Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Plane Sailing]

I'll return to a previous example from actual play: Party approaches a house in the woods. Rogue sneaks up to it. Listens, hears things moving about in side. Takes a quick look through a window. Sees a Bodak, dies.

Now, were there precautions they could have taken to avoid this? Maybe. I'm sure the right divinations could have given a heads-up, followed by the right spells (Death Ward) to protect them. But 'cast divinations before every possible fight' doesn't seem an ideal style of play, and 'always have high-level casters with you' isn't going to be the default for every group.

There is a flaw in your setup here, since it isn't seeing a Bodak which forces a save against death, it is meeting the bodaks gaze i.e. eye contact.

In the scenario above what actually happens is that the Rogue sneaks up, listens, hears things moving about inside. Takes a quick look through the window and sees a Bodak moving around. Hurries back and tells the party who either take appropriate precautions before a fight or hurry off in the other direction.

If the rogue has successfully sneaked up, it would be grossly unfair (or incompetent) of the DM to ignore that and have the Bodak staring out the right bit of the window just waiting for him to peek in!

Regards,

 

[MrMyth]

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?

By your logic, every death in the game is a "Save or Die" since at some point, the enemy rolls a final attack, and you die. Or you fail a last check to stabilize, and die.

Except that you can't genuinely compare those. Save or Die effects are, intrinsically, a single roll. That is the complaint people have with them. The fact that they do occur independant of other elements of combat.

Even if someone finishes turning to stone after 4 rounds, or dies from bleeding out after ten, or gets dropped by a monsters 3rd attack on the fifth round of combat, you can't just declare those comparable situations because "one roll occured, at the end of that sequence". If you aren't try to claim those situations are comparable, then I'm not sure what your point is.

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.

Really?

A DM is bad because they use a monster explicitly as it is written in the system? Or because the party fights an evil wizard, and he happens to have a Save or Die spell on his list somewhere?

The problem there is solely that the DM is bad, and not, say, that there is a flaw in the system?

No, sorry, I don't buy that. Maybe a good DM could find ways around that situation. But the rules themselves put them in there, and a perfectly average DM - even an above average one - could easily use them without having done anything wrong.

I... I honestly don't think you are trying to be offensive, here. But do you not see how, every time someone gives an example of times Save or Die effects caused problems in their game, responding with, "You and your friends are bad DMs" is not a reasonable thing to say.

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

Yes. When you try to portray several of my actual experiences and opinions as 'a flawed argument built on shaky ground'... yeah, I'm going to tell you that this isn't something you can claim, and I'm going to be confused why you are dead set, not on giving your own opinions on the virtues of Save or Die effects, but on trying to convince the other side that they hold invalid opinions.

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.

My point was that it is a completely hollow statement. "Limiting the acceptable narratives" is just a fancy way of saying "prefers playing in a way they enjoy". And that is already understood, it is the core of the discussion, and pretty much of playing the game in the first place.

It isn't a question of acceptable narratives, it is a question of why people have these preferences.

I just don't know why you would feel the need to say that an opinion "is only true" in the context of people having likes and dislikes. Of course it is - that's why it is an opinion! Sharing opinions on this topic is what the thread is all about.

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

"It should be noted that your objects (2) and (3) have little to do with SoD, and are objections to the death itself. "

That was not a general statement. I said, "Here are reasons Save or Death can be a problem", and you responded that, "No, your objections there aren't objections to the Save or Die part, but just to the death."

That is you, attempting to tell me what I am saying. Not as a general statement, but specifically saying that my opinion meant something other than what I was saying with it.

Again, I don't think you are trying to do this maliciously, but do you really not see how that might not be a reasonable way to engage in discussion?

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!

Heh, except that you did try to say that the opinion was wrong.

Let's assume, though, that wasn't the case. That you are instead just trying to explain to me why my reasons for arriving at that opinion aren't valid ones. Do you really believe that to be better?

However you cut it, telling me that my reasons for disliking Save or Die aren't valid ones, or that they are a result of being a bad DM, isn't something I'm a fan of.

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.

Actually, I think you might be missing some of the point. The character does have some ability to determine their own fate. If Joe the Fighter gets badly wounded, and steps back and drinks a healing potion, and this means he survives, the character has influenced his own fate. Yes, the player made the decision for the character to take that action, but it felt like the character helped determine the result of battle and their own success or failure.

If Lyle the Rogue starts a fight, sees a bodak, and dies, he feels like he had much less control over his fate. Yes, decisions he made led to his death, but not ones that were particularly informed. The only decision he really made was being an adventure, and this resulted in his death, without anything he could do about it.

That's what bugs him.

Yes, you can step this all back and describe it as a matter of the character's control over the narrative, but it is relatively meaningless to do so. Yes, he wishes the narrative was that he didn't die a stupid death. That's exactly what we knew to begin with.

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.

I think we're running the risk of the term 'narrative' ending up bankrupt of meaning, here.

It's meaningless to say that the reason is that "The resulting narrative is less satisfying." That's not the reason - that's an effect, and one that has a virtually identical meaning to "they didn't enjoy the game."

And saying that they didn't enjoy the game because they didn't enjoy the game doesn't particularly tell us anything at all.

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?

Well... right and wrong. I'm referring to my own opinions, as well as those of the other people in the thread who have said virtually identical things. You know, the ones I provided a specific list of several posts back? I'm not saying these are true for everyone, sure. But they seem to be true for most of those offering opinions, in this thread, on this side of the discussion.

I think that is quite a bit different than offering up opinions that you admit are not your own, but are instead hypothetical viewpoints and feelings on behalf of the opposite side of the argument.

You've said that general statements aren't meant to refer to individuals. But thus far you've both:

1) Made a general statement about why "most" people dislike Save or Die, one that is contradicted by everyone in this thread who has actually spoken out against SoD effects; and
2) Referred to the specific opinions I've given by explaining that my issue isn't about Save or Die at all, but just about death alone. (Even though I've outright said that isn't the case.)

If you really want me to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't trying to explain my own opinions for me... then I recommend not making claims like the above.

 

[MrMyth]

There is a flaw in your setup here, since it isn't seeing a Bodak which forces a save against death, it is meeting the bodaks gaze i.e. eye contact.

In the scenario above what actually happens is that the Rogue sneaks up, listens, hears things moving about inside. Takes a quick look through the window and sees a Bodak moving around. Hurries back and tells the party who either take appropriate precautions before a fight or hurry off in the other direction.

If the rogue has successfully sneaked up, it would be grossly unfair (or incompetent) of the DM to ignore that and have the Bodak staring out the right bit of the window just waiting for him to peek in!

Problem is, I don't think its fair to blame the DM for that, because that's how the rules say this thing works - he looks in the room. There is a Bodak within 30', and he obviously isn't trying to avert his gaze (as he doesn't know it has a gaze attack, and is trying to identify it). The rules don't provide any random chance that he doesn't meet its gaze - they say he makes a Fort Save, or dies.

Now, I think a top-notch DM would be willing to rule otherwise - that's what good DMs do, they know when to override the rules to improve the game. But being able to rule otherwise or fix/avoid the problem doesn't mean the issue isn't still there at its base.

That's the main issue. There are plenty of times when there could certainly be warning signs to tip the PCs off, and good DMs will often try to provide those warning signs.

But they aren't always there, and the game itself doesn't have that assumption built in. And in many scenarios, there won't necessarily be any signs - you don't always get an extended, intricate heads-up about upcoming combats, you rarely know the contents of a wizard's spellbook in advance, nor do you even always know that you'll be fighting a wizard.

The DM might provide you clues about what you will fight. But the game itself just says, "here's some monsters, and some spells, and they might kill you. You'll often only find this out after someone has Saved or Died."

 

[Kingreaper]

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.

Without that save, the GM wouldn't have thought it was acceptable to put a snake with a "just die" attack in the room.


The save ISN'T always a bonus tacked onto something that would be "just die", the save is often an excuse for including something which is, still, "just die", cleverly disguised by going "it's not my fault, it's the dice".

I enjoy games which give the players some element of control. Where the players actions (not the dice) are the main decider of whether they live or die.
If you're honestly saying "SoD" is a kindness; think, would you really include all the "SoD" critters you do, if they WERE "just die"?

 

[SteveC]

A save or die is one of the few things these days that will make me just walk away from a game (and I'm typically the GM). The thing is, putting something in place where a single die roll determines the outcome of a character's story is, well, about 99% of the time it's a horrible way to do something.

I like to challenge my players, and I don't run a cake walk campaign by any measure, but save or die mechanics are such a blunt instrument to make something challenging or exciting. "Oh my, you've rolled a '1'... better luck next time." How exciting was that?

Just my opinion, but I'd say "good riddance!"

--Steve

 

[Starman]

I have learned two things in this thread.

1) Some people like save-or-die at least in some circumstances.
2) Some people do not like save-or-die.

I guess it's a good thing people can play their games the way they prefer, otherwise arguments might break out or something.

 

[Hussar]

Now, I think a top-notch DM would be willing to rule otherwise - that's what good DMs do, they know when to override the rules to improve the game. But being able to rule otherwise or fix/avoid the problem doesn't mean the issue isn't still there at its base.

RavenCrowking - would you agree with Mr Myth here? After all, this is fudging. This is changing the rules of the game to match up with a pre-determined outcome. So, would this be a case of good fudging and would this qualify someone as a good DM?

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.

Not really. At least not for me. The issue here isn't with "story" since I have zero problems with killing PC's. That's fine. The issue here is that a completely arbitrary die roll that the players have no way of realistically avoiding can kill the PC. It's not unfair because it disturbs the "story", it's unfair because ... well... completely arbitrary die rolls that kill PC's are unfair.

How do I prepare for the banshee in the attic in Land Beyond the Magic Mirror?

How do I prepare (as a 5th level AD&D party) for a randomly encountered basilisk in A1 Slave Lords Stockad?

How do I prepare for a poisonous snake in the forest, whether as a planned encounter or a random one? After all, while a lion in my town would be news, snakes in a forest probably would not.

How do I prepare for spiders?

How do I prepare for an assassin being sent out?

Unless the DM puts up big "SAVE OR DIE AHEAD" signs and wraps every encounter in bubble wrap (which defeats the purpose in the first place), or I meta-game every single encounter, there's no way to be prepared.

It has nothing to do with "story" and everything to do with hinging play on a completely arbitrary die roll. It's no different than the DM simply picking up a die and rolling - anything over X and your character dies.

It's neither exciting nor fun.

 

[Hussar]

I have learned two things in this thread.

1) Some people like save-or-die at least in some circumstances.
2) Some people do not like save-or-die.

I guess it's a good thing people can play their games the way they prefer, otherwise arguments might break out or something.

Heh, this isn't really arguing. It's simply discussing the merits of something. I, for one, don't feel that SoD has a lot of merits going for it in a D&D game. In other games, I might feel differently, but in D&D? I'm rather glad it's been gone.

Funny thing is, for me anyway, this isn't new. Way back in 1e and early 2e, I refused to use SoD monsters when I designed adventures, or used them extremely sparingly. Level drain was healable at my table too - 1 week per level.

I have always felt that the 10 seconds of fear you might gain from a SoD situation isn't worth it.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Dude, just don't play in games with save-or-dies.

If it is truly a gamebreaker, ask the GM before getting invested in the campaign SoDs. He might even be willing to compromise, or drop them entirely to keep on a player.

And seriously: have the courtesy to ask... because as a DM I would be royally pissed if a player stormed off in a huff because I ran a with a rule I had no idea he didn't like.

As is consistently ignored in these kinds of threads, every single last one of these kinds of "problems" are non-issues when the people at the table communicate about their expectations, preferences, and the like.

 

[Starman]

Heh, this isn't really arguing. It's simply discussing the merits of something.

Oh, I know. Sarcasm is my friend.