Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Raven Crowking]

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.

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.

You can imagine how surprised I was to learn that the D&D gorgon was inspired by a creature from Medieval bestiaries! And, while I do have reference to the metal-scaled breath-weapon bull-gorgon in references at home, I cannot easily find one on the InterWeb to point you to.

This is just an example of the early D&D writers doing better research than one might expect. In my own researches into folklore and mythology, and even into early fantasy fiction, I am often surprised that something I thought a mere D&Dism turns out not to be.

Gygax was remarkably literate and well-read!

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?

See my previous post.

They understood what I was trying to say.



RC

 

[BryonD]

A few comments:
First, I certainly don't think abandoning save or die turns a game into a tactical or gamist challenge.

I don't think abandoning save or die turns the game into a tactical or gamist challenge.

But the "three strikes rule", as you described is very much a tactical and gamist system. It isn't the removal of SoD I was commenting on so much as the replacement you advocate.

And, without SoD, regardless of whether the game is "gamist", it certainly is not "simulationist". You can not defeat the Medusa of myth without SoD (or taking it a step further to DM fiat, you saw Medusa, you turn to stone, no save).

 

[BryonD]

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.

Hussar, you know full well that I generally avoid debates with you. I've made that clear in the past. And I've clearly explained in the past that it is because you, time after time, go back to the same well of putting words into other people's mouths and completely lying about what their position actually is.

As long as you are going to lie about people's positions then you have no room to complain about politeness or aggro.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't think abandoning save or die turns the game into a tactical or gamist challenge.

But the "three strikes rule", as you described is very much a tactical and gamist system. It isn't the removal of SoD I was commenting on so much as the replacement you advocate.

And, without SoD, regardless of whether the game is "gamist", it certainly is not "simulationist". You can not defeat the Medusa of myth without SoD (or taking it a step further to DM fiat, you saw Medusa, you turn to stone, no save).

Please quote me the myth that says killing Medusa will not save a victim who is in the middle of petrification. Or that specifies exactly how many seconds petrification takes.

Last I heard, nobody was in the process of being petrified at the moment of Medusa's death--all her victims had been fully turned to stone before Perseus got there.

 

[Reynard]

Even though I like SoD and don't much like 4E, I actually don't mind SSSoD as long as a) it makes sense from a "simulation" PoV and b) it's not done to coddle stupid or careless PCs. If a bodak first paralyzes, then drains and finally kills with it's death gaze, I am ok with that as long as each of those stages is a real effect not just a "strike".

 

[Raven Crowking]

Even though I like SoD and don't much like 4E, I actually don't mind SSSoD as long as a) it makes sense from a "simulation" PoV and b) it's not done to coddle stupid or careless PCs. If a bodak first paralyzes, then drains and finally kills with it's death gaze, I am ok with that as long as each of those stages is a real effect not just a "strike".

Agreed.

And there is nothing wrong with having a range of monsters, some with SoD, some with SSSoD, and some with SSSSSSSSoD.

The "three strikes" mechanic of 4e is a good idea, IMHO, even if I am not necessarily happy with every implementation of that idea.

But, then, as I said upthread, it very much depends upon where you sit in terms of narrative control vs. loss of that control. I have no problem with people wanting more narrative control in their games; I have a real problem with people saying that effects which add consequence offer nothing and/or should be removed from D&D.

This is another one of those changes that I think weakens brand identity, although (obviously) YMMV on that.


RC

 

[BryonD]

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.

It has amused me from time to time that the Gorgon monster is unrelated to Gorgons.

But that is not the problem. Ultimately the gorgon is just a monster that happens to have that name. Clearly the pertification theme is borrowed over, but it is still a completely different monster. Not everyone named Hank is a home run hitting hall of famer.

Really, if you want an example of "wrongness" that I accept, the fact that "medusa" is a race in D&D would be much better.

Medusa in 4E is supposed to be Medusa and it is wrong.
You could easily play 4E with the house-rule that if you fail a single save against her gaze you instantly turn to stone.
You could re-introduce SoD throughout 4E.

But the debate at hand isn't 4E itself, but the attitude on SoD, and clearly the design idea behind 4E supports anti-SoD.

You could have a monster in 3E called the Medufa, or any other name you wanted. And give it all the exact abilities of the 4E monster called "Medusa". There is nothing wrong with that. Slow/para/stone is not an "unfun" mechanic.

And if in your game, in any system, you have a 4e style "medusa" creature as a companion to a SoD Medusa, then my position is immediately resolved.
The creature itself is fine. It is claiming it is "medusa" that fails.

That said, I'm also a fan of SoD in general. I like Finger of Death. I like having adventurers who live in a seriously dangerous world and the potential for instant death may be around any corner.

That is a separate point from : You can't do Medusa right without SoD.

 

[BryonD]

Please quote me the myth that says killing Medusa will not save a victim who is in the middle of petrification. Or that specifies exactly how many seconds petrification takes.

Last I heard, nobody was in the process of being petrified at the moment of Medusa's death--all her victims had been fully turned to stone before Perseus got there.

Please quote me an example from myth of anyone ever speaking a single word, much less taking a single action between seeing Medusa and becomign fully stone.

Please go out into public and start asking random people who much time a person who has seen a medusa has to act prior to turning to stone. The popular understanding of the legend is clear. If you want to contort that popular legend to fit your mechanical needs, then fine. I don't. That is pretty much a solid definition of the difference between gamist and simulationist.

 

[BryonD]

Even though I like SoD and don't much like 4E, I actually don't mind SSSoD as long as a) it makes sense from a "simulation" PoV and b) it's not done to coddle stupid or careless PCs. If a bodak first paralyzes, then drains and finally kills with it's death gaze, I am ok with that as long as each of those stages is a real effect not just a "strike".

You posted this while I was posting about "Medufa".
I certainly 100% agree that this kind of mechanic can be very cool.

I just want it alongside SoD and I want my game to fit the simulation.

 

[BryonD]

Minotaur is also a race.
And every edition it always has immunity to mazes. I always find that amusing.