I've decided I hate morale checks. Never saw the point of them. The man behind the screen can decide when something runs or fights or surrenders or plays dead. I'm not sure I ever played in a session with morale checks (Ken, this is not an invitation to use them tomorrow night). Not sure why I needed to write this, but I have and now I feel better. My morale is better and I did not need to roll to see if it increased. Okay, that's it.
Amen. Just another useless dice roll. No need for them, for the reasons you stated. Nuff said.
ReplyDeleteI like them, but I don't need to have them. Fantasy gaming works just fine without that part of its wargaming roots.
ReplyDeleteI feel the same way about monster reaction rolls - honestly, I already know how the monsters feel about intruders, I don't need to roll to find out if the dice agree with me or not. But sometimes I like to roll, just for grins. :)
ReplyDeleteI use homebrew rules for morale and they only apply to monsters and npcs. In combat morale can be more important than wounds. The PCs are heroes so they will fight to the death if they want to, but monsters and npcs turn tail and run as often as not once they see their companions start to drop.
I've used it twice in the last 35 years.
ReplyDeleteI am assuming you are talking "morale" and not "moral"--I hope I have used morals more than twice (but don't hold me to it).
ReplyDeleteHow often, as a DM, have you had enemies flee from a fight that they could have won but didn't because their nerve broke? How do you decide when that happens? It's not a tactical decision, obviously. Arbitrarily?
ReplyDeleteAs a DM I like to play the game as well, and not always know what's going to happen. Not that it's an 'either or' situation.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting question you raise. Even if we talk about the early wargaming roots of RPGs, morale rules were not necessarily part of skirmish rules, the level of combat most commonly occurring in RPGs.
ReplyDeleteAs an example, Donald Featherstone explains why, in his Skirmish Wargaming rules (1975), he intentionally omitted morale rules: "...because with the game time so short (rarely more than one minute) few individuals get time to react in the morale sense. If men were going to run away they probably would have done it before the game."
That said, I do use them, mostly to ensure I keep monster reactions varied/unpredictable. I easily fall into ruts in that sense, and the dice help me avoid that. But I don't use them because I feel they are inherently needed anyway. On that score I agree with Featherstone.
I use it often unless the party is encountering undead, fanatics, or something for which I have already decided a battle plan.
ReplyDeleteI think the test is inaptly named (but can't think of a better one) - rather than look at it as "does the enemy decide to give up the fight?" I interpret the result based on context.
For example, a party is attacked by a pack of 6 goblins and makes quick work of two of them. The remaining 4 goblins fail their morale test - as a GM, my thought could be that they are falling back to 1)gather others 2)give warning to their fellows 3)lure the PCs into following them into a trap (ambush, pit trap, etc) 4)ok, maybe they are running away. I might even roll to see which of those I go with, especially if playing solo.
I could (and sometimes do) make the decision without the dice, but as Bard noted, it helps prevent falling into ruts/predictable responses.
-John
Just crack open a bag of Doritos, Tim, and a nice beverage. Your morale will improve immediately.
ReplyDeleteI do morale freeform. A simple roll isn't always the best. Sometimes different monsters won't have a good view of part of the battle. They don't always know if their enemies are dead.
ReplyDeleteAlso, impressive spells and overkill critical hits can have an outsized effect on morale to some creatures.
I also use the "cornered rat" rule. If somebody would fail morale and doesn't have an easy way to escape, they get an added benefit for a couple rounds.