Players, DMs and Save or Die

[ptolemy18]

It is?

It is the way I prefer to play it, both as a player or a DM.

In the one six-year D&D3.x campaign I played in, I never managed to have the same PC survive for more than 4 (or was it 5?) levels in a row, and it was awesome. Not that I didn't want my PCs to live longer... but hey. Nothing's fun without a challenge.

 

[hong]

The more combat-centric D&D is, the deadlier D&D it should be

It should?

 

[pemerton]

*shrug* It's deadly game, man!

It is?

I'm with Hong on this one - I've never risked death RPGing, and don't plan to in the future if I can avoid it!

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.

I don't see what's wrong with players being attached to their PCs. For a lot of players, the game is all about developing that PC and using him/her as a vehicle for exploring the plot and/or themes of the gameworld.

For that sort of play, save-or-die can be terrible, because (unlike other conflict-resolution mechanics) it doesn't unfold in a way which is satisfactory for the player - ie there is no exploration of plot or theme involved in rolling a single save.

I used to dislike "save or die", but I've been convinced to look at it differently. I now tend to only use "save or die" in situations in which the PCs should be dead, & I try to ensure that PCs have fair warning. This way, it isn't a "random death"; it's a "random survival".

I think that this is the best exposition on this thread of the "fair warning" approach to save-or-die. Done that way, I think it can be used without spoiling play, because the in-game events of receiving the warning, and then acting in response to it, do permit the players to play their PCs - just the same as death through hit-point loss typically comes about in a non-deprotagonising fashion.

For this approach to be satisfactory, however, I think that acting in response to the warning has to be more interesting than just casting the appropriate buff and proceeding on one's way - having to use mirrors, for example, or fight wearing a blindfold, both of which introduce interesting tactical dimensions into the combat. Or perhaps the defence or workaround involves research or other adventuring that is interesting to actually play out.

 

[ptolemy18]

It should?

Whoops, I edited that post immediately I put it up, because I recognized the flaw in that statement... ^_^ Yes, it's true, in D&D you're *supposed* to get in fights, so the fights have to be more or less surviveable, whereas in Call of Cthulhu or Warhammer FRPG the fights are so deadly that the focus is not so fight-centric. So yes. I erred. :/ (But of course more combat DOES make it more deadly, at least for the poor monsters... )

But, anyway, my main point is -- a certain amount of random death is fine. D&D is a balance between story and randomness (i.e. losing that important NPC due to an unlucky die roll). It is a balance between character-advancement and randomness (i.e. losing your character due to an unlucky die roll).

Seeing the players destroy your carefully controlled plot with some "game-breaking" effect or random die roll is 50% of the art of DMing. The other 50% is being able to bounce back and keep the story going without railroading the players in an obvious way.

If you don't like Save-or-Dies then fine. But there ought to be some insta-bad-news mechanic that doesn't rely on hit points. "Blooded" condition, level-contingent effects (i.e. "Baleful Polymorph works on beings of 6 HD or less if the caster rolls the Fortitude Defense roll; it only works on beings of 7 HD or more if the target is blooded"), "slow death" effects, whatever. Just don't make hit points the end-all be-all of everything. Too boring. Too predictable.

 

[ptolemy18]

I don't see what's wrong with players being attached to their PCs. For a lot of players, the game is all about developing that PC and using him/her as a vehicle for exploring the plot and/or themes of the gameworld.

For that sort of play, save-or-die can be terrible, because (unlike other conflict-resolution mechanics) it doesn't unfold in a way which is satisfactory for the player - ie there is no exploration of plot or theme involved in rolling a single save.

I think that this is the best exposition on this thread of the "fair warning" approach to save-or-die. Done that way, I think it can be used without spoiling play, because the in-game events of receiving the warning, and then acting in response to it, do permit the players to play their PCs - just the same as death through hit-point loss typically comes about in a non-deprotagonising fashion.

I agree, "Fair warning" is the best way. But that comes down to DMing style -- I doubt there can be some rule in the Monster Manual saying "If you plan to use the Catoblepas, it must be surrounded by "WARNING: CATOBLEPAS" signs within a 500 foot radius."

Some DMs and players like deadlier games (I would put myself among that number), and others don't. I would personally say that save-or-dies should remain in the game for those DMs and players who like them, since save-or-dies are ultimately something that you can eliminate simply by not stocking your adventure with certain monsters and spells.

As for players being attached to PCs, I think it's good too, of course. I love all my characters and would gladly TELL YOU ABOUT MY CHARACTERS if I thought I could get away with it. But still, I'm ready to accept that they may die at any session I show up at. This, too, is a particular style of playing and DMing. I have little interest in games where there is no PC death and the same crew of PCs is "destined" to survive from 1st to 20th level. I prefer campaigns where life is cheap and unpredictable. As long as the core rulebooks provide the tools for people to run "destined heroes" campaigns AND "life is cheap and unpredictable" games, and all the gray areas in between, I'll be happy.

 

[pemerton]

I doubt there can be some rule in the Monster Manual saying "If you plan to use the Catoblepas, it must be surrounded by "WARNING: CATOBLEPAS" signs within a 500 foot radius."

Why not?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I agree, "Fair warning" is the best way. But that comes down to DMing style -- I doubt there can be some rule in the Monster Manual saying "If you plan to use the Catoblepas, it must be surrounded by "WARNING: CATOBLEPAS" signs within a 500 foot radius."

Looking at the description in the old MM, those warning signs would be something like "Roughly 500 feet ahead of you, you see a small herd of very weird animals. Massive bodies, long tails equipped with some sort of knob on the end, very long and thin necks that curve downwards to a head that is mostly under the surface of the swampy water they are grazing in. Bob, your wizard seems to have heard of such, roll for Intelligence to see if he recalls those beasts. John, same goes for your swamp ranger, but with a +2 bonus." Coupled with the basically low chance of the catoblepas to actually raise its head enough to bring the death effect into play (25% when the group is still, 10% if the group moves fast), this made the beast into a curious, odd aberration that raised more story questions than combat challenges.

Looking at the new MM2, the description is still there, but there is nothing that keeps the DM from having the catoblepas gaze around at each character. Although it says that it tends to keep its head close to the ground, it uses its Death Ray in self defense. So basically that's another beastie that has become more deadly with the new edition.

It's funny, the more I compare the older editions with the latest one, the more I see why a lot of problems that pop up in 3.X simply weren't there in that extent in older editions. Not meant as an edition war remark here, mind you, just comparing. I wonder how much of the dislikes today would have been avoided if there had been some different decisions 10 years ago regarding the design of 3E.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

The "one round BBEG kill" is unacceptable to you?

I'm a player - not a DM.

Short answer: Yes, it is unacceptable.

Long answer: There should be a climax to the story. The non-fight between Batman and The Joker mentioned above works because The Joker wasn't a fighter (at least in the movie - I won't go into the comics because I don't read much Batman). The climax wasn't the fight between the two but Batman getting to the Joker in the first place.

I see no problem with the big brawl in a campaign being with the 2nd In Command or with the big guard beastie instead of the BBEG. A one hit kill on the brains behind the Evil Plot is fine; but there should be a climax to the story - not an anti-climax.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

*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.

But even Call of Cthulhu, noted for its deadliness, doesn't have anything really approacing save or die (I suppose you could argue that seeing Cthulhu himself is a "save or go insane" since the SAN loss is 1d100, but I digress). The drama comes from the ever-increasing loss of resources/sanity, which causes a slow buildup of tension. The problem with save-or-die, in my view is that there is no drama/tension.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I can think of at least one good reason, by putting it in reverse:

A bunch of kobolds bursts in on the adventuring party. Does the wizard unleash disintegrate on one of the kobolds as his first action? Probably not, since he doesn't know how much of a threat they are yet, and he doesn't know what else is going to come up later in the day.

If the BBEG is in his throne room with his horde of demonic guards outside and the party stride in covered in demon ichor but otherwise unharmed, then sure - start with maximum effectiveness spells (although the most effective things to start with are often 'even the playing field' spells, to obscure vision or control the battlefield in some way); however, there will probably be many cases where the BBEG doesn't have as much knowledge as the DM about the PCs capabilities... and shouldn't be acting as if he does either!

Cheers

Well, given that the pro-save-or-die crowd are always telling us that SoD effects are fine because the players should have researched their enemies' capabilities, and too bad for them if they didn't, doesn't it work both ways? Shouldn't the BBEG know exactly who these guys are that just killed all his demons, and what they're capable of? Also, how many adventuring parties ever burst in on him, compared to the number of kobolds a party of adventurers might face in a day. If it's the first time it ever happened, he'll probably react with a scorched earth-style response, since he has a reasonable expectation that there won't be another group of heroes showing up that same day to undo his evil plans.