PDA

View Full Version : Retainers, Bodyguards, Lieutenants, Henchmen, Followers, Servants, Slaves, Troops



Max_Killjoy
2017-04-12, 01:30 PM
I've been musing about retainers and servants (of whatever specific sort) in pre-modern settings.


When are they appropriate to the setting? When do the setting details suggest that the typical PC should have at least one NPC guard or valet or whoever?

When are they absolutely necessary to the setting? When do the setting details demand that the typical PC should have at least one NPC servant, because it would be exceptional or odd for someone in their social role to not have one? Or, alternatively, the PCs would BE the retainers, getting their hands dirty and putting their lives on the line for their "betters".

How important are retainers in these specific settings/games to maintaining the "authenticity" and "feel"?

How should they be handled in gameplay and mechanical terms? This is the potential counter-weight to the above considerations because of the added overhead and potential complications. How detailed should retainers be? How are they mechanically represented -- potentially as groups/minions? Who ultimately controls them, the player or the GM? Who "roleplays" them as individuals?

If a GM or setting-builder wanted to avoid the complications, without erasing this cultural element entirely from the setting, what sort of special considerations could be incorporated to allow PCs to avoid the expectations without compromising their social standing.


Big thanks to Kiero for the two posts that inspired this musing.



I'm jumping around here, but you've touched on something else I think people often overlook or don't appreciate when talking about pre-20th century societies in Europe: social class and how fundamental it was to the way you lived. In particular the role of servants, valets, apprentices and other social lessers who made the status of someone of higher status. If you didn't have at least a valet, you weren't a gentleman, because gentlemen didn't dirty their hands with base transactions like doing their own shopping. If you were a commoner, you didn't just walk up to a nobleman in the street and start a conversation with them, you approached one of their servants. Even as late as the Victorian era, you weren't middle class if you didn't have someone in service in your household, for example.

This level of social stratification is alien to our modern, egalitarian thinking in most of the West, but if you're going to do an appreciably accurate historical game, it needs to be taken into consideration. There was some social mobility, especially in times of strife (war and pestilence were great social levellers), though it varied a lot by time and place.

It's another thing where a standard fantasy trope, of a group of PCs who are unaccompanied by servants, retainers or other camp followers, is at odds with any historical analogues.



I think there's a far more important issue that hasn't been addressed here; how are you handling retainers/servants/slaves? The classic PC party of a handful of unaccompanied heroes would look very out of place. No one would take them seriously, since they'd just look like a collection of vagabonds or bandits. People of substance have followers.


(Sorry for the delay in posting this.)

Tiktakkat
2017-04-12, 03:17 PM
When are they appropriate/necessary/required?

Generally, never/never/never.
Well, unless you are playing Snobs & Servants instead of Dungeons & Dragons (or equivalent).
Pretty much all games are about the PCs and what they do.
Virtually none involve what their manservants and maids accomplish during the course of their duties.

Consider almost all the "standard" fiction.
How often does Conan send his flunky to cleave a head instead of doing it himself? Do you really want to read about said flunky, or were you looking for another Conan story?
Or Tarzan. Or John Carter. Or Beowulf. Or Hercules.
Even the Lord of the Rings manages a party full of noble scions (and a depowered angel on assignment) with a single servant for the one who is "merely" the filthy rich cousin.

At best, they can be fun to lampshade, like the hero having his theme music follow him around in "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka", but even then they manage to conveniently disappear when the action actually begins.
Really, once you get 10-20 pages of rules for dealing with the staff, what exactly are they going to do once the party hits the dungeon? Blink out so they don't get obliterated by a random fireball or wandering colony of feral cats? Or stand by heroically, ready to pass along a spare shield or weapon, strategically administer a potion, or whatever else while the DM "conveniently" avoids TSKing them? (Total Staff Kill)
Or are they going to be actively competent, the equivalent of each PC having 2-4 cohorts (or henchmen as they were called in the old days), leaving DMs to handle 12-20 person parties, with consequent effects on adventure design?

Ultimately, it is best to leave them vague and undefined, with some accounting for a feat like Leadership to have them be particularly loyal, with any detail at the discretion of the players to fill in and expand upon, and just assume their effects in general on the casual course of play without making them a focal point at the expense of the PCs.
However anachronistic it may be, it is the default for genre savvy for a reason.

jayem
2017-04-12, 03:45 PM
Magic (or technology or for "non-magical" fantasy levels of "he's that good") might make a dent in the necessity for them.
If you can control 2 horses (or drive a car) by yourself, then you don't need a person to do that. In real life, you'd fairly rapidly would.
And for that matter if you can look good without washing.

Again the nature of the mission would have effects [ETA and the heros, Tarzan Aragorn etc.. are explicitly odd, possibly to give them that ability to play both sides].

I guess one aspect boils down to are the PC's happy to cover the things the retainer would do (either by some of them explicitly being Tensing to Hillary or by sharing the load) or happy to assume it happens magically. If so there's no need.

I'm going to do a quick survey of my books.

VoxRationis
2017-04-12, 03:59 PM
Well, they're appropriate to settings in which power means you have underlings... which is most settings and periods in human history.

Max_Killjoy
2017-04-12, 04:04 PM
Well, they're appropriate to settings in which power means you have underlings... which is most settings and periods in human history.


On the level of simulation or verisimilitude or immersion, it's appropriate.

There are some "flow of gameplay" issues that others are bringing up, however, and I guess part of the question is "how much setting-verisimilitude is worth how much overhead".

jayem
2017-04-12, 04:09 PM
Moby **** (whole anonymous crew, and Qweeg)
Dracula (on own first half, but hiring tempory help, using castle staff
Riddle of the Sands, 2 on own but early 20th C and secret mission
Three Men, explicitly on 'own' in safe lands, late victorian, upper middle class
Around the world, retainer present
Kim, (is the retainer)
King Sol Mines has native help.
LotR only Sam (but is a secret mission)
Biggles ground staff, but not in the air
Journey to Centre has retainer/guide
Gullivers travels, 'sole survivor' (coincidence, I think not)
Three musketeers retainers
Don Quixote retainer

So novel wise a fair number have active retainers, a fair number have anonymous retainers. Of those that don't a fair number have covert missions.

Max_Killjoy
2017-04-12, 04:10 PM
When are they appropriate/necessary/required?

Generally, never/never/never.
Well, unless you are playing Snobs & Servants instead of Dungeons & Dragons (or equivalent).
Pretty much all games are about the PCs and what they do.
Virtually none involve what their manservants and maids accomplish during the course of their duties.

Consider almost all the "standard" fiction.
How often does Conan send his flunky to cleave a head instead of doing it himself? Do you really want to read about said flunky, or were you looking for another Conan story?
Or Tarzan. Or John Carter. Or Beowulf. Or Hercules.
Even the Lord of the Rings manages a party full of noble scions (and a depowered angel on assignment) with a single servant for the one who is "merely" the filthy rich cousin.

At best, they can be fun to lampshade, like the hero having his theme music follow him around in "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka", but even then they manage to conveniently disappear when the action actually begins.
Really, once you get 10-20 pages of rules for dealing with the staff, what exactly are they going to do once the party hits the dungeon? Blink out so they don't get obliterated by a random fireball or wandering colony of feral cats? Or stand by heroically, ready to pass along a spare shield or weapon, strategically administer a potion, or whatever else while the DM "conveniently" avoids TSKing them? (Total Staff Kill)
Or are they going to be actively competent, the equivalent of each PC having 2-4 cohorts (or henchmen as they were called in the old days), leaving DMs to handle 12-20 person parties, with consequent effects on adventure design?

Ultimately, it is best to leave them vague and undefined, with some accounting for a feat like Leadership to have them be particularly loyal, with any detail at the discretion of the players to fill in and expand upon, and just assume their effects in general on the casual course of play without making them a focal point at the expense of the PCs.
However anachronistic it may be, it is the default for genre savvy for a reason.

There are multiple sorts of "retainers" that interact with these questions differently.

Non-combat retainers could probably be left "encamped" at the "last town" or "nearest crossroads" without much incongruity.

Combat retainers could hold the entrance to a dungeon if you're doing dungeon crawls.

VoxRationis
2017-04-12, 04:34 PM
Certainly certain game styles are better than others for this sort of thing. Old-school D&D makes hirelings useful both as cannon fodder in lower levels and as various porters/expedition members—someone has to carry all that gear, as well as the hundreds of pounds of gold and treasure. Certain other systems make having supplementary fighters/bodyguards helpful even for combat-capable PCs; my limited experience with L5R has led me to conclude that getting surrounded in a melee is going to be bad regardless of how high your combat skills are, and that you should have someone to watch your back.

Max_Killjoy
2017-04-12, 05:30 PM
Certainly certain game styles are better than others for this sort of thing. Old-school D&D makes hirelings useful both as cannon fodder in lower levels and as various porters/expedition members—someone has to carry all that gear, as well as the hundreds of pounds of gold and treasure. Certain other systems make having supplementary fighters/bodyguards helpful even for combat-capable PCs; my limited experience with L5R has led me to conclude that getting surrounded in a melee is going to be bad regardless of how high your combat skills are, and that you should have someone to watch your back.

Yeah, important consideration -- for this thread, let's make sure we don't presume D&D or some other system where PCs rather quickly become combat demigods, and completely outclass lower-"level" NPCs.

Mordar
2017-04-12, 06:47 PM
Yeah, important consideration -- for this thread, let's make sure we don't presume D&D or some other system where PCs rather quickly become combat demigods, and completely outclass lower-"level" NPCs.

I think it is fair to say that when I was first introduced to D&D/AD&D, the PCs didn't become combat GODS (or, for the non-pure casters, demigods) quickly...or really even at all. And it was at this point that hirelings and henchmen were both present and accepted in the game. Of course, some of that has probably be subsumed by the aforementioned ascension to godhood and the majority of the rest by ignoring things like encumbrance.

I think there are games where including any of the above are excellent additions - we see them in modern games like WoD, future games like ShadowRun/Cyberpunk, any of the command style games like Dark Heresey/Rogue Trader, Star Wars, etc - and they fit nicely in exploration kinds of games like 7th Sea.

So I think it is a question of the flavor of game you want to run, and when/how you want to consider the hirelings. What level are they, if you will: Are they junior PCs? NPCs? Class features?

I think the role of the hireling (is it a retainer, a henchman, a slave, a servant) helps drive the level of Hireling, and how much autonomy/screen time they get.

- M

sktarq
2017-04-12, 06:55 PM
Well This is one of those reasons that when away from strongholds adventurers are often considered low-class and suspect.

As for when I recomend...read your players and work with it. Most of my games are more social than the classic dungeon crawl-assassinations, murder mysteries, caravan escorting (including negotiation with locals). So that incentivizes PC's to act their station in order to gain the respect they want (also with adding equipment bonuses for things like nobles outfits (and new ones daily)).

Plus if you are fastidious about the encumbrances rules - extra pack mules with grooms are incentivized. If a squire can be sent to "go shopping" I generally ease the PC's need to track food/torches/etc in various towns.

Plus if they can be used as messengers, spies, etc - smart players find great uses for them regularly.

So how useful they are is mostly a matter of how much the DM incentivizes them and how much the players can think of how to use them.

Thrudd
2017-04-12, 07:25 PM
I think this depends greatly on what sort of scenarios the game is focusing on. If the players portray adventurers of some kind and the game generally focuses on adventurous activity that falls outside that which is conventional in their society, the slaves, retainers and servants can easily exist as mostly anonymous background characters that generally stay behind and manage households. One or two retainers might be adventure-worthy and necessary to develop as NPCs.

If it is a game that will involve politics and negotiations and characters leveraging social standing, then some of their servants would be important NPC's that would be counted among the player's strategic resources (and the loyalty and trustworthiness of those servants an important metric to keep track of). In that case, only those retainers capable of helping with the intrigues would be important to actually develop as characters, the rest can still remain anonymous. The players don't need to manage every housekeeper in their manor.

If the game is going to be players commanding armies in battle, their main PC and a couple lieutenants might have fully developed stats, the army treated with greater abstraction as units. The servants who clean the weapons and armor and bring your food to you are just background - treat them like window dressing unless for some reason one of them becomes relevant. Actually controlling mass combat requires different sort of rules (more wargame-like) if you want it to actually be a strategic element of the game. When the PCs/heroic characters get into a skirmish, you can zoom in to individual scale and use the more detailed RPG combat rules, with most troops having generic NPC stats.

How important or necessary they are in any given setting really depends on the setting, doesn't it? You can invent anything you want, a setting doesn't need to mirror real-world history. So what role do you want the characters to have in the world, and what sort of things do you want the players to manage in the game? What type of challenges are the players meant to engage with? How detailed you get with retainers and whether you include them at all is really dependent on what the game's goals are. The easiest solution is to state that they exist but make them inconsequential to the action. They hold stuff and clean stuff and deliver messages and run errands. If anything dangerous or scary happens, they run away or are otherwise useless. If it's too much hassle for the players to have access to that much authority, design a setting where their characters don't have authority.

sktarq
2017-04-12, 08:33 PM
I forgot the most important way to incentivise players wanting various aides. Making it part of their character and image of their character. Pure fluff.

I discovered this years ago when I described their characters using a magical shield that glowed from golden inlay as a serving platter for their nuts, raisins, goat jerky, and hardtack (aka field rations). It was an offhand comment to add colour.

Next time they wanted campaign tables and better food. But the skill and set up time annoyed them.

Next time they had staff.

It is kind of reliant on the nature of the DM to make it fun, engaging, and sometimes funny (like an int check to assemble a camp bed they stuffed into a bag of holding (cue tab A goes into Dragon slot jokes)

If you get it to catch the players will do it themselves as a way to express their character's nature. Also becomes a source of PC bonding-a source of hooks for the DM and let's the DM a break while their largely entertain themselves for a couple minutes

TooLong&UnfocusedDidn'tRead
So yeah if you describe the time setting and striking camp takes (and how that takes away from the wizard's study time) how bad the camp food is vs when they have a chef people react. . . Often this poor hardscrabble image conflicts with how the players want to see their characters as, and thus they change to something more historically accurate.


EDIT-also guards with some military training to cover guard shifts (basically just to wake up the important people if something happens. Open doors and hide behind them and stay at the back to hold off attacks until the important people get there. Another good role for various lackys with a couple of fighter levels.

Tiktakkat
2017-04-12, 08:44 PM
There are multiple sorts of "retainers" that interact with these questions differently.

Only in rather fringe cases that wind up leading to excessively complex rules.


Non-combat retainers could probably be left "encamped" at the "last town" or "nearest crossroads" without much incongruity.

If you leave them at the "last town", what is the point of investing all that much time and effort in them? By definition, they really just are not contributing to the adventure, or to any status for the players.
As for the "nearest crossroads", that is just begging for a random encounter to eat them.


Combat retainers could hold the entrance to a dungeon if you're doing dungeon crawls.

Which leads to the 20-person party I noted in short order.
And even just "holding the door" in an adventure significantly beyond their APL (or equivalent) means the same wandering monster issue as for non-combatants.

And again, the moment they become that relevant, the PCs become that irrelevant.
You can get away with that for maybe 1-2 encounters in the career of a PC, but more than that and you have Elminster-Syndrome with the PCs awarded the role of Elminster while the NPCs do all the actual playing while the DM narrates the action for them.

As for not presuming the PCs quickly become all-powerful, that's all well and good, but consider how such ensemble casts typically fair in stories.
Now you wind up with the NPCs as another form of consumable, Red Shirts gone wild, as well as setting an expectation of them as ablative plot armor for the PCs.

Arbane
2017-04-12, 08:48 PM
Which leads to the 20-person party I noted in short order.


Fun fact: 10+ people parties (when including hirelings & henchmen) were pretty much standard in OD&D.

VoxRationis
2017-04-12, 09:56 PM
@Tiktakkat: I'm of the opinion that there's definitely a middle ground where a dozen or so hirelings with long spears and crossbows could defend a base camp against most encounters, but said hirelings might not be appropriate for pressing onward into unknown territory or clearing out dungeon rooms. Besides, as others have pointed out, not all adventuring parties have large amounts of extradimensional storage space. Someone needs to either lug back the loot on their backs or guard the pack animals that do the lugging, and it'd suck to have a PC stuck by the door on horse-sitting duty.

Max_Killjoy
2017-04-12, 10:01 PM
The less "fantastic" the magic, or the less magic, the more PCs might need this sort of help, too.

Like I said, don't assume D&D or a D&D-like setting.

TheCountAlucard
2017-04-13, 01:16 AM
If you're going to go sailing ships, you definitely want a decent-sized bunch of sailors. My gaming group acquired a number of ships, requiring them to hire on cooks, carpenters, surgeons, steersmen, topsmen, and so on.

I also cooked up some hardtack and salt pork for my players, to make the experience more authentic. :smallamused:

Martin Greywolf
2017-04-13, 02:10 AM
1) You can be historical after about 5 years of research

Or to put it in another way, Kiero is wrong. While the stuff about nobles having retainers is true, where he fails is assumption that adventurers would have them or be considered middle class. Not at all.

What they would be considered usually is mercenaries or travelling knights. These people don't have retainers and are much more egalitarian in their structure, though this varies of course, a band of medieval mercs will have military-like organization (they are the professional soldiers of their day), a bunch of trappers during the early days of colonizing Americas, not so much.

All of them will be considered as the lower rung of society, in theory, but if they are any good, they will command considerable respect - there are, admittedly rare, cases of mercenary captains getting noble titles, after all.

As for nobles, well, 99% of them were relatively poor, which means that a well to do merchant had more money than them, it's just that we rarely hear of these nobles in period accounts. They sometimes had very little servants, and if they hit a really rough spot had to go solo.

What a group of adventurers will be seen as by the society is much more complex topic and impossible to answer unless we really zoom in and pick a specific province and year.

Last but not least, most of what we know about medieval life comes from top to bottom perspective, written by monks and, later, nobles, so there's not a huge amount we can certainly tell about, say, a bunch of commoners who decided to hunt monsters (make that dangerous wild animals IRL) for a living.

2) System is important

Handling retainers in FATE is a piece of cake, handling them in DnD 3.5 is a headache. If you have too many of them, you end up with a wargame instead of TTRPG. These are all meta considerations, but since you're making a game for your players, they are more important than historical ones.

3) How important are they?

As important as you want to make them. If your group is into character roleplay, they can be a great source of it, hell, most of the game can centre around them and their stories. Some of them could well be PCs, provided the players get along and don't go abusing power like Eric Cartman with autoritah.

If you don't want to have them, or want them as supporting props in the background, that works too.

Giving this some thought is by no means a bad thing, just keep in mind that there are many valid answers, both historically and from meta perspective.

Kiero
2017-04-13, 05:07 AM
Some of you really are 3.x-myopic when it comes to RPGs; just because multiple characters are a pain in the arse in 3.x, doesn't mean they are in other editions of D&D. And I'm not talking about newer ones.

It's funny, in my original D&D-ing days, with Red Box and AD&D2e, we never bothered with the hireling/henchman rules. They were there, but we didn't see the point. Of course that's because our regular PC party was comprised of 7-8 PCs, so you didn't really need extra hands.

But it's worth noting that not only did the Expert Set and beyond have some good (but not that complicated) rules for managing friendly NPCs, it was assumed to be part of the playstyle in many of the modules. Classic ones like Tomb of Horrors assume the party has a level-appropriate collection of retainers and help with them, that's how you survive it. Don't take my word for it either, that comes straight from people who played with Gygax and Arneson. They had huge parties of PCs, henchmen, hirelings and others, which isn't surprising given their wargaming roots. The PCs are the leaders, but who watches the camp outside the dungeon and manages the horses and pack animals while they're gone? Who carries their spare gear, bulks up the fighting line and helps cart away the loot?

In OD&D, running henchmen and hirelings wasn't that much overhead, because PCs were pretty simple too. All that was significant, even relating to combat, for a hireling could be reduced to a single sentence. Same goes the simpler sorts of monsters, which is why you could have a major skirmish with tens of participants per side, take under an hour to run from start to finish. I ran a skirmish in ACKS (derived from the Expert Set) which had 100 participants all told, the PCs and their retainers vs a Ligurian tribe's warriors, and it took about an hour. Significantly less time, and with a lot more happening, than a D&D4e combat of 4 PCs vs 10 opponents would have taken.

To bring this to the absolute irony for me, after abandoning all things D&D, for years, I found ACKS. Which is derived from the Expert Set (for D&D levels 4-14), and has a lot of very relevant content for a game that goes beyond the dungeon. All the overland travel rules are there as well as stuff for managing your retinue. None of which is especially complicated. ACKS does a brilliant job of making minutiae accessible, which goes a long way to adding depth and structure to a game, especially the economic aspects.

Reading most periods of history highlights the stratification of societies and the role of people of different classes within it. Even if the PCs are outside the normal structure (and they aren't necessarily), you have to be cognizant of it. Most fantasy settings are cardboard-thin and about as deep as a puddle, which makes them pretty boring for me. They have all this colour with different races, but no depth to them at all, rarely do any of the societies presented have anything more than a few quirks in lieu of detail. Pick any period of history in a place, and you can find more in a few hours on Wikipedia from which you could run an engaging game than any RPG sourcebook. Though if your gaming comprises of treasure hunts down in holes in the ground where the surface world is just the place where you sell your loot and resupply for the next one, it won't make any difference.

Knaight
2017-04-13, 05:26 AM
Some of you really are 3.x-myopic when it comes to RPGs; just because multiple characters are a pain in the arse in 3.x, doesn't mean they are in other editions of D&D. And I'm not talking about newer ones.

There are aspects about them which are a pain regardless of game (and I'm including things like Savage Worlds and REIGN here, both of which are way easier to deal with than early D&D). It creates a situation where there's a whole bunch of NPCs around at all time, and it's more or less the same set. That's not always a problem - I'm GMing a game right now with 11 support NPCs for the party, with their own distinct characters, and it makes the game better. Still, cranking that number yet higher has the potential to make things difficult.

thirdkingdom
2017-04-13, 06:27 AM
Some of you really are 3.x-myopic when it comes to RPGs; just because multiple characters are a pain in the arse in 3.x, doesn't mean they are in other editions of D&D. And I'm not talking about newer ones.

It's funny, in my original D&D-ing days, with Red Box and AD&D2e, we never bothered with the hireling/henchman rules. They were there, but we didn't see the point. Of course that's because our regular PC party was comprised of 7-8 PCs, so you didn't really need extra hands.

But it's worth noting that not only did the Expert Set and beyond have some good (but not that complicated) rules for managing friendly NPCs, it was assumed to be part of the playstyle in many of the modules. Classic ones like Tomb of Horrors assume the party has a level-appropriate collection of retainers and help with them, that's how you survive it. Don't take my word for it either, that comes straight from people who played with Gygax and Arneson. They had huge parties of PCs, henchmen, hirelings and others, which isn't surprising given their wargaming roots. The PCs are the leaders, but who watches the camp outside the dungeon and manages the horses and pack animals while they're gone? Who carries their spare gear, bulks up the fighting line and helps cart away the loot?

In OD&D, running henchmen and hirelings wasn't that much overhead, because PCs were pretty simple too. All that was significant, even relating to combat, for a hireling could be reduced to a single sentence. Same goes the simpler sorts of monsters, which is why you could have a major skirmish with tens of participants per side, take under an hour to run from start to finish. I ran a skirmish in ACKS (derived from the Expert Set) which had 100 participants all told, the PCs and their retainers vs a Ligurian tribe's warriors, and it took about an hour. Significantly less time, and with a lot more happening, than a D&D4e combat of 4 PCs vs 10 opponents would have taken.

To bring this to the absolute irony for me, after abandoning all things D&D, for years, I found ACKS. Which is derived from the Expert Set (for D&D levels 4-14), and has a lot of very relevant content for a game that goes beyond the dungeon. All the overland travel rules are there as well as stuff for managing your retinue. None of which is especially complicated. ACKS does a brilliant job of making minutiae accessible, which goes a long way to adding depth and structure to a game, especially the economic aspects.

Reading most periods of history highlights the stratification of societies and the role of people of different classes within it. Even if the PCs are outside the normal structure (and they aren't necessarily), you have to be cognizant of it. Most fantasy settings are cardboard-thin and about as deep as a puddle, which makes them pretty boring for me. They have all this colour with different races, but no depth to them at all, rarely do any of the societies presented have anything more than a few quirks in lieu of detail. Pick any period of history in a place, and you can find more in a few hours on Wikipedia from which you could run an engaging game than any RPG sourcebook. Though if your gaming comprises of treasure hunts down in holes in the ground where the surface world is just the place where you sell your loot and resupply for the next one, it won't make any difference.

I pretty much agree with all of the above (hey Kiero!). I'm running a game now (it's ACKS) where each player has a primary PC, several henchmen and a few henchmen have henchmen of their own. They've got a small army of mercenaries and the associated retainers required to maintain said army, own five river boats and the required crew, have three factors in three different cities to look after their affairs, a sage on retainer to ID magical items, crews of workers and laborers to build stuff, engineers to oversee them, etc.

The "trees" of henchmen allow the PCs to accomplish different tasks at the same time; one group of PCs can delve a dungeon while a second group clears a hex of lairs while a third group does something entirely differently. It's somewhat logistically challenging, but we're using a wiki to track everything. Frankly though, pretty much ever old school game I've ever played in follows this basic trajectory:

1st level: As soon as the PCs get enough cash they hire a henchman, usually a 0-level human.
2nd level: Hire more henchmen.
3rd level: Hire mercenaries to watch over their camp while they delve.

And under a good DM a henchman will never consent to be treated as a "meat shield". The morale scores and reaction rolls are there for a reason, and players should never be fully trusting of henchmen.

Berenger
2017-04-13, 07:05 AM
When are they appropriate/necessary/required?

Generally, never/never/never.

You don't believe in seafaring campaigns, do you?

Also, why the heck do you claim Beowulf as an example of a lonesome hero? Because of course Beowulf has, right from the start, numerous (armed) retainers that travel and fight with him when he doesn't specifically seek out an honorable duel with a single enemy. Otherwise he would appear as a nobody in norse society, not as a great hero, leader and (later) king. His whole story is literally unthinkable without him having followers.

Kiero
2017-04-13, 07:20 AM
There are aspects about them which are a pain regardless of game (and I'm including things like Savage Worlds and REIGN here, both of which are way easier to deal with than early D&D). It creates a situation where there's a whole bunch of NPCs around at all time, and it's more or less the same set. That's not always a problem - I'm GMing a game right now with 11 support NPCs for the party, with their own distinct characters, and it makes the game better. Still, cranking that number yet higher has the potential to make things difficult.

In my game it was really simple; the players manage their henchfolk's mechanics, the GM does their characterisation. In a relatively simple game, if you don't have lots to do with your PC, mechanically, taking on a handful of others isn't an onerous task.


I pretty much agree with all of the above (hey Kiero!). I'm running a game now (it's ACKS) where each player has a primary PC, several henchmen and a few henchmen have henchmen of their own. They've got a small army of mercenaries and the associated retainers required to maintain said army, own five river boats and the required crew, have three factors in three different cities to look after their affairs, a sage on retainer to ID magical items, crews of workers and laborers to build stuff, engineers to oversee them, etc.

The "trees" of henchmen allow the PCs to accomplish different tasks at the same time; one group of PCs can delve a dungeon while a second group clears a hex of lairs while a third group does something entirely differently. It's somewhat logistically challenging, but we're using a wiki to track everything. Frankly though, pretty much ever old school game I've ever played in follows this basic trajectory:

1st level: As soon as the PCs get enough cash they hire a henchman, usually a 0-level human.
2nd level: Hire more henchmen.
3rd level: Hire mercenaries to watch over their camp while they delve.

And under a good DM a henchman will never consent to be treated as a "meat shield". The morale scores and reaction rolls are there for a reason, and players should never be fully trusting of henchmen.

The same thing happened in my game (https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Tyche's_Favourites), though I started the PCs at 5th level. Everyone maxed out their starting retinue, indeed they ensured they all had a Charisma bonus to get more than the basic 4. It was agreed that henchmen could also potentially act as "backup PCs" should something put the main character out of action for a time. Which happened to one who was wounded and bedridden for a couple of weeks.

They didn't get as far as henchmen-of-henchmen, though it was on the cards given their primary henchmen were 3rd level.

There was a significant milestone in OD&D, quietly dropped by 3.x, called "Name Level". At 9th level, it was expected that a PC would set up a stronghold or the like, and attract followers.


You don't believe in seafaring campaigns, do you?

Indeed. If the PCs have anything bigger than a rowboat, then need supporting NPCs. 4-5 people can't operate sweeps and rigging for any moderate-sized vessel.

Same goes if you have any game that features remotely realistic overland travel. Every PC needs at least two mounts (else they're one mishap away from walking), a large herd of horses will require a groom or two, who will also need mounts. They'll require fodder, which means pack animals, who also require looking after. That whole collective will need some security, since the PCs aren't going to be guarding their mounts and gear themselves.

thirdkingdom
2017-04-13, 07:26 AM
The same thing happened in my game (https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Tyche's_Favourites), though I started the PCs at 5th level. Everyone maxed out their starting retinue, indeed they ensured they all had a Charisma bonus to get more than the basic 4. It was agreed that henchmen could also potentially act as "backup PCs" should something put the main character out of action for a time. Which happened to one who was wounded and bedridden for a couple of weeks.


That's a good point, which is never actually mentioned in the rules, but in older versions of D&D the most important ability score is Charisma. Given the choice to play a Fighter with a Strength of 17 and a Charisma of 12, or a Strength of 12 and a Charisma of 17, I'm taking the second choice every single time.

Jay R
2017-04-13, 09:09 AM
It's more about how you use them. Don't let a 1st or 2nd level servant stand with you when you face a level-appropriate encounter for 4-6 higher-level PCs; the followers will die quickly. And you don't want your sidekick reduced to the Boy Hostage. They are best used as messengers, spies, or in other non-combat but vital roles. When you are involved in large battles, it's usually possible to use lower level warriors as part of a shield wall, and keep the servants, smiths, and fletchers far behind the lines where they will be safe unless there's a TPK.

To give a few examples, in the book The Three Musketeers, the four of them all had servants who went to war with them. When the four PCs musketeers stormed the bastion alone, they brought one servant to carry the food, but he stayed low and the four PCs musketeers did the fighting themselves.

Aladdin faces the danger while Abou hides, but occasionally does a small service, or picks a pocket. Bernardo carries messages and acts as a spy, but Zorro does the fencing himself. The mice and birds make Cinderelly a dress, but she goes to the ball alone. Lois and Jimmy are good reporters, but Superman has to defeat the villain.

But occasionally, one of the servants will rise to the occasion. Frodo's gardener stormed an orc fortress alone when Frodo was captured. [By that time, the gardener probably had a few levels in Fighter.] And the enchanted servants defended the castle from the mob while the Beast was fighting Gaston.

Kiero
2017-04-13, 09:12 AM
In my game, the henchmen took their place in the fighting line, or in the cavalry formation, with the PCs. They weren't non-combatants, so were able to hold their own, or at least support the PCs.

Morty
2017-04-13, 10:08 AM
Half of this thread seems to be an honest discussion about the question, and the other half an attempt to prove that hiring henchmen is the right and proper way, and if you're not doing that, you're lazy. I'll just address the former.

If we're talking about D&D-style fantasy, retainers are perfectly setting-appropriate. The PCs are going to have a lot of money, so they can throw enough of it around that some people will be willing to follow them. Eventually, they'll probably gather enough non-monetary influence that they'll have people who follow and work for them.

If we're talking other genres, well, that's going to depend. A Dark Heresy group might eventually be able to call in Inquisitorial support, but they're too low on the totem pole for that at the start. In CoD, having NPC helpers depends on merits you take. I think that in pretty much every game, employing or enlisting other people is going to become a viable option eventually, one way or the other. So it becomes a question of whether you want to, and whether or not it adds something valuable to the game.

As with any other resource, followers, allies and retainers should be voluntary, unless commanding people is an inherent part of the premise - like in Rogue Trader. They let you delegate tasks, and increase your reach, but they tend to come with a net of obligations and responsibilities. Also, you can lose them relatively easily, compared to less physical resources. I like Chronicles of Darkness' way of handling them, where every kind of affiliated NPC (retailer, ally, contact, mentor) has a mechanically distinct way of cashing it in. Putting it in terms of henchmen from old D&D seems pretty narrow, honestly. You can have NPCs who help, serve or work for your PCs without having them follow them around all the time.

Kiero
2017-04-13, 10:31 AM
Even in the old D&D terms, henchmen were distinct from hirelings. Henchmen are your followers and such. Hirelings are just people along for a payday, who won't do anything more than they're employed to. In the old days, you didn't tend to take hirelings into the dungeon with you, they were the people who guarded the camp, for example. They didn't get a share of the treasure, just a wage.

Tobtor
2017-04-13, 10:59 AM
Indeed. If the PCs have anything bigger than a rowboat, then need supporting NPCs. 4-5 people can't operate sweeps and rigging for any moderate-sized vessel.

Not entirely true. Many sea-crossing ships in the early medieval period in northern Europe didn't have more than 5-8 people (ships going Norway-England, or around the baltic). Mid-sized cogs could be operated with roughly 10 people. So "a party" isn't that far off (only a few people off). However most ships carried extra men, mainly in order to protect the cargo. IF the party can do that, then they just need a very few extra sailors.


Same goes if you have any game that features remotely realistic overland travel. Every PC needs at least two mounts (else they're one mishap away from walking), a large herd of horses will require a groom or two, who will also need mounts. They'll require fodder, which means pack animals, who also require looking after. That whole collective will need some security, since the PCs aren't going to be guarding their mounts and gear themselves.

I think much of the post you made and that Max_Killjoy quoted in the opening post, as well as the quote here, tends to be based on higher classes of the late medieval-renaissance period, not covering all of the medieval period or all classes. I wouldn't go as far as Martin Greywolf and say you are wrong, but it seems to be based on those who wrote accounts rather late.

Viking era and early medieval periods have quite a lot fewer retainers going around... This counts both "knights" (or local equivalent) travelling around or doing missions alone or a few "knights" together with no fixed order of main knight/retainers. Of course richer knights would bring a page and several other knights, and possibly armed guards, accountants etc. But they would be major landowners, not adventurers.

Even Kings could sometimes travel light. When King Erik Klipping of Denmark was murdered in 1286 he only had one or a few servants with him on a travel between mansions. Now he might have been tricked or otherwise led to an ambush, but something similar couldn't have happen in the 15th century, as hundreds of people would always be present.

Yes, I am aware that Denmark is rather small compared to say France or Germany, and that these places it wouldn't have happened, but Denmark is still larger than most French duchies and as such could be compared to high level nobles from other regions.

In fact anyone travelling around more or less permantly (such as adventurers...), would not fit the social class anyway, as to belong to the aristocracy means you have quite a lot of land to manage, and being a rich merchant means that you have several mansions, storhouses, ships etc, needing managing.

Of course there is a middle group (such as knights, sons of the above which travels in their youths etc, who would have a retainer).

More on topic:
In spite of the above discussion, I agree that in many cases some level of "henchmen" is a feature not discussed and implemented enough in many games. I feel (from the description) of thirdkingdom and Kiero (and others) that it will quickly develop into a small scale war-game of resource management, rather than a traditional RPG. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it does quickly change the way the game is played. You either need to implement more general results for the battles, or do a lot of book keeping. It sort of become a middle thing between an RPG and a game of Warhammer (or similar battle games).

I have a couple of times have had one PC be the guy with retainers, and the other be "retainers":

1st time: It started with two players thinking up the concept of a knight and his squire going of for adventure, then I suggested to a third player who was a "bard-type" character to be the knights musician, and then they ended up hiring the "cleric" (it was more low magic than typical DnD, as it was a GURPS game) as the knights counsellor.

This ended up being a very good way of handing out missions that the players actually cared about. The knight got some land and a very small stronghold (basically a tower and a farmstead, think motte-and-baily) in a border zone situation. Locals could then come with issues such as bandits (which it really should be the local knight who takes care off, why they always delegate in RPGs is more strange than the lack of retainers on the PCs part), small raids of orcs/goblings, a border dispute with a neighbouring robber-knight etc.

As the party gained reputation for being skilled they attracted the attention of the higher ups, and was send on missions like protecting a diplomat send to foreing courts etc (with a mix f intrigue play and fights along the way).

2nd time was different and set up from the beginning with the party being the main crew of a small smuggler vessel. Here they 5 man party had a 2-3 extra hirelings, with mostly sailing duties.

This is just to say: one way to have "hirelings" and still keep the party size below the level of "small scale army" is to mkae some of the PCs hirelings for other PC's.

Max_Killjoy
2017-04-13, 11:26 AM
The second quote from Kiero was actually from my "4th century BCE" thread.

Social stratification and servants as a marker of social status isn't unique to "medieval" "Europe".

Kiero
2017-04-13, 12:30 PM
My game wasn't medieval at all, it was set in the Hellenistic era, specifically 300BC. The PCs were a Celtic princess, a Makedonian noble, a Latin merchant (of death) and an Alexandrian Jewish archer-captain. They went to Massalia (Marseilles) so Europe, but millenia before you're talking about.

In this era, the only thing 4-5 people could sail would be a fishing smack. Even a triakonter would need 30 oarsmen, plus deck crew. Anything bigger and you're into hundreds of oarsmen.

ACKS does have a proper wargame-like mass combat supplement (Domains@War), which even scales down to the tens of combatants, but it wasn't necessary to use it. OD&D is simple enough to make large-scale combat quite straightforward and manageable if there are under 100 participants involved.

Thinker
2017-04-13, 01:33 PM
I think that having NPCs as part of the group who serve the PCs (of appropriate status) makes sense in many settings. The only question is how much do you devote to game mechanics for them? At one end of the spectrum, you can devote almost zero effort - the leaving them in town method. They appear when the PCs are in public and interacting with others, but they have little impact and are otherwise a footnote on the journey. If that is your take, I don't think there is much value on adding them as it is an easily forgotten footnote (like familiars, animal companions, etc. tend to be). On the other hand, if you can come up with some specific types NPC retainers with an explicit function, it might make things easier. Some examples:

Porters - increase the amount of stuff a character can carry, which scales with the porter's skill, level, whatever.
Errand-runners (needs a better name) - can be sent to refresh supplies (like trail rations, lantern oil, etc.) or a specific object (a spellbook being sold by the Temple of Thoth); maybe also give this NPC a scaling discount on prices or quicker time to retrieve items.
Courier - delivers messages to people; speed of delivery scales.
Guide - finds the path to the destination more quickly; I would suggest that not having a guide would make things problematic and having a guide reduces the up-front penalty based on the guide's skill.
Bard - provides a morale bonus each day after camp.
Scout - reduces chance of ambush on the trail.
Guard - reduces the chance of ambush at camp.
Maid - Cleans the equipment, clothes, etc. after encamping or spending the night in a town that grants a bonus to social interactions (or removes a penalty for being unkempt).
Historian - Provides local knowledge to the group.
Priest - Provides religious guidance to the group.
Medic - Provides first aid to the group.

Some of those would have to be appropriate to the locality and all would be a drain on resources in some way. Maybe just have 11 stats for each NPC (one for each job above) that indicate their skill at each task and say that they're non-combat.

Max_Killjoy
2017-04-13, 05:55 PM
I think that having NPCs as part of the group who serve the PCs (of appropriate status) makes sense in many settings. The only question is how much do you devote to game mechanics for them? At one end of the spectrum, you can devote almost zero effort - the leaving them in town method. They appear when the PCs are in public and interacting with others, but they have little impact and are otherwise a footnote on the journey. If that is your take, I don't think there is much value on adding them as it is an easily forgotten footnote (like familiars, animal companions, etc. tend to be). On the other hand, if you can come up with some specific types NPC retainers with an explicit function, it might make things easier. Some examples:

Porters - increase the amount of stuff a character can carry, which scales with the porter's skill, level, whatever.
Errand-runners (needs a better name) - can be sent to refresh supplies (like trail rations, lantern oil, etc.) or a specific object (a spellbook being sold by the Temple of Thoth); maybe also give this NPC a scaling discount on prices or quicker time to retrieve items.
Courier - delivers messages to people; speed of delivery scales.
Guide - finds the path to the destination more quickly; I would suggest that not having a guide would make things problematic and having a guide reduces the up-front penalty based on the guide's skill.
Bard - provides a morale bonus each day after camp.
Scout - reduces chance of ambush on the trail.
Guard - reduces the chance of ambush at camp.
Maid - Cleans the equipment, clothes, etc. after encamping or spending the night in a town that grants a bonus to social interactions (or removes a penalty for being unkempt).
Historian - Provides local knowledge to the group.
Priest - Provides religious guidance to the group.
Medic - Provides first aid to the group.

Some of those would have to be appropriate to the locality and all would be a drain on resources in some way. Maybe just have 11 stats for each NPC (one for each job above) that indicate their skill at each task and say that they're non-combat.


What if you're trying to represent, say, "named men" from "Homeric"/Archaic Greek culture, with each PC as a "hero" surrounded by a smallish war-band of followers who go into combat with him to watch his back, make ranged attacks from behind his great shield, hand him his own spears when he's engaged in duels with enemy "named men", etc?

Those NPCs would need to be combat-capable in their own right, and not in a laughable sort of way that some games present "combat" followers.

Mordar
2017-04-13, 06:59 PM
What if you're trying to represent, say, "named men" from "Homeric"/Archaic Greek culture, with each PC as a "hero" surrounded by a smallish war-band of followers who go into combat with him to watch his back, make ranged attacks from behind his great shield, hand him his own spears when he's engaged in duels with enemy "named men", etc?

Those NPCs would need to be combat-capable in their own right, and not in a laughable sort of way that some games present "combat" followers.

A lot depends, I think, on the parameters of your system. Without some insight into what kind of combat/wound system is in use I think it is difficult to suggest how to manage something like this.

It could easily be abstracted as a "fighting force" ranking that can be compared to similar "fighting forces" and via contest/roll/whatever (a) assist their named hero in direct combat; (b) oppose and whittle down other "fighting forces"; (c) perform special maneuvers (shield wall, covering fire, what have you); or (d) other.

Depending on the value of the fighting force (based on a combination of skill/potency and numbers) you could have variable levels of impact. For option (a), they could reduce the opponent's defensive capability/wound rank/whatever by X units per round (hard to apply real numbers absent your system...), thus hastening their named hero's victory.

For option (b) you could compare Fighting Force Ranks and use a randomization method to add to each, compare results and temporarily reduce the Rank of one/both forces to represent attrition. You get the idea.

This way they can remain as an abstraction instead of independent characters...

- M

Thrudd
2017-04-14, 12:20 AM
What if you're trying to represent, say, "named men" from "Homeric"/Archaic Greek culture, with each PC as a "hero" surrounded by a smallish war-band of followers who go into combat with him to watch his back, make ranged attacks from behind his great shield, hand him his own spears when he's engaged in duels with enemy "named men", etc?

Those NPCs would need to be combat-capable in their own right, and not in a laughable sort of way that some games present "combat" followers.

So is the plan for the game to be regularly dealing with battles with decent-sized forces? If it would be miniatures on a battlefield, you could adopt rules similar to Mordheim (or even use the Mordheim rules with custom-made warband stats and equipment). That's a game where each player controls a warband of between 10-20 warriors each with a simple set of stats, including a leader, a couple lieutenants and specialists, and the rest common soldiers. I think it would be pretty easy to adapt those rules to bronze-age or archaic weapons and tactics.

If you're doing all theater-of-the-mind, then I think the best bet is to treat the warband in a more abstract manner, rather than individually tracking each soldier. Each period of time that the engagement continues, a roll or two will tell you the number and severity of casualties on each side apart from the actions of the champion characters. Champions can either engage each other in normal RPG combat rules, or engage the enemy warband as a whole. So each unit of a particular size or power would get a single attack, and the champion adds a second attack. The warband can't target the champion specifically, only another champion can do that. Rules at this level of abstraction can range from very loose and narrative to very crunchy and tactical depending on how much detail you want to put into the rules.

BWR
2017-04-14, 02:17 AM
This really depends on the type of game you run and which system you use. Try running Ars Magica without grogs.

In short, hirelings++ are appropriate when they are needed and/or wanted. The important thing to remember is this: why do people hire/enslave other people? To do stuff they can't or don't want to do themselves.

So even a party of powerful 3.x adventurers might want a couple of people tag along and help with certain things. Carrying loot, cooking and cleaning, shopping for mundane things, taking care of mounts, etc. Not everything has to be about combat.

Even running 3.x my players have started amassing a sizeable contingent of followers of various types. If you start your own domain you quickly realize you need a lot of extra bodies to do work for you. Secretaries to manage events and meetings and whatnot, if nothing else. Bodyguards as well - not because a powerful PC isn't probably better at fighting but because it is expected that someone of their status have something like that. You play a powerful noble in L5R and you probably have at least a personal servant or two to manage your stuff, like helping you get dressed and made up, etc. Even lower status characters might want a batman/dogsbody/Baldrick for odd jobs. Perhaps most importantly, a properly played hireling can provide excellent roleplaying opportunities and fun.

Mechanically, I'd say they should have the skills to do what they are hired to do but not overshadow PCs in important areas. Ars Magica has specific rules for creating retainer characters (and these are often far more fun to play than your main PC). D&D has NPC classes which may or may not be appropriate for any given hireling.

Yora
2017-04-14, 03:30 AM
Whether servants are appropriate for player characters depends less on the setting and all on the character. If you have a nobleman who is in good standing with the aristrocratic society, then having some servants in his company while traveling would really be called for. But if that's not the kind of PC a player has, then servants might be somewhat inappropriate. Even in the same party.

I really quite like the idea of parties including a gang of tagalong henchmen who deal with the logistics and maintenance and guarding the rear while the PCs engage the main enemy force in a random combat encounter.
Having random encounters happen to the camp while the PCs are in the dungeon is actually really cool. Such a wonderful hook for a very personal side adventure when the players discover their loot from previous delves stolen and some of their loyal servants killed or captured. And depending on how you interpret the rules of old D&D editions,the players might not even get any XP for treasure that was lost before they returned with it back to civilization. It's only potential XP they could get if they are succesful in hauling the treasure home, not just our of the dungeon.

And consider how much treasure you need to haul back with you at higher levels to advance further and the limitations of encumbrance. At some point PCs won't be able to get the whole loot back in a single go themselves and will have to rely on mule trains to do so.

Kiero
2017-04-14, 04:57 AM
What if you're trying to represent, say, "named men" from "Homeric"/Archaic Greek culture, with each PC as a "hero" surrounded by a smallish war-band of followers who go into combat with him to watch his back, make ranged attacks from behind his great shield, hand him his own spears when he's engaged in duels with enemy "named men", etc?

Those NPCs would need to be combat-capable in their own right, and not in a laughable sort of way that some games present "combat" followers.

Serious question, and I wasn't intending to turn this thread into "sell ACKS", but have you had a look at it? The core B/X D&D engine is simple, and I don't mean like the way people claim D20 is "simple", but then bolt on a shed-load of additional mechanics that make it anything but. PCs don't have lots of options that are exception-based and require processing time. Which means you can have NPCs that use the same mechanics without slowing the game down appreciably.

There are three tiers of character: PC with full detail. Henchman, who are almost as detailed as a PC, but don't require some of the softer stuff to be written down. And hirelings, who can be done in a single line.

This is the complete stat block of one of my PCs henchfolk, her cousin and second-in-command:
Sabra - One of Rhyanidd's closest friends from childhood, the two of them grew up together sharing the same training, competing for the same boys and sharing the spoils of the same raids. Strangers could be forgiven for thinking them sisters in a certain light. She is a thoughtful and serious warrior, not one given to boastfulness, but quietly confident in her own prowess.

Fighter 3. Move 90’, AC 7/8, HD 3+3, hp 19, Att 6*+/9+, Saves: Fort 12+ Ref 14+ Will 14+, Init +2, Mor +7
Dmg: 1d6+6 (spear), 1d6+4 (sword), 1d6+5 (javelin)
Str+2, Int+1, Wis+1, Con+1, Cha-1.
Proficiencies: Seasoned Campaigner, Animal Training (horse), Intimidation, Combat Reflexes, Fighting Style (Weapon and Shield), Manual of Arms, Riding, Weapon Focus (spear).
Languages: Celtic, Getic, Koine Greek.
Equipment: Mail (good), medium shield, spear (exceptional)*, longsword, dagger, javelins (3), medium riding horse, medium war horse . Enc 8/8 stone.

The vital information is actually in the top of that first block; if a hireling or monster you only need for that combat, they could be reduced to:

Fighter 3. Move 90’, AC 7/8, HD 3+3, hp 19, Att 6*+/9+, Saves: Fort 12+ Ref 14+ Will 14+, Init +2, Mor +7
Dmg: 1d6+6 (spear)*, 1d6+4 (sword), 1d6+5 (javelin)

The only thing you'd need to track in combat is their hit points.

As I said, the way I handle henchmen make it simple; the player is responsible for the mechanical side of things, as GM I characterise them. So each player effectively runs a small squad if their whole retinue is in combat, but given the overhead for each character is small, it takes less time than you'd think. I ran a skirmish involving almost 100 participants (30-odd on the player side, twice that in antagonists) and it didn't take that long to resolve. We did use a battlemat, though.

ACKS also has a mass combat supplement, Domains@War which does anything from larger skirmishes up to battles of thousands, and sieges.

Stealth Marmot
2017-04-14, 08:13 AM
My quick thought is simply this: Retainers are usually the type of thing that you would expect for people who are nobles or more specifically, landowners. Staff and retainers are people who live and work for a particular person, and usually they expect at some point to have a family, including a spouse and children. As such, they would need a residence.

Sure they might leave temporarily to escort the "master" on a trip, but overall they would live in and take care of an estate.

Any game system that the PCs are generally without ties to such things, such as D&D or Pathfinder, you wouldn't expect them to have servants or retainers most of the time as the PCs are generally wandering mercenaries with delusions of morality. However, in other game systems, having estates and retainers can be useful and part of the system.

Thinker
2017-04-14, 08:15 AM
What if you're trying to represent, say, "named men" from "Homeric"/Archaic Greek culture, with each PC as a "hero" surrounded by a smallish war-band of followers who go into combat with him to watch his back, make ranged attacks from behind his great shield, hand him his own spears when he's engaged in duels with enemy "named men", etc?

Those NPCs would need to be combat-capable in their own right, and not in a laughable sort of way that some games present "combat" followers.

Similar to what others are saying, then you need to have some mechanic that models their contributions and their casualties. You still need to keep bookkeeping and gameplay time limited to avoid dragging things out, but you also want to make them feel impactful. Here is something like what I would implement myself to represent this:

Squire (or setting-appropriate name) - A squire takes care of the character's arms and armor and carries extra weapons and shields into combat for the PC. The PC can draw weapons faster and the weapon grants a bonus from 1 - 3 to hit for being well-maintained (based on squire's skill). Presumably in a Homeric setting, weapons break pretty quickly so drawing a new weapon as a half-action type thing instead of a full-action would be a boon to players.

For the rest of the warband, you need special mechanics. In my mind, to avoid becoming a whole miniatures war-game (which would make each fight take most of a session), you have to treat it more like a a trading card game, which requires a few additional rules adjustments:

Foes are divided into four categories - mooks, brutes, elites, and uniques. A mook has 1 HP and deals 1 damage; a brute has a dedicated HP score and damage score, scaling with difficulty; elites are more akin to player characters and have an identifiable HP, damage, and names; and uniques, which are your battlefield generals, heroes, and otherwise special NPC foes.
Warband NPCs are assigned a name, an HP, Damage, and a special ability based on class.
A PC's retinue may have up to 4 warband NPCs in it at any given time. Their HP, Damage, and rank of special ability is limited by the PC's Leadership + Glory score.
When combat starts, only Player Characters, elites, and uniques are in-play. They can do all of the normal things you can do in a tactical game - move around, flank, whatever your rules require and allow.
At the beginning of combat, any participants who are aware of combat (not surprised/flatfooted/unready/whatever) may select 1 Warband NPC or Mook/Brute to place in play (this represents them being ready and available to fight).
Warband NPCs must always be adjacent to their PC to be in-play and mooks and brutes must always be adjacent to their attached elites and uniques to be in-play.
On each player's turn or each elite/unique's turn, they may place one of their Warband NPCs or mooks/brutes into play and direct all other Warband NPCs, mooks, and brutes to perform an action.
Each warband NPCs, mooks, and brutes, is limited to moving 1 space each turn, but must remain adjacent to their attached player, elite, or unique. Additionally, they never miss and always do max damage. They can never attack enemy PCs, elites, or uniques if there are enemy warband NPCs, mooks, or brutes in range of their attacks.


Obviously, this would take some iterations and require some changes to work with your system, but I think this way allows you to keep tactical combat without making the entire game into a miniatures battle. I would suggest keeping track of the Warband NPCs on index cards if played in this way.

All of this discussion of retinues and entourages kind of makes me want to make my own mechanics for such a system.

Cluedrew
2017-04-14, 09:01 AM
I don't have anything to say about period accuracy, but I can say a few things about large groups.

And that is: get rules for groups of characters, it makes everything move so much smoother. We have run groups where we have had probably 30+ characters in the group (we don't always stop to pin down the exact number) and between them being treated as a single unit and rules for a character fighting with a group, it was less complex than adding a 5th PC to the group.

So those rules can be enormously helpful if the system has them.

Max_Killjoy
2017-04-14, 09:07 AM
My quick thought is simply this: Retainers are usually the type of thing that you would expect for people who are nobles or more specifically, landowners. Staff and retainers are people who live and work for a particular person, and usually they expect at some point to have a family, including a spouse and children. As such, they would need a residence.

Sure they might leave temporarily to escort the "master" on a trip, but overall they would live in and take care of an estate.

Any game system that the PCs are generally without ties to such things, such as D&D or Pathfinder, you wouldn't expect them to have servants or retainers most of the time as the PCs are generally wandering mercenaries with delusions of morality. However, in other game systems, having estates and retainers can be useful and part of the system.


At least for some settings, a case could be made that "adventuring" requires resources / money / connections / whatever such that it's the purview of those of at least a certain "class".

Just thinking outloud.

Kiero
2017-04-14, 09:15 AM
Any game system that the PCs are generally without ties to such things, such as D&D or Pathfinder, you wouldn't expect them to have servants or retainers most of the time as the PCs are generally wandering mercenaries with delusions of morality. However, in other game systems, having estates and retainers can be useful and part of the system.

Not D&D generally, 3.x and onwards. Again, retainers and other hangers-on was an assumed part of older editions.

Stealth Marmot
2017-04-14, 09:35 AM
At least for some settings, a case could be made that "adventuring" requires resources / money / connections / whatever such that it's the purview of those of at least a certain "class".

Just thinking outloud.

Alternatively, especially in early settings, adventuring was a method TO the sort of wealth and status that requires retainers and such.

The existence of the thief/rogue class however as a core and necessary class indicates that characters at the very least were not necessarily wealthy to start. Some classes might encourage them being part of an upper class however. Paladins and Magic Users in first edition certainly had an air of being upper class.


Not D&D generally, 3.x and onwards. Again, retainers and other hangers-on was an assumed part of older editions.
Granted. Back in First And Second Edition you had tons of henchmen who you used in the same manner you use a stick to disarm a beartrap. Hence the creation of the Nodwick comic.

VoxRationis
2017-04-14, 10:57 AM
Honestly, the D&D adventuring party and its groups of hangers-on might be better compared to archaeological or exploratory expeditions of the 19th century (or at least to media depictions thereof) than to the travel accommodations of medieval nobles and burghers. You've got a small core group of people whose names are going to be slapped on the results of everything, who are largely calling the shots and making the decisions, and who expect to get the lion's share of any profits, delving deep into hostile territory (often incorporating both wilderness and actively hostile natives) with the intent of finding an old ruin and pilfering it of all its gold. The logistical needs of such an outfit demand a large group of largely anonymous porters, guides, and miscellaneous hired help, who are expected to have a high attrition rate, as well as a small number of armed guards.

Max_Killjoy
2017-04-14, 11:00 AM
Honestly, the D&D adventuring party and its groups of hangers-on might be better compared to archaeological or exploratory expeditions of the 19th century (or at least to media depictions thereof) than to the travel accommodations of medieval nobles and burghers. You've got a small core group of people whose names are going to be slapped on the results of everything, who are largely calling the shots and making the decisions, and who expect to get the lion's share of any profits, delving deep into hostile territory (often incorporating both wilderness and actively hostile natives) with the intent of finding an old ruin and pilfering it of all its gold. The logistical needs of such an outfit demand a large group of largely anonymous porters, guides, and miscellaneous hired help, who are expected to have a high attrition rate, as well as a small number of armed guards.



Given all the dungeon-opening and wilderness-probing, that's probably a great parallel.

Piedmon_Sama
2017-04-14, 11:49 AM
Not entirely true. Many sea-crossing ships in the early medieval period in northern Europe didn't have more than 5-8 people (ships going Norway-England, or around the baltic). Mid-sized cogs could be operated with roughly 10 people. So "a party" isn't that far off (only a few people off). However most ships carried extra men, mainly in order to protect the cargo. IF the party can do that, then they just need a very few extra sailors.

I gotta respond to this----the point of having extra men aboard isn't just defense but because on most vessels you have to create a watch rotation so that you have a chance to rest. Like, are you familiar with Indiamen---the merchant sailing ships that ran around the cape of Africa in the 18th-19th century? These things were enormous ships (1,000+ tons) with very cleverly designed sailing rigs so that you could operate one with as few as say, 60-80 men, a very small crew for a tall ship from that period.

And they were basically hell afloat--you could make a lot of money very quickly as a sailor on one of these things due to the smallness of the crew and the enormous wealth being transported, but it was a job a lot of sailors actively avoided (to the point where sometimes the Merchant service had to press people too) because making a six month voyage where there's basically two watches and you're on rotation 16 hours a day and you need to be climbing the rigging, clewing up sails or hauling ropes or w/e, is miserable. Dudes would come out of these voyages ruined for life by the sheer strain on their minds and bodies.

My point is, yeah there are some vessel types where you can run it with even just a handful of people but it would be insanely, back-breakingly, mind-bustingly miserable. The possible exception is if you're in certain latitudes where the wind direction is pretty much constant (depending on the season) and only ever blows in one direction, sometimes you can just spend days on the same tack or whatever but that's the exception and certainly wouldn't apply to anyplace you could go in a pseudo-medieval European world that hews to earth's geography. Like if you're trying to simulate 10th C. North Sea trade and you only need to get from Sweden to Frisia, then okay maybe. If you want to get from Not-England to Not-Gibraltar and you have to beat up against wind and current while hugging the coastline because you're in a ****ty flat-bottomed medieval cog, then....

Well, just saying.

Thrudd
2017-04-14, 12:27 PM
Honestly, the D&D adventuring party and its groups of hangers-on might be better compared to archaeological or exploratory expeditions of the 19th century (or at least to media depictions thereof) than to the travel accommodations of medieval nobles and burghers. You've got a small core group of people whose names are going to be slapped on the results of everything, who are largely calling the shots and making the decisions, and who expect to get the lion's share of any profits, delving deep into hostile territory (often incorporating both wilderness and actively hostile natives) with the intent of finding an old ruin and pilfering it of all its gold. The logistical needs of such an outfit demand a large group of largely anonymous porters, guides, and miscellaneous hired help, who are expected to have a high attrition rate, as well as a small number of armed guards.

Yes, that's exactly how I picture it. As the core group becomes more successful they will have the resources to fund longer and more complex expeditions with large groups, but in the beginning they need to manage on a shoestring budget. The logistics of putting together the next expedition is the players' key activity during the downtime between adventures. Gather information about potential target locations for exploration and looting, decide where to go and how to get there and what personnel and equipment will best serve the expected situation.

In an ancient Greek-like world, the PCs would potentially be aristocracy (rich enough to own their own arms, chariot, horses, ships etc.), their retinue would be loyal men and slaves from their home region. The player wouldn't need to worry about paying them up front, but would need to promise all non-slaves participating in the expedition a share of loot. That's why men went to battle, after all. In a fantasy version of an ancient Mediterranean world, maybe some of the locations for looting are the lairs of monsters and islands controlled by races of inhuman creatures or sites of lost ancient civilizations. As long as there's sweet loot to take home. If it turns out there's less loot than everyone was expecting, you might run into an Odyssey-like situation, where the men start to mutter and mutiny.

Arbane
2017-04-14, 01:04 PM
Not D&D generally, 3.x and onwards. Again, retainers and other hangers-on was an assumed part of older editions.

Older editions of D&D were pretty bad at explaining how you were 'expected' to play the game. I played a lot of AD&D back in The Day, and I don't think we ever used NPC help.

Vinyadan
2017-04-14, 01:38 PM
I like the idea, mainly because it would make a lot of Monty Python references easier.

Brave Sir Robin ran away!

Morty
2017-04-15, 09:11 AM
Unless my character's concept is specifically a field leader or commander, I don't see much value in having their followers around at all time, and during the "action" parts of the story. Much less just having them take care of logistics. To me, the main value of PCs having cohorts, allies, followers, contacts etc. is to increase their reach. Have them do things the PCs can't, either because they lack the skill, or just because they can only be in one place at a time.