Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1117803Yeah, I don't divide treasure XP evenly. I let the players decide how treasure is split and grant the treasure XP based on how they choose to split it. I do divide monster XP evenly, though.

Hireling monetary rewards can be tricky, and it probably depends on exactly how the hirelings are used. For example, if the hirelings in question are "adventuring" as if they're full party/equal members, then yes, I think their loyalty would suffer if they don't get substantial shares of the loot. (To me, that's more like how henchmen often operate.) But if they're more like "camp guards" or "garrison duty," then they might be content with more standard men-at-arms pay, possible at the "dangerous duty" scale. Also, I look at examples from history, like how shares were allocated on age of sail ships (i.e., not equally, and there was no expectation of equality there). For some situations, that can be a useful guide that can parallel the model of an adventuring party leading a group that includes men-at-arms hirelings. Also, I think our modern views on equality and what might be expected color our perspective. In a more feudal-based or influenced society, many hirelings would probably see the PC's kind of like leaders/lords in the "gold and gift giver" roles. They'd expect to be rewarded, of course, but probably wouldn't expect pure equality. But successful lords and gold-givers would inspire some loyalty through their success and their generosity. In short, as long as the PCs are giving their hirelings wealth and prestige that those hirelings wouldn't have, otherwise, I can see hirelings being content with what a modern person might not consider a "fair share."

Some of this also depends on how you model your game and campaigns. I run D&D with the idea that the PCs are adventurers seeking fortune and glory. Thus fortune and glory are major goals, which works very well with treasure-based XP, et cetera. And it works well with the idea that the PCs take on the roles of leaders/lords/gift-givers as the campaign develops. And that works well with followers being, well...followers. Individuals that hitch on to a rising star in hopes of bettering their own situation, but don't expect to be equals or "stars," themselves.

And, obviously, if hirelings and followers are ill-used, then they would have little or no loyalty to the PCs. If they're callously employed as disposable cannon fodder, then they'd almost certainly abandon or turn on the PCs. But if they're rewarded in line with what they see as their "place" and their expectations, then they're likely to be content and loyal. In my experience, most players tend to be pretty generous with their followers. They usually want to be seen as good leaders and gold-givers: lords to follow.

I believe that the 5e costs for hirelings are considerably higher than in previous editions. I recall being able to attract a mercenary for 4-6 gp/month years ago whereas they now expect 2gp/day thanks to Amazon pushing up the minimum wages.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1117780Absolutely yes.

Can you give an example of the roster of an expedition.

Here is a man-at-arms tracker from a 10-year-old 1e AD&D game. Looks like the group had ten active men-at-arms at the time the sheet was last updated. They were used as camp guards and for general bulking up of the party while travelling through the wilderness.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5R2-xYFZszhZTE2ODgzOTMtNjJmMC00ODI1LWJmYTgtYWEyZjAzY2QzNjZm/view?usp=sharing

Reading through old notes, it looks like they topped out at around 14 regular infantry and 10 archers.

They also had a couple mules and a mule handler or two, about 8 PCs and 6 henchmen. I don't think they had an other cooks/servants/valets, although they probably should have.

Edit: If you scroll right on the tracker, cause of death is listed for the deceased.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117817Can you give an example of the roster of an expedition.

For my group it works out to about 4 PCs, 3 henchmen, a couple of porters/beast handlers, a couple hired scouts familiar with the area, a cook, 2-3 general purpose laborers (pitch tents, gather firewood, clear collapsed tunnel entrances, etc.) and six camp guards (i.e. they don't go into the dungeons)... so about 20-21 men, a dozen beasts of burden and 4 wagons... roughly 2 support personnel for every PC/henchman who goes into the dungeons.

Basically enough to make your typical wild beast or scouting band (a dozen-ish or less humanoids) not want to bother with the effort, but small enough the whole group (minus the wagons) could also take shelter in the first room or so of a dungeon if they need to (the entrance being a good defensive choke-point).

Quote from: Chris24601;1117823For my group it works out to about 4 PCs, 3 henchmen, a couple of porters/beast handlers, a couple hired scouts familiar with the area, a cook, 2-3 general purpose laborers (pitch tents, gather firewood, clear collapsed tunnel entrances, etc.) and six camp guards (i.e. they don't go into the dungeons)... so about 20-21 men, a dozen beasts of burden and 4 wagons... roughly 2 support personnel for every PC/henchman who goes into the dungeons.

Basically enough to make your typical wild beast or scouting band (a dozen-ish or less humanoids) not want to bother with the effort, but small enough the whole group (minus the wagons) could also take shelter in the first room or so of a dungeon if they need to (the entrance being a good defensive choke-point).

This group used wagons and (I assume) mounts; what kinds of terrain were you generally traveling through? Did feeding the beasts ever become an issue? I suppose that magic (e.g., goodberry in 5e) can make feeding horses a trivial concern but they still probably need plenty of water.

Do most such expeditions travel on mounts/in vehicles overland, or is foot travel more common?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117829This group used wagons and (I assume) mounts; what kinds of terrain were you generally traveling through? Did feeding the beasts ever become an issue? I suppose that magic (e.g., goodberry in 5e) can make feeding horses a trivial concern but they still probably need plenty of water.

Do most such expeditions travel on mounts/in vehicles overland, or is foot travel more common?

Typically the terrain in most of out campaigns is generally a massively depopulated Medieval Europe (i.e. overall population density on the order of 1/sq. mile (in practice post-cataclysmic city-states of 30-100k surrounded by miles of monster-haunted ruin-filled wilderness reclaimed by nature)... so mostly grassland, low hills and light forest.

Our groups were largely mixed in terms of locomotion... some had mounts, some rode in the wagons, others walked. Despite what RPGs might imply, horses and wagons didn't actually improve your ground speed vs. walking... it just tired you out a lot less to be carried (and realistic travel times are about ten miles a day over land).

As to feed, if you skip winter travel most horses can stay healthy with a couple pounds of grain per day (200 lb. of grain would be good for a week's travel) and giving them enough time to graze to cover the remainder. One of the reasons for hiring some local scouts is because they'll know where to get fresh water, fields for grazing and easier travel routes in general.

As a rule for myself, even if magic is available to cover food and water, I plan my provisions as if I didn't have the magic. Spells are better saved for emergencies and things ordinary gear can't handle. Magic items are nice, but tend to be all or nothing. If all your food comes from a single item and it gets lost, you're out of luck. If you lose one of your four wagons (and you spread your food out) then food might be tight, but you've still got enough on hand to alter plans accordingly (if you pack enough food to get there and back, you'll always have enough to get home even if you lose half your supplies).

It'd be even less of an issue in more populated settings akin to actual Medieval Europe there will likely be "rest areas" along major trade routes and small villages/manors every couple of miles.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117737Not before 3e, and not after it either (except in 3e derivatives like Pathfinder).

In ADnD the short form for writing NPCs was: Fighter 1, Magic User 3, Thief 2 so I dont know how you imagine it is a 3e thing,

QuoteIn 5e, the basic mercenary is a Guard from the NPC appendix of the Monster Manual. The Guard has neither a character class nor a character leve!.

I dont know how 5e fucked up NPCs.

Quote from: Shasarak;1117840In ADnD the short form for writing NPCs was: Fighter 1, Magic User 3, Thief 2 so I dont know how you imagine it is a 3e thing,

Those are classed NPCs.

Your standard AD&D man-at-arms is level 0 and has no class. 1d6hp, I believe. They use the level 0 row of the Fighter attack and saving throw tables, but they're not Fighters.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1117843Those are classed NPCs.

Your standard AD&D man-at-arms is level 0 and has no class. 1d6hp, I believe. They use the level 0 row of the Fighter attack and saving throw tables, but they're not Fighters.

Exactly. Those basic NPCs also lacked much of the stats classed individual had (like ability scores). 3e added everything to them that PCs had, and 5e pulls back a bit from that (ability scores but not classes).

Quote from: Shasarak;1117840I dont know how



I dont know how

Yes, that's become quite clear to me.

Greetings!

Well, my groups generally bring along an assortment of mercenaries, a cook, several labourers, a few animal handlers, and several skilled scouts. Sometimes a Cartographer as well, and a Historian. And, depending on the expedition, a few translators.

The hirelings usually stay at the base camp, with only the most bold and skilled being willing to accompany the adventurers into the crazy dungeons.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: HappyDaze;1117845Yes, that's become quite clear to me.

I was being polite.  I do know how you can make such a incompetent mistake like that.

Quote from: Chris24601;1117823For my group it works out to about 4 PCs, 3 henchmen, a couple of porters/beast handlers, a couple hired scouts familiar with the area, a cook, 2-3 general purpose laborers (pitch tents, gather firewood, clear collapsed tunnel entrances, etc.) and six camp guards (i.e. they don't go into the dungeons)... so about 20-21 men, a dozen beasts of burden and 4 wagons... roughly 2 support personnel for every PC/henchman who goes into the dungeons.

Basically enough to make your typical wild beast or scouting band (a dozen-ish or less humanoids) not want to bother with the effort, but small enough the whole group (minus the wagons) could also take shelter in the first room or so of a dungeon if they need to (the entrance being a good defensive choke-point).

I assume that each of these people didn't need a multi-page background write-up?
Were they even given names and stat blocks?

From what I gather, these days there would be so much "role playing" just within the "caravan" that there would be no time to actually explore a dungeon.

Were there times when sessions were just about the "caravan" interactions?

Henchmen in particular are a 'force multiplier" - a party can tackle a stronger challenge with them than without them. Stronger challenge means higher rewards, both treasure and XP. In most rules sets, NPC henchmen get a fraction of a share of both treasure and XP as compared to PCs because they are "followers/joiners", rather than taking their own initiative for adventure. This is, overall, an incentive to take NPC adventuring henchmen.

As for an entourage to handle base camp, bearing gear, etc. - this is much closer to historic expeditions than the "wandering band of 4-6 PCs" that has come to dominate game play.

In both of the above, the DM has to be cooperative - if NPCs are regularly slaughtered offscreen or betray the PCs, henchmen demand full shares, etc., then the PCs are better off without them.

Quote from: Greentongue;1117859I assume that each of these people didn't need a multi-page background write-up?
Were they even given names and stat blocks?

Our PCs don't even get multi-page background write-ups, so no on the first. That said, everyone did have a name and at least a basic personality (i.e. the sort of thing you'd find on the random personality table in the DMG in terms of depth). The PCs and Henchmen obviously had full stats (the whole point of henchmen is they've got class levels) while the guards used the generic guard stats, the scouts used the generic irregulars stats and the rest just used a default "commoner" stat block if it was ever needed.

QuoteFrom what I gather, these days there would be so much "role playing" just within the "caravan" that there would be no time to actually explore a dungeon.

Were there times when sessions were just about the "caravan" interactions?

Not as much as you'd think. Because only the PCs/Henchmen went into the dungeons before they were cleared and we paid well, there was very little turnover in our crew. That meant that once the initial personality conflicts were dealt with there wasn't much to RP about. We're professionals doing a job, not a group therapy session.

Far more common in terms of roleplaying in the caravan scenario was when we actually traveled with other groups going the same direction. Then we'd get to know the new groups and it was basically a mobile tavern/town in terms of RP. Meet some interesting personalities, hear some rumors, maybe make a few trades and get asked to do a job (one time we emded up temporally dropping our original dungeon crawl for escorting a bunch of pilgrims looking to retake an abandoned and now monster infested holy site because the rewards sounded more lucrative).