Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[MrMyth]

What people are saying is that there are ways to mitigate SoD, including PCs being prepared for the eventuality (either because they know there's a bodak in the dungeon, or because they have heard tell bodaks sometimes inhabit dungeons). The only one that is suggesting that SoD can only occur if the DM has completely briefed the players beforehand is you.

Except that when examples are given of a DM using a SoD encounter, the response seems to have been, "He was a bad DM for not briefing the players beforehand."

I dunno. Maybe I am just misreading a lot of opinions here. If so, my apologies all around. But it definitely feels like some of the comments have been saying that if someone dies to a SoD, it is their fault - or their DMs, for not giving them a heads-up.

It's D&D. Unless a house rule or group decision says otherwise, it can be assumed there will be SoD attacks -- poisons, death gazes and everything in between. Players that for some reason refuse to acknowledge the possibility may find themselves quite put out when they lose a beloved character for want of a relatively cheap and easy protection like anti-toxin or potions of death ward.

As I said, I can understand that style of play.

At the same time, I don't think that is a universally desired experience. I'm playing a mid-level character. If I don't have the system mastery to know that I need Potions of Death Ward, or my character doesn't have the money to invest in them, then its my own fault when I get taken down by a SoD effect?

And of course, part of the problem is that even taking precautions doesn't guarantee safety. If I get into a fight with a wizard, I might not know he has Finger of Death until he uses it. Or even if I see it coming - what if he wins initiative before I can drink my potion?

If I really want to be safe, I need even better protections, which means both greater system mastery on behalf of the player, along with more resources invested in these optimized items instead of more in-character pursuits. Now, a game focused on that type of challenge and competition can be fun, certainly.

But for others, it leads to more of a 'DM vs PC arms race' that many gamers are not interested in. Now, there is certainly a wide range of playstyles before it actually reaches that point, and not every game that rewards prepared PCs reaches that level or anywhere close to it!

But the presence of SoD - at least in my experience - definitely can push a group more towards it. Without it, if I walk into an encounter unprepared, and things start to go badly - I can generally cut and run, having learned my lesson, and come back later ready for the fight. When I run into SoD, instead, I don't have that option. Thus, encouragement to really build up system mastery and tricked-out PCs if I don't want to risk the loss of my beloved character.

 

[MrMyth]

Not at all. It is not like saying "The sun is hot because it has a high temperature."

When one says that one doesn't like X because it interferes with his desired sense of narrative control, we can begin to examine what level of narrative control that person desires. If you don't like X, you might therefore also not like Y or Z.

Ok, I'm not quite sure I'm getting what you are saying when you refer to narrative control. I was reading it as a player's desire for a certain amount of control over the type of game he plays, rather than specifically control he has within the game itself.

If it is the second, then I think it can apply in some cases, but certainly not all. I can prefer to play a game that doesn't risk me ever dying in the first action of combat, without actually wanting to dictate how the combat goes, for example.

 

[Reynard]

@ Gimby: If you *know* you are going to be facing a nodal, of course you will gear your prep to it, which may well lead to a 15 minute adventuring day. (As an aside, on my current PFrpg campaign, that kind of re-prepping is the cause for far more 15 MADs than going nova or whatever.) but if you *think* you might, it will inform your choices of consumables and walking around spells and would have less impact on a 15 MAD.

 

[Dausuul]

It's D&D. Unless a house rule or group decision says otherwise, it can be assumed there will be SoD attacks -- poisons, death gazes and everything in between. Players that for some reason refuse to acknowledge the possibility may find themselves quite put out when they lose a beloved character for want of a relatively cheap and easy protection like anti-toxin or potions of death ward.

If players are supposed to rely on these "cheap and easy protections," then one can assume experienced players will develop a "standard kit" incorporating all such protective devices. Purchasing, maintaining, and using your kit will become SOP to the point that one might as well handwave it--assume it's being taken care of, reduce treasure awards appropriately, and ignore all save-or-die effects that a kit can counter.

Only in the rare situation that players are deprived of access to their gear and face a save-or-die effect that the gear would have prevented does it make a difference... or when a novice player, unfamiliar with the need for the "standard kit," fails to procure one, in which case you're basically smacking down newbies for being newbies.

The way I see it, if you're going to have save-or-die effects in your game, you might as well kill people with 'em. Defending yourself should be a non-trivial exercise requiring more than just a few gold pieces or spell slots. If you feel the need to offer cheap and easy protections, why have save-or-die in the first place?

 

[Ariosto]

If you don't like the risk of sudden death (or other inconvenience), then you can simply ...

Leave the basilisks and so on out of your world.

Them as like 'em can use 'em, and it doesn't affect your game a bit.

Problem? Problem solved!

Yes, I know this is a dead letter. Fare well, oh snicker-snacking vorpal sword! Fare well, oh propeller-tailed beastie! Now rust sleeps forever.

 

[Raven Crowking]

MrMyth, I am just going to reply to your last post.

If you look upthread, you might note that I pointed out, many times, that people want a variable level of narrative control, and a variable level of "what happens" (i.e., loss of narrative control), but that both are necessary.

These work as two poles on a line: Whatever narrative control exists detracts perforce from random elements (or loss of narrative control); whatever elements exist where narrative control is lost perforce detract from narrative control.

No one wants a completely unrestricted narrative ("Roll 1d6 each round; on a 1 you die from falling anvil") and no one wants a completely restricted narrative ("Let me walk your characters through my fanfic while I tell you what they do!"). What is desired is somewhere between. Where, exactly, is a matter of personal preference.

That personal preference exists, at least in part, because when you gain something on one side of the equation, you must give up something on the other. How you value what is gained, or what must be given up to attain it, drives preference.

Recognize this, and you can begin to work out how to shift your gains into areas you value, while shifting what you give up into the less valuable (to you) aspects of the other pole. IOW, while from an objective standpoint, you must give equal to your gains, from a subjective standpoint, this isn't necessarily so.

This is one of the reasons it is taking me so long to finalize my own system (RCFG). I am carefully examining aspects to determine that what I give up, from that subjective standpoint, does not exceed my gains.

And from this point, as well, you can see why a game might split the community. It might excel at balancing these factors for a specific subset of people by moving strongly toward one pole, while alienating others because of what must be given up to achieve that effect.....or because they value the other pole more than the designers.

Ultimately, this is why there can be many, many good games -- even great games -- but no One True Game.


RC

 

[Dausuul]

If you don't like the risk of sudden death (or other inconvenience), then you can simply ...

Leave the basilisks and so on out of your world.

Them as like 'em can use 'em, and it doesn't affect your game a bit.

Problem? Problem solved!

Yes, I know this is a dead letter. Fare well, oh snicker-snacking vorpal sword! Fare well, oh propeller-tailed beastie! Now rust sleeps forever.

*shrug* Or we could have basilisks that work a bit differently. There are options besides "instant petrification on a single die roll" and "no petrification at all."

I like 4E's take, with petrification that takes place over a couple rounds, giving you a chance to do something about it while still killing you very dead if your efforts fail. (Not so much a fan of the bit where fully-petrified people revert to normal when the basilisk dies, however. That part doesn't happen in my games. Kill the basilisk before total petrification and you'll survive--but once you finish turning to stone, you're gone.)

 

[Lanefan]

For perspective, let's remember that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and much of the time it's the PCs themselves who are the creatures with SoD abilities!

Hold Person (other than 4e)
Cloudkill
Phantasmal Killer
various creative uses of illusions
Stone to Mud
assassins doing their job (except the S is replaced by a to-hit, then %-age)
lots of high-level stuff e.g. Disintegrate, Power Word-Kill, Death spell, etc.

and a bunch of others I can't think of right now.

My guess is the reason why players like SoD more than DMs is that it's players who are mostly using 'em...

Lanefan

 

[BryonD]

Actually, it looks to me like everyone is in agreement that SoDs do need some sort of mitigation, either mechanical (eg, revert to SSSoDs, use APs, etc) or by circumstantial qualifiers (eg, framing the encounter). SoDs generally shouldn't be used as punitive "gotchas", unless that's the point of the game.
Yup, the rules aren't perfect, SoD (and other) advice is lacking, CR is a blunt instrument at best, etc.

Certainly "gotcha" has a solid basis in D&D history. But I think that it is much less common today, at least to my experience. And my games don't run on that basis.

I can only recall one time when there was not some form of mitigation. I can think of times when the players missed it. And I can specifically recall my wife's character turning to stone (and ultimately remaining stone forever) in response to a bad roll in what was pretty much a "random" basilisk encounter. And that death is brought up from time to time with fondness and chuckles. That was pretty close to without any mitigation, but I elected to through in some "quality statues" right before. And that could certainly be called "unfair" to use one clue and play "read my mind". But that wasn't the point. They were relatively high level and it was a bad roll against a minor threat. So it goes.

But, not only was THAT encounter fun, and not only is THAT encounter remembered well, but also, every encounter since has gained a little bit from it because the players know that they are playing in a "organic" (if you will) setting and dangers lurk around every corner.

But, some form of mitigation is certainly very typical.
If the monsters don't work the way they are supposed to, then they are flat out wrong. As far as I am concerned, if a creature slows you, it isn't a medusa. It may be a fun monster. But it ain't medusa and if you say it is, I consider you flat wrong.

But, having the rules do the monsters right is not the only part of a good game. It is the DM's job to make a good story and narrative that works for everyone's fun. Even the guy who gets suprised by the medusa and rolls a 1.

 

[Ariosto]

Maybe I've missed something, but as I recall from 4e, it typically takes a few rolls to die. Ongoing damage has killed at least one PC of my acquaintance, but a monster could have done the same by beating him when he was down. (Except the monster was busy, and it was "friendly fire" that did 'im in.)

Anyhow, I think it has at least quite nearly done with fast-acting SoD.