New Staff Blog: Run Away!

[Sunseeker]

For many, it isn't.

Tools that help the in-game improv of DMing are a great help. Morale rules are one of them.

I disagree, the issue is too sensitive, either the outcome is a laundry-list of monster-specific, highly situational morale tables or it's a flimsy "well if one of their allies drop they might feel bad and run away."

Morale guidelines are something that should be discussed in the DMG, but they're not something that can really exist effectively in any specific manner. They should be developed and deployed at the table at the DM's discretion, if the DM needs them, they'll come up with something.

Honestly morale doesn't need to be anything more than "intelligent creatures might run away when their allies are dead and their health is low." That's IMO, the best way morale rules can be established.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Give me a pretty easy to remember rule (Morale: wisdom check when bloodied or commander is dead, DC XX) and I'll start using it.

I was thinking the wisdom check would be the easiest way to not have another stat line. You could even have 'commander' units to flesh the system out a touch. Subordinate units could use the commander's charisma score instead of their own wisdom score when making checks. That seems like a reasonably easy thing to remember and gives a real benefit to groups with commander types.

A group of goblins with a hobgoblin commander would be less likely to break than a group without.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Morale guidelines are something that should be discussed in the DMG, but they're not something that can really exist effectively in any specific manner. They should be developed and deployed at the table at the DM's discretion, if the DM needs them, they'll come up with something.

That's exactly what the AD&D morale rules were. You could add up all the fiddly modifiers if you wanted and make a roll, or you could eyeball the morale rank of the opponent and make a judgment call. Both aid in-game DM improv.

 

[kevtar]

Morale rules in AD&D went something like this:

- The base morale score is 50%
- Monsters' morale was 50% + 5%/HD above1, and +1% per HP above any HD.
- Morale checks were made every round (and remember, rounds were different, lol)
- Each morale check had modifying circumstances: facing a superior force, 25% of the party slain, Leader unconscious, etc.. The modifiers for each of these circumstances modified the base morale score
- As morale decayed, further modifiers could be applied: the number of enemies deserting, enemies slain, etc.. (and each of these added a penalty to the base morale)
- Your henchmen had morale score modified by your CHA and loyalty score
- Morale Failure had a set of results ranging from falling back and fighting to surrender, depending on the modified result of the morale check.

Those were the hard-coded rules, but as was mentioned above, you could just "eyeball" that real quickly by looking at the monsters' HD & HP and getting a general idea of their morale score. Then, as the combat progressed, you could adjust accordingly.

But that's where the issue lay. There are a lot of things to check at the beginning of each round in AD&D. Declaring actions, positions, rolling initiative, settling ties, tracking when spells go off and now adding morale?

I preferred (and still prefer, actually) having a guideline of what kind of options I can have as a DM for monsters that don't want to fight anymore, and then I'll determine when or how the monsters or NPCs break morale as it fits within the narrative of our particular game and the context of that particular adventure and group.

 

[Lwaxy]

I've never truly stopped using morale. I assign morale values based on situation and who it is. I.E. an orc defending his home village might fight to the death, an orc raiding band would be a lot less likely to do so.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I do wonder though, if you do yourself a disservice by spurning randomizing mechanics. Sometimes, I have found, the dice will tell you wierd or wonderful things which work out in play much better than what I might have planned. The real world is weird and doesn't make sense, why should a fictional world be less so?

Your point is an interesting one. I look at dice as a way to make the game unpredictable (even weird), fair, and as a tool for making choices I don't want to make. When I need some inspiration, I often simply roll a d% and let the results decide whether some good, bad, or ambivalent event happens.

But I am really drawing a hard line on the notion of free will. I hate nonmagical fear effects. I don't go for those goading/knight's challenge/CAGI effects. And I have had a shot with the HoB morale rules and wasn't wild about them either. Every choice that any character makes, I want made by a human being. I might roll to see what factors influence a choice, or what the results of that choice are, but the choice itself is sacrosanct. That's the philosophy I have developed.

I am indeed concerned that my roleplaying of NPCs may become predictable, which is why I started sourcing a variety of stories from other media and using them as inspiration more directly than I used to. The result is something that I think is just as hackneyed and multifaceted as it needs to be to feel real.

 

[mxyzplk]

I miss morale rules too. It reminds us (GMs) to have NPCs and monsters behave more realistically and not just always attack until slain. I'd actually like to see a two-part mechanic for how likely something is to attack unprovoked and then how likely it is to continue to fight. The former can arguably be reaction rolls but that only really works for NPCs, not monsters and animals and whatnot.

 

[Sunseeker]

That's exactly what the AD&D morale rules were. You could add up all the fiddly modifiers if you wanted and make a roll, or you could eyeball the morale rank of the opponent and make a judgment call. Both aid in-game DM improv.

That sounds reasonable, though I think I would still prefer tables for morale to be in splatbooks, while kept simple in the DMG/MMs.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Your point is an interesting one. I look at dice as a way to make the game unpredictable (even weird), fair, and as a tool for making choices I don't want to make. When I need some inspiration, I often simply roll a d% and let the results decide whether some good, bad, or ambivalent event happens.

I have 3 Fudge/Fate dice in my dice bag for exactly the same thing.

For those that might not know - they are d6 with two + signs, two - signs and two sides blank. So I roll three and get a + + - that comes to positive one. I use it when I have no idea which direction a random event should go.

 

[RHGreen]

... so don't pull a 3.x and make most monsters move faster than typical PCs (meaning the PCs can't retreat against monsters who want to pursue until they get rapid-movement magic, barring convenient terrain / crowds to hide in).

I don't like the static movement rates. This is one of the kind of reasons.

Your base movement should be static for example: 30' / 6 Squares.

But when you are performing extra movement you should roll for that extra movement.

Imagine running away or pursuing: 6 + 1d6 + Dexterity Modifier

If both those fleeing and those pursuing do this then it would make for a much more interesting chase.


As for Morale it should be a group thing rather than an individual thing. This might make it easier on the DM rather than checking lots of creatures.

I think having the check triggered by PCs, such as in a similar vein to the Intimdate method in 4E would be good. This might make the DMs job a lot easier than figuring out when to do it.

For example: The fighter scores a final blow on the leader. (Rather than have it auto trigger a morale check) the fighter cuts off the leader's head and screams his victory war cry. This triggers the morale check. Obviously the Group Morale Score would be effected by the lack of a leader and other aspects.

Of course, the checks would have to definitely be a D20, not 2d6 and not 2d10.