I think it's okay in a game like Call of Cthulhu or something, where the material it's based on has lots of people fainting, running away, or going insane.

In a game like D&D it does open up some design space for monsters and PCs, because you can have monsters with fear effects and PCs that are immune or resistant to them. But it is kind of annoying and I do prefer PCs being able to decide whether or not they're scared. Ideally you play in an old school way where combat is inherently scary and dangerous, and the players have the expectation that sometimes they're going to encounter enemies that they probably won't beat, and running away is an option.

Fatigue is a different concept from morale, and is already represented by hit points (kind of) or other status effects.

Quote from: Spobo on April 05, 2025, 07:15:58 AMIn a game like D&D it does open up some design space for monsters and PCs, because you can have monsters with fear effects and PCs that are immune or resistant to them. But it is kind of annoying and I do prefer PCs being able to decide whether or not they're scared. Ideally you play in an old school way where combat is inherently scary and dangerous, and the players have the expectation that sometimes they're going to encounter enemies that they probably won't beat, and running away is an option.

Part of the reason that I wanted a very light touch morale effect on PCs was to train newer players in old school ways.  That might sound counter-productive, but I've found that it helps to give players just a taste of what is happening to get them to think about it.  In fact, with a given group, I end up doing less and less morale checks that affect PCs because: 

1. The morale rules impinge a lot more on any allies they have, so that they are reminded that people can break.

2. This in turn causes 1 or 2 players to prioritize building up their rallying abilities and/or making themselves harder to break.  I've rolled that up into a "Leadership" talent that also affects intimidation.  So the characters that are naturally the most aggressive are also least likely to break.

3. The above two things conspire such that any given group only needs to have a PC morale check once in a blue moon, and then they begin retreating before the morale check happens.

Either their allies are breaking or threatening to, or something really bad just went down.  Then the group will decide to do a strategic retreat before some of them have their skills diminished due to the morale effects. On those rare occasions when they decide they need to push through despite the risk of PC morale hitting, it makes for some dramatic moments.

This kind of design is part of what I referenced elsewhere when I said that a lot of the problems in game design is taking a good idea too far.  Thinking that because a rule with a light touch happens rarely that you should just eliminate it entirely.  Which is also why I disagree with removing fear effects entirely (though I've rolled them into my morale system, which actually gives them a lighter touch than old-school D&D). The idea that sometimes a player character feels the strain, fear, nervousness to the degree that it impedes their ability to act, is not removing player agency, anymore than not allowing a character without magic or wings to fly. 

If hit points represent more than the physical ability to soak damage, then morale could be considered a part of hit points. Doing so could be used to indicate that 0 hit points is broken morale and -10/-(Con) is dead. This would probably require a minor rule change that 0 hit point "broken" opponents can still run & hide, but it would be far simpler than adding in most rule changes.

Quote from: Spobo on April 05, 2025, 07:15:58 AMIn a game like D&D it does open up some design space for monsters and PCs, because you can have monsters with fear effects and PCs that are immune or resistant to them. But it is kind of annoying and I do prefer PCs being able to decide whether or not they're scared.

I think the name "fear" is unfortunate. Like you, I prefer the PCs always decide what they feel, and "fear" is a feeling. But that doesn't stop me from running fear effects in D&D.

When I run fear effects, it's more like mindless panic -- it's something that the PC is doing, not feeling. The PC is not even conscious that they are dropping things, screaming, and running away. They are not feeling anything.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 03, 2025, 01:28:28 AMI think a morale system is essential for NPCs and monsters, but I don't want one for PCs. Something like physical fatigue is one thing, but morale is another. I'd rather the players have total control over that.

I agree 100%.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 03, 2025, 01:28:28 AMI think a morale system is essential for NPCs and monsters, but I don't want one for PCs. Something like physical fatigue is one thing, but morale is another. I'd rather the players have total control over that.

I dislike systems that handle PCs differently than NPCs just because they're PCs, so that's not an option for me

Quote from: Mishihari on April 10, 2025, 03:15:18 PM

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 03, 2025, 01:28:28 AMI think a morale system is essential for NPCs and monsters, but I don't want one for PCs. Something like physical fatigue is one thing, but morale is another. I'd rather the players have total control over that.

I dislike systems that handle PCs differently than NPCs just because they're PCs, so that's not an option for me

Agree, in GURPS you can fail an alcohol addiction check when you walk by a bar and you have to go in and order, so why the hell can't the PCs fail a morale/Will check in combat? It seems perfectly logical to me.

I'm a simulationist style gamer and my players love it. If they don't want their dude to cower in fear they can choose advantages like strong will or inperturbable. ie You can build in resistance to your PCs if you don't want them constantly shitting themselves in a firefight.

Quote from: Spooky on April 10, 2025, 08:48:36 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 10, 2025, 03:15:18 PM

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 03, 2025, 01:28:28 AMI think a morale system is essential for NPCs and monsters, but I don't want one for PCs. Something like physical fatigue is one thing, but morale is another. I'd rather the players have total control over that.

I dislike systems that handle PCs differently than NPCs just because they're PCs, so that's not an option for me

Agree, in GURPS you can fail an alcohol addiction check when you walk by a bar and you have to go in and order, so why the hell can't the PCs fail a morale/Will check in combat? It seems perfectly logical to me.

I'm a simulationist style gamer and my players love it. If they don't want their dude to cower in fear they can choose advantages like strong will or inperturbable. ie You can build in resistance to your PCs if you don't want them constantly shitting themselves in a firefight.

This is the way I prefer too.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 10, 2025, 03:15:18 PM

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 03, 2025, 01:28:28 AMI think a morale system is essential for NPCs and monsters, but I don't want one for PCs. Something like physical fatigue is one thing, but morale is another. I'd rather the players have total control over that.

I dislike systems that handle PCs differently than NPCs just because they're PCs, so that's not an option for me

I get what you mean by this, but NPCs are still handled the same way as PCs no matter what, because they're being played by the GM. The GM still ultimately decides what the NPCs are feeling, how afraid they are, and whether they run. Morale is more of an optional win condition or complication for the players to deal with. If I have a bunch of NPCs all fighting each other offscreen, I don't need to make attack, damage, or morale rolls, I can just decide who wins.
I'll allow there are some systems where it is that granular and you have the GM rolling for organizations making moves against each other, but that's usually at the faction level where the PCs have their own faction.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 10, 2025, 03:15:18 PMI dislike systems that handle PCs differently than NPCs just because they're PCs, so that's not an option for me

What do you dislike about such an approach? Or I guess a better question might be why does a different approach for NPCs vs. PCs bother you?

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 12, 2025, 10:39:29 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 10, 2025, 03:15:18 PMI dislike systems that handle PCs differently than NPCs just because they're PCs, so that's not an option for me

What do you dislike about such an approach? Or I guess a better question might be why does a different approach for NPCs vs. PCs bother you?

For me it's the fact that being a PC should not make you inherently special. It's what you do (or attempt to do) that makes you special. If you want to be the big damn hero, then make the character that way while accepting that, unless you take something that makes you immune to fear/terror/morale break, you might not be able to stand your ground when the going gets tough.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 12, 2025, 10:39:29 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 10, 2025, 03:15:18 PMI dislike systems that handle PCs differently than NPCs just because they're PCs, so that's not an option for me

What do you dislike about such an approach? Or I guess a better question might be why does a different approach for NPCs vs. PCs bother you?

It creates a disconnect between the setting and the mechanics.  If according to setting lore the PCs are people just like any other, then the mechanics should reflect this.  If a setting conceit is that the PCs and only the PCs are special people blessed by the gods or somesuch I would be okay with them having their own rules.

Okay, for the sake of argument, what would be the difference between a morale system for players and a supernatural effect like the Fear spell? I mean, I get that its MECHANICALLY different, but the horror of something horrid that radiates a kind of supernatural terror like The Nazgûl, the Army of the Dead or just something icky crawling out of the woodwork like Shelob....

Quote from: Zalman on April 09, 2025, 02:55:29 PMI think the name "fear" is unfortunate. Like you, I prefer the PCs always decide what they feel, and "fear" is a feeling. But that doesn't stop me from running fear effects in D&D.

When I run fear effects, it's more like mindless panic -- it's something that the PC is doing, not feeling. The PC is not even conscious that they are dropping things, screaming, and running away. They are not feeling anything.

That's interesting, because I draw the line on the other side.  A person can't always control what they feel, but they can usually (often?) control (somewhat?) what they do about it.  So I don't mind mechanics that produce a feeling--whether fear or love or contentment or anger or whatever.  I don't like mechanics that say because you feel X you must necessarily do Y. 

I think this is a more medieval mentality, too, which fits into a medieval fantasy mechanic.  Being "born under Mars" explains anger to the medieval mind.  It doesn't excuse murder.  In fact, the angry person is supposed to know that about himself and learn to control it.

As for separate mechanics for PC/NPC, far as I'm concerned that's a side effect of rulings based on the setting.  The mechanical way that things get resolved may be different, where convenient, but the thing being portrayed is the same.  Thus I'm perfectly fine temporarily promoting an NPC to "PC status for morale effects" if it warrants it in the situation and setting, but the shorthand version normally used for NPCs/monsters is merely to reduce handling time.

I appreciate the ideas and opinions here both positive and negative. I've been leaning for a while towards a penalty (whether dice pool/result penalty or action penalty like losing the bonus/reaction) if the player acts against the condition they got with the morale system.