Random Roll: DMG, p. 34

Were I to focus on one of the less obvious ways that older versions of Dungeons & Dragons differ its latter day descendants is in the matter of henchmen. Henchmen were an important part of old school play, as evidenced by the very existence of the Charisma score. Consequently, the Dungeon Masters Guide contains many sections devoted to this topic, such as page 34, where Gygax says the following:

Henchmen, whether male or female, are greatly desired by the discerning players, for they usually spell the difference between failure and success in the long term view.

If anyone ever doubts the importance of henchmen, let him contend with this statement. What I find most interesting here are two things. First, Gygax says that henchmen are "greatly desired by the discerning players," not characters. It's possible that is simply a casual conflation of player for player character that can sometimes be found in early RPG writing – it happens a lot in Empire of the Petal Throne, for example –  I'm not wholly convinced of that. Gygax was very interested in "skillful" play and regularly stated that D&D (and RPGs more generally) was something at which one could become better with time and practice. My guess is that's what's going on here when he references players. Second, his use of "long term view" is a reminder that Gygax, like many early roleplayers, was strongly focused on the campaign as the ultimate expression of the game.

Gygax goes on:

They are useful in individual adventures as a safety measure against the machinations of rival player characters, provide strength to the character and his or her stronghold, and lastly serve as a means of adventuring when the player character is unable.

The first point he raises here is probably outside the experience of many people. The idea that players might, through their characters, scheme against one another is unusual today, at least in Dungeons & Dragons. I can assure you that it was not in the early days of the hobby; even I, who didn't start playing until late 1979, saw plenty of evidence of this, not only in my own friend group but also among other groups I encountered. It certainly wasn't endemic behavior by any means, but it certainly happened enough that Gygax draws attention to the value of henchmen as a guard against it.

Strongholds, too, were more common in the early days of gaming. They are an essential part of D&D's lost endgame, something that was still emphasized as late as Mentzer's BECMI boxed sets, so it's little wonder that Gygax makes note of them here. Equally interesting to me is the notion that one could play a henchmen as a kind of "substitute player character" in circumstances when one's actual character is unavailable. This practice was widespread in my youth and is a way one can recognize a rich and well-developed campaign. My House of Worms Empire of the Petal Throne campaign is full of instances where the players have taken up the roles of NPCs associated with their PCs when it was, for various reasons, impossible to play the PCs. 

Because they are so useful, and because they are typically so devoted, there are charisma limitations as to how many henchmen a PC is able to attract.

It's fascinating, from the vantage point of more than four decades in the future, that Gygax simply takes it as given that henchmen are "so useful." I don't disagree with that perspective in the slightest, only that it's not one that's commonplace nowadays. Does contemporary D&D even mention henchmen – or would that be henchfolk? – or describe Charisma in a way that relates to the attracting of followers? I honestly don't know, but I'd be delighted to learn that it does, since, as this section of the DMG makes clear, Gygax at least considered them a significant aspect of play for "discerning players."

Retainers in Moldvay/Cook/Marsh

I am used to getting emails from people asking me questions about various topics and I don't mind receiving them, though I am often rather slow in responding. My apologies for that. Anyway, when I get several -- or, in this case, three -- on the same day and all about the same topic, I begin to wonder what's going on.

Today, the topic in question was henchmen and hirelings and their use in old school D&D. In the past, I've said that I think OD&D (and, to a lesser extent, AD&D) assumes that PCs will employ hirelings and acquire henchmen to accompany them on their adventures. That's why Charisma isn't a "dump stat" in OD&D: you want a good score in order to be able to secure (and retain) the services of hirelings. (Of course, it's worth noting that, unless a character's score is very high, he's only going to be able to employ 4 or 5 hirelings at most) In my Dwimmermount game, hirelings and henchmen have been important from the start, with several of these NPCs, such as Gaztea. Angrboda, and Hap, having become every bit as important as the PCs who employ them. When I was a kid, it was pretty common for our adventuring parties to include porters and torch bearers and men-at-arms, in addition to the occasional "specialist" of one sort or another. That's what we saw the older guys doing and we followed suit. Plus, it sure did help to have those extra guys along!

Because of these three emails, I went back to look at various older editions of D&D to see what they said about hirelings and henchmen. Maybe later I'll post some thoughts based on what I saw in the LBBs and AD&D, but, for the moment, I'm going to stick to the Moldvay Basic and Cook/Marsh Expert rulebooks, because I was actually quite surprised by what I found there. For example, Moldvay begins his discussion of "Party Size and Composition" by saying,

It is not wise to adventure alone, for the monsters which may be encountered are numerous. It is much safe to go adventuring with a group of people who can help and protect each other. The best size of an adventure party is 6-8 characters, enough to handle the challenges which will be faced, but not too many to become disorganized or to ruin chances to surprise the monsters.

Later on, in a follow-up paragraph, Moldvay states that "The DM may allow a player character to hire companions to add to the size of a party." May. That's an important word, as we'll see in a bit.

A few pages on, Moldvay devotes nearly an entire page to explaining the rules surrounding retainers (as he calls hirelings), including how they may be hired and their loyalty to their employer. One noteworthy element of this section is that the hiring of retainers is presented as at least in part a roleplaying challenge, with the PCs expected to conduct interviews of prospective employees. Likewise, Moldvay stresses that, even if the PCs are generous in their terms, there may simply not be enough NPCs interested in signing on with the PCs, meaning that the hiring of retainers is not simply a function of a character's having a requisite Charisma score and cash to spare. He also notes that

Retainers are often used to strengthen a party which is attempting extremely dangerous adventures. It is recommended that the DM not allow beginning characters to hire retainers. New players tend to use retainers as a crutch, letting them take all the risks. If a dungeon is very difficult, the DM should let the players have more than one character apiece before using retainers, at least until players are more experienced. Hirelings are experts which can be hired by the characters. They are more suited to higher level campaigns and are explained in the D&D EXPERT SET.

There's lots to to chew on in that paragraph, such as the distinction between a "retainer" and a "hireling" (the latter term being one that the Expert Rules do not employ, opting for "specialist" instead), but what I found most intriguing was the admonition against allowing beginning characters to hire retainers, for fear they'd become "a crutch." That's quite the reversal from the received wisdom in the old school world these days, where it's generally claimed that beginning characters have the greatest cause to employ retainers and that their employment shows that the players are being thoughtful and cautious.

Turning to the Expert rulebook, there are a handful of interesting points to consider. First, in a section entitled "Organizing the Party," there's a sample party presented, consisting of four PCs and two retainers -- quite a small number! Later, in discussing "Specialists and Mercenaries," the rulebook states that

During the game, characters may need to hire NPCs with training or special skills in a certain area. These people are known as specialists. Specialists are not retainers and they will not go on adventures.

Examples of specialists are alchemists, armorers, and engineers. In discussing mercenaries, it's not that

Like specialists, they will usually not go on dungeon adventures and will only participate in wilderness adventures such as fighting other armies, clearing land of monsters around the castle, and defending the castle.

And that's the extent of information on retainers in Moldvay/Cook/Marsh that I could find easily. What's interesting to me is how much this information differs both from my recollection of it and the assumptions of a lot of old school fans these days. When I was a kid, I distinctly recall using the rules for specialists and mercenaries in the Expert book to round out the party when going on dungeon expeditions. Likewise, my reading of both the LBBs and AD&D is that there's an assumption (often implicit) that most PCs will have one or more hirelings in their employ who will accompany them wherever they go, provided they are paid, outfitted, and treated well.

Clearly, though, that's not what Moldvay/Cook/Marsh actually say and I have to wonder what had happened by 1981 that it was deemed necessary to out and out state that many hirelings do not venture into dungeons and that low-level PCs ought not to have hirelings, lest they become a crutch. It's not something I'd ever really given much thought to, but I must admit that, knowing what I know now, we might well have stumbled on an explanation for why so many gamers have an aversion to the very idea of retainers: they picked up their attitude from the B/X rulebooks.

(As an aside, it's worth noting that the Rules Cyclopedia is a little softer in its stance on retainers. While sharing the insistence that mercenaries "do not normally go on dungeon adventures," it does allow that other non-specialist retainers might be allowed in games "with only a few players or with weak and inexperienced characters," if the referee wishes to allow them)