d20 Random Reactions

-

I actually really like Fifth Edition’s RAW approach that an NPC’s reaction is something the referee can easily adjudicate and roll with, but what if you really don’t know or if you want to roll the die anyway? Here’s a quicky:

d20 Reaction
1-6 Hostile
7-14 Uncertain
15-20 Friendly

There are two ways you can modify the result: either by using constant modifiers of ± 4 (give or take), or by using advantage/disadvantage.

2d6 for Comparison

Here’s a breakdown of a three-tiered 2d6 reaction table with neutral results from 6-8 and modified by ± 1 based on if the NPC has a hostile or friendly disposition.

Reaction Hostile Bias Normal Friendly Bias
Hostile 41.67% 27.78% 16.67%
Uncertain 41.67% 44.44% 41.67%
Friendly 16.67% 27.78% 41.67%

± 4 Modifier

Add 4 for characters with a more docile/friendly bias, or subtract 4 if they are more likely to be hostile. The outcomes are:

Reaction Hostile Bias Normal Friendly Bias
Hostile 50% 30% 10%
Uncertain 40% 40% 40%
Friendly 10% 30% 50%

Very expected.

Using Advantage/Disadvantage

This way is similar statistically to using ± 4, though might be more intuitive and straightforward. Creatures that tend to be hostile roll with disadvantage, and creatures that tend to be friendly roll with advantage.

Reaction Hostile Bias Normal Friendly Bias
Hostile 51% 30% 9%
Uncertain 40% 40% 40%
Friendly 9% 30% 51%

It’s nice that, even with advantage or disadvantage, there’s still a 40% chance of uncertainty across the board!

Conclusion

What brought this on was a kind of annoyance that even rulesets which attempt to modernize basic bitch B/X-style rules with universal resolution still use d6 and 2d6 rolls for encounter checks and reaction rolls. All I’m saying is: get with the program! If everything should work the same way, everything should work the same way.

Using either d20 method results in pretty similar results to a 2d6 roll. I think I would prefer using advantage/disadvantage because it feels more straightforward than adding or subtracting a number, and also allows for the roll to be modified by other factors such as PC charisma.

Comments

  1. Matt PMay 26, 2023 at 9:47 AM

    IMO the idea that changing the reaction roll from a 2d6 to a d20 (while still making it a lookup table rather than the "standard" d20 "roll vs DC" mechanic) is making "everything... work the same way" is a bit mistaken. You're still using a fundamentally different mechanic for reaction rolls than you would for an attack roll, you're just having them use the same die. A true "unified mechanic" would be changing the reaction roll to a "charisma check" against a DC set by the GM (or by the monster in question - more hostile ones could have a higher DC to not pass the "friendliness check" or whatever).

    That could be an interesting change to the mechanic for sure... but if you're sticking with the trinary criteria roll where higher is more friendly and lower is less friendly, IMO it's actually more confusing to change it to a d20 because then you've got the same die interacting with different mechanics. I find it easiest to grok when each die type has its own associated mechanic. For B/X this is roughly:
    * d20 wants to roll high against a DC
    * d6 wants to roll low against an X-in-6 probability
    * 2d6 is a "degrees of success" style check where higher is better

    Now, this isn't strictly true - the optional roll-under d20 attribute checks of B/X break the mold (which is why I don't use them) but I think it at least illustrates the point. One can try to fit literally everything into a "core mechanic" if one wants, but if you're not doing that and are instead having boutique mechanics for specific circumstances, I think it's less more confusing to use the same die type for all of those rather than changing the die type as a signal that a different mechanic is now being used. Just my $0.02.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marcia B.May 26, 2023 at 7:28 PM

      it's just a personal/preferential thing; not that it's objectively wrong for them to be different or anything, but it's easier for my brain to hold onto and roll the same die than to swap them out -- especially if, even if a reaction table has granularity, it's still 'used' with modifiers and with advantage/disadvantage (and using the same 1-in-20/5% increments).

      ultimately, 5e as written does use charisma checks throughout the conversation itself, without randomizing the initial state at all; this is just to get to a random initial state.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plagiarism in Unconquered (2022)

-
Image
Ultimately [UVG2E], like UVG1E, are books [sic] that long to be cut to pieces, chopped & screwed and re-arranged and re-organized and repurposed into the collected loose-leaf notes of a GM binder, to be pulled out and smoothly interjected into a Something Else. Noora Rose, “ UVG, UVG2E, and Me ” (2023-06-30) I was originally going to put this post (at least, the commentary parts) through an AI Gary Gygax translator and publish it on a friend's burner blog. However, this is too serious to be treated like a joke, so here it is instead. Staking my name on it, lol. A Something Else Unconquered (2022) is an OSR-style science-fantasy adventure game and setting by Noora Rose of Monkey's Paw Games. Originally intended to have been based on Knave , according to the 2020 Kickstarter campaign , Rose refactored it to be based on Into the Odd instead—although with significant influence from Jared Sinclair's The Vanilla Game . I previously threw Unconquered into my big OSR
Read more

OSR Rules Families

-
Image
So, here’s the thing: originally I wrote this like a fucking research article with a hypothesis, a methodology, and all that stuff. I’m not even a scientific research person. That’s my partner’s job. Not mine. So, instead of walking you through every single step I took, I’m going to take the journalistic approach and start with the big picture before I zoom into it and tell you about the little details. I read, reviewed, and statistically organized 38 different rulebooks considered to be OSR or OSR-adjacent. These include four rulebooks from TSR-era Dungeons & Dragons , as well as ten rulebooks from the 2000s and 2010s. The remaining 24 rulebooks postdate the closure of G+ in early 2019. Please refer to the bibliography at the bottom of this post for more information. After having collected and organized a dataset with ~90 variables, I found the statistical similarity between each pair of rulebooks based on that data. Finally, I ran an algorithm to determine clusters of these bo
Read more

Bite-Sized Dungeons

-
Image
Workbook Now Available On Itch! Bite-Sized Dungeons by Traverse Fantasy Edit: This whole time, I said that a first level dungeon hoard had 100 times d6 gold pieces when it actually has just 10 times d6. This means the average hoard has an XP value of 70 without gems, or ~110 with gems. By extension, the eighteen-room dungeon only has 350 XP without gems, or ~550 XP with gems. That is downright dismal and I don’t think works out with modern play sessions and party counts, so let’s pretend it said 100 times d6 anyway. I just read an article by Yora of Spriggan’s Den about extrapolating a scheme for an eighteen-room dungeon from the procedural generation rules in B/X (1981) [1]. As Yora points out, eighteen rooms is a great size for a mid-to-large dungeon or for a floor of a multi-level dungeon, and the checklist of rooms makes it easy to make sure that the final product has a variety of interesting play interactions. But, being as large as it is, it can still be a tall order on the
Read more