Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Raven Crowking]

Secondly... there is nothing in the rules indicating Save or Die enemies are outlawed on wandering encounter tables.

Personally, I don't think that they should be.

But I would suggest that wandering monsters make sense for the area that they are encountered on, and leave a "footprint" that gives some idea what might be wandering around there. This is true whether the wanderer has a SoD effect or not.

If I am hiking in bear country, I am usually aware that there is a chance of meeting a bear.

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.

I would suggest, in 3e, the party should always carry antitoxin. (Or did they call it antivenom?) It's a great deal for its price, and in a D&D world it is an elementary precaution. Likewise, any party should have at least two characters who have maxed out the Heal skill. After all, if you believe that "There are many situations where PCs might end up against these opponents without having advance warning or notification.", then that belief itself is a sort of warning, isn't it?

But there isn't anything in the rules to indicate this. You know what we have instead? A CR system

(Shudder)

Anyone who says that the CR system is an improvement over the 1e Monster Level system simply isn't paying attention!

AFAICT, there has never been a system for choosing monsters that doesn't ultimately rely upon the common sense of the GM, and fall down if said common sense is lacking.

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.

Assassins randomly targeting people walking on the street is poor DMing. Usually, if there is an assassin after the PCs, there is a reason for it. And usually the PCs are aware of the reason.

I don't believe that this is poor DMing, although the outcome might be unfortunate for the PCs. I would certainly not complain about it as a player.

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.

I would be happy with such a section.

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.

If you therefore conclude that the problem is lack of advice, rather than the mechanic lacking advice, we agree!

I am curious where you get "the purpose of the SoD effects, as presented in the rules themselves.....is to kill the PCs" from, though. Can you quote that?

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.

Tension and challenge rely upon context, which in turn rely upon the players being able to make decisions. All tension and challenge rely upon (1) the unknown, and (2) determining how to deal with the known.

The unknown presents a challenge in terms of making it known, and a resultant tension because, until tested, the players cannot be certain how well they have met that challenge.

The known presents a challenge in terms of coming up with a plan to deal with it, and a resultant tension because, until tested, the players cannot be certain how well they have met that challenge.

In a game where a SoD (or HoD) effect can occur, the challenge of the unknown includes, perforce, the chance that one has failed to uncover something unknown and REALLY BAD. Conversely, a game in which the PCs will always have multiple decision points once a threat becomes known, and/or is expected to be able to deal successfully with any encountered threat, there is no real tension of the unknown.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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?

No. Your 1, 2, and 3 are all valid.

It is your contention that they have nothing to do with narrative control that falls apart.


RC

 

[Hussar]

RC - how is manipulating situations beforehand so that the players have ample opportunity to discover that a SoD creature is in the cards in the near future not fudging? And, how is it not fudging in order to push the action towards a particular goal (allowing the PC's to overcome the challenge without a lot of pointless death)?

Whether you fudge before the fact, or afterward, the point is, you're still manipulating the game entirely because of meta-game rules and for the express purpose of reaching a particular outcome. You might not like to call it that, but, that's exactly what it is. You claim to only use SoD creatures in very specific circumstances where the PC's have opportunities to discover their presence and prepare before the encounter, specifically because SoD has such a large impact on the game. ((Paraphrasing you from upthread))

How is that not fudging the game towards a specific goal?

I still fail to see how SoD actually enhances an exploration type game. In fact, I see it as running rather counter to one. In an exploration game, the entire point is that you will not know what's around the next corner. You might have some general ideas, but, you aren't supposed to know exactly what's ahead. Unless you're only allowing exploration games in settings where the PC's are retreading other people's footsteps, which I don't think is true, there's no particular reason why the PC's should gain access to knowledge about what's ahead of them.

Earlier, someone mentioned that SoD in earlier modules was a product of tournament modules. I disagree. The modules I listed, other than A1, were not tournament modules. EX2 Land Beyond the Magic Mirror, an excellent exploration module, has a banshee in the attic of a house. There is no one in the house, nor is there anyone in the setting who could possible know that that creature is there.

In The Isle of Dread (the original Expert rules module), there is no way for the PC's to know that the Kopru are living in a particular section of the module and no way to know what they are capable of, since no one has ever gone to where they live and returned. Yet, they have a pretty devastating SoD ability (actually complete domination - effectively SoD).

Just a point about Bodaks. There's absolutely nothing in the SRD description of a Bodak that states you must "meet their gaze" or that they have to be looking at you. I don't have my 3e MM in front of me, so, maybe there's more information there. But, as far as the rules go, there's absolutely no requirement to "meet the creature's gaze" in order to force a saving throw.

In fact, creatures with a gaze attack can actually "force a saving throw" on a target.

 

[Hussar]

If I am hiking in bear country, I am usually aware that there is a chance of meeting a bear.

So, we're back to bubble wrapping every encounter with a SoD creature to ensure that the PC's have a reasonable chance of preparing for the encounter? And you consider that to be good game design?

 

[Hussar]

And the idea that the 10 seconds of fear is the potential "gain" is another point of huge disconnect.

I will certainly agree that there is a sudden buzz of exceitment/tension/whatever at the moment of that die roll. So it does exist. But, that is just a trivial side bonus. It isn't even in my mind when I think about the merits of save or die. For my position, you can freely presume that it doesn't exist at all and have no change in the point. Then if you get that buzz, consider it a tiny bonus dividend.

And yet you specifically identify it as the value for judging the costs against.

Thus, it seems clear that the actual benefits I gain are an unknown mystery to you. Which is fine, it just means, as we have concluded before, that you are playing a radically different game than I am.

I can assume that you are playing soccer all I want, there is no way I am going to show you the merits of a corner kick to your game of baseball.

So enlighten me BryonD. What do you gain from having a SoD creature in the game? What essential gaming element do you find so enhances your enjoyment of the game that the very idea of lessening the impact of a SoD creature causes you to react so negatively?

My reasons for not liking SoD are pretty much in line with Mr Myth's three points:

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.

so what am I missing out on?

What is it about having a snake kill a character in a completely random encounter with a single die roll (well two - one to hit, one to fail the save) that so fills you with great glee and enjoyment of our hobby?

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC - how is manipulating situations beforehand so that the players have ample opportunity to discover that a SoD creature is in the cards in the near future not fudging?

Encounter design =/= fudging.

Fudging is taking something set and altering it so that the outcome changes. It especially refers to (1) ignoring the roll of dice, and substituting a desired outcome, or (2) changing the statistics of a creature to reach a desired outcome.

Fudging occurs if and only if you have decided to accept "what happens" until "what happens" is not what you wanted to have happen.

To use my terminology upthread, when you decide that a random result will determine the narrative outcome, and then you change your mind when that outcome is known or seems reasonably to be known (i.e., trending toward unwanted PC failure or success), you are fudging.

You claim to only use SoD creatures in very specific circumstances where the PC's have opportunities to discover their presence and prepare before the encounter, specifically because SoD has such a large impact on the game. ((Paraphrasing you from upthread))

Actually, I claim to do so with all creatures, in accordance with their impact on the setting.

I still fail to see how SoD actually enhances an exploration type game. In fact, I see it as running rather counter to one. In an exploration game, the entire point is that you will not know what's around the next corner. You might have some general ideas, but, you aren't supposed to know exactly what's ahead.

Tension and challenge rely upon context, which in turn rely upon the players being able to make decisions. All tension and challenge rely upon (1) the unknown, and (2) determining how to deal with the known.

The unknown presents a challenge in terms of making it known, and a resultant tension because, until tested, the players cannot be certain how well they have met that challenge.

The known presents a challenge in terms of coming up with a plan to deal with it, and a resultant tension because, until tested, the players cannot be certain how well they have met that challenge.

In a game where a SoD (or HoD) effect can occur, the challenge of the unknown includes, perforce, the chance that one has failed to uncover something unknown and REALLY BAD. Conversely, a game in which the PCs will always have multiple decision points once a threat becomes known, and/or is expected to be able to deal successfully with any encountered threat, there is no real tension of the unknown.

And, I can assure you, meeting a bear in bear country has had a rather non-bubble-wrapped effect more than once over the course of history.

In The Isle of Dread (the original Expert rules module), there is no way for the PC's to know that the Kopru are living in a particular section of the module and no way to know what they are capable of, since no one has ever gone to where they live and returned. Yet, they have a pretty devastating SoD ability (actually complete domination - effectively SoD).

I am just going to take this one, because you've provided enough context to do so. "No one has ever gone to where they live and returned" is a bit of a clue in my book that something is unusual there. Also, how is "complete domination" SoD? After the monsters are killed, are you still dominated? It's been a while since I've looked at X1.

Just a point about Bodaks. There's absolutely nothing in the SRD description of a Bodak that states you must "meet their gaze" or that they have to be looking at you. I don't have my 3e MM in front of me, so, maybe there's more information there. But, as far as the rules go, there's absolutely no requirement to "meet the creature's gaze" in order to force a saving throw.

In fact, creatures with a gaze attack can actually "force a saving throw" on a target.

Let's hope that the actual book description (i.e., whatever wasn't included in the SRD) is a bit better written. Because, if the SRD is all that there is, I agree that this is a bit sparse, esp. for the rules-lawyer nature of that edition.


RC

 

[Reynard]

So, we're back to bubble wrapping every encounter with a SoD creature to ensure that the PC's have a reasonable chance of preparing for the encounter? And you consider that to be good game design?

I thought he was simply saying that if D&D has SoD creatures running around on random encounter charts, and the players are aware of said fact, then being prepared for the possibility of an SoD encounter should be a no brainer.

 

[Hussar]

I thought he was simply saying that if D&D has SoD creatures running around on random encounter charts, and the players are aware of said fact, then being prepared for the possibility of an SoD encounter should be a no brainer.

Players get to know what monsters appear on the random encounter table in your adventures? I know mine certainly don't.

And, even if I know that I can possibly meet, say, a basilisk in a given area, how exactly do I prepare for that? Random encounters are, by their nature, rather random. It's perfectly reasonable that a random encounter might occur while I'm camping. How does the person on watch prepare for a basilisk encounter that might occur and still be prepared for other encounters which may occur?

Actually, I claim to do so with all creatures, in accordance with their impact on the setting.

You're going to tell me that players in your game can reasonably be able to discover every single creature that they can encounter in a given area? That, if your players do a reasonable amount of homework, there will be absolutely no unknown creatures in the adventure ahead of them?

Or, are you claiming that snakes in AD&D have a greater impact on the setting than, say, a bullette because the snake has a SoD ability and a bullette does not?

I don't think I believe this. I think that it's far more likely that there are many encounters in any adventure you run where the players have no reasonable reason to know that those creatures might be found there.

That or you run a very strange game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I thought he was simply saying that if D&D has SoD creatures running around on random encounter charts, and the players are aware of said fact, then being prepared for the possibility of an SoD encounter should be a no brainer.

Once again, I am forced to bow to your succinct wording.

And, even if I know that I can possibly meet, say, a basilisk in a given area, how exactly do I prepare for that?

Ask yourself: Can I deal with a basilisk? Am I prepared to accept the consequences if I cannot?

If the answer to either of these questions is "No", go somewhere else.

(EDIT: Not surprisingly, if you replace "basilisk" with "orc" or "owlbear", the answer is the same!)

You're going to tell me that players in your game can reasonably be able to discover every single creature that they can encounter in a given area? That, if your players do a reasonable amount of homework, there will be absolutely no unknown creatures in the adventure ahead of them?

Or, are you claiming that snakes in AD&D have a greater impact on the setting than, say, a bullette because the snake has a SoD ability and a bullette does not?

Hussar, where do you live? What dangerous creatures are you likely to encounter there? What other dangers do you think likely (ex., drunk drivers, drug dealers, etc.)?

IMHO, and IME, most people know the answers to these questions. For example, throughout most of Southern Ontario, I might encounter black bears or coyotes. As I move north, I might encounter wolves and (eventually) polar bears. In some areas, there are Massauga rattlers. Brown recluse spiders and black widows are the only strongly poisonous spiders. I don't know every poisonous plant, but I don't eat wild plants that I cannot positively identify because I am aware of the potential risks. I look both ways before crossing the road. On my one-way street, I know that cars sometimes go the wrong way. I know to check for bicycles before pulling into traffic (as well as cars and pedestrians). I'm smart enough to avoid skunks, and know to avoid raccoons or foxes that aren't avoiding me.

That's off the top of my head, stuff you can learn just by asking any old Yahoo.

I also know that there was a confirmed mountain lion sighting in the Rogue Valley ravine, and that it was not one of the Toronto Zoo's cats. I know not to hop random fences around the zoo area, because some of them might lead me to places I'd rather not be. I know that ticks and mosquitoes can carry disease.

When I was stationed in Louisiana, I knew that there were more venomous reptiles than I could recognize, so I simply avoided all snakes. I didn't somehow fail to learn that alligators might be found in swamps. I added brown spiders to my list of creepy-crawlies to be concerned about.

I imagine that adventurers could easily ask the locals what the local hazards are, and hire local guides. After all, that is how explorers have dealt with this problem for centuries. Sometimes it is better to question a goblin than to kill him, for he surely has some idea what lurks nearby, fearful to him. He might not know that "gollum" lurks down by the underground lake, but he knows that something unpleasant lurks down there. Sometimes, when the Great Goblin sends goblins down for fish, neither goblin nor fish comes back.

What do you think makes a better game:

1. You encounter Some Awful Creature.

2. You hear about Some Awful Creature, come across a carcass of its kill (which demonstrates that it could take down a manticore in flight, and seems to have some sort of acid attack), then spy the creature on the wing, and only then have to deal with it to meet some goal.

I am firmly on the side of (2). You may call it "bubble wrapping every encounter"; I call it "creating anticipation, fear, and dread".

IOW, in WLD, you can have the PCs simply encounter Madness. Or you can have the PCs encounter Madness after hearing about it in hushed & fearful whispers. I am pretty sure that, for most of us, the second is more effective.

Maybe I do run a very strange game.....But if I decided to run an unscheduled game tonight, I could have eight people at the table, eager to play, with ease. That's good enough for me.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Out of curiosity, how many DMs out there have normal poisonous snakes go around targeting people for no reason? Certainly, a human offers little prey potential to the average snake, because a snake isn't equiped to take bites & must take its prey whole.

In those places where venemous snakes do exist, that go out their way to target people, I would imagine people are aware of it.