Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?

[Odhanan]

So, we're back to the argument that every encounter will be sign posted?

Nope. We're back to the argument that each and every rule in a game is meaningless without a given context, that what truly matters is what the rules mean when they are used at an actual game table, and how, rather than consider numbers in a theoretical vacuum.

All of your examples Odhanan are edition neutral.

Nope. My examples are not edition neutral.

Whether the beholder will in effect use SoD or SSSoD effects will greatly affect the players' choices when they decide on a course of action, whether they go straight for the fight, or choose other possibilities. Same thing with a rust monster in front of you. Whether the rust monster destroys your equipment permanently or it is just temporarily incapacitated will affect player decision-making tremendously. And the fact that some threats are indeed, serious threats to the players' characters may prompt more variety on the players' parts in the way they handle such threats, rather than just say "aaah what the hell, at least I have that first save, even if I'm diseased, I could place a good one while you guys hit it too."

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Nope. We're back to the argument that each and every rule in a game is meaningless without a given context, that what truly matters is what the rules mean when they are used at an actual game table, and how, rather than consider numbers in a theoretical vacuum.

Meaningless statement.

SoDs happen in two situtations.

1) You know they're coming! Which means you cast your protection spells or drink your save increasing potions. SoD has no meaning.

2) You don't know they're coming! Woops, roll a dice to see who spontaniously dies.

Nope. My examples are not edition neutral.

Whether the beholder will in effect use SoD or SSSoD effects will greatly affect the players' choices when they decide on a course of action, whether they go straight for the fight, or choose other possibilities. Same thing with a rust monster in front of you. Whether the rust monster destroys your equipment permanently or it is just temporarily incapacitated will affect player decision-making tremendously. And the fact that some threats are indeed, serious threats to the players' characters may prompt more variety on the players' parts in the way they handle such threats, rather than just say "aaah what the hell, at least I have that first save, even if I'm diseased, I could place a good one while you guys hit it too."

Really?

In my experience the only thing it lead to was Benny Hill music playing as fighters ran away from rust monsters as casters (who else?) eliminated the threat from afar.

That's not tense. It's silly.

It leads to the same style of gameplay mentioned earlier, where players spend so much time preparing and doing everything in painstaking detail to avoid the "lose" scenario that the entire game flops and becomes brutally unfun. It's like if LotR started and ended with "Frodo decided adventuring was p. dangerous and just stayed at home the end."

 

[Reigan]

You can use dangerous terrain if you want SoD, a 200 foot cliff and a monster with push powers can be pretty nasty (and players can take advantage too).

I prefer my players to kill themselves because they screwed up, not because of a bad dice roll.

 

[Odhanan]

I think there is a place for all sorts of processes at a game table. I also think that player expectations vary greatly. In other words, it's okay if someone enjoys SSSoD and wants things like tactical maneuvering with terrain and stuff being all meaningful part of the game's system.

Believing that save-or-die sucks because of some warped sense of what happens at game tables that employ them, especially when people who do employ them come out of the woods and actually spell out for you why they enjoy them is... silly.

 

[Bluenose]

I think there is a place for all sorts of processes at a game table. I also think that player expectations vary greatly. In other words, it's okay if someone enjoys SSSoD and wants things like tactical maneuvering with terrain and stuff being all meaningful part of the game's system.

Believing that save-or-die sucks because of some warped sense of what happens at game tables that employ them, especially when people who do employ them come out of the woods and actually spell out for you why they enjoy them is... silly.

Your own examples don't say that you accept the risk of SoD. They talk about using clever tactics to negate the risk. This doesn't suggest you like hanging the fate of your character on a single die roll.

 

[Odhanan]

Your own examples don't say that you accept the risk of SoD.

It would depend on the situation. In the corridors example for instance, if I was in a situation where one straight path with the potential for an SoD trap would lead me to a fleeing BBEG, with two other paths leading me around the dungeon with much less of a chance to catch up with him, I might choose the straight path and risk the SoD if from a roleplaying standpoint my character really wants to get to the bastard, wants to kill him, is angry at something the BBEG did, or the fate of another character, or nation, or whanot hangs in the balance. It's a question of choice. The existence of tremendous, deadly risks and other circumstancial elements and possibilities providing the background for such meaningful choices on my character's part.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Baseball uses 3 strikes and you're out. Would baseball be more or less tense if it used one strike and you're out?

More. Much, much, more.

I played baseball up to and through college. I never gave a rat's ass if I swung and missed once, or even twice. But with 2 strikes, it's down to business, and there's a LOT of tension. You have one chance. One. You had better get it right.

 

[Hussar]

Nope. We're back to the argument that each and every rule in a game is meaningless without a given context, that what truly matters is what the rules mean when they are used at an actual game table, and how, rather than consider numbers in a theoretical vacuum.


Nope. My examples are not edition neutral.

Whether the beholder will in effect use SoD or SSSoD effects will greatly affect the players' choices when they decide on a course of action, whether they go straight for the fight, or choose other possibilities. Same thing with a rust monster in front of you. Whether the rust monster destroys your equipment permanently or it is just temporarily incapacitated will affect player decision-making tremendously. And the fact that some threats are indeed, serious threats to the players' characters may prompt more variety on the players' parts in the way they handle such threats, rather than just say "aaah what the hell, at least I have that first save, even if I'm diseased, I could place a good one while you guys hit it too."

Your presumption here is that SSSoD means there's almost no chance of death though.

The math in 4e is pretty simple. 1 in 8 chance of death from SSSoD as a base. Presume a 50% chance of the attack hitting you in the first place and you're about a 5% chance (give or take) of dying. Multiply that by 5 PC's and you're looking at around a 20% (ish) chance of character death.

That's hardly insignificant. If there's a beholder in the next room, SSSoD isn't the reason I'm running away. I'm running away cos it's a freaking beholder and it's going to kick my ass eight ways from Sunday.

But, take it into 3e (or earlier editions, it doesn't matter that much). Assume, for the moment, a 25% chance of PC failure on a SoD attack. Multiply that by 4 PC's and you've got about a 90% chance of PC death.

That's not increasing tension, that's just suicide by monster.

It's not that I'm opposed to SoD, it's that SoD in many cases, particularly in cases where SoD is linked to an area attack, like gazes, aren't SoD, they're just die. It's not that I don't like the idea of instant death events, it's that the math works very badly.

So, I disagree with you Odhanan that this is edition specific. I suppose you're right that I might be more likely to choose to fight in 4e, since the chance of death is reduced, but, that's because I should never fight in earlier editions since any area of effect SoD effect is a pretty much guaranteed PC fatality.

 

[Odhanan]

All I'm doing is explaining how people might use SoD, think they do not suck, and enjoy their use in play. I'm answering specifically to the notion that "SoD are bad design, BADWRONGFUN, period." Well, NO. They aren't. It depends how they are used. Whether the DM knows what he is doing or not.

That's all I'm saying.

After, you are welcome to like what you like. SHEESH!

 

[Odhanan]

That's not increasing tension, that's just suicide by monster.

Oh my God. I can't believe this. It's like I'm speaking French or something.

Fine. Believe what you want.