The Gaming Den

Chamomile wrote: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.

If all MCs were good enough to manage the game well without rules and dice, we would be playing MTP; they're not, so we use rules and dice to deal with the more common and easily addressed shortcomings of being human. We still haven't gotten a system that lets us have the depth and variation of a good tabletop RPG without Mister Cavern, so someone has to fill in the parts we haven't yet made systems to manage well.

The reason you still need Mister Cavern is because the dice can't build interesting challenges to overcome, interesting settings to inhabit, or interesting characters to meet. You are asking it to do the latter.

The GM was given extra power for a reason. If taking power away from the GM is always a good idea because he has so much to begin with, than having a GM is a bad idea in the first place. The GM has his job to do and reaction rolls only get in the way of his doing it.

Chamomile wrote: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.

This is like a perfect snapshot of a histrionic control freak GM sniveling that they're not going to get to run the plot they wants to because the players dare to have to temerity to use their rules and randomness to have a say-so. Like, fuck depth; if I want an NPC to be unlikeable they're always unlikeable 100% of the time. Fuck luck, my NPCs never have a bad day so they're always affable and happy. Fuck choice, the DM should have the final say so.

I think I'm pretty much done talking to you on this point. Anyone else have any questions?

Chamomile wrote:The reason you still need Mister Cavern is because the dice can't build interesting challenges to overcome, interesting settings to inhabit, or interesting characters to meet. You are asking it to do the latter.

Can't yet; the purpose of further development is to find ways that they can.

The GM has his job to do and reaction rolls only get in the way of his doing it.

Wrong. They can free up more time and brain-space so the GM can manage the parts of the game we haven't made rules for yet.

Lago, when you get over your tantrum, tell me what the GM is supposed to actually do if the actions of NPCs aren't actually under his control. What is he there for? Why not replace all the GM functions with dice if you don't care whether or not it makes a coherent or entertaining world, character, or whatever?

RadiantPhoenix wrote: Can't yet; the purpose of further development is to find ways that they can.

Yeah, sure. Reaction rolls don't work. Seriously, write me up an actual table for reaction rolls and I will come up with three different situations to break them. It won't even be hard.

Wrong. They can free up more time and brain-space so the GM can manage the parts of the game we haven't made rules for yet.

Haven't made competent rules for yet. That includes character interactions. That it's possible to make rules that are worse than MTP is not news to this forum. Tell me why reaction rolls are better than MTP, why I should actually pay money for reaction rolls, assuming the GM is not a dick who will ruin any game.

FrankTrollman wrote:
Extreme examples: The PCs burst into the room with crossbows drawn. Alternately, the PCs walk into the room nonchalantly with their hands in their pockets.

Which do you think is more likely to have the guy in the room ask "What's going on?" (starting a potential diplomatic encounter) and which do you think it more likely to have the guy in the room draw his blade (starting a potential combat encounter)? Are you denying that player character choice is involved in the difference between them?

Attempting to start a diplomatic encounter is in most cases a conscious choice. And if a conscious choice is made, the player should usually be allowed to roll dice to see if it works.

-Username17

Your example doesn't support your argument here. There is a difference between bursting in swords drawn and entering respectfully, but the reaction roll makes it possible that there isn't said difference. Player choice should be the determining factor of that success, not just a modifying one. The reaction roll actually makes the PC's choice of action less important. It's not just taking plot autonomy away from the GM, it's also sucking away the ability for PCs to affect the environment. When both players and GMs lose to the dice, the idea needs to be thrown out.

Same thing with the party's efforts to get information from Captain Bob; the fact that his boss may have been berating him earlier is minutiae that is not the GM's job to worry about or account for. That's why there is an RNG on the actual Diplomacy roll, after all. The RNG is there to abstract the influence of a dozen or so factors that the GM doesn't have the time to worry about; how well the archer's footing is, the angle of the sun, minute combat movements, the breeze, etc. But in that case it affects the actual result, not the chances for success on the next roll, like the reaction roll does.

Turn the situation in Frank's example around; the PCs burst in crossbows drawn and the guards reply with, "What are you doing here?" their swords still at their side. Because that is possible so long as the reaction roll is made. Now, due to the reaction roll, the guards are starting a Diplomacy encounter, but the PCs are starting a Combat Encounter. Why, then, bother with a reaction roll, which either has the capability to produce really strange results, or must be modified heavily in order to produce the expected or desired result, in which case the determining factor is the modifiers the GM decides are necessary, and thus, GM fiat?

Stubbazubba wrote:Player choice should be the determining factor of that success, not just a modifying one.

Unless your stance is that players should be able to dictate how the plot is supposed to go exactly how, when, and why they want it this statement makes absolutely no sense.

Stubbazubba wrote:But in that case it affects the actual result, not the chances for success on the next roll, like the reaction roll does.

1) Who the hell cares? That kind of thing happens all of the time in D&D. Getting a poor initiative score roll will affect your chances for success on your combat roll as the enemies maneuver into a better position and activate buffs. Rolling poorly on a saving throw will reduce your ability to make a successful attack. Etc.. You can argue that having the two rolls is overly complicated, but you can't argue that it isn't fair.

2) You could forgo the diplomacy roll entirely if it bothers you that much. Just make everything a reaction roll.

Turn the situation in Frank's example around; the PCs burst in crossbows drawn and the guards reply with, "What are you doing here?" their swords still at their side. Because that is possible so long as the reaction roll is made. Now, due to the reaction roll, the guards are starting a Diplomacy encounter, but the PCs are starting a Combat Encounter.

Your example is really stupid. If the PCs took the guards by complete surprise then it shouldn't surprise us at all that a guard is temporarily stuck in 'Welcome to Corneria!' mode before their reflexes catch up. After all, we expect a set of guards kicking back and playing cards on a quiet day don't have their dander up and are feeling temporarily relax. If the PCs didn't immediately open fire, then the guards would have immediately done a new reaction roll that would have accounted for these strangers bursting in on the off chance that the PCs were trying to intimidate the guards with a show of force. The guards might then try to defuse the situation or might just go for their swords and start a combat encounter. Yes, that means that sometimes flying the white flag instead of going for your gun will get you punished.

1) Who the hell cares? That kind of thing happens all of the time in D&D. Getting a poor initiative score roll will affect your chances for success on your combat roll as the enemies maneuver into a better position and activate buffs. Rolling poorly on a saving throw will reduce your ability to make a successful attack. Etc.. You can argue that having the two rolls is overly complicated, but you can't argue that it isn't fair.

Note that every single one of your examples comes from the combat system, which is a fully fleshed out game unto itself that it capable of being interesting and fun even totally divorced from any kind of characters or game world. The Diplomacy "mini-game" very obviously does not fulfill that criterion.

Lago I don't think you know just how ridiculous you sound. Let's walk through it.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

Stubbazubba wrote:Player choice should be the determining factor of that success, not just a modifying one.

Unless your stance is that players should be able to dictate how the plot is supposed to go exactly how, when, and why they want it this statement makes absolutely no sense.

I said 'that success,' clearly indicating determining whether the guy reacts by drawing his sword or interrogating you, should be primarily determined by the player's actions themselves, and not an RNG modified by their action. And frankly, yes, the players do determine the timing of the plot by the actions of their characters, Lago.

Stubbazubba wrote:But in that case it affects the actual result, not the chances for success on the next roll, like the reaction roll does.

1) Who the hell cares? That kind of thing happens all of the time in D&D. Getting a poor initiative score roll will affect your chances for success on your combat roll as the enemies maneuver into a better position and activate buffs. Rolling poorly on a saving throw will reduce your ability to make a successful attack. Etc.. You can argue that having the two rolls is overly complicated, but you can't argue that it isn't fair.

As Chamomile pointed out, combat is it's own mini-game, where failure against the first attack is extremely unlikely for you to lose the entire mini-game. There's one roll against your AC, then another roll for damage, mitigated by many factors. Even after that, you have more HP that must be burned through before you lose, several rounds worth of time wherein you can change up your tactics and work collaboratively to overcome a challenging opponent, additional choices that players make to win that mini-game. Diplomacy is not nearly as forgiving; it's a one shot pass/fail. Thus the weight that the RNG has on the result of the social combat is a lot bigger than it is to combat, where you roll so many times that it averages out somewhat, thus your stats become a loosely determining factor, coupled with players' tactical choices, hence player choice is meaningful. Contrast this with the social mini-game, where if the DM cannot determine the reactions of NPCs, then the dice do, mitigated only slightly by a Charisma modifier, which can drastically affect the DC of the single Diplomacy check.

If social combat had as in-depth a mini-game as physical combat, then you would be right, Lago. But as is, you're willfully ignoring the discrepancies between the social mini-game and the combat mini-game.

Turn the situation in Frank's example around; the PCs burst in crossbows drawn and the guards reply with, "What are you doing here?" their swords still at their side. Because that is possible so long as the reaction roll is made. Now, due to the reaction roll, the guards are starting a Diplomacy encounter, but the PCs are starting a Combat Encounter.

Your example is really stupid. If the PCs took the guards by complete surprise then it shouldn't surprise us at all that a guard is temporarily stuck in 'Welcome to Corneria!' mode before their reflexes catch up. After all, we expect a set of guards kicking back and playing cards on a quiet day don't have their dander up and are feeling temporarily relax. If the PCs didn't immediately open fire, then the guards would have immediately done a new reaction roll that would have accounted for these strangers bursting in on the off chance that the PCs were trying to intimidate the guards with a show of force. The guards might then try to defuse the situation or might just go for their swords and start a combat encounter. Yes, that means that sometimes flying the white flag instead of going for your gun will get you punished.

If the door bursts open, the guards will not say anything welcoming, even if surprised, unless this is a comedy. If they're surprised, then it's a surprise round, and we proceed as usual. Basically all this means is that it's the player's opportunity to make the first move, be it "Surrender and we won't hurt you!" or "Have at you!" There's no need for a separate reaction roll that would affect the Diplomacy option, but not the combat one. Surprise round is determined by GM fiat in the first place, so the fact that it's parallel in social combat would be determined by a die roll makes no sense.

The only reason your counter-example doesn't work has nothing to do with reaction rolls, but everything to do with the fact that transferring between the social mini-game and combat mini-game is nearly impossible in D&D, which is a different, but related, design flaw.

Stubbazubba wrote: I said 'that success,' clearly indicating determining whether the guy reacts by drawing his sword or interrogating you, should be primarily determined by the player's actions themselves, and not an RNG modified by their action. And frankly, yes, the players do determine the timing of the plot by the actions of their characters, Lago.

Okay, if you're not going to use a RNG modified by their action then how the fuck are you supposed to resolve the success? Consult tea leaves? Let the PCs direct the plot? What then? If you don't like a RNG modified by a player result, what is the alternative?

Moreover, just because a RNG is used doesn't mean that for a particular resolution all results are possible. If you roll 2d6+10 you will never get 25 or 8 on it. Secondly I'm not even convinced that having outlying results is all that bad; see below.

If social combat had as in-depth a mini-game as physical combat, then you would be right, Lago. But as is, you're willfully ignoring the discrepancies between the social mini-game and the combat mini-game.

Okay, but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that with your one roll you can still make meaningful choices for the one roll you DO get. You're complaining about how the social minigame doesn't give you a lot of chances to recover from a bad result unlike combat, which is a totally different issue than 'the results are completely arbitrary'. Secondly you packed a lot of bullshit assumptions into your argument. Such as combat giving you a chance to recover from a bad roll rather than forcing you down a death spiral from a bad initial roll. Or the impossibility of constructing a social minigame where you can't recover from a bad gaffe or fuck up an initial good impression.

Stubbazubba wrote: If the door bursts open, the guards will not say anything welcoming, even if surprised, unless this is a comedy. If they're surprised, then it's a surprise round, and we proceed as usual. Basically all this means is that it's the player's opportunity to make the first move, be it "Surrender and we won't hurt you!" or "Have at you!" There's no need for a separate reaction roll that would affect the Diplomacy option, but not the combat one. So, the real problem in your counter-example is because transferring between social mini-game and combat mini-game is nearly impossible in D&D, which is a different design flaw than the reaction roll.

So you're telling me that the guards would immediately attack the PCs upon bursting into the room and wouldn't listen to anything they say in any and every circumstance? The PCs couldn't have done reverse-Bavarian Fire Drill social engineering so that the guards think that this is just their scheduled drill and aren't expecting the ganking? The guards couldn't be Praetorian-level badasses who aren't threatened by these pissants carrying crossbows and would rather talk them down then get blood on their boots? The guards couldn't have been getting so stoned that like that guy in Pulp Fiction they wouldn't have gotten off of the couch even after the PCs threatened to kill them? The guards couldn't have heard rumors about a team of badasses that look like the PCs who kill people stronger than the guards are just for looking at them funny and are trying to placate them?

I mean, damn, talk about a failure of imagination there.

Secondly, transferring between the social minigame and combat minigame is easy. If you're trying to talk someone down and keeping a peaceful stance in order not to get their hackles up and attack, you suffer a defense and initiative penalty when they decide to gank you anyway. If you're trying to get people to surrender in the middle of combat you fucking spend the required actions to talk to them; if they don't listen to you then tough luck. Fucking deal with it.

As long as you don't do that stupid skill challenge crap like 4E did then flipping between the combat and social minigame is easy. This means that people need to pull their heads out of their asses and stop playing the Combat or Interrogation music if fighting or diplomacy goes down.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

Stubbazubba wrote: I said 'that success,' clearly indicating determining whether the guy reacts by drawing his sword or interrogating you, should be primarily determined by the player's actions themselves, and not an RNG modified by their action. And frankly, yes, the players do determine the timing of the plot by the actions of their characters, Lago.

Okay, if you're not going to use a RNG modified by their action then how the fuck are you supposed to resolve the success? Consult tea leaves? Let the PCs direct the plot? What then? If you don't like a RNG modified by a player result, what is the alternative?

Of course I'm using an RNG to determine the success of actions. But an initial disposition is not an action. There are other ways to determine NPC reactions, other checks.

In the example you gave, it's a surprise round, which is largely determined by the DM. The DM would determine a DC and then make a skill check to see if the guards are aware of you, which would create a surprise round either in combat or in a Diplomacy check; since they haven't had time to draw their weapons and are somewhat shocked, the DC of the Diplomacy check you make to get them to surrender decreases by X. Alternatively, they make a DC X Spot check to eyeball your threat level and then laugh at you based on their varying accurate or inaccurate results. There's no reason the social aspect of the game needs a special preliminary roll to determine the initial reaction of NPCs by random fiat.

Moreover, just because a RNG is used doesn't mean that for a particular resolution all results are possible. If you roll 2d6+10 you will never get 25 or 8 on it. Secondly I'm not even convinced that having outlying results is all that bad; see below.

What modifiers go into the reaction roll? Charisma modifier and situational modifiers, pretty much, like whether or not the NPC hates Elves or whatever it may be. It is not meaningfully influenced by character progression, thus the odds that you get a +10 in modifiers is pretty low. Any manipulation of said factors by the PCs (wearing a hat to cover your Elf ears or whatever), could just as easily be put on to the Diplomacy roll. The reaction roll does not help player or GM, it just introduces unpredictability into the game, which could be handled better by a good GM. If the rules are assuming the GM is incompetent, then fringe results won't make sense anyway.

If social combat had as in-depth a mini-game as physical combat, then you would be right, Lago. But as is, you're willfully ignoring the discrepancies between the social mini-game and the combat mini-game.

Okay, but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that with your one roll you can still make meaningful choices for the one roll you DO get. You're complaining about how the social minigame doesn't give you a lot of chances to recover from a bad result unlike combat, which is a totally different issue than 'the results are completely arbitrary'. Secondly you packed a lot of bullshit assumptions into your argument. Such as combat giving you a chance to recover from a bad roll rather than forcing you down a death spiral from a bad initial roll. Or the impossibility of constructing a social minigame where you can't recover from a bad gaffe or fuck up an initial good impression.

If the initiative roll is what determines whether or not you're on a death spiral, your GM has screwed you over and something ought to be changed. Unless your build is specifically initiative-dependent, in which case you would be wise to give yourself a bigger mechanical benefit to initiative, thus, we're back to player choice being meaningful, even if it's not guaranteed to work out.

If said social mini-game has such harsh consequences that are determined primarily by the RNG in basically one roll, then yeah, it's a sucky system. That means that social character concepts get screwed. You're better off playing stupid, ugly bruisers or miserly, aloof wizards who have the mechanical power in a fleshed out mini-game like combat and ignoring the social mini-game altogether, because whether or not you have a -1 or a +3 on your CHA really isn't going to affect your success regularly enough to be worth the opportunity cost.

Stubbazubba wrote: If the door bursts open, the guards will not say anything welcoming, even if surprised, unless this is a comedy. If they're surprised, then it's a surprise round, and we proceed as usual. Basically all this means is that it's the player's opportunity to make the first move, be it "Surrender and we won't hurt you!" or "Have at you!" There's no need for a separate reaction roll that would affect the Diplomacy option, but not the combat one. So, the real problem in your counter-example is because transferring between social mini-game and combat mini-game is nearly impossible in D&D, which is a different design flaw than the reaction roll.

So you're telling me that the guards would immediately attack the PCs upon bursting into the room and wouldn't listen to anything they say in any and every circumstance? The PCs couldn't have done reverse-Bavarian Fire Drill social engineering so that the guards think that this is just their scheduled drill and aren't expecting the ganking? The guards couldn't be Praetorian-level badasses who aren't threatened by these pissants carrying crossbows and would rather talk them down then get blood on their boots? The guards couldn't have been getting so stoned that like that guy in Pulp Fiction they wouldn't have gotten off of the couch even after the PCs threatened to kill them? The guards couldn't have heard rumors about a team of badasses that look like the PCs who kill people stronger than the guards are just for looking at them funny and are trying to placate them?

All of these could be determined just like a surprise round is determined. This isn't just the reactions of the guards you're changing, this is the nature of the guards. Also, these are completely disassociated results; your CHA did not make those guards stoned, no matter how pleasing you think you are. The reaction roll is unnecessary and moreover, doesn't make sense.

Secondly, transferring between the social minigame and combat minigame is easy. If you're trying to talk someone down and keeping a peaceful stance in order not to get their hackles up and attack, you suffer a defense and initiative penalty when they decide to gank you anyway. If you're trying to get people to surrender in the middle of combat you fucking spend the required actions to talk to them; if they don't listen to you then tough luck. Fucking deal with it.

Great, then. Everything in your first counter-example is completely do-able without the reaction roll. It's even more unnecessary.

What does the reaction roll do? What is its function? The only answers I've gotten to this are:

1) It protects players from narcissistic DMs. False. Nothing can protect players from narcissistic DMs unless they just refuse to play. The only magic bullet rule that will remove narcissistic DMs from the hobby is one that removes DMs from the hobby entirely.

2) It provides players with more choices. Huh? This doesn't even make sense. Previously, the players could approach Captain Bob either calmly and quietly or swords swinging. Now players can also approach Captain Bob either calmly and quietly or swords swinging. The only difference is that the result of this action has been taken out of DM fiat and made random fiat. If random fiat is better than DM fiat, it means your DM is trying to screw you over and see point one.

That's the question this needs to answer. What good does the new rule do?

I see it as an alternative to the standard Diplomacy rules, which are much worse at those flaws mentioned.

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. 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.

Yes. That is the entire intent of the entire system: to give the players at least some degree of agency on the matter of whether they get to talk to NPCs, rather than everyone acting entirely on the GM's whim. Enemies are not immune to spells or swords or being snuck past on the GM's whim, but "I'm not listening, nyah nyah" is currently a perfect defense against Diplomacy.

What does the reaction roll do? What is its function?

It gives diplomatic PCs an advantage in opening doors, since they are going to have and use positive modifiers for initial reactions. In a non-fucked system, character skill/ability is going to be a significant contributor.

It also gives you a framework for making a bad initial impression, through bad luck, incompetence, or bad planning, and recovering from that bad impression. It also gives you a framework for fucking up a good impression, so everyone who starts off as helpful isn't a willing slave to the party's desires.

Stubbazubba wrote:I said 'that success,' clearly indicating determining whether the guy reacts by drawing his sword or interrogating you, should be primarily determined by the player's actions themselves, and not an RNG modified by their action. And frankly, yes, the players do determine the timing of the plot by the actions of their characters, Lago.

That's strict GM determinism. If the GM thought your actions were good enough, they were. If the GM decides they weren't, they weren't.

Again, if your GM is a dick nothing in the world will stop him from being a dick. Yes, he could have every single NPC refuse to ever enter negotiations. He could also make every single NPC far too powerful to be fought with or snuck up on, and then turn the PCs into a group of observers while his GMPC has all the fun. No amount of rules is going to change this. Any rule that's intended solely to stop GMs from being dicks is doomed to failure because your GM can always drop a red dragon on your level one party and laugh at you while you all die. The system should be written assuming that every GM is not an egomaniac (though he may be the one forced into the GM chair because no one else will do it) and who is at least marginally competent. Designing the game to prevent GMs from killing the party on the whim would be like designing a team sport with an aim to prevent that kid who wanted to be on the other team with his friends from sabotaging his own team's game. It could be done, but it'd only get in the way of the fun of everyone who's playing according to the basic premise the game started with.

Chamomile wrote:Again, if your GM is a dick nothing in the world will stop him from being a dick. Yes, he could have every single NPC refuse to ever enter negotiations.

Agreed. However, there are degrees of dickishness less than total, and dickishness born of causes other than willful intent. This rule isn't intended to be a hard stop to the hardcore railroader. It is instead supposed to be a tool to allow players (not PCs, but players) to take the initiative in creating diplomatic scenes, and to also teach both players and GMs that diplomacy is a tool that works on something other than a strict mother-may-I basis.

Sheesh, and I don't even like reaction rolls.

So, you could write in a reaction roll that gives players a chance of being allowed to use their Diplomacy skill, or you could make a note in the Diplomacy skill that players are allowed to use it anytime they'd be able to normally converse with their opponent, even if swords are drawn, so long as no one is actively slicing people up, and that GMs should absolutely not have their NPCs intentionally avoid situations where they might be dragged into Diplomacy.

Yes, some GMs are going to gloss over that, and some GMs would also toss out the reaction roll like they did in 2e. The only solution to that is to make the social mini-game an actual mini-game that involves more than one or two rolls. Anything else is a band-aid fix, and I'd prefer the one that doesn't act under the assumption that every GM is going to botch his NPC interactions up so badly that a random die roll would have a better chance of concocting an entertaining encounter.

Chamomile wrote:So, you could write in a reaction roll that gives players a chance of being allowed to use their Diplomacy skill...

Which is exactly what Lago is proposing. I think the more of the skill's mojo you move into the reaction roll, the more players are going to demand to be allowed to make one, pushing back against the GMs who just blow off that rule.

I'd prefer the one that doesn't act under the assumption that every GM is going to botch his NPC interactions up so badly that a random die roll would have a better chance of concocting an entertaining encounter.

You're of the opinion that the GM should have strict control over the importance and impact of social interaction in the game, and couch it in terms of protecting the game from randomness or the actions of the players.

You're not making a convincing case that you have any interest in discouraging railroading or deemphasizing GM determinism, which is a main thrust of these proposed diplomacy rules.

A Man In Black wrote:
Which is exactly what Lago is proposing.

And I'm saying it's a bad idea.

You're of the opinion that the GM should have strict control over the importance and impact of social interaction in the game, and couch it in terms of protecting the game from randomness or the actions of the players.

No, I'm saying the GM should have strict control over the reactions of the important, named NPCs he's created. He shouldn't tell the players that they're not allowed to try Diplomacy with someone just because, and neither should the dice because your reaction roll didn't work out, ha ha. Nor should the GM drop inappropriate encounters on top of their heads just to watch them die, but that doesn't mean we should illegalize using high CR critters as, for example, boss monsters.

I'm saying that the GM and the players should determine how much social interaction they want in the game they are collectively playing, and the dice shouldn't dictate that.

Chamomile wrote:No, I'm saying the GM should have strict control over the reactions of the important, named NPCs he's created. He shouldn't tell the players that they're not allowed to try Diplomacy with someone just because, and neither should the dice because your reaction roll didn't work out, ha ha.

And this is where you go off the rails. The proposed reaction system is to give player characters who have some sort of expertise in influencing people a mechanical ability to influence the reactions of the important, named NPCs the GM so cherishes...and other people besides, why not.

A system where the players are allowed to use diplomacy X% of the time, where X is modified by their skill/situational modifiers/the phase of the moon is better than a system where players are allowed to use diplomacy only with GM permission, because players can have a consistent framework for what they can do to improve their reaction rolls and a clear mechanical system for taking advantage of doing the correct thing. It is better than reactions based wholly on GM whim for the same reason that D&D combat is superior to "Bang! You're dead!" "Nuh uh!" cowboys-and-Indians combat.

This involves introducing some new randomness. Frank has argued that people have tolerated much, much greater randomness in combat, with much higher stakes and real-world variables that we totally can measure near-deterministically, and Lago has argued that wacky die results can easily be a jumping off point to fill in as-of-yet unfilled portions of the game world. Getting a die result that usurps the plans of the GM for the important, named NPCs that he created is not a reason to throw away the dice, shit on the pizza, and set the cat on fire.

Usurping a degree of control over the game world is entirely the point of this rule. It's exactly what people do in the real world to open doors when they need to convince people to do things, for whatever reason. It moves us away from 3e's system of "I turn everyone into my helpless slave forever, unless they put their fingers in their ears, because that is my only weakness."

Player characters already have that influence. It's called Diplomacy.

There is no mechanical compulsion requiring GMs to have combat or stealth in D&D. No one seems to complain that the Rogue's Forgery or Disguise skills might never come up and demanding a mechanic to resolve that. Why should there be a hard-coded rule requiring GMs to have Diplomacy? Why can't we just assume that if the players want to use Diplomacy, they will communicate with the GM, who will arrange this? Broken, dysfunctional groups will go on being broken and dysfunctional regardless of intervention.

Your door bursts open and men with guns come in. You're really telling me that you and every single other person would respond every time by fighting rather than surrendering or asking what the fuck is going on? Really? That's your final answer?

-Username17

See, you're talking about mooks again. Random mooks who don't have personalities in the first place can benefit from a reaction roll. Named NPCs who have predetermined personalities, less so. The difference is that the GM doesn't know and, until it's relevant, doesn't care whether those guards are the type to fight, run, talk, or surrender, but he does know whether the Black Prince is the type to fight, run, talk, or surrender, and if he's not a jerk he's going to pick the one that he thinks makes for the most interesting encounter with an important, named villain, and odds are the GM knows his group better than the dice.

And yet you see nothing wrong with just as much control of the Black Prince being given over to dice rolls with Diplomacy, or dice deciding for the DM whether he should get hit by an arrow.

As far as having something to start with for such an idea of using reaction rolls, is this a viable point to branch out from?

Well, actually, I'm not too keen on the Black Prince being subject to the Diplomacy system either, but that's because Diplomacy is terribly broken. If it worked right, it would be the characters talking their way out of a tricky situation, which is entirely something in the characters power and something they spent points on besides. The Black Prince lets the players go because it turns out he was having a really good day is a deus ex machina. The Black Prince lets the players go because the Bard is the greatest diplomat ever is a good story.

That blog post looks interesting, though. I've only skimmed it so far but that looks like a really promising system.