Test

 

Reactions, Morale, and Old School Play, Part 1

NOTE: Holy crap... 5 years? Really?! I'm the worst blogger of the century.

I love B/X D&D and its simplicity. The core mechanics seem built for quick resolution of situations between player characters, NPCs, and monsters. Combat is fast and furious, and really friggin' deadly.

Two core mechanic "toggles" that B/X uses to make the game less deadly and to encourage emergent play and roleplaying are Reaction Rolls (NPC and Monster) and Morale. I'm going to talk about Reaction Rolls in this first post.



Charisma is Important

Love me. 

Everyone pretends like Charisma is a dump stat -- no core class needs Charisma to gain more XP or to make the character's abilities more effective. But, I say nay! Charisma in B/X is an important piece of the overall game's puzzle. It affects how many retainers you can have -- either henchpersons (classed NPCs that accompany you on your adventures) or hirelings (mercenaries that you pay to protect your ass and soak up some damage). It affects how effective you are at recruiting these folks -- no matter how much money and fame you have. And, most importantly, it affects what their Morale is once they join your service.

Charisma also affects reaction rolls when dealing with other NPCs and, presumably, monsters -- if they don't immediately try to kill you.

Use Reaction Rolls Subtly

You're Alright in My Book

The reaction check is one of the best and oft overlooked mechanic in B/X. I’ve ported it to use in every game system I’ve run – and it works great because it’s simple.

But, Don't Overuse the Reaction Roll!

B/X and its various clones are not "singular mechanic" systems where everything is decided by a dice roll. I use a reaction roll only when natural roleplaying has reached a critical decision or when an encounter with a monster is fluid.

Sometimes I use the reaction roll only when the outcome is in doubt in my mind. Other times, I’ll more freely let the dice decide. This can be a double-edged sword – so for instance, your player is interacting with a contact to get information, but the PC is rude, threatening, and being generally obnoxious. If I don’t know anything about this NPC (i.e. they just popped out of emergent play), I might still roll the reaction check – maybe this NPC has been intimidated by the PC’s behavior. Maybe they *like* being abused – whatever.

But, if the NPC is a known quantity – like a high-level official, a regular in the campaign, etc – I’ll let the player’s roleplaying dictate the NPCs reaction moreso than the dice. Like – hey, you don’t talk that way to the king… seize him!

Wait, Monsters Don't Always Attack?

Result 2...every time

One of the most overlooked "difficulty dials" in B/X is the monster reaction roll. I use it to determine a monster's attitude, but only when that reaction is in doubt! 

Party full of elves that run into a big patrol of hobgoblins? No reaction roll needed. In my campaign, hobgoblins hate elves and attack them on sight. But, what if the party outnumbers the hobgoblins by a significant margin? I would make a reaction roll. A “friendly” result simply means to me that the hobgoblins avoid the encounter but may go report back to a larger contingent of their kin so they can come find the elves and exterminate them!

The Friendly Dragon Problem

No. You can't ride the dragon. It eats you.

All of that being said (typed), I'm not a huge fan of all the entries in the reaction tables -- especially the monster table. A dragon flies over the hill and down into your party's midst and (Reaction Roll 12?!) is enthusiastically friendly? Nah... I don't like that as a result -- it's too specific.

Personally, I take these results and interpret them on the fly -- as earlier. Mindless monsters never roll reaction -- they just attack. Animal-intelligence level monsters might just flee when a "friendly" reaction is rolled. Humanoids and other intelligent monsters, I play it by ear and by the situation. In any case, a friendly reaction doesn't always mean the party and the dragon are besties. It just means that the dragon has decided not to eat them just yet. 

Let the Game Develop Itself

The big point on Reaction Checks is that you only use them when the outcome is in doubt – or when you want to inject some randomness (emergent play) into the mix. Figuring out why an NPC or monster acts against your expectations – and doing it on the fly – is one of the best parts of the game. This is why you’ll never see a “Tactics” entry in a good B/X-ish module. Every encounter is fluid and should be. You’re not running a script – you’re playing an emergent game. And if it stops surprising you – and more importantly your players – you’ll all probably stop playing it.

Why is Barrowmaze So Fucking Great?

I decided as my first task (yeah I know, this blog "started" in August), I'm going to break down Barrowmaze into its component parts, analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the design, and, hopefully learn from what I discover in order to make my own game design better. One of my goals with this analysis is to actually pick +Greg Gillespie's  brain a little bit and see if he'll agree to be "interviewed" here. Stay tuned.

Also Note -- this process is spoiler-ladened -- in fact, it's designed to be spoiler-ladened. I'm digging here. Trying to find the treasure that makes Barrowmaze unique and awesome.

First off, I don't necessarily think that Barrowmaze is the greatest D&D-esque adventure ever produced. My fucking PLAYERS do, though! Every time there's a hint that they might be able to find the Barrow Field and beneath it, that maze of halls scattered with their dead characters and packed with lurking undead and treasure, they lose their fucking minds. They immediately run away from any seeds that I've personally planted in the campaign world, and we spend multiple sessions re-mapping the barrow field (because they lost their previous maps), spend hours digging into covered barrows (was this the one with all the platinum?) and collectively decide that this...THIS!...is what D&D looks like.

I grouse, but I'm fine with it. It's a damn good adventure. Barrowmaze is a straightforward D&D megadungeon (even though it's "flat") with a theme that leans heavily towards undead. It's cleanly written, cleanly laid out, and the map, while a fucking beast to follow in the book, is black and white and easily used at a glance.

There is a sort-of story with a few story elements scattered across the field, maze, and now with Barrowmaze Complete, the wilderness, but it's the definition of light touch. All of that can be ignored, or linked out to other stuff in your campaign world, as needed. And the thing is so damn big, that you can cut it up, slap a bunch of your own stuff in there, spread it across the world, or otherwise, strip it down and use it for its component parts. I've run Barrowmaze with standard B/X/etc. rules, Labyrinth Lord (no stretch), and Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG. This is a design feature -- flexibility. And I love it.

In addition, it's well written and edited. The art is phenomenally old school (I mean, Erol Otus did the damn cover).

So, at a glance, my big areas of analysis are the following:

• Concept -- How does the overall concept of the adventure (ancient burial mounds that have lately become the focal point of the forces of Chaos) work within the milieu (how's that for a Gygax word?)? And more importantly, is this another succession of "orc with 1d4 pies" encounters that gets tired really fast?
• Implementation -- This is the quality of the book (physical), the writing/editing/layout, and in general, the tools that Greg developed to both differentiate the adventure from other adventures and that you can drop into your GM toolbox for other uses.
• Preparation -- How much work is it to get this beast ready for play? And what did I have to cut/change/replace to make it playable at my table?
• Actual Play -- How does it run? What's the player reaction? Possibly I'll post some session reports with more of a "designer's" eye than simply reporting what happened in the session. 

We'll see if I can follow this up with another post within the previous record of 5 months...

What is this?

I am beautiful. Dammit. 

Since I was 12 years old, I've read and played various roleplaying games. For that same length of time, I've written my own content for them and at various times, thought I was really good at it. Feeling particularly good about myself concerning various things is not limited to RPGs. I think I'm beautiful, super smart, and that everyone loves me.

Well, it turns out that none of the above is true.

After all the weeping and self-loathing wore off, I decided to solve the most important of the dichotomies: I'm going to delve into my favorite RPG supplements, break down what I like about them, and extract whatever knowledge I can from the design process for my own selfish use. The plan is to post this secret wisdom here, where no one in their right mind will find it.

With this knowledge, I'll become the greatest RPG designer in the world. I'll then be beautiful, super-smart and everyone will love me. Problems? Solved.