Using Reaction Rolls to Determine Faction Relationships in the Sandbox

I wanted to do a quick demonstration of how I use reaction rolls to determine the nature of relationships between factions in a sandbox campaign.

Reaction rolls are most often used in the context of encounters. That is, the player characters run into a group of 10 orcs in the dungeon (or 100 orcs in the wilderness) and the Dungeon Master rolls some dice to determine if the orcs are hostile, neutral, or friendly. If negotiations take place, the DM can make additional reaction rolls to determine if the orcs are offended, unmoved, or pleased by any given approach or offer.

The exact method of determining a monster or nonplayer character's reaction to the PCs varies by edition, but I have settled on my own take on the common 2d6 table:

2d6       Reaction

2-3        Hostile

4-5        Unfriendly

6-8        Neutral

9-10      Friendly

11-12    Helpful

Hostile creatures usually attack on sight (the point is that their intention to attack is made clear - the PCs can often attempt to dissuade them from doing so if they're quick enough). Unfriendly creatures threaten, mess with, or seek to impede the PCs in some nonviolent way. Neutral creatures are uncertain and will often seek more information before reacting either way. Friendly creatures are interested in the PCs, often want something from them, and are willing to amicably negotiate to get it. Helpful creatures are sycophantically friendly and will aid the PCs with little question, sometimes even joining them in their current endeavor.

I modify the 2d6 roll by the alignment of the reacting creature: -2 if Evil, -1 if Chaotic, +1 if Lawful, and +2 if Good. The modifiers stack, so a Chaotic Evil creature reacts at -3 (and so never starts out helpful) and a Lawful Good creature reacts at +3 (and so never starts out hostile). Once negotiations begin, I modify additional reaction rolls by the creature's present disposition and by the negotiating PC's reaction roll adjustment from Charisma or the result of their ability check, depending on the edition (read more about how I adjudicate social interactions in D&D 5e here).

But there's a lot more you can do with the reaction roll. Here, I'm interested in using this mechanic to determine the social dynamics of a sandbox setting. I started thinking about this after reading this post over at dungeon doll. The post supposes that settlements have a somewhat wary attitude towards adventurers, and that depending on what the PCs say upon arriving there, they may be turned away or welcomed as friends.

I have a slightly different take. Rather than all settlements being uniformly wary, I like the idea that some settlements might be more or less (un)friendly towards outsiders than others - the PCs are more likely to receive a warm welcome in the town ruled by a gregarious mayor who loves feting heroes than the one ruled by a wicked sorcerer who sees enemies everywhere. Thus, I favor making a reaction roll for each settlement before the PCs ever interact with it - this determines their disposition towards adventurer types in general.

This also got me thinking about the way in which stronghold rulers respond to the PC's incursions in original D&D:

The text then goes on to explain that fighting-men will demand a joust or toll (unclear if this is for hostile or neutral fighting-men or both), non-hostile magic-users will send passersby after treasure by way of a geas spell, hostile magic-users will demand a toll of magical items or gold, and non-hostile clerics will demand a tithe or use a quest spell to send the PCs to complete a task.

The specifics aren't what interest me - rather, I'm interested in the idea that stronghold rulers have standard reactions to adventurers passing through their realm. However, implied setting be damned, I'm not crazy about the prescriptiveness of it (i.e., each ruler will either do this or that depending on their type). I'd rather the individual ruler's reaction be determined by their own personality or alignment - the Lawful Good magic-user might invite the PCs in for tea and a fireside chat while the Chaotic Evil warlord charges out on horseback with twenty men to run them off or worse.

This can apply to monsters as well. Just because there's a dragon lair on the mountain's peak doesn't mean the dragon is flying about wreaking havoc on the countryside - the dragon might regularly travel into the village in human form to socialize with its people, play harmless pranks for its own amusement on those who wander too close to its lair, demand tribute from surrounding settlements, or simply be in a deep slumber. Just because it's there doesn't mean it's flying around daring adventurers to come slay it (although there's nothing to stop them from trying to do so anyway, once when they know there's a dragon about, or to stop some other NPC in the sandbox from steering them in that direction).

Here is an example using a small area I created using the AD&D 1e DMG's stocking procedures (because I can't help myself):

In this case, I'm mainly concerned with the inhabitants/factions of each location, so I've labeled them as such (i.e., "Brigands" instead of "Brigands' Castle").

First, I make a reaction roll for each group to determine their disposition should they encounter the PCs (each group's alignment and corresponding reaction roll are listed in parentheses):

• Tribe (N, 2d6): 7 (neutral)
• Brigands (CE, 2d6-3): 5 (unfriendly)
• Ghouls (CE, 2d6-3): 2 (hostile)
• Will-o'-wisp (CE, 2d6-3): 5 (unfriendly)
• Berserkers (N, 2d6): 6 (neutral)
• CN Homesteaders (2d6-1): 6 (neutral)
• NG Fighter (2d6+2): 6 (neutral)
• CN Cleric (2d6-1): 4 (unfriendly)
• LE Homesteaders (2d6-1): 8 (neutral)
• Wolves (N, 2d6): 7 (neutral)

As you can see, none of the factions in the region are so much as friendly towards the PCs, let alone helpful. If the players want allies, they will have to earn them! Fortunately, none but the ghouls deep within their swamp will attack the PCs on sight. The brigands will likely bully and extort them for treasure. The will-o'-wisp may attempt to lead them into some deadly trap or hazard, but won't go so far as to start zapping them with lightning unless provoked. The cleric will likely send out riders to round them up, collect a tithe, and question them sharply about their business. The rest will be willing to talk with the party, and may become friends or foes depending on how the players treat them.

How these factions react to the PCs is only half the story. I also want to know how they relate to each other. Are there alliances? Obligations? Uneasy truces? Simmering tensions? Violent conflicts? These are the fine details that turn a boring-at-first-glance neutral reaction into gameable material.

The simple approach is to say the reactions listed above apply to all of the faction's interactions with its neighbors. That is, the Neutral Good fighter who is neutral towards the PCs is also neutral towards everyone else in the region. But that's a bit dull, isn't it? It makes more sense to me that the fighter might sit back in their castle, waiting to see what moves the party makes, while simultaneously having an uneasy truce with the cleric and open hostilities with the brigands.

Another option is to simply use a common sense approach. I can assume that no one likes the brigands, who are violent predators without moral scruples. Likewise, everyone probably views the ghouls and will-o'-wisp as undead affronts to nature and life. The fighter is Good and probably protects the homesteaders, who are vulnerable. The homesteaders probably hate the wolves, who steal their chickens or whatever. Those dynamics sound perfectly serviceable for a single campaign, but over the course of multiple campaigns in different regions, those same assumptions would start to get boring.

Instead, as is often the case, I like to let the dice decide, and I interpret their results to the best of my ability. I take a look at my map and determine which factions are likely to interact with one another. Then, I make reaction rolls for each faction to determine how they relate to each other faction they cross paths with.

In order to determine which relationships I must consider, I first have to determine which groups are likely to interact. I am using 6-mile hexes and assuming that a person can travel 8 hours and 24 miles per day (3 miles per hour). Here are the movement costs of each type of terrain: 

Grassland: x1

Forest: x2   

Hills: x3   

Swamp: x8 

This means that a normal person can travel from the center to the edge (and vice versa) of a grassland hex in one hour, a forest hex in two hours, a hills hex in three hours, and a swamp hex in eight hours. I am assuming that each of these groups typically venture only half a day's (four hours') travel from their home so as to be able to return before nightfall (or the end of whatever their activity cycle is, keeping in mind there are undead and wolves involved). That means that most creatures (excepting the ghouls in the swamp) can venture partially into the hexes immediately surrounding their own.

We will soon find that these locations are vastly interconnected for a few reasons. For now, I will keep things simple by focusing on those locations which are adjacent to each other.

For example, neither the tribesmen nor the brigands are able to reach each others' lairs in half a day's travel on foot (it would take five hours), but there is a good chance they meet somewhere in the middle now and then. Because of their respective alignments, I roll 2d6 for the tribesmen and 2d6-3 for the brigands. For the tribesmen I get 8 (neutral), and for the brigands I get 1 (hostile). I interpret this to mean that the tribesmen were happy to mind their own business, but the brigands have initiated a violent conflict and are attempting to eradicate them, enslave them, or whatever. 

The point is that the brigands are attacking the tribesmen, and the tribesmen want to be left alone. The players can get involved on either side - the brigands will want them to help eliminate the tribesmen, whereas the tribesmen will want them to get the brigands to simply stop, whether by defeating them in battle, negotiating a peace, enchanting their ruler, or supplanting them.

Looking to the south, the berserkers are able to reach the CN homesteaders' dwelling, and vice versa. I roll 2d6 for the berserkers and 2d6-1 for the homesteaders. Somewhat bafflingly, I roll 12 (helpful) for the berserkers and 2 (hostile) for the homesteaders. There are 60 berserkers and just 9 homesteaders. I don't interpret this as violent conflict because the homesteaders would obviously be wiped out if they initiated hostilities.

I'm imagining the homesteaders as rugged individualists, not particularly concerned with right nor wrong. Perhaps the berserkers are a little too friendly, helping themselves to food and drink, having loud parties, asking to marry the homesteaders' daughters, and the like. There is a cultural divide, and the berserkers do not see that they've offended the homesteaders in any way. The homesteaders are trying to carve out a domain for themselves, and want the berserkers off their land. They won't resort to violence themselves, but they may seek out help from outside in getting rid of the problem without regard for how it's done. 

Next, I look to the NG fighter and LE homesteaders. For the fighter I roll 2d6+2 and get 9 (friendly), and for the homesteaders I roll 2d6-1 and get 6 (neutral). In this case, the fighter is favorable towards the homesteaders, but not necessarily altruistic. It is likely that the fighter protects them and that they supply the castle with food or whatever, but the two parties have no great love for each other.

But there are more relationships then just those. Going solely based on the movement rates of normal people, these are the other groups that likely interact with one another, with their attitudes towards each other in parentheses, and a short description of the relationship:

• Ghouls (hostile)/Berserkers (friendly): This is an odd one! The berserkers have tried to seek out the ghouls for some reason, but the ghouls attack them on sight. Perhaps the ghouls are some forsaken fellow tribe with which the berserkers wish to reestablish contact and help redeem?
• Will-o'-wisp (unfriendly)/Berserkers (neutral): The will-o'-wisp attempts to lure the berserkers off into deadly hazards or scare them away from its ruin, and the berserkers want nothing to do with it. They probably have taboos about the strange light in the old ruin, but they aren't interested in proactively recruiting adventurers to deal with it.
• Berserkers (neutral)/NG Fighter (friendly): The fighter is trying to establish a positive relationship with the berserkers, but the berserkers are on the fence and need additional incentive to come to the table.
• CN Homesteaders (unfriendly)/NG Fighter (neutral): The fighter is indifferent to the homesteaders, but they are secretly undermining or subverting the fighter in some way. Perhaps they are withholding protection money from the fighter or otherwise resisting the fighter's lordship.
• NG Fighter (neutral)/Wolves (neutral): The wolves aren't bothering anybody and the fighter is letting them be.
• LE Homesteaders (unfriendly)/Wolves (neutral): The wolves aren't bothering anybody, but the homesteaders want them out because you know, farmers don't usually want wolves hanging around!

But there's more to consider, because not all of these creatures have the same movement rates. Both the will-o'-wisp and the wolves move 50% faster than a normal person (meaning they can cover 36 miles per day, or 18 miles in half a day), and the will-o'-wisp flies (meaning it ignores additional terrain movement cost from forests, hills, and swamps). Furthermore, the brigands, the fighter, and the cleric have light horses, which move twice as fast as a normal person (48 miles per day, or 24 miles in half a day).

Considering all that, we have the following additional relationships:

• Tribe (unfriendly)/Will-o'-wisp (neutral): The will-o'-wisp doesn't bother the tribe (perhaps they have some magical protections against it), but the tribe is superstitious and would prefer if someone dealt with it.
• Brigands (neutral)/Will-o'-wisp (unfriendly): The will-o'-wisp tries to lure the brigands into its haunted wood. They avoid it, and they aren't interested in doing anything about it.
• Ghouls (hostile)/Will-o'-wisp (unfriendly): This is another odd one because the ghouls are very isolated in their swamp. They can't actually do anything to the will-o'-wisp, which would need to come to them. Perhaps the will-o'-wisp, being a more powerful undead, shows up occasionally to lord its superiority over the ghouls?
• Will-o'-wisp (neutral)/CN Homesteaders (hostile): The homesteaders are actively trying to remove the will-o'-wisp, which isn't actually bothering them. I wouldn't be surprised if they are seeking to claim its ruin or the treasure therein. 
• Will-o'-wisp (hostile)/NG Fighter (neutral): Similar to the brigands/tribe dynamic, this indicates that the will-o'-wisp has initiated the conflict and that the fighter simply wishes for it to end. Perhaps men-at-arms have been turning up dead after the night's watch, and the lord isn't sure yet what is responsible? Perhaps the deaths look like accidents or predations by other factions? Perhaps there is just too much else to deal with, and this is on the backburner, with guards instructed to be extra cautious on patrol?
• Will-o'-wisp (neutral)/CN Cleric (friendly): For whatever reason, the cleric (a class that originally existed primarily to combat undead), it friendly towards this undead. I would have to know more about the individual cleric, but perhaps they have insight into the spirit's true nature. Perhaps they know how to put it to rest, and have some degree of empathy for it?
• Will-o'-wisp (hostile)/Wolves (friendly): Another odd one. I'm not sure what to make of it! If I am really unable to come up with something, I might reroll this one.
• NG Fighter (friendly)/CN Cleric (unfriendly): These two are not on good terms, but the fighter wants to be. The cleric has some sort of problem with them. Again, I would need to know more about the individuals.
• CN Cleric (hostile)/LE homesteaders (neutral): The cleric has attempted to run off the homesteaders (they probably object to the homesteaders' Lawfulness), but the homesteaders - for good reason - want to be left alone. The fighter is probably protecting them from further predations, which is likely the source of conflict between the two stronghold rulers.
• CN Cleric (unfriendly)/Wolves (neutral): The wolves sometimes slip past the homesteaders into the cleric's lands and are promptly run off.

So, that's a lot! There are 10 factions in this relatively small region, which results in 19 relationships to keep track of. If that seems overkill, it's probably because it is! Keep in mind that if I doubled the size of this map, I would not only potentially end up with 10 more factions and 19 more relationships within that area, but that those new factions would also have relationships with many of those in this area. 

On my hex key, in the entry for each location, I include a very brief summary of the local faction's relationships towards its neighbors. For example:

NG Fighter's Castle

Relationships:

• Will-o'-wisp (neutral): Will-o'-wisp sometimes attacks guards at night (hostile). Looks like bizarre accidents. Stretched too thin to deal with.

• Berserkers (friendly): Attempting to court/recruit. Berserkers on the fence (neutral).

• CN Homesteaders (neutral): Not offering protection yet. Homesteaders refuse lordship (unfriendly).

• CN Cleric (friendly): Wants an alliance, but tensions over protection of LE homesteaders (unfriendly).

• LE Homesteaders (friendly): Provides protection. Collects food/taxes (neutral).

• Wolves (neutral): Unbothered. Wolves haven't harmed anyone (neutral).

If this method is too much for your game, you might prefer one of the simplified methods I mentioned earlier (one reaction roll per faction which applies to all others, or determining relationships using common sense and tropes). I personally enjoy the challenge of interpreting these rolls, and appreciate the nuance they provide. It may adversely impact the quantity of locations I can detail in a region, but I find it yields a better quality sandbox. Hopefully you agree!