Your character died. Big deal.

[Raven Crowking]

But the primary objection to SoD was never that eventually it came down to one die roll.

It always eventually comes down to one die roll, and it is (IMHO) a myth that there was little a player could do beforehand or that "There's little thought involved, just following the checklist of things adventures should have."

I remember having this same discussion, on EN World, where an example was given of an orc guarding a bridge, winning initiative, and killing a PC on a crit. Oddly enough, when the example was broken down, at least one poster realized that, with the same setup in his game, he would not have ended up dying under that orc's axe. Simply put, there was a lot that he could have done that had been hidden by the way the example was explained, and none of it required that he know an orc be there ahead of time.


RC

 

[Janx]

So I'm getting RC's point. The last die roll that kills you is = a Save or Die roll.

Imagine a fight against the BBEG, he zaps you each round with a spell of increasing level and damage, until he gets to his Save or Die Death spell. That's the same as if he hacked you to bits with an axe over 9 rounds, until you died.

I think I see the viewpoint difference. The "real" Save or Die scenario is where you start the round relatively healthy, and right away a single die roll makes you dead. And the cause of the die roll stands out blatantly from any of the other dangers in the scene (had the bad guy swung blades at you, the fight would have lasted longer).

The result is the player doesn't feel like there was anything they could do.

It could have been a rigged ceiling that collapses when somebody opens the door on the opposite side of the room, releasing the 50 ton ceiling block on top of the entire party, killing them all if the rogue fails his single detect traps roll (which he can only do from inside the room, and the party likely thinks is safe so is in there with him while he works on the next door).

This is the same gripe players have when out of the blue, their low level party is confronted by a high CR dragon who wants to eat them, and quickly does.

Both scenes leave the players feeling mad. The problem really is, the DM built a scene to kill PCs, not challeng them. Short of staying in the village, the players don't feel there's much they could do. With div. spells, the DM may obfuscate the answer so they don't know about the danger (or have multiple versions, so they only learn about 1).

HEck, in the trap example, if the party casts and asks "is the door trapped". Answer yes. Party leaves room, theif picks lock and fails and trap goes off squishing thief. Had the trap been a poison dart or something, he'd have gotten a saving throw. The 50 ton block has long been the "no saving throw" reality wins example that you can't reflex save your way across a room to get out of the other door .

The 50 ton block was specifically listed in 2E as cause of immediate death in the DMG. In fact you could use it in an illusion, and if they failed their save, would die (assuming you had it in a believable way, like in a dungeon, after a trap trigger went off).

However, the state of the art in DMing has shifted such that these kind of traps are considered bad GMing. The Save or Die spell is now facing the same opinion by many players, by applying similar logic.

I don't know how other people play. At my house we play it this way:
death happens, as RAW
encounters range from easy to really hard
every encounter should be beatable (though it may take some luck and brains)
death happens infrequently (unless the players are plain stupid)
the GM may ease up if players play well, roll badly by not doing as much damage, skipping or shrinking future encounters, providing supplies to heal up
raise deads are also rare, thus dying is likely end of character

in a good session, the players should feel like the odds are stacked against them, that they're losing the big fight, only to turn it around with clever plan and save the day.

I don't have action points or death cards or whatever. We just play the dang game, and as GM, I try to keep them on their toes, and sometimes I give them a break if things are going too badly for them.

 

[malraux]

It always eventually comes down to one die roll, and it is (IMHO) a myth that there was little a player could do beforehand or that "There's little thought involved, just following the checklist of things adventures should have."

IME, that's totally wrong, but there seems to be little I can do to dissuade you on this, so I see little reason to continue, other than to say that a very large number of people do find that SoD, at least as it works in 3e, to be a very significant problem. It describes at least one campaign ending event that I've been involved with.

 

[malraux]

So I'm getting RC's point. The last die roll that kills you is = a Save or Die roll.

Imagine a fight against the BBEG, he zaps you each round with a spell of increasing level and damage, until he gets to his Save or Die Death spell. That's the same as if he hacked you to bits with an axe over 9 rounds, until you died.

Unless the BBEG goes in the opposite order, starting with SoD spells.

 

[Janx]

Unless the BBEG goes in the opposite order, starting with SoD spells.

I cover that in the next paragraph after what you quoted. I'm establishing RC's point in what you quoted.

Then I'm setting up what the "Save or Die sucks" camp feels is their point.

My goal, is that y'all see RC's point about Save or Die as literrally interpreted. And then I want RC to see your point, that encounters that make the PCs feel like there was nothing they could do are bad.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And then I want RC to see your point, that encounters that make the PCs feel like there was nothing they could do are bad.

I do see what you are saying, I just refuse to accept that, unless there is a die roll involved, the players can do nothing.

It is definitely true that, if the DM wants to kill you, he will kill you. That is bad DMing. Not having SoD effects in the game will not help you.

If we discuss SoD from any standpoint where it is assumed that the DM isn't out to kill you, it follows that the DM wants the players to anticipate the SoD effect. In this case, the players always have a plethora of options available to them. These options don't necessarily involve rolling dice.

As an obvious example, the room with the 50-ton block (resetting, ala 3e, as odd as that may be) can have definite signs of past victims, pulverized by the block. The DM doesn't require a roll for the PCs to spot this; he tells them. Perhaps they chase a creature that stumbles into the block. Perhaps the block is ultimately a weapon that they can lure another creature into stepping under. The might not have to fight the ubermonster if they can get it under the block. The mere existence of the block creates possibilities that don'e exist without it. It becomes the gun on the wall in Act I that is fired before the end of Act V.

The film, Clash of the Titans has another example. The medusa is a SoD monster (effectively) which Perseus has a chance of beating; the titan isn't SoD, but is so tough that Perseus needs the medusa's SoD effect on his side to have a chance. And, in the film, "DM Zeus" makes sure Perseus has the means to defeat medusa...a magical mirrored shield he can look in, a magic sword, and pegasus. Of course, pegasus is stolen by Caliban (who Perseus made an enemy of earlier in the story), because we don't want to make things too easy......

You can remove these effects, and still have a game. But when you remove them, you make that game focus more on actual combat and less on the player using his wits to avoid combats that include such dire chances. That is a real loss, IMHO. And it is a loss based upon the idea that the player believes that there is nothing he could do, which, assuming the DM isn't either out to kill you or incompetent, is false.

(And, yes, 3e had some problems, largely because the designers removed/altered parts their survey showed to be "unfun" without -- AFAICT -- really understanding why those parts were as they were in the first place. IMHO, 4e suffers from the same.)


RC

 

[Lacyon]

It is definitely true that, if the DM wants to kill you, he will kill you. That is bad DMing. Not having SoD effects in the game will not help you.

There is another case: a novice DM simply doesn't realize how bad the effects are. Yes, that too is bad DMing - but the rules can help you by defaulting to the assumption that such effects are either rare or nonexistant.

It's considerably easier to recognize that you need to telegraph such decisions when you are making them deliberately, instead of misunderstanding the default decisions built into the game.

You can remove these effects, and still have a game. But when you remove them, you make that game focus more on actual combat and less on the player using his wits to avoid combats that include such dire chances.

This is the only statement I really disagree with you on. Focusing the game on players using their wits to avoid combats with dire chances simply does not require save-or-die effects.

 

[Scribble]

I do see what you are saying, I just refuse to accept that, unless there is a die roll involved, the players can do nothing.

Who is arguing that?

I'm saying that extending SoD into SSoD allows more choices to be made, and more reactions based on what is happening, which is more in line with the rest of the game.

If we discuss SoD from any standpoint where it is assumed that the DM isn't out to kill you, it follows that the DM wants the players to anticipate the SoD effect. In this case, the players always have a plethora of options available to them. These options don't necessarily involve rolling dice.

Same is true with SSoD effects.

As an obvious example, the room with the 50-ton block (resetting, ala 3e, as odd as that may be) can have definite signs of past victims, pulverized by the block.

Or they could be signs of a boulder, or enhanced gravity, or a creature nearbye with a giant fist... (There's the imaination issue.)

The DM doesn't require a roll for the PCs to spot this; he tells them. Perhaps they chase a creature that stumbles into the block. Perhaps the block is ultimately a weapon that they can lure another creature into stepping under. The might not have to fight the ubermonster if they can get it under the block. The mere existence of the block creates possibilities that don'e exist without it. It becomes the gun on the wall in Act I that is fired before the end of Act V.

SSoD doesn't negate any of this. It just allows a chance to deal with a situation that is occuring.

The film, Clash of the Titans has another example. The medusa is a SoD monster (effectively) which Perseus has a chance of beating; the titan isn't SoD, but is so tough that Perseus needs the medusa's SoD effect on his side to have a chance. And, in the film, "DM Zeus" makes sure Perseus has the means to defeat medusa...a magical mirrored shield he can look in, a magic sword, and pegasus. Of course, pegasus is stolen by Caliban (who Perseus made an enemy of earlier in the story), because we don't want to make things too easy......

All of which can still be possible with SSoD.

You can remove these effects, and still have a game. But when you remove them, you make that game focus more on actual combat and less on the player using his wits to avoid combats that include such dire chances. That is a real loss, IMHO. And it is a loss based upon the idea that the player believes that there is nothing he could do, which, assuming the DM isn't either out to kill you or incompetent, is false.

No you don't. You just open up more choices for the player who finds himself in that situation to make, aside from simply :Man I hope I save.

The choice to avoid combat is still yours.

 

[malraux]

Can I also point out that its odd to assume that its ok for the DM not to play certain monsters to the fullest (ie, that the BBEG wouldn't capture a bodak or basilisk to drop on intruders, or hire a medusa as guard but not give hints of such things so that adventurers would find out) but that its inconceivable to move such meta-rules out into the open with the no deaths rule.

 

[Delta]

I'm NOT arguing that death shouldn't be a part of the game, or that all of the randomness should be removed. Those elements are very important to the game. Sometimes the dice just roll low, and you get screwed.

Poker analogy aside, what I AM saying is that the randomness needs to be tempered, and controlled to a degree. When I enter a D&D fight, there are several things happening that let me see the degree of the challange and modify my strategies to suit.

If I enter the battle, and the creature takes a swing, I can get a rough idea of the creatures strength. He hits well, or he does a lot of damage. I can then say either I think I can take em, or Oh crap lets ditch. It even teaches me a bit about what strategies work well, what strategies don't. Random dice should modify this event. That's part of the fun.

Put a SoD into the mix though, and things change. None of the buffers I normally utilize to learn about an enemy are in effect. I don't get that "oh man, I gotta ditch!" moment. It ALL resides on hoping I make my save. If I don't make that save, then that's it.

Well, I guess I can respect your different opinion about D&D, but I must say that you're looking for a game very unlike poker, then. Part of poker is the specific goal of someone hiding their "monster hand" and not revealing it until the moment that they knock you out of the game. Someone having a "tell" and clueing you into that would be seen as a major failing, when they get such a "monster hand".

Furthermore I might argue that the appearance of SOD abilities moves the intelligence operation in D&D from the tactical encounter to the strategic level. At that point you need to scout, survey, scry, whatever, to know what abilities the enemy has and prepare in advance of the battle. Going into every encounter blindly and hoping to respond on the fly could be seen as low-level (first order) player skill.

I can respect it if you don't like that kind of alternate strategic gaming, though. That's fair. But stuff like that is why I like Classic D&D, and see it a lot like poker.