The Gaming Den

Kaelik. You are acting stupid. I can't even fathom how you just typed that out and thought to yourself "This makes sense".

Yes if you decide for whatever background reasons that Pitfiend A is adversarial against Pit Fiend B then they would fight when they meet. What reasons behind them being adversarial (Them being demons, constantly at war, ancient enemies, etc) is a completely reasonable way to determine that they fight against one another. If for whatever reason you set the Illithids get along with Gith, so much so that they become devoted with each other (which by the way is an extreme disposition meant for close relatives, friends, and lovers) then I'd trust there was a background reason for you to set it up that way.

What you're honestly suggesting, as a better alternative, is that you roll this shit up so that when you first meet someone they can randomly be in love with you or randomly hate you based on absolutely nothing. That is seriously what you just posted and I couldn't disagree with you more.

Edit: I mean for fuck's sake you REALLY think its better to derive "They are enemies" or "They are friends" at random than for a DM to come up with setting and situational information based off of the reality they he's creating to come up with a general attitude?

Edit 2: There's no way you can even believe this bullshit. Do you treat people as enemies or close friends/lovers when you first meet them based on nothing at all? Is "that guy is an enemy/friend" an actual action you can even take when you first meet someone?!

"As soon as I saw him, I knew he meant trouble."

Does that sound suitably literary for you?

The 2e reaction table, which we seem to be arguing about, has six possible results, and four columns, based on the players' approach to the situation.

The players' attitudes are classified as:
* Friendly
* Indifferent
* Threatening
* Hostile

The enemies' reactions are classified as:
* Flight, which only shows up if the players are hostile
* Friendly, which is replaced by the above if the players are hostile, and is pretty much the same as the attitude of the same name in 3rd edition
* Indifferent
* Cautious
* Threatening
* Hostile, which is still not actively fighting

Note that these are for unplanned encounters, i.e., someone who has never met the PCs before, and probably has no idea who they are.

I'm not familiar, at all, with 2ed or how it works.

This part is relatively simple. When you have an encounter with someone who doesn't already have a preconceived attitude on you, the DM makes his best estimate of what attitude your characters are giving off, rolls some dice and adds or subtracts your modifier, then looks up the result in a table.

That sounds a bit different from what I'm talking about . I actually don't want to dictate the player's actions or I want to do so as much as possible. I don't want to decide, as a DM, what attitude the player's are giving off. If I'm DMing I want some control over my NPCs. I don't want to exert control over the PCs especially when it deals directly with how their characters are acting.

For encounters where the NPC doesn't have anything to really do with the PCs I set them somewhere between being Indifferent, warm, or Intrigued and roll a reaction off of the list (adjusting for modifiers and such).

I think you misunderstood. I meant that the DM considers what the players are having their characters do, then decides what attitude best summarizes that, and uses it to determine what column to use in the table.

Once again MGuy, learn to read. You have demonstrated in every single post in this thread without fail that you don`t even know what a reaction roll is.

A reaction roll is where you roll a fucking die, and the result plus modifiers determines how the NPC feels about your PCs. That is literally what a reaction roll is.

We all know, except you, because you are fucking retarded, that you personally oppose even the existence of reaction rolls. What no one understands is why you keep saying you are okay with reaction rolls, as long as the DM determines their result in advance by fiat, and the has the reaction roll do something completely different from determining how the NPC feels about a PC.

I could explain to you why rolling this is a good thing, but it would be a waste of time, because you still are stuck not understanding the definitions of words.

The entire point of my example was to demonstrate that it is literally fucking impossible to be adversarial or devoted to someone without having interacted with them first. And that devoted is not a disposition, it is a reaction to the actions of a specific person or cause, and as such, is determined by a reaction roll in any game that has reaction rolls.

I understand Mguy, that you personally hate reaction rolls, but no one will bother making arguments about whether reaction rolls are good or bad until you actually understand what the fuck you are talking about.

I did read. And I responded to exactly what you said Kaelik and told you why I thought it was stupid. I responded to it in kind. I understand that you want a reaction roll to = attitude. Even though Frank himself said:

An NPC can be angry, jumpy, fearful, tired, aggressive, peaceful, exhausted, territorial, or whatever before the PCs round the corner. The MC is well within his rights to set those kinds of conditions.

Which is totally setting a fucking attitude. The only problem Frank has presented to this that actually has anything to do with what I've said is that he believes that being hostile is an action in and of itself despite me denying this, and even giving examples as to how its not.

Lago is now suggesting that its plain better to have it be random anyways, to which I simply disagree.

You Kaelik are just being angry about nothing.

Radiant - I did misunderstand. However how the PCs are acting isn't something I think has been discussed yet. I'm not sure if it applies. I laid out how I think it should work on the last page.

Basically it boils down to DM arbitrates initial disposition. NPC meets PCs. Situational modifiers, player abilities, etc are taken into account. Reaction roll is made amongst a list of actions appropriate. Actions are taken based on results. That's basically it. No diplomacy involved, no randomly making the NPC love/hate you at random.

MGuy wrote:I understand that you want a reaction roll to = attitude. Even though Frank himself said:

An NPC can be angry, jumpy, fearful, tired, aggressive, peaceful, exhausted, territorial, or whatever before the PCs round the corner. The MC is well within his rights to set those kinds of conditions.

Which is totally setting a fucking attitude.

You are fucking retarded, you retarded monkey.

See how literally all of those things that the MC can set are things that you can generally be, without a specific person.

IE, people are generally territorial, or generally exhausted, or generally whatever, and they are therefore, not directed at the PCs.

However, you can not be generally devoted, or generally adversarial, you have to be at someone. Which is the entire fucking point of devoted Illithids. They are devoted to specific things, not in general.

So devoted or adversarial is specifically something that can only ever be determined by a reaction roll in a reaction roll system.

Hence, your obsession with the MC deciding that the monsters are devoted to someone they have never interacted with is fucking crazy psycho stupid.

Kaelik doesn't believe in kill-on-sight enemies.

It'd be hard to imagine a PC group that would evoke a devoted "we love you" response absent any talky-talky bit, but kill-on-sight is something that most people understand can occur without talky-talky.

It's even something that can happen everytime xenophobe A meets hated-xeno X, even without words being exchanged.

mean_liar wrote:Kaelik doesn't believe in kill-on-sight enemies.

It'd be hard to imagine a PC group that would evoke a devoted "we love you" response absent any talky-talky bit, but kill-on-sight is something that most people understand can occur without talky-talky.

It's even something that can happen everytime xenophobe A meets hated-xeno X, even without words being exchanged.

Kill on sight requires interaction. The fact that little Gith babies are told that all Illithids need to die can be modeled by a modifier.

I am fine with kill on sight. I am not fine with DMs deciding what is kill on sight. That's what the reaction roll is for. The reaction roll can come up with kill on sight, or even worship the god, depending on modifiers, but both of those should generally be outside the scope of the RNG without some circumstantial modifiers, like "killed my family."

Brotherhoods, Religious Groups, etc all evoke a "We love you" kind of response without having to be talky talky to each and every member. Edit: Even so this is an extreme end of the scale anyway. His alternative, that he gave with his own words, is that both still exist but are decided at random.

mean_liar wrote:Kaelik doesn't believe in kill-on-sight enemies.

No one is even arguing against kill-on-sight enemies. You'd have some sort of modifier like "Really fucking hates dwarves so much it gives him red spots on the junk. -20 to Reaction Rolls for any party perceived to include dwarves."

The bolded part is the important part. Because the thing the illiteratti are clamoring for is for someone to hate dwarves so much that they are on "start the combat music" terms with the party before even meting them. And thus before actually perceiving that the party has at least one dwarf in it. That's a lot of dwarf hate. That's violating causality levels of dwarf hate. I think only Koumei hates dwarves enough to violate sequentiality of events.

-Username17

So, a third party can induce the -20 with a silent image or it can be negated with a disguise self, both barring disbelief, true seeing, etc.?

RadiantPhoenix wrote:So, a third party can induce the -20 with a silent image or it can be negated with a disguise self, both barring disbelief, true seeing, etc.?

Yeah. That's why the perception part is important, which requires some level of interacting with the PCs in the first place. They can't hate the PCs by virtue of there being dwarves in the group until they see (or whatever) the group and identify dwarves.

Thing is no one is saying what Frank just suggested. No one is saying that NPCs have some kind of clandestine hate for the PCs specifically before they meet. What I am saying is that there are people that can generally hate dwarves. More specifically I'm saying there are people that can generally hate the "other team" such as on a battlefield without having to specifically hate a single enemy soldier or without talking to each enemy soldier. It should go without saying that indeed the NPC would have to perceive the party to have a dwarf in it to then hate them. Luckily enough it doesn't have to go without saying because I've said it:

MGuy wrote:... Kaelik. I don't know why you are being stupid. Seriously. You are being retarded. Initial disposition doesn't become important or even necessary until both the PCs and the NPC(s) meet. I've.. already fucking said this. So if you haven't met someone and don't know they exist that's not even a part of this discussion. If the PCs do something then it should have a roll. I've already said, yes, that's exactly the case. If they don't do something, it doesn't deserve a roll. If the situation warrants a significant change in initial disposition then adjust it as appropriate. Been over this. Repeatedly.

Frank is continuing his misrepresentation of my argument because he is not actually reading my posts / refuses to try to understand what I'm actually saying because him/Kaelik once they hop on their high horse or start saying "you're wrong" can never, ever, ever, ever take it back. If Frank or Kaelik had not actually started this argument dead set on me being wrong they would be a lot more reasonable. All I can do is keep exposing the fact that Frank/Kaelik are being deliberately dishonest about what I'm actually saying. Luckily there is text of what I'm actually saying so I can continue to quote what I've already said.

MGuy wrote:What I am saying is that there are people that can generally hate dwarves. More specifically I'm saying there are people that can generally hate the "other team" such as on a battlefield without having to specifically hate a single enemy soldier or without talking to each enemy soldier.

What you're doing here though is running the risk of subconsciously setting all enemies of a certain type or in a certain situation to the "kill on sight" toggle. There's less of a possibility of running into the group of conscripts that don't really want to be there, the wyvern that is currently not hungry, or the guard that will take a bribe or doesn't want to do paperwork.

MGuy wrote:Frank is continuing his misrepresentation of my argument because he is not actually reading my posts / refuses to try to understand what I'm actually saying because him/Kaelik once they hop on their high horse or start saying "you're wrong" can never, ever, ever, ever take it back. If Frank or Kaelik had not actually started this argument dead set on me being wrong they would be a lot more reasonable. All I can do is keep exposing the fact that Frank/Kaelik are being deliberately dishonest about what I'm actually saying. Luckily there is text of what I'm actually saying so I can continue to quote what I've already said.

Do you know why this thread is called "Actual Anatomy of Failed Design" instead of "Anatomy of Failed Design"?

It's because the second title was used by me, when I posted, and then Frank told me I was wrong, and reaction rolls are necessary and good, and I disagreed, and he made this thread specifically because he told me I was shit.

Yes, I do understand your position, it used to be my position. It is not anymore. This isn't about everyone not understanding you and being confused, and not seeing your brilliance and stubbornly arguing.

It's about you being wrong. You keep saying that the DM should set the initial position of the enemies as "Adversarial" or "Devoted" to the PCs, such that when the PCs run into the enemy that has already been determined, and that's fine, if you are using a system that doesn't have reaction rolls, because that aids your design goals (goal like, railroading, or, being a dick MC, or, making it easy to make simple stories because otherwise it's tough.) But if your design goals necessitate reaction rolls, then the entire fucking point is that the DM cannot set Adversarial or Devoted before they meet the PCs, because the entire motherfucking point is for that to be determined by the reaction roll.

Here is the chain of logic of team not you:

1) NPCs cannot feel devoted or adversarial to PCs until after they meet.
2) When they meet, the devoted or adversarial opinions of the enemy are going to be determined by the actions that PCs take.
3) The way we model the success of PC actions is with dice rolls.
4) Therefore, Reaction rolls occur when the PCs and NPCs first interact, and determine the opinions of the NPCs.

Here is your logic:
1) NPCs cannot feel devoted or adversarial to PCs until after they meet.
2) When they meet, the devoted or adversarial opinions of the enemy are going to be determined by the enemies character, because people don't respond differently to people based on their actions, they respond identically to all people of the same race or something.
3) Since the PCs actions don't determine the initial state of the NPCs opinion, there is no reason to model their actions with a dice roll, and when they round the corner, the opinion is already set, and they have to spend at least a full round action in combat to attempt to convince the NPC to let them talk so that they can change the opinion of the NPC about them that it gained based on something besides their actions.
4) Therefore, what the hell is this reaction roll shit, I guess it's okay to roll a roll to determine if the already adversarial no matter what NPC kills them immediately, or runs away.

Honestly I'm not really concerned with these because they are just challenges the players didn't have to deal with. Now these mook NPCs might be marginally more interesting because they chose not to do anything when the players were around but that slight possibility of being a bit more interesting isn't worth releasing any rational control of their actions to a random die roll.

Kaelik. I'm not even going to re-quote myself anymore. Your argument isn't based off of actions the PC takes because the reaction roll comes before diplomacy is even done upon meeting the PCs. This is in stark contrast to the fact that I insist that PCs perform actual actions in order to change people's minds.

@Mguy -- It really seems to me that your argument is rooted in the fear that if the MC can't authoritatively (arbitrarily) state "these dudes attack you" that there will be some game where a party that waltzes through an adventure on the might of their words.

Quelle horreur.

RadiantPhoenix wrote:So, a third party can induce the -20 with a silent image ...

What's the best way to get a bull to charge? You wave a cape at it. (Everyone says "red" but technically speaking bulls are color blind.) While this might seem something a non sentient being might do, a lot of different people have trigger points, depending on their organization and upbringing. If you encounter a bunch of people in white hooded robes and you throw up an illusion of a dark skinned guy kissing a light skinned girl you can guarentee they are going to madly charge (and say really politically uncorrect things as well while doing so).

Kaelik, I would like to propose the following sequence ...

1. Generally speaking attitude towards PC does not get set until the encounter.
2. The bulk initial attitude towards PC is set at the initial point of the encounter using first impressions only. At this point no actions have been taken on either side.
3. Depending on initial actions - taking into account effects of surprise and intiative, solid attitudes can be established over the course of several rounds.

Note that 1 has "generally." It is possible to have creatiures working on pure furstration or anger that will literally blast the first thing they see with whatever they have. It's not the most intelligent tactic, but not all creatures always optimize their tactics.

Example: You approach an old moat house after encountering a ton of orcs. Before you even know who is hiding in the moat you encounter a barrage of arrows. The half elves have been so threatened by the orcs in the area that they literally shoot at everything that moves towards them. Their reaction towards anything is "hostile" because they are not thinking straight. They are not thinking straight because they are in a state of panic having been under near constant attack.

Note that a key element of a good diplomacy is that it is not limited to advoidance of initial attack. Step 3 is important. Diplomacy should be viable throughout the combat. "Stop," "Surrender," and "Can't we discuss this" are all common elements that can be seen in the best of Hollywood battles.

violence in the media wrote:@Mguy -- It really seems to me that your argument is rooted in the fear that if the MC can't authoritatively (arbitrarily) state "these dudes attack you" that there will be some game where a party that waltzes through an adventure on the might of their words.

Note that Frank's system is explicitly supposed to work before the party even says any words. So they could (in theory) waltz through an adventure without a chance to do anything at all.

At any rate, the basic objection to adding more random variables to the plot of a story is that it's easy to come up with stupid and/or boring stories that way (e.g. the bad guy becomes best friends with the party before they get a chance to do anything, or the party gets murdered in their sleep because an innkeeper randomly decided he hates them).