Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Raven Crowking]

I'll get into that a bit below, but the original position you had seemed to take - which could have been a misreading on my part - was that you would always make a monster's footprint obvious to the PCs, rather than simply something that they had the potential to find and understand.

I am looking forward to finding out how you drew that conclusion.

Specific examples aside, because they could be argued back and forth until the InterWeb crashes down around us, would you or would you not agree that, often some clue is available (even if not discovered, or not properly understood)? What I mean here is that, although some times, what is most reasonable is that the footprints will be impossible or nigh-impossible, that "impossible or nigh-impossible" itself is a corner-case?

Both your and Hussar's examples seem to come from 3.x, and I am certainly willing to agree that many changes in 3.x were not for the better. Indeed, the more I examine WotC-D&D, the more I conclude that the designers don't really understand Gygaxian D&D.

As I discussed upthread, there is always tension between random elements and narrative control. The more narrative control you want, the more you must eliminate randomness to achieve it.

In the Gygaxian model of normal campaign play, the players set goals and attempt to achieve them. The use of divination, seeking rumours, scouting, etc., both in formulating and achieving goals is part of what the players do. Rather than writing a novel for the players to play through, the DM creates the backdrop, runs the NPCs, runs the monsters, and adjudicates the results. The GM is a world designer, or a setting designer if you prefer -- he is not a frustrated novelist!

The elements of the earlier games are designed to facilitate this style of play. It doesn't matter if Character A is balanced against Character B, so long as the players involved get to decide whether or not A and B are going on expeditions together. Likewise, it is not incumbent upon the DM to tell the players that there is a medusa on Level 7 with a glowing neon sign. All the DM must do is ensure that the medusa being there makes sense.....and well over 90% of the time, "makes sense" means "potentially predictable".

It is the tension between what is known, and what is unknown -- trying to predict, and then seeing how one's predictions bear out -- that offers one of the primary driving forces behind Gygaxian D&D. If you really have no idea how this is intended to work from the player's side of the screen, I highly recommend reading Gygax's advice to players in the 1e PHB.

In the case of SoD, the problems caused by the 3e ruleset are twofold:

1. DragonLance was very successful, but it was not the standard model of a 1e adventure series. By 2e, the idea that the DM was "telling a story" (essentially, preselecting the goals of the players, and hence the encounters they would have while pursuing those goals) had crystalized.

When the DM chooses the encounters the PCs will have, he is no longer merely creating a fair and impartial environment in which any potential PC may operate -- he is designing encounters to be fair in relation to the particular PCs he envisions playing.

Where, previously, a TPK was either bad luck or poor planning on the part of the players, suddenly a TPK...possibly even a single character death....becomes poor planning on the part of the DM. It might also be "unfair". Moreover, it throws off the balance of his other carefully prepared encounters, so that each becomes increasingly likely to exhibit "poor planning" or "unfairness" on the part of the DM.

Not surprisingly, under this paradigms, DMs like SoD far less than players do.

2. The designers of 3e wanted to make levelling matter more than it did in previous editions, and so created a much steeper power curve. Not only did this mean that slight variations in encounter design could have profound, unexpected consequences in actual play, but it fostered an "arms race mentality" between various players as well as between players and DM.

This compounds with (1) because, under the previous paradigm, players would seek the greatest rewards they might succeed at attaining, thus naturally "upping the ante" to more dangerous locations as they became more powerful. The DM had merely to create a region that could support many levels of play, and the PCs would naturally seek out the play level that fit them best.

No more. Now the DM must challenge the PCs. Doing so requires giving the monsters more advantages -- foreshadowing becomes counterintuitive (even if it is still the best decision).

3. Combat becomes increasingly grid-based from 3e to 3.5e to 4e, resulting in ever-longer encounters, with a resultant pressure to make every encounter "count". "Lead up" encounters, scene-setting encounters, wandering monsters, etc., go by the wayside. With the loss of wanderers, time pressure all but disappears, leading to the 15-minute adventuring day. Now the DM must challenge the party at full strength with every encounter. At the same time, the DM wants to prevent the players from knowing what is coming up (thus making sure that the encounter has maximum effect).

Worse, though, with long combats and long character creation times, dying has become more of a punishment than it once was. Often, it is the DM who feels bad about Johnny sitting out more than Johnny himself does. After all, Johnny probably needs the hour + to tweak his next character!

4. As Ariosto pointed out, the power curve affects the monsters in 3e as well, so that, rather than any given SoD becoming less deadly as the PCs become more powerful, they are either equally deadly at all levels, or bizarrely more deadly because of changes in how gaze attacks, etc., work.

----

As a result, if you want to argue that SoD is problematic in WotC-D&D, I will be happy to agree with you, provisionally. But blaming the problems caused by WotC-D&D on the earlier mechanic is, IMHO and IME, simply wrong.

Also, I mean to apologize for muddying the waters with the issue being about "PCs being at fault", since that wasn't specifically your point in the past.

Accepted. That was another "interpretation of my point" that I am happy to put to rest.

Rather, I believe this came up from your earlier talk that every SoD was technically a SSSSSoD, in that it was the result of many rolls and actions taken before the SoD effect was actually encountered.

That argument was rooted, strongly, in this claim that every monster has a distinct footprint which PCs could respond to.

Ah. I see.

Every SSSoD perforce contains a SoD moment. No matter how you slice it, every game in which D is a possibility has a last moment at which a single roll (or move) results either in D or not-D.

Likewise, every SoD (unless the game begins with a bodak jumping out of the closet) has a number of "moves" or "rolls" prior to the final die-rolling moment. This is true whether or not "every monster has a distinct footprint which the PCs could respond to".

Entering Dungeon Level 7, where you know CR 7 creatures are likely to lurk, is something that the players can react to, whether or not they know specifically which creatures they will encounter.

My point is that, if one argues "All SoD is bad" then one must also agree (if one is to be consistent) that SSSoD is also bad, because it contains within it SoD. Otherwise, one is left with the argument "SoD can be bad", which is hardly contentious.

The argument was made that, unlike SSSoD, SoD came out of the blue. I made the counter-argument that this isn't necessarily so.....and is very, very often not so, if the GM is creating a game environment that is consistent.

Yes, the DM can set the players up so that they have no chance. But this is not the fault of the SoD mechanic.....unless it is also the fault of having far more powerful monsters in the game than the party can handle at the moment. In an actual "Players vs. DM" situation, the DM wins. You don't need SoD for that, and SSSoD won't help you, either.

I mean, spiders and snakes were raised as a real concern with SoD, about which the party could do nothing to prepare, in a game that contains anti-toxin and the possibility of using a Heal check to "reroll" a failed save!

Really, if we are going to discuss on the basis of "But the DM could screw the players over!" then all game mechanics are bad. If we are going to argue that SoD is bad because of problems with the WotC-D&D implementation of them, then I am equally sure that I can find problems with someone's implementation of any mechanic.

Ariosto already gave a pretty clear idea of how WotC-D&D's mechanics could be reverted back to those of an earlier edition, causing most (if not all) of the problems raised in this thread to disappear.

AFAICT, IMHO, and IME, the problem isn't SoD.


RC

 

[Starman]

Both your and Hussar's examples seem to come from 3.x, and I am certainly willing to agree that many changes in 3.x were not for the better. Indeed, the more I examine WotC-D&D, the more I conclude that the designers don't really understand Gygaxian D&D.

Or perhaps they understood it perfectly well, but rejected it as they felt the game should move in a different direction. Whatever one may think of 3e, I don't think one can credibly claim that Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams were not "smart" enough to understand what Gygax was getting at. I think it is far more likely that they just disagreed with much of it.

 

[Hussar]

I'd posrep Mr Myth some more for being able to phrase my concerns better than I can, but, gotta spread around, etc.

RC - Mr. Myth is nailing EXACTLY what my arguments were. To a "T".

The problem is, you're changing which edition we're talking about, in the middle of conversations and it makes it really hard to keep up.

Just pulling out this one specific quote, which is the crux of the issue for me:

The argument was made that, unlike SSSoD, SoD came out of the blue. I made the counter-argument that this isn't necessarily so.....and is very, very often not so, if the GM is creating a game environment that is consistent.

Your argument is that it is much more likely that a creature's footprint should be readily apparent. "Very, very often not so" = "Most of the time" at least as I understand the phrase.

So, your argument boils down to, "An adventuring party should very often have the opportunity to know exactly what they are facing before they face it". That if the game world is consistent then the party will be able to learn what they will face in advence.

To me, this is utter ballocks. "Rust Monsters eat doorknobs" only works if you actually have doornobs and metal hinges in a dungeon. It also presumes that all adventures happen in traditioin D&D style dungeons. What's wrong with stone doors? Or no doors at all as in natural caverns?

But, as I said, it's virtually imposible to hit the target that moves so fast. In the course of a single post you go from 1e to 3e:

Entering Dungeon Level 7, where you know CR 7 creatures are likely to lurk, is something that the players can react to, whether or not they know specifically which creatures they will encounter./snip

I mean, spiders and snakes were raised as a real concern with SoD, about which the party could do nothing to prepare, in a game that contains anti-toxin and the possibility of using a Heal check to "reroll" a failed save!

What game are you talking about? At one time, you talk about the medusa stoning everything she sees, but, in 3e, medusa's can control their gaze - so why are they stoning everything? If we go back to 1e, then encounter range doesn't matter because over 30 feet, the party cannot tell that the creature is a medusa - convenient when the creature's gaze attack reaches 30 feet.

You want to discuss specific editions? Fine. But, playing mix and match edition so that you can counter any point brought up is pointless.

I look at it like this:

Yes, you are right that creatures may have a "footprint". Where the disagreement comes is that you presume that that footprint is discoverable by the party. That, in order for a setting to be consistant, it must be detectable. I disagree. There are any number of ways you can hide the footprint of a creature.

To me, a creature which has a significant chance of instantly killing a PC is a poorly designed creature. 1hit die creatures don't do d100 points of damage on a hit for a reason. Yes, there is a chance that the great axe wielding orc can do massive damage. That's true. That's also why 3.5 dumped the great axe for a falchion.

But, please, I've already tried to distance myself from this thread once. I just felt that since you continuously bring up my name, I had to make a few points of clarification. Leave me out of things here. You obviously don't agree with what I'm saying, and that's fine. I disagree with you as well.

But disagreeing does not equal not understanding. I understand what you're saying, and obviously there are a few other people who understand what you're saying as well. I just disagree with you.

The only way your limitation of SoD works, is if the footprint is detectable EVERY SINGLE TIME. Because if it's not, then it becomes a surprise encounter, and SoD typically just means die for at least one character. THAT'S why I disagree with you. Your system will not work unless it happens every single time. When a SoD encounter occurs that the party was not prepared for, the math is too loaded against the party.

I've asked this in this thread numerous times, and no one seems to be willing to take it up, so I'll ask it one more time. Is a 1 hit die creature that does your current hit points plus 11 in damage every hit a well designed creature? Why or why not?

 

[billd91]

I've asked this in this thread numerous times, and no one seems to be willing to take it up, so I'll ask it one more time. Is a 1 hit die creature that does your current hit points plus 11 in damage every hit a well designed creature? Why or why not?

What has this got to do with Save or Die mechanics when there are also very few creatures with 1 HD that have a save or die mechanic in 3e? The question you're posing here and the question of save or die mechanics, or even whether a 6HD monster with a SOD mechanic like the medusa is well designed, really aren't the same at all.

 

[pemerton]

The game includes powerful monsters, which are capable of handing low-level PCs their tushies quite easily. You can (1) make a world in which it is impossible to encounter such creatures at low levels, (2) allow the PCs to simply randomly encounter such creatures at any level, or (3) create a self-referential world in which it is possible to learn that spiders dwell in Mirkwood, goblins in the Misty Mountains, and Smaug in the Lonely Mountain, and let the players choose what they feel up to dealing with.

Or (4) you can play/GM a game in which metagame and gameworld are separate: in the gameworld there is a chance of low-level PCs stumbling across the dragons, but there are metagame mechanics that prevent this from actually happening in the course of play. Those mechanics could be formal - perhaps players can play a fate card to cancel a wandering monster check - or informal, like the encounter guidelines in the 4E DMG.

There's a difference between a protagonist and "the protagonist" whom the world orbits.

Again, a bit of game/metagame distinction can help here. The gameworld needn't orbit around the PCs, who may be only minor figures (like Cugel or, at first, Bilbo). But the game - which is a modest part of the real world - can nevertheless orbit around them and their doings

Wander Sounds a bit selfish, taken at face value...

Selfishness is normally considered a vice because there are others who are worthy of equal respect and consideration. In the case of playing an RPG, it would be selfish for one player (or the GM) to insist on his/her protagonism at the expense of the others at the table. But no duty of altruism is owed to the NPCs in the gameworld, who don't actually exist! This therefore seems to be another case where a game/metagame distinction sheds some light.

I'll add that, in practice, given that playing the NPCs is generally the province of the GM, to request a player defer his/her protagonism in the interests of NPCs appears to be a irequest that the player confer more power/status/play significance upon the GM. This might sometimes be a reasonable request, but I don't think that it's always, or even often, a reasonable request.

Other games that don't involve a "growing into power" theme often work better for being "the protagonist" than D&D does.

Why do you say this? I think it depends on the edition of D&D. 4e, for example, seems very well suited for protagonism play - quest XP, epic destinies, etc - and I know from personal experience that it can be done with AD&D as well, at least once PCs get over the 1st and 2nd level speed-bump. And given that I know it can be done with Rolemaster, I imagine it can also be done with 3E.

 

[Lanefan]

Or (4) you can play/GM a game in which metagame and gameworld are separate: in the gameworld there is a chance of low-level PCs stumbling across the dragons, but there are metagame mechanics that prevent this from actually happening in the course of play. Those mechanics could be formal - perhaps players can play a fate card to cancel a wandering monster check - or informal, like the encounter guidelines in the 4E DMG.

Or even less formal, where the players pay attention to the game world as described (assuming, of course, the DM is at least vaguely on the ball with her descriptions) and just don't try to go where they know they won't survive. (can you tell I'm not a big fan of metagame?)

Selfishness is normally considered a vice because there are others who are worthy of equal respect and consideration. In the case of playing an RPG, it would be selfish for one player (or the GM) to insist on his/her protagonism at the expense of the others at the table. But no duty of altruism is owed to the NPCs in the gameworld, who don't actually exist! This therefore seems to be another case where a game/metagame distinction sheds some light.

The world's NPCs exist every bit as much as the PCs do. They just don't get nearly as much airtime and 99.999+% of them never touch the game at all; but while these 99.999+% are irrelevant, they still exist.

Why do you say this? I think it depends on the edition of D&D. 4e, for example, seems very well suited for protagonism play - quest XP, epic destinies, etc - and I know from personal experience that it can be done with AD&D as well, at least once PCs get over the 1st and 2nd level speed-bump. And given that I know it can be done with Rolemaster, I imagine it can also be done with 3E.

You *can* do it with any edition. The question is more whether you should have to, or be expected to.

Lan-"part of the 0.0001-%"-efan

 

[Nagol]

Why do you say this? I think it depends on the edition of D&D. 4e, for example, seems very well suited for protagonism play - quest XP, epic destinies, etc - and I know from personal experience that it can be done with AD&D as well, at least once PCs get over the 1st and 2nd level speed-bump. And given that I know it can be done with Rolemaster, I imagine it can also be done with 3E.

Primarily, because stories around "the protagonist" typically are set where the character is at the near pinnacle of his power. The narrative has shifted from "growing into power" to "being the one to", "use power responsibly", "correct wrongs", or "avert the calamity".

And yes, I know many/most adventures in D&D will typically take those trappings, but the theme of "growing into power" underlies the game, especially in the newer versions where growth is continuous and improvements are substantial throughout the level progression.

Many other game systems -- Traveler, the Uni system, GURPS, and Hero, to name a few, allow "the protagonist" to start fully resolved and at power. Growth is very gradual, if it happens at all.

Other systems like Ars Magica, Runequest (2nd - 3rd edition, I don't know the later mechanics), and Pendragon, have a relatively short phase of growth combined with a much more shallow power curve so that "the protagonist" narrative can be quickly asserted compared to D&D.

 

[Neonchameleon]

* The bodak created to guard an evil lair was created by someone with the potential to create bodaks. Unless it happens to be the first and only bodak that someone ever created......

Kill the wandering monster table. Dead. Kaput. Finished. You should never roll to find what monsters there are in a dungeon. At least not with SoD if you expect forewarning.

* The wizard who happens to know Prismatic Spray researched it or learned it from somewhere. And, unless it happens to be the first time he's ever cast it........

He's a damn Wizard! He probably has 30 spells in his spell book at a minimum. That makes him too flexible to prepare against given that he can change his entire loadout on a day to day basis - unless he has a reputation for signature spells.

And, sure, there may be individual cases where the footprints are very unlikely to be found. If that makes sense within the setting -- if the footprint is "consistent and self-referential", I have no problem with that. Sometimes, unlikely to be found is what "consistent and self-referential" means!

Then it shouldn't be an autokill. Or at least not a commonly used one. Wasps have stripes so other creatures know they are dangerous. A weapon is a device for making the enemy change his mind. So creatures want the fact they have big guns to be well known even if what they actually are is concealed. Any other way is bad for long term survival.

And I do believe that the tension of not knowing for sure whether or not you've parsed out the threat level of an adventure site is critical to keeping the excitement level in the game.

Heh. My PCs know that one.

I'll get into that a bit below, but the original position you had seemed to take - which could have been a misreading on my part - was that you would always make a monster's footprint obvious to the PCs, rather than simply something that they had the potential to find and understand.

SoD footprints should normally be obvious. With the exception of non-confrontational monsters relying on camoflague. And those are the sort who should let you alone if you let them alone. And the much rarer possible exception of e.g. Trapdoor Spiders who are IMO far more fun if they aren't SoD. Desperate scrambles to get the captured PC back are far more interesting than dead PCs.

Sure, but how do you know he created a Bodak and not, say, some other nasty sort of undead? Or some sort of golem? Or any number of other magical guardians?

Exactly. Or both. Wizards in pre-4e are too versatile to really prepare for.

Now, a group could simply assume that any monster is capable of death attacks, and prepare accordingly - but that might get into the 'magical arms race' of having high level clerics able to cast extended chained Death Wards or whatever. For groups without that, what is the proper precautions to take? Enter the fight blind, on the possibility it might be a creature with a death gaze?

Give them the damn statues to find. And make the Medusa matter - the actual Medusa of myth rather than Monster #23.

Sure, there could be evidence somewhere. Maybe it is obvious - bards regularly telling tales of his magical duels, for example. Maybe it is less so - they would have to actively know his mentor in the magical arts, or find a copy of his spellbook. And maybe it is almost impossible to know - he could be a sorcerer who just learned it, or they could be in a foreign land confronting him for the first time, with no rational reason why they would have researched his spellcasting habits in advance.

And if the copy of his spellbook (good luck finding that) said he knew Finger of Death, Prismatic Spray, and Baleful Polymorph? Which do you prepare for anyway.

That argument was rooted, strongly, in this claim that every monster has a distinct footprint which PCs could respond to. Thus, you felt that PCs reacting to the footprint and then encountering the SoD was a similar situation to PCs entering a fight with a monster, feeling the initial effects of a SSSoD, and reacting to that.

But SoD doesn't add much over massive damage. Except arbitrariness.

If I am in a fight, and I slowly start turning to stone, I know that I have different options - do I continue to throw myself in the fight, regardless of the consequences, to try and win victory for my friends? Or do I try and focus on fighting off the petrification, even if it means the tide of battle might turn against us? I don't know the right answer, but I at least have a general idea of the question.

And it gets more interesting because there is no right answer. My paladin will do one thing, my rogue another. There's something to respond to and RP off. Not "Urk! I'm Dead!" Or even "Only an idiot would fail to take precautions x,y,z in the magical arms race".

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.

Breaking a statue to pieces is hard and annoying. Laziness matters. But none of the pro SoD people have as far as I rememeber answered the challenge that the Medusa's snakes can't be spotted from range - the damn thing's a gotcha.

Specific examples aside, because they could be argued back and forth until the InterWeb crashes down around us, would you or would you not agree that, often some clue is available (even if not discovered, or not properly understood)?

So? That means sometimes it isn't.

Indeed, the more I examine WotC-D&D, the more I conclude that the designers don't really understand Gygaxian D&D.

3e was the edition after the non-Gygaxian 2e.

But you assume didn't like is the same as didn't understand. My opinion on 3e (and 4e) being non-Gygaxian D&D is "Ding, dong, the witch is dead!" Now maybe we can have ecologies that make sense. Not a jerk system with a designer who invents creatures to infest doors and jump into peoples' ears because he doesn't like PCs listening at them - however stupid the ecology of this is. (EGG on Dragonsfoot). Ecologies were best in the 2e (i.e. non-Gygaxian) era. Gygaxian D&D was the worst sort of DM gotcha game. And I for one wouldn't be playing D&D if it was still Gygaxian. (I'd love to play Arnesonian D&D on the other hand).

In the Gygaxian model of normal campaign play, the players set goals and attempt to achieve them. The use of divination, seeking rumours, scouting, etc., both in formulating and achieving goals is part of what the players do. Rather than writing a novel for the players to play through, the DM creates the backdrop, runs the NPCs, runs the monsters, and adjudicates the results. The GM is a world designer, or a setting designer if you prefer -- he is not a frustrated novelist!

I'm stetting up a sandbox campaign now. 3e and 4e in no way killed the sandbox or are otherwise hostile to it. It is no longer the default mode of play (I have never once run a dungeon in 4e).

No more. Now the DM must challenge the PCs. Doing so requires giving the monsters more advantages -- foreshadowing becomes counterintuitive (even if it is still the best decision).

Of course foreshadowing is counterintuitive if you are trying to run a more narrative game. I mean, foreshadowing is not and has never been a literary device. Whereas there was no such thing as a wandering monster table containing Save or Die monsters in Gygaxian D&D that would produce monsters that weren't foreshadowed. Riiight.

Every SSSoD perforce contains a SoD moment. No matter how you slice it, every game in which D is a possibility has a last moment at which a single roll (or move) results either in D or not-D.[/quoet]

It's a matter of foreshadowing and avoidance. Something encouraged in more narrative games.

And, for the record, the Wolf In Sheeps Clothing makes no sense at all anywhere there aren't bunnies - it's like disguising yourself as a member of the wrong army to sneak into the camp. If that's a clue, you're doing something weird.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Or perhaps they understood it perfectly well, but rejected it as they felt the game should move in a different direction.

Cool if true, but I am now very skeptical of that position. If they understood it perfectly well, they could have devised game rules (presumably) that both moved the game in a different direction, and which did not cause problems specifically associated with the things they rejected.

If you remove a load-bearing wall, without putting anything in place to bear the same load, and then are dumb-founded when the structure collapses, I simply cannot agree that you understood what the wall was doing perfectly well.

RC - Mr. Myth is nailing EXACTLY what my arguments were. To a "T".

Then my answers to Mr. Myth may serve as answers to you as well.

Your argument is that it is much more likely that a creature's footprint should be readily apparent. "Very, very often not so" = "Most of the time" at least as I understand the phrase.

So, your argument boils down to, "An adventuring party should very often have the opportunity to know exactly what they are facing before they face it". That if the game world is consistent then the party will be able to learn what they will face in advence.

Once more, you misunderstand. Is this intentional, are you not reading my posts, or am I that poor a writer?

1. A creature's footprint is seldom hidden so that it is nearly impossible to find.

2. This implies that a creature's footprint can generally be found, not that it is "readily apparent".

3. Once a creature's footprint is found, it must be both recognized as a creature's footprint and the creature identified.

When I was camping last week at Elora Gorge, a print appeared on some of my gear. I could not readily identify it, despite spending a lot of time in the woods. Two photos were taken, and it took some time with my tracking books before I tentatively concluded that the track was either that of a pine martin or a fisher. Since we were camping amid cedars with plenty of red squirrels around (which pine martins eat), I concluded that it was probably the track of a pine martin. But I am by no means certain.

Remember the examples from The Hobbit, above? The "party" knew that there was a dragon at the end of their road. They knew that there were goblins in the mountains. They (or at least the dwarves and Bilbo) did not know about the trolls, the stone giants, Gollum, the giant eagles, Beorn, or the giant spiders. The dwarves, or at least Thorin, knew that there were wood elves in Mirkwood.

Nonetheless, each of those creatures -- except the stone giants -- are given very specific "footprints" by Tolkein. Certainly, the dwarves and Bilbo could have predicted the giant spiders from the many webs strung between the trees and the enormous "insect eyes" seen at night.

And also, frankly, for someone who has expressed interest in using "literary devices" in gaming, I am amazed that you would deny the value of foreshadowing in a game environment.

On another message board, there was a discussion about whether or not a dungeon can actually be made "scary". I have certainly had that experience on both sides of the screen, and in all cases a dungeon is made scary by two basic principles:

(1) Tension between what you think you know and what actually is, and

(2) Tension generated from wondering exactly when and where a really big problem that you anticipate will occur.

Both of these forms of tension require foreshadowing. There must be the means to guess what will occur to think you know anything. There must be the means to predict a major problem in order to anticipate it.

The highly-recommended Paizo module Carrion Hill makes great use of foreshadowing to build exactly this sort of effect. I recently ran a slightly modified version of that module, and it was greatly successful. When the "big bad" finally showed up, the players were so unnerved that the PCs skipped town!

"Rust Monsters eat doorknobs" only works if you actually have doornobs and metal hinges in a dungeon.

Obviously. And spider webs between trees are not a footprint for giant spiders when there are no trees. That isn't the point. If there is nothing metal in the dungeon for the rust monsters to eat, what are they doing there? A good GM builds "footprints" (both for creatures and environmental features -- a room with a huge pool of lava is going to affect surrounding areas, for instance!) based on what is in the setting.

Change the setting, and you change the footprint. You do not eliminate it.

But disagreeing does not equal not understanding. I understand what you're saying, and obviously there are a few other people who understand what you're saying as well. I just disagree with you.

Obviously disagreeing =/= not understanding. But telling me, over and over, what I mean, and ignoring every attempt to correct your understanding of what I mean, is a pretty sure indicator.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

First off, Neonchameleon, good post overall.

Kill the wandering monster table. Dead. Kaput. Finished. You should never roll to find what monsters there are in a dungeon. At least not with SoD if you expect forewarning.

The wandering monster table does more than determine what monsters there are in a dungeon. It allows some of the monsters to move throughout the complex without the GM having to track all of them individually, and it is a prompt to (1) keep the noise down, and (2) keep moving.

I agree that wandering monsters should be tailored to the environment.

In 4e, you may want to consider wandering monsters which are almost all minions, but which can alert and bring out the bigger guns. That way, you can get the benefits of wandering monsters without facing the problem of extended combat times against secondary threats. One or two wandering monsters can be "real threats", though, just to keep the players on their toes.

SoD footprints should normally be obvious. With the exception of non-confrontational monsters relying on camoflague. And those are the sort who should let you alone if you let them alone. And the much rarer possible exception of e.g. Trapdoor Spiders who are IMO far more fun if they aren't SoD. Desperate scrambles to get the captured PC back are far more interesting than dead PCs.

Agreed.

I prefer that poisons are rarely SoD. Most poisons should be debilitating, or cause damage over a period of time, thus allowing something to be done. Most poisons IRL are of that nature.

By the RAW, you couldn't have the scene in The Hobbit where Bilbo rescues the dwarves from the spiders -- they would have failed their saves and died, rather than being weakened and sickened. Likewise, Frodo's survival of Shelob's poisoning in LotR.

I certainly believe that SoD is an appropriate mechanic for some types of monster abilities/game effects. That does not make it the best mechanic for all monster abilities/game effects (or even all for which it has, in the past, been used).

Breaking a statue to pieces is hard and annoying. Laziness matters. But none of the pro SoD people have as far as I rememeber answered the challenge that the Medusa's snakes can't be spotted from range - the damn thing's a gotcha.

The idea that the Medusa's snakes can't be spotted from range is stupid. That isn't a problem with SoD; that is a problem with the monster description in the RAW (though I'd like the full and exact quote, if anyone has their 1e MM handy).

"SSSoD is broken because I can make an SSSoD monster that prevents you from doing anything between the saves" is a poor argument. "SoD is broken because this Medusa is badly designed" is an equally poor argument.

If it hasn't been answered before, it is because a single example where X doesn't work is insufficient to demonstrate that X is a mechanic with value. Conversely, a single example of where X works well demonstrates that X is a mechanic with value.

A thing doesn't need to have value in all situations to have value. It doesn't even need to have value in most situations. There are all sorts of specialty tools that my dad has (because he is a very good auto mechanic) that I do not own and, in general, do not need. But I would be foolish indeed to imagine that they do not have value, or that my own auto mechanic doesn't require them to do valuable work for me.

For example, earlier this year, I was visiting my parents when I had a rear wheel bearing go. My dad and my older brother -- excellent mechanics both -- were able to replace it for me. Even had I known what I was doing, I didn't own all the tools required to do that job well.

Likewise, while I might not need or want SoD for a giant spider, that doesn't mean that I want Medusa to take at least three rounds to petrify someone.

Ecologies were best in the 2e (i.e. non-Gygaxian) era.

They went a little too far for my taste, but I agree overall.

3e and 4e in no way killed the sandbox or are otherwise hostile to it.

Killed? Absolutely not. Hostile to it? I beg to differ. There are many game changes in WotC-D&D that make a sandbox harder to run well than in previous editions. But that is another topic, which should be forked if you wish to discuss that further.

Of course foreshadowing is counterintuitive if you are trying to run a more narrative game. I mean, foreshadowing is not and has never been a literary device.

For a moment, I thought you were being serious when you wrote that!

And, for the record, the Wolf In Sheeps Clothing makes no sense at all anywhere there aren't bunnies - it's like disguising yourself as a member of the wrong army to sneak into the camp. If that's a clue, you're doing something weird.

Context, my friend.

Imagine a game in which the natural world never has a "footprint". The GM never mentions squirrels, or normal birds, or bunnies. If a creature appears at all, it appears to attack the PCs.

Into that world comes the WiSC.

If the GM has never mentioned anything remotely resembing a normal animal before, that didn't directly pertain to the PCs in some way -- attacking them, being ridden by them, hauling their gear -- it is unlikely (at best) that the WiSC is going to fool anyone.

Regularly using "footprints" -- for what is normal in the setting, for what creatures are there, for what environmental features exist -- is a key to good GMing.

IMHO. YMMV.


RC