[3.X] How do you guys handle diplomacy?

[deaddmwalking]

More importantly, if I can see the ploy working SOME of the time, but not ALL of the time, I will want a resolution mechanic that emulates the expected probability. If I expect it to be successful 1/4 encounters, I could allow it every fourth encounter, but that's not really how probability works. If I determine that the ploy has a roughly 25% chance of working, it's better to roll a d4 or some such and randomize when it is successful because humans are good at generating numbers that they don't care about, but are terrible at generating truly random numbers.

Hey idiot. If your system treats all encounters the same then it doesn't fucking only do that when you think something should work some of the time. It also does that to every fucking party that walks into Moria. If you make the MC come up with the percentage chance ahead of time, and you include 0% as a percentage the MC is supposed to make up, then you are actually just using MTP. Which is fine, because MTP is better than anything you have suggested so far.

Perhaps I should have clarified 'working 1/4 of the time under the same circumstances'. Ie, if you run into 10 bands of Orcs with the same general disposition (generally hostile) with the same prejudice (doesn't like dwarves), with the same default stance (orders to attack) I could be rolling 2d6 with a -12. This could result in 'combat all the time'. But if I reduce that -12 to a -7 (dwarf disguised as an orc, carrying orc talisman only given by their leader), suddenly I have a 27.78% chance of pulling off a diplomatic situation.

There is no requirement that the Balrogs of Moria become my friend under this system. I mean, if they like orcs and I look like orcs, that might help. But carrying a talisman from an orc chieftain likely won't help. But if I have a talisman given by Sauron, well fuck, maybe there should be a chance that they're my friend.

[shadzar]

Having a band of orcs that 'will attack, no matter what' is laughably stupid on the face of it.

walk into ANY government building wearing a suit of armor and carrying a sword and tell me that again. having a band of X that will always attack on sight is pretty common.

go research the handshake and learn where the concept came from.

watch any western and see how people react to someone jsut showing up in camp.

there are these things called borders in ALL civilizations that you cros them and it is an offense. offense.. an attack. so yeah it makes perfect sense to anyone without a small mind that there are PLENTY of things that, "will attack, no matter what".

thinking everything is welcoming of talk and discussion "is laughably stupid on the face of it".

what fantasy world do you live in really?

[MGuy]

More importantly, if I can see the ploy working SOME of the time, but not ALL of the time, I will want a resolution mechanic that emulates the expected probability. If I expect it to be successful 1/4 encounters, I could allow it every fourth encounter, but that's not really how probability works. If I determine that the ploy has a roughly 25% chance of working, it's better to roll a d4 or some such and randomize when it is successful because humans are good at generating numbers that they don't care about, but are terrible at generating truly random numbers.

Hey idiot. If your system treats all encounters the same then it doesn't fucking only do that when you think something should work some of the time. It also does that to every fucking party that walks into Moria. If you make the MC come up with the percentage chance ahead of time, and you include 0% as a percentage the MC is supposed to make up, then you are actually just using MTP. Which is fine, because MTP is better than anything you have suggested so far.

Perhaps I should have clarified 'working 1/4 of the time under the same circumstances'. Ie, if you run into 10 bands of Orcs with the same general disposition (generally hostile) with the same prejudice (doesn't like dwarves), with the same default stance (orders to attack) I could be rolling 2d6 with a -12. This could result in 'combat all the time'. But if I reduce that -12 to a -7 (dwarf disguised as an orc, carrying orc talisman only given by their leader), suddenly I have a 27.78% chance of pulling off a diplomatic situation.

There is no requirement that the Balrogs of Moria become my friend under this system. I mean, if they like orcs and I look like orcs, that might help. But carrying a talisman from an orc chieftain likely won't help. But if I have a talisman given by Sauron, well fuck, maybe there should be a chance that they're my friend.

I'm not sure why you need the extra randomization still. Either your balrog respects the talisman or it doesn't. Why would you need that to be randomized? How many balrogs are the players supposed to run into? How many times are they gonna use this talisman trick on a Balrog? If you need something to help you decide if it works why not just have the Balrog talk to the PCs since they have a friendly marker on them and have them actually use that bluff skill opposed to the balrog's sense motive?

[Kaelik]

Perhaps I should have clarified 'working 1/4 of the time under the same circumstances'. Ie, if you run into 10 bands of Orcs with the same general disposition (generally hostile) with the same prejudice (doesn't like dwarves), with the same default stance (orders to attack) I could be rolling 2d6 with a -12. This could result in 'combat all the time'. But if I reduce that -12 to a -7 (dwarf disguised as an orc, carrying orc talisman only given by their leader), suddenly I have a 27.78% chance of pulling off a diplomatic situation.

There is no requirement that the Balrogs of Moria become my friend under this system. I mean, if they like orcs and I look like orcs, that might help. But carrying a talisman from an orc chieftain likely won't help. But if I have a talisman given by Sauron, well fuck, maybe there should be a chance that they're my friend.

Once again, if you run into orcs who are not predjudiced against you because you are disguised as an Orc. And you have a talisman saying you work for their boss.... Fuck, they shouldn't attack. It is not that they should have a chance to not attack. They just shouldn't attack.

I don't see any benefit to the roll in this situation. If they have orders to attack anyone who comes in not of their tribe, and you disguise as an orc of a different tribe, they should still attack you.

[Username17]

I don't see any benefit to the roll in this situation. If they have orders to attack anyone who comes in not of their tribe, and you disguise as an orc of a different tribe, they should still attack you.

Wait, Kaelik, are you seriously suggesting that people who are ordered to attack outsiders will always respond with total stabination when the thing that comes around the bend is something they totally didn't expect? Because that's not how it works in any fiction I'm aware of or in real life.

Total surrealism has a very good chance of getting aggressive guards to start asking questions first. Both in fiction and in real life. In defending a lack of a reaction roll, you have retreated to a position which is objectively bad at simulating source material and deeply unrealistic. Seriously man, what the fuck?

-Username17

[deaddmwalking]

Having a band of orcs that 'will attack, no matter what' is laughably stupid on the face of it.

walk into ANY government building wearing a suit of armor and carrying a sword and tell me that again. having a band of X that will always attack on sight is pretty common.

If I walk into a government building wearing a suit of armor and carrying a sword, I would expect to be 'engaged'. This could range from instantly deciding that I am a threat that needs elimination so I am shot IMMEDIATELY, to being ordered to surrender and lay down while they cover me with drawn weapons. They may also ask nicely what I'm doing there and respond based on my answer. The fact that there is a range of possible reasonable reactions is why a random roll is desireable.

But changing the inputs is likely to change the outputs as well. If 400 people march into the building in armor carrying swords, I don't expect that the government agents would immediately start shooting. I don't think they would immediately try to arrest us all. Besides not having enough bullets or the manpower to handle such a large group, I think they would be less likely to assume an organized group is a 'problem'.

Stance would likely make a difference in this situation. If I enter with clearly hostile intent, I'm more likley to get shot. If the 400 people enter with clearly hostile intent, the reaction from the government agents is likely to be hostile.

Once again, if you run into orcs who are not predjudiced against you because you are disguised as an Orc. And you have a talisman saying you work for their boss.... Fuck, they shouldn't attack. It is not that they should have a chance to not attack. They just shouldn't attack.

Why not? I mean, this gets into all kinds of speculative territory, here, but who ever is in charge of this orc band is going to do some calculations. If he hasn't heard of this new band of orcs, is it possible that they're imposters? If they ARE legit and he attacks them, what are the consequences? If he defeats them will his standing in the tribe increase? If they AREN'T legit and he LETS THEM GO, is he going to watch as his wife and kids are fed to the dogs and he'll suffer an extremely slow and painful death as his intestines are pulled from his rectum?

None of us are automatons - we all have to try to parse the inputs into the scripts we're trying to follow. When something doesn't quite match our expectations, choosing what category it fits into will vary depending on complex factors. Unless these complex factors have been fully delineated (which may be impossible) a die roll is a simple and effective way to 'summarize' them; just like an attack roll summarizes all the background details to making an attack.

****

Choosing the response as the GM is something you can totally do. And usually the PCs are going to encounter something one time, so choosing the result is largely going to be indistinguishable from randomizing the result. But if you anticipate a variety of responses from otherwise similar inputs because some people weight factors differently when making a judgment call, different people will respond differently; the same person may respond differently depending on other circumstances that nobody has control over.

The question then becomes one of 'appropriate responses'. The orcs response may range from 'attack immediately' to 'demand an explanation'. Or, if you stack enough modifiers it could range from 'attack immediately' to 'let the party go without interaction'. Or, if you go further, it could just have 'demand an explanation' to 'let tte party go without interaction'.

What's useful about a 'system' is that the PCs can try to learn how to stack odds in their favor. If they want to pass through orc territory without fighting patrols of orcs, going through the effort to disguise themselves and/or acquire a token makes sense.

This exact situation happened in Star Trek VI. The Starship Enterprise needed to rescue Captain Kirk from the prison planet. They changed their ship signal (disguise) to match a Klingon vessel. They hoped to avoid any notice or challenge. If someone saw through the disguise, they would have been attacked immediately. As long as the disguise held, they were either in 'demand an explanation' territory or 'let the party go without interaction'. They were HOPING for the later, but they ended up getting the former. Now, in order to maintain the disguise, they also had to speak Klingon without the use of the Universal Translator.

If the party has the disguise, has the token, we have a possibility that they'll be challenged or they'll be ignored. If they're challenged, hopefully the party can speak Orc, or at least someone can, otherwise they may lose that part of the modifier and combat music MIGHT start.

As the GM, I don't really care which reaction happens - I know that any reaction will make for an interesting story... And I know that pushing their luck may have consequences. The dice give me a relatively fair way to make these determinations that allow the actions of the party to INCREASE their chance of success without necessarily guaranteeing any particular outcome.

[MGuy]

Once again, if you run into orcs who are not predjudiced against you because you are disguised as an Orc. And you have a talisman saying you work for their boss.... Fuck, they shouldn't attack. It is not that they should have a chance to not attack. They just shouldn't attack.

Why not? I mean, this gets into all kinds of speculative territory, here, but who ever is in charge of this orc band is going to do some calculations. If he hasn't heard of this new band of orcs, is it possible that they're imposters? If they ARE legit and he attacks them, what are the consequences? If he defeats them will his standing in the tribe increase? If they AREN'T legit and he LETS THEM GO, is he going to watch as his wife and kids are fed to the dogs and he'll suffer an extremely slow and painful death as his intestines are pulled from his rectum?

Firstly the orc decided to work for this boss and this boss has some kind of thing that indicates someone is under his orders/protection. If someone comes around that is not only an orc like him but also has a thing that indicates that they are legit there is no reason he would attack them. At best you could say he is suspicious but still doesn't result in attack on sight. I get that people aren't automatons but that has nothing to do with the situation and how easily resolved and none of what you presented makes it so that dice are any better at doing it. The thing that pro reaction roll people still have not explained is why dice are better.

You could make a case for disguise needing to be rewritten sure but how does that help your argument at all? What should happen in this orc case is that because the PCs successfully disguised themselves and have this special badge they get to start a social encounter against the guard orc that is more weighted in their favor. If they fail the encounter somehow then you have your failure state (combat ensues) if they don't then hurrah they get to do whatever they intended. In that you have your chance of failure, you have your diplomacy, and you don't have to make an odd roll that may start combat earlier than need be and you don't have a bunch of extra numbers with rolls that aren't even being plugged into the actual social encounter.

[deaddmwalking]

If someone comes around that is not only an orc like him but also has a thing that indicates that they are legit there is no reason he would attack them. At best you could say he is suspicious but still doesn't result in attack on sight.

In Star Trek VI, the authors decide what is an appropriate response, and they write a script for it. Because this is a game, we want each event to have multiple possible options.

The PCs are disguised as 'allies'. They are trying to move through enemy territory without initiating combat.

-The PCs could use stealth, but if they're discovered, people will be more suspicious because if they were legitimately supposed to be there, they wouldn't have needed to be sneaky. We would expect a range of possible reactions from patrols from 'fight' to 'demand an explanation'.
-The PCs could walk normally through the area. If their disguise is successful, we'd expect a range of possible reactions from 'demand an explanation' (you're not supposed to be here!) to 'let them go without interaction'.
-The PCs walk normally through the area. If their disguise is unsuccessful, we'd expect the response to range from 'fight' to 'demand an explanation'. (You're not Fred!)

Then there are the host of possibilities we haven't even considered. A patrol of 20 orcs may be predisposed to fight a band of obvious adventurers with swords drawn traveling through their territory (according to their orders). But fighting 5 PCs is different from fighting 400 people. Outnumbering your opponent 4-1 will make you more likely to fight than if you're outnumbered 8-1.

Now, as the DM you can decide if Orc Patrol A surrenders or fights to the death. You can also decide if Orc Patrol B surrenders or fights to the death. You can do the same for EVERY orc patrol, but you'd expect that not all of them react in exactly the same way.

The GM can shift some of the burden of deciding to the dice. This is more fair in the sense that sucking the GM cock will not influence the reaction.

Further - a Reaction Roll is not designed to 'limit a bad DM'. If you have a reaction system, people who like them will use them, and people who don't will ignore them. But it does give ammunition to players who wonder 'why does every encounter ALWAYS end up in combat - I wanted to chat up those dryads before they attacked me without provocation'.

And it works for good and ill. If you're expecting combat and you walk around with swords drawn, you'll interact with orcs differently than you interact with Dryads. Are the Dryads going to assume you mean harm when you enter their grove with weapons drawn?

I'm only 20 pages into a 34 page thread on this subject from before, but I've seen people talk about how evil BBEG is likely to kill his wife when she enters the bedchamber.

That's totally something that happens in real life. If you have a gun in your house, you MIGHT shoot a loved one that you mistake for an intruder. The PCs might decide what they'd do and how they'd react, but NPCs are going to react with a range of reactions based on how they perceive the situation.

Mr. I'dNeverHurtMyWife might shoot her if he thinks she's an intruder. His response (2d6) might have a -4 (stranger in the house) and a -6 (looks like intruder has a weapon) [or whatever]. If he turns on the lights and recognizes her, he might have a +12 (loved one). Whether he shoots her or not isn't usually important to me - and while I can choose a reasonable response, I can also defer the decision to the dice.

[shadzar]

~~~

you assume those would be outcomes, but are still missing the fact that someone somewhere will shoot first and ask questions later. you truly do live in a fantasy world or are simply more naive than most children.

i can match the numbers of reasons someone would attack "no matter what" with any size list you could come up with as to why they would not. sometimes you just have to accept that an option you may not like/understand, is still a viable option.

[Kaelik]

deaddm I want you to know that you are complete pile of shit asshole who is wrongy wrong.

I would spell it all out, but after typing up a response to you and Frank, and having the board delete it, I am that kind of exhausted that happens when you play a game and then your computer freezes and you would have to replay everything.

[deaddmwalking]

Kaelik,

This isn't the first time you've called me names on the internet. But that's okay. You aren't hurting my feelings. I just hope you aren't causing yourself nearly as much stress as it looks like. Generally, I respect your posts and reasoning, but here I just don't understand your issue.

In football, one side will be first on offense. They use a coin toss and the winner of the coin toss can elect to receive the ball (go on offense) or defer to the second half. This is something that could be decided by the Ref (who, by definition, is expected to be impartial). But there's a reason that they don't. A coin toss is inherently more fair when the ref does not have a vested interest in a particular outcome - doubly so when they do.

In D&D, I want to know what my chances for success are.

I would not be satisfied with my attacks being 'automatic hits' nor with my attacks being 'automatic misses'.

I don't mind some situations that go 'straight to combat' and some situations that allow a 'diplomacy phase' - but I expect that the differences between them are knowable and can be altered by player agency.

Examples of 'skeleton' has been used as 'non-diplomacy' encounter in the other thread. But skeletons don't 'auto-attack' everything. But even those can be bypassed. Spells like Hide from Undead, Command Undead, Turn Undead, and so there are going to be situations determined by the GM's world building that determine whether some options exist for a particular encounter or not. But since finding out that skeletons exist in a tomb, the party can take actions to neutralize the threat. Finding out that orcs are going to be a threat, the party should be able to take actions to neutralize those threats.

There will be encounters that are virtually guaranteed to 'start combat music' (outside of successful avoidance completely, such as stealth). A golem that is ordered to attack any creatures entering a room will attack any creatures (it perceives) entering the room. But as soon as you expect sentience, you will expect variations from one individual to another.

The Star Trek Enterprise may have 400 Red Shirt security guards. If Spock orders Red Shirt #278 to shoot anyone entering his hallway, no matter what they look like, that could be the plan. But when Captain Kirk walks in saying 'That's not the real Spock, don't shoot!', what's going to happen? Now, some would argue that Kirk never gets a chance to speak in the first place - the guard has orders and if he follows them, Kirk is dead by phaser blast before he opens his mouth. But he looks so real! This is a situation where the guard might follow his orders (he believes Spock and the 'real' Captain Kirk should have no reason to be here); he might give Kirk a chance to prove that he's the real one (prepared to fire, but allows Kirk time to talk); or he might decide to follow Kirk's orders (Kirk outranks Spock, so if it IS the real Kirk, he won't get in trouble for following his orders, and if it ISN'T the real Kirk, he can easily avoid any reprimand because following your captain's orders is expected if you're not in an active mutiny).

Now, some GMs (like Zach S, I'd wager) know exactly how Red Shirt #278 will respond, as well as #335 and #178. That's cool. They can choose whatever they consider 'dramatically appropriate', and as long as they're having fun - there's no problem.

But it is inherently 'more fair' to decide on a range of 'reasonable outcomes' with rough probabilities and let the dice decide. If Kirk tries that on all 400 of the Red Shirts, some will undoubtedly shoot first; some will undoubtedly talk first; some will undoubtedly choose to follow his orders. These are all relatively reasonable reactions and since all of these people are different, they're going to weigh all the factors differently and arrive at different conclusions.

As far as the GAME goes, having a system that helps determine reasonable outputs in the expected distribution IS GOOD. That's exactly what we want with Attack Rolls. You want hitting to be an option; you want missing to be an option; and you want to be able to tell how likely each result is.

Since not everyone will talk, you don't want to necessarily make Diplomacy an 'automatic phase' that always happens; since not everyone who is willing to talk will 'agree' with what the players want to say you don't want to make it entirely part of the Diplomacy action. You need two points of 'variation' to determine whether you hit 'negotiation' at all, and if you do, another one to determine whether 'negotiation' was successful.

As a DM, I prefer a system to help address these issues. Having a system, even if I choose to ignore it, at least gives me an option for a relatively fair and impartial resolution system when I want it. Not having a system means I'm stuck with my 'best effort' no matter what. Since I'm not perfect, I prefer to avoid strictly relying on what I think is 'best'.

[deaddmwalking]

i can match the numbers of reasons someone would attack "no matter what" with any size list you could come up with as to why they would not. sometimes you just have to accept that an option you may not like/understand, is still a viable option.

I was going to ignore you, but I don't want you to keep popping up with some declaration that I refused to address you point.

If you can think of a situation where you expect the enemy to 'Always Attack' and I can think of one situation where they would not attack, I win.

If the possibility exists that the attack can be prevented then there is some probability (no matter how small) that the attack is prevented. Unless the opponent is omniscient, they can be deceived and they may not attack. If an opponent is not omniscient, there are also times where they attack by mistake. Friendly Fire happens in real life. Sometimes people you would NEVER hurt on purpose are people you kill. If you're jumpy and you're not expecting to see your friends and you come upon another group with weapons drawn, it's totally possible to 'queue fight music' when neither side would deliberately make that choice.

The die roll is more likely to create the spread of reasonable results if the factors that influence it are clear. Two groups of elves probably won't attack each other; but if one of the groups is dressed like orcs and carrying an orc chieftain's token, maybe they will. Now, you might be willing to say 'of course they will' or 'they'd never shoot the perceived orcs without telling them to surrender first' and that's fine - but for me, I prefer to decide what reactions are reasonable and go from there. A system can help me achieve that.

[MGuy]

If someone comes around that is not only an orc like him but also has a thing that indicates that they are legit there is no reason he would attack them. At best you could say he is suspicious but still doesn't result in attack on sight.

In Star Trek VI, the authors decide what is an appropriate response, and they write a script for it. Because this is a game, we want each event to have multiple possible options.

The greatest possible range of results that can be produced would come from the GM just making shit up. If your goal is to make it so that completely random events can happen with each interaction going about it without dice is still superior. However, I don't think 'completely random shit' is what most people even want as most people who make these reaction systems attempt to keep completely nonsensical things off the list of possible results. If this doesn't happen people will be and have been very quick to point this out.

Then there are the host of possibilities we haven't even considered. A patrol of 20 orcs may be predisposed to fight a band of obvious adventurers with swords drawn traveling through their territory (according to their orders). But fighting 5 PCs is different from fighting 400 people. Outnumbering your opponent 4-1 will make you more likely to fight than if you're outnumbered 8-1.

Yes, the orcs can still have self preservation be a thing. That is also easier solved without dice.

Now, as the DM you can decide if Orc Patrol A surrenders or fights to the death. You can also decide if Orc Patrol B surrenders or fights to the death. You can do the same for EVERY orc patrol, but you'd expect that not all of them react in exactly the same way.

Perhaps not 'exactly' the same way but I'd expect all of them to react in similar ways and honestly the number of ways I need a nobody bunch of orcs to act need not be very intricate. If I want it to be I can simply 'decide' on doing that.

The GM can shift some of the burden of deciding to the dice. This is more fair in the sense that sucking the GM cock will not influence the reaction.

None of the Reaction Roll systems I've seen written up provide anything that seems like a significant relief of burden for the GM. In fact in some extreme cases (aka Lago) you'd have to actively make whatever results the dice come up with work no matter what you'd previously established.

Further - a Reaction Roll is not designed to 'limit a bad DM'. If you have a reaction system, people who like them will use them, and people who don't will ignore them. But it does give ammunition to players who wonder 'why does every encounter ALWAYS end up in combat - I wanted to chat up those dryads before they attacked me without provocation'.

If it doesn't 'limit a bad GM' then why has it been touted as such? It is being said to be more fair and prevents GM cock sucking so in what fashion is it not intended to prevent 'bad GMs' from doing bad mean things? If you've been reading that conversation you would've seen me go on a rant about how it doesn't even really do that. It just makes the GM have to wank around with numbers a bit so that PCs 'can't' complain when they always have to fight.

And it works for good and ill. If you're expecting combat and you walk around with swords drawn, you'll interact with orcs differently than you interact with Dryads. Are the Dryads going to assume you mean harm when you enter their grove with weapons drawn?

This is also not a defense for your argument as any GM can just 'decide', and indeed will decide even with the system in place, that the Orcs will work differently than Dryads.

I'm only 20 pages into a 34 page thread on this subject from before, but I've seen people talk about how evil BBEG is likely to kill his wife when she enters the bedchamber.

That's totally something that happens in real life. If you have a gun in your house, you MIGHT shoot a loved one that you mistake for an intruder. The PCs might decide what they'd do and how they'd react, but NPCs are going to react with a range of reactions based on how they perceive the situation.

Mr. I'dNeverHurtMyWife might shoot her if he thinks she's an intruder. His response (2d6) might have a -4 (stranger in the house) and a -6 (looks like intruder has a weapon) [or whatever]. If he turns on the lights and recognizes her, he might have a +12 (loved one). Whether he shoots her or not isn't usually important to me - and while I can choose a reasonable response, I can also defer the decision to the dice.

Why the hell would you ever want this sort of random happenstance to occur during a game? It is not particularly heroic or interesting to have the BBEG randomly kill his wife for reasons the players may never even come close to understanding. There's no way something like this actually helps at the game table.

[deaddmwalking]

If it doesn't 'limit a bad GM' then why has it been touted as such?

The only people that have suggested it would limit bad DMs are the people who oppose Reaction Rolls - they have suggested it as the only possible benefit and then pointed out that it won't stop a bad DM. Building up a straw man just to tear it down.

Why the hell would you ever want this sort of random happenstance to occur during a game?

Honestly, for NPC/NPC reactions, you probably wouldn't. What happens off-camera usually won't have much impact. But a specific example can show what happens with any number of similar situations. Group A is composed of Dwarves; Group B is composed of Orcs - both are on a patrol and are looking for enemy orcs. Visibility is poor. Perhaps the PCs are trying to warn them that they're about to encounter each other. From the GM perspective, there are a few possibilities:

1) The PCs fail to find either the Dwarves or Elves, and they attack each other by mistake.
2) The PCs fail to find either the Dwarves or Elves, and they realize the issue and don't murder each other.
3) The PCs find the Dwarves or Elves but somehow fail to stop them from fighting each other.
4) The PCs find the Dwarves or Elves and succeed in stopping them from fighting each other.

Whether the PCs succeed or fail in finding the Dwarves or Elves is going to depend on PC actions. But if they fail, the result could be determined by DM fiat. If you choose Case #1, you may have to deal with the unintended consequences of a war between the dwarves or elves - something the PCs were trying to avoid. If you choose Case #2, you completely invalidate the reason for the PCs mission and it becomes clear that you're on a railroad and PC actions don't matter at all. If you have some random determination you are clearly not railroading, even if option 2 is selected. If you have some random determination, you're no worse off with randomly selecting option 1 versus deliberately choosing it.

Now, as the DM and a neutral arbiter, you probably shouldn't have a preference for what happens. You want to deal with probabilities and you want to manage them - but you're never going to be sure how things go down. If you were, it wouldn't really be a game.

[PhoneLobster]

The only people that have suggested it would limit bad DMs are the people who oppose Reaction Rolls

So... what's with all the arguments claiming that DMs and game designers who don't use "fair dice" as scape goats for reaction determination are being dicks?

Honestly, for NPC/NPC reactions, you probably wouldn't. What happens off-camera usually won't have much impact. But a specific example can show what happens with any number of similar situations.

Yeah, but notice how you are using stuff which shouldn't have an impact as justifications for a system that definitively will. Do you see the alarming disconnect there?

Now, as the DM and a neutral arbiter, you probably shouldn't have a preference for what happens.

WHAT THE FUCK?

Look I'm poster boy for player empowerment and all that stuff.

But NO you are fucking doing D&D wrong right there.

The DM may be an arbiter. But he is NOT neutral he is on the side of a fun game. More so this ISN'T a matter of "neutral arbitration" anyway this is a matter of the GM's contribution to the shared story with the decidedly non-neutral goal of selecting content that will facilitate fun game play.

The GM can select the starting attitude of some random orc encounter JUST like the GM already is most likely selecting the over all location, their equipment, their numbers and strength, and the very fact they are even orcs or that ANY encounter is happening at all. That's OK it's just content generation.

As long as the GM is selecting an encounter that is level appropriate there is NOTHING in any way negatively biased about doing so. And rolling on a random table that ALSO has level appropriate encounters on it is not in any way more "fair". It however MIGHT be less fun and almost certainly will make less sense from any kind of story or general sanity stand point.

[MGuy]

If it doesn't 'limit a bad GM' then why has it been touted as such?

The only people that have suggested it would limit bad DMs are the people who oppose Reaction Rolls - they have suggested it as the only possible benefit and then pointed out that it won't stop a bad DM. Building up a straw man just to tear it down.

Except that those who oppose Reaction Rolls aren't the ones who brought it up in the first place. That's just the way it was presented. Even you are claiming it is a fairness tool and trotting out a brand new argument about it being used to ease the burden on the GM which I am quick to point out it doesn't.

Why the hell would you ever want this sort of random happenstance to occur during a game?

Honestly, for NPC/NPC reactions, you probably wouldn't. What happens off-camera usually won't have much impact. But a specific example can show what happens with any number of similar situations. Group A is composed of Dwarves; Group B is composed of Orcs - both are on a patrol and are looking for enemy orcs. Visibility is poor. Perhaps the PCs are trying to warn them that they're about to encounter each other. From the GM perspective, there are a few possibilities:

1) The PCs fail to find either the Dwarves or Elves, and they attack each other by mistake.
2) The PCs fail to find either the Dwarves or Elves, and they realize the issue and don't murder each other.
3) The PCs find the Dwarves or Elves but somehow fail to stop them from fighting each other.
4) The PCs find the Dwarves or Elves and succeed in stopping them from fighting each other.

Whether the PCs succeed or fail in finding the Dwarves or Elves is going to depend on PC actions. But if they fail, the result could be determined by DM fiat. If you choose Case #1, you may have to deal with the unintended consequences of a war between the dwarves or elves - something the PCs were trying to avoid. If you choose Case #2, you completely invalidate the reason for the PCs mission and it becomes clear that you're on a railroad and PC actions don't matter at all. If you have some random determination you are clearly not railroading, even if option 2 is selected. If you have some random determination, you're no worse off with randomly selecting option 1 versus deliberately choosing it.

Now, as the DM and a neutral arbiter, you probably shouldn't have a preference for what happens. You want to deal with probabilities and you want to manage them - but you're never going to be sure how things go down. If you were, it wouldn't really be a game.

I'm unsure what most of this actually has to do with Reaction Rolls. It seems as though you went on a long tangent about something, but it in no way seems like an argument for or even against Reaction Rolls.

[Username17]

The only people that have suggested it would limit bad DMs are the people who oppose Reaction Rolls - they have suggested it as the only possible benefit and then pointed out that it won't stop a bad DM. Building up a straw man just to tear it down.

Dude, you're discussing diplomacy with MGuy. Don't do that. He's basically incapable of having a coherent discussion about diplomacy and I put him on permanent ignore because he is a well of intellectual dishonesty on this exact topic.

It's like talking to PhoneLobster about monster abilities or shadzar about anything. They aren't discussing things with you, they are ranting at you.

Mguy cannot and will not actually address any point you ever make. He will continue banging the drum to his same tired and utterly ridiculous idea that players have meaningful agency and character abilities totally matter when the DM totally promises to take player choices and character abilities into account when he totally ignores the rules and just narrates things happening. And that therefore it's pointless to actually have rules or roll dice. He has been pounding that same point for a long time, and he's going to keep pounding it no matter what you say and keep repeating it like it was new insight and totally relevant to the topic even when it is obviously neither.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

Dude, you're discussing diplomacy with MGuy. Don't do that. ...
Mguy cannot and will not actually address any point you ever make.

It's all projection really isn't it.

edit: come to think of it, since I'm followed by a Shadzar moment confusion is likely to be multiplied and I better spell it out.

Frank is demanding people stop interacting with people he accuses of not interacting with him. Which is basically Frank projecting his own dishonest argument style he has fallen into in recent years on... well basically everyone he disagrees with on anything.

[shadzar]

If you can think of a situation where you expect the enemy to 'Always Attack' and I can think of one situation where they would not attack, I win.

you are just deficient of all logic skills arent you?

i prove my point and you prove something else, does not make you "win", for you have not disproved my point, you just shifted the goalpost.

see all i have to do is come up with a single situation where someone will "always attack, no matter what" to disprove your statement, while ANYONE can come up with thousands of reason why someone might NOT attack.

LN creature under mind control acting as a guard told to kill anyone attempting to get near a gate or enter it.

there, i have disproved your bullshit that thinks that your single extreme edge case is the only viable one, while the other extreme edge case is not viable.

in order to have some people that are ALWAYS willing to talk, you have to have balance in that there are some people that will ALWAYS ATTACK. if not, you are just playing hyperbole. the majority will fall between these two extremes.

you can try to move the goalpost all you want, but you will only be making yourself look more stupid.

[MGuy]

The only people that have suggested it would limit bad DMs are the people who oppose Reaction Rolls - they have suggested it as the only possible benefit and then pointed out that it won't stop a bad DM. Building up a straw man just to tear it down.

Dude, you're discussing diplomacy with MGuy. Don't do that. He's basically incapable of having a coherent discussion about diplomacy and I put him on permanent ignore because he is a well of intellectual dishonesty on this exact topic.

It's like talking to PhoneLobster about monster abilities or shadzar about anything. They aren't discussing things with you, they are ranting at you.

Mguy cannot and will not actually address any point you ever make. He will continue banging the drum to his same tired and utterly ridiculous idea that players have meaningful agency and character abilities totally matter when the DM totally promises to take player choices and character abilities into account when he totally ignores the rules and just narrates things happening. And that therefore it's pointless to actually have rules or roll dice. He has been pounding that same point for a long time, and he's going to keep pounding it no matter what you say and keep repeating it like it was new insight and totally relevant to the topic even when it is obviously neither.

-Username17

I can make up posts completely with hurt feelings as well. However that seems kind of childish. I can simply point back to the post deaddm posted in this very thread about Frank's mostly irrelevant 'takedown' of my argument to show that he simply refuses to actually engage in actual discussion about the usefulness of "Reaction Rolls" and would rather talk about things either unrelated to any point I actually bring up and then complain when I do not argue about the shit he brings up. Of course me pointing out that the stuff he's talking about barely connects to the argument at hand is "COMPLETELY IGNORED" and so he holds his attention hostage in response.

Just as an example: I remember the last time he justified his behavior when talking about Reaction Rolls claiming that I ignored part of an argument that he made up claiming there was a Surprise DC. On the face of it what he was doing was making a play on the claim that I made earlier that he could only be talking about the Perception/Stealth minigame. However, the thread was about Reaction Rolls. So imagine how much of a tangent he had to go on for this to be part of the discussion. This seems to be a common thing whenever Frank puts me on ignore. It always seems to be because I refuse to follow his tangents on unrelated subject matter each and every time. The one I just linked just so happens to be one particularly dishonest case.

[deaddmwalking]

see all i have to do is come up with a single situation where someone will "always attack, no matter what" to disprove your statement, while ANYONE can come up with thousands of reason why someone might NOT attack.

And if I take your example and I show a situation where your person who will 'always attack' doesn't attack, I win.

LN creature under mind control acting as a guard told to kill anyone attempting to get near a gate or enter it.

1) The guard is told to kill 'anyone'. Plants and Constructs are not 'anyone'. When the party approaches hidden inside bushes or using illusion to look like golems, the 'instructions' are unclear. It is POSSIBLE that the character attacks, but it is at least EQUALLY POSSIBLE that he does not.
2) The party approaches invisibly. He can't see people getting near the gate or entering it.
3) The party approaches the creature but does not approach the gate or attempt to enter it. Since the creature's instructions are to attack anyone approaching the gate, they may avoid triggering it. Of course this depends on how you define 'approach' - but if it is the strictest possible than anyone that takes a single step toward the direction of the gate, anywhere in the world, the creature would attack.
4) The party approaches using an anti-magic field or a circle of protection from evil, both of which hedge out mental control.

Some of those might be pretty cut and dry - if the opponent can't see you, he's not going to attack you. But others are not. If you dispel the mental control, will the creature still attack? How do you know?

We've got someone who is confused, being approached by armed strangers, and while he no longer is compelled[/b] to defend the door, we have to wonder why he was asked to guard it in the first place.

The way the PCs approach is going to affect the encounter - we expect that. What we don't know is whether their approach will give them the desired outcome, or a different outcome. This is just like an attack roll - we don't know if the attack will give them the desired outcome or a different outcome. We assign some probability to success, we hopefully use some kind of rules to do that so that this is 'repeatable'. As far as attacking, I prefer to know 'my attack bonus is +12' and I know what type of modifiers I have; what I don't want is for the DM to tell me what my attack bonus is against each creature I meet. Well, you've never fought an owlbear before, and they're very dangerous in melee. You have a +6. You're a dwarf fighting your ancestral enemy the giant, so you have a +15.. It is 'more fair' to allow me a consistent bonus and to know what I can do to increase my odds of success (or what will decrease them).

I think it's worth pointing out that using a 'randomizer' doesn't mean that your results will be random, or even that something 'inappropriate to the story' will unfold. In the Star Trek VI example I used earlier, there were two 'possibilities' - that the ship passed through Klingon space unchallenged or that the ship was challenged. If the disguise had been penetrated, the possibilities would have shifted to 'attack immediate' or 'challenge'. Under no circumstances was 'suck the cock of the crew' a possible outcome of the reaction - the reaction isn't random anymore than an attack roll is 'random' - it just determines the result between likely outcomes based on their probability. You don't roll on a Rod of Wonder every time you make an attack roll. Reaction Rolls aren't making the game 'random' in the way people are suggesting.

[hogarth]

The only people that have suggested it would limit bad DMs are the people who oppose Reaction Rolls - they have suggested it as the only possible benefit and then pointed out that it won't stop a bad DM. Building up a straw man just to tear it down.

I think it's pretty clear that Frank is opposed to encounters that read "the monsters always attack on sight and fight to the death" and he wants to limit that. Whether you call that style of game "bad DMing" is a matter of terminology, I suppose.

Ultimately, a reaction roll system is a type of Random Plot Twist Generator (RPTG). For example, if your reaction roll system suggests an NPC will be Indifferent 80% of the time, Unfriendly 10% of the time and Friendly 10% of the time, then that's the same as saying he's Indifferent with a 20% chance of a plot twist.

I think most people agree that there are some GMs in the world who are so bad that their adventures could benefit from being forced to use a RPTG. But it's clear to me that good GMs would frequently suffer from being forced to use a RPTG.

[Username17]

I think it's pretty clear that Frank is opposed to encounters that read "the monsters always attack on sight and fight to the death" and he wants to limit that. Whether you call that style of game "bad DMing" is a matter of terminology, I suppose.

I'll cop to that.

Ultimately, a reaction roll system is a type of Random Plot Twist Generator (RPTG). For example, if your reaction roll system suggests an NPC will be Indifferent 80% of the time, Unfriendly 10% of the time and Friendly 10% of the time, then that's the same as saying he's Indifferent with a 20% chance of a plot twist.

Only in the sense that any roll to determine whether characters succeed or fail at what their players want them to do is a plot twist. Do you regard a saving throw as a RPTG? Battle continues, with a 20% chance of a plot twist where you turn into stone? If you want to analyze it like that, I can't really stop you from doing so, but I don't really find that analysis to be especially helpful.

If dressing up in black spiky armor decreases the chances you will be attacked on sight by Orc patrols by 20% and increases the chances that you will be attacked on sight by Elf patrols by 25%, you can make an informed choice of whether or not to run around in Dunlander gear. If it's just "DM Decides" whether any patrols talk or fight, then players can't make informed decisions ever under any circumstances.

-Username17

[Archmage]

Only in the sense that any roll to determine whether characters succeed or fail at what their players want them to do is a plot twist. Do you regard a saving throw as a RPTG? Battle continues, with a 20% chance of a plot twist where you turn into stone? If you want to analyze it like that, I can't really stop you from doing so, but I don't really find that analysis to be especially helpful.

If dressing up in black spiky armor decreases the chances you will be attacked on sight by Orc patrols by 20% and increases the chances that you will be attacked on sight by Elf patrols by 25%, you can make an informed choice of whether or not to run around in Dunlander gear. If it's just "DM Decides" whether any patrols talk or fight, then players can't make informed decisions ever under any circumstances.

I think this ties into the "module that is essentially a series of set-piece combats separated by talky scenes" school of MCing/adventure design. I would wager that most people are completely okay with the idea that there is a 20% chance that a PC is incapacitated during a particular combat, because the outcome of combat actions being random and heavily dice-dependent is expected and okay. The "story" is not radically altered because Bob's PC dropped during combat and they had to res him afterward. (Nevermind that it very well could be.) But they are not okay with the idea that there is a 20% chance or even a 1% chance that a "carefully-crafted story" is "interrupted" by the result of a random die roll.

People get really pissed off when MC fiat causes their characters to get incapacitated or whatever and they lose a fight "for plot reasons," but the idea that wandering patrols either talk to you or fight based on fiat is expected, at least in part because there haven't been good rules in place for resolving the situation for a long time.

[shadzar]

And if I take your example and I show a situation where your person who will 'always attack' doesn't attack, I win.

none of those work to disprove it. and i see your attitude about "i win" and know it carries over into your games, thus why you always need some mechanical +X bonus to evrything you do and are unable to make characters without a ton of +x on the character sheet...

1. anyone means anyone, you are just trying to be stupid here. a bush that moves is going to be quite odd and attacked anyway whether there are instructions to do so or not. wouldn't you attack a bush moving towards you?

2. this is just dumb. invisibility does NOT confer silence or hide footprints so they could likely be noticed. if you are trying to imply true stealth that someone would be unnoticed, then this doesnt fit the criteria. you are moving goalposts again because someone could never attack something they cannot perceive. pretty much you are just being childish and stupid.

3. the creature would attack because he is near the gate, and thus approaching him would BE approaching the gate. now you are just grasping at straws.

4. sorry. it is a guard who is LN, lawful. his job is to guard the gate, so removing the mind control does no good. you just tried to use the red herring in my example as your saving grace. CoP? are you trying to play MTG or D&D? Boomerang the party back to your hand?