Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Hussar]

Reynard - I totally agree that context is important.

But, within the realm of possibility, we have the "You are surprised by a banshee, everyone roll a saving throw". Granted, we also have the signposted encounter as well.

My issue is kinda with both. I dislike the signposted encounter because I feel it becomes cliche. Every medusa leaves obvious clues of its presence despite being intelligent enough, and possessing opposable thumbs, which makes the use of a hammer and a wheelbarrow entirely possible. Bleah. I want to be able to use these creatures without having to manipulate the game world every time so that the players have a chance to know what's coming.

On the other hand, if I don't signpost the encounter, there are a number of creatures out there for whom a surprise encounter is very, very lethal. Too lethal for my taste anyway. The bodak, the banshee, the Sleep spell from earlier editions, etc. I dislike these effects which make encounter design very difficult.

Me, as I've stated before, I just prefer a more mechanical solution. Lower the lethality of the effect and it solves all my problems. I can still signpost if I want to, but, if I don't, then there's no problem for me either.

Obviously some people don't like the third option, but, that's fine. Different strokes and all that.

 

[slwoyach]

Funny how players don't seem to mind save or die but DMs do.

 

[pemerton]

ditched Vancian casting in favor of a spell point system (from an issue of the Dragon? White Dwarf?).

I'm guessing it was the one that's in Best of White Dwarf vol 2.

which edition of D&D had the rules for mixing in Gamma World? I distinctly recall the D&D AC for powered armor -- was that 1e or 2e?

AD&D 1st ed DMG.

 

[Bagpuss]

Funny how players don't seem to mind save or die but DMs do.

Players are "Well what the heck I get an opportunity to roll up a new character, that's fun".

DM's are "Great they are stuck in the middle of the Elemental Chaos, how the heck am I going to work in a new character now? All the effort I put into those NPC relationships, wasted."

Or both are.... "Well that's what Raise Dead is for it's not like death is much of a threat."

 

[BryonD]

Players are "Well what the heck I get an opportunity to roll up a new character, that's fun".

Really? If have not read every post in this thread, but I haven't seen anyone promote this position. I think it because players are the one's who benefit most from getting to be in the role of overcoming the threat, and they most lose out on that chance when it is taken away.

DM's are "Great they are stuck in the middle of the Elemental Chaos, how the heck am I going to work in a new character now? All the effort I put into those NPC relationships, wasted."

This may be true. If so, it is a shame that DMs put this petty stuff over letting the story just be.

Or both are.... "Well that's what Raise Dead is for it's not like death is much of a threat."

Again, not really seeing that. I'm certain there are games out there like it, but they are far from the majority I have experienced and not really represented in the debate here.

And, most certainly, a "whatever, no big deal" reason doesn't make sense for why someone would be "pro" something. I don't accept it because it is not "much of a threat". It is a very real threat. And it is great.




Also, there are a lot more DM votes, but a 4 - 3 anti-SOD DM position, isn't the same as a 2-1 pro-SOD player position.

 

[slwoyach]

47-37 is a pretty large margin. If an election produces numbers like that it's considered a landslide.

 

[Fifth Element]

Also, there are a lot more DM votes, but a 4 - 3 anti-SOD DM position, isn't the same as a 2-1 pro-SOD player position.

And a sample size of 340 is much different than one of 58. But really, if you put too much stock in the specific results of a poll like this, you're just asking for trouble.

 

[Malachei]

I think the question is really too ambiguous to allow any conclusions from the statistics of the poll.

Personally, I like save-or-dies within restrictions. I really think there is a lot of tension and suspense when a character faces a deadly threat. Even more so, as we play with a low mortality rate but resurrection being mostly unavailable, as well. So character death will most likely be final for most, and even in higher level play, I've seen players who dislike continuing a dead character even with resurrection available -- I agree and have always felt overuse of raise dead feels like a computer game's saved game. It is taking the risk, the edge off. But this style of gaming also implies certain restrictions: statistically, characters are going to fail saves at one point or another, so if you bomb them with SODs, you will eventually lose them -- besides, it gets boring. In the campaigns we play, we're restricting SODs to a certain amount of usage, and as a DM I also know I can count on the players spending a lot of effort on optimizing their characters' defenses -- and don't need to pull any punches. Thus, a real SOD (a killer), is part of a story climax.

Also, I think many DMs think the enemies should have the same weaponry as the player characters. Whereas in real game play, they normally don't (imbalance of resources in many cases), one can still argue that the ability to take out a foe in one action should be available to both sides. Whatever the outcome, as a player, I would not want to miss SODs for my character to use on the enemy.

 

[karlindel]

This should be multiple choice, as there are many DMs who are also players. I voted on the DM side against Save or Die.

I like the 4e version in which a character has multiple saving throws with increasingly bad effects before they die/turn to stone/etc.. This can add to the tension of the encounter as the party tries to find ways to make sure the character doesn't die, as well as decisions by the party about whether to spend actions battling opponents or trying to reduce the risk to the party member.

I do not like it when save or dies are tossed around like candy, as it reduces the fun at the table. Combats that should be fun ending with the main enemy failing his first saving throw are not fun. Combats ending when the party all roll badly and fail their saving throw against a Bodak or the like are also not at all fun. It is even worse if the party had no warning about what they would be facing, in which case there is no decision-making involved, just death by random bad luck.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I voted yea, as SoD is just another option for a DM to include in his arsenal. Like ability damage or level drain, it needs to be used with discretion; DMs who don't like it can simply avoid using monsters with it. The prevailing game philosophy is to regard these particular afflictions as overly punitive to the player in terms of his or her enjoyment of the game, but this was not always so.

Foreshadowing (weird stone remains), or handy elixirs of stone to flesh (like the medusa in B2) can help. And how many times do you plan on using a bodak over the course of a campaign anyway? Monsters like this seem like they should be set pieces to me, rather than 'wandering.'

I think the real problem is that "out of combat" for an encounter or two in 3e or 4e can mean "out of the session" if the combats run to a couple of hours. This was not the case in earlier editions. Parties are smaller now, too: you can't just pick up an NPC and move along.