Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Ariosto]

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.

For heaven's sake, use some common sense.

If it's not a problem that your plot gets messed up, then you can just ignore advice about how to avoid getting one's plot messed up.

It makes no difference to me, because I don't impose a plot in the first place.

 

[pemerton]

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'm not sure this is true. I suspect that all you need is that the players are aware that, had they not played well, their PCs would have died. In my experience, games which offer a lot of tactical choices, where those choices matter to the outcome of PC actions, can produce this awareness in players. Even if no PC ever actually dies.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And we're back to the idea that every medusa is stupid. She can't "avoid" leaving clues? Really?

Can humans? Really?

All creatures have a footprint in the real world. Every creature requires some form of living space that matches its needs, consumes something, and creates waste products. One might imagine a medusa which has access to an endless supply of hammers, so as to break each statue into rubble as it is made; one might assume that said medusa has the patience to do so, and somehow never gets sloppy with the results; one might assume that the stone the statues are made of matches that of the surrounding area.

In that event, if the group has no character that can tell ruined stonework from naturally occurring stone, if they don't notice the worn out hammers secreted somewhere, and if they don't hear the constant tapping and smashing of stone from the medusa's unending labours, they may well have no way of guessing what is ahead.

But, I would guess, medusas are no more competent than humans in covering their tracks. They are likely to be as lazy as anyone else, and as likely to do "good enough" rather than "perfect".

I simply disagree with your presumption that every creature, particularly an intelligent one that is as intelligent as humans, would be so careless as to announce its presence everywhere it goes.

Just came back from the beautiful Elora Gorge in Ontario. Can you guess how many bottles and cans I found along the hiking trails? Bits of old tents, a few extra pegs, pieces of broken plastic, candy wrappers and granola wrappers, etc.? Bark stripped from trees, initials carved on trees and marked on rocks, etc.?

If humans are the bar, it is a low bar indeed!

What I reject is that EVERY SoD creature MUST be signposted. That EVERY creature MUST leave a footprint, despite the fact that many of these creatures are intelligent.

Counter-example me, then. Offer an example of any real creature that doesn't leave a footprint.

I don't know about that. Verisimilitude can be broken by monsters just popping up with no warning or anything (barring summoned monsters). Evidence may be hard to find, sure, but evidence is almost always there unless the creature is absolutely perfect at covering its tracks.

Agreed.

Seriously, the special snowflake attitude sucks the fun out of roleplaying games in my experience.

Also agreed.

Fair enough Ariosto. And how many of those magic users did DM's give Sleep?

I'm willing to bet, very, very few.

I rolled spells randomly in 1e, the same for NPCs as for PCs. If NPCs never had sleep, how could the PCs obtain it?



RC

 

[Ariosto]

Counter-example me, then. Offer an example of any real creature that doesn't leave a footprint.

I don't think that's the real issue. A footprint is not enough.

In old D&D, we players have a chance to look for spoor. We have a chance to do research and reconnaissance even before venturing into Medusa-Land -- or deciding to give it a wide berth.

I think that's probably beyond the scope of Hussar's game.

(Apparently, so are all tactics other than PCs clustering conveniently into the typical fatality diameter of an M67 grenade and then throwing themselves en masse on top of the 3e equivalent!)

At any rate, the old game does not offer the 100% guarantee of precise foreknowledge he requires.

In AD&D, even if an encounter is rolled, it may be no more than a sighting -- or even a hearing -- from a distance. Except in a surprise situation, the normal range of a dungeon encounter in AD&D is 50' to 100'. Outdoors, even a surprise roll of 4 (2 being the usual maximum) gives an average of 330' (down to 150' in forest).

 

[Fifth Element]

(Apparently, so are all tactics other than PCs clustering conveniently into the typical fatality diameter of an M67 grenade and then throwing themselves en masse on top of the 3e equivalent!)

At any rate, the old game does not offer the 100% guarantee of precise foreknowledge he requires.

Of course you know that this is a gross misrepresentation of the argument.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

Hold up there, pardner. Recall that this line of the discussion came up when BryonD referred to Dausuul's playstyle with the line "If so, it is a shame that DMs put this petty stuff over letting the story just be." That's pretty clear badwrongfunning.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm not sure this is true. I suspect that all you need is that the players are aware that, had they not played well, their PCs would have died. In my experience, games which offer a lot of tactical choices, where those choices matter to the outcome of PC actions, can produce this awareness in players. Even if no PC ever actually dies.

But sooner or later, the gang always has an off day and the players do not, in fact, play well. At that point, either a PC dies or the group learns that no, they don't die when they play badly.

I'm not saying the DM has to deliberately set PCs up for death. In fact, I would strongly advocate against that. But when the party does something that should result in a PC dying--and they always do, sooner or later--one has to be ready to follow through.

 

[billd91]

Hold up there, pardner. Recall that this line of the discussion came up when BryonD referred to Dausuul's playstyle with the line "If so, it is a shame that DMs put this petty stuff over letting the story just be." That's pretty clear badwrongfunning.

I disagree. I saw the comment as being critical of the DM for getting upset because his work was in danger of being wasted because of the way the events were unfolding or being unable to adjust to significant changes. As a DM, I know that not everything I plan is going to pan out the way I originally envision it. Pesky dice and willful players are always trying to exert some control.
The style of play isn't under criticism, as I see it, but the DM's attitude is.

 

[Ariosto]

Of course you know that this is a gross misrepresentation of the argument.

No, actually.

Unless the players actually are forewarned about the the location of the SoD creature, within a fair degree of accuracy, the forewarning is mostly useless. There's no way to be 100% prepared 100% of the time.

and

To me, that's the rub. Even if I absolutely know that there is a basilisk in that there dungeon, how do I prepare for it in every single instance?

The issue here is that a completely arbitrary die roll that the players have no way of realistically avoiding can kill the PC....

Unless the DM puts up big "SAVE OR DIE AHEAD" signs and wraps every encounter in bubble wrap (which defeats the purpose in the first place), or I meta-game every single encounter, there's no way to be prepared.

The idea that party's chance to make a difference doesn't kick in until after the save die is rolled is a huge point of disconnect in the perpectives.

Party of 5 PC's meets a creature like a medusa or a bodak that forces save or die on the group. Fight lasts four rounds. That's twenty saving throws.

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

(I have not found a post in which Hussar put it, literally, as "safe". I may simply have missed it, though.)

Because, mathematically speaking, save or die is very rarely just save or die, it's usually just die. An unprepared party of five PC's meets a medusa has to make five saving throws, possibly ten saving throws if there is a surprise round, before their first action. The chances that someone will fail that saving throw is too great IMO.

If the chance of failing the save is even 25%, odds say that someone is going to die in the first round if they are caught unprepared.

 

[Hussar]

I find the idea of telegraphing encounters to be very cliche and trite. The first time we found a room full of very realistic statues in poses of horror, it was fun. The third time it was a bit tired. The three hundredth time it's lost quite a lot of its gloss.

Yet, I'm told, that the way to use a medusa is to make sure that her presence is detectable by a party. Apparently the medusa, despite being pretty smart, will always leave her used tools out where wandering people can find them and will only be encountered shortly after turning someone else to stone, thus giving the party a chance to hear her breaking apart the statue.

Am I the only one who finds this utterly contrived and very, very cliche?

Never minding the medusa who might have a maedar consort who can turn stone bits back to meat and EAT the evidence. Naw, can't do that, because we apparently need giant neon signs advertising the presence of particular monsters. RC's evidence is the presence of litter in a public park. Try going to places where you get beaten with a cane for littering and see how much litter you find in parks. (hint, Singapore parks are EXTREMELY clean) If I'm going to give up my presence to everyone around me who is then going to send their biggest, and strongest to come and kill me, you'd think that the average medusa might, oh, I dunno, DIG A HOLE. Put the evidence of her activities DEEPER into her lair so that people don't stumble onto it.

But no. Apparently not.

Hey, if you're happy with recycling thousand year old cliche's in your game and your players are groovy with it? Go for it. Be my guest. To me, it's a giant yawn fest to yet again see another room full of statuary. Not to my taste. I prefer my cliche's just a little less obvious.

Obviously, YMMV and all that.

But, since this is now turning personal, with people telling me that I'm apparently a hack at the table, despite having no actual experience with how my games run, I guess it's time to bow out. I've said my piece. I see save or die as a legacy piece of mechanics that was a bad idea even back in the day and have taken steps to make it better at my table. Follow my advice or not, it's no skin off my nose. When people start taking things personally instead of trying to actually discuss, it's no longer worth my time.

Ariosto, you feel free to have the last word.