Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[SteveC]

I'll repeat, I buy 100% that this works great as a tactical and gamist device. If that is what you are seeking, then jackpot.

But if "works pretty well" is remotely in the realm of "this recreates Medusa as presented in myth", then it isn't anywhere close.

I'm not saying one is right and the other is badwrongfun. But there are different approaches.

Also, I personally reject the truth in "you sit the battle out and you're done". The CHARACTER is done. If the player is still there and having fun, then the "you" is completely misplaced. And speaking as a killer DM, I never have players walk away from the table and rarely could an otherwise unaware third party observer tell which players had dead characters on casual inspection.

Again, for a tactical battlegame with winning and losing, then it is a different matter.

A few comments:
First, I certainly don't think abandoning save or die turns a game into a tactical or gamist challenge. I tend to think of it as much more narrativist play if anything. I think that save or die fit much better in terms of tactical terms where combat is just a challenge to be overcome and the devil take the hindmost.

As an example, I'd say 3X (or D&D in general) would be a terrible way to simulate to original Medusa story. A system like FATE would be much better. Did that combat work out the way it did because Perseus rolled well? If his player had rolled a "1" that's the end of the story? Really? Not at all in my opinion... he had major plot and story backing behind him.

And I also have to say that when one's character is out of the combat, for me it pretty much is like sitting around and doing nothing, especially if the GM is running things from some "realistic" perspective: how are you giving the other players advice? You're unconscious! Even if I am able to interact with the battle, not having a character invested in it means I'm far less interested, and that's the case with pretty much every player I've ever met. Your experience is obviously different (and equally valid), but it is not the norm that I have ever encountered.

As a player, once I know that a GM has a save or die, devil take the hindmost attitude, I'll certainly play in that game, but it changes my attitude: I play with a much more gamist attitude: either I'm going to try and maximize my nova capabilities for combats where instant death is on the line, or I get every scroll and have every resource available so that all of the instant death is basically a minor inconvenience. Both of those play modes can be fun, but they aren't conducive to playing my character as much of a hero. It's funny, because many of the GMs that want the instant death aspects to a campaign also like to complain that their players aren't being heroes. Of course they aren't! If you reward a particular play style, that's what you get.

Save or die just represents a play style that I'm not particularly interested in at this time. I'd say with all of the movement away from it, I'm not alone.

 

[Ariosto]

"The Chronicle says they shot you in the vestibule."
"Nonsense. They missed my vestibule by inches."

Gygax's argument against critical hits in the 1e DMG, that they remove the player's capacity to make an informed decision, applies also to SoDs.

That is not so. The limited and specific nature of such dangers is opposed to the "critical hit" systems in question. In, e.g., EPT, C&S (IIRC), Arduin, and RQ, either any or almost any attacker has a chance to lay the mighty low. There were also critical hits in D&D Vol.3 (in the "BITS" rules) and hit locations in Supp. II (out of their full Blackmoor context).

It makes a great difference which foes one fights, the vast majority lacking powers so suddenly decisive as paralysis, petrification or death.

When it comes to normal (not giant) venomous snakes, the MM2 makes only 25% deadly, and 80% of those give +2 on the save. That makes it automatic for a top-level fighter or cleric. Even with the bonus, though, magic-users and thieves still succumb at least 25% of the time.

The old "crits" business is perennial. Odds are that at this very moment an innocent somewhere on the Internet is proposing to remedy the unrealism of high-level characters at the peak of their powers (full h.p.) being able to pass through a hail of arrows without getting killed.

It has somehow escaped our attention these past 40 years how much better it is to spend years building up the character only to end its career with a sudden, random death by squirrel.

 

[Ariosto]

The natural corollary to "crits" is "fumbles".

It's a pretty dramatic death to cut off one's own head.

 

[Hussar]

I have already readily agreed that the history of D&D includes "gotcha" as a legacy. And that it was much more prominent in early D&D. Also, I still say there is nothing wrong with it as a style of play.

But pointing out examples that clearly fall under the historic example does nothing to undermine my point.

Ok, so as long as every 4e medusa-slowed character is certain to turn to stone within 18 seconds and no further saves or intervention can change that, then I'm completely with you.
*IF* slowed *THEN* you WILL be stone in a matter of seconds.

Of course, that isn't how it works in 4E and that isn't remotely what the defense of the 4e approach is advocating. So in real terms this contribution to the discussion is just disingenuous and less than worthless.

Do you feel the same way about the changes to the Gorgon then? Since a gorgon in mythology looks absolutely nothing like a gorgon in D&D, one would think that this would be an equal issue.

Also, is this issue solely confined to the medusa? Is it only that the medusa is being altered from your interpretation of mythology, but, in other cases the 4e approach of SSSoD is fine? Or is it all cases of SSSoD is a bad thing in the game?

BTW, disagreeing with someone is not the same as not understanding their point. RavenCrowking has yet to accuse me of playing silly buggers with his interpretations, so, I'm not really sure if he needs you to champion his point. He's the one that has claimed that every character in his game will have ample opportunity to know what creatures that character may face in a given location. That's pretty much quoting him verbatim. How is that a distortion of his point?

What I do find rather strange is this insistance on painting this as a simulationist vs gamist argument. SoD is no more or less simulationist than SSSoD. From a sim/gam standpoint, they're pretty much neutral.

My issue with this has nothing to do with gamestyle and everything to do with how it plays at the table. I dislike the idea of removing player agency in such a random, arbitrary way. That's doesn't make me right and you wrong, it's simply a preference BryonD, but, this has very little to do with the construction of a setting. A setting in which a medusa's gaze slows and then possibly kills you is every bit as simulationist as one in which it possibly kills you outright.

Or, would you argue that 1e snakes are more simulationist (save or die on a bite) than 3e snakes (save or take damage, possibly ability damage)?

 

[Hussar]

Oh, and as far as historic examples go, how is Savage Tide an historic example? The last AP from print Dungeon is now gaming history?

Maure Castle in Dungeon has NUMEROUS SoD effects, although, to be fair, it's certainly based on Old School gaming.

Lords of the Iron Fortress has a SoD trap under the Macguffin - Symbols of Death as I recall.

I'm pretty sure that I could find many, many more examples of SoD being used as a gotcha in very recent modules, so, your point that this is only something confined to the pre-history of the game simply shows a lack of knowledge on your part.

And, for the love of Pete, could we dial back the snark, just a touch. Good grief BryonD, is it not possible for you to be at the very least polite? It is certainly not helping to get your point across. You don't have to be warm and fuzzy, but, wow, dial back the aggro please.

This has been a very interesting thread and I'd hate to see a couple of posters devolve it into yet another snark pit yet again.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Do you feel the same way about the changes to the Gorgon then? Since a gorgon in mythology looks absolutely nothing like a gorgon in D&D, one would think that this would be an equal issue.

I'd postulate that the D&D Gorgon being cowlike has something to do with ancient Roman coins which depicted a gorgon on one side and a cow on the reverse.

 

[Hussar]

I'd postulate that the D&D Gorgon being cowlike has something to do with ancient Roman coins which depicted a gorgon on one side and a cow on the reverse.

I actually remember reading something about the genesis of the gorgon in D&D. But, that's the point isn't it? The D&D gorgon bears pretty much no resemblance to the gorgon of mythology. BryonD's primary criticism seems to rest on the idea that the 4e Medusa does not accurately reflect the mythological gorgon named Medusa.

I'm wondering if the issue is limited to solely the Medusa or if it's a wider issue with D&D taking liberties with mythology.

 

[Freakohollik]

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).

I can't defend either of these modules very well since I haven't read them. But here it goes.

EX2:
- Both the EX modules were written for people who have read Alice in Wonderland. I haven't read it, but if you had, would you suspect something nasty in the attic?
- The adventure is written for level 9-12 PCs. That was more or less top level in 1e. By that level I would expect the PCs to have good saves and magical protections from death. Also check the previous treasure in the module in case you're supposed to find something that could protect you.

And a suspect defense that could partially justify the placement
- Are the PCs supposed to be exploring the house / attic? If not the banshee is a punishment, though likely too harsh of one.

X1:
- No one has ever returned from where they live. That means don't go there. Modules put in warning signs like this all the time. The two most common are skeletons outside a room and literally a sign that says do not enter.
- I believe that this module really has no guidance on what to do on the isle of dread. So, without any reason to go to the land of no return, putting SoD monsters there is a clear punishment for stupid or overzealous PCs.

It's also possible that these monsters are not appropriate where they have been placed in the modules. But, I would blame the author, not the rule.

Lord of the Iron Fortress: At 15-17, this is a high level adventure. It is fair trap for the level of the adventure. That is a very reasonable place to expect a trap (See "Raiders of the Lost Ark"). However, if I was running this adventure for a group of inexperienced players, I would make the trap something less deadly if it would kill them.

Savage Tide: Didn't read it as I generally don't like Paizo adventures. Without any specific example, I can't respond to general criticism.

Maure Castle: Awesome adventure. Funny you bring this one up as playing through this is what taught me to how to survive in an old school dungeon. I died once or twice on the first floor, then caught on to the danger of old school dungeons and high level play and didn't die at all in the last 3 levels (I did not find Kerzit).

 

[Plane Sailing]

The natural corollary to "crits" is "fumbles".

It's a pretty dramatic death to cut off one's own head.

Happened to one character in one of my RQ2 games. Took a mighty swing with his greatsword and fumbled - fumble type... crit self. Rolled location... head.

Oops!

Cue much laughter around the table, and on we went

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't know about anyone else Reynard, but it certainly looks like RavenCrowking is advocating that players should ALWAYS have had the opportunity to know that there was a SoD encounter and ALWAYS have sufficient forewarning to be able to be prepared.

Then you mis-read. Or I am mis-reading you.

SoD creatures should be treated like anything else:

The GM looks at the element's properties, and then determines

1. Do I want to include this? Am I OK with the consequences if the PCs fail?

- Ex. I have often said in the past, "Don't include save the world scenarios if you are unprepared to accept that the PCs fail and the world is not saved." Or words to that effect.

- Ex. If you don't want the PCs to obtain Whelm, Wave, and Black Razor, you shouldn't put them into a scenario.

- Ex. If you don't like orcs, don't use them. And don't use half-orcs.

- Ex. If you don't think warforged ninjas fit in the campaign milieu, don't allow them to be used. Likewise teletubby pirates.​

2. What "footprint" does it leave on the world? Is there a way to build suspense/anticipation?

- Ex. Aboleth are tunneling under Selby-by-the-Water, attempting to collapse and flood the city. Footprints: A past historical partial collapse, the sounds of digging (from deeper) in the sewers, a more recent partial collapse, the ghost of Amoreth the Arcane (who died while trying to stop them) can be discovered and consulted.

Ex. Giant spiders live in Mirkwood. Footprints: Eyes seen at night, thick sticky cobwebs from tree to tree (but not along the path). Extra: Beorn and Gandolf warn you to NOT LEAVE THE PATH.

Ex. Go to my megadungeon thread (if you can find it), and see the first steps. Coming up with names of special places, treasures, and creatures, so that I can seed rumours of them long before the PCs reach them.

Ex. Read any book on writing. Look up the term "foreshadowing". Effective story telling requires it, and so does effective GMing.​

3. Do I want to change this thing in any way, to fit the campaign mileu better, to make it more surprising, to make it harder or easier to predict or know?

Ex. The bugbears in the Night Ruins are owl-headed humanoids. This is to make them scarier....the players cannot easily identify them, and thus cannot easily make the "unknown" into the "known".

Ex. The demon in the megadungeon is limited to a given library; he wants to use adventurers as pawns to escape. The intelligent psionic ooze Blott wants his drugs; he wants to use adventurers to get them from town. In both cases, this allows the GM to use a tougher monster earlier, so that the PCs can come to the realization -- and dread -- that there will be, sooner or later, a real confrontation with these tough customers.

Ex. A module includes a new magic item or monster. Same reason as the bugbears were changed -- it makes it harder to make the "unknown" into the "known", thus increasing challenge as well as player interest (and uneasiness).​

The means for forewarning should always exist, although the likelihood of them getting used is questionable. For instance, in 1e, 2e, and 3e at least, I could potentially learn many of the dungeon's secrets through the careful use of divination magic. 1e has specific rules for consulting sages; 3e has Knowledge checks. Likewise, RCFG has divinatory abilities, sages, and skills that might help.....Clever players use these things.

But saying that, from hindsight, what happens/what is encountered should make sense in no way implies that the same should be true using foresight. The same should be possible using foresight, for any element of the game. But foresight fails in a way that hindsight does not.

This is similar to a good riddle. A good riddle is one which, once you know the answer, the meaning of the riddle itself becomes obvious. No matter how perplexing it was before, when the answer is known there is an "Of course!" moment. That "Of course!" moment means that the riddle could have been solved before the answer was given, but it by no means guarantees it.


RC