It's a … Pleasure to Meet You

After morale, reaction rolls are probably the next most overlooked rule in Dungeons & Dragons and related games. Unlike morale, which I frequently forget, I regularly make use of reaction rolls, at least when dealing with intelligent beings. My difficulty has long been that I'm not all that keen on most reaction roll tables. Original Dungeons & Dragons presents a very simple table in Volume III:

As others have pointed out, it's important to bear in mind that this table is prefaced by a section in which it's stated that 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." Holmes expands the range of results in the table somewhat and offers some additional thoughts of his own.

Aside from increasing the results from three to five entries, Holmes adds a couple of other things. First, his results suggest that the characters are making an "offer" to creatures and that this table should be used when adjudicating such an interaction. Second, he makes a stronger connection to the importance of Charisma (something OD&D alludes to elliptically in Volume I. Moldvay, in his edition of the Basic Rules goes a step further, dividing the reaction table into two, one for dealing with retainers and one for monsters. Here's his table for retainers:

What Moldvay seems to have done is picked up on Holmes's references to "offers" and decided to create a distinct table, one solely devoted to a potential retainer's reaction to negotiations about rates of pay. Earlier in the book, it's stated that Charisma bonuses and penalties apply to this roll, in addition to the specific modifiers mentioned here. Later, there's another table to govern monster reactions.

This table has the same range of results as Holmes's expanded table and even uses some of the same verbiage, but provides the referee an out by stating that he "can always choose the monster's reactions to fit the dungeon." I find "to fit the dungeon" an interesting turn of phrase and wonder a bit about its precise meaning. I imagine he simply meant that the referee should not use the table in circumstances where it an enemy's reaction should be obvious, such as, say, guards in a prison or fanatical cultists in a hidden shrine. Further, it's likely just another example of the tendency of old school D&D to prioritize the referee's judgment over any rule as written. AD&D has a very similar system to this one, except that it uses percentile dice instead of 2d6.

As is so often the case these days, I like Moldvay's approach; they're the ones I've more or less adopted, even in games (like Empire of the Petal Throne) that have their own reaction systems. If I had to guess why many referees don't make use of these tables – aside from forgetfulness – it's an unwillingness to relinquish control of events in their games to dice rolls. Perhaps I'm wrong on this score. Speaking only for myself, I am often lazy and in need of inspiration and random reaction tables regularly help me overcome both these deficiencies. They're not a panacea and shouldn't be used in every instance, but I like to lean into randomness in my games and see where it leads me. I recommend it.