Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Philotomy Jurament" data-source="post: 4694358" data-attributes="member: 20854">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 &quot;stop playing.&quot;I don't think save or die is inherently poor design or bad.&nbsp; It can be abused or used in an arbitrary or unfair manner, but so can regular combat or encounters.&nbsp; I like a lot of player choice in my game (which is OD&amp;D, if that matters).&nbsp; I'm not talking about mechanics for PC builds, but rather meaningful choices made in play that have real consequences -- good and bad.&nbsp; For example, I like for players to &quot;drive&quot; 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).&nbsp; One aspect of this is the freedom for them to get in over their heads.&nbsp; For example, if they're exploring the underworld dungeon of Cromlech Tor, they'll come across many routes up and down.&nbsp; If the 1st level party chooses to descend to the fourth level, they're free to do so.&nbsp; Similarly, I don't think there's anything wrong with having encounters that are &quot;too tough;&quot; 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.&nbsp; Of course, any DM can screw the players if he really wants to, and I'm not talking about screwing the players.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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 &quot;above the PCs' level&quot; aren't inherently bad.&nbsp; (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.&nbsp; It's a not inherently unfair, it's about challenge and choices.&nbsp; Save or die challenges are best overcome by avoiding them or drastically lessening their danger in some way.&nbsp; They're best overcome by careful planning and good play before the actual save is ever encountered.&nbsp; 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 --&nbsp; over at the <a href="http://necromancergames.yuku.com/topic/10410" target="_blank">&quot;Where has all the mean stuff?&quot;</a> thread on the Necromancer Games forums, which is why I'm kind of burned out on the subject.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Philotomy Jurament, post: 4694358, member: 20854"] 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 [i]before[/i] 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 [url=http://necromancergames.yuku.com/topic/10410]"Where has all the mean stuff?"[/url] thread on the Necromancer Games forums, which is why I'm kind of burned out on the subject.) [/QUOTE]

Verification