Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Raven Crowking]

Or, to give you another real world example from my own experience. Some years ago I visited Cambodia to see Angkor Wat. ((AMAZING EXPERIENCE!!)) While sitting in a cafe in Siem Riep, the small town that services the tourists for Angkor, the waiters became very, very agitated. They rushed inside and ran out with long sticks and began beating the ever living crap out of a bush not ten feet from where I was sitting. A few minutes later, they pull up this honking huge bloody snake that had been in the bush.

(1) I envy your experience. I'd love to visit Angkor Wat (it's my computer wallpaper!).

(2) I hope your appreciate how well planned that encounter was. The DM arranged for you to encounter a SoD creature without having to make a save, thus foreshadowing the potential of similar encounters in the ruins. Clearly, this is a DM who thinks about what kind of "footprints" various creatures leave in the milieu! And the reaction of the NPCs really sold it -- even though they didn't have to make saves themselves!



RC

 

[MrMyth]

Hussar: Why do you want to be 100% prepared or, as you put it upthread, "safe"?

Reynard, I don't think Hussar or I are suggesting that. The topic came out from the other end of the discussion, in fact - when situations were pointed out where characters died to SoD effects, there were a number of responses that it was the DMs fault for not warning the players, or the players fault for not being prepared.

Admittedly, I think that's part of the reason the discussion is going in circles. Points and counterpoints are being raised by people on the same side of the discussion (pro-SoD or anti-SoD) that are in direct conflict with each other.

As I see it, there are several quite different reasons why people can like SoD, and styles of campaigns that it suits:

1) 'Old school' campaigns where, yeah, death can lurk around any corner, and if you walk in a room and die, you just break out a character sheet and some dice and keep at it.

2) Campaigns that are about the challenge. Save or Die is just one of the many dangers PCs face, and this style of game is about going up against such deadly effects and coming out on top.

3) Campaigns were Save or Die is simply appropriate to someone's personal mythos. You see a medusa and you turn to stone because that is how is should be, and anything else, to them, just doesn't feel right.

4) Campaigns that really want to have the PCs experience a certain level of the myth themselves. Facing Medusa is as much about knowing what you face, and taking the appropriate precautions, as actually winning the battle. Just being able to walk in there, stare her in the eye, and survive through sheer force of will... isn't the story they are looking to tell.

Hence why the discussion has been going in circles - for some of these campaigns, knowing the dangers of the SoD is itself fundamental to it, while for others, the very possibility of being surprised and struck dead is part of the fun.

And, again, this is one of the reasons I'm a fan of having these as an optional section of the rules with guidance on the different ways to use them. Sometimes I could be in the mood for certain styles of play.

And, as well, I don't think there is anything wrong with enjoying any of these style of campaigns, or enjoying other ones that SoD isn't as appropriate for. Or enjoying campaigns along these lines and not wanting SoD for other reasons entirely!

I think the most important conclusion from this discussion really is about communication. The DM and players should be on the same page as far as what they like in a game. I don't think it quite needs to get to the level RC suggests of narrative control vs tension (I don't think such a sliding scale is necessarily accurate)... but I do think this is one of several areas where it is good to reach a common understanding before the game actually begins.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I can totally see your point, I just don't agree with it.

That's as much as I hope for.

But, there's been multiple posts in this thread that anyone who suffers from a SoD effect is at fault. That they should have been "more careful" or if the only time a saving throw is called for is when the players screwed up. I'm not saying you're saying this, but, it is a pretty common opinion in this thread.

Language is imprecise. People sometimes have to grope for the wording that conveys what they mean, esp. when trying to do so with people who think differently. And people use SoD in different ways.

My beef is the binary nature of SoD. SoD monsters are almost always one trick ponies and if you negate the SoD, the encounter is a joke.

I've addressed the "binary nature", both in terms of that nature being illusory, and in terms of narrative control, upthread. There is nothing wrong with wanting more narrative control. Again, for games where I want this, I prefer an AP mechanic as in C7's Doctor Who, but tastes vary.

And I can guarantee you that your "one trick pony" can be used to better effect. We discussed this in the past with the rust monster, where I listed a number of other ways I'd used them in my own campaigns. The same is true, without a doubt, about bodaks etc.

See, this is the attitude that flies up my nose.

Remember that "best possible reading" mantra? Let's see if we can apply it here.

If I don't like SoD I'm suddenly a whiney git?

Nope. That just means you don't like SoD.

I don't get to decide on my own that I think SoD is piss poor game design?

Nope. You get to decide on your own....or not....as you prefer.

If I play with a DM who likes SoD, I just have to suck it up, or leave the game?

Not exactly.

You play with people you can actually have a conversation with. That you can bring up concerns with and discuss them rationally. You tell the GM that you dislike SoD effects, and you calmly, rationally, and politely explain exactly why. The GM, however, informs you that, although he understands your reasons, his game will include SoD effects.

At that point, you either decide to play in that game, or not.

If you still decide to play, and then you become upset when a SoD effect appears, esp. if you disrupt the game for everyone else, you are a whiny git. You knew what you were playing, you agreed to play it.

Similarly, if I agreed to play a game without SoD, and I started whining because Medusa didn't stone people on the first failed save, I would be a whiny git.

Being a whiny git isn't about what you like; it is about how you react to what you don't like. It is especially about how you react to what you don't like after you've already agreed to it.

"Take what happens in the game in the best possible way. Have fun. Help others have fun. Don't pout." is an easy mantra for mature players to follow. You can follow it even if things happen that you don't like. It's the difference between losing and chess and shaking your opponent's hand, or losing at chess and tossing the board across the room.

I won't play games with whiny gits. I hope you never have to.

In my experience, fewer than 1% of gamers are whiny gits. I hope you experience even fewer.


RC

 

[MrMyth]

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).

Well, I think thats part of the issue here. In D&D, you don't fight the Medusa of myth.

You fight a medusa, one of an entire race of such creatures. The very fact that you do get a save to avoid death is already breaking with the simulation of the true curse represented in the myth.

This is sorta along the lines of what I mentioned before - if SoD (or even more extreme effects) was truly just the domain of really mythic, unique, rare creatures... that's one thing. But when it is can be found in a variety of places, or on any spellcaster, is when it feels less appropriate to me.

And again - that's just personal preference. But that's why I can feel that a medusa that turns people to stone over several rounds succeeds just as much at simulating the core concepts of the legend without having to mirror it precisely - because D&D isn't greek myth, and there are differences already in the picture from the beginning.

At the same time, I do understand the desire to have it match your view of the myth as closely as possible. Honestly, everyone probably has a version of each monster that works ideally for them. I just don't think it is as simple a matter of one being a 'true simulation' and the other being a 'purely gamist construct'.

There are a lot more factors that go into it than those two, including pros and cons in both directions - both in terms of roleplaying elements, as well as purely mechanical ones.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Also, is anyone else interested in the fact that according to this poll, DMs are overall opposed to save-or-die while players seem to be in favor?

I voted "I am a player: yes for save or die". For my point of view, as a player, character death is not a big concern. This opinion has been shared by the vast majority of people I have gamed with. A few people I play with character death almost seems to be their goal in playing.

Why is this? Well, when we were running 1st Edition we tended to play multiple characters - not necessarily in the same adventure but in the same campaign. This was the assumed norm. While my character Hans was out exploring Castle Greyhawk, my other characters were celebrating previous adventures at the Green Dragon Inn. If Hans died it was easy enough to bring a new character into the game - they were already there. In addition, combats were rather quick - at least in comparison to later editions. When Hans died I didn't have to wait long for the rest of the party to high-tail it out of the dungeon and back to the safety lol of the City of Greyhawk. In addition, there were always a number of henchmen and hirelings I could play should the rest of the party decide to further explore the dungeon.

As we transitioned to 3rd Edition (and later 4th Edition and Pathfinder) we moved away from the character stable concept - for numerous reasons - and toward the "traditional" party four (five). However, the lack of concern for character death remained. Over the years I have noticed with a number of the people I game with that they already have the next character concept/class/prestige class/race/whatever ready to play when their current character dies. There is a strong desire to try out the next cool thing.

From a DMing point of view character death creates a number of problems. When Hans died there were a number of hooks he was pursuing, he had information that other players did not have, he had developed a set of allies and enemies unique to him. All the work the DM put in developing these elements died with him. This is not to say that the information is totally lost, rather, that this information is now put on the back-burner until another character interacts with it.

Now, these experiences may be universal or unique to me - I don't know.

 

[Doug McCrae]

As I see it, there are several quite different reasons why people can like SoD, and styles of campaigns that it suits:

I think there are three justifications for SoD:
1) The thrill of the big gamble.
2) Simulationism. What is being simulated here is mythology/fantasy fiction. Or rather, aspects of it.
3) Gamist challenge. The challenge is in scouting and/or gathering information so the PCs can identify, and presumably avoid, monsters with SoDs. This is really a justification for any very dangerous encounter existing in the game world, not just those with SoDs.

Imo, the first is the only really sound justification, the others are significantly flawed. As you say, the medusa of myth doesn't give a save and is a single creature not a species. Personally I don't think non-rules based gamism works. It's not a real challenge, it just comes down to a GM call. Win? Fail? GM decides. Again there's no reason why there should be a save. Upthread Verdande expressed the view that if your character is rolling a save, then you, the player, have failed. Well, why should randomness enter into it then? That can only allow the inferior player to prosper, from this gamist perspective. So why allow a save?

#2 and #3 don't give a good justification for the S part of SoD, just the D. #1 is the only reason to want the full SoD, because the gambler loves the big risk. He loves his fortune turning on a die roll.

One could say that #1 is gonzo old school and #3 is 'serious bizness' old school.

 

[Ariosto]

It surely can be appealing to think that each mishap in the game should be directly traceable to an error in play, a case of "not doing what one ought to have done".

It can also be appealing to think that "what ought to be done" should be just a matter of common sense. That may in turn suggest that the algorithm for a "perfect" performance should be plain enough with complete knowledge to make it very straightforward to discover with minimally skilled play.

In other words, one may come to consider the "perfect" performance the default, and any deviation an aberration that one must chalk up to either poor play or poor game design.

It is pretty clear to me that old D&D was not designed on this premise! Stuff often happens, or does not, on what is overwhelmingly likely to be a random basis.

It is to be expected, for instance, that whether at least one PC gets turned to stone upon discovering the medusa in the Caves of Chaos is going to hinge on a saving throw. It is not a penalty for notably poor play!

To the contrary, obviating it would probably be an example of notably excellent play.

==================================================

As general rule, a claim that something is impossible in old D&D is probably wrong and a claim that something is possible is probably right.

However, it is often accurate to speak of things being unlikely. The unlikelihood can increase by orders of magnitude when the game is removed from its original campaign context. The very likelihood of anyone even considering a problem, much less of solving it, can go right down the drain when the game's horizons have been reduced to a series of discrete "encounter" games.

Playing that way and designing scenarios (and rules sets) that way go together as a natural fit. Getting mentally too far in a rut, though, can make it hard to understand what's going on in a different model!

===================================================

OD&D was inspiration for Zork. Recent games are more likely to take inspiration from the heirs to The Secret of Monkey Island -- if their designers or GMs are acquainted at all with the Adventure genre for which more than one obituary has been written.

Even writing purely as a hobbyist, for people who generally enjoy the challenges of classic Infocom, Sierra and Magnetic Scrolls games, there are criticisms -- old ones, really -- that I would take to heart along with appreciation of the added dimensions of interest vs. the more modern point-and-click games.

On the other hand, for a commercial undertaking I would look to the likes of Lucas Arts.

If you have different ends in mind, then different means may be more appropriate.

The big hang-up for us is a tendency to insist that "the game remains the same" even when it is very much to the point that it does not. Gamer A is after things b and c, while Gamer X is after things x and y and does not want a or b.

 

[Fifth Element]

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

It's a medieval bestiary gorgon, not a Greek myth gorgon. It seems to have been made something between a catoblepas and the khalkotauroi.

 

[Fifth Element]

Medusa in 4E is supposed to be Medusa and it is wrong.

It can't be Medusa. Medusa was a unique creature. In Greek myth there is no such thing as "a medusa". Just Medusa, one of the semi-divine gorgons. Who had wings, of course.

So the most you can say is that the D&D medusa is loosely based on the Medusa of Greek myth. I mean, does a winged horse spring forth from the body when the characters kill a medusa? Because unless it does, it can't be Medusa.

So the petrifying gaze is actually the most similar thing the D&D version has with the mythic version.

 

[Fifth Element]

See, this is the attitude that flies up my nose. If I don't like SoD I'm suddenly a whiney git? I don't get to decide on my own that I think SoD is piss poor game design? If I play with a DM who likes SoD, I just have to suck it up, or leave the game?

You're missing the distinct possibility that while you might think you have more fun without SoDs, you're actually wrong about that, and the DM knows it.

I dunno, I play with people I can actually have a conversation with. That I can bring up concerns and discuss them rationally. Maybe it's because I play with almost all DM's and mostly always have. Very, very few of my groups have been made up of gamers with little or no DMing experience. I've found that, by and large, as evidenced by this thread, a lot of DM's really don't like SoD effects, so that, even if they use them in the game, a few words at the waffle house after the game is usually all it takes.

This is where most of these arguments tend to fall. As long as you're playing with reasonable people who are playing the game for reasons similar to yours, there's never really an issue.