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.

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. 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. 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.