I handle henchmen.

That's pretty much how I'd handle henchmen, if I ever got the chance to d it again. I love creating henchmen, and offering several to the players to see which ones they click with.

When I was toying with turning M&M into a fantasy game, one idea I had for henchmen (and mounts) was essentially treating them as powers with the chrome of 'you have a guy who does that.'

So, limited superspeed 'while on horse' or whatnot.

In my games I always, always play the henchmen (as GM).  I don't want them to just be a mechanical extension of the PCs; particularly in a fantasy game where a lot of the time (in the wilderness, in the dungeon, etc.) they are the NPCs the group spends by far the most time around.  I want them each to have their qualities and quirks, and while I generally make them loyal (inasmuch as their morale and personality permits) I don't want them necessarily just doing everything the players want them to do in exactly the way the players want it.

Some of the most memorable NPCs of my fantasy campaigns have been (or have started out as) henchmen.

Quote from: Weru;802666I like the way Savage Worlds handles this with 'extras'. The Referee roleplays them out of combat, but the players control them in combat.

For the most part, this is what I've always done, with the exception of situations where the party is getting clobbered in combat or facing overwhelming odds, or where other members of the party run away. In those cases, I use discretionary morale checks, modified by how well the henchman has been treated (and sometimes the CHA bonus of the PC). In the case of failures, the henchmen usually retreat (if possible) or surrender and beg for mercy (if retreat isn't an option), or fight in the most self-defensive manner available if neither retreat or surrender is an option.

Given the personalities at the table, 9 times out of 10, at least one of the PCs will break off and run away well before I call for a henchman morale check.