Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Raven Crowking]

In the story of Perseus and the Medusa, slaying the Medusa was the means to an end. Perseus made use of the Save or Die effect to defeat opponents that he could not otherwise vanquish.

Of course, this discussion is like many others we've had in the past, and it boils down to this (IMHO): Are these things features of the world your game takes place in, or are they features of a story you are creating/telling? If they are features of the world, they can be used like any other features. For instance, the PCs who cannot beat Monster X can lure it into Death Trap Y. Or they might just try to get the head of a medusa in a world where the petrifying gaze persists for some time after death.

I also note a few other things:

(1) Being stuck on the sidelines (dead, paralyzed, held, whatever) while an encounter plays out sucks in direct proportion to how long it takes to play out an encounter. When your average combat strays (far) over the 30-minute range, this becomes far less attractive.

(2) Dying in role-playing heavy games is no better or worse than dying in role-playing light campaigns. Sooner or later, most every character passes away. Because of death, because a new campaign starts, or whatever. No one's story lasts forever. That doesn't make it any less a story, or any less interesting. "Call no man happy until he is dead" -- you cannot know the whole story of a character until that story is ended.

(3) Many of the people who don't advocate Save or Die also don't advocate character death. Make of that what you will, but to me it indicates that SoD isn't the problem for them....D is. With or without a S first.

(4) Dying sucks in direct proportion to how long it takes to get a new character ready/into the game. When this takes on average (far) over 30 minutes, this becomes far less attractive.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

The problem with removing save or dies is it makes any dm who wants to use them look like an ass. If they are in the game by default, removing them is a hell of a lot easier than adding them. WTF? save or die? that's not in the rules, killer dm!

Not remotely. Hopefully the players know what game they are playing prior to coming to the table. I would say that a DM running a 4E game and slipping them in without telling the players is an ass, but not someone who advertises a BD&D or AD&D game then runs it per the rules.

 

[Ainamacar]

I first saw this mechanism appear in a WotC product pre-4e; it was in one of the "arcane supplements" (I forget which), and a number of the spells were ones which took a number of rounds to complete their effect. One was a druid spell, and if you failed your save it started turning you to stone, and after IIRC 3 rounds you were rock. That gave 3r worth of opportunities for other participants to take action to rescue you from the effect before it finally happened.

I remember thinking at the time that it was a great solution to the 'save or die' scenario.

That would be Call of Stone from the 3.5 PHB2, and I had the same reaction you did. It really affected how I wrote homebrew spells afterward. The character's speed drops 10 feet per round each time it misses a fort save. At speed 0 it turns to stone. If it misses 4 saves total before the effect ends, the petrification is permanent.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

If using them was groovy, then why would the DM look like an ass? Could it possibly be that the players have a point? That SoD isn't actually all that scary, it's just an instant death sentence, for the reasons outlined above?

Removing them from the rules pretty much removes the option from the game, period. Having them in the rules lets the dm use them or not as he chooses. It's absolutely ok for a game not to use save or dies. It's absolutely fine for a game to use them, as well.

 

[BryonD]

Of course, this discussion is like many others we've had in the past, and it boils down to this (IMHO): Are these things features of the world your game takes place in, or are they features of a story you are creating/telling?

Exactly right.

(1) Being stuck on the sidelines (dead, paralyzed, held, whatever) while an encounter plays out sucks in direct proportion to how long it takes to play out an encounter. When your average combat strays (far) over the 30-minute range, this becomes far less attractive.

This can certainly be true. But another important factor is how much is the player's enjoyment limited to the character's activity.

(2) Dying in role-playing heavy games is no better or worse than dying in role-playing light campaigns. Sooner or later, most every character passes away. Because of death, because a new campaign starts, or whatever. No one's story lasts forever. That doesn't make it any less a story, or any less interesting. "Call no man happy until he is dead" -- you cannot know the whole story of a character until that story is ended.

I think that, for some games, it can be awesome to die a dramtic, heroic death, and for some games death is nothing but "losing". I think that heavy RP games are much more likely to be in the firts group, and RP light games are much mor elikely to be in the second group. But there are most certainly expections both ways.

(3) Many of the people who don't advocate Save or Die also don't advocate character death. Make of that what you will, but to me it indicates that SoD isn't the problem for them....D is. With or without a S first.

Very true. To me, you can never have victory over a threat you cower from facing.

(4) Dying sucks in direct proportion to how long it takes to get a new character ready/into the game. When this takes on average (far) over 30 minutes, this becomes far less attractive.

Yea, I guess that makes sense. Of course, if imagining and bringing a new character "to life" is part of the fun, then that time is zero.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Party of 5 PC's meets a creature like a medusa or a bodak that forces save or die on the group. Fight lasts four rounds. That's twenty saving throws. Odds say that someone is going to roll a one (and that's assuming that you only fail on a one) and dies.

It's not that no one ever makes their save. It's that no one ever makes ALL their saves.

So don't fight them in a way that requires a saving throw. Stay out of range. Or avoid, run, or parlay....

Back to Perseus: He didn't survive against Medusa because he made his saving throw. He survived because he never had to make the saving throw roll in the first place.

I think that's the entire point in a nutshell. SoD isn't well designed. It's entirely random.

It's not entirely random in the greater context of the game. Players have a say in what happens to their players, too, and IME are quite adept at keeping PCs alive against the odds. They have preparations, tactics, clues, and so on.

I'll grant that a DM of a Toleinesque campaign who says "You round the corner and see a medusa, so make your saves" could be being something of an ass. But in the Grotto of Gygaxian Gotchas, a lurking medusa is probably the norm, and the PCs should have a way to deal with it.

In other words, the "correct" use of SoDs depends on the campaign. It's not really a question of how well designed SoD is. Rather, it's a question of how well designed the SoD encounter is, and the player expectations underlying it.

 

[MrMyth]

I think that, for some games, it can be awesome to die a dramtic, heroic death, and for some games death is nothing but "losing". I think that heavy RP games are much more likely to be in the firts group, and RP light games are much mor elikely to be in the second group. But there are most certainly expections both ways.

I don't know, I think several big assumptions are being made here. I've seen just as much of a view point from the opposite direction - a heavy RP game shies away from Save or Dies that can feel like a cheap, meaningless death (as opposed to one that happens at a truly dramatic moment in the plot), while an RP light game that is about the 'competition' between player and DM can thrive on these sort of threats.

Note, I'm not saying these are the only reasons some games are for or against Save or Die effects. But I think it is simply wrong to try and make the claim that "'Save or Die' effects are favored by roleplaying, but not by RP-light gamers that don't like dying." Both your statement here, and RC's statement that people who don't like Save or Die just don't like dying at all, seem to be attempts to change the context of these discussion, and portray a certain kind of crowd (non-RPers, players that don't like to 'lose', etc) as your opposition.

I don't think that is true. We've seen, in fact, several people in the thread specific state that they are opposed to SoD effects because they can be lacking - for them - in dramatic tension.

Now, I'm not saying they are wrong and you are right, or they are right and you are wrong. The key is, both can be true. But they get to decide their reasons for their preferences... not you.

But you and RC both seem firmly in the Save or Die camp while simultaneously trying to offer up the 'reasons' the other side opposes such things. And... I don't really think you guys get to do that. I don't think you guys are doing so intentionally, and there are some genuinely good points that are being made here (about downtime itself factoring into the picture), but it does seem clear there is a level of bias in how you view this - that Save or Die is ok with proper gamers who are about Roleplaying and the experience, and those who don't like it are the gamers who are only focused on 'winning' and 'losing'.

And I don't think that is fair conclusion to reach, or even particularly supported by the posts we've seen thus far in the thread itself.

 

[Umbran]

So don't fight them in a way that requires a saving throw. Stay out of range. Or avoid, run, or parlay....

That requires foreknowledge of what ways don't require the saving throw. That's great, if you have it, but the general case isn't that the players know beforehand the details of everything a given opponent can do, is it?

 

[Treebore]

I haven't voted, because there isn't an option for me. As a DM and a player, I want save or die.

As a player, I don't feel bad when one of my characters dies. As a DM, I see plenty of ways of bringing a character back, if the players really want that to happen. A bit of downtime in the game while you wait for a character to be brought back from the dead or for the opportunity to introduce a new one? Oh, the humanity!

Pretty much a ditto here. If you can't suffer the ultimate failure in a single moment like you can in real life, what's the point of playing in rubberized rooms like current RPG's build? Give me challenges, give me adrenaline rush's, give me "save or die"!

 

[Raven Crowking]

But you and RC both seem firmly in the Save or Die camp while simultaneously trying to offer up the 'reasons' the other side opposes such things. And... I don't really think you guys get to do that.

Hmmmm.

Well, it is merely observation that a number of people in the anti-SoD camp have, in the past, also advocated anti-D.

It is merely observation that there is a strong correlation between anit-SoD and "game as narrative".

It is also merely observation that certain factors are going to play into the reasons others have given. If you don't want to sit out (as others have said), then factors that make you sit out longer are unlikely to make you more accepting of SoD.

Then, of course, there is the fact that 2e advocated that the DM fudge out the effects of PC deaths, and that there was a point at which I followed the 2e advice. I know why I thought it made sense then. I also know why I eventually rejected it. I have a pretty strong understanding of why I was anti-SoD at one point, and why I changed my mind.

So, sure, I think I am qualified to speculate. Just as you seem to feel qualified to speculate about why I am writing what I am writing. And, yes, I do intentionally do that. Speculation as to the motives of other people is pretty normal, and is absolutely essential if you have any desire whatsoever to understand the behaviour of other people.

OTOH, I have no idea where you are getting "Save or Die is ok with proper gamers who are about Roleplaying and the experience, and those who don't like it are the gamers who are only focused on 'winning' and 'losing'."

AFAICT, that is a conclusion that you have reached alone, and is not even particularly supported by the posts you are responding to.


RC