Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Dausuul]

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.

I ran a separate poll, which indicated that people have bigger problems with PC death as a DM than they do as a player, by a ratio of almost two to one. That matches up pretty well with my own anecdotal experience--when a PC dies, the player quickly moves on to making a new character, while the DM wrestles with maintaining campaign continuity (not to mention second-guessing herself about whether the encounter was unreasonably lethal). So I'm inclined to agree with Bagpuss's analysis. It's about character death in general, not save-or-die as such.

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

Do us a favor and don't snipe at the way other DMs run our games, 'kay? Some of us take a fairly active role in managing the plot and our players like it that way. You and your players may prefer a more laissez-faire, sandboxy style, and that's cool too. It's one thing to argue for or against particular mechanics or outcomes, but calling our concerns "petty" is a bit much.

 

[billd91]

Do us a favor and don't snipe at the way other DMs run our games, 'kay? Some of us take a fairly active role in managing the plot and our players like it that way. You and your players may prefer a more laissez-faire, sandboxy style, and that's cool too.

Taking a fairly active role in managing the plot isn't really incompatible with letting PCs die, nor is letting them die when their actions (and resolved results) say they should die only part of a laissez-faire, sandboxy style.

I think that a GM who's plot work requires that a PC (or specific PCs) survive is well advised to rework his plot. There are too many things that can interfere from a player becoming unavailable to the game to a PC doing something for which they should die without hard-to-rationalize GM intervention for the game to be as robust as it could be.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think that a GM who's plot work requires that a PC (or specific PCs) survive is well advised to rework his plot. There are too many things that can interfere from a player becoming unavailable to the game to a PC doing something for which they should die without hard-to-rationalize GM intervention for the game to be as robust as it could be.

That may be good advice in general, but if the DM and players enjoy playing that way, then that's the way they should play. They might not be interested in making the game "as robust as it could be", and that should not result in their desires being called petty, which was what Dausuul was responding to. Why should they care about the game being robust, if they enjoy playing a game that you would not call robust?

 

[MrMyth]

I ran a separate poll, which indicated that people have bigger problems with PC death as a DM than they do as a player, by a ratio of almost two to one. That matches up pretty well with my own anecdotal experience--when a PC dies, the player quickly moves on to making a new character, while the DM wrestles with maintaining campaign continuity (not to mention second-guessing herself about whether the encounter was unreasonably lethal). So I'm inclined to agree with Bagpuss's analysis. It's about character death in general, not save-or-die as such.

Or, again, Enworld might just have a larger number of DMs than players. Even if some of those DMs are also players, anyone who is primarily a DM is more likely to have experience character death from the DM side of the screen, and thus most likely to relate to it on that level.

 

[Dausuul]

Taking a fairly active role in managing the plot isn't really incompatible with letting PCs die, nor is letting them die when their actions (and resolved results) say they should die only part of a laissez-faire, sandboxy style.

I think that a GM who's plot work requires that a PC (or specific PCs) survive is well advised to rework his plot. There are too many things that can interfere from a player becoming unavailable to the game to a PC doing something for which they should die without hard-to-rationalize GM intervention for the game to be as robust as it could be.

Fifth Element summed up my point pretty well.

I will add that my plots do not require any specific PC (I tried that a couple times in the past and learned not to do it again), but it's still a pain in the neck when they die. Individual PCs interact with NPCs and build up relationships; those relationships are very helpful in developing the plot and giving the players a bigger stake in the outcome. Moreover, the logistics of getting a new PC into the action and committed to the party's present goal can be quite a nuisance.

I agree with the sentiment that a credible threat of PC death is important, and for a threat to be credible, you have to deliver once in a while. I just don't like having the game mechanics suddenly execute a PC without warning. Given the headaches that PC deaths cause me, I want to get as much benefit as possible from each one; a death that does not promote player engagement and increase tension is a death wasted, and I find that deaths are most effective at engaging players when the players feel they could/should have done something to avoid it.

 

[BryonD]

I ran a separate poll, which indicated that people have bigger problems with PC death as a DM than they do as a player, by a ratio of almost two to one. That matches up pretty well with my own anecdotal experience--when a PC dies, the player quickly moves on to making a new character, while the DM wrestles with maintaining campaign continuity (not to mention second-guessing herself about whether the encounter was unreasonably lethal). So I'm inclined to agree with Bagpuss's analysis. It's about character death in general, not save-or-die as such.

I don't agree that this evidence supports that conclusion.

Do us a favor and don't snipe at the way other DMs run our games, 'kay?

Ok, so an opinion can be stated, but disagreeing with it is verboten. Gotcha.

Some of us take a fairly active role in managing the plot and our players like it that way.

Ah, but we have already agreed that players take the other position.

You and your players may prefer a more laissez-faire, sandboxy style, and that's cool too. It's one thing to argue for or against particular mechanics or outcomes, but calling our concerns "petty" is a bit much.

I think that the concerns as phrased in the post replied to are petty.

For the record, I take a very active role on managing the plot. But the course of events taking that planning and screwing with it is part of both the process and the fun.

When a wave comes along and knocks down my sand castle, I don't take the petty position of wringing my hands over at, but, quite the contrary, I embrace the unexpected and start building anew, with the latest twist now built in.

 

[billd91]

That may be good advice in general, but if the DM and players enjoy playing that way, then that's the way they should play. They might not be interested in making the game "as robust as it could be", and that should not result in their desires being called petty, which was what Dausuul was responding to. Why should they care about the game being robust, if they enjoy playing a game that you would not call robust?

Nit pick. That's a way they can play. If it's the way they enjoy playing the most, then I might agree that they should play that way. But just because something is enjoyable, that doesn't mean it can't be made better. Let's not disallow criticism directed at improving the game just because the experience isn't currently a bad one.

 

[Fifth Element]

If it's the way they enjoy playing the most, then I might agree that they should play that way.

Might?

But just because something is enjoyable, that doesn't mean it can't be made better. Let's not disallow criticism directed at improving the game just because the experience isn't currently a bad one.

"Made better" is a rather difficult thing to pin down when dealing with such an ambiguous and varied concept as "having fun."

Yes, I could have been more specific in my post by saying "the most", but that's what I meant, and my point still stands.

"Better", here, is completely subjective. Indeed, when someone says "I like to have fun this way" and your response is "You should do it this way, it's better", that's a rather presumptuous response.

 

[billd91]

"Better", here, is completely subjective. Indeed, when someone says "I like to have fun this way" and your response is "You should do it this way, it's better", that's a rather presumptuous response.

It's advice. Anybody is free to take it or leave it at their own will. But if someone's posting in a public forum, they should expect to get it and get it unsolicited. If they don't want it, they shouldn't post in a public forum.

While saying that something is outright badwrongfun is improper, making recommendations and giving advice based on your own experience is not. The anti-badwrongfun element on these boards has been edging into forgetting that for a while now.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Really? If have not read every post in this thread, but I haven't seen anyone promote this position.

Actually, I made that observation back on page 23, post 335.

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.

I am not sure that it holds true across all editions of D&D (Or, all game systems in general for that matter). But, it certainly held true regarding my experiences with 3rd Edition and it is proving true with regards to Pathfinder.