Sometimes random tables went too far, like the random harlot encounter table in the 1e AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide. Did you encounter a "slovenly trull" or a "brazen strumpet"?
@@ProfArmitage218 oh no doubt! Some of the stuff in early D&D is freaking wild. But there's a lot of inspiration to be gleaned from a lot of the tables.
Huge fan of the reaction roll! Another thing I stole from old d&d (I think B/X) is rolling initiative as a simple, flat d6 for each side - but you do this every single turn. So sometimes monsters go twice in a row (scary) or the players go twice in a row (huge cheers).
Stop giving away our secrets sir! But seriously, those who know, KNOW. A lot of DMs try to design a game completely within their control or comfort level and this leads to very strict boundaries that players will naturally push against. Embrace the random tables in design, and prep solid tables for during actual play. DMs are human beings, and so we often fall into our own comfortable “ruts” or “go to’s”. This leads to stale games not just for our players; but for us as well. Stop being afraid of a player saying “I want to go left”. Well thought out random tables allow you, the DM, to go “oh you want to go left? /opens door”
TIL modern D&D gamers don’t use reaction rolls. So, virtually every encounter is with something the players know they can kill, and there's no attempt to determine if the creatures are open to bargaining? No wonder DMs complain about murder hoboes.
My "take" on reaction rolls (and reaction tables) is that they help keep everyones' (players' and GMs') minds on the point that social encounters aren't just either "Attack!" or "I roll for 'Persuasion'!" - there's a whole range of options in between, and how a given encounter can produce quite different outcomes, depending on the approaches that both the players and the GM use. On a similar note, I remember a comment on another video suggesting that situational modifiers can be used by the GM, to help prevent the "most charismatic" character always being "the face" for social encounters - so, for example, a group or orcs *might* be more willing to listen to a (non-charismatic) fighter than a (charismatic) bard (i.e. GM might give the fighter a bigger reaction-roll bonus than the bard, regardless of respective charisma scores/bonuses) , as the orcs could respect fighting prowess more than "softy musicians".
No, the opposite of using reaction roll tables is not having all creatures be hostile, it means the DM determines the reaction with purpose rather than it just being random.
I do love how you put the moving black and white lines in the corner to inform me impending advert. It takes me back to my childhood with the big TV
It's such a niche thing, but I love it when people notice and appreciate it 😊
Yes. Just yes to everything. 1. I *love* reaction tables. 2. Whoa! Nimble sounds so cool!
Great video! I love sometimes letting the dice tell the story. And the idea of reaction rolls falls right in to that.
Sometimes random tables went too far, like the random harlot encounter table in the 1e AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide. Did you encounter a "slovenly trull" or a "brazen strumpet"?
@@ProfArmitage218 oh no doubt! Some of the stuff in early D&D is freaking wild. But there's a lot of inspiration to be gleaned from a lot of the tables.
Huge fan of the reaction roll! Another thing I stole from old d&d (I think B/X) is rolling initiative as a simple, flat d6 for each side - but you do this every single turn. So sometimes monsters go twice in a row (scary) or the players go twice in a row (huge cheers).
Stop giving away our secrets sir!
But seriously, those who know, KNOW. A lot of DMs try to design a game completely within their control or comfort level and this leads to very strict boundaries that players will naturally push against.
Embrace the random tables in design, and prep solid tables for during actual play.
DMs are human beings, and so we often fall into our own comfortable “ruts” or “go to’s”. This leads to stale games not just for our players; but for us as well.
Stop being afraid of a player saying “I want to go left”. Well thought out random tables allow you, the DM, to go “oh you want to go left? /opens door”
Nothing about opening that door requires a random table.
TIL modern D&D gamers don’t use reaction rolls. So, virtually every encounter is with something the players know they can kill, and there's no attempt to determine if the creatures are open to bargaining? No wonder DMs complain about murder hoboes.
A lot of folks don't use them but still have creatures be open to bargaining.
My "take" on reaction rolls (and reaction tables) is that they help keep everyones' (players' and GMs') minds on the point that social encounters aren't just either "Attack!" or "I roll for 'Persuasion'!" - there's a whole range of options in between, and how a given encounter can produce quite different outcomes, depending on the approaches that both the players and the GM use.
On a similar note, I remember a comment on another video suggesting that situational modifiers can be used by the GM, to help prevent the "most charismatic" character always being "the face" for social encounters - so, for example, a group or orcs *might* be more willing to listen to a (non-charismatic) fighter than a (charismatic) bard (i.e. GM might give the fighter a bigger reaction-roll bonus than the bard, regardless of respective charisma scores/bonuses) , as the orcs could respect fighting prowess more than "softy musicians".
No, the opposite of using reaction roll tables is not having all creatures be hostile, it means the DM determines the reaction with purpose rather than it just being random.