Players, DMs and Save or Die

[Geron Raveneye]

Thanks Nifft..is pretty insightful, and a nice and easy to remember system. Funny, it overlaps with an idea I had about Fate and Luck points, with Fate points essentially granting a character an automatic success on one action they wanted to attempt, and Luck points either adding 1d6 to one roll (for a "little bit" of luck) or allowing a reroll that you can take instead of the first roll. Characters would get 1 Fate point for a level (and only 1 at any time), and 1d6 Luck points that refresh per game session.

I really like Karma/Void mechanics, as well as the Swashbuckler Cards, in case that wasn't obvious.

 

[Nifft]

The reason my Fate Points work for my game (and might not for another game) is mainly the acquisition mechanism. Basically, it's balanced because my players are busy.

So I wanted to reward them for paying attention to the game (because it's tough), and I figured that no-one would have enough spare time to stockpile fate. It's worked out pretty well, and it allows the players to effectively decide when their PCs die, but they still have to be careful managing their finite resource. And when they go to refill that resource, they contribute to the meta-game.

We don't use Action Points, but if we did, I'd probably change how Fate points worked -- "Not Dead Yet" would stay, "Use the Force" would go (that'd be an Action point), not sure exactly what else would stay or go.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Jhulae]

I get to the game all ready to play, along with the other three players.

If the DM says, "Okay, everybody roll a d20. Jhulae and player 2, you need to get over a 10. Player 3, you need to get over a 15. Player 4, you need to get over a 7. Any player who doesn't make their roll can't play today", the DM would have very angry players. Why do we have to roll to be able to play? What kind of arbitrary crap is that?

It's no different from having all four PCs suddenly come upon a Bodak or similar SoD creature. If the player doesn't roll high enough, they can't play for however long it takes to obtain a raise or get a new PC into the party, which in all honest, could be the whole session at least.

That's what makes SoD harsh and arbitrary compared to almost every other mechanic where it takes multiple die rolls to kill off PCs.

 

[hong]

If you think DMs need a rule to establish an enjoyable gaming session, then I don't think there is much use in having this conversation.

More to the point, its pretty irrelevant. You've morphed the discussion from the question of save or die to the question of save or die as it is implemented in a particular edition of the game.

To be precise, the context is save-or-die as implemented in the most recent edition of D&D. Which is the edition and the game that most people in this thread are playing, and is the implicit reference point for comparisons to any putative future edition of D&D. Nobody cares about save-or-die as implemented in GURPS.

It's worth noting that in 1st edition, the opposite was largely true. Because the DC's of saving throws largely didn't scale, the higher level you reached the less threat any particular 'save or die' situation represented and the more secure you could be. Since even ordinary poison was a 'save or die' situation in 1st edition, the number of save or die situations didn't really increase over time either.

This would be interesting if most people played or wanted to play 1E.

Or in other words, one can believe that 'save or die' is a problem in the current edition, without believing that the problem is 'save or die' itself.

This is getting needlessly platonic.

 

[hong]

Of course, "the PCs should never have to face an encounter unless they want to" is my stance on a nest of goblins as well. Players choose what they do isn't just for "big challenges".

Obviously, we shouldn't have goblins in the game.

Well, yes. This is why I started my last game at 9th level.

 

[hong]

IMHO?

Never.

Assuming that the player knows that there is something with a potential SoD effect in a given area, the DM should never force the players to take their characters into that area. The players ought to be making choices, including what level of risk they are willing to undertake, and how they will use their resources to best ameliorate that risk. If they face something that they know has a SoD up its sleeve, then they should either decide to use magic to counter it, or to take their chances.

... or you could just ban instakills. Seems to save an awful lot of trouble and futzing around with rock-paper-scissors balancing mechanics.

It is not a matter of the characters having to make the save; it is a matter of the characters choosing to make the save (or choosing to be in a situation where such an occurance is inevitable or nearly so).

"I choose not to go on this adventure. Let's play SimMoistureFarmer!"

 

[KarinsDad]

I get to the game all ready to play, along with the other three players.

If the DM says, "Okay, everybody roll a d20. Jhulae and player 2, you need to get over a 10. Player 3, you need to get over a 15. Player 4, you need to get over a 7. Any player who doesn't make their roll can't play today", the DM would have very angry players. Why do we have to roll to be able to play? What kind of arbitrary crap is that?

It's no different from having all four PCs suddenly come upon a Bodak or similar SoD creature. If the player doesn't roll high enough, they can't play for however long it takes to obtain a raise or get a new PC into the party, which in all honest, could be the whole session at least.

That's what makes SoD harsh and arbitrary compared to almost every other mechanic where it takes multiple die rolls to kill off PCs.

Yes, but the anti- save or die folk have already stated their case. Irrefutable logic will probably not sway them. WotC could post that save or die is arbitrary and not fun and will not be in 4E, and it still probably will not sway them.


Most of them have probably not played in a game where the DM said "Your PC is dead." with no dice rolls.

Most of them have probably not played in a game where the DM had a party of powerful good NPCs ambush in a surprise round, shoot first and ask questions later (because of behind the scene events that the PCs were not even aware of in one case, and were aware of but had no control over in the other case) and kill a PC before his initiative came up in round one (twice by two different DMs, years apart).

These examples are really significantly no different than save or die (although I am sure people will claim otherwise).

The die roll aspect of save or die is a joke because random arbitrary meaningless and unfun (due to sitting out) death happens the moment the DM pulls the save or die gun into the game. He might as well just say "Your PC is dead." The actual odds do not matter. 1%, 5%, or 80%. A PC can die and in fact, the DM decides which PC the NPC aimed for.

Death is death if the DM decides that death is going to occur. The moment he pulls in save or die, that's his decision because he has no control over the save, hence, he no longer has control over the death. At that point, it is not a challenge to be overcome like other game mechanics. It is a random potential event whose only two results are life or death.


Personally, I think save or die is the easy way for DMs to kill PCs because they cannot take out the time to think of appropriate challenges, but that's just my opinion and does not necessarily have any basis in actual fact.

 

[Remathilis]

"I choose not to go on this adventure. Let's play SimMoistureFarmer!"

"I choose not to face that bodak. Lets go on to the next room."

 

[Ahglock]

Are you seriously comparing the risk of death faced by an average person living in a civilized country with the risk of death routinely faced by characters in fantasy games and fiction?

Because if you are, um.... Wow. Don't even know where to start with that.

I'll try to explain what I meant more clearly. Death is an integral part of life, if you remove that integral part of life from the characters in the game you remove one of the core aspects of a character that you can relate to. Yes the D&D game has lots of suspension of disbelief built into it, flying dragons, magic, the HP system etc. When you remove death from the game you stretch that suspension of disbelief too far for me and I am always looking at it as just a piece of paper, and just dice, it is no longer a character to me.

 

[hong]

I'll try to explain what I meant more clearly. Death is an integral part of life, if you remove that integral part of life from the characters in the game you remove one of the core aspects of a character that you can relate to. Yes the D&D game has lots of suspension of disbelief built into it, flying dragons, magic, the HP system etc. When you remove death from the game you stretch that suspension of disbelief too far for me and I am always looking at it as just a piece of paper, and just dice, it is no longer a character to me.

This is absolutely 100% correct. For this reason, I've banned resurrection.