Players, DMs and Save or Die

Do you support save or die?


Plane Sailing said:
In a way, the big issue for 'Save or Die' in 4e is likely to be that there are no saves...

In 3e, if the DM says "He casts destruction on you. Make a DC23 Fort save" you (and the rest of the party) are willing the dice to roll high as you make that save in a tense moment while you wait for the dice to stop rolling.

In 4e, do we want the DM to say "He casts destruction on you (rolls) and beats your Fort defence so you die"?

I don't think that would fly, would it :)
This is a very, very good point.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Anthtriel said:
You cannot seriously tell me that it's somehow a good thing if the BBEG dies in the first round of combat.
It's a good thing. If every boss fight plays out the same way that's both boring and lacking in verisimilitude.

I hate the rules of story. Story = predictable. I loved the ending of the first Tim Burton Batman movie where we're expecting a lengthy fight against the BBEG, the Joker. Instead he goes down in about 3 seconds. It's good because it's a surprise. Most movie BBEGs have to be killed 17 times before the fight's over.
 

Jhulae said:
Except there is still risk without SoD effects. Unless you mean "I prefer a game in which there is a real feel of arbitrary death".

Arbitrary? No.

Like I said in the post you are quoting, but chose to not quote, I think SoD should be used principally for climactic encounters. That's not arbitrary. Sure, it can be, if the DM chooses to deploy it that way... but they shouldn't. And creatures that encourage it being used in such a fashion (again, bodak) should be altered or eliminated.

Sure, there can be risk without SoD. But in my games... again, on either side of the screen... I want the whole spectrum of perceived risk, to include:
  1. "no real risk"
  2. "risk of PC death only if party is down on resources"
  3. "risk of PC death after several rounds of engagement, but with credible chance to withdraw
  4. "risk at any time you engage the foe in question"

I find that having the presence of factors that should be approached with care, only when it's important, and have you sitting on the edge of your seat from the moment the fight begins, to be a satisfying gaming experience when used in moderation.

Again, from both sides of the screen.
 

Geron Raveneye said:
Just a silly question, but why not? If the game enables me to crit with a fireball, and nothing keeping me from doing enough damage to outright kill half the characters on the playing field with two lucky rolls, why shouldn't I be able to kill one character on the playing field with one lucky roll? :)

Yeah, there was some speculation in another thread, both that there is no save or die, but attack and die, and that they have some special death damage or psychic damage.

The truth is, this information has not been offered up. We just don't know. I don't think they would just play semantics here, though.
 

Psion said:
Yeah, there was some speculation in another thread, both that there is no save or die, but attack and die, and that they have some special death damage or psychic damage.

The truth is, this information has not been offered up. We just don't know. I don't think they would just play semantics here, though.

Maybe its related to a condition track... like in Starwars Saga
 

Cadfan said:
*shrugs*

Reading posts like ptolemy's, I can't help but suspect that his point of view is very... contingent?

I think that if save-or-die hadn't existed in previous editions, and if it were being introduced to the community now for the first time, basically everyone would be against it.

WOTC: Ok, ok. Here's our latest from R&D. You're gonna love this. Ready? Ready?
Gamers: Oooh oooh tell us tell us!
WOTC: Its a type of spell...
Gamers: Oooh! We love spells!
WOTC: That does something never before seen in D&D...
Gamers: *collectively draw in breath*
WOTC: When its cast on you, you roll a saving throw...
Gamers: *hold breath*
WOTC: If the target succeed, nothing happens at all...
Gamers: *turn slightly blue*
WOTC: And if you fail your character dies. BAM! DEAD! You can't even use raise dead to get him back cause its a "death effect!"
Gamers: *choke and collapse*

*shrug* It's deadly game, man! :/ I play Call of Cthulhu too, you know! In fact that was the second RPG I played, after D&D. Players shouldn't be too attached to their characters and DMs shouldn't be too attached to their monsters.
 

Anthtriel said:
But the way SoD works, Hercules would actually get killed in at least 1/20 of those tales. In Heroic fantasy, the heroes (certainly the central ones, comparable to PCs) always survive those encounters. So a less deadly system would work better for modelling heroic tales or fantasy.

You cannot seriously tell me that it's somehow a good thing if the BBEG dies in the first round of combat. No matter how you do it, it's still just about the most anti-climatic experience possible. Maybe in a comedy campaign, but everywhere else, it will feel really out of place.?

There's something I consider a basic rule of gaming: don't allow any die roll to be made unless you're willing to work with the outcome. If you absolutely, absolutely don't want your BBEG to fall to some attack the PCs have, it's easy enough to give the BBEG whatever combination of magic and defenses and insanely high Saving Throws that are required to make them immune to it. After all, you're the DM -- you know exactly what the party is bringing to the table, so it's up to you to make the right challenge.

And if the BBEG rolls a 1 on his save and didn't have "Death Ward" up, or whatever... roll with it! For the most part, the players are probably gonna be *happy* that they defeated the big bad guy, even if some of them feel cheated out of the fight. Then, later that session or the next session, you can have the BBEG's ally come busting through the wall like the Kool-Aid Man and attack the party. Or you can have the fortress explode around them and collapse on them and they have to run out. Or you can have some evil cleric come back and resurrect the BBEG and now he's *really* angry. You have to admit that element of randomness into your games. You must looooove the randomness.

This is the whole reason why fights where the whole party gangs up on one monster are very "swingy." I used to construct adventures like that when I was younger but later on I learned that it is generally much more satisfying to have the PCs fight a bunch of foes at once. This is something that the designers of 4E seem to understand, too ("one monster for each PC, instead of one monster for 4 PCs").

In response to your first point about Hercules -- the reason Hercules always survives is that he is the only central character in his legend. Hercules dying is the equivalent of a fictional TPK. A better D&D~fiction model is some series of books that features a *team* of characters, like the Iliad, or Lord of the Rings or Band of Brothers. A few of the heroes can die, and the story continues. If you're running a 1 player-1 DM game, then yes, save-or-die is probably a bad idea. But if you're running a game with a bunch of players, then what is more dramatic than seeing your friend horribly cut down in front of you! *sob* And then you can avenge them and, if you're playing a Berserker in Iron Heroes, you can get a bunch of Rage Tokens and scream "Nooooo!" and... you get the idea.

So, in short: there's no real comparison between D&D and heroic fantasy which is centered around one solitary dude. There is a more valid comparison between D&D and heroic fantasy which is about a *team* of people. And frankly, just like the way I like my D&D, I prefer fictional series where the characters are mortal and fallible and die occasionally (even at inappropriate and shocking times -- "Oh my god! A sniper with Finger of Death just took Raoul's head off!"), rather than series where, at Book 80, the same guy from Book 1 is still "narrowly" outwitting danger. *snore* @_@ I'm going to have to part ways with a lot of people here by saying this, but -- I play D&D for fantasy adventure, not necessarily heroic fantasy. Sometimes heroic fantasy, yes, but sometimes just chaos and bloodshed and grittiness and mayhem. Mmm. That's what I like. And yes, I'd still much rather play D&D than Warhammer FRPG, all other things being equal.
 
Last edited:

Doug McCrae said:
It's a good thing. If every boss fight plays out the same way that's both boring and lacking in verisimilitude.

I hate the rules of story. Story = predictable. I loved the ending of the first Tim Burton Batman movie where we're expecting a lengthy fight against the BBEG, the Joker. Instead he goes down in about 3 seconds. It's good because it's a surprise. Most movie BBEGs have to be killed 17 times before the fight's over.

I agree.
 

Plane Sailing said:
In 4e, do we want the DM to say "He casts destruction on you (rolls) and beats your Fort defence so you die"?

This is why I don't like the elimination of Saving Throws... but it could work, particularly if they have some kind of "action points" thing, or feat, to give players a straw to cling to. I wouldn't mind that. Like, for instance, whenever you raise a level you get a "fate point" which you can spend to automatically avoid any one attack, or to make them less effective, you could use it to force your opponent to reroll. Obviously this is getting very different from existing D&D, but so is lots of stuff in 4th edition.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top