Players, DMs and Save or Die

[Ahglock]

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

Dude, no that was an integral part of my adventure I totally can't roll with you doing something I didn't script out. And my notes clearly say the next encounter is with a Bodak.

 

[FireLance]

Okay, I've seen two votes from pro-SoD people for "The PCs should never have to save or die unless they want to." Basically, they think that save-or-die should only be for big challenges that the PCs can face if they want to, but don't have to face.

Just to clarify: I'm not pro-save or die, just not anti-save or die. I can see why some people might find it attractive, and I can see how I might use it in one of my games, but that doesn't mean I'm eager to use it, or that I will actually ever use it at all. Every edition of D&D has had monsters and abilities that I have never encountered as a player or used as a DM, some because they didn't suit my group's style of play, and others because they didn't seem appropriate to whatever game I was playing or running at the time. I wouldn't lobby for the inclusion of such monsters and abilities, but I wouldn't lobby for their exclusion, either.

1. As a DM, if I want to put an optional challenge in the game that has a good chance of killing some PCs, I don't need an extremely flawed mechanic to do it. There are many different ways I can build a challenging and fun encounter without using abilities that make a PCs life or death come down to a single roll of the d20. Save-or-die is not a necessary component of a "great risk for great reward" scenario, and I don't think that the potential for its use in such a scenario is worth all the problems it causes in other areas of the game.

To be frank, I would only use save or die when I want to subtly discourage the players from pursuing a course of action or as a punishment consequence for bad decisions. And if it causes problems elsewhere, then don't use it elsewhere. I do recognize that inexperienced DMs could have a game session turn sour due to underestimating the effect of save or die, so I fully support the idea of warning labels/DM advice sidebars on the possible consequences of save or die abilities.

3. This does nothing to address the issue of the players using save-or-die spells against enemies, which in my experience can also be a problem. It can turn an important encounter into an anticlimax (and while encounters are a dime a dozen in D&D, important encounters aren't), and it contributes to the problem of casters dominating the game at high levels ("Gee, the wizard one-shotted the enemy in the first round. Again.")

Taking this slightly out of order because it leads into the next point. Yes, it is a problem, but this can be fixed by having save or die effects work only on mooks or otherwise less powerful foes, e.g. those 5 or more levels below the caster's character level (or caster level, if it is lower than character level). This will mean that the PCs will be unable to affect most BBEGs with their save or die spells, while still allowing them the chance to get rid of the lieutenants in a single round.

2. The idea that SoD should be for optional challenges only means that I can never use high-level wizards or clerics (along with several monsters, such as the iconic beholder) as villains who the PCs must face. Or, alternatively, I have to metagame and have the wizards and clerics choose less than optimal spells to use against the PCs. Neither of those options is particularly appealing to me. If I want a high-level wizard as the BBEG in my campaign, I should be able to have a high-level wizard as the BBEG in my campaign.

So, building on my previous point, perhaps by the time the beholder or high level spellcaster BBEG encounters the PCs, the PCs are high level enough that his save or die effect can't kill them outright. Perhaps it will have some lesser effect, such as halving their hit points, or moving them down the condition track, or requiring more time to take effect, etc.

 

[Ahglock]

I do recognize that inexperienced DMs could have a game session turn sour due to underestimating the effect of save or die, so I fully support the idea of warning labels/DM advice sidebars on the possible consequences of save or die abilities.

I always dug the hero systems magnifying glass and stop sign method.

Magnifying glass this: Take a second look at this it can have unintended effects on your game.

Stop Sign: Yeah this is easily broken watch out, even at its most basic level this can screw with your game.

Paraphrased of coerce, I'm too lazy to get up and walk 10' to the shelf the game is on to find the actual way it is phrased.

 

[pemerton]

You live under the threat of death right now. You may not be running around and crying oh god no I might die, but guess what eventually you will die, your friends and family will die as well. You know this, we all know this, its part of life, eventually you die. For me the threat of death has to exist in the game or it loses to much touch with life.

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?

What Grog said. And, as I noted in my earlier post, it is not the threat of death that give me emotional involvement in my life, nor in most of the fictional material I read or view.

And to bring this into the context of the game: I don't think those who object to "save-or-die" necessarily object to aging rules for PCs. Those are quite a different matter.

 

[pemerton]

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

Agreed.

To those who say that it is the players who choose to confront save-or-die, because it is the players who choose which encounters their PCs will take up and which they will avoid, I have two questions:

*Would you agree that this is a somewhat untypical mode of play - that with most groups, the players turn up to the session expecting to play an adventure, which they are expecting the GM to have prepared for them (whether from scratch, or from a published module)?

If this is so, then the players really can't choose to have their PCs avoid the encounter unless they (the players) also choose to avoid the game for the evening.

*Even if we think only about the sort of game (eg a classic Gygaxian dungeon crawl) in which the players do have primary responsibility for choosing which encounters their PCs take up, the world is typically also a dynamic one - for example, if the players retreat from an encounter, there is a chance they will be pursued. Given that much of the in-game cause-and-effect here is governed not by the game mechanics but by the GM's own decision-making, how is it then possible to claim that the players get to choose whether or not their PCs encounter save-or die effects.

For example, suppose the "boss" of the dungeon is a 13th level Cleric. What stops the GM deciding that she casts Divination to find the location of the PCs, then goes to that location and casts Destruction on one of them?​

 

[Jhulae]

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

That's exactly right, because Bodaks (and similar) don't *ever* show up as random encount... oh, wait..

 

[FireLance]

Would you agree that this is a somewhat untypical mode of play - that with most groups, the players turn up to the session expecting to play an adventure, which they are expecting the GM to have prepared for them (whether from scratch, or from a published module)?

If this is so, then the players really can't choose to have their PCs avoid the encounter unless they (the players) also choose to avoid the game for the evening.

Only if every encounter is save or die, or if the adventure is basically linear and the PCs are required to face each encounter in turn (and the bodak is encounter #4).

I've never played in or run the former type of game, and while I've both played in and run the latter, most if not all of the encounters did not feature save or die abilities.

Even if we think only about the sort of game (eg a classic Gygaxian dungeon crawl) in which the players do have primary responsibility for choosing which encounters their PCs take up, the world is typically also a dynamic one - for example, if the players retreat from an encounter, there is a chance they will be pursued. Given that much of the in-game cause-and-effect here is governed not by the game mechanics but by the GM's own decision-making, how is it then possible to claim that the players get to choose whether or not their PCs encounter save-or die effects.

For example, suppose the "boss" of the dungeon is a 13th level Cleric. What stops the GM deciding that she casts Divination to find the location of the PCs, then goes to that location and casts Destruction on one of them?

Nothing, but nothing forces the DM to do that either. The DM is free to decide what action the 13th level cleric will take (attacking the PCs himself, sending called creatures, minions or a lieutenant to do the job, simply replenishing the guards, etc.) on the basis of what is going to make the game session more interesting and fun.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem here is you, not the lack of PC death. You're continuing to play in a game which is unsuited to your preferences. What you should be doing is:

1. Quit.

Oh, I absolutely agree. In reality, I'd be gone in a flash...unless, of course, I wanted to be a bit nastier and show up the folly of the never-die style by pushing the limits and getting away with stuff I shouldn't.

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?

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

Play. Two. Characters. And hire henchmen for each.

Then, keep them somewhat separated, so what affects the one is less likely to affect the other.

And, if you find your DM has a really bad case of bloodlust, ask that the character-generation rules be streamlined a bit for that game...

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

Only if every encounter is save or die, or if the adventure is basically linear and the PCs are required to face each encounter in turn (and the bodak is encounter #4).

I've never played in or run the former type of game, and while I've both played in and run the latter, most if not all of the encounters did not feature save or die abilities.

But (if I've understood you right) in such a game the players don't get to choose not to have their PCs face the save-or-die attack, because they are required to face each encounter (including that encounter) in turn.

If that is true, then for a rather widespread play-style the "player choice" defence of save-or-die does not work.

The DM is free to decide what action the 13th level cleric will take (attacking the PCs himself, sending called creatures, minions or a lieutenant to do the job, simply replenishing the guards, etc.) on the basis of what is going to make the game session more interesting and fun.

Agreed. But that does, to me, suggest that it is not the players' who are choosing whether or not their PCs will encounter a save-or-die threat.

So (if I've understood you right) both in typical module play, and in Gygaxian dungeon crawl play, the players do not get to choose whether or not their PCs face save-or-die threats. If this is corrrect, then I don't understand the "player choice" defence of save-or-die.

 

[pemerton]

Play. Two. Characters. And hire henchmen for each.

Which is to say that save-or-die doesn't work as well in games that take a non-1st ed AD&D approach to play.

If 4e were to abolish them, then, it would be fully consistent with the general trend of published D&D, over the past 25 years, away from that playstyle.