Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

Save or Die


BTW, I hope that, for consistency, those of you who rule that gaze attacks don't actually require a gaze to be met also allow breath weapons when it is impossible to take a breath. I mean, I don't think that the rules actually say you have to be able to breathe to use a breath weapon......
Fair enough, but in all the playing and DMing I've done I don't think this breath weapon question has ever come up*. The gaze issue, however, has arisen more than once.

Come to think of it, it'd have to be a pretty bizarre situation to have a breath-weapon-wielding creature end up in combat but unable to breathe.

* - ah, but thinking further, yes it has! A party I was running was fighting an enormous Green Dragon; it killed their Illusionist in one bite and tried to swallow her, but she got stuck in its throat. Her death thus saved the party from a pretty serious ass-kicking, as by getting stuck there she negated its three best weapons: spells (it couldn't speak), bite (its mouth was jammed half-open), and breath (she was plugging up the plumbing where the chlorine gas came from).

Lan-"so that's once in almost 30 years...not a common issue"-efan
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Skills are good in a game because it lets the player that doesn't posses the same intellect and abilities do things he ordinarily wouldn't- just like combat.
I agree, but you didn't say anything at all about skills; you said if your character has a high attribute like Intelligence it should make it easier to solve puzzles.

And it does, but not as directly as you seem to imply. The use of character skills is still dependent on player skill.

For me, at least, that's a good thing.
 

Is this because the scenes are determined by player choices? And are those choices made during char gen, or play? Or perhaps both.
"Yes" to the first question, and -as you say - "both" to the second.

Chargen choices are going to have a big influence on the initial encounters, but as the game unfolds the subsequent choices that the players make become more significant.

I can see how the medusa encounter could be pre-determined because, say, one player has decided his father was petrified by her. The needs of story then pretty much demand an encounter with the medusa at some point, or at least some sort of resolution of the matter.
Right. In my current game, one of the PCs is a drow sorcerer demonskin adept who is part of a drow secret society that serves Corellon and wants to overthrow Lolth in order ultimately to reunite the sundered branches of elvenkind. Around the campfire he sings songs in elven remembering the times the elves were all one under the stars and by the shores of the Feywild.

Some of this was built into the PC at character generation. Other details, including the existence of the secret society and its relationship to surface elves, have been built up over the course of play.

Now late epic tier is a long way off, so it is by no means guaranteed that a confrontation with Lolth is coming. But just from what I've said it's pretty obvious that it's a possibility. If the player instead decides to try and avoid Lolth, or to appease her, that would be a pretty big change in direction which has nothing to do with "skillful play" and everything to do with where the player wants the story, and his PC, to go. And if combat with Lolth does come, for the reasons I said in my response upthread to Raven Crowking, I think that SSSoD, poison that causes ongoing damage, etc will play out better than SoD.

D&D characters traditionally start off motivated only by money, magic items and level ups.

<snip>

Ofc the Conan-style, money seeking approach is not the only way to play D&D. Dragonlance is a strong reaction against this
I haven't run or played in a game like this for over 20 years. Even where individual PCs have been little more than mercenaries, they've been embedded in parties where enough of the party is motivated by some ingame loyalty or similar concern (like your Dragonlance example) that the pure mercenary style of play has not been there. There have been occasions where PCs and parties who have higher loyalties have found themselves, by dint of circumstances, reduced to mercenary-type work (generally tomb robbing) but this has always had an element of self-consciousness about it, and sometimes even has led to a "What have I become?" moment as part of the game.

That's not to say that my players don't like items and level up, or that there is no gamist tendency in the games that I run. But there is a game/metagame divide at work. The gamism doesn't filter down to be the principal motivation for the PCs.

Only as the game goes on would arch nemeses, such as Obmi, appear. Once such a nemesis does turn up though, one could say the game changes and a future encounter becomes fixed.
"Proving themselves against the bad guys of the setting" in no way precludes "exploring their personal stories."

The difference is that the adventurers' "personal stories" are a result of what happens in actual play rather than a meta-duscussion. Develop-in-play accomplishes the same thing that develop-at-start does out out-of-game, but I prefer DIP because for me it's more organic and - dare I say it? I dare, I dare! - real because it comes out of shared events passed through the mechanics of the game and experienced first-hand by the players and their characters.
This reminds me of a discussion in the other long thread!

I agree with Doug that an exploration game can turn into a more encounter/theme/PCs-emotionally-embedded-in-gameworld driven game over time. I've run games that are a bit like this. And I'm still a big fan of "developed in play". It's just that these days - since I learned that it can be done, and that "metagaming" is not a synonym for "cheating" - I like "developed at start" too, so that the play that I enjoy gets going even earlier.

It's goes without saying that others - like The Shaman - might legitimately prefer a different approach to play. But I will rise to the bait and say that, while I think I'll concede the "organic" point, I don't think I'll concede the "real" point. Because a players playing out of a relationship or some history that was developed at start, when done well, can make it as real as if it emerged purely organically out of nothing but the course of play.
 

I would argue instead that this is a strange thing to be calling an encounter or scene based game (FORGE-speak aside). Or, at least, a game in which the salient field of action is the encounter, as you suggested. If player choices drive the sequence of scenes/encounters, I would argue that the salient field of action is the narrative (or the sequence of scenes/encounters, if you prefer), not the encounter.

This would make the game similar to, say, Cubicle 7's Doctor Who RPG. Except, of course, that what one does in one encounter may well cause changes in subsequent encounters in that game, at least.
I don't know the Doctor Who game you refer to, but I agree that in a player driven game of the sort I'm describing it has to be the case that what one does in one encounter can cause changes in subsequent encounters.

The nature of those changes, though, I think may tend to be different from in what I am calling exploration-based play (and I'm hoping to pick up under that description a fairly standard non-Dragonlancish AD&D, and Classic Traveller, as paradigms). In an exploration-type game, if in encounter A I get lucky and kill the guards before they can retreat, then in encounter B the number of foes is reduced. Thus, trying to get in early, stealthily, cleverly etc is all part of the game (I think of this as one aspect of Gygaxian skillful play). Burgling the Medusa while she's out shopping would also be an example of the sort of encounter-changing dynamics that operate in this sort of game. The relationships between encounters, which the players affect through their PCs' choices, are primarily if not exclusively ingame causal relationships.

In the sort of game I called encounter/scene based, ingame causality of the sort just described is less important. As I said earlier, it is important to maintain a consistent gameworld - but if a satisfyingly dramatic encounter requires that encounter B have at least 10 foes, then if the players kill 2 guards earlier on before they can retreat it is legitimate as GM to replace them, provided there is a coherent story to be told about where the extra bodies came from. (What counts as coherent here will, of course, depend in part on what the players already know.) But it's not legitimate to make those sorts of changes to the encounter in such a way as to undo the signficance of what the PCs achieved. So, for example, suppose the PCs (maybe with a skill challenge as the resolution mechanism) persuaded the guards to surrender and go off and become peaceful forest dwellers. It's not legitimate for the GM to just ignore this and have the freed guards start massacring the first peasants they come across. So the players might still have a tough challenge ahead of them in encounter B, but they have secured their reputation as the converters of evil henchmen to the ways of peace. And this should affect the dynamics - social, thematic etc - of subsequent encounters.

The sort of play I'm describing here is (as best I can tell) affirmatively advocated in the rulebooks for HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, The Dying Earth and The Burning Wheel. It is also canvassed in the DMG 2 for 4e, although not fully worked out in terms of its integration into particular aspects of the 4e mechanics (and in particular the combat/skill challenge interface). Unsurprisingly, that part of DMG 2 was written by Robin Laws, a co-author of HeroWars/Quest and The Dying Earth.

I call it encounter/scene based because Maelstrom expressly presents the scene as the unit of play, and in 4e the comparable units of play are known as challenges or encounters. Of course in 4e as in the other games I mentioned there will be moments of exploration that link the scenes/encounters, but those moments are in a certain sense subordinate. I think it is Vincent Baker (Dogs in the Vineyard) who coined "Say yes or roll the dice!" In the sort of game I am describing, when the dice start rolling then we are generally in an encounter or challenge of some sort. And the preceding moments when "yes" was said are not unimportant, but they are a type of prelude to the action. (In fact in 4e and in HeroQuest there are some dice rolls that aren't full-fledged encounters - in HeroQuest these would be at least some simple contests, and in 4e these would be single skill checks that aren't part of either a skill challenge or a combat encounter.)

And as I said upthread, I think 4e-style SSSoD suits this sort of play better, because it locates the relevant choices, and the associated action resolution, at the point of culmination rather than in the preliminary stages.

(Interestingly, in some approaches to this sort of play, you could try to build prior actions into the resolution at the culmination - for example, in a skill challenge a player might make a Streetwise check to avoid being petrified not as part of the PC's immediate ingame interaction with the medusa's lair under the city, but to reflect prior knowledge and wits acquired by talking to the thieves who use the undercity for their smuggling. Using skill checks in this sort of rather metagamey way is not officially canvassed in the 4e rules, however.)

A game where the salient field of action is the encounter would contain a number of encounters, which the group may have a choice in the order they are played, but where the framework is so disconnected that there is nothing whatsoever to aid them in determining what choice should be made.

<snip>

As written, a number of modules display this sort of frame, including some of the older modules -- even some which are sometimes considered "classics". I am sure, if you are familiar with early or current D&D, you can think of a few.

That can be fun in a fast-paced game, if that is what you are into, but on the whole I think a more robust framework makes for a better game.
I agree with your last sentence. If my options were this sort of game or Talisman, I can see that it might be a toss-up, but I wouldn't be interested in this sort of game for serious play.

In this sort of game, the sense in which the encounter is the salient field of action is very different from what I had in mind - as I hope I've made clear (probably at excessive length!) above.
 




Lan-"so that's once in almost 30 years...not a common issue"-efan

It doesn't have to be a common issue. Looking at a similar issue, where things are more clear-cut, can often throw light on a question. For instance, imagine that the illusionist, although still in the dragon's throat, was also ethereal. Suddenly, the breath weapon, spells, etc., work.

Does this mean that they work whenever something is stuck in the dragon's throat? Obviously not!

I don't know the Doctor Who game you refer to, but I agree that in a player driven game of the sort I'm describing it has to be the case that what one does in one encounter can cause changes in subsequent encounters.

Then, as I said above, I would say that the narrative, not the encounter/scene, is the salient field of action.

The nature of the changes is different (IMHO) because the narrative is, in effect, the game world -- things can therefore be changed only on the basis of narrative continuity.

Nothing wrong with games where this is the case. Like I said, I rather like the Cubicle 7 Doctor Who rpg design (although still yet to actually play it! Argh!).

I agree with your last sentence. If my options were this sort of game or Talisman, I can see that it might be a toss-up, but I wouldn't be interested in this sort of game for serious play.

In this sort of game, the sense in which the encounter is the salient field of action is very different from what I had in mind - as I hope I've made clear (probably at excessive length!) above.

AFAICT, we don't disagree here. This seems to be a semantics/terminology/communication issue.


RC
 

However, that does not mean that, where invisibility (due to etherealness or otherwise) is not a factor that I can both meet your gaze and you not be aware of it.

So, just to confirm - if a creature with a gaze attacks glances into a corner in which an invisible or ethereal PC stands, you accept that there is a chance that he can meet their gaze without being aware of their presence... however, if he instead glances into a corner shrouded with shadows in which a PC is simply hidden, you do not believe it is possible for him to meet their gaze without being aware of their presence?

Gaze attacks eminate from the creature's eyes (hence "Gaze Attack" and not "Face Attack"). The victim must meet that creature's gaze to be affected, by the book, and so there must be a line of sight from the victim's eyes to the Gaze Attack monster's eyes.

That's been pretty much my point all along. The rules seem to indicate that what triggers these attacks is gazing upon a creature's eyes. You can see someone's eyes, and draw LoS to them, while hidden - the fact they aren't looking directly at you (or don't notice you even if they are) doesn't mean that their eyes are not in sight, or that by successfully hiding, you have ensured they are automatically considered to be turned around and facing in another direction.

Again, just to confirm - do you believe that a hidden character standing in the shadows is incapable of looking upon someone's face, and seeing their features, including their eyes? Or, by virtue of being hidden, do you feel they are inherently unable to see someone's eyes?
 

Remove ads

Top