Moldvay Musings XIII: Reactions

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

-Newton's Third Law                           

Sorry, Isaac. Not necessarily in D&D.

Like morale, reactions rolls have also faded from the later editions of the glorious mess that is Dungeons & Dragons. Sure, there are skills and such that allow for things like diplomacy and bluffing, but I am not a fan of too many defined skills in D&D. It's fine in games that were designed from the start for them -Runequest/BRP springs to mind- but they as much a hindrance as a benefit in old-school play (whatever that means). 

Back on topic, the encounter reaction rules in versions like BX are incredibly simple. Other than the Charisma adjustments table, they are one paragraph of text and one 2d6 table of five possible results (B24). The rules simply state that while some monsters will nearly always behave in the same way (e.g. mindless undead attacking), it is possible for some creatures' actions to vary.  

I've covered a bit about hirelings in an earlier post, so I'm mostly sticking to the encounter mechanics here. Suffice to say, the retainer reaction rolls (B21) help add a layer of detail to an integral part of the BX-style game. Adventuring parties were assumed to include meatshields and the like. Uncharismatic PCs, miserly offers of pay, or poor treatment could make life difficult for a party that needs to pad its ranks or flesh out weak spots in its lineup.

As stated in the preceding section on party actions, if they choose to talk, they might influence the monsters' (or NPCs') attitude toward the encounter and, by extension, the PCs. In my games, I interpret "talk" loosely. A common language isn't always required. An offer of food to a predator can be as effective an overture as speaking confidently and calmly to a goblin patrol in their tongue. (Side Note: This can be a case for using alignment languages and making those INT bonus language slots worth something in one's game!)

We didn't deserve you, Steve!

A couple of caveats to consider. One, the DM always has the right to veto making a reaction roll and simply decide how monsters, etc. will act. An elven patrol is unlikely to let the party go after they just burned down the Sacred Oak, no matter how charismatic the PC spokesperson is! 

Two, even if a roll is made, there could be negative modifiers. The goblins mentioned earlier might be fine with avoiding a fight under normal circumstances. However, if the PCs are there to stop their shaman from performing a blood sacrifice that will give them victory over the villagers, the patrol just might be less inclined to believe the party is "just passing through." Even unintelligent creatures can have circumstantial biases. In real life, encountering a bear in the woods will usually not result in an attack (if you aren't stupid about it, that is), but a grizzly sow with cubs can be another matter! Tossing her some iron rations is probably not going to cut it, even for evasion purposes.

I guess what bothers me about this mechanic falling by the wayside is it removed a big incentive for actual roleplay in a dungeon environment, as opposed to just chatting up the tavern wench for -ahem- "rumors." To me, the BX reaction mechanic was an elegant solution that allowed for player agency and a bit of luck.

I confess I don't know much about 5th ed. What little I've played of it didn't seem to lend itself to this, but I could be wrong. 

Moldvay Musings XII: Morale

The morale mechanic has apparently fallen out of favor in later editions of D&D. I could paw through different books and the intertubes to find the exact edition where it went away, but that's not really what I'm interested in talking about. Rather, I'd like to talk a bit about how it is employed in many classic RPGs like B/X and why, in my oh-so-humble opinion, it is a very good thing.

First off, I should mention that the morale rules in Moldvay (B27) are expressly listed as optional. The game can be played without them. In my experience,they add a level of realism and survivability to the game that makes them more than worthwhile. Let's take a quick look at the opening lines of the section:

Any creature in battle may try to run away or surrender. Characters are never forced to do this; a character always reacts in the way the player wishes. NPCs and monsters, however, may decide to run away or surrender.

Two main takeaways to consider here:

1) "Characters react in the way the player wishes." There are things like fear spells and effects (Giant Shrews, anyone?) that can effect a PC, but whether to fight on in the face of dire odds is completely in the hands of the players.

2) "Any creature in battle may try to run away or surrender." This is an element of morale that I don't always remember to apply. I usually just have a creature run away if it fails its roll. That's fine for dumb beasts, but an intelligent creature may throw in the towel (especially is escape looks unlikely).This can lead to fun RP between the victors and the vanquished, not to mention alignment considerations by the players.

Remember how a decent charisma score can be a boon not only when hiring retainers (reaction rolls) but in giving them better morale? Here's a fun one: NPCs could decide to surrender to the bad guys if the PCs are losing a fight (or look like they might lose)! They might even switch sides! Weirdly, a counter-argument for not having all the hirelings just work for the one charismatic PC. If the NPCs are loyal to different PCs, that should mean separate morale rolls, which means it's not all or nothing when checking morale. Some minions might break while others remain. 

I mentioned realism and survivability. It seems perfectly realistic than not every encounter ends up a fight to the death. Sometimes nerves fail. Even a bestial predator may decide the PCs are not such an easy meal and take to its heels. BX gets a rep for being fairly lethal. Using morale in your game means some fights end a little sooner, which means fewer to-hit rolls against the PCs, thus less damage taken and fewer casualties. 

Moldvay Musings VII: Retainers, Mercenaries, and Specialists

A recurring idea in classic D&D that seems to be often overlooked by players is the option of hiring retainers and the like. When one looks at things like older modules, it's obvious that it was expected for the group to bolster their ranks a bit. It's a shame that too often today's players ignore the option. Whether it's a fear of book-keeping, or desire to keep the most treasure and XP for themselves, it often shortchanges the party's odds of survival and let them really get the most out of an expedition. I won't say I've never seen a group use hirelings of some sort or another, but it's far from the norm. 

As I am in the process of trying to start a new BX campaign (or at least run a few adventures), I've been thinking about ways to make features like this easier to introduce and handle at the table.

Retainers:

Retainers are first brought up in Basic (B21), so we'll start here. The idea behind a retainer is that they are an NPC (with a character class) of equal or lower level than the hiring PC. They ostensibly work for an individual PC, or at least that's who hires them. This is where those Charisma modifiers start coming into play. Most people think of sellswords/meatshields as your typical retainer, which is perfectly fair. But think of a spare magic user. Especially if people are low enough level that even one more spell is a significant boost. In a game where starting spells are determined randomly, imagine the demand for that apprentice who lucked out with Sleep. Of course, if one uses house rules like I recently described, unseemly types might see to it that such retainers have a lot of "accidents" and acquire new spells from their grimoires. But that's the sort of thing that would get the party a bad reputation re: hireling survival rates and the well may soon run dry. 

Another possibility with retainers in the party is the idea of instant replacement PCs. If the "main" PC is killed, the player can take over a retainer and still finish the adventure. Once "back in town," they can decide whether to keep playing the retainer or make a new PC. Of course the retainer will have earned some XP already, as opposed to totally new character. 

To make this easier for the players, I plan on A) having a ready stack of NPC characters pregenerated. There is a great BX character generator online one can use. B) I have incorporated locales in the "starter town" with reputations for being good places to find such people for hire. My hope is that once the players have been gently led to the well, they can find their way back as play progresses.

Mercenaries:

Mercenaries come up in the Expert rules (X22) with the focus being mainly on larger, more military roles. ie "Mercenaries are usually hired to guard a stronghold or castle."

While I see no reason that such "troops" couldn't be hired in small numbers for dungeon crawling, their inclusion in the rules seems to be more about the "endgame" where name level characters are manning keeps and fighting battles.

Side Note: 0 level noncombatants (torchbearers, porters, etc.) aren't really discussed in BX, but Barrowmaze's MEATSHIELDS is a nice NPC generator for their basic stats, etc. (LL-based, but quite compatible)

Specialists:

Honestly. What other image did you expect here?

Specialists, as per the Expert rules (X21) are generally hired for tasks, rather than to go on an adventure. Alchemists, Sages, Engineers, and Spies will often have missions or assignments that they complete for a fee. 

The thing I like most about specialists is the idea that there are non-adventurers in the world with sought after skills. It somehow fleshes the world out a little more to know that there are people who can command high fees for their services but may have never fought an orc or robbed a tomb. It sort of defines the adventurers as part of a larger setting. Even specialists like sailors (Seamen) and armorers have distinct skills that sets them apart from a common laborer as well as the sword-wielding warrior.

Specialists also fulfill a purpose for the game in giving the party (and the DM) ways to advance the character's knowledge when they can't answer a question or complete a task on their own. Getting a sage to look over an ancient map or an alchemist to analyze a poison might help further the plot if the players are drawing a blank. It's also a means by which to drain some funds from the party coffers!

In my starter town, I've placed a few specialists including an alchemist and a sage, I plan to make them known to the party very early on. Even if they have no need (or funds) to hire them, they'll at least know they're about. 

All of this is a very roundabout way of saying that these rules are well worth the time to integrate into one's BX game. They can add a lot of depth with not a lot of heavy lifting on the DMs part and continue to demonstrate the reasons I find this system so engaging. 

The BX setting (part 3)

OK, I am wrapping this up. Seriously!

To finish up my musings about settings for a setting representative of the Basic/Expert game, I wanted to touch on just a few more topics: Resources, Risks, and Rewards.

Resources

For me, and many grumpy old-schoolers, managing your resources is no small part of classic D&D play. Heck, I even created products specifically to make it easier to incorporate into tabletop play. Rules like encumbrance, searching times, movement rates, and light source duration all lead to some real cost/benefit decisions being made: Do we take the time to search every room? How many torches did you bring? Do we hire someone to carry our extra stuff?

Now all these sound more game mechanics-related than setting, but bear with me. A BX world is a place where not only do decisions like those above matter, they matter because it's a world where dungeon crawls are a relatively common thing. Ancient labyrinthine ruins, extensive subterranean caves, mysterious catacombs, they practically flourish in a BX world. Of course this is true for many other versions of D&D, too. The point is the characters live in a world where someone, at some point, decided that it was a good idea to carve out an underground lair that looked like this.

There are weird, even zany places in a BX world. Maybe they are ancient ruins or a mad wizard's tower, but those that decide to brave those places prepare for mapping long corridors, regular booby traps, hidden passages, and foul monsters lurking around corners. Which brings us to...

Risks

Whether it's claw, sword, or spell, PCs face most of their risks in combat. The BX world is one where monsters are real and your character is going to have to fight for his life at some point, if not many times. A BX world allows for the possibility of a dragon flying over your head as you travel the King's Road or for a hill giant to be walking down a city street! This is a fantasy world. 

That being said, most of these creatures are monsters, not NPC or PC "playable" races (BtB at least). But "monster' does not always equal "enemy." A decent reaction roll and the appropriate language slot can result in parley or even friendly communication. 

Combat can be de-emphasized and other aspects of play can be focussed upon, but by default at least the threat of violence is deeply ingrained into a D&D setting. What can give this a more "BX feel?" Well, BX is a fairly lethal flavor of D&D. PCs tend to be fragile with their lower hit dice and -by the book- 0 hit points being dead. Even mid to high level PCs can be killed fairly easily, and morale rolls can lead to the better part of valor being exercised by monster and hireling alike. Compare that to some of the later versions of the game and you can easily picture a world where life can be a bit cheap and those that live by the sword are likely to pick their battles carefully as well as try to squeeze every advantage out of a situation. And once the battle is over, they will be sure to get as much of the spoils as possible to offset the risks.

Rewards

XP for GP. That brief statement tells me this is a world where its inhabitants gain influence and become more competent by getting as much as they can for as little risk as possible. It's not the slaying of the monster, it's the treasure it was guarding. A BX world is a place where foul humanoids have piles of loot stolen from victims or looted from old castles they now infest. Half-rotted coin pouches lie among the bones in the lairs of terrifying trolls and gigantic spiders. And that axe of antique design wielded by the bugbear chieftain? It has a +2 enchantment on it. 

This is a world of coin-filled coffers and magic swords. Of scrolls containing mystic spells or treasure maps. Of idols with a single ruby eye the size of a golf ball. Of dragon hoards, staves of power and magical rings. The DM may not wish to flood his world with  magic items but in a BX world, such things exist and even leaving it to the random treasure charts the PCs will encounter at least some of them. 

Assuming the characters live long enough, it's also a world where lowly murder-hobos and would-be heroes might accrue enough wealth, fame, and connections to become lords (and ladies) of the land themselves. It's not a place where everything is 100% fixed sociopolitically. Maybe there are wars, or dynastic struggles, or rebellions and invasions. Maybe there are young nations that are still growing. The point is even if your PC started as a turnip farmer, he could one day be a knight in a keep with a fiefdom of his own to rule.

Wrapping Up

What does all this mean? Have I answered the question? Well, no. probably not. But I don't think that it's a question that can be answered definitively. What I do think I've accomplished is to work through some concepts of what I think a setting should or shouldn't have to be a good fit for Moldvay/Cook. 

And maybe it's done a bit that for you, too.