Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[El Mahdi]

The question is: was Perseus a destined to be a legendary hero before he defeated Medusa or did he come to be viewed as a legendary after he defeated her and had legends written about him? What about all the poor schmucks who went before him and had their faces petrified? They may well have been heroic, but they didn't become Legendary Heroes...

Then this begs the question:

Do we want to play Heroes, or characters trying to become Heroes?

 

[El Mahdi]

Well, I have it from a very reliable source...

Well then...as long as it's a reliable source... (LOL!)

 

[malraux]

Personally, I think that what makes for a good literary hero, especially a greek literary hero, is not the same as what makes for a good heroic game. i don't really care about emulating the greek myth as much as I care about playing a fun game.

 

[Dykstrav]

Then this begs the question:

Do we want to play Heroes, or characters trying to become Heroes?

Please, help me understand your point of view on this, because here's something that I don't understand...

Why is it assumed that heroes are successful most of the time? Or that bad things never happen to heroes?

I've always felt that heroes are people who are outmatched by their circumstances that display courage and self-sacrifice. The classical or narrative definitions may or may not apply in gaming... But to me, heroism is more about attitude than accomplishment.

A courageous farmboy with a pitchfork defending his barn from a handful of orc raiders is a hero to me--he has drawn a line in the sand and is willing to pay in blood (whether his or the attackers) to hold that line. Sure, those orcs are probably going to tear him limb from limb, but not without a fight.

On the other hand, a traveling knight on patrol that happens upon the scene is probably less heroic in my eyes--as the knight is heavily armed and trained for battle, his decision to engage the orc raiders is really more of a non-decision. They don't present as much of a challenge to him (unless they get really lucky), and he knows that he can cut them to ribbons before he even draws his sword. He engages the orc raiders because he's expected to and well-prepared for it, not because he's a hero.

 

[Fifth Element]

You can see my opinion on medusa in my sig.

Yeah, I think I've mentioned my thoughts on the applicability of your sig to RPGs before.

Suffice it to say, I really have no interest in the 4E approach. It isn't really about "fear" so much as "fun.

That's what a lot of 4E fans say as well.

In the myth, if you see Medusa you turn to stone. Not even "save or die", just do it and die. That is scary.

Of course you don't see the save or die, since the save is an abstraction which represents averting one's gaze before the effect takes hold. So when they die, it's because they failed the save. If they don't, it's because they made the save.

But we're talking about stories here, which are not the same thing as RPGs, of course.

The tension exists in the prospect of facing such a terrible threat. If you meet the gaze of medusa becoming slowed does not increase tension, to me, it just reveals that there is no simulation present here. It proves that you are playing a tactical boardgame in which getting the story right has been completely set aside. I don't see "oh my god, I've been slowed by a medusa, this is getting tense." I see:"whew, I saw Medusa, but it was a sub-medusa, I'm still here." The tactical situation may be more precarious than it was. So there is certainly gamist tension. But the dramatic tension is absent.

To you, sure. To me, there's no dramatic tension in suddenly being out of the story; building up to such a situation provides more tension. Beyond that, if my goal is dramatic tension, then reading a story would generally be a better choice. There's more to RPGs (notably the G part) than dramatic stories.

 

[malraux]

Please, help me understand your point of view on this, because here's something that I don't understand...

Why is it assumed that heroes are successful most of the time? Or that bad things never happen to heroes?

I've always felt that heroes are people who are outmatched by their circumstances that display courage and self-sacrifice. The classical or narrative definitions may or may not apply in gaming... But to me, heroism is more about attitude than accomplishment.

I personally think the only truly heroic RPG out there is Call of Cthulhu. It's about people giving up everything they have to save the world in acts so incomprehensible that no one will even believe they happened.

 

[Abraxas]

I wonder how many people who have no problems with save or die would be perfectly comfortable with monsters whose every attack does your current HP +11? After all, what's the difference?

Orc with a greataxe - every hit had this potential for a number of characters until 3rd level or so.

 

[Fifth Element]

The Heroes are the ones who make it. The character that lives to 2nd level is a bigger hero than the one that dies 10 XP from 2nd level. The character that lives to be 5th level is more heroic than the 2nd level character, and so on. RPG characters are not like characters from books or movies or even myths: their fates are not yet written. Whether they are noble heroes or die ignobly on the points of kobold punji sticks is yet to be determined.

This is true, which is why BryonD's comparison to myths is not a good one, since those are stories that have already happened.

However, that being said, many people like to play D&D in order to do heroic things. Not to do things and hope that one of their characters kills enough rats to be able to do something heroic later on. If that's what they enjoy doing, then obviously save-or-die is going to suck. And no amount of "but what about the dramatic tension?" is going to change how they like to play.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Then this begs the question:

Do we want to play Heroes, or characters trying to become Heroes?

Exactly!

Or, put a different way: different strokes for different folks. I happen to enjoy the "trying to become a hero", or even "unwillingly becoming a hero" kind of game. But I also appreciate the "Look at me! I'm a hero! Woohoo!" mode of play.

And contrary to what many people claim, D&D (and other systems) supports both with tinkering, at least to the degree that keeps me & my group happy.

 

[Fifth Element]

Why is it assumed that heroes are successful most of the time? Or that bad things never happen to heroes?

Because heroic stories are only told about the heroes who did heroic things...not those that died before they could do anything heroic, if you follow me.

You're looking at it backwards. I'd say that heroes are successful most of the time because those who are successful most of the time are heroes. Bad things do happen to heroes, but typically they are things the hero overcomes, not typically being turned to stone in a cave and never being seen again.

Again, stories are not games.