Expanding on the Classic Reaction Roll

homebrew
#1

So, I don’t know how many of you use the old 2d6 reaction roll for monsters and NPCs, but I find it a useful story-telling tool to change up the texture of every encounter from, “Here are some baddies; get ready to fight!”

The thing that I noticed is that it does make every group the PCs encounter something of a monolith. They either all think that fighting the PCs looks like a good idea, or they all would rather parley. I’m looking for an easy way to add to the reaction roll whether something more complex is going on when the PCs encounter multiple creatures/people.

As I imagine it, any group the PCs encounter may already be factioned, or in conflict. A pair of trolls may be a hunting pair, or they may be fighting over a fresh kill. A camp of reveling goblins may all be deep in their cups, or it maybe that a few are sulking off to the side, having lost some contest or been assigned an unlucky task, or maybe it’s just one goblin, homesick and pining for her lover far away. I can come up with these details, but I’m thing of adding another die roll to quickly lead me to whether or not this additional complexity applies to the encounter.

One extra die would be simplest, but a linear roll might be too swingy. Another 2d6 would provide a nice curve, but is more complex to read and differentiate.

What would you all do?

#2

This is an interesting question.

I think the first point to consider is that, regardless of the mechanical method you use to introduce “mechanical spread” (in the numbers, using dice) on your reaction rolls, the amount of actual “narrative spread” (in the story possibilities, using your imagination and interpretation) you will introduce as a result depends upon which old-school reaction table you are choosing to consult. The classic Moldvay basic (BX) rules used 2D6 on a table slightly skewed toward negative reactions in its bell curve, with “hostile” monsters in mind as the standard encounter.

Classic%2BD%2526D%2BGame.PNG701x545

Conversely, Gygax’s AD&D 1e reaction table was a perfectly balanced D100 lookup, more universal in nature to be used for the typical NPC going about his business as well as for monsters.

IIRC I believe 2e even had a secondary D20 refinement matrix to suggest action based on the result of your initial (2D6) reaction roll. That’s a lot of crunch (even for me…).

Whatever reaction roll scheme you decide, it may be useful to consider the nature and magnitude of any skew it may have.

Second, I like the conceptual refinement you are suggesting, adding heterogeneity to the aggregate reaction of a group of monsters to create better verisimilitude—even if may receive some perfectly understandable pushback as part of the discussion. (See my recent proposal concerning automatic firearms mechanics in ICRPG.) I think the cost-benefit analysis of your idea could be favorable because it clearly opens up more roleplaying opportunities on each encounter, especially if your mechanical implementation is simple and smooth.

I think the easiest way to implement your “reaction spread” concept is to use a D6 (or maybe a D4 or D8) and use one additional roll of this die to determine the magnitude of disagreement in any size group of monsters (regardless of actual creature quantity). For example, as a secondary roll modifying the old-school 2D6 reaction table, assign even numbers result values of +1, +2, and +3 to the initial 2-12 reaction, and then make odd numbers map to -1, -2, and -3 modifiers. So if you roll a 4 “Monster growls” on the initial 2D6 roll, most of the monsters in the group take an aggressive stance, poised for battle and ready, but the do not charge in; then, the secondary “reaction spread” D6 roll would give you a 50% chance (any odd result) that at least some of the monsters would attack immediately and a 16.7% chance (when the result maps to +3) that at least some of the monsters will hang back even if the growling mass is provoked into combat.

There are so many ways to accomplish what you suggest mechanically, and I think your concept remains valuable and sound at a lot of tables. I think that respecting and reflecting “the spirit of the law” in the ICRPG philosophy is to search for and exploit the “significant math” in the mechanical problem you have laid out to solve, keeping your solution mechanic simple and intuitive so that the granularity you introduce is meaningful and beneficial to your game.

Good luck.

#3

Read the dice individually too. So 1+6 = 7 means the group as a whole is hesitant, but one in the group hates the PCs (1) while another really fancies them (6). On the other hand, a 3+4=7 group would be hesitant/cautious through and through.

#4

That’s a clever idea! I was essentially thinking that the results could break out in one of 4 ways:

  1. all feeling the same
  2. all but one feeling the same
  3. split into 2 or more factions with no clear leader
  4. split into 2 or more factions held together by a clear leader

Now I just need to integrate these two ideas.

#5

That works too.

That said, I think you should consider what types of situations comes up in your game, and design around that. It probably has to be a highly specific setting if “violently hostile” and “enthusiastically friendly” are to coexist as initial reactions. Otherwise it seems to me that once someone turns violent, it overrides all other emotions. Therefore, I think you should start by considering how much play time your differentiated reaction roll will see. After all, initial reactions are often a rather small part of each session. So it might be that you could just different reaction rolls for different groups of PCs.

#6

I’m thinking of it more as a way to develop the fiction of what situation the PCs have actually encountered. A pride of lions is unlikely to be “enthusiastically friendly” but if they’re all united, they could all be sleeping, more or less. Two different prides of lions may be having a fight, while a pride of lions with one outlier probably just ousted a male - and that might be the real danger. And all that becomes a different story if it’s trolls, goblins, or bandits. In the end it’s just about making the encounters a little more interesting, and hopefully more fun to interact with.

#7

You could make it into a Dungeon World-like check! The GM makes a Move against the players’ Renown:

  • On a 6- the monster or group is generally hostile toward the players. Couple this with a perception check during wilderness travel: if the monster is surprised then he will fight, while if the monster is aware of the PCs he might flee or ambush them.
  • On a 7-9 pick one:
    • The monster’s or group’s leader is hostile to the players.
    • The monster or group is unsure of its stance toward the players.
    • The monster or group requests a gift or proof of goodwill from the players before reluctantly agreeing to parley.
  • On a 10+ the monster or group are generally friendly with the players.

I play a lot with Renown because I think it’s a great progression mechanic in itself, but you can just make the Move against the players’ highest CHA modifier, or even WIS modifier if it’s just a beast.

Often give a valid reason (not an excuse!) as to why a monster or a group would be unhelpful to the players, even if they are friendly, so this will allow your players to negotiate.

What do you think?

#8

I like that it gives the GM choices, even if it is less granular than the classic reaction roll. Renown is a cool idea, but I don’t feel like I have a great handle on it. Maybe I can mash something up.

#9

Renown is seriously a really cool progression scale. I love it so much because it replaces the vague, arbitrary method of dolling out EXP in Godbound.

So, in Godbound, the GM grants EXP to the party as a whole simply for showing up, successfully completed an evening’s adventure, and engaged a serious challenge for a total of three (3) points at the end of every session. As you can see, aside from the achievement “Showing up”, the rest of the objectives are pretty relative!

Renown is much less relative and more complete: each player can track it individually for every faction. You gain one (1) Renown with a faction if you advance its interests or two (2) if you’ve been given the quest by a high-ranking character of a faction. I sometimes grant +1 Renown either way if the goal of the adventure was particularly important for the faction.

Factions have ranks. And ranks are useful when you consider the opportunities, rewards, and dangers of each rank. Opportunities for quests, fulfilling prerequisites for exclusive locations, or votes in more political games. Rewards appropriate to the faction like your pay as an adventure, prizes, or friendships.

And to steer your campaign, which is the most important feature: dangers. Rising in ranks attract attention from within and outside the faction, secret services who want to investigate the party, bickering sides who want to ensure the loyalty of these celebrated adventurers, villains who want vengeance.

Renown is such an underrated mechanic and yet it fix so many issues! Try it if you have the opportunity! :v:

#10

I’ll be honest, that sounds like keeping a spreadsheet just for renown; I’d prefer to find something a little more intuitive. That said, rock on with it; I’m glad it’s working for you at your table!

#11

I think if you keep a simple note, or a “party” sheet, the renown system is not so difficult as a spreadsheet. I mean, how many factions are they going to meet? ahah
And for each of them, you need just to check one modifier (i.e. -2 to dragons, +3 dwarfs of the Picky Pike, -5 to elves because no one likes elves) and use this modifier for the 2d6 roll when meeting that faction

Having said that, I like the very simple scale at three levels: 6 or less unfriendly, 7-9 or 10 the GM chose, 11+ very friendly. I don’t really think you need to track more granularity than that because, as a GM, you will adapt the result to the situation.

And finally, the additional swing can be given by the two dice alone. You can add additional conditions for a 1 or a 6 on a dice, or maybe both.
I.e. double 6 is a critical success, no matter your Renown/faction modifier
One 1 is a bad sign, they can change opinions very quickly
One 6 mean someone is much more friendly than someone else. a secret ally in the group
One 1 and one 6 the two together, you have a strong ally and a strong enemy
and finally two 1 critical failure

#12

That’s very interesting, but results like “a secret ally” assumes an otherwise aggressive response. I don’t want to know if the outliers are friendly toward the PCs as much as I want to know that they are in disagreement or conflict with their own group. That way, I can use that reaction roll to determine how risky an alliance may be.

That said, I think you have demonstrated that I could use the results of each die individually, or the difference between them to generate the results I am looking for.