Ali​g​nm​en​t 

● Alignment is an almost useless set of mechanics that exists because of the peculiarities of D&D's 
original design process & it's later use as a way of arguing for D&D's morality. 
● Back when D&D was first written, it used fantasy wargame rules for combat -- and part of those 
rules fantastical creatures were broken out into army lists based on Law, Chaos and Neutrality... 
(Page 35 of Chainmail 2E from 1972 has the details).  
● D&D imported this concept as a sort of legacy rule, used for creating high level PC armies, and it 
seems to have appealed to Gygax. Gygax loved taxonomy, and had strong, Christian based feelings 
on morality. Thus the 9-category system in AD&D. 
● Moreover, when TSR was popularizing D&D a major complaint was the tendency of players (kids 
especially) to engage in acts of amoral, predatory fantasy. Alignment offered a way to discourage 
and separate this type of 'evil' play from the game. 
● In the era of "Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons" and the Satanic Panic, the ability to point at 
rules encouraging heroic 'goodness' and forbidding devilish 'evil' was a necessary marketing 
strategy. Alignment was a favored way of doing this. 
● Examples of alignment driven play abound, even in the 1981 Basic edition the example of a lawful 
character forbidding a chaotic character from killing captive goblins is included as a lesson. 
● As others have noted, alignment and the intrinsic 'evil' nature of some creatures justifies or even 
encourages their murder. One might argue that it removes a great deal of moral calculus from 
play, a calculus that can be a significant aspect and source of fun. 
● This is how alignment serves to simplify play, removing precisely the sort of complexity most likely 
to lead to non-combat play. Non-combat and especially faction based intrigue are very hard to 
write into predetermined story with antagonists who are intrinsically and absolutely evil. 
● Thus alignment and the desire to maintain designers’ control over the moral thrust of play, perhaps 
originally from a fear of Patrica Pulling and “BADD”, are a move towards the contemporary style of 
play and design that exemplifies a clear designer produced story arc and combat locus of play. 
● Getting rid of alignment and similar leftovers from an earlier era, while easy and useful for story 
arc and combat focused play, may not get rid of the lack of nuance in D&D's morality - a lack that's 
one of the root causes of the game’s current troubles with inclusivity. 
● Ironically a fix for at least the issue of alignment can be found in the classic style of play from the 
1970's and early 1980's. When combat was disfavored, good and evil unimportant to play except 
maybe as cosmic concepts, a huge part of play was negotiation and faction. 
● It is less important in “B2 --Keep on the Borderlands" that the orcs and goblins are both chaotic 
(there's no good or evil in 1981's Basic D&D), but that they are sworn enemies. Smart players in 
the adventure will ally with one to work against the other. 
● How far that allegiance goes, and if it ends in betrayal or a growing mutual power that turns back 
against the titular keep (where, famously, the best treasure in the adventure is laying about) is 
outside of the designers’ control and will vary wildly between groups. 
● Instead of alignment the players themselves must negotiate a social landscape of powers with 
competing interests -- some repugnant, others beatific, but most varying degrees of gray. 
● Now, despite the clear colonialist narrative of Keep on the Borderlands (an adventure on the 
Frontier where to prosper it's easiest to take the goods of the locals by force - starting a cycle of 
violence), its lack of moral sanction for this offers hope. 
● The open nature and need to balance the concerns of the various humanoid factions within the 
adventure at least asks the players to grapple with the morality of their choices, the price of 
expediency, and can often create a sort of counter narrative. 
● In a contemporary adventure like "Dragon of Icespire Peak" (5e) humanoids (orcs) are simply evil, 
and despite being the most sympathetic victims of a malicious dragon, only exist as foes to meet in 
combat.  
● That's my argument against alignment, that not only does it make racial or moral essentialism part 
of play, but that it works in support of a set of play style choices, going far deeper, that need to be 
grappled with to improve D&D.   
 

R​e​acti​o​n R
​ o​ll  

● The ​Reaction Roll​ is a simple check that the GM makes whenever the party encounters monsters 
or NPCs to determines their mood. The oldest rules for it are found in the Little Brown Books, from 
roughly 1974, in "Booklet 3 - Underworld and Wilderness Adventures" pg. 12. 

 
 

● It's a pretty simple rule, and the years (until it mysteriously vanished) haven't altered it much. A 
2D6 check covering broad categories of attitude. Luckily because of its simplicity and the lack of 
modern rules, you can easily drop a Reaction Roll into any edition. 
● In later versions the Reaction Roll has a bit more complexity, in the 1981 Basic D&D Book, on page 
"B25" we find a more complex rule which has a lovely balance of specificity, malleability and 
clarity.  

 
 ● Like a lot of classic rules, beyond the simple mechanics there's a sort of ethics of play involved in 
reaction rolls. They demand GM interpretation (though certainly an adventure can list how 
monsters may react - e.g. a bored dragon always wants to chat.) 
● Yes, the GM has to figure out what it means that a particular creature is "uncertain" about 
vagabond gang intruding on its daily life. This may create a bit more work for the GM ... but ... the 
GM was already going to have to characterize the creature, and the rule helps. 
● The Reaction Roll encourages roleplaying: 34 times out of 35 creatures aren't going to attack 
immediately (unless the GM has a specific reason for them to, or they have surprise*). Moreover, 
it's not just monsters that roll reaction, NPCs can dislike the party as well. 
● * Yes even in OD&D, back in 1974 rules existed for surprise, and it was both far more deadly, far 
simpler (1 or 2 on a D6) and only rarely available to PCs (carrying light negated the opportunity 
except when opening doors). Monsters also always attacked when they had surprise. 

So ​why​ is the Reaction Roll ​use​ful?  

A.  It  encourages  non-combat  solutions  (unless  combat  is  made  the  locus  of  play  with  XP 
mechanics and a tactical ethos of play...) 
B.  Increased  non-combat  opportunities  offer  more  monster  characterization,  less  moral 
absolutism & determinism. 
C.  With  options  other  than  combat  readily  available  encounter  design  has  less  need  for 
"balance". 
D.  ​With  a  random  element  in  monster  behavior  adventures  and  encounters  become  less 
predictable allowing for greater player agency - "Who will the party fight? Befriend?"  

● Also consider the following Design Principle: The GM will need to have an idea of what monsters 
and NPCs want. This can be really easy - a owlbear wants food and to be left alone in its territory - 
or really complex - what does a vampire or dragon want? 
● Furthermore, many creatures who are antagonistic or "evil" will want things the party is 
uncomfortable or unwilling to give. Even a friendly ogre may insist that by right of strength it must 
be allowed to eat a PC to cement any deal. 
 ● Here we get to the issue of "Evil" again in D&D -- but I hope anyone can see the difference. Our 
friendly human eating ogre isn't evil by cosmic default, it's evil because of its desires -- it sees the 
adventurers as food, and its place as a predator as right and just. 

A​symm​etr​ic​ Enc​o​unters 
● Instead of mechanics, I want to discuss classic Design Principles and Ethics of Play - specifically 
the use of asymmetrical encounters and the design principles behind them. I use the term 
“asymmetrical encounter” to mean encounters that aren’t balanced to party level/power. 
● “Challenge Rating” wasn’t part of early D&D, but that’s not because the old designers weren’t 
aware of balance, only that balancing occurred at a level above the individual encounter. Balance 
concerns are instead addressed relating to the entire location or “Level”. 
● "Level Based” v. “Encounter Based” design might not initially sound like much of a difference, but 
it's a set of Design Principles that make for a different game. Encounter Based design (as taught in 
the 5th Edition DMG) approaches each encounter as a discrete play experience. 
● Level Based design instead approaches the entire adventure location (or a large portion of it – a 
“level”) as an arena of play. Encounters are not discrete events but have a relationship to the rest 
of the level. Monsters move about, interact with each other and react to changes. 
● This is a Design Principle, not a mechanic, so it’s not a fixed absolute -- Encounter Based design 
can include interactions between encounters, and Level Based include set-piece encounters... it’s a 
way of approaching adventure design, which informs the whole. 
● What do these principles have to do with Asymmetrical Encounters? Simply, if one views 
encounters as part of a level sized puzzle to unravel, rather than individual obstacles to be 
overcome, it expands the field of design. 
● Individual encounters can act as obstacles or puzzles that can't be resolved by combat, or as 
looming threats appearing at random and necessitating retreat, a risk of exploring too cautiously. 
Players are asked to discern the danger each encounter represents and respond. 
● Level Based Design and exploration require a player expectation that the locus of play is something 
other than combat. If you’re playing a game about fighting strange beasts, you aren’t likely to 
avoid or flee any strange beasts you encounter. 
● To reinforce this expectation there are both mechanics (No combat XP, high lethality combat) and 
ethics (describing a dangerous world, unheroic characters, goals other than defeating enemies) 
that help, and which can be generalized with the maxim “combat is a fail state”. 
● Of course most classic games and designers also recognize that combat is somewhat inevitable, 
but again the key here is an ethics rather than mechanics -- combat may be inevitable, but only 
when risk gets the better of the players’ schemes or they choose it ... because … 
● Independent of mechanics combat is risky with Asymmetric Encounters. These principles, 
mechanics and ethics here all feed into each other. You can include dangerous or unbeatable 
encounters largely because the players know that they can't win every fight but also have other 
tools. 
● Those tools include Reaction Rolls and Morale, while Level Based Design creates the arena where 
the players can utilize tools such as orienteering, strategic ambush, faction intrigue, and trap 
setting, all of which Asymmetric Encounters make necessary or at least highlight as more optimal 
solutions then combat. 
● You can spot Asymmetrical Encounters very early in Dungeons & Dragons design. In the 1974 Little 
Brown Books, random encounters hint at them. Monsters are split up into categories by threat and 
these are distributed based on “Level Beneath the Surface” …but…   
  
● Even on the 1st level of a dungeon, OD&D allows for monsters that are near impossible for 1st level 
PCs to defeat: gargoyles and lycanthropes for example are both high HD and utterly immune to 
normal weapons, while a Enchanter is a 7th level Magic User. 

● Asymmetrical Encounters drive play, rather than guarantee a TPK, only if the players understand 
that the creatures they meet aren’t automatically enemies to fight, and this only works when 
options besides combat, such as: trickery, alliance, bribery and stealth. 
● Thus, Asymmetric Encounters don’t themselves discourage moral essentialism in adventure design, 
but instead present an opportunity and encouragement to use the roleplaying tools that do.  
● The risk of meeting with enemies that are too powerful for the party, and the opportunity of those 
that are far weaker help create a player mindset that encourages caution, creativity and nuance 
--part of a larger toolkit that defines classic play. 

 
F​act​ions​!  

● The final set of four mechanics, design principles and ethics of play to encourage player moral 
decision making, and so reduce moral essentialism in your D&D game is “Faction Intrigue”. 
● Morale, Reaction Rolls and the combat averse environment created by Asymmetrical Encounters 
create a setting where combat recedes to become only one option for resolving the obstacles 
presented by a setting full of dangerous places, creatures and people. 
● Offering options for negotiation, trickery and retreat however is fairly meaningless if there’s 
nothing to support them from the GM’s side of the table. To do that though, one can’t just drop in 
modular mechanics. 
● Instead, affirming the non-combat mechanics and play options asks the GM to accept a radical 
Design Principle, that monsters exist in the game world independently of the characters. That the 
characters’ heroes' journey is separate from the setting and its inhabitants. 
● To open up space for unexpected interaction, monsters must be embodied with sufficient 
psychological depth to support unexpected decisions by the players, who love to make defeated 
enemies allies, to scheme with the most sinister forces presented or take offense at minor slights. 
● To allow such exciting moral decisions the GM and the Designer need to give up some forms of 
narrative control and to invest that energy (as adventure pages or prep work) in giving the 
creatures encountered personalities. 
● This isn’t a call for funny voices. The most important part of personalities for entities encountered 
are: goals, allies, enemies, and plans. Whatever it takes to place them into the fabric of the setting 
as entities with agency.  
● The goal though isn’t really to create a clockwork universe, to simulate a region, location or world, 
it’s to offer a few locations and region where fantasy adventure can occur easily, so taking some 
mechanical shortcuts is helpful. 
● I’m also not encouraging the GM to saddle every villager, bandit and froghemoth with a backstory. 
That’s both nearly impossible for an adventure of any size and produces a large amount of detail 
that the players will never see. Don't waste pages or GM time. 

 
● Instead, the GM or designer can construct a set of Factions: groups of creatures, or singular 
powerful creatures, with goals, allies, enemies, and plans. Leaders and speakers for factions can 
have more detailed personalities, with maybe a table to provide names and one or two word 
personalities for lesser members. 
● How one designs factions varies, but what’s important is that when the PCs meet a dragon, village 
boss, or ogre it’s got its own agenda for when the players enter into negotiation with it. 
● It’s best if each of these agendas conflict in some way with those of other factions, both allowing 
the players to act as power brokers and preventing them from making allies of everyone. If you’re 
helping the Ogre steal sheep, the villagers are going to shoot arrows at you as well. 
● Build up a network of 5 or 6 regional or dungeon faction relationships (draw it out as a web if you 
like) and let the characters find their way through it. It’s much like exploring a maze, maybe easier 
at the table as relationships and negotiation are a universal experience. 
● This sort of Faction Intrigue can be managed entirely without tools, such as in the classic adventure 
B2 – Keep on the Borderlands, where it’s usually just implied by a few sparse phrases.This still 
works, but for a designer or GM that wants something less improvisational there are modern tools. 
● First the "Relationship Web"​.​ Here’s a nice one by Kelvin Green as a (2013?) One Page Dungeon, 
that illustrates the idea. There’s other tools as well: “Tracks”, “Orders of Battle” and 
“Clocks/Indexes” all useful at keeping track of factions. 

● “Tracks” or “Reputation Tracks”​ ​are a way of determining how positively or negatively a faction 
views the party (and you should base this on party, not an individual PC or your players will find a 
way to be on good terms with everyone). 

 
● Tracks can make these as simple as "Enemies - Neutral - Friends" or more complex numerical 
systems, with factions offering resources, quests and henchmen at the higher levels. 
● Reputation can become a favorite mini-game for many players, with the party seeking to become 
agents of specific factions or join a military force to gain perks, equipment, followers and titles. 
● This is useful, because it gives the players choice compared to predetermined story. Players who 
choose their affiliations invest more. They may eventually betray their friends, but it will have far 
more emotional and narrative weight, because the party made the decisions. 
● You can track reputation with numbers and rules (e.g. At reputation 4 with the goatfolk, 4 
“Billygruff clubmen” will offer themselves as henchmen, -1 reputation if they are mistreated or any 
are killed) or simply by keeping notes and a log of negotiated agreements/ on character sheets. It 
can encourage players to interact with the system if some of these reward and penalties are 
transparent. 
● Beyond using reputation for perks, it can also directly impact reaction rolls and morale. 
Encountering a neutral or friendly faction the GM should apply bonuses (perhaps one per reputation 
point?) while factions with past negative experiences should have reaction penalties. 
● “Orders of Battle” are separate records of a faction’s numbers, resources, and tactics. They help to 
track relative faction strength after interaction with the party & can be used to determine how 
inter-factional conflict ends during a longer campaign. 
● Orders are almost necessary when one isn’t following a set narrative as they allow the GM to 
quickly determine how a given faction (say the haven village) will respond to player hijinx and are a 
tool to help imagine faction conflict. 
● Orders allow for better tracking of faction plans. Knowing that the goatfolk are ambush raiders 
with a special fondness for wine and have 30 Billygruffs to throw into their depredations means 
that the GM can better anticipate their actions. 
● E.G. When Friar Tipsy trundles through the goatfolk inhabited briarwood with a wagon of claret the 
GM has an idea of what will happen if they party doesn't intervene: Tipsy bludgeoned, village fete 
ruined, goatfolk drunk and happy. 
● Faction plans needn't be reactive, better adventure happens when players have a chance to uncover 
faction schemes and to act, to respond, intervene, or assist. Maybe the party will warn Tipsy 
without their goatfolk friends knowing, maybe escort Tipsy, maybe they’ll help the goatfolk steal 
the wine? 
● To do this “Clocks/Indexes​”​ are useful. A “Clock” is simply a countdown for an event. For example, 
a Clock would count down the number of sessions before Tipsy makes his doomed delivery run. I 
usually time Clocks by game session rather than some length of time in the game world. Clocks can 
be drawn as a literal clock, but that’s gimmicky and space consuming - a number is fine. 
● “Indexes” work somewhat like clocks but incorporate player action. A favorite is the “Chaos Index” 
from Hydra Co-Op’s “Slumbering Ursine Dunes” where various player actions and forbearance 
increase or decrease the ambient amount of “chaos” with dramatic regional effects. 
● Indexes can benefit from random elements, where a clock might countdown the sessions to the 
village fete (and inevitable goatfolk wine raid), an Index would track the relationship between the 
village and briarwood. 
● An index could have two poles - one with a villager call for gendarmes to massacre the goatfolk in 
the woods and the other the goatfolk burning the village. Player actions and random events would 
move the Index back and forth between adventure ending extremes. 
● Random events (goatfolk leader Nanny Burse has a prophetic dream) could move that index up or 
down triggering individual clocks, or events might be triggered by player action or change in Order 
(the villagers are reinforced when a local preacher comes by with his fanatic flock). 
● These tools work together to create potential for narrative, a set of slumbering possibilities for 
your game, rather than a predetermined one and that’s their power. Players aren’t just asked to 
blindly follow a path but to make open ended decisions & have moral discernment. 
● I use this goatfolk/village fete example precisely because it could be a classic colonialist fantasy. 
Wilderness dwelling man-things (though I find animal people carry less cultural baggage?) 
threaten a “peaceful” village. 
● A modern adventure path would start with quest-giver “Get those goats!”, a few encounters on the 
way, and a climactic fight against the Goatboss. A thoughtful one might offer narrative branches 
ending in reconciliation between village and goatfolk or other compromise. 
● Yet, even these branching narratives can’t hand the decision over to the players entirely, simply 
because writing branches for lower order possibilities (Party takes over goats and village, raids 
monastery, starts robber barony) would make this simple scenario too long. 

 
● Using classic tools though an open set of possibilities is easy. Complications can be laid in as 
clocks and indexes, ticking away like narrative timebombs. Orders for tracking factional resources, 
tactics and personalities, and Tracks to determine the party's place in the intrigue.  
● While it’s entirely possible that the players will still undertake a genocidal fantasy using these 
tools, it's both less likely (the tactical situation doesn't have to make it easy) and it puts the moral 
weight of that decision firmly on the players' shoulders -- hopefully making them think a bit.