Something I've discussed in reddit too...
There are two distinct moments when the referee could gauge the disposition of NPCs: (a) on first sight, and (b) after a few words/offers are exchanged.
How do you deal with that, in practice? Let's say a pack of wolves appear. Do you roll immediately to see if they attack? Using whose Charisma? What do amicable wolves do?
What if a few bandits appear, you roll, and THEN the PCs make an offer (bribe) so both sides can walk away uninjured. Roll again? Add Charisma then?
Are people with Charisma 18 exempt from being immediately attacked by wolves?
Or do you roll twice (I'm tempted to do this), start with the most obvious disposition, roll then roleplay, other solutions, etc.
Thanks!
EDIT: I'm accepting both "this is how we do" and "this is what the official tules we use say!". ;)
We've been playing Barbaric! 2nd Ed from Stellagama. And I kind of like how they do it.
There is a table from good to bad, which is kind of standard. Start the creatures on the correct scale or roll randomly, possible with a plus or minus if there is some sort of inherent reasons for like or dislike. The PC can use charisma to influence the scale to one band better.
I kind of like it because it is an improvement, but it isn't an instant "win".
But I'll also throw all that out for good role-playing (rule of cool). I had players talk to opponents because everybody kept missing in combat. Opponents found out the person who paid them to attack the PCs was betraying them. They ceased combat, and came back as friendlies in the next session.
Great questions. Wolves don't give a shit about PC charisma. So the reaction roll is to determine if the wolves have the fortitude to attack or flee.
Same goes for random encounters. Those are meant to punish dawdling dungeon crawlers. If you don't use these, then early D&D games and derivatives are a meat grinder.
If I have a neutral planned encounter then the reaction roll is used after the roleplaying. I also use it for bartering, again, after roleplaying.
If you're a GM, not a random content generator, I suppose you know in advance if this encounter the players just met is or isn't hostile. And if it's on the fence, some roleplaying is going to fix that.
I guess.
I have to be honest and say that I've never used a "reaction roll" in my DM'ing/GM'ing career, at least if that means simply using a pure chance die roll to decide how a creature/NPC will act when I introduce them. If I bother to introduce a creature/NPC at all it's usually for a reason, which means I already have in mind its starting point for reactions. Even random encounters, I think, should usually have a preset "starting attitude" -- rolling once for the encounter and then again for reaction strikes me as unnecessary duplication of effort, especially if the latter roll can wind up rendering the former pointless. A pack of wolves that appears in the firelight but vanishes away upon seeing the party is just narrative colour, not an encounter.
Now if the PCs want to take actions or make rolls of their own to influence that reaction, then certainly the NPCs/creatures get rolls to resist it. But that falls under more active PC-NPC contests, which involves much more player input.
IIRC in Rules Cyclopedia, it implies that if as the GM you don't already know the basic disposition of the encounter, you roll once for that. Then if a parlay develops in some form or another, you'd roll at the appropriate time to see how it came out--if not obvious. At least that's the way I understand it.
If a group of hungry worgs finds the party and they look tasty and not very tough, I don't need a roll. If a group of plain old wolves have been hanging around in the area, they might trail hoping for a straggler, or at least a left over carcass. Don't need a roll for that either. Desperately starving wolves in a big pack with a party they've been trailing all day by haven't worked up the nerve to attack yet? Might roll for that one.
Likewise, sometimes what the players do or don't do, what they offer, etc. means I don't need a roll for the parlay.
As for charisma, I'd use that as needing some way to at least communicate intent. Whether you'd let that apply when, say, offering the remains of a deer to a wolf pack, will depend on what kind of precedents you want to set. Though that's one of the reasons I don't have charisma in my own system. Instead, I use a combination of certain traits, skills, and will power. So a character with the "Beasts" skill and the "Survival" trait would have a whole lot better chance of convincing wolves to go away, whereas the person fluent in several languages and the "Conversation" trait instead that does a lot of the talking normally is out of luck.
I imported the reaction roll into my Dragon Warriors campaign, as it was one of the few things I thought that system was missing. I use it in one of two situations:
1) For random encounters. I've dropped a lot of the randomness in my campaign over time, but held onto random encounters as a way of keeping a little feeling of chaos in the campaign. I generally roll a few days worth of random encounters before each session, so if one comes up I roll a reaction for the NPCs' initial disposition.
2) as a kind of "tie-breaker". If the PCs say or do something where as the GM I feel like an NPC might plausibly react either way, I'll roll the reaction table, add a +1 or -1 for the character's "Looks" score (charisma equivalent), and then translate the result into the roleplay.
In both cases I'll freely veto the results on the table if I don't think they fit. Having a vampire roll "enthusiastic friendship" can be fun, but when Jerry the Gate Guard rolls "immediate attack" I'm just going to skip it.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 03, 2023, 10:31:11 PM
IIRC in Rules Cyclopedia, it implies that if as the GM you don't already know the basic disposition of the encounter, you roll once for that. Then if a parlay develops in some form or another, you'd roll at the appropriate time to see how it came out--if not obvious. At least that's the way I understand it.
If a group of hungry worgs finds the party and they look tasty and not very tough, I don't need a roll. If a group of plain old wolves have been hanging around in the area, they might trail hoping for a straggler, or at least a left over carcass. Don't need a roll for that either. Desperately starving wolves in a big pack with a party they've been trailing all day by haven't worked up the nerve to attack yet? Might roll for that one.
Agreed with first paragraph, makes sense.
Second one, I'm not sure - a random encounter table will only give you wolves, not starving or well fed; so you decide by GM fiat instead of rolling reaction?
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 03, 2023, 10:46:17 PM
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 03, 2023, 10:31:11 PM
IIRC in Rules Cyclopedia, it implies that if as the GM you don't already know the basic disposition of the encounter, you roll once for that. Then if a parlay develops in some form or another, you'd roll at the appropriate time to see how it came out--if not obvious. At least that's the way I understand it.
If a group of hungry worgs finds the party and they look tasty and not very tough, I don't need a roll. If a group of plain old wolves have been hanging around in the area, they might trail hoping for a straggler, or at least a left over carcass. Don't need a roll for that either. Desperately starving wolves in a big pack with a party they've been trailing all day by haven't worked up the nerve to attack yet? Might roll for that one.
Agreed with first paragraph, makes sense.
Second one, I'm not sure - a random encounter table will only give you wolves, not starving or well fed; so you decide by GM fiat instead of rolling reaction?
I don't want to answer for Steven, but I do it the opposite way. If the table comes up "hostile", that's what tells me that the wolves are starving.
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 03, 2023, 10:39:35 PMI'll freely veto the results on the table if I don't think they fit. Having a vampire roll "enthusiastic friendship" can be fun, but when Jerry the Gate Guard rolls "immediate attack" I'm just going to skip it.
Out of curiosity, how often do you find yourself doing this? Have odd results like the vampire who rolls Enthusiastic Friendship made real contributions to the game? (Serious question -- I'm always interested to hear if other ways of doing things actually turn out to work better than I would have expected.)
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 03, 2023, 08:54:03 PM
How do you deal with that, in practice? Let's say a pack of wolves appear. Do you roll immediately to see if they attack? Using whose Charisma? What do amicable wolves do?
(https://i.imgflip.com/2s99vy.jpg)
I had to...
Quote from: FingerRod on May 03, 2023, 09:42:11 PM
Great questions. Wolves don't give a shit about PC charisma. So the reaction roll is to determine if the wolves have the fortitude to attack or flee.
I'd say that depends on how your group want to interpret charisma. I could totally see a PC doing a Grizzly Adams or intimidation against wolves with a high charisma.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 03, 2023, 08:54:03 PM
There are two distinct moments when the referee could gauge the disposition of NPCs: (a) on first sight, and (b) after a few words/offers are exchanged.
The reaction roll is for first sight, which influences how the following words will be taken. It's like Walt and the kid in
Gran Torino. Walt knows the barber so has a good reaction roll, the kid doesn't and gets a bad reaction roll (obviously the DM imposed modifiers like "kid is young and not my race" etc), so even though they use basically the same words, they get very, very different responses.
First people decide how they feel about you.
Then they react to your words. If their reaction isn't to just pull a shotgun on you, of course.
I typically check for initial NPC disposition without reference to PC Charisma. Then PC interaction & CHA checks can modify NPC disposition up or down. I rarely do the RAW thing of rolling for initial disposition modified by PC Charisma since I don't grok how that makes sense in practice. The monsters take one look at the Paladin and think "Wow, what a guy!"?!
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/23/1e/f3/231ef33ec419f60294eb3b85d0c0b87d.jpg)
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 04, 2023, 04:04:01 AM
First people decide how they feel about you. Then they react to your words. If their reaction isn't to just pull a shotgun on you, of course.
Hm. So now I kinda see why RAW adds CHA mod to initial disposition! ;D Even in the example though, the characters do say a line to the barber before the "reaction roll". Hmm.
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 03, 2023, 11:14:21 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 03, 2023, 10:46:17 PM
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 03, 2023, 10:31:11 PM
IIRC in Rules Cyclopedia, it implies that if as the GM you don't already know the basic disposition of the encounter, you roll once for that. Then if a parlay develops in some form or another, you'd roll at the appropriate time to see how it came out--if not obvious. At least that's the way I understand it.
If a group of hungry worgs finds the party and they look tasty and not very tough, I don't need a roll. If a group of plain old wolves have been hanging around in the area, they might trail hoping for a straggler, or at least a left over carcass. Don't need a roll for that either. Desperately starving wolves in a big pack with a party they've been trailing all day by haven't worked up the nerve to attack yet? Might roll for that one.
Agreed with first paragraph, makes sense.
Second one, I'm not sure - a random encounter table will only give you wolves, not starving or well fed; so you decide by GM fiat instead of rolling reaction?
I don't want to answer for Steven, but I do it the opposite way. If the table comes up "hostile", that's what tells me that the wolves are starving.
I do something similar occasionally, but mostly I'm using my own random encounter tables customized for the area and the adventure. Plus, I have a default state for many monsters in mind, which means random animals mostly avoid people. For example, the adventure I'm running now has wolves as a random encounter in a stretch of wilderness that the party has to travel to go to and from an inn to the ruined keep they are exploring. The wolf entry is like this:
7. 1d6+4 wolves howling in the distance; dead elk ravaged by wolves; 1d6+4 wolves trailing party; repeat
Usually, I'll mark them off as they happen, though sometimes I'll jump around depending on how careful or aggressive the party is acting in general. (Also, and unrelated to this discussion, the first time through the table is worth experience as a hazard of doing the adventure. Any repeats are not. :D )
I tend to have lots of random encounters that don't lead to anything--unless the party investigates, is hurt, splits up, etc. It's more about the uncertainty than fighting a pack of wolves straight up, which isn't very scary. Besides, random howling in the distance could be werewolves. Hear that first, then something trailing you, it leads to a little jumpiness. My encounters are appropriate for the area (not necessarily the party if they wander into the wrong area). So random howling where they are now is most likely wolves, but they don't
know that for sure, because of past adventures.
Now, sometimes when I'm making the random encounter tables for the area, I'll roll on the reaction table to get an initial disposition, then do it the way ForgottenF said--rationalize the roll. That's using the reaction roll for inspiration instead of a game play thing. I'm much more likely to toss a result doing it beforehand that way, if a good way to rationalize it doesn't present itself pretty darn quick. My random tables are meant to embody the area. During play, before I even roll, if "friendly" isn't an option, that means there is a modifier to the reaction before I even roll. Once the roll hits, it stays.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 04, 2023, 07:43:36 AM
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 03, 2023, 11:14:21 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 03, 2023, 10:46:17 PM
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 03, 2023, 10:31:11 PM
IIRC in Rules Cyclopedia, it implies that if as the GM you don't already know the basic disposition of the encounter, you roll once for that. Then if a parlay develops in some form or another, you'd roll at the appropriate time to see how it came out--if not obvious. At least that's the way I understand it.
If a group of hungry worgs finds the party and they look tasty and not very tough, I don't need a roll. If a group of plain old wolves have been hanging around in the area, they might trail hoping for a straggler, or at least a left over carcass. Don't need a roll for that either. Desperately starving wolves in a big pack with a party they've been trailing all day by haven't worked up the nerve to attack yet? Might roll for that one.
Agreed with first paragraph, makes sense.
Second one, I'm not sure - a random encounter table will only give you wolves, not starving or well fed; so you decide by GM fiat instead of rolling reaction?
I don't want to answer for Steven, but I do it the opposite way. If the table comes up "hostile", that's what tells me that the wolves are starving.
I do something similar occasionally, but mostly I'm using my own random encounter tables customized for the area and the adventure. Plus, I have a default state for many monsters in mind, which means random animals mostly avoid people. For example, the adventure I'm running now has wolves as a random encounter in a stretch of wilderness that the party has to travel to go to and from an inn to the ruined keep they are exploring. The wolf entry is like this:
7. 1d6+4 wolves howling in the distance; dead elk ravaged by wolves; 1d6+4 wolves trailing party; repeat
Usually, I'll mark them off as they happen, though sometimes I'll jump around depending on how careful or aggressive the party is acting in general. (Also, and unrelated to this discussion, the first time through the table is worth experience as a hazard of doing the adventure. Any repeats are not. :D )
I tend to have lots of random encounters that don't lead to anything--unless the party investigates, is hurt, splits up, etc. It's more about the uncertainty than fighting a pack of wolves straight up, which isn't very scary. Besides, random howling in the distance could be werewolves. Hear that first, then something trailing you, it leads to a little jumpiness. My encounters are appropriate for the area (not necessarily the party if they wander into the wrong area). So random howling where they are now is most likely wolves, but they don't know that for sure, because of past adventures.
Now, sometimes when I'm making the random encounter tables for the area, I'll roll on the reaction table to get an initial disposition, then do it the way ForgottenF said--rationalize the roll. That's using the reaction roll for inspiration instead of a game play thing. I'm much more likely to toss a result doing it beforehand that way, if a good way to rationalize it doesn't present itself pretty darn quick. My random tables are meant to embody the area. During play, before I even roll, if "friendly" isn't an option, that means there is a modifier to the reaction before I even roll. Once the roll hits, it stays.
It makes sense, thanks both of you.
I've been using B/X rules for random encounters, so they don't include initial disposition. Rolling and then interpreting sounds good.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 04, 2023, 12:00:43 AM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 03, 2023, 08:54:03 PM
How do you deal with that, in practice? Let's say a pack of wolves appear. Do you roll immediately to see if they attack? Using whose Charisma? What do amicable wolves do?
(https://i.imgflip.com/2s99vy.jpg)
I had to...
;D ;D ;D ;D perfect!
Quote from: FingerRod on May 03, 2023, 09:42:11 PM
Great questions. Wolves don't give a shit about PC charisma. So the reaction roll is to determine if the wolves have the fortitude to attack or flee.
Same goes for random encounters. Those are meant to punish dawdling dungeon crawlers. If you don't use these, then early D&D games and derivatives are a meat grinder.
If I have a neutral planned encounter then the reaction roll is used after the roleplaying. I also use it for bartering, again, after roleplaying.
This makes sense too - different rules for wolves and, say, humanoids. RAW, they are the same, but like others in this thread I'm unsure if Charisma affects wolves.
Quote from: Mishihari on May 04, 2023, 02:39:01 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on May 03, 2023, 09:42:11 PM
Great questions. Wolves don't give a shit about PC charisma. So the reaction roll is to determine if the wolves have the fortitude to attack or flee.
I'd say that depends on how your group want to interpret charisma. I could totally see a PC doing a Grizzly Adams or intimidation against wolves with a high charisma.
Same here. Charisma isn't beauty or eloquence. Charisma is knowing how to work on your opponent without combat.
I'm OK with saying "Charisma is for sapients" and "<something else> is for non-sapients". But I'm also OK both being Charisma.
I remember one character in The Saxon Stories - a priest I think - that calms aggressive wolves with... what, empathy? In a fantasy setting, I can definitely see it.
But in D&D terms, should be Wisdom, because Druids and Clerics... and Rangers. Or leave it to Cha and paladins, I don't know.
Quote from: S'mon on May 04, 2023, 05:52:35 AM
Hm. So now I kinda see why RAW adds CHA mod to initial disposition! ;D Even in the example though, the characters do say a line to the barber before the "reaction roll". Hmm.
Remember that in AD&D1e, at least, combat rounds are a minute. You can say quite a few words in a minute. And it's not really specified in the rules, but I've always taken "parley" attempts to occur outside the structure of combat rounds. So I don't think of the reaction roll as something that happens with the mere sight of someone. It's not like The Mask goggling out when Cameron Diaz walks in the room. There need to be a few words, even just, "Hello, wandering monster, shall we talk?" and the player needn't specify those details.
We only need to get specific if the player wants to either fight, or make a particular deal. "We form a shield wall," or "I'll give you 1,000GP if you let me pass into your chieftain's hall."
The thing that I like to keep in mind is that the reaction roll is resolution mechanic that is used to determine an outcome that isn't known. As pointed out earlier in the thread, a pack of starving wolves wouldn't be influenced by much other than food. For humanoids and other intelligent creatures their beliefs and motivations are the biggest factor. For example, are those guards highly motivated and fanatical or are they rather unhappy and would prefer to be anywhere else? Having a few notes about these types of things can provide meaningful input into assigning bonuses or penalties to reaction rolls. Yes the actions and words of the PC's will be another factor, but the initial disposition of the npc's should not be discounted either.
Having a few notes about the creatures that are potentially encountered combined with the words and actions of the PC's will give you a fairly clear picture of how a given npc is likely to react. If a roll is still desired, then all of the information needed to modify that roll is at hand. For inspiration there are many personality trait tables out there. Major npc's will more than likely already be well defined, but for those minor npc's such as guards & servants, randomly generating a few traits could be fun. As always, temper the results with logic & common sense. For example most of the cultists in a particular place will be rather fanatical. There is room for exceptions. What if Bob the cultist only joined to look out for younger brother Joe who drank the kool-aid and is a true believer? Bob may behave differently than the other cultists and be of use to the party. His reaction to them may be influenced by his thoughts of how they could help to rescue his brother, perhaps tempered by how likely are these yahoos to actually take down the cult.
Preparation is key. Having a few brief notes prepared can inform the game master on whether a reaction roll is required and if so, provide the relevant information to come up with a fair modifier to the roll.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on May 03, 2023, 11:36:35 PM
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 03, 2023, 10:39:35 PMI'll freely veto the results on the table if I don't think they fit. Having a vampire roll "enthusiastic friendship" can be fun, but when Jerry the Gate Guard rolls "immediate attack" I'm just going to skip it.
Out of curiosity, how often do you find yourself doing this? Have odd results like the vampire who rolls Enthusiastic Friendship made real contributions to the game? (Serious question -- I'm always interested to hear if other ways of doing things actually turn out to work better than I would have expected.)
It's probably worth qualifying things by noting that I'm running a semi-historical campaign set in a fairly civilized country, so my random encounter percentages are fairly low, and a lot of what are on the tables are just different travelers you might meet on the road. I also don't use random encounters in dungeons, so they're purely for overland travel. (And I don't roll the reaction table at the beginning of planned encounters).
I would say that I don't often totally ignore the table, so much as I interpret the reaction based on the range of plausible reactions for a given character. A 2 on the roll is supposed to be "immediate attack". If I roll that for a band of trolls, then yeah they're going to attack, but if I roll it for a random servant, it just means he's surly and uncooperative.
I haven't really had the example in this campaign of a normally hostile monster rolling a 12, but I've had the opposite. My players rolled a random encounter with the Dragon Warriors version of an Ent, and the reaction roll came up "hostile". I decided that the tree-man had been asleep and woken up to find a group of charcoal burners cutting down and burning his grove. He'd attacked them, but been burned himself and gone on a bit of a berserk rampage (which caused him to run into the PCs' little caravan). I thought my players would just kill him in self-defense, but instead they wound up magically restraining and healing him, and then took him back to the charcoal burners' camp and brokered a bit of a peace between them. Not a terrible result for a couple of rolls on a random table.
If I have a complaint with the reaction roll table as it's usually laid out, it's that the 2d6 probability curve makes it likely to come up with a middle roll, which on the table I'm using is either "uncertain, confused" or "no attack, monster leaves". Those two results either kick the decision back to the GM (making the table pointless), or nullify the encounter entirely.
QuoteMy players rolled a random encounter with the Dragon Warriors version of an Ent, and the reaction roll came up "hostile". I decided that the tree-man had been asleep and woken up to find a group of charcoal burners cutting down and burning his grove. He'd attacked them, but been burned himself and gone on a bit of a berserk rampage (which caused him to run into the PCs' little caravan). I thought my players would just kill him in self-defense, but instead they wound up magically restraining and healing him, and then took him back to the charcoal burners' camp and brokered a bit of a peace between them. Not a terrible result for a couple of rolls on a random table.
That's actually pretty awesome. ;D Wish I'd been there for that one.
QuoteI don't often totally ignore the table, so much as I interpret the reaction based on the range of plausible reactions for a given character. ...If I have a complaint with the reaction roll table as it's usually laid out, it's that the 2d6 probability curve makes it likely to come up with a middle roll, which on the table I'm using is either "uncertain, confused" or "no attack, monster leaves". Those two results either kick the decision back to the GM (making the table pointless), or nullify the encounter entirely.
Yeah, those last two points have always been the stumbling block for me -- I have a constitutional aversion to self-nullifying rolls and duplication of effort.
What your experiences suggest to me is that it might be a better idea to rethink the idea of the "random reaction" encounter and describe it not in terms of the
reaction, but in terms of the encountered creature's/NPC's
objective, or its
motivation (EDIT: Exploderwizard had something of the same idea, above). Wildlife creatures could have a range of motivations from "Curiosity" and "Hunger" through to "Fear", "Madness" and "Aggression", and a range of degrees from "Mild" to "Significant" and up to "Extreme". Then the exact
manner in which that objective/motivation is played out in the encounter is up to the GM's and the players' assessment of each others' capabilities in the encounter. A curious pack of wolves might be encouraged to leave with a few tossed strips of jerky and some flourished torches; an impersonally maddened creature, like your Ent, might be met with lethal combat or with restraint and help, as the PCs choose.
From this perspective, the whole point of the encounter is that there has to be
some kind of interaction, or it's not worth spending time on. So results that produce no interesting interactions are to be avoided.
I'm thinking:
1st - Goal
2nd - Disposition toward to the PCs, if not obvious
3rd - Reaction to the PCs attempts to negotiate, if not obvious - now you roll with a Cha mod to see if you change initial disposition.
Now, I dislike the idea of using three rolls instead of one. But let me exemplify:
Wolf
1st - Goal: hunger
2nd - Disposition toward to the PCs, if not obvious: if hostile, the starved wolf tries to attack, if friendly approaches like a dog.
3rd - Reaction to the PCs attempts to negotiate, if not obvious: if the PCs try to domesticate, pet, etc., now you roll with a Cha mod to see if you change initial disposition.
Guards
1st - Goal: protect the castle
2nd - Disposition toward to the PCs, if not obvious: if hostile, threaten etc. If friendly, will make small talk, as about intentions, etc.
3rd - Reaction to the PCs attempts to communicate, if not obvious: if the PCs try to bribe, etc., now you roll - they also need to convince the guards they have good intentions.
EDIT: BTW, I created a more "generic" reaction able in Teratogenicon, which also contains suggested goals for each monster type. Also, I just realized I wrote a post on this subject before - about six months ago. Oh well...
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxmW47nKGV8M2F2LjuR23zPtz3zcziqSkLx0Z05f_5IEURatJzvdEIps6FoSDzRRj86HQVc6_vSkJD5rHz9eP0OurSLFUfatsKFaPfBkmITI5fnqM22lcf8DQRK4Z2tB9luyaad_CSQK7L4T5QU8ytzH3Ceor_8CZ2X13vPHe6E-QYdIgm7oiUsrByyw/s16000/reaction.png)
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/a-d20-reaction-check-osr.html
"The solution, IMO, is tackling this from a different angle: Charisma doesn't affect reaction rolls. Reaction rolls are for the GM alone. Charisma affects attempts to change the monster's behavior.
Which method you use to handle it is a matter of preference. I might use target 18, with -3 to +3 from Charisma, and the usual +4 to -4 from circumstances. Offering food or treasure definitely helps. A success means the reaction improved by one step (from hostile to neutral, for example). Further negotiation is needed to improve it further. A d20 roll also leaves space for class bonuses, feats, or skills (see Persuasion in DFB, for example).
Now, this is important: most of the process is still role-playing. It is only when the GM is unsure of the result that the dice come out. But when they do - then the charismatic PC has a decent advantage.
This has another upside: charisma only "activates" when players want to make an effort. The roll is delayed, sometimes ignored (if the offer is good enough). This feels more natural and useful - there is a space between "see how the monster feels at first" and "see how the monster reacts to the PC's offers". The second roll is informed by the PCs approach - a threat, for example, may cause a monster to be "helpful", but this is completely different than being helpful at first sight.
Finally, this leaves 2d6 rolls for the GM, with some exceptions (turn undead, morale, loyalty). come to think of it, morale and loyalty might benefit from a similar approach. But that's the subject for another post."
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 05, 2023, 09:10:30 PM
"The solution, IMO, is tackling this from a different angle: Charisma doesn't affect reaction rolls. Reaction rolls are for the GM alone. Charisma affects attempts to change the monster's behavior.
This is how I run my OD&D game. I break it down to the basics. The players can impact the world or the world can impact the players.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on May 05, 2023, 06:21:06 PM
What your experiences suggest to me is that it might be a better idea to rethink the idea of the "random reaction" encounter and describe it not in terms of the reaction, but in terms of the encountered creature's/NPC's objective, or its motivation
Yeah, that seems to describe how I do it. A mid-range result means 'typical for the creature', so eg neutral wolves aren't going to charge berserkly onto the PCs' spears.
Example (2d6):
2-5 Hostile goblins act more like videogame monsters, and charge to attack. If taking casualties they still check morale of course.
6-8 Neutral goblins probably still want to hurt people and take their stuff, but they would rather harrass and steal than direct attack, and might avoid a strong party completely. They may potentially be reasoned with.
9-12 Friendly goblins want to negotiate, maybe trade.
Greetings!
In my campaign, there are some regions that have dark, evil forests.
Within these dark, evil forests, I have roving bands of savage, berserker Bears that ferociously attack any humans they see. Even more interesting, these evil bears live in a loosely-organized kind of primitive tribe, led by Elder Shaman Bears. The Elder Shaman Bears have malignant gazes, (Enjoying a mutated version of an "Evil Eye" power) and they routinely plot and scheme against humanity. The evil bear tribes often work together in a primitive manner to coordinate campaigns of terror and wanton savagery against human settlements and caravans.
Player A: says to me, and the group: "What was that?"
(Me): "Yes, through the tree-line, along a ridge nearby, you see what looks like a group of large bears, watching you all carefully."
Player B: "How are the bears looking at us?"
(Me): "The bears have a deep, angry look in their eyes. That's right. The "Crazy Eye" look."
Group: "Run! Lets get going! NOW!"
Everyone: *LAUGHING*
I use Reaction rolls as needed. It's fun though, when the reactions are often baked in--or the group anticipates some horrifying reaction to their presence, or what they say. *laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on May 05, 2023, 06:21:06 PM
QuoteMy players rolled a random encounter with the Dragon Warriors version of an Ent, and the reaction roll came up "hostile"...... took him back to the charcoal burners' camp and brokered a bit of a peace between them. Not a terrible result for a couple of rolls on a random table.
That's actually pretty awesome. ;D Wish I'd been there for that one.
Thanks :D. Yeah, it's probably the best result of a random encounter I've had in this campaign, though I did have a bandit encounter where my players completely failed to understand they were being mugged until they were surrounded by archers. That was good for a laugh.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on May 05, 2023, 06:21:06 PM
QuoteI don't often totally ignore the table, so much as I interpret the reaction based on the range of plausible reactions for a given character. ...If I have a complaint with the reaction roll table as it's usually laid out, it's that the 2d6 probability curve makes it likely to come up with a middle roll....Those two results either kick the decision back to the GM (making the table pointless), or nullify the encounter entirely.
What your experiences suggest to me is that it might be a better idea to rethink the idea of the "random reaction" encounter and describe it not in terms of the reaction, but in terms of the encountered creature's/NPC's objective, or its motivation (EDIT: Exploderwizard had something of the same idea, above). Wildlife creatures could have a range of motivations from "Curiosity" and "Hunger" through to "Fear", "Madness" and "Aggression", and a range of degrees from "Mild" to "Significant" and up to "Extreme". Then the exact manner in which that objective/motivation is played out in the encounter is up to the GM's and the players' assessment of each others' capabilities in the encounter.
Yeah, I think you have to accept that the reaction roll retcons the NPCs a little bit, and also that you can't be slavishly devoted to the results on the table. If I'm being honest, I essentially just use it as an "attitude" roll, with low scores being whatever is bad for the PCs, and high scores being whatever is good.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 05, 2023, 09:10:30 PM
I'm thinking:
1st - Goal
2nd - Disposition toward to the PCs, if not obvious
3rd - Reaction to the PCs attempts to negotiate, if not obvious - now you roll with a Cha mod to see if you change initial disposition.
Now, I dislike the idea of using three rolls instead of one. But let me exemplify:
Wolf
1st - Goal: hunger
2nd - Disposition toward to the PCs, if not obvious: if hostile, the starved wolf tries to attack, if friendly approaches like a dog.
3rd - Reaction to the PCs attempts to negotiate, if not obvious: if the PCs try to domesticate, pet, etc., now you roll with a Cha mod to see if you change initial disposition.
Guards
1st - Goal: protect the castle
2nd - Disposition toward to the PCs, if not obvious: if hostile, threaten etc. If friendly, will make small talk, as about intentions, etc.
3rd - Reaction to the PCs attempts to communicate, if not obvious: if the PCs try to bribe, etc., now you roll - they also need to convince the guards they have good intentions.
It's a neat idea. My only thing would be that to me, one of the selling points of the reaction roll is that you can miscellaneously use it for any random NPC without doing any prep work. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your plan, there, but wouldn't that require you to write a list of possible motivations for every NPC?
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 03, 2023, 08:54:03 PM
There are two distinct moments when the referee could gauge the disposition of NPCs: (a) on first sight, and (b) after a few words/offers are exchanged.
I would be more specific than that.
a) I would say first impression, which is may or may not have anything to do with first sight, and
b) for any "ask" on the initial encounter. And I say "ask" excluding merely words because if there are certain words or ideas PCs utter that might reasonably trigger another encounter reaction check, those triggers should be noted rather than being an intrinsic part of the encounter reaction table, and of course the triggers may stipulate resolution by means other than using that table.
QuoteHow do you deal with that, in practice? Let's say a pack of wolves appear. Do you roll immediately to see if they attack? Using whose Charisma? What do amicable wolves do?
First thing to note is the encounter reaction table is NOT the only "social mechanic" built into the game. And it generally would not be appropriate to use it at all in an encounter with wolves. If the character was able to Speak with Animals, then we could go to this table and apply the Charisma adjustment and the whole bit. But otherwise wolves will do what wolves do. And if you need mechanical guidance in that, consult the morale system.
Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why I feel gamers--players, DMs, and game designers alike--all grossly underestimate the benefits of high INT in the BtB 1.0E game. Those additional languages open up the field of who you can and can't parley with via this table. Yeah, yeah, I know there is plenty of communication that is non-verbal. Which is why first thing I noted is that this table is not the only social mechanic in the game. "Oonga, boonga, me Tarzan," is just not the sort of thing this table was primarily designed for.
QuoteWhat if a few bandits appear, you roll, and THEN the PCs make an offer (bribe) so both sides can walk away uninjured. Roll again? Add Charisma then?
More or less, yes, but I generally do not add Charisma to subsequent rolls. The first roll sets the tone for the encounter. If, for example, the bandits are Enthusiastically Friendly, there's not going to be a need for another roll for any reasonable request, especially one that is mutually beneficial. Just like if the result is Violently Hostile, there isn't going to be a second roll on this table happening. So long as the request isn't completely out of whack with the initial reaction, it's mostly the neutral results that are going to require subsequent checks, and those are spelled out as being 55% prone to negative, completely neutral, and 55% prone to positive.
QuoteAre people with Charisma 18 exempt from being immediately attacked by wolves?
Well obviously not. But if a Speak with Animals is in play and the whisperer has an 18 CHR, then yeah, I agree, this becomes a good question. Because BtB, the answer is yes. Provided there are no penalties in play, a high enough Charisma bonus can remove the possibility of there being any immediate hostile action against the character. And there are reasons why that's a good thing and reasons why that's a bad thing.
What I do is I separate this into two dice rolls to be rolled simultaneously. One determines whether the reaction is good or bad. The other acts as sort of a degree of success or failure. One the first die roll, 01-50 = bad, 51-00 = good. For that second die roll, there are four possible outcomes (d10), 1 = worst, 2-5 = worse, 6-9 = better, 10 = best. So the bad outcomes range from "Violently hostile, immediate attack" at worst, up to "Neutral - uninterested - uncertain" at best. And the good outcomes range from "Neutral - uninterested - uncertain" at worst and "Enthusiastically friendly, immediate acceptance" at best.
This preserves the exact probabilities of the 1E Encounter Reactions table. Only now, when the CHR adjustment is applied to the percentile roll, the extreme results never go to zero but to scale proportionately according to the probability of getting a Good vs Bad result.
QuoteOr do you roll twice (I'm tempted to do this), start with the most obvious disposition, roll then roleplay, other solutions, etc.
Thanks!
EDIT: I'm accepting both "this is how we do" and "this is what the official tules we use say!". ;)
I'm saying it again because it cannot be stressed enough. The Encounter Reactions table is not the only social mechanic the game has. I've mentioned Morale. But then there's also a loyalty system. Additionally, when creating the actual game content--specific NPCs, monsters, situations--virtually anything can be stipulated. And I can give a 100% BtB example of this. If a Dryad is near a male with 16 or greater Charisma, she will use her Charm Person spell on him. But I would also point to another fine example from a third-party source, the adventure Irilian published in White Dwarf assigns bribability stats to all the NPCs. There is also a gem hidden in the underwater basket weaving Appendix of the 1E DMG (actually, it's the pursuit and evasion section) that gives a probability of an NPC or monster breaking off pursuit based on distance, relative movement speeds, intelligence, and items thrown down by the fleeing party.
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 06, 2023, 09:43:50 AM
It's a neat idea. My only thing would be that to me, one of the selling points of the reaction roll is that you can miscellaneously use it for any random NPC without doing any prep work. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your plan, there, but wouldn't that require you to write a list of possible motivations for every NPC?
My book Teratogenicon has a list of goals for each monster type. This is for beasts:
d6 Goals
1 Food. I must find food to survive.
2 Territory. This is my land; all that enter are allies or game.
3 Kin. I must protect the pack.
4 Mating. I need to find a mate to procreate.
5 Sleep. It is time to rest, unless someone disturbs me.
6 Fear. There are predators and famine in this land, I must run or hide.
Celestials:
1 Protection. I will protect this person (or place, object, etc.) with my soul.
2 Obedience. I exist only to serve my deity's orders and further its cause.
3 Healing. I heal the sick and bring comfort to the wounded.
4 Zeal. I must rid the world of demons and all creatures that are evil by nature, no matter the cost.
5 Guidance. I do not interfere directly, but provide guidance and aid so the faithful can fight their own battles.
6 Justice. Let justice be done though the heavens fall. No mercy for sinners!
Giants
1 Hunger. What do you mean by "your" cattle?
2 Arrogance. Puny humanoids! How dare you stay in my way?
3 Power. Bow before me, tiny people, and I'll let you keep your village.
4 Solitude. This is my mountain! Just leave me alone!
5 Greatness. I will build enormous structures that will stand before time.
6 Rage. I will smash you down!
Etc.
I didn't include one for humanoids, because it would be endless.
Humanoid ideals are almost infinite. Wealth and pleasure are
common goals but they can take many forms. A humanoid
may desire beauty, gold, power, knowledge, health, freedom,
romance, respect, honor, fame, domination, mastery, calm,
kinship, safety, excitement, family, friends, sport, justice,
and so on. In addition to individual aspirations, each
humanoid group has their own ideals – dwarves respect
craftsmanship, for example, while wood elves often try to
protect the woods, etc.
Aside all that... maybe you don't need to roll for goals at all, but you can come up with something obvious. A beast is looking for food, or protecting if found in lair. Bandits are looking for easy money, not a bloody fight. Etc.
Quote from: Lunamancer on May 06, 2023, 11:41:42 AM
I'm saying it again because it cannot be stressed enough. The Encounter Reactions table is not the only social mechanic the game has. I've mentioned Morale. But then there's also a loyalty system. Additionally, when creating the actual game content--specific NPCs, monsters, situations--virtually anything can be stipulated. And I can give a 100% BtB example of this. If a Dryad is near a male with 16 or greater Charisma, she will use her Charm Person spell on him. But I would also point to another fine example from a third-party source, the adventure Irilian published in White Dwarf assigns bribability stats to all the NPCs. There is also a gem hidden in the underwater basket weaving Appendix of the 1E DMG (actually, it's the pursuit and evasion section) that gives a probability of an NPC or monster breaking off pursuit based on distance, relative movement speeds, intelligence, and items thrown down by the fleeing party.
Interesting stuff.
I agree that a module could add interesting goals and reaction to new encounters (e.g., 2d6 hungry wolves, will attack if they outnumber the PCs two-to-one), the dryad is a good example.
I love this breaking off pursuit part. I thought I had read it in Moldvay's Basic; humanoids might stop if you drop gold, beasts if you drop food.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 06, 2023, 01:40:35 PM
Interesting stuff.
I agree that a module could add interesting goals and reaction to new encounters (e.g., 2d6 hungry wolves, will attack if they outnumber the PCs two-to-one), the dryad is a good example.
Yup. Exactly.
QuoteI love this breaking off pursuit part. I thought I had read it in Moldvay's Basic; humanoids might stop if you drop gold, beasts if you drop food.
AD&D distinguishes the lesser intelligent humanoids from the more intelligent ones. Dummies like orcs just know bright and shiny. So they go by quantity. Dropping a single gold coin is less effective than drooping a handful of coppers worth only a fraction of the value. But the more intelligent humanoids would have some semblance of the value of the items dropped. So there GP value determines the probability of them breaking off pursuit.
Oddly enough, that little nugget found its way into the Munchkin card game. But I can't think of it anywhere else, aside from maybe some side-scroller fighting games. Like Double Dragon or Final Fight, getting hit can cause you to drop a weapon.
Otherwise, it's something that's been lost. And it's something that I think is a pretty key ingredient to making the game "work" well.
Quote from: Lunamancer on May 06, 2023, 11:41:42 AM\
I'm saying it again because it cannot be stressed enough. The Encounter Reactions table is not the only social mechanic the game has. I've mentioned Morale. But then there's also a loyalty system. Additionally, when creating the actual game content--specific NPCs, monsters, situations--virtually anything can be stipulated. And I can give a 100% BtB example of this. If a Dryad is near a male with 16 or greater Charisma, she will use her Charm Person spell on him. But I would also point to another fine example from a third-party source, the adventure Irilian published in White Dwarf assigns bribability stats to all the NPCs.
And then there's this: :P
(https://i.postimg.cc/Mpy4NpbY/Appendix-Page.jpg)
Quote from: Lunamancer on May 06, 2023, 11:41:42 AM\
There is also a gem hidden in the underwater basket weaving Appendix of the 1E DMG (actually, it's the pursuit and evasion section) that gives a probability of an NPC or monster breaking off pursuit based on distance, relative movement speeds, intelligence, and items thrown down by the fleeing party.
Being honest, I'd care more about NPCs breaking off pursuit if it was something PCs ever did. Generally, I have a really good group of players. They engage with NPCs, they negotiate; they even take prisoners. Hell, they've talked their way out of several of the toughest fights in the campaign. But the instant an enemy tries to flee from a fight, they turn into f*cking terminators. I don't know if it's subconscious video game thinking, or it's just that they have the privilege of knowing exactly how much HP they have, and therefore how much risk they're taking by chasing, but I've seen the exact same thing repeatedly with other groups. At that point, NPCs pursuing them to the death is just fair play.
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 06, 2023, 03:20:01 PM
Quote from: Lunamancer on May 06, 2023, 11:41:42 AM\
I'm saying it again because it cannot be stressed enough. The Encounter Reactions table is not the only social mechanic the game has. I've mentioned Morale. But then there's also a loyalty system. Additionally, when creating the actual game content--specific NPCs, monsters, situations--virtually anything can be stipulated. And I can give a 100% BtB example of this. If a Dryad is near a male with 16 or greater Charisma, she will use her Charm Person spell on him. But I would also point to another fine example from a third-party source, the adventure Irilian published in White Dwarf assigns bribability stats to all the NPCs.
And then there's this: :P
(https://i.postimg.cc/Mpy4NpbY/Appendix-Page.jpg)
Quote from: Lunamancer on May 06, 2023, 11:41:42 AM\
There is also a gem hidden in the underwater basket weaving Appendix of the 1E DMG (actually, it's the pursuit and evasion section) that gives a probability of an NPC or monster breaking off pursuit based on distance, relative movement speeds, intelligence, and items thrown down by the fleeing party.
Being honest, I'd care more about NPCs breaking off pursuit if it was something PCs ever did. Generally, I have a really good group of players. They engage with NPCs, they negotiate; they even take prisoners. Hell, they've talked their way out of several of the toughest fights in the campaign. But the instant an enemy tries to flee from a fight, they turn into f*cking terminators. I don't know if it's subconscious video game thinking, or it's just that they have the privilege of knowing exactly how much HP they have, and therefore how much risk they're taking by chasing, but I've seen the exact same thing repeatedly with other groups. At that point, NPCs pursuing them to the death is just fair play.
This is very odd but also quite close to what I'm looking for...
1. Goals and disposition. Decide (or roll for) goals and disposition, in any order.
2. Role-playing and actions. Ask what the PCs say and do.
3. Roll to persuade and reactions. Roll to see how the NPCs react, if it isn't obvious.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 06, 2023, 03:31:17 PM
This is very odd
The assumption that seduction involves an 'aggressor' and an 'unwilling' victim is both odd and skeevy. It's like the
Catherine McKinnon/Andrea Dworkin Book of Seduction!
Quote from: S'mon on May 06, 2023, 03:36:55 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 06, 2023, 03:31:17 PM
This is very odd
The assumption that seduction involves an 'aggressor' and an 'unwilling' victim is both odd and skeevy. It's like the Catherine McKinnon/Andrea Dworkin Book of Seduction!
This is one of the weirdest things, yes.
Also an "aggressive" approach is favorable, but "lady-like" is even better... and then by the last type we are assuming your hiring prostitutes and risking disease by the minute it seems if you have some fortitude you can safely rotate through multiple partners as long as you don't last more than 4 minutes or so... oh wait, there is the natural 1).
OTOH it is very equal opportunity, a naked male will attract lots of good will, and a naked gentleman is nearly irresistible!
Wow, I posted that for a gag. Didn't even occur to me that it would actually be relevant to the topic. Since it seems to be, I'll provide a little context.
I screencapped that from a pdf of "Slaver's Caravan, a Hyborian Age Adventure", an (apparently unofficial) adventure for Mongoose's D20 Conan by Craig Tidwell, and is part of a 5 page appendix to the adventure. The following pages include further rules and tables for the contraction of STDs, as well as prostitute generator and a random table for populating Hyborian Age brothels.
Being totally fair to the author, the kind of pulp tales that game is trying to replicate aren't exactly famous for their subtle and sophisticated examinations of romance. They're light-hearted escapist fantasy, essentially the equivalent of "bodice-rippers" for men. Loose women and unrealistically straightforward courtships are part of the genre.
Don't get me wrong; I still think the tables are silly. That's why I screenshot them. But as long as the author knew he was being silly, I give it a pass.
EDIT: It occurs to me that the inclusion of extensive STD rules kind of flies in the face of the "escapist fantasy" argument, so I don't know what the author thought he was about...
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 06, 2023, 06:25:52 PM
Wow, I posted that for a gag. Didn't even occur to me that it would actually be relevant to the topic. Since it seems to be, I'll provide a little context.
I screencapped that from a pdf of "Slaver's Caravan, a Hyborian Age Adventure", an (apparently unofficial) adventure for Mongoose's D20 Conan by Craig Tidwell, and is part of a 5 page appendix to the adventure. The following pages include further rules and tables for the contraction of STDs, as well as prostitute generator and a random table for populating Hyborian Age brothels.
Being totally fair to the author, the kind of pulp tales that game is trying to replicate aren't exactly famous for their subtle and sophisticated examinations of romance. They're light-hearted escapist fantasy, essentially the equivalent of "bodice-rippers" for men. Loose women and unrealistically straightforward courtships are part of the genre.
Don't get me wrong; I still think the tables are silly. That's why I screenshot them. But as long as the author knew he was being silly, I give it a pass.
EDIT: It occurs to me that the inclusion of extensive STD rules kind of flies in the face of the "escapist fantasy" argument, so I don't know what the author thought he was about...
It's very silly. I remember I actually ran it, at least part of it, 20 years ago with a solo female player/female barbarian PC as her intro to a Conan campaign. She wasn't very impressed at being offered sexual access to the slave girls as part of her pay for guarding the caravan. ;D Obviously I ignored all those tables but I did think they looked slightly familiar just now!
I'm not really sure why Xoth hosts it. Everything else on xoth.net is pretty high quality. The Conan stuff is at https://hyboria.xoth.net/adventures/index.htm
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 06, 2023, 03:20:01 PM
Being honest, I'd care more about NPCs breaking off pursuit if it was something PCs ever did. Generally, I have a really good group of players. They engage with NPCs, they negotiate; they even take prisoners. Hell, they've talked their way out of several of the toughest fights in the campaign. But the instant an enemy tries to flee from a fight, they turn into f*cking terminators. I don't know if it's subconscious video game thinking, or it's just that they have the privilege of knowing exactly how much HP they have, and therefore how much risk they're taking by chasing, but I've seen the exact same thing repeatedly with other groups. At that point, NPCs pursuing them to the death is just fair play.
Eh. It's not like we're talking about doing anyone any favors. Didn't we recently have a thread on morale? I remember pointing out somewhere that fighting to the death is basically making your battles twice as difficult. If that's how the players want to roll, that's on them.
I've seen players do it anyway, and there are different reasons for it. In the absence of clear objectives in a combat, a total wipeout is the clearest victory. In the absence of sufficient information, one heuristic is whatever your enemy is motivated to do should be thwarted. This would extend to escapes. But paranoia probably tops the list. Some players are also GMs, and as GM they would totally screw over the PCs by having these monsters come back more powerful and seeking revenge. Some players are accustomed to there being a story. A fairly common story element has the protagonist meet the antagonist early on but the big battle doesn't happen to later. And here's a chance to nip this in the bud. Some players might assume the enemies will regroup and try try again until the party is dead because that's what the players would have their characters do after fleeing from a strong opponent. Some players are just completists. Others will view interpret the enemy fleeing as a chase challenge to best.
That last one I saw recently, and it was painful to witness as GM. The player pulled out all the stops just to "win" the chase. He didn't kill the NPC. Just wanted to capture him and question him. There was a mystery afoot. The thing is, the PC could have hung back a little, let the NPC think he broke off pursuit, then followed or tracked the NPC and gotten answers that way. In this case, the NPC would have led the PC right to the secret hideout.
Whatever the reason, it's often not a good idea. And if I had to stop caring about some rule every time PCs did something stupid, we'd be back to playing Cops & Robbers fairly quickly.
How hard would it be for some enemies looking to take out the PCs to only send a fraction of their force to confront the PCs, flee when they get badly beaten, only to be chased down like dogs by the PCs, leading the PCs right into an ambush with the full force. How many times would that happen before PCs stopped chasing everything down and say, "Let's just wait and see how this plays itself out."?
I mirror my players attitude. If players attack the encounter attacks or runs.
If players try to talk the encounter talks and I judge reaction by the discussion. Very informal. Oh, and I roll die and stare at them randomly and consult non-existent notes to keep them from figuring it all out.
I also use the encounters alignment as a basis for their attitude.
Curious, if you take a huge step back...what are you wanting to accomplish with reaction rolls? Is it a balance mechanic, a way to randomly generate content, or something else you want it to provide?
Quote from: FingerRod on May 08, 2023, 10:58:29 AM
Curious, if you take a huge step back...what are you wanting to accomplish with reaction rolls? Is it a balance mechanic, a way to randomly generate content, or something else you want it to provide?
My first motive for this thread was to give more variety to random encounters (using B/X).
I have just realized I had not been not using reaction rules in my current sandbox campaign, defaulting instead to "the NPCs will do the predictable thing according to their motivations and your respond to the PCs according to role-playing".
It works fine. But random encounters become a bit predictable and stale. For example, the PCs encountered some wolves, and I thought the wolves wouldn't approach a big group of humans for no reason. The PCs did nothing, so they walked away. Which was okay - but if I had rolled aggressive or friendly wolves, I could have rolled with it and have a more memorable encounter.
Likewise, when they met a group of clerics when looking for a temple, I made the clerics immediately friendly due to circumstances. But again, what is the worst suspicious of the PCs motives? Could be interesting, too.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 08, 2023, 03:03:30 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on May 08, 2023, 10:58:29 AM
Curious, if you take a huge step back...what are you wanting to accomplish with reaction rolls? Is it a balance mechanic, a way to randomly generate content, or something else you want it to provide?
My first motive for this thread was to give more variety to random encounters (using B/X).
I have just realized I had not been not using reaction rules in my current sandbox campaign, defaulting instead to "the NPCs will do the predictable thing according to their motivations and your respond to the PCs according to role-playing".
It works fine. But random encounters become a bit predictable and stale. For example, the PCs encountered some wolves, and I thought the wolves wouldn't approach a big group of humans for no reason. The PCs did nothing, so they walked away. Which was okay - but if I had rolled aggressive or friendly wolves, I could have rolled with it and have a more memorable encounter.
Likewise, when they met a group of clerics when looking for a temple, I made the clerics immediately friendly due to circumstances. But again, what is the worst suspicious of the PCs motives? Could be interesting, too.
Perfect. Thanks.
I've always admired B/X's use of Wandering Monsters. I use it to "fix" some of the issues I have running OD&D. The frequency, roll, and pursuit rules are perfect. The frequency RAW combined with the roll in OD&D are brutal.
Sounds like you are looking at it more for driving compelling play at the table. I do frequently tie my wandering encounters to the mapped ones, sometimes even changing the mapped ones based on what happens with the random ones. Keeps it interesting for me and makes sure I am prepping a dynamic area.
I think a lot of the back and forth around this question ties into different views about "memorable" encounters.
I don't want every encounter to be memorable, on the grounds that if everything is special, nothing is. Sometimes, I just want there was a thing that wasn't particularly anxious to interact with the party. If they don't interact with it, nothing happens. It takes 30 to 60 seconds, establishes that the world is out there, and then we move onto something else. When it escalates, for whatever reason, then we spend time on that.
But then, I'm also one of those GM's that will embed something more interesting behind a bland exterior, and not care if the party doesn't react to it right away. Or even ever, in some cases. If it's important enough that it come out due to the nature of what is going on in the area, then eventually it will through normal events and actions. For example, that same normal dude that smiles and says hello outside the inn may not provoke anything early. When he keeps showing up on the outskirts of several strange happenings, players start to wonder.
Reaction rolls are another tool in my kit so that I can not force when or if someone with an agenda does something to get noticed.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 08, 2023, 06:24:28 PM
I think a lot of the back and forth around this question ties into different views about "memorable" encounters.
I don't want every encounter to be memorable, on the grounds that if everything is special, nothing is. Sometimes, I just want there was a thing that wasn't particularly anxious to interact with the party. If they don't interact with it, nothing happens. It takes 30 to 60 seconds, establishes that the world is out there, and then we move onto something else. When it escalates, for whatever reason, then we spend time on that.
But then, I'm also one of those GM's that will embed something more interesting behind a bland exterior, and not care if the party doesn't react to it right away. Or even ever, in some cases. If it's important enough that it come out due to the nature of what is going on in the area, then eventually it will through normal events and actions. For example, that same normal dude that smiles and says hello outside the inn may not provoke anything early. When he keeps showing up on the outskirts of several strange happenings, players start to wonder.
Reaction rolls are another tool in my kit so that I can not force when or if someone with an agenda does something to get noticed.
I agree. The beauty of reaction rolls is that it defaults to neutral, so most encounters will be just... as expected. But about 5% of the time, they'll be extremely aggressive or surprisingly friendly.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 08, 2023, 03:03:30 PM
My first motive for this thread was to give more variety to random encounters (using B/X).
I have just realized I had not been not using reaction rules in my current sandbox campaign, defaulting instead to "the NPCs will do the predictable thing according to their motivations and your respond to the PCs according to role-playing".
It works fine. But random encounters become a bit predictable and stale. For example, the PCs encountered some wolves, and I thought the wolves wouldn't approach a big group of humans for no reason. The PCs did nothing, so they walked away. Which was okay - but if I had rolled aggressive or friendly wolves, I could have rolled with it and have a more memorable encounter.
Likewise, when they met a group of clerics when looking for a temple, I made the clerics immediately friendly due to circumstances. But again, what is the worst suspicious of the PCs motives? Could be interesting, too.
I can give you a couple of other things I do to vary up encounters.
First is I use a time element that I can vary. How exactly does a random encounter begin? Before you even determine whether it's a friendly encounter or not. Kind of a generic here you are, here they are, and if you're really one of the cool DMs about following teh rulez you might even go so far as generating the encounter distance. Now I ask what would it look like if the PCs got there a little bit earlier? How about a little bit later? How about way later?
Some of these questions may not have interesting answers depending on the exact encounter and terrain. Randomly encountering wolves in the woods for instance. What does it mean to be early? To not encounter wolves? That would suggest you need to bring additional details to the encounter in general. It might also mean you hear howling. If you hear the howling when the PCs are early, does that mean the wolves are tracking or hunting the party? But then what would it mean if the PCs are late encountering the wolves. That they got bored, packed up and left?
This may reveal the real problem. You don't know what the wolves were out there doing. If you want a world that lives and breathes on its own rather than just waiting with baited breath for the PCs to show up, you need to have some idea of what the wolves were doing. And that's wrapped up in motive. But I think when you hold yourself to having to consider random encounters along different time frames, "motive" takes on a more specific meaning than it would in the context of just some fruity actor saying, "Excuse me, what's my motivation here?"
Probably the most obvious thing the wolves are out doing is hunting some game animal. Getting there "on time" you might add the detail of a deer panicked by the PCs presence, darting off into the woods as the preamble to the pack of hungry wolves staring down the PCs that just scared off the wolves' dinner. Getting there "late" might mean arriving as the wolves are attacking the deer. Getting there early might mean just encountering a harmless deer, which may mean an opportunity for PCs low on rations, but then soon after a howling in the distance indicating it might also be wiser to quickly move on. Getting there way light might mean just coming upon the gruesome aftermath of the wolf attack on the deer.
So the two benefits to varying time frame are 1) it disciplines you to consider "motive" in a more tangible way, and 2) the variation itself mixes things up. Of course, the time frame variance also need not be random. If the PCs are chugging along the adventure smoothly, you might let the players feel that their quick handling of things matters by tending towards random encounter time frames that are "early," and if they're dawdling too much, make the random encounter time frames "late."
The second one is to consider where the encounter takes place in the context of story. Despite how reactionary weirdos try to warp the definition of "story" into a box, stories can and do unfold in real time, even in sandbox play. If you are aware of where you are currently at in the story arc, or can at least make a decent guess, you can use that to color the encounter.
For instance, if it's early on, nothing really significant has happened, and the players are dawdling a bit having just spent 2 hours in-character arguing over what to have for breakfast, you might decide, in story terms, that it's time to cross out of the "ordinary world" and into the "extraordinary world." Or in layman's terms this shit is getting boring as fuck and something exciting needs to happen. So whatever random encounter the dice finally produces, it's got to be positioned in a way that ramps up the excitement and pushes things forward.
A city encounter with a drunk, for instance, cannot just be some ordinary 0th level drunk that PCs can just ignore. It might be a spy pretending to be drunk who slips one of the PCs some special item when "accidentally" bumping into the PC. From then on, there will be goons led by an NPC assassin who will be working to track down the PCs to retrieve the item by any means. And most of the assassin activity may occur running in the background "off screen" as the PCs continue to play in the sandbox, that's fine. The benefit is you set up a point of intrigue to help players have a little extra purpose while they're sandboxing, and you've also introduced something that makes the world live and breathe a little, not just waiting for the PCs to show up.
Interesting stuff. There are lots of things to consider; distance is certainly one of them (could be expanded to indicate the monster is even farther, so you only hear howls or see traces), and I think we might add random tables of sounds/tracks/carcasses, etc., instead of encountering the actual beast.
I made a blog post summarizing my favorites from this conversation, Reddit and some blog posts.
Here you go (full text copied below but better formatting in the link).
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/05/reaction-rolls-in-practice-osr.html
Here is a small procedure for reaction rolls.
1. Goals and disposition. Decide (or roll for) goals and disposition, in any order.
2. Role-playing and actions. Ask what the PCs say and do.
3. Roll to persuade and reactions. Roll to see how the NPCs react, if it isn't obvious.
Let's analyze each step.
1. Goals and disposition
Goals could be obvious. A beast is looking for food, or protecting if found in lair. Bandits are looking for easy money, not a bloody fight. Etc. But what if you find a chimera in the woods? Well, Teratogenicon has suggestions of goals for most monster types. Here is one that could work for supernatural, chaotic "monsters" in general.
d6 Goals
1 Hate. I want to destroy all natural creatures.
2 Cruelty. I like to play with my prey.
3 Survival. Everyone thinks I'm a menace. I'll destroy them before they destroy me!
4 Predator. I kill because I need to eat.
5 Collection. I enjoy a specific type of object (gold, shiny things, iron) or flesh (hearts, eyes, fingers).
6 Fear. I must protect myself from anything that comes near!
Disposition is friendly/hostile. Roll 2d6 as usual. Charisma does NOT affect this roll.
Decide in any order. You can roll for disposition and then decide if the wolf is hostile because it is hungry or territorial, or find a goal (hunger) and then roll disposition (a starved wolf might be aggressive or weak and docile enough to beg for food).
2. Role-playing and actions
Ask what the PCs say and do. This part is role-playing and doesn't require a roll. Do the PCs offer the beast some food? Or prepare their weapons when they see a misshapen humanoid? Etc.
This is the time to consider languages, and maybe also alignment, class, race, etc.
The NPCs reaction will sometimes be obvious - for example, bandits that outnumber the PCs seeing weapons drawn, etc. If not obvious, proceed to the next step.
3. Roll to persuade and reactions
If you are unsure if the bandits will accept a bribe to simply walk away, or if the wolf is docile enough to accept meat from humans, make a roll. You can use 2d6, but since you already have a disposition, a good roll will mean it improves by one or two steps (from hostile to uncertain, for example), and a bad roll means the opposite. Charisma applies here.
Since my current game (Dark Fantasy Basic) uses d20 skills, I just make a persuasion check (DC 15) to change disposition.
Friendly bandits (step 1), when offered a small bribe (step 2) and a bad roll (step 3) will ask for more, not attack immediately. But if they are neutral, a small offer and a bad roll will indicate they require A LOT more - maybe ALL OF IT, while a terrible roll means immediate attack ("you try to fool us? Now die!").
And that`s it for the procedure.
But let me ramble on a bit. After I show you the 2d6 table I'm using (also Teratogenicon):
Why I´m writing this
I have just realized I had not been not using reaction rules in my current sandbox campaign, defaulting instead to "the NPCs will do the predictable thing according to their motivations and your respond to the PCs according to role-playing".
It works fine. But random encounters become a bit predictable and stale. For example, the PCs encountered some wolves, and I thought the wolves wouldn't approach a big group of humans for no reason. The PCs did nothing, so they walked away. Which was okay - but if I had rolled aggressive or friendly wolves, I could have rolled with it and have a more memorable encounter.
Likewise, when they met a group of clerics when looking for a temple, I made the clerics immediately friendly due to circumstances. But again, what if they were suspicious of the PCs motives? Could be interesting, too.
I have started thinking and talking online about this... And then I remembered I wrote about this before. But I thought it was worth another post.
Initiative, surprise and single-roll reaction
While I like the procedure outline above, it takes three steps instead of a single 2d6 roll. The results are more nuanced and varied, but maybe you prefer a quicker method.
If that's the case, just use the traditional 2d6. Do not add charisma unless the PCs win initiative (or surprise etc.) and try to talk to their foes. Add circumstantial modifiers as needed (-4 to +4; e.g., NPC is a guard and PCs are invading, the weapons are drawn, NPC has a different language, etc.).
Rolling 1 on both dice means an immediate hostility regardless, and double 6s mean a positive attitude, within reason.
Even if you don't want the quicker method, using initiative in this way gives PCs meaningful choices. Do they attack now, or do they concede initiative to a potential enemy?
Alignment
In the absence of explicit goals for most monsters, you can use alignment as an indication. Chaotic monsters are more likely to attack when outnumber, cheat, steal, hide, break promises, etc., while lawful ones might be more honorable even when hostile ("I am bound to defend this bridge with my life, scum! Retreat or perish!")
As I mentioned before, alignment would be more useful if more specific.
Morale and courage
As seen on the table above, "hostile" doesn't mean "attack" necessarily. A weak foe might simply run.
Morale can be used to see how the NPCs respond to a credible risk or threat. You can add Charisma to the roll if you want, or require a Charisma check to trigger the morale roll when in doubt (as always, with circumstantial modifiers).
Recommended reading:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2016/12/how-to-run-npcs-in-combat-days-of.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/09/social-skills-role-playing-versus-roll.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/05/monster-statblocks-how-good-is-ad.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/a-d20-reaction-check-osr.html
https://goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2023/03/how-to-handle-parley-as-osr-dm.html
Without reading the whole topic, let me quickly answer the OP:
The first issue is Party Posture. From "Friendly" to "Aggressive" I as a GM don't need too much more info to adjust accordingly whether it be sapient (talking and high thinking) humanoids or sentient (not talking yet cunning) animals. This allows me as a Human GM to modulate according to judgment and safely assume the party does or does not want to instigate trouble. From here I can roll an Initial Reaction Roll.
The second issue is conflating parley, extra placating gestures, food bribery (for animals), treasure bribery (for sapient beings who might care about treasure), etc. as the primary Reaction Roll. Actually, that extra effort is more of a 're-roll' in a lot of systems, and it tends to occur around the Surprise and 1st Round. This is where Bards can work their 'social magic', from praise poetry, to soothing song, etc. So if real effort is made, and it is not an Ambush or immediate Surprise attack, one can 're-roll' to hopefully have something besides combat occur.
After that it's a matter of luck or world logic. Most not-ambushing creatures are not immediately murderously hostile. So this makes territories with Ambush Predators very dangerous, and likely require Regional Guides, Readied Postures, and the Party looking all around to Prevent Surprise (like forward, back, sides, up, and down/ground). And yes, I definitely consider opposing guardian sorties of Sapient Humanoids in the Ambush Predator category. ;) Sentients and Sapients both understand the concept of controlled territory.
This makes most mindless monsters, like ambush plants (Shambling Mound), very very scary. They literally are a force of nature with little to reason with or frighten away. And this also makes a lot of the fun of Reaction Rolls as suddenly a potential battle might end up with a weird moment of mutual curiosity, benign indifference, or outright unexpected assistance. Humanoids and animals might end up being worth more than mere XP, they might open the game world to new treasures, allies of convenience, or mysteries.