So my group played an ACKS campaign for about a year, finishing a year or two ago. There were aspects we liked, namely the simplicity of the system, and some of the activities it lets you do that other systems don't come near. Talk has come up about going another round, but players have expressed a certain... wariness... and it relates mainly to henchmen.
In their opinion/experience, they felt that looking after all the henchmen was a fair bit of effort, and not something they would want to do again, despite that it feels like you're missing a trick by not taking them. For the most part, I think they were just a bit weary of controlling all the different characters in combat and handling the admin that follows (i.e. handing out looted equipment, making sure they all get their XP calculated and updated). Admin is something the players accept for their own character, but they don't love having to do it for 4 characters.
I was wondering if anyone else has had similar feelings crop up in their group, and if so, how those feelings were addressed. As the GM I could take some of the load off them by doing the character admin for them between sessions, particularly if I kept character XP on a spreadsheet rather than character sheets, although I'm wary of signing up to that (I don't have a ton of time to dedicate to between-session stuff, and the time I do have I would rather put towards world and encounter creation). They have talked about playing a game where they just don't take henchmen along, but I'm conscious that henches are a pretty big asset in the game.
We have a similar henchman heavy situation in my own group. Currently the party is at about 19 characters/henchmen held among 5 players. Things get pretty crowded in a dungeon and I've generally been a stickler about not letting people who are too far back in the train get to attack.
One thing to keep in mind is that, in theory, this is all balanced. Hiring more henchman allows you to take on harder challenges, but they also take a share of the loot, so the bigger challenge doesn't pay out as big as going with just a core group. When I'm looking over pre-made adventures, I tend to guage how difficult I expect it to be based on total levels. For example, if a module is for 4-6 PCs leveled 6-10, I assume total levels lof the party should be somewhere between 24-60. In my player's case, nobody was level 6 yet, but total levels with henchman was like 58, so they made short work of that module.
Now, if your players don't agree and feel that henchman are too powerful for their cost, the easiest tweak is to increase the default share they ask for. The game recommends 15%, but this might genuinely be a bit low. instead of a 1/6th share have them ask for a 1/4th or 1/3rd share instead. That should make it more likely they'll only hire a few trusted, almost-as-high-level henchman.
Also remember that the emphasis on henchmen that ACKS reimplemented predates the "PC party joined at the hip" mode of play. BitD, a game session would often be the DM, one or two players, and each player's PC and retinue of henchmen. Sometimes, it was one or more henchmen of a player's main PC, handling something that didn't draw the attention of the main PC.
IIRC, (havent looked it up), ACKS allows henchmen to act separately from but at the behest of the main PC without an automatic morale check. Whether that be campaign activities (which can be engaged in prior to establishing a stronghold) or side adventures, a retinue of henchmen is far more flexible than "everyone in the same dungeon".
My group was slow to adopt henchman, and nothing broke while they went without. (Though they did come around eventually, so that's not tested at all levels.)
I did handle xp for henches, without even really thinking about, since I figure xp anyway. You say spreadsheet like it's a bad word, but done right you set it up once, figure out xp with it up, and it's no slower than figuring out xp without it.
Also remember that the emphasis on henchmen that ACKS reimplemented predates the "PC party joined at the hip" mode of play. BitD, a game session would often be the DM, one or two players, and each player's PC and retinue of henchmen. Sometimes, it was one or more henchmen of a player's main PC, handling something that didn't draw the attention of the main PC.
IIRC, (havent looked it up), ACKS allows henchmen to act separately from but at the behest of the main PC without an automatic morale check. Whether that be campaign activities (which can be engaged in prior to establishing a stronghold) or side adventures, a retinue of henchmen is far more flexible than "everyone in the same dungeon".
[/quote]
Bad manners to quote myself, but I have an addendum. The early published modules were written and recommended for parties of 8-12 characters, all falling within a level range. A group of 4-6 players, each running (on average) a PC and a henchman, fills out that 8-12 character group. PCs would presumably be of higher level within the range, and their henchmen lower.
But fewer players with more henchmen could aslo fit the bill. At an extreme, one player, with a main PC and max-for-ACKS henchmen (and/or henchmen who have henchmen, also allowed in ACKS IIRC), could bring a sufficient group for such a module.
While it would seem players will miss out on something without henchman, it is actually just all about the players having fun. Whether they use henchman or not is part of that fun.
Personally I wouldn't be too worried about a group without henchman (or very few), especially if it just isnt the fun aspect for the players.
That said if henchman are fun for the players and it is just the xp tracking and the like that is the issue, you could always simply keep the Henchman at 1 level below the PCs (or however many you want), thus removing any need to track henchman xp (any xp share they get just vanishes into the void of lost xp). Sure it isn't as accurate as specific XP tracking for them but if that is more fun, then it is a win.
For our group we are actually a fairly technical bunch so the extra tracking is a bit extra we enjoy (even then we usualy have only 1-2 henchmen per player). However we dont bother tracking the monetary funds a Henchman has, their share of the loot goes into their pockets and it is presumed they spend it on stuff, or do whatever they do with it. Should the henchmen die they have only their gear and a moderate stipance that would be thier "fluid" funds. So Henchmen essentally live pay-check to pay-check.