Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Neonchameleon]

RC, you're reading things into people that aren't their beliefs. I've killed two PCs in my last two sessions as DM (well, one was a Darwin Award* - the other was just the end of a hell of a big fight). One of my DMs has been killing PCs at the average rate of one per session since the campaign started (admittedly including two near TPKs.) On the other hand I dislike save or dies in games longer term than Paranoia or Dread. They are too instant. I like the dramatic tension of dying, and the scrabbling to rescue the dying character before he expires. I like the "Oh ! We've ed up. How do we get out of it?" Not the "Poof. He's dead. Next character." Most fights, the PCs consider themselves fortunate to all be out alive.

Also I'm going to accuse you of some gamism there. Sure the medusa in the 1e MM was bad (snakes that are less visible than red eyes?) But a good assassin will not tell you he's coming. A wizard spell like Finger of Death under the Vancian system is far more useful if the target doesn't know what you have prepared.

* Taking five opportunity attacks at once to charge the spellcaster?

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC, you're reading things into people that aren't their beliefs.

A general statement should not be taken to be true for all individuals.

Perhaps it is best to say that my statement doesn't meet your standard of evidence, although I continue to stand by it. I only need to have what amounts to the same conversation with the same people a limited number of times before I begin to recognize an obvious pattern. You do not see the same pattern; that's cool. It is surely possible that we can agree to disagree, while respecting each other's opinions.

EDIT: And please note that "obvious" here refers to its evidenciary value from my position; I do not necessate that it be objectively obvious. After all, one can easily argue that nothing is objectively obvious.

Also I'm going to accuse you of some gamism there. Sure the medusa in the 1e MM was bad (snakes that are less visible than red eyes?) But a good assassin will not tell you he's coming.

Who suggested that an assassin would?

But I would suggest that, if you intend upon beating up the local mafia, you might want to consider the possibility. Including that the assassin won't offer a business card first!

 

[Lidgar]

While I voted that I am not in favor of save or die, that stance is more tied to the flavor of the system that I play most in now (Pathfinder). If playing 1e or similar, save or die is part of the "flavor" and I am ok with it. Even under Pathfinder, the bodies can still stack up - they just tend to accrue based upon poor decisions ("hey, let's separate!") or a series of unlucky rolls rather than a single cast of the dice.

 

[MrMyth]

@ MrMyth: On consideration, perhaps it is best to say that my statement doesn't meet your standard of evidence, and your statement re: ByronD doesn't meet mine. It is surely possible that we can disagree, while respecting each other's opinions. And this is a discussion I've participated in with many of these same folks far too many times.

Previous statements exist to read and draw conclusions from, for all of us. For those who are interested, I have provided one link. It is easy enough to find other threads. I would rather drop this, because I know where it leads.

Fair enough. I'll say this: I'm not a fan of Save or Die (though I think they can have their place when used by a good DM), and my objections to it have nothing to do with disliking PC death in general. From almost every opinion offered in this thread thus far, most people who dislike Save or Die mechanics seems to feel similarly.

The key issues with Save or Die, from what I can tell, instead tend to fall into a few different complaints:

1) That it gives luck too much impact in the game. Having random chance is a core part of D&D; having a single roll decide everything can undercut a player's ability to feel like their decisions have had an impact on the game.

2) It can make for unsatisfying deaths. Some feel that death that feels like a natural consequence of the decisions and results of a combat can be appropriate, heroic, and dramatic, while death that strikes from out of the blue simply leaves one feeling frustrated.

3) It can be disruptive to the rhythm of the game. This can be true of any death, since the party needs to figure out how to get the character back or find a new party member, or get the player back in the game in some fashion. Save or Die effects potentially exacerbate this by making death more plentiful, as well as increasing the odds of it happening at the start of a big combat, leaving the character to see on the sidelines and watch through the entire fight.

I don't think these are universally true, and even when they are, for some there are advantages to SoD effects that outweigh any potential negatives. Similarly, there are approaches one can take (keeping SoD rare, turning it into a challenge for the PCs to prepare for, etc) that can mitigate these problems or even potentially turn them into something that enhances the game.

But I think these are much closer to the heart of the issue more than anyone objecting to character death in general, or cowering away from a challenge.

It is entirely possible to object to the specific issues of Save or Die effects while still wanting both the possibility of character death, and the ability to have an intense and challenging game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The key issues with Save or Die instead tend to fall into a few different complaints:

The points you make are certainly subsets of the overarching question: How much plot protection are the PCs to have? I.e., the more the game is to be the creation of a narrative, the more plot protection the PC need, and the more the game is an exploration of what happens, the less.

For example, (1) it is obviously true that no matter how many "S"es you put before the oD (SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSoD), eventually there is an actual SoD at the end of it.

I am not aware of a single instance in any game I have ever played, as player or GM, even under the crappiest GMs I have ever known, where a player's decisions didn't have an impact on the game, nor any game where, at times, a single roll did not decide everything. This has been brought up in previous discussions, and in all cases it has been demonstrated that player choices led to the fateful die being cast. Personally, plot protection via player-controlled mechanics (APs, frex) are superior to excising the deadly effect, IMHO. Or, worse yet, fudging them!

(2) Is only true if certain types of deaths are deemed "satisfying" and "unsatisfying"; which is another way of limiting the acceptable narratives. See comments on this upthread.

(3) Disruption of the game is definitely a possibility, either in the narrative (see my comments re: narrativism), or at the table (see my comments re: encounter time and character creation time).

It should be noted that your objects (2) and (3) have little to do with SoD, and are objections to the death itself. In the case of (2), any death not agreed to by the player may be considered anti-climactic, or otherwise unfun.

The argument, therefore, rests on the rather shaky ground (1) supplies. I would suggest that, if your characters are killed without making any choices leading to that death, you have deeper problems than whether or not the game includes SoD.

Perhaps, though, by "choices" we mean "narrative choices" -- which, again, leads back to what I said earlier: If your goal is to provide a particular type of narrative, SoD (without some form of mitigation, such as APs) is likely not for you. Rather than bolster your goal, it works against it.

The reason for the objection to character death is not, IMHO, to "cower away from a challenge" but to ensure that the mechanics bolster the desired game experience. For some, the creation of such a narrative might be as challenging as others find exploration-type games. I suspect, though, that the desire in this type of game is weighted toward discovery of the story rather than challenge per se.

(Indeed, the "challenging" subsystems typically mitigate that challenge so as to avoid damaging the narrative. And they should do so, as it is the narrative which is the main goal!)

IMHO, confusion arises when people don't consider the goals of the pasttime they are engaging in. To some degree, challenge (the chance of failure) is contradictory to narrative (a preset outcome). Deciding what you want, and how to balance these two well, requires both serious thought and honest self-appraisal.

Obviously, you cannot as easily choose to play games that you like if you don't know what you like or why you like it. Then there is the task of determining whether a ruleset supports your goals (nice!) or goes against them (requires modification of rules, or of goals, or the adoption of a different ruleset).

It is also obviously true that if you mitigate undesierable outcomes you reduce challenge in proportion to your mitigation. Which is, obviously, a good thing to the degree that "challenge" is not your main goal -- or is, in fact, antiethical to your main goal -- for playing. And the more you reduce challenge, the greater control you give the players over narration. It is up to each group to determine exactly where along the challenge-narrative axis they wish their game to fall. There is no right answer, and there never has been a universal one. We all fall somewhere toward the middle.

Again, IMHO and IME. YMMV.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

BTW, if a game system takes so long to resolve encounters, and so long to generate new characters, that the PITA factor of character death is too great to endure, despite the fact that character death is otherwise consistent with the goals of the people at the table and the stated intentions of the RAW, then that is a serious flaw in terms of the ruleset.

I found this to be true for 3e, and to some degree true for 2e as well.

YMMV!!!!


RC

 

[Alcamtar]

Yes I think there should be saving throws to avoid death. Instant death without even a chance to survive sucks.


What I think you are really asking is whether there should be instant death in the game...? Yes I think there should. Not everything should be a gradual whittling away of hit points or resources. Not everything should take time to resolve. Not everything should be a "best roll out of three" challenge.

People misunderstand save-or-die. A saving throw is the slim possibility that you'll avoid certain death. Certain death. Or to put it another way:

If you are rolling a saving throw... you are already a dead man.

The solution is not to fix the saving throw. A save vs death is a good thing, not a bad thing. Without that save you'd have no chance at all. The solution is not to put yourself in a place where you may be killed. Are undead scary? Flee! Can a spider kill you with one bite? Then don't go near it. Can a wizard slay you with a word? Then don't make him angry. This is not rocket science. Want a second chance? You had dozens of chances leading up to this encounter, which you foolishly ignored. Your fault. Adventuring is a dangerous pursuit.

Yes sometimes you have to heroically face death in order to achieve your goals. That is noble and laudable. But if you take the teeth out of the risk, you also take the courage and nobility out of the effort. Heroes die. The willingness to lay down your life is what makes you a hero.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. To the extent that you guarantee success, you destroy the glory and the thrill.

One last comment: GMs should not force characters into an instant death situation. I don't mean you shouldn't put surprise deathtraps into a dungeon: anyone going into a dungeon does so with their eyes open to the hazards. And it's OK to require a deadly challenge in order to achieve a heroic goal. And I think its okay if the PCs get on the wrong side of the assassins guild to send one after them. But a GM should not put characters on a railroad track leading to a deadly peril against their will. The only defense against these is careful preparation and/or avoidance, and if you take that possibility away it is very unfair and unfun.

OK another last comment: When you play D&D, death is your bedfellow. You deal it out, and (sooner or later) you will receive it at the hands of another. The fun is the play in between. IMO accepting this reality makes the game more fun, and makes questions like this easier to answer. So many characters to play, so little time!! Death is not frequent enough sometimes.

 

[MrMyth]

For example, (1) it is obviously true that no matter how many "S"es you put before the oD (SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSoD), eventually there is an actual SoD at the end of it.

Yeah, that's... not true. If I enter the epic fight with the evil wizard who has plagued the land, and he wins initiative and kills me with his first spell, that's a very different experience than if my soul starts with wither away, and I fight on through the pain for several rounds before perishing on a third failed save. In that instance, I still get to contribute to the fight - and I have choices to make on trying to fight off the creeping death or do what I can before it claims me.

Yes, there is a final roll that ends things, but one informed by prior rolls and actions, as opposed to a single roll disconnected from everything else.

I am not aware of a single instance in any game I have ever played, as player or GM, even under the crappiest GMs I have ever known, where a player's decisions didn't have an impact on the game, nor any game where, at times, a single roll did not decide everything. This has been brought up in previous discussions, and in all cases it has been demonstrated that player choices led to the fateful die being cast.

Well, yes, to an extent. But I'm talking about more immediate decisions and their impact. Yes, a rogue that peers in the window and dies to a bodak made choices that resulted in his death - he chose to play a rogue, he chose to go on an adventure, he chose to be the party scout. But could he have made a decision that would have saved him, short of playing a different character? None were presented to him, and that was what was frustrating about the experience.

Whereas the deaths that people are saying are acceptable are ones that come after a good deal of action. You are in a fight, and it starts to go badly. At that point you have choices - do you try to retreat, or fight it out? If you get low, do you back up and try to get healed, or keep the enemy busy? Do you try and engage the caster if it leaves you open to being surrounded? If a companion falls, do you try to save them, or focus on finishing off the enemy before another friend drops?

Those are decisions you have to make. And when someone does die, it is usually as a consequence of those choices. Whether for good or ill, people feel it was the result of choices they made, rather than just random chance at the start of an encounter.

Luck can still be a big part of it, sure, and you can still have SoD encounters where choices help or hinder you - but in many people's experiences, they have perished to Save or Die and it has felt like something they had no control over, as opposed to dying during an ongoing battle when they could feel as though decisions they made led to their death. Without Save or Die, when luck starts to turn against you, you can try and do things to mitigate this - whether it involves retreating outright, or drawing on more resources to try and turn the tide. With Save or Die, one bit of bad luck and it is already too late.

That isn't something you can deny - that is the experience people have had, and a reason for their feelings on Save or Die effects!

(2) Is only true if certain types of deaths are deemed "satisfying" and "unsatisfying"; which is another way of limiting the acceptable narratives. See comments on this upthread.

I have no idea what you are saying here. We aren't "limiting the acceptable narratives", I'm explaining the personal preferences of certain gamers. Yes, for any individual gamer, some elements will be satisfying or unsatisfying. In this case, for some gamers, SoD deaths fall into one category or the other. Those who find them unsatisfying and lacking in drama will obviously thus not be a fan of the mechanic. There is nothing to debate there.

(3) Disruption of the game is definitely a possibility, either in the narrative (see my comments re: narrativism), or at the table (see my comments re: encounter time and character creation time).

It should be noted that your objects (2) and (3) have little to do with SoD, and are objections to the death itself. In the case of (2), any death not agreed to by the player may be considered anti-climactic, or otherwise unfun.

No, look, you still don't get to declare what my objections have to do with. Yes, any group of gamers could say that they hate all deaths from fireballs, or find any death unfun, or only want to die from falling from cliffs. That doesn't change the fact that a large number of gamers specifically object to death from instant-kill SoD mechanics.

Regarding the third point, about disruption - yes, any death has the potential to disrupt the game. But my point was that, in my experience (and others, from what people have said in this thread), Save or Die has more potential to disrupt things, because it can happen before any action at all.

The argument, therefore, rests on the rather shaky ground (1) supplies. I would suggest that, if your characters are killed without making any choices leading to that death, you have deeper problems than whether or not the game includes SoD.

Dude, I'm... really confused here.

I'm not making an argument here. I am sharing a preference. I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and logically prove to me that my preference is wrong, or comes from "deeper problems than whether or not the game includes SoD".

Some people have had the experience that Save or Die effects feel random and arbitrary, minimizing the character's ability to determine their own fate.

Some people find that Save or Die effects result in less satisfying deaths than deaths that come from a greater amount of action.

Some people find the disruption caused by Save or Die effects more significant than that of most character deaths.

This isn't something you can disprove. These are opinions. It isn't a treatise on why Save or Die is eternally flawed, it is an explanation of why some people don't like it.

Similarly, you still don't get to explain why I feel the way I do. For me, this isn't about narrative and letting players die only if and when they choose to do so. This isn't about presenting them with lesser challenges. This isn't about us having some "deeper flaws" in my game or playstyle that render me incapable of using Save or Die effects 'correctly'.

This is about those things I have mentioned above, and not preferring them as the default in most of my games. It's perfectly fine to feel differently, but it is definitely not cool to either try and 'disprove' statements about how I feel, or imply that it is the result of crappy DMing on my part.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, that's... not true. If I enter the epic fight with the evil wizard who has plagued the land, and he wins initiative and kills me with his first spell, that's a very different experience than if my soul starts with wither away, and I fight on through the pain for several rounds before perishing on a third failed save. In that instance, I still get to contribute to the fight - and I have choices to make on trying to fight off the creeping death or do what I can before it claims me.

This is where we get to the heart of the matter. While the issue is often couched in player agency and "fairness" and all sorts of theoretical play discussions, the real issue with SoD is about "story" -- it is about the narrative of the game not matching the narrative of the myth, novel or movie. We never see that in a traditional narrative, a tale of revenge that ends with the protagonist coughing blood because a random snake in the forest bit him.

And I am okay with that, as long as it is understood. It's okay to expect a certain amount of "plot immunity" for players (and villains!) if everyone is aware of it and agrees. SoD isn't required for a good time at the table, and playstyles vary.

But, don't ignore it. Don't pretend it doesn't exist. And certainly don't badwrongfun the folks that think the best way to make a story with an rpg is to see what happens, and *then* tell stories about it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, that's... not true.

Sorry, but correct me if I am wrong. I said that SSSSSSSSSSSSSSoD includes, perforce SoD. You say that's not true? Would you also contend that XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXY doesn't inlcude XY?

Yes, there is a final roll that ends things, but one informed by prior rolls and actions, as opposed to a single roll disconnected from everything else.

But, again, if there is ever a single roll disconnected from everything else you've already got bigger problems than SoD. I've never seen it happen. I've never seen a "Bodak in the window" scenario play out where the only choices involved where whether or not to play a rogue, go on the adventure, or be the party scout.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But, if it did happen to you, the GM involved was (IMHO) at fault. Sorry, but that is (again, IMHO) not good GMing! And...if you disagree, and believe it is good GMing, I have to say that I find your complaints counterintuitive at best.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

Yet you are willing to tell me that I am wrong!

We aren't "limiting the acceptable narratives", I'm explaining the personal preferences of certain gamers.

Is "My rogue looked into a window, saw a bodak, and died...without any warning at all!" an acceptable narrative? If not, you are limiting the acceptable narratives. If so, your objection vanishes.

AFAICT, we all limit the acceptable narratives. Indeed, I am very much of the opinion that it is impossible not to. We just differ as to which narratives are acceptable.

Sometimes these limitations are universal -- there are Grandmother Unfriendly narratives that I have no desire to role-play in any game, regardless of genre. Sometimes they are game or genre conventions -- I want limitations on PC deaths in Doctor Who, for example, that I do not want in D&D, and I applaud the rules in Cubicle 7's Doctor Who that make talking or running a better choice than fighting.

No, look, you still don't get to declare what my objections have to do with.

A general statement should not be taken to be true for all individuals.

Dude, I'm... really confused here.

Agreed!

I am not trying to logically prove that your preference is wrong. AFAICT, a preference can neither be wrong nor right. That doesn't mean that why a preference exists cannot be explored, or is not worthy of exploration! Quite the contrary -- it is the root of self-knowledge.

IOW, classical music is fairly complex, and if I stated a preference for or against classical music, it would be a pretty good bet that it is not the complex entity "classical music" which is at the root of my like or dislike, but more basic factors that exist within classical music, or within my relationship to classical music.

It I wanted to discover music that I truly loved, or avoid music that I truly loathed, it is not enough to just point to "classical music" -- the underlaying reasons would indicate which qualities of music (within or without of the rubric of "classical music") I should avoid or seek out.

Likewise, say (for example) that some people have had the experience that Save or Die effects feel random and arbitrary, minimizing the character's ability to determine their own fate. Okay, well a character's ability to determine their own fate doesn't exist -- it is the player's ability which is in question. The character's fate is the narrative. So it is the player's ability to control the narrative that is in question.

Say instead that some people find that Save or Die effects result in less satisfying deaths than deaths that come from a greater amount of action. Why are they less satisfying? Because the resultant narrative is less satisfying.

In a role-playing game, there is a constant tension between narrative control and risk of losing that narrative control. Where you prefer that tension to be resolved is personal preference.

This isn't a treatise on why SoD is great, or good, or eternally flawed. It is an explanation both of why some people don't like it and why some people do.

I have been both, and I have given it a lot of thought.

Similarly, you still don't get to explain why I feel the way I do.

Again, a general statement should not be taken to be true for all individuals.

In all of your statements, above, are you explaining why others feel the way they do? After all, you use "Some people".......But, no. You are making a general statement that you do not mean to imply to be true for all indiiduals. Right?

Please allow me the courtesy of assuming the same.

Especially as I have said so several times!