The Gaming Den

Chamomile wrote: In a perfect world, the answer to all of those questions would be "yes," but assuming we are not making an entire diplomacy mini-game for D&D, what does it add to the game to split the Diplomacy check into two rolls instead of one?

Having a roll to determine whether you start combat or not is the most important part of diplomacy. The diplomacy check is actually optional, the reaction check from 2n edition AD&D is not.

-Username17

I'm not really seeing a gameplay advantage to having a named NPC established as calm, cool, and collected have a 5% chance of flipping out and trying to kill you on sight because he's surprised to see you walking through his door with your hands in your pockets.

EDIT: Crucial edit, because it would actually kind of make sense if he flipped out when you have your hands in his pockets instead of your own.

Chamomile wrote:I'm not really seeing a gameplay advantage to having a named NPC established as calm, cool, and collected have a 5% chance of flipping out and trying to kill you on sight because he's surprised to see you walking through his door with your hands in your pockets.

If he's that calm of a person, then it would be represented by a modifier to his initial reaction roll large enough to put, "FIGHT!" off of the RNG if the party approaches in a non-hostile manner.

RadiantPhoenix wrote: If he's that calm of a person, then it would be represented by a modifier to his initial reaction roll large enough to put, "FIGHT!" off of the RNG if the party approaches in a non-hostile manner.

In which case his reaction is still determined by DM fiat since the DM controls all the variables, but we've stapled on a superfluous die roll so we can pretend it's not MTP.

Chamomile wrote: In which case his reaction is still determined by DM fiat since the DM controls all the variables, but we've stapled on a superfluous die roll so we can pretend it's not MTP.

The variables are in flux and can be approached/accounted by PCs. A guard captain you're trying to soak for information or convince to post bail could have a modifier of 'hates elves', 'suspicious', with a base stance of 'aggressive' which would normally push things off of the RNG enough so that he generally won't give you want you want. The PCs could then manipulate the variables like approaching him with hats over their ears and buy him a few drinks when he's off duty and get a much more favorable approach when it comes time for diplomacy.

Not to say that a sufficiently railroady DM couldn't just keep contriving situations to prevent people from getting anything out of the captain no matter how hard they try but then again there's nothing stopping a DM from dropping an ancient red dragon on top of the roadside inn where the level 1 PCs are sleeping. But it's pointless talking about situations like those. The point is that it gives the players something to work with assuming the DM is playing fairly.

Lago PARANOIA wrote: A guard captain you're trying to soak for information or convince to post bail

Wait. Stop right there. This is a Diplomacy check, not a reaction roll.

[sarcasm] Boy oh boy I love seeing this conversation again.[/sarcasm]

It's a good thing you put in those sarcasm tags. It would've seemed pretty genuine without them.

This is a dumb argument that y'all are having with someone who Just Doesn't Get It about a not-even-half-baked hypothetical system which is a compromise on a compromise.

This is going to stay Retard Merry-Go-Round until someone writes a scratch Diplomacy alternative to shred.

Chamomile wrote: Wait. Stop right there. This is a Diplomacy check, not a reaction roll.

A) It's actually a combination of the two. The reaction roll is to determine whether the guard captain is even going to take the drinks that the PCs offer and let them sit at his table--or if he's going to sulk in the corner and just blow them off because he was chewed out by the duke earlier today. It's useful to split the rolls into two because you can have the events split up. Maybe the PCs see that he's unhappy after sending the drinks back and decides to visit the bar on another day. Maybe the PCs see that he's in a really good mood and want to lay it on thick but then the tax collector comes in and starts harassing people so the challenge is to get the tax collector away so he doesn't spoil this opportunity.

B) As Frank noted you can have a 'diplomatic encounter' consistent of just a reaction roll, though you lose flexibility as noted in the above example because you're combining the NPC's mood and presumed PC actions. It works just like damage in Shadowrun in fact, where you just have an attack roll and you extrapolate extra damage from that.

Now while I suppose it's possible to have a damage roll and then extrapolate an attack roll from that it's a hell of a lot harder; saying that you should just roll diplomacy and forgo reaction rolls altogether is just like that. If you've taken calculus you know that even though integration is the inverse operation of differentiation, it's a fuckton harder to integrate something than it is to take a derivative. Deriving acceleration from position over time is relatively easy, deriving position from acceleration over time is possible but way harder.

The application to reaction rolls and diplomacy rolls should be apparent from that. And you know what, we already used nothing but diplomacy rolls but no reaction rolls for 3E and 4E D&D and the failure inherent in them is obvious. Read the first post in the thread to see why.

A Man in Black wrote:This is a dumb argument that y'all are having with someone who Just Doesn't Get It about a not-even-half-baked hypothetical system which is a compromise on a compromise.

This is going to stay Retard Merry-Go-Round until someone writes a scratch Diplomacy alternative to shred.

If you read the very first post in this thread it implies that the skeletal system we're using is 2E D&D's system. The base system works pretty okay in my opinion--obviously I would add a lot more variables and put some more player choice in it, but the basic idea is sound. And because I don't feel like throwing pearls before swine we'll just use that for the time being.

Except my position has never been that random NPCs shouldn't have reaction rolls. It's that named, plot-important NPCs with pre-determined personalities shouldn't have reaction rolls. Randomly generating the mood and disposition of Captain Bob just means less busy work for the GM and more flexibility (if the players try to negotiate with someone who didn't mechanically exist at the session's start, for example), which is good.

Chamomile wrote:Except my position has never been that random NPCs shouldn't have reaction rolls. It's that named, plot-important NPCs with pre-determined personalities shouldn't have reaction rolls.

Yes. I understand that your position is that the MC should override the die rolls when he feels that his special NPCs wouldn't be special enough otherwise. This is, however, an inconsistent position and I do not respect it.

You might as well be saying that PCs should only get to roll attack rolls against mooks, while really important NPCs should have attacks against them determined by MC-fiat.

-Username17

Chamomile wrote:It's that named, plot-important NPCs with pre-determined personalities shouldn't have reaction rolls.

So why should named, plot-important NPCs with detailed equipment lists, stats, and fighting styles and power trees have attack rolls then? Why can't the DM just decide 'Bob hits you this round because he has a 30 STR, the entire Weapon Focus feat tree, he's on higher ground with the sun to his back, he takes meticulous care of his +5 sword made of special imported mithril, and is a veteran of several wars specifically against elves--in fact he's famed for leading a successful charge against the Forest Blade elves, which you come from, and he's intimately familiar with your fighting style'.

Of course we know why the DM just doesn't declare it; it's because even with that relatively exhaustive list he's still missing a lot of variables that would affect his performance. And this is before the PC presents his own rebuttal with his own list of bullshit about how he's going to counter Captain Bob's advantages and why in fact the sword swing should have missed. That's what the roll is for.

Even if you detail Captain Bob's personality and backstory you're not going to catch everything. Captain Bob deciding to give your party a fair shake might be totally determined on whether his wife was chewing him out this morning and his boss saying that he wants him to be tougher on crime. And if you really want to make things hairy you could have it so that his wife made him his favorite breakfast and told him that she's pregnant BUT his boss said that he wants him to be tougher on crime.

All that shit could have possibly happened before Captain Bob stopped the PCs on a routine search and found them without their identification papers. And you know what? Even if you could put that amount of detail into the game to determine why Captain Bob is going to arrest the PCs or let that go not only does it slow the game down but it's also extremely suspicious; DMs who spend way too much time thinking about minute details that determine a PC's chance of success or failure come off as really railroady. It's best just to leave it to the die roll and invent reasons afterwards if anyone really cares.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:If you read the very first post in this thread it implies that the skeletal system we're using is 2E D&D's system. The base system works pretty okay in my opinion--obviously I would add a lot more variables and put some more player choice in it, but the basic idea is sound. And because I don't feel like throwing pearls before swine we'll just use that for the time being.

There is some player choice in 2e reaction rolls; you decide how your character is acting, and that determines which column of the table you roll the decahedrons on.

Manipulating circumstance modifiers seems like it would make the thing more fun, though.

What do reaction rolls actually add to the game? They take away a GMs ability to play his plot-important NPCs according to the personality he built for them according to the plot. These rolls will force the DM to run characters that were supposed to be introduced as friendly and helpful into characters that are indifferent or even irritated. They will force the DM to run characters who were supposed to be generally unlikable as instead helpful and friendly, and then force him to invent a reason as to why this typically unlikable character feeling nice today. It can suddenly turn merciless villains into indifferent bystanders. That, or the die roll is a farce and the DM is actually controlling the RNG to the point where any outcome other than the one he predetermined is impossible.

What do they give in return? What's the big benefit to having a plot crafted by an actual living, breathing human being suddenly derailed (and not necessarily in the party's favor) by a random die roll that is not affected any more by player choice than a marginally competent DM running his own NPCs without the dice dictating the plot to him?

Chamomile wrote:What do reaction rolls actually add to the game? They take away a GMs ability to play his plot-important NPCs according to the personality he built for them according to the plot. What do they give in return?

They let the players have actions that actually matter and keep the MC from railroading them with his stupid fucking plot.

-Username17

Chamomile wrote:What do reaction rolls actually add to the game? They take away a GMs ability to play his plot-important NPCs according to the personality he built for them according to the plot. What do they give in return?

You mean, it makes a game, i.e., a fundamentally interactive medium where things aren't supposed to go the same way every time, less like a book or movie, where things are supposed to go the same way every time? I think this is a good thing.

EDIT: What Frank said, but with more of a dismissive mocking tone, rather than an angry one.

FrankTrollman wrote:

Chamomile wrote:What do reaction rolls actually add to the game? They take away a GMs ability to play his plot-important NPCs according to the personality he built for them according to the plot. What do they give in return?

They let the players have actions that actually matter and keep the MC from railroading them with his stupid fucking plot.

-Username17

No, they don't. No rule you will ever make will stop a railroad GM, so a rule designed to prevent railroading is always unnecessary and potentially harmful. Any marginally competent GM can figure out that his NPCs will react differently to players bursting into a room with crossbows loaded than if they stroll in for a chat, and having the dice dictate that the NPC might randomly treat them as though they did the former when they did the latter only hurts player choice.

You mean, it makes a game, i.e., a fundamentally interactive medium where things aren't supposed to go the same way every time, less like a book or movie, where things are supposed to go the same way every time?

Then why do you bother with GMs at all? Again, if you want dice determining your plot, you can just write a table for that and roll dice and have a book be your GM. You'll sacrifice consistency, but you're doing that with this, too.

Any argument that depends on the notion that the poor GM doesn't have enough power is a fucking retarded argument.

-Username17

What is the GM for? Why do you have one at all?

Chamomile wrote:What is the GM for? Why do you have one at all?

To manage the rest of the world while you do your thing in it.

Chamomile wrote:

Lago PARANOIA wrote: A guard captain you're trying to soak for information or convince to post bail

Wait. Stop right there. This is a Diplomacy check, not a reaction roll.

No wait, it's THREE ROLLS!

The reaction to youu just being there (he's had a bad day)
The attempt to use diplomacy
The reaction to you just trying to bribe him after the diplomacy fails.

Oh darn, there is a FOURTH ROLL

HE gets to use diplomacy to convince you that he is worth a better bribe than that!

RadiantPhoenix wrote: To manage the rest of the world while you do your thing in it.

So let him manage the goddamn world and don't tell him he has to let the dice do it for him, or else get rid of the GM entirely and have the dice do the managing. The dice will be inconsistent and inorganic and ultimately nothing more than an underperforming computer program but they won't screw you over for giggles so if you seriously can't find a single GM who won't railroad you straight through his precious little plot, then go with that. Or just buy a gamebook, which is very nearly the exact same thing but with you paying someone else to do the work for you.

Chamomile wrote:Then why do you bother with GMs at all? Again, if you want dice determining your plot, you can just write a table for that and roll dice and have a book be your GM. You'll sacrifice consistency, but you're doing that with this, too.

I look at this from the angle of the GM. Being a traditional Lankhmar DM, I generally base my whole philosophy of being a GM on the setting. There are two powers in the Nehwon universe - Chance and Necessity. They are equal and they must co-exist. This is similiar to the way the GM should run his world. There is some degree of plot tracks (Necessity) but there also needs to be some degree for random deviations (Chance). The best laid plans of the GM have to be somewhat open to change - if only from the change of the players themselves who might think of something that the GM hasnt throght of.

You may ask, at this point why? Because as a GM I think that's the BEST PART! Gaming isn't like batting practice where a machine like person lobs balls and the other person just hits them out. It's like a tennis match, where the GM serves and the players send it back and forth between them and the GM, with that annoying net sometimes deciding that it will stop the ball on occasion.

As a GM "I'm" not telling a story, "We" are telling a story, together! And so are those dice too, in their own way!

I'm not going to write a backstory for the guards and the fifteen merchants they encountered before the PC's arrived at the gate. That's up to Chance to write, and we all abide by her decision. Heck even the Overlord has good and bad days.