Lord Foul wrote:I don't do this in my own game, but one thing struck me about your idea. Leaving everything to the luck of the dice removes any influence from the nature of the party, how they appear (or sound or even smell) to the creature met, or how they act in that all-important first contact. A possible refinement might be to build into the roll a modifier to take account of this. The challenge of course is to build in a good range of different possibilities while preventing the whole thing becoming unwieldy.
I totally agree. The way I see this working is that there is a few (no more than four or five) 'generic' tables. One for monster reactions, one for NPC reactions, one for daily travel 'events', one for site exploration, and maybe some other things. But each of these could (and will) be customized. Some ahead of time.
For example, maybe I create a monster that I want to be hard to find. A sasquatch or lake monster might get an increased chance of avoiding the party and a decreased chance of being aggressive. Or maybe there is a roving band of orks or political guerrilla fighters that gets an increased chance of being aggressive, preemptively launching sneak attacks. And so on... Each little table being a customized (perhaps on the fly) adaptation of the core table.
I also like this idea as a mediator between the potential impact of the super-charisma character. You know the drill, one PC plays a bard or some other high charisma class, and they get proficient in deception, intimidation, and persuasion. Then they roll up to the king's guard, roll their incredibly high deception against the guard's average insight roll, and now want to claim they are the king's long lost brother that no one had ever even heard of and be allowed in to see the king. Now, I can simply give the party a +1 or even +2 on the reaction table for success on a charisma based skill. A paranoid, un-trusting character's reaction table might only be positive on the 11 or the 12 and even a fantastic persuasion check won't make the NPC is a lapdog for the party.
clintmemo wrote:For NPC's and monsters, if I'm not sure how they will react, I'll just roll a d6 where 1 is bad for the party and 6 is good.
If you wanted something more granular, roll two d6's - One to determine how much the monster likes/hates the party and one to see how likely they are to act on those feelings. A monster might hate the party (1), and fight to the death (6) or hate the party (1) but do nothing about it (1) or like the party (5) but sit back and watch them die (2).
One of the things I am trying to accomplish with this adaptation of an old rule, is to incorporate a primitive bell curve that increases the odds of a 'normal' result (whatever that might be for the specific monster/NPC/etc) and not give all outcomes an equal chance of happening. Of course, you could still model this by making the 'normal' results take up more room on a d20 table. For example, 2 comes up 1/36 times on a 2d6. Or ~3% of the time. So 2 (2d6) is about the same odds as a 1 on a d20 (5%). 3 comes up 2/36 times on a 2d6. Or ~6% of the time. So 3 (2d6) would be your 2 on a d20. 7 comes up 6/36 times on a 2d6. Or ~17% of the time. So it would need to be 10, 11, & 12 on your d20 rolls. The big issue becomes modifiers. I do still want my high charisma characters to move the results... just not huge swings. And a bell curve with a modifier does that. If I give too small a modifier on a straight d20 table, they might not even move out of the same category, too much and they could swing big.
I do like the idea of have two different dice that might represent different components of the overall reaction. Maybe one dice is hunger for monsters while the other is instinct. Give me a little more inspiration in how to play the results. You've given me something to thing about.