D&D General How do you feel about Save or Die?

[digitalelf]

(shrug) I never really had a problem with it, myself.
I've never felt like the game needed my permission to kill my character.

I agree... I don't get the whole "it's not heroic to die by random chance!"

But then, characters in my games begin "life" as regular people and through adventure become characters on a similar power level of "Batman". They are never equated as "Big Damn Heroes".

One's Individual's Mileage May Vary and all of that.

 

[Oofta]

I agree... I don't get the whole "it's not heroic to die by random chance!"

But then, characters in my games begin "life" as regular people and through adventure become characters on a similar power level of "Batman". They are never equated as "Big Damn Heroes".

One's Individual's Mileage May Vary and all of that.

Long ago in a galaxy far, far away (aka college) one of the guys in our D&D group decided he wanted to DM. We were a bit suspicious when he had us write up 2 PCs each. As we were walking into the dungeon, he rolled a die, looked at the list of characters and told John that his PC died as a giant hand reached out of the wall and killed him. The rest of the party did not feel heroic because they survived, it was just stupid random luck.

That kind of sums up my feelings about save or die. A single roll that I have no control over deciding if my PC dies? No thanks. Which is not to say I'll complain about a PC dying. It happens. But dying with zero control, just by a one time roll of the die? Not heroic.

 

[jgsugden]

It is fine when executed well, meaning it should not be isolated and unpredictable. Save or die needs to be foreshadowed and avoidable to be fair.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

I guess they had their place in the founding of the game and what it was designed for, but the expectation in D&D nowadays is that a character is more than a collection of stats and gear on a page but a living, breathing character with motivations and flaws and relationships. Not to say this didn't exist in the days of dungeon crawls and death traps, but it wasn't nearly as central to the game. Quick, cheap deaths brought upon by Save or Die effects, no matter how well telegraphed, are entirely antithetical to a game that values rich, complex player characters.

The game does not need Save or Die to create tension, fear, and the legitimate danger of death, and I would argue that being successful in that without using cheap, single-roll spells or monster effect creates much richer and stronger tension & fear that feels far less artificial.

I mean, do what works for you, of course. Personally, I think the statement that Save or Die would be a terrible design flaw is the only correct one in regards to modern D&D.

You will forgive me, of course, for politely disagreeing with your lead sentence and the one-dimensional stereotypes that may be implied by it. [Robilar mounts his destrier, rides to his griffon, flies to his 3 Green Dragons and retires for the might under their poisonous breath which he became immune to over time spent around them...]

 

[Gradine]

You will forgive me, of course, for politely disagreeing with your lead sentence and the one-dimensional stereotypes that may be implied by it. [Robilar mounts his destrier, rides to his griffon, flies to his 3 Green Dragons and retires for the might under their poisonous breath which he became immune to over time spent around them...]

Well if anyone could

Edit: I will say I stand by the rest, however.

 

[ikos]

I guess they had their place in the founding of the game and what it was designed for, but the expectation in D&D nowadays is that a character is more than a collection of stats and gear on a page but a living, breathing character with motivations and flaws and relationships. Not to say this didn't exist in the days of dungeon crawls and death traps, but it wasn't nearly as central to the game. Quick, cheap deaths brought upon by Save or Die effects, no matter how well telegraphed, are entirely antithetical to a game that values rich, complex player characters.

The game does not need Save or Die to create tension, fear, and the legitimate danger of death, and I would argue that being successful in that without using cheap, single-roll spells or monster effect creates much richer and stronger tension & fear that feels far less artificial.

I mean, do what works for you, of course. Personally, I think the statement that Save or Die would be a terrible design flaw is the only correct one in regards to modern D&D.

I too enjoy rich character development and moving narratives, but am not quite sure that is what is going on at 75% of tables. Moreover, I’ve seldom seen a death of any sort damper the creative spirit of players who dig to role play and help construct deep narratives. The relationship between a distaste for random death and a desire/ability to create deep levels of character immersion is loose at best. Player expectation, based on the values of the era, more sunk cost in builds, and exposure to styles of play found online, are drivers for many casual D&D gamers who are not so much looking for epic sagas and are instead more so looking to roll some dice without simulating random punishment. 5e dialed save-or-suck back for the same reason they reinforced hitting more often - popular sentiment suggests winning is good and random loss is bad.

 

[Lanefan]

I guess they had their place in the founding of the game and what it was designed for, but the expectation in D&D nowadays is that a character is more than a collection of stats and gear on a page but a living, breathing character with motivations and flaws and relationships. Not to say this didn't exist in the days of dungeon crawls and death traps, but it wasn't nearly as central to the game. Quick, cheap deaths brought upon by Save or Die effects, no matter how well telegraphed, are entirely antithetical to a game that values rich, complex player characters.

All fair, I guess; but it's not much further along that line of thinking before PCs become, in effect, immune to death.

That, and it's very very possible to have rich complex player characters and still have them die on a regular basis, as long as players don't get too precious about them and always have a new character idea waiting in the hopper.

 

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Save or die isn't a problem in and of itself. If used sparingly and with proper consideration it's fine. If the default is every poison is save-or-die, and tons of spells and other effects are save-or-die (or the equivalent thereof) then it sucks golf balls through garden hoses.

 

[Gradine]

I'll note; there's a significant difference between "character death" and "save or die". Save or die is simply the cheapest, least fulfilling, least interesting way for a character to die, in my not so humble opinion.