I wrote a couple of times about how the virtue of D&D consists in that it can be played on "autopilot" relying solely on procedures, if the GM is mindblocked and doesn't want to think of anything, assuming only the role of arbiter.
But of course I L I E D L O L . The influence of the GM is never nor should be zero. Even a fully scripted random encounter of goblins requires the GM to describe the goblins, and every word, attitude, tactic, dialogue, apathy or emphasis he puts into it is shaping the encounter in some way. Let's say that if narrative games have a GM involvement of 100%, OSR games can assume the same 100% or drop it real low, but never below a 10%
One thing that always requires some sort of interpretation is the Reaction Checks. Let's grab my B/X book and see what it has to say on the matter:
Outcomes applied to every monster and situation are better taken in an oracular way rather than a literal one. For example, it's hard to believe that a single bandit will attack a party of six. If a (2): immediate attack would be rolled, I think I'd have the bandit to pretend to be a friend, until an opportunity of a profitous strike arises; during the night or until he can be alone with one of the PCs. The monster is determined to attack, but the attack is just not immediate.
No intelligent monster would make such a temerary charge, and If he does, you have to invent some story to back it up. For example: the bandit is a small boy who has mistaken you for a rival gang of bandits that kidnapped his sister and put her in a brothel until she pays her father's game debt (hmmm... interesting plot hook. Taken straight from Samurai Champloo)
What about a (3-5): possible attack? what makes it possible? I am rolling to find out things, I don't want more uncertainity!!!!!!!!!!!. I treat this result more or less like a 2. Monster attacks if the attack is feasible. Else, it will take hostile actions without entering combat (stalk pray from afar, call for reinforcements, get between the PCs and what the PCs need, talk shit about them in the village)
The worst is when you get the (6-8): monster confused. What the fuck. The bandits are all smoking an elven joint, tripping balls? What do I do is different for each monster. The key is that monsters are at least aware of the PCs. This can mean that they will be watched upon for as long as they remain in this domain, or be held responsible of any mess happening. If the monster is civilised, will approach and ask why are you in this lands; and your answer might decide further reactions (and reaction rolls).
If the monster ts horrible, it might cause a morale check for retainers, or cause unrest on any non-combatants. A swarm of stirges or the sight of a roc will cause a morale check on the horses. A pack of wolves met during the day will surely check on you again during the night.
Rolling (9-11): No attack, monster leaves is easier to do, the monster is just doing their own thing and is for the most part oblivious to the PCs. You will have to come up with things though, if the PCs decide to engage the encounter themselves, and you will have to come up in the spot of what are they doing. Trow encounters of this kind (my setting's humans) are often hunting parties (they can also be hostile encounters if they decide that the PCs are disturbing the setup by flushing the prey or confusing the dogs). A single Trow is usually a messenger or in a quest of his own. A beast is not hungry enough to pursue the PCs, but some beasts can provide rations and valuables such as furs, and PCs might attempt to hunt them. Curiously, it should be better than the "uncertain" result, but the "monster leaves" clause can make it harder for the PCs to ask help from the encountered monster, as it's implied it is busy.
An (12): enthusiastic friendship feels very forced in many occasions. There are two nice opposite versions of this encounter that don't involve a monster acting like a drunk man hugging everyone in a party: an NPC in need, who could use some help; or au contraire, one that is able and willing to help the PCs with their current situation. Sometimes both. This is when you let your vision guide you. Good NPCs come up from this situations; like a moustache man in my game, who helped the party find a bridge in the middle of the night so they could sleep at the inn, then later got a name and appeared on further adventures in the city.
As you see, when a reaction check is made, suddently a lot of improvisation is called up. Some choices imply new doubts (is the bandit acting alone? does he have friends waiting for him? does he want gold or will be fine by stealing a horse and run?) which can at the end be solved by making more oracle rolls (roll whatever, high is good, low is bad. I do that a lot of times)
I went to the newer editions to see how Reaction Checks improved over time; and by that I mean AD&D 1e and 2e. I want to point my finger into two important things I've found.
AD&D 1e breaks the table into 2 more unnecesary steps, but interestingly puts morale into the mix, that can be interesting in situations of numerical disadvantage. But still it doesn't strike me well that the bravery of a bandit makes him more prone to attack a party of six in spite of being obviously in the wrong side of the match. If used in a sensible manner instead of a naturalistic way, morale will just be part of the oracular machine:If the bandit passes morale, he is the little boy rescuing the sister. If he fails, is a scoundrel who will try to pass as a friend.
Meanwhile AD&D 2e makes the table to be a 2d10 one and depend on the PCs disposition towards the monster, which is very interesting to me. But there is something that bugs me a little; if anybody learned on 2e can explain. If Charisma modifier is to be added to the roll, shouldn't the numbers go in reverse? I mean, with the 20 being in the "Friendly" outcomes, and the 2 or less be in the "Hostile" ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment