Morale

[NewJeffCT]

I voted "No" and find the fact that so many people voted "Yes" in some way or other mindboggling. I am not convinced that any GM needs a rule about morale. At all. If a GM wants opponents to give up or run away, they can do that without any rule. Just decide that it happens... and it does! It really is that easy. Especially since this is completely an issue of plausibility that needs to be regulated, if at all, at the individual table in the concrete situation and story. Any morale value, however delicately designed, is unable to handle that in any meaningful way without weighing down the entire decision process.
I mean, if it suits your game, fine. Please create a houserule and argue over this in your gaming group. But I think this is a waste of trees. How much reality does one want to be prescribed by designers in one's own game?
To be honest, I cannot find a rule less german than a morale rule in a RPG.

True - the DM is the ultimate arbiter. But, having a simple rule system allows one to easily maintain consistency. ("Hey, those goblins ran away in one round two combats ago... why are they so stalwart now?") While I'd love to be a perfectly consistent DM, I can't remember every little detail of each encounter (gee, did those goblins run away after they lost 6 of their number, or was it 8?) Having an easy morale rule would make my life easier.

 

[S'mon]

To be honest, I cannot find a rule less german than a morale rule in a RPG.

Not even in RPGS modelled on Prussian Kriegspiel?

 

[S'mon]

There are also some who'd like to see shorter rulebooks, but think morale is a lot more important than than many other things the rules do cover.

Morale rules should take half a page to explain in the DMG. If that means they must take out a few example traps or magic items, fine. In the 4e MM each monster has a whole paragraph on tactics and several on encounter groups - both things the DM can invent just as easily; morale would probably take only one number.

Must spread XP... yeah, I agree strongly. 3e had rules for EVERYTHING - except morale.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

I believe morale should be a rule, at least as an option.

 

[Steven Winter]

The great thing about Morale rules is that they can encourage players to tackle situations they would never consider otherwise. "Looks like about 80 kobolds on the other side of that hill. They'll almost certainly run if we take 'em by surprise and hit 'em hard. Lord help us if they stand their ground." There's almost no way to create that situation without morale rules.

Steve

 

[saskganesh]

The B/X D&D morale rules are perfect. Why they weren't adapted to D&D at large is beyond me.

No form of D&D as far as I know has ever had morale rules for players. The players' henchmen, followers, and other assorted npc hangers on, sure. But not for the pcs themselves.

Pretty Much. I use BFRPG as my base system ... the morale rules take a quarter page. Morale is a single line entry in a monster listing.

It's really just a 2d6 reaction roll, but in combat. In play there's always circumstances to judge, so it doesn't take away DM agency.

 

[the Jester]

I voted "No" and find the fact that so many people voted "Yes" in some way or other mindboggling. I am not convinced that any GM needs a rule about morale. At all. If a GM wants opponents to give up or run away, they can do that without any rule. Just decide that it happens... and it does! It really is that easy.

You can also 'just decide' whether the monsters hit, make their saves, run out of hit points, etc. without ever consulting the rules. You just decide that it happens... and it does! It really is that easy. But that misses the point. Some dms, myself included, don't want to decide everything arbitrarily. I don't want to know the outcome; I want to be surprised, just like the players.

Any morale value, however delicately designed, is unable to handle that in any meaningful way without weighing down the entire decision process.

Sounds like you've never played BECMI or another system with simple, efficient morale rules. I assure you that it is quite possible to craft morale rules that handle individual situations with a general rule, a few quick modifiers and the caveat that the dm's judgment always takes precedence.

I mean, if it suits your game, fine. Please create a houserule and argue over this in your gaming group. But I think this is a waste of trees. How much reality does one want to be prescribed by designers in one's own game?.

How are morale rules more prescriptive than, say, rules for the prices of items? Or rules for how diplomacy checks work? Or rules for how wounds heal over time if not treated?

It's not like morale rules, even detailed and complex ones, are going to take up a lot of page space- if it takes up more than one page, that is shockingly complex, while a single paragraph and a few sample modifiers ought to suffice.

The B/X D&D morale rules are perfect. Why they weren't adapted to D&D at large is beyond me.

I agree- using a bell curve is a wonderful way to have brave monsters typically react bravely and cowardly ones break quick and easy.

 

[JohnSnow]

So, I'd like to see Morale guidelines, as opposed to actual rules, that apply to monsters and npc's. In other words, put in something like was mentioned up-thread about general tendencies for a particular monster type. I think it was something like:

Goblins: Cowardly
Orcs: Fierce
Skeletons: Relentless
Red Dragon: Arrogant

And then explain what those qualifiers mean in a couple page summary. Relentless means they fight to the end (undead, for example). Cowards are likely to flee (or surrender) if they lose a leader or 1/4 of their number. And so on.

Something like that which lets you introduce guidelines that work in a narrative sense, but don't require a die roll. On the other hand, maybe PCs who succeed on a successful intimidate check can give low-morale monsters pause. My favorite film example are a maniac Han Solo giving chase to the Stormtroopers in Star Wars, and Obi-Wan scaring off the Tuskens in same.