Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Ariosto]

Why does a rust monster, a ghoul, a medium, etc., "require extra special attention"?

That seems to be saying more about how little attention you pay to other monsters.

Anyhow, if one prefers to play Game Z then I suggest it might be better simply to do so than to waste time with Game X about which one has so many complaints.

Going back to my earlier analogy, if I wanted to produce a commercially viable Adventure game, no way would I start by copying Zork! Dump the parser, dump the puzzles, dump death ... What's the point?

Better to start fresh, or at least with a model closer to what one is after.

 

[Ariosto]

Oh, yeah:

One might note the inconsistency of those who (a) otherwise insist on "challenging the character, not the player" and (b) insist in this special case on just the opposite.

One might then observe that general principles very often have exceptions, because they are but servants to more important and complex valuations.

 

[MrMyth]

Anyhow, if one prefers to play Game Z then I suggest it might be better simply to do so than to waste time with Game X about which one has so many complaints.

Ok, you edited the post so it isn't quite as antagonistic as before... but I still really don't like this line of logic.

I like D&D. I expect most of the people in this thread do so. The fact they don't like one aspect of it isn't reason for them to go hunt down a different game. Limiting their options to either accepting elements they dislike, or ditching the game entirely, just isn't a reasonable proposition.

There are quite a few people that play D&D. No game is going to be perfect for all of them. That's why we have house rules.

If I'm misinterpreting your point, just let me know. But given what was there before the edit, it is sounding an awful lot like saying that if certain gamers don't like specific aspects of the game, it is their own fault, and they should either keep quiet about it or find a different game. I don't think it is nearly that simple, and would even argue D&D is all about every group finding the best way to play the game for themselves.

 

[Mallus]

Anyhow, if one prefers to play Game Z then I suggest it might be better simply to do so than to waste time with Game X about which one has so many complaints.

Doesn't this run contrary to the "mod the hell out of it", DIY, spirit of old-school D&D?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't think it is about the changes, per se. I think it is about massive changes, while making claims that the game remains the same. Had the changed game been called something else, I doubt any advocates of older editions would care.

There are people who believe that the game has changed in a fundamental way, not only in rules but in spirit, from its inception to the current edition. To those people, the claim that this new thing (which is found undesireable) "remains the same" as the old (which is enjoyed) is a form of slander.

Rather similar to how some others might feel if they faced a recurrent and official claim that SSSoD is essentially the same as SoD; nothing has changed.

I am more than willing to accept 4e into the D&D family -- it some good ideas, even if I don't care for how they were developed -- but I can certainly understand why others might not. There have been games more akin to OD&D or 1e than 4e is for decades. And they managed to stay in business despite TSR's aggressive stance re: IP because they were not the same.



RC

 

[BryonD]

I like D&D. I expect most of the people in this thread do so. The fact they don't like one aspect of it isn't reason for them to go hunt down a different game. Limiting their options to either accepting elements they dislike, or ditching the game entirely, just isn't a reasonable proposition.

You are leaving out one piece. And that one piece makes ditching the game not only very reasonable, but even the best option available.

And that one piece is: There are one or more other games ready and waiting that hit much closer to the mark.

It would be misleading to say that I "like D&D". I love roleplaying games, and I have a particular tendency to prefer fantasy based games.

I played 1E and 2E until I found that there were better games. I left D&D because I had zero brand loyalty and complete interest in great fantasy RPGs. D&D wasn't it. Then 3E came along, and to me, D&D was it again. Now, with 4E, D&D again isn't it. 4E is fine, but it is the Nth best fantasy RPG out there. And N is a lot higher than the number of different game systems I'm invested in.

I play PF. But my PF is seriously house-ruled. There are several aspects of PF that don't work for me, and as you said, I'm not looking for another game over them. But, with PF, the foundation of the game, the core presumaptions of what makes a good game, are right there in my interests. This is really not a true statement for the foundations of 4E. (A SoD is a symptom of that, not a cause)

 

[Ariosto]

I like D&D. I expect most of the people in this thread do so. The fact they don't like one aspect of it isn't reason for them to go hunt down a different game.

As a practical matter, they are hunting down a different game.

They can do that as they please, of course.

The fact that someone dislikes not merely "one aspect of it" but fundamental aspects -- which tie together thing after thing he loathes -- suggests that he may well be more pleasant company when talking about something designed on fundamentals that he does like.

The fact that someone insists on performing an "Emily Litella" sketch is just one of the indications that he has gone beyond "suit yourself" to desperately trying to sell the line that "you are wrong".

No, cricket is not baseball, and "soccer" might not be the football someone has in mind. This is not a news flash to some of us. Neither are we about to say, "Yes, you are right", when someone insists that we play football by hopping around on pogo sticks. No, the fact of the matter is that we do not -- and so we do not encounter the dreadful problems that he does in that bizarre undertaking!

Now, suppose someone were to tell fans of a game designed around a philosophy of dramatic narrative concerns -- one in which player-characters never die due to chance, perhaps never but by the player's choice -- that they are wrong and "unjustified" in liking it, that it should be rewritten so that this and other things are just the opposite. For a start, the next edition should introduce a rule of "save or die".

Maybe the complaint is that point-based builds are just the start of what makes Hero System bad, or that the Sanity rules top the list of things that make Call of Cthulhu unpalatable.

Does not common sense kick in at some point? Does not decorum suggest some comportment?

There is a point at which the tenor of assertions goes beyond "suit yourself" to "you are wrong". What this has led to at least twice in the D&D context is to new rules-books that people saying so can wave at each other.

Maybe I have missed it, but I think the latest one pretty well settled the issue at hand on the side of "nay".

It's done. You've got your One True Way as Official as can be.

Groove on those Official Rules, or groove on your house rules. Drop the bull hockey attempt to "prove wrong" the preference of others for the old game.

Doesn't this run contrary to the "mod the hell out of it", DIY, spirit of old-school D&D?

It runs into the "take those portions you can use and ignore the rest" spirit of RuneQuest. Or, depending on direction of departure, maybe Bunnies & Burrows, or Paranoia, or Ghostbusters, or Big Eyes Small Mouth, or Nobilis, or ...

If it's really all the same to you, then there are all those other venues in which to complain about how much X sucks!

You can knock yourself out talking classes and levels and experience points in RuneQuest, or "class balance" between grogs and magi in Ars Magica, or intra-party trust in Paranoia, or linear probability spreads in World of Darkness, or how much you hate manga and anime influences in BESM. There are all sorts of opportunities for confusion and high horses and low blows!

 

[MrMyth]

You are leaving out one piece. And that one piece makes ditching the game not only very reasonable, but even the best option available.

And that one piece is: There are one or more other games ready and waiting that hit much closer to the mark.

Whoa, one second - I'm not saying it can't be a reasonable decision to move to a new game if you dislike elements of your current one. Of course it can be!

But that doesn't mean it always is the case. Suggesting that, if the game you enjoy has an element you dislike, the best course of action is to leave the game and find a new one - rather than find a solution around the disliked element or hope the game changes to address your concerns - seems counter to the sort of customization D&D has always been about.

 

[billd91]

Yeah, funny thing, that is not an issue in old D&D.

It's an issue in 3e, and Rolemaster, and Hero System, and GURPS, and so on and on.

It's not really an issue with the rest of these games either (certainly not hours) unless the player is the type to agonize over their character building decisions, particularly backstory. And if they are, chances are they would have the same problem in old D&D as well.

An efficient and effective player, who probably already has a set of interesting character ideas he wants to try and simply had to pick one for the game in the first place, can crank out a character in virtually any game in a short time.

 

[billd91]

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.

I never liked it either. Didn't even like 3e's spending of XPs. I understood why it was there, just didn't like it. I never liked the idea of a character actually losing knowledge. It's one reason I've been preferring Pathfinder over the 3x family. Permanent negative levels and no XP costs for magic item creation or powerful spells.

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.

I agree here too. Gear is just gear. Wealth in D&D is not a point buy system. I have always believed that was the utterly wrong way to look at it and liable to cause far more stress than it was worth.

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.

Here is where I disagree. A well-designed monster is one that has a place in D&D, one with lore, one with the information I want to give it a footprint in a world with as much verisimilitude as I can give it, fantastic abilities and all. I don't just "pick up and drop into" my game any old critter. It's there for a reason and has an effect on the world around it... at least as much as I can manage it.