Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[LostSoul]

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 would guess it's because it's a major campaign-changing event that can turn on the roll of the die. It can easily ruin carefully crafted campaign plotlines/outcomes that the DM spent a long time creating. The DM's plans become subject to the whim of the die!

 

[Lanefan]

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?

As I noted way back when in this thread, I think it's because players might be using SoD effects more often than their DMs. And if you're using 'em and making 'em work, you gotta like 'em, right?

Just as in the case of the "story", there are boundaries within which acceptable probabilities lie.

Old D&D was designed as neither of those things, but above all as a game.

Oh, I don't know...we get some pretty good stories out of our old-school games.

The trick to it, though, is to put the detailed story together after the fact rather than trying to force it into on-the-fly play. All you need for play is a basic framework, one that is malleable enough to withstand whatever curveballs and left turns the players chuck at it.

Lan-"do the same people who dislike SoD also dislike level drain and magic item destruction?"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

I would guess it's because it's a major campaign-changing event that can turn on the roll of the die. It can easily ruin carefully crafted campaign plotlines/outcomes that the DM spent a long time creating. The DM's plans become subject to the whim of the die!

That's because they *are* subject to the whim of the die, or the whim of the party, or the whim of a player or two, or ...

Rule 1: Never design anything around a single PC unless you absolutely have to, because it never ends well*.

* - says he, who is currently trying to dig out from having done just that: designed a short AP around a single PC who then not only died, but before she died did enough to ensure that if she is ever revived she faces - you guessed it - execution for her crimes!

Lan="'plan' is a 4-letter word anyway"-efan

 

[Ariosto]

Oh, I don't know...we get some pretty good stories out of our old-school games.

Yes, Lanefan. If you seriously think those statements are in opposition to mine, then you are seriously misreading.

The trick to it, though, is to put the detailed story together after the fact rather than trying to force it into on-the-fly play.

And why is this the trick? It is the trick because the dice may disagree with your preconceived story. The more defined the story and the wilder the swing of random results, the greater the incompatibility.

If there is any internal consistency at all (and there has been darned little in some of my completely improvised adventures), then there is a "story" about the nature of the world -- like our stories of natural history (and plain history) in the real world. If water flows uphill one time in 100, or 1 in 20 trips to the apothecary involves getting hit with a rubber chicken by a man in full plate armor, then that might just be a bit much for some folks.

YMMV, naturally.

 

[Lanefan]

And why is this the trick? It is the trick because the dice may disagree with your preconceived story. The more defined the story and the wilder the swing of random results, the greater the incompatibility.

I think we're actually trying to agree here.

What I'm getting at is that any "preconceived story" has to be flexible enough to withstand anything the dice and-or players can throw at it; and even then sometimes has to be chucked out completely and replaced on the fly - preferably smoothly enough that the players don't realize what you're doing.

Then after the fact, when you're doing up the game log or story hour or whatever, *that's* when you weave the story in. And sometimes it takes ages for the various threads to tie together...or even become apparent as threads at all.

Lan-"like a duck: look placid while you're paddling like hell"-efan

 

[pemerton]

It's interesting to note, that once you get away from D&D, and associated clones, retro-clones and the like, I'm really drawing a blank on another game that uses this mechanic. I've been reading a LOT of RPG's lately and I cannot think of a single one that uses this mechanic. Can anyone else think of some?

Rolemaster has save-or-die/suck badly - and not only in its spell/magic system, but (in effect) in combat as well, via its critical charts.

It's an issue for Rolemaster, given the complexity of character generation in that game.

 

[Hussar]

Rolemaster has save-or-die/suck badly - and not only in its spell/magic system, but (in effect) in combat as well, via its critical charts.

It's an issue for Rolemaster, given the complexity of character generation in that game.

Not really surprising considering how close Rolemaster and D&D are as games.

Lan-"do the same people who dislike SoD also dislike level drain and magic item destruction?"-efan

LOATHE level drain as it was originally written. Didn't mind it too much in 3e when they added the save. My level drain in 1e and 2e was healable over time - 1 week per level loss IIRC.

Now magic item destruction? Don't care. As a player or a DM. Items and gear never really entered into it that much. I might not like losing my Holy Avenger, but, it's not something that's going to be too much of a big deal. You can always get another sword after all.

A bit above, RC mentioned the dreaded Rust monster and I think that is also a big reason why I don't like SoD. One thing most of us have agreed on is that bombing an unsuspecting party with a SoD monster is a bad thing to do. SoD monsters should be foreshadowed, there should be ample opportunity to discover their presence, etc.

I don't like really limited use monsters like that. I can chuck a troll at a party in almost any situation - the troll can ambush the party, the party can ambush the troll, they could surprise each other, the troll could parley, whatever. But, with these SoD monsters, I have to pay extra attention to them. I don't like monsters that require extra special attention.

To me, a well designed critter is one that I can pick up and drop into the game with as much prep as I feel like doing - could be entirely random, or it could be built up over several sessions. I don't like the idea that a class of creatures has to have special signs placed all over them warning DM's to "use with care".

Just not my thing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hussar,

Are you aware that, apart from matters of preference, we now essentially agree? The only difference is that I believe, if you are going to have deadly encounters, all creatures need to be used with care. Those with SoD effects, rust monsters, etc., are not unique in this. Oh, and I guess if, in the course of simply running a game, I end up using a monster 20 different ways, I can't consider it a "one trick pony"!

I am not sure how many rpgs use the saving throw mechanic, which rather limits how many will use SoD. The aforementioned Cubicle 7 Doctor Who uses weapons which do L damage on a hit (Lethal - you die). That is similar to SoD. An AP mechanic is used to ameliorate this effect for PCs, specifically to make the game play like the series.

 

[Hussar]

RC - Yeah, nice when that happens isn't it? Oh, but wait, I wonder if someone will now come along and claim that I'm misrepresenting your arguements yet again. Don't you feel all warm and fuzzy when someone swoops in to be your knight in shining armor?

Or, maybe I'm only misrepresenting arguements when I disagree. I can never get it straight. It keeps changing every time you see, and it's so hard to keep up.

Anyway, yeah, we have been agreeing more or less for the past twenty pages. The only disagreement really, is in preference. Which mostly stems from play style preferences. I'm not really into the whole world building thing, so, the idea of having info-dumps on the players to the extent you would require doesn't appeal to me. On the flip side, I think you'd probably find my games rather shallow.

Hus "barely a rain puddle" sar. (Hey that is fun. )

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC - Yeah, nice when that happens isn't it? Oh, but wait, I wonder if someone will now come along and claim that I'm misrepresenting your arguements yet again. Don't you feel all warm and fuzzy when someone swoops in to be your knight in shining armor?

Yes. Yes I do.

Because, like it or not, you share something else with me -- a thick head! They were correct about what I was saying, and the way you were presenting it was incorrect. Although the method might have been harsh (and elicited a mod warning), it did perhaps help you to understand what I was trying to say.

Anyway, yeah, we have been agreeing more or less for the past twenty pages. The only disagreement really, is in preference.

I wouldn't go that far.

We certainly disagreed about what I was trying to say. It is only when we were clearly communicating that any form of agreement could be forged.

And, yes, it is usually in cases of disagreement where opinions get misrepresented. That's in part honest ("Are you trying to say X? I think you are saying X!", and sometimes people forget to add the "I think") and in part dishonest (usually dishonest to oneself, because one gets caught up in the arguing, and loses track of the argument).

At least, that is where I sometimes get in trouble.


RC