I don't think that you can create a modern character in any RPG these days without it taking a significant amount of time.
Save or die IS the problem. Most players get a lot of enjoyment out of playing their characters and they put a lot of work into not just creating a PC, but also into creating a background for that PC, breathing life into that PC, and into running that PC for many many hours until the PC and fellow party member PCs become an integral part of that player's enjoyment for that campaign world.
It's one thing to die after multiple rounds of combat where the player (and the other players) could make decisions and at least attempt to have the PC survive. It's another for the DM to say "roll a dice, oh too bad, your PC is dead". Anyone who doesn't understand the emotional difference between these two does not understand human nature for the vast majority of players. And since the game is designed to be played by actual humans, game designers should be smart enough to not add in game elements that piss off their players. That's not a smart business model. IMO.
PC death should be a part of the game system, but arbitrary PC death based on a single die roll shouldn't.
For me its matter of what kind of story I want to tell. I want the bad guys to be really bad. Not every thing the group comes up against should be SOD/S. But there is a place for it in fantasy of all types. There is nothing scary about enemies who can maybe inconvenience you really badly for 6 seconds if you are not careful.
Save or die is pretty much a magic thing. I mean there are some massive damage rules that can force a save of sorts in some versions of the game. But with a few exceptions SoD/S is a magic thing. And magic should be dangerous.
Magic has always had the potential to be lethal in both classical and modern fantasy. Morganna had SoD. Darth whoever has SoD. Saruman the White and Grima both had SoS (Arguably SoD but it was strongly implied that the wizards of that world had SoD/S take look at or read the part where Aragorn and Gimly meet back up with Gandalf in the Two Towers). The bad wizards in the Harry Potter series were really only scary because they could kill with a word. And we could take a look at as many other fantasy magic bad guys as you want and you will find that the exception would be those with out SoD/S.
Imagine if Voldamort did not have SoD (Avada Kedavra, killing curse bit). I could not really see those villains needing to be stopped or being able to take over anything really. No one is going to budge on a moral position to a wizard who if they refuse may upset there stomach for upwards of half a minute. Heck almost everything else in the wizards repertoire can be undone by those with no magic at all.
Sure there are other elements of magic that are scary. But most of the truly horrible aspects of magic end your existence in one way or another: by burning or shocking you to death, making you live your days out as a frog, taking control of your mind, making you a vegetable, or outright killing you in some unpleasant fashion. Mages are only feared because they can kill.
The heroes in my games get to be heroes because they faced a dude who could turn them to ash with a word, not because they faced some guy who could confuse them for 6 seconds at a time. Heck the town could have gotten together and put down the 6 second confusion guy with minimal losses because the tools of his craft would have been just an annoyance.
If you don't want to use SoD in your games then don't use challenges that have them or tune them down. But don't assume that everyone else needs their fantasy to have more elbow pads and helmets because you don't want to make a new character. Let those of us who want to use challenges with SoD/S have them and you can choose not to have them. But I assure you that SoD/S is working as intended in the fantasy genre, and the genre would be less fantastic without them.
And finally I want to talk about the last bit about human emotions. Good stories, the best stories in fact have the heroes going up against unbeatable odds, and winning. There are no epics about heroes facing mildly inconvenient bad guys. There is no glory in beating down and freeing the towns people from 6 second bouts of inability. My players want to take on the guy who kills folks when they look at them wrong. I will tell you honestly my players would be more upset at the the loos of a character if they got whittled down over many rounds by the guy with no death effects than if they took a SoD to the face in round 4 of combat of the really awful kill you on sight guy.
There is nothing arbitrary about heroes trying to put down a menace. The characters they play chose to be there to face that evil for whatever reason. And sometimes the good guys take a loss. It would cheapen the victory they had due for defeating this evil to put on the training wheels and make the bad guy just really inconvenience them or put a strong drain on their resources.
Character death is not bad design. Its an optional game mechanic to turn up the drama in a game. Sure it could be misused, or make an encounter be very unfun, but thats what rule zero is for. If you don't want your bad guy to use SoD early on then just don't have them use it and save it for the last few moments of combat. When you let dice decide whether or not characters live, even over many rounds, you are playing a game of chance. sure you can stack the dice in your favor, but you still take that chance. And if you play long enough eventually the house will get some wins.
love,
malkav
) for the character
