Players, DMs and Save or Die

[RFisher]

I think you could do better.

I think that if you break down what save or die is doing for your game, you will find that you can get those benefits elsewhere.

I think that the fact that dedicated DMs and decent players can avoid the pitfalls of a flawed save-or-die system is NOT a reason to keep the flawed system if a better alternative exists.

I believe better alternatives exist.

Fair enough.

The thing is, I'm at a complete loss to understand what is flawed about "save or die". I mean, I get the complaints that it can be anticlimactic, but for those of us for whom that isn't an issue...

& since I do enjoy games without "save or die", it makes me question whether eliminating it from the games I equally enjoy with it would really make anything better. In fact, making all the different games I enjoy more alike seems like less fun overall to me.

That said, I think hereafter I will be considering more interesting alternatives for "save or die" effects whenever they come up. Even if it is just making the "save or die" itself more interesting somehow.

Why do people equate taking out SoD with removing all chances of death?

Why do people equate having "save or die" with arbitrariness?

But what does this tell us about the rule itself? If it works best with a special treatment, maybe it should just not be a standard rule? Maybe the special treatment needs to be part of the rules?

I don't disagree with what you are saying.

But I think our position on "save or die" is a bit skewed by just talking about "save or die". Every aspect of the game works best when used certain ways & works badly when used other ways.

There's probably an aspect of the game that you're fine with that I've found problematic. After discussing it, I'd find your explanation of why it isn't a problem for you to be something I consider "special treatment" although it seems perfectly natural to you.

Luckily we have ENWorld to help us all understand the game better than any of us could have individually.

 

[Cadfan]

The problem with your "the CR system has already been discussed to death so I'm yawning now" defense is that the flaw isn't with the CR system per se. Its with the entire concept of selecting an appropriate level at which a character can encounter an attack which inflicts an automatic X% chance of death.

Its not the CR system itself which is incompatible with save-or-die. Its the goal which the CR system attempts to accomplish.

There are other, specific flaws we could discuss if we wanted to go on and on about it, like the way multiple monsters are sometimes worth more than the sum of their parts, etc, etc, etc. That's not the main problem. The main problem is, how do you match up party level to a monster who can inflict an X% chance of death on a chosen party member, with no other defense available to the party other than rolling well on the X% roll? You can't. It doesn't matter what X is, any answer creates problems.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The problem with your "the CR system has already been discussed to death so I'm yawning now" defense

It isn't a "defense".

Whenever you try to change someone's mind about something, the burden of proof falls upon you. I am just saying, if your goal is to change my mind, this method is unlikely to do it. CR/EL, IMHO, doesn't work well. "X doesn't work because it doesn't work with CR/EL" is therefore a non-argument. It has no "pull" with me.

I am happy to discuss why I think CR/EL doesn't work well; however, doing so here would derail this thread. Make a new one, throw me a link, and I'll swim in it like a quipper in a flooded dungeon.

If, of course, you don't care what I believe, you have no burden of proof (at least, as far as I am concerned). Which is perfectly fine. We don't have to believe the same things.

RC

EDIT: Every encounter is one in which there is an "X% chance of death", btw. That chance is only "automatic" if, as I said many times previously, you wake up with bodaks in your bed, or you have no ability to gather intelligence about encounters beforehand. This is a playstyle problem, IMHO, not a design problem. If you wake up with monsters in your bed, or have no ability to gather intelligence about encounters beforehand, then you should probably eschew SoD encounters. The game as written, however, gives you many means by which you can gather intelligence long before an encounter occurs.

 

[Remathilis]

If a rule requires special tap dancing by the DM to work, is it a good rule? Is a system that requires all sorts of fiddling in order to bring it back in line with its expected results well designed?

You mean like how having save or die effects requires a DM to hang a neon sign that says "danger! near instant death beyond this point" or else its not fair?

I totally agree with ya, RC!

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

It isn't a "defense".

Whenever you try to change someone's mind about something, the burden of proof falls upon you. I am just saying, if your goal is to change my mind, this method is unlikely to do it. CR/EL, IMHO, doesn't work well. "X doesn't work because it doesn't work with CR/EL" is therefore a non-argument. It has no "pull" with me.

I am happy to discuss why I think CR/EL doesn't work well; however, doing so here would derail this thread. Make a new one, throw me a link, and I'll swim in it like a quipper in a flooded dungeon.

And because it's relevant to the present discussion I asked you why you think that the ML system will work better than the CR system. If you frame your answer in terms of its interaction with save-or-die, so much the better.

I'm not attempting to convince you of anything by asking you to defend a statement you make (that statement being that CR is a "poor man's version" of ML).

 

[Raven Crowking]

You mean like how having save or die effects requires a DM to hang a neon sign that says "danger! near instant death beyond this point" or else its not fair?

I totally agree with ya, RC!

It must be dark where you are, because you are setting out straw men that are easily burned.

RC

 

[Geron Raveneye]

No Raven...he's attributing Hussar's "quote" you forgot to put into

tags in post 488 to you...better edit that post of yours, otherwise more people will put Hussar's words into your mouth in order to look clever for catching you with an argument faux pas.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And because it's relevant to the present discussion I asked you why you think that the ML system will work better than the CR system.

(1) ML works on the basis of concrete, empirical qualities of monsters. It doesn't work on how the designers "feel" the monster will do. Although "feel" can be adjusted, those adjustment are never (contrary to claims otherwise) empirical in nature (they are based on anecdotal "evidence").

(2) Anyone can examine the formula and define MLs to new monsters, and get the correct ML every time (or be shown why they did not).

(3) Because ML is determined by XP value, you can use XP value to get a far better picture of exactly where two monsters of the same ML are in comparison to each other. The ML/XP system is, therefore, more granular than CR/EL.

(4) You do not need a baseline party to prevent ML from having wonky effects.

(5) Neither CR nor ML allows for exact determination of how PCs will interact with special abilities that might radically alter how an encounter works. The CR rules, however, imply that they will do so, whereas the ML rules do not.

RC

 

[LostSoul]

I think CR/EL works well as a "DM's build-points" mechanic.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No Raven...he's attributing Hussar's "quote" you forgot to put into [ QUOTE ] tags in post 488 to you...better edit that post of yours, otherwise more people will put Hussar's words into your mouth in order to look clever for catching you with an argument faux pas.

I was pointing out an argument faux pas, and altered the quote enough that it no longer belongs in quote tags. The point was simply that the argument I was replying to applied as much to CR/EL as SoD, and therefore prevented its being used as evidence that "The CR System can't handle X, therefore X is broken" as a valid line of reasoning.

RC