Players, DMs and Save or Die

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Right. And my question is, given that, with regards to certain crucial encounters (bodaks, BBEGs, etc.), players are to be expected to do their research so that they know what they're facing, isn't it reasonable to assume that BBEGs are doing the same thing WRT their own enemies? If they do, then they do, in fact, know the level of threat. I also suggest that they will tend to believe that the PCs are the only threats that they will have to face that day, unless they get two or three adventuring groups attacking their evil strongholds each day.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Is the "pro-save-or-die" crowd always saying that?

That is their response in the other save-or-die thread to complaints about the automatic lethality of the bodak: that the PCs should have researched that enemy so that they know to have Death Ward active, for example. They hedged this position by mentioning that the bodak shouldn't be some kind of wandering monster, but a creature which you can, in fact, learn about the presence of beforehand, so that preparation is possible.

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.

My point is simply that if the onus to deal with SoD effects is on the PCs and their preparation or lack thereof, then BBEGs should be taking similar preparations, including researching possible threats. However, having researched those threats (i.e. the PCs), they will know that having a pile of SoD spells, plus perhaps some debuffs and dispels to ensure that the SoDs work, is totally reasonable.

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.

I'm arguing from the BBEG's perception of the likelihood of future threats. If he believes that the heart of his carefully-crafted evil organization (i.e. him) is at lethal risk from a credible threat, it would be irrational to hold back, even if there was an outside chance of another threat later. And if the PCs are the first to violate his sanctum, or even if they're not the first, but an invasion is a fairly rare event, he's not going to perceive the risk of another attack before he can recover his spent resources as a significant one.

I don't think that it's believable to suggest that a BBEG would not use SoDs because he can't gauge the threat the PCs bring, and might face more challenges later that day, so I don't think it's a good argument for the inclusion of SoDs, which is how it's being presented.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

That is their response in the other save-or-die thread to complaints about the automatic lethality of the bodak: that the PCs should have researched that enemy so that they know to have Death Ward active, for example. They hedged this position by mentioning that the bodak shouldn't be some kind of wandering monster, but a creature which you can, in fact, learn about the presence of beforehand, so that preparation is possible.

Damn, I'm a crowd? Now that's a surefire way to make me stop garfing down those M&Ms and pretzels! (Kidding, obviously...it'll take a lot more to make me stop THAT. )

My point is simply that if the onus to deal with SoD effects is on the PCs and their preparation or lack thereof, then BBEGs should be taking similar preparations, including researching possible threats. However, having researched those threats (i.e. the PCs), they will know that having a pile of SoD spells, plus perhaps some debuffs and dispels to ensure that the SoDs work, is totally reasonable.

Agreed. If we're dealing with something with a reasonable intelligence, and the means to do some research about those pesky adventurers before they crash his lair, this should be a given. And even if it's just a way to Detect Magic on them to detect ongoing spell effects while they still clean out the moathouse, and slot a Greater Dispel into that empty spell slot from this morning, so that subsequent damage spells face less resistance and the meatshields with pointy sticks are less brawny.

I'm arguing from the BBEG's perception of the likelihood of future threats. If he believes that the heart of his carefully-crafted evil organization (i.e. him) is at lethal risk from a credible threat, it would be irrational to hold back, even if there was an outside chance of another threat later. And if the PCs are the first to violate his sanctum, or even if they're not the first, but an invasion is a fairly rare event, he's not going to perceive the risk of another attack before he can recover his spent resources as a significant one.

Got to agree with you again. Something like a cultist leader or a master vampire of an area who had underlings and outlying cells clash with the adventurers before, and get eliminated, would definitely check out that threat, try to eliminate them as soon as possible, and break out the big guns if they come too close for personal comfort. At least if there are no story-specific constraints on him ("I CAN'T let loose with my 5th level spells, all the slots are tied up in this damn once-every-millenium ritual those pesky adventurers are disturbing right now!")

 

[gizmo33]

That is their response in the other save-or-die thread to complaints about the automatic lethality of the bodak: that the PCs should have researched that enemy so that they know to have Death Ward active, for example. They hedged this position by mentioning that the bodak shouldn't be some kind of wandering monster, but a creature which you can, in fact, learn about the presence of beforehand, so that preparation is possible.

Well, I'm probably in a kind of "pro save-or-die" camp but I would not go as far as this, so I find this argument unconvincing (as you do also AFAICT) (edit: to be clear, by "argument" I mean the one about the bodaks that you're objecting to, not the one you're making). In any case, just spot reading this thread I find the justification for save-or-die other than what's given here.

I don't think that it's believable to suggest that a BBEG would not use SoDs because he can't gauge the threat the PCs bring, and might face more challenges later that day, so I don't think it's a good argument for the inclusion of SoDs, which is how it's being presented.

I think I must have misunderstood your post. I happen to agree with what you've written here.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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

I believe that argument is a poor justification for SoD. Anthtriel delivers what I think is a killer blow in post #69 of this thread - it can be used to justify absolutely anything.

You could say that a class with a d20 for hit points, full BAB, spellcasting like a wizard and no drawbacks is fine because a good DM will see that it is unbalanced and introduce in-game penalties for all PCS of that class.

The 'good DM' defence is no defence at all.

 

[Celebrim]

What's "valid literary effect" mean?

It means that sometimes in stories, characters just drop dead. I think that they do this because they tend to do that even more often in the real world were events seldom tie up into tidy little narratives with rising and falling actions, and epiphanies and climaxs in all the right places. Sometimes characters just die in both literature and the real world, so it seems reasonable that there be a chance that a character just dies in a game.

What's "gameable" mean in this context?

It means that no one is fully in control of the narrative, and things don't happen to player characters just because. Things that are gamable don't have predictable or fixed outcomes. (This played a big role in the pilot to DS9 IIRC.) In stories magic often doesn't have a saving throw. There is generally no hint that the magic can fail. It just happens, and the character escapes it if he or she does usually through the power of plot and not any hint that there is chance the magic might fail under normal circumstances. Saving throws are a way to keep the narrative somewhat outside of any player's control, especially when it comes to things that happen to another player's character. It resolves a variation on the argument: "Kid #1: I shot you. Kid #2: No you didn't, you missed."

 

[gizmo33]

It means that sometimes in stories, characters just drop dead.

I think I see what you're saying. Is there any possible effect in an RPG that isn't "valid literary"? I guess that's somewhat beside the point of the thread, but it's often a perpsective that I don't understand on what people say who approach the issue from the "SoD makes for a bad story" perspective (I'm not saying that's your perspective).

In stories magic often doesn't have a saving throw. There is generally no hint that the magic can fail.

Although it is a generalization I more or less agree with you. The problem I have with most fantasy literature that I've read (from the perspective of making something of it for DnD purposes) is that magic usually is happening at the periphery of the reader's perspective.

Conan, though, has examples of places where the author is saying "if Conan were a lesser mortal, he would have succumbed to the hypnotism, but years of growing up in the sticks gave him superhuman will..." or something to that effect. Frodo and his struggle against the Ring is probably another example.

I don't think of saving throws as being at the top of my list of things that aren't in literature. IMO they are there moreso than other DnDisms. I'm not in the "RPGs should be a literature simulator" camp anyway, so I don't worry about it too much.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I believe that argument is a poor justification for SoD. Anthtriel delivers what I think is a killer blow in post #69 of this thread - it can be used to justify absolutely anything.

You could say that a class with a d20 for hit points, full BAB, spellcasting like a wizard and no drawbacks is fine because a good DM will see that it is unbalanced and introduce in-game penalties for all PCS of that class.

The 'good DM' defence is no defence at all.

That isn't a justification for save-or-die effects, that's one way how you can handle them to ensure the characters have more than one saving throw standing between them and a quick death. It offers more information about the monster to the DM, and at the same time gives the "knowledge" characters in the group to flex their minds before the fighters flex their muscles. It makes such a monster special, and gives it more flavour than just "dungeon fodder". It's not a "good DM defense", rather it's a "good monster design" defense. And an example where the often flaunted "fluff as limitation" worked better than slapping a CR on a monster. Not everything works like that, but neither does every "mechanics only" attempt.

 

[RFisher]

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.

Yeah. In truth, my change on the "save or die" issue is more about when I play a PC than when I DM. It's my job as a player be wary of potentially instantly fatal situations & take precautions. If I don't, then I have to accept the consequences, be it my character's death or a less final setback. If I happen to be allowed a saving throw, & if I happen to make it, then I should count my lucky stars, learn my lesson, & do better next time.

& sometimes even when you're doing your best to be careful, you still might die. Because adventuring is a dangerous business. I know that going in. Sometimes you aren't the hero. Sometimes you're the guy who dies & doesn't get a story written about him. It's those PCs that fail (granting that death is only one of a myriad range of failures) that give me a sense of accomplishment when I end up with a PC who does become a hero.

& yes, there are other possible setbacks, but I like death--even instant death--being one of them. It feels like cheating when my PC lives through something that should have rightfully killed him. Making a saving throw at least makes it feel a bit less like cheating.

None of which is meant to say that the way I play the game is "correct". I'm just explaining why I've come to like "save or die". & while I'll enjoy 4e less if it doesn't have it or a close analog.

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?

Yes! Absolutely!

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).

Very nice post, Remathilis.

 

[Remathilis]

Very nice post, Remathilis.

Thanks!

Idea was to differentiate the two roles of a PC: monopoly token and literary character. Every PC is both in more-or-less quantities. However, the how the game (and hence the rules) view the PC's role is very different. Avatar's are the gamist element of the PC, Personalities the other.

Personalities aren't death-proof little ego-children of wannabe drama students, but they are approached in much the same way an author approaches a protagonist of the novel. The player wishes to see what that character would do in these situation. He wants the PC to be a hero or a villain, fall in love, save a kingdom, fall from grace and/or redeem his sin. Its how that PCs interacts in the world (be it with other PCs, NPCs, monsters, villains, etc) that define him, not his AC or hp.

Avatar's are more or less the sum of their character sheets. They are stats, nothing more. They are easily replaced, mourned for no length of time, and rarely more interesting than the one or two defining traits their race/class combo gives. They advance in levels, get new items, and mechanically improve. Its the Player's wits, luck, and talent that define the avatar. He is just the stand-in for the Player.

Since each player and each PC is a mix of these, it comes down to HOW MUCH you mix. I prefer a mostly personality-driven game, with Avatar elements to keep the game from becoming purely mellowdrama. Others, might prefer a more avatar-based game where PCs have some personalty and goals, but doesn't lament his death in the Tomb of Horrors. Each mixes something different. However, I'm pretty sure the game paragrim on a whole is shifting from "Avatar" to "Personality" and has been since 1e's twilight years. Certainly, WotC seems to be taking that shift beginning in 3e (more or less) and really ramping it up in 4e.