Epic Fight turns into Epic Farce

[Vegepygmy]

Or tunnel under it, or fly over it, or teleport past it, or...

Antimagic Field.

An antimagic field would not prevent you from doing any of those things, unless it extended deeper into the earth than you could tunnel, higher into the sky than you could fly, or farther than you could teleport.

 

[Vegepygmy]

And how good is it for the story to have protagonists die randomly in combat?

That depends on the kind of story you like. Personally, I think it makes the story seem more "realistic," so it's a good thing. Some people don't like it as much.

Doesn't sound like the typical stories I read, but admittedly, I'm not such a big fantasy reader.

Check out the Black Company books by Glen Cook. They're excellent, and random death abounds.

 

[pemerton]

Again, we clearly have vastly different ideas of what is fun, the relative value of character activity vs. player involvement, creating a world vs. staying in the battle game, etc...

<snip>

You are defining how often something should happen by the effect on players in the battle game.
I am defining how often something should happen by the demands of the events and story.
These are fundamentally different expectations and different game systems are appropriate to meet them.

I tried this upthread and got no response, so will try again.

It seems to me that you unfairly run together a number of features of playstyles that are actually quite distinct.

To begin: You appear to equate a particular mechanical preference - for metagame-heavy plot-protection mechanics rather than simulationist/immersion mechanics - with a particular flavour preference - for combat-heavy rather than exploration-heavy play.

But I can't see any necessary connection between the two categories of preference. I'll give examples to explain why.

Some people who like a combat-heavy game also like immersion-encouraging, metagame-free mechanics. You'll find a number of them posting on the RM forum on the ICE boards.

Some people who like a combat-light exploration-heavy game also like metagame-heavy mechanics, in which the mechanics allow the player to choose the stakes for his/her PC. I imagine some of these people play The Dying Earth (light-hearted exploration) or HeroQuest (ultra-serious exploration).

Furthermore, even looking only at those who like combat-heavy play with meta-game heavy mechanics, it's a little rude to imply (as you appear to) that their play is shallow. The Riddle of Steel fits this description (combat-heavy flavour and meta-game heavy mechanics), and it's self-evidently not a shallow game. There's no reason 4e need by shallow either (though it has more potential for it then TRoS, I imagine, having no obvious analogue to Spiritual Attributes).

And some meta-game free exploration-heavy play can probably be pretty shallow - I've certainly seen some 2nd ed AD&D modules that seem to fit this description.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

An antimagic field would not prevent you from doing any of those things, unless it extended deeper into the earth than you could tunnel, higher into the sky than you could fly, or farther than you could teleport.

To accurately match the situation as we perceived it (with our resources at hand), the size of this antimagic field was big - or the goal we wanted to achieve was very close to the lava river. Whatever.

Check out the Black Company books by Glen Cook. They're excellent, and random death abounds.

The Torg books also fit. But then, they are based on the Torg game rules, and it's no surprise that a game-inspired books has "gamey" scenes, so your Black Company books might fit better. But it is still the exception, not a rule.


An issue not related to the "sitting out" thing I see with Save or Die (especially in the case of the Medusa): There are no saving throws in the story world. Either you are prepared with a special mirror and know how to make the Medusa fall asleep, or you are not and just turn to stone upon seeing her face. There is no "saving throw" against the effect.
Entire hordes of non-protagonists will just turn to stone if they meet a Medusa. Only the protagonist will find a way to avoid - not save - her power.

The closest to a saving throw we might get to see in fantasy is resisting mind control - and usually that only happens if someone is talking the victim down and reminding it of its real loyalities or personality.

In a way, the save or die approach is also making you into someone that _might_ be a fantasy hero - but maybe you're not, and you're actually just a side-kick that dies to make a story point - this is a dire situation for our real hero (the one that made his save.)

Well, since I am living out my power fantasies when playing D&D, I am already assuming I am a protagonist, not the side-kick. Save or Die tells me this assumption is wrong.

 

[pemerton]

In a way, the save or die approach is also making you into someone that _might_ be a fantasy hero - but maybe you're not, and you're actually just a side-kick that dies to make a story point - this is a dire situation for our real hero (the one that made his save.)

Well, since I am living out my power fantasies when playing D&D, I am already assuming I am a protagonist, not the side-kick. Save or Die tells me this assumption is wrong.

Mustrum, welcome to the narrativist dark side!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Mustrum, welcome to the narrativist dark side!

Oh no, how I have fallen...

 

[Branduil]

To anyone who think 4e isn't deadly, our group had four deaths today fighting Irontooth in KotS.

 

[wally]

Take it a different route for a second. I'll create a creature that does PC HP's+11 every time it hits. It gets one attack per PC every round. I don't think anyone would consider this to be a well designed creature. It's ridiculous and it wouldn't be any fun to use or face. Poof, you die. Wiff, you live.

Okay, if your DM was regularly putting you up against creatures that cast save or die spells at will every round that didn't have such a ridiculously low DC that it was worthless to use, then that is more of a problem with your DM not with the fact that there were save or die options in the game.

Oh, and I think from what I have read that in 4ed it is damage = PCs HPx1.5

-wally

 

[wally]

To anyone who think 4e isn't deadly, our group had four deaths today fighting Irontooth in KotS.

Just for clairification, was it all within one combat? Was that combat the first for the day when everyone had all their powers? Was it within a power level close or equivalent to the party that had deaths?

Doesn't mean much without more info. At least to me.

-wally

 

[Hussar]

Okay, if your DM was regularly putting you up against creatures that cast save or die spells at will every round that didn't have such a ridiculously low DC that it was worthless to use, then that is more of a problem with your DM not with the fact that there were save or die options in the game.

Oh, and I think from what I have read that in 4ed it is damage = PCs HPx1.5

-wally

Umm, what? What does that have to do with my point?

Any creature with a save or die gaze attack - medusa, basilisk, bodak, just to name three, works identically to how I outlined my uber-damage monster. The only difference is that the DM is rolling against AC rather than the player rolling a save. That is the sole difference between what I outlined and a bodak or a medusa.

So, if the damage machine is bad, how can the SoD creature not also be bad?

My fix is fairly simple. Note, I'm specifically talking about 3e here.

Take a SoD creature and change it's SoD attack so that it deals damage instead. XdX damage, save for 1/2. If the attack kills you, then you die in a fairly unique way - turn to stone for example.

There, now you don't have SoD, the monsters remain deadly, but now they are in keeping with every other monster in the game. No more bolted on holdover mechanic that clashes with how the game is designed.