Save or suck Medusa petrification

[avin]

The Medusa should petrify on sight.

DMs who dislike that mechanic could easily avoid to put that kind of monster in game or just use lesser versions of the creature... but THE Medusa should kill on sight.

 

[billd91]

I never played mother-may-I when I was young, but as I understand the game it's all about favouritism.

Favoritism? That's not really the gist of Mother May I. It's about more about arbitrary authority.

 

[Hussar]

Maybe it's not true you for you? Reread the MM '77, it's in there with some of what I said from the DMG on combat. The MM was designed for OD&D & AD&D.

Could you post the relevant sections from the DMG? Because the MM doesn't say what you think it says.

And again, what do you think Save vs Petrification actually means? Because it doesn't mean, "I look away in time" because the same save is used against a cockatrice.

Hey, I realize that people like this house rule, but, it's not what the rules say and claiming that 4e suddenly made big changes is not true.

 

[Rogue Agent]

Did anyone else happen to notice the "0 hp = suck" rules?

It's either avoid reaching 0 hp or you're knocked out of the combat. "0 hp = suck" ruined more than a few games for me in the past. Having this stupidity brought back is not a good thing. In fact, it irritates me more than vancian being brought back.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Did anyone else happen to notice the "0 hp = suck" rules?

It's either avoid reaching 0 hp or you're knocked out of the combat. "0 hp = suck" ruined more than a few games for me in the past. Having this stupidity brought back is not a good thing. In fact, it irritates me more than vancian being brought back.

I don't understand. Can you elaborate? (On the "0 hp = suck" part and the "ruined games for me" part)

It does remind me of a point I've been thinking of for a while: What if SoD effects didn't kill you, but just dropped you to 0 hp? "Save or 'dying'"?

 

[Ratskinner]

I never played mother-may-I when I was young, but as I understand the game it's all about favouritism.

I don't think so. I believe "Mother may I?" refers to the sometimes high-handed authority wielded by early-edition DMs. Mostly this happened because DMs had to fill in a lot more blanks than in recent editions. When combined with an antagonistic attitude, this lead to a situation where the PCs could do virtually nothing without the DM's express permission. It is seen as part of the bad half of "DM empowerment". People who experienced particularly atrocious incidents of it are likely to not have fond memories of early editions.

As D&D evolved, starting in 3e and culminating in 4e. Players and PCs were given increasingly defined capabilities. So, for instance, its possible in 4e for a combat to resolve without a player ever asking the DM "can I do X?" or "can I reach Y with this spell?" I know because I've DM'ed several that way. This is highly unlikely to occur in older editions, both because of "Theatre of the Mind" issues and because doing something fancy like...pushing an enemy back with your attack required the DM to adjudicate how that happened.

This looseness or incompleteness in the rules is why there are such varied experiences with older editions. Some people felt that fighter only got to say "I attack", while others felt that they did all sorts of cool things...and the truth is both are right, because it was campaign/DM dependent. (Although, I must say, despite all the griping around here about how weak and boring and horrible fighters were before 4e came and rescued them from obscurity...I never had trouble finding people to play fighters or their close kin.)

Now, 4e did offer a solution to the "Mother May I?" DM smothering the players' creativity. However, that cure seems to have been worse than the disease. Given some of the things my local 4e haters have said, this was a big part of why 4e "didn't feel like D&D" for them. Additionally, by defining every PCs abilities so rigidly, they also rather rigidly defined playstyle. I know that this is a spot of some contention, so I'll just say that I, personally, had a lot of trouble adapting 4e to fit a less "gonzo magic" playstyle.

How this will play out in 5e is rather up in the air, of course. Personally, I think they just need to focus on better DMing advice and guidelines. Early editions tended to have an attitude that lead to DMs cackling from behind the screen at the exquisite tortures they had devised for the players. While this may have been a misinterpretation of "Gygaxian" play...I don't think its an irrational one. (see "Horrors, Tomb of") If they can more clearly define the DMs role as less of an adversary, and more of a...Director, writer, co-creator...whatever, this would go a long way, IMHO.

 

[Rogue Agent]

I don't think so. I believe "Mother may I?" refers to the sometimes high-handed authority wielded by early-edition DMs.

The problem with rejecting the idea of asking the DM how to do something that isn't mechanically defined in the rules is that it throws out the one thing that makes RPGs unique from other games.

It's not just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's throwing the baby out and keeping the bathwater.

 

[Ratskinner]

The problem with rejecting the idea of asking the DM how to do something that isn't mechanically defined in the rules is that it throws out the one thing that makes RPGs unique from other games.

It's not just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's throwing the baby out and keeping the bathwater.

Oh, I certainly tend to agree. I think it is the absolute core of all 4e's issues. However, I'm not trying to make war on 4e, just explain the nature and origin of the phrase.

 

[CM]

The problem with rejecting the idea of asking the DM how to do something that isn't mechanically defined in the rules is that it throws out the one thing that makes RPGs unique from other games.

It's not just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's throwing the baby out and keeping the bathwater.

Except 4e didn't do this. There's a whole damn table on suggested damage values and DCs for this sort of thing that the DM is free to use or ignore. Not every DM is a superman who always comes up with a fair DC and is consistent in rulings. We're human too, and taking some of the burden off our shoulders is welcome, in my opinion.

 

[Hussar]

The problem with rejecting the idea of asking the DM how to do something that isn't mechanically defined in the rules is that it throws out the one thing that makes RPGs unique from other games.

It's not just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's throwing the baby out and keeping the bathwater.

Not really though. If you step away from D&D's incessant need to have a rule for everything and look at other systems you can see that you can have broad rules that cover large amounts of actions. You can do all sorts of cool things without the DM having to ad hoc new rules every time.

"How do I jump over the pit" isn't really something that DM's need to be making up rules about. Savage World's Rule of 3 for example, where, after mods, so long as you score 3, you succeed. So, the Player says, "I want to jump over the pit" the DM says, "Strength check", Player rolls and succeeds or fails.

What you don't want is 5 different rulings on 5 different tables. Where one DM says, "Strength Check", the next one says, "Petrification save" and the next one says "Dex Check". It makes organized play an absolute nightmare for one and for another, makes any discussion of the mechanics virtually impossible because everyone's playing a different game.