Reaction Roll Redux

The 2d6 reaction roll procedure in B/X is a little half-baked. Here it is as expressed in Old School Essentials:

The referee determines monsters' reaction to the part. Sometimes, circumstances make it obvious how a monster will react. Otherwise, the referee may roll on the table below to determine how a monster reacts to the party.

Charisma: If one specific character attempts to speak with the monsters, that character's NPC reactions modifier due to CHA is used to modify the monster reaction roll.

Monster Reaction Roll

2d6	Result
2 or less	Hostile, attacks
3-5	Unfriendly, may attack
6-8	Neutral, uncertain
9-11	Indifferent, uninterested
12 or more	Friendly, helpful

This is fine if used as a kind of oracle, for the GM to make decisions when one isn't already decided upon. But when I GM, I like to be surprised and challenged by outcomes I don't expect, which I then have to play out. I don't want to resort to this mechanic only when I have no plan; I want to use it often. But if I'm going to do that, it needs some variety, and it needs to model the behavior of different monsters. That's what a rework of the reaction roll ought to do.

Shout-out to Leon Atkinson's similar work

Before I proceed, I want to point everyone to a post by Leon Atkinson in 2020 with a similar objective, but compared reaction procedures across early editions, not just B/X. I discovered this just minutes before posting. Check it out: D&D Monster Reaction Charts Compared by Leon Atkinson.

When to Roll

I'll preface this by saying that this isn't a reasonable method all the time; it works best in dangerous situations like the dungeon or true wilderness, where both parties (PCs and monsters/NPCs) are expecting danger.

It creates decent odds of an immediate fight or flight; this just isn't realistic, reasonable, or fun if you're using it to simulate the reactions of people on the road, in the city, or in "civilization," broadly. As I'll detail below, a "normal human" ends up fighting or running away something like 50% of the time; ridiculous behavior out in the world of daily life unless your PCs look unbelievably jacked up and bizarre. In the deep woods where everyone is on edge for a twig to snap, or in the dungeon where everyone is advancing blades-first, it fits much better.

This isn't a social simulator; a tool called "roleplaying" handles that element much better. It's meant as an add-on to the encounter procedure where combat is a reasonably expected outcome.

Fight, Flee, or Parley?

B/X (by way of OSE, once again) expresses the three common (read: mechanically supported) outcomes of the reaction roll: Combat, Evasion, and Parley. The first two are supported by mechanics; the third is supported by a mechanic called roleplaying, but it could use some support (we'll get there).

What this means for us is that the reaction roll table's results aren't particularly useful to us. "3-5: Unfriendly, may attack" tells us nothing about which of these mechanics to engage with. In this way, it's not even a particularly good oracle, which should at least be decisive.

Second, there's no accounting for the opposing side deciding to immediately flee from the party, prompting the evasion procedure. To quote OSE once again:

Evasion 

If one side wishes to avoid an encounter, it may attempt to flee. This is called evasion and is only possible before combat has begun.

This means the decision to flee is baked into the same pre-combat stage of the encounter as the reaction roll. There's the optional Morale rule, but that only comes into play after combat losses, and doesn't meaningfully interact with the reaction roll (yet).

The crux of this is that we've got to pare down the reaction roll to an actually useful oracle that decides between three outcomes: Combat, Evasion, or Parley, and which differs from monster to monster in a way that reflects their behavior.

Fight vs. Flight

Now, at this point I'm looking at the reaction roll table and the morale check, and noticing that they both use 2d6. Surely, we can't just make a morale check in place of the reaction roll, right?

We can and we will. There are a few wrinkles that come up:

1. Attempting to parley with a creature with a positive Charisma modifier (which runs from -2 to +2) makes it slightly more likely to flee; doing so with a negative modifier makes it more likely to attack.

In later editions of D&D, Intimidation is a Charisma-based skill. I think this logic works here, too: presuming you fail to convince the monster to talk, you might at least intimidate it out of a fight.

On the other hand, if you have a low Charisma modifier, maybe you've just got a really punchable face, and the hostile orc raiding party thinks so too.

2. There will be more fleeing monsters and fewer stand-up fights than you expect.

This is a good thing. In a dungeon, it does several things. It can draw pursuing PCs into new, potentially more dangerous areas of the dungeon. You might be tempted to pursue a pack of fleeing kobolds, only to end up on the kobolds' own turf, where they effortlessly jump clear of the pit traps and tripwires that they set along the hallways. 

After PCs have done this once or twice, they'll start to consider whether or not to pursue the monsters, or to play it safe. Again, this is a good thing; it's getting PCs to make real decisions and to interact with the monsters and the dungeon in new ways, rather than just swinging swords on-sight.

If the fleeing monsters escape, they are now a known quantity to the PCs, and the PCs to the monsters, but both remain in play. A GM could begin tracking the monsters' movements on a dungeon map, or decide that they hole up and fortify an area just beyond where the PCs' pursuit ended. If enough time passes, the monsters might resume their patrols and be encountered again on the wandering monster table.

Evasive Creatures

Monsters noted to be naturally evasive, timid, shy, or reclusive in their descriptions can halve their morale, rounding up, for the purpose of the reaction roll only. Once in a fight, they will presumably engage as their morale score indicates, but if they don't want to be found in the first place, this feels appropriate. Examples are unicorns (described as timid) and sprites (described as shy).

Intelligence-based Parleying

One of the only things missing from B/X stat blocks, when compared to AD&D 1e, is the Intelligence stat. In the AD&D 1e Monster Manual(s, and Fiend Folio), each monster stat block has a short word describing the monster's intelligence level, which corresponds roughly to PC intelligence scores.

I've attempted to match these scores up with modifiers similar to PC modifiers for Charisma. It's not an exact conversion, as the ranges of AD&D 1e Monster Manual intelligence scores don't align with the ranges of ability scores that correspond to modifiers.

Intelligence	Score	Modifier	Parley score
Non-intelligence or not ratable	0	N/A	N/A
Animal intelligence	1	-3	11
Semi-intelligent	2-4	-2	10
Low intelligence	5-7	-1	9
Average (human) intelligence	8-10	None	8
Very intelligent	11-12	None	8
Highly intelligent	13-14	+1	7
Exceptionally intelligent	15-16	+2	6
Genius	17-18	+2	6
Supra-genius	19-20	+3	5
Godlike intelligence	21+	+3	5

A monster's likelihood to parley, or "parley score", is based on its intelligence modifier subtracted from 8. Why 8?

Non-intelligent monster won't parley, in the same way that mindless monsters like zombies won't flee. This is given as N/A rather than 12, because in these cases, it should be impossible to parley even with a positive CHA modifier.

For all creatures more intelligent than a zombie or an insect, some form of parley should be possible. Even an animal might be "reasoned with" using sounds, gestures, and offerings, and doing so is part of the fantasy of some classes like Rangers, and the logic behind the "animal handling" check. Therefore, animals have 11, and each successive modifier higher than that decreases the number by 1. At no modifier, we get to 8.

This is used like another "band" on the 2d6 reaction roll, above fleeing. If the reaction roll is greater than the "parley score", the creature will parley. If the "parley score" is less than or equal to the morale score, set the morale score equal to the "parley score" in the reaction roll only; these monsters never flee on-sight as an initial reaction. This doesn't mean they don't flee, but they would only flee under typical circumstances as a result of a failed morale check (for example, after their first loss in battle).

Reaction as a stat can be expressed similarly to Morale, and represented by a pair of numbers such as: RE X/Y. In cases where a monster doesn't flee (its "parley score" is equal to or less than its morale), these numbers will be the same (e.g. RE 8/8).

Observations 

The result of this rule is that smart monsters parley more often, and run away less often. I find this perfectly realistic; a monster that's confident in its ability to talk its way through a scenario is aware of its social ability, and will rely on it.

However, the chance of having a good talk with an intelligent, non-monstrous encounter is still pretty low. Take the Normal Human and the Kobold, each of which have ML 6 and average intelligence ("parley score" of 8), resulting in RE 6/8. Using these rules, their reaction rolls will go like this:

2d6	Probability	Result
2-6	41.64%	Combat
7-8	30.54%	Evasion
9-12	27.76%	Parley

AnyDice

This is pretty expected for kobold ambushers encountered in a dungeon, but feels absurd for a normal human, even if met in the dungeon or the wilderness. Presumably, the approaches to each will go fairly differently. However, it's hard to pin the difference on anything but approaching them in a common language.

Language

If one specific character attempts to speak with the monsters, and they share a language with them, make the reaction roll with advantage (roll an additional die, then exclude the lowest die from the result). 

 This skew the Normal Human's reactions in a less combative direction:

2d6	Probability	Result
2-6	19.45%	Combat
7-8	28.24%	Evasion
9-12	52.32%	Parley

AnyDice

This feels much more reasonable. The chance of evasion still feels high for something like a normal human, but this can be played a few different ways. They might look over the PC party's weapons and take them for highwaymen. A prouder monster or character might simply disregard the PC party or tell them to move along.

One effect this is that speaking monster languages like goblin, kobold, minotaur, etc. is highlighted as worthwhile for players. That's not to say it didn't always have that value under the base rules, but if parleys are more common using this reaction oracle, then approaching a monster in a common language is incentivized.

Alignment

Optionally, the same rule as above can apply to alignment, with an expansion to account for opposing alignments.

If one specific character attempts to speak with the monsters, and their alignment is the same as the monster's, make the reaction roll with advantage. If the character and the monster's alignments are opposed (Chaotic vs Lawful), make the reaction roll with disadvantage (roll an additional die, then exclude the highest die from the result).

Let's revisit the kobold (RE 6/8) which is by default Chaotic, assuming a Lawful PC approaches it without speaking a common language:

2d6	Probability	Result
2-6	68.06%	Combat
7-8	21.30%	Evasion
9-12	10.65%	Parley

AnyDice

This is much more like what you would expect from a "monster" encounter.

This has the side effect of modeling alignment languages. Sharing an alignment with a monster has the same benefit as sharing a language. The disadvantage conveyed by opposing alignments is just a "flavor enhancer" that makes chaotic creatures more likely to fight, which is probably how they are played most often anyway; this just codifies it in a mechanical way.

What do monsters want?

So you've managed to initiate a parley with a monster. Now what? 

Parleying does not make you an immediate friend, it only opens a conversation or negotiation. If we're going to treat monsters like real animals, or people, or whatever they are, that exist in the world, they have things that they want and need from the PCs, and they're unlikely to share anything without something in return.

There's really no limit on how simple or how complex to make this, but creating a small table (1d4, 1d6, 1d8) unique to each general type of monster to characterize them. To characterize monsters in a specific area, create a unique table for them, which reflects their motive for occupying a dungeon or wilderness area.

For a truly generic table, we can take Maslow's heirarchy of needs for inspiration and turn it into a 1d10 table, then roll different dice on it depending on the creature's intelligence. 

Monster Intelligence		Die size
Non- or animal	0-1	1d4
Semi- or Low	2-7	1d6
Average or Very	8-12	1d8
High or greater	13+	1d10

Die	Result	Needs met
1	Food & water	Physiological
2	Shelter, clothing, or a place to sleep	Physiological
3	Protection from a threat or enemy	Safety
4	To locate, unite with, or protect others (mate, offspring, pack, family, party)	Love & Belonging
5	Material goods or wealth	Safety
6	An impulse, whim, fun, or entertainment	???
7	Assistance or companionship (including skilled help, e.g. a guide)	Safety or Love & Belonging
8	Reputation, notoriety, to prove oneself to others or an organization, to pass a test or trial	Esteem
9	Personal quest for enlightenment, atonement, revenge, or for a specific valuable object (magic item, spell, treasure)	Self-actualization
10	Quest or mission driven by moral ideals or bestowed by higher powers (deities, etc.)	Self-actualization

I've reshuffled the needs slightly, but in broad strokes, it serves our purposes. It's very non-specific and does nothing to characterize monsters; use it as a fallback or a starting point.

Advantage and disadvantage can be used to bias the roll for particularly organized or well-equipped examples within a monster category, or vice versa for ill-equipped and desperate monsters and individuals.

What do monsters have?

If you're going to make deals with monsters, they might bargain. Here are a few ideas on what they might offer to PCs:

• The individual treasure in their stat block.
• Food, water, or other survival supplies. 
• Information about the area, including about other monsters.
• An offer of safe passage.
• Their aid in some task; likely not a dangerous one.
• The opportunity (but not a guarantee) to be hired as a retainer.

Parlaying without language

Many monsters, such as the owlbear, have a degree of intelligence (given as Low, 5-7 in AD&D MM1) that allows them to parlay somewhat frequently (a roll of 9+ or 16.67% of the time), but (probably) don't speak. How do you parlay with a nonverbal creature?

First, I would note that parlay here is a shorthand for any kind of negotiation, or a monster's willingness not to get into an immediate fight. An owlbear might express what it wants the way any animal would.

Because it has Low (5-7) intelligence, it rolls 1d6 on the example "What do monsters want?" table above. Here are a few examples of how an owlbear might "parlay" its desires of different results:

1. Food & water. The owlbear approaches the party and sniffs the air, attempting to approach the pouch of rations on the nearest PC's pack.

4. Others. The owlbear rears up and hoots in a threatening display whenever the PCs look at the smaller, curious owlbear behind it, which must be its cub.

6. Impulse. The juvenile owlbear wants to play, bowing like a dog, wagging its short tail, and swiping its paws dangerously close to the PCs.

Creativity is necessary here from the GM and players both. If a tool like this rule/oracle can push everyone at the table toward more creativity, then it's a success, in my mind. 

Reaction Roll Redux

Here is the new rule for reaction rolls that results from all this:

A monster's Reactions can be expressed as a pair of numbers, such as: X/Y. The first number is the monster's morale score (ML), or half its morale score rounding up for timid or reclusive creatures. The second is derived from the creature's intelligence:

Intelligence	Parley score
Non-	-
Animal	11
Semi-	10
Low	9
Average or Very	8
Highly	7
Exceptional or genius	6
Supra-genius or godlike	5

If the second number would be lower than the first, decrease the first to match it.

Suggested format for monster reaction in stat blocks: RE X/Y, placed between Morale (ML) and Alignment (AL). Non-intelligent creatures (e.g. insects, oozes) cannot parley, and will have RE X/-. Monsters that always attack (e.g. zombies, minotaurs) have RE -/-. 

When rolling for reactions, roll 2d6 and compare the result against the monster's reaction scores:

• Equal to or lower than the first number: Combat.
• Greater than the first number and equal to or lower than the second: Evasion. The monsters attempt to flee or otherwise avoid a confrontation. Players may decide freely whether to pursue them.
• Greater than the second number: Parley. The monster attempts to talk or negotiate.

Modifiers

• Charisma: If one specific character attempts to speak with the monsters, that character's NPC reactions modifier due to CHA is used to modify the monster reaction roll.

• Language: If one specific character attempts to speak with the monsters, and they share a language with them, make the reaction roll with advantage (roll an additional die, then exclude the lowest die from the result). 

• Alignment (optional): If one specific character attempts to speak with the monsters, and their alignment is the same as the monster's, make the reaction roll with advantage. If the character and the monster's alignments are opposed (Chaotic vs Lawful), make the reaction roll with disadvantage (roll an additional die, then exclude the highest die from the result).

Advantage and disadvantage can cancel each other, but do not stack.

Some monsters' stat blocks or descriptions specify their behavior, such as attacking immediately. In these cases, forgo the reaction roll.

Example Reaction Stats

Here are some example reaction stats for some common monsters:

Monster	ML	Intelligence	RE	AL	Languages	% Fight	% Flee	% Parley
Carcass Crawler	9	Non (0)	9/-	N		83.33%	16.67%	-
Red Dragon	10	Exceptional (15-16)	6/6	C	Dragon	41.67%	-	58.33%
Oozes (most)	12	Non (0)	-/- (attacks)	N		100%	-	-
Goblin	7 (9)*	Average (8-10)	7/8 (8/8)*	C	Goblin	58.33% (72.22%)	13.89% ( - )	27.78% (27.78%)
Hobgoblin	8 (10)*	Average (8-10)	8/8	C	Hobgoblin	72.22%	-	27.78%
Kobold, Orc	6 (8)*	Average (8-10)	6/8 (8/8)*	C	Kobold/ Orcish	41.67% (72.22%)	30.56% ( - )	27.78% (27.78%)
Lizard Man	12	Low (5-7)	9/9	N	Lizard Man	83.33%	-	16.67%
Lycanthrope (werewolf)	8	Average (8-10)	8/8	C	Common	72.22%	-	27.78%
Normal human	6	Average (8-10)	6/8	Any	Common	41.67%	30.56%	27.78%
Ogre	10	Low (5-7)	9/9	C	Ogrish	83.33%	-	16.67%
Owl Bear	9	Low (5-7)	9/9	N		83.33%	-	16.67%
Skeleton, Zombie	12	Non (0)	-/- (attacks)	C		100%	-	-
Unicorn	12	Average (8-10)	4/8	L	Unicorn	16.67%	41.67%	41.67%

*Monster has enhanced morale when in view of a leader.

There's a decent variety of reactions here. Most intelligent monsters won't flee immediately, but some will; if I included more animals, most will flee at least some of the time. For monsters that gain morale in the presence of a leader like kobolds and goblinoids, the group will never flee on-sight in the presence of their leader, which feels correct.

Up Next

I plan to run some starter adventures or one-shots using this set of rules entirely under-the-hood, and see how it feels to play. I'll consider it a win if it leads players to creative problem-solving and me, as GM, to creative problem-creation. Expect a play report!