Players, DMs and Save or Die

[Plane Sailing]

I thought there were going to be action points in 4e. One can infer a function allowing a PC to spend an AP to boost a defense. Not that hard.

UA style action points? SWSE style action points? Eberron style action points?

All different implementations.

Conan style fate points? Spycraft style action dice?

All different implementations.

Try to engage in constructive discussion rather than just attempting to be dismissive.

Thanks

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Sorry that hyperbole didn't work for you. I'll put it more simply.

Just like an adventuring party won't always bust out their big guns straight away if they are not sure about the level of threat they are facing and what is coming next, so the BBEG shouldn't always bust out their big guns straight away if they are not sure about the level of threat they are facing or what might be coming next later on that day.

 

[gizmo33]

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.

Is the "pro-save-or-die" crowd always saying that? I would think this comes down to a matter of play style. Some people are willing to deal with a greater amount of uncertainty in their games than others. Those folks who really rely on novel/story like constructs like "climax" and such AFAICT are somewhat uncomfortable when random dice rolls are effecting parts of the game in ways they don't like. I think that's the core difference that I see and AFAICT/IMO your statement is overstating the general opinion as I see it.

I think there are too many variables to be sure about the rest of your post. What the BBEG knows/doesn't know should depend on the circumstances. Whether or not a BBEG reacts with a scorched earth-style response also seems highly variable. And I would think his expectations about "another group of heroes" is also dependant on the circumstances. All of this IMO is dependant on very widely differing circumstances and so I don't think there's much use in constructing a conclusion from it.

 

[Celebrim]

I find it really hard to fit myself into the confines of that poll.

I'm nominally 'pro save or die', but really by that I mean that I am 'pro save or face condition', and 'dead' is a condition and hense a potentially valid possibility IMO. It also fits the source material. There are times when you want 'Lord Voldemort' to throw out the killing curse. Save or die is a valid literary effect, because die is a valid literary effect. The saving throw just makes it more gamable.

But at the same time I'm not a fan of saving throws, because they make for two many unexpected stupid deaths. This includes not just 'save or die', but things like 'save or be turned to stone' or 'save or by turned into a rabbit' or even 'save or lose a level' when the players don't have the resources to deal with those problems yet. It also includes things like 'save or be paralyzed' when said character is likely to immediately by coup de graced if he fails. It also often includes things like, 'Save or take 2d12 Con damage'.

So, while I'm 'pro save or die' just like I'm pro energy drain and I'm pro ability damage and even in limited cases pro maiming and all sorts of other nastiness, that doesn't mean that I don't think that the exisiting rules don't need some work.

So what I really am is 'pro hypothetical save or die' but not 'pro current save or die'. I'm sympathetic to the character that says, "I hate save or die.", because I've been there. In fact as a player, I'm infamous as the guy who never ever ever passes a saving throw. I'm sure I've done it on occasion, but it doesn't really stand out for all the 'save or go permenantly insane' (failed), 'save or lose CON permanently' (failed), 'save or be blasted by the fireball' (failed), 'save or be fried by the blue dragon' (failed), that I've gone through as a player, all of which under the circumstances amounted to 'save or die'.

 

[Remathilis]

I think a lot of it also comes down to two different world views of what a Player Character is: Avatar or Personality. (both terms are artificial, definitions below).

Avatars (like those in 2nd life) are just stand ins for the PCs. They may look or act like a dwarf or a wizard, but they are just pawns for what that specific player would do if he were an dwarf or a wizard. This is a very gamist approach: PCs (as avatars) don't have any function beyond representing the PC so they can be very disposable (sometimes literally replaced with a slightly renamed version of the same avatar). This game also tends to favor a high amount of puzzle solving and clue-gathering that rewards astute PLAYERS, not their avatars.

Personalities, on the other hand, are living breathing characters. They have unique goals, thoughts, and motivations that (aside from player as author) would differ from "what I'd do if I was in that situation". They can be brave or craven, good or evil. Often, they write themselves as living, breathing characters. The world is much more simulationist: storyline, character development, and interaction rule the day. Death is truly monumental (since that is the end of the unique personality) and often many layers of house rules stand before him and Final Death.

This is not binary, its a slide scale. Most D&D (and even default D&D) shoots for something in between an avatar and a personality. However, each group (and each player) leans more to one side or the other. Without polling, I'm sure you can figure out which side you lean closer to (and I'm not quite sure what a "true neutral" would look like, so lets ignore it for now).

However, D&D's default set of beliefs work on the same slide-scale. Basic, OD&D, and 1e all leaned on the "PC as Avatar" model and created some truly amazing gaming (the ultimate Avatar module: Tomb of Horrors). 2nd edition (despite its rule-flaws) leaned heavier on Personalities and ushered in the era of great characters like Drizzt, Strahd, Soth, etc. 3rd tried to tow both lines and kinda failed at each. 4e seems to shift again to Personalities with a greater emphasis on longer stories (30 levels, no more 15 min workday) and character survival (more hp, scaling AC, no SoD). This, I think, is why lots of DMs (who continue to echo the 1e avatar ethic) are dismayed by the emphasis on PC survival and Personalities-styled DMs are overjoyed by it.

Pretty much, its different game styles, but the shift in the rules is causing a major paragon shift beyond rolling your own save or changes to devils. Its changing how the role of the PC in the world.

 

[gizmo33]

because die is a valid literary effect. The saving throw just makes it more gamable.

What's "valid literary effect" mean? What's "gameable" mean in this context?

 

[gizmo33]

I think a lot of it also comes down to two different world views of what a Player Character is: Avatar or Personality.

I don't see idea of a "Personality" style game as being inconsistent with PC death, although it may work out that way in terms of people's general preferences. The problem I have with the "story driven" gaming style is what's deplayed here IMO, which is that somehow being a character means you can't get killed.

Why does "having a personality" (instead of being an avatar) make it worse to get killed than when you're an avatar? Novels have characters getting killed, sometimes very early in the story. If you get killed during the adventure, think of your character as Boromir. It doesn't mean that you should start playing in the avatar style. It means that you can make up another character who joins later (like Faramir) and continues the adventure.

I prefer to play "personalities" rather than "avatars" and yet I still think PC death should be part of the game. I don't find the two to be in conflict, and the one doesn't reduce the other.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Besides, I can bring the surprise without mechanical support - if I want a surprise, I can make a "boss" who, despite having an important role in the campaign, is an incompetent fighter.

Age of Worms Spoilers:

Spoiler

At the end of the Age of Worms, prince Zeech challenges a PC to a duel for control of Redhand. He's technically the "final boss", but he's pretty much not a challenge at all, more a plot device in the epilogue to the real climax.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Well, part of the problem with that is that published adventures, supplements, and the like will use them if they're available, as is the case in 3E. So if you don't like them, it's harder to get rid of them. I've suggested that save-or-die be non-standard, and that any spell with the [Death] descriptor have a standard save-or-penalty effect that can easily be replaced with save-or-die if you've flipped on that particular switch in your campaign.

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.

I agree with everything here, except the suggestion that save-or-die is a good addition. If my character dies, it should be because I did something stupid, or we took on a challenge that was too big for us, or despite our best efforts things went south due to bad die rolls. It shouldn't be because I happened to enter a room with a bodak.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Why does "having a personality" (instead of being an avatar) make it worse to get killed than when you're an avatar? Novels have characters getting killed, sometimes very early in the story. If you get killed during the adventure, think of your character as Boromir. It doesn't mean that you should start playing in the avatar style. It means that you can make up another character who joins later (like Faramir) and continues the adventure.

If a character dies at a dramatically appropriate juncture, sacrificing himself in a way that's heroic and awesome (and in Boromir's case, redemptive), then that's fine. In fact, it can make for some of the best scenes around.

Character death happens sometimes in a personality-driven game - it happens when the player decides it's worth risking his character's life for something, worth taking the drama to that next level, or perhaps even worth deliberately sacrificing himself for the party.

But what if Boromir had gotten killed by some random goblin in Moria, achieving nothing and leaving his storyline unresolved? What if Frodo or Aragorn got killed at Amon-Hen, instead?