>Yes, I AM too uncreative to determine how creatures react!>My game is just wacky chaos, sure, when you meet the demon I'll roll a 2 and that means he's your best friend and offers you in for tea!>Yes, I'm too dumb to determine when creatures will run away! You killed the orc leader and this time all the minions run away, but next time they all fight to the death just because? Sounds like a good game to me!No wonder modern D&D mocks you guys.
You don't need to make a thread to prove you're a whiny bitch. We already knew, I assure you.
>Your 6 party members, weapons drawn and dripping with the blood of the bandits, open the door and see the Bandit Chief sitting at a desk>*rolls reaction roll*, gets a 2>The Chief says "Oh hello my friends, what brings you to my hidden base? Would you like some treasure? I'm feeling very friendly today."The OSR Experience.
>>97462381>he doesn't know how to interpret dice rollsHow are you even here retard? Go watch paint drying or something of that level of mental capacity instead.
>>97462381>reaction roll of 2 is positivelmao, get a load of this guy who thinks 2e is OSR
>>97462290you are 60 year old go retire to your grave
>>97462290osr is simply more fun. sorry!
>>97462290>you hit the orc leader with your sword this turn, but next time you miss just because?Wow, you're right. What a shit game. Too uncreative to determine something as basic as how creatures fight.
>>97462290Morale is a mechanic sorely missed in modern D&D.Reaction rolls are rolled only when the reaction is not obvious.
>>97462290Too hard for you huh?
>>97466467>Too hard for you huh?
>>974671283.5 is NOT OSRit is the edition that caused the OSR to begin in the first place.
While I think your thread is dogshit I do hate OSR cultists, they're so performative but when I get into a game with them they just turn into narrativests every time.
>>97467937Nono, 3.5 is osr now. The new general allows it. Pathfinder too.
I actually INSIST my fat 60 year old greybeard DM use reaction rolls and that he roll them in the open.Grogs are surprisingly stupid given their 'hardcore' wanna-be image; you'd think they're STEM types. They're not. They're 105 IQ midwits simply with opposite political beliefs as 105 IQ reddit midwits. Their stupidity means they don't realize there's only a 1 in 36 chance monsters automatically attack using the B/X reaction table. I can't stress enough how midwits (both Reddit and MAGA) don't have any intuitive feel for Gaussian distributions. They can play D&D for 50 years but still think the odds of getting 17 on 3d6 is some fuzzy-headed "I dunno, only 1 less" than getting 18 on 3d6.So fine, monsters only attack 1 in 36. My party swaggers into the Caves of Chaos with virtually no chance of being attacked. The monsters are more likely to befriend us and we ask them to help us gang up on the others. Within an hour we're openly marching down the ravine like a Pied Piper trailing orcs, goblins, and bugbears who are now our friends thanks to positive reactions rolls mindlessly obeyed by Ol' Groggie. Play OSR everyone, very deadly!
Is there any OSR game that tells you to always roll for reaction? I'm pretty sure pretty much every game only provides the reaction table for situations where the NPC reaction isn't obvious.
>>97462381Surely a positive reaction in this situation would be contextual? The Bandif Chief is willing to negotiate or surrender when he sees that the party has slaughtered his underlings. Perhaps he offers the party some hidden treasure in return for letting him leave, or maybe even tries to recruit them for a job he's planning since they've proven they're capable.
>>97462290Better than modern D&D where every creature will fight to the death every time because that's how it works in video games and the DM can't fathom things being any different.
>>97462290A demon randomly offering tea or polite bandit is perfectly in line with modern D&D, so I'm not sure what is your problem, OP.See BG3 and critical role to see how D&D5e is played outside of this shithole.
Aren't reaction rolls an optional step, only used for when the GM isn't sure of the NPC or monsters outlook?
:^)
>>97468690>>97469224Stop bothering this man with facts! Can't you see he's busy being asshurt?
>>97469224Yes. It's essentially for neutral ground and all things being equal. The guide had multiple considerations and pages for encounters like alignment, location , intelligence of all involved, charisma... (role-play as opposed nuD&D self-insertion). The bizarre thing about OP, is nuplayers do the high roll - auto win thing. They are not able to handle things fundamental to the game like alignment or consequences, so DMs will have highly intelligent and cunning creatures do the bidding of the party "for the story". No, a hag isn't going to eat that cupcake you pulled from your pocket. She'll know something is amiss. That Nat20 will do you no good, theater kid.
>>97469863Yeah, this. OP is essentially criticizing the OSR for MUH NATTY TWENNY!!! behavior, which is wild, totally backwards.
>>97470169>Yeah, this. OP is essentially criticizing the OSR for MUH NATTY TWENNY!!! behavior, which is wild, totally backwards.Huh?? It's the exact opposite. The OSR reaction table says a monster has a 1 in 36 chance to attack assuming the party adopts a neutral or friendly stance. It's 35/36 the monster won't attack. It's not "muh natty 20" it's "muh natty 1 to 19". And we're constantly being told OSR is the dangerous version of D&D, lol.
>>97470405that's not at all what it means. monsters can have hostile dispositions will attack on 2-8
>>97469345>uncertain, monster confused>16/36 chance
>>97462381or just make him guaranteed hostile and don't roll on tables meant for random encounters, retard.
>>97467128So that’s a yes, thanks for confirming it’s too hard for you.
>>97469345>1/36 chance of enthusiastic friendship with the demon you encounteredHeckin wholesome
>>97471457>>1/36 chance of enthusiastic friendship with the demon you encountered>Heckin wholesomeApu meets Asmodeus, rolls a nice 5 on 2d6, invited into home for tea and cookies
>>97462290>Yes I AM too uncreative to determine how creatures react! Roll for diplomacy!>My game is just wacky chaos, sure, when you meet the demon you'll roll a natty 20 and that means he's your best friend and offers you his non-binary asshole!>Yes, I'm too dumb to determine when creatures will run away! They never run away, even though you have infinite power and can literally not be killed because there are no rules for morale and as a modern player I fear anything not in the rulebook.
>>97468014>Pathfinder is OSR
>>97469345>>97470405>>97471399>>97471457>The DM can always choose the monster's reactions to fit the dungeon.
>>97471581there is a handful of retards on this board who for some obscure reason hate it when 2e is called OSR (despite literally being compatible with older editions)since it's purely emotional and not reason-based they could never provide any convincing testimony implying that saying 2e is OSR would lead to people saying 3e is OSR is the latest somersault in their endless tumbling of mental gymnasticsor something like that
>>97471764>there is a handful of retards on this board who for some obscure reason hate it when 2e is called OSRI'm expert on B/X thru 2e. While I never played 3e onward, I'm very familiar with the basic differences. 2e is virtually identical with 1e. Almost all the rule changes are cosmetic (ooh, they changed the names of devils and demons!). 2e wizards still are restricted to daggers and slings, clerics use blunt weapons, etc. Niche preservation is just as strong in 2e as 1e. 3e is when there was full-blown descent into faggotry.The main reason 2e isn't seen as OSR by morons who never played it is1) it introduced all the settings like Planescape, DragonLance, Dark Sun, etc. and trannies somehow equate this with railroad storygaming. Yes, DragonLance was very gay. It was an isolated setting that didn't change the core rules.2) the 2e rules had a sheen of professionalism and the first signs of sanding down edges vs. the beautiful Gygaxian verbosity that made you feel like you were reading the Old Testament. Again, superficial changes that don't alter how the rules were nearly identical.
>>97471862>2e is virtually identical with 1e.While I am not a rabid 2e hater like many OSRfags, 2e is philosophically closer to late 1e and 3.0 due to a general switch of priorities and an emphasis on the "story" as something you write instead of something that you build along the way, which in turn is a cancer to D&D to this day.
>>97471457The Balor will be friendly like a Demon is able to do.Which can be fun and still very dangerous.
>>97471951>The Balor will be friendly like a Demon is able to do.Unironically the official 5.5e Beholder art.
>>97471966Not in that sense, please. Let's try an example with a devil instead - perhaps the devil will feel creative with contracts today.Or a given faction will believe your fighter has been sent by the Black Eagle Baron to help them.
>>97471862what makes it even better is that Dragonlance was originally written and published for 1e
>>97471966On Twitter someone posted this with the 1e beholder stat block and something like "one of the beholder eye stalks can cast Dominate, and clearly he used it to dominate everyone in this town to become a faggot and force them to fuck for his amusement. His alignment is Neutral Evil so by definition he is forcing them to act evilly."
>>97462294You posted an image of someone doing the 'approve my opinion' emote, probably representing yourself, begging for the agreement of other anons. My opinion is that (you) are perhaps as much, if not more of a fag as OP.
>enter the demesne of the White Witch>she offers you candyMOOOOOM HES PLAYING D&D WRONG AGAIIN
>>97468680>1 in 36These are not the chances for two dice.
>>97474918Are you unfamiliar with OSR rules or dice odds?
>>97474918>These are not the chances for two dice.Do we actually have a female poster here??
Wearing a blazer with a graphic tee is cringe
>>97466070>Morale is a mechanic sorely missed in modern D&D.It's strange how it disappeared in 3e. You can't blame 5e fruitcakes. Yeah yeah, I know morale is still in every edition as an optional rule buried on page 400 of the DMG with one paragraph. Starting in 3e morale was no longer in the Monster Manual stat blocks, which effectively eliminated it from the game.Why the fuck did they do that other than 3e was already "monsters are meant to be fought to the death, bro?" The only other possibility was "muh story-gaming, muh DM will decide when they run to produce the best story." I'd buy that by 5e, but 3e was created long before woke bipolar types were the designers. If morale should be a function of DM fiat, then so should monster attack rolls.
>>97475182It's funny to see the rpg.net trannie jannies literally calling morale a rule for fascist old white male wargamer nerds.https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/does-anyone-know-why-d-d-dumped-morale.867179/
>>97475182Buried? Nope.
>>97475194>here is a link to an entire 8 page thread that's the first time I visited that place and I figured how to link a specific post in literally 3 secondsI'm not reading 8 pages of blabbering by randoms on the internetLink the post or gtfo
>>97475194pg.net is notoriously incapable to understand how both OGL and OSR D&D work.
>>97462290>look at me I'm so cool for mocking those guysKill yourself tranny.
>>97475276>that's the first time I visited that place and I figured how to link a specific post in literally 3 secondsThe humor isn't a single post, midwit. It's the holistic, cumulative effect of 40 different pedos all trying to outdo each other explaining why morale is right-wing and how they hate it more than the previous poster.
>>97475194>As I've said before (and komradebob notes above), taking prisoners and having enemies flee was, too often, a bad and unfun and icky thing. Having enemies flee and alert nearby monsters made things harder for the party, and dealing with prisoners was a hassle -- and of course, there was the unanswerable moral question of "Can we kill surrendered enemies if we know they're inherently chaotic evil and will try to shiv us the moment we turn our backs?" Old school Trumpsters don't worry about such things.>Enemies that run away are inconvenient. They tend to look for help, first of all, and because that's logical DMs were inclined to keep NPCs that the players didn't kill and roll them into the next encounter. So if you had a dungeon with 5 encounters of 10 kobolds each and they automatically break after 50% losses, then the first encounter has 10 kobolds, the second has 15, the third has 17, the fourth has 18, and the 5th has 19. And that's if the DM doesn't decide that the first has 10 and the second has 45, which, while quite realistic, is also super deadly.>While a rout is probably exhilarating in real life, in a combat-based game it feels like you got cheated. It feels like either the NPCs ran too quickly, or that the DM overloaded the encounter with the expectation that the NPCs would run very quickly. Again, this doesn't feel fun, and it rewards a style of play (hitting very fast and very hard) that means some characters don't have a lot to do.
>>97475413you have way too much free time on your hands and not a lot of purpose in your life
>>97473045>For one night only, fresh from the court of Sultan Al-Jebrah, Eddie the Eyeball and his Pastel Players.
>>97475182>3e was already "monsters are meant to be fought to the death, bro?"It became Will saves
>>97475495>I am an RPGnet poster
>>97475474>I started with the red box, and played and DMed every edition until 4th, and never once used morale. Ditto reactions. We were 100% on the heroic narrative train from the start, and rolling for those made no sense to us. Opponents still fled or were captured sometimes, or surrendered. When the DM decided that made a good story.Also, almost every poster in that thread has "20 year hero" in their avatar, so they're real RPG players unlike /tg/ tourists.
>>97475626>Also, almost every poster in that thread has "20 year hero" in their avatar, so they're real RPG players unlike /tg/ tourists.kek
>>97475474>when I was a child 40 years ago we played the game wrong and liked it! >no I haven't played a game since thenThese gen X faggots are worse than any grognard stereotype. Keep their seething in their containment website.
>>97475474Modern Critical Role freakshit enthusiast with a 50 page backstory:>Waaaaah, combat takes too long and I don't like it anyway it's too violent and I wanna just cosplay as a Magickal College barista!>Hmm, ok, well here are some rules that will greatly help that, Morale and Reaction Rolls. Now it's explicitly baked in that monsters don't automatically fight to the death if it's not in their best interest, there are a lot more opportunities to role play alliances, bribery, intimidation, trickery, etc. And combats are a lot more strategic and faster since you can usually win by breaking morale rather than killing everyone. No more spending 20 minutes cleaning up the orc minions after their wizard is dea-->NOOOOOO I read on r/DnD that morale and reaction rolls are OSR and RIGHT-WING and Gary MISOGYNIST Gygax I won't do it I won't do it I won't do it!!!The state of 5.5e.
As GM I could I just decide what everything does but it's fun to randomise. If a result seems uncharacteristic it's fun to think of a reason that justifies it. Fun fun fun.
