Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8145386" data-attributes="member: 42582">I largely agree with this. I was talking about the design of classic D&D (basically everything up through Moldvay  Basic) which doesn't have skills other than thief ones.But it does have the Reaction Table. So if you get a lucky roll and/or a CHA bonus, you can meet an ogre and have it be friendly, or at least not attack (What you people doing in this dungeon?) without having to use spells. Of course spells can push the situation in the players' favour - but that's their main point in classic D&D. They're rationed "hero points" given an in-fiction rationale.Yes, I think this is broadly consistent with what I posted. Probably the most obvious way to oblige the GM to roll on the table is to initiate a parley, as you say. That can be looked at as a type of action declaration with the prospect of triggering a reframing. The CHA mod helps ensure that that reframing runs the PCs' way.The role in loyalty and hiring processes also sits on that framing/action declaration interface. This is a point where I think Traveller is just clearer. From Book 3 (1977), p 23:Reaction throws are made once, upon initial encounter. . . . Reactions are used by the referee and by players as a guide to the probable actions of individuals. They may be used to determine the response of a person to business offers or deals (often Admin or Bribery expertise will be used as a DM in such cases). Reactions govern the reliability and quality of hirelings and employees. Generally, they would re-roll reactions in the face of extremely bad treatment or unusually dangerous tasks.Moldvay Basic, by way of contrast, has this (p B24; p B23 has the reaction roll as Step 6 of the Order of Events in One Game Turn):Some monsters always act in the same way (such a zombies, who always attack). However, the reactions of most monsters are not always the same. The DM can always choose the monster's reactions to fit the dungeon, but if he decides not to do this, a DM may use the reaction table below to determine the monster's reactions . . .There is no discussion of re-checks or ad hoc modifications; that is illustrated in the example of play.The Traveller presentation (I think) more naturally suggests extension to a resolution process. It talks about the initial encounter but goes on to talk about responding to offers (and this is reinforced in the Bribery skill description). It's not as tight as (say) AW's seduce or manipulate move. Even the Traveller descriptors on its table are more easily applicable to a wider range of circumstances (beyond encounters in a dungeon).I think I agree with this too. I don't have much experience with 3E, and have never tried to analyse it in detail. I do know that the maths for diplomacy is broken, and there seems to be no theory/process for using it that goes anywhere beyond Moldvay's example in his Basic rules of the PCs encountering the hobgoblins.Part of what makes the Moldvay reaction table work is that the CHA bonus is capped at +2 on a 2d6 roll; and Moldvay's example of play shows a GM adding in an ad hoc +1 for a friendly greeting. Classic Traveller is similar: it's a 2d6 rolls with no in-principle limits on adjustments but in practice unlikely to have anyone with more than +4 from skills. (I would add: the existence of CHA in Moldvay tends to crowd out the room for skill-based mods as well. Traveller doesn't have anything like a CHA ability - skills like Admin and Leadership and Carousing and Liaison fill this space.)Whereas 3E Diplomacy is set up broadly like a reaction table, with DCs to shift a starting attitude to a better attitude (and a small risk of worsening the attitude as a result), but nothing in the game design that puts a bound on the maths.Yep. I wrote the paragraph above before adding in your second post (quoted just now).</blockquote>

Verification