Legends & Lore This Week (May 20) in D&D

1st grabs popcorn woot. Reading through it and waiting for the tears to follow.

 Looks like he missed the combat part of this weeks L&L. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Glad to see some non-combat love.

EDIT:  Just want you to know that they have this stuff called dog food.  It comes in cans and bags.   

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

The interaction rules remind me of games like Skyrim where, if you successfully bribe, it shifts them more to your side, if you should fail at the attempt, it can shut down conversation right on the spot, and so on.

Not sure if I'm happy about this or not. Yes, it's a good step toward solid interaction rules (an area D&D has always fell behind in a little bit, IMO), so I'll wait and see what the rules actually are before passing judgment.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but pretty much everything that they have to say about any pillar other than combat gets nothing but a yawn from me. As long as Bluff and Diplomacy aren't broken, I have a hard time believing this excites anybody or is high on their list of priorities.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Yay! L&L is back.
The classic 3-pillar objective has always ran into trouble with D&D. You've got one group claiming they want hard-codified interaction rules, another group that prefers RP and would rather the interaction rules be a bare minimum, and yet another group that wants those rules expanded a bit from what used to be there, but not so much that it becomes "rollplaying". Having those demands being levied on them puts WotC in a tough spot. While I'm not thrilled with this article, at the very least it shows that they are looking into doing something with the interaction rules.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
As long as Bluff and Diplomacy aren't broken, I have a hard time believing this excites anybody or is high on their list of priorities.


Actually, the possibility of playing D&D as a noncombat game does excite me. Likewise there are places, such as urban areas, where violence is inappropriate. So conflict resolution - outside of "kill everything" - is an appealing part of the game.

Nonviolence includes concepts such as forcing surrender, restraining, arresting, and so on.  

As long as Bluff and Diplomacy aren't broken, I have a hard time believing this excites anybody or is high on their list of priorities.


Actually, the possibility of playing D&D as a noncombat game does excite me. Likewise there are places, such as urban areas, where violence is inappropriate. So conflict resolution - outside of "kill everything" - is an appealing part of the game.

Nonviolence includes concepts such as forcing surrender, restraining, arresting, and so on.  




+1

I like the idea of traiting up NPCs.  Seems more interesting.  

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

The classic 3-pillar objective has always ran into trouble with D&D. You've got one group claiming they want hard-codified interaction rules, another group that prefers RP and would rather the interaction rules be a bare minimum, and yet another group that wants those rules expanded a bit from what used to be there, but not so much that it becomes "rollplaying". Having those demands being levied on them puts WotC in a tough spot. While I'm not thrilled with this article, at the very least it shows that they are looking into doing something with the interaction rules.


Probably the Interaction/Social Pillar needs to be a separate module. I will certainly use it. But I feel these rules are still embryonic and experimental. Consider how 4e did Skill Challenges with mixed success. A separate module means it is easier for 5e to replace it with a different module, when rules finally evolve into an excellent system.

Maybe there are four pillars. Empire building (politics and armies, economy and markets) might be the fourth pillar. Legacy might be the fourth pillar.
Actually, the possibility of playing D&D as a noncombat game does excite me. Likewise there are places, such as urban areas, where violence is inappropriate. So conflict resolution - outside of "kill everything" - is an appealing part of the game.
Nonviolence includes concepts such as forcing surrender, restraining, arresting, and so on.

Absolutely, I agree with all of that, but what I mean is that I find it hard to believe very many people actually need extensive mechanics for that sort of thing, and mechanics are what the article seems to be about. It's sort of like I don't know why anybody would ever complain about the Skill Challenges in 4E, because I don't know why anybody would ever need to use them to begin with (except for maybe some traps?). But to each their own, I guess. It's not that my group never does any exploration or interaction. We love that's stuff. It's just that we've never felt the need for there to be extensive rules for those things.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
My three pillars are Heinsoo, Collins and Wyatt (turncoat that he is).
Kind of dont want/need rules for this sort of thing. Nothing to complain about this week, just meh.

edit: don't need rules for this sort of thing unless they are out of this world amazing and change how I look at gaming. I'm not getting that from this article. 
...whatever
The D&D combat system is robust, taking decades to evolve. I feel noncombat challenges can benefit from using a similar system.

Instead of having "hit points" to overcome, especially difficult challenges might have "success points".

Typically, a "good idea" involving an improvised skill check might deal 1d8 success points. And so on.

Simple skill challenges simply have 1 success point. And any success can overcome them. But complex challenges might require a concerted action of skill checks.

As always, an idea that seems to guarantee success should automatically succeed without a roll.          

edit: don't need rules for this sort of thing unless they are out of this world amazing and change how I look at gaming. I'm not getting that from this article. 



The reason you are not getting that from this article, might.....just might be because there are no actual rules in this article for you to get that from.
So, what happens when one player is one mode (overland 1 hour turn) and the rest of the players are in another (dungeon 1 minute turn)? Do you let the dungeon players get 60 turns while the overland player gets 1 turn?

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

So, what happens when one player is one mode (overland 1 hour turn) and the rest of the players are in another (dungeon 1 minute turn)? Do you let the dungeon players get 60 turns while the overland player gets 1 turn?



That would depend on whether or not the one is going to eventually interract with the others.  If for example the overland PC is heading to another city to get aid and it will take 3 days to get there, there is no reason not to play him more often than 1 to 60. 
Alright, some more love for the little pillars.  Very good.

I don't see the harm in any number of rules-lite exploration or interaction sub-systems, especially not after playing with the most recent packet.  If at any point the exploration rules got in the way, it felt entirely natural and easier than snapping your fingers to just do away with them.  The fact that the proposed interaction system looks just like the conclusions drawn by a well written thread on this very board not too long ago is also promising.

There are those who might not appreciate seeing support for the exploration and interaction pillars hard coded into character design.  I think if they're anything like the way background traits are written, it'll work like a charm.  Traits are pretty fascinating from a design standpoint--they're like puzzle pieces with curvy sides instead of hard, angular, interlocking sides.  They're magnetically drawn to sets of rules material and fasten naturally to those systems, but can exist on their own in a free-floating medium as well.

One might as well, for the sake of clarity, clearly define two of the most basic building blocks of character design as feats and traits.  The former is an extension to a character's natural set of abilities or actions, while the latter is an attribute or descriptor defining that character's place in the world.

That way, we could have traits like 'dwarven merchant' or 'knightly virtue' and attach them to races, classes, backgrounds and themes (whoops I meant specialties how silly of me).

This L&L is, as always, a point of light in a dark DDN Playtest world.
So, what happens when one player is one mode (overland 1 hour turn) and the rest of the players are in another (dungeon 1 minute turn)? Do you let the dungeon players get 60 turns while the overland player gets 1 turn?



If one player is scouting aboveground while the others are exploring a dungeon, I don't see any reason why the scouting player would ever get as much spotlight time as the other players.  Presumably he understood that 'walking around in a forest' is much less exciting than 'delving deep underground to face forgotten monsters' when he chose to do that.



Directly on-point:  I hate any and all codified rules for roleplaying, so the interaction stuff just annoys me.  I will not use it and hope it is not too baked into the classes.

Exploration rules are fine, because you can use them when doing abstract travel.  (Sometimes you just want to get from point A to point B, but the way in between is dangerous, but you don't really care enough to really flesh it out and make a full adventure out of it.  This works for me in that situation.)  Then, if it's a really important location with interesting features that you're traveling through, you can skip the abstract rules and play it out.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
So, what happens when one player is one mode (overland 1 hour turn) and the rest of the players are in another (dungeon 1 minute turn)? Do you let the dungeon players get 60 turns while the overland player gets 1 turn?



If one player is scouting aboveground while the others are exploring a dungeon, I don't see any reason why the scouting player would ever get as much spotlight time as the other players.  Presumably he understood that 'walking around in a forest' is much less exciting than 'delving deep underground to face forgotten monsters' when he chose to do that.



But what if it's not a choice? Imagine that the Ranger goes out to scout the valley they entered last night in the rainstorm, while the Cleric and Fighter stay behind in the cave they found. Half-way during the Ranger's 1 hour turn, the Cleric decides to explore the cave. He inadvertedly triggers an encounter with a Dire Bat who knocks him unconscious. The Fighter decides to escape rather than fight the Dire Bat.

In this example, the Ranger was on Exploration mode when this started, then the Fighter entered Exploration mode when the dungeon mode turned too deadly, and the Cleric is still on dungeon time, vulnerable to a wandering monster. Unless the Cleric and Fighter were counting the turns in dungeon time since the Ranger left, you don't have an exact measurement of time to know how many 1-minute turns have passed since the Ranger went into Exploration time.

What's more, once the Fighter and Ranger reunite, it will be important to know how many minutes it will take in their 1-hour turn to get back, as the Cleric is measuring his safety in 1-minute turns, and things like poison or bleeding might make it relevant. Getting back in 40 minutes instead of 1 hour could save the Cleric.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

I like it.
Although I usually don´t use such rules, I believe this system does help making the game more than some tabletop wargame.
I especially like:
- charisma checks don´t mind control enemies, but can push them to do something they would not do to most people.
- green dragons making it more easy to get lost in his forest. (Yes, you could just fluff it out, but there is no harm in increasing the DC to get lost by some points)
- Rangers getting the ability not to get lost (like the guide background in the current packet) and other characters maybe getting out of combat abilities too... which means, their stance about classes only getting combat abilitites may have shifted somewhat.

All in all, I expected a new packet today... and I am a bit disappointed to hear, that it really does not seem around the corner. Well... maybe next week.


All in all, I expected a new packet today... and I am a bit disappointed to hear, that it really does not seem around the corner. Well... maybe next week.





At the very least at least we're getting acknowledgement that people want a new packet soon. He did mention that they're still working on implementing sub-classes which makes that sound like there'll be a lot of them or that they're being really well thought out or both. Hopefully once they're done we'll get a surprise packet.
I have sort of mixed feelings about the exploration rules. I think that it's a mistake to treat different pillars more similarly than actually makes sense in terms of what kind of support they need. The three pillars are fundamentally different. They're not recontextualized versions of the same thing. I don't think that Mike actually believes the terrifyingly misguided notion that More Rules = More Importance In The Game, but I don't know if exploration needs to be more combat-like.

I do like the interaction framework as a way of thinking about interaction, though. It's pretty solid. I'm also glad that the formal interaction rules that exist are more about making a good or bad go of it within the context of an NPC's basic manner and the things that they like or don't like, rather than charisma-blasting them into helpfulness.

As a side note, I do think that part of taking the interaction and exploration pillars seriously as challenges is making sure that it's not too easy to circumvent them... even with magic. I do think that magic should have plenty of interactions with interaction and exploration, but ideally they should be interactions with those pillars, not circumventions of them. Disguise Self, for example, is a great interaction spell. It opens up lots of new options for tacks to take with interaction, provides ways to prey on the sorts of hopes and fears that an NPC might have (as mentioned in the L&L), and has a variety of interesting failure modes. It interacts with interaction and makes it more interesting. (While still being potent enough at that in the correct circumstances that it can be worth trading a limited-use resource for.) Charm Person is much less interesting interaction spell; when it works, it's boring. It can be in the game if it really has to be, but I'd rather see new material look to Disguise Self for inspiration, rather than Charm Person. It circumvents interaction a lot of the time, making things generally less interesting.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
So, what happens when one player is one mode (overland 1 hour turn) and the rest of the players are in another (dungeon 1 minute turn)? Do you let the dungeon players get 60 turns while the overland player gets 1 turn?



If one player is scouting aboveground while the others are exploring a dungeon, I don't see any reason why the scouting player would ever get as much spotlight time as the other players.  Presumably he understood that 'walking around in a forest' is much less exciting than 'delving deep underground to face forgotten monsters' when he chose to do that.



But what if it's not a choice? Imagine that the Ranger goes out to scout the valley they entered last night in the rainstorm, while the Cleric and Fighter stay behind in the cave they found. Half-way during the Ranger's 1 hour turn, the Cleric decides to explore the cave. He inadvertedly triggers an encounter with a Dire Bat who knocks him unconscious. The Fighter decides to escape rather than fight the Dire Bat.

In this example, the Ranger was on Exploration mode when this started, then the Fighter entered Exploration mode when the dungeon mode turned too deadly, and the Cleric is still on dungeon time, vulnerable to a wandering monster. Unless the Cleric and Fighter were counting the turns in dungeon time since the Ranger left, you don't have an exact measurement of time to know how many 1-minute turns have passed since the Ranger went into Exploration time.

What's more, once the Fighter and Ranger reunite, it will be important to know how many minutes it will take in their 1-hour turn to get back, as the Cleric is measuring his safety in 1-minute turns, and things like poison or bleeding might make it relevant. Getting back in 40 minutes instead of 1 hour could save the Cleric.




I really don't see a problem with this.


The issue is that the party is splitting and doing things that take vastly different amounts of time.  If the party wizard is researching a spell (let's say it takes a week) and the fighter gets bored and starts a bar fight, would you expect to go back to the wizard mid-fight?

The simple fact is that if players are doing things that take different amounts of time to perform in-game, they will end up getting different amounts of spotlight time.  Players need to not be jerks about that fact by trying to do things that need a finer tooth comb during the more lengthy activity of another player.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
As long as Bluff and Diplomacy aren't broken, I have a hard time believing this excites anybody or is high on their list of priorities.


Actually, the possibility of playing D&D as a noncombat game does excite me. Likewise there are places, such as urban areas, where violence is inappropriate. So conflict resolution - outside of "kill everything" - is an appealing part of the game.

Nonviolence includes concepts such as forcing surrender, restraining, arresting, and so on.  




Was there an edition of D&D that didn't allow a non-combat game? (and don't even say 4E as it had the most exploration and interaction rules in all the editions)...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
The D&D combat system is robust, taking decades to evolve. I feel noncombat challenges can benefit from using a similar system.

Instead of having "hit points" to overcome, especially difficult challenges might have "success points".

Typically, a "good idea" involving an improvised skill check might deal 1d8 success points. And so on.

Simple skill challenges simply have 1 success point. And any success can overcome them. But complex challenges might require a concerted action of skill checks.

As always, an idea that seems to guarantee success should automatically succeed without a roll.          



Sorry I copyrighted this system months ago in Aetherianica...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
WOOT INTERACTION!!


Seems interesting.
So if the PC does involve a NPC trait

Friendly


  • Success: Lots of aid

  • Failure: A little aid


Neutral


  • Success: Some aid

  • Failure: Some harm



Hostile


  • Success: A little aid

  • Failure: A lot of harm


Then only involving one of the NPC's traits could the PC alter the NPC's attitude.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!


The issue is that the party is splitting and doing things that take vastly different amounts of time.  If the party wizard is researching a spell (let's say it takes a week) and the fighter gets bored and starts a bar fight, would you expect to go back to the wizard mid-fight?

The simple fact is that if players are doing things that take different amounts of time to perform in-game, they will end up getting different amounts of spotlight time.  Players need to not be jerks about that fact by trying to do things that need a finer tooth comb during the more lengthy activity of another player.



I don't understand the disconnect.

When I'm speaking, I'm talking about important times in a D&D game where PCs need to act in unison, but their turns have a wide difference in time between them. When you're speaking, you're talking about players causing troubles and people being selfish. 

Can you at least consider that having different time lengths for turns might make it hard to adjudicate situations?     

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

I wish 5E had Monte Cook to guide it still. It may not have ended being the best game out there, but it would be better than the mess we currently have.

Stop the H4TE


I don't understand the disconnect.

When I'm speaking, I'm talking about important times in a D&D game where PCs need to act in unison, but their turns have a wide difference in time between them. When you're speaking, you're talking about players causing troubles and people being selfish. 

Can you at least consider that having different time lengths for turns might make it hard to adjudicate situations?     




There is no point at whic h having different time lengths for turns should come up in this context, is what I'm saying.


If at any point, one player is exploring and another is dungeoning, your problem is not that their turns are of different length.


Secondarily:  No, I don't see how that is ever a problem.  Should it be relevant exactly how many minutes have passed while guy A is dungeoning and guy B is exploring, simply play out guy A's dungeon turns, then count them.  Advance the game clock one smaller unit at a time.  Yes, this will result in uneven spotlight time.  That is a fundamental problem that will always occur whenever players are doing things that take different lengths of time to perform.  The issue here is not that exploration and dungeoning use turns of different length.  The issue here is that both are being performed simultaneously at all.

If they are going to be performed simultaneously, players should be aware that this will necessarily involve lopsided spotlight time.  This is a fundamental fact of all TTRPGs that cannot be altered in any system that uses exactly one GM; some tasks require more attention from the GM than others.  If the players are not ok with that, they shouldn't be simultaneously doing tasks of differing granulatiry.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
WOOT INTERACTION!!


Seems interesting.
So if the PC does involve a NPC trait

Friendly


  • Success: Lots of aid

  • Failure: A little aid


Neutral


  • Success: Some aid

  • Failure: Some harm



Hostile


  • Success: A little aid

  • Failure: A lot of harm


Then only involving one of the NPCs could the PC alter the NPC's attitude.




Yeah it looks good to me and you can see how roleplaying can adjust these a little more.  It also looks easy to add in partial successes and failures where you only just scrape by or lose by a few points, which could be less severe than a total failure.

This stuff sounds interesting. Also i'd like Interactions to offer some guidelines to run series of checks in the fullfillment of a task, similar to Skill Challenges in 4E. If anything like Explorations rules, i am ready to be be taken by surprise as i really like them. So i definitly looking forward to see what this is like...

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Have some of yall never played DND before? Reaction Tables for NPCs have been around over thirty years. There are no new ideas in this article. Why are people acting like there are?
It is a tweaked reaction table and it may be a bit more in depth than hostile/friendly/indifferent.

 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Have some of yall never played DND before? Reaction Tables for NPCs have been around over thirty years. There are no new ideas in this article. Why are people acting like there are?



Because many groups ignored them, newer editions didn't use them, and many players found it or the replacements unsatisfactory.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

But now they like it? Is that what u are saying?
It is a tweaked reaction table and it may be a bit more in depth than hostile/friendly/indifferent.

 



Yeah...no. There is no tweak, he just describes a reaction table. And ability checks have been around since at least Oriental Adventures. Based on what I am seeing here, I am expecting gasps of awe when Mearls gives out ship speeds.
Its new and shiny though. I'm waiting to see them before making a judgement.

 Yeah Frosof we had an arguement the other day about henchmen using TSR era charisma scores. I think the d20 era players were shocked when I told them RAW a level 9 Paladin with 17 cha could have 10 level 8 henchmen that were loyal and with high morale. Charisma being a dump stat if you're not a class that requires it in 3rd and 4th ed. Reaction and loyalty tables are nothing new so looks like they're trying to recycle TSR era playstyle in some ways. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I love reaction tables, I even made some for my 4e games. I am not dissing the rules, I just thought the response was peculiar.

 Same its not like this is new and even exploration rules are nothing new. Original Isle of Dread IIRC and more recently Paizo's kingmaker. Never really knew we needed to many rules for that sort of thing. And where are you going to get hexes from these days? I have hexographer myself but I'm weird in that way. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer