Topic: Do you use Morale Checks for NPCs?

[Druss_the_Legend]

Do you use Morale Checks for NPCs?

Few people will willingly fight to the death without a reason to do so.
How do you handle NPC morale in combat for Both allies and enemies?
Intelligent enemies are likely to surrender if they are fighting a losing battle or are outnumbered.
Seems like a good role-playing opportunity and a test of your PCs alignment too, will they cut down an unarmed enemy or let them go with a warning?

[MisterK]

I don't roll. I play it by ear - if it looks like the opposition would break, well, they break, or some of them break and make a run for it while the others look surprised.

If players want to rally their troops, or make a push so the opposition will break, then *they* roll for it.

My current gaming philosophy is that of asymetrical rules: all rolls are on the players' side, the GM does not touch the dice.

[Druss_the_Legend]

If players want to rally their troops, or make a push so the opposition will break, then *they* roll for it.

My current gaming philosophy is that of asymetrical rules: all rolls are on the players' side, the GM does not touch the dice.

wow. cool. might have to give that a go as GM.
so the players roll for the NPC enemies?

[jdale]

>If players want to rally their troops, or make a push so the opposition will break, then *they* roll for it.

That seems like a good way to put value on Intimidation skill -- it forces a morale check.

[Ruffie]

I decide as a GM when the enemy has had enough. This al depennds on the type of enemy, the stake they have and the force the PC's bring to the table. If my players indicate that they want to scare off the enemy they can roll for it and I wil take it in considdiration. (Sory for the double or missing letters, my keyboard is frelled)

[MisterK]

>If players want to rally their troops, or make a push so the opposition will break, then *they* roll for it.

That seems like a good way to put value on Intimidation skill -- it forces a morale check.

That's what I meant, yes - there is the normal flow of battle (when the GM decides what happens based on situation, wounds and casualties), which might lead to "spontaneous" routs. And then, there are cases where the opponent  would *not* naturally break but the PCs want them to, and in this case, they trigger a situation (intimidation, display of overwhelming strength, illusion of numbers...) and, if a roll is needed, the result of the roll changes the morale state of the opponent.

[MisterK]

If players want to rally their troops, or make a push so the opposition will break, then *they* roll for it.

My current gaming philosophy is that of asymetrical rules: all rolls are on the players' side, the GM does not touch the dice.

wow. cool. might have to give that a go as GM.
so the players roll for the NPC enemies?

Not exactly. the PCs always roll for their actions. The thing is, every time an enemy NPC acts against a PC, you can transform that action into a PC reaction and, then, make the PC roll for their reaction instead of making the NPC roll for the action :
- NPC casts a spell at PC  ? Make the PC roll for avoidance or resistance.
- NPC attacks the PC physically ? Make the PC roll for defense.
- Contest of skill between PC and NPC ? Make the PC roll and use NPC skill as a basis for difficulty.

And if an NPC acts against another NPC, I don't need to roll dice, I can decide what happens - since the PCs are not involved, I don't need to roll, I just need to come up with something dramatically appropriate (which can be a flurry of near misses).

The basic idea is : if it affects a PC directly, make the player roll for the outcome. If it doesn't, describe what happens without rolling.

On the GM's side of the screen, time and attention are critical resources. The time you spend letting the dice decide for you is time you don't spend describing the situation and reinforcing suspension of disbelief.

To be honest, it is a work in progress for me - decades GMing with symmetrical rule systems make old habits die hard.

[Spectre771]

For animal-intellect NPCs, I start checking around 25% remaining HP to see if they try to flee, if there is opening or opportunity.
For higher intelligence NPCs, I weigh the variables of the situation; crits received, bleeding, remaining HP.
For story line or essential NPCs, it comes down to what the NPC needs to achieve; death at all costs, life is forfeit for failure, don't be taken alive, needs to stay alive to deliver message/item, sniveling coward, sneaky/dirty git, etc.

[EvilWilliam]

I'm an evil swine who will decide that NPCs who are lightly wounded will surrender rather than die, which leave players (used to stepping over corpses) with a decision to make (although bleed rules often relieve them of the decision).  It's one of the things I find the RM damage system is useful for: why would anyone fight one if they've an injury to their sword arm.

[Lazvon]

Oh great... now we have spamming AI Bots to moderate. Grrrr. ;-)

[rdanhenry]

Oh great... now we have spamming AI Bots to moderate. Grrrr. ;-)

Just think of it as a Cyberspace LARP.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Oh great... now we have spamming AI Bots to moderate. Grrrr. ;-)

ChatGPT, please generate RM2 rules to handle morale during combat for NPCs.

[Hurin]

I do use checks for NPCs. There are some good rules for that in RMU too if you haven't seen them yet.