Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[JoeGKushner]

So I'm seeing a thread where a few GMs are like, "Save or Die and other effects like level drain are essential to spread fear into the player base!"

And I'm curious if the old informal poll backs those numbers.

 

[Ranes]

I haven't voted, because there isn't an option for me. As a DM and a player, I want save or die.

As a player, I don't feel bad when one of my characters dies. As a DM, I see plenty of ways of bringing a character back, if the players really want that to happen. A bit of downtime in the game while you wait for a character to be brought back from the dead or for the opportunity to introduce a new one? Oh, the humanity!

 

[jonesy]

I DM and I play, so that probably should be a multiple choice poll.

Doesn't really matter though 'cause my answer is: it depends on the situation. Horror scenarios for example do need some really nasty monsters.

 

[Festivus]

I really dislike save or die. There is zero tension in it. What I prefer is what I saw in the 4E Tomb of Horrors RPGA mod, where the death is slow and difficult to overcome... there is drama in that death. Finger of Death... yep, sucks. Petrify (happened to my character in a pathfinder game)... sucked. I had nothing to do for the rest of the night but roll up a new character. It's one the things that keeps me away from 3.x games.

 

[Umbran]

Both as a GM and a player: It isn't a single-answer thing. The two choices bring different flavors and dynamics, and I don't necessarily always want the same dynamic in every game. Sometimes, you want save or die, sometimes you don't.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Both as a GM and a player: It isn't a single-answer thing. The two choices bring different flavors and dynamics, and I don't necessarily always want the same dynamic in every game. Sometimes, you want save or die, sometimes you don't.

This is more or less my position, but I voted "yes" because if they are there, I can choose to use them or ban them. Hombrew them from 0 is more difficult.

 

[Fifth Element]

I really dislike save or die. There is zero tension in it. What I prefer is what I saw in the 4E Tomb of Horrors RPGA mod, where the death is slow and difficult to overcome... there is drama in that death. Finger of Death... yep, sucks. Petrify (happened to my character in a pathfinder game)... sucked. I had nothing to do for the rest of the night but roll up a new character. It's one the things that keeps me away from 3.x games.

I agree. I much prefer the 4E medusa, for example, where you're first slowed, then immobilized, then petrified as you fail saves. That builds up tension, and does a good job of modeling being gradually overcome by the effect.

As I understand it, Pathfinder made save-or-suck effects akin to hold person, where the victim gets a save every round. That's also a decided improvement; one failed save doesn't keep you out of the encounter entirely.

 

[messy]

nay, nay, a thousand times nay!

 

[GlassJaw]

Yes, but with a caveat: there has to be some way for the players and DM (for his monsters, especially bosses) to mitigate the danger.

A "coin-flip" scenario is definitely not fun.

The threat of save-or-die is important and needs to be preserved. But if the only "resource" a SoD effect drains is life or death, then the tension is lost because the player feels hopeless if there is only a small chance of survival and the DM gets frustrated if his boss dies with a single bad roll.

But if there is another resource that can be managed, oh, I don't know, say ACTION POINTS , then SoD effects become a way for the DM to put pressure on the players by forcing them to spend their APs. And as their APs get low, then the tension and threat of death goes up.

It's a win-win. I love APs as a resource.

 

[jaerdaph]

If you fall in lava, you die (no save).

This is an immutable law.