4e Initimidate - better than padded sumo?

[RandomCasualty2]

Fuck, 1st edition had goddamn morale rules. It isn't hard- nor should it be the exception.

Setting a morale rating for a creature is actually pretty easy. I mean you can have dragons be more courageous than goblins.

Figuring out the actual modifiers for a morale check is hard, because you've got to factor in all kinds of crap.

[The 13 Wise Buttlords]

I understand that people don't want their PCs to automatically have to flee the battle (since the game won't be able to figure out stuff like you swore an oath to the Temple Knights never to back down fighting orcs)... but in most situations, since when did PCs fight to the death, anyway?

I always thought that PCs with a lick of sense only stood their grounds and fought to the death when it was otherwise completely hopeless, like being caught in a corridor with a giant crab or troll.

[Draco_Argentum]

Why not operate under the default assumption that nothing wants to die, and leave the rest to specific exceptions and the tea party?

Thats a bit of a cop out answer though, we can tea party any part of the game. You'd need to explain why morale is less worth mechanics than hitpoints. I don't see it, running away should be a common occurrence so it seems to be a good candidate for mechanics.

RC, there really shouldn't be many modifiers. Relative EL of each side and a penalty for being wounded is about it IMO.

[MartinHarper]

The number of modifiers depends how realistic you want to make things. A person thinking about surrendering or fleeing will be juggling a lot of factors.

Risks:
1. If I fight, how likely am I to die?
2. If I surrender, how likely am I to die?
3. If I run, how likely am I to die?

This in turn depends on other factors. The relative power of the various combatants. How likely other people are to run away ("I don't need to outrun the lion, I just need to outrun you"). How likely they are to take an opportunity attack while running away, either from their opponent, or from their own side. What their captors might do to them if they surrender. What their own side might do to them if they run away. The amount of healing available. The availability of foraged food if they slink away into the forest.
Then we have to add factors like whether they care about the other people on their side, or what the rewards are for winning the battle, plus all the irrational factors involved. It's tricky. Shouldn't the players be weighing up all these factors, rather than the rules?

[CatharzGodfoot]

This is what I think should not be determined with morale mechanics:

Risks:
1. If I fight, how likely am I to die?
2. If I surrender, how likely am I to die?
3. If I run, how likely am I to die?

This is what I think should be determined via morale mechanics:

...all the irrational factors involved.

But I'm totally willing to give ground on what is considered `fear itself` rather than `the better part of valor`.

[angelfromanotherpin]

The number of modifiers depends how realistic you want to make things. A person thinking about surrendering or fleeing will be juggling a lot of factors.

No, they won't be. That sort of tactical analysis is how people surrender without needing the morale system. If the ECL+7 lich says 'surrender or be toad,' you surrender based on good sense. If you are surrounded by an elevated outnumbering force, you surrender out of good sense.

Morale is for when you run, even if all it means is that you'll die tired.

Panic triggers when people are already under stress, and then something goes wrong. Getting hurt is a classic, and so is seeing a new wave of enemies arrive, or your leader falling in battle, or seeing some of your buddies run.

The more you care about winning the engagement, the more things going wrong you are likely to tolerate before losing it.

For example: Fred of Nostril, dirt farmer, has been conscripted to fight off invaders. If Fred knows that losing only means he'll be paying taxes to a different person next year, then he probably quits real soon. If Fred has been convinced that the invaders winning will mean they'll rape his daughter and steal his pig, he hangs in a bit longer.

[Midnight_v]

Why not operate under the default assumption that nothing wants to die, and leave the rest to specific exceptions and the tea party?

Because it's nto about who wants to die. Its about thinking "Omg I'm gonna die" which leads to the flee or flight response.
Paladins: have had the flight response turned off, by the Gods.
Golems: Never had it really: Killer robots don't flee when they're about to die. They follow programming and/or explode.

Besides the default assumptions that "Nothing wants to die" is utterly demolished by real life examples ethanaisa folks, suicides, and most relavant: Sucicide Bombers... all over the fucking place. Should clue us in that thats not a good assumption.
Thats just humanity.
There are plenty of animals that "DO NOT BACK DOWN" which is why they can slay bulls with a fucking rapier, and you have to kill a pit bull before it stops biting you.
Lastly, I don't want to leave very much to the discretion of the Tea Party, the Tea Party can't be trusted to produce rational or even repeatable results. The Tea Party must not be allowed into our parliment much less be allowed a chance to rule! TRAVELING THAT PATH IS THE WAY OF MADNESS AND CORRUPTION!!! I... I .. .uh...
Damn... gotta stop watching 300 and political movies.
Hey come to think of there's another example.
300 "So you have a million troopes... Still not getting past here without a fight."
No that default assumtion doesn't work...

[RandomCasualty2]

Shouldn't the players be weighing up all these factors, rather than the rules?

Yeah really, I don't think the rules can be that complex to consider all the situations, unless you want to have TONS of modifiers for everything. Either that or you have generic guidelines which end up being magic teaparty anyway.

So I like the idea that the DM is supposed to adjust if the situation isn't normal.

[The 13 Wise Buttlords]

It still seems sort of blatantly arbitrary.

Say you have three people in your party. One is Aladdin, one is Ryu Hayabusa, and the other is Monkey D. Luffy.

Aladdin, obviously, would never stay in a protracted fight unless he absolutely had to. He has qualms about killing people and isn't motivated by anything more than getting by and making time with a hot babe. Him NOT running from any fight that doesn't determine the fate of Agrabah needs explaining by the hero.

Ryu Hayabusa is a ninja who has had it drilled into his head since birth that honor is more important than anything and disobeying the dragon clan. If the mission required him to return with an ancient red wyrm's dragons testicles with 12 hours and there there was a dragon cave off the beaten path, he would have to go and fight to the death against all reason or common sense. He could come up with a Scooby Doo plan to get said testicles, but once the window of opportunity closes it's either do or die.

Luffy, to put it charitably, is an idiot. He has no concept of danger and death doesn't even scare him a little bit. When faced with the horror of having his skin flayed off of his rubber body and implanted with the screaming skulls of the Grand Line, he picks his nose and wonders what's for dinner. He will fight to the death when he doesn't even have a reason for it, because he really is that stupid.


Now, all three characters have the same character builds. They took the same levels and expansion options, but they will obviously behave very differently in combat.

Why should Luffy be at an advantage (or disadvantage, depending on the particulars) compared to Aladdin? It's just roleplaying choices and all three are equally valid characters. Luffy or Ryu being forced to run just because he's confronted with a flesh golem made out of aborted babies and it made the wail of the damned is not in-character for them.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Say you have three people in your party. One is Aladdin, one is Ryu Hayabusa, and the other is Monkey D. Luffy.

...

Now, all three characters have the same character builds. They took the same levels and expansion options, but they will obviously behave very differently in combat.

Why do those three characters have to have the same build? They all have very different capabilities, why couldn't two of them have gotten the Dedicated or Fearless or other morale-relevant abilities somewhere along the line?

Claiming your character is too hardcore to run away in a game that includes a morale system is like claiming they're too slick to be hit in a game that includes a combat system. You can, but if they don't have what backs it up, you're just posturing.

[The 13 Wise Buttlords]

Why do those three characters have to have the same build? They all have very different capabilities, why couldn't two of them have gotten the Dedicated or Fearless or other morale-relevant abilities somewhere along the line?

I was talking about the problem of Magical Tea Party.

Now, this sort of thing gets averted if you introduce modifiers, but seriously, who really gives a flying fuck?

How many works of adventure fiction can you name where the heroes lose their guts and flee in the middle of heated combat? I'm not talking about a Metal Gear Solid or Star Wars-esque tactical retreat because they're trying to conserve ammunition or prevent reinforcements from arriving, but I'm talking about fleeing the middle of combat because they're scared.

Heroes staying and fighting even though the odds are overwhelmingly against them is a staple of heroic fiction. This goes from girls in colorful frills (Sailor Moon) to teddy bears with stomach tattoos (Care Bears) to pretty much any superhero you can mention. Even Booster Gold. So why do characters become complete fucking pussies when you stick them in [strikeout]Chainmail[/strikeout] D&D?

It was done there and in Warhammer for gameplay simplicity. There's no need to do that in D&D for PCs, because PCs generally control only one character.

If you're going to try to introduce a system where heroes have more guts because of arbitrary factors like revenge or personal history, it becomes even more dumb. My mercenary fighter will flee when goblins ambush the party from high ground and kill off two party members, but he WON'T flee when the Dark Lord starts smiting people left and right because said Dark Lord killed his little sister? WTF?

Claiming your character is too hardcore to run away in a game that includes a morale system is like claiming they're too slick to be hit in a game that includes a combat system. You can, but if they don't have what backs it up, you're just posturing.

That's the exact problem. We have a combat system with numbers because we have one character going 'I hit you!' and the victim going 'No you didn't!'.

This is a problem of 'I give a great speech and you sleep with me.' and the victim going 'But I don't want to!'

Regardless, this goes back to a previous thread where I stated flat-out that PCs should be immune to social interaction skills unless they're induced by phlebtonium, and even then should be used gingerly.

[PhoneLobster]

This is a problem of 'I give a great speech and you sleep with me.' and the victim going 'But I don't want to!'

Regardless, this goes back to a previous thread where I stated flat-out that PCs should be immune to social interaction skills unless they're induced by phlebtonium, and even then should be used gingerly.

That's stupid.

Being Casanova should in all ways be equal or SUPERIOR to the guy who just memorized charm person today.

Similarly being Scary McScarypants the Scary Scaremonger should be equal or superior to being the guy who just memorized Cause Fear today.

You are presenting the same tired old "everyone but spellcasters should suck at X" argument. I'm not impressed.

[Midnight_v]

Regardless, this goes back to a previous thread where I stated flat-out that PCs should be immune to social interaction skills unless they're induced by phlebtonium, and even then should be used gingerly

I agree...

Then again... maybe they should suffer a different set of penalties, if shaken or whatever. I can see them being forced to take -2 -4 -6 if confronted by the Underworld Dragon King. It doesn't make you flee or cower but it does fuck with you fighting this kind of immensity.

[The 13 Wise Buttlords]

That's stupid.

Being Casanova should in all ways be equal or SUPERIOR to the guy who just memorized charm person today.

Similarly being Scary McScarypants the Scary Scaremonger should be equal or superior to being the guy who just memorized Cause Fear today.

You are presenting the same tired old "everyone but spellcasters should suck at X" argument. I'm not impressed.

Did I say that only spellcasters should get their phlebtonium? No, I said that behavior-influencing effects should only come as a result of phlebtonium. If this involves rewriting diplomacy in such a way that it becomes a fantastically impossible fake superpower like creating vacuum waves with your sword or fighting days on end with a hole in your heart then I'm down.

I'm not against frightful presence, I'm against intimidate checks with its current labelplate. In other words, I'm cool with battle-hardened heroes fleeing from mummies or dragons or high-level barbarians because they they have some weird hate aura, but I'm not cool with heroes fleeing from goblins or peasants because they put on masks and did a scary dance.

[Talisman]

Regardless, this goes back to a previous thread where I stated flat-out that PCs should be immune to social interaction skills unless they're induced by phlebtonium, and even then should be used gingerly.

I agree with this. I wouldn't mind seeing a morale system for NPCs and monsters, but it should never apply to PCs.

Why? Because the worst thing you can do to a D&D player is take control of their character away from them. There's enough stuff in D&D that does this already, from charms to possession to fear effects to dominate person. I should not lose control of my PC - the one and only window I have into the game-world - because there are three extra goblins, or Joe the Rogue caught a crit and went down, or our glorious army of Dirt Farmers panicked at the sight of the undead juggernaut.

The PCs are heroes. They're not army grunts; they're not dirt farmers; they're not untrained yahoos. They're special. Barring the use of enemty resources (charm spells, a blackguard's intimidate power, whatever), what a PC does should be exclusively up to the player to decide.

I have no problem with other factors influencing a PC. A charm spell/high Diplomacy might result in the GM telling the player "He seems trustworthy," or "he's telling the truth as far as you can tell," or "you just really like this guy." But that's not the same as "He tells you to surrender and you do. Now, the rest of you..."

[RandomCasualty2]

It still seems sort of blatantly arbitrary.

Say you have three people in your party. One is Aladdin, one is Ryu Hayabusa, and the other is Monkey D. Luffy.

Aladdin, obviously, would never stay in a protracted fight unless he absolutely had to. He has qualms about killing people and isn't motivated by anything more than getting by and making time with a hot babe. Him NOT running from any fight that doesn't determine the fate of Agrabah needs explaining by the hero.

This is actually due to the fact that the game may need a personality template system if you want social (and personality) based effects. This basically is going to include things that you like and things you're afraid of. So for instance, the typical coward may well be afraid of physical pain. So intimidation attempts that threaten to hurt him are going to be well received. An honor bound ninja may instead fear losing his honor, and thus is bound to protect that honor at all costs even if it means dying.

Similarly, your likes are going to factor into that equation. Someone who really liked women could be seduced easily. Someone who liked wealth would be vulnerable to bribery, and so on. Of course, your likes could also come into conflict. Does your greedy rogue go for the gold, or does he follow his allegiance to the thieves guild?

And this is why working social systems are so difficult. Because you really need to model a character's personality well. If I'm playing Aladdin, I need a different personality profile than if I'm playing Ryu. And if the system can't do that, then social skills don't work out well at all.

And if we want a good system then it has to apply to the point where we say "Yeah that could happen." so when your character is seduced by the succubus, you're saying, "Yeah, I can see him losing control like that and doing that."

Sure, you may not be exactly what you would have done as a player, but it's reasonable.

The big problem with the D&D system, and many others is that the results come from nowhere, because character personality isn't taken into consideration *at all*. And that can't happen for a social system. I don't care if you're talking about a PC or an NPC. Personality needs to make a difference and the social reasoning needs to be plausible.

Now given that most systems can't do this, magic teaparty is the only way to achieve it. Basically it just amounts to "I know my character best, so let me roleplay the result, because the system just isn't detailed to do it. "

And there's a lot of validity in that approach. The DM or player knows their NPC or PC better than the rules do, and can take into account many more factors than any system likely will.

Also, I just can't buy into the idea that a social system should work differently for PCs and NPCs. If Conan the PC can be fearless and unshakeable, then the DM should have the ability to apply the [fearless] tag to Darkon the black knight if he wants and magic teaparty that intimidate won't work on him.

If you don't want to get complex with a social system, then social stuff should be limited to solely unnamed characters and it's effects should be relatively minor. You can use it on nameless guard #23 but you can't use it on Dergon the guard captain. What Dergon does is entirely up to the DM, just as your PC's actions are up to you. This makes it possible for important NPCs to not be pushovers and still have agendas, which is a good thing.

Otherwise you need a personality stat sheet for everyone.

[Draco_Argentum]

Forget modifiers for morale. Seriously, its a fantasy world where a fucking huge (unrealistically so) bear is less dangerous than pint sized pixies. You might be facing some guy with a big sword and plate armour or maybe a guy with a stick and robes.

None of that matters, all that counts is that something bad has happened and now you need to make a morale check. Exactly what triggers a check is a reasonable discussion.

The same goes for how fearless stuff is, more fearless = better morale score. Thats it, no modifiers for being on a mission or defending a loved one.

Whether PCs have to make morale checks is an open question. I'd say yes if we're keeping the Ex fear auras.

[Username17]

How many works of adventure fiction can you name where the heroes lose their guts and flee in the middle of heated combat?

Uh... like almost all of them. From Wheel of Time to Game of Thrones; from all the Terry Brooks crap to the Bujold fantasies.

The first time the supernaturally spooky monsters show up, the hero is filled with magical unreasoning fear and runs away from the battle like a little girl in order to demonstrate how awesome those monsters are so that when the hero later is able to stand his ground and kill the damn things it seems like an impressive feat.

That's how these things work. Luffy has a fear ignoring power, it's part of his whole deal.

-Username17

[Crissa]

Luffy has a power to ignore all sort of common sense things.

-Crissa

[NoDot]

I don't watch One Piece, but that sounds like part of the typical Shonen Power Package.

[JonSetanta]

I read it.
His willfulness and oblivious attitude towards, well, anything that might change his mind is only possible thanks to his freakish strength, trained in to him by his equally freakish-strong grandfather. Or so it's assumed.
The stretching superpower is only backup to the "shonen" attitude (also called GAR in some circles, but usually when related to overdramatic big mecha pilots) that comes mostly from a disciplined and confident upbringing.

I really doubt Luffy would be as confident or brash if he were raised by ordinary peasants that beat him when he doesn't plow the field, stretching powers or not.

The immunity-to-morale-fail should be a hero only trait not by virtue of being hero, but because of events leading up to the state of heroics.

[NoDot]

Um... last I checked, GAR referred to particularly "mamly" individuals, not to shonen behavior.

[JonSetanta]

Um... last I checked, GAR referred to particularly "mamly" individuals, not to shonen behavior.

Shouting "I will be the Pirate King" all the time? Cmon.