I'm running a game (specifically a Nasuverse conversion of the Cinematic Unisystem if it matters) and I'm tempted to add a morale system for enemies, any advice or other systems I should look at for inspiration?

The best morale system I have used is the simple one from B/X. I even used it when playing AD&D because it was so much more table friendly. You can play around and change or modify the things that trigger a morale check but the basic mechanic just works.

Yeah, don't over think it.  Start B/X.  Then remember the guidelines for using it are rulings that the GMs made while developing those rules.  Take a step back for 5 minutes.  Think about what rulings you would use or have used for when a morale check is appropriate.  Tweak the guidelines for your own take/rulings/system to make them easy to remember, easy to use.  Write them down.  Experiment.  Adjust as necessary.  Fairly soon, it will become second nature.

The problem that most people have with morale systems is that they chafe, because of some rough edge in the way the system or you or the players perceive how it should work. If you know how you'd rule with no system at all, you can work around that problem by paying a modest amount of attention.

I've thought about using morale systems but it just seems better to wing it based on the situation.

Quote from: Ruprecht on March 21, 2025, 11:00:45 AMI've thought about using morale systems but it just seems better to wing it based on the situation.

That's been my approach as well.

Overall the important thing to remember is that, with rare exceptions (ex. defending one's family, undead abominations), opponents don't want to die if it can be helped. If things don't look winnable they're going to look for a way out.

There's a reason we use the word decimate for complete destruction even though it only means killing 1-in-10 of a group. Historically, 10% casualties for an army was a crushing loss that would put that army to rout.

Even in a street brawl between groups, it only takes a guy or two going down on one side for that side to decide the fight isn't worth it.

When a hundred bandits go at five guys and inside of 10 seconds ten of the bandits are lying dead or dying at the feet of the five still standing guys, any sane bandit among the remaining 90 is gonna say "F*** it! I'm out!"

Sure, if they had no individual sense of self-preservation they could probably overwhelm the 5 guys... but who wants to be among the 10-20 additional dead it will take for that to happen?

Sidebar - this is traditionally why undead are so terrifying... they have no sense of self-preservation and so will just keep coming. 25 1HD skeletons who never retreat is a scarier prospect than 100 1HD bandits looking to score some loot off you if common sense morale is in play.

But yeah, if you just remember that most fights start with the delusion of invincibility and end as soon as that delusion is shattered for one or both sides then morale is pretty easy to just handwave.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 21, 2025, 12:15:52 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on March 21, 2025, 11:00:45 AMI've thought about using morale systems but it just seems better to wing it based on the situation.

That's been my approach as well.

Overall the important thing to remember is that, with rare exceptions (ex. defending one's family, undead abominations), opponents don't want to die if it can be helped. If things don't look winnable they're going to look for a way out.

There's a reason we use the word decimate for complete destruction even though it only means killing 1-in-10 of a group. Historically, 10% casualties for an army was a crushing loss that would put that army to rout.

Even in a street brawl between groups, it only takes a guy or two going down on one side for that side to decide the fight isn't worth it.

When a hundred bandits go at five guys and inside of 10 seconds ten of the bandits are lying dead or dying at the feet of the five still standing guys, any sane bandit among the remaining 90 is gonna say "F*** it! I'm out!"

Sure, if they had no individual sense of self-preservation they could probably overwhelm the 5 guys... but who wants to be among the 10-20 additional dead it will take for that to happen?

Sidebar - this is traditionally why undead are so terrifying... they have no sense of self-preservation and so will just keep coming. 25 1HD skeletons who never retreat is a scarier prospect than 100 1HD bandits looking to score some loot off you if common sense morale is in play.

But yeah, if you just remember that most fights start with the delusion of invincibility and end as soon as that delusion is shattered for one or both sides then morale is pretty easy to just handwave.

Great points. When a seemingly overwhelming force fails to inflict any meaningful damage to the smaller group, while sustaining casualties themselves, that to me is the most important reason for a morale check. If a group of 100 attackers fights a group of 5 and is unable to take a single opponent down after 9-10 of their own are down then they will tend to look for other options unless they are constructs, undead, or raving mad fanatics.

In my game I put morale in the monster descriptions, e.g. "The bagua will flee if the alpha is slain, or any three of their group"  I find this captures what I'd do running the game better than a general rule.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 21, 2025, 12:15:52 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on March 21, 2025, 11:00:45 AMI've thought about using morale systems but it just seems better to wing it based on the situation.

That's been my approach as well.

Overall the important thing to remember is that, with rare exceptions (ex. defending one's family, undead abominations), opponents don't want to die if it can be helped. If things don't look winnable they're going to look for a way out.

There's a reason we use the word decimate for complete destruction even though it only means killing 1-in-10 of a group. Historically, 10% casualties for an army was a crushing loss that would put that army to rout.

Even in a street brawl between groups, it only takes a guy or two going down on one side for that side to decide the fight isn't worth it.

When a hundred bandits go at five guys and inside of 10 seconds ten of the bandits are lying dead or dying at the feet of the five still standing guys, any sane bandit among the remaining 90 is gonna say "F*** it! I'm out!"

Sure, if they had no individual sense of self-preservation they could probably overwhelm the 5 guys... but who wants to be among the 10-20 additional dead it will take for that to happen?

Sidebar - this is traditionally why undead are so terrifying... they have no sense of self-preservation and so will just keep coming. 25 1HD skeletons who never retreat is a scarier prospect than 100 1HD bandits looking to score some loot off you if common sense morale is in play.

But yeah, if you just remember that most fights start with the delusion of invincibility and end as soon as that delusion is shattered for one or both sides then morale is pretty easy to just handwave.

The opposite take is that, perhaps in the fantasy world, morale standards are a bit different and NPCs think more like PCs than they do sane historical forces. If you want to rationalize why this is the case, maybe the surety of afterlife and/or the access to returning from death have a huge impact on the world (like they tend to do for PCs).

I'm not saying this is "the right way" to do it, but it is a path that can be taken.

If the game has an NPC reaction roll, I'd just consider rolling on a custom version of that once a breakpoint (that the GM sets up based on the encounter) has been reached.   Roll with advantage or disadvantage (or a bonus or penalty depending on what systems you use) depending on how brave/foolhardy/dedicated/oblivious the NPCs are to start with.

Greetings!

I often use Morale during game play. Especially so with various Human opponents. Non-Humans, savage humanoids, monster races? They have different modifiers. Chaos warriors, Beastmen, Minotaurs, are typically very resistant to Morale checks, and some are immune entirely. That does not mean that such forces may not choose to disengage from combat for different reasons--such as their awareness that a desired objective is unobtainable for whatever reason, or the Shaman speaks to them of a mystical omen, or some such. Other reasons can arise to their disengaging from battle, though fear isn't ever likely to be such a reason, or failing a Morale Check.

Morale Checks are normally a very solid tool to use in governing the flow of action, especially when using normal Human forces or opponents. Many ordinary non-Human Humanoids easily use the Morale Check as well, such as Goblins, Orcs, Hobgoblins, and Gnolls.

I'm often reminded of how in the Silmarillion, during King Fingolfin's charge up to the gates of Thangoradrim, all alone and by himself--the thunder of Heaven at his steed's hooves, glorious light and wrath radiating from him--whole armies of Orcs absolutely fled in terror from King Fingolfin's arrival.

Even the Balrogs growled in fear, knowing that the hour to fight had come!

King Fingolfin slaughtered *20 Balrogs*--before shouting for Morgoth to come forth and face him in a fight.

Yeah, even the Balrogs knew fear, when it was brought to them by King Fingolfin!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

IMO you want to define the stakes of the battle, even communicating them beforehand to the players. Goblins are cowardly, but (at least in my head/settings) they will fight to the death if you're breaking down the door to their home. On the other hand, if they're just trying to steal from roadside travelers, they might run as soon as anyone actually fights back.

I've thought about if there's a reasonable way to define this with a system, but it feels like you just want to use good judgement.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 21, 2025, 12:15:52 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on March 21, 2025, 11:00:45 AMI've thought about using morale systems but it just seems better to wing it based on the situation.

That's been my approach as well.

Overall the important thing to remember is that, with rare exceptions (ex. defending one's family, undead abominations), opponents don't want to die if it can be helped. If things don't look winnable they're going to look for a way out.

There's a reason we use the word decimate for complete destruction even though it only means killing 1-in-10 of a group. Historically, 10% casualties for an army was a crushing loss that would put that army to rout.

Even in a street brawl between groups, it only takes a guy or two going down on one side for that side to decide the fight isn't worth it.

When a hundred bandits go at five guys and inside of 10 seconds ten of the bandits are lying dead or dying at the feet of the five still standing guys, any sane bandit among the remaining 90 is gonna say "F*** it! I'm out!"

Sure, if they had no individual sense of self-preservation they could probably overwhelm the 5 guys... but who wants to be among the 10-20 additional dead it will take for that to happen?

Sidebar - this is traditionally why undead are so terrifying... they have no sense of self-preservation and so will just keep coming. 25 1HD skeletons who never retreat is a scarier prospect than 100 1HD bandits looking to score some loot off you if common sense morale is in play.

But yeah, if you just remember that most fights start with the delusion of invincibility and end as soon as that delusion is shattered for one or both sides then morale is pretty easy to just handwave.

How would you model how long it takes for a side to notice that it's losing or losing too many men to maintain its morale? In the thick of a fight it's not like the troops are always looking around themselves, they're more busy staying alive and fighting whoever is at hand. Monsters, or knights with narrow visors, might even be less observant than normal.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 22, 2025, 01:39:41 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 21, 2025, 12:15:52 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on March 21, 2025, 11:00:45 AMI've thought about using morale systems but it just seems better to wing it based on the situation.

That's been my approach as well.

Overall the important thing to remember is that, with rare exceptions (ex. defending one's family, undead abominations), opponents don't want to die if it can be helped. If things don't look winnable they're going to look for a way out.

There's a reason we use the word decimate for complete destruction even though it only means killing 1-in-10 of a group. Historically, 10% casualties for an army was a crushing loss that would put that army to rout.

Even in a street brawl between groups, it only takes a guy or two going down on one side for that side to decide the fight isn't worth it.

When a hundred bandits go at five guys and inside of 10 seconds ten of the bandits are lying dead or dying at the feet of the five still standing guys, any sane bandit among the remaining 90 is gonna say "F*** it! I'm out!"

Sure, if they had no individual sense of self-preservation they could probably overwhelm the 5 guys... but who wants to be among the 10-20 additional dead it will take for that to happen?

Sidebar - this is traditionally why undead are so terrifying... they have no sense of self-preservation and so will just keep coming. 25 1HD skeletons who never retreat is a scarier prospect than 100 1HD bandits looking to score some loot off you if common sense morale is in play.

But yeah, if you just remember that most fights start with the delusion of invincibility and end as soon as that delusion is shattered for one or both sides then morale is pretty easy to just handwave.

How would you model how long it takes for a side to notice that it's losing or losing too many men to maintain its morale? In the thick of a fight it's not like the troops are always looking around themselves, they're more busy staying alive and fighting whoever is at hand. Monsters, or knights with narrow visors, might even be less observant than normal.

Ultimately, it comes down to the GM's common sense, based on the situation.

It's worth noting that, for any conflict large enough for a side to not have a full picture of the situation, every member having a full picture isn't actually required for morale to break.

Where it matters is going to be at the point of contact. When you're in the next rank and see the rank ahead of you obliterated and realize you're about to go into the grinder is where the force will either keep pushing forward or balk and try to get away from the slaughter.

The ranks behind them don't need to know WHY the rank ahead of them are trying to push back through their own line to get away from what's ahead... it's enough to see them breaking for their imaginations actually work against them as to how bad it could be and panic themselves.

It's the same with any panicked crowd... the vast majority never see what sets it off (ex. somebody gets knifed), they just see everyone else trying to escape the area and panick themselves.

Now, other species might be different but, at least for humans, fight or flight reponse dominates human reactions in a dangerous situation. If your will to fight breaks, you're already primed by the same adrenaline rush for flight and you don't need a logical reason to start running.

Short version; the majority of a large group doesn't need to know WHY they're running, they just need to see that others closer to the fight ARE running for their own morale to possibly break... and the more allies already running the more likely it WILL break.

I prefer the B/X Morale system as it is simple and effective. I like the randomness of the usually cowardly critter fighting until the end (huh, what were they protecting?), or the normally stalwart foes breaking after the first casualty.  Letting the dice fall where they may provides surprises for all of us but, as always, If you need to, you can override it.