I was playing around with the old Mentzer Monster Reaction Chart yesterday. I was mapping the 2d6 results to other types of dice because I was thinking of a way to use it in D&D 5e. I used the website AnyDice to work out the probabilities and the rest was math. Anyhow I kind of tweaked around the numbers and realized I could make a super condensed version. Well okay, super condensed would be Hostile, Neutral, Friendly. I wanted something a bit more complicated than that to preserve some of the things I liked. Anyhow, this one is mapped to an unmodified d20. The intention is to gauge the Monster/NPC's intention or mood on encountering the Player Characters. This would be before things like Charisma and skills come into play.
1: Immediate Attack
2-6: Hostile; 1-14 Attack, 15+ Retreat
7-14 Back Away Slowly and Leave
15-19: Amicable; 1-6 Offer a Pleasant Day and Leave, 7+ Friendly
20: Immediately Friendly
And that's it. Hostile and Amicable get a second roll. I could have added it to Back Away Slowly but I really didn't see much point in adding a redundant nested loop. The most simplified version would like like.
1-6: Attack
7-14: Leave
15-20: Friendly
I might do something a bit more akin to the original nested monstrosity, though I may try and make the redundant less redundant by offering different results. I'm still thinking on that one. The mapping from 2d6 to 1d20 isn't exact, but it's a decent approximation if you prefer to use a d20. The way it maps out is like this.
2 (2.78%) --> 1 (5%)
3-5 (25%) --> 2-6 (25%)
6-8 (44.45%) --> 7-14 (40%)
9-11 (25%)--> 15-19 (25%)
12 (2.78%) --> 20 (5%)
There is no way to map out the dice perfectly but it's good enough for me.
What did you gain by changing from 2d6 to 1d20?
Quote from: Dumarest;961489What did you gain by changing from 2d6 to 1d20?
It's mostly for 5e where 2d6 isn't really a common mechanic which could be adapted to other d20 based games. Hence why I added the third chart with the probabilities so that the original mechanic is preserved. Mostly this was just a fun exercise because I like to play with numbers. If I ever get my OSRish thing written I'll likely use an adaptation which uses 2d6 and keeps to the original.
I was wondering, because I looked at the percentages for each result and it seemed the same, so I thought maybe I missed something.
I use BX/Mentzer 2d6 Reaction & Morale systems in all my games. Can't see any reason not to. Certainly see no reason to convert to a d20 and lose the bell curve when applying modifiers.
Quote from: S'mon;961500I use BX/Mentzer 2d6 Reaction & Morale systems in all my games. Can't see any reason not to. Certainly see no reason to convert to a d20 and lose the bell curve when applying modifiers.
The d20 table is meant to be used without modifiers. It's probably not final, more of a framework that I am making. I'll probably use 2d6 for Approach, though that's hard to say because I accidentally came up with two engines for it.
Quote from: Dumarest;961497I was wondering, because I looked at the percentages for each result and it seemed the same, so I thought maybe I missed something.
Check the ranges. They are deliberately supposed to be close. I also mapped it out to a d24 and d30 to simulate bonuses from Charisma and Skills. Once I work out the d20 end of it, it will probably just be some one page thing. Using 2d6 I may do something closer to the originals. I still have to work out probabilities for the redundant recursions.
I've never noticed that basically 7+ on d20 = no fight (or whatever it was via 2d6, assuming same odds). That's very interesting.
Definitely not something I have ever seen in a game I've played. Monster get fought constantly, with a very occasional talking encounter as something different.
Is there a formal "escape/flee combat" rule in Mentzer? If not, I think I might understand why. This reaction table is kinda a party retreat rule in reverse - the GM can throw any intelligent/communicative NPCs at the party, safe in the knowledge that there's good odds it wont be a fight (unless the party starts one - and if they do, the results are on them).
In later versions of D&D, the reaction table was lost, but no flee rule implemented, which lead to the need for ... "balanced encounters".
Quote from: Psikerlord;961506I've never noticed that basically 7+ on d20 = no fight (or whatever it was via 2d6, assuming same odds). That's very interesting.
There are a lot of very interesting details you notice when you really look at the rules to older D&D or Classic Traveller that really change your perspective on what was expected of a game. For Traveller, there's a guy on here called Christopher Kubasik (spelling may be wrong) who has a blog going over Classic Traveller with a fine-toothed comb and coming up with intriguing revelations. It would be cool if someone was doing that with AD&D or Basic or 1974 D&D. Or maybe someone is already?
Quote from: Dumarest;961508There are a lot of very interesting details you notice when you really look at the rules to older D&D or Classic Traveller that really change your perspective on what was expected of a game. For Traveller, there's a guy on here called Christopher Kubasik (spelling may be wrong) who has a blog going over Classic Traveller with a fine-toothed comb and coming up with intriguing revelations. It would be cool if someone was doing that with AD&D or Basic or 1974 D&D. Or maybe someone is already?
Yeah I think I'm going to have to find a copy and go over it myself, just out of interest
I like BX's system. But 5e's works overall the same. Though I think BX's has the greater leeway for swaying even hostile encounters which makes a passable, or even good CHA useful.
In 5e's system you cant sway reactions so dramatically. Though some might well see that as a strength.
Quote from: Psikerlord;961510Yeah I think I'm going to have to find a copy and go over it myself, just out of interest
Start a thread! I'll read it.
Quote from: Psikerlord;961506Is there a formal "escape/flee combat" rule in Mentzer? If not, I think I might understand why. This reaction table is kinda a party retreat rule in reverse - the GM can throw any intelligent/communicative NPCs at the party, safe in the knowledge that there's good odds it wont be a fight (unless the party starts one - and if they do, the results are on them).
Dont know about BECMI but in BX yes there were rules for surprise and retreat. page B24, Evasion and Pursuit. Makes use of the reaction table to determine of they follow or not. Monsters break off pursuit of the PCs can get out of sight.
The reaction table takes into account the bell curve so undecided reactions are the most common and friendly and hostile ones are rare. If I recall correctly it should be much the same in BECMI as there wasnt as much rules drift between iterations.
Quote from: Omega;961518I like BX's system. But 5e's works overall the same. Though I think BX's has the greater leeway for swaying even hostile encounters which makes a passable, or even good CHA useful.
In 5e's system you cant sway reactions so dramatically. Though some might well see that as a strength.
My main reason for not including modifiers is that I was mostly mapping dice and wanted to work out the base numbers. Plus the OSR thing I am working on uses Approaches (basically broad skills and expressed as adjectives rather than nouns) to replace skills by associating actions (including saving throws) to each one. I want the game to scale similarly to BECMI/RC so I need to get that down first. But I decided a while back that I wanted to use the Mentzer charts in some way. Using it for 5e is just gravy. :)
Quote from: Omega;961525Dont know about BECMI but in BX yes there were rules for surprise and retreat. page B24, Evasion and Pursuit. Makes use of the reaction table to determine of they follow or not. Monsters break off pursuit of the PCs can get out of sight.
The reaction table takes into account the bell curve so undecided reactions are the most common and friendly and hostile ones are rare. If I recall correctly it should be much the same in BECMI as there wasnt as much rules drift between iterations.
ooohh the plot thickens! OK I'm gonna have to get my hands on these earlier rules and do a good read thru - thanks Omega!
Quote from: Omega;961525Dont know about BECMI but in BX yes there were rules for surprise and retreat. page B24, Evasion and Pursuit. Makes use of the reaction table to determine of they follow or not. Monsters break off pursuit of the PCs can get out of sight.
The reaction table takes into account the bell curve so undecided reactions are the most common and friendly and hostile ones are rare. If I recall correctly it should be much the same in BECMI as there wasnt as much rules drift between iterations.
It's been a couple of decades for me since my BECMI boxed sets went MIA. If B/X is available on DriveThruRPG I may have to pick it up. I'll check the Rule Cyclopedia first. I really like this idea though. In my old 1e campaign which we still play sometime, we made extensive use of this chart. We even used it in place of diplomacy.
The one thing I considered for the d20 version and perhaps the 2d6 version is to add situational modifiers in lieu of charisma and skill. For d20/5e, I do not want a mid to high level bard walking through a dungeon bypassing every monster with a smile and a wink. Diplomacy and/or Intimidation may come into play after first contact, but this is more for first impressions. However, since I have used the Mentzer chart for diplomacy in the past, I might adapt it again. Of course it would get it's own table.
Quote from: Psikerlord;961506I've never noticed that basically 7+ on d20 = no fight (or whatever it was via 2d6, assuming same odds). That's very interesting.
Definitely not something I have ever seen in a game I've played. Monster get fought constantly, with a very occasional talking encounter as something different.
Is there a formal "escape/flee combat" rule in Mentzer? If not, I think I might understand why. This reaction table is kinda a party retreat rule in reverse - the GM can throw any intelligent/communicative NPCs at the party, safe in the knowledge that there's good odds it wont be a fight (unless the party starts one - and if they do, the results are on them).
In later versions of D&D, the reaction table was lost, but no flee rule implemented, which lead to the need for ... "balanced encounters".
B/X also has morale rules for NPCs/Monsters, so you avoid goblins always fighting fanatically until every last one is dead. The first morale check is made upon the first death, so one good blow can end a fight if you are lucky. The game encourages situational modifiers to morale as well, so players are encouraged to engage in psychological warfare.
It adds to the dynamism of a dungeon too, having monsters flee deeper to be possibly encountered again. Players can pursue, it they think running headlong into the dungeon is a good idea.
Quote from: Psikerlord;961541ooohh the plot thickens! OK I'm gonna have to get my hands on these earlier rules and do a good read thru - thanks Omega!
Aside from the fact that the basic rules are available again in PDF, you can get copies in good condition for respectable priced online. While I still have my original copies, I am running a game for my nephews, and I'm a little wary of letting a seven-year old handle them. I picked up some spare table copies in used but good condition for about $15 each on Amazon a few weeks ago. They only get seriously pricey if you want the box with it.
When I ported it from BX to 5e myself I did the following.
Applicable proficiency add 1/2 the class prof bonus. Round down. This way you still get the bonus, but not at so high a rate. Same with stat bonus, halve it. So a level 10 character with a 20 stat gets a bonus of +4 (2+2) rather than +9. Bards and Rogues are going to be pretty persuasive with their doubled skill bonuses if one happens to be applicable.
Quote from: Psikerlord;961506I've never noticed that basically 7+ on d20 = no fight (or whatever it was via 2d6, assuming same odds). That's very interesting.
Definitely not something I have ever seen in a game I've played. Monster get fought constantly, with a very occasional talking encounter as something different.
Is there a formal "escape/flee combat" rule in Mentzer? If not, I think I might understand why. This reaction table is kinda a party retreat rule in reverse - the GM can throw any intelligent/communicative NPCs at the party, safe in the knowledge that there's good odds it wont be a fight (unless the party starts one - and if they do, the results are on them).
In later versions of D&D, the reaction table was lost, but no flee rule implemented, which lead to the need for ... "balanced encounters".
AFAICR BX and BECM have the same:
Monster Reaction table (2d6)
Monster & Hireling Morale checks (2d6)
Escape/Evade rules (d%) for PCs and monsters
Wandering monsters - which encounters are intended to be avoided/minimised by the PCs.
The result is that it is not a "hack everything to death" game in the core rules. HOWEVER published scenarios for these games do include a lot of "attacks immediately" encounters which are not that different from what you see in modern published adventures. The core rules focus on creating an environment, with threat level stacked by dungeon level, but otherwise little concern for Balance. But I think the game tended to take its development cues much more from the published modules. A lot of my 3e & PF & 4e adventures take it to an extreme with no wandering monsters but strings of static monsters in rooms who attack immediately & fight to the death. I find this a pretty degenerate mode of adventure design.
Thinking about converting the Reaction table to d20 D&D in order to allow CHA bonus to apply, wouldn't using 2d10 rather than 1d20 give the best results? 19-20 on 2d10 is 3 in 100 or about 1 in 33, very close to 12 on 2d6 which is 1 in 36 chance.
Quote from: S'mon;961565AFAICR BX and BECM have the same:
Monster Reaction table (2d6)
Monster & Hireling Morale checks (2d6)
Escape/Evade rules (d%) for PCs and monsters
Wandering monsters - which encounters are intended to be avoided/minimised by the PCs.
The result is that it is not a "hack everything to death" game in the core rules. HOWEVER published scenarios for these games do include a lot of "attacks immediately" encounters which are not that different from what you see in modern published adventures. The core rules focus on creating an environment, with threat level stacked by dungeon level, but otherwise little concern for Balance. But I think the game tended to take its development cues much more from the published modules. A lot of my 3e & PF & 4e adventures take it to an extreme with no wandering monsters but strings of static monsters in rooms who attack immediately & fight to the death. I find this a pretty degenerate mode of adventure design.
Yeah this is a real eye opener for me, the reaction table combined with the retreat/evasion rules (and morale) are very important mechanics to my mind. Avoiding the need for "balanced encounters" in essential to a good system imo, and these mechanics make that possible.
Quote from: S'mon;961566Thinking about converting the Reaction table to d20 D&D in order to allow CHA bonus to apply, wouldn't using 2d10 rather than 1d20 give the best results? 19-20 on 2d10 is 3 in 100 or about 1 in 33, very close to 12 on 2d6 which is 1 in 36 chance.
Yeah, a 1-2 on 2d10 is 3% which is close to rolling a 2 on 2d6. Part of my decision to map it to a single d20 is aesthetics. For me a d20 is something that is satisfying to roll, so long as it's a roll high thing. I am not a fan of roll under mechanics for d20. It just feels weird. The only dice I like for roll under is d%. Sure, it skews the odds on the upper and lower end, but I like the psychological component that rolling a 1 or a 20 has, how it instantly registers as very bad or very good. So my opposition to using something like 2d10 is mostly that I don't like how it looks. :D
Quote from: Psikerlord;961579Yeah this is a real eye opener for me, the reaction table combined with the retreat/evasion rules (and morale) are very important mechanics to my mind. Avoiding the need for "balanced encounters" in essential to a good system imo, and these mechanics make that possible.
I sometimes have to remind my players that fleeing is an option. I have thought about incorporating morale, which I used to use often when I played 2e. The look on the player's faces when they charge into an encounter, and the monster just turns tail and books it out of there. :D I guess I might need to work out something for the inevitable chases that will happen.
Quote from: Psikerlord;961506I've never noticed that basically 7+ on d20 = no fight (or whatever it was via 2d6, assuming same odds). That's very interesting.
Isn't it, though? Even a return to AD&D 1e & 2e DMGs I noticed that there's a surprising prevalence for monsters not "having cause" to attack. Granted there's more involved, but even those additional modifiers and such took little time to resolve (well, there was the creative time needed for non-sapient creatures). Party posture, a reaction modified roll, and any active PC mitigation and off you go!
All that at-the-moment content creation improvisation (distance, environs specifics, reactions, morale, etc.) really made encounters avoid getting stale fast. It's been a noticeable loss over the editions. I dig this little bit of reincorporation; 5e DMG may have it, but another Reaction chart option couldn't hurt.
Quote from: Krimson;961618I sometimes have to remind my players that fleeing is an option. I have thought about incorporating morale, which I used to use often when I played 2e. The look on the player's faces when they charge into an encounter, and the monster just turns tail and books it out of there. :D I guess I might need to work out something for the inevitable chases that will happen.
The free 'attack' that a lot of newer editions like to implement tends to discourage retreat.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;961731The free 'attack' that a lot of newer editions like to implement tends to discourage retreat.
I'm going to use BECMI/RC as a base due to familiarity even if I played more 1e than anything. I have no intention of using Attacks of Opportunity, Feats or other mechanics that really aren't necessary. The idea is to create something that is different but familiar, that is modular so people can use it how they like. I need to spend some quality time with the RC.
Quote from: Krimson;961739I'm going to use BECMI/RC as a base due to familiarity even if I played more 1e than anything. I have no intention of using Attacks of Opportunity, Feats or other mechanics that really aren't necessary. The idea is to create something that is different but familiar, that is modular so people can use it how they like. I need to spend some quality time with the RC.
I remember 2e having a similar mechanic, and most modern gamers tend to think that way.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;961731The free 'attack' that a lot of newer editions like to implement tends to discourage retreat.
I think B/X strikes a nice balance. If your opponent makes a full retreat you get +2 on your next attack if you pursue, and they lose any shield bonus. Their is a potential benefit to routing your opponent, but you actually need to chase them to get it, and that could have unforeseen risks. How to respond to a retreating enemy is a tactical decision, not a bonus attack.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;961742I remember 2e having a similar mechanic, and most modern gamers tend to think that way.
2e did have Attacks of Opportunity. It was certainly in Combat and Tactics. I'll have to think about that. I'm not averse to including a more modern rule if I feel there is a need for it. Though my first focus is to finish the charts and then sort out how stuff like retreat is implemented. Having some sort of disengage action might be useful.
Quote from: Krimson;9617462e did have Attacks of Opportunity. It was certainly in Combat and Tactics. I'll have to think about that. I'm not averse to including a more modern rule if I feel there is a need for it. Though my first focus is to finish the charts and then sort out how stuff like retreat is implemented. Having some sort of disengage action might be useful.
As long as you understand that unless you spell it out, us idiots won't figure out that we can try to escape a fight. :P
Quote from: Krimson;961618I sometimes have to remind my players that fleeing is an option. I have thought about incorporating morale, which I used to use often when I played 2e. The look on the player's faces when they charge into an encounter, and the monster just turns tail and books it out of there. :D I guess I might need to work out something for the inevitable chases that will happen.
You might be able to tweak the Low Fantasy Gaming improv chase table to your liking (free PDF, OGL)
Quote from: Psikerlord;961766You might be able to tweak the Low Fantasy Gaming improv chase table to your liking (free PDF, OGL)
You forget I bought a print copy when it came out? :D
Quote from: Christopher Brady;961742I remember 2e having a similar mechanic, and most modern gamers tend to think that way.
That's what HP cushions and Rank Order (formations) were for! :) Yup, free attacks are the consequence of getting up in someone's face and getting aggro, and suddenly finding out you bit off more than you can chew. That distance roll really didn't get into single digit feet of your squishiest companions lest your party decided to take significant risks on: enclosed spaces, lighting, caution, formation, etc. And even then, you still had a decent chance on posture, reaction tables, and gifts/bribes.
High risk, high aggro posture better back that shit up or get ready to lose its lunch. C'est la vie. And if at worst you get a free attack or two running for your life, you got off lucky.
(But yes, modern gamers have been trained to expect all fights are fights to the death. It's almost like they're poorly socialized and not been in a wide range of social environments where your mouth better not write checks its ass cannot back up. :D Which also might explain in part the internet's fight to the death argumentativeness. :p When you're within fist reach, courtesy suddenly becomes paramount.)
Quote from: Krimson;961771You forget I bought a print copy when it came out? :D
LOL!
Quote from: Opaopajr;961772That's what HP cushions and Rank Order (formations) were for! :) Yup, free attacks are the consequence of getting up in someone's face and getting aggro, and suddenly finding out you bit off more than you can chew. That distance roll really didn't get into single digit feet of your squishiest companions lest your party decided to take significant risks on: enclosed spaces, lighting, caution, formation, etc. And even then, you still had a decent chance on posture, reaction tables, and gifts/bribes.
High risk, high aggro posture better back that shit up or get ready to lose its lunch. C'est la vie. And if at worst you get a free attack or two running for your life, you got off lucky.
(But yes, modern gamers have been trained to expect all fights are fights to the death. It's almost like they're poorly socialized and not been in a wide range of social environments where your mouth better not write checks its ass cannot back up. :D Which also might explain in part the internet's fight to the death argumentativeness. :p When you're within fist reach, courtesy suddenly becomes paramount.)
Now that I think about it, would an Attack of Opportunity even be necessary? Okay, so the encounter has happened which means initiative has been rolled right? So the fleeing party that lost their morale roll is using their actions to book it out of there, but the other party still gets their actions do they not? So why would you need an attack of opportunity if you can just use your attack? That's pretty much what we did in 1e. If someone disengages you don't say to the players, "He has disengaged and is out of range." That's silly unless the baddie has levels of Monk or is a Quickling or something. You say, "Roll to hit."
Now that I think about it, why would you need a Disengage either? Yes, I know I suggested it myself. But your character already has a move rate, and I'd probably consider letting a character use their attack as a move action, though... I think 1e had move rules I like. One thing I do know is that I don't want to replace a mechanic that already exists with the obvious exception of the Mentzer Chart and maybe morale just because it seems to make sense to cover both topics.
Wait.. This isn't the thread where I'm writing an RPG. I'm just making a DM tool. So I don't have to worry about how the baddie decides to turn tail and run, I just have to say that it's the baddie's intent to get out of there and let DM using it work out the rest. Though this is some nice food for thought. Maybe morale could be covered in situational modifiers for the chart, based on things like size and temperment and other factors. Or I could do something really simple, especially since the d20 version is intended for 5e, and just make it some sort of saving throw like Fear.
Quote from: Krimson;961784Now that I think about it, would an Attack of Opportunity even be necessary? Okay, so the encounter has happened which means initiative has been rolled right? So the fleeing party that lost their morale roll is using their actions to book it out of there, but the other party still gets their actions do they not? So why would you need an attack of opportunity if you can just use your attack? That's pretty much what we did in 1e. If someone disengages you don't say to the players, "He has disengaged and is out of range." That's silly unless the baddie has levels of Monk or is a Quickling or something. You say, "Roll to hit."
The difference is that with an Attack of Opportunity, it is triggered as soon as the opponent declares they are fleeing. You don't actually need to chase them to get that attack. In B/X, where there are no AoO, the fleeing enemy moves on their action, and if you want to attack on your action next action(with a +2 bonus), you need to actually chase them.
Quote from: Baulderstone;961789...you need to actually chase them.
It is more fun that way. :) That and, it also means the monsters have to chase you.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;961762As long as you understand that unless you spell it out, us idiots won't figure out that we can try to escape a fight. :P
I read about this attitude a lot online, but have never seen it in my own games. Running away from a losing battle seems to come naturally to most people.
Maybe it helps that in my games monsters often flee (often successfully), so it's apparent to players that their PCs could do the same. And high level PCs often have many tools to assist in retreating, eg last Sunday my 5e group retreated from some overpowered demon-deinonychuses by using Dimension Door and Wall of Stone to prevent pursuit.
Quote from: Opaopajr;961772(But yes, modern gamers have been trained to expect all fights are fights to the death. It's almost like they're poorly socialized and not been in a wide range of social environments where your mouth better not write checks its ass cannot back up.
Do children not fight at school anymore?! :confused:
Sic tempora sic morales
Quote from: S'mon;961818I read about this attitude a lot online, but have never seen it in my own games. Running away from a losing battle seems to come naturally to most people.
But real life has people moving at different speeds. In most D&D games most of the monsters can keep up with you, indefinitely. Some can even overtake you, and worse, some can fly and cut off most avenues of escape.
Often, I've noticed over the years, is that players consider fleeing when they're very low on resources, like low HP and spells. That's usually a bad call.
Quote from: S'mon;961818Maybe it helps that in my games monsters often flee (often successfully), so it's apparent to players that their PCs could do the same. And high level PCs often have many tools to assist in retreating, eg last Sunday my 5e group retreated from some overpowered demon-deinonychuses by using Dimension Door and Wall of Stone to prevent pursuit.
Not every one has a high level caster in their party. Clerics don't have that many utility spells of that nature. My current home game has no Wizard, so that technique is unavailable.
Quote from: S'mon;961819Do children not fight at school anymore?! :confused: Sic tempora sic morales
Not really, but the reason is political, so I'm leaving it at that.
Uh, movement rate is not an infinite supply of: Rage (morale), Constitution (or for mobs, Hit Die equivalents... or Morale), Safe Haven/Territory, etc. Not every encounter is going to be with robotic Terminators. Well, not if the GM is worth even a lone grain of salt.
:rolleyes:
Strawman terminator monsters are strawman terminator monsters. But yes, WotC D&D did end up with extremely bad gameplay assumptions. Maybe it's that game's lack of advice? Maybe it's the prevalent culture of pre-teen mentality? Who knows?
:p
Quote from: Krimson;961784Now that I think about it, would an Attack of Opportunity even be necessary? Okay, so the encounter has happened which means initiative has been rolled right? So the fleeing party that lost their morale roll is using their actions to book it out of there, but the other party still gets their actions do they not? So why would you need an attack of opportunity if you can just use your attack? That's pretty much what we did in 1e. If someone disengages you don't say to the players, "He has disengaged and is out of range." That's silly unless the baddie has levels of Monk or is a Quickling or something. You say, "Roll to hit."
Now that I think about it, why would you need a Disengage either? Yes, I know I suggested it myself. But your character already has a move rate, and I'd probably consider letting a character use their attack as a move action, though... I think 1e had move rules I like. One thing I do know is that I don't want to replace a mechanic that already exists with the obvious exception of the Mentzer Chart and maybe morale just because it seems to make sense to cover both topics.
Wait.. This isn't the thread where I'm writing an RPG. I'm just making a DM tool. So I don't have to worry about how the baddie decides to turn tail and run, I just have to say that it's the baddie's intent to get out of there and let DM using it work out the rest. Though this is some nice food for thought. Maybe morale could be covered in situational modifiers for the chart, based on things like size and temperment and other factors. Or I could do something really simple, especially since the d20 version is intended for 5e, and just make it some sort of saving throw like Fear.
Just because there's an opportunity doesn't mean it must be taken. That's the very basis of all this RPG play, risk assessment and conservation of resources. A free attack after proving your point from being deliberately threatened doesn't necessarily mean it's worth it. Even low sentience animals make these assessments after being ambushed or cornered and then thwarting an attacker.
Basic life paradigms, people. It's not that hard. :)
Quote from: Opaopajr;961860Uh, movement rate is not an infinite supply of: Rage (morale), Constitution (or for mobs, Hit Die equivalents... or Morale), Safe Haven/Territory, etc. Not every encounter is going to be with robotic Terminators. Well, not if the GM is worth even a lone grain of salt.
To back up your point, this thread started as a discussion of the Reaction Table, and that table presents opponents that are more likely to be cautious than to immediately attack. Unless the GM rolled a 2 on a 2d6 for an Immediate Attack result, it seems likely to me that they will consider retreating PCs to be a win condition and let the battle end there.
Obviously, roleplaying assumptions override random Reaction Tables. If the PCs just stole a sacred relic from a temple, then the guards will probably pursue until they catch the PCs or the PCs drop the relic. Still, the table makes it clear that NPCs/Monsters generally looking to fight simply for the sake of fighting.
Quote from: Opaopajr;961861Just because there's an opportunity doesn't mean it must be taken. That's the very basis of all this RPG play, risk assessment and conservation of resources. A free attack after proving your point from being deliberately threatened doesn't necessarily mean it's worth it. Even low sentience animals make these assessments after being ambushed or cornered and then thwarting an attacker.
Basic life paradigms, people. It's not that hard. :)
The way I see it, why add another mechanic when there is already a mechanic there that lets you take a shot at your opponent? I'd prefer to limit free shots to surprise rounds.
Quote from: Baulderstone;961868To back up your point, this thread started as a discussion of the Reaction Table, and that table presents opponents that are more likely to be cautious than to immediately attack. Unless the GM rolled a 2 on a 2d6 for an Immediate Attack result, it seems likely to me that they will consider retreating PCs to be a win condition and let the battle end there.
Obviously, roleplaying assumptions override random Reaction Tables. If the PCs just stole a sacred relic from a temple, then the guards will probably pursue until they catch the PCs or the PCs drop the relic. Still, the table makes it clear that NPCs/Monsters generally looking to fight simply for the sake of fighting.
Some creatures will be more aggressive and some will be less so. Some monsters are stupid eating machines, or mindless undead, and some are more intelligent creatures who have some value to their continued existence. Villains wouldn't be suicidal unless there was something that worried them more. For the most part, the table will be for the first part of the encounter to set the tone. I was going through the RC a bit last night so the Chapter on Evasion might be something to implement as well.
Quote from: Krimson;961894Some creatures will be more aggressive and some will be less so. Some monsters are stupid eating machines, or mindless undead, and some are more intelligent creatures who have some value to their continued existence. Villains wouldn't be suicidal unless there was something that worried them more. For the most part, the table will be for the first part of the encounter to set the tone. I was going through the RC a bit last night so the Chapter on Evasion might be something to implement as well.
Of course. Roleplaying considerations need to come first. The table is a fallback for when a response isn't obvious. Of course, even stupid eating machines prefer to eat thing that don't hit back. If the players land a few blows on an animalistic predator before running away, there is a good chance it won't be all interested in giving chase unless starving. And, as the B?X rules state, dropping food is a great way to buy time when running from stupid eating machines.
The RC evasion rules seem pretty solid to me. They are a little crunchy, but if you are doing a hex crawl, evasion could be a significant part of the game, making it worth the effort. I might use them in my next game.
I made heavy use of the reaction rules and morale rules in Arrows of Indra, and am doing the same with my upcoming "Lion & Dragon" medieval-authentic OSR game.
Quote from: RPGPundit;962476I made heavy use of the reaction rules and morale rules in Arrows of Indra, and am doing the same with my upcoming "Lion & Dragon" medieval-authentic OSR game.
One of the things that bugs me, Pundit, is that you have three tables which are exactly the same.
Spoiler
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/KrimsonGray/reaction_zpsgrg5mijh.png)
It's redundant data. I'm half decent with math but not a mathematician so it will take me a bit of time to work out the absolute probabilities of each outcome. And I'll end up doing that for fun. I like the table. I have used it for decades for more than it was intended. I figure that if I am going to use a table where you can roll 2d6 up to three times, than maybe there should be some variation. I incorporated a little bit of that in my first post, but it would be interesting to add more detail. It would probably have to be in some sort of context to make sense. Looking through the RC it's neat how it can mesh up with the rules for Moral and Evasion.
I am not yet sure how to add more to this in a satisfying way. I could get more recursive and add a level or two. I'd like to add stuff along the lines of "The creature has recently had a good meal, and as such is not interested in you" or "The creature has not eaten in three days and has little interest in pleasantries." If I got really ambitious I could do something for differing levels of Intelligence. Or instead of making more tables I could add Conditional Modifiers.
Quote from: Krimson;962717One of the things that bugs me, Pundit, is that you have three tables which are exactly the same.
Spoiler
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/KrimsonGray/reaction_zpsgrg5mijh.png)
It's redundant data.
That's exactly what I changed. If you look at Arrows of Indra you'll see the first view of how I handled that. I've slightly updated that for Lion & Dragon (which hasn't come out yet).
Quote from: RPGPundit;963187That's exactly what I changed. If you look at Arrows of Indra you'll see the first view of how I handled that. I've slightly updated that for Lion & Dragon (which hasn't come out yet).
I'll probably check out the latter. I have seen at least one of your books at Sentry Box so maybe I can see if they can get Hollow Crown in when it's complete. :)
Quote from: Dumarest;961489What did you gain by changing from 2d6 to 1d20?
There are mechanical things in 5e that are fairly specific to the d20: advantage and disadvantage especially, but also luck rolls, halflings rerolling 1s, and divination wizards replacing d20 rolls with their foretelling rolls. You might want some of those to apply, or not; harder to make them apply if it's not a d20 roll.
Quote from: Omega;961549When I ported it from BX to 5e myself I did the following.
Applicable proficiency add 1/2 the class prof bonus. Round down. This way you still get the bonus, but not at so high a rate. Same with stat bonus, halve it. So a level 10 character with a 20 stat gets a bonus of +4 (2+2) rather than +9. Bards and Rogues are going to be pretty persuasive with their doubled skill bonuses if one happens to be applicable.
The original poster said unmodified d20; my immediate thought was that adding the potentially large ability bonuses would throw it out badly, and this is not a bad solution. (The original D&D reaction allowed +4 for an 18 charisma, but it was pretty hard to get that high compared to later editions, and especially with adding to ability scores every four levels or so.)
My other thought was that it might be better to make it effectively d20-d20 with a contest between ability checks, but that leans toward arguing that the NPCs want a fight (trying to bring the result closer to the hostile reactions) or at least the opposite of what the PCs want, which seems wrong for this chart. So I'd like situational modifiers, in either direction, better than guaranteed bonuses.
Quote from: rawma;963219There are mechanical things in 5e that are fairly specific to the d20: advantage and disadvantage especially, but also luck rolls, halflings rerolling 1s, and divination wizards replacing d20 rolls with their foretelling rolls. You might want some of those to apply, or not; harder to make them apply if it's not a d20 roll.
In this case it's more a familiarity thing. Many newer players are used to d20 being rolled for everything and frankly, even my older players expect it in 5e.
Quote from: rawma;963219The original poster said unmodified d20; my immediate thought was that adding the potentially large ability bonuses would throw it out badly, and this is not a bad solution. (The original D&D reaction allowed +4 for an 18 charisma, but it was pretty hard to get that high compared to later editions, and especially with adding to ability scores every four levels or so.)
When I first mapped it out, I mapped it to a linear 1-30 making the assumption of levels of skill and decent ability scores. That did not work out to my liking. Next I tried a linear 1-24. A little better but it still didn't feel right. It's hard to say about what I am going to do with the d20 chart, because it's an exercise for fun. My previous mulling and feedback makes me inclined to make some sort of 5e tool that also takes into consideration morale and evasion which I mentioned earlier. For the most part, it would be tailored to random encounters, creatures and NPCs and how they react. A group of thieves might run off in different directions, hiding in shadows when they find suitable shadow or cover, because they're working on a scheme and getting killed by adventurers would put a crimp in that. I still have to reread that Evasion chapter in the RC, so that could be applicable as well. There could be more than just attack/leave/friendly. Like what if a beastie isn't really hungry but it decides to chase the party around the dungeon because it's really fun? I remember a 1e game where the DM described a Hellhound as wanting to play. He came home with us and became the best watch dog ever except when he was being a bad dog, rolling around on flammable stuff and the like.
My point is, creatures have their own motives and their own priorities. A predator might not be aggressive if it lives in a biome where it can meet all it's physical needs without too much effort. So if it has a place to sleep, pudgy animals to choose from and clean water assuming it's a carbon based lifeform, then it might not care about beings that carry around pointy things. It could see them as a curiosity, or even identify with them if it feels they too are hunters. On the other end of the spectrum, some animals and monsters may not be evil, but they may well be jerks. Or they might not know what a jerk is, but they do know that bugging the two legged beings with the pointy things is great fun, and some of them don't taste half bad.
Anyhow, sorry for the tangent. Yeah, wanting to use an unmodified d20 with situational modifiers is a consideration because I don't want people using Persuade to walk through every encounter, or Intimidate. This is partly because after you roll the reaction, further attempts at Intimidation or Diplomacy default to RAW. You walk into a magic shop and the Witch with the coin box gives you stink eye because she doesn't like how you look. Now, the bard can step up and try and charm her as he would, but you have an idea what kind of mood the NPC is in which sets the tone for the scene. For me, once I know what kind of mood they are in, it helps me RP that NPC especially if I just made them up right then. That is stuff I have always used the Mentzer table for. In AD&D, if someone tried to be charming then I might roll again with a modifier.
There could be instances where you roll more than once. The guards try and kill you until they find out your names, and then they become fanboys because they've heard of your exploits. I mean, I wouldn't have an entry that says that, I'm just making up stuff to go with the narrative and dice rolls. New information brought to light to the NPC/Monster in my opinion can merit another roll. Sure, as a DM I could arbitrarily decide what mood they are in but where's the fun in that?
Quote from: rawma;963219My other thought was that it might be better to make it effectively d20-d20 with a contest between ability checks, but that leans toward arguing that the NPCs want a fight (trying to bring the result closer to the hostile reactions) or at least the opposite of what the PCs want, which seems wrong for this chart. So I'd like situational modifiers, in either direction, better than guaranteed bonuses.
Just for fun, here's d20-d20 on Anydice (http://anydice.com/program/183). It has a very pretty distribution but I'd never use it. :D As I mentioned above, attempts at social interaction can be done normally after the initial reaction. Some NPCs will want to fight and in that case you really don't need to roll unless you want to see if they are really into it or just fighting half-assedly. For 5e there would be morale on a different chart. I really have no idea how I'm going to do it yet, or even what I am doing. :D What will probably happen is that I'll read through the chapters on Morale and Evasion and write a bunch of notes and see how I can have them interact with the framework of the Mentzer chart. But I'd also like to do this in under 24 pages and preferably much less than that. :D In fact 4-6 pages that could be made into a screen would probably be the way to go.
When you say Guaranteed Bonuses... Yeah... I'm not a fan of the Diplomacy Mind Trick. There might be circumstances were a favorable reaction is almost certain, but I still want a 1 to be a 1 and a 20 to be a 20. 5e doesn't have critical successes or failures RAW for skill checks, but this is not a skill check.
Now... before I forget. Back to when you said d20-d20 it made me think. If I am doing the d20 version primarily for 5e then I could get rid of situational modifiers altogether and just use Advantage and Disadvantage. Possibly maybe even double but I have to reread RAW before I mess around too much. Using a straight d20 roll with Advantage or Disadvantage would be a very clean way to do this, AND add the element of a bell curve to keep some people less grumpy.
Now I do plan on using another version of the Mentzer Chart in an OSRish project. At some point I'll look up Arrows of Indra as he mentioned using it, but I'm not in a hurry because I don't want someone else's Approach affecting my framework. At least, not right away. That game will use it in the 2d6 form, and moreover the redundant recursive tables will have more description and I'll be able to bake it right in, like giving monsters Morale scores and maybe even a Reaction modifier. That part is easier though because it's already been done.
I've used a Mentzer Monster Reaction chart in 5e D&D with 3d6 instead of 2d6. As I allowed characters to add Charisma to the Reaction check, which the modifier could be higher in 5e than Mentzer, a larger range of numbers was needed.
The system worked fine, but requires special rules when circumstances calls for Advantage or Disadvantage.
Quote from: Krimson;963207I'll probably check out the latter. I have seen at least one of your books at Sentry Box so maybe I can see if they can get Hollow Crown in when it's complete. :)
I see what you did there!
Ironically, considering that it's by far my best-selling book, I don't think Dark Albion has any distribution to gaming stores; though I suppose the Sentry Box could just be getting it from Amazon for completeness' sake or something.
Quote from: RPGPundit;963433I see what you did there!
The best name is still the best name. :D
Quote from: RPGPundit;963433Ironically, considering that it's by far my best-selling book, I don't think Dark Albion has any distribution to gaming stores; though I suppose the Sentry Box could just be getting it from Amazon for completeness' sake or something.
I'm afraid it's not the one that's there. I'm trying to remember which one I saw. I don't think it was Forward to Adventure. If Dark Albion had been there I would have picked it up on a previous trip. :D
Probably Arrows of Indra. It's the only one I've seen in game stores myself. Though other people told me they saw Lords of Olympus and Gnomemurdered.
Quote from: RPGPundit;963830Probably Arrows of Indra. It's the only one I've seen in game stores myself. Though other people told me they saw Lords of Olympus and Gnomemurdered.
I'm hoping the fact I didn't see anything with your name on it means that someone picked it up. I know I'm not the only old school gamer in Calgary. Say, have you considered making some of your material available on Lulu? I realize the quality is not as good as having a proper print run, but for people like me in Canada (since they have a facility here), it is an affordable way to get material in print when shipping prices have skyrocketed and when Customs have decided that imposing a levy on books is a nice cash grab. That's how I got Low Fantasy Gaming and Apes Victorious recently. Sure I already bought Dark Albion on OBS but if it was available POD on Lulu I'd buy it again.
So what I am looking at for application of this exercise is two things right now. One for 5e, basically take
Chapter 7: Encounters and Evasion from the Rules Cyclopedia and rewrite it for 5e including a list of morale scores for monsters. Two, integrate it as a mechanic for my OSRish thing (because I may use newer mechanics, so the label OSR is tenuous) which will be ridiculous easy because older editions exist, though I still want to expand the chart so that the redundant tables have new information. I'll probably end up saying that over and over so it's probably best I get to work and finish making something. :D
Quote from: Krimson;963997I'm hoping the fact I didn't see anything with your name on it means that someone picked it up. I know I'm not the only old school gamer in Calgary. Say, have you considered making some of your material available on Lulu? I realize the quality is not as good as having a proper print run, but for people like me in Canada (since they have a facility here), it is an affordable way to get material in print when shipping prices have skyrocketed and when Customs have decided that imposing a levy on books is a nice cash grab. That's how I got Low Fantasy Gaming and Apes Victorious recently. Sure I already bought Dark Albion on OBS but if it was available POD on Lulu I'd buy it again.
So what I am looking at for application of this exercise is two things right now. One for 5e, basically take Chapter 7: Encounters and Evasion from the Rules Cyclopedia and rewrite it for 5e including a list of morale scores for monsters. Two, integrate it as a mechanic for my OSRish thing (because I may use newer mechanics, so the label OSR is tenuous) which will be ridiculous easy because older editions exist, though I still want to expand the chart so that the redundant tables have new information. I'll probably end up saying that over and over so it's probably best I get to work and finish making something. :D
Dark Albion is available on Lulu (http://www.lulu.com/shop/dominique-crouzet-and-rpgpundit/dark-albion-the-rose-war/hardcover/product-22249379.html). In fact, the Alternate-Cover Dark Albion is ONLY available on Lulu (http://www.lulu.com/shop/dominique-crouzet-and-rpgpundit/dark-albion-the-rose-war-with-alternate-cover/hardcover/product-22249410.html).
Cults of Chaos (http://www.lulu.com/shop/dominique-crouzet-and-rpgpundit/dark-albion-cults-of-chaos/paperback/product-22785856.html) is also available on Lulu.
As for Calgary, I assume that was the sentry box? That was in fact one of the places where I once saw one of my own books. I think probably a year after Arrows of Indra came out.
Quote from: RPGPundit;964234Dark Albion is available on Lulu (http://www.lulu.com/shop/dominique-crouzet-and-rpgpundit/dark-albion-the-rose-war/hardcover/product-22249379.html). In fact, the Alternate-Cover Dark Albion is ONLY available on Lulu (http://www.lulu.com/shop/dominique-crouzet-and-rpgpundit/dark-albion-the-rose-war-with-alternate-cover/hardcover/product-22249410.html).
Cults of Chaos (http://www.lulu.com/shop/dominique-crouzet-and-rpgpundit/dark-albion-cults-of-chaos/paperback/product-22785856.html) is also available on Lulu.
As for Calgary, I assume that was the sentry box? That was in fact one of the places where I once saw one of my own books. I think probably a year after Arrows of Indra came out.
Yep Sentry Box is the only game store that has endured the decades. Fun fact I have bought all three Doctor Who RPGs there, each time in a different building.
So your stuff is already on Lulu. Well then... Had I known that I wouldn't have bothered with OBS. :D I guess I have some shopping to do sometime.