Having rules for reactions are one of the good things in older versions that were sadly abandoned in 3e+ versions of D&D.
I understand the reasons for omitting it, that DMs shouldn't feel constrained by random rolls for playing out encounters. The problem is that omitting them teaches a more one-sided and uncreative approach to DMing than that 'straightjacketing' of following a table does. It's far easier for a DM to disregard an outcome rolled secretly on a table he feels doesn't make sense than it is for a GM to train himself to consider a range of possible reactions each time an encounter happens. The outcome is often binary: "it attacks / is neutral". It might
Reaction tables is actually an opportunity for a DM to get creative at the table, playing out responses they might not have considered without the prodding from the table.
5e is supposed to be a game with its focus evenly split between combat, exploration and social interaction. While it certainly balances this better than 3e or 4e, it remains a heavily combat oriented game. Re-introducing mechanics from older versions of the game would go a long way towards re-dressing this imbalance.
For example, using gold-for-xp would move the incentive from killing stuff to get xp to finding solutions to get past obstacles like monsters to get the gold on the other side. Having a morale mechanic emphasises that combat can have an afterplay besides killing your enemies. And having a reaction mechanic emphasises the fact that encounters can have a range of outcomes besides combat (emphasis on 'emphasises' - a lot of this is about what certain rules, or lack of rules, encourage, reminds and rewards in terms of style of play).
So here is a simple reaction mechanic for reactions in 5e - and Into the Unknown. It is greatly inspired by the reaction mechanic for B/X - I love the basic structure of the B/X track (basically five options from worst, bad, uncertain, good to best) - and my rules for re-rolls follows the math for rerolls found in the Rules Cyclopedia, which is simple and very sound - 2d6 on five tracks is just a very elegant resolution mechanic.
I added a different track NPCs than monsters - and allow for initial reactions to be influenced to something better (or worse, if you're not doing well on the talking) by charisma checks (meaning the initial reaction is not affected by charisma).
I understand the reasons for omitting it, that DMs shouldn't feel constrained by random rolls for playing out encounters. The problem is that omitting them teaches a more one-sided and uncreative approach to DMing than that 'straightjacketing' of following a table does. It's far easier for a DM to disregard an outcome rolled secretly on a table he feels doesn't make sense than it is for a GM to train himself to consider a range of possible reactions each time an encounter happens. The outcome is often binary: "it attacks / is neutral". It might
Reaction tables is actually an opportunity for a DM to get creative at the table, playing out responses they might not have considered without the prodding from the table.
5e is supposed to be a game with its focus evenly split between combat, exploration and social interaction. While it certainly balances this better than 3e or 4e, it remains a heavily combat oriented game. Re-introducing mechanics from older versions of the game would go a long way towards re-dressing this imbalance.
For example, using gold-for-xp would move the incentive from killing stuff to get xp to finding solutions to get past obstacles like monsters to get the gold on the other side. Having a morale mechanic emphasises that combat can have an afterplay besides killing your enemies. And having a reaction mechanic emphasises the fact that encounters can have a range of outcomes besides combat (emphasis on 'emphasises' - a lot of this is about what certain rules, or lack of rules, encourage, reminds and rewards in terms of style of play).
So here is a simple reaction mechanic for reactions in 5e - and Into the Unknown. It is greatly inspired by the reaction mechanic for B/X - I love the basic structure of the B/X track (basically five options from worst, bad, uncertain, good to best) - and my rules for re-rolls follows the math for rerolls found in the Rules Cyclopedia, which is simple and very sound - 2d6 on five tracks is just a very elegant resolution mechanic.
I added a different track NPCs than monsters - and allow for initial reactions to be influenced to something better (or worse, if you're not doing well on the talking) by charisma checks (meaning the initial reaction is not affected by charisma).
No comments:
Post a Comment