The prolific Dice Goblin wrote about 2-tiered reaction rolls, which, like is cool, but it was a bit clunky for me. What I like: It gives you a little more that random chance, modified by a little. What I don’t like: Confusing. But, like, could it just be a matrix, though?

Our prototypical reaction roll, remembering Charisma modifies the reaction roll in OSE, and there’s a decent chance of you getting a +1:

So here, there’s almost no chance of getting a straight attack. This is kind of the problem Dice Problem is thinking of: Context should matter. Now, the first thing I’d say is: If there’s an obvious context, you could just overrule the reaction roll, or not make one. But, ret-conning (so to speak) as a referee those results is part of the fun. My 2d6 friendly goblins in their lair during a war with the bugbears being friendly means they’re retreating and looking for allies, or perhaps are cowards. More interesting situation! But if we work it into the roll itself, it could be simpler than Dice Goblin. Like this.

Adding the usual modifiers, for Charisma or for factors that might affect the disposition of the NPCs towards the PCs, like drawn swords, clear benefits, or unsavoury reputation.

Now, there’s a problem with this matrix, though, I realise now. It’s that it’s not strictly necessary, except as an exercise in “I can make this simpler”. Actually what this is, is the original reaction roll, but with the following rules applied:

Change the tier or your reaction roll based on the situation the NPCs are in:

• -2 tiers if they are in a high danger situation already
• -1 tier if they are guarding their territory
• 0 tier if they are on watch or in unfamiliar teritory
• +1 tier if they are in familiar territory
• +2 tiers if they are both in familiar territory and the PCs are familiar faces

These rules are basically what many referees are already doing, it’s just not written down. It’s pretty good to write it down. The main thing I might have wrong, though, is whether these are the right situations in the right order. What do you think?

Anyway Dice Goblin goes in to add in how you can continuously make reaction rolls to change dispositions, based on Nick’s system, which I don’t really like too much. I’d prefer if we went in that direction, to go the full Errant social rules, which I think are exceptional, but they need to be learnt, and I prefer rules to basically disappear for my style of play. However, there’s the old rule (I think from “On the Non-Player Character“) where half your reaction roll is the number of conversational turns they’ll put up with you talking to them. I really like this rule, it just doesn’t quite work once you add this tiered approach. Instead, you need to attach that number directly to the result, which is clumsier, sadly.

I’ve also added expected behaviour here, once your exchange is up. Friendly people will just go back to what they’re doing, probably politely. Most of the time, you’ll simply be thrown out. On a 1-2, they’ll spend your time talking positioning themselves for an advantage in the coming fight.

Anyway, these are my thoughts.

Idle Cartulary

Playful Void is a production of Idle Cartulary. If you liked this article, please consider liking, sharing, and subscribing to the Idle Digest Newsletter. If you want to support Idle Cartulary continuing to provide Bathtub Reviews, I Read Reviews, and Dungeon Regular, please consider a one-off donation or becoming a regular supporter of Idle Cartulary on Ko-fi.