A Question Of Agency?

[prabe]

Humble, friendly suggestion.

If you don't feel like you're teaching, learning, or otherwise enjoying the exchanges, then something has to change (only you can know what that is - it would be unfortunate if that would mean avoiding our conversations...but if its grief all the way down then that is a reasonable course of action).

But my thought above was just a little anecdote-sniffing/data collection from you guys. Nothing more.

I feel I am learning as I read (figuring out why I disagree with someone helps me learn as much as figuring out why I agree with someone) but I often do not feel I am understood (which is as likely to be on my end as anyone else's). It's why I've been monitoring the thread but not chiming in for ... some number of pages.

 

[Manbearcat]

It doesn't need to be LARP influenced. There are some branches of OSR which pretty much have identical views.

Yup, absolutely (and agreed).

I was just curious how pervasive LARP is in all of this (of the approximately 200 TTRPGers I've known in my real life, I would say about 1/5 hold these views and their Venn Diagram has significant overlap with LARPing and OSR sensibilities).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, 4e, viewed in a certain light at least, seemed almost brilliant to me. Still, it left much territory where it could have been improved greatly. Lot of us kind of see 5e as the lump of coal we got in our stocking instead of an exploration of that... lol.

4e was a very well made game with design principles that I do not share.

 

[Manbearcat]

Another question for @Lanefan , @prabe , @Thomas Shey , and @Crimson Longinus (I'm confident I know Thomas' answer, but perhaps not). 5e's orthodox handling of starting Monster/NPC Attitude is "GM Decides." How do you guys feel about Monster/NPC Reactions as in Moldvay et al? Do you:

• often roll Monster/NPC Reaction
• sometimes roll

...and if/when you roll, do you:

• consult table and always run with result (therefore having to often post-hoc justify a behavior)
• sometimes ignore results you don't think "fit" and frame Monster/NPC Reaction how you feel "fits"
• rarely ignore results (etc)

 

[prabe]

Another question for @Lanefan , @prabe , @Thomas Shey , and @Crimson Longinus (I'm confident I know Thomas' answer, but perhaps not). 5e's orthodox handling of starting Monster/NPC Attitude is "GM Decides." How do you guys feel about Monster/NPC Reactions as in Moldvay et al? Do you:

• often roll Monster/NPC Reaction
• sometimes roll

I never roll for attitude/reaction. I decide when I place the encounter, either in my notes or in a list of potential encounters (which I roll to see what comes up). I might decide to have an encounter with more than one possible starting attitude, in which case I'd work out how to determine that and then do it if/when it came up.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Manbearcat

There was a reaction table?

( I really do not remember how things were handled in ancient editions of D&D, except that kobolds were dog people instead of dragon people.
That I kept.)

Unlikely that I would roll. The creature/NPC exists in some specific context and that informs what their attitude is, not the dice. I mean I guess if I'm somehow out of ideas, I might roll for inspiration, but I certainly wouldn't feel beholden to such a roll.

 

[Manbearcat]

I feel I am learning as I read (figuring out why I disagree with someone helps me learn as much as figuring out why I agree with someone) but I often do not feel I am understood (which is as likely to be on my end as anyone else's). It's why I've been monitoring the thread but not chiming in for ... some number of pages.

@Manbearcat

There was a reaction table?

( I really do not remember how things were handled in ancient editions of D&D, except that kobolds were dog people instead of dragon people.
That I kept.)

Unlikely that I would roll. The creature/NPC exists in some specific context and that informs what their attitude is, not the dice. I mean I guess if I'm somehow out of ideas, I might roll for inspiration, but I certainly wouldn't feel beholden to such a roll.

Yup. Moldvay Basic, Expert, RC had a 2d6 table with 5 possibilities. 1e had a Percentile table with 7 possibilities.

Did you play any of these editions or did you start with 2e?

Is it your sense that the Moldvay Basic/Expert/RC and 1e procedure is apt to create situations where NPC responses are incoherent?

 

[Manbearcat]

I never roll for attitude/reaction. I decide when I place the encounter, either in my notes or in a list of potential encounters (which I roll to see what comes up). I might decide to have an encounter with more than one possible starting attitude, in which case I'd work out how to determine that and then do it if/when it came up.

Same question I posed above to Crimson Longinus:

Did you play any of these editions or did you start with 2e?

Is it your sense that the Moldvay Basic/Expert/RC and 1e procedure is apt to create situations where NPC responses are incoherent?

 

[Lanefan]

It doesn't need to be LARP influenced. There are some branches of OSR which pretty much have identical views.

True, but it's easy to see how LARP could be an influence. Doesn't mean it's the only one...

 

[prabe]

Same question I posed above to Crimson Longinus:

Did you play any of these editions or did you start with 2e?

Is it your sense that the Moldvay Basic/Expert/RC and 1e procedure is apt to create situations where NPC responses are incoherent?

I played a very little Basic (which version I couldn't tell you). I played a bunch of 1E, but heavily houseruled. I DMed a little 1E, but not much. I never interacted much with 2E, though I have a few books. I DMed a lot of 3E, and some 3E-adjacent games. I missed 4E entirely (no one I knew played it).

I'd have to look at the systems in question to feel really certain about this answer, but I think I feel that random reactions/attitudes are most-suited to a randomly-generated adventure--something entirely procedural. If something has been placed, I think I think the DM should know its attitude and how it will react. So, yes, I think the results might be incoherent in one sense, but I think that if a table were doing something procedurally generated it would at least be consistent with expectations of play.

Hope that's clear ...