RCFG uses morale rules, pretty much swiped wholesale from Basic Fantasy. Basic Fantasy reminded me how much I liked morale rules. Morale rules allow you to differentiate creatures on their level of bravery, which is sometimes the same as Willpower, but not always. Hard to force to budge, but quick to run when the wolves come howling? That would be your basic donkey.
These are the problems I think 3e and 4e have with morale:
(1) Combat takes so long that the opponents fleeing seems like a letdown after a long investment. Play a game where combat goes quickly, then you are not so invested in a particular outcome. Sometimes the monsters flee. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes you wish they did, and they don't. Having a half-hour to an hour battle end with your opponents running away, possibly to regroup and engage you in another half-hour to an hour battle might seem anticlimactic.
(2) In a default "DM Calls the Shots" game, encounter balance is King. By this I mean, in any form of AP, where the DM is essentially picking the challenges that the party faces, it is the responsibility of the DM to make those challenges "fair". This is where balance issues come into play, because anything that works against the DM predicting the encounter's outcome is "bad". In fact, with examination, one can see that 4e removes a level of randomness from the DM's ability to predict outcomes (over that of 3e) for exactly this purpose. If monsters always do average damage, for example, it is easier for the DM to know how much damage the PCs are likely to take. If most powers recharge at or by the end of any given encounter, it is easier for the DM to know what resources the players will have for the next encounter.
In a game where players call the shots, and determine from a plethora of options what they will do (the original D&D model), the DM simply cannot determine what will happen ahead of time. It is the job, rather, of the players to attempt to control random variables to the best of their ability. In such a game, morale is a worthwhile tool for the players, as it gives a chance of defeating an enemy -- a chance to survive -- where it might not otherwise exist.
Consider if you will, in The Hobbit, the running fight between the goblins and the dwarves. The dwarves are trying to flee; the goblins are pursuing. Time and again the dwarves have to turn and fight, goblin morale breaks, and the dwarves get a chance to make it closer to the exit. Morale rules were intended to allow for things like this to happen in-game.
The designers of 4e also wanted things like this to happen in-game. The minion rules are, in part, designed for this purpose. The goblin minions attack, the dwarves "defeat" them, and they run away. The only problem with those rules, by the RAW (in my understanding), is that the players, not the DM, determine what happens when they are "defeated". And the players are unlikely to want the goblins back to dog their steps. You can work around it, or house rule that the DM decides, but it is an inelegant solution as it stands, designed specifically to limit the occurrence of the unknown.
And, if you examine the arguments against “Save or Die” and “Save or Suck” effects, they boil down to the same thing – so-called “swinginess”….which means nothing more or less than “unpredictability”.
In a game where the players choose their objectives, and the means to achieve those objectives, there is nothing wrong with having the right spell at the right time. In a game where the DM is not imagining how the “scene” should play out, there is nothing wrong with the players easily defeating a foe that “should be” a hard fight, because the DM never determines what “should be” in the first place. In a game where encounters are quickly handled, there isn’t a problem with the wizard shining in one encounter, because the fighter may well have the opportunity to shine in the next, and both encounters take only half an hour of game time when put together.
This is true not only IME in some distantly-remembered rose-coloured nostalgia-tinged past, but is my current gaming experience as well.
It is therefore my thesis that, while WotC-D&D has come up with some interesting mechanics and ideas, it is not an improvement or an “evolution” of the previous game(s). 3.x and 4e are different games, with different design goals, and mechanics that reflect these goals. For every “problem” of previous editions resolved, they introduce a new hurdle to overcome if you wish to use these games with the design goals of those editions.
In summary, I like morale, but I don’t think it has a place in WotC-D&D. Which is okay, because there are better games out there than WotC is offering to meet my design (and play) goals.
RC
