Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[malraux]

FWIW, even though I'm so against SoD (or other variants of save or sit out the next few hours) that I'll walk out of the game never to return, I have no problem with dying in general. If the dice turn against me, the dice have turned against me. If my strategy is wrong, I deserve the beating.

 

[Raven Crowking]

FWIW, even though I'm so against SoD (or other variants of save or sit out the next few hours) that I'll walk out of the game never to return, I have no problem with dying in general. If the dice turn against me, the dice have turned against me. If my strategy is wrong, I deserve the beating.

Which is fine. Good, even. You shouldn't waste time with games you don't enjoy.

(1) Speculation about general motives potentially has very limited value when determining the motives of any given individual. You can describe a trend, to which various individuals fall to only a limited degree. This doesn't mean that anyone falls fully within the trend; merely that there is a degree to which differing parts of that trend are shared by different individuals.

Thus, it is fair to say "Many people like X because of qualities A, B, and C," without it also being true that all of those people -- or even the majority -- like all of those traits.

(2) Just to be clear, "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'." is, AFAICT, a unique statement to MrMyth.

Saying, as I did, that "Dying in role-playing heavy games is no better or worse than dying in role-playing light campaigns" is hardly the same as saying "Save or Die is ok with proper gamers who are about Roleplaying and the experience". There is barely a relationship between the two statements. And, if there is, mine is a direct contradiction of MrMyth's.


RC

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

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?

I agree that PCs generally don't have a lot of knowledge. But distance+cover+ready_to_run really is a good rule of thumb for any initial encounter (Heck, that's a good rule for social encounters, too, or even much of real life ).

Maybe it's silly of me when I DM, but I tend to assume PCs (and monsters!) err on the side of caution when facing an unknown, whether or not the world is full of old-school SoDs, 4e-esque SSSoDs, or just KOs.

And honestly, I believe most good encounters won't leave the PCs completely unknowledgeable or powerless, anyway. There's always a hint or an out. Despite this, the PCs will sometimes be ambushed, or overlook something, or guess wrong. At that point it boils down to game expectations and the trust that ought to exist between the players and DM.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

FWIW, even though I'm so against SoD (or other variants of save or sit out the next few hours) that I'll walk out of the game never to return, I have no problem with dying in general. If the dice turn against me, the dice have turned against me. If my strategy is wrong, I deserve the beating.

Why would you have gone into a game with SoDs in the first place if they're a gamebreaker for you? If you didn't know they were there or weren't expecting them, that tells me there was a huge breakdown in communication between the DM and players.

Frankly, that's what discussions like these are really about: making sure everyone at the table has non-conflicting expectations for the game.

 

[Umbran]

I agree that PCs generally don't have a lot of knowledge. But distance+cover+ready_to_run really is a good rule of thumb for any initial encounter (Heck, that's a good rule for social encounters, too, or even much of real life ).

Let's consider that for, say, a typical dungeon: Distance and cover are limited by dungeon geometry. If you're having the encounter at all, you've pretty much got to enter the room in which the critter lives. Ready to run? Well, that'll save everyone *after* the first one dies failing the save.

As for applying that to social encounters... I can only imagine using that in your typical dance club. Peering around doors, hiding behind pillars, sneaking up on the bartender in case he tosses a fireball at you just before you order a light beer. I suppose that might be fun for you, but I don't think you'll get many dates out of it.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

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.
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.

So, in the Dreaded D&D Dungeon you should know better than to touch anything, because experience teaches you to expect 0.37 deadly traps per room and your 1st level thief has only a 10% chance to detect/disarm any trap? The result is more like paranoia than suspense.

The Perseus/Medusa example doesn't work as an analogy, imho. As far as I know the story, Pallas Athene took action, gave Perseus the valuable shield and instructed him. That's not what I'd call "character ingenuity", it's railroading with the help of a powerful NPC.

I think we all want some method to increase suspense apart from the very lenient D&D system of whittling away HPs.

The SoD method works if the players know the rules governing the effect (petrification by looking at the monster, InstaDeath by a spell) and get hints about the threat so they can prepare their characters for it. Any error they make may result in character death(s).

This isn't the sort of suspense I like, if only because of the meta-game component: the players are forced to work on a meta-game level, they are playing some Dungeon Chess against the GM, not a roleplaying game.

For me, some system like the 4e Medusa works much better. As soon as one character falls victim to the monster's gaze, the pressure on the other characters - and thus the players - mount as they not only have to kill, chase away, or somehow get rid of the creature, they also have to save their comrade by quickly applying some effect to her.

 

[Reynard]

Let's consider that for, say, a typical dungeon: Distance and cover are limited by dungeon geometry. If you're having the encounter at all, you've pretty much got to enter the room in which the critter lives. Ready to run? Well, that'll save everyone *after* the first one dies failing the save.

I'm a little confused. There's a room, which implies a door, or at least a portal of some sort, possibly with a hallway leading up to said portal. Why are the PCs blundering through the door and into the room without listening, checking from recent tracks and otherwise engaging in a little reconnoiter?

I don't mean to sound snarky, but it seems to me that your arguments against SoD rely quite heavily upon a playstyle that ignores the fact that they exist. of course they won't work or turn the game "unfun" if they have an impact on play but no one recognizes it and responds accordingly.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I'm a little confused. There's a room, which implies a door, or at least a portal of some sort, possibly with a hallway leading up to said portal. Why are the PCs blundering through the door and into the room without listening, checking from recent tracks and otherwise engaging in a little reconnoiter?

Confused? So am I. Do you guarantee your players that their characters will hear sounds they can recognize as coming from a medusa? How can they interpret the sketchy tracks on the dungeon floor as being made by a basilisk?

I don't mean to sound snarky, but it seems to me that your arguments against SoD rely quite heavily upon a playstyle that ignores the fact that they exist. of course they won't work or turn the game "unfun" if they have an impact on play but no one recognizes it and responds accordingly.

Without any attempt at snarkiness as well: if I'd run my game in such a way, I'd feel like training my players like some kind of Pavlov's dogs.

Ah, isn't it great that we roleplayers are such a diverse bunch? And isn't it great that ENWorld provides us with such a fantastic stage to perform our arguments on?

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

As for applying that to social encounters... I can only imagine using that in your typical dance club. Peering around doors, hiding behind pillars, sneaking up on the bartender in case he tosses a fireball at you just before you order a light beer. I suppose that might be fun for you, but I don't think you'll get many dates out of it.

Light beer? No need to be insulting.

Metaphorical distance and cover is what I was referring to. Sorry, I realize that wasn't clear. Idle chit chat, white lies, guarding info, reading the other conversants, stuff like that. And if all else fails, no one is left standing when I, Theo R. Cwithin, don the white leisure suit and hit the disco dance floor!

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

The Perseus/Medusa example doesn't work as an analogy, imho. As far as I know the story, Pallas Athene took action, gave Perseus the valuable shield and instructed him. That's not what I'd call "character ingenuity", it's railroading with the help of a powerful NPC.

I agree that the myth doesn't map perfectly to a game, but it could be envisioned as having played out as one-- and I'm quite certain someone somewhere actually has played it out. What you're calling a railroad might actually have resulted in-game from a lot of research, questing, bargaining, or the like.

For me, some system like the 4e Medusa works much better. As soon as one character falls victim to the monster's gaze, the pressure on the other characters - and thus the players - mount as they not only have to kill, chase away, or somehow get rid of the creature, they also have to save their comrade by quickly applying some effect to her.

I actually also agree on this as well.

Like I said upthread, the 4e-style effects with several chances to mitigate aren't necessarily incompatible with save-or-die. In fact, I've used 4e save-or-save-or-save-or-die with 3.5 basilisks (based on some article I read). The 4e SSSoD effects don't have to replace SoD effects; they just have different applications.

To continue beating the dead horse: there are different ways to envision the medusa. In one campaign, they're a frightening but surmountable monster (SSSoD). In the Great Grotto of Gygaxian Gotchas, a medusa is old-school dangerous, along with everything else in the dungeon (SoD). In another campaign the medusae are a full-blown race, with relatively weak young (SSSSSoD) and more powerful elders (SoD). And in a mythic Greece campaign there is only Medusa the Gorgon (maybe a high DC SoD, or maybe SSSoD, depending).

The only complete answer to the poll is "What are the players' expectations of the campaign?" The answer to that question tells you if SoDs are acceptable or not. And I'd even wager that some gamers swing both ways now and then.