Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[BryonD]

It is interesting that DMs are opposed to SoD 4-3, but players are in favor 2-1.

Clearly, there are a lot more DM votes (90%), but if the frustration of character death was truly the big problem, then players would overwhlemingly be opposed.

Perhaps players have more tendency to actual enjoy charging into the teeth of danger to test their fortune. And if players are not afraid of losing their characters, why should DMs be? Perhaps it is because DMs are in control. And when that die is bouncing along the table, it is not the character's life in the balance, it is the DM control that is at risk.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Absolutely. How could it not be so? Indeed, when you write

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.​

you have shifted the goal posts from being able to make choices that lead to the roll, to having those choices be part of combat. Why is that?

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?

I would say a DM is bad if the DM is not good. Wouldn't you agree? Let's see what you think a good DM would do in this situation:

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.

Of course, I am not at all certain that the RAW does say "see a Bodak & make a save". "Meets its gaze" =/= "Sees the creature" as Plane Sailing pointed out. I have seen many, many people and creatures in my lifetime without meeting their gaze.

Moreover, if we are to blame something in this case, and it is not the DM, why is it the SoD effect? Isn't it the lack of DMing advice, if we accept your premise, that is to blame? Or the specificly bad rules (again, if we accept your premise as to RAW) that prevent the DM from staging the SoD-effect monster better?

And, again, when I am looking at your given reasons, I am looking to see whether they hold together in general, or should be accepted as the general case. They are only referred to as "yours" in the sense that you brought them forward.

There is nothing wrong with not liking SoD effects.

There is something wrong with expecting other people to accept, as a general case, a reason that falls apart when examined. This is true for any phenomenon, regardless of what it is.

It is always okay for you to accept any reasoning that passes the bar of your skepticism.....in this case, I do mean you you, as well as the general you. It is not okay to attempt to force others to accept reasoning that does not pass the bar of their skepticism.

Your position may be correct. Your statements, at least as far as I am concerned, do not demonstrate it to be so. I am sure you feel the same about my statements. Therefore, I again suggest we agree to disagree.


RC

 

[Neonchameleon]

The idea that party's chance to make a difference doesn't kick in until after the save die is rolled is a huge point of disconnect in the perpectives.

As the legionaries said in Asterix: Not Going and Not Seeing is the best way Not To Get Conquered.

It has been demonstrated that there are many Save or Dies where you can not prepare yourself (for one, any involving Vancian Casting except in the most generic sense). It's further been demonstrated that the actual rules and advice for SoD monsters like the Medusa make it almost impossible to spot in advance. In neither case can you prepare for them if they are used as expected. The people claiming they can be prepared for are those tacitly house-ruling the game.

And the other half is that the Save or Dies add nothing to the game. The Rod of Orcus in 4e is not SoD. But any ability that does 100% of the HP of any target on a hit is damn scary. I recently had my 30hp monk take 4d10+10 hp damage in a single hit (the power recharged on a miss). Meep! He thought beating up the goblins and leaving the giant to the more experienced party members was a better plan. No need for Save or Die - Hurt Like Hell was enough to establish him as a serious threat that could kill us and build the adrenaline.

And Lanefan plays old school D&D. Gygaxian level old school. Nothing wrong with that if it's what he enjoys.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

See, I think that a slavish adherence to "rules" without applying common sense entirely opens up the DM to blame. Would said DM force someone to make a save if they saw the Bodak from behind and wasn't trying to avert their gaze? I sincerely hope not. The whole point of the rogue sneaking is that he is keeping - ta-dah - out of view of the creatures he is sneaking up on. The very fact that he successfully snuck demonstrates ipso facto that the bodak was not looking at him.

That isn't modifying the rules to suit the circumstances, it is using the tiniest modicum of common sense.

Just wanted to make a comment on this - I do think it is fair to blame the DM in this situation, especially if the rogue manages to avoid detection by the Bodak.

Gaze attacks can be turned on and off at will by the creatures with them unless the description specifically says they can't. In most cases it really make no sense for the gaze attack to be turned on all the time, you could affect allies, flying insects would be falling out of the air around you all the time, small animals would be dropping dead everywhere the creature goes (these last two would probably give you a clue that something dangerous was about)

But you may think differently and that's fine and dandy.

However, as Abraxas reminds me, for people who like this sort of thing that's fine. Indeed, 4e seems to me to be well targetted for that approach so I suppose it may be more widespread than I would have suspected!

 

[MrMyth]

See, I think that a slavish adherence to "rules" without applying common sense entirely opens up the DM to blame. Would said DM force someone to make a save if they saw the Bodak from behind and wasn't trying to avert their gaze? I sincerely hope not. The whole point of the rogue sneaking is that he is keeping - ta-dah - out of view of the creatures he is sneaking up on. The very fact that he successfully snuck demonstrates ipso facto that the bodak was not looking at him.

That isn't modifying the rules to suit the circumstances, it is using the tiniest modicum of common sense.

Maybe I'm basing a lot of this off of experience with 3rd Edition, which did away with facing, and (at least in my experience) tended to encourage these sort of 'by the book' rulings.

I think the idea that a DM could just rule the Bodak wasn't looking in the PCs direction (or roll a random chance to see if that was the case) is a good one - it also isn't anywhere in the rules. I think people's expectations for common sense or proper DM rulings is setting a pretty high bar, basically. The second you say that "following the rules means you are a bad DM" is the second I say, "That says, to me, that the problem is in the rules."

Are there logical circumstances in which a rogue could spy on a Bodak safely? Sure - the Bodak could be looking in the other direction, it could have its gaze disabled to protect its creator, there could be creatures scattered around outside dead from fright, etc.

But there are also perfectly logical circumstances in which the rogue sees it, and dies. The Bodak is filled with hatred for life - it has no reason to turn its gaze off if it doesn't have allies to protect. It could as easily be looking in the rogue's direction as away. If its bound inside the cabin to guard a treasure, there is no reason for there to be warning signs outside.

Look, when we ran into this scenario, we thought it was a poorly designed encounter. But our issue wasn't that we ran into a Save or Die monster and the DM didn't bend the rules to get us safely through it, our issue was that there was a Save or Die monster to begin with.

There seem to be a lot of people saying that a good DM only runs these monsters in ways that give PCs plenty of warnings, or bends the rules to mitigate the Save or Die effects, or that it is ok to use Save or Die as long as you've led the PCs to take precautions to nullify the Save or Die mechanic itself.

That just doesn't make sense to me. That isn't how they are presented in the rules - it is presented as a mechanic to kill the PCs. You can't simultaneously defend it as a mechanic - but blame the DM when they actually use it as such!

 

[Raven Crowking]

RavenCrowking - would you agree with Mr Myth here?

Yes.

After all, this is fudging.

No.

This is changing the rules of the game to match up with a pre-determined outcome.

No.

So, would this be a case of good fudging

No.

and would this qualify someone as a good DM?

Not by itself, no.

This is really the heart of the matter. There is definitely not enough guidance in the DMG/MM to advise when it is okay to use a SoD.

Agreed!

You say having a monster pop out of the ground with no warning fire off a save or die because the rules said so is not bad DMing? If I had to cite an example of bad DMing, that would probably be the first thing I'd say.

Also agreed! Hope you enjoyed your XP! Your analysis was excellent!

Just wanted to make a comment on this - I do think it is fair to blame the DM in this situation, especially if the rogue manages to avoid detection by the Bodak.

And I agree with you about the RAW, too. Simply put, the "Top-notch DM" in MrMyth's scenario is following the RAW. The bad DM is not. IMHO, anyway.

With just one save you either die, or you don't.

But, no matter how many choices you add, it always comes down to you either die or you don't.

It is important to note, though, that increased risk =/= increased challenge. Without context, there is no challenge. "Roll 1d6 each round; on a 1 you die" certainly increases risk, but there is no challenge to go with it, and no chance to ameleorate that risk.

Bodaks jumping out of closets is kind of the same. I don't think anyone is advocating throwing bodaks jumping out of random closets.

In 3e terms, a CR 20 monster can certainly insta-kill 1st level characters. They will not get much of a chance to make decisions once the encounter has started. Should this mean that we rid the game of CR 20 monsters, or does it mean rather that we should be a bit wiser about how we use them?

1. RC, you've said that you like SoD because it leads to a logical outcome of the player's choices. The PC's annoy the Mob, the Mob sets a hit team after them. But, that's where I disagree. How is the hit team having SoD abilities a logical outcome? It could easily be that the hit team is just really nasty bastards who are going to beat you like a pinata. Why does a demon lord have to specifically send bodaks? After all, he could easily send something like Vrocks. Which, in my mind, would be a much, much more fun encounter. The only reason that a SoD creature is a "logical" outcome is because that particular creature was written with a SoD ability. There's no mechanical reason that an assassin MUST have a SoD attack. A rogue's backstab ability serves much the same purpose, without it having to be mostly arbitrary as to whether you die or not.

Um.

You are misreading what I wrote.

I didn't say hit teams automatically have SoD effects; I said that, in my system, assassins have attacks that can inflict enough damage that they may as well be.

And I didn't say that a demon lord would automatically send bodaks; I said that, as a player, I would certainly consider the possibility in a 3e game. (in 1e bodaks were something different.) This is no different, IMHO, than assuming I might run into paralysis or level drain in the old catacombs. It isn't because it MUST happen, but because the venue increases the odds of encountering specific creatures with those abilities.

But, if you refer to the Savage Tide bodak encounter, I believe we have discussed it in the past, and I believe I have already agreed with you that the encounter in question could have been better written. As a player, I would not have found it unfair, but as a DM, I would have rewritten it.

Then again, I think that 3e is a lousy game after mid-levels, anyway.

2. RC again. I believe you're claiming that there is no difference between SoD and SSSSSSoD.

No. There is an obvious difference. SSSSSSS. Just as SSSSSSSSSoD perforce includes SoD, it also includes SSSSSSSSS.

But, the second option is precisely how combat works. HitHHHHHH and die. Combat doesn't work with Hit and Die, to the point where a monster whose attack does Current HP+11 is actually considered bad design.

Exactly correct. But a very little thought will demonstrate that you do not wish to remove all creatures that could cause HoD, either. Sometimes you want a creature that cannot simply be dealt with using combat. The challenge here is to figure out how to avoid combat, just as (in the SoD case) the challenge is to figure out how to avoid having to make the save.

It is of interest that, should you choose to eliminate any creature that can cause HoD, as the PCs' hp drop, more and more monsters must be eliminated. Eventually, they cannot be killed through combat, because the final hit that kills them always comes from a monster that can kill them with that hit.

Consider this now: "the player can react to each attack, choose tactics, get help from his friends, whatever" vs "With the one hit death monster, he can't do anything" is very much about "narrative control" vs. "what happens". Narrative control is the ability to influence what happens.

With no narrative control, you might as well flip a coin. There is no game, because there are no choices being made. There is all consequence, but no context.

With no "what happens" beyond that narrative control, you might as well write a story. There is no game, because the outcome is not in question, and perhaps even foreordained. There is all context, but no consequences.

Where we differ (I believe) is not that one of us wants context, and the other consequences, but rather in where we find the optimal balance of context and consequences to be.

(It might be easier if we considered this in terms of SoF, and HoF, where F stands for Fail. Some people do, indeed, remove "die" from the game, substituting other forms of failure in its place. The tension between Conflict and Consequence still remains, however, and finding ones' personal "optimal balance" between the two still remains a worthy goal.)

It is interesting that DMs are opposed to SoD 4-3, but players are in favor 2-1.

Clearly, there are a lot more DM votes (90%), but if the frustration of character death was truly the big problem, then players would overwhlemingly be opposed.

That is very interesting to note, although "There are two kinds of statistics: Lies and Damned Lies" is doubly true on dah InterWeb!

If one is running (or playing in) a narrative-focused game, it makes sense to dislike any game mechanic that harms that narrative. As I said upthread. If I was running a narrative-focused game, I would certainly include factors that allow the players (and myself) to reign in randomness where it damages the narrative. That is just common sense.

Frex, Hussar has described narrative-focused games in many threads, but he also ran WLD, which is not narrative-focused. In WLD, he allowed characters to be killed without any problems. Quite often, though, he has said that he finds character death to break the narrative flow of his other games. (Hussar can correct me if I am wrong in this.)

That would seem to indicate that he has at least an instinctive grasp of how random elements can damage narrative-focused games, but can enhance exploration-focused (or non-narrative-focused) games.

He may not think of it in the same terms as I do. He may even disagree vehemently with the terminology that I use. But his actions demonstrate that, beyond the terminology, we are acting on understanding of the same basic principles.

Indeed, I believe this so much to be true that I once PMed Hussar for advice on running the more narratively-focused Cubicle 7 Doctor Who.

There is nothing wrong with prefering a greater degree of narrative control (or a lesser degree, for that matter), either in all games, or in specific gaming genres.

IMHO, anyway.


RC

 

[Aus_Snow]

I couldn't vote accurately, so I voted impactfully. Yeah!

I am a GM and a player, and I don't mind "save or die" one bit. But if there are other things in its place (or thereabouts), as might be the case in different kinds of RPG, that's fine too.

So I wouldn't say it's an essential part of roleplaying games. Still, nothing wrong with it either.

 

[MrMyth]

You say having a monster pop out of the ground with no warning fire off a save or die because the rules said so is not bad DMing? If I had to cite an example of bad DMing, that would probably be the first thing I'd say. There are plenty of bad adventure modules that do this with a group of inexplicable bodaks on a wandering encounter table or something similar.

Three points, here.

First off, I think that is distorting the situation. The DM didn't have a Bodak pop up in the middle of the party and force a save or die. The DM went looking for some level appropriate undead. The Bodak was at the right level, so was placed in a cabin to guard some magical treasure.

Secondly... there is nothing in the rules indicating Save or Die enemies are outlawed on wandering encounter tables. Again, if a DM is looking for some undead enemies for a region in a certain level range, it seems fitting for Bodaks to end up there.

Finally - again, Bodak's aren't the only Save or Die enemy out there. The category includes various other creatures, including potentially something as simple as poisonous snakes, along with all sorts of spellcasters.

There are many situations where PCs might end up against these opponents without having advance warning or notification.

What people seem to be saying is that Save or Die effects are basically outside the normal rules. That the DM is a bad DM if they use them without taking extra precautions.

But there isn't anything in the rules to indicate this. You know what we have instead? A CR system, at least in 3rd Edition. Which said the Bodak was as appropriate an encounter as a Stone Giant. Which said that a 7th level Monk is as appropriate as a 7th level Wizard. There is nothing to indicate some of these need to be treated differently, or that I can only use spellcasters if I give the PCs advance notice that the spellcaster has Save or Die effects.

We've even got creatures that outright contradict this - what if an Assassin is hunting a PC? By their very nature, they are likely to both strike from surprise, and begin with a death attack - and yeah, this is the sort of 'gotcha' experience that people don't want from a good DM. At the same time, is the only option to just remove that scenario entirely from the game?

People have put the blame on the DM (either for not giving advance warning) or on the PCs (for undertaking some form of action that led to an assassin coming after them). And I just don't think that's reasonable.

As a note: I've mentioned before that my personal preference would be for there to be a section of optional house rules on using Save or Die effects that includes just this sort of advice and guidance. But that isn't what we've had in the past, and so I am focused on Save or Die as it is presented in the rules - something scattered across all sorts of enemies and spells, as just another power creatures get.

The comments I keep seeing are that "If you put in the SoD critters with no way for the PCs to live except to make their save, you've made a DMing mistake" - but the purpose of the SoD effects, as presented in the rules themselves, isn't to force PCs to take precautions against it. The purpose, as presented, is to kill the PCs.

Basically, are we saying that the only legitimate way to fight a Bodak is to get warned in advance, and then fight it with your eyes closed? Or, more likely, to have the Cleric cast Death Ward and render the encounter trivial?

Is the only way to fight a Wizard to divine his spellbook in advance, and load up on Rings of Counterspell? Or, if he has several spells that do the job, do you enter the fight ready to counter his signature spell, or disrupt his spellcasting - and just hope he doesn't win Initiative and kill someone first?

On the one hand, we have people saying that Save or Die is good because of the tension and challenge it adds to the game. At the same time, I'm hearing that if a DM uses Save or Die without warning the PCs in advance, or bending the rules to mitigate its effects, he is a bad DM. I don't think you can have it both ways.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Maybe I'm basing a lot of this off of experience with 3rd Edition, which did away with facing, and (at least in my experience) tended to encourage these sort of 'by the book' rulings.

The more I consider it, the more I believe 3e got wrong, and the happier I am that WotC dumped it wholesale when making 4e. Even if 4e isn't a game I want to play.

I think people's expectations for common sense or proper DM rulings is setting a pretty high bar, basically. The second you say that "following the rules means you are a bad DM" is the second I say, "That says, to me, that the problem is in the rules."

I think that there are a few problems here.

(1) "Bodaks are always looking at you" isn't following the rules.

(2) Conflation of the rules and the lack of good advice for using them.

&

(3) "Successful sneaking means that the creature is not meeting your gaze" is not a very high bar for common sense. If a creature is meeting your gaze, it knows you are there. I can think of no counter example. If a creature doesn't know you are there, perforce, it is not meeting your gaze. Any other ruling, IMHO, is a bad ruling, regardless of the advice given in the rulebooks.

If the rulebooks actually advise you to do this, that is bad advice.

Similarly, "Use CR 20 monsters to stop 1st level PCs" is bad advice, but it doesn't mean that there should be no powerful monsters in the game. What it does mean, however, is that you shouldn't follow that advice!


RC

 

[MrMyth]

Absolutely. How could it not be so? Indeed, when you write

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.
​

you have shifted the goal posts from being able to make choices that lead to the roll, to having those choices be part of combat. Why is that?

I'm going to keep reiterating a point you keep looking past: I'm not shifting goalposts, I'm sharing a viewpoint.

When I die at the start of combat because a Wizard had a Save or Die spell, I don't feel like my character got the chance to influence his fate. Yes, there were choices I could have made that would have prevented that, such as playing a different character or investing in magic items or spells that would save me from certain death. I don't feel those would have been viable or reasonable choices to make.

When I die at the end of a long, grueling combat, on the other hand, I feel like I had many decision points that affected the outcome, and whether I'm happy with the result or not, I feel like I had an influence on it.

If you don't feel the same, that's fine. But my point is that, for me, a death in which I feel like I had no control over the outcome - which feels purely like random chance (the wizard happened to target me, and a single die roll happened to roll low) is less satisfying than a death that results from events I was able to influence, both by the decisions I made as a player and the actions taken by my character.

I would say a DM is bad if the DM is not good. Wouldn't you agree?

Not even remotely! That's my point - the DM that knows when to break the rules, when to bypass them, and when to apply them, is the mark of a truly good DM. There are plenty of DMs that are not at that level who are still perfectly competent DMs capable of running a decent game.

You also seem to be ignoring some of the other cenarios.

A DM runs an encounter with a wizard. Maybe it is a random encounter. Maybe it is an ambush by a rival adventuring party. Maybe it is the big bad guy the PCs have been hunting for months.

If the Wizard has a Save or Die in his spellbook - or several - does that mean the DM is a bad DM? Is he a bad DM if the PCs have no advance notice of this Save or Die spell, even if it wouldn't make sense for them to do so?

I'm just trying to clarify, here, that you feel the problem in this case isn't the Save or Die spells themselves, but the DM choosing to use them without specifically preparing the PCs so they could counter them in advance?

Moreover, if we are to blame something in this case, and it is not the DM, why is it the SoD effect? Isn't it the lack of DMing advice, if we accept your premise, that is to blame? Or the specificly bad rules (again, if we accept your premise as to RAW) that prevent the DM from staging the SoD-effect monster better?

That's the point I've made several times now - I'd be a lot happier with SoD effects if there were more guidance on using them. But you can't somehow divorce that from the SoD rules themselves. The lack of guidance on them, the specific implementations on them, and the places they show up in the rules - all of those things are intrinsic parts of the Save or Die rules themselves.

I'm saying that there is a time and place for Save or Die effects, typically as something extremely rare that presents the PCs a unique challenge to overcome. But the way they have been delivered by the rules, in my past experiences, have been as just another monster or spell ability that randomly strikes down PCs. I don't like that, and I've given several reasons why.

There is something wrong with expecting other people to accept, as a general case, a reason that falls apart when examined. This is true for any phenomenon, regardless of what it is.

Let me go over the reasons I've given one more time:

1) I don't like having a single roll decide a character's fate.
2) I find death to a SoD effect anticlimactic compared to a death as part of an epic battle.
3) I find SoD deaths tend to be more disruptive than many other deaths.

These are all personal preferences. Are you really telling me that you believe extensive examination will reveal that these preferences will fall apart when examined, and that I should not see any offense in your attempts to tell me that I don't have valid reasons for the preferences I have?

It is always okay for you to accept any reasoning that passes the bar of your skepticism.....in this case, I do mean you you, as well as the general you. It is not okay to attempt to force others to accept reasoning that does not pass the bar of their skepticism.

Your position may be correct. Your statements, at least as far as I am concerned, do not demonstrate it to be so.

My position can't be correct or incorrect - as I've said before, I'm offering my personal reasons for my preference. I'm not trying to force anyone to accept my own personal logic.

I'm perfectly cool with someone who says that have not had similar experiences as I have on these topics, or who says that their preferences are different. In fact, I imagine there are people who:

1) Find it exciting and thrilling to have everything riding on a single roll;
2) Find deaths caused by SoD to be satisfying, either because they feel like a proper mythic fate or because it feels so callous and challenge, or for any number of other reasons;
3) Don't find these deaths any more disruptive than anything else.

I am perfectly cool with all of these opinions, which are precisely opposite the ones that I have put forward.

What I am not cool with is you saying that my opinions are founded on invalid reasoning. That the opinions I have formed are not acceptable ones to have, essentially. That you don't just disagree with how I feel, but outright need to prove that how I feel is conceptually unsound.

That, I will continue to object to.