Players, DMs and Save or Die

[RFisher]

For those of you who are using save-or-die spells, at what point in the encounter do you bust out that spell?

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".

But there's still the question of what fair warning is. Going up against a high-level spell caster in a world in which high-level spell casters have may have access to instant death spells... It's fair to use those spells in the first round--or during the surprise round. Depending on the players, I might want to mention early on, however, that their characters would know of that possibility.

There are definitely gray areas. Luckily my players give be the benefit of the doubt & will forgive me when I'm not perfect.

I find that having things in the world that can side-step hit points & cause instant death makes the game-world feel more like the mythic/legendary/literary worlds we're trying to emulate and makes the strategies more interesting.

 

[hong]

*shrug* It's deadly game, man! :/

It is?

 

[hong]

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.

In other words, you want to limit the potential for anticlimax to climactic encounters?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

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

You know, I'm not sure I've ever seen the word "verisimilitude" used in a gaming context without it referencing everything I dislike in an RPG.

The trend continues here.

If every boss fight plays out the same way because there's only one mechanic for removing participants from an encounter, that's the fault of the encounter design, not the game design. Somehow, despite pretty much every major boss being immune to status effects, Final Fantasy Tactics managed to make each one a unique fight interesting unto itself, with a lot fewer variables to play around with than D&D.

Again, if module writers and individual GMs need multiple mechanics for participant elimination, that's an encounter design issue, not a game design one. The solution is better encounters in published modules (IH-like Zones go a LONG way toward this) and better advice and examples for GMs who want to design their own - not anticlimactic game mechanics.

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.

And the final fight between Neo and Agent Smith in the original Matrix is good because it's AWESOME. The final fight between Vader and Luke in Return of the Jedi is good because it's AWESOME. The final fight between Cloud and Sephiroth in Advent Children is good because it's AWESOME. I'd rather bring the awesome every boss fight I can than every once in a while bring the surprise.

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. When the PCs finally pierce his webs of deception and get to him, expecting a climactic encounter - they roll over him instead. And it's cool, because they'll get the climaxes elsewhere and this is one where they can look back at the trail of destruction this boss allegedly wrought and see how he fooled them.

Then when they DO encounter a climactic encounter, it can bring the awesome as needed.

 

[Psion]

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.

This is a central tenet in my GMing philosophy. Or, as I generally put it:
"Don't roll the dice unless you are willing to pay the price."

This informs my stance on fudging. If you don't want someone to fail a roll, why make them roll it?

More germane to the topic at hand, I used to recall how people hated traps with death poison on them in older editions. The only thing I could think is if you didn't want a chance for a player to die, why would you put the deadly trap in?

This further extends to things like climactic battles. If the party loses, what happens? Are you willing to accept that. Or rather, if it's a possibility, what are you going to do to make that outome fun and interesting?

 

[Psion]

In other words, you want to limit the potential for anticlimax to climactic encounters?

I'm going to pretend this is a real attempt at discussion instead of just hong brand snark. I disagree that PC death is necessarily anticlimactic. Quite the contrary. It can be an extremely dramatic event. And death effects, doubly so. The presence of a character creature who you know can snuff your character's life out at any moment adds a palpable feeling of dread to a final encounter.

Now deploying save or die effects before dramatic juncture does fit the proper definition of anticlimactic. Being killed by a throwaway encounter with no great relevance to the ongoing narrative is, indeed, anticlimactic.

 

[hong]

I'm going to pretend this is a real attempt at discussion instead of just hong brand snark. I disagree that PC death is necessarily anticlimactic.

Nobody said anything about _PC_ death.

 

[Psion]

Nobody said anything about _PC_ death.

So is that to say then you simply don't want death effects in the hands of PCs? The "one round BBEG kill" is unacceptable to you?

I remember developing a disdain for the quick kills myself, but that usually stemmed from concentrated PC firepower and bad luck on the part of the villain in my games more than I've ever seen it result from death effects from PCs.

 

[hong]

So is that to say then you simply don't want death effects in the hands of PCs? The "one round BBEG kill" is unacceptable to you?

Except for teh funny. Everything is acceptable for teh funny.

I remember developing a disdain for the quick kills myself

Exactly.

 

[WarlockLord]

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

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.