Quote from: jibbajibba;671437Which is again totally supporting the OP quote. The best outcome is to have the players win. Now personally I play the monster to the hilt, the competative bit implied by the OP, but if the party suprised it and it was not expecting a fight and what not they should be able to take it down.

Yes, the OP advice covers a fair bit of what I do.  My main quibble is that it does not cover enough of what I do to feel like universal advice.  As my earlier example, I have no problem whatsoever with Luke blasted in a million pieces, the Death Star obliterating the last vestiges of the rebellion, while the Falcon flies off to other adventures on the other side of the galaxy.

A better fit would be to say that I try to run a semi-plausible world that follows the players actions or just keeps having shot happen if they do nothing.  Fully admit to not being terribly consistent, though.

Quote from: Old One Eye;671446Yes, the OP advice covers a fair bit of what I do.  My main quibble is that it does not cover enough of what I do to feel like universal advice.  As my earlier example, I have no problem whatsoever with Luke blasted in a million pieces, the Death Star obliterating the last vestiges of the rebellion, while the Falcon flies off to other adventures on the other side of the galaxy.

A better fit would be to say that I try to run a semi-plausible world that follows the players actions or just keeps having shot happen if they do nothing.  Fully admit to not being terribly consistent, though.

Fair enough

Like I say I think our styles are pretty close and like you I usually just make shit up but keep it consistent. I usually make hte game system up as I go as well though.
I do spend a fair bit of time thinking about why and how I do things though which is why I am interested in GM advice type stuff as well as rule systems and how the ruels affect the game and vice versa

Quote from: jibbajibba;671442no I was summing that up in what I though was an amusing way
Still not sure how personal magnetism shines forth through a suit of plate mail covered in 30 days of trail dust, a closed helm and a kite shield when you are surrounded by half a dozen guys armed to the teeth ..... or how persuasiveness comes through before you actually speak... probably a thesis for Desmond Morris in that one...
just sayin.....

Was sitting at a restaurant the other day and said to the wife that it was unfair to judge, but I absolutely hated the couple at the next table over, they looked like such pretentious snots.  She said that she was thinking the exact same thing.  That couple had a charisma penalty to their reaction roll.

Quote from: Old One Eye;671449Was sitting at a restaurant the other day and said to the wife that it was unfair to judge, but I absolutely hated the couple at the next table over, they looked like such pretentious snots.  She said that she was thinking the exact same thing.  That couple had a charisma penalty to their reaction roll.

Were they wearing full plate helms and riding on horses

How much of your reaction was due to a dislike of pretentious snots on your part (and in comparison how much do dragons dislike armoured knights or mystriously cloked wizards or scrawny guys in black leather armour coming close to their layers) and how much was due to observation of their behaviour and body language over a period.

Book, cover, cover book.

Often our innate reactions to people stem more from our own clutural and environmental preconditioning. Which was of course why I referenced Desmond Morris in my original post.

I suspect a dragon would feel much the same way about groups of well armoured adventurers moving through their domain as a  redneck sherrif would feel about a bunch of black kids in a black chrysler blaring out Cypress Hill driving through his town. yes the dragon's preconceptions are quite possibly wrong but ... That would affect their reactions far more than the fact that the leader of kids was a bit of a charmer.

Quote from: Old One Eye;671392When I played DDN with the Isle of Dread, the 4 characters were 6th level when they fought the green dragon.  The party was prepared and beefed-up-to-the-gills for the fight.  We were all tired of the island and mainly interested in seeing how the rules flowed, so I did not play it very tough.  And I rolled randomly to see if the dragon was prepared, she was not.

Through good use of controlling the terrain, the party whacked the dragon down in about 3 or 4 rounds of combat.  The wizard was on the ground twitching and the paladin hurt bad.  The barbarian and the ranger were hardly touched.  The party as a whole never feared defeat.

Had I played it more seriously with the dragon being cunning, having minions, used terrain to advantage, it could certainly have taken the party down.

Sounds good. With dragons I tend to think of them as epic threats more than a mundane beast you dispatch regularly.

I also like how you did not automatically have the dragon ambush the characters.

Quote from: jibbajibba;671434Charisma as a reaction roll is actually a bit crazy. Charisma is charm, personality and looks, but if a Dragon spots a party of armed adventures on her patch why would the fact that the knight at the front of the party under his helmet and armour has a great physique, really good skin and cheekbones to die or that he was a great guy to hang with or a caring and considerate lover make her not want to eat him if she was peckish ?
Considering your reaction to social skill checks being able to influence NPCs with considerable roleplaying effort from the player I am suprised that you would allow  a social check like 'reaction' to be so influential with out any roleplaying effort on the part of the players at all.

Surely a more effective way to randomly determine the mindset of a dragon or anything else would be to have a 'state' roll for the monster that was modified by its intelligence, ferocity and other 'personality' factors or environmental concerns. You could even modify it based on the actions of the party, if they have a mob of hirelings all carrying pitchforks and burning torches then the vampire in the castle is , based on historical precedent alone, going to treat them as a threat from the get go.

Of course you could just choose how the dragon reacts based on what you think would make the best game for everyone but that might be a little too non Old school for you. If you did I suspect most people would agree that 'letting the players win' is the best game outcome and that would fit into your own prediliction for dragons that aren't all about combat.

The basic reaction roll IS a general 'state' roll for any encounter which features monsters of unknown disposition. It is only modified by CHA. A good CHA score only gets you so much, a bit of a bonus on the reaction roll.

A reaction roll is just that- an initial reaction. There is still plenty of room for a high CHA character's player to screw up a good reaction roll or for a low CHA character's player to recover from a not so great one.

Once the initial reaction is determined it is still up to the player to nudge the encounter towards civility or hostility through words and deeds. If the PCs feel confident, they might take an initial good reaction and still deliberately through intimidation and insult, pick a fight.

A reaction roll is not a diplomacy/bluff/intimidate, etc  check. Any of that is still up to the player.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;671552The basic reaction roll IS a general 'state' roll for any encounter which features monsters of unknown disposition. It is only modified by CHA. A good CHA score only gets you so much, a bit of a bonus on the reaction roll.

A reaction roll is just that- an initial reaction. There is still plenty of room for a high CHA character's player to screw up a good reaction roll or for a low CHA character's player to recover from a not so great one.

Once the initial reaction is determined it is still up to the player to nudge the encounter towards civility or hostility through words and deeds. If the PCs feel confident, they might take an initial good reaction and still deliberately through intimidation and insult, pick a fight.

A reaction roll is not a diplomacy/bluff/intimidate, etc  check. Any of that is still up to the player.

Well lets be honest an 18 CHr gives you +35% reaction bonus so no one meeting an 18 Chr PC will ever react hostile and the worst they will ever get is an uncertain moving toward negative and that only 10% of the time and they have a 60% change of friendly immediate acceptance or better.  hardly just a bit of bonus.....
And Chr is one of the few stats where you start getting bonuses at 13 + in AD&D as opposed to 15 or 16 s for Str, Con, Dex etc.

However putting that to one side.....
 
Why should a high Charsima PC say a paladin in their armour etc get that bonus without ever even talking to the creature or being observed by them for more than a moment? Except for the fact that 'its in the rules' you haven't explained why its a good rule at all.

Surely modifications based of stuff I mentioned like intelligence, ferocity or other stuff would be much better modifiers.

Ogres are fierce flesh eaters usually raveanously hungry and notoriously grumpy due to the indigestion caused by their overactive stomach acid. Ogres get -50% on all reaction rolls you may modify this to just -25% if they have just eaten.

that sort of thing makes much more sense than a charisma based adjustment.

Just sayin....

Quote from: jibbajibba;671567Well lets be honest an 18 CHr gives you +35% reaction bonus so no one meeting an 18 Chr PC will ever react hostile and the worst they will ever get is an uncertain moving toward negative and that only 10% of the time and they have a 60% change of friendly immediate acceptance or better.  hardly just a bit of bonus.....
And Chr is one of the few stats where you start getting bonuses at 13 + in AD&D as opposed to 15 or 16 s for Str, Con, Dex etc.

However putting that to one side.....
 
Why should a high Charsima PC say a paladin in their armour etc get that bonus without ever even talking to the creature or being observed by them for more than a moment? Except for the fact that 'its in the rules' you haven't explained why its a good rule at all.

Surely modifications based of stuff I mentioned like intelligence, ferocity or other stuff would be much better modifiers.

Ogres are fierce flesh eaters usually raveanously hungry and notoriously grumpy due to the indigestion caused by their overactive stomach acid. Ogres get -50% on all reaction rolls you may modify this to just -25% if they have just eaten.

that sort of thing makes much more sense than a charisma based adjustment.

Just sayin....

All reaction rolls should be situationally modified when appropriate. It should be noted along with a monster's stats what it is doing and its disposition so that appropriate modifiers can be considered.

Only in random encounters involving thinking monsters without a specific agenda would an unmodified reaction roll be used.  

If the monster in question is a castle guard and he catches someone trying to sneak in then its a good bet that it won't be an unmodified reaction roll. Not to mention modifiers for monsters who have interacted with the same PCs before. If the party encounters an orc and they have actually saved his life in the past there will be quite a large bonus on the reaction roll.

Likewise certain creatures will react automatically with no roll required. Mindless undead and the like may just attack, there is nothing to consider.


Why I like the rule:

The CHA adjustment is the one factor that represents an adjustment based on the intrinsic qualities of the character much like a STR penalty affects how much a PC can lift no matter how strong the player is. In B/X all ability scores start giving bonuses and penalties at the same values. 13-15 is +1, 16-7 is +2, and 18 is +3.

The reaction adjustment combined with the retainer limitation and morale levels make charisma an important stat for everyone without being a prime requisite.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;671576All reaction rolls should be situationally modified when appropriate. It should be noted along with a monster's stats what it is doing and its disposition so that appropriate modifiers can be considered.

Only in random encounters involving thinking monsters without a specific agenda would an unmodified reaction roll be used.  

If the monster in question is a castle guard and he catches someone trying to sneak in then its a good bet that it won't be an unmodified reaction roll. Not to mention modifiers for monsters who have interacted with the same PCs before. If the party encounters an orc and they have actually saved his life in the past there will be quite a large bonus on the reaction roll.

Likewise certain creatures will react automatically with no roll required. Mindless undead and the like may just attack, there is nothing to consider.


Why I like the rule:

The CHA adjustment is the one factor that represents an adjustment based on the intrinsic qualities of the character much like a STR penalty affects how much a PC can lift no matter how strong the player is. In B/X all ability scores start giving bonuses and penalties at the same values. 13-15 is +1, 16-7 is +2, and 18 is +3.

The reaction adjustment combined with the retainer limitation and morale levels make charisma an important stat for everyone without being a prime requisite.

I can totally see why Chr should be used for loyalty and all that and for social skill checks absolutely but it makes no sense as an initial reaction modifer, even if it was beauty that should vary dramatically between races. What an ogre finds attractive is going to be largely different to what a dwarf finds attractive. And why a giant badger or anything with animal inteligence would be affected I have no idea unless you were playing Snow White the RGP I suppose....
In any case saying its a good modifier because it stops Charisma being a dump stat is using the rule to justify the logic. I know you aren't a believer in role playing stats you don't like to think that just because the fighter has 6 int that means he needs to be played stupid so I assume the fighter can be ruggedly handsome if he has 9 charisma.

So meh... seem like a bit of a daft rule to me.

Quote from: jibbajibba;671578I can totally see why Chr should be used for loyalty and all that and for social skill checks absolutely but it makes no sense as an initial reaction modifer, even if it was beauty that should vary dramatically between races. What an ogre finds attractive is going to be largely different to what a dwarf finds attractive. And why a giant badger or anything with animal inteligence would be affected I have no idea unless you were playing Snow White the RGP I suppose....
In any case saying its a good modifier because it stops Charisma being a dump stat is using the rule to justify the logic. I know you aren't a believer in role playing stats you don't like to think that just because the fighter has 6 int that means he needs to be played stupid so I assume the fighter can be ruggedly handsome if he has 9 charisma.

So meh... seem like a bit of a daft rule to me.

I have always seen CHA as a catch all of physical beauty and the intangible "likability vibe".  So yeah a 9 CHA  fighter could be handsome but he would just be average on the likability meter. Someone with with even a 5 CHA could be smoking hot physically but be an insufferable ass. Because of the factors that comprise the stat value there is a lot of flexibility for individual interpretation for even identical stat values.

I have created npcs with really high CHA scores who were wrinkled old ladies. They had a high CHA because they were very charming and had that grandma likability vibe going on.

As far as animals go there are certain people whom animals seem to just like and others they don't and it has little to do with human values of beauty.

In the D&D that I enjoy most there are no social skill checks. The CHA modifier represents that initial vibe that the player can't do anything about and any actual interaction beyond that point is the player's to make or break.

Its fun to watch someone do verbal gymnastics working to overcome a low CHA. You really do get better at the diplomacy game when you have to overcome that ' I'm an asshole' vibe that your low CHA character is constantly broadcasting.  It might not even be true but something about your character just gives that impression.

Not everyone likes this interpretation of CHA but thats ok.

The comparison of the black dragon by edition is very interesting; it definitely shows the change in direction in 5e.

Quote from: jibbajibba;671578I can totally see why Chr should be used for loyalty and all that and for social skill checks absolutely but it makes no sense as an initial reaction modifer, even if it was beauty that should vary dramatically between races. What an ogre finds attractive is -

Charisma is much more than looks. The AD&D1e gives Hitler as an example of high Charisma. I don't think Gygax was saying he wanted to make sexy-time with Adolf. It's also presence. Some people have a strong presence, they walk in the room and everyone notices. Other people are easily ignored. Still others you dislike the moment you meet them.

Looks are a different thing, which is why 2e introduced a different attribute for them (which I don't use since it's not relevant to fantasy adventure games, but only to thespier stuff, but that's another story).

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;672162Looks are a different thing, which is why 2e introduced a different attribute for them (which I don't use since it's not relevant to fantasy adventure games, but only to thespier stuff, but that's another story).

Minor nitpick, but that was in 1e not 2e.  Comeliness in Unearthed Arcana.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;672162Charisma is much more than looks. The AD&D1e gives Hitler as an example of high Charisma. I don't think Gygax was saying he wanted to make sexy-time with Adolf. It's also presence. Some people have a strong presence, they walk in the room and everyone notices. Other people are easily ignored. Still others you dislike the moment you meet them.

Looks are a different thing, which is why 2e introduced a different attribute for them (which I don't use since it's not relevant to fantasy adventure games, but only to thespier stuff, but that's another story).

That is what I have been saying if you read my post.

I still don't think that if you put Adolf (and he did have beautiful eyes and a dapper moustache ) in a suit of armour on a horse then any monster he met would be swayed by his rhetoric and personal magnetism.

My point is simply that enconter rolls should be affected by a vast number of other things more than they are by charisma. I have no issue with using charisma for all social skills and as I have written at length I have no issue blending social skill checks into roleplaying so I suspect at my table charisma is far more useful that at some others.  
Initial reactions (which I shall try to steer back to the OP) should be far more affected by
i) the Intelligence of the creature
ii) the base "ferocity" of the creature
iii) the 'state' of the creature, hunting, travelling, protecting young, searching for a lost golden medalion that was lost 200 years ago etc etc ...
iv) the allignment of the creature
v) what the GM thinks makes the most enjoyable game for the players (SHOCK HORROR!!!) becuase afterall its the GMs job to loose to the players

Generally I like the player to describe what exactly their characters charisma is all about.

Ugly as sin but a commanding presence? cool

Beauty to die for but socially inept? cool

Same with Intelligence. One person might be an absent minded professor, the other uneducated but with insane natural intellect.

If people insist on a more specific definition, I lean toward charisma having almost nothing to fo with beauty, and all force of personality.