Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[Let's Read] Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules, by Tom Moldvay
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6608123" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>The extent of CHA bonuses is an interesting thing.</p><p></p><p>If you spread out the 2d6 table into a percentage progression, and look at the bonus that +1 or +2 is worth, the average is +8.8 and +17.2 respectively. For the +1 bonus, the biggest effective bonuses are happening in the middle range, where the effects are less dramatic. In d20 terms I would probably call it a +1.</p><p></p><p>The +2 bonus is more dramatic in its effect across the board, making a big difference at nearly every point. I think it is probably somewhere between +3 and +4 in d20 terms.</p><p></p><p>I agree that the CHA-only approach is simpler, which is important if the GM has sole management of it.</p><p></p><p>It's the idea of player-instigated vs GM-instigated that I'm trying to get a better handle on, though. (Eg you could play 5e without skills, using CHA-only, and then you'd have the simplification but the player-instigated vs GM-instigated would still be something to think about.)</p><p></p><p>I want to put to one side the "I use Bluff" case. As I said in my reply to [MENTION=6691437]Wangalade[/MENTION], I think that's something of a degenerate case of a social kill system (in my view it's not really action resolution at all, but when used that way is actually a scene-reframing mechanic disguised as action resolution).</p><p></p><p>The case I'm interested in is the once you put forward this way: "by narrating or role-playing a lie in order to instigate the Bluff resolution mechanic". Can't a player in Moldvay Basic narrate or roleplay a lie in order to get a bonus on a reaction roll - eg "It's OK; Gary sent us." If the GM thinks the lie will in some fashion resonated with the NPC/monster in question, then a bonus can (perhaps should?) be given.</p><p></p><p>In your view, is the <em>choosing</em> to take place at the time of writing the dungeon, or when the PCs and NPCs/monsters actually meet?</p><p></p><p>I would have thought the former - so that the monster/NPC's reputation or habits is something that the players can learn and act on as part of their overall exploration endeavours.</p><p></p><p>In which case, it becomes a bit like the Duke who can't be Inimidated in the 4e skill challenge example.</p><p></p><p>It seems to me that if the players don't have in-principle access to NPC/monster reactions, either via exploration (to learn monster descriptions, reputations, rumours etc) or via knowledge that reactions are rolled, then the game has moved away from the general vibe that I get from it.</p><p></p><p>(If you're curious about where I'm coming from: I feel that - despite obvious differences - the spirit of Moldvay Basic is much closer to something like Burning Wheel, or 4e as I play it, than any of those games is to GM-driven play of the 90s 2nd ed AD&D style, or to player-side scene-reframing of the "I roll Diplomacy/Bluff - look, I got a 20!" which I've heard of as a feature of 3E social skills. In particular, I think the "need to make a move in the fiction" aspect is analytically quite separate from the "who rolls the dice and works out the total" aspect.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6608123, member: 42582"] The extent of CHA bonuses is an interesting thing. If you spread out the 2d6 table into a percentage progression, and look at the bonus that +1 or +2 is worth, the average is +8.8 and +17.2 respectively. For the +1 bonus, the biggest effective bonuses are happening in the middle range, where the effects are less dramatic. In d20 terms I would probably call it a +1. The +2 bonus is more dramatic in its effect across the board, making a big difference at nearly every point. I think it is probably somewhere between +3 and +4 in d20 terms. I agree that the CHA-only approach is simpler, which is important if the GM has sole management of it. It's the idea of player-instigated vs GM-instigated that I'm trying to get a better handle on, though. (Eg you could play 5e without skills, using CHA-only, and then you'd have the simplification but the player-instigated vs GM-instigated would still be something to think about.) I want to put to one side the "I use Bluff" case. As I said in my reply to [MENTION=6691437]Wangalade[/MENTION], I think that's something of a degenerate case of a social kill system (in my view it's not really action resolution at all, but when used that way is actually a scene-reframing mechanic disguised as action resolution). The case I'm interested in is the once you put forward this way: "by narrating or role-playing a lie in order to instigate the Bluff resolution mechanic". Can't a player in Moldvay Basic narrate or roleplay a lie in order to get a bonus on a reaction roll - eg "It's OK; Gary sent us." If the GM thinks the lie will in some fashion resonated with the NPC/monster in question, then a bonus can (perhaps should?) be given. In your view, is the [I]choosing[/I] to take place at the time of writing the dungeon, or when the PCs and NPCs/monsters actually meet? I would have thought the former - so that the monster/NPC's reputation or habits is something that the players can learn and act on as part of their overall exploration endeavours. In which case, it becomes a bit like the Duke who can't be Inimidated in the 4e skill challenge example. It seems to me that if the players don't have in-principle access to NPC/monster reactions, either via exploration (to learn monster descriptions, reputations, rumours etc) or via knowledge that reactions are rolled, then the game has moved away from the general vibe that I get from it. (If you're curious about where I'm coming from: I feel that - despite obvious differences - the spirit of Moldvay Basic is much closer to something like Burning Wheel, or 4e as I play it, than any of those games is to GM-driven play of the 90s 2nd ed AD&D style, or to player-side scene-reframing of the "I roll Diplomacy/Bluff - look, I got a 20!" which I've heard of as a feature of 3E social skills. In particular, I think the "need to make a move in the fiction" aspect is analytically quite separate from the "who rolls the dice and works out the total" aspect.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[Let's Read] Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules, by Tom Moldvay
Top