Anyone knows how NPCs reaction works?

AvGur

Recenly discovered, that npcs reaction not only depends on charisma & reputation, but also on random 2d10 modifier, as BG2 manual say. CHA 18 gives only +5 modifier, Hero reputation +4! So for 2d10 word "random" isn't right, it's RULETTE! BG2EE manual do not mentioned that formula. Is it still here and work same way?

Total score 7 & lower gives hostile reaction... I don't know what it means, never been attacked for low charisma. 8-14 means neutral reaction, 15 and more gives You friendly reaction (more qusts, gold, npc join etc)
Example: Neutral reputation (no modifiers) with ugly CHA 6 (-4) get 2d10-4, it gives You 11% chance for Friendly (maximum, best possible) reaction. With high reputation You can push charima even lower and still get friendly reaction.
How Really differs hostile-neutral-friendly reaction, is it actually works? Also manual say that some NPCs have own reaction modifiers, but it's not listed anywhere in *.chr file.

Thank You.

Bubbles

@AvGur
Not sure of the 2d10 but I do know, if I maintain charisma 18 or higher, reactions or conflcts seemed to take a longer time to occur or as and when they occur it usually can be resolve in a somewhat more beneficial manner (but romance can be irritation, not sure if it really affect romance but certain NPCs seemed to be far more persistent and refuse to take "NO" for an answer ^^).

If you think Dorn is persistent, wait till u meet Rasaad ... terrible monk ... (I always thought monks are supposed to have self-discipline ... X_X)

lunar

I don't think there is a roll. It all depends on your reaction adjustment, that is your cha and rep bonus or penalties combined. If you have the required positive modifier score for a good reaction, you will always get a good reaction. If you fail, you will get a negative reaction no matter how many times you reload, AFAIK.

Not only for party joinable npcs, but minor npcs like commoners, and especially noblemen/women react differently according to your reaction adjustment. If you are ugly they snob you. If you are a babe they act more civilly.

There are some minor dialogues that check for cha and reaction adjustment as well. In bg1, if you have low cha you get rude dialoguge options while interacting with the beggars, and different ones for high cha, even for giving gold or dissing them. In bg2, madam Nin in Copper Coronet offers you a prostitute and a low cha character gets the 'oh. ah...er..no' shy answer and the madame says 'no need to be bashful'. High cha characters get a more dignified 'no, but thank you.' answer. There are probably a lot more different little things in dialogues.

AvGur

Thank You for reply, BUT, random modifier existed in BG2. Engine researchers (IESDP) say it's always 10, but I want to get answer from beamdog crew, what real number is?

p.s. Is there another thread to ask game-developers?

sarevok57

I believe what actually happens is that it rolls between 8-12 then adds your penalties/bonuses, that's why if you have 19 CHA ( which gives a killer +8 bonus) you will basically never a reaction check to get a positive bonus,

and that is also the reason why if you have say 10 CHA which gives +0 you will never get a positive friendly reaction because the most you will ever hit is 12

and this also means that if your CHA is 3, which gives you a -8 penalty, you will only receive the unfriendly reactions because the highest you could hope to achieve would be 4 ( on the roll of 8-12)

in fact if im not mistaken, I believe the original BG manual said that this was the scenario

AvGur

It would be great, to hear this info from developers. I'm afraid it could be different number in reality

Arunsun

In some app I downloaded (Called Baldur's Gate reference on Google Play) it says that the computer rolls a number between 8 and 12, then applies modifier (CHA and Reputation) and then the reaction is hostile if the result is 7 or less, neutral between 8 and 14, and friendly above this. The app has some slight typos and some spell descriptions that match 2.5 rules but not BG2 reality but otherwise it is pretty accurate, and thus I have always thought this to be the right system. Could be mistaken though.

Erg

We had a similar discussion in 2013.

In the original games there is no roll, the formula is

Reaction = 10 + CHA Modifier + REP Modifier

Not sure if that has been changed in the Enhanced Edition.

In that discussion from 2013 I've tagged @Dee and asked the developers to confirm if this was the case, but I didn't get any reply, despite being very much loved by everyone in Beamdog

Dee

It's actually a d10, from what our programmers tell me. The full formula is 1d10 + CHA modifier + REP modifier.

So if a dialogue depends on a reaction check, that's the roll it's using. (Incidentally this isn't new code; it's been there since vanilla.)

Erg

Dee said:

It's actually a d10, from what our programmers tell me. The full formula is 1d10 + CHA modifier + REP modifier.

So if a dialogue depends on a reaction check, that's the roll it's using. (Incidentally this isn't new code; it's been there since vanilla.)

@Dee, I'm afraid that you and your programmers are wrong. Just tested in BG:EE and the right formula is clearly

Reaction = 10 + CHA Modifier + REP Modifier

without roll as stated on the IESDP site.

If you do not believe me, use the attached scripts as custom script for Adbel and see what happens

Dee

If it's not working then it's a bug. Our programmers, however, have access to the code. The likelihood of them being wrong about what the code in front of them says is pretty slim.

Edit: to clarify, I'm not saying it's necessarily a bug we would fix. I tend to prefer a more consistent approach to dialogue checks. But if the code says 1d10 and the game is reporting 10, then that's a bug.

Erg

Dee said:

If it's not working then it's a bug. Our programmers, however, have access to the code. The likelihood of them being wrong about what the code in front of them says is pretty slim.

Those scripts I've uploaded on my previous post are quite simple to read and I'm sure your programmers will confirm that I'm indeed right on this.

The roll was never implemented (fact), and I personally think (opinion) that it was a deliberate decision from the original developers, rather than a bug, because otherwise it would have made too difficult to receive certain quest rewards.

Edit: furthermore a 1d10 roll would make reputation and charisma almost irrelevant and quest rewards would be almost entirely decided on random chance, that would be a rather poor implementation of reaction, don't you think?

Dee

I can't speak to people's intentions from 20 years ago, but there's no denying what's in the code. It does look like the code doesn't actually roll the die, but the die roll is specifically included in the code.

So (fact) the die roll was implemented, but (fact) at some point before the game's release the die roll was broken, and (opinion) that breakage seems to have been intentional. (Also fact: that breakage seems to have created another bug, which may be the answer to the question about why you're sometimes getting success with lower reaction modifiers. But it's too early to tell for sure.)

And for the record, I totally agree with you--a constant reaction "score" is better than a reaction "check" when it comes to story events.

Erg

Dee said:

I can't speak to people's intentions from 20 years ago, but there's no denying what's in the code. It does look like the code doesn't actually roll the die, but the die roll is specifically included in the code.

So (fact) the die roll was implemented, but (fact) at some point before the game's release the die roll was broken, and (opinion) that breakage seems to have been intentional. (Also fact: that breakage seems to have created another bug, which may be the answer to the question about why you're sometimes getting success with lower reaction modifiers. But it's too early to tell for sure.)

And for the record, I totally agree with you--a constant reaction "score" is better than a reaction "check" when it comes to story events.

Yes, when I said that the roll was never implemented, I meant on the released product. I agree with you that it must have been implemented in an early testing stage, but then the developers must have decided (probably) to get rid of it, because constant reaction scores worked better.

I don't think there is any other bug involved, because all those bug reports are based on anecdotal evidence from people that don't seem to understand how reaction really works (or what the thresholds are for a given dialogue).

In my tests I've never seen any evidence of those bugs, so unless someone is able to provide reliable repro steps, I'm incline to dismiss those bugs as non-existent.