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. )

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. )

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?

I had to...

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!  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.  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://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.  Wish I'd been there for that one.

Thanks  . 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?