Quote from: Marleycat;528605I currently play Pathfinder and trying to find a game of Fantasy Craft, if I had more time I'd just run a game of FC, maybe I'll make the time when Spellbound finally comes out.  I like what Pathfinder did with Sorcerers, wish they would go further with the game overall but I like it anyway.  Maybe 5e will take a cue or three from both games though it seems they are so maybe I'll have no worries, we'll see.

I'm ready to give 5ed a chance. It's tough for me though, cuz I have a bunch of 30-year veterans that I'm playing with.

Welcome to theRPGSite, taknight. I find this place a relief because people feel freer to speak, in general. The Imperial Censor goes on holiday here. Nothing odd about the occasional "fuck you! you have shit for brains! yeah, i totally remember that game and loved it too. wanna go grab a beer?"

I dig your comment about common sense. Thinking back on it, I feel I'm very much a player where setting common sense (as it pertains within its own logic) becomes important for my immersion. Having to step out and game things to retake control of the narrative (to wield the Speaking Stick or Conch, so to speak) bugs. On the other hand, to have illogical contradictions to setting veracity hand-waved away because "that's what happens when you press the button" makes me livid.

So count me among those who aren't too psyched about adventuring along diagonals like chess bishops, resting before the big bad because I'm all out of sword.

Quote from: Rincewind1;528591You'd think people actually lost limbs and lives in Edition Wars, given the shellshock of it's veterans.

I dont get it either. I mean I love Ravenloft, but it has its critics. i would never feel the need to run into a Ravenloft bashing thread and tell people they are "wrong", that powers checks "are totally realistic" and that people who disagree either never read the black boxed set or weren't creative enough in their interpretation of failed checks (nor would I follow this up with semantic tricks like "what do you mean by 'sucks' and 'unrealistic').

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;528661I dont get it either. I mean I love Ravenloft, but it has its critics. i would never feel the need to run into a Ravenloft bashing thread and tell people they are "wrong", that powers checks "are totally realistic" and that people who disagree either never read the black boxed set or weren't creative enough in their interpretation of failed checks (nor would I follow this up with semantic tricks like "what do you mean by 'sucks' and 'unrealistic').

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact some people bought into the idea of 4E as an "advance".  There's always been a strong buy in to the idea that rejection of 4E was not so much a matter of taste but a matter of resistance to the new (like all those people who failed to see merit in a Van Gogh painting during his lifetime), and that eventually people would see the error of their ways.  (And of course those who bought into 4E from the outset would be vindicated).

For these people the ground is crumbling under their feet.  

Once 5E is released they'll start going on about how "4E was just too far ahead of it's time" (if they aren't already).

Quote from: Dog Quixote;528663I
For these people the ground is crumbling under their feet.  

Once 5E is released they'll start going on about how "4E was just too far ahead of it's time" (if they aren't already).

the new one i am seeing is "4e did what set out to do: restore balance to the game" and that its core elements will just be secreted in under different names because our hate of 4e is apparently a superficial hate ofthe new. Basially saying if they sugar coat healing surges andmundane powers we will eat it up.

Quote from: Opaopajr;528650Welcome to theRPGSite, taknight. I find this place a relief because people feel freer to speak, in general. The Imperial Censor goes on holiday here. Nothing odd about the occasional "fuck you! you have shit for brains! yeah, i totally remember that game and loved it too. wanna go grab a beer?"

I dig your comment about common sense. Thinking back on it, I feel I'm very much a player where setting common sense (as it pertains within its own logic) becomes important for my immersion. Having to step out and game things to retake control of the narrative (to wield the Speaking Stick or Conch, so to speak) bugs. On the other hand, to have illogical contradictions to setting veracity hand-waved away because "that's what happens when you press the button" makes me livid.

So count me among those who aren't too psyched about adventuring along diagonals like chess bishops, resting before the big bad because I'm all out of sword.

Thanks! It's hard to find a good community these days. This one has been very welcoming.

Common sense has always been important to me. When adjudicating rules, I'm much more likely to side with common sense than they rules as they are written. My group is pretty relaxed about the rules, thankfully. I just hate rules lawyers.

Quote from: Opaopajr;528650I dig your comment about common sense. Thinking back on it, I feel I'm very much a player where setting common sense (as it pertains within its own logic) becomes important for my immersion.

I'm with you on this too.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;528665Basially saying if they sugar coat healing surges andmundane powers we will eat it up.

Heh, good luck with that one.

Looks like the Pundit is being successful at his job, looks like Morale rules are back....

QuoteRun Away!
Friday, April 13, 2012, 7:42 AM
Categories: Dungeons & Dragons
Posted By: Evil_Reverend


When 3rd Edition hit the shelves, the morale rules disappeared. I can only speculate as to why: The Dungeon Master should decide when the monsters retreat. Monster behavior should be based on circumstances and not on a single die roll. Morale rules can prematurely end an interesting fight when a roll goes horribly wrong. And if the PCs are kicking monster tail, and they want their foes to surrender, the DM can just call for an Intimidate/Bluff/epic Diplomacy check. Simply put, 3rd Edition didn’t need morale.

But wait. If we don’t need morale, why are we all still here talking about it? Weeeelll, I’m not comfortable throwing away what was a pretty handy rule back in the day. Here’s why.

As a roleplaying game, we kind of expect Dungeon Masters to roleplay the monsters in the adventure. That’s why we include all sorts of story information around the entries in the Monster Manual. With these tools, a skilled DM can portray monsters as we think they behave in the world. There’s a big difference between expected play and actual play, however. It’s easy to fall into the rhythm of combat after combat and fight after fight. By the time the players have squared off against their third band of goblins, “accurate” portrayal tends to fall by the wayside in the interest of keeping the game moving forward. Sure, the goblins would likely flee before a righteous band of ass-kicking adventurers, but I can’t tell you how many times fights I’ve run have been brutal contests and battles fought to the bitter end. How many times have I thrown band after band of humanoids into the blender that is the adventuring party without thinking twice about the creatures I’ve sacrificed on the altar of fun? Countless times. Countless.

Even when fleeing seems like a good thing to do, I’m reluctant to have that happen since I know my players will chase down the offending humanoids and put them to the sword. Or, worse, the retreating goblins will go get help and turn what was a manageable fight into a TPK. Often, I just err on caution’s side and let the battle play out.

Now that I’m pounding out the words and thinking about it, I kind of feel like I’ve done a disservice to my players and the game. My monsters have often been little more than bags of hit points waiting to cough up XP with their final, rattling breath. See, most monsters, unless there’s something they fear more than death by adventurer, aren’t going to sacrifice themselves for evil’s cause. In fact, I can imagine most monsters, once they’ve lost about half their numbers, will say screw it and run away. It just makes sense. Evil doesn’t usually place a lot of stock in honor and fighting to protect their fellows.

Looking back, I always used the morale rules as a reminder that the monsters can and should fall back. Their absence took away this reminder and, after a while, turned my games into an abattoir. Sure, I ignored the morale rules when I wanted the fight to go on, but they were extremely useful for abbreviating extended fights and preserving player character resources.

But there’s more to it than this. Fourth edition taught D&D fans to focus fire on one monster at a time. Morale rules provide another option. A robust morale system might reward PCs who do something other than kill one mook at a time. Maybe the monsters check morale when their leader dies, when the PCs kill the standard bearer, or when the characters destroy the altar to Gruumsh. The monsters might still outnumber the PCs, but they find their confidence shaken after the adventurers destroyed the idol to their unspeakable master.

The other cool thing morale gives us is an impartial way to decide if the PCs’ followers and henchmen stick around in a tough fight. Often, followers are there to soak damage. However, do we honestly think Pig, the human warrior, is going to stick around to face down a medusa?

This is why we’ve been exploring morale rules. The more I think about it, the more I’m inclined to give it a go. What do you think?

About damn time, of course there is a simple poll attached if you're so inclined....

That is good news.

RPGPundit

Woah.... they're actually getting it.

Quote from: Marleycat;530075Looks like the Pundit is being successful at his job, looks like Morale rules are back....

Excellent news. I never understood why they went away and (at least in most 3.x and 4e games) every monster would fight to the death like they were under some time of mind control that completely overrode all desire for self-preservation in even the most cowardly of creatures.

Quote from: Planet Algol;530147Woah.... they're actually getting it.

They are. It's good news.

QuoteLooking back, I always used the morale rules as a reminder that the monsters can and should fall back. Their absence took away this reminder and, after a while, turned my games into an abattoir. Sure, I ignored the morale rules when I wanted the fight to go on, but they were extremely useful for abbreviating extended fights and preserving player character resources.

This bears remembering it's the most logical way to get out of the encounter design logic.

QuoteNow that I’m pounding out the words and thinking about it, I kind of feel like I’ve done a disservice to my players and the game. My monsters have often been little more than bags of hit points waiting to cough up XP with their final, rattling breath. See, most monsters, unless there’s something they fear more than death by adventurer, aren’t going to sacrifice themselves for evil’s cause. In fact, I can imagine most monsters, once they’ve lost about half their numbers, will say screw it and run away. It just makes sense. Evil doesn’t usually place a lot of stock in honor and fighting to protect their fellows.

And this definitely will get rid of the that videogame/tactical boardgame feel of 4e and even 3e in some cases if used.

Quote from: Benoist;530150They are. It's good news.

If they release good monster books that I can use with OD&D....

Oh man, c'mon Wizards, don't fuck this up!