NPC's as a supporting cast.

[ZenDog]

As my game is a one on one campaign, I'll have lots of Allied NPC's around the player. Some of them will generally stay in the settlement, but some of them will be members of his crew and raiding party.  Some of these friendly NPC's will be his social superiors (Jarls and Thanes) some his equal (Karls) some his social inferiors (Thralls and slaves). They will all have their own agenda's and goals (SA's for the major NPC's).

A small core group will be Varghoss's men, the most loyal of his crew, his companions and friends.

So peoples opinions, should I let the player run these NPC's in combat.  I'm inclined to do that because it would help keep my job more managable, during combat, and I trust the player not use his men as dumb cannon fodder in order to save his own skin (just doesn't fit with his character concept). It would also make it easier for him to lead his warriors in a logical way.

Anyone think of any reasons why this might be bad for our game?

[bergh]

YOU RUN THE NPC'S!

How many are we talking about? sometimes its takes the "edge" out of the combat with to many dice rolls, let the players play the characters and then in a combat you simply rolls a "random" dice to see how his men are doing, combat in TRoS are fast, seconds! the player can not INGAME look to see if his NPC's servants are doing alright if he himself is fighting! if a character walk away from the front line of the combat, to get a overview, then "storytelling" combat between NPC. Tell the player that that and that thrall is dead, and how one of the Gol's just have been hacked down by his Jarl.....you get the point, some times i just rolls a "random Dice (d10)" behind either behind my screen or in front of the players and the say high is good for the NPC. and then in my head i say that if the NPC rolls under 4, then he is hit with a deadly hit, on a 7+ he is winning, just adjust this simple number after what you think are fair.

Actually "storytelling" combat with NPC (both good and evil). is a good way to make the characters use there Battle and Tactics skills,
Just let the player interfere in your story. Take the ex. above with the jarl, and say that the player sees a large Gol behind the Jarl ready to kill him with no problems, then the player will properly try to interfere with it (or dod nothing if its a rival).

Hope you understand my bad english. but generaly im the kind of game master who thinks that TRoS is dice-heavy enough, it will get boring to roll dice for all those NPC.

[ZenDog]

I intend to run the NPC's (in terms of personality, descions etc) but was toying with the idea of the player controling them during combat. As it is a one on one and online game.

[toli]

So peoples opinions, should I let the player run these NPC's in combat.  

I would be inclined

1. let the player command them
2. have the GM decide what they actually do
3. run most NPC combat in an abstract form

What I've used in the past is to just do opposed attack rolls for NPCs.  More specifically, I halve the CP of the NPC and opponent and then roll all the dice.  The NPC with the most successes scores that much damage or just plain wins.  

Another approach that is even simpler is to use the Pendragon approach.  In Pendragon, the skill BATTLE combines leadership, tactics and battle (from TROS).  For a skirmish, the PC rolls his battle skill.  This gives a modifier (based on tactical advantages, better moral ect)  for any PCs or important NPCs in that primary PCs following.  Then the PCs fight for a bit.  At some point, the GM has the PC re-roll BATTLe (with modifiers).  This second battle roll is the followers fate roll.  Critical = no losses.  Success = 10 % losses, failure = 50% losses, fumble = 75% losses (something like that any way..)

Both are simple and fast.