Should PCs or the GM run a player's followers, cohorts and minions?

[Paul_Klein]

Really, the title says it all. For the first time, a player in my campaign (d20 Modern) will have followers, and don't know if I or he should run them. What is the generally accepted method of handling this?

Thanks!

 

[psychognome]

I'd say that the GM should be in control of the followers.

Even though they are the PC's minions, they are still NPCs. The PC should have some authority in determining what his minions should do, but this should be directly roleplayed, as such:

"Arnold looks at his minions and shouts 'Get down!'"

Not as such:

"Arnold's minions get down!"

 

[Mytholder]

Depends on what the followers are doing. In a big, pitched battle, I'd let the player handle them, mainly because I (as the GM) have more than enough to think about with the bad guys, and really don't want to worry about where Follower #327 is going to move to. Otherwise, the GM should take them as NPCs.

 

[Celtavian]

re

It really should be a joint effort. It is much easier if the player does the follower's rolls and makes their combat decisions, but the DM should roleplay the follower and help flesh out their personality. That is how we run it in my gaming group.

 

[shilsen]

I don't know who suggested it, but someone on these boards had an interesting idea - let another player run the cohort/follower as a "secondary" character. This ensures that the DM doesn't have one extra thing to add to a (presumably) already loaded plate, and also takes care of the problem of having a player run his PC's cohort as an automaton. I haven't had a chance to try it out, but I am definitely considering it if the issue comes up.

 

[Numion]

I let my player almost fully control the cohort. I would sometimes say what the cohort had in mind, but usually that wasn't much. That was the cohort. The low-level followers I (the DM) controlled. It would've been just too strange to have them act like as a hive-mind, which they would've probably done under that player.

So, cohort was controlled by the player, and followers not. Thats ok as well, because followers rarely adventured with the PCs, but the cohort did.

 

[Shallown]

As GM I try to run them for a little while to introduce and establich thier personality then letthe player take over. My players know I have ultimate control of the NPC, it just is too much to keep up with another Npc. So as long as the player runs them within some boundaries not as a mere extension of their own character they can control them. If they continously screw it up (which has never happened It's a matter of knowing your players and who can handle it) I would probably just pull the NPC back to my control even if it entailed more work.

Later

 

[silburnl]

I don't know who suggested it, but someone on these boards had an interesting idea - let another player run the cohort/follower as a "secondary" character.

I think that was probably me. I ripped the idea off from Ars Magica's Mage/Companion split.

Extending the metaphor for followers, they could be treated like Ars Magica grogs - a shared pool of minor characters that can be passed around the group to be run by whomever has least to do at the time when the follower(s) get a bit of screentime.

This sort of troupe-style division works best when all the characters form part of a larger community in a longer-term episodic campaign (which is the ArsM default) so it might need to be tuned a bit for the rather different D&D default.

Regards
Luke

 

[Rel]

I think I stole this idea from Piratecat...

IMC, the player makes most tactical decisions for the follower, animal companion or familiar. But if there is a decision that seems in question, the player to their left makes the final call.

From 3 sessions ago this led to:

Wizard - "Stay here and keep your eyes open to see if they try any treachery."

Weasel Familiar - "You want me to stand guard? In the dark? Alone? Against spell weilding Spider Folk? I don't think so boss. You're smarter than that. And if you're not, I AM."

 

[JoeGKushner]

In most campaigns I've GMed, I usually controlled the henchmen at first to give the player a taste of what their personality was and then passed over control ot the player.

At this point though, as it's not really the player's character, the follower would have some thing hidden from the player and some things might not be fully explained to them. Items say, or history, some regional secret or ability that standard characters don't have.

At that point, unless the player does something to try and benefit at the henchmen's expense, I allow them pretty much full control.