How do you feel about Uncertainty?

[derv]

I like using the Reaction Tables in my games. I prefer the unpredictability created by each encounter and allow the tables to set up the situation. Then you let the role playing unfold. I don’t use them all the time. There are characters and situations that I instead predetermine through fiat what they or it would naturally be like. But I tend to keep this to a minimum. And of course, unintellegent monsters will generally fight till the end. The thing is, the tables create surprise and this is an element of the game that I find adds to the enjoyment of GMing.

What is odd to me is the Reaction Tables favoring of “uncertainty”. All the tables in D&D do this. We have the tables in M&M p.12 and U&WA p.12 for OD&D. Both of these tables are 2d6 and because of the bell curve favor “uncertainty” on a roll of 6-8.

I do not find the result of “uncertainty” overly conducive and prefer a table with more variations of results. Not that it has to spell things out for me, but instead add some subtle differences to get my creativity going. Yet, even in the DMG p.63 of AD&D where we find a table with more variations that is based on percentile dice, there is still a concentration of results for “uncertainty”. Moldvay Basic also has this seeming focus of results. It’s table on p.B24 is almost identical to M&M’s table, except that with the result of “uncertainty” it also includes “monster confused”. This is almost a comical response, in my opinion. It conjures up images of Looney Tunes or Abbot and Costello. “Who’s on 1st, What’s on second” or “Which way did he go, which way did he go?” Or worse, the Sitcom Different Strokes. “What you talkin’ bout Willis?” Maybe a better illustration would be Star Wars. “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for”.

The definition for “uncertainty” includes hesitancy, unknown, and doubt. Only once in a while is this helpful guidance to me in setting up a situation. Instead, it will sometimes create a lull to the game. So generally, a result of 6-8 actually means re-roll. I’m curious why the authors chose to make the tables favor this result.

Anyway, what do you think? Does “uncertainty” as a reaction work for you in your games?

[ty]

It depends on the nature/state of mind of the NPC. For "general" encounters of two unfamiliar groups, it works well for me, and addresses the pause that can happen before sides begin to act, b/c if I'm using the table, the party hasn't really done anything decisive from their end to determine the flow of the encounter. Also perhaps like two dudes in a bar tiff trying to work themselves into action, yet it's obvious neither side really wants to start the fight It could even be both sides 'measuring each other up.' I discount those tables if the PCs take hostile action or make it appear imminent (from the NPC pov), and go straight to initiative as the NPCs flee/fight/surrender/etc.

[Porphyre]

As suggested in this post of Roger's blog , you can combine the results of the reaction roll with those of the Morale to obtain a larger scope of results:

rolesrules.blogspot.fr/2010/11/encounter-reactionmorale-table.html

[derv]

Roger always has some very thoughtful and creative posts on his blog. I particularly like his Varlets and Vermin for low level encounters. This table gives a lot to think on.

It seems to me there are two ways of handling reactions. There is the random approach created by rolling dice on a table, or similar method, where the results vary (though may be weighed heavily for a particular outcome as they are in OD&D). Then there is the predetermined approach of GM fiat where an encounters behavior or disposition is already established and narrowed. Roger's table does a nice job of being useful with either approach. You could establish a hostility rating and/or a morale rating ahead of time or you could just roll these on the spot.

What's interesting (and the point of my original post) is that Roger minimizes the chance of "uncertainty"-Neutral/ Wary on his table. He actually does not have any real results that would fall under this heading. So, the result of "uncertainty" becomes improbable on his table. Like me, it seems that "uncertainty" as a result didn't suit Roger in most cases either.

There are four ways I use Reaction Tables: general interactions or negotiations, intiation of combat, results of combat, and results of a shock factor. The only time "uncertainty" seems appropriate for building up the encounter is in the first case (rarely in the other cases). I am not saying it makes no sense as a outcome, but I am questioning why it is a dominant result on the D&D Reaction Tables?

[Porphyre]

Jan 10, 2015 8:46:51 GMT -6 derv said:

There is the random approach created by rolling dice on a table, or similar method, where the results vary (though may be weighed heavily for a particular outcome as they are in OD&D). (...) I am not saying it makes no sense as a outcome, but I am questioning why it is a dominant result on the D&D Reaction Tables?

I have to check, but i think that the "reaction roll" , in the LBBs, essentially applies in the case of negotiations with Monsters/NPCs (Men & Magic) and sometimes with the (rare) Monsters which don't attack "on sight" (U&WA).

I don't know if that was the intent, but eventually, this permits to combine two approaches: the random roll and player-GM interaction.

One of the main griefs some have with the more recent edition is the "too roll-heavy" being that everything is resolved with a dice roll-over with just two possibles outcomes: yes/no (I grossly caricature).

With the 2-12 reaction roll, you have the cases where the outcome is determined by the dice, but still good chances to let the players try to "win" the issue by clever play/talk, or not.

"An "Uncertain" reaction leaves the door open to additional reward offers" says M&M. In my mind a 6-8 score doesn't mean "roll again", because that would probably undermine the whole point. Better make it a "the monster/NPC looks hesitant. What do you do?" Keep talking annd make a better offer? Run when it's still time? Attack ?

[derv]

Using the table to hire retainers is definately part of it's utility. Which opens up another element of the table that is not often discussed- Loyalty Scores. These scores could fluctuate throughout a game. They are used as a modifier for the reaction/morale tables.

Now imagine your character, Neobold Brownbear, has successfully hired two men-at-arms to accompany him into the dungeon. After a couple of the reactions came up "uncertain", Neobold increased the share of the potential treasure plus a sign on bonus. Taking Neobolds Charisma of 15 into consideration, the table finally results in "accepts offer". Since they have negotiated a fair price for their service and Neobolds Charisma is 15, the GM alters their loyalty scores +2.

Now Neobald has a partner. He is a lowly Medium by the name of Zambow. So it's only logical that Neobald takes the lead as they descend into the dungeon. The men-at-arms follow behind with lit torch and drawn swords. Zambow mingles in the middle, dagger at hand. Twenty feet down the stone hallway they watch as the floor opens up and seems to swallow Neobold. As Zambow and the two hired men hold the torch overhead to peer into the pit, they see the gore of Neobold Brownbear's lifeless spike bound body drenched in blood.

Reaction table time. The GM rolls a "2+3=5", but also takes into consideration the hirelings loyalty score +2. So the result is "7" which comes up "uncertain". Huh? Uncertain?? Re-roll. This time without any modifiers due to the shock of the situation.

[Deleted]

I continue to be astounded over the years at how "uncertainty" throws people for a loop.

"Uncertainty" is the players' clue to sweeten the pot. And the referee doesn't have to throw dice again. But if they do, then "negative" means the offer, even boosted, is refused; "uncertain" a second time means "MORE"; and "positive" means acceptance.

And this applies whether you're trying to negotiate with henchmen to hire, or trying to sweet talk an ogre into not eating you because you're so polite. The stakes and raises don't have to be monetary, though of course they certainly can be.

I honestly don't understand why this seems so difficult.

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2015 19:16:46 GMT -6 derv said:

Using the table to hire retainers is definately part of it's utility. Which opens up another element of the table that is not often discussed- Loyalty Scores. These scores could fluctuate throughout a game. They are used as a modifier for the reaction/morale tables.

Now imagine your character, Neobold Brownbear, has successfully hired two men-at-arms to accompany him into the dungeon. After a couple of the reactions came up "uncertain", Neobold increased the share of the potential treasure plus a sign on bonus. Taking Neobolds Charisma of 15 into consideration, the table finally results in "accepts offer". Since they have negotiated a fair price for their service and Neobolds Charisma is 15, the GM alters their loyalty scores +2.

Now Neobald has a partner. He is a lowly Medium by the name of Zambow. So it's only logical that Neobald takes the lead as they descend into the dungeon. The men-at-arms follow behind with lit torch and drawn swords. Zambow mingles in the middle, dagger at hand. Twenty feet down the stone hallway they watch as the floor opens up and seems to swallow Neobold. As Zambow and the two hired men hold the torch overhead to peer into the pit, they see the gore of Neobold Brownbear's lifeless spike bound body drenched in blood.

Reaction table time. The GM rolls a "2+3=5", but also takes into consideration the hirelings loyalty score +2. So the result is "7" which comes up "uncertain". Huh? Uncertain?? Re-roll. This time without any modifiers due to the shock of the situation.

Uncertain means "you want me to go on, you gotta pay me more." Uncertainty always means the NPC wants more, of whatever is being proffered.

Also, honestly, that's a Morale Check, not a Reaction Roll. Use the "Instability due to Excess Casualties" table from CHAINMAIL, page 17.

[derv]

Jan 10, 2015 19:29:45 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Also, honestly, that's a Morale Check, not a Reaction Roll. Use the "Instability due to Excess Casualties" table from CHAINMAIL, page 17.

It is a Morale Check. Did you not use the Reaction Tables for morale checks? What else were people doing that didn't own Chainmail?

Otherwise, I don't think there is any confusion with the Tables when it comes to negotiations. Though I do find it interesting that it favors the result of "uncertainty" instead of equal probabilities.

So to complete the illustration I started above,
One of the henchmen standing next to Zambow leans down closer to the pit and calls out, "Hey Neobald, Mo' Money!"

[Porphyre]

Actually , in the situation you describe, I agree with you that it's a new reaction roll, and not morale, because , as Neobald met an untimely demise, the deal he had with the two hencmen is cancelled.

A new reaction roll is necessary because the hiring of the henchmen must be reinitiated by Zambow. I'm not sure I would apply the +2 modifier from Loyalty, since it was a boon only due to Neobold's ersonnal charisma and good treatments.

So, in the case things would rather go this way for me:

"Zambow: Well, my hearty lads! This didn't turn as well as planned for the poor Neobald. But keep assured that I will honor my late comrade's engagements. Shall we proceed?"
(Reaction roll)
2: "Piss off! You squishy wizard! And gimme yo' money" (the henchmen gang up on Zambow to rob him)
3-5: "Sorry mate! The deal was with Mr. neobald. We owe you nothin'!"
7-8: "Well Guv'nor! We are in a conundrum 'ere. Younnow, we had a deal only with Mr Neobald. And this place seem awfully dangerous. Methinks you have to pay us more"
9-11: "Sure, mister! As long as we're payed as promised..."
12: "With pleasure, sir! May I add that you look stunning in your stars-and-moons robes and pointy hat? "

As for the fact that the "uncertain" result is favoured by the reaction roll, as I said, thats keeps more room for the players to bargain, cajole, threaten, etc. 
And also for the DM to extort them another part of their hard-won gold , probably . 

[derv]

I would actually do both. I would roll a Morale check because the hirelings just lost their leader to an untimely and gruesome death. They may be next in line for the same fate. Then the realisation that their revenue stream has just ended would come to mind. So, a new loyalty score and negotiation might be opened up if they did not run for their lives out of fear first.

Mike's comments geniunely has me wondering what people use for morale checks if they do not own Chainmail. I am unaware of any other system outside of the Reaction Tables. It is possible that AD&D may have a Morale System, but I'm not sure off hand. Though, I'm not suggesting that people have to use any system at all. It just seems that it would be useful to a GM if he isn't going to use the Reaction Tables in this way.

Next game I'm breaking out the Magic 8-Ball

[talysman]

"Uncertainty", to me, is a sign that the reaction might change. I wouldn't tell players what the reaction result is, just how the monster or NPC behaves, and an Uncertain reaction most of the time looks like a mild negative reaction, but if the players make a better follow-up offer, Uncertain can change to positive, while a true negative reaction stays the same. So, if the mercenary rejects your offer of 10 gold a day, maybe that means he doesn't want to work for you, or maybe he'll take 12 gold; you don't know unless you try. And if the ogres growl at you and tell you to go away or they'll bonk you on the head, maybe they *will* bonk you on the head, or maybe you can offer them some gold and goats. You can't be sure ahead of time.

[derv]

I appreciate everyones insights into negotiations. It seems many prefer to use the Reaction Tables for this purpose.

The reason I posted this in the U&WA board is because the other Reaction Table is found there. It implies a different purpose then negotiation, yet it maintains the same preference for "uncertainty" on a roll of 6-8 on 2d6. Am I to understand that people also use this table in an encounter as a way to open up negotiations? Or do you use it, as I do, to establish the disposition of a particular monster at that moment? i.e. will it fight or flee, is it friend or foe? As I pointed out above, Moldvay adds the comment "Monster Confused" on a roll of 6-8.

[talysman]

Monster reactions are, in a way, just another, silent negotiation. The PCs, by stepping into the room or stumbling into the monster's presence, are basically asking "Will you fight or flee?"

Positive results mean the monster flees, if the party is obviously a threat, or avoids contact, if possible; intelligent monsters may attempt to bargain for their lives, or try to bluff.

Negative results mean the monster is hostile, either attacking immediately or circling and growling (or drawing steel and shouting "Halt!" for goblins.)

Uncertain means the monster acts a little hostile, but the actual reaction depends on the PC behavior afterwards. Did they back away slowly? Uncertain monsters don't rush to attack, then, but remain wary. Did the PCs toss food to an Uncertain beast? It eats the food, keeping an eye on the PCs. Did they offer some treasure to Uncertain bugbears? They let them pass.

But I do tend to use the "negotiation" table with five results (in M&M) for everything, instead of the three-result table in U&WA, because it gives more nuance (Attack Immediately, Hostile, Neutral/Uncertain, Friendly, Very Friendly.) That's when I roll at all, which is usually for wandering monsters out of their element. In the goblin caves, the goblins are normally Hostile to intruders, but a wandering ogre or wolf from the surface could have varying reactions, so I'd roll for them, and maybe for the goblins if they clearly see they're outnumbered and might not be able to warn the other goblins.

[Porphyre]

Actually, the way the reaction table is introduced in U&WA seems to imply that such roll is only for "intelligent" monsters that can be reasoned with:

Monsters will automatically attack and/or pursue any characters they "see", with the exception of those monsters which are intelligent enough to avoid an obviously superior force.

Random Actions by Monsters: Other than in pursuit situations, the more intelligent monsters will act randomly according to the results of the score rolled on two (six-sided) dice

[talysman]

Yeah, but I'd use it for natural animals as well, at least the non-hungry ones that aren't in their lair. Unintelligent fantastic monsters, on the other hand, would be more likely to just attack, in my dungeons. Especially the oozes. I can't see ever rolling for the reaction of a gelatinous cube.

[Porphyre]

" The gelatinous cube wobbles before you in uncertainly. What do you do ?
- I try to feed him with my gell-o pudding rations!
- Now the cube quivers angrily ! You obviously have offended him with your undue accusations of cannibalism! Roll for initiative !"

[derv]

Page 12 of U&WA says, "Other than pursuit situations, the more intelligent monsters will act randomly according to the score rolled on two six-sided dice."

It goes on to say that the dice score should be modified for things such "as bribes offered, fear, alignment of the parties concerned, etc."

If you peruse the M&T volume you will find some specific terms under monster descriptions that have a bearing on this. They are "Never check morale, Always attack, and Not Intelligent". These are the creatures that require no reaction/morale checks. All others do, with a few exceptions. For example, most would include the clean-up crew in the Not Intelligent category.

[derv]

Okay, last comment as it pertains to "uncertainty" and the Reaction Table. Uncertainty gives the impression that a circumstance could go either way. But the reality of the Reaction Tables is that they favor not producing negative outcomes. The probability of rolling a positive reaction is 27.7%, negative reaction is 27.7%, and uncertainty is 44.5%. In reality Uncertainty could also be considered a positive outcome. So, there is a 72% likelihood that you will not get a negative reaction when rolling on the Reaction Tables. This wouldn't take into consideration any modifiers though.

Sorry to be going on about this. Just wrestling with the applications, that's all.

[Deleted]

How do I feel about uncertainty?

I'm not sure.¹

-----
¹Sorry, I tried to resist but I simply could not stop myself.

[derv]

Jan 14, 2015 19:56:01 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

How do I feel about uncertainty?

I'm not sure.¹

-----
¹Sorry, I tried to resist but I simply could not stop myself.

Are you confused about how you feel?

[derv]

My mods to the Reaction/Morale tables:

Reactions (initial contact)
2-4       Immediate Attack
5-6       Hostile Intentions/ -1 Negotiations
7          Uncertain/Wary/Hold Fast
8-9       Slow Orderly Withdrawal/ +1 Negotiations
10-12   Flee
*results 5-9 are open to Negotiations

Negotiations-btb
2         Hostile
3-5      Negative
6-8      Uncertain/Increase the offer
9-11    Positive
12       Enthusiastic/ +3 Loyalty score

Result of Melee Morale or Result of Shock Morale
2         Surrender/Immobilized
3-4      Rout/Flee in Fear
5-6      Fighting Withdrawal/Orderly Withdrawal
7         Uncertain/Wary/ -1 Morale next check
8-11    Stand Fast/Stable/Continue the Fight
12       Emboldened Attack/ +2 attack next initial round

Loyalty-btb
3<         Will desert at first opportunity
4-6        -2 on morale dice
7-8        -1 on morale dice
9-12       Average
13-14    +1 on morale dice
15-18    +2 on morale dice
19>       Need never check morale

[dicebro]

My reaction roll table leaves out “uncertainty”. See dicebro.blogspot.com/2020/12/the-od-guidelines-for-intelligent.html

[delta]

Old thread, but I'll say that my interpretations/margin notes are quite similar to derv above. Using the Reaction Table for negotiations, the center result is generally "NPC demands more money (like double)". For Morale checks, it's "Withdraw (like to a more defensible position)".

[retrorob]

Similar for me. I like uncertainty and randomization, and I use it a lot.

Reaction table is for negotiations withs of NPC/intelligent monsters or general attitude. Example: PC decided to pay a visit to the Wizard. Reaction roll of 4 means that he doesn't want to see the characters. Another check maybe on the next session?

As for Morale, I use CM loss table (8 for LF, 7 for HF etc.). Some monsters don't have morale score at all (SKELETONS, ZOMBIES, ROCS, GIANTS) and will fight to the end, but if they're intelligent enough, they may decide to withdraw. Example: A lord is forced to abandon his barony and go east. He has Giants in his palace guard, but their reaction is 4: they decide to go back to their village located in the nearby hills rather than risk their life in the uncharted lands.

Loyalty - I use it from time to time. It's a great rule and I don't like they blended it with Morale in BD&D. One can be poor soldier, but highly commited to the cause. Example: previously mentioned Wizard's apprentice has a loyalty of 4. He may want to betray his master and help the characters.

Let's not forget about the castle owner rule, I mean on 1-3 they will be hostile, 4-6 neutral towards the party. Similar for pursuit situations. Do they chase the characters? 1-3 yes, 4-6 no. The more I play, the more I realize that I love simplicity and sometimes d6 is good enough

[dicebro]

Uncertainty gives the player time to think up another plan.

[derv]

Old thread.

Considering my modified tables the one thing that was brought to my attention is that some prefer the simplicity of having to reference only one table. In other words, less is more, kiss, don’t over complicate it with more moving parts. I get it. Still, I prefer definitive results. Personal preference really.

[howandwhy99]

Uncertainty allows for the PCs to have greater opportunity for affecting the behavior of the NPCs and thereby the outcome of the Encounter.

Uncertainty usually means caution. Wait, watch, and proceed from there. Not a bad lesson for the players. And opportunity too.