Is high randomness good for an RPG?

[Philotomy Jurament]

Save or die effects are the ultimate example of bad randomness in a game. It's not "What will happen next, which could be totally unexpected?"; it's a binary "Do you get to keep playing? Y/N" result.

This is probably going to open a can a worms that I'm not interested in digging through to the bottom, but I have to disagree with you on save or die being inherently bad, or even necessarily equal to "stop playing."

I don't think save or die is inherently poor design or bad. It can be abused or used in an arbitrary or unfair manner, but so can regular combat or encounters.

I like a lot of player choice in my game (which is OD&D, if that matters). I'm not talking about mechanics for PC builds, but rather meaningful choices made in play that have real consequences -- good and bad. For example, I like for players to "drive" the action and plot of the game, choosing where they go and what do (rather than following a predetermined path -- I'm not a fan of predetermined plots or adventure paths). One aspect of this is the freedom for them to get in over their heads. For example, if they're exploring the underworld dungeon of Cromlech Tor, they'll come across many routes up and down. If the 1st level party chooses to descend to the fourth level, they're free to do so.

Similarly, I don't think there's anything wrong with having encounters that are "too tough;" part of good play is knowing when to run, how to scout, how to avoid encounters you don't want or get out of hot water you unexpectedly find yourself in. Of course, any DM can screw the players if he really wants to, and I'm not talking about screwing the players. Instead, I want to challenge the players by providing them with an environment that rewards skillful play, but allows them to screw up -- with appropriate consequences, either way.

I think most DMs would agree that encounters "above the PCs' level" aren't inherently bad. (For example, the 3e rules give some guidelines on making a number of encounters set at a higher EL -- those are challenges that will stretch the players' abilities, tactics, and creativity, as well as the PCs' stats.)

I view save or die in much the same way as I view a higher level challenge, or the ability to descend to the 4th level of the dungeon from the first. It's a not inherently unfair, it's about challenge and choices. Save or die challenges are best overcome by avoiding them or drastically lessening their danger in some way. They're best overcome by careful planning and good play before the actual save is ever encountered. That means that a DM should have opportunities or clues that the players (and PCs) can use and find, if they're looking.

(I've said most of this -- and some more elaboration -- over at the "Where has all the mean stuff?" thread on the Necromancer Games forums, which is why I'm kind of burned out on the subject.)

 

[Mercule]

This is probably going to open a can a worms that I'm not interested in digging through to the bottom, but I have to disagree with you on save or die being inherently bad, or even necessarily equal to "stop playing."

I don't think save or die is inherently poor design or bad. It can be abused or used in an arbitrary or unfair manner, but so can regular combat or encounters.

Generally agree. The problem isn't with the existence of a save or die mechanic. The problem is with it being commonplace. For the levels I expected to play at in 1e, I didn't have an issue because the save or die was generally constrained to near-"epic" stuff. As the "playable" levels have crept higher in later editions, save or die has become a more significant problem.

I haven't used any of the "slowly save or die" effects in 4e, but they seem to be (academically) a good solution that gives PCs a chance to look away from the medusa and the like without actually removing the field of too-perfect statues in her front yard.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

The less randomness in play, the more GM control is needed (see the Amber RPG).

Whether this is goodrightfun or badwrongfun depends on the group.

 

[Celebrim]

Generally agree. The problem isn't with the existence of a save or die mechanic. The problem is with it being commonplace. For the levels I expected to play at in 1e, I didn't have an issue because the save or die was generally constrained to near-"epic" stuff. As the "playable" levels have crept higher in later editions, save or die has become a more significant problem.

There is another problem particular to 3e. In 1st edition, the more time you'd spent with a character, the less likely it would be that they would die in any particular 'save or die' situation because 1st edition saves continually improved as you leveled up. The saving throws you started out with were pretty dismal, but by the time you got to 15th level or so, counting magical defences you'd probably pass any saving throw on a 2 (or close to it). Moreover, the most common 'save or die' was poison and it had pretty easy remedies for even mid-level parties.

In 3rd edition, the more time you spent with a character, the more likely it would be that they would die in a particular 'save or die' effect because the difficulty of saving throws scaled with level and generally outpaced the advancement of at least 2 of your 3 saves. At higher levels you might actually have less chance of making a saving throw in your two 'bad saves' than at lower levels.

This was always a problem for me. I think the DC's of most saving throws in 3rd edition is too high (especially those from high HD monsters). At higher levels, the expected result of a saving throw should be success. And while I don't want to completely give up 'save or die', I think there is something to be said for simply 'save or be screwed'. I think if I were to run 3rd edition in the future, a failed saving throw that indicated death would instead drop you to some random number of negative hit points.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In 3rd edition, the more time you spent with a character, the more likely it would be that they would die in a particular 'save or die' effect because the difficulty of saving throws scaled with level and generally outpaced the advancement of at least 2 of your 3 saves. At higher levels you might actually have less chance of making a saving throw in your two 'bad saves' than at lower levels.

I agree. This is a major problem of higher level 3E play. The other problem of save or suck effects such as hold person that are low level, are made worse when combats take a long time to resolve. Being sidelined for part of a fight isn't so bad if that fight doesn't take an hour or more to play.

 

[Remathilis]

I agree. This is a major problem of higher level 3E play. The other problem of save or suck effects such as hold person that are low level, are made worse when combats take a long time to resolve. Being sidelined for part of a fight isn't so bad if that fight doesn't take an hour or more to play.

Ah, save disparity. What separated the men from the boys at high level.

I was a player in a level 20 game with the following PCs: Wiz15/Acm5, Wiz10/lore10, Ftr3/Wiz5/EK10/Acm2, Clr20, Rgr20, Rog15/Thf-Acro5 (me!).

Not a heavy PrC/Multi-classing group. So routinely, combats against spellcasting foes (and at 20th level, very few worthy foes DON'T have spells or SLAs) typically almost ALWAYS began with a Fort save (Wail of the Banshee was popular) or a Will Save (Mordie's Disjunction or Mass Hold Monster).

The Two Wizards rarely failed the will saves, but we ressed them a few times from SoDs.
The Rogue (me!) was routinely hosed.
The Ranger spent a lot of time charmed, held, or holding brand-new masterwork gear
The Cleric and the Eldrich Knight were fine, both had high saves for Fort/Will enough to withstand these attacks.

Reflex saves were mostly ignored, the rogue & ranger had evasion and everyone else had enough hp to soak it. Ranged touch atks were much more effective, as was meta-magiced Magic Missile.

The last battle of the game was against a CR stupidly-high lich. Even going in prepped (all buff magics, etc) we found ourselves Disjunctioned, the ranger held for the entire fight, the wizard/Acm Finger of Deathed, the Eldrich Knight killed by hp attrition, the Cleric disintegrated, and the rogue running for 15+ rounds panicked in the lich's deathtrap dungeon.

Thank God for the lich rolling a one on polar ray, or it'd be TPK-ville. The whole fight took 6+ hours to play out as many rounds. The ranger and I spent the vast majority of it out of the fight (due to lack of magic items AND failed saves).

My point was 3e saves WERE the bad kind of random; characters like those mentioned above were targeted by their weakest save and true to form FAILED them because of DC:Save ratios. By 20th level, the disparity was so bad the above scenarios were predictable and decisively unfun.

Give me some randomness, but don't give me that!

 

[ExploderWizard]

Give me some randomness, but don't give me that!

I won't argue that sounded pretty awful. The problem is that with the save disparity going on and the super duper high impact abilities seeing use so often, its almost always going to turn out that way. If everyone on both sides had really good all around saves then the high level abilities wouldn't have such dramatic effect very often.

If we made high level saves very easy to make then those super abilities won't work against suitable opponents much of the time. Then we have cries of unfun because the I win button doesn't work at least 70% of the time.

I think what I'm talking about here is more about possibilities rather than hard hitting randomness all the time. I'm fine with the idea that super world moving powers won't be effective a lot of the time as both a DM and player. Whats more important to me is that possibly something truly awesome or devastating could happen.

Going into a game knowing that there isn't an effect/power/ability that's going to do anything to either my character, or the PC's other than damage and perhaps an annoying status effect that will end in a round or two kills the joy of possibilities.

 

[Remathilis]

I won't argue that sounded pretty awful. The problem is that with the save disparity going on and the super duper high impact abilities seeing use so often, its almost always going to turn out that way. If everyone on both sides had really good all around saves then the high level abilities wouldn't have such dramatic effect very often.

If we made high level saves very easy to make then those super abilities won't work against suitable opponents much of the time. Then we have cries of unfun because the I win button doesn't work at least 70% of the time.

I think what I'm talking about here is more about possibilities rather than hard hitting randomness all the time. I'm fine with the idea that super world moving powers won't be effective a lot of the time as both a DM and player. Whats more important to me is that possibly something truly awesome or devastating could happen.

Going into a game knowing that there isn't an effect/power/ability that's going to do anything to either my character, or the PC's other than damage and perhaps an annoying status effect that will end in a round or two kills the joy of possibilities.

Agreed. There is no fun entering a fight you know you can't lose. A number of 4e solo's are just that; fights we cannot lose (the foe cannot deal enough damage over the time to take down the rest of the team) but its just as much fun marching into a fight you know will open with a nigh-impossible save coming, probably in your opening round.

 

[Celebrim]

Give me some randomness, but don't give me that!

I've always wondered what would have been wrong with making the save DC of a spell simply 10+Spell Level or 10+Ability Modifier? Would it have been so wrong if spell DC's topped out at around 20 rather than around 30, if your 'bad' save topped out at around +15? Would it have broke the game?

Similarly, what if saves versus a monsters attack were something like 1/2 HD + Ability Modifier, or 10 + Ability Modifier? Did spell attacks really need to work 75% of the time for a spell caster to be effective? Given the general impression that spell-casters were dominating high levels of play, a feeling I never had about 1st edition, I think some rethinking should have occurred at some point. Instead, the 'fix' I saw in 3.5 edition was more along the lines of, "PC spell casters in particular are much more capable than expected. We need to increase the HD and ability score of monsters drastically, and incidently this will also make it extremely difficult to save versus their special attacks."

 

[The Shaman]

Any game that doesn't include either random harlots or random cargo is deficient.

The ideal game includes both.