Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[A Passing Maniac]

Definite no. Sitting around doing nothing while you wait for your character to be not-useless, or wait for your new character to be created and introduced, isn't fun. (Even worse if you actually liked your character.) YMMV, of course, but my players and I find that save or die/suck effects don't instill fear or build tension or create excitement so much as cause annoyance and boredom. Generally speaking, not a goal of my D&D games.

 

[TheNovaLord]

i think yes

most rpgs these days are too soft on us!!

grander way to die than falling unconcious and bleeding out!!

 

[JeffB]

DM only here, I like the option of both. BUT- like it much less than I used to- simply because character creation is such a chore these days- I get sick of players whining about having to roll up a new character Much less of an issue in pre- 3E versions of the game.

As someone mentioned regarding the Medusa, I do prefer the way 4E handles former "save or" effects: increasingly bad stuff happens for a few rounds and then you are toast.

 

[radmod]

As primarily a DM, but sometimes a player or GM, I am not terribly fond of save or die. That is, the save or die outright stuff, since a fireball could potentially be save or die.

I've always thought that the advantage that D&D had over other game systems (like GURPs) is that, generally, it took a while for a character to die, without usually having to worry about instant death stuff (like a lucky/unlucky roll). Likewise, the game tends to be more fun for everyone at the mid levels where you don't usually come across things like slay living, disintegrate, or the power words. As a player, though, I have to admit, it's pretty cool to blow the crap out of things at high levels with a single shot.

 

[BlubSeabass]

The life of an adventurer is a dangerous one. Although I think SoD spells should be used like tonberries. The fear of it being there is what makes it so terrifying. If the PC's don't act smart enough to neutralize the threat, their fear should be justified. Nobody mentions it here, but I think making such a save is incredibly fun. "...I SURVIVED! WOOOOH!"

 

[Technomancer]

Yes. If you have to save or die, it means you have done something stupid that you deserve to die for. The chance to save is actually quite generous in allowing you to avoid that fate.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I don't like save or dies as a DM and ESPECIALLY as a player. I don't really want them removed entirely either, though. If used extremely sparingly by players I don't mind as a DM. If it has conditions attached, I don't necessarily mind as a player or DM. Like, if you couldn't use them until an enemy was left with half or less health (bloodied, in 4E) or whatever. Power Word Kill is even more extreme, with a limit of 60 hp or less (far lower than half for most level 17+ characters) and a 9th level slot for the benefit of not even giving a save. I never minded that spell much. Also, if you had some sort of mechanism where you had a "delay time" before you could use SoD in an encounter, a certain number of rounds or whatever, that might make it less unappealing. But that'd also be hard to do without it becoming too gamist for my liking.

Yes. If you have to save or die, it means you have done something stupid that you deserve to die for. The chance to save is actually quite generous in allowing you to avoid that fate.

What rules system do you play?!

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I haven't voted.

I'm a dm and a player.


As both I want very restricted options for save or die. I don't want to see it as a monster ability (except perhaps for unique monsters like the Tarrasque).

I would only want to see it in extreme risk situations where players would/should actually die automatically. For instance, falling into magma or off a dragon in the stratosphere.

It should be used as "you should die automatically anyway, but since SOME rare people survive this, you get a save" ....not "you fight a guy using poison and he stabs you ....suck it up".

Course, I'm also of the camp that believes ressurection magic should be harder/more limited. I like the idea of less random death and less easy rezzes.

However, I don't want the game "easier". I want death equally possible, just less random.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

There's a place for Save or Die, one largely dependent on the game being run. I don't use them all the time, and honestly prefer if there's a way to mitigate them (action points, death flag, death throes or retaliation, etc).

But if characters really should know better, or are intentionally going against impossible odds? No mercy. And frankly, sometimes SoDs are simply appropriate. If you're facing Death himself, and he death-zaps you... well, you had better save. Or else die.

 

[Doug McCrae]

There are advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side they are very dramatic and exciting. The downside is that a high degree of PC turnover is disruptive to a campaign. In a long term campaign, I'd say a PC death is mostly a negative thing. When PCs are highly detailed, both mechanically and in terms of personality and backstory, then it takes a long time to make a new one.

Save-or-die works, but only for a certain type of game - roleplay lite, story lite, quick generated PCs, each player has a large stable of PCs.